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

Get used to broken promises

Posted By: Kathy on 2008-10-17
In Reply to: Trailblazing refusal of public funds, record-breaking fundraising - Brilliant economic/campaign strategy. sm

And squeezing money out of "the middle class".




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

Broken promises.
Obama Breaks Pledge to People Making Under $250K



Today, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) condemns the recent passage of the Waxman-Markey energy/climate bill which passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last night, 33-25, with four Democrats opposing,. ATR is calling on President Obama to keep his pledge.

All of this comes without a peep from President Obama, who promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year. Even House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) says that he has “40-45 votes” to take down the over $600 billion climate tax bill that will cost jobs and increase energy prices.

President Obama said on September 12, 2008 in Dover, New Hampshire:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

He repeated that pledgeon October 22nd in Richmond, VA:

The concerns are still the same; this bill increases the price of energy and taxes all American families, not just those making over $250,000 as President Obama promised:

-Direct energy costs will go up $1,500 per year for the typical family of four.

-Even with a 26% reduction is use, electric bills will be $754 higher in 2035 than in the absence of Waxman-Markey, and $12,200 higher in total from 2012 to 2035.

-Even with a 15% decrease in gas consumption – prices will still go up! A family of four will still pay $596 more in 2035 and $7,500 more in total from 2012 to 2035.

-From 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800.

-On average, employment will be lower by 1,105,000 jobs per year. In some years, cap and trade will reduce employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.

-Waxman-Markey will drive up the national debt 26 percent by 2035. This represents an additional $29,150 per person, or $116,600 for a family of four.

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform said, “It would be very helpful if President Obama would keep just one of his campaign promises and oppose this massive tax hike. If not – we have him on record and he is clearly breaking his ‘pledge’.”


Broken record. Broken rec- hic! Broken
And so forth, ad infinitum.
If he does not keep his promises, I will not...sm
vote for him the next time. Very simple.
promises, promises

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxeFMHyOx3I


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgn2g4NKhZY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM


Not exactly what he promises
There is a lot of debate on his whole tax plan. It doesn't exactly pan out like he promises. On the other hand, the president is not all-powerful, so for much of what any of them promise during their campaign, their hands are tied.


Here's a link.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan

Campaign promises
I didn't vote for Obama, but didn't really like McCain much better. I feel that too many politicians say whatever it takes to get elected and then do whatever they want once getting into office. This goes for Congress, too, and I agreed with the other poster that said Congress is a big part of not letting presidents fullfill thier campaign promises. But it is a combination of both because they all promise basically the same things.

It would be interesting to see if Reagan kept his promises - I was just a young'un then and didn't really pay too much attention to politics - I see a research project! =)

By the way, I doubt you hear it enough, but thank you for being a part of our military and for your service overseas. Our men and women in the military are our country's greatest asset and are definitely people for our country to be proud of.
Name a pres that kept all his campaign promises?
I don't expect him to keep all his promises. In actuality, he really can't. None of the other presidents in my memory have been able to either. That is an unrealistic expectation. They say what they need to say to get elected.
Obama Tax Promises Up In Smoke

Obama plainly, clearly, and unequivocally promised "not one dime" of tax increase on the workers of America. 


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1


...and the point here is NOT whether you smoke or not.  Even if you think that forcing the poor to quit smoking is a beneficial thing, the questions are:


1.  Should Obama be held to his tax promises or not?


2.  If he can raise these taxes, by what stretch of the imagination do you believe other increases will not follow?


3.  Should the government use the power of taxation to enforce policies that it happens to think are beneficial?  If you think so, how about taxing the next package of hamburger you buy a couple of bucks a pound unless it has less than 14% fat?  And your next loaf of bread a buck or two unless it has 0% transfat? Or the next dozen eggs maybe five bucks for the cholesterol?   After all, far more people in this country are obese than smoke.


If I were President, I'd hit every parent with a $10 per day tax if their kids forget to brush their teeth before going to bed (and I'd send jack-booted bed-tooth-inspectors to every house, too!).  Now that would raise some serious coin, and improve the nation's dental health.  Vote for me.


