See the original summary enclosed
Posted By: Backwards typist on 2009-01-19
In Reply to: VIRGINIA TECH. That's why this bill was signed. - Backwards typist
The law that passed is updating the Brady Law.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02640:@@@D&summ2=3&
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
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.
http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html
The original Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.
On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.
At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.
It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!
In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.
Here's a summary of the program
Making Home Affordable will offer assistance to as many as 7 to 9 million homeowners, making their mortgages more affordable and helping to prevent the destructive impact of foreclosures on families, communities and the national economy.
The Home Affordable Refinance program will be available to 4 to 5 million homeowners who have a solid payment history on an existing mortgage owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Normally, these borrowers would be unable to refinance because their homes have lost value, pushing their current loan-to-value ratios above 80%. Under the Home Affordable Refinance program, many of them will now be eligible to refinance their loan to take advantage of today’s lower mortgage rates or to refinance an adjustable-rate mortgage into a more stable mortgage, such as a 30-year fixed rate loan.
GSE lenders and servicers already have much of the borrower’s information on file, so documentation requirements are not likely to be burdensome. In addition, in some cases an appraisal will not be necessary. This flexibility will make the refinance quicker and less costly for both borrowers and lenders. The Home Affordable Refinance program ends in June 2010.
The Home Affordable Modification program will help up to 3 to 4 million at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure by reducing monthly mortgage payments. Working with the banking and credit union regulators, the FHA, the VA, the USDA and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Treasury Department today announced program guidelines that are expected to become standard industry practice in pursuing affordable and sustainable mortgage modifications. This program will work in tandem with an expanded and improved Hope for Homeowners program.
With the information now available, servicers can begin immediately to modify eligible mortgages under the Modification program so that at-risk borrowers can better afford their payments. The detailed guidelines (separate document) provide information on the following:
Eligibility and Verification
Loans originated on or before January 1, 2009.
First-lien loans on owner-occupied properties with unpaid principal balance up to $729,750. Higher limits allowed for owner-occupied properties with 2-4 units.
All borrowers must fully document income, including signed IRS 4506-T, two most recent pay stubs, and most recent tax return, and must sign an affidavit of financial hardship.
Property owner occupancy status will be verified through borrower credit report and other documentation; no investor-owned, vacant, or condemned properties.
Incentives to lenders and servicers to modify at risk borrowers who have not yet missed payments when the servicer determines that the borrower is at imminent risk of default.
Modifications can start from now until December 31, 2012; loans can be modified only once under the program.
Loan Modification Terms and Procedures
Participating servicers are required to service all eligible loans under the rules of the program unless explicitly prohibited by contract; servicers are required to use reasonable efforts to obtain waivers of limits on participation.
Participating loan servicers will be required to use a net present value (NPV) test on each loan that is at risk of imminent default or at least 60 days delinquent. The NPV test will compare the net present value of cash flows with modification and without modification. If the test is positive – meaning that the net present value of expected cash flow is greater in the modification scenario – the servicer must modify absent fraud or a contract prohibition.
Parameters of the NPV test are spelled out in the guidelines, including acceptable discount rates, property valuation methodologies, home price appreciation assumptions, foreclosure costs and timelines, and borrower cure and redefault rate assumptions.
Servicers will follow a specified sequence of steps in order to reduce the monthly payment to no more than 31% of gross monthly income (DTI).
The modification sequence requires first reducing the interest rate (subject to a rate floor of 2%), then if necessary extending the term or amortization of the loan up to a maximum of 40 years, and then if necessary forbearing principal. Principal forgiveness or a Hope for Homeowners refinancing are acceptable alternatives.
The monthly payment includes principal, interest, taxes, insurance, flood insurance, homeowner’s association and/or condominium fees. Monthly income includes wages, salary, overtime, fees, commissions, tips, social security, pensions, and all other income.
Servicers must enter into the program agreements with Treasury’s financial agent on or before December 31, 2009.
Payments to Servicers, Lenders, and Responsible Borrowers
The program will share with the lender/investor the cost of reductions in monthly payments from 38% DTI to 31% DTI.
Servicers that modify loans according to the guidelines will receive an up-front fee of $1,000 for each modification, plus “pay for success” fees on still-performing loans of $1,000 per year.
Homeowners who make their payments on time are eligible for up to $1,000 of principal reduction payments each year for up to five years.
The program will provide one-time bonus incentive payments of $1,500 to lender/investors and $500 to servicers for modifications made while a borrower is still current on mortgage payments.
