I'm torn on this one, not because of the money...
Posted By: Zville MT on 2009-04-16
In Reply to: Should Marijuana be Legalized? - Poll
but because it's just one more case of the government telling us what's best for us. Anyone who knows history knows that didn't work with prohibition.
On the other hand, where does it stop? Marijuanja now, cocaine next year, heroin the next, maby meth the year after? And of course, their argument will be the same - think of all the tax revenue!
Not sure which way to go on this one.
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
Printing money we dont have? Borrowing money
nm
It takes money to make money. nm
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
I think the amount of money that
politicians and athletes make is just crazy. Don't even get me started on athletes. LOL!
I'd want the money but not from that family. sm
The poor have more morals and principles. They make most of their money off of misery, lies, deceit, and thievery. They fund both sides of war conflicts and founded the central banking system, which is robbing everyone blind. She met her husband at a Bilderberg conference.
She did support Hillary and then endorsed McCain, but said she did not trust him because he came off like too much of an elitist. Bizarre statement from someone who is a member of a family who possesses more than half the world's wealth since the early 1900s.
Repubicans and Money
Forget the poor people who can barely keep a roof over their heads and feed their children...we must protect the big corporations, give their executives huge golden parachutes, and protect our richest friends so they can continue to live the lavish lifestyles to which they have become accustomed!
Why waste the Country's money on social programs for people who actually need help when we can waste the Country's money on people who are experienced at spending fast, furious, and frivolously while living in the lap of luxury!
Elitism does not always have to do with money....
it is a perception, an attitude.
2000 Jeep Cherokee with 165,000 on it. Clinging bitterly to my Jeep along with my guns and religion...lol.
That remark about small-town folk in Pennsylvania by Obama WAS an elitist remark. No matter what kind of car he drives.
anyone who invests their money
x
We have been borrowing money from them for
xx
Right on the money Sista!! Thank you!!
You are so right, and thank you for taking the time to explain that in detail. I've always said he's a smooth operator and I have never trusted him. Now, there it is in black and white.
Thank you!
Well sure he's outspending...look where the money
))
Why do you make such little money?
I don't understand how you and your husband only make $24K between the two of you. Working an average of 30 hours a week, I will make close to $40K this year.
Not judging. Just don't understand how as a Transcriptionist you can only be making that much between the two of you.
Obama has money out the
ying yang......what....he couldn't pay for his own way to see his dear grandmama....you know....the one he called a typical white person. To critical Palin's clothing expense, etc. and not look at what the others are spending as well is wrong.
BTW, who is paying for Obamarama's 2 million dollar party in Chicago come election day?
I am voting for him and I don't need anyone's money, thank you! (nm)
:p
CBS follows Obama's Money...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86RAp_iuhOQ
As anywhere else...money talks.
do you have any idea of the combined wealth of Buffet and Soros? Keep sipping.
Yes he did take money from the "big guy"
Sure he may have taken $5 and $10 here and there but he has not been truthful and many people who were mesmerized by him actually believe this hooey. Obama is backed by Brzienski(sp?), Bilderberger, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs. There is a lot more to who gives money to the campaigns besides little ol grandma smith who gave $5. There are not enough people in America that if they donated $5 or $10 (or even $2300) that he would have raised the kind of money he raised. You also have to remember Obama got 52% of the popular vote and McCain got 48%. That's only a 4 point lead. That means 48% of America did not vote for Obama or send him money, and I doubt very highly out of the 52% that voted for him not every single person had money to donate. He won 4%. Not a huge difference as some are portraying it. I talk to one of my family members and they make it sound like it was a huge landslide. I reminded her 4 points is not a huge landslide.
As for not taking money from lobbyists.... he took money from special interests groups and that is who is beholden to and they donated BIG!
Where do you think all this money is coming from?
Are you naive enough to think they just print it? TAXES. Too many "social programs" means more TAXES, not only from the rich but from everyone.
Taking money out
is actually a good idea, since there has been talk of bank runs under the current situation THAT IS NOW HAPPENING UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH.
take my guns AND take my money???
i was posed to start deducting from my check and putting into IRA again, and this gives me pause. big pause. geez crime-iny.
Then don't send them your money....nm
x
Not really......they probably have money actually saved
::
Want Some Government Money?
Want Some Government Money? Apply Now!
November 12, 2008 1:02 PM
This morning Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson addressed a skeptical press about the latest plans for those 700 billion dollars that were appropriated for the "TARP" -- or Troubled Asset Recovery Program. Now Paulson says Treasury won't buy those "Trouble Assets" -- one of the many metamorphoses this program has had in its young life.
In the meantime, care to apply for some TARP money? Turns out there's a five-page, downloadable document to fill in -- if you're interested...here's the link.
And here's ABC's Dan Arnall on whether there has been, as he puts it, a "Great TARP Bait & Switch".
No Troubled Asset Purchases? Then what are they doing with that $700 billion blank check? They are buying bank stock, not troubled assets. We probably shouldn't call it the TARP anymore. Instead, they are focused on a capital purchase plan (CPP) which is the widely reported $250 billion plan to use taxpayer money to purchase a stake in banks. "By October 26th we had $115 billion out the door to eight large institutions," said Paulson. "In Washington that is a land-speed record from announcing a program to getting funds out the door. We now have approved dozens of additional applications, and investments are being made in approved institutions." When we'll get a list of those dozens of additional applicants which will be getting a piece of the $125 billion in remaining taxpayer case remains to be seen. The original CPP participants were told about the program at a closed-door meeting at Treasury and no minutes have been released on what was said during the meeting.
So, is this the biggest bait and switch in American history? There will certainly be critics who say that Paulson and the Bush Administration were disingenuous when they were selling Congress and the American public on the program back in September. And they’d probably be right. Paulson said today, he knew when the bill was signed the purchase of trouble assets wasn’t the right solution to the problem. But history will judge Hank & Co. on the effectiveness of their response. If the risks to the financial system remain low, the future doesn’t bring bigger bank and financial institution failures, and the recession doesn’t get too deep or last too long, then the quick pivot on this plan will probably go unnoticed.
I think Americans have the right to buy where they get value for their money --
You can't blame Americans for buying foreign if it is a better value. The American-owned companies need to make it to where buying American is more lucrative than it is now.
I would rather have American if possible - and yes, I drive an American car - BUT it is not because it is American. My budget is based on getting the cheapest and best deal I can...
I know the implications of letting the companies fail - but it is their own poor management that is doing it. The writing has been on the wall for a long time. They knew they were losing out to foreign companies - why not do something about it before they got to this point? Because they want to continue the same practices they have been doing; you know, the ones that were not working! If you let them fail, someone else will come in and pick up the business and make a go of it. That is the way the world works...
|
