That's where DH is. Forced to retire because of no work (road construction). The stimulus money went to 2 cities in my state. The rest of the state got nothing towards road construction or very little.
We didn't get last year's stimulus check because we owed taxes and they put the money towards that. Now he's getting screwed out of the $250 because he wasn't retired when this happened. Never fails.
Remember that cartoon of the guy always under the grey cloud? That's us.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Am I missing some bigger picture? I'm serious with that question.
Last night Barrack mentioned how he's against the raising of the retirement age. Hillary didn't really speak to it, but I got the impression that she also doesn't want to see that happen. Is there some reason other than AARPs very powerful lobby? I mean, in the 60's, the average life expectancy was about 70 years, now it's close to 78. Why shouldn't retirement age be raised? We are not only living longer, but we're living healthy longer. I do realize that not all will remain healthy, but for those there is disability also.
SS is in so much trouble, it just seems to me to be a no brainer that by raising the retirement age, even by just a couple of years, some of those problems can be lessened.
Thank goodness my DH and I took all of our retirement
and investments out of the market about 6 weeks ago, had a feeling something was coming.
People near retirement age will be put out on the
ice floe to die. But since out country is a little short of ice floes, those who have reached the end of their 'productive lives' will be denied medical care and allowed to seek whatever undignified death seems appropriate to them. Adapt or die. Next question?
I am a PT MT receiving my retirement
social security benefits. Here is what the letter I received from the SSA stated:
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Among its provisions are one-time payments to Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries, as well as funding to help the agency address critical needs.
One-Time Payments of $250 For Social Security and SSI Beneficiaries
Nearly 55 million people who receive Social Security and SSI benefits will get a special one-time payment of $250. They should receive the one-time payment by late May 2009. 401K/retirement fund
You can't "take" your pension and 401K out of the stock market if you are not retirement age. We are stuck with whatever the companies we work for invest in. my husband and I have some choices about where we invest our 401K but they all involve mutual funds, stocks, bonds, etc.
Aaaagggggg!!!! I know, I shouldn't of done it. But I just HAD to take a peek. And what I saw was almost too depressing for mere words to describe.
So, this afternoon I logged on to my 401K, just to see how the poor thing has been faring these past coupla weeks. It started hemorrhaging pretty badly a couple of months back, lost first 1/4, and then about 1/3 of its value. But oh, my GOD..... today it's down just a few dollars shy of being only HALF it's former value. A mere shadow of its former self. Now there's not even enough money left in it to buy a decent used car.
I guess now there's only one thing left to do when we reach a point in our lives when we can no longer work, and need to retire. That would involve a gun and a single bullet. Well, mabe 2 bullets. (My aim is pretty bad.....)
Social Security is a retirement "insurance" sm
as with any insurance you usally do draw more than you pay in! If you have a (for example) $250,000 life insurance policy, do you think you are going to pay in $250,000 for it?
All this complaining about people drawing SS but I tell you if you are paying in and happen to have a catastrophic illness and have to draw disability benefits, you will be glad you paid in.
Exxon CEO's retirement package and talks of reform..sm
Senator rips ex Exxon CEO's retirement package
By Tom Doggett Tue Apr 18, 4:53 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid record oil prices and soaring gasoline costs, Exxon Mobil's $400 million retirement package to its former CEO is a shameful display of greed that should be reviewed by Congress and investigated by federal regulators, Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record) said on Tuesday.
Dorgan said he wants Exxon Mobil officials to appear at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to explain how the corporation justifies giving its former boss, Lee Raymond, such a huge retirement package.
There can be no more compelling evidence that the price gouging and market manipulation which has produced record oil prices is out of control, and is working to serve the forces of individual greed and corporate gluttony at the painful expense of millions of American consumers, Dorgan said.
Dorgan's criticism of Raymond's financial package came on the same day that U.S. crude oil prices hit a record high of more than $71 a barrel at the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Higher crude oil prices are helping to push of up gasoline costs. The Energy Department reported prices jumped 10 cents over the last week to a national average of $2.78 a gallon, up 55 cents from a year ago.
President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he was concerned about the impact high gasoline prices were having on families and businesses.
Exxon earned the wrath of many lawmakers when it reported more than $36 billion in profits last year as energy prices paid by consumers soared.
