ying yang......what....he couldn't pay for his own way to see his dear grandmama....you know....the one he called a typical white person. To critical Palin's clothing expense, etc. and not look at what the others are spending as well is wrong.
BTW, who is paying for Obamarama's 2 million dollar party in Chicago come election day?
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 Tell me, where is Obama going to get the money for
nm
CBS follows Obama's Money...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86RAp_iuhOQ
and Obama has money to burn
AP) Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has raised $7.2 million for his presidential campaign since the first polls closed on Super Tuesday night, his campaign said Thursday, a remarkable figure that is causing concern among supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Meanwhile Thursday, the Clinton campaign asked Obama to debate once a week, but he demurred.
Obama, riding a wave of fundraising from large donors and small Internet contributors, also raised $32 million in January.
Clinton acknowledged Wednesday that she loaned her campaign $5 million late last month as Obama was outraising and outspending her heading into Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests. Some senior staffers on her campaign also are voluntarily forgoing paychecks as the campaign heads into the next round of contests.
Obama and Clinton outpaced all candidates in 2007, with each raising $100 million.
The Obama campaign said on its Web site that $7.2 million has been received since Tuesday evening. Campaign spokesmen said they were confident the figure was accurate.
Buoyed by strong fundraising and a primary calendar in February that plays to his strengths, Obama plans a campaign blitz through a series of states holding contests this weekend and will compete to win primaries in the Mid-Atlantic next week and Hawaii and Wisconsin the following week. Obama might not take lobbyist money...
but his VP certainly does.
Joe Biden’s lobbying ties
August 23, 2008
By Ed Morrissey
HOT AIR - How thoroughly did Barack Obama vet Joe Biden? After months of demonizing lobbyists, Obama selected a running mate who has taken millions in contributions from those same lobbyists Obama supposedly eschewed, at least until the DNC started running out of money. In fact, Biden’s son works as a lobbyist on Capitol Hill, accruing the kind of earmarks that Obama has both decried and pursued:
Biden has accepted $5,133,072 in contributions from lawyers and lobbyists since 2003. Obama does not accept contributions from federally registered lobbyists.
And he has one other weakness that hasn’t received much attention to date. One of Biden’s sons, Hunter, is a registered Washington lobbyist in a year in which Obama has been excoriating lobbyists and the culture of corruption in Washington. The younger Biden is a name partner at the firm Oldaker, Biden & Belair, LLP, and seems to have specialized in lobbying for just the kind of earmark spending by Congress that Obama has vowed to slash.
Also expect to hear more about Biden’s close ties with credit card companies. His largest contributor (based on total contributions by employees) over the past five years has been MBNA, the Delaware-based bank aquired in 2005 by Bank of America than until then was the world’s largest independent credit card issuer and a major supporter of the 2005 bankruptcy bill that Biden crossed the aisle to support.
Once again, I want to point out that lobbying is a Constitutionally protected exercise. The First Amendment gives Americans the right to petition Congress, and nothing prohibits or even discourages citizens from organizing in that effort to harness the power of numbers. Run ethically, the practice of lobbying fills an important role in politics.
Of course, I’m not the one declaring lobbyists persona non grata in the Democratic Party. That was Barack Obama, who declared just two months ago that lobbyists would not fund “my party”:
The Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard: We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. … They will not fund my party!
Take a look at the top five industries that donate to Biden as well:
Lawyers/law firms
Real estate
Retired
Securities & investment
Miscellaneous finance
Real estate and miscellaneous finance — wouldn’t that figure into the credit crisis and the housing market collapse?
It looks like Obama didn’t just throw Hope and Change under the bus, but himself right along with it. Whether this is hypocrisy or incompetence, it’s stunning either way.
Anyone actually looked at the money Obama wants
nm
Obama money uncensored.
The portraits appearing on the various denominations of US currency has not been revised since 1929 when there were 12 denominations, but 2 of those did not feature former US Presidents (Ben Franklin on the $100 bill and Salmon Chase, US Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln on the $10,000 bill).
