The figures taken were from the US Treasury's website
Posted By: By the US Treasury on 2008-09-24
In Reply to: You're right. I don't come to this board often sm - nm
Whether you want to believe it or not this info comes directly from the US Treasury website. You can't make up the figures no matter what political party you belong to.
I know lots of people were in love with Clinton and thought him to be a good president. I too voted for him the first time (after 2 months realized his agenda and got the heck out of the democrat party), but figures don't lie. I guess you didn't finish reading it because you didn't like that it favored the Clinton.
I just go by the facts and I don't care who it favors. I am one of the very few who want to know truth and would like some decent politicians.
Unfortunately we don't have any decent politicians - not one, nada.
They are all liars and crooks and thieves. It's just how they all spin everything.
As for Global warming? If you believe in that I guess you still believe the world is flat. That has been debunked by top scientist. Don't people get that. Scientists...people who have degrees. People who have studied climatology. People who are educated. They all say the earth is in a cooling trend, not warming. AL Gore has not studied this. He wrote a book filled with lies and misinformation and everyone who felt he was cheated out of the president (which even though I was against Bush know this isn't true), but feel sorry for the guy fine, but don't buy into his fantasies (just like he invented the internet and he and Tipper were the role models for the guy who wrote Love Story). Al Gore is a megalomaniac. You know, just cos your ice cube melts faster in your drink doesn't mean this is global warming. If it's global warming tell me then can you dispute these news articles:
Headline: Arab world shivers in unusual cold snap
Jordan's airport shut down by ice, other nations shiver as well - see link below
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782918/
Headline: Anectodotal cold weather news from around the world - There continues to be a number of reports of colder than normal weather and seasons from around the globe. Here are a few. - see link below
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/16/anecdotal-cold-weather-news-from-around-the-world/
Headline: Brrr! State braces for unusual cold - see link below
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2008/04/18/news/doc4808db9f73005670297734.txt
Headline: Unusual cold weather strains Argentina’s energy grid - see link below
http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/12-07-2007/94848-cold_weather_argentina-0
Headline - Karachi shivers in unusual cold snap - see link below
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/970965-pakistan-degrees
Those are just a few. You have got to open your eyes and look at things objectively. Al Gore knows absolutely crapola about global warming. He has an agenda. He's becoming richer and richer off of the whole thing. He is benefitting from people buying "carbon credits". He invested big time in the company and gets kickbacks from all the suckers who believe it.
P.S. - I am certainly not going to take any advice telling me I have to cut back on energy when their driving around in SUVs, limos, fuel eating buses, and who knows how many planes.
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
Comments about Geithner for treasury post
Just wondering what everyone else thinks about this. The Senate has just passed him on through, so only one more stop before he's heading up the treasury department. Comments? Concerns?
So much for transparency. Treasury refuses to give bank bailout information.
This again from the McClatchy news group, which is not conservative by any means:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/65195.html
That figures. (sm)
So that means you have chosen to disrespect the moderator’s rules and come here (now suddenly on purpose) when you choose to, but you still post things such as: “Well, really, you ain’t supposed to be here and don’t tell me you’re a moderate conservative cause I ain’t buying it. <<<<<Liberal board's that way...if you can stay awake more than five minutes there” when a liberal visits your board? Figures. Fits perfectly in line with the rules only applying to some and not others.
I can’t believe you wrote *I understand that some of the terrorists may have worked or dealt with the UAE, but they did not carry out any attacks through them* and act as if that’s okay. The Kool-Aid must be especially tasty today.
Do I advocate racial profiling? I advocate historical profiling. Historically, they were tight with bin Laden before, and there is nothing to suggest they don’t have the capacity to be tight with him again.
In short, the REAL kind of profiling I would endorse is limiting this kind of deal countries who has NEVER had ties to terror in the past.
You may consider the below too long to read. I’ve bolded and underlined the important points in case you give up after the first 3 words. I truly feel that Dubya is selling out every American’s safety for money, and I don’t understand how you, as an American, can support or trust this. Of course, you do obviousy still trust and support Bush, so that explains a lot.
Considered an ally now, UAE backed bin Laden
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 23, 2006
The United Arab Emirates has become what the Bush administration calls a reliable partner in the war against Islamic terrorists, but its rulers maintained close ties to Osama bin Laden before September 11, and the cities of Abu Dhabi and Dubai have since served as operations and financial bases for al Qaeda terrorists.
