AND BECAUSE OUR MILITARY IS BROKEN.....

The biggest selling product in the US right now is GUNS. So you think the cowards in this country can't protect themselves? Think again. Your family members weren't drafted and because they made that choice doesn't make everyone else cowards. You insult this country with your pious crap.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/12/obama_softens_ban_on_hiring_lobbyists/

So much for the change Obama promised to bring. Sounds to me like it is the same old political bullcrap of the rules not applying to certain people. Why bother saying stuff when you know you can't or won't do it?

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�.�

Updated in light of today's news that kangaroo centers, petting zoos and ice cream parlors are included in Homeland Security's list of vulnerable terrorist targets:

If Its Broken, Why Haven't They Fixed It?

Fort Knox is robbed in an unusual way. Burglars break in through an air conditioning vent and shine a laser at the video cameras to blind them. Billions are stolen.

The head of Fort Knox (let's call him the Chief) announces that no one could have foreseen this type of burglary.

The commission investigating the robbery -- stacked with the Chief's business partners and friends -- finds that the break-in was unexpected. The commission makes numerous suggestions on how to thwart similar burglaries by installing motion detectors in the air conditioning vents and main vault.

Independent researchers, however, discover that there have been many previous break-ins at repositories of valuable items where the burglars crawled in through the air conditioning vents and shined lasers at video cameras.

They also discover that the Fort's security system would normally have caught the burglars in the act and alerted the military in time to stop the burglarly, but the system was undergoing a series of safety tests that night -- including some that were similar to what actually occurred -- and so the military assumed that the alarms were part of the test.

There had been safety tests before, but never so many at the same time. The Chief personally scheduled multiple, overlapping tests for the night of the robbery, and then oversaw the operation of the tests and the Fort's reaction to those tests.

Years pass, but the Chief does not follow the commission's recommendations. He fails to install any motion detectors.

That's circumstantial evidence that the Chief was in on the heist. Why? Because if the robbery really had not been foreseeable and if he was innocent, he would have a very strong incentive to install motion detectors to prevent further robberies at the Fort. His personal reputation, the government's reputation, and its gold reserves would all depend on it. You can bet that he'd shore up the Fort's defenses.

Perks

Let's take it a step further: the Chief's personal bank account has suddenly gotten alot bigger after the heist. That helps to prove he was in on it, right? But it also shows that one of the reasons the Chief is leaving the Fort's defenses in a compromised state now is so that additional heists can occur, and he'll get more loot.

9/11

Similarly, the 9-11 Commission -- stacked with cronies of the Bush administration (like executive director Philip Zelikow, who is very close to administration hawk Condoleeza Rice, and steered the Commission away from the most important lines of inquiry) -- found that the attacks were unexpected, despite very strong evidence that they were not, and despite the fact that the government scheduled numerous, overlapping war games for 9/11 -- some involving a plane flying into a building and others involving hijackings.

And while the 9-11 Commission made numerous recommendations on how to prevent future terrorist attacks -- many of them simple and inexpensive to implement -- the Bush administration has failed to do so. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security, instead of protecting vulnerable targets, has instead randomly made up lists which include kangaroo centers, petting zoos and
ice cream parlors as high-priority terrorist threats.

Just like with the Chief, the current administration's failure to make the recommended and preventative changes -- many of them cheap fixes -- despite billions being spent on supposed homeland security, is strong evidence that the administration was in on it.

This is especially true because the administration has recieved so many perks from 9/11: justification for wars in Afghanistan (where a huge oil pipeline benefitting American companies was being held up by the Taliban) and Iraq (one of the world's largest oil producers), permanent military bases in the Middle East, and consolidation of power at home.

And by failing to implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, the administration keeps open the possibility that another terrorist attack will occur which will whip the now-dissenting American public into line, justify the invasion of Iran, and allow for the suspension of our remaining constitutional rights.

The bottom line is that the administration's, like the Chief's, inaction to fix the alleged holes in security which allowed supposedly unforeseeable crimes to occur shows that they are guilty of the crimes, and hope to benefit from additional crimes in the future.

