Have it your way. Retreat back behind that wall of separation
Posted By: and sulk a while longer... sm on 2008-11-05
In Reply to: I am not fearful. I am resigned....he was elected. - sam
But do yourself and all of us a favor and simply give the man a chance. Your posts are full of fear and doubt. If you find the simple suggestion that you reach deep down inside yourself and do your part to meet the challenge of healing halfway so intimidating, it is not your time yet. I pray hope will come to you sooner rather than later.
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
A little context before retreat.
Yes, I know your post appeared before Cease Fire. As soon as I pressed the Post Reply button, there you were, right back up there taking one last “shot”…your words, not mine. Cease fire…broken before it even began. That would suggest that the 3rd person rules of engagement never applied either. You have made it quite clear that you prefer the garbage-out/garbage in approach…again, just dancing to your tune. Remember the part about someone always being around to answer bigotry’s call-to-arms? Thus, the gloves stay off for the time being. Besides, your rejection of the olive branch is fairly apparent by now.
He’s my friend, not my therapist. He still has so many issues of his own, he would be the first one to say that he’s the one who needs the couch. He is brilliant when it comes to helping others, just not when it comes to helping himself. We have known each other for 42 years. He actually seeks my advice, and I his..it’s personal, not professional.
The economics is way to vast to get into for the time being. May another time, but in terms of what we spend to “support” illegals, that amount is a drop in the bucket when compared to the profits generated for transnational corporations (those guys who actually run the country) in the maquilidoras in Mexico and the cheap labor pool they create once they cross that porous border. So yeah, I got some 4-letter words on that subject. Just ask yourself this fundamental question. Who stands to gain/profit from all this? As long as the transnationals’ bottom line is in the black, they have no motive to “fix” this “problem.” Don’t hold your breath. This is what global economy looks like.
The yada, yada, yada was not referring to the path to citizenship. I was talking about entering with legal status. Let’s put a face on a case. I had a Filipino friend (fellow MT) back in 1983, who entered on a work visa and applied for permanent residence. That took 3 years. She waited. No problem. Then she tried to apply for her 5 children. By 1986, the laws relative to family unification requirements had changed. In 1983, she only would have had to wait another 5 years (AFTER becoming a resident) for approval to sponsor HER OWN CHILDREN. Whoops. No so fast. By 1986, that generous 5-year wait had been doubled to (count ‘em) 10 years for Filipinos. She traveled back and forth over those years while immigration did its thing to see her children and husband, who had stayed behind to raise them in her absence.
Her kids were school age when she when she started this. By the time they were all together again, her youngest was a sophomore in college. She waited. She did it all nice and legal. Excuses, excuses, excuses? Good things come to those who wait? What’s so great about a mother missing 13 years of her children’s lives? Was it worth it? The price they paid was way too high. They had all become so disillusioned and had lost so much, within 5 years after completing the process, the entire family turned around and went back to the Philippines. So much for THEIR Ameican dream and playing by the rules. Maybe good riddance to some, a tragic shame to others. That’s just one case….and yeah, there are plenty of 4-letter words that reveal just how many others there were. Things have gotten a whole lot worse since then, but your party still insists these arcane laws are “too liberal” to suit them. Puh-leeze. So no, I don’t pick and choose laws that suit me. Simply stated, bad laws need to be changed, or eliminated all together.
No national spokesperson here. Just a lifetime of experience (sorry, Sam, you left yourself wide open by trying to be so cute). U of H, 1967…that pesky urban academic forum you love to hate. Free speech for all students was encouraged and accommodated back then. Alongside Viet Nam War, civil rights and nascent women’s lib protests were the highly visible and vocal Arabs and Iranians, here on student visas, nice and legal, the way you claim you like it. Their issues were:
- The 6-day war, when US-backed Israel stepped up its bloodthirsty quest to drive an entire Palestinian population into the refugee diaspora by expanding its illegal occupations of Syria and Egypt. They created some great future killing fields in Golan and Gaza by rearranging a few borders and chopping up the West Bank like a piece of cheap mortadella, sending millions of refugees fleeing into Jordan, which has never been the same, Syria, Europe and the US.
