What worries me most about his plan...

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

Is that too many have already voted--and for the man who will literally bankrupt our great nation while "socializing" it.

Remember when Maxine Waters said that basically the gov't would run everything? She didn't plan to leak that one out! If you want to see it, here it is:

Even Jerrold Nadler, a very liberal Rep (D-NY) is concerned about Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright. That's huge!

MOSCOW � Russia will deploy short-range missiles near Poland to counter U.S. military plans in Eastern Europe, President Dmitry Medvedev warned Wednesday, setting a combative tone that clashed with global goodwill over Barack Obama's election.

In his first state of the nation speech, Medvedev blamed Washington for the war in Georgia and the world financial crisis and suggested it was up to Washington to mend badly damaged ties.

Medvedev also proposed increasing the Russian presidential term to six years from four � a change that could deepen Western concern over democracy in Russia and play into the hands of his mentor, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has not ruled out a return to the Kremlin.

Extending the presidential term could mean a possible 12 more years in the top office for the popular Putin.

Echoing Putin, who made criticism of Washington and the West a hallmark of his two-term, eight-year presidency, Medvedev used the speech in an ornate Kremlin reception hall to cast Russia as a nation threatened by encroaching American military might.

"From what we have seen in recent years � the creation of a missile defense system, the encirclement of Russia with military bases, the relentless expansion of NATO � we have gotten the clear impression that they are testing our strength," Medvedev said.

He signaled Moscow would not give in to Western calls to pull troops from Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or rescind its recognition of their independence following the August war.

"We will not retreat in the Caucasus," he said, winning one of many rounds of applause during the televised 85-minute address.

Talking tough, he fleshed out long-promised military measures in response to U.S. plans for missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, former Soviet satellites now in NATO. The Kremlin claims the system is meant to weaken Russia, not defend against Iran, as Washington insists.

Medvedev said Iskander missiles would be deployed to Russia's western enclave of Kaliningrad, sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania, "to neutralize, if necessary, a missile defense system."

The Iskander has a range of about 280 kilometers (175 miles), which would allow it to reach targets in Poland but not in the Czech Republic � but officials have said its range could be increased. Medvedev did not say whether the missiles would be fitted with nuclear warheads.

Russia will also deploy electronic jamming equipment, Medvedev said.

After the speech, the Kremlin announced Medvedev had congratulated Obama for winning the U.S. presidency, saying in a telegram he was "counting on a constructive dialogue with you on the basis of trust and taking each other's interests into account."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack emphasized that the planned missile defenses were not aimed at Russia.

"The steps that the Russian government announced today are disappointing," McCormack said. "But, again, this is not directed at them. Hopefully one day they'll realize that."

Medvedev appeared to be trying to improve Russia's bargaining position in potential talks with the Obama administration on missile defense. His wording suggested Russia would reverse the decision if the U.S. scraps its missile defense plans.

"Moscow isn't interested in confrontation, and if Obama makes some conciliatory gestures it will respond correspondingly," said Alexander Pikayev, an analyst at Moscow's Institute for World Economy and International Relations.

But independent military analyst Alexander Golts said Medvedev's "confrontational tone" could further harm relations with the United States, which plunged to a post-Cold War low over the war in Georgia.

"Russia itself is cutting off the route toward better ties," he said.

Regional leaders criticized Medvedev's missile warning. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said it was "certainly the wrong signal at the wrong time" and urged the U.S. and Russia to see change in the White House as an "opportunity for a new beginning."

Medvedev suggested the U.S. must make the first move to break the chill. The Kremlin hopes the incoming administration "will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia," he said.

In addition to calling for a six-year presidential term, he said parliament's term should be extended to five years instead of four and its power over the executive branch increased.

Both changes could strengthen the hand of Putin, who can run for president again in 2012 and now heads the dominant United Russia party.

I'm sure they will still be blaming Bush. That seems to be the only thing dems can say. Well Bush started it. Bush did this. Bush did that. I didn't do it, Bush and the pubs did. It's okay for me to double our deficit during my first couple of months in office because Bush spent so much in 8 years. It is all Bush's fault even though dems controlled congress for the last 2 years of his presidency. The pubs are all out to make dems fail to make them look bad even though the dems didn't do anything good during their 2 years control of congress because they didn't want the pubs to look good either. It isn't right to take free will away from someone wanting an abortion but it is okay to take the rights away from the doctor and not allow him to refuse to perform the procedure. It was okay for dems to wish Bush would fail but not okay for pubs and others to with Obama to fail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pickens Plan.

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

New jobs from renewable energy and conservation.

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

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

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

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

A domestic fuel to free us from foreign oil.

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

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

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

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

A plan that brings it all together.

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

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