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

Finally, a clear, concise explanation of ""The Plan". check out link

Posted By: sm on 2009-04-16
In Reply to:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224262&title=Elizabeth-Warren-Pt.-2


Wow, common sense!!




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

Sign is clear, concise, and not offensive.
This sign represents the feelings of many US citizens. As such, it belongs alongside all of the other religious displays at this time of year. Personally, I love it!
If his tax plan scares you, check out his Global Poverty Act. Link inside.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405
Finally, a man with a plan. That's what I'm talking about.

End of 2006?
On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.


“By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready,” he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.


check out this link
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/surrender/smobama.jpg
his plan for healthcare - see link inside -
http://www.govcentral.com/news/2275-obama-vs-mccain-health-care-plan-overview
Link for the stimulus plan inside - updates...
daily:
http://readthestimulus.org/
You should check your facts before you post - see link
Anyone looking for Barack Obama's real sentiments about whites, blacks and Muslims won't find them in this scurrilous collection of falsified, doctored and context-free "quotations." The e-mail claims to feature words taken from Obama's books, "The Audacity of Hope" (2006) and "Dreams from My Father" (1995, republished in 2004). But we found that two of the quotes are false, and others have been manipulated or taken out of context.

We have received many inquiries about this from readers whose suspicions were aroused, with good reason. Aside from the fact that the e-mail incorrectly cites the title of Obama's book as "Dreams of My Father," rather than "Dreams from My Father," you may have noticed that none of the quotes in this e-mail contain page references. This should be a sign to any reader that the author is trying to pull a fast one, betting that you won't take the time to read through all 806 pages of Obama's books to get to the facts.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
Check the date on your link. Four years ago.
in 2008, now that the free market has gone belly up under the weight of its own corruption.
You have to check and double check every single thing they say. They're not capable of telling t
truth about anything.  It's getting very boring and tedious to read their crap.  Why won't they stay on their own board like they tell us to do?
explanation

It is the thought that everyone, no matter what situation they were born in, is solely responsible for their own  misfortunes. It is the thought that what is yours is yours and you are never under any obligation to help anyone in need.  It is the philosophy that government's only duty is to fight wars and sometimes pave the roads.  It is the philosophy that if you are 80, handicapped, and have no family or vehicle in which to escape a natural disaster, it is your choice to remind in a natural disaster and the consequences are your problem.


 


No one had given me an explanation still. Because you don't have one. nm
x
explanation
I haven't seen him show any disrespect to the flag, EVER! Can you show an example of actual DISRESPECT?
And there is still no explanation..(sm)

of *the reality of O.*


Explanation...........

They ALL spend like drunken sailors.  Didn't Clinton (at least) leave us with a balanced budget?  I have a granddaughter in Brownsville, Tx, and kids in Houston so I get a weekly report on how bad the illegal situation is.


People can blame the Democrat congress of the past 2 years and don't get me wrong, I think they all need to be sent to the moon,  but Bush and his Republican majority didn't work out so well did they?


I'll take the promise of change over more of the same.  At least we can change the change we don't like if we're of a mind to. But before we do that the "rabid" Republicans AND Democrats need to get over it.


DEFINITION OF RABID REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT:  A person who has such tunnel vision regarding their "party" that they can't see past the end of their nose.


Explanation
Republicans on this board have been calling Democrats sheeple...sheep people I think.
Partial explanation perhaps?

I've been noticing that quite often when there is a conservative belief/claim being put forth repeatedly on this board (right now it's that Republicans always do the right thing and admit to their behavior and resign versus the Democrats who never do the right thing/can't admit their behavior and never resign), when doing research I find that the posters on this board are simply regurgitating what they are reading on the many far-right blogs/newsletters/publications.  It's almost word for word.  THere have been many examples in the past besides this most recent rant.  At this point it seems that the far-rights are guilty of being unable to have original thoughts.  Now let's see if they can do the right thing and admit it.......(laughter here, please).


On a more serious note, I never saw Clinton referred to as a serial rapist until reading this board.  Once again, upon checking this out I see multiple, multiple references on -- you guessed it - multiple far-right-crazy political blogs/newsletters, etc......you get the idea.  The thing that I find worrisome, though, is that we have been requested repeatedly not to bash Bush on this board in any fashion, yet past presidents (especially those that are Democrats) are fair game for any manner of accusations.  If we shouldn't question Bush's decisions (as an example) because of how it will look to other countries who might read this forum, how does it look to call our former president a serial rapist?


Sam explains it very well, see her explanation below....nm

Good explanation! nm
x
This is not an intelligent explanation
First, if the administration was pushing for good things for our country, not taking the country down the path of socialism/communism and had a good plan for the future to get us on the road to recovery, everyone would want him to succeed. But since he is not and we're on the brink of depression/socialism with no hopes for the future and no plans to help Americans, more unemployment ahead, more people losing homes, etc, yes we want "that" to fail (not "him", we want "that" to fail). If it was anyone else in the seat doing the same actions I would wish for the same thing. If Hillary, Mit Romney, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, etc had the same exact failing policies that are being pushed on us now I would have the same opinion.

