1000 bucks a month
Posted By: Democrat on 2007-09-24
In Reply to: Health care reform - Goin Broke
That is a lot to pay for health insurance. There does need to be reform so that it is more affordable, I just don't see how mandatory coverage is going to do it.
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
4 bucks? We pay 6 in Texas.
x
Couldn't spare the 5 bucks to buy your own?
And admitting you're a thief to boot! Good one.
they were 10 bucks in my town before they sold out
Why turn down Obama-bucks?
Why turn down Obama-bucks?
By: Roger Simon
February 24, 2009 04:36 AM EST
I never thought we’d live to see the day, but there are actually politicians out there who want to turn down money.
Some Republican governors, who normally like federal tax bucks, now want to turn them down. Why? Because they aren’t just tax bucks, they are “Obama-bucks.”
They are bucks from President Obama’s stimulus plan, and if these bucks put people back to work and let people hang on to their homes, he and the Democrats might get the credit.
And that would never do.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, attacked the Obama stimulus plan on Saturday by saying, “It’s filled with social policy and costs too much. You could create just as many jobs for about half as much money.”
OK, Gov. Barbour, go ahead and do it. And get rid of all that evil “social policy” while you are at it.
Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana who often has “rising star” and “presidential hopeful” attached to his name, also said he didn’t want some of the federal money.
But under questioning by David Gregory on “Meet the Press” Sunday, Jindal seemed to wilt a little when it came to explaining why.
“Well, let’s be clear,” Jindal said, not being clear at all. “The best thing that Washington could do to help Louisiana and all of our states with our budgets is to get this economy moving again.”
Gee, thanks. But don’t get him wrong. While some people see these times as filled with pain and suffering, Jindal sees them as an opportunity. A political opportunity.
“I think now is the time, and it’s a great opportunity for Republican governors and other leaders to offer conservative-based solutions to the problem,” Jindal said.
Because those conservative-based solutions worked so well under George W. Bush, right?
It is not just Republican governors who are irked with Obama-bucks, however. There is Rick Santelli, an on-air Editor for CNBC, who went on the air live last week from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade and delivered what he now proudly refers to as his “rant.”
Basically, Santelli doesn’t want federal aid going to people who can’t pay their mortgages. “How many of you people want to pay your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” Santelli said, waving his arms.
He then called such people “losers” and said it was better to “reward people that could carry the water instead of drink the water.”
When Wall Street moguls got billions in bailout money and gave themselves millions in bonuses, threw lavish parties, redecorated their offices and ordered $50 million jets, Santelli did not wave his arms and rant.
Because Wall Street moguls are not losers. They are his people. But when it comes to the working-class family trying to scrape by, that’s where we must draw the line. Throw them out on the street. Foreclose on their homes, even though the banks can’t sell those homes.
Because it’s far better to have a foreclosed house on your block with the windows boarded up than having a family living there and paying a renegotiated mortgage, isn’t it?
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs quite properly slapped back at Santelli last week, sarcastically inviting him to the White House for a cup of “decaf.”
But Santelli doesn’t need decaf. He needs the milk of human kindness. (What does he do in his free time, go down to homeless shelters and laugh at the “losers”?)
The Santelli “survival of the fittest” plan is the opposite of what Barack Obama said repeatedly during his campaign. “If we’ve learned anything from this economic crisis,” Obama said Oct. 18 in St. Louis, “it’s that we’re all connected. We’re all in this together, and we will rise or fall as one nation, as one people.”
The Republicans don’t believe it. They think opposing the Obama financial recovery plan is their ticket to success. Mark Sanford, the Republican governor of South Carolina, recently criticized the three Republican senators who voted for it, saying it was “a gut check vote, a gut check deliberation ... for the future of our civilization.”
The Republican platform for 2012 is going to be: “You give up your house so we can win the White House.”
And they thought 2008 was bad.
I STILL can't afford ten bucks for a loaf of bread...lol...not really lol..but ya know
I wish I could type 1000 wpm.