But the United Arab Emirates, the most Western of Persian Gulf nations, also has become the United States' closest military ally in the region. Its ruling emirs permit Navy warships to dock in the bustling commercial center of Dubai on lengthy liberty calls. It also hosts U.S. Air Force warplanes, refueling jets and spy planes at the sprawling Al Dhafra air base near Abu Dhabi. The base sits across the gulf from U.S. adversary Iran.
During the Clinton administration, the United States even considered killing bin Laden when he was on a hunting expedition but did not because one of his hunting partners was one of the United Arab Emirates' emirs.
They have been helpful and supportive and a good partner in the fight against terrorism, said a U.S. counterterrorism official.
It is these two faces of the Arab nation -- a one-time sympathizer of al Qaeda, yet strong post-September 11 U.S. partner -- that Washington is considering in the debate over the Bush administration's proposal to let United Arab Emirates company Dubai Ports World run six large U.S. seaports.
The U.S. September 11 commission's report is replete with accounts of some of the 19 hijackers -- two of whom came from the United Arab Emirates -- using Dubai's permissive banking system and lax passport certification to gain entry into the United States and bankroll a mission that killed more than 3,000 people.
During bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan -- where he built terror training camps, a personal army and a financial network -- some of the United Arab Emirates' upper crust, known as emirs, visited him. The United Arab Emirates was one of only a handful of countries that recognized the harsh Taliban regime, bin Laden's protector.
In 1999, bin Laden spent time in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar near the Sheik Ali hunting camp. It was regularly used by visitors from the United Arab Emirates, according to the September 11 commission report. U.S. intelligence detected an official United Arab Emirates government airplane there on at least one occasion.
According to reporting from the tribals, bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis, according to the report.
In fact, the presence of the United Arab Emirates rulers at the camp gave the Clinton administration second thoughts about ordering an air strike to kill bin Laden, more than two years before the attack on the United States.
According to CIA and defense officials, policy-makers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by, the commission said. The Clinton administration was so concerned about the emirates' cozy ties to bin Laden that one official called a United Arab Emirates political leader to complain.
Weeks later, the camp was dismantled, and bin Laden disappeared. The implication was clear: Someone in the United Arab Emirates tipped off bin Laden, the United States' most-wanted fugitive, who then was planning the September 11 attacks.
The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem the commission wrote. It said President Clinton personally pressed United Arab Emirates leaders to break financial and travel ties with the Taliban, but they refused.
Hamdan bin Zayid, United Arab Emirates foreign minister, told a U.S. diplomat that his country maintains relations with the Taliban to counterbalance Iranian dangers.
Those dangers are one reason that the United Arab Emirates stands as the United States' best military ally in the Gulf, opening key parts of its country for U.S. operations.
Its Mina Jebel Ali port, the largest man-made harbor in the world, hosts more U.S. warships than any other rest stop outside the United States. CIA and FBI agents collect intelligence there on militant Islam. The United Arab Emirates has cooperated with the U.S. Treasury Department in shutting down bank accounts linked to al Qaeda.
The United Arab Emirates is a country that's been an ally in the global war on terror, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said on the Michael Reagan radio show this week. We have a port there where they help us. They have an airfield. We share intelligence, and we have a partnership that has been very, very helpful to the things we do in that part of the world.
Figures, please? Thanks. nm
nm
Figures....nm
Figures.
x
sorry where did you get those figures?
It cost 43.5 million for Bush's inauguration
reported yesterday in new stories
i will find the link if I must
Here's some figures
It doesn't take away from what you said of people voting for him because of his skin color and not qualifications, but doing some research I found these facts interesting and now I don't feel so bad (of course this is not down to the exact number but only what is on the statistics through the internet).
Population in USA 303,824,640
# people who voted for President Obama - 69,456,897
# people who voted for Sen. McCain - 59,934,814
# of people under the voting ages - 60,764,928
That means that 113,668,001 did not vote at all. So if you put the people who didn't vote, and the people who voted for McCain together that means that
# people who voted for Obama - 69,456,897
# of people who did not vote for Obama - 173,602,815
Kind of puts things in a better perspective.
With all due respect....way off on figures...
Abortion in the United States - Statistics
There have been over 48 million abortions since 1973.
The annual number of abortions went from 744,600 in the first year of legalization, to a high of over 1.6 million in 1990. In 2003, there were 1,287,000.
