I really have to chuckle when I hear the neocons bringing up the "spread the wealth" nonsense. C'mon. Are you really that blind? For the last eight years it's been "steal the wealth", from no-bid contracts to Halliburton to $4 a gallon gas to trillion dollar bail outs for the Wall Street thieves.
If Obama is going to "spread the wealth", he's going to take it back from the fat cats that have been stealing it for the last eight years and give it to the rest of us.
According to...
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/
...my taxes will go down $1000 with Obama and $100 with McCain. How about yours?
It amazes me to see so many people be convinced by the neocons to actually vote against their best interests!
Words are cheap, actions from Obama are non-existent!
Income tax isn't the only way you're taxed, fool. But hey, throw away your vote on someone that's done NOTHING other than campaign for himself. Why bother voting for someone that's actually DONE something. Apparently the big picture must surely be too big for your limited vision. But hey, I make a ton of money, I'll just lump whatever increases they levy onto my clients. Which will, in turn levy it onto theirs... ie YOU. The taxes will trickle down back on YOU, not me, suckers.
Can we stick to the issues and avoid the name calling?
People on both sides of this debate are insulting each other rather than arguing points of view and sticking to issues. Smart people can disagree and engaging in name calling really detracts more from the credibility of the person issuing the insult than the target of their derision.
Respectfully,
Ian G Heller
Can we stick to the issues and avoid the name calling?
People on both sides of this debate are insulting each other rather than arguing points of view and sticking to issues. Smart people can disagree and engaging in name calling really detracts more from the credibility of the person issuing the insult than the target of their derision.
There's no reason not to question these items:
What did 'realty market' do to US and even the global economy when it unraveled?
What is Congress'/Committees role in protecting the citizens they 'represent'?
What current MAJORITY leaders (and party) are in charge of those key committees?
What committees are specifically in charge of the economy/realty oversight?
What Committees/Leaders were to oversee - Freddie/Fannie, economy?
What leaders received direct campaign support FROM F/F - voted PORK TO them?
What did F/F do about un-qualified buyers? - packaging of bad loans to Wall St.?
What program promoted 'don't-ask' lending to the un-qualified buyers?
What philosophy and groups support(still?) 'houses-for-everyone'?
What community 'groups' organized to demand this supposed "right-to-own"?
Whose key resume item is 'community organizer' (for groups like ACORN)?
What 'community' group is now creating organized voting fraud?
What group/party does that seem to MOST benefit now?
WHO is the Pres. candidate for that group?
Are these questions in ANY way related..
Again, if ANY of the above were NOT the case...
WHERE WOULD WE BE - RIGHT NOW - ??
and ...
WHY can't we just ASK about this without "FEAR OF the Press..."?
(like Joe the Plumber)
If that's the way that CHANGE is coming to the country - will it still be free..
or will it truly be something 'different'....(dare to look ahead - and see
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
We are so focused on the Two Political parties that we forget or do we know that there are more contenders for the Presidential position. Why do we not hear them speak?
We listened to Ralph Nader tell the truth and saw him make things work yet we do not allow him to speak before the American people in the same capacity as the two political parties. Why are their words kept from the American people?
We do have free speech...that is censored by Main Stream Media that is owned by Corporate America who buys the vote that has the most profits to lose, the greed that takes down the house from within.
If all those who did not want either of the top two would vote for who they wanted and not to keep the other out…we just might see another political party in office.
You can't walk on water if you won't get out the boat!
You're absolutely right, Bill. Income tax is not the only tax. $4 per gallon gas, which is what you get when you let big oil take over the White House, is like the most regressive tax of all.
Social Security is a big tax, too. Bush/McSame wanted to privatize that, in which case we all would have lost what little retirement protection we have to the thieves on Wall Street - the very ones that McCain wants unregulated.
You're saying that you'd rather vote for someone with a BAD record than you would for someone with no record.
I think it was Einstein that defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expected a different result.
Good to see one of the most contentious elections in the last century is getting contentious here as well.
