take my guns AND take my money???
Posted By: no way!! sm on 2008-11-10
In Reply to: Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts - see link inside
i was posed to start deducting from my check and putting into IRA again, and this gives me pause. big pause. geez crime-iny.
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
Lawyers, guns, and money?! no message
?
we need our guns
x
guns
So you think our guns should be taken away? You think that just because you take the guns of legal, law abiding citizens that the crooks and criminals won't still have them? So when someone breaks into my house out here in the country where the nearest police station is 15 minutes away AT LEAST, I should just call the cops and pray they get here in time before the crook kills me or does worse?
We don't love, love, love our guns, but this day in age, they are a necessity for some of us. Not to mention the farmers that need to protect their livestock and cattle. Our neighbor raises goats and last year a pack of stray dogs attacked his goats and killed 8 of them. If he hadn't shot the dogs they would have killed all 35 of them. (He tried to get animal control to catch these dogs multiple times but they didn't do anything.)
And in this little Georgia town, I have heard plenty of talk about what will happen if O doesn't get elected. And none of it is productive or safe.
Not all change is good.
Guns
The guns rhetoric didn't just start this year, it's been going on as far back as I can remember and that's quite awhile. The economy is, or should be, the focus of attention. If that doesn't happen soon, you aren't going to have to worry about your guns. You won't have money to buy them and more than likely you'll be happy to trade them for FOOD.
I have guns and would use them...sm
if the situation presented itself in order to protect my family and my home. I pray it never comes to that, though.
Who said anything about waving guns around? sm
I was talking about being prepared.
Just how many more smoking guns
Good grief!
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm
she's showing off the guns...
which do look amazing, probably larger than his!
Printing money we dont have? Borrowing money
nm
What I meant to say was that's why it's no use waving guns around.
This is no Hollywood movie where the bad guys wear easily identifiable Nazi uniforms or are dressed like ridiculous stereotypes of native americans. And this is precisely what our military is finding out in Iraq.
He THINKS he's gonna take guns away..
the NRA is one of, if not the most, powerful lobbying organizations in the nation. Don't think many would stand for that.
Guns are not all the "pubs" are worried about....
but it is a legitimate concern. It is a guaranteed constitutional right. Why would you defend other constitutional rights and be so willing to give that one up?
Personally I think all the give me all the handouts you want to at the expense of others posts are getting pretty darned old.
I keep my guns and freedom, you keep the change! nm
xxx
I grew up with guns in the house.
My father had gun racks and he always kept one rifle loaded in case someone tried to break into the house. All three of us kids knew it and we also knew not to touch it. My dad taught us how to shoot, the safe way to use guns, and what NOT to do with a gun. I think the problem with a lot of gun related accidents is that parents hide the guns and don't teach their kids the dangers and how to properly handle guns.
If you take guns away from the law-abiding citizens....it won't stop the criminals from getting them and then we will have nothing to protect ourselves with. That is common sense really. It will just create an even bigger black market for guns and only the unlawful citizens will buy them illegally like that which will leave the lawful citizens unprotected from criminals.
guns, fear, what a post, blah
Nah, I dont think terrorists will come my way but, however, when I move back to NY next year (cant wait), if a terrorist decides to blow up my beloved subway system or Long Island railroad, I dont think a gun would mean much. I do suggest Bush check out our borders cause right now Im living in CA, two hours from the Mexican border and it is quite easy to get across, without a problem at all and he should also check out the trucking industry cause there has been a question that possibly they can blow up trucks but, however, you cant live your life in fear. Im not afraid..Im living my life as I have. Im not afraid to die..With introspection, however, I am a bit fearful of suffering, so if it ever happened, I would hope I would die, not suffer, ya know?
Guns and nuns and moose on buns - LOL!
crack, meth, gangs, guns
Yea, wanting to be an architect is so Nazi and brain washing compared to the crypts and the bloods, welfare and prisons. Do you know what percentage of black men are in prison? What percentage get shot before they are 40? Give me a break. Needing to prepare for the end is just pure racist and you know it.
If John McCain had stuck to his guns and been...sm
able to run as himself instead of being remolded by the right wing of his party, he probably would have sailed over the finish line. He killed any chance of winning the election when he gave control away.
People who carry guns are AFFORDED that right under
we are supposed to be a free country and live our own lives.... so that means govt control should never be in play. The problem is for those who don't have a lick of insurance, hardly ever worked,nothing, have always found a way to buy cigarettes ALL their lives and the taxpayers end up paying for them in their last miserable days with cancer, surgery, oxygen, hospitalized, home health, etc. I realize it's a tough thing all the way around....
but, if the govt wants to do something why not tell ANYONE taking welfare payments that if they spend taxpayer money on cigarettes OR booze for that matter, their resultant healthcare will not be on the taxpayers' backs. Wonder how that would go over!
