The reason "they" have their houses paid off - sm
Posted By: sammypot on 2009-05-05
In Reply to: At the risk of sounding cold - AnudderMT
is that they worked hard, were frugal, did not use credit cards unless they could pay the balance each month, did not buy a car for everyone in the family, did not have a TV in every room, did not have cell phones, their kids did not have all the latest "toys", and, yes, "they" are eligible for Medicare because they EARNED it. And they did all this on salaries that were just enough to get by on. How do I know this? My parents are a shining example.
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
A tale of 2 houses
I just thought this was kind of interesting.
House #1
A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month, this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern 'snow belt' area. It's in the South.
House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every 'green' feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the Winter and cools it in the Summer. The system uses no fossil fuels, such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes one-quarter the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks, and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.
~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville , Tennessee ;
it is the residence of the 'environmentalist,' AL Gore.
HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford , Texas ;
it is the residence of former President, George W. Bush.
An 'Inconvenient truth.'
Anyone interested in the candidates houses? SM
On the www.apartmentherapy website, they feature the candidates homes. I love that site. Anway...spoiler alert, if anyone cares.
________________________________
What I found interesting is Mitt Romney lives in a comptemporary home on the water, which is pictured next to Barack Obama's conservative georgian style home.
OK, not of vital interest, I just love looking at homes. 
People in glass houses...
should not throw stones, skunko!
People in glass houses...
Aren't you the one who provided the link about illegal aliens from republicanherald.com just yesterday? Duplicity abounds!
"they" know that there are
people who want to believe in great conspiracies and will. They know there are informed voters who will dismiss scare tactics and innuendos and will. "They" don't even bother with the first group - lost cause.
This is the "they"
I read your response and thought to myself she (or he) must think I watch a lot of X Files. HA HA HA. Okay, when I wrote that this morning my DH came out and told me "They were threatened that there would be martial law if they didn't vote for the bill". So, I got on the Internet cos I wanted to know who is the "they" - Bush? Pelosi? Franks?, who? I thought who in their insane mind would could come out and tell people vote or else there will be marshall law. So, on C-span there is a video clip of Rep. Brad Sherman. (You can access the same video from the link provided above by sm). He's a California democrat. He said "Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop 2 or 3 thousand points the first day, a couple other thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no". He then said "That's what I call fear mongering". Now...I haven't been able to find out who exactly the "they" are (as in actual names), but this is what a democratic representative is saying.
He's not talking about million dollar houses.
He's talking about people that got schnuckered so they can keep their homes. Maybe they would reduce the principle, but that would also keep people in their homes and make the other homes in that neighborhood keep their value.
Do you understand the concept that if the homes around you go into foreclosure then that brings your home value down? 
People who live in glass houses -
Everything you do not believe in can happen to you and your family........
Who is "they" you refer to?
xx
Who are you referring to by "they" ?
I am also a Christian and don't condone any of it either and I think most people probably do not. "they" fear Muslims because all they know of Muslims is the small portion of them who are terrorists. They don't realize it is a peaceful religion. All of these things that were done in the name of religion over centuries were done by radicals one way or the other looking for an excuse. No one's God, not the God we Christians believe in, not the God Muslims believe in, condones killing and hatred. That is something we humans have done all by ourselves.
You talk about "Them" and "They"
You are the kind of person who is trying to divide this country with such unsubstantiated, ridiculously divisive statements.
Even your fellow Republicans are rallying behind PRESIDENT Obama.
I suggest you quit making ridiculous generalizations and start reading what YOUR president says instead of taking the word of lopsided, right-wing nut cases.
You do not make one credible statement in this entire diatribe. If you have so much "knowledge" of how he is screwing us over, please cite RELIABLE sources and facts.
Yeah...I thought his "they will call me if they need me"
comment really brought that point home. LOL.