I would have stated who and what they are debating. Kerry was furious. Sen. Sessions (R-AL) doesn't seem to want to work with anyone on "the other side" either.
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nevada) had a really good speech. He went through the whys and why nots of how this whole mess started. He is willing to work with the other side but he stated that the other side has to work with them, too, which so far, is not happening. He stated that the stimulus package was pushed through the house without any debate, without anyone seeing exactly what was in it, and it was the wrong thing to do. He doesn't care that O wants this passed by President's day. It has to be worked out slowly so they don't make the same kind of mistakes that they did with the last stimulus package.
It's not just tax cuts the pubs want. They want some of the spending in there, too, just not the most ridiculous items. They want the infrastructure in but not just 3% of the total package spread out over 4 years. It wouldn't make much of a difference.
Now, on another subject, I had MSNBC on another TV. Surprisingly, they were only allowing sound for the debate when the democrats are speaking. Hmmm.
One little ole poster acting like 1000
nm
I agree 1000%. Too much emphasis
is placed on hiring issues that have nothing to do with the job to be performed. Hire the best qualified, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Agree 1000% with you, absolutely, and completely!
Lying was enough to get Nixon and Clinton out of the WH. What is with this guy, that he can lie, lie, never tell a blasted truth, been shown to be a liar, and is still sitting as prez. Just makes me sick what WE have become and sick in the stomach to be an American. Our forefathers are rolling in their graves, to have the Constitution so ignored and belittled by this admin. And I didn't mean we need to start a war with Iran, as that would also be a tragedy, but we sure as hell didn't need to go to war with Iraq. Bush never gave a thought to diplomacy, of course I don't think he ever had a thought, period.... All of his doing comes from behind the scenes, and if he is ever impeached, they better take Cheney out with him, the cause of this atrocity.
To me $1000 health insurance premium is a lot
That's fine you don't care about the fact that many families are working their fingers to the bone just to pay for necessities, including health insurance, but I do. I care very much and am very sad that so many people in this country only seem to care about children that come from upper middle class and rich families. I guess they deserve better health care than the middle-class kids. I don't know how people that feel that way can go to bed with a clear conscience.
People in Congress that we took the time to elect put a lot of effort into negotiating this bill to make both parties relatively happy. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TAXED FOR IT. THE CIGARETTE TAX WOULD HAVE GONE UP. Keep telling yourself what you need to tell yourself to sleep at night, but the fact is kids with diabetes from a lower-middle-class income family have less of a chance of surviving than a child from an upper class income family. That is a sad, sad, fact.
Newspaper Marks 1000 Days of Iraq War with Key Stats
Newspaper Marks 1000 Days of Iraq War with Key Stats
By E&P Staff
Published: December 13, 2005 10:30 AM ET
NEW YORK To mark what it called the 1000 Days of the Iraq war, the London daily The Independent offered extensive coverage today, featuring a by-the-numbers approach.
Here are some of their calculations:
$204.4 billion: The cost to the U.S of the war so far.
2,339: Allied troops killed
15,955: US troops wounded in action
98: U.K troops killed
30,000 : Estimated Iraqi civilian deaths
0: Number of WMDs found
66: Journalists killed in Iraq.
63: Journalists killed during Vietnam war
8: per cent of Iraqi children suffering acute malnutrition
53,470: Iraqi insurgents killed
67: per cent Iraqis who feel less secure because of occupation
$343: Average monthly salary for an Iraqi soldier. Average monthly salary for an American soldier in Iraq: $4,160.75
5: foreign civilians kidnapped per month
47: per cent Iraqis who never have enough electricity
20: casualties per month from unexploded mines
25-40: per cent Estimated unemployment rate, Nov 2005
251: Foreigners kidnapped
70: per cent of Iraqi's whose sewage system rarely works
183,000: British and American troops are still in action in Iraq.