I've listed to plenty of their lies they are spewing. This is not an "intelligent explanation about the plan for this country". This is another distortion and lies to us and we are tired of it.

Calling people un-American because they are tired of being lied to is really un-Patriotic.
It's quite simple and doesn't need an explanation...sm
Get your hands (control) in areas that product oil, i.e., Iraq.
Thx - your explanation helped me understand it better
I understand that it had to be done, however, I guess I'm wondering is who is going to end up paying for it. Is it going to be us (people who make around $30K or so), or will it be the super wealthy millionaire, billionaire, and then the gluttonous people like Soros - now there's someone whose a slime lizzard). I did find this article written by Motley Fools. They are pretty good for writing things that even I can understand and they wrote an article listing the people responsible. So, I guess my questions is...Are the people who are responsible for letting this happen going to be responsible to get it fixed. After all, if I have a business and I run it into the ground nobody but me is going to pay for it. Anyway...think this is a good article...

http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/10/the-people-responsible-for-fannie-mae-and-freddie-.aspx

Thats a great explanation (no message)
x
Not that you are owed any explanation for what we chose to post...sm
because anyone who wants to come on the liberal board and post liberally and respectfually can. From your tone, I would think you were not a liberal.

FYI, we have discussed the Gitmo decision, and you or anyone else is welcome to post *important legislation* coming up. I'm sure there will be in response to the Gitmo judgement.

The firing off of misses by North Korea is a few days old and I'm waiting to see how the government reacts. I mean we went into Iraq for so-called stockpiles of WMDs and yet N. Korea is test firing their missles and the White House says there is no threat, so this tells me one or two things. #1. There was equally no threat in Iraq. OR #2. We are more ambivalent to fight in N. Korea than we were in Iraq, especially since our troops are already spread out.

Thanks for your input new blood. Feel free to open a debate of your own if that's what you want to see happen, but if you are a conservative here to stir the pot spare us and yourself the annoyance.
Important: An explanation we can understand.....see inside
Please read this, as this is finally an explanation in terms we can understand, of what this 700 billion plan will entail.

I hope they go into more details once it's all decided.




September 27, 2008

President's Radio Address




THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Many Americans are anxious about their finances and their future. On Wednesday, I spoke to the Nation, and thanked Congress for working with my Administration to address the instability in our financial system. On Thursday, I hosted Senator McCain, Senator Obama, and congressional leaders from both parties at the White House to discuss the urgency of passing a bipartisan rescue package for our economy.

The problems in our economy are extremely complex, but at their core is uncertainty over "mortgage-backed securities." Many of these financial assets relate to home mortgages that have lost value during the housing decline. In turn, the banks holding these assets have restricted credit, and businesses and consumers have found it more difficult to obtain affordable loans. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I proposed that the Federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently needed money to help banks and other financial institutions avoid collapse and resume lending.

I know many of you listening this morning are frustrated with the situation. You make sacrifices every day to meet your mortgage payments and keep up with your bills. When the government asks you to pay for mistakes on Wall Street, it does not seem fair. And I understand that. And if it were possible to let every irresponsible firm on Wall Street fail without affecting you and your family, I would do it. But that is not possible. The failure of the financial system would mean financial hardship for many of you.

The failure of the financial system would cause banks to stop lending money to one another and to businesses and consumers. That would make it harder for you to take out a loan or borrow money to expand a business. The result would be less economic growth and more American jobs lost. And that would put our economy on the path toward a deep and painful recession.

The rescue effort we're negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street -- it is aimed at your street. And there is now widespread agreement on the major principles. We must free up the flow of credit to consumers and businesses by reducing the risk posed by troubled assets. We must ensure that taxpayers are protected, that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars, and that there is a bipartisan board to oversee these efforts.

Under the proposal my Administration sent to Congress, the government would spend up to $700 billion to buy troubled assets from banks and other financial institutions. I know many Americans understand the urgency of this action, but are concerned about such a high price tag. Well, let me address this directly:

The final cost of this plan will be far less than $700 billion. And here's why: As fear and uncertainty have gripped the market for mortgage-related assets, their price has dropped sharply. Yet many of these assets still have significant underlying value, because the vast majority of people will eventually pay off their mortgages. In other words, many of the assets the government would buy are likely to go up in price over time. This means that the government will be able to recoup much, if not all, of the original expenditure.

Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have contributed constructive proposals that have improved this plan. I appreciate the efforts of House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders to bring a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to these discussions. Our Nation's economic well-being is an issue that transcends partisanship. Republicans and Democrats must continue to address it together. And I am confident that we will pass a bill to protect the financial security of every American very soon.

