Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Yup - that's what I thought "The O" is spending over 170K on his coronation

Posted By: and it's Bush's fault on 2009-01-19
In Reply to: You're right. It IS Bush's fault. He belongs in jail, - not in the White House.

Real good logic there. NOT


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

Everybody else is too busy getting ready for the coronation of the Obamanation!
x
Charging is not spending money...it is spending someone elses money!
When you are debt free (as we are) THEN you spend money...anything else is just going into debt. I highly doubt he pays cash for anything.
To "the truth is out there"

I tried to email you and don't think I had a problem, but please check your email to see if you received anything from me.  (Hope so.)


Will be leaving the computer for a bit but will be back later this afternoon.


Have a great day! 


"The great unwashed??"

American citizens practing their right to free speech.


 


Jon Stewart - "The Miami Seven" sm
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/26/tds-the-miami-seven/
Describing Sam as "the pub bully" says all I need
nm
In "The World According to Sam", the Dems are
They caused the 9/11 attacks. They caused World War II. They caused Jesus to be crucified. They even caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. When the sun finally burns out and implodes upon itself, that'll be the Democrats' fault, as well.
"The wisdom of the Clinton Presidency..."
ohhhhh to quote reville guffaw guffaw GUFFAW guffaw lol
"The Living Dead" Yes, perfect!
nm
I remember "The Grit!" It was a great
little newspaper, akin to USA Today.  He used to sell it at the neighborhood grocery store when he was about 10.  He was a real go-getter and really funny.  He died in 1997, miss him, but I want to thank you for the memory :)
Obama truly believes he is "the one". McCain would
nm
Oprah calls O "The One". The man is a politician,
nm
"The truth about South Ossetia"

Remember in the last couple of months when McCain announced, "Today, we are all Georgians"?


I think Putin is taking a "wait and see" approach to the new USA President.  Bush has certainly heated up the "Cold War" during his eight years in office.  While there is not much reason to trust Putin, there's even less reason for Putin to trust the USA.


We can't forget the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia and, more importantly, the sequence of events related to that conflict.  I would encourage anyone who has forgotten that Georgia was the aggressor (with our help) to click on the link below.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/31/russia-georgia


 


Bush, "The Decider" still has time

to use them, to create even more havoc, wars, etc.


I'll feel much safer after Obama takes his oath of office (assuming he actually has the opportunity to do so).


O'Reilly, etc. are not "the regular news."

Try watching the morning news at 6 a.m. or during the day until 5-6 p.m. That's the news I'm talking about.


O'Reilly and the others are like Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman, and all those other fellas. They are more like a political talk shows. That's not news.


I meant I saw "the" post below - oops
Try getting out on the other side of the bed is right.

I was referring to the posts saying "Please do not feed the troll", and "Back under the bridge, Troll".

But guess you just like to plagarize what other people write.
John "the fundamentals of the economy
NM
John "The Economy is doing Well" McCain? nm
x
Right. "The people" that he cares about so darn
nm
Ogden Nash..."The Rhinoceros" - sm
The rhino is a homely beast,
For human eyes he's not a feast.
Farewell, farewell, you old rhinoceros,
I'll stare at something less prepoceros.
I sure wouldn't mind having that car! ("The Beast")
definitely come in handy for those times when I have to drive through East Oakland and the Raiders have won,
or in San Francisco during Critical Mass. A hood-mounted bazooka wouldn't be half bad either, for those massive tieups on the Bay Bridge.
;)
With respect to "the brush," didn't...
...he say recently (I'm paraphrasing here) that he'll still have the brush, but since he's no longer governor, the brush will be smaller.  LOL!
Dem vs. GOP spending
You can look this all up, but thought this might help. We'll see if it works. This doesn't even include the last 2 years. Note the very first column - 37 presidents over 198 years.
If they don't like spending.......
Where did over $10 trillion go over the last 8 years?
I'm sorry but spending more and more

money is the path to destruction.  The reason Bush's tax cuts didn't work was because we were still spending WAY too much money in government.  More government programs will only cost us more money, raise our taxes, and the American people will be hurting more.  Businesses that employ people will cut back knowing taxes are going up and more people will lose jobs.  Some businesses will go under and more people will lose jobs.  I just do not see this spending spree and government programs helping us at all.  I do not want a bigger government.  I do not want government to have more control because God knows they can't even do their part without screwing something up.  We have too many corrupt people in Washington who are trying to pay off the special interest groups that got them elected in the first place.  If Obama signs this omnibus bill, that will be the final nail in his coffin for me.  I gave him a chance and all I've seen is lie after lie.  I truly feel that he is running this country even more into the ground. 