Falling for O's promises, just like Jimmy Carter
nm
All the promises made by President Obama.
President Barrack Obama has made a huge list of promises.  As you can see, some promises he has already broken and we aren't even into his presidency a whole week yet.

 

Foreign Policy


Domestic Policy


President Obama campaign promises
I hope our new President does go to work for our jobs, meaning all American jobs, as he promised.  I did hear him make that promise, but it is not necessarily looking good at this point.  To see his offshoring comments, can be seen at www.loudobbs.com. 
Either side can fail to deliver on promises. My only hope and prayer is that
I'm honestly not 100% sure either one of these candidates can do it so where do people like me fit into the picture? I'm not even sure I will be able to vote for either one, and that's based on my personal values. I don't feel Barack is the man, like many seem to, but I don't feel McCain is, either. I know I'm not alone. I don't believe socialized insurance is the answer, I believe in going after insurance companies that dictate what patients can have done and set premiums too high for people to afford and pharmaceutical companies that pay people off to push their drugs, whether it be doctors, groups, etc. I'd like to see all with tax cuts, not just big companies. Wonderful if they get a break for keeping jobs in the US, but that should be just one of many tax cuts for all, starting with taxes paid at the pump. What about public education? We pay fees and still have to buy extra books and other supplies for our kids' education, yet many children are less educated now out of public high school than ever before because they are too focused on the proficiency tests to actually teach a well-rounded fund of knowledge, so what are the proposals to fix that mess?

No matter who gets elected, they've got quite a job on their hands, and I sincerely doubt either will be able to live up to their promises. And no, I don't necessarily blame Bush for all the problems in this country, but rather I blame all presidents and congress, past and present. Somewhere along the way, it stopped being for the people, that's for sure, and more for their pocketbooks (both Dems AND Repubs). Since so many seem to see Barack as the second coming, I certainly pray that you are right, but I really doubt it. He's had zero experience so who is to say he won't buckle under the load once he realizes what he's gotten into? And McCain isn't my idea of perfection, either, so don't reply by bashing Republicans. I want to hear facts that aren't based on party views but honest-to-goodness facts on who has the best plan in line for these things. And how do you know who is being sincere and who is just making empty campaign promises?
Is it true that Obama's website has scrubbed his 25 campaign promises? sm
I heard they are no longer there, and have been scrubbed off. I looked and can't find them.

Any thoughts on this, or am I looking in the wrong place?
Some Obama campaign promises are put on hold as the economy sinks
More doom and gloom, and more campaign promises will not be kept.

Is it just me, or does our President Elect look less and less, with each passing day, like the man that so many put into this office....and more and more like the rest of knew him to be?


Some Obama campaign promises are put on hold as the economy sinks

BY CELESTE KATZ
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

Sunday, January 11th 2009, 4:00 AM

Tackling the troubled economy is going to require Americans to sacrifice - and it means some campaign promises will have to be put on hold, President-elect Barack Obama says.

"Everybody's going to have to give. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game," Obama said on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" set to air this morning.

Obama's comments came as the President-elect, who takes office Jan. 20, responded to a new national unemployment report by saying in his weekly address Saturday that he'll save or create 3 million to 4 million new jobs.

"Our challenge is going to be identifying what works and putting more money into that, eliminating things that don't work and making things that we have more efficient," Obama said on ABC. "I want to be realistic here. Not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped."

Obama agreed that his administration is going to involve some version of a "grand bargain" - changes in areas like tax reform, Social Security and Medicare will come at a cost.

Addressing the nation as his team released figures on the job situation, Obama said in his weekly radio and video address that 90% of the jobs will be created in the private sector. The remainder are "mainly public sector jobs" such as teachers, cops and firefighters.

The report released by Obama's team Saturday projected the creation of 678,000 new construction jobs and 408,000 manufacturing jobs by next year under an estimated $775 billion stimulus plan.

Among the sources of the new jobs Obama cited: designing more efficient cars and building solar panels, infrastructure roles such as repairing roads and bridges, and jobs in the health care and education sectors.

Obama said economists predict that if Congress doesn't agree on a large-scale stimulus plan, the U.S. will shed as many as 4 million jobs before the recession comes to an end.

Obama also vowed to procure "bipartisan extensions of unemployment insurance and health care coverage" and a $1,000 tax cut for 95% of working families.