[sigh...] I meant "they" went, not "then". nm
NM
I really agree with you, but since "they" have not extended the hadn across the aisle,......sm
so to speak, I felt that SOMEONE has to, we have to get this thinking ingrained and replacing this old, worn-out, stupid arcaic partison bullying and namecalling, and SOMEONE has to be the bigger person...why not an old Democrat like me??? :-) but I truly believe what I am saying also, friend!
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
That's right. He was paid but he
drove a used car and made about 10K a year. Apparently, he didn't do it for the money, so what's your point?
And those that do less, get paid less....
xx
And you really think HE paid for them?
Hate to break it to you hun, but in the end, we still paid for them. He works in the GOVERNMENT. Meaning he is paid with TAX dollars. OUR tax dollars.
They are running a campaign. Obviously, image is everything. Otherwise you all wouldn't be hating on the fact that John is an old man or that Sarah is a beauty pageant winner.
I'm so glad this is an important issue. If you want something donated to charity, contact O and tell him to sell his jet and give the money to hungry children.
Sheesh.
You PAID them? Gee, let's put you in DC
nm
No stress here. If anyone is getting paid here...
it would seem to be the dem attack machine. thanks for your concern tho.
She paid for the tanning bed herself...
not the taxpayers. Maybe we should go in all the gov mansions in the lower 48 and see who installed what. Sheesh! lol.
As to the rape kit thing...you act as if Wasilla, Alaska is the only city who did that. It is common practice in the lower 48 as well. That does not make it right, but it is not isolated to Sarah Palin. And it you look closer, the Wasilla Police Department AND the State police (not under her jurisdiction) were actually paying for the testing, and then passing the cost on to the patient, which prompted the STATE, because of the state troopers billing as well, to ban the practice. So if you are going to take Wasilla to task for it, add several towns in the lower 48 to the list.
Yes, and the devil will be paid. n/m
It's not about what she wears. It's about who paid
of the populist appeals to the no frills, no elites allowed "working folks" who they are trying to dupe into believing they give a rat's butt about. If they are so cavalier with their campaign contributions, no telling what they would be willing to do if they ever got their hands on taxpayer money.
I am not b*tching about how little MTs are paid....
and we the people DO pay for union contracts with higher prices on goods. Union dues DO NOT pay for their benefits. Employers DO, who pass that on to consumers. I know you know that.
You don't have to tell me about Sam. I grew up in Sam country. I know a few blue haired ladies who started in the first store built in my little town who are rich today because of the profit sharing.
Yes, I shop at Wal-Mart. As do many millions of Americans. And not all their products are cheap knock-offs.
Oh I see...doesn't matter who someone associates with or what he does, or what a union does illegal or not, as long as it benefits the union members. I can see why Obama is not a concern to you.
Wonder how much Google is getting paid
Now that Google is tracking your search of symptoms put in by those who think they might have flu, they will send that info to the government and let them know where flu outbreaks may be? Now, of course, there will be those that think that is wonderful but those of us who do understand our privacy should be a freedom in this country, we know this is an out and out invasion of our privacy. Google has no privacy safeguards in place, so if Google is giving the government information on things we google, as they already have, you still think your government is wonderful and looking out for you? Google should be ashamed.......they are selling us out. There will be more and more companies invading our privacy as the government invades more of our private lives and these companies do their bidding.......
It probably will not be paid back.
Besides, we already owe China and now more? We still need to pay back the first debt. Looks like United States will be sold soon.
I think that if you truly paid attention
to the complaints on this board, you would realize that what we are complaining about is not the fact that our money is going to government programs to help people who need it. Most of us are upset because these government programs are being abused and misused by dishonest people who would much rather not work and be lazy just to receive government assistance. I have no problem helping people who need it. I think Clinton did a good thing by reforming welfare and I think it is a shame that Obama is undoing that. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up.....not a hand out.
Not wanting to help people in need is not the issue here and I wish that you guys could understand that. We aren't being heartless here. We are just sick and tired of people mooching off of the government when they could work and make a living for themselves.
