Interesting to read the promises Roosevelt made when SS was created.
Posted By: TechSupport on 2009-05-08
In Reply to: My take...... - sm
It's just like farm subsidies and so many other things that government gets into and then makes a mess out of.
The promises, incidentally, were basically "our older citizens will not have to live in poverty". Now, SS is nothing more than institutionalized poverty for anyone who has nothing else.
And, incidentally, some of the rhetoric around the time SS was created dealt with the objections some had to the withholding by saying "This way, you won't have to put money into risky stocks because this is guaranteed". In other words, the implication was that you didn't have to provide otherwise for your retirement. The message was very powerful for a generation that had seen the Crash of 29 and the market's performance throughout the Great Depression. Stocks risky! Social Security safe!
I've forgotten the exact age, but I think when SS was formed the average life expectancy was 60 or less. In other words, it counted on most recipients dying off before they collected much if anything!
Well...you can add it up for yourself. We have people living much longer than SS had ever anticipated. We have a climate where you can't reduce benefits and you can't increase withholdings. And we have not allowed people (other than federal employees!) to opt out of SS so they could invest the withholdings in things that might have performed much better. (Notice how right this minute YOU are probably thinking about our own crash, but the fact is that SS has not even done that well).
I agree that it sounds good to introduce means-testing so wealthy people aren't receiving benefits, but on other grounds I can't go along with what would just be another example of treating some people differently than others.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
All the promises made by President Obama.
President Barrack Obama has made a huge list of promises. As you can see, some promises he has already broken and we aren't even into his presidency a whole week yet.
Foreign Policy
Domestic Policy
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
interesting read
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/04/gb.01.html
An interesting read.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409
Very interesting read indeed. Thanks for posting.
Very interesting and funny read. sm
Just goes to show that, as far as we humans are concerned, nothing ever really changes much. LOL
An interesting read from the Washington Post. sm
Draw your own conclusions on the state of the MT industry. Should we be worried? I would be as the gov't NEVER moves fast on anything unless it benefits them somehow. I had never heard of the HIMSS until I read the article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051503667.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Read the post I made above. This time it was...
Democrat greed or ignorance...I don't know which...but either way they are responsible.
interesting article, have read many similar these past few days...
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1231-23.htm
Guess you didn't read the post I made from a few days ago.
Sorry, but I haven't been able to post lately due to some problems, but the FOIA report I posted and said to pay attention to certain pages....Clinton KNEW there were WMD's in Irag in 1996! Did he do anything? Nope. He left the country he was visiting right before a bombing; i.e., he knew it was going to happen. The jist I got of the report was that he knew and did nothing.
Did you read that report? Don't want to dredge up old presidents but you seem to do it every chance you get, so I just have to respond to that. Bush also knew but did nothing because the CIA,DOJ, FBI and whatever other departments were to keep him informed but never worked together on anything so he got conflicting reports all the time. Was he a mind reader? Doubt it or 911 would not have happened.
Sorry, but this post does not hold water IMHO.
And Teddy Roosevelt is turning over in his sm
grave about the so-called Republicans nowdays...
omg. Lincoln and roosevelt. Nuff said. nm
nm
Maybe because she is not Teddy Roosevelt and it isn't 1900?
How Obama is like Teddy Roosevelt.
1. Attended both Harvard and Columbia.
2. Shared interest in and promotion of civil service.
3. As an author: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors "Not since Theodore Roosevelt has an American politician this close to the pinnacle of power produced such a sustained, highly personal work of literary merit before being definitively swept up by the tides of political ambition."
4. Candidate of change/reform. http://obama4usa.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/major-endorsements-for-barack-obama/October 19, 2008, Bryan College Station Texas Eagle newspaper endorsement: "Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan — these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be. Barack Obama is such a leader.” http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/331720/barack_obama_following_the_foot_steps.html?page=2&cat=8 "Barack Obama Following the Foot Steps of Theodore Roosevelt Who was a Reformer"
5. Champion of worker's rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_endorsements#Labor_unions to check out Labor union and union leadership endorsements. http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/obama_wrights.cfm to find a nifty summary of Obama's initiatives and policies on worker's rights.
