So you think in the middle of a war, this is a good idea? sm
Posted By: sm on 2005-08-23
In Reply to: Federal Grand Jury Digging Deep into Bush Crimes - American Woman
This perfectly illustrates that your hatred for Bush exceeds any care for the safety of Americans.
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
That's a good point. I'm like you in the middle -nm
.....
Good idea.
x
Not a good idea!
I don't mean to sound snappy toward fellow progressives by any means, but what is the point of having a political discussion board if you don't want to discuss opposing views? Politics is a very confrontational subject, seems like - do you really just want to talk to people who agree with you? How do you learn to handle unpleasant people in real life if you don't want to talk to them online? These are sincere questions, I just would like to know what you think about them.
I admit I like a good verbal tussle and no doubt that colors my view, but that's just me:) If they set up a bashing board I'd be the first one over and there's no sense denying that. But what *do* you guys who want a separate board get out of a political discussion when there's no one challenging your views?
Good idea, but...
raise taxes on the insurance companies, and they have to pass that on to someone...in higher rates. Big ugly nasty vicious circle. They need to make healthcare a free market place. Make insurance companies complete like any other business. Make health care providers complete like every other business. But then health care workers would feel the pinch because health care providers would have to cut costs. Frankly, I don't see a really good answer, other than looking at social programs as a whole, and taking money from goofy stuff like studying how much gas is released in the atmosphere when a cow belches or billions to save some kind of bird in a swamp...that kind of thing should take second chair to insuring kids in my book. I am not against insuring kids...but if you are going to insure kids, you should insure ALL kids. Otherwise, how do you decide who gets insured and who doesn't? If you are going to have the government insure kids and monitor that, then ALL kids should be insured by the government to make sure ALL kids are treated the same by health care providers...rich kids and poor kids alike. Because some higher middle income families kids are not insured because their parents chose NOT to insure them so they can spend that money elsewhere. That is documented. I know people personally who are healthy and their kids are healthy and they don't want to pay the premiums, and they know if something catastrophic happens legally they cannot be denied health care and can pay it out at 50 bucks a month. I don't like that attitude, but that attitude is out there. The whole thing is so skewed. I am not sure there is a good answer. All I know is, they cannot keep taxing, taxing, taxing Americans to death to pay for programs...or sooner than later ALL Americans will need to be on programs and who is going to pay for it then? Sigh.
good idea
I should probably do that for ALL the candidates including the Republicans. It's hard though to find a non-partisan website to wade through all the slanted rhetoric.
good idea :) nm
x
Might be a good idea s/m
to go to snopes.com and search for Alaskan Anti-Palin Rally and go all the way to the bottom and listen to the radio personality. Then talk about bias. No question of truth when the TV anchor is shown playing the video of the radio commentator.
VOTING FOR LOU DOBBS!!!!
Good idea!!! s/m
First I would not waste time spinning around in the chair. We've seen too much of that already.
1. I agree. I would pre-schedule the meeting to take place immediately after the inauguration and I would have the meeting without pre-conditions. I would let it be known that whether my party affiliation was Democrat or Republican, we WOULD put partisanship aside and work for the good of the PEOPLE who elected (or hired us) for the job. I would let it be known that I would address the NATION and keep them informed of progress and that I WOULD name names.
2. I would request (and EXPECT it to be done) a copy of the budget be on my desk with copies for all the members of Congress and we would use it as as an agenda at the above friendly meeting. I would present myself as the leader for the PEOPLE. No, I have not seen the movie Dave.
3. Whoa! It isn't just MTs who are hurting, don't forget Joe the Plumber. I would not TRY to stop jobs from going out of the country. I would do it. I would hammer away until I got a bill passed that would penalize companies big time who send jobs out of the country and use that money to balance the budget. If Congress could not do this, I would take it to the PEOPLE and name names.
Praise God we're seeing a few people post who actually have ideas! With this as a starting point, we might just possibly start a movement for REAL CHANGE.
Good idea!! nm
x
Thanks aw, good idea nm
x
that seems like a good idea to me -
how many times have we typed reports where the physician is waiting on reports from another hospital and cannot render the proper care because he does not know the background and the medical records department is closed?
I think that having a database somewhere that everyone can access is good. Now, I don't want the government telling my doctor what he can and cannot do for me.
LOL....oh no...a dem with a good idea.