If the dishonest people who are abusing the system could be taken out of the welfare equation, just think of the extra money we would have to really help those in need. Think about it.
Maybe if they ALL paid their taxes....
instead of hiding money in their freezers, offshore accounts and various tax shelters.......THEY ARE ALL GUILTY IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
It is probably not an MT and a paid blogger. sm
They are on all the political boards. The first hint was CV. You brought up some topics that are a no-no. I know it is hard, but try to ignore and not respond to posts attacking you. People need to question. I hope people do their research and there is some discussion on these topics. It is crucial that everyone understand the monetary system.
He was paid, the firm wasn't. SM
Either way, he could have said no and he didn't. Mind you, I have a limitation on what I think gay rights should extend to, but I won't go into that here because I will get slaughtered.
He paid with his own earnings? Oh how awful.
And what was your point? Wouldn't you tend to trust a candidate more who paid for his campaign with his own money, rather than taking bribes from special interests that he has to pay back later by stealing more freedom and cash from you?
And if your point was that his take on the case was so high that he could finance a whole campaign with it, again, so? - A jury of your peers made that award and likely you would have too had you been on the jury and had a chance to hear the facts. If he had been representing you in a case in which your child was disemboweled by a defective piece of equipment which the manufacturers knew full well tended to disembowel children but they sold it to you anyway, would you think the jury awarded too much or the lawyer might get paid too much?
Or instead of actually thinking about the need to have lawyers represent people who have been egregiously harmed by incompetent and negligent companies, and the need to have juries hear the facts and make appropriate awards when justified, is it just easier to nod at the bullcrap propaganda which says you don't NEED to be protected because look how much money the lawyer makes?
When it's your turn you're going to want that lawyer and you're going to want that jury to hear your story. So what is the problem you have with holding villains accountable and seeing other people get the settlements they deserve?
Yeah, I forgot, he never paid
*No child left behind* either....remember that...Yeah, silly me, he would never do that. My sincere apologies....javascript:editor_insertHTML('text',' ');
javascript:editor_insertHTML('text','');
again...as usual...paid no attention...
The taking one more shot post appeared LONG before your cease fire....you just had not seen it yet. But it would not have mattered. I didn't read this latest diatribe...too tired and really don't give a darn. And I will give you a clue dear, one of those 4-letter words...I did not say the GOP then does not resemble the GOP now....in fact I agree whole-heartedly. The GOP has turned into Democrat lite. Which is why I don't belong to the grand old party anymore. Only register as Repub in primary years because if I didn't, I couldn't vote, and I want to have a say, no matter how small. You should really ask questions before you jump off the deep end...but you don't care, because you are always right, aren't you? Speaking from that high horse of moral authority. You must have the word "bigot" in your shortcuts, you sure invoke it enough. LOL. Really too bad that just you typing it here doesn't make it true....or maybe it is, the gospel according to Globetrotter....LOL geezzz.
If we were being paid bloated wages, maybe, but
if they want to go any lower than they already have gone (I had a truly insulting offer a few weeks back of 0.0625 cpl with 30 years experience), I say let India have it. MTSOs need to be going in the opposite direction and MTs might want to look into unionization themselves. Peronally, I think we are also worth $28/hr and do not consider that to be an exorbitant for MTs or for auto workers, given the COL. JMHO.
I paid attention and I ain't even republican
Now that your hope for racist remarks have no doubt been proven unfounded, you gotta start grasping at anything you can find, because those "racial" remarks were really all the democrats had going for them. Those mean 'ole republicans.
Are you really so racist that you don't think a black man may actually like McCain instead of Obama? Are you that deluded in your thoughts?
I have several black neighbors and they have made it quite clear they will never vote for Obama. They work their butts off and don't believe anyone has the right to their money!
