Thx - your explanation helped me understand it better
Posted By: me on 2008-09-19
In Reply to: Whether we like it or not, it had to be done....sm - ms
I understand that it had to be done, however, I guess I'm wondering is who is going to end up paying for it. Is it going to be us (people who make around $30K or so), or will it be the super wealthy millionaire, billionaire, and then the gluttonous people like Soros - now there's someone whose a slime lizzard). I did find this article written by Motley Fools. They are pretty good for writing things that even I can understand and they wrote an article listing the people responsible. So, I guess my questions is...Are the people who are responsible for letting this happen going to be responsible to get it fixed. After all, if I have a business and I run it into the ground nobody but me is going to pay for it. Anyway...think this is a good article...
http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/10/the-people-responsible-for-fannie-mae-and-freddie-.aspx
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
This helped me understand it better
Your explanation really helped me to understand better what is going on. I'm not sure I would like the idea of people voting again. Talk about feeling like your vote doesn't count. I would feel like, what happened to my vote the first time? Why do we have to keep voting over and over and what if this happens again, and another recount, so just hold a third election until the outcome changes to favor who wants to keep having the re-votes (even though it might mean more poeple would vote for Obama this time - or maybe not - nobody really knows), but if their main concern is the delegates being seated then why don't they just split them down the middle 7 for Obama and 7 for Clinton or 10 and 10 (or however many there are, just make it an even split.
For some reason I keep hearing John Wayne's voice saying "What in tarnation is going on here". :-)
Important: An explanation we can understand.....see inside
Please read this, as this is finally an explanation in terms we can understand, of what this 700 billion plan will entail.
I hope they go into more details once it's all decided.
September 27, 2008
President's Radio Address
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Many Americans are anxious about their finances and their future. On Wednesday, I spoke to the Nation, and thanked Congress for working with my Administration to address the instability in our financial system. On Thursday, I hosted Senator McCain, Senator Obama, and congressional leaders from both parties at the White House to discuss the urgency of passing a bipartisan rescue package for our economy.
The problems in our economy are extremely complex, but at their core is uncertainty over "mortgage-backed securities." Many of these financial assets relate to home mortgages that have lost value during the housing decline. In turn, the banks holding these assets have restricted credit, and businesses and consumers have found it more difficult to obtain affordable loans. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I proposed that the Federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently needed money to help banks and other financial institutions avoid collapse and resume lending.
I know many of you listening this morning are frustrated with the situation. You make sacrifices every day to meet your mortgage payments and keep up with your bills. When the government asks you to pay for mistakes on Wall Street, it does not seem fair. And I understand that. And if it were possible to let every irresponsible firm on Wall Street fail without affecting you and your family, I would do it. But that is not possible. The failure of the financial system would mean financial hardship for many of you.
The failure of the financial system would cause banks to stop lending money to one another and to businesses and consumers. That would make it harder for you to take out a loan or borrow money to expand a business. The result would be less economic growth and more American jobs lost. And that would put our economy on the path toward a deep and painful recession.
The rescue effort we're negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street -- it is aimed at your street. And there is now widespread agreement on the major principles. We must free up the flow of credit to consumers and businesses by reducing the risk posed by troubled assets. We must ensure that taxpayers are protected, that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars, and that there is a bipartisan board to oversee these efforts.
Under the proposal my Administration sent to Congress, the government would spend up to $700 billion to buy troubled assets from banks and other financial institutions. I know many Americans understand the urgency of this action, but are concerned about such a high price tag. Well, let me address this directly:
The final cost of this plan will be far less than $700 billion. And here's why: As fear and uncertainty have gripped the market for mortgage-related assets, their price has dropped sharply. Yet many of these assets still have significant underlying value, because the vast majority of people will eventually pay off their mortgages. In other words, many of the assets the government would buy are likely to go up in price over time. This means that the government will be able to recoup much, if not all, of the original expenditure.
Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have contributed constructive proposals that have improved this plan. I appreciate the efforts of House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders to bring a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to these discussions. Our Nation's economic well-being is an issue that transcends partisanship. Republicans and Democrats must continue to address it together. And I am confident that we will pass a bill to protect the financial security of every American very soon.