Hope y'all don't mind giving up your guns
If Obama wins, say bye-bye, and that's just the tip of this iceberg.
Remember what happened in New Orleans? It was outrageous!
It takes money to make money. nm
PIx didn't come through - pictures were all of guys waving large guns around...
Guns, guns, guns and threats, threats, threats.
It is weird to post this on a board "im black and i have guns and ammo" wth?
That's just plain odd to post on an MT board. Looking for trouble.
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.
money was cut due to war
I have compassion for those affected by Katrina. It is Bush and his ilk that I have no compassion for. This article states that the money was cut in 2003 due to the war. That is why I posted it. Money has been cut to the states since Bush's war, we are strapped in many ways in America due to Bush's war. Open you eyes and see your president for what he is..a jerk, a low IQ imbecile, and for what he has done to America due to his war.
Money.........
Well, if they don't have money for birth control, they sure as shoot don't have it for a baby BUT in my neck of the woods, there are LOTS of illegitimate babies, mostly by mothers who started at 12, 13, 14 and by high school, had 2 or more. They even sit in school and brag about getting a bigger paycheck because they are pregnant again. Now, really, does that sound like someone who is interested in birth control in the first place? Some of these girls who get pregnant at 12 or 13 don't even think birth control. They usually get talked into sex by a guy several years older than them in the first place, and he is a loser anyway, and usually has fathered several babies already anyhow. And, belive me, most of these girls because of community experiences, already know where the clinics are and they can get there. They sure as heck don't have a problem getting there for all the free healthcare their child gets, usually in the ER on Friday and Saturday night because they are too lazy to get to the clinic through the week. Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything positive for them.
No, I would rather the money be used for ..sm
necessities for Alaska instead of asking the lower 48+1 to subsidize them.
The money that has gone to the war...
has been appropriated for that specific purpose. It was not just lying around waiting to be spent, so there is no reason to believe that if the war were not going on that amount of money would be spent elsewhere. That is not how the government works.
If the government did not help these institutions out, it would destabilize the economy which could trickle down to our banks and what little money we have in them. At least they learned from the fannie/freddie fiasco...when they gave the loan to AIG they kicked the top folks who ran it out, with no golden parachute and will oversee it...and in this case, finally...since it is a loan...if they stay solvent and pay it back the interest will benefit us all as it will go back into the coffers with the principal.
Exactly the kind of thing McCain has been talking about for years. Glad Bush finally listened.
yes, you can if it is your money..
I have done it already.
Sure there are.......you want all your money given as
xx
Of course you would....it's not your money
You'd be screaming a different tune. Even those without it have better sense than to believe this is a terrible thing. The more he makes, the more people he can hire. So clueless and bitter
No, that's not where he's getting his money
22
I don't think money should be taken from those
who make more AT ALL. I think there should be a tax PERCENTAGE and it is based on income so it is even across the board. I don't think those who make $200,000 should have a higher percentage than those who make $30,000. There is enough crap out there that doesn't need funding that can go to those who HONESTLY need help.
Those who HONESTLY need help are those who are trying to do something to get out of the whole and can't. Not those who go and buy a house that is way out of their price range, or who pop out 7 or 8 kids just to get food stamps. Not those who live in section 8 government housing for $60 a month and then buy a brand new BMW in someone elses name because they make money selling drugs or working under the table and not reporting it.
I said it is based on grades ALSO. Meaning it is based on both income and grades. Which means if I don't TRY and keep my grades up no matter how little money I make, I'm not going to receive it. That's the difference. No one seems to want to TRY anymore. Everyone just wants more, more, more, and they are doing less, less, less.
My argument is that those who do well for themselves should not have to pay for those who don't give a hoot and don't try to do well for themselves and just sit back and try to let daddy government take care of them.
Where did all that money come from?
Scam after scam keeps coming out. Phony donators sending money with prepaid credit cards that can't be traced. Gee, wonder where the money is coming from ? He is not honest or truthful about anything, and so many people trusting him with their future...sad.
With all the money that
Barrack Obama raised for his campaign.....I wonder who he owes now? I mean....surely some of these people who gave a bunch of money want something in return. Are there promises Obama has promised to keep to individuals who gave him money that we don't know about? This is one reason why I hate political parties. The DNC raised all that money and you have some serious extreme left psychos who gives money and then they want something in return. Does this make Barrack Obama the democratic party puppet now? How does that work?