I don't know enough, or even much, about what the real issues are. In that I'm probably in the same situation as most of the people voting. So I'm going to come down to plain old opinion and belief and the facts be damned. The following people scare the hell out of me or have scared the hell out of me. GW Bush, GW Bush Snr, Cheney, McCain, Palin, Rove, Rumsfeld, Blair and all the advisors, speech writers and handlers behind them. They've had control of the game for too long. So if I was voting, I'd be voting against them and not necessarily for whoever was running against them. And it seems to me that this negative voting is what its come down to. That collection of people have had their chance and now its time for an alternative. It's the same thing that took Wilson to power in 1964, Carter in 1974, Thatcher in 1979, Blair in 1997 and many other examples. I don't particularly want Obama to win. But I really, really don't want Cheney/Palin and everybody around them to win. I also think that the US really needs to pull together and get behind whoever wins. I think that might happen with Obama. But if McCain wins, I think it will deepen the divide, not reduce it.
I don't think I'm alone in thinking this way.
When its our turn, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be voting to get Labour out and not to get Cameron in. For the same reasons.
The American people are so miss informed that it actually make us look foolish to other countries !
For the first time in our country's history the financial system came up with a program that would allow anyone to achieve the American dream.
But what happened ??
GREED !!!!
From Investor, Builder's, Real Estate Companies, Homeowners and the list goes on.
There was no need for the housing prices to go up !! Hadn't the prices gone up the system would have worked.
I personally saw homes that were worth $70,000.00 marked up by 100%. You can't blame the system for that !!
Now we blame the mortgage brokers for not informing their clients ( Bull ).. You can not educate people in 30 - 90 days about mortgages, when it takes years to really learn the basics ! There were people that were told don't buy a new car, new furniture, etc ! But they did anyway !!!
Now when those rates started to rise and they couldn't make the payments, it became everybody else's fault..
Some choosing to give up their homes and keep the car and furniture !!!
You don't have to be a star commentator to know who is wrong ! Not Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac ! Is not totally at fault...
We need to stop listening to the news reporters and look at the whole picture, People on welfare driving Explorers & Cadillacs.. does anyone hear what i am saying ???
Don't name call !! Put the housing prices back to where everyone can afford to have a home ! There was some good people that got hurt because of Greed..
J
B
H
Whoever wins - What a lot of work dumped on them !
No offense, Lisa, but Nader himself is probably the only person that doesn't think his candidacy in 2000 handed the election to the neocons. Someone needs to stick a pin in his ego. If Nader really believed in what he says, he would be supporting the Democratic candidates, because their policies are so much closer to his than the Republicans.
By running a campaign, he hands victory to the very powers he opposes. Nothing could be more self-serving or cynical. It proves that he doesn't really believe in the progressive policies he espouses. He's just interested in promoting himself.
If you listen closely to what he says, the rhetoric isn't much different than what's coming out of the Obama camp. The only difference is that the Obama camp is realistic and pragmatic. They realize that they need more than just the 20 percent of the citizenry classed as "progressive" in order to get elected, and so they try to create a broader appeal.
Forward thinking people need to get their heads out of the clouds and stop promoting Nader before he hands yet another election to the neocons!
I have already voted since I will be working at the polls come Tuesday next.
My vote went to Obama, living in Maine, USA, this state was once a solid red state, but it has turned to blue state in national elections.
Whoever wins, I hope God guides him for the betterment of all Americans, and this new President can once again reclaim the greatness of America which has gone down the drain during the past 8 years of mis-rule.
I don't mind giving my opinion but I don't believe the polls are always shown in an honest way because I have seen with my eyes and heard with my ears lies that are spoken within the liberal media which in reporting news they now give the news based on their own views instead of fair reportnig that we had years ago. It is no longer that way.
Besides that, I do not put my trust in polls or even people to run this country or the world for that matter. I put my trust in God and I pray for His will be done because He says that HE is the one that appoints those who are in office. God says in Romans 13:1:
"Let every person be subject to the governmental authorities. For there is NO power, but of God: the powers that BE are established BY God."
God tells me to stand up for what He speaks in His Word, to stand for what is right in God's eyes and not in the eyes of the world because there is much deception in the world's views. Therefore, God expects me to vote according to what person best represents God's views. God tells me to fight for the poor, needy, brokenhearted and those who are too young or mentally capable to fight on their own. And the way I fight is to pray and speak up for God's truth and expose the lies by filing for petitions, by signing petitions, by voting, by speaking and doing all I can to bring everything out into the open and into the light. There are other ways God can call me to do His will and I will do it and I know that God would never leave me to do any acts of evil or that goes against His Word, which is the Bible. That's the way God works through and with His children. His children are those who put their complete trust in God and surrender their lives to Him, asking Christ to come in and admitting they are a sinner and fallen short of God's standards. God also has His own sovereign will that what HE says will come to pass WILL come to pass. Its better to be on GOD'S side WHEN these things do come to pass.
