I never said I made $250K a year... where did you get that from my post?...sm
Posted By: Me too on 2008-09-09
In Reply to: YOU MAKE OVER $250,000 a year - sm
Actually, I work one full-time MT job and a part-time general transcription off and on. I make less than $38,000 a year. My husband is self-employed (we own a ranch) and everything we make from the sale of our livestock and grains has to go back into the operation of the ranch for property taxes, insurance, feed, equipment, repairs, so at best, we break even, and even that doesn't happen often. So we basically live on what I make as an MT, which is less than $38,000 a year.
Yes, it can be done. We do not apply for, nor take any of the government subsidies. We've worked hard and scrimped and saved, and have also sold aluminum cans to help with extra cash coming in, etc. I've always shopped thrift shops for clothes for us and the kids, I've never bought new furniture, have no china or crystal, and the only jewelry I've ever owned was my wedding ring, so couldn't fall back on having the option of selling things such as these to help out.
We've actually been rather comfortable with this and have always felt like we weren't missing out on anything by living a very simple and quiet life. But now I'm afraid we're going to lose what we've worked so hard for because we can't afford any more taxes to pay for those who won't work hard.
I could go on disability due to some physical problems and inability to do probably 99% of jobs out there, but my physical disability doesn't keep me from doing MT work, and I can make a decent living doing that, so why not? If at some point in my life something happens that I can no longer do MT, then I'll have no choice but go on disability because I can't stand/walk/move around in order to get most other jobs out there, but for now I have a choice to work doing something I can do, and I choose to do that.
Most people I know on disability have other skills and could be doing other jobs, but they'd rather take the label of disabled and never work again. I choose to work at what I can do until I can't do it anymore.
I know one gal who was on disability and was offered a great job that paid over $2000 a month, but she would lose her disability, so didn't take the job... when I asked her how much her disability was, it was only $1300 a month! Duh... And the thing is, she would be great in that position and would have been a wonderful asset to the community doing that job. Just didn't make sense to me.
I feel for your situation and I don't think that things like your disabled child being on SSI or whatever is ''on the dole'' because those are exactly the people we as fellow Americans need to be helping. I'm sorry for your health situation and that is most tragic as it can happen to anyone.
The people I'm talking about are the ones who have no major health problems, no job, but could get a job if they wanted to, but welfare pays better, so they don't. My daughter works in a field where she sees daily where parents are dropping kids off at a daycare which is paid for through the social services office, and they go sit in the casino and gamble and smoke cigarettes. How much is a pack of smokes these days, $5? That's $150 a month that could pay for heating your house, putting food on your table, etc., but they don't need the money for those things because they are on programs to get those paid for too.
I'm not pointing a finger at you or people who have real problems and can't work, it's the abusers of the system that I'm upset about. I know of one couple who just a few years ago traveled on a vacation to Tokyo and got to leave their five adopted children with a foster care service absolutely free. This woman used to complain that she only got 15 hours a week of ''respite'' babysitting service.... I raised my kids and probably never had 15 hours total away from them in all the years they grew up as I didn't have family around where I lived and couldn't afford a babysitter. This particular family drives new vehicles, has memberships to clubs, eat out all the time as it's too hard for the mom to cook for so many people, etc., and they have no jobs or any other income. How do they do that?
Again, I'm just saying, we have always made as much as we could and spent as little as we could get by with and were perfectly happy that it balanced out enough that we could live on our own without having to take any freebies from anybody, and if we have to pay more taxes in the future, that balance is going to be upset, and I don't want to lose what we've worked so hard for.
I don't know which candidate is going to be able to do anything about our healthcare situation, but I believe your medical situation is a prime example of how the messed up healthcare industry is bringing decent people down and something needs to be done about it... But I can't afford my own medical care, how can you expect me to pay for everyone else's?
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
Holycrap! You make more than 250K a year!
How did you do that with MT jobs?
He never said that he made over $250K
He said that he wanted to buy a business that he thought made over $250K. I thought that it was okay to have dreams. How do you know what his intentions are? Even if he were a plant--which I think is silly--he is a citizen and ultimately has a right to propose a hypothetical question to someone asking for his vote to be the leader of our country. If he is attacked in this manner, should we not all fear what will happen if we say anything bad about Obama or ask a question that makes him look bad once he is--if he is--elected?
