So how would this plan affect you?

If it doesn't apply to you, then nothing about your mortgage would change.  How is that unfair to you?  Would it be more fair to charge the taxpayers, including you, whether in you're arrears or not or owning a mortgage or not, the $700 billion dollars?

I don't get what about this is upsetting to you.  You already have a better rate and your credit must be great.  Any resolution to this problem should not result in someone making out better than before the problem started. 

• This plan of Dave Ramsey works for me....I like it... - sam
  • MTs for dave ramsey - gatoreye21
    • Love the motto...Live like no one else so later on.... - weekendwarrior
  • Well we're at 4.5% and not in arrears... - sm
    • So how would this plan affect you? - trying to understand
    • That is throwing a bone to the democrats, honey.... - sam

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

AIG is losing more and more money every day...  we all know that.  My story is that my BF is on Worker's Comp for an injury.  He will never be back to what he was, but is as good as he is going to get until he can have a knee replacement, which they will not because of his young age.  So we are thinking it is time to settle with the insurance company - who is backed by AIG...

They are already offering us a lot less than what we expected because they say they don't have money to give, but what happens if we hold out and then the company goes belly up?  Do we just lose out completely then?

Can WC go belly up?  I mean, is it backed by the government since it is mandated by the government and he will keep getting his benefits if he does not settle or are we looking at maybe losing even his weekly check and medical benefits and so we need to take what we can get while we can?

Fool me once, shame on you....etc.

I feel better knowing Congress is smart enough to not believe BU_ _ SH _ _ twice from this farce of a president.

Roberts: Iraq Will Affect Future War Votes
Experience With Faulty Data Has Made Senators More Wary, Panel Chairman Says

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 14, 2005; A04

The Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said yesterday that one lesson of the faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq is that senators would take a hard look at intelligence before voting to go to war.

I think a lot of us would really stop and think a moment before we would ever vote for war or to go and take military action, Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) said on Fox News Sunday.

We don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore, he added. We get into preemptive oversight and do digging in regards to our hard targets.

He said that agreement has been reached on the Phase 2 review that the intelligence panel is doing to look into whether the Bush administration exaggerated or misused prewar intelligence. The review may not be finished this year, he said.

The intelligence panel vice chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), also appearing on Fox, called the review absolutely useful because if it is the fact that they [the Bush administration] created intelligence or shaped intelligence in order to bring American opinion along to support them in going to war, that's a really bad thing -- it should not ever be repeated.

Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said the White House is supporting the study, adding: I think that what you're going to find is that the statements by the administration had backing at the time from accepted intelligence sources.

He said that when administration statements turned out to be wrong, that was because the underlying intelligence was not true, but that's not the same as manipulating intelligence, and that is not misleading the American people.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), appearing with Roberts on Late Edition, said that Iraq became the center of terrorism after the March 2003 invasion.

I'm afraid we're going to see Iraq is not only the center of the war on terror, which it was not before we attacked Iraq, but now it is going to, I'm afraid, export it.

He added that Iraq has become the heartland of terrorism. It was not before we attacked.

Levin, a member of both the Senate intelligence committee and Armed Services Committee, has been a leading critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war.

Levin also said that the United States must get allies, as many as we can, including in the Muslim world because this is a form of fanatic Islam which has to be defeated by the moderate Islamic people.

In a column in yesterday's Washington Post, former senator John Edwards (N.C.), the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, said the failures of the Bush administration turned Iraq into a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists [and] has made fighting the global war on terrorist organizations more difficult rather than less.

The president and his senior aides have said since before the invasion that Washington went to war primarily because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the United States and its neighbors because of his connection to terrorists. Once fighting began, they argued that Iraq was the central front in the battle against terrorism.

In his Veterans Day speech on Friday, the president turned his original argument around, saying, The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity, and therefore, We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists.

A major conservative radio host, G. Gordon Liddy, attacked President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Thursday in perhaps one of the most grotesque politically-oriented tirades in recent times.

"Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate," Liddy said. "That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."

Liddy is no stranger to controversy -- in fact, he spent four years in jail for his role in the Nixon-era Watergate burglaries. His radio show is syndicated in 160 markets and on the Sirius Radio network.

Liddy also attacked Sotomayor for her affiliation with LA Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group (which was also maligned Thursday by former GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo, who called it the Latino KKK). Liddy referred to the Spanish language as "illegal alien."