Where is all this money going to come from?nm
x
so where does all this money come from and
when do we STOP bailing companies out? I was not a fan of the first bailout. I think that in the end, all of this will make things much worse and we are just slowing down the process. I understand that both McCain and Bush wanted the bailout, but I am capable of thinking for myself. If you want the auto industry to keep up employment, I would think that the best way to make that happen is to buy American cars, bot hand them over a lot of my hard earned money. I think that the money I paid for my car is enough.
where the money comes from
Okay, those are some interesting links. I feel even better about the job banks program now, because, check it out--this program was *created* to discourage outsourcing. The union felt like it made it too expensive for the car companies to outsource jobs. So the car companies obviously did some calculations and discovered that they could pay these guys not to work, AND outsource, AND still make money (that they failed to make money has less to do with those out of work guys, I suspect, than it does with decades of misreading consumer preferences!). So if this program is a big money-suck, it's only because they insisted on outsourcing.
It's also great to see that this job bank was not available for workers until AFTER they had exhausted their unemployment benefits--and that *those* benefits were also being funded by the automakers. So our tax dollars don't really have much to do with the story. As for the bailout...well, personally I'd rather the bailout money help actual people, rather than Wall Street, so I'm not really concerned about some guys playing checkers.
(as for the $31 an hour, I'm still having trouble doing the math on how a $5 billion dollar committment by GM for 4 years for 5000 workers works out to $31 an hour, but I'll let it go for now!)
I fuss (I like that word!) about spreading the wealth from rich to poor, and about these auto workers, because I think they represent an important case for us to learn from. How will we protect *our* livelihoods? Can companies begin to take us into account, and not at the same time do the same stupid mistakes that always bankrupt them, and not make it look like *our* fault that they're going bankrupt?
me too, me too - I want some of that money
Although I don't use sm as my handle. Does that disqualify me. LOL
why not put the money to better use
come on, there are much better things those donors could do with some of that that money than a ridiculously overpriced a party, for pete's sake.
We owe them money. (NM below)
x
Really! Well, that was exactly what the money was
before they used it illegally push Obama into office...... please stop falling for all this mumbo jumbo hype about non-profit organizations. Acorn will get the money regardless because the liberals nut jobs up there will see to it.
I say - take the money and run!!
from what I've seen, Michigan's economy has been in the toilet for decades...you guys NEED the money - let's just hope they don't do idiotic sh*t like build new malls or luxury hotels...........
Them using their own money???????
Why should they use their own money when they've got ours.
Please show me the link that says they are using their own money from their own bank accounts to fund their party. If I see it I will eat my words and apologize. But it's not just the money.
It's them turning the WH into a party house. This is not what the white house is suppose to be for. And in these times when we have so many people loosing their jobs, and homes, and going hungry this is sending the wrong message to America. "Hey, your out of work, getting ready to lose your home, hungry? Well hold on and I'll address that when I'm done partying dude".
But where does the money come from?
Tax dollars, right? So what O'Reilly stated was really true.
BTW, glad to see you admit to watching Fox once in a while, even if you don't agree with them. 
No worries....got all the money
Won't be a problem in Iran, either. God forgive us.
Senate Votes to Raise Debt Limit
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago
The Senate voted Thursday to allow the national debt to swell to nearly $9 trillion, preventing a first-ever default on U.S. Treasury notes.
The bill passed by a 52-48 vote. The increase to $9 trillion represents about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.
The measure allows the government to pay for the war in Iraq and finance Medicare and other big federal programs without raising taxes. It passed hours before the House was expected to approve another $91 billion to fund the war in Iraq and provide more aid to hurricane victims.
The partisan vote also came as the Senate continued debate on a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint for the upcoming fiscal year that would produce a $359 billion deficit for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
The debt limit will increase by $781 billion. It's the fourth such move — increasing the debt limit by a total of $3 trillion — since Bush took office five years ago.
The vote came a day after Treasury Secretary John Snow warned lawmakers that action was critical to provide certainty to financial markets that the integrity of the obligations of the United States will not be compromised.
On Thursday, Treasury postponed next week's auction of three-month and six-month bills pending Senate action, though the move was likely to be quickly reversed given the Senate's vote.
The present limit on the debt is $8.2 trillion. With the budget deficit expected to approach $400 billion for both this year and next, another increase in the debt limit will almost certainly be required next year.
The debt limit increase is an unhappy necessity — the alternative would be a disastrous first-ever default on U.S. obligations — that greatly overshadowed a mostly symbolic, weeklong debate on the GOP's budget resolution.
Democrats blasted the bill, saying it was needed because of fiscal mismanagement by Bush, who came to office when the government was running record surpluses.
When it comes to deficits, this president owns all the records, said Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The three largest deficits in our nation's history have all occurred under this administration's watch.