13,000: from other nations
90: Daily attacks by insurgents in Nov '05. In Jun '03: 8
60-80: per cent Iraqis who are strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops
*
In an accompanying piece from Baghdad, the newspaper's Patrick Cockburn adds one more stat: A BBC poll yesterday showed that half of the Iraqis questioned say that Iraq needs a strong leader--while only 28 per cent cited democracy as a priority.
Iraqis are cynical about their political leaders, Cockburn writes. The election results are likely to show that the great majority of Iraqis will vote along ethnic or religious lines as Shia, Sunni or Kurds. The country is turning from a unitary state into a confederation.
There is no sign yet of the thousand-day war ending. Every month up to a thousand fresh corpses arrive at the mortuary in Baghdad. A new Iraq is emerging but it is already drenched in blood.
One month -- (sm)
That would be about the time we get a president and staff in there who actually know what to do.
About a month ago
I posted a link to the following OpEd article, which I was touting as the best idea I'd heard yet to resolve the economic crisis:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 12/27/08:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 1 page(s)
www.opednews.com
5
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The economic disaster that I predicted back in April of 2008 in these articles click here and here is here. What enabled me to predict what was coming was my evaluation of five key areas of the economy. They are:
1. Consumer savings and spending/ability to spend
2. Corporate income, health and spending/ability to spend
3. Government financial health and ability to spend
4. The lending and banking (and financial) system and its ability to extend credit
5. Inflation & scarcity of resources
I made the point that for the first time in American history, all five of these areas were problematic.
Looking at the same indicators now, eight months later, there are some real and some apparent changes. Number 4 - The lending, banking and financial system has been bailed out, but it is still reeling from the Lehman brothers’ bankruptcy, several bank failures, and the threatened failures or near failures of several more institutions. On the surface, Number 5, Inflation & scarcity of resources seems have improved. Indeed several news reports have suggested that Deflation is what is now the concern. This is an illusion.
The two main commodities driving up prices were energy and food, both because of supply fears. Both have come down in price/cost somewhat, energy in particular, but WHY have they come down in price. Is there suddenly more supply? No, there is no more supply. They are down due to a temporary decrease in demand. As soon as there is the beginning of a return to economic normalcy, and people start to use the additional income to consume, the price increases in both food and energy will return. The governments of the world should take NO action to try to deal with the apparent but temporary deflationary conditions.
Having stabilized the financial system and the auto industry with bailouts, the government should turn to the most critical economic issue, the one that really is threatening to make this a prolonged downturn and that is consumer savings, huge consumer debt and resulting inability for consumers and households to spend and buy goods and services. Businesses cannot survive without the consumer and yet the average household is completely broke and drowning in debt.
I conceived the idea for this article about a week ago and was dreading having to perform the requisite research into the actual numbers supporting my positions. Thankfully, another author on OpEdNews, James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled “The Great Consumer Crash of 2009.” Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
This suggests several conclusions. First, as I said earlier, the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that. It's a slight alteration of the old Sherlock Holmes quote, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”. Turning the economy around with a broke consumer is impossible, so what remains? Bail out the consumer.
What would a Government Bailout of the Consumer Look Like?
The government bailout of the consumer that I am proposing dwarfs all other government bailouts to date. It probably is the largest government spending initiative by any measurement in the history of humankind. It involves the government offering to each consumer and household to pay all of their debt. In exchange, the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. Let me illustrate:
Joe and Sally have a combined income of $100,000 per year. They have $60,000 in debt. They opt for a complete bailout of their debt. In return, they will pay an additional (60 x .125)% or an additional 7% in taxes for three years. So, the Government pays out $60,000, the government gets back $21,000 over three years (7% of Joe and Sally's $100,000 a year income or $7000 for three years), and Joe and Sally are debt free.
Another example is John. John makes $60,000 per year and has a mortgage of $150,000 and other debt of $8,000 of which $6,000 is taxes and $2000 is credit cards. John opts for the total bailout. The Government pays $158,000 and wipes out John's debt. John owes the government $7,500 additional in taxes each year for three years, or $22,500. Even though the Government paid more to bail John out, the payback is capped at 12.5% in additional taxes per year for three years.
