If bridge builders cannot afford the cost........ sm
Posted By: m on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: Money for hollywood....(sm) - Just the big bad
of a movie ticket, then what good does it do to provide/create more jobs in that genre?
Folks are hurting and they can't afford their own homes, much less movie tickets and popcorn. I say let the movie industry take a little pay cut here and there and bring their multimillion dollar projects down to a more reasonable figure and bring the films in under budget.
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
if they can't afford their house, they should find one they can afford
and move out. End of story.
As to the bridge to nowhere...
she changed her mind...kinda like Biden did when first he said Obama could not be effective President as it did not lend itself to on-the-job training...now that he is on the ticket Obama is the best thing since sliced bread. If Palin is a liar...Joe Biden is a bigger one. So she got some earmarks for her city...Obama got one for his wife's employer right after they DOUBLED her salary. At least wasilla got the earmarks Palin went after...not her husband's business. Obama comes out on the wrong side of that one too.
Messy little facts about Obama/Biden...Palin still way ahead.
yah - and I have a bridge for sale
Sure, she cares about you and me. And I've got a bridge for sale too. I'll send you my address and you just send me the money order. I hope she doesn't get elected. She has no shame. She thinks if its not working one way, lets get rid of the oponent "permanently". I don't think she's smart. Somewhere someone came up with that lame-brain idea "oh but she's the smartest woman on the planet" pullease. She's not smart, she's manipulative, devious, lying and deceitful. I have read about her life and her career and never found where she looked out for the underprivaleged. It's always been me, me, me, and my rich friends. Why everyone bows down to those two ninny's I have no idea. They are a couple of trailer trash who bought their way into the political scene. Calling Hillary a socialist is a plain and simple fact. Hillary, like Karl Marx envisions the world to be a "utopia" where the "authority" takes the wealth from many and redistributes it according to the whims and principles of a few (yes I just copied that statement from an article I read - and a pretty darn good one that really gets to the truth and I could have not said it any better). And who does she believe should lead this? Herself of course.
Believe me...she is manipulative and will stop at anything to get what she wants (even if it means eliminating your oponent - and I'm not the only one who took her statements that way - half of America and half of the media who used to support and defend her took it that way too). I don't call this energetic, I call it evil. Plain and simple. She and her lobbyist friends and colleagues who are all for putting her in charge need to read the Declaration of Independence, and if they have read it they need to re-read it and follow it. This is just not a document some people wrote up for her to change at her will. This is a roadmap our forefather's drew up for America to follow. Not for Hillary & Bill to change to read how they want to rule.
A bridge to Nowhere? Really? for sale? nm
x
MCcAIN cited bridge to nowhere
as one reason for collapse of bridge in Minnesota. Mini-Maverick probably threw a hissy.
Don't cross a bridge that isn't built yet, if ever
I didn't vote for Obama, but I'm not upset that he won.
Back Under The Bridge, Troll
nm
If you really think I care about you and the country I also have a bridge for sale.
x
Obama and Biden voted for the bridge to nowhere....twice....
Hmmm....after all that castigating of Bush for Katrina...Obama and Biden had chance to shift funds for the Bridge to Nowhere to Katrina relief...and voted AGAINST it in favor of the bridge.
Now that Alaska is front and center in the news again, it is a good time to catch up on a favorite story, The Bridge to Nowhere, using the Washington Post US Congress Votes Database.
Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (“to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, choosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.
However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn (R), who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.
Sen. McCain did not vote on the Coburn Amendment, though he is on record as opposing the Ketchikan bridge earmark.
Link to votes record below.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/1/votes/262/
Does not chang the fact that they chose the Bridge ...
over Katrina victims. FACT.
Of course, the Obama flock only sees the "good" in such a decision...
Please see enclosed, guess CNN will buy bridge for me, you were so enlightening.......SM
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace
September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."
President Clinton announces that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 is the largest in U.S. history
Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.
This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."
"Like our Olympic athletes in Sydney, the American people are breaking all kinds of records these days. This is the first year we've balanced the budget without using the Medicare trust fund since Medicare was created in 1965. I think we should follow AL Gore's advice and lock those trust funds away for the future," he said.
In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.
The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13 annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations.
"I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up the spending bills with special projects for special interests, but can't seem to find the time to raise the minimum wage, or pass a patients' bill of rights, or drug benefits for our seniors through Medicare, or tax cuts for long-term care, child care, or college education," Clinton said.
"These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts," Clinton said.
Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."
That approach would be in lieu of tax cuts, which "we can't do this year because the president vetoed it," Watts said.
Clinton unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston.
"This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."
It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.
The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.
Hope you have a real nice bridge
picked out to live under. Can't have mine!
Hope you have a real nice bridge
picked out to live under.
Wanna' buy the Oakland-Bay Bridge? I'll sell it
Psst! Wanna buy a BRIDGE? A real pretty
For $700 billion extra, we'll even deliver it for ya.
