Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Dollars you have in your pocket won't be worth anything.....

Posted By: One world currency on 2008-11-16
In Reply to: Yes I am serious and no I am not kidding. - gourdpainter

As value decreases now, world is found on shaky ground, too, so my thought is that they are probably going to come up with a currency that will be used by all countries involved (from research I've done) and the dollars you have in your bank account, savings account (?) and pocket won't be worth a red minted cent!


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

MSNBC is deeply in Obama's pocket...
and please don't come back with Fox News is a conservative network. They allow and have contributors on both sides of the aisle and let them air their opinions. MSNBC doesn't allow anyone not for Obama to speak. Everyone should go to each candidate's web site and see how they stand on the issues.
That's because Fannie and Freddie are in his back pocket
He received a lot of money from both places. Would you go against them if you get large election donations and low housing costs with cheap mortages? I don't think so. That's why he has to go. He is just as corrupt as the others.
Just a few dollars more.......... sm

Crysler is now asking for another $5B to "survive."  You know, with all the bailouts and stimulus packages and defcits, I'm beginning to look at $5B as not so bad.  How sick is THAT?   


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100789303&ft=1&f=1001


taxpayer dollars?

what makes you think that everyone having an abortion is paying for it themselves? 


I agree that our tax dollars should be used to pay for it...
it is not a law passed by our congress (and our Constitution says only Congresses have the right to pass laws), it was foisted on us (like everyone here says we are "foisting" our opinions on them) by activist judges and is unconstitutional....those of us opposed to it should not have our tax dollars funding it. Yep, I agree with that!
How does this relate to $27 mil US tax dollars
This week's topic will be Palins pastor, not Rev Wright/Obama. You already had your best shot at this, which just a few posts ago, you said didn't matter (pastors, candidates, etc). Remember to stay on task. Spotlight on the republicans week, just what you all have been waiting for.
I have $32 dollars in savings
and a $52,000 dollar house that me and DH have only been paying on for two years as our "investment". (We bought it because the mortgage payments were as much as our rent payments so mine as well at least own it right?)

What I don't understand, if I started a business and it went under, would they bail me out?

No, probably not. *sigh*
GOOD! Now those tax dollars can be......... sm
used where there are supposed to be used....here in the good ol' USA. And people wonder why our economy is in such bad shape!
Yes, and we need those dollars staying here too!
..
tax dollars go to many things we dont want
There are many many people who do not believe in war and especially the war in Iraq yet our tax dollars are being spent to kill innocent people in other countries..So, if you dont want to spend your tax dollars on stem cell research..fine, then let the anti war peoples tax dollars go to things other than war.  I would much rather my taxes go to finding ways to cure disease and ease suffering and pain in life than war.
White Phosphorus, In Our Name And With Our Tax Dollars





VIDEO

Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre
A Film by Sigfrido Ranucci
RAINews24
11.08.05
WARNING: This video contains graphic and possibly disturbing footage.

QuickTime
DSL | 56K
Windows Media
DSL | 56K
RealMedia
DSL | 56K

I agree. I think those federal dollars could be used...
for other things. It is not like the news is not out there. Kids know more today at 10 or 11 than I knew at 15 or 16. It is discussed on TV ad nauseam, all of the shows aimed at kids have discussed every aspect of sex you can imagine including STDs, AIDS, homosexuality, abortion, keeping a child rather than aborting, birth control, the whole 9 yards. And I figure most parents have had "the talk" with kids. The culture has been created that sex is an expression, it is no longer saved for marriage, multiple partners don't matter and you don't even have to like each other...that is the culture that has been created. No amount of birth control programs, sex ed programs, is going to put that horse back in the barn. We reap what we sow.

So why spend even more federal dollars on this? It makes no sense to me. You do the best you can to talk to your kids and explain the consequences of choices...but in the end, you cannot force them not to engage in premarital sex. It is ultimately their choice, and federally funded programs at this stage in our culture...waste of money in my view, because it is only repeating what is already out there.