So I do not fear anything that goes on in this world because my trust is not in it. I don't trust the stock market to provide for me, I don't trust the economy to provide for me, I don't trust presidents, kings or queens for my welfare because no matter what the world comes to my God will always provide for me. He has provided for me even when things may appear impossible. He is always faithful and comes through.
"For whether I live, I live to the Lord; and whether I die, I die to the Lord: whether I live therefore, or die I am the Lord's." Romans 14:8
"So then everyone of us shall give an account of himself to God." Romans 14:12
Because of my personal relationship with God I have complete peace in me no matter what external conditions are in the world. That can only come with God's Son, Jesus, living in me. Jesus is called the "prince of peace" and its not just a title but it is true and alive literal peace that I feel and have in me at all times.
I love all of you, my prayers are with you and your relationships and businesses.
As chair of the Libertarian Party of Texas, I was happy to see so many Libertarians on the ballot. This year we have an alltime record of 173 candidates on the ballot in Texas (www.LPTexas.org). I can prove that Libertarians can get elected since I am serving my second term on city council (www.PatDixon.org)
Personally, I think if I build my business I should be able to dictate where my money goes. This is a country where EVERY person (with minor exceptions) has the same opportunity to build a business or make big money in the corporate arena, or whatever.... Anyone (with minor exceptions) that is poor in this country and has done NOTHING about it, is well........fill in the blank......
Call me mean.... I don't care.... I'm just saying what most of you are already thinking.
With that said, I'm not dissing Obama because he has the "spread the wealth" mentality, I'm not voting for him because he's going to sign The Freedom of Choice Act immediately when/if he's elected. Which means, abortion will be legal all the way to to the ninth month. He's already signed a bill in Illinois that will NOT protect a LIVING baby through a botched abortion. Don't believe me? Go to: www.priestsforlife.com. Another Holocaust..... and we said "never again".... sad, sad, sad. God help us.
Based on what you want and don't want in a candidate, you should reconsider Senator Obama's actual background and positions rather than relying on propaganda.
You said, "He has also shown little willingness to reach across the isle to accomplish bipartisan goals."
• Authored about a half-dozen "major laws".
• The best example of his leadership style was bipartisan legislation in Illinois to require the videotaping of police interrogations, which is now a national model.
• In Washington he has his name on three important laws: the first major ethics reform since Watergate; a much-needed cleanup of conventional weapons in the former Soviet Union, and the "Google for Government" bill, an accountability tool that requires notice of all federal contracts to be posted online
• In January 2007, the president signed Obama and Lugar's legislation aimed at improving nonproliferation efforts, including eliminating stockpiles of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.
• Joined Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in introducing legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism. A provision from the Obama-Hagel bill was passed by Congress in December 2007 as an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
You said, "Raising taxes on anyone but especially business owners on any level would be a poor decision"
Mybarackobama.com Issues Taxes
• Obama's plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut - his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
• Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
• Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses to encourage innovation and job creation. Obama and Biden will also support small business owners by providing a $500 "Making Work Pay" tax credit to almost every worker in America. Self-employed small business owners pay both the employee and the employer side of the payroll tax, and this measure will reduce the burdens of this double taxation.
You said, "The main problem with spread the wealth or more socialistic policies is that giving handouts instead of offering a hand up to people will not result in increased productivity."
• What "handouts" are you talking about; I don't find any in the Obama-Biden issue statements?
• A hand up: Make college affordable to all Americans:
Obama and Biden will create a new American Opportunity Tax Credit worth $4,000 in exchange for community service. It will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students.
You said, "Government needs to return to its role as a regulatory and stabilizing force in business, not an owner of private companies."
Obama:
In February of 2006, I introduced legislation to stop mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk or abuse.
A year later, before the crisis hit, I warned Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke about the risks of mounting foreclosures and urged them to bring together all the stakeholders to find solutions to the subprime mortgage meltdown.
Last September, I stood up at NASDAQ and said it's time to realize that we are in this together - that there is no dividing line between Wall Street and Main Street - and warned of a growing loss of trust in our capital markets.
This March, in the wake of the Bear Stearns bailout, I called for a new, 21st century regulatory framework to restore accountability, transparency, and trust in our financial markets.