JM does think they can afford to pay
nm
that's probably why I can afford them
We Can't Afford Not To
Tax cuts alone will not make a dent in our worsening economic crisis. I agree that the stimulus bill had to contain some tax cuts, if only to appease the Republicans. Do you agree that the stimulus bill should've actually been bigger than what was presented?
The last eight years of tax breaks for the wealthy has shown us that it just doesn't work.
The package has to contain both short-term and long-term stimuli to be effective. For example, infrastructure investment needs to be in building bridges and railroads, etc. As it stands now, it's for fixing potholes.
You may not "like the idea of our government controlling so much," but the alternative is a depression far worse than the Great Depression, with vastly more global political unrest on top of it.
Can we really afford to wait
until November to vote on this? I don't think so. Something needs to be done now. I'm sure they will have a plan by the end of this weekend and it will be passed.
i can afford my mortage NOW
why not help those who are trying to help themselves instead of penalizing us? i would much rather see them do some sort of bailout this way rather than bailout these mortgage companies. We need to get this economy going and IMO this may be a solution. If our economy keeps going the direction it is headed, only the ones who are already sitting fat are going to be the ones not hurting. My family has been blessed. I have a good job, my husband has a good job... NOTHING IS SECURE though. Our 401k is going down, as is yours I'm sure. As I said, I would like to see a compromise that doesn't cost all tax payers major money... Let the mortgage companies take the loss.
Yes! Of course they should have done that all along - apparently now they can't afford it ...lol
x
Soon, Kool-Aid may be all you can afford.
nm
Nope. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.
If you can't afford decent housing without relying on government housing, food stamps, etc., don't buy those cars. When the cars die, you have nothing. When you have a decent place to live that you bought with your money, that's something to fall back on.
Can't afford it. Only own 2 pair. LOL (nm)
.
they can afford them over there, just not to employ
nm
I sure wish I could afford to buy a house right now!
Almost 1/3 of the houses in my small town that are for sale are foreclosed. They're all cute little Victorians, and I'd just LOVE to have any one of them.
if they could afford a television, they don't need a box!
the box is for older model TVs and for TVs where people don't use cable and still use an antenna.
My sister's mother-in-law's TV is 25 years old and she still uses it and still uses an antenna - she had to buy a box for her TV to pick up any stations. She would rather buy a box and use the working TV than throw it away and buy a new TV.
We couldn't afford for him NOT to run.
There is nobody else who could handle the multiple crises that President Obama is facing at this unprecedented time in our country's history.
The republican administration that has been in charge for the last 8 years practically destroyed this country from the inside out. Not to mention what he did to our internation image :-(
I, for one, am VERY glad that he decided that the country could not wait.
It common sense - if we can afford one
Simple as that. You can twist it around as much as you want, but the truth is the money is there, and it is just about priorities. I am not trying to personally attack you. I have not resorted to childish name calling or anything like that, I just think your view is warped, and you obviously think my view is wrong, and we will obviously never agree on this issue.
What they couldn't afford was buying
that had no true value, and when the housing bubble burst, they were left holding worthless paper.
Ah, but will you be able to afford the electric bill?
I don't know about your utility bills, but ours are going through the roof lately.
Not very cost effective, is it? nm
x
The boxes only cost about $75.... sm
and as the poster above said, this has been in the offing for some time now. Surely, if a person can afford a television, they could afford a box.... Even if they have to save up for it. What about when all the analog televisions have been converted? They are no longer making analog televisions, so the jobs in this field would go bye-bye.
What would cost more in the long
The government astronomically increasing the deficit -or- the government doing nothing our nation nosediving into economic collapse?
Yes, our taxes will increase, as will our children's and probably, at least for some of us, our grandchildren's. But the alternative is far more dire.
Frankly, I don't know if what the feds have done (during both administrations) was the right thing to do. Even the economists can't agree. Some say it was ill-advised, some say it was misdirected, some say it was too much, others say it was not enough. I am just glad that, for the moment at least, I have a roof over my head and do not have to stand in a soup line. The future? Who knows?
It may have cost her this crown........... sm
but it may have preserved her other one! I, for one, am glad to see a Christian standing up for her beliefs in the face of being unpopular and losing something that is important to her.
I think it did cost her the crown
I heard that Perez gave her zero points for her answer. If he was being at all fair, she would have gotten something for her answer; it was a good answer, and her opinion, but he didn't agree with it.
She was in the lead before this question, so yes, I believe it did.
Can't be too bad...you can afford a good Internet connection. sm
I have my doubts as to whether all your meals are hot dogs and mac and cheese, but I could be wrong....
....and there is work out there. You don't have to just sit there and let it dry up. And don't blame the 8 yrs of republicans. The last two years of democratic ruled Congress has been worse than the previous six before that.
You think you have it bad now.
Just wait till dems are in control of everything.
You'll have less than nothing, and have to give it away to others less unfortunate than yourself. However are you going to be able to afford that?
I STILL can't afford ten bucks for a loaf of bread...lol...not really lol..but ya know
Not jobs Americans dont want to do, but cant afford
nm
Wont matter much - who can afford to drive
Price of gas will be back to $4/gal. - and THEN some - by next summer. Oil co. CEOs are as bad as the Wall-Street $$-ho's.