"I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, 'the race,'" Liddy quipped. "And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments."

"And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote," Liddy added later. "And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body."

The comments were noted by the blog ThinkProgress. Audio of Liddy's comments follow.

The following audio is The G. Gordon Liddy Show , broadcast on May 28, 2009.

I assume you watched both conventions?????  I watched the Dems and now I'm watching the Pubs.  I am an INDEPENDENT.  I would support Obama were it not for my research of the church he has been associated with for 20 years.  This church, in my humble opinion, belongs to an extreme, radical, racist group.  We don't need that in the White House. With the exception of illegal immigration, he pretty much addressed all the things that I feel are important to the future of my children and grandchildren and were it not for his affiliation with his chosen church, I would probably vote for him.  .  At least he had the good sense to select a person as his running mate who actually might be "ready on day one" to lead this country.

Secondly, again in my humble opinion, McCain has a few screws loose rattling around upstairs.  He answers every question, even about how many houses he owns, with something like, "well, the longest time I spent anywhere was when I was a POW."  Other than that it has been all about bashing Obama and his not having "experience."  Then look what he did.  Picked a little-known female who has been abroad exactly once and tries to pass her off as "experienced." Truth:  She is a female and her state is the second largest producer of oil.  Bush governed the biggest oil producing state.  Enjoying those prices at the pumps?   To this point all the pub speakers have pushed McCain's war record.  What?????  Do we need more war?  I think a peacemaker would be better.

Now, before anyone pounces on me, I support NEITHER of these candidates and NEITHER will receive my vote.  Either way, the middle class Americans, to which I expect most MTs belong, lose. Our government will change when and if the majority of Americans quit using their heads as a hatrack for the Democrat and Republican parties, kick them out and bring back government "of the people, by the people and for the people."  Won't  happen this time but maybe next time won't be too late.

First of all, let me say I was undecided on this election until yesterday.  Obama's tax plan scares me to death.  I heard him on an interview yesterday, and he said that the top 5% of the country could *afford to help out those less fortunate to us*, meaning those that make above $200,000.  He also said that someone making under $45,000 would *probably* not have to pay income taxes, because all the tax revenue would be generated from the top 5% of the country, again, who could *afford* to help out his fellow man.

So, here's my question.  If I work my BUTT off making a great living for my family, who the heck is he to say I have to share it?  My husband and I put ourselves through school to get a good education for ourselves, searched for good jobs, worked more than one sometimes, and enjoy or standard of living, because we worked hard for it and EARNED it.  How dare he suggest that I have to share that with ANYONE, just because they dont' have as much.  We give to quite a few neighborhood organizations and national charities, we do not keep every penny for ourselves. 

If he does get elected and puts this new plan in place, why would people work hard to make a good living if quite a bit chunk of it is going to be taken away?  Why not just sit back, work as little as you want, stay under that $40,000 radar, not pay income taxes, and have the government give you some other *rich* guy's money because you don't have as much?

This really made my mind up for me.  It's time this county taught some personal responsibility and accountability, and I do not think he is the one for the job!

you will need to keep things like OBAMA and OSAMA straight.  The political system was based on the assumption that voters would know the difference between a tall black man running for president and a tall man in a sheet running for cover.  Study up.  Only a few more weeks . . . I'm betting you can do it.

I haven't been here for a while, and if this has already been posted below somewhere, I apologize for duplicating it.

The following link will take you to a site that will show you how much money Barack Obama will save you on taxes, compared to John McCain.  (Remember, McCain will be taxing your health insurance benefits for the first time in American history.)  Depending on your income, there is quite a difference between the two plans.

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

McCain may be taxing us, but he is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage

of sharing the wealth will put us in the GREAT DEPRESSION just like back when Hoover was in office, exept this time, it will be worse because many more people make more than 100,000 a year than they did years ago.  So basically it will be spreading the wellfare around.