I don't believe it. LMAO! I'm all for putting up a fence on the border. I've watched those TV shows about gangs and I keep hearing about this MS 13 and frankly.....it scares the sh!t out of me about as much as Bin Laden does. Seriously.......
Your second idea sounds good....... sm
but it may be a moot point. The legislation is struggling in the Senate and W himself is lobbying for Senate to pass a bailout. Looks like the automakers may go home empty handed.
I'm not in favor of the bailout, but neither am I in favor of more people losing their jobs if it could be prevented, so I don't know what the best solution is. Over the past couple of days, Sony, Office Depot, and a mining company (name escapes me at the moment) have all laid off thousands of workers. I'm just wondering where it all will end.
actually, I think a good idea for both sides...
after they pick the candidates, let them post their platform and what they are going to do, let us do our research and decide that way, without ads and gotcha politics...and put the millions to the national debt instead of campaigning. I vote YES on that one. :-)
Good idea. I second that suggestion.
Thanks.
sounds like a good idea to me!
I can remember when insurance companies did that before and they were not going out of business. So you think because my child is born with a medical problem, she should not get health insurance?
Self-Censorship. Good Idea.
Yes, great plan, lefty.
From now on, only listen to things that are in total agreement with your particular leftist bent.
That should prove helpful.
And I, for my part, will ONLY listent to the weather report when it calls for sunshine.
Yeah. That'll show 'em.
Pfffft.
You don't know it's not a good idea for BIGGER
nm
Government intervention is NEVER a good idea!
Any time the government becomes involved in ANYTHING, the price tag always quadruples and takes FOREVER to complete, if ever! That's just the facts.
Government intervention is NEVER a good idea!
Any time the government becomes involved in ANYTHING, the price tag always quadruples and takes FOREVER to complete, if ever! That's just the facts.
Government run ANYTHING is NEVER a good idea! Call
nm
Anyone who thinks that socialized medicine is a good idea
should try out military medicine for awhile and see how it goes!
Just trying to be logical, but I doubt security wise that would be a good idea.
.
yea? well someone w/middle name Hussein
I'm not voting for Hillary but....
know that it scares the heck outta me and others, Obama.......his middle name is hussein.....
one of the bibles say something to the effect of when the *stuff* happens (the bad stuff) - it's going to happen from the *inside out* -
but glad you are ALL so trusting.......i trust nobody 100%.
i cannot stand ALL of these candidates this time around......
JMHO - no flames please
Middle class
Didn't McCain define "middle class" as anyone with $5 million??? How realistic is that? I don't personally have, nor do I know anyone, who has $5 million. The "real" middle class is screwed with either of these clowns.
You have a problem with his middle name?
__
Yes he did in the middle of the night
:{
If the new middle class is $120,000 (sm)
Then my income will just push us into that bracket. I wonder if that will negate my entire income? If so, I guess we may be better off if I just quit? Right now I work because I can't afford to quit. I won't be able to afford it then either so what will I do? I wonder how many others will be in my situation?
FYI, we live in a small older home that we are trying to pay off so that when our two children are college-age, maybe we can afford it. We don't live extravagently by any means. What will happen to people like us?
Middle class? sm
If Obama is elected, that is something that our children's children will be reading about in a history book. It is fast disappearing and will be completely gone if Obama takes office.
Beacuse of his middle name?...sm
My middle name is Ellen. Does that make me a lesbian?
Exactly! I love that he's using his middle name...
...and throwing all that fear and hatred right back in their faces!
A New Way To Tax the Middle Class
Just call it something besides a tax.
Who Pays for Cap and Trade?
Hint: They were promised a tax cut during the Obama campaign.Article
Cap and trade is the tax that dare not speak its name, and Democrats are hoping in particular that no one notices who would pay for their climate ambitions. With President Obama depending on vast new carbon revenues in his budget and Congress promising a bill by May, perhaps Americans would like to know the deeply unequal ways that climate costs would be distributed across regions and income groups.
Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing "polluters," not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity -- in this case the right to emit carbon -- and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag -- now Mr. Obama's budget director -- told Congress last year that "Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program."
Hit hardest would be the "95% of working families" Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat "unless you use energy." Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.
The Congressional Budget Office -- Mr. Orszag's former roost -- estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).
But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels -- particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It's no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade -- Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey -- come from California or the Northeast.
Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation. In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked.
Another way to think about it is in terms of per capita greenhouse-gas emissions. California is the No. 2 carbon emitter in the country but also has a large economy and population. So the average Californian only had a carbon footprint of about 12 tons of CO2-equivalent in 2005, according to the World Resource Institute's Climate Analysis Indicators, which integrates all government data. The situation is very different in Wyoming and North Dakota -- paging Senators Mike Enzi and Kent Conrad -- where every person was responsible for 154 and 95 tons, respectively. See the nearby chart for cap and trade's biggest state winners and losers.
Democrats say they'll allow some of this ocean of new cap-and-trade revenue to trickle back down to the public. In his budget, Mr. Obama wants to recycle $525 billion through the "making work pay" tax credit that goes to many people who don't pay income taxes. But $400 for individuals and $800 for families still doesn't offset carbon's income raid, especially in states with higher carbon use.
All the more so because the Administration is lowballing its cap-and-trade tax estimates. Its stated goal is to reduce emissions 14% below 2005 levels by 2020, which assuming that four-fifths of emissions are covered (excluding agriculture, for instance), works out to about $13 or $14 per ton of CO2. When CBO scored a similar bill last year, it expected prices to start at $23 and rise to $44 by 2018. CBO also projected the total value of the allowances at $902 billion over the first decade, which is some $256 billion more than the Administration's estimate.
We asked the White House budget office for the assumptions behind its revenue estimates, but a spokesman said the Administration doesn't have a formal proposal and will work with Congress and "stakeholders" to shape one. We were also pointed to recent comments by Mr. Orszag that he was "sure there will be enough there to finance the things that we have identified" and maybe "additional money" too. In other words, Mr. Obama expects a much larger tax increase than even he is willing to admit.
Those "stakeholders" are going to need some very large bribes, starting with the regions that stand to lose the most. Led by Michigan's Debbie Stabenow, 15 Senate Democrats have already formed a "gang" demanding that "consumers and workers in all regions of the U.S. are protected from undue hardship." In practice, this would mean corporate welfare for carbon-heavy businesses.
And of course Congress is its own "stakeholder." An economy-wide tax under the cover of saving the environment is the best political moneymaker since the income tax. Obama officials are already telling the press, sotto voce, that climate revenues might fund universal health care and other new social spending. No doubt they would, and when they did Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade rebates would become even smaller.
Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth -- but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class.
middle-aged.....nm
nm
Exactly! I don't give a darn WHAT his middle name is...
but I do care about who he is allied with, and have said numerous times that his pastor and mentor is very thick with Louis Farrakahn, and now Farrakhan has come out singing Obama's praises. Talk about hateful racist comments...Farrakhan is a virulent racist.
I agree, take the focus off of middle name, etc.
I agree with these posts, that putting any focus on a candidate's name is just ... well... embarrassing. A few days ago a poster said Obama's name made them "shudder." ??? I'm blown away by the fact that so many people buy into the fear-mongering going on. I'm more apt to listen to someone griping about Obama not seeming to have enough of a plan ... but his middle name? his skin color? all the other bogey-man antichrist nonsense. This stuff about his name and middle name, makes me too not want to even read the posts too.
I heard a conservative radio talk show the other day (Glen Beck) laughing about getting some email about Obama being the antichrist. Even HE was embarrassed and laughing about the pure insanity of sending this tripe around. If you really want a laugh, Google Bush being the antichrist...
Sam did not "leave out" the middle part...
I said "from what I understand." I did not know the middle part; I did not ignore it. Had not had time to research it. Boy, you are quick on the trigger aren't you??
But thanks for posting. I will research it when I have time.
And by the way, addicted people do lots of strange things. It is an addiction. Here awhile back one of the Kennedys...maybe Ted's nephew...the alcoholic one who ran his car over a post in DC...there were considerable strings pulled there too so he would not go to jail, everyone knew he was an alcoholic but it took getting in trouble with the law to straighten it out. What about Teddy and Mary Jo Kopechne? LOTS of strings pulled there. He left the scene of a accident that resulted in a fatality. Don't you think most of US would still be in jail?? He is still a senator, isn't he? People still vote for him, don't they? Let's keep this in perspective, shall we?
I am so totally middle america
and with only a high school diploma. I also believe in Christian values - the actual ones, not the ones that Dobson, Buchanan, et al., supposedly represent. I do not get offended at the terms because I KNOW many uneducated women who only believe the slogans and information they get from Fox news. Trying to engage them in conversation results in heated statements like the terrorists are walking down every street and we need to fear, fear, fear. I know that I actively investigate the issues. Therefore, demographically, I am uneducated, but I take it upon myself to be informed. When Christians are mentioned, I am not offended because I myself can see the distortions and self-righteousness in their spokesmen.
She actually grew up middle class
and made her own money. Then married Sir Rothschild. Why couldn't I have found a guy like that?!?
It is time we have someone speak for the middle
all of the tax breaks quite frankly. I certainly DO NOT want my husband paying taxes on what is already a big chunk towards healthcare. If McCain is veteran, which he is, then he need not worry about healthcare; he gets it. I can take any more tax gouging to help him pay for his luxurious homes!
The middle class has already all but disappeared under...sm
republican rule. Based on earnings, we have a huge lower class, a very small middle class, and a tiny upper class that makes over 90% of the income in the US.
Abuse of power is SP's middle name.
megalomaniac behaviors. I am particularly impressed by the "woman scorned" tantrum she had against her opponents that ensued within moments after she took office. Looks like Alaska's busy little ethics maid overlooked her own glass house.
The middle class needs to realize
that John McCain's economic plan is designed from the ground up to raise incomes and create jobs for Americans - especially middle-class Americans - and get our economy moving again. It is in sharp contrast to Barack Obama's plan, which does not treat the middle class well and which will reduce jobs rather than create them.
"The McCain tax plan will allow middle-class Americans to keep more of what they earn than the Obama tax plan. McCain will increase the exemption for children from $3,500 to $7,000 per child, and he will provide a refundable health care tax credit of $5,000 for every family. What does this mean for middle-class families? Consider a married couple, one of whom works, earning $55,000 plus employer-paid health insurance of $8,000, and who rent their home and have two young children. Under McCain's plan, this family would receive a tax refund of $2,087 for health care and other things. Under Obama's plan, including his proposed worker's credit, this same family would not get any tax refund; in fact, they will have to pay taxes of $1,213. That's a $3,300 advantage for that family with McCain's plan compared with Obama's.
McCain's plan also provides incentives for firms to hire more workers and to pay them more. He will stop penalizing American firms when they create jobs in America rather than overseas. The U.S. tax code now levies a tax of 35 percent on American firms, the second highest in the world. McCain would reduce the tax to 25 percent, an important reason why his plan creates more jobs than Obama's. Another reason is that McCain will not raise the tax on small businesses, as Obama's plan does. Under Obama's plan, the top marginal income tax rate, which many small businesses pay, will rise to over 50 percent, including his proposed 5 percent increase in the statutory rate, 3 percent for Medicare, 3 percent for Social Security, and 4 percent from the phase out of exemptions.
McCain's economic plan is comprehensive and helps the middle class in many other ways. By promoting domestic energy production, including nuclear power and exploration and production of oil and gas - which Obama has opposed - McCain will reduce the price of gasoline, electricity and heating oil. By promoting free-trade agreements, he will reduce taxes on job-creating exports and reduce the prices that middle- and lower-income families pay for food and clothing. In contrast, Sen. Obama opposes good trade agreements - voting against the Colombia free-trade agreement - that would create jobs in America."
Does the middle class ever get a break?
All I heard during Barrack Obama's campaign was how he was going to look out for the middle class and how Bush and McCain would do nothing more than make the rich richer. Well, every time I turn on the news, I cringe. All I see are crooks. CEO crooks, rich crooks, and political crooks. These crooks are getting rich off of taxpayers and we are getting nothing in return. The initial bailout has done nothing. The stock market is still extremely low. The only good thing I've heard of late is that gas is below 2 dollars a gallon right now. Now GM wants a bailout. Their CEOs flying in on private jets and asking for a handout. I truly do not want to get them one because I know it won't change anything. However, it breaks my heart to think of the millions of people who will truly suffer from this....including my mother.
Now President-elect Obama still claims to be out there for the middle class, but I just don't see it. His plans will do nothing more than to help the lower class. The rich will survive as they are rich, but it will be the middle class who again takes the hit. The more TV I watch, the more I see Obama as nothing more than a puppet of his political party.