There were over 3,500 abortions per day in 2003, 146 per hour, about one every 25 seconds.
For every 1,000 live births, there were 312 abortions in 2003.
There were more than 148,000 second and third trimester abortions in 2003. (that is appalling)
In 2003, more children died from abortion than Americans died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars combined (This is a true statement, even if you go only by the CDC number of 853,000 plus (the million plus is the AGI numbers...contributed by all abortionists. The CDC readily admits their numbers are probably way off due to reporting mechanisms). The total number of Americans killed in all wars was 653,708. Add the 3192 killed in Iraq so far and you get roughly 657,000. So, in one year alone more babies died than all Americans in all wars. That 653,000 figure includes the Spanish-American war, indian wars, etc. ALL American wars.
A 2004 survey of women seeking abortions indicated that only about 7% of women cited typical “hard cases” (rape, incest, or some health concern with either the baby or the mother) as the primary reason they were seeking abortion.
An April 2004 Zogby Poll found that 56% of respondents support legal abortion in only three or fewer circumstances: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or when it threatens the life of the mother.
At an average cost of $372, the abortion business is a $400 million a year industry.
Nearly half of all abortions are obtained by women who have already had at least one abortion.
(The good news is that the number of abortions is going down. However, it will take several MORE wars to come close to the number of babies killed by abortion in this country.)
It was estimated back in 2003 that at that point over 48 million babies had been aborted in this country. How you can say you are okay with that and slam me because I say a country has a right to defend itself is beyond me. I have no more to do with the war thanyou do with abortions, yet you think it is inconsistent to be against abortion but for defense. By the same token, I think it is inconsistent to say you are against abortion but for giving the woman the right to kill the child. I frankly see no difference in your position than mine.
The Civil War...the bloodiest of all the wars...was that one worth fighting? WWI? WWII? The Revolutionary War? Surely that one was worth fighting...so is it some wars are worth fighting? Some aren't? I don't know what wars you feel are justified or if you feel none are justified....I don't know if you would feel fighting was worth it if we were attacked again like 9-11....of if you feel it is ok to fight in Afghanistan....or what you would have us do if they flew over and dropped bombs on NY? I just don't know. What I do know is that many more thousands of babies have died than Americans in wars, and as long as all abortion is legal we will continue as a country to kill babies at a horrifying rate, war or no war. And yes, the thought of that is sickening to me. No war...yet the numbers dying are HORRIFIC. Where is your outrage about that? Justified in the name of choice? Yep....I don't get it...and am glad I don't.
What I also know is that we have not had to fight any wars other than the Civil War on our own soil, and I believe that is because we have taken the fight to the enemy rather than wait for the enemy to come to us.
Don't want to fight with you, piglet...I still feel that someone needs to speak for the babies. You speak for the mothers. They have many to speak for them. Some of us believe we need to speak for the babies. And I will continue to do so.
Figures the people who are for Ono are for this
I received a message from an Obama supporter who tried to justify why its a good thing to vote early. Makes me wonder if it was going in favor of McCain would you all be in favor of this? No. This is an outrage to be able to register and vote at the same time. So if I want to do that, lets see, I'll go to my county and do that, then I'll drive to the next county, and the next and next and next and keep doing this so I can keep voting for McCain like some of the democrats will be doing. Oh no, that's not fair. Truth be known this has been the democrats operandi in the past. I have never seen such a big bunch of cheaters ever. They don't care if they cheat as long as their guy wins.
This is not right. If you can't vote in your state then you do an absentee ballot. Or will you be doing one of those also. America's election day is November 4th.
If you feel so strongly about voting you would find a way to legitimately vote on 11/4. Wonder how many other fraudulent votes will they find. At least the rupublicans are smart and are trying to verify how many of those new voter registers names and addresses are linked to the local cemeteries.
I was just giving figures from what they said.
Dont' burn me for that.
I agree! Here are some figures.
The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR
14 reasons why we need to get control of illegal immigration:
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for welfare social services by the American taxpayers.
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from terrorist countries.
12. The National Policy Institute, “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.”
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
14. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.”
It figures - a liberal station
Here are ALL the figures in case anyone is interested...
First---100% of southern Republicans...consisted of ONE senator. When one senator votes against something, yeah, that is 100%. Sheesh. Take a look at ALL the figures.