6. Advocate of "ordinary citizen." Obama's appeal to the middle class is legendary and the current bone of contention on the McCain Joe the Plumber campaign trail. 'Nuff said.
7. Obama on Trustbusting: http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/archives/files/aai-%20Presidential%20campaign%20-%20Obama%209-07_092720071759.pdf
8. On corporate corruption: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/
9. On regulation: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-27-economy-speech_N.htm "Fix Markets Regulations." Specifically relative to interstate commerce, the following are bills either sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama: Senate Bill (SB) 767 and SB 768 on fuel economy, SB 1306 on product safety and hazardous materials, SB 2132 on product safety prohibiting lead content . Regulation in E-commerce, credit card, banking, mortgage lending sectors.
10. Universal health care and national health insurance. Well known support, as is his support for conservation and the environment.
11. Judicial reform that would restore integrity of judicial discretion.
LOL.. yeah, Roosevelt was "on television"
nm
Roosevelt is the reason we're in this mess
xx
How Palin pales in comparison to Teddy Roosevelt.
Let's start by describing Roosevelt's accomplishments by age 42:
1. Graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard in 1880, 22nd out of 177, after which he enrolled in Columbia Law School. He was reputed to have a photographic memory.
2. New York Assemblyman 1881, where he served for 3 years, distinguishing himself as an ardent reformer. Wrote more bills than any other state legislator.
3. At age 23, published his first book, The Naval War of 1812, establishing him as a respected author. He would go on to pen 35 books, 4 of which were written before age 42, including an exhaustive 4-volume historical account of westward expansion.
4. Appointed by President Harrison to Civil Service Commission (age 31), later to become its president, 1889-1895.
5. Director of NY Police Department, 1894-1897.
6. Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President McKinnley, 1897 in preparation for the Cuban War.
7. Went to Cuba as lieutenant colonel of a volunteer cavalry where he became famous as the leader of the Rough Riders, returning as a Spanish-American War hero.
8. Governor of State of New York, 1898, which was not avast wilderness, even at the tturn of the century.
9. Vice President, 1900.
10. Succeeded to presidency after McKinley assassination.
More striking differences become apparent when examining what KIND of republican reformer he was:
1. He was a PROGRESSIVE reformer in regard to workers' rights and ordinary citizen in general.
2. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved 44 corporate monopolies....can you say trust busting regulation? Was never accused of being a SOCIALIST. We could use a healthy dose of a modern version of that traditional American approach in the 21st century.
3. Square Deal advocated FAIR negotiations between workers and business/industry and REGULATION of interstate commerce.
4. First US President to call for UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE and NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE. Nope, he was not a communist either.
5. Promoted conservation movement and not once tried to block endangered species designation.
6. Sought judicial reform with regard to their bias against labor unions (gasp).
7. Fractured republican party via Bull Moose party to the point that democrat Woodrow Wilson won the presidency in 1912.
8. Nobel Peace Prize recipient 1906.
When attempting to compare Palin to a great American leader, you might want to choose someone a tad less like Obama next time.
Huh? You think Fox created the Federal
Heaven help us, I certainly hope and pray they wanted to make the government SMALL. I cannot believe you just said what you did and do not even understand the point you made, which is government is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BIG. That is the problem!!!!!! I definitely want my government as small as possible, small enough we can drown it in the bathtub!!!!
Are you daft poster? Don't you see where BIG government has us now? They are DROWNING US!!!!!!! That's the entire point of small government, not regulating the h@ll out of me and my family.
I realize generations of people think that is what government is supposed to do....tell you how to think, what to read, how to raise our children (give them another pill if that's what the government says too),who to associate with, take away our civil rights one by one until we have nothing left of the country this was supposed to be.
Of course you want the government small. Did you think it was SUPPOSED to be big! That's what Obama wants.....MORE GOVERNMENT, BIGGER GOVERNMENT, more control of YOUR life. No thanks!!!!!!!! My life has been invaded enough by our out of control government.