If I am wrong, I will gladly admit that, but I will have to see a major turn around in order for me to admit that.  Right now....all I can see more government control and future bankruptcy for our country and it scares the dickens out of me.


Read PK's post below that begins with "The key words are"

"The reign in Spain falls mainly on McCain".
nm
"The First thing I will do as president is sign the FOCA" sm

The Audacity of FOCA



BY The Editors



As the election quickly approaches, the U.S. bishops are shining a harsh spotlight on one bill: the Freedom of Choice Act, commonly called FOCA. FOCA is again before Congress; its chief sponsor in the Senate is Barbara Boxer and one of its co-sponsors is presidential candidate Barack Obama.


In July 2007, Obama told a Planned Parenthood audience: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” Search YouTube.com for the words “Obama” and “FOCA” to hear it for yourself. Since Obama has said that signing FOCA into law would be his first priority as a new president, summarizing the bill answers the question: For what change does Barack Obama have the audacity to hope?


The U.S. bishops’ summary of FOCA points out:


• It creates a “fundamental right” to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. No governmental body at any level would be able to “deny or interfere with” this right, or to “discriminate” against the exercise of this right “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” For the first time, abortion would become an entitlement the government must condone and promote.


• Some states require that women be told about the risks of abortion. FOCA would erase all informed-consent laws states have enacted.


• Many states require that parents be informed and sign off on their daughters’ abortions, just as they are informed and involved in every other surgical procedure. FOCA would override and end all parental-involvement laws.


• Some states have laws promoting maternal health. Obama’s FOCA wouldn’t allow them.


• Regulation on abortion “clinics” helps keep these businesses responding to health and safety concerns. FOCA would end these regulations.


• FOCA would disallow “government programs and facilities that pay for or promote childbirth and other health care without subsidizing abortion,” say the U.S. bishops.


• Conscience-protection laws would end. These currently allow Catholic and other pro-life hospitals, doctors, medical students and health-care workers to opt out of participating in abortion in many places.


• After FOCA, any laws that prohibit a particular abortion procedure, such as partial-birth abortion, will no longer be in force.


• FOCA would also strike laws requiring that abortions only be performed by a licensed physician.


For a careful legal analysis of FOCA by the U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel, or a summary fact sheet to distribute, see NCHLA.org.


In a Sept. 19 letter to members of Congress, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, raised the bishops’ concerns about any possible consideration of FOCA.


Despite its deceptive title, FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry,” wrote Cardinal Rigali. It would also “counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.”


"The Spew" lol. perfect. I have lost ALL respect for
nm
Cut military spending!
How about we spend less on war and more on the citizens of the United States? Those who have family members in the military whose livelihood depends on war may call this socialism, but I call it common sense!
How about spending all that energy doing
Sorry if you call what you have been doing work, but it shouldn't surprise me. Most O lovers aren't worried about hard work, just free money.
Spending under control...huh?

Yeah.....an 825 billion dollar stimulus package that won't really work....sounds like spending is under control to me.  Holy crow people!  Nothing like adding that to our huge deficit now and how many days as he been in office?  Is that like a new record of making the deficit shoot up so fast within the first month of a presidency.  Impressive....NOT. 


This spending is just a drop

in the pocket at what they will actually have to spend to buy us out of this mess.  We can't afford to spend our way out of this.  They are going to have a spend a lot more money realistically do create the jobs they are talking about.  Plus, all this money won't be going into the system right away.  To me this package is crap.