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X at the United States Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill.Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself. The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964.
Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, We have lost the South for a generation.[2]
[edit] Vote totals
Totals are in "Yes-No" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)
[edit] By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 153-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
[edit] By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Yes, I agree that things change. And the Democratic party got interested in African Americans AFTER they got the vote. Coincidence? I think not.
Figures McCain would pull something like this
Well I guess he saw how well it worked with the HC supporters (most giving their opinion that we need a woman in there, we are voting cos its time for a woman, etc, etc and some only voting for her only because she's a woman). Guess he's so concerned with losing he'll stoop to anything. Talk about calling the kettle black. He proclaims Obama doesn't have the experience and he's young and new, and then he picks her? She's not ready to step in as President, she doesn't have any experience whatsoever. He's going to have a hard time explaining that one.
Again it goes to show McCain is not in touch with the American people. He picks a woman thinking that what all the women want, but luckily the women who supported Hillary are coming out saying we supported Hillary because of her position and viewpoints, not just because she was a women. I just believe he has just lost any chance to win.
She has no international experience, been governer less than 2 years and has no experience at anything. Guess he's making it perfectly clear he wants a running mate who will never question him. His ego is taking over and its going to sink him. He'll need the Swift Boat Veterans to fish him out of the water. Never mind her radical christian viewpoints. Everything he's been attacking Obama for being, he has just picked a running mate who is all that. How could he have gotten it so wrong? Any chance I had of electing him flew out the window with that pick.
Brother...he would have been better to choose Hillary as a running mate. Hello President Obama.
All you have to do is look at the figures and when they started declining....
and 20 months is about right. This democratically controlled congress sat on their hands even when Greenspan was telling them they needed to tighten up on Freddie and fannie. Instead they made their hold on the housing market even bigger.
They failed to act to do anything about rising cost of fuel, went on freaking vacation rather than vote on energy bill. Not only do we need to vote in McCain/Palin, we need to clean up that viper pit that is Congress and finally start acting like adults and work together to clean up that viper pit. Only one candidate is talking about that, and it isn't yours.
If you don't have any figures to back up your statement....
just say so. Of all the catholic priests in this country, I have no idea what percentage have turned out to be sexual predators, but I am unwilling, without figures, to say it is disproporinately high.
Now in this post you have amended your position from disproproportinately high to a "little bit fishy."
Big difference in disproportionately high and "a little bit fishy." I think blindness refers more to an attitude which wants to ssume "disproportionately high" without some proof of that statement.
That is all I am saying.
All public figures are scrutinized, especially
presidents because they supposedly represent we, the people. It's not just O that is being scrutinized. Past presidents were too, along with movie stars, sports figures, you name it. If you have a big name, are in the public eye, you will have your life spread all over the media.
Do you have more recent figures, and what is this source, if you do not mind? and..
and again, if you will actually read my posts before attacking, I said we had more social programs than others...I would also like to know if they are comparing apples to apples...meaning countries the same size as ours with the same population as ours. You also quoted from 2001. I am sure the number of people in worst-off houses increased...they probably had more children. Does not make sense to me to have more children when you are already struggling to feed those you have. But that is what the welfare system in this country encourages. When you have second and third generation families on welfare, there is something WRONG with the system. Again...read what I actually post and then come with your rebuttal, and come with a rebuttal that has substance and not cut and paste from some old statistics (probably Wikipedia, right?).
Moores facts/figures from US info
This same old argument was brought up on Oprah when Moore, a lobbyiest for insurance companies and a professor who is for universal healthcare for all were on her show. In fact, they even invited CEOs/representatives from the top insurance companies but none would even talk to Lisa Ling. Moore stated, once again, that his figures/facts come directly from the US figures/facts and the facts used to argue against him come from insurance company facts. He stated to go to his web site and the information would be there.
I sit back and laugh..if a republican had thought up universal healthcare or was a pioneer on global warming, the right wing would be behind it 100% but since these are essentially positions hardworking thinking caring democrats back, the radical right wing is going to fight these issues no matter what.
I dont care if you call it socialized medicine, which is a knee jerk response..just what is socialized medicine? What the Congress has? Then give it to me. I most certainly would rather have a universal healthplan, backed by our government, than no insurance at all. To me it is a no brainer. I would rather have a little bit of medical care and medicines than no medical care and no medicines.
Your figures just further validate Taiga's post.