This has created quite a conundrum.
It also may set up officially recognized causation for a war crime tribunal for members of the current administration.
As far as setting them free, in some of the instances so far where they have found a detainee to be innocent of claims that landed them in Gitmo in the first place they have not been able to send them home because the government of the country they were living in at the time will not take them back and no other country will accept them either. I read something regarding attempting to work out a deal with some European countries to take some the detainees who are to be released but only if we take a percentage of them also. (I can't remember where I read that and will have to do some searching.)
But...........he created homosexuals, too.
X
what a mess bush has created
Iraq's Fig Leaf Constitution
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 30 August 2005
Who lost Iraq? Someday, as a fragmented Iraq spirals further into religious madness, terrorism and civil war, there will be a bipartisan inquiry into this blundering intrusion into another people's history.
The crucial question will be why a preemptive American invasion - which has led to the deaths of nearly 2,000 Americans, roughly 10 times as many Iraqis, the expenditure of about $200 billion and incalculable damage to the United States' global reputation - has had exactly the opposite effect predicted by its neoconservative sponsors. No amount of crowing over a fig leaf Iraqi constitution by President Bush can hide the fact that the hand of the region's autocrats, theocrats and terrorists is stronger than ever.
The U.S. now has to recognize that [it] overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state, said regional expert Peter W. Galbraith, the former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and an advisor to the Iraqi Kurds. And, he could have added, a pro-Iranian state that will be repressive and unstable.
Think this is an exaggeration? Consider that arguably the most powerful Shiite political party and militia in today's Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its affiliated paramilitary force, the Badr Brigade, was not only based in Iran but was set up by Washington's old arch-foe, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It also fought on the side of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and was recognized by Tehran as the government in exile of Iraq.
Or that former exile Ahmad Chalabi is now one of Iraq's deputy prime ministers. The consummate political operator managed to maintain ties to Iran while gaining the devoted support of Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, charming and manipulating Beltway policymakers and leading U.S. journalists into believing that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction.
Chalabi is thrilled with the draft constitution, which, if passed, will probably exponentially increase tension and violence between Sunnis and Shiites. It is an excellent document, said Chalabi, who has been accused by U.S. intelligence of being a spy for Iran, where he keeps a vacation home.
What an absurd outcome for a war designed to create a compliant, unified and stable client state that would be pro-American, laissez-faire capitalist and unallied with the hated Iran. Of course, Bush tells us again, this is progress and an inspiration. Yet his relentless spinning of manure into silk has worn thin on the American public and sent his approval ratings tumbling.
Even supporters of the war are starting to realize that rather than strengthening the United States' position in the world, the invasion and occupation have led to abject humiliation: from the Abu Ghraib scandal, to the guerrilla insurgency exposing the limits of military power, to an election in which our guy - Iyad Allawi - was defeated by radicals and religious extremists.
In a new low, the U.S. president felt obliged to call and plead with the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, Abdelaziz Hakim, to make concessions to gain Sunni support. Even worse, he was summarily rebuffed. Nevertheless, Bush had no choice but to eat crow and like it.
This is a document of which the Iraqis, and the rest of the world, can be proud, he said Sunday, through what must have been gritted teeth. After all, this document includes such democratic gems as Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation, and No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam, as well as socialist-style pronouncements that work and a decent standard of living are a right guaranteed by the state. But the fact is, it could establish Khomeini's ghost as the patron saint of Iraq and Bush would have little choice but to endorse it.
Even many in his own party are rebelling. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur, said Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel last week, one of a growing number of Republicans who get that we should start figuring out how we get out of there.
Not that our what-me-worry? president is the least bit troubled by all this adverse blowback from the huge, unnecessary gamble he took in invading the heart of the Arab and Muslim worlds. What is important is that the Iraqis are now addressing these issues through debate and discussion, not at the barrel of a gun, Bush said.
Wrong again, George. It was the barrel of your gun that midwifed the new Iraq, which threatens to combine the instability of Lebanon with the religious fanaticism of Iran.