Just my two cents.
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?
So, the 2 million dollars went back to Alaska.
nm
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?
8600 earmarks = 6 BILLION DOLLARS!
to that line by line lie Obama told when he wanted to be elected?  He hasn't looked at one page, let one line by line...... thanks to all who put such a thug and liar in office! 
Obama campaign gave over 800K dollars
xx
Obama gave ACORN 800 THOUSAND dollars
nm
I just heard billions of dollars in bigger government...
xx
A trillion dollars being spent, 1100 pages
and the American people aren't allowed to look at it let alone the house and senate don't get time to read it? WTFrig  is that all about?
It wasn't campaign donations that paid for thousands of dollars in kids' travel
nm
take it for what it's worth.....
What exactly do you think the ACLU is going to do?
For what its worth....
Ann Coulter is an entertainer. The left has them too...Michael Moore...Al Franken...and every time she says something outrageous the left runs backwards, gives her a lot of press, and she rakes in the dough. So she keeps saying things, the left keeps running backwards, and she makes more money. Just like Michael Moore, just like AL Franken. I used to hear things on Air America that make Ann Coulter look like little Orphan Annie. But I never heard the left condemn them either. Probably because I have seen some of the left post here things like *a waste of air* talking about another human being, and then in the same breath have another liberal post all the wonderful things liberals are supposed to be like *live and let live.* In other words...some snipes at Republicans who dare to post here near about as hateful as Ann Coulter.

All that being said...she is an entertainer. If the left would stop reacting like she was the devil incarnate every time she opened her mouth, she would go away, just Air America did. If conservatives had run screaming in the streets every time Air America said something controversial, they never would have folded. It is consumer driven, DW...and frankly, right now, the left is driving Ann Coulter more than the right is.
so how much am I worth?
s
Something worth
The "waterboarding" methods used by the Japanese differed significantly from those used by our intelligence operatives. The Japanese often pushed a tube into the prisoner's mouth so that the water would distend the stomach, causing real pain (which our version does not) and ultimately rupturing the stomach. They also had no physicians in attendance to see to the prisoner's safety, as we always did.

So, the fact that the two techniques happen to go by the same name does not make them moral equivalents either in their methods or the way they were conducted.

To paraphrase the dairy industry: Got facts?
What isn't worth fighting for...
Probably a lot of things are worth fighting for...like liberty, to protect our country, to protect our values and ideals.

Unfortunately though it's been a long time since any wars were really fought for those things. They tell us that's what it's all about and we try to buy it, but if we happen to look at the facts closely, we just find out a lot of wealthy people get richer and they use the blood of other people's children to do it. They make up enemies and pour on the propaganda to rile us up so we'll think it's noble to go and die, and make them rich. That's how it seems to me anyway, and history certainly tends to back up that conclusion.

I think the last time we were fighting for worthwhile things was when we wore animal skins and carried wooden spears.
Not even worth a reply -

Truly, someone like this is not worth the energy.
There is no logical thought behind their posts.  Calling me a racist is a silly immature infantile leftist ploy.  We know that.  I learned a long time ago to ignore posters such as this. 
hmmmmmmm - not worth it
xx
Maybe you are not worth the time
nm
So maybe your net worth went up cuz you're
It's also not a viable option for most people.
Worth a Looksie

 


http://news.newsmax.com/?ZKI6Y1SaRsveVj2cAdYJtBQ1z3rkxJU1Z


Like my teacher used to say, if you have nothing worth
xx
Ya think they'll let her keep the $150,000 worth of
and accessories if the numbers don't take 'em over the top on Nov 4th?
and why was that worth reading?
I got nothing from that except that it is one more person who does not like Obama.

There was nothing in there that was not just one person's personal viewpoint - an obvious McCain supporter.
say something worth reading

You are BORING with your same rants day after day.  Especially when they were already discussed on last nights news.  I'm not wasting my time.  Have fun, I guess? 


Old news but worth remembering
Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President




15 September 2002: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'


©2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd


Many Say War Not Worth It; Cheney: 'So?'
Did you see Cheney on the ABC News tonight? You should have seen his smirky grin when he told her "so." He doesn't care what the country thinks about the war.

"On the security front, I think there's a general consensus that we've made major progress, that the surge has worked. That's been a major success," Cheney told ABC News' Martha Raddatz.

When asked about how that jibes with recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, Cheney replied, "So?"

"You don't care what the American people think?" Raddatz asked the vice president.

Yeah - that would be worth watching.