Fact remains, she has made executive decisions for a year and a half...
as governor, and before that as a mayor. He has made none. Zero, zilch, nada. The only time she will "legislate" is if she has to vote to break a tie Not hardly the same thing as running a state...or a country.
Your post almost made me cry. Thank you. (sm)
I can't thank you enough for such a compassionate post. You're right. I would give anything to not be in this position, though I am grateful that Medicaid exists for people like me. It's the "people like me" caricature that causes my shame and self-disgust. I was brought up to believe that only the dregs (sp?) of humanity are on Medicaid assistance.
To me, it represents a myriad of losses: My loss of control over my own life and ability to earn an income, my loss of control over the devastating things my body is doing to me, my loss of control over my own self-reliance, and my loss of self-esteem.
If more people were as compassionate as you are, this country would be a much better place.
Thank you again for the kindest of responses I could have hoped for. 
Your post almost made me cry. Thank you. (sm)
I can't thank you enough for such a compassionate post. You're right that my absence on this board is a direct result of my health problems, and you're right that I would give anything to not be in this position, though I am grateful that Medicaid exists for people like me. It's the "people like me" caricature that causes my shame and self-disgust. I was brought up to believe that only the dregs (sp?) of humanity receive Medicaid assistance.
To me, it represents a myriad of losses: My loss of control over my own life and ability to earn an income, my loss of control over the devastating things my body is doing to me, my loss of control over my own self-reliance, and my loss of self-esteem.
If more people were as compassionate as you are, this country would be a much better place.
Thank you again for the kindest of responses and wishes that I could have ever hoped for in this forum. I can't even begin to explain how good you have made me feel.
The post made sense to me......just because
a man and woman may not be able to reproduce certainly doesn't mean God intended for those of the same sex to get together. The Bible also speaks to those who can't have children of their own. It does give you a place to go for comfort; the Bible never said every couple would be able to have children of their own. But it most certainly does speak AGAINST homosexuality.
Do you even see how you took this post and made it into a racial epithet?
gt, I would recommend an immediate self-examination as to your thought processes.
The post about oatmeal wasn't made by MM. sm
It was made by Allahpundit on Hot Air, which is a website MM started.
Your post is disgusting. Mistakes were made, but
nm
Read the post I made above. This time it was...
Democrat greed or ignorance...I don't know which...but either way they are responsible.
Good post. I think you made your point!
Go McCain/Palin 2008
The post was inappropriate, but was a threat made??
Bye bye freedom of speech.
FBI has better things to be working on and I'm afraid if this is any indication they are going to be bombarded with inappropriate statements.
In a prior post I made the following offer:
.....no amount of money would induce me to volunteer to be tortured (you know, beaten cut, burned - severe pain or harm). But cut me a check (certified only, please) with a number followed by a whole lot of zeros and I would be waterboarded (strictly in the interest of science). Our special forces are trained to withstand this and other 'harsh' interrigation techniques...... It's scary and unpleasant but way different from having your fingernails pulled out or a field generator and alligator clips used.
I had in mind more like $500,000, but yeah, for enough money I would certainly consider that an offer I couldn't refuse.
I made a mistake and was trying to respond to the post below by *LOL* when I wrote that.
in the article you posted, nor did I see the word *impeach* anywhere in the article.
I agree with your comments and with the article you referred to, and I understood the comments of LOL to mean that the article was responding to some sort of "talking points" and using the word impeach often, when in fact, it can't be found once in that article.
As far as impeaching Bush, I believe time will tell. I personally believe he's guilty of war crimes, and that his war will be judged to be illegal before the end of his "reign as King of the USA." (if we all manage to survive that long).
The mere fact that he led us into this war based on lies should be enough to impeach him.
If I offended you, then I truly apologize. I agree with you and I'm glad you posted this article. I surely wouldn't have referred you back to the very article you obviously read and posted and tell you to educate yourself, and in no way, shape or form do I believe you are ignorant; far from it.
If you posted the LOL statement below, then I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by it.
I made a mistake when posting my post, and instead of winding up under the intended post, it wound up under yours instead. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you.
The purpose was made crystal clear in the post.
It was very clear. Don't know how to make it any clearer.
Nice post piglet. All your points are well made.
I agree 100% with what you had to say. Too many Americans have been brainwashed by fear, and I think many Americans who are against universal healthcare are just buying into the Chicken Little syndrome that is so prevelent in this country lately. The sky will fall if all of our citizens have access to affordable healthcare!