Thank you for listening.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080927.html
and he has helped so much...
by spending and spending and spending, printing money, taking over banks and mortgages and car companies, and now with his eyes on health care. Yeah, he certainly has no responsibility in this at all.
Thanks, MT....I am glad if I have helped you in any way....
to research on your own and make up your own mind, no matter which candidate you decided to support. Good for you! :)
have you/DH helped anyone less fortunate?
nm
It has helped me make my choice
After hearing most of Obama's speech I was really moved. If I had any doubts about supporting him in the past they are gone. I fully support him.
Wow, thanks. That helped me make up my mind.
I was on the fence between Obama and McCain, but now that I know that the boyfriend of the vice presidential candidate's daughter is an 18-year-old hockey player who uses bad words on his Myspace page, I could definitely never vote for McCain.
haven't the airlines already been helped? nm
x
All the handouts we give them in California has helped our
No tax-refunds this year for those of us who work hard, pay taxes, and actually live here legally. This year all we get is *IOU's*.
explanation
It is the thought that everyone, no matter what situation they were born in, is solely responsible for their own misfortunes. It is the thought that what is yours is yours and you are never under any obligation to help anyone in need. It is the philosophy that government's only duty is to fight wars and sometimes pave the roads. It is the philosophy that if you are 80, handicapped, and have no family or vehicle in which to escape a natural disaster, it is your choice to remind in a natural disaster and the consequences are your problem.
No one had given me an explanation still. Because you don't have one. nm
x
explanation
I haven't seen him show any disrespect to the flag, EVER! Can you show an example of actual DISRESPECT?
And there is still no explanation..(sm)
of *the reality of O.*
Explanation...........
They ALL spend like drunken sailors. Didn't Clinton (at least) leave us with a balanced budget? I have a granddaughter in Brownsville, Tx, and kids in Houston so I get a weekly report on how bad the illegal situation is.
People can blame the Democrat congress of the past 2 years and don't get me wrong, I think they all need to be sent to the moon, but Bush and his Republican majority didn't work out so well did they?
I'll take the promise of change over more of the same. At least we can change the change we don't like if we're of a mind to. But before we do that the "rabid" Republicans AND Democrats need to get over it.
DEFINITION OF RABID REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT: A person who has such tunnel vision regarding their "party" that they can't see past the end of their nose.
Explanation
Republicans on this board have been calling Democrats sheeple...sheep people I think.
Partial explanation perhaps?
I've been noticing that quite often when there is a conservative belief/claim being put forth repeatedly on this board (right now it's that Republicans always do the right thing and admit to their behavior and resign versus the Democrats who never do the right thing/can't admit their behavior and never resign), when doing research I find that the posters on this board are simply regurgitating what they are reading on the many far-right blogs/newsletters/publications. It's almost word for word. THere have been many examples in the past besides this most recent rant. At this point it seems that the far-rights are guilty of being unable to have original thoughts. Now let's see if they can do the right thing and admit it.......(laughter here, please).
On a more serious note, I never saw Clinton referred to as a serial rapist until reading this board. Once again, upon checking this out I see multiple, multiple references on -- you guessed it - multiple far-right-crazy political blogs/newsletters, etc......you get the idea. The thing that I find worrisome, though, is that we have been requested repeatedly not to bash Bush on this board in any fashion, yet past presidents (especially those that are Democrats) are fair game for any manner of accusations. If we shouldn't question Bush's decisions (as an example) because of how it will look to other countries who might read this forum, how does it look to call our former president a serial rapist?
Sam explains it very well, see her explanation below....nm
Good explanation! nm
x
This is not an intelligent explanation
First, if the administration was pushing for good things for our country, not taking the country down the path of socialism/communism and had a good plan for the future to get us on the road to recovery, everyone would want him to succeed. But since he is not and we're on the brink of depression/socialism with no hopes for the future and no plans to help Americans, more unemployment ahead, more people losing homes, etc, yes we want "that" to fail (not "him", we want "that" to fail). If it was anyone else in the seat doing the same actions I would wish for the same thing. If Hillary, Mit Romney, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, etc had the same exact failing policies that are being pushed on us now I would have the same opinion.