The program will include incentives for extinguishing second liens on loans modified under this program.
No payments will be made under the program to the lender/investor, servicer, or borrower unless and until the servicer has first entered into the program agreements with Treasury’s financial agent.
Similar incentives will be paid for Hope for Homeowner refinances.
Transparency and Accountability
Measures to prevent and detect fraud, such as documentation and audit requirements, will be central to the program.
Servicers will be required to collect, maintain and transmit records for verification and compliance review, including borrower eligibility, underwriting, incentive payments, property verification, and other documentation.
Freddie Mac will audit compliance.
You ROCK! That is an awesome summary! :-)
x
Link enclosed
Quite interesting - this is what's going on right now - of particular interest is #8.
http://community.marketwatch.com/groups/us-politics/topics/message-3-my-fellow-americans
Link enclosed
Found this link. Think it was posted before but came across it again. This is what really scares me if O gets in. This is who O's affiliations are with.
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/video-weather-underground-planned-re-education-camps-genocide/
enclosed the post I was responding to
Below is the post I was responding to:
*But can a parent sacrifice their child to the military
that was the question...
and No most of the country doesn't agree with the self-proclaimed martyr, Sheehan.*
see the video at the enclosed link -
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/04/fox-black-panther-poll-intimidation-in-pennsylvania/
Opps....link enclosed.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220525&title=pet-projects
Reply and a link enclosed
There is so much wrong going on and sometimes it just feels like you want to explode (or implode). Can someone actually give names of some people in politics that actually are working for the good of the people and the country? There maybe a handful, but to me for the most part they are all working for themselves. They automatically vote themselves in pay raises behind closed doors after dark when nobody is watching. Then the politicians that I always believed were working for the good of the country and people of the country I hear they vote for giving themselves a pay raise. But it's just not that issue. It's all the other decisions they are making back there. I just don't know who to trust/believe anymore. There are a lot of politicians who are doing deals, hoarding money in off-shore accounts, living in mansions and not paying anything, not paying taxes, people being pitted against each other solely because of what political party they belong to, organizations doing whatever they want to do (which is why I'm not posting anything bad towards anyone on this board - never know who is reading). But over the past few years I have lost just about all faith in the government doing anything for the good of the country. You look at who's being picked for cabinet members, SoS, etc. People now don't need any experience to get into positions of power and deal with other countries. It's very scary, and we're becoming the laughing stock of the world (you can say it started with GW, but it's continuing on) - other countries don't respect us no matter who is the Grand Pubah. I get emails saying sign this petition and send it on to your congressman or so-n-so to let them know your not supporting this idea or that idea, but you know what...it doesn't matter. They could get every single citizen in this country to sign any petition and they don't care. They are going to do whatever they want to. The teabag thing...maybe it makes the people feel good, makes you feel like you've got a word, but they ignore it. I think they just throw them in the garbage and they continue to do whatever they want and don't care if the people are happy about it or not.
Also, I believe the country is run by much bigger people than what we are seeing. I have nothing against the O, or Present Bush, President Clinton, Carter, Reagan, etc, etc, because they are all just puppets for the people who run the country. They aren't actually the ones making the decisions, they are just the ones delivering the speeches.
As for Ted Kennedy. Did not realize he's still in office. Thought he was recuperating and living out the rest of his life (however much longer it will be) at his home. Didn't realize he is still making decisions. I really have no opinion on the Chapaquidik thing. Not enough knowlege about that, but there are a lot of older politicians you could say the same for (senile). There should be an age limit and term limit someone can remain in politics. Two terms. That's it. Then they have to go to the public sector. No more politics for them. Doesn't surprise me about the pension thing. Pelosi said to an incoming politician once. "If your not a millionaire now you will be one by the time you leave here". Well isn't that just special.
I'm just fed up with all politics/politicians, talk shows that whine about issues but offer no solutions. Sick of hearing Hannity say to his guests about how he's all set financially but such-n-such a decision will affect the "little people". If I hear how well off Hannity, O'Reilly, Olbermann or any of those talk shows hosts are doing I'd like to just spit.
I wish things were different, but here I am the only one who works in this family - husband has not been able to find a job in years, and now there's no hope of a future for him. I wish I could retire and do something else. Never in my life did I ever think I'd have to work and support us until the day I die. Now with the illegals being able to draw off the social security system I doubt very much there will be anything for me when I hit retirement age (15 more years to go) but yet I still have to pay 12% of my income into it.
