mike in dover, pennsylvania, on our democrats line. caller: regarding the two earlier callers comparing president obama s war strategy with president bush s. i would first like to bring up that he won the nobel peace prize. obviously he did not win it for the purpose because the deadline was two weeks after he was inaugurated, but his perseverance with diplomacy in a middle east has paid off. i do understand a lot of the frustrations that republicans have over the war strategy right now. like the last caller, i understand just like her, i would love to have the troops home. but this is a lot of politics right now. we ought are already going to lose a couple of seats. it all boils down to he knows he needs to establish and sold as a credible friend to the republican party so he is going to do some things that he probably does not want to do and democrats don t want to do whatsoever. it all boils down to politics really. he has been a good president. thank you very much for
use it, how you consider that chamber and how you survive in that environment, how you impose your will on the other 99 senators. one key is that, like martin gold for the democrats, and the republicans as theirs as well. another question right here the microphone. has there been a many times when the senate chaplain has made a remarkable difference? the nature of the chaplains dog job is private. when senator byrd s 16-year-old grandson was killed in an automobile accident, the senate chaplain was having countable incalculable comfort, according to senator byrd. chaplain considers the whole senate including the staff to be his flock. it is pretty much on a personal basis. they lead the senate with a prayer every day and then they are there to be helpful and available. i know we have another question right here. have stepped in front of the camera. in a search for bipartisanship, as the senate ever entertain the idea of trying to seek people in some way and othe
there was an argument that credit card companies were charging some poor guy 25% interest on overdrafts. if we can get that same guy. that same guy owns a house. he has equity in a house. we can justify limiting to him at a much lower rate because our loan is secured by the house. it will be good for everybody because he can pay off his credit cards. who is getting scant at this point? nobody should have been. in theory, it could have worked. the problem was, the consumers were poorly protected. the minute that the wall street firms were in the business of harvesting middle class and lower middle-class american for home equity values, there wasn t natural risk of abuse. generally, people are bewildered. the minute in gets a little complicated, it becomes a lot complicated. conservatives point their finger bill clinton and the liberals point their finger at george bush and some point their finger at fannie and freddie. did you point your finger at anybody? this is real
important it is to america. the thing is, if i had insurance, i would not have to take my son of school. i would not have to have someone to try to help me out. host: we will get any answer from larry minnix. guest: she is talking about the very problem that class is set up to resolve. should become disabled and at his having to pull her son out of school. and is having to pull her son out of school. she is becoming more and more poor in doing so. if she had this plan and comcast would have made available not at comcast s expense, but her expense, she would have cash in hand to help her supplement her daily needs. think about what impact that has on her son and other family members who are probably doing a lot of things to help her make it. it can make it difficult on a whole family. host: larry minnix is the ceo of the american association of homes and services for the aging. the website is aahsa.org. what will folks to see if they go to the website? guest: they will see a
150 committee staff members, just for one committee. but they re dealing with the budget of the entire government. you do not want it to be amateur hour. the turnover within the appropriations committee staff is relatively low, as i understand it, because they are experts. it is pretty hard to replace them. i am speaking slowly because i am not sure i really agree with that. the words there were no professional staff to speak out until after world war ii. congress got so frustrated with franklin roosevelt calling the shots, he had all the expertise and congress had none. they pass legislation in 1946 that allowed for the first time committees to hire four professional staffers. it does come a long way since that time. members could also hire professional staffers, because it is a separated and balanced government. members of the house of commons in great britain, that come over, they ask why we have so many staff members. i have to share of member with another member of the