I've listed to plenty of their lies they are spewing. This is not an "intelligent explanation about the plan for this country". This is another distortion and lies to us and we are tired of it.
Calling people un-American because they are tired of being lied to is really un-Patriotic.
It's quite simple and doesn't need an explanation...sm
Get your hands (control) in areas that product oil, i.e., Iraq.
Thats a great explanation (no message)
x
Not that you are owed any explanation for what we chose to post...sm
because anyone who wants to come on the liberal board and post liberally and respectfually can. From your tone, I would think you were not a liberal.
FYI, we have discussed the Gitmo decision, and you or anyone else is welcome to post *important legislation* coming up. I'm sure there will be in response to the Gitmo judgement.
The firing off of misses by North Korea is a few days old and I'm waiting to see how the government reacts. I mean we went into Iraq for so-called stockpiles of WMDs and yet N. Korea is test firing their missles and the White House says there is no threat, so this tells me one or two things. #1. There was equally no threat in Iraq. OR #2. We are more ambivalent to fight in N. Korea than we were in Iraq, especially since our troops are already spread out.
Thanks for your input new blood. Feel free to open a debate of your own if that's what you want to see happen, but if you are a conservative here to stir the pot spare us and yourself the annoyance.
A good explanation of the polls and margins...sm
Pollsters Struggle to Handicap Presidential Race
Barack Obama's leading in virtually every national poll, but his margin fluctuates wildly -- suggesting that in some cases, the numbers do in fact lie.
Barack Obama's been leading John McCain in almost every national poll since late September, and it may seem like he's got the election all sewn up.
But the Democratic presidential nominee's margin has fluctuated wildly, anywhere from 1 to 13 points in the past two weeks alone. And a few recent polls are even within the margin of error, suggesting McCain could actually be leading among certain sets of voters.
This doesn't mean the surveys are masking a widespread McCain advantage -- he's still trailing in most major battlegrounds needed to secure the election. But survey disparities are so great this year as to suggest that the numbers, contrary to the old adage, sometimes do lie.
Part of the problem? The sheer amount of polls being conducted across the country.
FOX News political analyst Karl Rove said by his count, there have been 177 national polls conducted as of Oct. 24, compared with 55 at the same time in 2004.
"The proliferation of polls, particularly polls run by universities that may not have the skill and capability that a professional polling outfit has, are really not helpful to the process, in my opinion," Rove said.
But some of the inconsistencies in the polls this year can also be traced to the method used by the pollsters.
The "expanded" Gallup poll, unlike the "traditional" one, includes those citizens who call themselves likely voters but who've never actually voted before.
"This year, I think all pollsters are concerned about how they're defining 'likely' voters, and trying to understand turnout," FOX News polling director Dana Blanton said. "There's been so much attention placed on new registration and enthusiasm among the electorate, and it's just -- it's extremely hard to figure out that, that piece of the puzzle."
Obama held a 10-point lead Monday in Gallup's expanded poll, but only a 5-point lead in their traditional poll.
Karlyn Bowman, who studies public opinion for the American Enterprise Institute, urged voters to examine the wording and sequencing of a poll's questions, to be wary of sudden spikes -- and to shop around.
"If you see a huge change in let's say the McCain-Obama margin overall, you might want to think about whether or not there has been something that's happened that would produce that kind of extraordinary change," she said. "But I think it's important to look at one poll, and then to compare that poll to other polls, and that's the way you can be an educated consumer."
A survey of the polling landscape shows the latest CBS News/New York Times poll to be the outlier, placing Obama up by 13 points.
A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll last week had Obama up by 9 points.
Investor's Business Daily, which came closest to nailing the race between President Bush and John Kerry in 2004 (within four-tenths of a point), has the current presidential race within the margin of error. And The Associated Press recently reported a virtual tie.
With polls still fluctuating but mostly showing Obama in the lead, the Illinois senator says he's taking nothing for granted.
"Don't believe for a second this election is over. Don't think for a minute that power concedes," Obama said Monday in Canton, Ohio. "We have to work like our future depends on it in this last week, because it does depend on it in this last week."
