i pay off my cards EVERY month, living
Posted By: within my means. nm on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: Get Ready to Pay off your credit cards - hang on a minute
x
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
With all those cards he is playing.........sm
it is easy to see why he is not playing with a full deck of cards.
"House of Cards"
I saw this last night. It is scheduled to be on again today, Saturday and Sunday. This does a great job of explaining how Wall Street's greed not only messed up the USA but also other countries as well. This is a great show. Would highly recommend it.
Well, she's definitely laying all of the cards on the table.
And I think he should and WILL someday have his accountability moment. I don't think the US should have invaded Iraq and we wouldn't be having this conversation today. But the fact remains, if we pullout and bring troops home before we stabilize Iraq it will mean more trouble for the US in the long run. We have to finish what Bush has started.
Get Ready to Pay off your credit cards
The government is looking into buying some banks instead of subprime mortgages. They are going to need some capital. All ready to pay up?
Investigate credit cards donations to your heart's content.
Hamas information?
Excellent idea. I'm also charging up my cards, so I hope you bail me out! SM
But wait. If I bail you out and you bail me out and we bail out AIG and the government bails out mortgage-skippers and China bails out the US and...somebody tell me again, where does all this money come from? It's all so confusing.
This person was talking about the 2000 debit cards and calling them handouts...sm
Now is not the time to be talking about handups in the midst of a national disaster like the one in NO. In a time like this it is too late for that and inappropriate. But enlighten me, what kind of handup has the republican party offered the displaced NO citizens?
These people NEED HANDOUTS AND YESTERDAY, until they can regain some type of normal existence and then handups would be good. Some people can't stand to see a person get anything. I've learned that's just how some people are. Even though they are cush in front of their computers posting away, they think if I'm not getting 2000 dollars from the government neither should they. And then there's the, I got mine croud. They feel that these people should have educated themselves, worked harder and they wouldn't be in this position, so let em' stay in the astrodome until they can figure something out.
I don't agree and think these compasionate conservative Christians who think this way should ask themselves WWJD?
One month -- (sm)
That would be about the time we get a president and staff in there who actually know what to do.
About a month ago
I posted a link to the following OpEd article, which I was touting as the best idea I'd heard yet to resolve the economic crisis:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 12/27/08:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 1 page(s)
www.opednews.com
5
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The economic disaster that I predicted back in April of 2008 in these articles click here and here is here. What enabled me to predict what was coming was my evaluation of five key areas of the economy. They are:
1. Consumer savings and spending/ability to spend
2. Corporate income, health and spending/ability to spend
3. Government financial health and ability to spend
4. The lending and banking (and financial) system and its ability to extend credit
5. Inflation & scarcity of resources
I made the point that for the first time in American history, all five of these areas were problematic.
Looking at the same indicators now, eight months later, there are some real and some apparent changes. Number 4 - The lending, banking and financial system has been bailed out, but it is still reeling from the Lehman brothers’ bankruptcy, several bank failures, and the threatened failures or near failures of several more institutions. On the surface, Number 5, Inflation & scarcity of resources seems have improved. Indeed several news reports have suggested that Deflation is what is now the concern. This is an illusion.
The two main commodities driving up prices were energy and food, both because of supply fears. Both have come down in price/cost somewhat, energy in particular, but WHY have they come down in price. Is there suddenly more supply? No, there is no more supply. They are down due to a temporary decrease in demand. As soon as there is the beginning of a return to economic normalcy, and people start to use the additional income to consume, the price increases in both food and energy will return. The governments of the world should take NO action to try to deal with the apparent but temporary deflationary conditions.
Having stabilized the financial system and the auto industry with bailouts, the government should turn to the most critical economic issue, the one that really is threatening to make this a prolonged downturn and that is consumer savings, huge consumer debt and resulting inability for consumers and households to spend and buy goods and services. Businesses cannot survive without the consumer and yet the average household is completely broke and drowning in debt.
I conceived the idea for this article about a week ago and was dreading having to perform the requisite research into the actual numbers supporting my positions. Thankfully, another author on OpEdNews, James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled “The Great Consumer Crash of 2009.” Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
This suggests several conclusions. First, as I said earlier, the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that. It's a slight alteration of the old Sherlock Holmes quote, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”. Turning the economy around with a broke consumer is impossible, so what remains? Bail out the consumer.
What would a Government Bailout of the Consumer Look Like?
