and don't forget the new *word of the month*
Posted By: Rep on 2005-10-03
In Reply to: They are anal about typos and stuff, Rep. sm - sm
racist. They've added that since hurricane Katrina.
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
One month -- (sm)
That would be about the time we get a president and staff in there who actually know what to do.
About a month ago
I posted a link to the following OpEd article, which I was touting as the best idea I'd heard yet to resolve the economic crisis:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 12/27/08:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 1 page(s)
www.opednews.com
5
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The economic disaster that I predicted back in April of 2008 in these articles click here and here is here. What enabled me to predict what was coming was my evaluation of five key areas of the economy. They are:
1. Consumer savings and spending/ability to spend
2. Corporate income, health and spending/ability to spend
3. Government financial health and ability to spend
4. The lending and banking (and financial) system and its ability to extend credit
5. Inflation & scarcity of resources
I made the point that for the first time in American history, all five of these areas were problematic.
Looking at the same indicators now, eight months later, there are some real and some apparent changes. Number 4 - The lending, banking and financial system has been bailed out, but it is still reeling from the Lehman brothers’ bankruptcy, several bank failures, and the threatened failures or near failures of several more institutions. On the surface, Number 5, Inflation & scarcity of resources seems have improved. Indeed several news reports have suggested that Deflation is what is now the concern. This is an illusion.
The two main commodities driving up prices were energy and food, both because of supply fears. Both have come down in price/cost somewhat, energy in particular, but WHY have they come down in price. Is there suddenly more supply? No, there is no more supply. They are down due to a temporary decrease in demand. As soon as there is the beginning of a return to economic normalcy, and people start to use the additional income to consume, the price increases in both food and energy will return. The governments of the world should take NO action to try to deal with the apparent but temporary deflationary conditions.
Having stabilized the financial system and the auto industry with bailouts, the government should turn to the most critical economic issue, the one that really is threatening to make this a prolonged downturn and that is consumer savings, huge consumer debt and resulting inability for consumers and households to spend and buy goods and services. Businesses cannot survive without the consumer and yet the average household is completely broke and drowning in debt.
I conceived the idea for this article about a week ago and was dreading having to perform the requisite research into the actual numbers supporting my positions. Thankfully, another author on OpEdNews, James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled “The Great Consumer Crash of 2009.” Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
This suggests several conclusions. First, as I said earlier, the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that. It's a slight alteration of the old Sherlock Holmes quote, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”. Turning the economy around with a broke consumer is impossible, so what remains? Bail out the consumer.
What would a Government Bailout of the Consumer Look Like?
The government bailout of the consumer that I am proposing dwarfs all other government bailouts to date. It probably is the largest government spending initiative by any measurement in the history of humankind. It involves the government offering to each consumer and household to pay all of their debt. In exchange, the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. Let me illustrate:
Joe and Sally have a combined income of $100,000 per year. They have $60,000 in debt. They opt for a complete bailout of their debt. In return, they will pay an additional (60 x .125)% or an additional 7% in taxes for three years. So, the Government pays out $60,000, the government gets back $21,000 over three years (7% of Joe and Sally's $100,000 a year income or $7000 for three years), and Joe and Sally are debt free.
Another example is John. John makes $60,000 per year and has a mortgage of $150,000 and other debt of $8,000 of which $6,000 is taxes and $2000 is credit cards. John opts for the total bailout. The Government pays $158,000 and wipes out John's debt. John owes the government $7,500 additional in taxes each year for three years, or $22,500. Even though the Government paid more to bail John out, the payback is capped at 12.5% in additional taxes per year for three years.
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
The total potential Government bailout outlay is the total of household debt or $15 Trillion Dollars. Actual bailout total will be lower because although many consumers would opt for this bailout, many others would not depending on each households circumstances, so the total amount that the Government would put out would be considerably less than $15 Trillion, but it would not surprise me to see the amount exceed $5-8 Trillion, financed by Government bonds. The Government would get a percentage of that back in the temporary additional taxes I proposed, probably between 20% and 30% over three years. So, assuming that the Government outlays $5 Trillion for the bailout, it would get back $1 to $1.5 Trillion.