- The pros and cons of Arab political unity as an appropriate response to such blatant aggression and invasion. Now this idea scares the pants off the US. If the Arabs were ever to unify, and especially if they ally themselves with Iran, the world power that would create could crush US superpower ambitions with its eyes shut. US was really nervous about that prospect. Not hard to figure why they have spent trillons of dollars since 1948 (Israel's birthday) and turned a blind eye to all that bloodshed in an effort to keep that region just as destabilized as possible. Where's the outrange over that expense? Oil makes countries do some crazy stuff.
- The formation of the OPEC states as organized by the Shah of Iran, the puppet monarch the US backed after their successful early 1950s coup that removed Mosadegh, the secular democratic prime minister who wanted to eliminate Western control and nationalize Iran’s oil. Democracy in the Middle East? Right. “Oil”agarchy? Nothing new under the sun. Imperialism? Old as the hills.
- The subsequent withdrawal of US backing for the Shah when he had the audacity to take a page out of Mosadegh’s book to suggest that Iran should control it OWN oil resources.
- The rise of a multitude of Iranian political parties, including the strengthening and empowerment of those nasty Islamic fundamentalists that eventually seized control.
- The overthrow of the US puppet monarch who, by that time, had systematically imprisoned, tortured and executed his opposition behind the scenes, ultimately turning Islamic party leadership into national martyrs, making it really easy for them to step right in and take over. Not a great choice for a puppet. Can you say "human rights?"
- The outpouring of refugees from Iran in the aftermath, trying to escape the same-song-second-verse torture, imprisonment and executions under the new leadership. My husband was one of the lucky ones who made it out in time. Things were a bit hectic for him in the middle of the blood bath, there being a revolution and all. No time for a visa. Declared asylum when he got to Germany and was approved.
- The 1951-1952 CIA-backed coup has been acknowledged by our own government and US tax dollars transfered from the US to the Israel treasury...a matter of public record, so "frankly, I don't believe it" isn't going to cut it. I could give you some more 4-letter words, but time is short. As you can see, this is not exactly democratic party line I'm spouting here. No mouthpiece on this mouth. This is information that is not served up by the US news media outlets either. You can hear a lot about it from news broadcasts from other countries and there is a ton of information to sift through on the net should one feel so inclined.
This is not some angry tirade or “tude” I harbor. Not trying to condescend or educate anyone here. History simply is not your friend, Sam, so keep those elitist accusations on the tip of your tongue where they belong. In any case, I was just like you, at first. Beat my patriotic chest, fought tooth and nail, until I finally started to acknowledge my own bias and prejudice against “foreigners” and decided to look into it all. Started reading up on the subject, listening more and talking less, checking facts, etc. Picked up a keen interest in all flavors of foreign policy. Changed my life for the better forever. Made friends along the way of all sorts and persuasions, over many decades, by now, way too numerous to count. Studied together, had lots of fun, ate dinners with them and their families, baby sat their kids, went to weddings, house warmings, baby showers and funerals, shed bucket of tears, learned respect for their customs and cultures.
I married once to an Arab for 12 years, went overseas and lived with the family for 2 years in Madaya, a RURAL village 40 miles west of Damascus in the Bekka Valley. Most beautiful orchards you ever laid eyes. Too bad the skies over this particular pastoral scene were often darkened by the storm clouds of war. That was the year Israel tried to push itself all the way to Beruit, a mere 45 miles to the west of us, decimating whole villages in the wake of that land grab (been so many, I've lost count)…but not quite as gory as their most recent offensive into Lebanon. Israeli fighter jets (bank-rolled by good ole’ American tax dollars,) would often fly so fast and so low under the radar screen they sounded like they were getting ready to crash into the house. This would send us all scrambling to the floor, nose to the ground and hands clenched tightly behind our heads in a hopeless attempt to somehow feel safer, where we would cower for a couple of minutes until it was over. Kind of reminiscent of those war photos from Sadr City and Mosul when American soldiers ransacked those villages in search of insurgents, going door-to-door, breaking in with the butt of their rifles, sending civilian old men, women and children dropping like flies in the absence of all military-age male family members (out trying to protect everybody), as the GI planted his boot into the small of an Iraqi teenager’s back, shaking like a leaf. Just how proud, safe and strong do you think that “should” make me feel?