She said, "Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below." Your figures support that statement.
Obviously you didn't read the whole article. Figures....sm
That's why I usually use non-Fox links, so the demmies will "try" to read with open mind....lol....or maybe not.....whatever.....ciao
Figures. Eventually, there's name calling from you. Twice. You must be proud. nm
Yeah, figures that Hollywood is almost all democrat
nm
O's plan is WELFARE, figures you dems want that
nm
Figures....if you can't address the problem...deflect.
What possible difference does what Bush did make? That was then, this is now. We are in a huge financial crisis (largely brought on by Democrats in congress blissfully ignoring the looming housing crisis and the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle...yet you want to trust them now that we are up to our eyeballs drowning in debt with more on the way). Bush did not spend a much in 8 years as Obama has spent in...oh wait...how many WEEKS? Good grief!!!!! Don't you even WONDER how he possibly hopes to recoup all this?
Gracious enough to grant him more time? To do WHAT? Triple my taxes about the time the economy straightens out? If you think taxing the "rich" will fix this...get out your calculator and try again.
Look...I don't want to fight with anyone, but I do not understand the total blindless being exhibited here, when the microscope was used to examine Bush. Take that same microscope and start examining Obama...if you can.
Well, I guess she figures if whichever cheating...
husband Republican used state funds to meet his mistress she could use federal funds to shop. I'm sure in the world of politics that seems fair tit for tat. LOL!! Sigh.
If we are going to investigate everybody why aren't we investigating John Edwards to see if he used campaign funds to meet his mistress? How do we know for sure Bill wasn't using tax funds...well heck, he WAS. We were paying him to run the country, not have leave stains on Monica's dress. Geeez!! lol.
Stomp and whine then stick your hand out.........figures.........nm
x
Asked for proof, suddenly she's too busy. LOL. Figures. nm
nm
Not true. This is the latest poll, figures submitted just today. nm
.
What website did this come from?
I can take a guess. 
Is there a website?
Do you know of websites where you can find out what others thing.
I am not voting for these two candidates and no one is even talking about the Independent candidates or any others. This is a really biased election.
website
www.barackobama.com-pdf-ObamaBlueprintForChange. I haven't read all the way through it yet, so I can't say any of it is actually doable or realistic. I think it's actually a very well put together thesis, but as far as a plan goes, I'm not so sure yet. Anyway, food for thought.
I can go to his website...
the question was about the economic crisis, not what his economic policies were prior to the crisis. Since the crisis he has said he doesn't know if he can go forward with all his plans...and when asked to be more specific, he can't. Which means zip, zilch, nada.
his website
John McCain's Higher Education Policy
Prepare for the 21st Century in Higher Education
America is facing increased competition from overseas like never before. Higher education is as much a part of that competition as the job sector, and we must rise to the challenge and modernize our universities so that they retain their status as producers of the most skilled workforce in the world. The answer is not to impose more regulations on institutions, but to encourage the government to support innovative approaches to education, removing regulatory barriers that prevent us from moving forward with new ideas.
Improve Information for Parents
Institutions report on hundreds of factors to the U.S. government every year, but the government does nothing with the information. Making this information available to families in a clear and concise manner will help more students make more informed choices about higher education.
Simplify Higher Education Tax Benefits
The existing tax benefits are too complicated, and many eligible families don’t claim them. By simplifying the existing benefits, I can ensure that a greater number of families have a lower tax burden when they are helping to send their children to college.
Simplify Federal Financial Aid
Too many programs and a complicated application process deter many eligible students from seeking student aid. The number of programs also makes it more difficult for financial aid officers to help students navigate the process. Consolidating programs will help simplify the administration of these programs, and help more students have a better understanding of their eligibility for aid.
Improve Research by Eliminating Earmarks
Earmarking is destroying the integrity of federally funded research. Billions of dollars are spent on pork barrel projects every year; significant amounts come from research budgets. Eliminating earmarks would immediately and significantly improve the federal government’s support for university research.
Fix the Student Lending Programs
We have seen significant turmoil in student lending. John McCain has proposed an expansion of the lender-of-last resort capability of the federal student loan system and will demand the highest standard of integrity for participating private lenders. Effective reforms and leveraging the private sector will ensure the necessary funding of higher education aspirations, and create a simpler and more effective program in the process.