What everyone should understand is that in exchange for the government spending that money, we would have an American consumer that was essentially out of debt and per the additional legislation would never again get in debt to the point that the indebtedness would endanger the whole country's economic health. Households would be able to spend money again, and all of those businesses that currently hold consumer debt accounts would receive a sudden and massive infusion of cash and would be paid for all of that debt. The totality of this program would result in a massive boost to the economy. Considering this, even the money that the Government would not receive back from consumers that it bailed out, it would likely receive back and more from the money that it injected into the economy generating business, income and retail taxes. Another great benefit of a consumer bailout is the mortgage crisis would be over. Households would own their homes free and clear and the banks would have been paid in full. Other organizations like Visa would be back in good financial health. Visa is currently hurting and requesting government assistance. Helping the consumer as I have outlined is the right way to help banks, business and the financial industry and the economy at large. Everyone wins this way.
I also posted a link to Part 2, posted in response to the many comments the author received on the first article:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The excellent responses, even harsh criticism from some to my first article on my proposed Consumer Bailout http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Real-Bailout-Needed-is-by-Steven-Leser-081227-715.html helped crystallize some of the finer points of the proposal. They also made me surer than ever that the best thing to do to bring about a recovery is to address bailout efforts to the consumer.
To recap briefly before I go on, I wrote:
... the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that....
the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. One of the more serious components of the current crisis that is just starting to become apparent is the catastrophic budget shortfalls in state and local budgets. Five to fifteen trillion dollars in additional taxable income for businesses all around the country would fix that portion of the crisis immediately as it seems to fix just about every other portion of the crisis. That is what I think is compelling about my bailout proposal. If you make a list of the problems in the economy and analyze the effect of this proposed consumer bailout, it eliminates them one by one from the bottom up...
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
Let me address some of the more important criticisms of the proposal:
Criticism 1 – This Consumer Bailout is not Affordable
Anytime you are talking about a government program costing in the trillions of dollars it is natural to have questions about how this program would be funded so these questions and criticisms are good and to be expected.
One thing that should be obvious is that those who would opt to have the government pay their debt would pay back on average between 20% and 30% of the money directly to the government in increased taxes over three years. That is part of the design of the bailout proposal.
Second, what happens with the money that is given by the government to consumer's creditors? Those creditors have to pay taxes on it. Whether the creditor is a bank, some other lending agency, Visa, or any other creditor, that business will pay taxes on that income. Let's assume a low average effective business tax rate of 25% to be conservative. Of the money lent to consumers, another 25% will be paid back to the government within one year in the form of taxes paid by creditors. Now we are up to 45%-55% of the total bailout being paid for by those who benefited most by it.
Third, what do the creditors do with the 75% of the money they receive that they do not have to pay in taxes? They invest it, they buy other goods and services, they pay salaries and other operating costs, pay back their own debt obligations, etc. Much of that also results in taxable income by those receiving this money. Let's assume that 2/3rds of that money, or 50% of the original outlay becomes additional taxable income. 25% of that (again, assuming an average effective business tax rate of 25% is 12.5% of the total bailout. Now we are up to 57.5% to 67.5% of the outlay by the federal government paid back to it in taxes. We can go another iteration and say that 50%-12.5% is 37.5% of the original outlay becomes taxable income for entities further down the road. We can say that 25% of that will probably end up being taxable income and results in another 6.25% of the original total outlay being paid back in taxes. Now we are up to 63.75% to 73.75% of the total bailout outlay being repaid.
Finally, what then happens to the economy when consumers are debt free, their former creditors are awash in cash, as a result Visa and the banks and lending industry are no longer in crisis, in fact the opposite? When there is more disposable income all around, more money is invested, lent (properly this time with the additional regulations I specified in place) and spent. We call that an expanding economy. What happens in an expanding economy? Federal income tax receipts grow. Some of that is already accounted for in my above explanations, but some isn't. I don't know if we get back to 100% of the bailout being paid back directly or indirectly, but if we don't, we get close.
