Roland Burris aknowledes trying to raise money for Blago
Posted By: Backwards typist on 2009-02-17
In Reply to:
He claimed there was nothing going on but he just dropped the bombshell as O was speaking stating he can recall 6 different contacts and is now under investigation.
Guess he's gonna be gone. He may have committed perjury.
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
Here's an article I found on Burris
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/burris-now-acknowledges-fundraising-effort-for-blagojevich.html
Blago fun....(sm)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30236216
I'm going to have to watch this if, for no other reason, to see how his hair transforms and watch him scream...ROFL.
I think in an earlier segment they said that Tonya Harding was going to be in the show too. I'm saying Tonya can take Blago if they have to go head to head.
Vote on Blago removal right now
So far, not a single Nay vote.
Incoming junior senator from Illinois Burris more qualified/more experience than Obama...
just the facts, ma'am.
Regarding his relations with Blago and his crooked wife, not O
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121003232.html?hpid=topnews
Notice the part where he goes out of his way to dampen any speculation about Obama. As usual, you guys are grasping at straws that are not there....AGAIN.
Tonya v. Blago - "head to head" -
I dunno. I think Blago's head is a lot bigger (in several different ways). He might need to watch his knees, though. LOL!
Raise the cap for SS deductions.
.
He will raise taxes for us all.
No way to set up these government programs of his without taking money from all of us.
He HAS to raise taxes, no way around it
All those programs will not appear out of thin air. He will grow government bigger than ever...new departments, more employees for those departments, more of my tax money blown to heck and back. People actually believe ALL this can be done with TAX CUTS!! They are in total denial.
This man have voted REPEATEDLY to NOT NOT NOT cut taxes every darn time it has come up and has pushed for tax INCREASES. For those nonbelievers, all they gotta do is go look at his voting record. It's there for the scrutinizing.
Read his lips.....
He knows people are running scared and he can zoom in and steal their good sense with telling them he will cut taxes. BUT, as soon as he is in office, it won't happen and who will he blame then? Everybody but himself!!! He will not take any responsiblity for that either.
That is exactly what he said. He wants to raise taxes...
on those making $250,000 or more so he can give a check to lower income folks...and a modest tax cut (while letting the Bush tax cuts expire) to the middle class. Have you looked at what we are going to lose if he lets those tax cuts expire? A whole lot more than his little tax cut will make up. He also needs the added taxation to try to help pay for all he wants to do...
The checks he is going to dole out are NOT for everyone. And they will even go to people who pay NO taxes.
THAT is rewarding laziness. That is NOT trying to help people better themselves. Would it not be better to get them a JOB than a one-time gimme check??
because they did not raise him and shape him into what he is -
nm
Does this mean Sarah gets another raise?...LOL
*Unlike President George W. Bush, who threatened to veto the two bills when they came up in the last session of Congress, President-elect Barack Obama has embraced them.*
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_go_co/pay_equity
I can't wait to see who all opposes this bill. I hope they plaster them all over the news.
The UN is not trying to tell anyone how to raise their kids.
in the idea of addressing global poverty. BTW, you need to do a little boning up yourself on the purpose of the United Nations, what it is, how it works and who benefits before expecting anybody anywhere to engage you in any serious debate on this subject. You have been spending way too much time hanging with the fringe. Trust me on this. There is life after fringe.
Obama has said repeatedly he will RAISE
xx
F: Obama is going to raise MY taxes...
DH and I don't work hard to give to those who can't/don't/won't.
YES HE DID VOTE TO RAISE YOUR TAXES
@
it doesn't take a union to get a pay raise
puhleez lighten up. I do not and will not support unions. At first unions were good. then they got too large and too powerful, corrupt and greedy, and unions were no longer a good thing. They stopped working for the people they were supposed to represent and started working for the benefit of the union itself. My father worked for a company where he had to be in the union. That union wanted more and more of the company (as they always did). Even though many, many of the employees voted against strike, some people did, and the union declared the strike and people walked off their jobs. My dad wanted to work; he was physically assaulted and our car destroyed when he tried to work. Don't call my father a "scab." He was a fine man raising three kids and wanting to work at his own job, which he loved and was proud of. Period. The strike lasted a long time, and the company finally closed its doors when the union would not concede to anything. All of the employees lost their jobs whether they were union supporters or not because of the actions of that union. Now that's why I don't like unions and never will. There used to be a large manufacturing sector here in the midwest. Unions destroyed much of it. They just keep demanding more and more, and many companies simply closed, thus placing 1000s on unemployment. And do you honestly think corruption in the union is okay as long as "he also benefitted American workers?" I never belonged to a union as an MT for 30'some years, and do you think I never got a raise? The hospitals and companies I worked for always paid well and we didn't need a union to do it for us. Actually, I think fear of unions was one of the reasons why. But let's not forget this, union membership is often mandatory so people who work for the organization are forced to be members whether they want to or not. That right there is just wrong. People outside of the union are denied the right to work in many areas. So don't tell me what to "b**ch about." The two items are no mutually inclusive. One can say that their pay has fallen behind and still not want a union involved. Have a little respect for opinions other than yours.