A pile of ca-ca created by Palin! (nm)
:)
Bush Created The Deficit
You should at least give the new president the opportunity to try to change things. He has to take a radical approach as the "business-as-usual" attitude in Washington would rather sit around and watch our economy and nation crumble than come up with any real, workable solutions.
Bush was handed a surplus when he took office and look how he managed to get us deep into debt. He left this legacy to the current administration to try to straighten out.
Republicans should put partisanship behind them and do what is right for this country - not themselves. When they were elected, they were supposed to represent all the people...
If he does not keep his promises, I will not...sm
vote for him the next time. Very simple.
promises, promises
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxeFMHyOx3I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgn2g4NKhZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
Not exactly what he promises
There is a lot of debate on his whole tax plan. It doesn't exactly pan out like he promises. On the other hand, the president is not all-powerful, so for much of what any of them promise during their campaign, their hands are tied.
Here's a link.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan
Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth
Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth
By Jennifer Schultz
UPI
Thursday 10 November 2005
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
 |
 |
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
(Photo: spacewar.com) |
|
|
The United States created the myth around Iraq insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and reality followed, terrorism expert Loretta Napoleoni said.
Al-Zarqawi was born Ahmad Fadil al-Khalayleh in October 1966 in the crime and poverty-ridden Jordanian city of Zarqa. But his myth was born Feb. 5, 2003, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations the case for war with Iraq.
Napoleoni, the author of Insurgent Iraq, told reporters last week that Powell's argument falsely exploited Zarqawi to prove a link between then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. She said that through fabrications of Zarqawi's status, influence and connections the myth became the reality - a self-fulfilling prophecy.
He became what we wanted him to be. We put him there, not the jihadists, Napoleoni said.
Iraq's most notorious insurgent, Napoleoni argues, accomplished what bin Laden could not: spread the message of jihad into Iraq.
In an article of Napoleoni's in the current November/December issue of Foreign Policy, she said, In a sense, it is the very things that make Zarqawi seem most ordinary - his humble upbringing, misspent youth and early failures - that make him most frightening. Because, although he may have some gifts as a leader of men, it is also likely that there are many more 'al-Zarqawis' capable of filling his place.
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
Al-Zarqawi became the icon of a new generation of anti-imperialist jihadists, she said.
The grand claim that al-Zarqawi provided the vital link between Saddam and al-Qaida lost its significance after it became known that al-Zarqawi and bin Laden did not forge a partnership until after the war's start. The two are believed to have met sometime in 2000, but al-Zarqawi - similar to a group of dissenting al-Qaida members -rebuffed bin Laden's anti-American brand of jihad.
He did not have a global vision like Osama, said Napoleoni, who interviewed primary and secondary sources close to al-Zarqawi and his network.
A former member of al-Zarqawi's camp in Herat told her, I never heard him praise anyone apart from the Prophet [Muhammad]; this was Abu Musab's character. He never followed anyone.
Al-Zarqawi's scope before the Iraq war, she continued, did not extend past corrupt Arab regimes, particularly Jordan's. Between 2000 and early 2002, he operated the training camp in Herat with Taliban funds; the fighters bound for Jordan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to Iraqi Kurdistan and set up shop.
In 2001, Kurdish officials enlightened the United States about the uninvited Jordanian, said Napoleoni. Jordanian officials, who had still unsolved terrorist attacks, were eager to implicate al-Zarqawi, she claimed. The little-known militant instantly had fingerprints on most major terrorist attacks after Sept. 11, 2001. He was depicted in Powell's speech as a key player in the al-Qaida network.
By perpetuating a terrifying myth of al-Zarqawi, the author said, The United States, Kurds, and Jordanians all won ... but jihad gained momentum, after in-group dissension and U.S. coalition operations had left the core of al-Qaida crippled.
In her article, Napoleoni says, [Zarqawi] had finally managed to grasp bin Laden's definition of the faraway enemy, the United States. Adding that, Its presence in Iraq as an occupying power made it clear to him that the United States was as important a target as any of the Arab regimes he had grown to hate.