The government bailout of the consumer that I am proposing dwarfs all other government bailouts to date. It probably is the largest government spending initiative by any measurement in the history of humankind. It involves the government offering to each consumer and household to pay all of their debt. In exchange, the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. Let me illustrate:
Joe and Sally have a combined income of $100,000 per year. They have $60,000 in debt. They opt for a complete bailout of their debt. In return, they will pay an additional (60 x .125)% or an additional 7% in taxes for three years. So, the Government pays out $60,000, the government gets back $21,000 over three years (7% of Joe and Sally's $100,000 a year income or $7000 for three years), and Joe and Sally are debt free.
Another example is John. John makes $60,000 per year and has a mortgage of $150,000 and other debt of $8,000 of which $6,000 is taxes and $2000 is credit cards. John opts for the total bailout. The Government pays $158,000 and wipes out John's debt. John owes the government $7,500 additional in taxes each year for three years, or $22,500. Even though the Government paid more to bail John out, the payback is capped at 12.5% in additional taxes per year for three years.
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
The total potential Government bailout outlay is the total of household debt or $15 Trillion Dollars. Actual bailout total will be lower because although many consumers would opt for this bailout, many others would not depending on each households circumstances, so the total amount that the Government would put out would be considerably less than $15 Trillion, but it would not surprise me to see the amount exceed $5-8 Trillion, financed by Government bonds. The Government would get a percentage of that back in the temporary additional taxes I proposed, probably between 20% and 30% over three years. So, assuming that the Government outlays $5 Trillion for the bailout, it would get back $1 to $1.5 Trillion.
What everyone should understand is that in exchange for the government spending that money, we would have an American consumer that was essentially out of debt and per the additional legislation would never again get in debt to the point that the indebtedness would endanger the whole country's economic health. Households would be able to spend money again, and all of those businesses that currently hold consumer debt accounts would receive a sudden and massive infusion of cash and would be paid for all of that debt. The totality of this program would result in a massive boost to the economy. Considering this, even the money that the Government would not receive back from consumers that it bailed out, it would likely receive back and more from the money that it injected into the economy generating business, income and retail taxes. Another great benefit of a consumer bailout is the mortgage crisis would be over. Households would own their homes free and clear and the banks would have been paid in full. Other organizations like Visa would be back in good financial health. Visa is currently hurting and requesting government assistance. Helping the consumer as I have outlined is the right way to help banks, business and the financial industry and the economy at large. Everyone wins this way.
I also posted a link to Part 2, posted in response to the many comments the author received on the first article:
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 1 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
The excellent responses, even harsh criticism from some to my first article on my proposed Consumer Bailout http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Real-Bailout-Needed-is-by-Steven-Leser-081227-715.html helped crystallize some of the finer points of the proposal. They also made me surer than ever that the best thing to do to bring about a recovery is to address bailout efforts to the consumer.
To recap briefly before I go on, I wrote:
... the consumer is too deep in debt to be the engine that this country needs to drive the country out of the recession/depression. Second, without intervention, consumer debt will stifle the country's productivity and economic growth for the next 5-10 years. Third, if the consumer is the main force that drives the economy and affects whether the economy grows or contracts (recession), but the consumer cannot power the economy because they are in debt, something has to be done to fix that....
the consumers who agree to be bailed out will pay the government .125% more of their income in taxes each year for three years for every unit of debt that corresponds to one percent of their annual income up to a maximum of 12.5%. One of the more serious components of the current crisis that is just starting to become apparent is the catastrophic budget shortfalls in state and local budgets. Five to fifteen trillion dollars in additional taxable income for businesses all around the country would fix that portion of the crisis immediately as it seems to fix just about every other portion of the crisis. That is what I think is compelling about my bailout proposal. If you make a list of the problems in the economy and analyze the effect of this proposed consumer bailout, it eliminates them one by one from the bottom up...
There is another component to my proposal. The Government will pass legislation limiting the amount of credit that can be granted to consumers by percentage of annual income and type of debt so that the country will not again find itself in a position where a huge percentage of consumers are over leveraged. The government would also make it illegal to charge the kinds of percentage rates on credit cards we have seen in the past. Also, for those opting for the bailout, any negative reports on their credit ratings would be wiped clean.
Let me address some of the more important criticisms of the proposal:
Criticism 1 – This Consumer Bailout is not Affordable
Anytime you are talking about a government program costing in the trillions of dollars it is natural to have questions about how this program would be funded so these questions and criticisms are good and to be expected.