Later married that Iranian refugee I spoke of earlier. Got in-laws abroad and here. My husband has difficulty accepting the idea that he may never see his mother, father, 3 brother(s), sister(s)-in-law, nephew and neice, aunts, uncles and cousins. We make do with weekly phone calls. My son is a native-born citizen, with very much of a westernized hyphenated Iranian side to his identity….American-Iranian, according to him. My sister lives in Tehran with her husband and her own 12-year-old American citizen American-Iranian/Iranian-American son. Hope they don’t get caught up in the aftermath of the latest nuclear flap and proposed American diplomatic efforts. You’ll forgive me if I a bit suspicious of Bush’s stunning reversal of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” mantra. An “American interests section?” Indeed. Don’t look for the Iranian madman to agree to another CIA spy dugout in the middle of his capital city any time soon. Shades of ignored WMD inspector reports and manufactured “intelligence” (give me a break) findings. I take little comfort in the fact that he is running out of time for another Middle East invasion/fiasco.
Through it all, I have engaged myself with immigration law, starting back in college, trying to help different nationalities navigate the stormy waters of the LEGALIZATION process. Furthermore, because of my husband’s political refugee status, we are well acquainted with Homeland Security (DHS) issues. One of our friends is a DHS regional director. He is an advocate for immigrant rights and reform, legal and illegal…a position he takes after his retirement from INS after 30 years and 5 years with DHS. Probably knows a thing or 2. He can’t wait for the inauguration. Says his job will be a lot easier and kinder once McCain or Obama take office, since they both support immigration reform. Looking forward to going to sleep with a cleaner conscience, he says.
Anger? Not exactly. Passion? You bet. Please forgive me if I feel like I might have something of substance to bring into this debate. I take these issues very seriously since were are talking about my families, my friends. In my experience (not some passage out of some old dusty textbook), these are matters of life and death. I may be a little far out in left field to suit you, but I feel I have at least earned my stripes. I am no less American than anyone else born and raised here. Keep in mind that I am not by myself here either. The last 2 elections were too, too close to support that notion.
You will be relieved to hear this. That’s all the time I have right now. One thing we all can see about you is you somehow feel if you get the last word, it must be the best word. Ain’t necessarily so, but at least for the time being, you can have it your way. Have no intention to leave the remainder of your slanderous post unanswered. Debate is suspended from this side due to the job hunt thing, but certainly not finished by any means.
One thing I look forward to is the (un)Cival War discussion. Maybe you can enlighten me as to how to construe a war which produced more than half a million deaths of various sorts in 4 years was about anything except some of the same fundamental issues that divide us to this day…the economics and human rights issues that surrounded slavery then, the common thread that divides us, then and now, being the bigotry of it all. Will follow your advice and read up on the Republican party, but before playing the Abraham Lincoln was a Republican card, better bone up on how your party platform has reversed itself on most issues since it formation in the early 1850s. HisRepublican Party in no way resembles the GOP of today. Confusing? Yes. Alas, another 4 letter word for you.
I appreciate your parting “shot.” Wouldn’t want to let a little thing like a hurricane sink OUR hot air balloons (pleural). now, would we? Enjoy your last word and the sabbatical. Gonna get swallowed up by poverty if I don’t find a job soon.
No one gives a flip about retreat.
that perpetuates division and hatred....quite another story. No only do you have the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader, you can't seem to count past 3 and are obviously outnumbered by folks who have zero tolerance when it comes to bigots. Such a bore.
I don't understand how you can blame Obama for the retreat?
This is a yearly thing they do. He just attended this year. It was not for him or by him.
Also, he could not know the tax situation of each person he was interested in having in these positions unless they tell him and until they are researched. I don't know the tax situation fo each person that I do business with and never will because there is no reason for me to know. Once this information becomes public, if he continues to support them then yes that is a problem - one I think he already apologized for.
I don't think it will be a problem again.
Since I believe in SEPARATION of church & state,
Save it for Sundays in church, Sarah!
Separation of church and state.......... sm
is actually not described in the Constitution in the manner in which it is interpreted today. The First Amendment actually reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." One of the reasons America came to be was to flee government-instituted religion such as in England. It was more to keep government out of religion than the other way around. Today, however, it has come to be interpreted, especially by those who would eschew religion in all manners, as religion should be kept out of the government.
The phrase "separation of church and state" is more accurately traced to a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Dansbury Baptists, a religious minority in Connecticut who were concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist Church there. They were concerned that the Congregationalists would "take over" the religion in much the same manner that the Church of England had taken over in England. He wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." In other words, Jefferson was assuring the Dansbury Baptists that their religion would be safe from any government-imposed religion and that they would be free to worship and express their religious beliefs. It says nothing about constricting their religion to their churches and their homes.