Congress gets a raise - must be nice!
Kudos to Harry Mitchell and the other 34 who at least tried.
From TheHill.com
12/17/08
A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.
Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.
“As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter.”
However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.
Still, Steve Ellis, vice president of the budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Congress should have taken the rare step of freezing its pay, as lawmakers did in 2000.
“Look at the way the economy is and how most people aren’t counting on a holiday bonus or a pay raise — they’re just happy to have gainful employment,” said Ellis. “But you have the lawmakers who are set up and ready to get their next installment of a pay raise and go happily along their way.”
Member raises are often characterized as examples of wasteful spending, especially when many constituents and businesses in members’ districts are in financial despair.
Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, sponsored legislation earlier this year that would have prevented the automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which attracted 34 cosponsors, failed to make it out of committee.
“They don’t even go through the front door. They have it set up so that it’s wired so that you actually have to undo the pay raise rather than vote for a pay raise,” Ellis said.
Freezing congressional salaries is hardly a new idea on Capitol Hill.
Lawmakers have floated similar proposals in every year dating back to 1995, and long before that. Though the concept of forgoing a raise has attracted some support from more senior members, it is most popular with freshman lawmakers, who are often most vulnerable.
In 2006, after the Republican-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Democrats, who had just come to power in the House with a slew of freshmen, vowed to block their own pay raise until the wage increase was passed. The minimum wage was eventually increased and lawmakers received their automatic pay hike.
In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6 a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards. But by 1965 members were receiving $30,000 a year, which is the modern equivalent of about $195,000.
Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.
Ellis said that while freezing the pay increase would be a step in the right direction, it would be better to have it set up so that members would have to take action, and vote, for a pay raise and deal with the consequences, rather than get one automatically.
“It is probably never going to be politically popular to raise Congress’s salary,” he said. “I don’t think you’re going to find taxpayers saying, ‘Yeah I think I should pay my congressman more’.”
Printing money we dont have? Borrowing money
nm
Problem is, the taxes Obama does raise
nm
Yeah, and now put Obama in there to raise taxes
nm
Bottom line....O will raise DH and my taxes, sorry, it's not for
those who are lazy. Try working hard for a change and not expecting the gov't to give you a handout for once. WAAAH, please pay for my healthcare, pay for my kid's college, help me out because I don't want to take responibility for myself, I would rather let the gov't do it all and then when it doesn;t work out, I can blame them too. When O wins I can't wait to see this board in a year with all the people complaining about the broken promises, higher taxes, etc. It will be worth the wait.
Why do you think that Hillary and McCain did not raise the B/C issue?
Do you think maybe it is because there was no merit to it and everyone knew it? The people who were most directly affected by it are not saying anything about it - the other presidential candidates...
So, honest opinion, why are they not whooping and hollering?
She cannot possibly raise that child and utilize her master's, though,
Certainly you'd never encourage your daughter to spend time working on a MASTER'S while trying to also raise a child!! You've just bashed another mother for doing something similar, so I don't get it. Or is okay if you only have ONE child or what? Please fill me in on the double standard you uphold.
What the chart shows is that Obama is going to raise taxes on the people....
who employ the people in the other brackets. Trickle down will not be beneficial. What is wrong with giving the middle class a break? They are already supporting most of the lower class anyway. THe lower class already pay next to nothing in taxes. Oh I forgot...economic parity, redistribution of wealth....good old Marxist values.
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.
I'll double that 'amen', and I'll raise you one!
amen
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.
|