McCain, meanwhile, is pledging to stun the pundits on Election Day.
"Let me give you the state of the race today. There's eight days to go. We're a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they've done before," McCain said Monday in Ohio. "Senator Obama's measuring the drapes ... You know I guess I'm old fashioned about these things. I prefer to let the voters weigh in before predicting the outcome."
Both Blanton and Bowman said there appears to be no evidence of a so-called "bandwagon effect" in American elections -- the idea that widespread dissemination of polling data trending a certain way will cause voters to in turn move in that direction. Such an effect might have led to a Hillary Clinton-Rudy Giuliani pairing, once the favorites in their respective races.
Experts say the "bandwagon" effect might be more common in places like Israel or Great Britain, where election cycles are much shorter.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/dont-like-polls-wait-minutes/
The best explanation I've heard thus far for economic crisis..(sm)
The Real Deal
So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
- The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
- Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
- Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
- Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
- The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
- Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
- Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
- Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
- The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
- An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
- Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
–by Joe Miller and Brooks Jackson
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html
I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board. Are we clear now?
Finally, a clear, concise explanation of ""The Plan". check out link
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224262&title=Elizabeth-Warren-Pt.-2
Wow, common sense!!
Bush didn't destroy Iraq. He helped to liberate Iraq.
m
Also can understand...
I was also accused of being the notorious gt also. Not sure what their obsession is with this, perhaps they are hoping that all the posters who do not agree with are one in the same.
What I understand you to be saying....
What I hear you saying is that this board's posts need to reflect your personal ideology and that it is your role to call our attention to posts that you consider too liberal.
In looking back at your protests on this board, particularly a post where you have repeated the word hate over and over, combined with your delusions of grandeur that this board should operate according to your political agenda, I think you are mentally unbalanced. As a result of mental illness I doubt you will be able to comprehend any reasonable explanation of why what you are doing is misguided.
I suggest that if you want full control of a political board and the ability to censor each post that you create your own website.
Also, I am not sure why you have been allowed to run amuck on this particular board.
You know what I don't understand?
If we are so wacko, why do they keep coming here to read *liberal* posts and then slither back to insult us on their board?
PK,you're very welcome. Have yourself a lovely afternoon/evening wherever you are.
I don't understand....
How does one person's possibly tactless comments excuse another person's comments? This line of thinking doesn't make sense. So you're saying it's okay for Ann Coulter to be a brutal witch with her comments because if you look hard enough you can find comments from the opposing side that were also of questionable moral character? So what? LIke I always told my kids when they were little, just because other people are doing it doesn't make it right.
Besides, Ann quibbles that the widows are using their grief to promote their political agenda, well, my thought is that every time some family member of a war casualty goes on the local news saying how proud they are of what the military is doing in Iraq, etc., isn't that ALSO promoting a political agenda?
I do not understand why anyone would believe there were WMD....sm
IF there were any thread of truth this administration would have announced it at first notice to redeem themselves from the *unjust war* criticism. Unless they are holding on to this tad bit of information until closer to electoins, which I doubt. I would not be so quick to jump on board with Santorum with his *classified document.*
What I think I do understand.
After much research, I feel I can comment on this. Embryonic stem cell research has more than one goal. There is the harvesting of aborted babies stem cells, but there is also the stipulation in small writing that embryos can be cloned in the lab and those stem cells used for research. There is also this article, not released for general knowledge. I am sure that Michael Fox, as young as he is, and being the father of small children, would like to believe that embryonic stell research is going to be the be all and end all for Parkinson disease. I would want the same thing. But it just isn't and there are sinister forces at work just waiting for this bill to pass and for all heck to break loose. If it sounds dramatic, I don't think it is dire enough warning. An informed public is a forewarned and armed public. Here is the article I mentioned above.
Stem cells might cause brain tumors, study finds
Injecting human embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients may cause tumors to form, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.
Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York said human stem cells injected into rat brains turned into cells that looked like early tumors.
Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers said the transplants clearly helped the rats, but some of the cells started growing in a way that could eventually lead to a tumor.
Various types of cell transplants are being tried to treat Parkinson's disease, caused when dopamine-releasing cells die in the brain.