Dorgan said he will push to win passage of his legislation that would impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and rebate that money to consumers, unless the companies used their earnings to explore for and produce more energy.
I think a sensible public policy would insist that the big oil companies either invest those windfall profits in things that will increase our own domestic energy supplies, or we should return some of that money to consumers, Dorgan said.
Using them to drop $400 million dollars in the pocket of a big oil executive is simply unacceptable, he added.
Exxon Mobil has defended Raymond's retirement package, saying it was pegged to the rise in the company's profit and market capitalization that occurred during his tenure.
Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts
More control coming? Thanks, but no thanks. I have a brain and like to think for myself. See link below.I think it's too early to tell
He's only been in a couple weeks. Too early to tell. We hear stories here and there, but he needs more time. I voted for him, but I do not have a lot of confidence in him. I always remind myself that he is not the one making decisions, he just does what he is told to do. I don't think he's gotten a good start though.
I think Obama has the same "mesmerizing" type of quality that Bill Clinton did when he would give speeches. Someone who was invited to the white house once when Bill Clinton was president said that Mr. Clinton had the ability to mesmerize his audiences almost like in a hypnotizing or trance-like state. He said that he looked around the room at the people listening to the President and they were in a sort of trance. Mr. Clinton had a way of lying to the people but they didn't care and they smiles and said Thank god Mr. Clinton is our president. When asked about the lies he told, they answered with "so what, I don't care." That is the same road I'm seeing Mr. Obama take. He's able to hypnotize his audiences to a point that he lies to them and they don't care. They still will smile and say it's okay.
As for losing or gaining support I think it all depends on whether you support him or not. If you voted for him and are a die-hard Obama fan you will say he's gaining support and everyone else is just picking on him. But if you don't support Obama you will say he's losing support.
I don't think he's had a very good start to the office - just the stuff he's done like who he is picking for his cabinet, the stimulus bill he came out and approved and basically threatened congress and put out the fear that if they don't vote for it we will head into depression, etc, etc., but I do believe we really need to give the guy some more time. Maybe in 6 months lets come back and see how he's done over the first 6 months.
Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement today. How ironic.
On a weekend when we are all preparing to celebrate our independence, some of us can get ready to kiss that very same independence goodbye.
If Bush stays true to his "base" and the Democrats are unsuccessful in what I hope will be a very aggressive filibuster (if the candidate does turn out to be someone who is unwilling to substitute the Constitution for the Bible), we will have conservatives chipping away at our independence: controlling our lives, our deaths, defining which God is "politically correct," who people with the "wrong" orientation are "allowed" to love, etc., etc., etc.
I wonder how much "independence" we will have left to celebrate on July 4, 2006.
He was born too early ...
If you read through the articles, you'll see that he was actually born before the law went into effect stating that people born in the Panama Canal zone were natural born citizens. Thus, he is not.
I'm sure the RNC felt that it was just a technicality that would never be called out.
I fear if this Obama stuff continues, it will be. And we'll be left with no candidates to vote for.
Too early to ask this. Palin has not said SHE is
nm
This was in the late 70s early 80s
As far as I know, none of my friends slept with these students. One of the guys used to come up to our hometown and spend the night and never ever acted like he was interested in "conquering" my friend or I. We were all just friends. maybe the times were different?
The last paragraph of
this article is just tooooooo good. I would LOVE to see the Bush supporters actually really "go to Iraq," and for free!!!!
Published on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 by UExpress.com
Sacrifice? Count Me Out If You Supported the War, Pay For It
by Ted Rall
If America is truly on a war footing," Thom Shanker asks in the New York Times, "why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?" Military recruiters are coming up short of volunteers, yet neither party is pushing for a draft. No one is proposing a tax increase to cover the $60 billion annual cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars. There are no World War II-style war bond drives, no victory gardens, not even gas rationing. Back here in the fatherland, only "support our troops" car ribbons indicate that we're at war--and they aren't even bumper stickers, they're magnetic. Apparently Americans aren't even willing to sacrifice the finish on their automobiles to promote the cause.
"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," the paper quotes an officer who just returned from a year in rose-petal-paved Iraq. "[Symbolic signs of support are] just not enough," grumbles a brigadier general. "There has to be more," he demands. "The absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel," the general claims.
Northwestern University professor Charles Moskos says: "The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry."