I don't care where they came from, as long as he paid for them - nm
x
If she paid a lot of money for the B-52's hair
.
Palin's stylist paid twice as much as
http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=9234675&nav=HMO6HMaY
they went out to people who paid taxes, too.
x
on-call is paid time
you do realize they would be paid to be on call. So they could be on call at home or on call at the facility. they would be paid either way. Are you familiar with on-call pay?
union people will still get paid for doing nothing.
Apparently you have paid NO attention.
This talk about NWO has been out there since Bush 41, almost two decades. Where have you been? But if it makes you feel better to blame Obama, have at it.
This election was bought and paid for by
P.S. We paid off our mortage last year
and DH's truck is free and clear also. It took us 15 years to pay the mortage and 4 years for the truck. If we want something, it will be in cash. We bought and paid for our cars and pickup truck with cash. We haven't had car payments since I was stupid enough to buy a brand new car back in 1985. If we can't afford a car with cash, we would wait. We're waiting now. I would love to have a newer car and DH really should have a newer truck because it's part of his business, but that's not in the cards. Maybe next year (saying this for 3 years now).
Maybe if the O appointees paid their taxes.....sm.
This is from the Washington Post. The name of the article is titled: Federal Insider: Staffing Shortage Hinders Treasury's Progressţ
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/09/AR2009030902807.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
You're right - look elsewhere! I paid cash for my car
the current recession. (Also a nice used car.) I test-drove the car, talked them into letting me 'vet' it at my own mechanic, and when it passed, I showed up at the dealership with a cashier's check for $1.5K less than their 'bottom line'. I told them it was all I had. (It was the truth). The salesman went and talked to the manager, came back, and said 'You've got a deal.' (Also asked me 'where did you learn to buy cars?) I also talked them into a free extended warranty, radiator flushing and new coolant.
:D
Most beneficiaries draw out FAR more than they ever paid in.
I don't have time to hunt down the information, but I've heard for many years, from many different sources, that the average beneficiary collects every cent they ever paid into the system within something like 5 years, and every penny paid after that is a freebie from you and me, the folks currently paying into the system. Frankly, it's one great big inter-generational pyramid scheme.
In fact, when the retirement age was originally set at 65, way back when, the average life expectancy was UNDER that by a few years, so the system was designed for people NOT to collect from it.
My mother retired at 65, and she's going to be 88 next week. So that's something like 18 years the rest of us have supported her. She might also be getting some sort of widow's benefits; not sure about that, but if my dad were still alive, he'd be 96 (he died 15 years ago), and anything he paid into the system would have been paid out LONG before he died.
So, do I want to take away people's benefits, even if they're getting a freebie? No, of course not. They were promised this, and they're getting it, albeit at our expense. What I would like is for the rest of us to be given a choice to opt out, either entirely or for at least a percentage, because at this rate, my money would do better for me stuffed under the mattress than entrusted to the greedy hands of the politicians in Washington.
(And no, I don't stash cash in my mattress, so don't be coming over here to hunt for it! I'll sicc my psychotic killer gecko on you!)
I paid attention during history lessons. sm
El Duce and Fat Moose were Mussolini's nicknames. I would love to discuss the facts, not debate (argue) political viewpoints because it distracts everyone away from reality and the facts. That is precisely what they want us all do.
Bullhockey, illegals are paid in cash, there is NO tax being taken out. nm
x
sounds like your vote is 'bought-and-paid-for'.
The amount of $$ paid out in benefits to smokers
the amount of tax revenue generated by the sale of tobacco. You don't seem to protest too loudly when it comes time to spend it and waste no time marginalizing and bashing people with an addiction. These are tired tactics designed to take the focus off of the REAL issues raised in this thread with regard to the economy and differences between party platforms, policies and plans. Just how long do ou think pubs can run and hide from the fact that what they have to offer is EXACTLY the same thing as what we all are running fast and far away from? Careful, your desperation is showing.
|