... The myth constructed around him is at the root of his transformation into a political leader. With bin Laden trapped somewhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Zarqawi fast became the new symbolic leader in the fight against America and a manager for whoever was looking to be part of that struggle, she wrote.
The author points to letters between al-Zarqawi and bin Laden that have surfaced over the past two years, indicating the evolution in their relationship, most notably a shift in al-Zarqawi which led to his seeking additional legitimacy among Sunnis that bin Laden could help bestow.
In late December 2004 - shortly after the fall of Fallujah - the pan-Arab network Al-Jazeera aired a video of what was bin Laden's first public embrace of Zarqawi and his fight in Iraq.
... We in al-Qaida welcome your union with us ... and so that it be known, the brother mujahid Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the emir of the al Qaida organization [in Iraq], bin Laden declared.
Napoleoni believes that al-Zarqawi, however, is still largely driven by the romantic vision of a restored Caliphate, and that his motives still are less political than some other factions participating in the Iraq resistance.
She questions whether he has actually devised a plan for what he will do, if and when, he wins.
How The Democrats Created The Financial Crisis....sm
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
And we bail out Wall St. who created this mess.....
Didja watch House of Cards? That spelled it out pretty succinctly. People were sucked into mortgages they couldn't afford, they were told they could refinance in 1-5 years and keep the mortgage payments they could afford - THEY WERE LIED TO. The bankers and Wall St. had to keep that Ponzi scheme going.......pizza delivery drivers were selling mortgages!! The more they sold, the more money they made - upwards $20,000 per month - they sucked people into refinancing to put cash in their pockets because housing values were skyrocketing.......and it all crashed down. So who did we bail out first? The banks and Wall St.............not the people who got screwed by con men. And these people were not POOR - they just got sucked into buying more house than they could afford. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Get used to broken promises
And squeezing money out of "the middle class".
Campaign promises
I didn't vote for Obama, but didn't really like McCain much better. I feel that too many politicians say whatever it takes to get elected and then do whatever they want once getting into office. This goes for Congress, too, and I agreed with the other poster that said Congress is a big part of not letting presidents fullfill thier campaign promises. But it is a combination of both because they all promise basically the same things.
It would be interesting to see if Reagan kept his promises - I was just a young'un then and didn't really pay too much attention to politics - I see a research project! =)
By the way, I doubt you hear it enough, but thank you for being a part of our military and for your service overseas. Our men and women in the military are our country's greatest asset and are definitely people for our country to be proud of.
Broken promises.
Obama Breaks Pledge to People Making Under $250K
Today, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) condemns the recent passage of the Waxman-Markey energy/climate bill which passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last night, 33-25, with four Democrats opposing,. ATR is calling on President Obama to keep his pledge.
All of this comes without a peep from President Obama, who promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year. Even House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) says that he has “40-45 votes” to take down the over $600 billion climate tax bill that will cost jobs and increase energy prices.
President Obama said on September 12, 2008 in Dover, New Hampshire:
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
He repeated that pledgeon October 22nd in Richmond, VA:
The concerns are still the same; this bill increases the price of energy and taxes all American families, not just those making over $250,000 as President Obama promised:
-Direct energy costs will go up $1,500 per year for the typical family of four.
-Even with a 26% reduction is use, electric bills will be $754 higher in 2035 than in the absence of Waxman-Markey, and $12,200 higher in total from 2012 to 2035.
-Even with a 15% decrease in gas consumption – prices will still go up! A family of four will still pay $596 more in 2035 and $7,500 more in total from 2012 to 2035.
-From 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800.
-On average, employment will be lower by 1,105,000 jobs per year. In some years, cap and trade will reduce employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.
-Waxman-Markey will drive up the national debt 26 percent by 2035. This represents an additional $29,150 per person, or $116,600 for a family of four.
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform said, “It would be very helpful if President Obama would keep just one of his campaign promises and oppose this massive tax hike. If not – we have him on record and he is clearly breaking his ‘pledge’.”