"Given the magnitude of the challenges we face, none of this will come easy. Recovery won't happen overnight, and it's likely that things will get worse before they get better," Obama warned.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/11/2009-01-11_some_obama_campaign_promises_are_put_on_-1.html


Interesting to read the promises Roosevelt made when SS was created.
It's just like farm subsidies and so many other things that government gets into and then makes a mess out of.

The promises, incidentally, were basically "our older citizens will not have to live in poverty". Now, SS is nothing more than institutionalized poverty for anyone who has nothing else.

And, incidentally, some of the rhetoric around the time SS was created dealt with the objections some had to the withholding by saying "This way, you won't have to put money into risky stocks because this is guaranteed". In other words, the implication was that you didn't have to provide otherwise for your retirement. The message was very powerful for a generation that had seen the Crash of 29 and the market's performance throughout the Great Depression. Stocks risky! Social Security safe!

I've forgotten the exact age, but I think when SS was formed the average life expectancy was 60 or less. In other words, it counted on most recipients dying off before they collected much if anything!

Well...you can add it up for yourself. We have people living much longer than SS had ever anticipated. We have a climate where you can't reduce benefits and you can't increase withholdings. And we have not allowed people (other than federal employees!) to opt out of SS so they could invest the withholdings in things that might have performed much better. (Notice how right this minute YOU are probably thinking about our own crash, but the fact is that SS has not even done that well).

I agree that it sounds good to introduce means-testing so wealthy people aren't receiving benefits, but on other grounds I can't go along with what would just be another example of treating some people differently than others.
I would like to see this broken down....
what was the cause of death, into specifics. Like what was the leading cause of infant death? I doubt that it is due to disparity in access to health care among racial and income groups. What "doctors and analysts?" This is a very broad article and I am thinking the specifics would paint a different picture, which is why they are not included.
McSocialist promises to SHARE THE WEALTH from offshore drilling revenues

At least he and SP seem to be on the same page today.  SP:  "...and Alaska - we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"....boasting to a reporter of having been able to send a check for $1,200 to every man, woman and child in the state since, quote "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources.”


 


Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective..sm
Election 2008: Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective

By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist

Today we will almost surely elect Barack Obama President of the United States. A new generation will vote for Mr. Obama –- a generation that has grown up with the Internet. This new crop of voters has access to more information than any that came before, and yet has swallowed Obama’s impossible campaign promises and contradictory policies just as trustingly as those who in earlier times looked for a chicken in every pot.

Welcome to the disillusionment of another generation. I don’t anticipate this inevitable consequence of today’s election with any glee, believe me. To see young people turning out in droves to vote for this eloquent, attractive young man is inspiring. To hear them buy into his promises, though, is sobering.

For instance, we are told that the image of the United States has suffered mightily under George Bush, and that Obama is going to usher in a veritable global love-fest. Would those falling over themselves to herald our new president include the peoples of South Korea and Colombia –- allies both — whose much-needed free trade agreements with the U.S. Obama has opposed?

How about our neighbors in Canada or Mexico; will Obama’s promised re-write of NAFTA endear them to the U.S.? Is it possible that Obama’s opposition to free trade demonstrates his gratitude to labor unions –- groups that aroused his ire by donating to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns but suddenly were much more warmly welcomed when they began shifting funds his way?

Over a year ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column defending the status quo against the pressing demand for “Change” writ large. While politicians of all stripes were heralding new directions, they were ignoring, for example, that the U.S. has been blessed for many years with low inflation. Voters in their 30s and 40s could not be expected to remember the devastating inflation of the 1970s. They couldn’t be expected to understand how double-digit price hikes threw the fear of God into retirees on fixed incomes and created the same kind of paralysis in lending that we are witnessing today.

They might not connect the dots between Obama’s enthusiasm for the Employee Free Choice Act, a resurgence of unionization, and wage-driven inflation. They might not realize that restricting trade with China, re-writing NAFTA and barring adoption of free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea will indeed drive prices higher.