As you said, using France's system as a model does not mean we have to do everything exactly as France has, but they are a great example of a system that is working.
I made a general observation relative to the post.
nm
Right on! I am so glad, another person that can made an intelligent post.....nm
nm
Guess you didn't read the post I made from a few days ago.
Sorry, but I haven't been able to post lately due to some problems, but the FOIA report I posted and said to pay attention to certain pages....Clinton KNEW there were WMD's in Irag in 1996! Did he do anything? Nope. He left the country he was visiting right before a bombing; i.e., he knew it was going to happen. The jist I got of the report was that he knew and did nothing.
Did you read that report? Don't want to dredge up old presidents but you seem to do it every chance you get, so I just have to respond to that. Bush also knew but did nothing because the CIA,DOJ, FBI and whatever other departments were to keep him informed but never worked together on anything so he got conflicting reports all the time. Was he a mind reader? Doubt it or 911 would not have happened.
Sorry, but this post does not hold water IMHO.
the $250K
it's the business making $250K, not the man. Big difference.
MTs make under $250K
Just because plumbing seems like a crappy job, let's face it, I see those guys driving Jaguars where I live. They are expensive and make a lot. MTs work very hard for very little. Wise up people. Obama is our hope. All the BS about him being with terrorists is dangerous propaganda. That board who had Ayers and Obama on was a big Reagan supporter and actually the Anenbergs are McCain supporters so it's all crapola. Obama is a wonderful man and a smart man. McCain stutters and whistles through his teeth, clears his throat loudly. I thought he was rude in the debate. The losers usually feel desperate and he shows it.
He later corrected to $250K
He knows the middle class. I'm sure you make under $250K so why are you splitting hairs?
they changed that $250K...
Now they're saying more like $200K and going lower. And let's just face it. 20 bucks or $200K, everybody is gonna pay more taxes.
I understand the payroll tax on only over $250K....sm
I understand I won't pay more payroll tax and income tax at our low income, but it's the property taxes, fuel taxes, sales taxes, and capital gains taxes that are going to go up too, and being landowners and ranchers raising livestock, those taxes affect us big time and just add to the cost of our business, which already is hard to make a profit on.
I know it's hard for people whose income is from a job where you go to work and bring home a paycheck and taxes are simple to understand. But running a business isn't just about how much comes out of your paycheck for payroll tax and what you pay for income tax once a year. These corporate taxes he's talking about are going to affect so many small businesses because most of them make between $500,000-$1,000,000 a year, and increasing their tax rates is going to kill them. It's going to cause them to lay off employees, raise their prices, or simply close their doors.
I have several family members with mom-and-pop business in small towns from a beauty salon to a restaurant and a small computer fix-it business and they will really be hurt by this. They can't raise their prices because people in their small town can't afford to pay higher prices.
There are a lot of big farmers in our area who easily make over $250,000 a year, but what people don't realize is that probably 90-95% of what they sell their crops for has to go into planting and harvesting those crops and they have little to actually live on to pay their heating and food bills, etc., when it's all said and done, so where are they going to come up with the extra tax money?
By sticking it to the big corporate business, there's going to be a lot of collateral damage in the wake and those are going to be the small to mid-sized business of our friends and family. They need to raise the amount to 1-2 million or something because this is going to kill small town main street. JMHO
Oh, and BTW, $250K is not wealthy businesses
They're middle of the road, just making it businesses. They don't employ 3000 people like big business and they will be hurt the most. Big business will pass the tax increase onto the taxpayers. They'll be able to find loopholes with their 30+ laywers (exageration) who are paid to do that.
Wake up and take the blinders off!
If you make less than $250K you get tax break nm
nomopopo
Sorry Sam, but the Bush cuts were only for those over $250K nm
not us peons
It was $250K including a business....
and $250K for a business is nothing. and since when is rich a bad word. Only when someone is jealous.
Not unless I am making over 250K and that's not happening. nm
.
I wouldn't mind making 250K and paying
25% in taxes....
Bidens words - no longer $250K - Now $150K (nm)
x
"Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k"...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.
However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.
I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.
The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.
No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.
Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.
This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.
(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.
No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.
There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.