To which I say: Screw that. It's not my duty to suffer for this pointless war. I've been against it all along, and you can stick your victory garden where the desert sun can't penetrate.
I was among hundreds of thousands of Americans who marched against invading Iraq in early 2003. Tens of millions cheered us on. The largest mass protest movement in history (so designated by the Guinness Book of World Records) brought together pacifists, humanists and people like me. We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We didn't believe that the same White House that propped up dictatorships in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia--that had, when it suited them, supported Saddam--could possibly be interested in liberating the people of Iraq. When we scrutinized coverage of the CIA's prewar analyses, we found that there wasn't any. There were only reports dating back to 1998, ancient history in the intelligence business. We absolutely didn't trust Dick "cakewalk" Cheney's breezy predictions.
Bush and Cheney ignored our concerns. Instead of building a solid case and bipartisan political consensus, they bullied and lied to Congress and the UN to scam us into this unwinnable war. Who can blame them? They work for ExxonMobil and Halliburton, not the American people. But they, not us, broke Iraq. It can't be fixed, it's not our fault and it's not our problem. There's no reason to relinquish our creature comforts to back their grubby little oil grab.
The most galling aspect of this fiasco is that it was entirely predictable. I know; I predicted it. Here's my column written back in July 2002:
"Most experts expect Iraq to disintegrate into civil war after an overthrow of Saddam's oppressive Ba'ath Party," I wrote. "Opinion of the United States is now at an all-time low among Muslims around the world. Going after Iraq will make matters worse. Why give radical anti-American Islamists even more political ammunition with which to recruit suicide bombers and attract the financial donations that fund their assaults?"
I'm no genius, but even I could see that this war was doomed eight months before the invasion:
"Do the Kurds deserve a homeland? Sure. Would Iraq be better off without Saddam? Probably. But if we're smart, we won't be the ones to blow over this particular house of cards. We have too much to lose and too little to gain in the mess that would certainly ensue."
Did I call that one or what?
David Hendrickson, a scholar at Colorado College, tells the Times: "Bush understands that the support of the public for war--especially the war in Iraq--is conditioned on demanding little of the public." Of course, Bush himself hasn't given up a second of vacation or a single donated dollar, much less one of his hard-partying daughters, to the "war effort." Sacrifice is a hard sell down here among the citizenry when we don't see it starting where it should start, among our leaders.
I'm already sacrificing too much for a war I always believed was stupid and wrong. I'm paying three dollars a gallon for buck-fifty gas and walking through gauntlets of over-armed National Guardboys at airports and bus stations. I'm in greater danger than ever before of getting blown up by a pissed-off fanatic. And I dread the giant tax hike we'll eventually need to pay off Bush's deficit. But these aren't enough sacrifices for Bush and his vainglorious generals, who are planning "a Civilian Reserve, a sort of Peace Corps for professionals. . . a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military."
If you voted for Bush, here's your chance to plant your butt where your ridiculous car magnet is, smack dab in the middle of the Sunni Triangle. Good luck.
Now I know Emanuel is chief of staff and why obama picked him, makes sense.
Got a call early this morning, was
not truly awake when I answered the phone, and my stepson stationed in Japan gave me the dreadful news, news I NEVER wanted to hear...he is going to Iraq. My husband was not here when I received this horrifying news, he was working the midnight shift. My stepson said not to tell his dad, that he would tell him. So here I am, with husband now sleeping, and he still does not know that his son is nearing the time of deployment to this God-awful, senseless, maniacal, perverted, ill-fated, unjustifiable war in Iraq where innocent Iraqis by one hundred thousand and American by the thousands are dying because WHY???? Someone please give me an unabashed truthful, reasonable answer as to WHY we are even there?! You must know that when the Bush admin even started talking about invading Iraq, I was 100 percent against it. I knew our presence there would only enrage, create a hornet's nest of more terrorists and fanatics, and lead to devastation for WHAT!? To get rid of Saddam, to get the oil, to enrich Halliburton?! None are good enough reasons to kill people. This murdering bunch of thugs who are *elitists* sitting on their money, getting richer on the lives and deaths of our American troops....It's all too much for me. As I said, I have been against this war before troops were even deployed, and my son has to go....very very sad day for us. I pray for all those have gone before my son, and pray to the dear Lord that this will all end soon. God forgive this prez for all the killing and misery he has caused for nothing, NO THING!