Maybe this is one of the things that Obama would relate to his belief that the Constitution is a "living document" as opposed to a static document. Who knows?
It's called separation of church and state - nm
x
Excuse me, it is not about separation of church and state...
which words, by the way, do not appear in the constitution of these United States. It is about tax exempt status, and the IRS withholding that if politics is spoken from the pulpit. There are many, many tax exempt entities in this country, and NONE of them are barred from talking politics inside their doors. NONE of them. THAT is discrimination. If you are going to tie it to tax exempt status, then you need to tie it to tax exempt status PERIOD, across the board. Not just on churches.
Typical, retreat without answering a simple question under ANY of your many names...
demean, belittle, name-call, deride, post under different names to support your view because no one else will...and as far as granting my wish...never asked you leave...you said you were leaving to hunt a job. I said see ya when you get back. That is hardly asking you to ride off into the sunset. You are so similar to Mr. Obama...birds of a feather and all that...ask a simple straight-forward question and you dodge it like it was on fire. Guess your superior intelligence just deserts you in the face of a simple question...or perhaps even you, from your lofty perch, have enough common sense to realize that there is no bigotry to what I said. You are far more bigoted toward conservatives and people you feel are inferior to you than I ever could be...and certainly more bigoted than my stance on immigration.
Still with the plaigiarism thing...good grief, you DO love to belabor a point, especially when you are wrong. Someone has always said something before...and in all your diatribes I did not find one original point. Read the same thing on leftist blogs, in articles, and on and on and on. Not one original thought from the great brain that is GT/GW/BW/FPJ.
See ya...and yeah, it HAS been fun. lol.
And no, I did not discount that FPJ could have been speaking on her own...just said if she was, she was plagiarizing you. You seemed to be so concerned about plagiarizing...not even taking into consideration that your lectures are about 98% plagiarized (by your definition...your words, not mine). Did you really think people wouldn't google?
Take care. I am still considering spiteful little vixen stationery...might even get T-shirts. :-)
Is separation of church and state blown out of the water?!?! sm
If Head Start is recieving federal funding, they SHOULD NOT discriminate for religious reasons in hiring. This is illegal no matter who supports it. Since Bush supports it, he is supporting an illegal, unconstitutional act.
This faith based organization wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want federal funding, which comes from all US Citizens, but they do not want to be inclusive of all US citizens. So they don't have a problem taking a non-Christian's money for funding, but they don't want to hire any non-Christians to work for them. That is hypocritical and WRONG.
US Constitution Article I:
*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*
First because of a hurricane. Now because of Wall St.
an earthquake in California. Or maybe because his favorite show is on TV that night.
I want somebody with some actual ballz in the white house, not an aged wimp.
McCain wants to put Soc Sec in Wall St just like
HE MUST BE STOPPED
Oh Wow. Don't think Wall Street
likes what was done today. It's down 383.73 points and it's not even 4:00 yet!
I have zero confidence in Wall St......nm
x
The writing is on the wall!!!
xx
I am, however, for building that wall...
Along the Mason-Dixon Line!! 
Wall Street Journal for one
I know, I know a "liberal rag"!!!! ha ha ha
90% of Wall Street is owned and run by....sm
liberal democrats.
The feds should use the bank & Wall St.
Then put a lien on, and sell, their fancy mansions in upstate NY, their yachts, their Mercedes, etc. Let their kids to go public school instead of fancy private ones. They're the greedy ones who got us into this mess, let THEM pay for it, not us.
McCain wants to privatize SS in Wall St just like
You have to really try to pay attention. Wall St is now subsidized by us. The big money is gone. If GW had his way, everyone's SS would be gone. McCain still wants to privatize SS. Even a rabid republican would see this is a dumb idea.
It's like talking to a brick wall
They don't seem to get it.
Would love to be a fly on the wall if your daughter
got knocked up despite being "taught not to get pregnant". Especially if that mistake were to end up tying her for 18 years of her life to some loser guy, and all the problems that can bring.
So what exactly do you think will happen if the earth's population continues to grow at the rate it's been for the past 50-100 years? What kind of world does that leave your grandchildren? It's too crowded now - how horrible will it be when the earth's population doubles, then triples? Standing-room-only?