And if foreign terrorists really had carried out 9/11, why is the government using all of its resources spying on innocent people who obviously have never met a terrorist in their life?

First reaction is if these issues, which have been posted on O's website ever since he launched his campaign, are of such sudden concern to the cons and femocons, why did they not get addressed during the RNC? Do you not see the high-jack strategy as the cons try to talk out of both sides of their mouths and reinvent themselves as the new age liberals? How is this different than the now exposed folly of the compassionate conservative Bush/Cheney ploy?

Small business. Either you can't read, you think that we can't or your spin cycle is stuck in high gear. Go here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#small-business. Plans to give tax relief for small businesses and startups, eliminate capital gains taxes on them and provide a $500 new making work pay tax credit (one of many) for workers. For all those IC MTs out there, this is aimed at reducing the burden of double taxation in the current structure where small businesses pay both employer AND employee side of payroll tax. Obama will INVEST $250 million per year in support of entrepreneurship, by creating national network of public-private business incubators to facilitate start-up creation. Your $250,000/yr figure applied to tax cuts on INDIVIDUALS who earn in excess of that amount. Therefore, your offshore, job loss, and massive flight to lower income argument does not hold water on this point. Please cite the right-wing rag you have taken this $6 billion dollar additional tax on small business claim. I'm not finding that in O's plan. The tax breaks to the "lower brackets" (losing their homes, can't decide whether to get medicine or food this month, and if they are lucky, can gas their tank once a month) is addressed below.

On the plight of the struggling rich. Define rich, please. From the bottom, INDIVIDUAL incomes in excess of $250,000/yr might look about right. From the top, $5 million a year maybe (one of McC's not-so-funny jokes, some would wonder). The 90% of the federal tax bill claim must be a typo. Go here for 2008 info: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html. Our top 1% of filers pay 40% or tax burden. An accurate argument would include these facts as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth. In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. Let's say that one more time. Top 1% gets 38%, bottom 40% get less than 1%. Since they are not earning a living wage, probably that is why they cannot afford to pay tax. Got the picture?

There is only one reason our long suffering corporations are taking their business overseas. Greed. They do not want to pay their share and they get tax incentives currently for outsourcing. Do not take us down the path of needing to address sweat shop working conditions, 7-day work weeks, $2/day wages in developing countries where US labor laws do not apply. Greed is not a universal American value.

There you go again. Please try to keep this discussion in the context of McCain plans and how they are different than Bush plans. You are spinning way out in right field without a paddle on that ridiculous statement about keeping people in lower brackets. What in the world make you think this kind of ignorance is going to help JM/SP win the election.

Preying on discontent, fear and division was a blatent and nauseating subtext for the RNC this entire week. I do agree with inspecting history, and the history that is under the microscope now is Bush/Cheney and JM voting history. Do you really want to bring up govt "borrowing." Again, Bush is the record setter in this regard and while we are talkin' W, don't forget the Bush slash and burn policies toward our seniors. Here's a link for you to a rather exhaustive analysis on 12 reason privatizing social security is a bad idea. http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503. You can get back to me on that one with your rebuttal. My question would be putting WHICH people before WHICH party?

Survey Americans on which party they associate election fraud with in the past, say, 30 years or so and tell me what you come up with. So you forgot to mention what JM's plan is on this one. Again, just saying no to personal attacks and steering you back on course. JM's plan for lobbying and earmarks is what exactly. I see O has one.

JM hate war? LMAO. So what was all that military service orgie this week all about? The entire McCain family for generations have shown to us just how much they hate war. Where is his war prevention strategy? Did I miss the part where he sang Give Peace a Chance? Sam, really, do you care nothing about your own credibility or that of your candidates? Am laughing too hard to comment further on this.

Here's a link for you to serve as a primer on the Patriot Act controversy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Controversy. Will not address the attempts you are making to minimize the unconstitutional aspect of this legislation. I would like an explanation as to how RNC protestors engaging in destruction of private property, vandalism, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace and such have suddenly been charged with terrorism? The we have not been attacked yet defense does not make me feel warm and fuzzy about standing legislation that violates the constitution 9 ways to Sunday. Far mongering does not a justification make. O's plan demonstrates ways to tackle terrorism that do not involve trashing the constitution.