This key neurotransmitter, or message-carrying chemical, is involved in movement and Parkinson's patients suffer muscle dysfunction that can often lead to paralysis. Drugs can slow the process for a while but there is no cure.
The idea behind brain cell transplants is to replace the dead cells. Stem cells are considered particularly promising as they can be directed to form the precise desired tissue and do not trigger an immune response.
Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells. Taken from days-old embryos, these cells can form any kind of cell in the body. This batch had been cultured in substances aimed at making them become brain cells.
Previous groups have tried to coax stem cells into becoming dopamine-releasing cells.
Goldman's team apparently succeeded and transplanted them into the rats with an equivalent of Parkinson's damage. The animals did get better.
But the grafted cells started to show areas that no longer consisted of dopamine-releasing neurons, but of dividing cells that had the potential to give rise to tumors.
The researchers killed the animals before they could know for sure, and said any experiments in humans would have to be done very cautiously.
Scientists have long feared that human embryonic stem cells could turn into tumors, because of their pliability.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research cite such threats. Many opponents, including President George W. Bush and some members of Congress, believe it is immoral to destroy human embryos to obtain their stem cells.
*****
Finally, I will close with President Bush's words about embryonic cell research because I agree with him 400%. I suppose the division lies between conservative and liberal in defining the meaning of life.
(quote) believe America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of science, and I believe we can do so while still fostering and encouraging respect for human life in all its stages. (Applause.) In the complex debate over embryonic stem cell research, we must remember that real human lives are involved --both the lives of those with diseases that might find cures from this research, and the lives of the embryos that will be destroyed in the process. The children here today are reminders that every human life is a precious gift of matchless value.(unquote)
Amen, President Bush, Amen.
Okay....although I still do not understand...
but as you said, I don't have to. It seemed a very simple observation that if you found fault with Bush showing up at VA Tech and not at a soldier's funeral...I could not attribute that to anything but a strong dislike (I will not use word hate) of Bush. And no, I do not hate any of the people you mentioned. And had any one of them shown up at VA Tech, I would not have criticized them for being there because they had not gone somewhere else I might have felt they should have gone. I would have been glad they showed up to try to help those kids heal. I suppose you might call me naive, but I took it at face value, just like I did when Bill Clinton came to OKC after the Murrah bombing. As I said, he is not a person I like, respect or admire, but he was the President and he did come and I was very, very glad to see him there, he seemed sincere and I took it at face value. And, as I have said many times, there are a lot of things I do not like about this administration, I do not agree with everything Bush has done. However, on that same note, I was appalled at the pork the Dems wanted to hang on the troop funding bill, so I am not a big fan of the Democratically controlled Congress either. Nancy Pelosi broke the law by her Lone Ranger visit to Syria, and Harry Reid...I think he is a coward, I think to publically announce the war is lost when men are still on the ground fighting is at the last ill-advised, at the most tantamount to treason, emboldens the enemy and was from a personal standpoint hateful and very, very mean-spirited. I think when I see him, please do not tell me you support the troops and in the same breath tell them the war is lost. I think that is supremely arrogant, like he had a clue whether or not the war was lost. I am ashamed of him, and I have not been that ashamed of a politician since Bill Clinton's shenanigans. All that being said, as a person, I still like George Bush. I believe he is sincere and I believe his heart is in the right place. I think he is genuinely a good person, and that is probably why he is not a good politician, because there are very FEW who, in my estimation, are both. But that is just me. I think this war has taken a toll on him, and I think people who say he couldn't care less about the soldiers dying do not know what they are talking about. I have seen him shed tears on numerous occasions talking to families and talking to soldiers in the hospitals. The last President I remember shedding a real tear was Ronald Reagan. I think it is a sign of strength when a man shows his emotion like that. Again, you may perceive that as naive.
Basically I am looking for a hero this round. A man (or woman) with the courage of their convictions who will administer not to get rel-elected, but for what is good for the country. If such a person exists, now would be the time. I frankly have not seen that person in the running right now.
Yikes! Too much information.
God bless!
I really don't understand that, either....