At least with major tax cuts businesses could work their way out without government controlling them.  I do not like the idea of our government controlling so much. 


With all the spending he is proposing
to make government bigger.......he will bankrupt this country. 
And spending money

we don't have is going to save the country?  What I want to know is this.....we are all about finding alternative fuel sources and we want to end our dependency on foreign oil right?  So if we are going to spend and invest money, why not spent it on drilling for oil now as well as starting alternative fuel sources.  Think about how many jobs that would create and they would be longterm jobs because we will constantly need energy.  To me that would seem like a smart thing to spend money on instead of the pet projects and crap that congress just voted for...jerks. 


People would get jobs and could then afford healthcare.  That would mean less people needing government assistance....but wait......Obama and the democrats want the American people dependent on government....my bad.....so that wouldn't work for their personal agenda of having more control and power over us little people. 


Runaway Spending

Meet the Press: GOP Whip Cantor Hides Behind Troops to Explain Runaway Spending


by:  Scott Isaacs


GOP House Whip Eric Cantor (R - Virginia) gave a gem of a performance today on NBC's Meet The Press, this site's parent company which is ultimately owned by General Electric. Cantor's job was to criticize the administration while trying to convince David Gregory, and by extension the American people, that his own personal behavior in Congress as well as the collective behavior of the GOP in Congress prior to the Obama administration was immaterial to the current situation.

First up on Cantor's checklist was to attack the administration on not having a concrete plan yet to remove troubled assets from the balance books of American banks. When confronted with the fact that the Republicans had no current plan and that the previous Republican administration was completely befuddled by the whole issue of the troubled assets and how to value & remove them Cantor insisted that it was important that America look forward, not backward.

Second was to go on the offensive against the administration in the name of wasteful spending. Whilst criticizing the Obama administration's stimulus plan, Cantor loudly lamented (while holding up a sheaf of papers) that the poor Republicans had a plan of their own but it was totally ignored by the press and, thus, ignored by the public. Cantor then went to bat on the 2009 budget bill that Obama signed into law criticizing the earmarks and the dreadful deficit spending. David Gregory then asked Cantor "People are wondering where these fiscal conservative convictions were when Republicans in Congress were complicit in President Bush's spending." Cantor's reply was quick and predictable: Of course they did! But it was for a good cause: the troops! How dare anyone question a massive budget bill in which a fraction of the massive spending goes towards outfitting our troops? Cantor slyly avoided the point that the regular Pentagon money was in the runaway budgets that the Republican Congresses approved but the specific money to operate the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were specifically appropriated as emergency measures so that they would not have to be tabulated all together and give the public a sticker shock and awe campaign over how much our Arabian adventure was actually costing. Nor did he give the Democrats that voted for this last budget the same out that he himself took: they were just doing it for the troops because we should all take care of our troops and that is what a patriotic American would do: okay anything with even a fraction of military spending in it even if the rest is massive and unneeded pork barrel spending. Despite the fact that we are still very much at war in Afghanistan, which apparently slipped Cantor's mind, he left the blame to lay squarely on Congressional Democrats. It got more entertaining when Gregory asked Cantor if it was true, as the Democrats had presented data to show, that Cantor had supported 46,000 earmarks in his time in Congress. It was at this point that Cantor said with heartfelt sincerity that there was more than enough blame to go around but that now was the time to be forward-looking and heed his and Minority Leader John Boehner's call for a moratorium on earmarks. Cantor also generously offered the Republicans in Congress' help in supporting any veto that President Obama wanted to use on a Democratic-written bill and, if need be, the Republicans would even move on Obama's behalf to repeal any legislation that Obama feels was a bad idea. It was a very touching moment of bipartisanship... a member of the other party selflessly offering to help the President undo everything he has done over the past 50 days.

Gregory then brought up the specter of government stabilization of the financial system through buying up the troubled assets. Cantor specifically said that this was priority #1. Gregory asked Cantor if he would be willing to deviate from the current Republican stance of rigid fiscal conservatism to spend the money needed to gather up these troubled assets and remove them from the game board until they had recovered to the point that they were not toxic on the banks' balance sheets anymore. Cantor hemmed and hawed saying it would depend how much it would cost and so on. Gregory then hit him with the Big "T": $2 trillion. Cantor demurred as best he could, avoiding an answer from then until the end of the interview.