From the Wall Street Journal
World greets Obama:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122592900344403049.html
Obama's Dour Vision:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122592129148302567.html
What an Obama Presidency Means for Your Money:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122591367859702209.html
Pelosi, Automakers to Meet:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122599560485005549.html
Obamas's Real Opposition:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593259568103473.html
Wall Street Grieves
The stages of grief:
Denial - okay that was last year, just read old Paulson reports.
Anger - that was Lehman Bros.
Bargaining - TARP anyone?
Depression -
Acceptance -
I think we have a ways to go until they get over it.....
It should be $$ for banks, big oil and wall street, right?
x
wall street journal more credible than CNN?
One of them is a link to a video...hard to say that was manufactured. It wasn't...I saw it live. Just leave it up to the people to decide. Both sides presented, and people can do their own research as well. They should not take what I post for the truth, or what anyone posts. It is a place to start to look on their own. I would just advise...both sides...anything on blogs needs to be verified with something a bit more credible.
This is America, and there is nothing wrong with presenting both sides of an issue. Is there?
This is truly socialism. These banks and rich Wall
Street types would be crying out if they gov't did this for the people, but they are begging for the help now. They had better come up with a plan that includes not big pay days for CEOs, etc. I was watching The View and Whoppi said they need to include something for the people, like wiping out half of the mortgages so the actual people who will benefit the economy, i.e. us because we spend money here in the U.S. can get back on our feets and go out and put some money back in the economy and not have to worry about losing a home, etc. I totally agree with that, but I can pretty much guarantee that will not happen.
Wall street bonuses expected
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/wall-street-bonuses-expects-come-season-despite-bailout/
Paying bonuses this year is likely to result in a lot of backlash from the average American. After all, even with bonuses down dramatically, they are still higher than the average American, who is losing his or her home, makes. Not to mention the government bailout of financial firms, which seems to change daily, is coming from taxpayer dollars. Concerns abound—rightly or wrongly--that some of the $700 billion bailout could go to pay bonuses this year.
And we bail out Wall St. who created this mess.....
Didja watch House of Cards? That spelled it out pretty succinctly. People were sucked into mortgages they couldn't afford, they were told they could refinance in 1-5 years and keep the mortgage payments they could afford - THEY WERE LIED TO. The bankers and Wall St. had to keep that Ponzi scheme going.......pizza delivery drivers were selling mortgages!! The more they sold, the more money they made - upwards $20,000 per month - they sucked people into refinancing to put cash in their pockets because housing values were skyrocketing.......and it all crashed down. So who did we bail out first? The banks and Wall St.............not the people who got screwed by con men. And these people were not POOR - they just got sucked into buying more house than they could afford. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Wall Street has zero confidence in Obama's
nm
Wall Street Journal says Obama's tax cuts
Some need to pay close attention to this......... it's called welfare handouts. "Entitled mentality". The working class will get NO tax cuts. You all will be working to put money in the hands of those that do not. It makes perfectly good sense. I've been saying there is no way he can do anything he is leading people to believe he can because 1/3 of people in this country pay NO TAXES. He has led so many to believe he will cut middle class when he can't. He is blatantly trying to disguise "government handouts" as "tax credits". You want your hard earned money going to everyone who doesn't bother to work?
One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.
It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals[.]
Wall street, China, Japan, whoever they gave
@
this from the wall street journal, interesting article
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122515112102674263-lMyQjAxMDI4MjI1ODEyNTgxWj.html
Wall Street loves the new president....ouch! nm
//
Wall Street loves the new president....ouch! nm
//
Should Wall Street Bankers have their compensation capped?
Wall Street bankers, with their $18 billion in bonuses, private jets and gaudy conferences, are causing headaches for the GOP.
President Obama has proposed capping compensation for executives at banks that take taxpayer bailout money at $500,000. Republicans hate the idea -- a position puts them uncomfortably on the side of people currently about as popular as child-porn producers and subprime mortgage brokers.
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed the "tone deaf" bankers for creating the political environment that allows Obama to call for a cap.
"Because of their excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America," Kyl told the Huffington Post.
"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he is "one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side" for the president's efforts to reach across the aisle. But, said Inhofe, "as I was listening to him make those statements I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"
Democrats argue that banks that take government money must accept any rules the government decides to send with it. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Barney Frank are both working on legislation that would complement Obama's attempt to get a handle on executive compensation.