It is an agency created by Congress, but is privately owned. sm
The stocks are owned by member banks, and they are private corporations. Every penny of income tax collected goes to private lenders for interest only on the national debt.
Quote from the Grace Commission report: "100% of what is collected is absorbed
solely by interest on the Federal Debt ...
all individual income tax revenues are gone
before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government."
He has never produced the original, just one that he created on a computer and is not the real COLB
It has been found out that the document he created and submitted is not the actual birth record. The original is a typewritten birth certificate. The ones we type on a typewriter to submit to the state office (and back in 1961 there were not computers like there are today to create documents like the one Obama's camp created and put on display). Even so, at the hospital it is still a requirement this COLB be typewritten. They did find the actual typewritten birth certificate and the Obama camp has had it sealed so that nobody can see it. Has to make you wonder. And that is what the law suit is about (there is more than one lawsuit trying to get this document released).
Question that is on a lot of people's mind is - If you are a legal American born citizen, then just show the blooming original birth certificate and get on with it. Why have you taken legal measures to hide it and then create a false one and posted it on your website. Then on top of that a group (Annenberg foundation) who is supporting and doing everything they can to get Obama elected are the ones Obama chose to come out and say its real. Give me a break! Anyone with sense can see this is a cover up. An independent judge needs to sign an order that the original birth certificate to released. If we the people are voting for him then we the people have the right to see what his original type written birth certificate says. I'll give you a hint - the birth place is not going to be Hawaii.
Nazi Germany was created during a long cold winter
when unemployment was high. People was literally starving and freezing. Leadership had failed to keep the citizens fed and sheltered. Rogue leadership, Hitler, arrives announcing he will bring an end to the suffering. War employs. When there are no jobs, war is the alternative for a country. And pillaging, which is what basically happened, and the attempt at extinctousing an undesirable (to Hitler) nationality. Desperation in a country is a ticket to the empowerment of leadership which could potentially change the course of history. Or maybe we know that as it has just happened to us.
Name a pres that kept all his campaign promises?
I don't expect him to keep all his promises. In actuality, he really can't. None of the other presidents in my memory have been able to either. That is an unrealistic expectation. They say what they need to say to get elected.
Obama Tax Promises Up In Smoke
Obama plainly, clearly, and unequivocally promised "not one dime" of tax increase on the workers of America.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1
...and the point here is NOT whether you smoke or not. Even if you think that forcing the poor to quit smoking is a beneficial thing, the questions are:
1. Should Obama be held to his tax promises or not?
2. If he can raise these taxes, by what stretch of the imagination do you believe other increases will not follow?
3. Should the government use the power of taxation to enforce policies that it happens to think are beneficial? If you think so, how about taxing the next package of hamburger you buy a couple of bucks a pound unless it has less than 14% fat? And your next loaf of bread a buck or two unless it has 0% transfat? Or the next dozen eggs maybe five bucks for the cholesterol? After all, far more people in this country are obese than smoke.
If I were President, I'd hit every parent with a $10 per day tax if their kids forget to brush their teeth before going to bed (and I'd send jack-booted bed-tooth-inspectors to every house, too!). Now that would raise some serious coin, and improve the nation's dental health. Vote for me.
Falling for O's promises, just like Jimmy Carter
nm
President Obama campaign promises
I hope our new President does go to work for our jobs, meaning all American jobs, as he promised. I did hear him make that promise, but it is not necessarily looking good at this point. To see his offshoring comments, can be seen at www.loudobbs.com.
Either side can fail to deliver on promises. My only hope and prayer is that
I'm honestly not 100% sure either one of these candidates can do it so where do people like me fit into the picture? I'm not even sure I will be able to vote for either one, and that's based on my personal values. I don't feel Barack is the man, like many seem to, but I don't feel McCain is, either. I know I'm not alone. I don't believe socialized insurance is the answer, I believe in going after insurance companies that dictate what patients can have done and set premiums too high for people to afford and pharmaceutical companies that pay people off to push their drugs, whether it be doctors, groups, etc. I'd like to see all with tax cuts, not just big companies. Wonderful if they get a break for keeping jobs in the US, but that should be just one of many tax cuts for all, starting with taxes paid at the pump. What about public education? We pay fees and still have to buy extra books and other supplies for our kids' education, yet many children are less educated now out of public high school than ever before because they are too focused on the proficiency tests to actually teach a well-rounded fund of knowledge, so what are the proposals to fix that mess?