Pundits and Republicans both label Cantor as one of the up-and-coming rising stars in the Republican Party. He seems to need more experience on Meet The Press before he takes a serious spokesman role. If David Gregory can roll you, Tim Russert (bless his soul, I miss him) would have eaten you with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.



but it's not his money he's spending...
it is taxpayer money. that's they problem. I don't care if he spends a hundred grand on his date - if he's money. But when it's taxpayer money and he's spending it for fun, I see a problem.
Spending..AND not even reading what they are
nm
and "the polls" said Kerry was winning on election night
but you probably still think those polls were correct, so I just wasted my breath.
I hope President Obama is watching "The View". sm
T. Boone Pickens is on there -- he is one brilliant man, and President Obama needs to pay attention to that this man has to say!!
Hopefully we will no longer be spending billions on the
.
The only attorneys spending money here are
the ones preying on the witch hunt delegation and receiving funds via internet extortion schemes. Obama does not have to lift a finger, just sit on the sidelines and watch the SC strike them down, one after another.
So agree with you. It is a spending stimulus.
No social security, nothing for the future but debt. I bet a country will be ready to buy us soon. Probably China, Iran, and Russia just waiting to buy us and take over. Shoot, probably it is in the stimulus bill because NOT ONE PERSON HAS HAD TIME TO READ IT AND GOVERNMENT PASSED IT. HOW STUPID!!!!!!!!
Government Spending: Is It Worth $62,000 to You?.....sm


Government Spending: Is It Worth $62,000 to You?

By John R. Lott, Jr.
Author, “Freedomnomics”/Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland

The stimulus bill had to be passed quickly. President Obama warned that not passing it would result in disaster. He warned that any delay was “inexcusable.” The 1,071 page stimulus bill had to be voted on quickly — so quickly this last week that the House and the Senate couldn’t even provide politicians the 48 hours they were supposed to have to read it.

The legislation was not put up on the Web until 11 PM on February 12 and the House passed it just 12 hours later. The Senate started voting on it only hours after that. Politician after politician admitted or complained that it was physically impossible to read the bill. As it was, the copies available on the Web for voters had all sorts of hand markings on it that sometimes made it difficult to figure out exactly what the bill proposed.

Just to let this sink in — the amount of money that the government is committing to spend this year is equivalent to the average taxpayer just writing the government a check today for $62,200.

Despite all this pressure, Obama seems rather laid back after the bill was passed — he doesn’t plan the signing ceremony until Tuesday. As the New York Post noted, after passage, Obama “promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway.” Possibly, Obama’s vacation was well deserved, but why couldn’t Congress have held debate and voted over the weekend or on Monday to allow extra time to read the bill?

It was not just the House and Senate rules that were set aside to get this vote through quickly. Promises were broken also. During the presidential campaign, Obama promised voters at least 5 days to study legislation. Obama’s presidential campaign Web site claimed that any earmark should have a written justification as well as “72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.” Of course, the whole spending bill is at odds with Obama’s promise to cut “net” government spending.

But the Democrats had help ramming this through. Three Republican Senators — Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow, and Susan Collins — could have voted for more time for debate. It was only with all three of their votes that the Democrats were able to reach the exact 60 votes they needed Friday to pass the bill. If any one of these three senators had asked for more time to read the bill and allow others to analyze it, they would have gotten it.

Not only did the final “stimulus” bill have major changes from what had been voted on previously by the House and Senate, but the amount of money involved is staggering. With 90 million tax filers who actually pay taxes, the $787 billion means the average taxpayer will pay over $8,700.

By itself, adding $8,700 to the average tax bill should get everyone’s attention. But that is on top of everything else that we are spending this year. With the stimulus bill, the $700 billion financial bailout (half spent by Bush and half by Obama), and the bailout for the auto companies, this year’s deficit is already at about$1.7 trillion — almost $19,000 per taxpayer. With more possible bailouts for the auto industry and others, that total might rise further.