Criticism 2 – This Bailout Proposal Penalizes People Who Have Kept Up With Their Bills
Of all the top criticisms, this one was the most difficult for me to understand. People who have kept up with their bills are still hurting in this economy. Their investments have suffered, they are at risk just like anyone else for layoffs, if they are small business owners, they might be getting less business or the people that owe them money may be having difficulty paying their bills. All of those things mean that no matter how thrifty you are, you are probably feeling ill effects from this economy or at the very least; the current crisis makes you more at risk to be hurt.
All of the people would benefit greatly from an economy that gets moving again. Those who do not request a bailout would not be financing those who do. This bailout is self-financing as I illustrated above.
Criticism 3 – This Bailout Encourages Bad Behavior
It definitely would encourage bad behavior if we don't include the additional legislation that I propose that specifies how much credit can be lent to a consumer based on his income. These limits are different depending on the type of debt that would be incurred. I'm guessing that total non-auto and non-mortgage credit would be such that the monthly payments could not exceed around 10% of monthly income of a household and total outstanding non-auto and non-mortgage debt could not exceed 5% of yearly household income. The legislation would also prevent lenders from charging exorbitant interest rates.
Criticism 4 – The New Legislation you propose that would Limit Creditors in How Much they can lend to Consumers is Unworkable
For people who earn almost all of their income from a straight salary, these limits are straightforward. For those whose income is commission based or dividend based or whose income is otherwise variable, or for those who have high net worth, there needs to be another section to the legislation that better deals with their circumstance. My suggestion would be that for people who have a net worth over $250K, they could have consumer debt up to 1/3rd of their net worth.
January 4, 2009 at 07:54:15
1 1 View Ratings | Rate It
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 2 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
Those with variable incomes and net worth below $250K should have their debt totals determined by the following
Take the mean and median of their last 48 months worth of income and apply the 10% consumer debt limit to whichever figure is smaller..
Criticism 5 – This Bailout Could Result in Inflationary issues, Perhaps Even Hyperinflation.
Inflation is a concern, but I believe the risks can be managed. The bailout would be financed by issuing more bonds and as I already wrote, would be almost completely paid back either directly or by its effects on the economy. This bailout would not be financed by printing money. The Fed would have to be involved and would probably have to raise interest rates concurrently to ward off inflation. If you listen today to the government, the fed and private groups, they are all saying we are in a dangerous Deflationary situation. I still think there are inflationary risks with food and energy if we start to consume in similar quantities as prior to the beginning of the current crisis, but as I said I think this can be managed..
Criticism 6 – This Bailout is Really a Bailout of the Banking/Lending/Consumer Finance Sector (or other hated group) and I don't want to Bail them Out.
It seems that everyone wants to punish someone and everyone forgets that if we set out to punish people instead of focusing on what is going to fix this economy, we all will end up suffering for it. Libertarians want to punish the households and consumers who borrowed too much, Progressives want to punish the banks and consumer finance industry, Republicans want to punish organized Labor. For the current crisis to happen it required mistakes by consumers/households, banks, credit card companies, those who provide the underlying securities and financing for banks and credit card companies (the bond market, etc) and the government for failing to oversee all of the above and take action when things trended the wrong way. Now is not the time to concentrate on blame and recriminations. In fact, my bailout proposal bails out everyone, which is one of the reasons it has been a lightning rod for criticism. Everyone's pet economic and ideological whipping boys are helped.
We need everyone to have a 'Jeffersonian Louisiana Purchase' moment. What I mean by that is you have Jefferson, who was in his time probably close to what a Libertarian is today and believed that the government only had a the smallest amount of powers, i.e. only those specifically outlined in the constitution and no more. He did not believe in the elastic clause, and he definitely did not believe what his ideological opposites did, that if the Constitution did not explicitly forbid the government from doing something, that the government could do it.
