At first I thought these people pushing the b/c issue

• Duo take Obama birth challenge to Court - sm
  • Source not credible - see message
    • No one is "whining" - ggourdpainter
      • There are also other far more credible sites...sm - m
      • Repeat - Factcheck is not a reliable source, Repeat - no reliable - Factcheck is not a credible source
        • Factcheck may or may not be a - ggourdpainter
          • Re FactCheck, I'm a - TNTC
            • At first I thought these people pushing the b/c issue - ggourdpainter
              • Talk about your tin-foil hats............sm - m
              • Yes, it does seem more and more like - TNTC
                • I agree with you TNTC - gourdpainter
                  • What I think.............sm - m
      • better to find out the truth BEFORE he gets in - office, whatever the truth is.nm

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

You guys are probably sick of hearing my opinions on this if you read the last thread, but I wanted to re-post this section of an article that addresses the income level concern.  It sounds like the only state that asked for income guidelines to go as high as $83,000 was New York, and their request was denied, so that income level is not a part of the current bill. (To me it sounds like even the $60,000 guideline may be limited to New York, but I'm honestly not sure on that and will try to find out).

--The president also complained that the bill would cover too many children who don't need federal help. "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.

Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."

The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.

link to the entire article:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685 

is why we are a target of terrorism.  US policies towards the middle east thus far have been nothing less than selfish.  What US news doesn't tell you about is how these policies actually affect people living there, and more often than not it is devastating.  That is where it began.

Granted, regardless of how we got here, we're in the middle of it right now and actions should be taken, but not actions like those that have been taken by the Bush administration.  The prisoners at Gitmo are a prime example.  They should have tried these people to see if they even needed to be there instead of holding them with no charges and torturing them.  The ones who are guilty should have gone through the legal system and suffered the consequences whether it be death or imprisonment. 

Here's what I see.  We went into Iraq on false pretenses about WMDs.  We found that to be false, so the cause was changed to saving the people of Iraq from a dictator -- a brutal dictator at that.  We were supposed to be providing them with democracy.  So, what do you think the Iraqi people think of us now?  Have we killed as many people as Saddam did yet?  Have we tortured people just like Saddam did?  Yes.  So, in their eyes, if this is now democracy, how much better is it than what they started out with?

If we are to set the standard by which other democracies use as a guideline, we need to get it right, and that includes respecting the culture, religion and social norms of other countries instead of trying to make them into something they are not.

is why we are a target of terrorism.  US policies towards the middle east thus far have been nothing less than selfish.  What US news doesn't tell you about is how these policies actually affect people living there, and more often than not it is devastating.  That is where it began.

Granted, regardless of how we got here, we're in the middle of it right now and actions should be taken, but not actions like those that have been taken by the Bush administration.  The prisoners at Gitmo are a prime example.  They should have tried these people to see if they even needed to be there instead of holding them with no charges and torturing them.  The ones who are guilty should have gone through the legal system and suffered the consequences whether it be death or imprisonment. 

Here's what I see.  We went into Iraq on false pretenses about WMDs.  We found that to be false, so the cause was changed to saving the people of Iraq from a dictator -- a brutal dictator at that.  We were supposed to be providing them with democracy.  So, what do you think the Iraqi people think of us now?  Have we killed as many people as Saddam did yet?  Have we tortured people just like Saddam did?  Yes.  So, in their eyes, if this is now democracy, how much better is it than what they started out with?

If we are to set the standard by which other democracies use as a guideline, we need to get it right, and that includes respecting the culture, religion and social norms of other countries instead of trying to make them into something they are not.

Another note:  You are saying that terror should be met with like force.  So, should Bush be waterboarded?

not sure exactly what she means by that but that sounds scary for our profession.  Anybody got the 411 on this?

Down the drain?  Beware of Obama's plan to 'spread the wealth around'

By Betsy Newmark
High School History and Government Teacher/Blogger

If the McCain campaign can’t use this Obama quote to raise doubts about his attitude towards wealth and success, then they deserve the shellacking they seem headed for.

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Plumbers of the country, unite! Forget about the work and effort you put into building up a business or the scummy work that you do that many of us don’t know or don’t want to do. If you have succeeded, you should be willing to give up more of what you earn to help those who haven’t had the great good luck that you have had to be a successful plumber. Remember how Obama is going to give 95% of all of us a tax cut even though over 30% of the population doesn’t pay taxes?

He might call it a tax credit, but what he’s really doing is his vision of “spreading the wealth around.” It sounds a lot like Huey Long’s 1935 plan to “Share the Wealth.” And when he finds that he can’t tax the top 5% of the population to gain enough wealth to spread to the 95% of the rest of us, do you really think that he’ll stop with that 5%?

Remember…This is the guy who said in the ABC debate during the primary season that his approach to raising tax on capital gains is not based on whether it would provide more revenue but on his idea of what is fair:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Just what we need in these fragile economic times — a guy who wants to raise taxes because he thinks it’s a matter of “fairness” and time to “spread the wealth around.”

That will be some incentive for other plumbers who want to work hard and build up a successful business.

But don’t worry - according to Joe Biden, it’s the patriotic thing to do.