But the stimulus won’t just raise government expenditures for the next two years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that from 2010 to 2019 government expenditures for just 20 provisions will increase by almost $2.4 trillion. Assuming a 4.5 percent interest rate, that is the equivalent of about $1.9 trillion today. Adding that to the previous total brings the total to about $40,000 owed per taxpayer.

But that is not all the money that taxpayers are going to be on the hook for. Last week, the Obama administration promised another $2 trillion for the financial bailout. The decisions that we are making just this year are adding up to $5.6 trillion — $62,200 per taxpayer. Just to let this sink in — the amount of money that the government is committing to spend this year is equivalent to the average taxpayer just writing the government a check today for $62,200.

Each one of these expenditures are getting pushed through quickly, but it is all adding up. People have to weigh this against benefits such as the $400 per person tax credit that those who make less than $75,000 per year are going to get under the stimulus.

And that is not the end of the costs that we will face this year. From even more health care reforms to environmental regulation and global warming to even more money for autos and other companies, the bills are going to get bigger. Some costs will temporarily be hidden through borrowing, but others will mean higher immediate taxes and higher product prices.

But the average taxpayer faces a simple question: are they getting $62,200 worth of benefits from all these government expenditures this year? If so, they are going to be poorer. My guess is that most of us are going to be a lot poorer.


John R. Lott, Jr. is the author of “Freedomnomics” and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

The poor are spending money, sure

but they didn't earn that money.  That money could be used for education or healthcare instead of making sure poor people circulated it.  I'm middle class.  I have been a single mom since my son was born, no Welfare, he is 19 now.  I have NEVER asked for a handout.  Are you telling me that I don't spend money?  I have paid for everything I have.  I own a house and I haven't even received 1 dime in child support.  I barely make it, but I do make it and I work my butt off to do it.  It isn't fun, but who are you to tell me that I would spend more money and boost the economy more if I was on Welfare instead.  My son didn't grow up with a Welfare mom and I'm sure he won't get mad at me for not helping the ecomony because of it.  He doesn't even know I'm broke.  For him, there is a sense of pride in earning.  He is in college now and excited to be among the working class because he was never taught there was any other way, you WORK.  He will get a student loan, which he will have to pay back someday.  This isn't free money.  He did get a Pell grant, so I guess he got a little bit of a handout, but to qualify for that, you still have to do something, go to school.  The Pell grant is less than what most people get for Welfare and they don't have to do anything at all.  Seriously?  Poor people make this country work, who knew?  And here I thought this country was built on the sweat and tears of the middle class and the hard working folks who believed in capitalism and not socialism. 


So if my neighbor gives me a $1000 bucks and I go spend it, does that mean I helped my neighbor?  Do I have to pay him back?  Just curious. 


Yep, just keep spending money we dont have, O
nm
WELFARE SPENDING MADNESS!!

And for those that say you HAVE to work to get welfare,...... NO YOU DON'T!  I see that waaaay too much where I live...... mostly just generation after generation living off ME!!!!  So, MORE government is just FINE with them!!


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=578936


 


I do not think that was the Obama's personal spending there -
why should they reimburse that? Obama did not even know anything in advance about it.
It took spending 1-1/2 BILLION dollars a month...sm
over years on the war in Iraq to get us to this point, borrowing from other countries, the highest deficit ever, printing money by the government with no gold behind it to drive the value of our dollar down around the world. Nothing to do with the democrats. When Bush became president we had a huge surplus. Did you forget that?
Stop the spending on stupid earmarks,
give the middle class some real tax cuts, and have some patience. Things aren't going to change overnight and they're not going to change by continuing to throw money at it every day.
PA liquor control board spending $173,000
to teach their state liquor store employees how to be more courteous and knowledgeable of the booze they sell and make sure they're really up to snuff on info ABOUT the booze they sell......  How in the heck does this CREATE MORE JOBS?  WHAT A JOKE AND A STINKING WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY!!!