Poll: Early in the game but.sm
Who will get the Democratic nomination, and who will that person pick for a running mate?
Who will get the Republican nomination, and who will that person pick as a running mate?
Winner gets a 22K gold-plated crystal ball, and the top position on Wall Street..!!!l
This is definitely a campaign against the First Amendment, and I believe Bush will do whatever he can to silence people who either disagree with him or who catch him in lies (a full-time job in and of itself).
Bob Geiger - see 2nd paragraph The last paragraph is why I posted it.
I am not at all convinced that the issue of abortion is a liberal or conservative stance. I think it tends to be tied to conservative because of its religious roots, but even that is debatable. Women throughout history regardless of religion have been having abortions. I believe it simply to be your own belief that really should not be attached to a political process.
As war is always a political process, the comparison isn't really fair is it? and I really, really hope that you are not referring to the war on Iraq because there is just too much refuting evidence to continue to believe we were justified in invading Iraq in the guise that we were defending ourselves.
How can you be pro-choice in the voice of war knowing that the very nature of it kills more people than abortion ever could? Just the war in Iraq alone has probably killed more people than the abortions in the United States in the past 100 years.
Right, and they are more objective as they are far away from it all.
you should forward that last paragraph
to the White House where they seem to think terrorists can be rational and reasoned with and will play nice with us.
Plan was made in early 1990's
The top neocons, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle were mulling invading the Middle East back in the early 1990's. In the minutes of their meetings, they state they have to find a reason to invade, that Americans would not allow a war without a reason. They got their reason with 9/11 and twisted the truth, lying and trying to convince the people, as they are still doing, that 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam are somehow connected. These plans were set over 10 years ago. It was and is for control of the Middle East and it's oil. Funny thing happened, though, on the way to a war where the Iraqi's would meet our soldiers in the street with flowers, the Iraqi's didnt and the terrorists started multiplying and meeting our soldiers in the streets with bombs and guns..and with this war, what do we have to show for it? An Iraqi constitution? Oh please, based on Islamic law, not democracy. Less rights for women than they had under Saddam. Less rights for minorities. An ancient country ravaged and destroyed by Bush's war. People too afraid to venture outside, electricity, if you are lucky for an hour a few times a week, dirty water which they bathe in, drink, clean clothing and dishes in, tens of thousands dead, tens of thousands more maimed, no doubt psychological trauma for the Iraqi children for the rest of their lives..oil pipe lines being blown up..and that was supposed to pay for this war..All of this..FOR WHAT? What the heck was this all for..Bush ought to be tried as a criminal..and he just might be in the future.
He peaked too early and is now unraveling. His downfall..
was not picking Hilliary and now I'm sure he regrets it.
Early "sex education" is not what some people are...sm
making it out to be. It is actually teaching children of all ages, as early as kindergarten, to learn what is and is not acceptable behavior of adults toward them, that they should not hesitate to say no, yell, run away and tell, when anyone is inappropriate, especially in a sexual way, or makes them feel uncomfortable. That is all. Elizabeth Smart's father Ed Smart advocates the same thing. Many, many children are traumatized every year because they are afraid to speak out when something like that happens. I was one of them many years ago. You might say that that is the parents' job. I agree. My mother did not warn me and I wish she had to say the least. This criticism of Barak Obama is totally unwarranted, mostly made by republicans who jump the gun and do not get all the facts first. Shame on you!
She;s right, it is serious. There was one student from England who voted early...sm
in Ohio. I would definitely call that voter fraud, wouldn't you?
Heaven knows what they'll find out when they finally get down to it.
Acorn is really messing things up for everybody, both parties included. No matter who takes Ohio, obviously, there's going to be fraud going on. Not to mention all the other states with the same problem.
And before you go off on the fact that the link is from FoxNews below....try to remember the facts, that none of the other networks will cover this....because they're all in the tank for Obama.
You have outlined and described in perfect detail the problem with why your arguments can never be recognized as anything but dividing. Gt, believe me, this is not all about you, which it always seems to end up being about in your posts. The fact that you refuse, not fail, but refuse to accept anything, any explanation, any single example of the image you project as well as your close-minedness, is illustrated in every post that you make.