My husband is so stressed out about this economy and his business that he is losing sleep at night. He had to fire someone yesterday to save costs which means he will have to work a lot more hours to cover for the person he had to let go which will add more stress and little to no downtime for him. Not to mention the poor bloke he had to fire right before the holidays.
I'm sitting here at my desk thinking about our monthly house payment and our two kids and I wonder how we will make it if my husband's boss decides to close his store. Will he send him to another store or will he just let him go? How will he find another job in this economy that would make enough money to pay our house payment? What will happen to my mom if GM gets rid of legacy expenses and she loses my dad's pension and her health benefits. What happens to my brother when his factory goes under and he is left with three kids and a wife to support?
Is anyone else literally sick to their stomach about all of this? I feel like I could just hurl and then I turn TV on and see all these crooks and I just want to scream. I've tried to stay positive and I've tried to give Obama the benefit of the doubt but his pal Bill Clinton is the one who started the housing crisis by forcing bad loans to be given and Obama has done nothing but surround himself with Clintons and I just can't shake the feeling that we won't rebound from this......at least not for a very very long time.
These are the 16 countries in the Middle East...s/m
Countries in the Middle East, they are all Arab
States, except Israel and Iran.
Bahrain
Gaza Strip
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Syria
United Arab Emirates
West Bank
Yemen
Obama is middle of the road?
That road must by at the Indianapolis 500, because it only seems to TURN TO THE LEFT.
I followed the news about the Middle East.
Good that the pro-western coalition won. This for everybody involved. What I read is that Hezbullah was not very eager to win the election, too much responsibility. What Hezbullah wants is to keep the veto right.
We will see who wins in Iran.
gt I wouldn't stand in the middle of a field
in a thunderstorm, because I'm afraid you've got karma of your own coming.
You're parents may have not been bigoted or judgemental but I believe you have more than made for what they didn't have. It's said their child has to be so mean, hateful, and bitter.
No the b!t*$ has a name and it's gt.
The Iraqi war has further destabilized the middle east. It has....sm
But obviously you don't think so so tell us how it has helepd to stabilize the region?
Freedom agenda in the Middle East?
Did Bush campaign promising a freedom agenda in the Middle East? I must have missed that during the debates. In fact, he specifically said he was against nation building when he debated Gore, although in all fairness, he didn't say he was against nation wrecking.
I guess he doesn't understand that the decider created more suiciders than he got rid of.
I can't wait to see how his base spins the long awaited truth from Bush's own lips that there were no WMDs and that Iraq had no ties to 9/11.
May God help us all.
Dems to focus on middle class..sm
Pelosi, Hoyer Say Their Focus Will Be on Helping Middle Class
Monday, November 20, 2006
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said Monday her new Democratic majority will extend a hand to Republicans in moving the agenda of relieving the middle-class squeeze. She said restoring the military draft will not be part of that agenda when Democrats take over the House in January.
Pelosi, following a strategy meeting with the next House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said she will meet with incoming House Minority Leader John Boehner and we'll find our common ground for the American people.
The principle of civility and respect for minority participation in this House is something we promised the American people. It's the right thing to do, she said.
Pelosi and Hoyer repeated that in the first 100 legislative hours of the new Congress that convenes in January, they will try to pass bills that directly affect the pocketbooks of working-class and middle-class people, including raising the minimum wage, cutting interest rates for student loans and allowing the Medicare program to negotiate lower drug prices.
Other top priorities for January are lobbying reform, implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and rolling back subsidies to the oil industry.
Pelosi said restoring the draft will not be on that list and was not something she supported.
The speaker and I discussed scheduling and it did not include that, Hoyer added.
Incoming Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., caused a stir by repeating a long-held position that a draft is the best way to ensure that all levels of society are represented in the military. Besides Rangel, there is almost no support in Congress for restoring the draft.
It's not about a draft, it's about shared sacrifice in this country, Pelosi said. She said Rangel is a strong voice for social justice in our country and his support for the draft was a way to make a point.
No, if those who do not push for peace in the Middle East sm
establishing a democracy and fighting terrorists there rather than here, if those people are wrong, we will all suffer. It is certainly much broader than that. As far as why we don't just get in and kick butt and get out, well, there was a time when we would have. Now, there are too many liberal watchdogs who on one hand say they support the troops and with the other cut their Achillles tendon. Forced to fight a PC war, we can never win this. That's my take on it.
|