Since then, the $500, $1000, $5,000, $10,000 and $100,000 notes have been taken out of circulation, last printed in 1945 and discontinued in 1969, although the $5000 and $10,000 had effectively disappeared long before then. That leaves only 7 denominations currently in circulation.
Treasury Department records do not reflect the reasons these 7 statesmen were selected. By law, only the portrait of a DECEASED individual may appear on US currency and notes. That would eliminate Obama, at least for the time being.
In the unlikely event that the treasury should issue higher denominations in the future, the next one up for release would be the $500 note, unless they opt for an amount that does not follow the previous denomination sequence. Obama is taking our money... you would be
nm
Nigeria seizes money for Obama...
Nigerian anti-graft investigators have seized money raised by the head of the Nigerian Stock Exchange to support US presidential candidate Barack Obama.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission said it would give the money back to those who attended a gala dinner in Lagos last month.
The EFCC said it had seized 74m naira ($630,000, £314,000), but said no Nigerian laws had been broken.
US political parties are not allowed to receive contributions from abroad.
Charging is not spending money...it is spending someone elses money!
When you are debt free (as we are) THEN you spend money...anything else is just going into debt. I highly doubt he pays cash for anything.
money was cut due to war
I have compassion for those affected by Katrina. It is Bush and his ilk that I have no compassion for. This article states that the money was cut in 2003 due to the war. That is why I posted it. Money has been cut to the states since Bush's war, we are strapped in many ways in America due to Bush's war. Open you eyes and see your president for what he is..a jerk, a low IQ imbecile, and for what he has done to America due to his war.
Money.........
Well, if they don't have money for birth control, they sure as shoot don't have it for a baby BUT in my neck of the woods, there are LOTS of illegitimate babies, mostly by mothers who started at 12, 13, 14 and by high school, had 2 or more. They even sit in school and brag about getting a bigger paycheck because they are pregnant again. Now, really, does that sound like someone who is interested in birth control in the first place? Some of these girls who get pregnant at 12 or 13 don't even think birth control. They usually get talked into sex by a guy several years older than them in the first place, and he is a loser anyway, and usually has fathered several babies already anyhow. And, belive me, most of these girls because of community experiences, already know where the clinics are and they can get there. They sure as heck don't have a problem getting there for all the free healthcare their child gets, usually in the ER on Friday and Saturday night because they are too lazy to get to the clinic through the week. Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything positive for them.
No, I would rather the money be used for ..sm
necessities for Alaska instead of asking the lower 48+1 to subsidize them.
The money that has gone to the war...
has been appropriated for that specific purpose. It was not just lying around waiting to be spent, so there is no reason to believe that if the war were not going on that amount of money would be spent elsewhere. That is not how the government works.
If the government did not help these institutions out, it would destabilize the economy which could trickle down to our banks and what little money we have in them. At least they learned from the fannie/freddie fiasco...when they gave the loan to AIG they kicked the top folks who ran it out, with no golden parachute and will oversee it...and in this case, finally...since it is a loan...if they stay solvent and pay it back the interest will benefit us all as it will go back into the coffers with the principal.
Those who HONESTLY need help are those who are trying to do something to get out of the whole and can't. Not those who go and buy a house that is way out of their price range, or who pop out 7 or 8 kids just to get food stamps. Not those who live in section 8 government housing for $60 a month and then buy a brand new BMW in someone elses name because they make money selling drugs or working under the table and not reporting it.
I said it is based on grades ALSO. Meaning it is based on both income and grades. Which means if I don't TRY and keep my grades up no matter how little money I make, I'm not going to receive it. That's the difference. No one seems to want to TRY anymore. Everyone just wants more, more, more, and they are doing less, less, less.
My argument is that those who do well for themselves should not have to pay for those who don't give a hoot and don't try to do well for themselves and just sit back and try to let daddy government take care of them.
Where did all that money come from?
Scam after scam keeps coming out. Phony donators sending money with prepaid credit cards that can't be traced. Gee, wonder where the money is coming from ? He is not honest or truthful about anything, and so many people trusting him with their future...sad.