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
The total potential Government bailout outlay is the total of household debt or $15 Trillion Dollars. Actual bailout total will be lower because although many consumers would opt for this bailout, many others would not depending on each households circumstances, so the total amount that the Government would put out would be considerably less than $15 Trillion, but it would not surprise me to see the amount exceed $5-8 Trillion, financed by Government bonds. The Government would get a percentage of that back in the temporary additional taxes I proposed, probably between 20% and 30% over three years. So, assuming that the Government outlays $5 Trillion for the bailout, it would get back $1 to $1.5 Trillion.
What everyone should understand is that in exchange for the government spending that money, we would have an American consumer that was essentially out of debt and per the additional legislation would never again get in debt to the point that the indebtedness would endanger the whole country's economic health. Households would be able to spend money again, and all of those businesses that currently hold consumer debt accounts would receive a sudden and massive infusion of cash and would be paid for all of that debt. The totality of this program would result in a massive boost to the economy. Considering this, even the money that the Government would not receive back from consumers that it bailed out, it would likely receive back and more from the money that it injected into the economy generating business, income and retail taxes. Another great benefit of a consumer bailout is the mortgage crisis would be over. Households would own their homes free and clear and the banks would have been paid in full. Other organizations like Visa would be back in good financial health. Visa is currently hurting and requesting government assistance. Helping the consumer as I have outlined is the right way to help banks, business and the financial industry and the economy at large. Everyone wins this way.
I also posted a link to Part 2, posted in response to the many comments the author received on the first article:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The excellent responses, even harsh criticism from some to my first article on my proposed Consumer Bailout http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Real-Bailout-Needed-is-by-Steven-Leser-081227-715.html helped crystallize some of the finer points of the proposal. They also made me surer than ever that the best thing to do to bring about a recovery is to address bailout efforts to the consumer.
To recap briefly before I go on, I wrote:
... the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that....
the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. One of the more serious components of the current crisis that is just starting to become apparent is the catastrophic budget shortfalls in state and local budgets. Five to fifteen trillion dollars in additional taxable income for businesses all around the country would fix that portion of the crisis immediately as it seems to fix just about every other portion of the crisis. That is what I think is compelling about my bailout proposal. If you make a list of the problems in the economy and analyze the effect of this proposed consumer bailout, it eliminates them one by one from the bottom up...
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
Let me address some of the more important criticisms of the proposal:
Criticism 1 – This Consumer Bailout is not Affordable
Anytime you are talking about a government program costing in the trillions of dollars it is natural to have questions about how this program would be funded so these questions and criticisms are good and to be expected.
One thing that should be obvious is that those who would opt to have the government pay their debt would pay back on average between 20% and 30% of the money directly to the government in increased taxes over three years. That is part of the design of the bailout proposal.
Second, what happens with the money that is given by the government to consumer's creditors? Those creditors have to pay taxes on it. Whether the creditor is a bank, some other lending agency, Visa, or any other creditor, that business will pay taxes on that income. Let's assume a low average effective business tax rate of 25% to be conservative. Of the money lent to consumers, another 25% will be paid back to the government within one year in the form of taxes paid by creditors. Now we are up to 45%-55% of the total bailout being paid for by those who benefited most by it.
Third, what do the creditors do with the 75% of the money they receive that they do not have to pay in taxes? They invest it, they buy other goods and services, they pay salaries and other operating costs, pay back their own debt obligations, etc. Much of that also results in taxable income by those receiving this money. Let's assume that 2/3rds of that money, or 50% of the original outlay becomes additional taxable income. 25% of that (again, assuming an average effective business tax rate of 25% is 12.5% of the total bailout. Now we are up to 57.5% to 67.5% of the outlay by the federal government paid back to it in taxes. We can go another iteration and say that 50%-12.5% is 37.5% of the original outlay becomes taxable income for entities further down the road. We can say that 25% of that will probably end up being taxable income and results in another 6.25% of the original total outlay being paid back in taxes. Now we are up to 63.75% to 73.75% of the total bailout outlay being repaid.