Hate to break the news to you, but it looks as if there has been a welfare plan in place - its called "Corporate Welfare" and we are the ones who they rob; and every single Republican President from Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 have robbed this country blind

Take all this money and instead of giving to big businesses and letting them do whatever with (because that worked so well with the bailout huh?) just pay off everybody's mortgage.  If my house was paid off, I would buy that 1K TV I want for my bedroom.  I'd buy new furniture for my living room because mine is 10+ years old.  I'd buy curtains and blinds for my windows.  I'd buy some nice rugs to put throughout my house.  I'd buy that Thomas Kincaid painting I've always wanted to hang on my wall.  I'd buy more fencing material to fence in more pasture for my horses.  I'd buy those 2 llamas I've been wanting.  My husband could buy another Harley like he has been wanting.  We would go out to eat more often.  These are just things that I would do if my hosue was paid off.  That is quite a bit of money back into the system but I can't do these things because I owe on my house.  Think about it. 

If you didn't have your mortage, what would you buy?

The Pickens Plan.

There are several pillars to the Pickens Plan:

• Create millions of new jobs by building out the capacity to generate up to 22 percent of our electricity from wind. And adding to that with additional solar capacity;
  
• Building a 21st century backbone electrical grid;
  
• Providing incentives for homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to upgrade their insulation and other energy saving options; and
  
• Using America's natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel.

While dependence on foreign oil is a critical concern, it is not a problem that can be solved in isolation. We have to think about energy as a whole, and that begins by considering our energy alternatives and thinking about how we will fuel our world in the next 10 to 20 years and beyond.

New jobs from renewable energy and conservation.

Any discussion of alternatives should begin with the 2007 Department of Energy study showing that building out our wind capacity in the Great Plains - from northern Texas to the Canadian border - would produce 138,000 new jobs in the first year, and more than 3.4 million new jobs over a ten-year period, while also producing as much as 20 percent of our needed electricity.

Building out solar energy in the Southwest from western Texas to California would add to the boom of new jobs and provide more of our growing electrical needs - doing so through economically viable, clean, renewable sources.

To move that electricity from where it is being produced to where it is needed will require an upgrade to our national electric grid. A 21st century grid which will, as technology continues to develop, deliver power where it is needed, when it is needed, in the direction it is needed will be the modern equivalent of building the Interstate Highway System in the 1950's.

Beyond that, tremendous improvements in electricity use can be made by creating incentives for owners of homes and commercial buildings to retrofit their spaces with proper insulation. Studies show a significant upgrading of insulation would save the equivalent of one million barrels of oil per day in energy by cutting down on both air conditioning costs in warm weather and heating costs in winter.

A domestic fuel to free us from foreign oil.

The Honda Civic GX Natural Gas Vehicle is the cleanest internal-combustion vehicle in the world according to the EPA.

Conserving and harnessing renewable forms of electricity not only has incredible economic benefits, but is also a crucial piece of the oil dependence puzzle. We should continue to pursue the promise of electric or hydrogen powered vehicles, but America needs to address transportation fuel today. Fortunately, we are blessed with an abundance of clean, cheap, domestic natural gas.

Currently, domestic natural gas is primarily used to generate electricity. It has the advantage of being cheap and significantly cleaner than coal, but this is not the best use of our natural gas resources.

By generating electricity from wind and solar and conserving the electricity we have, we will be free to shift our use to natural gas to where it can lower our need for foreign oil - helping President Obama reach his goal of zero oil imports from the Middle East within ten years - by replacing diesel as the principal transportation fuel for heavy trucks and fleet vehicles.

Nearly 20% of every barrel of oil we import is used by 18-wheelers moving goods burning imported diesel. An over-the-road truck cannot be moved using current battery technology. Fleet vehicles like buses, taxis, express delivery trucks, and municipal and utility vehicles (any vehicle which returns to the "barn" each night where refueling is a simple matter) should be replaced by vehicles running on clean, cheap, domestic natural gas rather than imported gasoline or diesel fuel.

A plan that brings it all together.

Natural gas is not a permanent or complete solution to imported oil. It is a bridge fuel to slash our oil dependence while buying us time to develop new technologies that will ultimately replace fossil transportation fuels. Natural gas is the critical puzzle piece that will help us keep more of the $350 to $450 billion every year at home, where it can power our economy and pay for our investments in wind energy, a smart grid and energy efficiency.

It is this connection that makes The Pickens Plan not just a collection of good ideas, but a plan. By investing in renewable energy and conservation, we can create millions of new jobs. New alternative energies allow us to shift natural gas to transportation; securing our economy by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and keeping more money at home to pay for the whole thing.