The issue is really about the tax payers who cannot afford healthcare - sm
Many of them do end up on public assistance due to health issues after having gone for many years without healthcare.
What with the rise in the cost of living....(sm)
its hard to make it on just $169,300 a year.....ROFL...they should try working with my budget.
How much does it cost to throw a party?
Look, I don't care if Obama's inaugaration party is costing 21 million, but in the light of where our economy is right now, do you think it's a good idea? I mean, can't you have a good party for around 10 million? This is NOT a political question. I'm not attacking Obama, it's more of an economic question.
Nothing is very cost effective and now i heard
they want to up the ethanol production by 12%....so that means higher corn prices again next year.
and of course, the speculators are currently driving up the cost, again.....
All the more reason to institute Picken's Plan..........there
and of course, the speculators are currently driving up the cost, again.....
All the more reason to institute Picken's Plan..........there isn't
We don't know if the answer cost her the crown.
There were apparently either 10 or 12 judges, each of whom rated each candidate in the final round as "1 through 5". Depending on the margin she lost by, and how her answer figured in each judge's assessment, the answer may very well have cost her the crown - or not. We simply do not know without seeing the score cards and also finding out from each judge how her answer figured into their decisions.
This does not cost anything. Just pick a card and a message...sm
Or even type your own message and Xerox handles the mailing. This is neat.
And do you know why the cost of living for the middle class has gone down...?
because we are being taxed to death. The amount of our income off the top for taxes has increased over all those years. More programs to help the "poor," some of which have moved people from what used to be middle class to the "poor class" to get on some of those social programs...which is never a good thing...and meanwhile the working middle class continues to get the tax shaft. Yeah, we are being had...by those who want to spend, tax, spend, tax, spend....
Again, you are skirting the major issues and the cost...
did you read all the France article? Their physicians make two-thirds less than ours...and why? Because there is no medical school tuition in France. Can you imagine what would happen to this country's quality of care if you made medical schools no tuition? Can you see Cornell Medical School, Harvard Medical School to name just two, schools who graduate the most brilliant minds in medicine...going to a no-tuition basis? How are they going to be able to train physicians with only government doled-out money to support them? The quality of physician in this country, followed rapidly by the quality of care would tank. If you come from academic medicine, ask those physicians how they feel about no tuition medical school and having their fees capped. Go ahead and ask them.
Our own socialized care is substandard. Articles every day about VA Hospitals and the deplorable conditions in many of them. Veterans having to wait weeks and months for appointments, etc. I know. I have seen the system at work. The government cannot oversee the socialized programs they have now. Medicare and Medicaid are both rife with waste and fraud. We all know this. Because the government cannot oversee them the way they should. And you want to extend this to every person in the US? Look at this reality-based. It is a fiasco in the making.
I am sure the Canadians and the UK thought it would be wonderful too. In the first months it may have been. However, things get skewed when the cost starts to catch up. That is when you end up with a population having over HALF their income taken off the top in taxes to feed the fatted calf. You will note that the article said France was considering taxing both earned and unearned income to feed THEIR calf. When that happens, ask the French how they feel about socialized medicine.
I don't know where you get that healthcare costs are driven by insurance companies. That is nuts. They don't set the fees doctors, clinics, drug companies, yada yada, charge. In fact, it was some of the organized insurance companies, like HMOs, who went to clinics, physicians, etc., to negotiate deals for their consumers...so that those clinics would accept a certain rate for their services. The clinics would agree to less than their normal fees in order to get the business of that HMO. That is the free market WORKING. The clinic I go to for my care, when I get a bill, the insurance company shows what they charged, what they paid, and in nice bold letters at the bottom it says that I am not responsible for the difference because the clinic agreed to that amount for that service, regardless of what their normal charge is.
So, yes, in a way insurance companies do drive health care...but in a good way in my case, and I am sure in other cases across this country, if people would just open their eyes and look.
What this appears to be, on the face of it, is that people just do not want to pay for their own insurance, they want to turn it into yet another entitlement...the biggest one ever. If they want to let the government control them to that extent...more power to them. These same people who want to give up their personal right to control their own health care are the same people that complain about civil liberties and wiretapping. Don't tap my phone, but go ahead and take my health care completely out of my hands as long as you pay for it I don't have to.
No thanks. I do not want to be tied to the government for my health care and I do not want them making my decisions for me. One thing leads to another and before long the government (or more specifically, the Democrats) have you tied to them for your every need. Then, my friends, they have you. You will be living in a socialist country. And if that looks good to you...look at Venezuela. Look at the disparity there between those in power and the "people." Look at Cuba. Look at what socialist Germany turned into before World War II. Please look at history, folks. Socialism always evolves into a dictatorship. Always. Because once they have you dependent upon them for your every need...all I am saying is be careful what you ask for.
Read the article...it says it all there cost of bed and electricity...nm
Palin is a fraud....
lol
|