I have been coming to these boards for a very long time and I have never seen a conservative post that liberals should stick to their own board. But they are really quick on this board to say things like "neocons need not apply" and "this board is for liberals." All that says to me is that they don't want to debate, they want only one viewpoint, theirs, and want validation from everyone for their viewpoint. The moderator has said that we could post on either board as long as we kept it respectful. This is America for Pete's sake. Each is entitled to his opinion and to support it. Sigh.
I understand
That is a whole lot more than I make, too! I live in an area where I have to pay $1,000 a month to rent a studio apartment. I thought this was outrageous! Then, my mother started a traveling job and has been telling me how much it costs to live in D.C. and some places in California. Even Vermont (sorry, don't remember what town) was more expensive! In these cases, a lot of that 88,000 would be eaten up by rent/mortage payments alone. Don't get me wrong, I do NOT think that someone living in a 3,000 sq foot house with a huge mortgage should get assistance - obviously their priorities would be out of whack. But for those in areas when it costs way more to live, that may not be unreasonable. Anyway, that was just my thought. On the site that I found, it does not mention that cap, it only says that states would set their own cap. If I recall, the 88,000 was mentioned by New York, who wanted that as their cap. I would imagine living in NY would be insanely expensive (anyone know #s?). I'm not sure how they would work out a maximum allowable cap - that doesn't seem to be written into the proposal.
I was just curious for reasons. Thank you for sharing!! :)
I understand what you are saying...
my experience totally different. My husband served in Somalia fighting AL Qaeda there..before 9-11...when Clinton was President. We have been in the military for many years. So, of course, we know soldiers...my husband was a member of the 10th Mountain Division. He was retired by the time Iraq came around (he still works for the Army in civilian capacity), but the 10th Mountain was instrumental in Afghanistan...he knew many of those who were deployed and he knows many who have ben to Iraq...needless to say our roots in the service run deep. And all the young/older servicemen we have come in contact with hold the opposite view...they understand the need to fight the enemy there so we don't have to fight them here. They believe, as do I, that keeping Al Qaeda busy in Iraq is one reason we have not been hit here again in a big way. The surge is working; casualties are down dramatically for both civilians and soldiers...the data is there if you look. Still, we will not get into a war debate but I will say this...no one WANTS war. I would like to have them home today too, but what I don't want is for America to become like Israel with car bombs and human bombs in malls, schools...I don't want to hear about something like that every day. I believe our being in Iraq helps keep that kind of thing at bay, and if we can leave a free Iraq we will be one step closer to keeping Al Qaeda at bay.
I saw a man on TV a few nights ago...a man who has interviewed several jihadists, including Al Qaeda...I wish I could remember his name. Will have to Google for that too. He said that most Americans really did not understand the threat. He said that there was a common thread in interviewing all of them, whether it be Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad...they said themselves that we did not understand. They are in this for the long haul. They intend that the world be converted to Islam, and those who do not convert will die. They will not stop until it is done. They intend to start in Europe and extend it to the US. When asked why could we not have a dialogue, they all said in essence: "There is no dialogue. There is nothing to discuss."
That should tell us what we are up against. And it should chill us all.
Have a good night!
I understand what you are saying but..
It seems that over time the majority of politicians who are supposed to be looking out for the people of this country have decided it is more profitable to concentrate on a certain constituency - those who have wealth and connections, no matter which party they represent. I'm just kinda tired of always seeing Obama slammed - if he blinks wrong, does not say the 'right' thing, carry himself in a certain way - people are all over him negatively. He cannot be any worse than what we have had in office the past eight years, and I am willing to see what he does without maliciously tearing him apart.
I understand everything you said
There is no way to deal with these people. Everything we do is a catch-22. We go to war - we are intolerant murderers. We don't go to war - we are weak. My personal opinion on this is that we need to bring as many troops back as we can and do everything humanly possible to keep this country safe. I am afraid that with so many troops in Iraq, we are not safe. Other countries recognize this. Look at Iran. What would we do if we HAD (and I say had because I would hope that we would exhaust every other option) to invade Iran? Our poor troops are exhausted and weary. Who would fight any other threats? I think it is important to gain strength here at home. Secure our borders. Thoroughly investigate anyone coming into our country. I think that is the best we can do because fighting really doesn't get us anywhere in the grand scheme of things.
what I can;t understand
If repubs are the minority being attacked by the all-powerful liberal media, why can't we have a liberal talk radio network? You got yer Hanninity, Limbaug, shrieking harpie Laura whats her name, Michael Savage, etc. You can't be a minority and still have all the radio programs . ... don't make no sense.