One thing that should be obvious is that those who would opt to have the government pay their debt would pay back on average between 20% and 30% of the money directly to the government in increased taxes over three years. That is part of the design of the bailout proposal.
Second, what happens with the money that is given by the government to consumer's creditors? Those creditors have to pay taxes on it. Whether the creditor is a bank, some other lending agency, Visa, or any other creditor, that business will pay taxes on that income. Let's assume a low average effective business tax rate of 25% to be conservative. Of the money lent to consumers, another 25% will be paid back to the government within one year in the form of taxes paid by creditors. Now we are up to 45%-55% of the total bailout being paid for by those who benefited most by it.
Third, what do the creditors do with the 75% of the money they receive that they do not have to pay in taxes? They invest it, they buy other goods and services, they pay salaries and other operating costs, pay back their own debt obligations, etc. Much of that also results in taxable income by those receiving this money. Let's assume that 2/3rds of that money, or 50% of the original outlay becomes additional taxable income. 25% of that (again, assuming an average effective business tax rate of 25% is 12.5% of the total bailout. Now we are up to 57.5% to 67.5% of the outlay by the federal government paid back to it in taxes. We can go another iteration and say that 50%-12.5% is 37.5% of the original outlay becomes taxable income for entities further down the road. We can say that 25% of that will probably end up being taxable income and results in another 6.25% of the original total outlay being paid back in taxes. Now we are up to 63.75% to 73.75% of the total bailout outlay being repaid.
Finally, what then happens to the economy when consumers are debt free, their former creditors are awash in cash, as a result Visa and the banks and lending industry are no longer in crisis, in fact the opposite? When there is more disposable income all around, more money is invested, lent (properly this time with the additional regulations I specified in place) and spent. We call that an expanding economy. What happens in an expanding economy? Federal income tax receipts grow. Some of that is already accounted for in my above explanations, but some isn't. I don't know if we get back to 100% of the bailout being paid back directly or indirectly, but if we don't, we get close.
Criticism 2 – This Bailout Proposal Penalizes People Who Have Kept Up With Their Bills
Of all the top criticisms, this one was the most difficult for me to understand. People who have kept up with their bills are still hurting in this economy. Their investments have suffered, they are at risk just like anyone else for layoffs, if they are small business owners, they might be getting less business or the people that owe them money may be having difficulty paying their bills. All of those things mean that no matter how thrifty you are, you are probably feeling ill effects from this economy or at the very least; the current crisis makes you more at risk to be hurt.
All of the people would benefit greatly from an economy that gets moving again. Those who do not request a bailout would not be financing those who do. This bailout is self-financing as I illustrated above.
Criticism 3 – This Bailout Encourages Bad Behavior
It definitely would encourage bad behavior if we don't include the additional legislation that I propose that specifies how much credit can be lent to a consumer based on his income. These limits are different depending on the type of debt that would be incurred. I'm guessing that total non-auto and non-mortgage credit would be such that the monthly payments could not exceed around 10% of monthly income of a household and total outstanding non-auto and non-mortgage debt could not exceed 5% of yearly household income. The legislation would also prevent lenders from charging exorbitant interest rates.
Criticism 4 – The New Legislation you propose that would Limit Creditors in How Much they can lend to Consumers is Unworkable
For people who earn almost all of their income from a straight salary, these limits are straightforward. For those whose income is commission based or dividend based or whose income is otherwise variable, or for those who have high net worth, there needs to be another section to the legislation that better deals with their circumstance. My suggestion would be that for people who have a net worth over $250K, they could have consumer debt up to 1/3rd of their net worth.
January 4, 2009 at 07:54:15
1 1 View Ratings | Rate It
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09:
The Real Bailout Needed is a Consumer Bailout - Part 2
by Steven Leser Page 2 of 2 page(s)
www.opednews.com
3
votesBuzz up!
SAVE FAVORITESVIEW FAVORITES
Those with variable incomes and net worth below $250K should have their debt totals determined by the following
Take the mean and median of their last 48 months worth of income and apply the 10% consumer debt limit to whichever figure is smaller..
Criticism 5 – This Bailout Could Result in Inflationary issues, Perhaps Even Hyperinflation.
Inflation is a concern, but I believe the risks can be managed. The bailout would be financed by issuing more bonds and as I already wrote, would be almost completely paid back either directly or by its effects on the economy. This bailout would not be financed by printing money. The Fed would have to be involved and would probably have to raise interest rates concurrently to ward off inflation. If you listen today to the government, the fed and private groups, they are all saying we are in a dangerous Deflationary situation. I still think there are inflationary risks with food and energy if we start to consume in similar quantities as prior to the beginning of the current crisis, but as I said I think this can be managed..