Your point of view has been expressed. Constant repetition only weakens your case.  If you felt strongly that this was true, you would be confident that you would be proved right and not have to beat a dead horse. Be a member of polite society and consider others' time and interests before you attempt to monopolize a free forum with only your one point over and over.

and we are not just repeating ourselves.  We are posting new info for others WHO CARE to read it.  If you are not interested and do not care, DON'T READ IT. 

Interesting post by someone on another site:

ladyplumber10:35AMDec 3rd 2008

When you have 4 different citizenships in question, American, British, Indonesian, and Kenyan, and multiple different names :Barack Obama, aka, Barry Soreto, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham...you folks who think this is a piece of cake to wade through are nuts. It's like untangling a badly knotted necklace.
There is a great interview with Alan Keyes on why he is suing Mr Obama in the CA Sumpreme Court in Essence magazine...
http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/news/articles/alankeyesobama
also it is known that Mr Obama's passport in 1981 at the age of 20 was Indonesian. Ever wonder WHY he has sealed all of his college records @ Columbia and Harvard...likely because he came in under Indonesian
citizenship and qulaified for foreign student grants.
For those of you who think that the certificate shown on his web site is sufficient:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80931
PART 1
"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's LONG LEGAL original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."

(From Alan Keyes suite against the Sec of State of CA and demanding they hold back the 55 electoral votes)

For those of you who think that even if he was born to an American overseas..he is still a US Citizen...
NOT SO. for the law from 1952-1986 (Obama was born in 1961) states that to an American Citizen and one alien parent in wedlock, the American parent must have resided in the US for 5 years beyond the age of 14 (or the age of 19)Mr Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, so he wouldn't qualify.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
For those of you who think that he has to have been checked out this far into the game...think again. I met with my DC House REP face to face who said that officials voted into office by the public, don't get checked out...my own rep never had been nor do US senators. The FBI doesn't get involved in political matters, and there is NO PRIOR legal precedent for a prez candidate that wants to keep his life "private". Remember Hillary was the first to challenge his citizenship...but took his short cert of live birth as his long legal birth certificate. This document is not offical enough to get him a passport. So whose job is it to approve a candidate...the candidates own party according to the FBI agent that I interviewed...can you say conflict of interest?! It is also the job of each individual sec of state. Personally, for the prez national election, I think it should be the job of the US Sec of State. Each state sec of state can certify state candidates. FOLKS-this has not resurfaced...it has never left.. but the Obama loving main stream media won't cover it, because they will wind up with egg all over their face. I think a few things are cool: one, that Alan Keyes is the one in CA suing, but no one can call the race card as he is black. Justice Clarence Thomas took the supreme court case, and again no one can call a race card. My DC rep feels that every court in the nation will find a loop hole to dismiss for fear of rioting. I told him that men are fighting and dying overseas to protect our freedoms and our constitution..why should they if we won't protect it from within? Also if the courts were afraid of rioting in the 1950s&1960s SEGREGATION might still be alive today! I would love to see a black man as prez, but not one who had to speak deceit and lies to get there. Let's NOT be in such a hurry to make history, that we are doing nothing to protect history...and to protect our constitution....

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/01/obama-birth-certificate-rears-its-ugly-head-again/197#comments

I would argue that the New Deal actually did help the economy, but it wasn't large enough.  During the New Deal the GDP steadily grew with the exception of one period where FDR actually slacked off with his programs and instead did tax cuts.  Unemployment also went down during this period.  I know Fox is saying the New Deal didn't work, but the numbers don't support that theory.

See charts below:

From the Christian Science monitor online-- an interesting commentary on the Rove issue. 

(I note per the Conservative board that Mr. Wilson is now being vilified.)

I think all children deserve free or at least affordable health care right now.  I think that should be this country's #1 priority, and sadly, it is not.  I don't care what facts you throw at me, the truth is many children are going without health insurance because many families have to choose between buying groceries and paying the enormous premiums, and sometimes you just have to choose what is most important to survive right now.

I'm disgusted every time someone has to have a fundraiser when their kid gets cancer just to pay the medical bills.  I'm disgusted that families lose their houses every day because they have to sell them to pay off medical bills.  This bill may not have solved all of those problems, but it would have been a step in the right direction.

So go ahead and spout your pro-life "every baby deserves a chance to live" speeches, and then when that same child gets diabetes and can't afford healthcare, go ahead and look away and act like that child no longer matters.

Can someone explain to me why gay marriage is an issue in politics?  I don't think it's ever been explained.  I have heard the religious people say they want to keep the sanctity of marriage preserved to be between a man and a woman, and I can understand that.  On the other side, I've heard gays and lesbians say that they've lived their lives with another person who happens to be the same sex as they are and they just want to be able to have the same rights as married people if something should happen to their partner, and I certainly do understand that too.  I guess I don't understand why it is a political issue.  To me if John and Jack or Mary and Sue want to get married that doesn't affect what I do with my life on a day to day basis or how I live my own life (at least I don't think it would have an impact).  So just wanted to know why I'm always hearing this issue during campaigns.  - Thanks.

out of his middle name.  So what if someone posts his middle name?  What do YOU have to be worried about?  It appears that she cut and pasted an article written by someone else.  Had you not written a huge post about the name *Hussein,* many would not have even given it a second thought.