Jefferson was given an opportunity to purchase the Louisiana territory from France but the problem was that the Constitution did not explicitly give him the power to make that deal. Recognizing that the purchase would solve several strategic issues for the country, not to mention more than double its territory, Jefferson made the deal. The point of this long-winded anecdote is that we are in an emergency. Exigency dictates that we accept that we may need to look beyond what would normally be the boundaries of our ideology to resolve the situation
------------------------
What I did not hear from those who criticized the idea is any alternate solution that resolved the current crisis and certainly none that addressed the issue of the overwhelming number of US households drowning in debt. Indeed, those who criticized the idea of bailing out consumers never acknowledged the seriousness of the household debt situation. As I wrote in the first article:
James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled "The Great Consumer Crash of 2009." Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
Before thinking about the economy in terms of the overwhelming debt of the average household, I thought that infrastructure spending was the best way to pull the economy out of crisis. The adding of jobs and putting people back to work that would be accomplished by infrastructure spending is great. This does not address the debt issues, however. The unemployed would then be able to pay their rent/mortgage and try to keep up with payments on whatever debt they have, but there will still be little of the spending that is needed to fuel a recovery. I think the infrastructure-spending plan alongside a consumer bailout is a good idea, but by itself, it is going to make very little difference. This economy is going nowhere if we fail to address household debt.
she must have her quota in for the month
x
I am pro-choice up the the end of 3rd month.
I am definitely against partial-birth abortion.
keep your head in the sand - a month ago
they are VERY_CLOSE, this is no black sheep in his family....
1000 bucks a month
That is a lot to pay for health insurance. There does need to be reform so that it is more affordable, I just don't see how mandatory coverage is going to do it.
They forgot about 9/11 about a month after it happened.
i pay off my cards EVERY month, living
x
Agree a lot; but can we consider that the President only in for a month??.....sm
I am not going back to partisan politics, I think there are going to have to be many changes and many "solutions" before this economy can evea start to turn around, I pray it is sooner rather than later, but President Obama really has been condemned by many before he could even finish saying the oath of office....there is a lot of thinking and work that has to be done.
I don't have a white history month, either, but I'm okay with that.
X
If we did have a white history month
we would be called racists.
You cannot type it word for word, just provide a link.
.
How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm
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?
Wow, spot on . . .10 billions dollars a month . . .
for that war. For what? OIL. That money could go a long way to making sure EVERYBODY had healthcare and dramatically speed up the process of developing alternative energy sources! Why can no one see how much sense this makes?
Chrysler closing all 30 plants for 1 month.
x
I remember the debate. And of course this is not word for word, I NEVER said...sm
*because I'm not.* This is a LIE that I got tired of arguing with them about then. Unless you are confusing me with an old poster that went under the moniker Demo.
Sambo thinks last word=best word...
su
yep. Its Fox. Just googled it. word for word. nm
nm
Not one word. One defitinion of a word.
Cult: 1. A system of religious worship or ritual.
Or how about this:
Cult: A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
Or my personal favorite:
Cult: A self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective.
Yes, AJ, don't forget the
**liberal media**. When all else fails, just blame them. I wonder how long before they start attacking Fitzgerald.
I will never forget what he said.
He conned me, just like he conned those in Congress who voted for the war against Iraq. I believed him when he said Iraq was involved with 9/11, and I wholeheartedly supported his war against Iraq for the reasons he gave.
But he didn't lie about his personal sex life, so his lies don't count to some people.
But don't forget -
Bush no longer cares about Bin Laden (and obviously Al Qaeda and the Taliban).
Also don't forget that Bush's reckless failure to nail 150 Taliban members is really Clinton's fault.
Don't forget
Reagan and G.W. Bush also have been accused of rape. Check it out. Please don't say that the Democrats have cornered the market on this. Even Eisenhower had a mistress.
Let's not forget...