Criticism 6 – This Bailout is Really a Bailout of the Banking/Lending/Consumer Finance Sector (or other hated group) and I don't want to Bail them Out.
It seems that everyone wants to punish someone and everyone forgets that if we set out to punish people instead of focusing on what is going to fix this economy, we all will end up suffering for it. Libertarians want to punish the households and consumers who borrowed too much, Progressives want to punish the banks and consumer finance industry, Republicans want to punish organized Labor. For the current crisis to happen it required mistakes by consumers/households, banks, credit card companies, those who provide the underlying securities and financing for banks and credit card companies (the bond market, etc) and the government for failing to oversee all of the above and take action when things trended the wrong way. Now is not the time to concentrate on blame and recriminations. In fact, my bailout proposal bails out everyone, which is one of the reasons it has been a lightning rod for criticism. Everyone's pet economic and ideological whipping boys are helped.
We need everyone to have a 'Jeffersonian Louisiana Purchase' moment. What I mean by that is you have Jefferson, who was in his time probably close to what a Libertarian is today and believed that the government only had a the smallest amount of powers, i.e. only those specifically outlined in the constitution and no more. He did not believe in the elastic clause, and he definitely did not believe what his ideological opposites did, that if the Constitution did not explicitly forbid the government from doing something, that the government could do it.
Jefferson was given an opportunity to purchase the Louisiana territory from France but the problem was that the Constitution did not explicitly give him the power to make that deal. Recognizing that the purchase would solve several strategic issues for the country, not to mention more than double its territory, Jefferson made the deal. The point of this long-winded anecdote is that we are in an emergency. Exigency dictates that we accept that we may need to look beyond what would normally be the boundaries of our ideology to resolve the situation
------------------------
What I did not hear from those who criticized the idea is any alternate solution that resolved the current crisis and certainly none that addressed the issue of the overwhelming number of US households drowning in debt. Indeed, those who criticized the idea of bailing out consumers never acknowledged the seriousness of the household debt situation. As I wrote in the first article:
James Quinn, wrote an excellent article that completely outlines just how terribly in debt the American Household now finds itself titled "The Great Consumer Crash of 2009." Among his research, he found that "Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt." He also had a chart that showed that the average household debt per person in 2007 was $47,000. As staggering as those numbers are, that was a year ago. It is likely that total household debt is now up to $15 Trillion Dollars.
Before thinking about the economy in terms of the overwhelming debt of the average household, I thought that infrastructure spending was the best way to pull the economy out of crisis. The adding of jobs and putting people back to work that would be accomplished by infrastructure spending is great. This does not address the debt issues, however. The unemployed would then be able to pay their rent/mortgage and try to keep up with payments on whatever debt they have, but there will still be little of the spending that is needed to fuel a recovery. I think the infrastructure-spending plan alongside a consumer bailout is a good idea, but by itself, it is going to make very little difference. This economy is going nowhere if we fail to address household debt.
she must have her quota in for the month
x
I am pro-choice up the the end of 3rd month.
I am definitely against partial-birth abortion.
and don't forget the new *word of the month*
racist. They've added that since hurricane Katrina.
keep your head in the sand - a month ago
they are VERY_CLOSE, this is no black sheep in his family....
1000 bucks a month
That is a lot to pay for health insurance. There does need to be reform so that it is more affordable, I just don't see how mandatory coverage is going to do it.
They forgot about 9/11 about a month after it happened.
Agree a lot; but can we consider that the President only in for a month??.....sm
I am not going back to partisan politics, I think there are going to have to be many changes and many "solutions" before this economy can evea start to turn around, I pray it is sooner rather than later, but President Obama really has been condemned by many before he could even finish saying the oath of office....there is a lot of thinking and work that has to be done.
I don't have a white history month, either, but I'm okay with that.
X
If we did have a white history month
we would be called racists.
How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm
It took spending 1-1/2 BILLION dollars a month...sm
over years on the war in Iraq to get us to this point, borrowing from other countries, the highest deficit ever, printing money by the government with no gold behind it to drive the value of our dollar down around the world. Nothing to do with the democrats. When Bush became president we had a huge surplus. Did you forget that?