This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$10,581
|
$9,304
|
$9,231
|
$10,581
|
$1,350
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$8,293
|
$6,796
|
$6,781
|
$8,293
|
$1,512
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$11,143
|
$9,304
|
$9,231
|
$11,143
|
$1,912
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$9,424
|
$8,189
|
$8,094
|
$9,424
|
$1,330
|
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$17,923
|
$15,739
|
$15,620
|
$17,923
|
$2,303
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$15,293
|
$12,364
|
$12,219
|
$15,293
|
$3,074
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$18,803
|
$16,083
|
$15,972
|
$18,803
|
$2,831
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$16,424
|
$14,439
|
$14,344
|
$16,424
|
$2,080
|
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $100,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$25,673
|
$22,739
|
$22,620
|
$25,673
|
$3,053
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$22,293
|
$18,614
|
$18,469
|
$22,293
|
$3,824
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$27,515
|
$23,715
|
$23,504
|
$27,515
|
$4,011
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$23,699
|
$20,741
|
$20,594
|
$23,699
|
$3,015
|
* When "President" Obama allows President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a DE facto tax increase
I think we need a 4-year....
moratorium on presidents. Let's try 4 years without one. See how that goes. 
I'm one year from my MA.
It seems like half of the posts on this MB are yours. Maybe you should look for other hobbies. Like clubbing baby seals or smashing the dreams of little children.
You spew on and on about how unbiased you are, yet 90% of your posts bash republicans.
I think you just like to see your name on the MB. Maybe in your 'real' life nobody cares about you. So you come here to feel like at least someone will read your message and know you are still alive.
How sad for you.
Well, in a year you can say
I just went there last year
I was welcomed there and not treated as an ugly american.
My brother and his wife have lived there for years and they and their friends are not treated like "ugly americans", and they've been all over germany, belgium, france, austria, lictenfelds, and switzerland. They travel every weekend and they are always welcome whereever they go. The europeans love Americans. They (not all) may not like our president but they know that americans are not like him.
This kind of comment is just a lie! Another Bush hater. We get it, we all get it. God I can't want til tomorrow cos I can't wait for the Bush bashers/haters to just shut their mouths. But wait, they keep it up about McCain/Palin, so don't expect it to stop with Bush.
You tell me how an 8-year-old knows
anything about being "gay." I'll tell you where, in the indoctrination centers known as public education.
Excuse me, being homosexual does not make one happy and well adjusted. I've never ever seen when blatant sin ever lead to being happy and well adjusted.
Probably same as this year
Get back over 4,000 in tax refunds.
Yes, he did. This was for LAST YEAR'S
Seven down, one year to go for America
Article from yesterday's Times Herald documenting in a nutshell Bush's dynamic and equally distrastrous first year for America. It packs a wallop. In hindsight and in black and white, it certainly portends to everything that follows. I wonder if we shall ever recover from the damage that has been done to this country and abroad.
Seven down, one year to go for America
January 14, 2008
As I watched Americans caucus in Iowa and enter voting booths in New Hampshire these past two weeks, I felt the first stirrings of hope for my country that I've felt in a very long time.
It is as though we are peeking out of our caves of fear and despair, still wearing our winter coats and galoshes but preparing to shed them as we step into the promise of springtime.
For seven years, this country has been held in the grip of men who have used us for their own ends. On Sunday, it will be exactly one year until we see the last of the Bush administration.
That is reason for celebration. But it is not reason for turning our attention away from the criminals in the White House. There are times when I barely recognize the carcass of America that they continue to strip as they prepare to discard us.
Only one more year. But we know from experience the kind of damage George Bush and his crowd can do in the space of 12 months. Lest we forget, let's look at just a single year — 2001 — under this, the worst regime in America's history.
Jan. 20, 2001: On the day of Bush's inauguration, his chief of staff issued a moratorium halting all new health, safety and environmental regulations issued in the final days of the Clinton administration.
Jan. 23: Bush reinstates the global gag rule barring U.S. funding for abortion counseling abroad.
Feb. 5: Bush suspends the "roadless rule," which protected 60 million acres of forests from logging and road-building.
Feb. 17: Bush signs four
See Beth Quinn page 18
anti-union executive orders, including measures to prohibit project labor agreements at federal construction sites.
March 7: At Bush's urging, Congress repeals ergomonic regulations designed to protect workers from repetitive-stress injuries.
March 15: Bush abandons his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
March 20: The Bush administration moves to overturn a regulation reducing the allowable levels of arsenic in drinking water.