A six principle plan of legal reform:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/confronting_an_economic_crisis.html
McCain:
December 17 in New Hampshire: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should,"
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/
2007/12/mccain_its_abou.html
On a day when Wall Street was melting down, Republican Sen. John McCain insisted Monday that the nation's economy was "fundamentally strong,"
By Russ Britt, MarketWatch
Last update: 6:12 p.m. EDT Sept. 15, 2008
McCain told a newspaper that he'd love to give them a solution to the mortgage crisis, "but" - he said - "I don't know one." "I'm always for less regulation," he said, and referred to himself as "fundamentally a deregulator."
It sounds to me that the candidate who is in alignment with you say you want is Senator Obama.
I don't know of any "welfare" programs to give money to poor people who have done "nothing" to help themselves suggested by the Obama campaign, do you? If so, would you please share the specifics?
The partial birth abortion smear is just that:
Here's the truth about Barack Obama and the bill:
At the time Barack voted against a bill containing language designed to protect infants who were "born alive," such protection was already on the books as Illinois state law.[1]
The accusations against Barack are so reckless that not even the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill will support them. In fact, he freely admits that "None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide."[2]
The bill was opposed by many legislators and groups like the Illinois Medical Society because of the unintended impact it would have had on other laws and legal precedents in Illinois.[3]
Banks were already funding sub-prime loans before fannie and freddie ever got involved. It was GREED that caused folks to push homebuyers to purchase more than they could afford, and to "help" them qualify--so they could get the big commissions. The fox was guarding the hen house. And lots of those "deals" were "investors" hoping to make a mint, and people hoping to flip the homes and make a killing.
Those Community home loans turned out to be a 20% profit center for banks.
Is it that you make over $600,000, that's where the tax bite will be felt?
A little comparison on your "nothing" statement:
McCain: 26 years in Congress
Managing a staff, leading committees.
Legislation:
• Authored less than a half-dozen major laws.
• Most significant was the landmark 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill.
• Other important work: Paved the way, with John Kerry, in
1995 for normalization of relations with Vietnam.
WHY SO FEW BILLS IN 26 YEARS?
Newsweek reported: "Given his claims of two decades of 'making change,' his record of legislative achievement is surprisingly thin. Nothing big on the economy, education, health care, law enforcement or other major issues. One reason for the sparse
record is McCain's history of unpopularity with his GOP Senate colleagues. Being labeled a 'maverick' sounds good to the public
but makes it hard to get bills passed. Besides helping pave the way for some judicial nominees in 2005, he isn't known for
forging bipartisan deals that stick."
Attendance: Absent 63.5%
Obama:
12 years as a legislator.
Constitution Professor
Attorney
"Giving back to his community" with volunteer board work
Managing a staff, leading committees
Legislation:
• Authored about a half-dozen "major laws".
• The best example of his leadership style was bipartisan legislation in Illinois to require the videotaping of police interrogations, which is now a national model.
• In Washington he has his name on three important laws: the first major ethics reform since Watergate; a much-needed cleanup of conventional weapons in the former Soviet Union, and the "Google for Government" bill, an accountability tool that requires notice of all federal contracts to be posted online
• In January 2007, the president signed Obama and Lugar's legislation aimed at improving nonproliferation efforts, including eliminating stockpiles of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.
• Joined Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in introducing legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism. A provision from the Obama-Hagel bill was passed by Congress in December 2007 as an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
Attendance: Missed 45.5%
Bill, what is it again that you dislike about Senator Obama?
How does NPR rank on 'fairness'/bias in their reporting..?
What funding sources, political ties, leanings, etc?
- how does that answer these questions -
("Your Comments" - merged with prior questions)
"Banks were already funding sub-prime loans before fannie and freddie ever got involved."
o What program promoted 'don't-ask' lending to the un-qualified buyers?
o What philosophy and groups support(still?) 'houses-for-everyone'?
o What community 'groups' organized to demand this supposed "right-to-own"?
o Whose key resume item is 'community organizer' (for groups like ACORN)?
"It was GREED that caused folks to push homebuyers to purchase more than they could afford,
and to "help" them qualify--so they could get the big commissions.
