Where do you want to live?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Pew Researcher Center asked, "Where would Americans most like to live and how do they feel about the place they call home?"
Where would you live if you could live somewhere else?
The bottom line is that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
They surveyed more than 2 thousand adults back in October and found that 46% would rather live in a different type of community than the one they live in. City people want to move out to the country, and country folks want to head for the big city.
And when it comes to big cities what do they have in mind? Well Denver, San Diego and Seattle are the cities most people said they want to live in. Also high on the list: Orlando, Tampa, San Francisco and Phoenix. While Detroit, Cleveland and Cincinnati are the cities most people don't want to live in.
Even though people are longing to live elsewhere, 8 in 10 rate where they currently live as excellent.
Of course the Pew folks break it down in every way possible so they can tell us things like more men than women want to live in Las Vegas and younger adults would rather live in Los Angeles and New York and so on. It's Friday.
Here’s my question to you: Where would you live if you could live somewhere else?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why don’t we take better care of our veterans?
The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs report that battlefield injuries and deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased significantly. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
An article by the group Truthout sheds light on a true national tragedy.
The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs report that battlefield injuries and deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are up, way up.
According to data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the group Veterans for Common Sense, the number of veteran patients now stands at more than 400,000, up from 263,909 in December 2007.
Mental illness, mainly post traumatic stress disorder, is the diagnosis for 45% of them.
Lawmakers have helped some. the Dignity for Warriors Act was passed, which gives veterans up to five years of free health care for military-related conditions.
But getting adequate health care and compensation is still a problem, according to Truthout.
Bob Filner, Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee released a statement asking for veterans to be considered in the stimulus bill. It's a request that is beyond reasonable.
He said, "We can invigorate the economy by modernizing the 153 existing V-A medical facilities, repairing veterans' cemeteries, constructing new V-A hospitals, addressing the claims backlog, and investing in vocational rehabilitation for our returning combat veterans."
According to Filner, the House version of the bill includes $1-billion for veterans while the Senate allots $3.94-billion. We'll see what passes in the end.
Here’s my question to you: Why doesn’t this country do a better job of taking care of its veterans?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How should the stimulus bill be changed?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Republican Senators have vowed to fight the economic stimulus package after it passed the House with no support from their Party.
U.S. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) (C) speaks as (L-R) Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) look on during a news conference on the economic stimulus package on Capitol Hill January 29, 2009 in Washington, DC.
They swear this is not a case of the usual political games and insist that the bill is a waste of money unless it includes more tax cuts and details on where the more than $800-billion is going.
But they are also still whining about being left out of the process, saying the Democrats are ignoring their concerns. This despite the fact that several changes were made in the House version of the bill specifically to placate the Republicans.
The Democrats have launched an offensive. They've started running ads targeting Republican Senators who are up for re-election and urging them to vote for the stimulus package.
Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker pointed out an ad in the Washington Post in which 300 economists agree with Wicker and his Republican colleagues that passing the bill is the wrong thing to do. He added, "a trillion dollars is a terrible thing to waste. Let's be careful we're not making the situation worse in an attempt to make it better."
Despite all the bickering, at the end of the day it's expected the bill will pass the Senate, but with changes from the version that passed the House.
Here’s my question to you: How should the economic stimulus bill be changed?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How tired are you of Blogojevich, Coleman, Franken, and Palin?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
I have a bone to pick with my own industry.
From L-R: Rod Blagojevich, Norm Coleman, Al Franken and Sarah Palin
Minnesota held an election for a Senate seat last November. It is almost February, and they still can't figure out who won: Norm Coleman or Al Franken. I quit caring several weeks ago. Minnesota elected Jesse Ventura to be their Governor, a former wrestler. They have no credibility when it comes to elections.
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich came to New York a few days ago to babble incoherently about all the various charges pending against him, including his impeachment, and the news media reacted like he was the second coming. If the New York media is hungry for three dollar bills, we have a great home grown crop of our own, without indulging this narcissistic phony product of Illinois machine politics.
And finally, there's my all-time favorite empty dress: Sarah Palin. She announced she's forming a political action committee. I'll give you eight to five she can't even spell it. But the media breathlessly jumped on this story like the future of the free world hung in the balance. Who cares? The next presidential election is almost four years away. And she's got as much chance of being the next president as Bugs Bunny.
OK, I feel better now.
Here’s my question to you: How tired are you of hearing about Rod Blagojevich, Norm Coleman, Al Franken and Sarah Palin?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Obama Charm Offensive: How should GOP handle?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Our sister publication, TIME Magazine, has a great story about how the Republicans are grappling with what they call Obama's "Charm Offensive." The piece says that after President Obama met with Republicans on Capitol Hill Tuesday to discuss the emergency stimulus package, many walked away gushing as if they'd met their favorite rock star and admitting the new Democratic President was paying more attention to them than their own Republican President George W. Bush ever did.
President Barack Obama walks towards the podium to speak to the media at the U.S. Capitol January 27, 2009 in Washington, DC. Obama was on the Hill to meet with Congressional Republicans for support to stimulate the economy.
Barack Obama is by no means the first President to meet with leaders of the other party to get a bill passed or to be open and willing to changes. He even made calls to leaders of his own party requesting changes to get this thing through, all in an effort to achieve the bipartisanship he campaigned on.
He even took it a step further, hosting a happy hour at the White House for House and Senate leaders from both sides of the aisle.
But his maneuvering may have backfired. The Republicans are staying away from attacking the popular President, who's only been in office for a little over a week, but they aren't letting him coast on through. The stimulus package that passed the House yesterday did so without a single Republican vote. Perhaps a calculated move so they won't be responsible if things don't turn around. Of course if they do, those same Republicans might as well go stand in front of a bus.