No matter who gets elected, they've got quite a job on their hands, and I sincerely doubt either will be able to live up to their promises. And no, I don't necessarily blame Bush for all the problems in this country, but rather I blame all presidents and congress, past and present. Somewhere along the way, it stopped being for the people, that's for sure, and more for their pocketbooks (both Dems AND Repubs). Since so many seem to see Barack as the second coming, I certainly pray that you are right, but I really doubt it. He's had zero experience so who is to say he won't buckle under the load once he realizes what he's gotten into? And McCain isn't my idea of perfection, either, so don't reply by bashing Republicans. I want to hear facts that aren't based on party views but honest-to-goodness facts on who has the best plan in line for these things. And how do you know who is being sincere and who is just making empty campaign promises?
Is it true that Obama's website has scrubbed his 25 campaign promises? sm
I heard they are no longer there, and have been scrubbed off. I looked and can't find them.
Any thoughts on this, or am I looking in the wrong place?
Some Obama campaign promises are put on hold as the economy sinks
More doom and gloom, and more campaign promises will not be kept.
Is it just me, or does our President Elect look less and less, with each passing day, like the man that so many put into this office....and more and more like the rest of knew him to be?
Some Obama campaign promises are put on hold as the economy sinks
BY CELESTE KATZ
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Sunday, January 11th 2009, 4:00 AM
Tackling the troubled economy is going to require Americans to sacrifice - and it means some campaign promises will have to be put on hold, President-elect Barack Obama says.
"Everybody's going to have to give. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game," Obama said on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" set to air this morning.
Obama's comments came as the President-elect, who takes office Jan. 20, responded to a new national unemployment report by saying in his weekly address Saturday that he'll save or create 3 million to 4 million new jobs.
"Our challenge is going to be identifying what works and putting more money into that, eliminating things that don't work and making things that we have more efficient," Obama said on ABC. "I want to be realistic here. Not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped."
Obama agreed that his administration is going to involve some version of a "grand bargain" - changes in areas like tax reform, Social Security and Medicare will come at a cost.
Addressing the nation as his team released figures on the job situation, Obama said in his weekly radio and video address that 90% of the jobs will be created in the private sector. The remainder are "mainly public sector jobs" such as teachers, cops and firefighters.
The report released by Obama's team Saturday projected the creation of 678,000 new construction jobs and 408,000 manufacturing jobs by next year under an estimated $775 billion stimulus plan.
Among the sources of the new jobs Obama cited: designing more efficient cars and building solar panels, infrastructure roles such as repairing roads and bridges, and jobs in the health care and education sectors.
Obama said economists predict that if Congress doesn't agree on a large-scale stimulus plan, the U.S. will shed as many as 4 million jobs before the recession comes to an end.
Obama also vowed to procure "bipartisan extensions of unemployment insurance and health care coverage" and a $1,000 tax cut for 95% of working families.
"Given the magnitude of the challenges we face, none of this will come easy. Recovery won't happen overnight, and it's likely that things will get worse before they get better," Obama warned.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/11/2009-01-11_some_obama_campaign_promises_are_put_on_-1.html
McSocialist promises to SHARE THE WEALTH from offshore drilling revenues
At least he and SP seem to be on the same page today. SP: "...and Alaska - we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"....boasting to a reporter of having been able to send a check for $1,200 to every man, woman and child in the state since, quote "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources.”
Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective..sm
Election 2008: Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective
By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist
Today we will almost surely elect Barack Obama President of the United States. A new generation will vote for Mr. Obama –- a generation that has grown up with the Internet. This new crop of voters has access to more information than any that came before, and yet has swallowed Obama’s impossible campaign promises and contradictory policies just as trustingly as those who in earlier times looked for a chicken in every pot.