It's not a novel concept, and it's one the GOP supports -- when applied to welfare recipients, at least. "We demand that welfare recipients do an honest day's work for their checks.
It was leaked to the Wall Street Journal, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Assuming you have one?
Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch
same owner of Fox Noise
Bush made Wall St Socialist and our banks so why do you even bother
We have socialism now but it's not the poor you blinded bigot.
The biggest welfare in US history is the Wall St bailout under the leadership of
in us history
Bush vetoed regulation of FRED and WALL st several times
and stop watching fox distorted faux news
"Evil" is George Bush, Wall Street, the Banks,
NM
I hate Wall Street. Hope that whole fake-money
$ + $ on WS = 0.
Your precious Bush turned Wall St socialist and the banks TRUE
you voted for him and look what happened SOCIALISM by BUSH
ABC: Obama Is Hypocritical For Limiting Wall Street Pay While Having A ‘Lavish Lifest
Yesterday, President Obama instituted a pay cap on bailed out businesses after it was revealed that Wall Street doled out an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses last year. “If the taxpayers are helping you, then you’ve got certain responsibilities to not be living high on the hog,” he explained.
In what appears to be an attempt to call Obama a hypocrite, ABC’s Scott Mayerowitz “reports” today that the President also has a “lavish lifestyle.” Under the title: “Obama’s Perks: Private Jet, Chef Tax-Free,” ABC notes that Obama earns $400,000 dollars a year and even has a private jet:
The president makes $400,000 a year, but hasn’t received a raise from Congress since 2001. He also gets a $50,000 annual entertainment expense account (any unused money at the end of the year must go back to the Treasury.)
Then there is the use of two private jets, Boeing 747s better known as Air Force One. And of course the constant security details, drivers, a private chef, a country vacation estate and the rent-free use of a well-known, 132-room mansion called the White House. The president also used to have a yacht, until Jimmy Carter sold it.
As its evidence that “corporate America” is upset, ABC said that “some Wall Street bloggers” are angry with the compensation cap. But the article cited only one blogger, Dealbreaker.com, who — apparently poking fun at Sen. Claire McCaskill’s statement — remarked, “Some accountability needs to be put in place. We won’t have them kicking sand in the face of taxpayers any longer.” Dealbreaker.com also suggests charging rent for White House tenants.
Comparing the President to Wall Street CEOs is absurd. The “private jet” that Obama uses is Air Force One, which is used as a security precaution and necessary for the dozens of staff and press that accompany the President on every trip. Each use of the jet by the President is regarded as a “classified military operation” in order to ensure the President’s safety.
Furthermore, Obama’s salary is set by Congress (whose members are elected by the public). CEO compensation is decided internally within the company, usually by its board of directors. The problem with recent excessive CEO compensation was that executives receiving federal funds were still rewarded for failure with tens of millions of dollars from their companies.
The President, on the other hand, does not get a bonus for his performance, good or bad. Indeed, Presidents Bush and Obama earn the same salary. County Fair at Media Matters has more.
Wait - he wants to monitor health care? Like he monitored Wall Street? Pass.
xx
get on back, neocon, get on back
Tell ya what, sweetheart, last I checked this is the LIBERAL BOARD and I havent been banned, as I dont break the rules, so I can stay as long as I want..Seems to me, conservative, you are the one who should mosey on by and get back to drink more Kook-Aid.
the death of Wall Street is the death of the USA...you really want that????? nm
Talking to them is talking to a brick wall.
nm
Go back then
So, *Really* or whomever you are..I have a thought, why dont you go back to the conservative board and have some fun discussing how you are gonna save America and the world from terrorists or whatever you think we are accomplishing with this war. Bye..bye..**BIG HUG**
Did think you could come back on that
except to call names. If you can't defend yourself just call names...that's how it works, right?
It's funny and predictable how you all react when you're called on the carpet about your hypocrisy.
*Did think you could come back on that*??
You don't consider *unhinged liberal* calling names?!
All you do is come here and pick, pick, pick, fight, fight, fight. You're boring, and you're terribly unfriendly and unpleasant to be around. For that reason, I don't think I'm going to continue to provide an audience for any more of your attention-seeking temper tantrums.
Other than that, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by *Did think you could come back on that.* Is English your second language or is your anger and hatred causing you to become a bit *unhinged* yourself? (Was just a rhetorical question. No need to respond. I won't be reading it.) 
|