The United States has also enjoyed a period of stable employment. The new generation has never seen serious unemployment. True, they have witnessed shifts in employment as manufacturing jobs have been lost to lower-priced locales. But they have never seen unemployment rates go much above 6%, where it is now. In 1982, when unemployment reached 9.7%, Obama was 21 years old. I doubt he was much focused on the dismal state of the economy. Voters, however, were focused, and gave Ronald Reagan a mandate to set the country on a new course –- one which encouraged growth through lower taxes, expanded trade and deregulation.

That program was adopted by both Democrats and Republicans because it worked. People in their thirties and forties cannot imagine that raising taxes on successful people might harm the economy. That’s because they weren’t around to witness the exodus of talent from England –- a country wherein punitive marginal tax rates squashed incentives and drove out anyone who could locate elsewhere. Margaret Thatcher didn’t just join the Reagan Revolution –- she clung to it for dear life.

What young voters have seen, and have responded to, is the collapse of Wall Street. Because bankers, politicians and speculators conspired to create the worst investment bubble in modern times, we are about to abandon the policies that brought millions of people around the world into the middle class. Policies that gave people real hope –- not just its rhetorical facsimile. This is a tragedy.



http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/lpeek_1104/#more-2415


Yup, it's that same old broken record.
X
Your thinker is broken.
Or at least, badly warped. Have you ever actuallyr read any of Obama's policies or plans, or to you just get your information out of the hate blogs and off of Fox Noise? Obama has an energy plan that addresses, among other things, price of gas (not so much of an issue at the moment). Obama believes that the economy cannot recover without restructuring mortgages to mitigate 1 and every 10 American going into foreclosure (according to the latest stats on that).

If you had been equipped knowledge of any of this, you would have understood what the girl was talking about. Instead, you have just assumed she is looking for an hand-out/freebie. Your thinking is so jumbled, it is difficult to address it. The people who in times of uncertainty cling to their religion and guns, i.e., those things that they are familiar with and hold dear, are rural folks, HARDLY wealthy, by any estimation.

Your thinking is so poisoned with hatred, there really is no point in even trying to reason with you. Enjoy your ignorance.
Your thinker is broken.
Or at least, badly warped. Have you ever actuallyr read any of Obama's policies or plans, or to you just get your information out of the hate blogs and off of Fox Noise? Obama has an energy plan that addresses, among other things, price of gas (not so much of an issue at the moment). Obama believes that the economy cannot recover without restructuring mortgages to mitigate 1 and every 10 American going into foreclosure (according to the latest stats on that).

If you had been equipped knowledge of any of this, you would have understood what the girl was talking about. Instead, you have just assumed she is looking for an hand-out/freebie. Your thinking is so jumbled, it is difficult to address it. The people who in times of uncertainty cling to their religion and guns, i.e., those things that they are familiar with and hold dear, are rural folks, HARDLY wealthy, by any estimation.

Your thinking is so poisoned with hatred, there really is no point in even trying to reason with you. Enjoy your ignorance.
perhaps your thinker is broken
Religion has no geographic or socioeconomic boundaries. People do not "cling to their religion in times of uncertainty." People embrace their religion as a way to live. Gun ownership also crosses geographic and socioeconomic boundaries. Seen an NRA membership list??? You think those are all people who are "hardly wealthy by any estimation." Perhaps you should have equipped yourself with knowledge of this.
Is your remote broken? (sm)
You might want to try just unplugging the TV.  If it sickens you so much, why do you keep watching?
Once again....another broken promise by the big O.

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?


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.


My house has been broken into, as well...
a far cry from a war on our soil.
Yawn same broken record
that keeps sticking on the same note.
They all sound like a broken record.sm
I think they all learned this from Hannity on Fox. They call everyone asking questions conspiratory theorists, or if they cannot shoot the message they focus the blame on Clinton. The one thing they never do is answer THE QUESTIONS. Here is a link to an article on Hannity's histrionics on 911.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/10/23/hannitys_hackneyed_histrionics_over_911.php

If it is broken, why haven't they fixed it?

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?

Strange silence now broken.

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. 

You may not direct me anywhere in history on this subject that would attempt to blur the division between military and diplomatic initiatives.  Hello.  These are mutually exclusive concepts and one is designed to prevent the other.  Got it?  Where is JMs diplomacy?  In the past 16 years, which party has demonstrated the ability to balance the budget and create surplus.  Hey sambo, who turned a $559 billion surplus into a $400 billion deficit in just 8 years?  Looks like there already has been a trillion-dollar screw-up that the next administration will be having to clean up.  Wonder which party has the most credibility on this one?  