Wow, spot on . . .10 billions dollars a month . . .
for that war. For what? OIL. That money could go a long way to making sure EVERYBODY had healthcare and dramatically speed up the process of developing alternative energy sources! Why can no one see how much sense this makes?
Chrysler closing all 30 plants for 1 month.
x
where im currently living is okay... but
Nevada is hit HARD. South Carolina is doing fine as far as i can tell, but ive only been here two months.
my problem is my mortgage is in Nevada... so in turn, im not doing so great either.
hope everyone is doing as good as they can!
WOW! Then you are definitely living
in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Because from here on, you'll be told exactly what to do and when, and probably how you're supposed to feel about it.
Told what amount of money it is 'seemly' for you to earn, how much you MUST surrender to maintain the lifestyles of others, and how much you may be permitted to keep - if you promise to spend it properly. Told how much energy it is politically correct for you to use (please drive an approved vehicle) and what modern conveniences it is more 'green' to do without. Told not to think too much: 'The science is settled. The debate is over.' Told what medical tests and procedures it will be proper for you to receive and which (so very sorry) it would be better for society as a whole for you to forego, because there is only so much to go around. Told for your own good what to eat and taxed extra on the improper items you choose. (Unless, apparently, you receive food stamps, in which case limiting your choice would be unnecessarily judgmental.)
Perhaps some will see all this as gentle correction from a benevolent parent, but this micromanagement sneaking in incrementally cloaked in a smily face will not really make me feel better about being told what to do.
They ain't living unless they are being condescending
and down right vulgar (hence the expletives tonight). You're right.. the only time they have anything going here is when we come over. They have nothing constructive to talk about when they aren't looking down their noses at conservatives who question their statements or bashing Bush. It's a big yawnfest
That's why I'm using the moniker leftist/lib basher. The best way to rile them up is to call them by what they call themselves. Oh, wait a minute. They're progressives now. They'll be progressives until we call them that then they'll say we're calling them names and change it again. Yes, they have tender widdle feelings.
What I do for a living is immaterial...
although since I post on this forum it should be obvious I am in the transcription industry. What is to you if I reply to every post? Did I miss the meeting where that was outlawed or you were named moderator?
What makes you think I don't put my energy toward making a difference? Whether I do or not is also immaterial...and with all due respect...none of your business.
Do you not believe in freedom of speech? If you don't like my posts, don't read them.
Your living in your own little world
Anyone who doesn't believe this is happening are living in their own world. Am sure you probably believe what the government tells you also. We are living in end times, however, the religious fanatics need to cool it as a lot of people don't believe in the "left behind" garbage that is spewed. Another prime example of lies to keep the people preoccupied.
Some of us have to make a living.
Got kids. Need to cook and clean and transcribe, balance the checkbook, pay bills, clip coupons and grocery shop, feed the kitties, watch news and fact check to stay informed. Chat room cat fights are low priority for me, especially with posters like yourself and sam, unlike those who stay ready to pounch 24/7.
i saw that too. she is living proof
that a fetus is more than a glob of cells.
For those that feel that way, try living in another
A country that has been divided and divided again but still always one trying to overthrow the other. Remember Georgia? Russian leaders can't leave them alone. Georgia separated and became their own country but still their neighbors want to continually cause them trouble..... the U.S. can't go that way unless you don't mind that kind of war in your own back yard.
You need to do some history study of nations that have split and all they do is war, not because the majority of people don't want peace, but because they leaders of each individual country always seems to be greedy and want to rule EVERYONE, not just their own country.
What does living in the northeast have to do with anything...
it's expensive pretty much anywhere you live. Put your kids to work if they are old enough, especially if they go to school, to help pay for that expensive food bill.
And those of us who are conservative are living in fear that...
our courts will further erode our society to the point that everything goes. Heck, one third of the country already has to live with the notion that their 12-year-old can consent to an abortion without our knowledge (thanks to the 6th circuit court in California, legalize gay marriage without letting "we the people" decide how we want our society (yes, 78% of Americans are against it), and I could go on and on. Do you like the fact that another priviate citizen can now take your property just because HIS use of that property would generate more income for the government? Sounds like socialism is rapidly becoming fascism to me. You can thank the imminent domain decision to those wonderful progressives on the court. Yes, let's hope we get another Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court so our country can continue it's slide down the toilet.