Thank you for listening.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080927.html
A good explanation of the polls and margins...sm
Pollsters Struggle to Handicap Presidential Race

Barack Obama's leading in virtually every national poll, but his margin fluctuates wildly -- suggesting that in some cases, the numbers do in fact lie.


Barack Obama's been leading John McCain in almost every national poll since late September, and it may seem like he's got the election all sewn up.

But the Democratic presidential nominee's margin has fluctuated wildly, anywhere from 1 to 13 points in the past two weeks alone. And a few recent polls are even within the margin of error, suggesting McCain could actually be leading among certain sets of voters.

This doesn't mean the surveys are masking a widespread McCain advantage -- he's still trailing in most major battlegrounds needed to secure the election. But survey disparities are so great this year as to suggest that the numbers, contrary to the old adage, sometimes do lie.

Part of the problem? The sheer amount of polls being conducted across the country.

FOX News political analyst Karl Rove said by his count, there have been 177 national polls conducted as of Oct. 24, compared with 55 at the same time in 2004.

"The proliferation of polls, particularly polls run by universities that may not have the skill and capability that a professional polling outfit has, are really not helpful to the process, in my opinion," Rove said.

But some of the inconsistencies in the polls this year can also be traced to the method used by the pollsters.

The "expanded" Gallup poll, unlike the "traditional" one, includes those citizens who call themselves likely voters but who've never actually voted before.

"This year, I think all pollsters are concerned about how they're defining 'likely' voters, and trying to understand turnout," FOX News polling director Dana Blanton said. "There's been so much attention placed on new registration and enthusiasm among the electorate, and it's just -- it's extremely hard to figure out that, that piece of the puzzle."

Obama held a 10-point lead Monday in Gallup's expanded poll, but only a 5-point lead in their traditional poll.

Karlyn Bowman, who studies public opinion for the American Enterprise Institute, urged voters to examine the wording and sequencing of a poll's questions, to be wary of sudden spikes -- and to shop around.

"If you see a huge change in let's say the McCain-Obama margin overall, you might want to think about whether or not there has been something that's happened that would produce that kind of extraordinary change," she said. "But I think it's important to look at one poll, and then to compare that poll to other polls, and that's the way you can be an educated consumer."

A survey of the polling landscape shows the latest CBS News/New York Times poll to be the outlier, placing Obama up by 13 points.

A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll last week had Obama up by 9 points.

Investor's Business Daily, which came closest to nailing the race between President Bush and John Kerry in 2004 (within four-tenths of a point), has the current presidential race within the margin of error. And The Associated Press recently reported a virtual tie.

With polls still fluctuating but mostly showing Obama in the lead, the Illinois senator says he's taking nothing for granted.

"Don't believe for a second this election is over. Don't think for a minute that power concedes," Obama said Monday in Canton, Ohio. "We have to work like our future depends on it in this last week, because it does depend on it in this last week."

McCain, meanwhile, is pledging to stun the pundits on Election Day.

"Let me give you the state of the race today. There's eight days to go. We're a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they've done before," McCain said Monday in Ohio. "Senator Obama's measuring the drapes ... You know I guess I'm old fashioned about these things. I prefer to let the voters weigh in before predicting the outcome."

Both Blanton and Bowman said there appears to be no evidence of a so-called "bandwagon effect" in American elections -- the idea that widespread dissemination of polling data trending a certain way will cause voters to in turn move in that direction. Such an effect might have led to a Hillary Clinton-Rudy Giuliani pairing, once the favorites in their respective races.

Experts say the "bandwagon" effect might be more common in places like Israel or Great Britain, where election cycles are much shorter.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/dont-like-polls-wait-minutes/
The best explanation I've heard thus far for economic crisis..(sm)
The Real Deal

So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:


  • The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.


  • Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.


  • Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.


  • Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.


  • The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.


  • Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.


  • Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.


  • Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.


  • The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.


  • An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.


  • Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

–by Joe Miller and Brooks Jackson


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html


To "the truth is out there"

I tried to email you and don't think I had a problem, but please check your email to see if you received anything from me.  (Hope so.)


Will be leaving the computer for a bit but will be back later this afternoon.


Have a great day! 


"The great unwashed??"

American citizens practing their right to free speech.