It is worth mentioning that the author
of this article is a a conservative Republican and contributing Editor of Red State, a conservative blog. Since we are always hearing after this or that article about that paper or station being liberal, I think it should be be noted that this is clearly republican and biased on that account.
Anyone who takes Fox tabloid seriously is not worth it and
Fox is a one sided propaganda hateful tabloid. It's quite clear to the intelligent people of this world. Think about it for a minute. Sheesh. They lie. lie lie lie and Hannity is the worst one.
Looks like it was a point worth missing.
you decide to let us in on what that elusive point might be.
Not true and not worth commenting on.
Please do some research before you post things that are not true. Just do a Google search and you will find the truth.

Another fishy story from someone who took the Republican bait hook, line, and sinker!
Not even worth the time - see message
To respond to someone who knows nothing about how the stock market works.

Your just another liberal trying to cut down people that don't believe the way you do and somehow elevate yourself to the elite crowd. No thanks.

DH has made a career working in the stock market, researching, writing articles and providing companies with information on stocks, futures, etc. etc.

Loopey is all the glossy-eye O worshippers who wouldn't know the truth if it hit em in the face. They close their eyes and follow the voice of Farrahkan and others and don't question anything.


Government Spending: Is It Worth $62,000 to You?.....sm


Government Spending: Is It Worth $62,000 to You?

By John R. Lott, Jr.
Author, “Freedomnomics”/Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland

The stimulus bill had to be passed quickly. President Obama warned that not passing it would result in disaster. He warned that any delay was “inexcusable.” The 1,071 page stimulus bill had to be voted on quickly — so quickly this last week that the House and the Senate couldn’t even provide politicians the 48 hours they were supposed to have to read it.

The legislation was not put up on the Web until 11 PM on February 12 and the House passed it just 12 hours later. The Senate started voting on it only hours after that. Politician after politician admitted or complained that it was physically impossible to read the bill. As it was, the copies available on the Web for voters had all sorts of hand markings on it that sometimes made it difficult to figure out exactly what the bill proposed.

Just to let this sink in — the amount of money that the government is committing to spend this year is equivalent to the average taxpayer just writing the government a check today for $62,200.

Despite all this pressure, Obama seems rather laid back after the bill was passed — he doesn’t plan the signing ceremony until Tuesday. As the New York Post noted, after passage, Obama “promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway.” Possibly, Obama’s vacation was well deserved, but why couldn’t Congress have held debate and voted over the weekend or on Monday to allow extra time to read the bill?

It was not just the House and Senate rules that were set aside to get this vote through quickly. Promises were broken also. During the presidential campaign, Obama promised voters at least 5 days to study legislation. Obama’s presidential campaign Web site claimed that any earmark should have a written justification as well as “72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.” Of course, the whole spending bill is at odds with Obama’s promise to cut “net” government spending.

But the Democrats had help ramming this through. Three Republican Senators — Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow, and Susan Collins — could have voted for more time for debate. It was only with all three of their votes that the Democrats were able to reach the exact 60 votes they needed Friday to pass the bill. If any one of these three senators had asked for more time to read the bill and allow others to analyze it, they would have gotten it.

Not only did the final “stimulus” bill have major changes from what had been voted on previously by the House and Senate, but the amount of money involved is staggering. With 90 million tax filers who actually pay taxes, the $787 billion means the average taxpayer will pay over $8,700.

By itself, adding $8,700 to the average tax bill should get everyone’s attention. But that is on top of everything else that we are spending this year. With the stimulus bill, the $700 billion financial bailout (half spent by Bush and half by Obama), and the bailout for the auto companies, this year’s deficit is already at about$1.7 trillion — almost $19,000 per taxpayer. With more possible bailouts for the auto industry and others, that total might rise further.

But the stimulus won’t just raise government expenditures for the next two years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that from 2010 to 2019 government expenditures for just 20 provisions will increase by almost $2.4 trillion. Assuming a 4.5 percent interest rate, that is the equivalent of about $1.9 trillion today. Adding that to the previous total brings the total to about $40,000 owed per taxpayer.

But that is not all the money that taxpayers are going to be on the hook for. Last week, the Obama administration promised another $2 trillion for the financial bailout. The decisions that we are making just this year are adding up to $5.6 trillion — $62,200 per taxpayer. Just to let this sink in — the amount of money that the government is committing to spend this year is equivalent to the average taxpayer just writing the government a check today for $62,200.