Finally, what then happens to the economy when consumers are debt free, their former creditors are awash in cash, as a result Visa and the banks and lending industry are no longer in crisis, in fact the opposite? When there is more disposable income all around, more money is invested, lent (properly this time with the additional regulations I specified in place) and spent. We call that an expanding economy. What happens in an expanding economy? Federal income tax receipts grow. Some of that is already accounted for in my above explanations, but some isn't. I don't know if we get back to 100% of the bailout being paid back directly or indirectly, but if we don't, we get close.
Criticism 2 – This Bailout Proposal Penalizes People Who Have Kept Up With Their Bills
Of all the top criticisms, this one was the most difficult for me to understand. People who have kept up with their bills are still hurting in this economy. Their investments have suffered, they are at risk just like anyone else for layoffs, if they are small business owners, they might be getting less business or the people that owe them money may be having difficulty paying their bills. All of those things mean that no matter how thrifty you are, you are probably feeling ill effects from this economy or at the very least; the current crisis makes you more at risk to be hurt.
All of the people would benefit greatly from an economy that gets moving again. Those who do not request a bailout would not be financing those who do. This bailout is self-financing as I illustrated above.
Criticism 3 – This Bailout Encourages Bad Behavior
It definitely would encourage bad behavior if we don't include the additional legislation that I propose that specifies how much credit can be lent to a consumer based on his income. These limits are different depending on the type of debt that would be incurred. I'm guessing that total non-auto and non-mortgage credit would be such that the monthly payments could not exceed around 10% of monthly income of a household and total outstanding non-auto and non-mortgage debt could not exceed 5% of yearly household income. The legislation would also prevent lenders from charging exorbitant interest rates.
Criticism 4 – The New Legislation you propose that would Limit Creditors in How Much they can lend to Consumers is Unworkable
For people who earn almost all of their income from a straight salary, these limits are straightforward. For those whose income is commission based or dividend based or whose income is otherwise variable, or for those who have high net worth, there needs to be another section to the legislation that better deals with their circumstance. My suggestion would be that for people who have a net worth over $250K, they could have consumer debt up to 1/3rd of their net worth.
January 4, 2009 at 07:54:15
1 1 View Ratings | Rate It
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 2 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
Those with variable incomes and net worth below $250K should have their debt totals determined by the following
Take the mean and median of their last 48 months worth of income and apply the 10% consumer debt limit to whichever figure is smaller..
Criticism 5 – This Bailout Could Result in Inflationary issues, Perhaps Even Hyperinflation.
Inflation is a concern, but I believe the risks can be managed. The bailout would be financed by issuing more bonds and as I already wrote, would be almost completely paid back either directly or by its effects on the economy. This bailout would not be financed by printing money. The Fed would have to be involved and would probably have to raise interest rates concurrently to ward off inflation. If you listen today to the government, the fed and private groups, they are all saying we are in a dangerous Deflationary situation. I still think there are inflationary risks with food and energy if we start to consume in similar quantities as prior to the beginning of the current crisis, but as I said I think this can be managed..
Criticism 6 – This Bailout is Really a Bailout of the Banking/Lending/Consumer Finance Sector (or other hated group) and I don't want to Bail them Out.
It seems that everyone wants to punish someone and everyone forgets that if we set out to punish people instead of focusing on what is going to fix this economy, we all will end up suffering for it. Libertarians want to punish the households and consumers who borrowed too much, Progressives want to punish the banks and consumer finance industry, Republicans want to punish organized Labor. For the current crisis to happen it required mistakes by consumers/households, banks, credit card companies, those who provide the underlying securities and financing for banks and credit card companies (the bond market, etc) and the government for failing to oversee all of the above and take action when things trended the wrong way. Now is not the time to concentrate on blame and recriminations. In fact, my bailout proposal bails out everyone, which is one of the reasons it has been a lightning rod for criticism. Everyone's pet economic and ideological whipping boys are helped.