The fox was guarding the hen house."
o What is Congress'/Committees role in protecting the citizens they 'represent'?
o What current MAJORITY leaders (and party) are in charge of those key committees?
o What committees are specifically in charge of the economy/realty oversight?
o What Committees/Leaders were to oversee - Freddie/Fannie, economy?
o What leaders received direct campaign support FROM F/F - voted PORK TO them?
o What did F/F do about un-qualified buyers? - packaging of bad loans to Wall St.?
o What program promoted 'don't-ask' lending to the un-qualified buyers?
o What philosophy and groups support(still?) 'houses-for-everyone'?
"And lots of those "deals" were "investors" hoping to make a mint,
and people hoping to flip the homes and make a killing."
o is making a profit in realty/business denied..what is the 'limit' to be..?
o What is Congress'/Committees role in protecting the citizens they 'represent'?
o What current MAJORITY leaders (and party) are in charge of those key committees?
o What committees are specifically in charge of the economy/realty oversight?
"Those Community home loans turned out to be a 20% profit center for banks."
o So, what is your point here..?
- and I don't seem to see answers to:
o What program promoted 'don't-ask' lending to the un-qualified buyers?
o What philosophy and groups support(still?) 'houses-for-everyone'?
o What community 'groups' organized to demand this supposed "right-to-own"?
o WHOse key resume item is 'community organizer' (for groups like ACORN)?
o What 'community' group is now creating organized voting fraud?
o What group/party does that seem to MOST benefit now?
o WHO is the Pres. candidate for that group?
o What is Congress'/Committees role in protecting the citizens they 'represent'?
and
...WILL they - or HE...?
From the UK, Election America is like the next door neighbour having a loud 3am party. You want to knock on the door and tell them to shut up. Or call the Police and give them an ASBO. Or something.
I have absolutely no idea what these words mean in the context of US politics. Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Socialism, Welfare, Left wing, Right wing, Big/Small government, Free speech, Free Market. And there's many more.
Is there an equivalent to Godwin's law for the rise in probability with thread length that some politician will be compared to Stalin?
Politicians throughout the world are so steeped in bullsh*t that you need an attack dog of an interviewer to cut through it. Such a pity that Paxman and Jon Snow couldn't interview Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin. It feels like all four of them have been given a very easy time.
I want to see journalists doing reporting to work to present the truth and nothing but the truth and to do it dispassionately and deeply. And I want Analysis and Editorial of the news to be highly opinionated. And I want to be able to easily tell which is which. I don't see any place for "balance" or "fair" in that. The problem is that the two aspects of news are confused. And because it requires language even straight journalism is open to interpretation. When it comes to Fox its relatively easy to see the bias. In the broadsheets its considerably harder. By the time you get to The Times or the BBC, the propaganda and underlying attitude colouring the news is extremely subtle and exceedingly hard to spot. fnord.
Liberal = Slightly right of centre. Euro-Liberal = Left Wing Authoritarian Idealist
Conservative = Extreme right wing. Euro-Conservative = Slightly right of centre pragmatist
Libertarian = Right wing free market fanatic. Euro-Libertarian = Believer in anarchism and tiny government
The one I really have a problem with is Free Market. Which seems to mean government sanctioned and controlled oligopoly (monopoly, duopoly, etc) and/or government supported special interest group.
Most of the terms I mentioned actually seem to be terms of abuse rather than descriptive of anything.
But back to the beginning. Liberal - Conservative. I do have a hard time telling the difference and in the US the terms describe very different politics to those that we apply the terms to in Europe. To those of us brought up in the post war mixed economy, pretty much anywhere in Europe, the need for a safety net for the poor, a welfare state and for a nationalised health system seems completely self-evident. Equally the need for certain infrastructure industries to be state run also seems self-evident. It's a bit of a shock to discover that these ideas are still very contentious and generate such heated debate in the USA.
And look I've managed to avoid mentioning Religion. Oh dear. Failed!
To those of you opposing the Obama candidacy based solely on the issue of a woman's right to choose, like the poster claiming to be voting for "life", on which "lives" are you basing your decision? When we hear McCain singing "Bomb Iran", it makes me wonder how many more innocent children will die, and what makes an Arab or Persian life worth less than a fetus in the West?
You cannot oppose Obama based on such an ideal without opposing war - all war. Who would Jesus bomb? A vote for McCain is a vote for DEATH. Is it OK, because the people being killed are ethnically different than you?
The same thing goes for stem cell research. Growing children in the third world are not less valuable than a clump of cells on a petrie dish, and to suggest anything else makes you a racist of the worst kind.