March 28: Bush backs out of the Kyoto treaty on global warming.
March 29: Bush shuts down the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach.
April 4: Bush's Department of Agriculture proposes lifting a requirment that all beef used in federal school lunch programs must be tested for salmonella.
April 9: Bush's Department of Interior proposes a limit on lawsuits seeking protection of endangered species.
May 11: Bush abandons the nation's international effort to crack down on offshore tax havens for the rich.
May 16: Vice President Dick Cheney's task force releases its National Energy Policy report, calling for weaker environmental regulations and massive subsidies for the oil and gas, coal, and nuclear power industries.
May 26: At Bush's urging, Congress passes a $1.35 trillion tax cut.
June 19: Cheny refuses to release records of his energy task force meetings to the General Accounting Office.
June 28: Attorney General John Ashcroft announces a policy that would require gun records be destroyed one day after a background check rather than 90 days later.
July 9: Bush opposes a UN treaty to curb international trafficking in small arms and light weapons.
July 26: Bush rejects an international treaty on germ warfare and biological weapons.
Aug. 6: During the presidential daily briefing, Bush is warned that Osama bin Laden is determined to strike in the United States.
Aug. 9: Bush limits stem cell research to existing lines.
Sept. 11: Terrorists organized by bin Laden crash hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands.
Sept. 22: Bush signs a $15 billion airline bailout.
Oct. 26: Bush signs the USA Patriot Act.
Oct. 29: Bush's Justice Department acknowledges but won't identify more than 1,000 individuals detained since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Oc.t 31: Ashcroft authorizes monitoring of attorney-client conversations in terrorism investigations.
Nov. 1: Bush issues an executive order blocking the release of presidential records.
Nov. 13: Bush orders that "enemy combatants" be tried in military tribunals.
Nov. 14: Bush's Justice Department issues regulations allowing illegal immigrants to be detained indefinitely.
Dec. 11: The Bush White House recommends privatizing Social Security.
Dec. 12: Bush announces that he intends to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty unilaterally.
Dec. 27: Bush repeals the "responsible contractor rule" that had required scrutiny of safety and environmental law violations in the awarding of federal contracts.
There are 372 days left 'til Jan. 20, 2009. Let us hang onto hope for the future.
Happy New Year to you too....
As I said, I think it was probably a multitude of things, sick and fed up just pegged on the antiwar always bleak diatribe, it was the holidays and I am sure she was missing her son acutely, and the post, in my view and I don't have a son in Iraq, was very cold and matter of fact on an issue that is not matter of fact and calls in many human emotions...in short, she just had to vent. She did not expect war support. She was just tired of sitting there quiet. She may never post here again. All I was saying is that maybe that should have been taken into consideration and give her a pass that one time instead of coming back and slamming her. Just a little empathy would have been nice. That is all I was saying. I have defended liberals for going on once in awhile as well. And oddly, I have been criticized for that as well. LOL. Politics. Gotta love it.
Yes, it has been the deadliest year...
because the insurgency has been the strongest this year and their attacks on civilians have been horrendous. So, it makes sense for this to be the worst year. There were actually fewer deaths during the actual invasion than in the months after, both with soldiers and civilians. The insurgents and militias were not operating in the first months. And I agree mistakes were made, big ones. However, now, even the Iraqi government says attacks in Baghdad (car bombs, suicide bombers, rocket attacks, etc.) are down 70%. People are getting out and about again in major areas of Baghdad and there is some semblance of a normal life. That is a monumental achievement in comparsion to what it was. Are things perfect...no. Are things completely stable? No. But the article I posted by the independent journalist embedded witht he 82nd Airborne in Baghdad (who came in for the original surge in February and have been there since January གྷ)...the battalion he was with has suffered no deaths, not even any injuries since then. That is amazing. I guess, DW, I just get excited for the Iraqi people (and by that I mean the common folk like you and me) even with the "little" strides. I would like to be out of there too, trust me, I would. But I would rather we do everything we can to keep from having a blood bath like Viet Nam happen when we do leave. We are there, for whatever reason we got there, and you can't unscramble eggs. I still have hope that we can help stabilize it to the point that it is not so dangerous and I still have hope that the Iraqi people can find a way to pull together to help it happen faster. We may still have to pull out and bad things happen; there may be no way to avoid that. I just believe enough good is happening to keep that hope alive. Have a good weekend!