There are many issues swirling around the separation of church and state. Christian theocracy will be kept in the marginal fringes where they belong. Religious principles will not be incorporated into laws that seek to remove a woman's right to control her own body. Freedom from religion is also at stake here as are hate crime definitions that provide protection for Moslems in the US. That is the freedom the cons overlook every time.

That little campaign platform that he would cut our taxes (middle income) when elected. Within days after being elected he raised our taxes to the highest ever in record history.

Also, according the to U.S. Treasury website that tracks the national debt, there was never a surplus because the debt rose every year. I know a lot of people don't like to hear that, but that is just the facts in black and white

As you can clearly see, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that he subsequently turned into a deficit. Its true the budget was "almost" balanced in 2000, but it never reached zero, let alone a positive number. Also, the growing deficit started in the Clinton budget, not the first year of the Bush admin.

To understand what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. Therefore I will attach a link that explains this.

I do know a lot of people really liked Bill Clinton as a President. No doubt about that. He had charisma and was very mesmerizing to listen to him speak, but you just can't toss out facts.

P.S., this article states you can access the US Treasury website to see for yourself.

Do you just close your eyes and refuse to believe the truth because you **need** the use of Israel in order for all that **Rapture** stuff to come to fruition?

To only call it **propaganda** over and over again just proves you don't know what you're talking about. If you do, provide proof to the contrary.

Drinking age and fighting is an old and worn out reasoning. Besides, they get all the alcohol they want. What are we supposed to do with men and women who choose to join the military. Put it in writing that they will never have to go to war? And where was the left's outrage when Clinton sent men and women into his little skirmishes. I never heard a word then. Never saw one leftie holding a sign that said NO MORE MOGADISHUs. In fact, the left hardly even mentions it. Why is that exactly?

equate to a point for foreign affairs experience? Please explain that to me. I know a lot of people whose children are in the military, in the war zone and not one of them would say they have foreign affairs experience. Also, didn't she herself say she doesn't know anything about Iraq.

have always been conservative. However, many military members and veterans are changing their minds after what has taken place in recent years. Watch the results of the election and see which way the military goes and compare that to elections in the past.

I notice that repeatedly there is a rhetoric among conservatives that if an 18-year-old (or 19 or 20) signed up, then that was their adult decision and there's no use complaining over it. War is war and they have to go.

Okay, so why is it fine for an 18-year-old to be considered mature enough to make a major life decision like enlisting in the military but at same time is not allowed to drink alcohol for 3 more years in most states? So.....he/she can kill folks but not take a drink of beer. Seems like rather skewed logic.

Secondly, when those folks of ALL ages enlisted they put their faith in the powers that be in this country that their service would be used wisely and that they would NOT have their lives squandered for a highly questionable and suspect war. To me that is the crux of the matter -- sure they signed up but many of them did not sign up to fight in a spurious and illegal war. They put their faith in the US military and were let down, as far as I can tell. Very sad.

The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.

This is what the Army's hired advertising company, Leo Burnett, had to say about the ads targeting influencers that it began running in April: Titled 'Dinner Conversation,' 'Two Things,' 'Good Training' and 'Listening' (Spanish-language ad), the commercials portray moments ranging from a son telling his mother he's found someone to pay for college, to a father praising his son who has just returned from Basic Training for the positive ways in which he's changed. They capture the questions, hopes and concerns parents have about a career serving the United States of America and include families from many different backgrounds.

So let's approach the issue this way: In the 2004 election, household income was a pretty decent indicator of how one might vote. Voters from households making more than $50,000 a year favored Bush 56 percent to 43 percent. Voters making $50,000 or less favored Kerry 55 to 44 percent. Median household income as of 2003 was $43,318, according to the U.S. Census.

Among the more recent studies was one done last year by Robert Cushing, a retired professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. He tracked those who died in Iraq by geography and found that whites from small, mostly poor, rural areas made up a disproportionately large percentage of the casualties in Iraq.