Welcome to the disillusionment of another generation. I don’t anticipate this inevitable consequence of today’s election with any glee, believe me. To see young people turning out in droves to vote for this eloquent, attractive young man is inspiring. To hear them buy into his promises, though, is sobering.
For instance, we are told that the image of the United States has suffered mightily under George Bush, and that Obama is going to usher in a veritable global love-fest. Would those falling over themselves to herald our new president include the peoples of South Korea and Colombia –- allies both — whose much-needed free trade agreements with the U.S. Obama has opposed?
How about our neighbors in Canada or Mexico; will Obama’s promised re-write of NAFTA endear them to the U.S.? Is it possible that Obama’s opposition to free trade demonstrates his gratitude to labor unions –- groups that aroused his ire by donating to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns but suddenly were much more warmly welcomed when they began shifting funds his way?
Over a year ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column defending the status quo against the pressing demand for “Change” writ large. While politicians of all stripes were heralding new directions, they were ignoring, for example, that the U.S. has been blessed for many years with low inflation. Voters in their 30s and 40s could not be expected to remember the devastating inflation of the 1970s. They couldn’t be expected to understand how double-digit price hikes threw the fear of God into retirees on fixed incomes and created the same kind of paralysis in lending that we are witnessing today.
They might not connect the dots between Obama’s enthusiasm for the Employee Free Choice Act, a resurgence of unionization, and wage-driven inflation. They might not realize that restricting trade with China, re-writing NAFTA and barring adoption of free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea will indeed drive prices higher.
The United States has also enjoyed a period of stable employment. The new generation has never seen serious unemployment. True, they have witnessed shifts in employment as manufacturing jobs have been lost to lower-priced locales. But they have never seen unemployment rates go much above 6%, where it is now. In 1982, when unemployment reached 9.7%, Obama was 21 years old. I doubt he was much focused on the dismal state of the economy. Voters, however, were focused, and gave Ronald Reagan a mandate to set the country on a new course –- one which encouraged growth through lower taxes, expanded trade and deregulation.
That program was adopted by both Democrats and Republicans because it worked. People in their thirties and forties cannot imagine that raising taxes on successful people might harm the economy. That’s because they weren’t around to witness the exodus of talent from England –- a country wherein punitive marginal tax rates squashed incentives and drove out anyone who could locate elsewhere. Margaret Thatcher didn’t just join the Reagan Revolution –- she clung to it for dear life.
What young voters have seen, and have responded to, is the collapse of Wall Street. Because bankers, politicians and speculators conspired to create the worst investment bubble in modern times, we are about to abandon the policies that brought millions of people around the world into the middle class. Policies that gave people real hope –- not just its rhetorical facsimile. This is a tragedy.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/lpeek_1104/#more-2415
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
interesting, indeed nm
nm
This is interesting. SM
I did hear on the news the person that leaked this story is a former coworker of Roberts named Walter Smith who is somehow associated with "People For the American Way", an anti-Christian hate group. It's my belief that this was meant to turn the Republicans against Roberts. Well, big surprise, it didn't work. They have to be shaking their heads.
Somewhat interesting.
AR, posting in a message line that someone is irrational is not the most innocent of maneuvers, so let's not waste too much time congratulating you on your imaginary moral superiority. I sometimes maneuver that way myself but I don't deceive myself into thinking it was anything but honest hostility and I don't act surprised when people respond in kind. So sorry if there was a misunderstanding just in case there was, I'm always willing to give a benefit of a doubt - once or twice. After that you get what you get.
That said and out of the way, what is it about the rest of Bennett's statement that you believe exonerates the controversial part? I did hear the whole thing and I don't know what you're referring to in that respect.
Yup, will be interesting,
Apparently there is a crucial email somewhere that has gone missing and there are some inconsistencies in the testimony. We'll see. I'm sure they'll try to explain it all away.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9630676/site/newsweek
|