With all the money that
Barrack Obama raised for his campaign.....I wonder who he owes now? I mean....surely some of these people who gave a bunch of money want something in return. Are there promises Obama has promised to keep to individuals who gave him money that we don't know about? This is one reason why I hate political parties. The DNC raised all that money and you have some serious extreme left psychos who gives money and then they want something in return. Does this make Barrack Obama the democratic party puppet now? How does that work?
Where is all this money going to come from?nm
x
so where does all this money come from and
when do we STOP bailing companies out? I was not a fan of the first bailout. I think that in the end, all of this will make things much worse and we are just slowing down the process. I understand that both McCain and Bush wanted the bailout, but I am capable of thinking for myself. If you want the auto industry to keep up employment, I would think that the best way to make that happen is to buy American cars, bot hand them over a lot of my hard earned money. I think that the money I paid for my car is enough.
where the money comes from
Okay, those are some interesting links. I feel even better about the job banks program now, because, check it out--this program was *created* to discourage outsourcing. The union felt like it made it too expensive for the car companies to outsource jobs. So the car companies obviously did some calculations and discovered that they could pay these guys not to work, AND outsource, AND still make money (that they failed to make money has less to do with those out of work guys, I suspect, than it does with decades of misreading consumer preferences!). So if this program is a big money-suck, it's only because they insisted on outsourcing.
It's also great to see that this job bank was not available for workers until AFTER they had exhausted their unemployment benefits--and that *those* benefits were also being funded by the automakers. So our tax dollars don't really have much to do with the story. As for the bailout...well, personally I'd rather the bailout money help actual people, rather than Wall Street, so I'm not really concerned about some guys playing checkers.
(as for the $31 an hour, I'm still having trouble doing the math on how a $5 billion dollar committment by GM for 4 years for 5000 workers works out to $31 an hour, but I'll let it go for now!)
I fuss (I like that word!) about spreading the wealth from rich to poor, and about these auto workers, because I think they represent an important case for us to learn from. How will we protect *our* livelihoods? Can companies begin to take us into account, and not at the same time do the same stupid mistakes that always bankrupt them, and not make it look like *our* fault that they're going bankrupt?
me too, me too - I want some of that money
Although I don't use sm as my handle. Does that disqualify me. LOL
why not put the money to better use
come on, there are much better things those donors could do with some of that that money than a ridiculously overpriced a party, for pete's sake.
We owe them money. (NM below)
x
Really! Well, that was exactly what the money was
before they used it illegally push Obama into office...... please stop falling for all this mumbo jumbo hype about non-profit organizations. Acorn will get the money regardless because the liberals nut jobs up there will see to it.
I say - take the money and run!!
from what I've seen, Michigan's economy has been in the toilet for decades...you guys NEED the money - let's just hope they don't do idiotic sh*t like build new malls or luxury hotels...........
Please show me the link that says they are using their own money from their own bank accounts to fund their party. If I see it I will eat my words and apologize. But it's not just the money.
It's them turning the WH into a party house. This is not what the white house is suppose to be for. And in these times when we have so many people loosing their jobs, and homes, and going hungry this is sending the wrong message to America. "Hey, your out of work, getting ready to lose your home, hungry? Well hold on and I'll address that when I'm done partying dude".
But where does the money come from?
Tax dollars, right? So what O'Reilly stated was really true.
BTW, glad to see you admit to watching Fox once in a while, even if you don't agree with them.
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago
The Senate voted Thursday to allow the national debt to swell to nearly $9 trillion, preventing a first-ever default on U.S. Treasury notes.
The bill passed by a 52-48 vote. The increase to $9 trillion represents about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.
The measure allows the government to pay for the war in Iraq and finance Medicare and other big federal programs without raising taxes. It passed hours before the House was expected to approve another $91 billion to fund the war in Iraq and provide more aid to hurricane victims.
The partisan vote also came as the Senate continued debate on a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint for the upcoming fiscal year that would produce a $359 billion deficit for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
The debt limit will increase by $781 billion. It's the fourth such move — increasing the debt limit by a total of $3 trillion — since Bush took office five years ago.