Only a handful of Republicans spoke in favor of the measure as a mostly empty Senate chamber conducted a brief debate Wednesday evening.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Bush's tax cuts account for just 30 percent of the debt limit increases required during his presidency. Revenue losses from a recession and new spending to combat terrorism and for the war in Iraq are also responsible, he said.
As for the $781 billion increase in the debt limit, Grassley said: It is necessary to preserve the full faith and credit of the federal government.
Before approving the bill, Republicans rejected by a 55-44 vote an amendment by Max Baucus, D-Mont., to mandate a Treasury study on the economic consequences of foreigners holding an increasing portion of the U.S. debt.
At present, foreign countries, central banks and other institutions hold more than one-fourth of the debt, but that percentage is growing rapidly.
Following the debt limit vote Thursday, the Senate was expected to vote late in the day on the budget plan, a nonbinding measure proposing tax and spending guidelines for the next five years.
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., appears poised to win an increase of $7 billion in new and real funding for education and health research. The $7 billion would effectively be used to break Bush's $873 billion budget cap for 2007, which represents the most significant vestige of fiscal discipline remaining in Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg's budget.
The underlying Senate budget plan is notable chiefly for dropping Bush's proposed cuts to Medicare and for abandoning his efforts to expand health savings accounts or pass legislation to make permanent his 2001 tax cut bill.
Unlike last year, when Congress passed a bill trimming $39 billion from the deficit through curbs to Medicaid, Medicare and student loan subsidies, Senate GOP leaders have abandoned plans to pass another round of cuts to so-called mandatory programs.
But Gregg's measure re-ignites last year's battle over allowing oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, since it would let Senate leaders bring an ANWR drilling measure to the floor under rules blocking a filibuster by opponents.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
O'Reily's right on the money
I think we should have used more *shock and awe* and less soldier feet on the ground in Iraq.
About the murder and torture investigations--Bill's quote was right on the mark:
What is Murtha's intent? Is this an 'I-told-you-so' because he opposes the war? Murtha should answer that question because 95% of the military is performing heroically overseas. In the chaos of war perspective and fair play are vitally important.*
Sure there some bad apples there always is, but is there widespread corruption and criminal behavior in the military? I highly doubt it.
Money is the root...sm
Presidential Race May Cost Hopefuls $500 million
Those three dollars you've set aside in your tax returns as a good deed toward clean presidential elections? Forget about it. Nobody wants them anymore, the AP says.
Strategists from both parties estimate the White House race in 2008 could cost each nominee $500 million — far more than the Presidential Election Campaign Fund can afford. As a result, this next presidential campaign could mark the first time in 30 years that the Democratic and Republican nominees turn down the fund's millions in both the primary and the general elections.
I agree - they take your money but they never want to pay
You're right. Such premiums are criminal. My ex-husband was in the same boat, had a childhood policy for a chronic condition, and after he had surgery for that condition they raised the rates every 6 months until he was forced to drop it, which is what they wanted him to do.
As long as insurance lobbyists find someone to bribe in Washington, their party continues. They spend more money finding loopholes and rewriting policies so they can deny claims than they would ever spend just paying for the dang healthcare.
I don't think we can afford to police them and force them to pay up either. That's why I like Kucinich's plan, one provider, nationwide, and the rest go out of business.
Or at least we could enact laws to make them keep it simple. You pay for coverage, you should have coverage. Any language in any policy starting with "pre" should be outlawed. No more "preexisting", "preauthorization", etc. Even premium starts with "pre"! The laws are written to protect THEM. The policies are written to protect THEM. It takes a lot of time to dig through the fine print in any policy just to see how you're "allowed" to be sick and what your copays and caps are. By the time you figure out what the rules are, you change jobs or your company changes policies, and you have a new set to figure out.
They carry on about people not having insurance - but the majority of people who do have it can't get a claim paid anyway. The policies cost more and more, they deny more and more claims (or discount them down to nothing).
I used to do billing. A radiologist charged $20 to read a chest x-ray. Medicare forced him to take $2.95 in pay for that x-ray and write off the rest. Medicaid forced him to take $2.65 for it. BCBS would pay $7.65, Aetna $5.25, and so on. In what other industry does the buyer tell the seller what they get to charge? That is where the real problem begins that drives up the cost of health care. He has to read more and more x-rays to break even, or see a majority of patients with no insurance - because its legal to charge them full price!
No matter how much we spend on health care, the money does not go to the provider. It goes to the middleman, the insurance companies, and you have to fight to get them to part with a cent.
I never saw so much money wasted as when
Tell me, where is Obama going to get the money for
nm
|