John McCain's Plan for Strengthening America's Schools
Today, John McCain Outlined His Vision For Strengthening Education To Ensure Opportunity For Every American. John McCain's education policy removes needless bureaucracy, empowers parents, teachers and principals and ensures that every child has the opportunity to gain from a quality education.
John McCain's Education Principles:
John McCain Will Enact Meaningful Reform In Education. Now is the time to demand real, new reform earned through discipline, grinding work, tough choices and leadership. John McCain has dedicated his career in public service to the hard and sometimes unpopular work of achieving meaningful reform.
The Education System Must Provide For Equality Of Choice. Too many of our children are trapped by geography and by economics in failing schools.
We Must Empower Parents. Involved and empowered parents and excellent teachers are the two greatest determining factors in a child's education. If we are to succeed, we must empower committed parents with critical knowledge about their child's performance, and empower them with real and meaningful choices to act upon that knowledge.
We Must Empower Teachers. If America is to truly reform public education and make good on the promise of individual freedom and independence through knowledge, we must ensure that every child has the opportunity to be inspired and motivated to achieve their potential by a strong classroom leader.
John McCain's Education Policy:
John McCain Will Build On The Lessons Of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). There should be an emphasis on standards and accountability. However, our goal cannot be group averages. Instead, our focus should be to inspire every child to strive to reach his or her potential. While NCLB has been invaluable in providing a clear picture of which schools and students are struggling, it is only the beginning of education reform.
John McCain Will Provide Effective Education Leadership. John McCain is committed to high standards and accountability, but he is also committed to providing the resources needed to succeed. He believes we should invest in people, parents and reward achievement.
John McCain Will Work To Ensure That Our Children Have Quality Teachers. The single biggest challenge in turning around a failing school is getting quality teachers into that school. To overcome this challenge, John McCain will:
Encourage Alternative Certification Methods That Open The Door For Highly Motivated Teachers To Enter The Field. John McCain will devote five percent of Title II funding to states to recruit teachers who graduate in the top 25 percent of their class or who participate in an alternative teacher recruitment program such as Teach for America, the New York City Teaching Fellowship Program, the New Teacher Project, or excellent university initiatives.
Provide Bonuses For Teachers Who Locate In Underperforming Schools And Demonstrate Strong Leadership As Measured By Student Improvement. John McCain will devote 60 percent of Title II funding for incentive bonuses for high performing teachers to locate in the most challenging educational settings, for teachers to teach subjects like math and science, and for teachers who demonstrate student improvement. Payments will be made directly to teachers. Funds should also be devoted to provide performance bonuses to teachers who raise student achievement and enhance the school-wide learning environment. Principals may also consider other issues in addition to test scores such as peer evaluations, student subgroup improvements, or being removed from the state's "in need of improvement" list.
Provide Funding For Needed Professional Teacher Development. Where federal funds are involved, teacher development money should be used to enhance the ability of teachers to perform in today's technology driven environment. We need to provide teachers with high quality professional development opportunities with a primary focus on instructional strategies that address the academic needs of their students. The first 35 percent of Title II funding would be directed to the school level so principals and teachers could focus these resources on the specific needs of their schools.
John McCain Believes We Must Empower School Principals With Greater Control Over Spending. Funding cannot be effectively apportioned in Washington, but it shouldn't be a state-level official or district bureaucrat either. The money must be controlled by the leader we hold accountable: the school principal with a single criterion to raise student achievement.
John McCain Will Make Real The Promise Of NCLB By Giving Parents Greater Choice. Choice is the best way to protect children against a failing bureaucracy. But parents must have more control over the money.
John McCain Will Expand The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. In our nation's capital, we have seen the dramatic benefits of giving parents control of money and choices. The Opportunity Scholarship program serves more than 1,900 students from families with an average income of $23,000 a year. More than 7,000 more families have applied for that program. The budget for the Opportunity Scholarships is currently $13 million. John McCain believes that this extremely successful program should expand to at least $20 million benefiting nearly a thousand more families.
John McCain Will Ensure Children Struggling To Meet State Standards Will Have Immediate Access To High Quality Tutoring Programs. Local school districts can certify education service providers but providers can also bypass the local bureaucracy and receive direct federal certification. Education service providers can then market directly to parents. Title I money will be directed straight to the provider.