The vote came a day after Treasury Secretary John Snow warned lawmakers that action was critical to provide certainty to financial markets that the integrity of the obligations of the United States will not be compromised.
On Thursday, Treasury postponed next week's auction of three-month and six-month bills pending Senate action, though the move was likely to be quickly reversed given the Senate's vote.
The present limit on the debt is $8.2 trillion. With the budget deficit expected to approach $400 billion for both this year and next, another increase in the debt limit will almost certainly be required next year.
The debt limit increase is an unhappy necessity — the alternative would be a disastrous first-ever default on U.S. obligations — that greatly overshadowed a mostly symbolic, weeklong debate on the GOP's budget resolution.
Democrats blasted the bill, saying it was needed because of fiscal mismanagement by Bush, who came to office when the government was running record surpluses.
When it comes to deficits, this president owns all the records, said Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The three largest deficits in our nation's history have all occurred under this administration's watch.
Only a handful of Republicans spoke in favor of the measure as a mostly empty Senate chamber conducted a brief debate Wednesday evening.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Bush's tax cuts account for just 30 percent of the debt limit increases required during his presidency. Revenue losses from a recession and new spending to combat terrorism and for the war in Iraq are also responsible, he said.
As for the $781 billion increase in the debt limit, Grassley said: It is necessary to preserve the full faith and credit of the federal government.
Before approving the bill, Republicans rejected by a 55-44 vote an amendment by Max Baucus, D-Mont., to mandate a Treasury study on the economic consequences of foreigners holding an increasing portion of the U.S. debt.
At present, foreign countries, central banks and other institutions hold more than one-fourth of the debt, but that percentage is growing rapidly.
Following the debt limit vote Thursday, the Senate was expected to vote late in the day on the budget plan, a nonbinding measure proposing tax and spending guidelines for the next five years.
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., appears poised to win an increase of $7 billion in new and real funding for education and health research. The $7 billion would effectively be used to break Bush's $873 billion budget cap for 2007, which represents the most significant vestige of fiscal discipline remaining in Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg's budget.
The underlying Senate budget plan is notable chiefly for dropping Bush's proposed cuts to Medicare and for abandoning his efforts to expand health savings accounts or pass legislation to make permanent his 2001 tax cut bill.
Unlike last year, when Congress passed a bill trimming $39 billion from the deficit through curbs to Medicaid, Medicare and student loan subsidies, Senate GOP leaders have abandoned plans to pass another round of cuts to so-called mandatory programs.
But Gregg's measure re-ignites last year's battle over allowing oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, since it would let Senate leaders bring an ANWR drilling measure to the floor under rules blocking a filibuster by opponents.
I think we should have used more *shock and awe* and less soldier feet on the ground in Iraq.
About the murder and torture investigations--Bill's quote was right on the mark:
What is Murtha's intent? Is this an 'I-told-you-so' because he opposes the war? Murtha should answer that question because 95% of the military is performing heroically overseas. In the chaos of war perspective and fair play are vitally important.*
Sure there some bad apples there always is, but is there widespread corruption and criminal behavior in the military? I highly doubt it.
Money is the root...sm
Presidential Race May Cost Hopefuls $500 million
Those three dollars you've set aside in your tax returns as a good deed toward clean presidential elections? Forget about it. Nobody wants them anymore, the AP says.
Strategists from both parties estimate the White House race in 2008 could cost each nominee $500 million — far more than the Presidential Election Campaign Fund can afford. As a result, this next presidential campaign could mark the first time in 30 years that the Democratic and Republican nominees turn down the fund's millions in both the primary and the general elections.
I agree - they take your money but they never want to pay
You're right. Such premiums are criminal. My ex-husband was in the same boat, had a childhood policy for a chronic condition, and after he had surgery for that condition they raised the rates every 6 months until he was forced to drop it, which is what they wanted him to do.