Well, Mr. Clinton isn't living too shabbily himself
I think you better step back and rethink some of your claims before you say that Republicans are the only ones living in luxury etc. A funeral is a funeral not a political soapbox. Carter and Kennedy ought to be ashamed of themselves for making a memorial service into a political bash fest of the President who was sitting right there. How classless. You're absolute hatred of Bush is coming through to the fact that you can't see the mockery that was made of Mrs. King's funeral.
President Carter should be embarassed, but I don't think embarassment is a trait of liberals anymore.
Camera face time, and bashing Bush that's all that matters to them. They are blinded to decorum.
It must be nice living in ignorance. sm
You are certainly entitled to your opinion; however, you don't speak for any majority anywhere. None of us do. You have obviousy not done any research at all into what adult or embryonic stem cell research can and cannot do, what they wish to do, and the dire consequence that have been predicted for stem cell research, including brain tumors.
looks like a bunch of sheep to me living in USA..sm
hmmmmm....? Just because everyone is voting for Barack doesn't make any of it right - they all are bad candidates to some of us......
blechhhhhhhhhhhhh
JMO.........no flames required......
What with the rise in the cost of living....(sm)
its hard to make it on just $169,300 a year.....ROFL...they should try working with my budget.
He's just warming up for living life out
x
Then how are you making a comfortable living
Husband with better job & income? Otherwise how else would you be for some of the things you believe in, unless you were an MT that actually OWNS a large company?
This coment is living proof - nm
.
What would it be like living in a socialist country
Because we know Obama is a far left/socialist and if elected will change the country into a socialist country, can someone please tell us all what exactly that means for us. Seems too many people are dummed down by the TV reality shows that they don't pay enough attention to what is going on. So...because it's a fact about Obama, what will that mean for our country and what difficulties will be be facing.
You are living in a parallel universe where
and vanising middle-class citizens get the shaft.
Can you imagine living in a red state, and
having to walk down your street every day, knowing most, if not all, of your neighbors thought that way? Where trying to have an actual conversation with anyone would be like talking to a brick wall? Where you figure all the moms & dads sitting in bleachers at your kid's little league came probably wear white sheets at night? Brrrrrrrr.......
Gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Sorry to hear you are living in a world where
people who embrace it are deemed as suspicious, subversive liars. Good luck on getting people to believe in THAT gloomy forecast.
I've not been taken in. I am old but can still remember when I took great pride in being an American. I sat by in silent dismay as I watched W and his cronies divide us and dismantle the America I come from with his "for us or against us" mentality, post-911 visions that would usher in a new American colonial era, the slaughter of our civil liberties with the Patriot Act, and the erosion of our unity and common sense of purpose.
I watched the candidates present thier visions, and made a clear and educated choice as to who I trust to return us to where we were and restore the America I want for my son.
Once more...no amount of negativity you throw in my direction is going to change my resolve to continue this fight to take our country back from those who I believe came very close to destroying it.
As opposed to a living human being
raped, murdered, beaten,and tortured. I'm sorry, I find that much more atrocious.
Living in the land of Camelot
I have a hard time believing anyone alive during JFK's administration could still believe that fairytale. He most definitely was not one of the greatest leaders of all time.
But you're right about Obama inspiring millions in much the same way, and I certainly agree that he will be transformational.
I guess you don't like living - see message
Living in a safer country than what it was when Clinton was in.
I guess you don't like lower taxes than when the last democratic president/congress was in.
I guess you don't like the freedoms America gives us.
I guess you don't mind paying higher taxes while the rich corporate greedy you know whats keep their $90million and more bonus (from the help of the democrats) while the rest of us gets taxed higher so they can keep theirs.
I guess you don't mind living in socialism.
You are living in some high a.. place and I wish
the lake front property I sold about a year or so ago had gone per acre what they said yours was worth, oops, lacking $10 it did sell for that much. Am not good with math. The taxes on that were not much, thank goodness because my own home taxes were quite high. Seems like when 1 place comes down (or off) then somewhere else taxes it back on. Close to me in Atlanta last year water restrictions on due to drought- people followed and now the rates for water have gone up.
O lovers just living in denial..... he has let them go
nm
They are the first people who would cry and moan and whine if, living under
socialism they love so very much, their goods were redistributed. Elitists.
It has to be hard living in a glass house...sm
Newt is classic. *Let Our Family Represent Your Family.* No thanks!
My favorite line:
**When it comes to personal morality, liberal commentators have long argued that the press has one standard for Democrats and another for Republicans (and another one entirely for the Clintons).**
Ron Paul scares the living daylights out of me. He is
xxx
|