Here’s my question to you: How should Republicans handle President Obama’s "charm offensive"?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Does quitting smoking stimulate the economy?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As you know, the House passed an $819-billion stimulus package yesterday. Now a different version of the legislation will make its way through the Senate.
A version of the stimulus bill includes $75 million to get people to quit smoking.
That version includes $75-million to get people to quit smoking. It was sponsored by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin who says the idea is to ultimately reduce health-care costs.
To make his case, Harkin cited reports that show smoking is the leading cause of preventable diseases and costs $110-billion a year in health costs.
Seems straight forward: Get people to quit smoking and they won't drain the health care system. Perhaps that's the same line of thinking that went into the $400-million the Senate included to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. The House version included $335-million for that.
Some of the $75-million to get people to kick cigarettes will go to the Department of Health and Human Services to bolster anti-smoking campaigns that already exist. Another chunk will go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for equipment that tests the contents in cigarettes. Do we need this? Cigarette packages plainly tell you smoking will probably eventually kill you. And I find it very hard to believe we need additional equipment to test the contents in cigarettes. Tobacco and carcinogens would seem to cover it.
Here’s my question to you: How does getting people to stop smoking stimulate the economy?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is Pres. Obama exaggerating the crisis to force Congress to act?
President Barack Obama arrives on Capitol Hill to meet with House Republican Conference on the economic stimulas package on January 27, 2009. He is followed by US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. (PHOTO CREDIT: JIM WATSON/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
South Carolina Senator, Jim DeMint, said in a speech this week that the Obama administration is creating crisis and widespread panic to push the economic stimulus package. He likens the air of urgency to previous tactics used by the Bush administration to get the people and Congress to go along with whatever they wanted.
Senator James Inhofe, from Oklahoma, said this was the same tactic used by the Bush administration to get the $700-billion TARP bill passed in October, which has left some Republican lawmakers with buyers remorse. The Senators admit that it's hard to know how things would have played out if the bill had not passed, but that's not the point. DeMint is pointing his finger, not at his colleagues on the Hill, but at Bush and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for saying the world economy will collapse if you don't do this.
Sounding somewhat parental, DeMint said, "I've been around long enough to know whenever someone tells me I have to make a decision right now, my response is no."
But DeMint's real point in all this was to say the stimulus plan that's on the table won't stimulate the economy at all, rather, it's filled with big-government wasteful spending projects. Only time will tell if that's the case.
Here’s my question to you: Is President Obama exaggerating the crisis in order to get Congress to act?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Tax rebates for people who earn too little to pay income tax?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In meetings to hammer out an economic stimulus package acceptable enough to pass an anticipated House vote, President Obama told Republicans he's not willing to compromise on tax rebates for nearly every working American.
Should Americans who don't pay income tax receive one of these stimulus checks?
According to an aide, the President said, "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part."
Every working American includes people who don't make enough to pay income taxes. The President justifies his support because these people do pay payroll taxes, Social Security and Medicare and therefore, they are taxpayers.
No matter how you look at it, the economy is bad and that's true for everyone, whether you pay income taxes or not.
Jobs are disappearing by the millions and people are scared.
The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index fell to 37.7 this month, which is an all-time low dating back to 1967.
There's no light at the end of the tunnel, at least not yet. And President Obama might be giving a glimmer of hope to the least fortunate among us by standing his ground.
Here’s my question to you: Should people who earn too little to pay income tax be given tax rebates?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Would Pres. Obama’s life be easier without Pelosi as House Speaker?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been the subject of criticism from Republicans and some Democrats. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Politico calls it the love affair that wasn't meant to be. They are talking about President Obama and Congressional Republicans.
Republicans are still whining about being shut out of the crafting of the stimulus bill. Just like they shut the Democrats out when they controlled Congress.
The President has been trying to smooth things over behind closed doors and even said late yesterday that he'd be willing to make changes in order to address some Republican concerns. For one thing he told Democrats to remove the money for contraception that was part of the package, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended just the day before.
The GOP has been careful not to criticize the new President who everybody is in love with at the moment. Perhaps they know where to draw the line. But that doesn't mean they can't complain about Pelosi, and they are. This is not first time Madame Speaker has been the subject of criticism, and not just from Republicans. Some in her own party are less than thrilled with her. There is a quality about Nancy Pelosi that, for want of a better word, is just plain annoying.
Here’s my question to you: Would President Obama's life be easier without Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Better chances for Mideast peace under Pres. Obama?
Palestinians prepare tea on an open fire next to Israeli-bombed buildings in Rafah on the Gaza Strip border with Egypt on January 24, 2009. The Arabic graffiti on the wall reads: 'Fatah movement.' (PHOTO CREDIT: PATRICK BAZ/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Former President Jimmy Carter tells the Associated Press that Israel will face a catastrophe unless it revives the Middle East peace process and establishes an independent Palestinian state. This is a sentiment he's echoed before, and he's saying it now as he's making the rounds to pitch his new book on the issue. But timing is everything.
President Obama sat down for his first formal TV interview since taking office with the Dubai-based Arab language network Al-Arabiya. It's a calculated move for the President to make good on his promise to improve American-Muslim relations in the wake of the Bush administration. In the interview, he told Muslims that Americans are not the enemy. He also vowed to hunt down terrorist groups who kill innocent civilians while respecting laws.
The interview comes as the President's newly tapped special envoy for Middle East peace, George Mitchell, is on his first trip to the region to meet with Arab leaders.
Perhaps like clock work, the week-long cease-fire between Israel and Gaza, that halted three weeks of fighting, was ended when Palestinians detonated an explosive device at an Israeli Army post, and Israeli helicopters fired back in response.
Here’s my question to you: Are chances for peace in the Middle East any better with President Obama than they were with President Bush?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments