Fannie and freddie since 2006. Both McCain and the Bush administration have tried. How did they do that? Killing bills in the Democratically controlled banking and finance committee. It started LONG before the last 2 years.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Okay, its obvious that we are going down financially, but why would republicans want to make it worse? The auto industry is going down, and pubs don't want to help because it's "their problem" and not ours? Granted, a bailout may not work, but doing nothing will definitely not work. Are they really working for the country or taking a gamble and just looking at the next election? Meanwhile, we have yet another day of people losing jobs. Is it Jan 20 yet?
You crash this board and admonish my behavior, yet you can't see the same behavior on the other board. You're over there kissing up to them.
Yeah. You call them as you see them.
With your right eye closed.
You're just another lying phony crashing this board.
And no matter how many there are Obama will keep his law firms busy blocking them...
and spending, spending, spending.Well, you talked a little about tax reform, but
The only reason you haven't heard about Obama's tax cuts is because you have not been listening. His tax cut program will benefit 95% of the population, those individuals making less than $250,000 per year. Obama's plan also has an increase in deduction amounts for working families. I'll skip the scare tactics and terrorist innuendoes. They have nothing to do with the subject at hand…the economy. Preach that sermon to the choir. Nobody else is listening.
O's plan also proposes simplification of the tax code and streamlining tax filing. With regard to earmarks, Obama Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act would require disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be considered by the full Senate. There are also provisions for tax relief to small businesses.
So it seems that you think tax policies take care of the economy issue. But what about unemployment, jobs, worker's right's, minimum wage, stagnant wages, cost of health care and medical insurance, trade, outsourcing, energy, infrastructure, the mortgage crisis, predatory credit and lending practices, the stock market, etc. Does McCain have anything that remotely compares with this?
1. $1000 energy rebate.
2. State growth fund/Jobs growth fund job loss prevention measures.
3. Tax cuts to working families.
4. Eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000/yr.
5. Simplify tax code.
6. Trade policy reform.
7. Revise NAFTA to favor American jobs preservation.
8. Improve jobs transition assistance.
9. Tax credits to companies that preserve US jobs.
10. Establish Advanced Manufacturing Fund to encourage innovation and jobs creation.
11. Increased funding for Manufacturing Extension Program to create and protect US jobs.
12. 5 million new green jobs.
13. New job training programs for clean technologies.
14. Extend Production Tax Credit in renewable energy sector.
15. Create National Infrastructure Investment Bank.
16. Invest in science.
17. Make research and development tax credit permanent.
18. Reform Universal Service Fund to provide and expand broadband across America with new tax and loan incentives.
19. Tax relief for small businesses and start-up companies.
20. Create network of public-private business incubators.
21. Ensure freedom to unionize.
22. Ensure worker's right to organize.
23. Protect striking workers.
24. Raise minimum wage.
25. Crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders.
26. Create universal mortgage credit.
27. Ensure more accountability in the subprime mortgage industry.
28. Mandate accurate loan disclosure.
29. Close bankruptcy loophole for mortgage companies.
30. Create credit card rating system to improve disclosure.
31. Establish credit card bill of rights to protect consumer.
32. Reform bankruptcy laws.
33. Cap interest rats on payday loans.
34. Encourage lending institutions to make small consumer loans.
35. Expand Family Medical Leave Act.
36. Encourage companies to adopt paid leave policies.
37. Expand after-school opportunities.
38. Expand Child and Dependent Care tax credit.
39. Protect against caregiver discrimination.
40. Expand flexible work arrangements. Earmark Reform
Obama To Push Earmark Reform At Omnibus Signing
Obama to sign spending bill, push for new rules
Obama plans to sign spending legislation, push for new rules that would crack down on earmarks
PHILIP ELLIOTT AP News
Mar 11, 2009 06:09 EST
President Barack Obama plans to sign a massive spending bill to keep the federal government running, even though it is stashed with the very kinds of pet projects that the campaigning Obama promised to resist.
Obama could sign the $410 billion spending package as early as Wednesday, although he remains "troubled" by the so-called earmarks in the bill that Republicans and moderate Democrats have assailed as unworthy pork-barrel spending. The president planned to use the signing ceremony to announce earmark reforms.
White House officials in recent weeks have dismissed criticism of the earmarks in the bill, saying the legislation was a remnant of last year and that the president planned to turn his attention to future spending instead of looking backward.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama wouldn't be the first president to sign legislation that he viewed as less than ideal. Asked whether Obama had second thoughts about signing the bill, Gibbs' reply was curt: "No."
"This is necessary to continue funding government," Gibbs said. "It represents last year's business. Although it's not perfect, the president will sign the legislation, but demonstrate for all involved rules moving forward that he thinks can make this process work a little bit better."
It's that process that administration official planned to focus on Wednesday, not a bill signing that might take place in private. Aides said the administration would move to introduce new "rules of the road" that could allow Obama greater sway over lawmakers, particularly on politically embarrassing spending that generated mockery from pundits and rival politicians.
During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel-spending ways. Yet the bill sent from the Democratic-controlled Congress to the White House on Tuesday contained 7,991 earmarks totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the Republican staff of the House Appropriations Committee.
While the White House would say only that Obama would announce new rules on earmarks on Wednesday, it was clear he wanted to rein in spending, particularly on the pet projects lawmakers inserted into the spending bill.
The 1,132-page bill has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. Among the many earmarks are $485,000 for a boarding school for at-risk native students in western Alaska and $1.2 million for Helen Keller International so the nonprofit can provide eyeglasses to students with poor vision.
Most of the government has been running on a stopgap funding bill set to expire at midnight Wednesday. Refusing to sign the newly completed spending bill would force Congress to pass another bill to keep the lights on come Thursday or else shut down the massive federal government. That is an unlikely possibility for a president who has spent just seven weeks in office.
The $410 billion bill includes significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs. It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.
The measure was a top priority for Democratic leaders, who praised it for numerous increases denied by Bush. It once enjoyed support from Republicans.
But the bill ran into an unexpected political hailstorm in Congress after Obama's spending-heavy economic stimulus bill and his 2010 budget plan, which forecast a $1.8 trillion deficit for the current budget year.
The bill's big increases — among them a 14 percent boost for a popular program that feeds infants and poor women and a 10 percent increase for housing vouchers for the poor — represent a clear win for Democrats who spent most of the past decade battling with Bush over money for domestic programs.
Generous above-inflation increases are spread throughout, including a $2.4 billion, 13 percent increase for the Agriculture Department and a 10 percent increase for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system. The measure also contains a provision denying lawmakers the automatic cost-of-living pay increase they are due next Jan. 1.
What do I think about H. Clinton's mandatory health insurance proposal?
Here's my situation....I'm in my mid 50's, have a few pre-existing conditions, and am an IC doing medical transcription for years. I have health insurance which will cover the pre-existing conditions, however I rarely use the policy and have not been in a hospital for over 10 years. In 1999 my premium for coverage was about $250.00 per month. That same policy now costs me $1,097.00 per month, and that is coverage for one person.
I don't know about Hillary's proposals, or that much about anyone else's for all that goes. I do know however, that health care reform is being discussed again, and from where I am sitting I am a very strong supporter of health care reform, be it mandatory coverage or any other proposals. I frankly cannot afford monthly health insurance premiums that are running over one thousand dollars a month, and if you ask me, monthly health insurance premiums as high as this are criminal, to say the least.
Dear Friends, 1. ATR Presidential Primer: Everything You Should Know about the Candidates’ Tax Proposals (read more >>)
ATR Presidential Primer: Everything You Should Know about the Candidates’ Tax Proposals
The 2008 election is only days away. Soon you’ll be called on to vote for your next President, U.S. Senator, and U.S. Representative. Are you familiar with all their tax policies? Do you know where the candidates stand on the issues closely related to your family budget?
Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list of all the recent materials we’ve put out on the Presidential candidates. We think you’ll find these resources and links to be very useful in your decision-making process.
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, discusses his thoughts on the two presidential candidates in the Politico. You may want to take a quick read to see what he thinks hinges on this election.
Educational Resources:
- Which candidates have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge? See if your candidate has promised never to raise taxes. (Incumbents and Challengers)
- Americans for Tax Reform and Rutledge Capital Release Version 2.0 of Obama-McCain 401(k) Tax Calculator
- McCain v. Obama on Taxes
- McCain vs. Obama on Energy Taxes
- He$$ in a Hand basket: Life Under a Democrat Congress
- Five Things You Might Not Know About Obama’s Small Biz Tax Hike
- Obama’s “Spread the Wealth” Plan Raises Taxes on two-thirds of Small Business Profits
- If Obama Wants to “Spread the Wealth,” He Ought to Start With His Personal Tax Gap: Barack Obama Has a Tax Gap of Over $250,000
- Obama to U.S. Companies: “Don’t Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out” Obama Supports Keeping U.S. Business Rate Second-Highest in World
- Worried About Your 401(k)? Start Asking Obama About the Corporate Income Tax Rate
- Obama Advisor Changes the Definition of “Welfare”: Free Money Handouts Are No Longer Enough
- Joe the Plumber cares about more than just his higher tax rates: Expensing his Equipment in year one
Please consider making a $10, $15, or $20 donation to help Americans for Tax Reform continue our work. Thank you for your generous support.
Healthy Marriage, Fatherhood Initiative Approved; Work Requirement Strengthened
Today, President George W. Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program administered by HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF).
"The reauthorization of the TANF program takes the next step in welfare reform by strengthening work requirements and providing the assistance families need to climb the career ladder," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Welfare reform is helping millions of people climb out of poverty. Now, we want to go the next step and help them climb the job ladder by creating more opportunities for education and job training."
The new law maintains the same 50 percent work participation requirement for states as before. However, prior to today’s reauthorization, a caseload reduction credit allowed states to reduce their work requirement by their caseload decline since 1996. As most states experienced dramatic caseloads declines, the credit had virtually eliminated the work participation requirements for most states.
Today's reauthorization recalibrates the base year for calculating the caseload reduction credit and also closes a loophole to include separate state programs in the work calculation. These changes effectively re-implement a meaningful state work participation rate requirement as envisioned by the architects of welfare reform back in 1996.
"The reauthorization of welfare reform, with its strengthened state work participation rate requirement, supports the Bush Administration's goal of ending the crippling cycle of welfare dependency," said HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. "Welfare reform is a success because more families and individuals are working and entering the economic mainstream and fewer children are growing up in poverty."
Today's reauthorization includes $150 million to support programs designed to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages. Up to $50 million of this amount may be used for programs designed to encourage responsible fatherhood. In its welfare reform law of 1996, Congress stipulated three of the four purposes of the TANF block grant to states be related to promoting healthy marriages.
"A key component of welfare reform is supporting healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood," Dr. Horn added. “Approval of these funds will help to achieve welfare reform's ultimate goal: improving the well-being of children."
The Healthy Marriage Initiative, administered by ACF, was created in 2002 by President Bush to help couples who have chosen marriage gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. Funding for responsible fatherhood includes initiatives to help men be more committed, involved and responsible fathers, and the development of a national media campaign to promote responsible fatherhood.
The welfare reauthorization provisions also made several improvements to the child support enforcement program, including a change that will provide more support directly to families, especially those who have left welfare.
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press
Writer 35 minutes ago
More than four years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies
still are failing to share information while Congress battles over security
funding, a panel that investigated the terrorist hijackings will conclude in a
new report.
In interviews Friday, members of the former Sept. 11 commission said the government should receive a dismal grade for its lack of urgency in
enacting strong security measures to prevent terror attacks.
The 10-member, bipartisan commission disbanded after issuing 41
recommendations to bolster the nation's security in July 2004. The members have
reconstituted themselves, using private funds, as the 9/11 Public Discourse
Project and will release a new report Monday assessing the extent their
directives have been followed.
Overall, the government has performed not very well, said former commission
chairman Thomas Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey.
Before 9-11, both the Clinton and Bush administrations said they had
identified Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as problems that have to be dealt with,
and were working on it, Kean said. But they just were not very high on their
priority list. And again it seems that the safety of the American
people is not very high on Washington's priority list.
A spokesman at the Homeland Security Department declined to comment until the
report is issued Monday. Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland
Security Committee, acknowledged that some areas continue to be vulnerable but
have not been addressed due to disagreements with the Senate.
Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government
missteps that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It found that the United
States could not protect its citizens from the attacks because it underestimated
al-Qaida. Since June, the former commissioners have held hearings to examine
what they described as the government's unfinished agenda to secure the
country.
Among the main concerns, which former Democratic commissioner Timothy Roemer
said would receive the worst grades:
_The United States is not doing enough to ensure that foreign nations are
upgrading security measures to stop proliferation of nuclear, biological and
chemical materials. Such materials could be used in weapons of mass destruction,
and over 100 research reactors around the world have enough highly enriched
uranium present to make a nuclear device.
We've seen that Osama bin Laden likes to do spectacular things, said Roemer,
a former Indiana congressman. Is a dirty bomb next? ... We're not doing enough,
and we're not doing it urgently enough.
_Police, firefighters, medics and other first responders still lack
interconnected radio systems letting them communicate with each other during
emergencies. Responders from different agencies at the World Trade Center were
unable to coordinate rescues — or receive information that could have saved
their own lives — on 9/11.
Congress last year approved spending nearly $1 billion on interoperable
systems, but King said the matter is a very difficult issue.
_Both the Bush administration and Congress have continued to distribute
security funding to states without aiming most money at high-risk communities.
The Homeland Security Department gave $2.5 billion in grants to states and 50
high-risk cities last year, but some rural states, like Wyoming, received more
money per resident than terror targets like New York.
The House and Senate have been unable this year to agree on a funding formula
that distributes money based solely on risk, threats and vulnerability. King
said the Senate's proposal is still living with a pork-barrel formula. But
Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins said in statement
that her bipartisan plan provides a meaningful baseline of funds to each state
so that the nation as a whole can achieve essential levels of preparedness.
Kean said information-sharing gaps among turf-conscious federal intelligence
agencies continue to exist. He also chastised the Transportation Security
Administration for failing to consolidate multiple databases of passenger
information into a single terror watch list that would make it easier for
airlines to screen for suspicious travelers.
Moreover, expanded governmental powers to seek out terror-related
intelligence have not been adequately balanced by civil liberties protections or
oversight, said former Democratic commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste. He said
President Bush was tardy in naming a civil liberties protection board, whose
funding is anemic and which has not yet been met to get underway.
A bright spot in the government's performance is the creation of a national
intelligence director to help coordinate all government terror information,
Roemer said.
Generally, the grades range all the way from A to F, Kean said.
Still, No parent would be happy with this report card, said former Democratic
commissioner Jamie Gorelick.
Not sure if the embed link below will work. If not, here's the link to the web page where you can watch it. I'll pose a question immediately below this post.
Hi, all. Here's one site to keep an eye on what your government is doing with health care:
http://www.cprights.org/
I do not want socialized medicine. In England, if you're over 55 and need dialysis? Too bad. You're over the age limit. Folks, this is a government run program and they have to draw the line somewhere. Think you'll still be able to get the same meds you're on now? Don't think they'll say some of them are too expensive?
I should warn you - this is a conservative web site, so if you really dislike conservatives, this isn't the site for you but it does appear to look like a good site to keep an eye on health care reform and you can sign up to receive updates on health care reform as it happens.
I don't know about you but right now, our entire country, our people, are losing the war - the war on freedom. We may lose little battles here and there but if you feel it's important enough, and I do, write your representatives, the president, whoever. Fight those little battles. We don't want to look back 4 years from now and say Oh, man, we should have done this or that...... I don't want to log in to the Q one morning to find out the government, as they have already done since O took over, has passed another bill while I was sleeping (some congressman and senators were threatened with Marshall law and a plummeting stock market if they didn't sign certain bills, which they had less than an hour to read) and now my job is gone because we have new healthcare.
Fight for your jobs! Our government cannot run Medicare and Medicaid and they're both sucking us dry, meanwhile giving really low reimbursement rates to doctors. Do you really think they can successfully insure our entire country? I'll let you judge for yourselves.
Please TAKE NOTICE..... Bold and underlined portions are my emphasis. Read the whole article link below.
"Obama wants a health care reform bill on his desk by October, but faces opposition from Republicans who oppose creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.
Many of his fellow Democrats are wary of making deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the U.S. health care programs for seniors and poor people, to pay for reforms.....
,,,,About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments.That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.
Obama also proposed cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients by $106 billion on the assumption those ranks would decline as health care reforms phase in.
An additional $75 billion would come from "better pricing of Medicare drugs," Orszag said, adding the White House was in talks with stakeholders over the best way to do that.
The remaining $22 billion in proposed cuts would come from smaller reforms, such as adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud and abuse."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid record oil prices and soaring gasoline costs, Exxon Mobil's $400 million retirement package to its former CEO is a shameful display of greed that should be reviewed by Congress and investigated by federal regulators, Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record) said on Tuesday.
Dorgan said he wants Exxon Mobil officials to appear at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to explain how the corporation justifies giving its former boss, Lee Raymond, such a huge retirement package.
There can be no more compelling evidence that the price gouging and market manipulation which has produced record oil prices is out of control, and is working to serve the forces of individual greed and corporate gluttony at the painful expense of millions of American consumers, Dorgan said.
Dorgan's criticism of Raymond's financial package came on the same day that U.S. crude oil prices hit a record high of more than $71 a barrel at the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Higher crude oil prices are helping to push of up gasoline costs. The Energy Department reported prices jumped 10 cents over the last week to a national average of $2.78 a gallon, up 55 cents from a year ago.
President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he was concerned about the impact high gasoline prices were having on families and businesses.
Exxon earned the wrath of many lawmakers when it reported more than $36 billion in profits last year as energy prices paid by consumers soared.
Dorgan said he will push to win passage of his legislation that would impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and rebate that money to consumers, unless the companies used their earnings to explore for and produce more energy.
I think a sensible public policy would insist that the big oil companies either invest those windfall profits in things that will increase our own domestic energy supplies, or we should return some of that money to consumers, Dorgan said.
Using them to drop $400 million dollars in the pocket of a big oil executive is simply unacceptable, he added.
Exxon Mobil has defended Raymond's retirement package, saying it was pegged to the rise in the company's profit and market capitalization that occurred during his tenure.
"....Before the 1996 welfare reform law, Washington doled out more money every time a new family was added to the welfare rolls. If caseloads fell, states got less money. The system created a strong incentive to boost caseloads.
Reform ended the open-ended welfare “entitlement” and replaced it with a program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Instead of linking funding to caseloads, the law replaced that money with block grants and gave states the policy goal of reducing the rolls.
The measure generated tremendous controversy, but it was effective. Caseloads declined by two-thirds. Millions of recipients formerly dependent on government made the transition from welfare to work.
Now we learn that the stimulus bill, signed Tuesday by President Barack Obama, will unravel much of the ’96 legislation.
Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation — who helped write the ’96 law — says the stimulus measure would effectively give states bonuses for boosting caseloads. The new system, he says, is actually worse, because the payoff for increasing caseloads will be much higher than under the old program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
In a paper written with Katherine Bradley, Rector said that under the stimulus measure, “the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare.”
The policy goal of moving families to self-sufficiency has been largely replaced by a system that rewards states for increasing dependency...."
More here:
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/1046780.html
Oh, and Obama had better get on Welfare reform QUICKLY before it is a run-away train, or did the tra
already leave the station. Extension of unemployment benefits, GREAT, because in this economy it takes so much more time to find a worthwhile job. Extension of COBRA is great. But the free ride that many dishonest and lazy Americans have enjoyed for generations should be put to an abrupt END. Sorry, I see it every day. Hire enough trained, educated case workers, get them out in the field investigating these fraudulant claims, and give the truly deserving and huring population the funds they need to get back on track, as they want to, and push the lazy and indigent to get productive for our country.
I also love the money going directly to the SBA (Small Business Administration), so many of us are fed up and would probably do better working with the SBA to secure low-interest, easy term loans, employ ourselves, employ others, get the taxes rolling, and be part of the solution. Okay safely off soap box for now!
Truth is, Bush's Texas tort reform is hurting everyone.
Except, of course, his rich friends. That's so much better, isn't it, than laws which address the issues directly and favor the greatest number of citizens?
Texan tort reform that was W's payback to the wealthy who put him in office in Texas has been a disastrous model, giving doctors less incentive than ever to perform skillfully and leaving thousands of people with no recourse when they are medically victimized because they can't afford any longer to bring a justified lawsuit or can't prove the doctor intended to cause harm (a ridiculous qualifier). Insurance rates have gone UP instead of down for everyone despite the fact that tort reform was sold on the platform of cutting rates due to fewer insurance payouts. And, those who can manage to get a case into court no longer have the right to have a jury hear their case. Activist pro-Republican pro-big-business judges are all they've got in some cases, which means they haven't a fair chance at a favorable outcome.
That's life in crony capital USA!
But oooh, let's pretend it really *is* medical lawsuits that are the villains, and let's boo and hiss at the lawyers who make sloppy doctors and sellers of defective merchandise fear being held accountable for their actions. Isn't that what life in Bushworld is all about? - relieving the very best among us from any civic and legal responsibility for the destruction and death they cause? Let's all cheer for that! Go on sm, cheer some more for losing your right to sue a drunk doctor who kills your child! Cheer for your higher insurance rates! Cheer for your free market enterprise unfettered with quality laws, because you know they're going to be more concerned about the safety of those products they sell you than they are about making more money! Heck yeah, why shouldn't we all love that? We're all morons, we love it when they stick it to us! We can't get enough of that, nosiree!
Progressives harping about camp finance reform for years.
We've heard virtually nothing out of the republican party on this issue (except resistance) until how. Why is that? Could it be because they never expected democrats to beat them at their own game?
Spare us the phoney outrage. As the law stands now, those small potatoes contributions up to $200 have not been an issue until Obama received such a landslide of them and raised more money than any other candidate in history.
You want somebody to do something about this? You will have to start at the beginning...swallow the bitter pill and enact campaign finance reform. Until then, you can raise all the questions you want to raise.
PS: Ghadafi's claims that foreign national fundraising is "legitimate" is pertinent to this argument how? Have you seen the global electoral map lately? The entire world has their eyes on this election (hoping against hope we will not elect another saber-rattler) and are entitled to have an opinion.
http://www.economist.com/Vote2008/ Take a look.
O.K. friend, I LOVE tax reform for the wealthier bunch, the small fry like us have been shouldering
too much of the burden for many, many years, I love the cut-off for those making over 250K....hey, if we were bringing in that $$$ we would be happy and spreading it around (don't mean the manure,either!). We need stronger immigration reform FOR SURE, it is a touchy subject, especially in states like mine with a large immigrant population, but they just held a huge, large, angry rally on the State House steps becaue they don't want families broken up by sending the illegals back. Sorry, as a grandchild of immigrants who came here, assimmilated, learned, worked hard, payed taxes,and became PROUD AMERICANS, I feel strongly this is the right and only way and our president should enforce this. They are called "illegal" for a reason.
There are too many "Pet Projects" in states where the reps helped fund the Obamaa campaign, and these investments will not have a long term good for the country, we need programs that will directly affet the economy and the Americal worker ASAP. I believe he is forging ahead too quickly and blindly with relations with Syria, a known hot spot for extremists and terrorists, although I believe in the old addage "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," and I think that is what he is doing with Hillary going to Asia and Southeast Asia and opening talks with Syria and Korea. All in all, I just want to give this honest man a chance to get going on some things, see some of the results and go from there before I open mouth and insert foot!!!
Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
go democrats..go
Are they? Where I live I go house to house to get people to sign up as democrats and frankly many are signing on as democrats and I hear anger and distrust and concern about Bush and his policies..So, dont know where you are from but I see the actual opposite..I also see many minorities, Blacks and Latinos signing on to the democratic party. From your posts, IMHO you are a republican plant and so your posts mean nothing to me. You are either a couch political potato who never goes out there and works the grass roots or you are a republican trying to put seeds of discontent in the democratic party. Gotta tell ya, the democratic party is doing just fine and each time bush screws up, which has been many over the past five years, the democrats do even better..Yeehaww!!
Democrats
...and I sure DO NOT appreciate union busters. This country has gone beyond "dog eat dog." Bush wanted to spend $$$$ for research on Mars?! I'm all for new discoveries and learning new things, but come on...let's do ALL that we can for the problems here on earth and her inhabitants first.
The democrats did not cause
this mess. And it was not caused by the people who were extended credit. Here is part of what caused it:
Banks issued subprime mortgages to people at a rate they could initially afford but which would increase to an inflated rate after a period of time. Those banks then immediately sold those mortgages at the inflated rates to other banks.These adjustable rate loans were misrepresented to a lot of homebuyers, especially first-time homebuyers.A lot of them didn’t realize, for example, they could not refinance for a period of time without huge penalties. Then the market started to decline and many of those homeowners found themselves upside down on their loans and could not refinance. Their interest rates had ballooned to rates they could no longer afford. The banks who were sold the loans at inflated prices could not afford to lower the rates for the homebuyers because they had bought the loans based on the inflated interest rates and would lose money if they did.People lost their homes and the banks lost the amount of the loans they had bought. But the banks (and the CEOs) that initiated those loans walked away with a great deal of money.
It was because of greed. And the deregulation that the republicans have passed over the years allowed it to happen.
Here are some other facts:
Since 1960 the nation's deficit has risen during every republican administration and dropped during every democratic administration.
The standard of living and income has improved for everyone in the country during every democratic administration since 1960, EVEN for the top 1% of the country. It has gotten worse for everyone in the country during every republican administration EXCEPT the top 1%.
Please tell me how you think the democrats...sm
contributed to the economy diving in the last 2 years. Specifics please. The economy takes way longer than that to do anything. No economic bills have been passed. The last 8 years of the Bush presidency has put us into the tank. Stop parroting the party line. Lets be honest here. John McCain offers nothing better. Yes, well, those would be democrats as well
--
Democrats Obama, if elected the next President of the US, will change how other peoples look at the Americans: He will restore respect and admiration for the American people that was lost during these last 8 years. And the world will see that the American people do not discriminate (at least not the Democrats).Can't think of anything that would help democrats more
Skip the landslide. It would be an avalanche.
Obviously so do Democrats. nm
*
Like the democrats
don't do the same thing. When are people going to realize that both parties are just as crooked as the other here? When the dems had control of congress during Bush's presidency, did the dems do anything positive for our economy then. Of course they didn't.....why.....because they would hate to do something good during Bush's presidency because he might get credit for it. This goes both ways and your post is very one sided. We all need to wake up and realize that the only people we can trust is ourselves and stop putting so much faith in either party. Government as a whole has screwed us over and I am sick and tired of putting all the blame on one party. They all had their greedy little hands in the cookie jar and that is the reason we are in the mess we are in.
democrats and
Pace your rage. It has only been 100 days.
LOL, who lies, not democrats
That is what dems say? LOL. I ask you to check out one of the top posts, i.e., Rush and Olbermann..Reality check starts attacking the poster, Olbermann, MSNBC, saying they lie, even though the transcript is on the web, also printed in his article, and on video..yet they are lying right?? and its the dems that always scream that people are lying, right? I thought up a new name for neocons after reading about that Xtian..NOT..Robertson stating Chavez should be eliminated. Neocons are the American Taliban. You are just as bad. If everyone does not think, act, believe, live like you, then they are wrong and lying..You guys are ridiculous..
Democrats/Liberals
Amen,sm! I noticed that you used one word in one of your responses that is the tell-tale sign distingishing conservatives from liberals, that word being logic. Liberals have no logic and cannot reason, else why would they support Bill Clinton going to war in Bosnia/Yugoslavia when no attack at all had been made on our country and deploy our troops all over the world for no good reason, then pounce on President Bush who is only engaging us in this war on terror to protect all of us here at home, as well as those of our loved ones who have to travel the world over for companies they work for or those who serve our government in various capacities all over the world? Prior to 911, we had been attacked 19 times by terrorists over a period of 20 years or so and not one single president but Ronald Reagan and finally George W. Bush had the gumption to be a real leader and respond, with very noticeable results I might add. Does anyone remember Moamar Kadafi and how his terrorism stopped after President Reagan took care of him?? Bin Ladin and his terrorist organization had attacked us so many times without any response that he called the United States a paper tiger, believing his dreams of total destruction of our country were an inevitable event. I suppose the liberals prefer having our schools, supermarkets, shopping malls, sports arenas, etc., etc., be the targets for terrorists rather than following the advice of every top military general I can think of (save Wesley Clark who obviously has political ambitions)and fight the terrorists where they are amassed rather than fighting them here. To say that Saddam Hussein had no connection to terrorist organizations is nonsense. He hated us with the same vitreolic hatred Bin Ladin had for us and would have loved nothing better than to see us go down. In addition, he was paying a $25,000 reward for each Israeli killed in a terrorist attack. He was a WMD himself, just as Adolph Hitler was. You don't have to possess WMDs to be a WMD; the result is the same. Immediately after the 9-11 attack, 27 Al Qaeda terrorists were rounded up in the very small community in which I live (makes one wonder how many were in the larger cities and communities), and believe me, I feel a lot better knowing that they, along with their terrorist network, have been put out of commission under President Bush's leadership. As of today, our military has brilliantly performed the task of reducing the entire terorrist organization to about 17,000 in number. Quite a feat!! God bless them all!! I recently heard that a letter from a top terrorist leader was intercepted and stated, We are losing the war. I have much more I could say, but I'll save it for another time as it is getting late.
Psychotic democrats.
Well I guess that is better then a psychotic democrat.
I believe the Democrats will take the House
and pick up seats in the Senate enough to make it very even. When Lieberman is elected as an Independent, I predict he will change his party to Democrat when he gets into the Senate, a direct slam at the Democrats who failed to support him. Lieberman, the only Democrat with a spine, will be the big winner. I am not gnashing my teeth about any of this. Democrats are the one who do the teeth gnashing. They have been gnashing since Bush won the first election and their bitterness and sore loser attitudes have eaten away like a cancer all these years. Democrats have no plan for keeping America safe, or winning the war against the fanatics. They have opposed most of the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance methods. They have opposed aggressive interrogation tactics designed to get information to protect us, including opposition to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where detainees are treated better than they could expect if they were detained in their homelands... The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere don’t speak of timetables for withdrawal or bringing their fighters home. They’re in it for the long haul. They believe we are not. A victory by Democrats will validate their view and encourage them to fight harder. Republicans have been far from perfect in this war. They have barely approached mediocrity in their handling of domestic issues. But to change horses and leaders mid-war is a prescription for a longer engagement, because this is a confrontation that will end only in victory or defeat for one side or the other. That’s why the Republicans need to keep their majority and conservatives need to keep the pressure on them to get back to the original GOP principles that brought them that majority. That’s a better strategy than Republicans acting like Democrat-lite. Unfortunately, I think it is too late this time around. But there is always next time. God Bless our troops.
Democrats vs Republicans...
I agree that problems occur on both sides of the aisle...obviously. What I find troubling, and I am being serious here, is that Democrats seem much less likely to own up to it when they do something wrong, even when caught, and the entire party seems to rally around them and somehow want to twist the wrong into a right or rationalize the wrong (he only lied about sex for example. He committed felony perjury, doesn't matter what the lie was about. If it was no big deal, why didn't he just tell the truth? I guess that depends on what the meaning of truth is?). Republicans generally fall on the sword when caught. There just seems to be something skewed about the Democratic party as a whole and their vision of what is wrong or right and it seems to be directly correlated to whether one of their party is guilty or the other party is guilty. This is just an observation. I am not a registered Republican nor Democrat. I am conservative, I am registered Independent but vote for whoever most closely follows my belief system, though they as a rule don't do as they say...and I mean ALL politicians. I just keep hoping for an honest one. Bush did what he said he would do for a long time, but I see him waffling now, and I am not sure that is a good thing. As I look at the two major parties in this country, it just seems to me that on the Democratic side they are more likely to support each other and try to spin wrongdoing even when caught at it, rarely if ever admitting to wrongdoing. I do not see that so much on the Republican side. I suppose now I should go back to the conservative side and let the process continue. I thought the boards were about opinion and discussion and debate. How can you expect to change any minds if you only talk to the like-minded? Thanks for your time, Lurker. I do enjoy talking to you.
This is old news...and yet the Democrats in...
congress voted to give the President the use of force in Iraq. They knew all this then. But they voted to use force. So I do not understand why it is being brought up again now like it was some big secret. Yes, 20 years ago the US did try to deal with Saddam. And you saw what his word was worth. Zip, nada, nothing. Much like the word of the Democratic Congress that sold South Viet Nam down the river to the North...broke the promises that were made to end the war. If you want to point fingers at something dispicable that should be HIGH on your list.
I see it with Democrats and Republicans. sm
Where are all the progressives and antiwar people?
WELL there are certainly NO liberal Democrats
running for president...
Sick of it too, but the Democrats are no different. sm
Of the main candidates, our choices are a socialist, a Marxist, and a fascist. Which one do you think is not going to tax our eyeballs out, or force us further and further into a control grid? Obama sounds like the least harmful, but the only thing he is going to change is his mind. My vote goes to NOTA (none of the above).
Democrats vs Republicans
1. My research on the black liberation movement of which Obama's church is a part tells me all I need to know about whether or not I want to see him in office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology
2. If McCain is elected I believe we will face a great depression which will make the depression of the 30s look like a Sunday School picnic. People already losing homes, jobs, exploding deficit (and the piper will be paid sooner or later), cost-of-living getting so people can hardly afford to live. McCain's judgement is questionable in his choice of a running mate. Totally reckless to name someone he has only met once but then there's oil in Alaska.
I will not support or vote for either of them as were doomed either way.
The rich ARE the democrats
Look back over time. Who benefitted from tax breaks Clintons 2% of the richest people. Everyone makes it sound as though only republicans are rich. The democrat party has some of the richest people and they aren't paying their fair share. With the Democrats I've always had to pay more taxes. With the republicans I received refunds every year.
One wishes the Democrats who are...
Christians and live in rural areas would abandon the party that has created the kind of mentality that posts like this, so as not to be identified with such condescencion and intolerance. The Democratic party as it once existed is dead, and this is what rose from the ashes. Certainly something to be proud of...not so much.
Me too! My parents both Democrats....
the Zell Miller kind. THAT Democratic party is no more.
Because they are Democrats....and toeing....
the party line (congressmen) or Republicans who hate McCain. Not a one among them, I would be willing to bet, if you hooked them to a lie detector, would not get past the do you really think he would be a good President...lol Don't really think congressmen are the best judges...their approval rating is lower than Bush's. NO offense...just sayin.
Democrats are not responsible
for the mess we are in. It's the republicans and all their deregulation, for one thing. How about the war in Iraq and the huge deficit we now have? And then there are the corporate tax breaks. All of those things have contributed to the mess we are in. The money didn't trickle down, did it? It only made the top 1% of the people in this country better off. Those aren't things the democrats have done.
The republicans made this mess and then they have the gall to turn around and blame the democrats. Do you know why? Because there are those out there who don't know better and will believe them. That's what they are relying on. The republicans got into office with lies and misleading the public and they are still trying the same tactics. Hopefully enough people will not buy into it this time.
Democrats vs Republicans
Just dropped in to see if either the Dems or Pubs on this board have given an inch. They haven't. Boring and useless. I'm betting McCain will win so we'll never know about big, bad Obama for sure. I'll drop back in after a few years of McCain to see how well y'all like him then. Like about now I'm really wondering if John Kerry wouldn't have been an improvement over George Bush. I understand ole Georgie has an all time low approval rating. Must be a bunch of Republicans who aren't as pleased with him as they thought they would be.I think that the democrats need to go home...sm
and let the republicans sort it out with their president. Hurt feelings are not a reason to vote for or against something that is good for the country because you are trying to make a point. What a bunch of middle-aged/elderly/men crybabies. I hope that the president lays it on the line to those that voted against his plan.
So would those 94 democrats who voted no.nm
nm
Yes, and 94 Democrats voted no. So why not...
11 more democrats voting yes instead of 11 more Republicans?
Oh yeah...right. Those same democrats who...
got us into this financial mess. Let's reward them. NOT. For the first time in my life I am voting a straight Republican ticket.
Democrats are not socialists and do not need
credibility by defending themselves against this McCain campaign desperation. We can all see by now how well the current disparities in wealth distribution in our country are serving our overall interests. Our economy is in a meltdown. It's time for a different approach. Get with the program.
marks the location of current message within thread
![](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-speak-med.jpg")
Obama, if elected the next President of the US, will change how other peoples look at the Americans: He will restore respect and admiration for the American people that was lost during these last 8 years. And the world will see that the American people do not discriminate (at least not the Democrats).