I have to wonder how many more innocent lives will be lost - chalked up to acceptable "collateral damage" - if McCain wins as compared to how many more fetuses will die if Obama wins.
McCain will have a hard time overturning Roe v. Wade, so a vote for him is essentially a vote for more death, destruction and the murder of innocents.
It's time for people that claim to be Christians to act that way!!!
Richard (Rick) Henry
CEO & President
Leisure Destination Group
As a business owner, an American, a person that pays all of the taxes prescribed by law, a registered Independent voter, and a human being with a sincere interest in seeing what is actually before me rather than listening to someone else's interpretation, I appreciate the talent of being able to discuss what is obvious in an intelligent fashion. Look at George W. Bush and make your own observations without being concerned about how your view of the obvious may reflect on the Republican party. In other words be truthful with your self. In the same manner observe John McCain and Barack Obama and then honor your understanding of what is best for the country. God save us all if religion ever plays a part in that understanding. Regardless, consider what is obviuosly best for the country, because as the country goes, so do each of us.
The recent 'installation art' hanging effigy of Governor Palin begs these questions:
- does the 'Caucasian' race have any rights - or at least the same ones?
- if not - why not? - is that "fairness"..'racial prejudice'?
- will this CHANGE - or be corrected?
What about the manikins of Pelosi, Reid, and Kennedy..
- can my neighbor continue to hang them for her 'Halloween' fun
- will the ACLU now defend her (if she's a 'non-white' citizen?)
- or accuse her because she's a 'Caucasion'?
- does 'fair' already have two/more meanings?
- is CHANGE already here - or is more coming..?
Why did McCain veto Senate bill 755 the Missing Military Service Personnel?
The bill was to hold our Government responsible for the accountability of our Military Personnel. To prevent the brave people from being left behind unaccounted for.
Yet he tried to capitalize on the fact that he was a P.O.W.
I am a proud American who is disappointed by our Government officials who have purposely misled the public for their own profit.
Disgusted that the corporate elite deem themselves entitled to gross compensation at the risk of the financial instability of their companies.
Understanding the organization needed for another party to win, now is not the time to vote otherwise.
You can't walk on water if you won't get out the boat!
Based on the donations to just the election process,
there is certainly more than enough money to go around
to be had from those same 'unselfish patriotic' election donors
- to erase the national debt within a matter of mere months!!
What if they add in what the Congressional leaders have already given ACORN and Freddie/Fannie of "everyone's" money and tried to add more to in the 'bail-out', and then "redistribute" all the kickbacks normally received by those same Congressional leaders from ACORN and Freddie/Fannie for having supported their insider deals...perhaps there'd be no 'Economic Crisis' in the first place - or anymore.......?
In all "fairness" to the apparent majority of "patriotic" voters "For Change" - since they apparently 'HAVE MORE', those who believe that more taxation of those who 'have' to the benefit of those who 'don't have' SHOULD Pay For It - ALL of IT. Is that the CHANGE we can believe in,,?
Why am I suspicious that ALL of US will instead have to bear this burden - or be investigated - or....
All the money the 'government' has - was once upon a time - all YOURS!
What other 'CHANGE' is coming...?
I think a vote for McCain is a vote for freedom, a vote for Obama is taking away my freedom. My freedom to give to what charities I want to give to, and believe me, I give a larger % than he or Biden do. I should have the freedom to work hard, and be successful, and not have to pay 60% of what I make so your kids can have health care, because you do not want to work. When I say you, I do not mean anyone on this site in particular. I want the freedom to spend the money I make the way I see fit. I want the freedom to choose a place to build a house, and not have the govt. control everything. I would rather not pay for someone elses kids to go to college, but my own. I want the freedom to choose what kind of lightbulb I use. I want the freedom to own guns. I want the freedom not to have to pay humungous electric and gas bills. I want the freedom of speech, and if I speak against him, I do not want to be investigated. I do not think there should be partial birth abortions.
Those of you who mention Jesus, how many wars did God initiate, so his chosen person could be in power? How much death was there then? He still believed in children. How many children died on 9-11? Several were in that daycare. We do not intentionally kill children or innocent people in wars. If the leaders use schools and other places to set up their operations, we have little choice. For those of you who already voted, I hope you know what you are getting this country into. I still strongly believe McCain has a shot, and I also believe, with God, all things are possible.