I have a soon to be 9-year-old daughter and
pregnancy and the allowance of it most certainly does concern me especially when McCain is in his 70s and not in the best of health already. Yes, I was raised with family values and yes this absolutely does concern not only me but my husband as well. Yes, this is a big focus right now on Governor Palin and her family values. I'm only one voice, but one voice that is concerned about this teenage girl and it being "allowed" and "accepted." This goes against any core family values I've learned my entire life. Does this mean it's okay for her daughter? Does this mean that this candidate will just "ignore" issues if she had to step in as President blaming us the country and not herself for her own misjudgements or her own "oversites?"
YOU MAKE OVER $250,000 a year
and can't afford to go out to dinner more than once or twice a year, live in a plain house that is almost paid off and have no debt? That is ASTOUNDING! Taxes are being raised on those making over $250,000 a year. My husband and I made around $80,000 last year and now we can't afford a pot to p**s in or a window to throw it out. Cancer has defined my life for the past year, meds are astronomical, medical bills drove us to bankruptcy and, right now, I'm too sick to work. We are barely surviving on hubbies income - I sold all of my jewelry to pay bills and put food on the table. I've been saving aluminum and scrapping it for gas money. I've been fighting insurance companies for treatment and compensation that I PAID for. My 30-year-old son is handicapped and works in a sheltered workshop. He broke his glasses. He's darn near blind. He had to wait 2 years before his medical card would pay for a new pair. So, I don't want to hear how WONDERFUL those on the "dole" have it. We live in a 600 sq. ft. "cottage" and my husband is a professional with a 5-year engineering degree. We are middle class and have been stabbed in the back over the last year. I can't take 4 more years. If McCain gets elected, I hope I sucumb to this disease so I don't have to see my children and grandchildren suffer.
I do not make over 250,000 a year, sorry
and like I am going to take someone like Donald Trump's opinions to heart. not a chance. he has a lot more to lose than I do if he has to pay taxes. I will get 1000 stimulus and end up paying less in taxes, it is just they will be distributed differently, in other words, not so much given to lobbyists and oil people that is my understanding...
my cash gets taken out of my wallet NOW, more than ever, and my say where it goes is all but diminished - now THAT is scary...
I was just 1 year shy of being able to vote at 21 then...sm
but was very involved in the election. I couldn't wait to be able to vote for him after I was of age but we all know what happened with that. Then MLK and Bobby. I think that Obama has the same intellect and vision that Jack and Bobby had, as well as being very charismatic. I am glad to have a second chance to vote for someone with my vision for America.
We both just graduated this year
Him with a four year degree and me with my MT certificate. I am back in school finishing my psych degree I had originally started. Since he is a history major and the job market is pretty much frozen right now, he is having trouble finding a job. Therefore he works with his dad building houses for $300 a week like I previously stated. At the rate we are going I make $400 a week MTing (remember, I'm P/T because of school) So at $700 a week x 4 weeks a month =$2800 a month x 12 months = $33,600 dollars. Almost $10,000 more than last year, but still not a lot compared to most.
Make sense?
Now I'm sure when my husband does find a career position we will be substantially better, but for now, this is what we have, so this is what we work with. But I'm not going to come digging in your pockets so I can buy all the newest toys and gadgets!
From a 13-year-old girl
My daughter is in 8th grade. For the election, the students are to go to each candidate's web site and research the candidates, and then the students will vote (using a real voting booth - cool mom!)
She told me that she started her research today, and she found that when she looked at Obama's web site it talked about his family and such, and then his proposals for change. When she went to McCain's web site, all she found initially, were negative things about Obama, and that was the main point of his web site, but on the sides, she could dig out a little more on the issues.
She was wondering why people have to be so negative. She said, "Doesn't Gram (my mother) always say that when people spend all their time talking badly about other people, it is because they have nothing good to say about themselves?"
She hasn't decided who she will vote for (but she is a tree-hugger of her own accord), and I think she will probably lean left.
Anyway, I am now off to take a better look at the 2 web sites to see what I see.
Peace,
CB
I bet within a year, you will be wondering WHY you
nm
when we got laid off last year, I
moved the 401K to AARP who put it in all conservative bonds and I have lost about 2% of it this quarter.
on unemployment this year, which is
now over, thanks to G.Bush, I did get an extra 13 weeks, but I managed to raise 4 kids alone, thank goodness I made it.
|