We need everyone to have a 'Jeffersonian Louisiana Purchase' moment. What I mean by that is you have Jefferson, who was in his time probably close to what a Libertarian is today and believed that the government only had a the smallest amount of powers, i.e. only those specifically outlined in the constitution and no more. He did not believe in the elastic clause, and he definitely did not believe what his ideological opposites did, that if the Constitution did not explicitly forbid the government from doing something, that the government could do it.
Jefferson was given an opportunity to purchase the Louisiana territory from France but the problem was that the Constitution did not explicitly give him the power to make that deal. Recognizing that the purchase would solve several strategic issues for the country, not to mention more than double its territory, Jefferson made the deal. The point of this long-winded anecdote is that we are in an emergency. Exigency dictates that we accept that we may need to look beyond what would normally be the boundaries of our ideology to resolve the situation
------------------------
What I did not hear from those who criticized the idea is any alternate solution that resolved the current crisis and certainly none that addressed the issue of the overwhelming number of US households drowning in debt. Indeed, those who criticized the idea of bailing out consumers never acknowledged the seriousness of the household debt situation. As I wrote in the first article:
James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled "The Great Consumer Crash of 2009." Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
Before thinking about the economy in terms of the overwhelming debt of the average household, I thought that infrastructure spending was the best way to pull the economy out of crisis. The adding of jobs and putting people back to work that would be accomplished by infrastructure spending is great. This does not address the debt issues, however. The unemployed would then be able to pay their rent/mortgage and try to keep up with payments on whatever debt they have, but there will still be little of the spending that is needed to fuel a recovery. I think the infrastructure-spending plan alongside a consumer bailout is a good idea, but by itself, it is going to make very little difference. This economy is going nowhere if we fail to address household debt.
she must have her quota in for the month
x
I am pro-choice up the the end of 3rd month.
I am definitely against partial-birth abortion.
and don't forget the new *word of the month*
racist. They've added that since hurricane Katrina.
keep your head in the sand - a month ago
they are VERY_CLOSE, this is no black sheep in his family....
They forgot about 9/11 about a month after it happened.
i pay off my cards EVERY month, living
x
Agree a lot; but can we consider that the President only in for a month??.....sm
I am not going back to partisan politics, I think there are going to have to be many changes and many "solutions" before this economy can evea start to turn around, I pray it is sooner rather than later, but President Obama really has been condemned by many before he could even finish saying the oath of office....there is a lot of thinking and work that has to be done.
I don't have a white history month, either, but I'm okay with that.
X
If we did have a white history month
we would be called racists.
How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm
It took spending 1-1/2 BILLION dollars a month...sm
over years on the war in Iraq to get us to this point, borrowing from other countries, the highest deficit ever, printing money by the government with no gold behind it to drive the value of our dollar down around the world. Nothing to do with the democrats. When Bush became president we had a huge surplus. Did you forget that?
Wow, spot on . . .10 billions dollars a month . . .
for that war. For what? OIL. That money could go a long way to making sure EVERYBODY had healthcare and dramatically speed up the process of developing alternative energy sources! Why can no one see how much sense this makes?
Chrysler closing all 30 plants for 1 month.
x
I only lost $1000 so far-Hubby lost $2000 in a week (sm)
so, I called his financial advisor yesterday and told him to put hubby in a "safe" plan. It's now in a money market fund that is part of his IRA.
I have no choice. I have to stay where I am. I have no "safe" available. Neither of us will be able to retire on what is now in our 401Ks and you're not the only one. We couldn't buy a car with Both our 401Ks, let alone live on it.
We are late starters for retirement not until our late 40s funds (most of our employers did not offer pensions). We are now of the first retirement tier and although we own our home outright, if we live until we are 90, there is no way we can live off retirement 401Ks or SS.
My husband's father told him back in the 50s that we would experience something like what is happening today and stated it would be worse than the ཙ crash. It is sure starting to look that way, but we will survive some way, I hope.
We need to pray for the people on SS now that cannot survive. I, for one, would love to help them, but can't help ourselves at this moment.
|