 


Jon Stewart - "The Miami Seven" sm
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/26/tds-the-miami-seven/
Describing Sam as "the pub bully" says all I need
nm
In "The World According to Sam", the Dems are
They caused the 9/11 attacks. They caused World War II. They caused Jesus to be crucified. They even caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. When the sun finally burns out and implodes upon itself, that'll be the Democrats' fault, as well.
"The wisdom of the Clinton Presidency..."
ohhhhh to quote reville guffaw guffaw GUFFAW guffaw lol
"The Living Dead" Yes, perfect!
nm
I remember "The Grit!" It was a great
little newspaper, akin to USA Today.  He used to sell it at the neighborhood grocery store when he was about 10.  He was a real go-getter and really funny.  He died in 1997, miss him, but I want to thank you for the memory :)
Obama truly believes he is "the one". McCain would
nm
Oprah calls O "The One". The man is a politician,
nm
"The truth about South Ossetia"

Remember in the last couple of months when McCain announced, "Today, we are all Georgians"?


I think Putin is taking a "wait and see" approach to the new USA President.  Bush has certainly heated up the "Cold War" during his eight years in office.  While there is not much reason to trust Putin, there's even less reason for Putin to trust the USA.


We can't forget the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia and, more importantly, the sequence of events related to that conflict.  I would encourage anyone who has forgotten that Georgia was the aggressor (with our help) to click on the link below.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/31/russia-georgia


 


Bush, "The Decider" still has time

to use them, to create even more havoc, wars, etc.


I'll feel much safer after Obama takes his oath of office (assuming he actually has the opportunity to do so).


O'Reilly, etc. are not "the regular news."

Try watching the morning news at 6 a.m. or during the day until 5-6 p.m. That's the news I'm talking about.


O'Reilly and the others are like Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman, and all those other fellas. They are more like a political talk shows. That's not news.


I meant I saw "the" post below - oops
Try getting out on the other side of the bed is right.

I was referring to the posts saying "Please do not feed the troll", and "Back under the bridge, Troll".

But guess you just like to plagarize what other people write.
John "the fundamentals of the economy
NM
John "The Economy is doing Well" McCain? nm
x
Right. "The people" that he cares about so darn
nm
Ogden Nash..."The Rhinoceros" - sm
The rhino is a homely beast,
For human eyes he's not a feast.
Farewell, farewell, you old rhinoceros,
I'll stare at something less prepoceros.
I sure wouldn't mind having that car! ("The Beast")
definitely come in handy for those times when I have to drive through East Oakland and the Raiders have won,
or in San Francisco during Critical Mass. A hood-mounted bazooka wouldn't be half bad either, for those massive tieups on the Bay Bridge.
;)
With respect to "the brush," didn't...
...he say recently (I'm paraphrasing here) that he'll still have the brush, but since he's no longer governor, the brush will be smaller.  LOL!
Read PK's post below that begins with "The key words are"

"The reign in Spain falls mainly on McCain".
nm
"The First thing I will do as president is sign the FOCA" sm

The Audacity of FOCA



BY The Editors



As the election quickly approaches, the U.S. bishops are shining a harsh spotlight on one bill: the Freedom of Choice Act, commonly called FOCA. FOCA is again before Congress; its chief sponsor in the Senate is Barbara Boxer and one of its co-sponsors is presidential candidate Barack Obama.


In July 2007, Obama told a Planned Parenthood audience: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” Search YouTube.com for the words “Obama” and “FOCA” to hear it for yourself. Since Obama has said that signing FOCA into law would be his first priority as a new president, summarizing the bill answers the question: For what change does Barack Obama have the audacity to hope?


The U.S. bishops’ summary of FOCA points out:


• It creates a “fundamental right” to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. No governmental body at any level would be able to “deny or interfere with” this right, or to “discriminate” against the exercise of this right “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” For the first time, abortion would become an entitlement the government must condone and promote.


• Some states require that women be told about the risks of abortion. FOCA would erase all informed-consent laws states have enacted.


• Many states require that parents be informed and sign off on their daughters’ abortions, just as they are informed and involved in every other surgical procedure. FOCA would override and end all parental-involvement laws.


• Some states have laws promoting maternal health. Obama’s FOCA wouldn’t allow them.


• Regulation on abortion “clinics” helps keep these businesses responding to health and safety concerns. FOCA would end these regulations.


• FOCA would disallow “government programs and facilities that pay for or promote childbirth and other health care without subsidizing abortion,” say the U.S. bishops.


• Conscience-protection laws would end. These currently allow Catholic and other pro-life hospitals, doctors, medical students and health-care workers to opt out of participating in abortion in many places.


• After FOCA, any laws that prohibit a particular abortion procedure, such as partial-birth abortion, will no longer be in force.


• FOCA would also strike laws requiring that abortions only be performed by a licensed physician.


For a careful legal analysis of FOCA by the U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel, or a summary fact sheet to distribute, see NCHLA.org.


In a Sept. 19 letter to members of Congress, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, raised the bishops’ concerns about any possible consideration of FOCA.


Despite its deceptive title, FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry,” wrote Cardinal Rigali. It would also “counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.”


Yup - that's what I thought "The O" is spending over 170K on his coronation
Real good logic there. NOT
"The Spew" lol. perfect. I have lost ALL respect for
nm