Understand what exactly?
Are you looking for justification for leaning toward conservatism? Your prose is rhetorical and exhausting. Can we get some fair liberals, aka, fellow Democrats who would like to discuss issues, candidates, etc, on this site?
I understand what you are saying...
I am just not sure universal health care is the answer. In every country I can find who have it, the cost is catching up and they are contemplating cutting services or raising taxes out of sight...many Canadians now pay 50-55% of their paycheck in taxes. I do not want to see this country go down that road. That will only force more and more people onto assistance, and that is going backward, in my opinion. Bottom line is, we need to figure out a way to get health care costs down, or it does not matter what kind of plan whether private or government-provided...we will not be able to afford it. Gotta get costs in control and keep them down. That is what I want to hear a candidate talk about...now throwing more money and raising taxes for yet another entitlement. Look at the money coming in now and prioritize. If free health care for everyone is what is most important, fund that first. It might mean cutting some other services or entitlements, but sometimes choices have to be made. What is most important? Do we really need to drive up everyone's taxes yet again? And how come no one is stating what universal health care will cost? Because the figure would scare us to death is my guess.
I understand what you are saying....
but what is the worst that could happen? Some of them go back to being jihadists. But if we can turn one heart, one life...who then might turn another...isn't that worth it?
We cannot change anything that has been done in the past. We can, however, learn from it, and hopefully give these kids hope. That is what they need desperately...hope for a better time, a better life. And if we can help with that...we should.
I don't understand........
if you are currently living in the United States, George W. Bush is YOUR President. You may not like him, you may enjoy calling him names, but he is my President and yours.
George W. Bush is not retarded, George W. Bush is not retarded, George W. Bush is not retarded.
Thank you.
I understand what you mean
I think voting because its your right and if you feel really strongly about voting because its our right as a citizen then that's kind of different, for me though because I know my vote doesn't count, I feel like I'm not giving up my rights, I'm "exercising" my right to not vote. Sounds a little quirky I guess, but it beats joining a bunch of protestors. Besides I've got so much more stuff to do than go stand in a crowd, punch a ticket or whatever the means of voting and then watch whoever I don't vote for get picked. Our next president has already been chosen, so I figured why waste my time.
I understand that but I still don't think its right
I don't think its right for someone who wins over another to ask their supporters to help pay off the debts of the person they were voting against. These politicians bring in enough money that their debt would be paid off within a few months. What they want (and its not just Hillary, its others too), but they want everything and they don't want to pay for anything. If I'm donating money (which I didn't) but if I'm donating money to Barack's campaign because I want him to win, why in the world would I give any money to his competitor (wether it be Clinton, Edwards or anyone else who ran against him). So that they can keep all of their money free and clear. Heck, all Clinton has to do is give a couple speaches, write another book and their debt will be paid off. They're just greedy and want it all. So just because it's been done before doesn't make it right. Also, I don't remember hearing about this in past elections. I can't ever remember hearing the winning candidate openly campaign for funds to pay off the debts of the people who tried to knock them out of the race. Maybe it was done, but I never did hear anything about it.
I understand everything you are saying...
and I did not mean that 5 years in a POW camp alone qualifies him...but it does build the character, integrity, selflessness, and patriotism that I think are essential. We know this about McCain. I don't know that about Barack Obama. There is nothing in his history or his resume that gives me that feeling about him. McCain also commanded men in war time. McCain has been a senator many more years than Obama has. If you put there experience side by side...absolute evidence of integrity, patriotism, selflessness, the willingness to buck the "party" if they feel the party is not correct...all those things make me feel that McCain is better qualified for the job, and the 5 years in a POW camp, the fact that he never caved and endured horrible torture because of it...is definitely part of that qualification.
I don't agree that McCain is 4 more years of Bush. The two are nothing alike. Bush has caved to the Repub hierarchy when I think he should not have. Anyway...that's just my take on it.