:}
yea, and don't forget
--
Don't forget
the one I just used before reading your post..."airhead." LOL.
Lest we forget...
This is for those with poor memories:
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
But let us not forget
Harry Reid, who said "The War Is Lost." How totally irresponsible, not to mention a total disgrace to our troops. I have such respect for their selflessness. I'm literally in awe of them. I get that lump in the throat thing when I see them. We owe them SO much!
Also, don't forget
his famous "signing statements," like when he signed the law against torture and then quietly came back later and basically added that he doesn't have to obey that law if he doesn't want to.
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/27/bush_signs_statements_to_bypass_torture
I also find it astonishing that some people really believe that Democrats run Congress. The House may have a Democratic majority, but the Republicans still have the majority in the Senate. The Senate needs 60 Democrats in order to avoid a Republican fillibuster, and to my knowledge, they still don't have that number, even though they picked up a few seats in this year's election, so the Republicans can still continue to control the "do-nothing Congress."
(I hope this post makes sense. Not feeling well and need to take meds and go to bed.  )
As always, let's just forget anything that
for Obama and move on to other issues, such as how we never gave President Bush a chance to succeed, we never showed showed him an ounce of respect but we demand it for Obama, yada, yada, yada....whatever. Just be sure and ignore anything about Obama that is a little iffy, shove it under the rug and bow down. But, of course, there is no bias here.
lest you all forget.....sm
The electoral vote has not yet taken place and will not taken place until ---shoot, no calendar so I may be off on the date, but I believe it is December 10th. Not that I would want to actually see a change to the outcome of the election because I can't even begin to imagine the chaos that would ensue, but nothing is yet concrete. Don't come blasting at me; I am not expressing an opinion, simply stating a fact.
How soon we forget about
Or whatever name the woman was dubbed for going on TV and shouting that after he's in office her..."mortgage will be paid...gas in her car...bills paid...yada, yada, yada"...how soon we forget about that huh?
I am saddened that most people cannot see past the fact that Obama is a black man, period. To some, that's all the qualification he needs. He may very well be the perfect man for the job, be he black or white, or whatever, but I'm afraid he'll never be given the chance to prove that because so many are just fixated on the fact that he's black...so sad.
I do have to add that I did not vote for Obama, not because he's black, but because I disagree with his views. Even my 10 YO son said today that it doesn't matter what color his skin is, it matters what kind of a man he is, and he is so right. Obama is much more than that, but most just can't see past his ethnicity and that's so sad and surely not what he (or MLK) would have wanted.
Don't forget
The 200 million for grass on the national mall. I'm not a repub and this angers me.
Oh, how could I forget?
Acorn.
Oh, how could I forget?
ACORN.
And don't forget
those neat webby things between your toes while you're evolving.
How could you forget....
OPRAH? People are sheep.
Let us not forget the
lobbyists in which Obama stated that there would be no place for lobbyists in Washington. Then he later said lobbyists were okay but set up certain guidelines in regards to appointing them. Then when that kept him from appointing certain lobbyists.....he totally disregarded the guidelines that he himself stated.
Oh....and he didn't bow to the Saudi King......yeah right. That's like Bill Clinton saying he didn't have sex with THAT woman. LMAO!
lies lies lies and more lies.
Please....if anyone else can think of lies that I have missed....feel free to add.
You always seem to forget
James Carville who said he wanted Bush to fail. Funny how the liberal media didn't jump on that comment though. Once again....goes to show how one-sided the media is.
As someone who didn't vote for Barrack Obama, I want him to fail because I believe the road he wants to take us down is not the right road. I don't want him hurt or anything, but I don't want him to do everything he wants to do either because I think it will be bad for our country.
There is nothing wrong with saying that either. If James Carville didn't agree with what Bush was doing, he had every right to say he wished him to fail. The same goes for anyone who doesn't believe in what Obama is doing. We have a right to wish him to fail for the sake of our country. Just because a president fails in completing his own personal agenda does not mean that America fails as well and that is what you all fail to see. All you see is I said I want him to fail and therefore I want America to fail....which is so not the case.