Anyway...don't mean to ramble on here. Just tired of all the crooked deals going on in the news, then at the same time crime is going up and it seems like it's getting closer and closer to the day when people are going to have the right taken away to protect themselves in their own homes. It really makes me think we're getting closer and closer to some of the movies I've watched (Children of Men, and a good one is Equilibrium). Who knows what the future will bring, but it just doesn't look good and I'm ready to unplug from it all.
I take things as they come. I may not like them, but the world is changing and know we have to adapt or else we'll be prisoners in our own minds. I look back and think of the changes that have occurred in our grandparents lifetimes (telephone, computers, etc), and if they didn't adapt things would not have come as far as they have. I just hope things turn around and we see some growth for the country. Otherwise I look forward to 2012 (end of the Mayan calendar).
Here's a link I thought you might like. I wish we had this guy in our country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
This is just unfathomable to me (caution - rant enclosed)
I said once I'd never post on this board again, but this isn't a political issue, it reaches across the board. This just blows me away. 60 days' punishment for stealing this child's innocence and scarring her forever - it's just so far beyond appalling that I can't even think of a word that fits. I have to wonder if this guy would have been off the streets longer if he'd stolen a purse. Heaven forbid if he'd tortured a dog the way he tortured this child - they'd have probably thrown away the key! If he'd only gotten 60 days for it, you can bet PETA would have been all over it, but who is there for this little girl?Anyway, I have fired off a letter to Vermont's governor, for all the good it will probably do, and I am also sending prayers for this poor child.
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.
Obamaniacs - They're coming for your kool-aid - article enclosed
This says it all (well not all but most)
http://stoosviews.blogivists.com/2008/10/30/obamaniacs-and-the-cult-of-obama-they-are-coming-for-your-kool-aid/
I did see the original s/m
and he didn't appear to be to be joking. If he was, I didn't see the humor in it when so many are losing their homes and can't afford to fill up their vehicles to get to work.
No that was original.
I have my original
birth certificate and I have my son's as well. I also have my step son's and my husband's and they are all locked in our fire proof gun safe along with our social security cards.
You thought so....what....exactly....anything original?
.....I thought so......
the original settlers
She said, and I quote "the original settlers"
Yes, he did. And it was in the original bill as well...
don't know if it is still in the 850 billion one. I would imagine it is. Because the Dems want to hold onto their voting base.
Where does it say that in the original post?
Please read the post again, and show me where it says that I am sick of hearing about anything.
The only mandated CS in his original
platform (Blueprint for Change) was for the Opportunity Tax Credit for college students to receive the $4000 college tuition assistance. It states he has a goal for middle school and high school students to do 50 hours, but it never says it is required. (I printed this out during the primary, so it may be out of date.)
FYI, it's not a forgery. It's the original one
on file at the courthouse. I WELCOME a Supreme Court decision so this nonsense will end, although I'm sure then the tin-foil-hatters will swear the current republican-biased Supreme Court was in on the scam too... LOL.
And yet another one makes the Original
For the original package...(sm)
but unsure if it will help as it stands. The popularity of the against vote for the bill has been fascilitated by some keen advertising on the pub side. I'm hoping Obama will call the pubs out on tonight's address and point out exactly what it is that pubs want in the bill (more tax breaks for the wealthy that we can't afford), and in particular, which pubs want it. If he does that keep your eye on the polls. People will be outraged.
In defense of the original poster...
Although I am not one to cross party lines; I will vote democratic no matter who, I am going to help defend the original posters statement. The only reason I say this is because when it comes down to it, if Hillary gets the nom, we are going to have a very conservative democratic president. She is pretty much at the same level of conservatism as McCain, and I don't see much difference between the two of them. However, if it comes down between Clinton and McCain, vote Hillary. We need to start a trend of more women in high politics and she will break the way for those to come who will be smarter and better than she is. :o)
original message regarded
the myth that the poor little christian conservations are constantly being abused by the powerful liberal media. Yet if the liberal media is so almightly powerful, why can't even one liberal radio network survive? you can't have it both ways.
The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.
You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.
Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.
And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.
They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).
So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.
Still standing by the original statement.
Google "population trends" using the quotes to get exact phrase matches and voila…2,240,000 hits emerge. Scroll on down through the first couple of pages and notice that the links do not take you to blogs and chat room forums. This is the language of academic research scholarship, government institutions, statistical databases, etc. Maybe they too need to be scolded and sent to the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun.