Your prescription for poverty sounds like it was lifted straight out of O's plan.  Read it before you try to claim it for the party who would ridicule it.  My post ends here because the remainder of yours is recycled communist/socialist innuendo that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand.  And the top of the evening to you too, dear. 

Isn't this the first time either of them has broken the 50-mark?
nm
This is like listening to a broken record! (nm)
It just keeps skipping back and repeating the same thing over and over and over. Do have these comments set up in a word Expander to save time and keystrokes?
BC fanatics, the broken record.
x
No dog? ANOTHER campaign promise broken?
I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that the "tax cuts for 95% of Americans" will "not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill".

That's good, Obama. Some leadership! And blame it on the legislature. That's your MO, isn't it,Obama? Blame everything on everyone else.

You love to have your cake and eat it too, don't you, you pathetic L O S E R.
Yet another campaign promise broken..... sm



This originally included pictures, but apparently they would not post here.

 

A Boeing 757 and a fleet of armored cars for Michelle’s sight seeing tour!



Michelle One




On Sunday, President Obama flew back to the United States on Air Force One. His wife, two daughters and her mother did a bit of shopping in Paris before taking their own Boeing 757 (C-32) over to London to do some sight seeing.



We all remember Obama’s admonishment to corporate CEO’s in February:



“You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”



Apparently that doesn’t apply to his wife.



The London Times opened it’s description of Michelle’s visit this way:




Motorcycle outriders, armoured Chevrolets and bullet-headed men in raincoats criss-crossed London yesterday as Michelle Obama and her daughters spent a second day on an unofficial visit to the capital.



The Times went on to describe that when Michelle and the girls arrived at Westminster Abbey, the building was closed to tourists with people already in told to “wait against the wall.” An American visiting the Abbey said “Right then I knew it was probably someone from our ‘royal family’.”

 




Michelle’s motorcade shut down the London street above as the First Lady of the World and her children go for Fish and Chips at a pub in Mayfair . The entourage inside the restaurant was 15 people while dozens more wait outside. Include the dozens of Air Force personnel to fly and service the plane, embassy personnel and other staff and we are talking about a serious expenditure of tax payer dollars.



Meanwhile, millions of Americans have lost their jobs and won’t be able to take their family on a summer holiday. Despite their circumstances they’ll still be expected to fork over the tax dollars to pay for Michelle’s trip!




 

I solved the problem with the broken link
When I first clicked the link I noticed the OOPS! page not found, so I looked at the address bar of the URL and the link had a " at the end of it. So I erased the " after the htm and it worked just find.

Here is the link

http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm
More like Clinton's broken promise to cut our taxes

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


During Clinton the National Debt was:






















































Fiscal
Year
Year
Ending
National Debt Deficit
FY1993  09/30/1993  $4.411488 trillion  
FY1994  09/30/1994  $4.692749 trillion  $281.26 billion
FY1995  09/29/1995  $4.973982 trillion  $281.23 billion
FY1996  09/30/1996  $5.224810 trillion  $250.83 billion
FY1997  09/30/1997  $5.413146 trillion  $188.34 billion
FY1998  09/30/1998  $5.526193 trillion  $113.05 billion
FY1999  09/30/1999  $5.656270 trillion  $130.08 billion
FY2000  09/29/2000  $5.674178 trillion  $17.91 billion
FY2001  09/28/2001  $5.807463 trillion  $133.29 billion


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.


http://www.letxa.com/articles/16


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


You're a broken record. How about providing some

Roberts certainly has more credentials and work experience than you do.


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.


No idea....looked like maybe a broken blood vessel?
It DID look bad.
Broken Record...just keeps skipping back and repeating!
Can you guys please come up with some new material already. Hearing the same mantra over and over and over again is getting annoying!
Broken record, skip, skip, skip
You just keep repeating the same things over and over and over again. Please, find something new to say!
Broken Record...skip, skip, skip, skip.
I guess that is what you do when you run out of anything important to say!