I do understand yours, and you SHOULD vote for who you believe will be the President. That is what America is all about. I know I AM! :)
I understand what you are saying....
but choice does have a lot to do with debt. No all, but in the majority of cases. Part of the reform McCain/Palin will be looking at is predatory lending. A main reason Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae collapsed is the so-called "reform bill" the democrats wrote and passed this year...forcing them to offer mortgages to low income and middle income people whether they were creditworthy or not...using those adjustable interest rates. When the bottom started falling out, interest rates went up, the people were in over their heads and defaulted. Who is picking up the tab? You and me, for people taking on a mortgage they could not afford, ignoring the fact that if the interest rate went up (and they almost always do in adjustable rate mortgages) they could not pay the mortgage. That is what I am talking about. Yes, I know the American dream is own your own home. I had to wait until I was middle-aged to be able to afford it.
Same way with those high-rate credit cards to people with less than stellar credit. I don't think most credit cards are maxed because of using them to live on. I do not say that none of them are...but I would venture a guess that they are not.
Respectfully, if we want jobs to stop going offshore we need to stop taxing our businesses at an astronomical rate. Our business taxes are at least 10% higher than anywhere else in the world. That makes it very difficult for our businesses to compete, and it sometimes forces businesses to go offshore to get out from under the huge tax burden. That is economics 101. Now Obama wants to hit small business owners not only by keeping the business taxes at all-time high, but taxing the business owners' personal income even more, taxing capital gains even more, and raising the death tax even more (which forces the closure of many businesses when the principal owner passes away). In my opinion, the death tax should be stopped, period. All the money in the business has already been taxed, and the government wants to tax it AGAIN when the owner dies. Talk about piling on.
The government needs to learn to live within its means. Find out what programs are not working and stop them. Monitor spending programs better...the waste is astronomical. Attach a job to a welfare check. Make the objective getting the people back to work, not dependent on the government and taxpayers to support. That being said, those truly disabled physically or mentally, we should take care of. But someone physically and mentally able to work should have a job or job training attached to that check, and it should not be open-ended. JMO.
I understand....however....
while I think Bush is great on the war on terror, and I think he is a good man and his heart is in the right place....I don't agree with some decisions he has made...being realistic. Same with any President. He was President in 2005 and I think he should have listened a little closer to McCain at that point. I stop short of saying, tho, that it is all his fault. It's not. It's the Dems in COngress who blocked what McCain wanted to do.
Obama is up to his eyeballs in the Fannie/Freddie thing...as is CHris Dodd... and Biden has gotten all kinds of failures from MBNA.
And isn't it funny about Charlie Rangel and Pelosi refusing to remove him from chairman of ways and means committee while he is under investigation for improprieties? If he was a Republican they would be calling for his head on a platter. LOL. Amazing.
Well I can understand they want to win, so do we
But we don't chew up Obama and Biden like they do Gov. Palin. Just all worthless.
Thanks for the post. I have to read it when I get back later. Just was checking to see if anyone answered. It's been up all day and I see lots of people read it but none that will admit that absolutely hate her - and for no good reason.
Here is what I understand
I will try to find links to validate what I say, but this is what I have read and heard.
Palin did not fired people to give their jobs to her friends. I believe that was proved incorrect (again I will try and find the link). That's about as accurate as the story about her banning books from the library. Everyone seems to think she banned books from the library (because it was put out by the liberal media) and Harry Potter was one of the books listed. The problem with that story was Harry Potter hadn't even been written yet when they claimed she banned it.
If your talking about people firing and hiring people I would look directly at the Clintons. When Bill was President and Hillary was first lady I'm sure you remember what they called Travelgate. They fired people who worked in the White House Travel Office (for no reason) so they could hire on their friends.
I will try and find the links later (won't be back on til tomorrow), but I would just say if your reading a story and it comes from the liberals I would definitely research it more and read both sides (liberal and conservative) with an open mind and a grain of salt because 99% of the garbage the liberals have been putting out there is just that, garbage (i.e. - Palins daughter is the real mother of Sarah's baby, Todd Palin had sex with his daughter, and the list of lies goes on and on).
|