4. Infringement by intrusion
Invasion is what we did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. Legal and illegal immigrants alike are not enemies. They do not arrive in armies, nor are they a disease. They do not come here with the express intent to cause trouble, inflict harm, possess, take over, infringe or intrude. These are living, breathing, impoverished human beings who come here looking for work in an attempt to feed themselves and their families.
The underlying causes, conditions and political circumstances have been examined and debated on this forum in excruciating detail and will not be repeated here because that was not the intent of the original post. An opinion was expressed and countered. Some choose to embrace diversity, others choose to fear, still others become outraged and even hateful. The population trend is what it is. The US is a developed country with low birth rates per capita with an aging boomer population. Mexico is a developing country with a much broader youth base with many fertile years in front of them and a much higher per capita birth rate. It is a difference in cultures.
It is quite natural in this circumstance (which also exists in other western developed counties) that the population growth in developing countries like Mexico outpaces that that in the developed countries and, yes, white folks will be outnumbered. It is a simple fact of life and one that we probably should be addressing realistically.
The issue is global, not national. The equalizing affect could be manifested in another "natural" progression…the evolution away from racial division and hatred. I only regret that I will probably not live long enough to see it.
oh please like Bush EVER had an original thought
x
Oldtimer was the original poster
You would have probably gotten that had you not been in such a hurry to jump my post. I have nothing to hide, nothing to get away with and see no real reason to dumb down the phrasology, tone or content of my posts. I respond in kind to to folks who have no real interest in viable political issues, are constantly in attack mode, have pronounced adversions to logic, reason and facts and who haul out the holier-than-thou, pious, elite accusations when trying to avoid any sort of intelligent discourse.
There will always be opposition around who can be as in-your-face as the you choose to be...or not. If I "bother" you somehow, so be it. Right wingers bother me too, but you don't see me going around trying to kick them off the board or telling them they post more than they should.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Give respect and get respect. That's the way it works in the grown-up world. It's your choice.
I took the original poster for observing 9/11 ...sm
to be in the same spirit of both Sen. Obama and McCain, and that was to put aside differences, for one day, and be kind to one another, and not make political statements that are inflammatory to one another. To come together and to be one nation, without division, so to speak, on this of all days.
That's all the original poster was asking for.
We are free to choose how we act, as we wish, you are correct in that.
I choose to post today and be kind. I could post about how I feel about certain candidates, but it is not the day for that.
I choose to remember everyone today, you included, I remember that we are one, as we are all Americans, all New Yorkers, on this of all days.
Actually, it was your own typo in your original post...nm
nm
What the original post stated
is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied. He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.
John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?
Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.
People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.
Maybe you still have your original birth certificate...sm
I sure didn't. When I went to get a passport I had to order a copy from the city where I was born. It was a photocopy. All birth certificate copies come with a seal for authenticity. There are no more "originals filed". Everything is computerized or on microfilm.
and we come back to the original point.
Is it moral to befriend a terrorist?
I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
I was speaking of the original post
My response was to the original post.
As to the Palin thing (no where does it mention McCain, who was also implicated in the original post), did they expect the campaign to make no references to O's shady past? Maybe they should have handled him with kid gloves, like the media did. If O can't handle the scrutiny, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.
Are you at all capable of original thought?
used on the forum today at least a dozen times. It has just about as much meaning in this post as it did early this morning....zero. Why don't you confine yourself to speaking on behalf of your own flock, 'cause you sure hs hades don't know what you are talking about when you try to speak for the other 69,456,897 fellow citizens who voted Obama into office.
How about something original...your wonder boy is in deep crap...
and he knows it...just 2 weeks in and already can't remember what he promised. The coming 4 years are going to be great to watch; the Messiah implodes, millions who have been hoodwinked will have their eyes opened and they will STILL blame Bush.
Probably because he never left his original faith
but only stated he was Christian to acquire more votes.
The people who leave that faith know the consequences and some live in fear the rest of his life.
Never believe he changed to begin with.
I saw the original of this earlier today. sm
I was so upset I wanted to call CNN and tell them in no uncertain terms that they needed to fire that wench and get somebody who would let the people talk without being interrupted. Personally, if it had been me she was haranging, I would be in jail because I probably would have swung at her.
That woman is worse than Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, and others of her ilk. SHe gives the honest, hardworking reporters a bad name.
No wonder the alphabet soup and MSM groups have lost any and all credibility.
I do know what the original SS draft looked like....