John McCain Supports Expanding Virtual Learning By Reforming The "Enhancing Education Through Technology Program." John McCain will target $500 million in current federal funds to build new virtual schools and support the development of online course offerings for students. These courses may be for regular coursework, for enhancement, or for dual enrollment into college.
John McCain Will Allocate $250 Million Through A Competitive Grant Program To Support States That Commit To Expanding Online Education Opportunities. States can use these funds to build virtual math and science academies to help expand the availability of AP Math, Science, and Computer Sciences courses, online tutoring support for students in traditional schools, and foreign language courses.
John McCain Will Offer $250 Million For Digital Passport Scholarships To Help Students Pay For Online Tutors Or Enroll In Virtual Schools. Low-income students will be eligible to receive up to $4,000 to enroll in an online course, SAT/ACT prep course, credit recovery or tutoring services offered by a virtual provider. Providers could range from other public schools, virtual charter schools, home school parents utilizing virtual schooling resources or district or state sponsored virtual schools. The Department of Education would competitively award the funds to a national scholarship administrator who would manage the student applications, monitoring, and evaluation of providers.
There's even a website!! LOL! (nm)
*
There's even a website!! LOL! (nm)
*
It has obviously been taken off his website since...(sm)
because of the backlash he got from it. However, others have a record.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/02/hannitys-america-what-kind-of.html
Great website!
I think the folks interviewed regarding Krgzystan (spelling?) definitely drank WAY too much Koolaid.
Great website.
I especially enjoyed the other topics such as 'Disney Does Democrats' and 'Starbucks and Mermaid Teats.' Yes, I am sure whatever that site has to say is 300% true.
Yes, you must have permission of that website to cut...sm
and paste anything, or any other website, so posting a link is the way to go.
Website recommendation. sm
As far as I can tell the below website is truly bipart. You will find info., dirt, whatever you want to call it on both sides. The front page does have more Rep. stuff at the moment, but that is because the RNC just go over with. It was just the opposite after the DNC. If anyone knows if it is not bipart. let me know as I have referred a few friends to it. If the site has already been posted, I apologize; I've been off the computer up until today. Here it is:
www.factcheck.org
Interesting website....
http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/
Whenyou get there, click on the clip of the documentary. Very illuminating...and not all that surprising.
Take this website and stick it
you know where. We all know PUBS are the ones who cheat. Please, what is wrong with you, really???
Can I get a witness, i mean website
I'm looking for a site that details these "bailout plans". I want to know what Capitol Hill wants to do with my tax money. Can anyone direct me to a website that is strictly factual, not politically driven to bias me to 1 party of the other, that would lay out the exact plan?
Website I'd like to share...
Disclaimer: It will probably not appeal to the McCain supporters, so need for you make snarky remarks about it.
I don't even know how I ended up at this site, but it has so many topics on it, instead of recommending a link just to one or two, I'll give the whole page. Be sure to scroll down.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/ (although I don't consider myself a 'wonk' LOL)
Try the home page too:
http://thinkprogress.org/
One of my favorite political websites, that I've been going to every day (and causing me to spend far less time on this board) is Talking Points Memo: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Would anyone else like to share their favorite websites that are lib or nonpartisan? TIA
An interesting website
I came across this. There are too many similarities. I'm not saying they are alike, but some other people have found these similarities. I for one found the most shocking part of it in the campaign poster from back then (same motto - I think Obama should have done some research first and picked a different motto).
http://yedies.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-campaign-not-unlike-adolf-hitlers.html
Messiah website...
http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
No, I only just saw this website just now too...someone else posted it....sm
I only posted the article by Col. North because I like how he writes.
But it does look like there are people out there that think this way. I had no idea this website existed either, until just now. oh boy....good grief is definitely right.
I believe it is a website pointing out that there are...
people out there who do believe he is the "messiah." Not necessarily sent from God, but has become a deity to them. Did you read all the quotes on the site? Those are real quotes from real people...Obama DID use that "presidential seal" depicted there until people got outraged and he stopped using it. It is very, very concerning. And I think the answer is yes...there are a lot of people out there mesmerized by him. NO matter WHAT comes out of his mouth, they believe it. Did you see the star-gazed way they look at him? The kids "singing for their leader?" Wayyyy too freaky for me. Of course, I was not going to vote for him anyway because he is a flaming socialist, but this site would have given me serious pause if I had even thought about voting for him. Just my opinion.
And then you can tell her the real website
http://www.johnmccain.com/
|