Each one of these expenditures are getting pushed through quickly, but it is all adding up. People have to weigh this against benefits such as the $400 per person tax credit that those who make less than $75,000 per year are going to get under the stimulus.

And that is not the end of the costs that we will face this year. From even more health care reforms to environmental regulation and global warming to even more money for autos and other companies, the bills are going to get bigger. Some costs will temporarily be hidden through borrowing, but others will mean higher immediate taxes and higher product prices.

But the average taxpayer faces a simple question: are they getting $62,200 worth of benefits from all these government expenditures this year? If so, they are going to be poorer. My guess is that most of us are going to be a lot poorer.


John R. Lott, Jr. is the author of “Freedomnomics” and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

Funny! The only one with a positive net worth is the bum. :) nm
x
It is long, but worth the watch....
those who are curious should look online for members of the Bilderberg group. What is so amazingly funny about it is that the left used to call it a secret shadowy group and that Cheney and Bush and some other of the right were members and they were the biggg baddd (sorry big bad, no slam on you, seriously) and now that Obama is in and has filled the government with members of the group, well hey...maybe they aren't so bad afterall. Good grief!! Amazing.
She's not worth a debate IMHO...BTDT..nm

One snippet of a sermon does not mean a whole 20 years worth
What I heard was awful, but that does not mean the church was like that for 20 years. I saw an interview with a lady who went to the same church and she said a lot of times the church spoke of love. It was not always hatred. By my next statement you are going to think I'm an "Obama lover" but really I am not. He's no where by means perfect, but I actually do believe he was not in service that day and did not hear that particular service. I believe if that church was spewing hatred Sunday after Sunday after Sunday for 20 years there would be more of the sermons on video tape, but there is only one service. And even at that it's not the whole service, it's one segment of the service. I also find it a little odd that this incident (sermon) happened after he started running for office. I also find it a little odd that one of Hillary's supporters was involved with Jeremiah Wright (involved meaning scheduling his tours, meetings, etc). Don't you think that this could have been a plant by her campaign to have this guy go in (who is actually supporting her), say a bunch of hateful statements, and oh by the way just happened to be videotaped that day, and only that portion of the sermon. Now wouldn't you think that Hillary's campaign would use that against Obama. Kind of have to think about that one. Also think it's quite odd that when it didn't backfire more than what Hillary & Bill thought it would, they started going on an all out rampage against him. I believe Rev. Wright was planted and it backfired on them. What I would have liked to hear was from other church members talking about what their church was about for the past 20 years, not just one segment of one sermon.
Don't listen to him - he's so unimportant not worth my time
I used to listen to Rush all the time....every single day. Loved him when I was for the pubs, hated him when I was for the dems. I don't listen to him anymore whether I agree with some of his viewpoints or not because he is biased. He doesn't listen to reason and he spews that he is speaking truth. He treats all democrats with very little respect (which I think a lot of them deserve more than what he dishes out). Rush has never been for a person (candidate), always just the party. Even when he tries to pay someone a compliment he comes out looking like an uneducated imbicile and pig. I've learned over time that he and Sean Hannity fall into the same category - completely nauseating. So I don't listen to them and I'm completely happy.
I'm glad the article was viewed for what its worth
After I posted I was prepared to get flamed. I used to support Obama until I started reading and learning more about his polices. I could care less about the "Wright" thing or what his wife said. I want to know hard facts. What does he want to lead our country, what are his plans for the economy "back to life". His "tax" plan. What I'm hearing is that everytime he talks he's saying something different, and I'm beginning to not trust that. I also just read that he is now saying he doesn't plan to bring our troops home right away. He'll keep them there another 5 years. So, my trust in him is going downhill very fast. Also I think we all know that both candidates are "run" by others higher than them (bankers, lawyers, the richest of the richest, etc). Each group has their own agenda. Something that is disturbing to me (and I'd have to do a lot of research to find this article again), but I read an article that said the same people who are "running" Obama are the same people who are running Bush. When you do a search on the people who are funding Obama's campaign they are the same people who back Bush and what he does.

I'm glad the article I posted was met with people who appreciate the information and not flame me for posting something that doesn't praise Obama.