It amazes me that one side hates Bush and gives the man no credit for anything he does and does nothing but call him names and say how dumb he is. Now that Obama is in office, you can't see anything he does wrong or refuse to see the lies that he blatantly tells and you give him credit for everything.
I am still waiting for the day when people hold all politicians accountable for their actions instead of blindly following someone based on their political party alone.
Will Obama make mistakes....yes...he is only human. But that doesn't mean he should get a free pass for everything wrong he does either. Every politican should be held accountable for the mistakes they make. If Obama makes a mistakes...fine.....but my biggest problem with him is the fact that he blatantly lies about things. Compare his campaign rhetoric to what he is actually doing.
Honestly, if I had voted for Obama and believed what he said during his campaign, I'd be thoroughly ticked off at him. However, there are so many people who continue to believe the rhetoric and refuse to see with their own eyes what he is doing....it is just shameful really.
How can I forget - it's on my b-day.
:-) Will be interested to see the news of the day.
Don't forget.......................
his 8 year affair with Herb Moses, an executive at Fannie Mae... that is why he pushed deregulation of Fannie Mae in the first place.....to appease his little "lover" and relax lending restrictions!!!! What a sicko!
As Bill Clinton said (and I ain't no fan of his but at least he made sense here)...
"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Of course, that's why Frank got so b*tchy back at O'Reilly..... he didn't like to be accused of the truth and screaming back like a girl! The truth does stink doesn't it?
can we forget about clinton?
When you need a punching bag, bring up Clinton..If in doubt, bring up Clinton, if a republican is being investigated, bring up Clinton. Who cares about Clinton. He is not in office, however, Delay, Frist and Rove are all working in the govt.
Don't forget our computers!
I received an intrusion alarm when I booted mine up this morning. Don't know if a hacker is after some personal information or if it's my friendly government stalking me because I disagree with Bush's policies.
Be careful where you surf. Big Brother might be watching.
And don't forget the bird flu.
Almost a year ago Bush reserved the right to declare martial law if/when the bird flu comes to the USA.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/041005militarytakeover.htm
As for your other points, I'm sure there are home-grown terrorists in the USA. Will Bush limit his target to those people? That's the problem. Nobody knows for sure. All people can be certain of is how he feels about swiftboating and getting revenge on anyone who disagrees with him. And that's why this man should be forced to follow the law and use warrants when spying on Americans. He simply can't be trusted.
I do question which troops he will be using, though. They're too busy fighting Bush's war in Iraq (not to mention likely war in Iran) to be able to fight Bush's war against Americans who don't agree with him.
Don't forget Travelgate. sm
I am amazed how many people don't know the details of what happened during Travelgate. The lives of people ruined for no good reason other than cronyisim. It remains a travesty of gargatuan proportions and probably 80% of the people don't even know what happened. Sad. The Clintons....well, you pretty much said it.
Forget his religion,
he was a total bomb as a governor. He said one thing to get elected governor, then changed his mind when he decided to run for president. Then he went around the country bashing Massachusetts. Now there is a story in the newspaper that there were illegal immigrants painting his house even after all the problems with his landscapers. Such a hypocrite.
Don't forget his preacher!
Okay. Whatever. You just do not get where I am coming from. Forget it.
I DO NOT LIKE EITHER CANDIDATE. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. Thank you. Blast Obama, Blast McCain. The ECONOMY is the problem right now. But nobody seems to care about that. Just constant bashing, and scare tactics. Done with the whole thing. Bye.
Hay, GP. Don't forget the conebread.
!
Don't forget about the states. Why
do you think Rendel hosted the Governor's meeting in Phila. last week? They want some money too, but Rendel is just covering his tracks by calling this meeting because the state is almost bankrupt after giving every nickel away of the road repair money to 2 cities and just last week before the meeting, he gave another couple Million or Billion away for something else.
|