I agree with the assessment in the last paragraph.sm
They will use kiddie porn and so-called domestic terrorism to limit our use of the Internet. Everything is greatly exaggerated to induce fear, and then you will allow them to slice up more of your liberties.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
Here's your answer, 1st paragraph, 2nd line.
...Parade Magazine ASKED the President-elect, who is also a devoted family man, to get personal and tell us what he wants for his children.
He didn't take out an ad in the newspaper. He simply answered a simple question posed to him by a reporter on assignment. If you had taken the time to read more carefully and weren't in such a hurry to slam the man, you might have noticed that.
"The announcement comes less than a month after the world's largest maker of microprocessors used in personal computers said it would close plants in Southeast Asia and scale back U.S. operations under a restructuring that affects as many as 6,000 employees."
What do they know? Are they afraid O is going to put extra taxes on businesses that do business overseas (which I hope), or are they being smart? Sorry if my sarcasm shows, but this will still affect 6,000 jobs in the U.S.? Why? Need to do some digging here.
And you know this how? I would say show me the evidence to back up this ridiculous claim, but I already know you have none. It's your opinion/religious propaganda, and it's blantantly false. You also have it backwards. You're implying people start out being athiest, then convert to religion. It's the other way around, when religious or secular people start questioning all the improbable/impossible things the bible is overflowing with, in addition to all of its inconsistenties and outright contradictions.
Forgive me if I doubt that you're an expert on athiests, and forgive me if I doubt your critical thinking skills, because religion frowns upon that - you're not supposed to question god or think for yourself, just obey his commands, or should I say, various human interpretations of his commands...
If there was indeed
'too much evidence to prove that He does exist' then everyone would believe in him. How could anyone deny it? They couldn't. But that's just it, there is no evidence to prove it, whereas there actually IS scientific evidence to the contrary, that you apparently are unaware of or haven't investigated.
Instead, you're willing to believe something based only on 'faith.' In every other area of your life where you'd want or even *demand* facts, proof, or concrete evidence before believing something so important, with religion (some) people are all too willing to blindly accept it on faith.
BTW, an athiest doesn't have to DISprove god (you can't prove a negative, anyway), you have to prove that he *does* exist, and you can't. And wouldn't you think if he really existed, he would prove it to the entire world's satisfaction anyway and put an end to the debate and all the relious wars, conflict, genocide, misery, suffering, etc? He'd rather we kill each over it? I think not. It makes no sense.
You also wrote: 'You can say all you want, but you just can't argue with a completely changed life'
Yes, I can argue it. You changed your life because *you* wanted to change it. You! Not some mystical, magical, invisible being in the sky who cares about your every thought and action. People change their lives for the better every day, without religion. IMO, if you hadn't found religion, you would've kept looking until you found something else that worked for you, and it probably would've been a lot healthier than the brainwashing, closed-minded, divisive phenomenon that is religion. a spokesman for M/P issued the last paragraph so not sure how reliable
that would be. Odd how they added it at the end but did not say if it was a fact. It was supposed to be an investigative article. There is no way of knowing if that is fact, it is only what the McCain people say is true.
Cannot trust anyone it seems.
May see an erosion of Dem support as early as 2010 election cycle.
Rasmussen is already showing some evidence of this as a generic Republican is beating a generic Democrat now by 2 points, rather than losing by 6 points as his poll showed a few weeks ago.
The best evidence of this in 2010 will not necessarily be Republican victories, although it might happen. The evidence will be that Democrats in "stronghold" districts will have to fight for their lives to get reelected and will have much smaller margins than they're used to. Others might have opposition from their own party and have to deal with a primary fight they're not used to.
I'm rather glad that the media and the Democrats have treated the tea-party phenomenon with such scorn and contempt. I'd rather that they continue to underestimate the opposition to what they're doing, and overestimate their own popularity. They will discover that the support of the American voter has never been something you can take for granted.
The Democrats are now in the process of doing just what the Republicans did in allowing the extreme elements of the party to take over and, just as voters showed the Republicans the error of doing this, the voters will teach the Democrats the same lesson. Hence, the pendulum.
oops - one paragraph made NO sense of mine..sm
That's not to say that they are not entitled to feel what they feel and they are entitled to their opinions/voice..even though I just reread my post and it could be interpreted that way (and sorry for that) -
marks the location of current message within thread