A great great uncle of mine was a friend of Roosevelt and was a long-time military man. He finally retired and went back to the midwest when Roosevelt called him and asked him to please come back to Washington to draft a plan for SS.
We are fortunate to have this to see and I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with freeloaders and moochers but was to look out for the older crowd. Yes, they were taking into account the average lifespan of a man and then their windows, so she could have money to help feed their children if he died early. This was in part because of the stock market crash where so many lost their life's savings. It was never never meant to be what it has turned into. Wealthy older Americans were not to have this money JUST because they hit a certain age. If they had money, they were not to draw SS, only those with extreme need.
Unfortunately, over the decades government has turned SS into anything but its intended use.
Have you ever had an original thought in your head?
I mentioned above that a few weeks ago, someone had suggested that JTBB and I get a room, as follows:
What a suckup
Posted By: Get a room on 2009-05-31
In Reply to: Thank you for that, Marmann. s/m - the truth is out there
You've got something on your nose there, Skippy."
Now in today's ONE THREAD, the same "suggestion" was made twice. So that's THREE times in two weeks that this weak "shot" was aimed towards me and/or JTBB. If that old recycled BS is the best thing you can come up with, then you're beyond pitiful.
I don't need to "get a room" with anyone simply because I agree with that person, but it sounds like some of you could benefit greatly by placement in an asylum.
Part of the original post by Anon.
If memory serves, the poster did advocate looting and was encouraging it.
I didn't know "under God" was not in the original pledge. sm
And I don't know the circumstance underwhich it was amended, but yeah you make a sound case and I can't help but agree that it should be taken back out and separation of church and state is a good thing.
When you make the case this way it makes sense to me because I have been very neutral about the 10 commandments in government buildings and the pledge being recited in the classes. But, people can spread the Word and fellowship on private time, but this should be off school property, off government property, etc. That would be true separation of church and state.
This is great. I liked the original by Chris Martin sm
and Cold Play the first time I heard it. Chris Martin wrote this song for his wife Gwenyth to console her after the death of her father, when you lose something, you can't replace...I will try to fix you...tears stream down your face, when you lose something you cannot replace, tears run down your face and I will fix you... It truly sounds like he was with his wife during a really dark time for her. Really touching.
Original poster is well informed and did the research
This is total Hogwash!!!! Please provide a link that I can view the document showing he voted against giving medical care to babies who survive abortion. This is just rubbish being spewed by the (oh how I hate to say this word) right wing in favor of McCain. I won't believe it until I see the document with his signature against medical care.
Obama has devoted his entire life to helping people. This idea of how he is for abortions (torturing of innoicent babies) telling people they need to leave them sitting on a bare table to rot in the same room as some filthy toilet is pure GARBAGE!
Obama is for helping people in the community, the less fortunate, the needy, the hungry, the unemployed, the children, the education system, the elderly, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on. To spread this type of smear is about as low as the republicans can go.
So all I say is prove it. Provide a link showing Obama's signature.
To the poster who asked the original question.
BDAyes response. I realize that my concept of this is biased by a leftward lean. Nevertheless, I am not alone in this viewpoint and she has said it better than I ever could because I DO get very passionate on the subject of Katrina refugees.
My best friend lost 2 family members in that storm because they could not get out in time. In any case, I thought it was best to frame the question in this format so you could get a broader perspective than my own and hear from all sides. I tried my best to fend off the bashes and innuendo I myself was giving into yesterday. I had three hours of sleep the night before, stocking up, boarding up, and calling relatives who live closer to the Gustav's bullseye to tell them to come on down to my place.
Next day, I spent several hours posting in the middle of the acidic environment of this forum to which I was vulnerable. By the time late night rolled around, I was not exactly in my top form and never really am when it comes to this subject.
You see, my best friend still wakes up in the middle of the night being tortured by the memory of her own near-death experience and the loss of her grandmother and father. I tell her to call me whenever it happens. She does. I listen. For some of us, it is WAY personal and we are still living out the aftermath of that tragedy and the way it was handled.
My source was cited in the original post
I'm not being presumptuous because I don't assume anything. What I am waiting for is the debates. I want to see how they all equal against each other.
so, just like I thought, the original post was pointless!
nm
I didn't post the original message
just love how people don't post facts, whether McCain or Obama supporter.
Perhaps the original poster naively thought
if not just for a moment, and share in a common human experience? Probably realized the post would be open to attack, but was hoping for the best to show itself....just once.
|