As long as insurance lobbyists find someone to bribe in Washington, their party continues. They spend more money finding loopholes and rewriting policies so they can deny claims than they would ever spend just paying for the dang healthcare.
I don't think we can afford to police them and force them to pay up either. That's why I like Kucinich's plan, one provider, nationwide, and the rest go out of business.
Or at least we could enact laws to make them keep it simple. You pay for coverage, you should have coverage. Any language in any policy starting with "pre" should be outlawed. No more "preexisting", "preauthorization", etc. Even premium starts with "pre"! The laws are written to protect THEM. The policies are written to protect THEM. It takes a lot of time to dig through the fine print in any policy just to see how you're "allowed" to be sick and what your copays and caps are. By the time you figure out what the rules are, you change jobs or your company changes policies, and you have a new set to figure out.
They carry on about people not having insurance - but the majority of people who do have it can't get a claim paid anyway. The policies cost more and more, they deny more and more claims (or discount them down to nothing).
I used to do billing. A radiologist charged $20 to read a chest x-ray. Medicare forced him to take $2.95 in pay for that x-ray and write off the rest. Medicaid forced him to take $2.65 for it. BCBS would pay $7.65, Aetna $5.25, and so on. In what other industry does the buyer tell the seller what they get to charge? That is where the real problem begins that drives up the cost of health care. He has to read more and more x-rays to break even, or see a majority of patients with no insurance - because its legal to charge them full price!
No matter how much we spend on health care, the money does not go to the provider. It goes to the middleman, the insurance companies, and you have to fight to get them to part with a cent.
politicians and athletes make is just crazy. Don't even get me started on athletes. LOL!
I'd want the money but not from that family. sm
The poor have more morals and principles. They make most of their money off of misery, lies, deceit, and thievery. They fund both sides of war conflicts and founded the central banking system, which is robbing everyone blind. She met her husband at a Bilderberg conference.
She did support Hillary and then endorsed McCain, but said she did not trust him because he came off like too much of an elitist. Bizarre statement from someone who is a member of a family who possesses more than half the world's wealth since the early 1900s.
Repubicans and Money
Forget the poor people who can barely keep a roof over their heads and feed their children...we must protect the big corporations, give their executives huge golden parachutes, and protect our richest friends so they can continue to live the lavish lifestyles to which they have become accustomed!
Why waste the Country's money on social programs for people who actually need help when we can waste the Country's money on people who are experienced at spending fast, furious, and frivolously while living in the lap of luxury!
Elitism does not always have to do with money....
it is a perception, an attitude.
2000 Jeep Cherokee with 165,000 on it. Clinging bitterly to my Jeep along with my guns and religion...lol.
That remark about small-town folk in Pennsylvania by Obama WAS an elitist remark. No matter what kind of car he drives.
Not judging. Just don't understand how as a Transcriptionist you can only be making that much between the two of you.
I am voting for him and I don't need anyone's money, thank you! (nm)
:p
As anywhere else...money talks.
do you have any idea of the combined wealth of Buffet and Soros? Keep sipping.
Yes he did take money from the "big guy"
Sure he may have taken $5 and $10 here and there but he has not been truthful and many people who were mesmerized by him actually believe this hooey. Obama is backed by Brzienski(sp?), Bilderberger, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs. There is a lot more to who gives money to the campaigns besides little ol grandma smith who gave $5. There are not enough people in America that if they donated $5 or $10 (or even $2300) that he would have raised the kind of money he raised. You also have to remember Obama got 52% of the popular vote and McCain got 48%. That's only a 4 point lead. That means 48% of America did not vote for Obama or send him money, and I doubt very highly out of the 52% that voted for him not every single person had money to donate. He won 4%. Not a huge difference as some are portraying it. I talk to one of my family members and they make it sound like it was a huge landslide. I reminded her 4 points is not a huge landslide.
As for not taking money from lobbyists.... he took money from special interests groups and that is who is beholden to and they donated BIG!
marks the location of current message within thread![Joe](http://www.againstobama.com/wp-content/uploads/joe_biden_lobbyists.jpg" "Joe")