Yes, there can be pro life and pro war. If it were your child vs. the enemies child, who lives? Who dies?
I do not understand why so many people are anti corporations. Even corporations seem to be anticorporations. If their taxes go up, guess who pays more for everything, all of us. Food will be higher, gas will be higher, electricity will be higher, (unless I get to pay for your electricity too) How fair is that. I work 3 jobs, why should I have to pay so much?
This mortgage Mess started back under Clinton, when he ordered Mortage companies to give loans to high risk people, promising the taxpayers would cover any losses. I guess he did not know the losses would be so enormous. Then Raines and Dodd were incharge, giving millions to mostly deomocratic candidates to look the other way. Guess who advises Obama on the countries financial status..those two. They left with over 90 million dollars. What do they do with all that money?
It is on tape that McCain tried to get the president to investigate and take control of what these giants were doing, he was voted down, guess by who...Democrats. Of course, they (democrats) were getting lots of money fro these companies. You know if the republicans were getting deals, they would be in the headlines right now. There is no balance in the media, which is alarming. Very socialist.
I hate to tell you this, but it was majority Democrats who voted for this bail out. Only a few betraying republicans voted for it. Obama voted for it too. Do you think he is not getting money from these "fat cats" The oil company gets .08cents for every dollar spent on gas. The US and state govt. gets about .60cents per dollar spent. Does that sound fair. The oil companies charged based on what other countries were selling it to us. You know, Obama thinks $12.00 a gallon is a realistic price for gas. It is on video, he said it.
Did you know that Obama was not truly elected into the senate? He found some dirt on the other guy, using his miriad of investigators, and the other guy dropped out. He is not qualified to be president. What will he do when anyone says anything agains him, have us locked up for treason?
He is a controlling, egotistical authoritarian.
I suppose if he wins, I can only go buy a gun and hide it.
I am so amazed at how fooled he has so many people.
And regarding the mortgage mess, the fact is that all of the regulators are Presidential appointees serving in the executive branch. If what Clinton did was so wrong then why didn't President Bush and his regulators fix the problem in the EIGHT YEARS they were in office to prevent this disaster?
When something bad happened when Ronald Reagan was President, he said, "I take responsibility, it happened on my watch." This financial disaster happened on President Bush's watch and it is very clearly his responsibility.
I am not here to change your mind. I do know that the resounding problem started to be noticed about 2 years ago, and all of congress became democratic, and the votes were not there to revise the situation. Yes, I know McCain voted for it too. I am not a strong supporter of McCain. In my view he is the lesser of 2 evils.
I am wondering if people on this blog actually expect to get free gas, mmortgage paymets, and can go on free trips with Obama in charge. That was a video clip of one of his supporters. I do believe many are going to be very disallusioned.
And regarding the mortgage mess, the fact is that all of the regulators are Presidential appointees serving in the executive branch. If what Clinton did was so wrong then why didn't President Bush and his regulators fix the problem in the EIGHT YEARS they were in office to prevent this disaster?
When something bad happened when Ronald Reagan was President, he said, "I take responsibility, it happened on my watch." This financial disaster happened on President Bush's watch and it is very clearly his responsibility.
CNN projects that Barack Obama will be the nation's 44th president. As polls closed on the West coast, the Illinois senator was projected to receive enough electoral votes to pass the 270-vote threshold.
Obama is projected to win California, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii.
He also is projected to win Virginia, a state that hasn't voted for a Democratic president since 1964. As Obama built up a commanding lead over Sen. John McCain, senior aides to the Arizona senator were growing pessimistic about his chances. When asked if they saw a path to victory, two senior McCain aides said no.
CNN earlier projected that Obama will win Ohio, a key battleground state with 20 electoral votes.
No Republican has won the White House without winning Ohio. Going into the election, polls showed Obama with a 3-point lead there. Obama and McCain are running a tight race in Indiana as results are tallied in the battleground state. With about 85 percent of precincts reporting, McCain held a slim lead in the state. In addition to the presidential contest, voters were making choices in a number of key House and Senate races that could determine whether the Democrats strengthen their hold on Congress. Former Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat, will win a Senate seat in Virginia, CNN projects. He will replace retiring Republican Sen. John Warner. Incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole, a Republican, is projected to lose her North Carolina seat to Democratic challenger Kay Hagan. Dole is the wife of 1996 Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole. CNN also projects Democrats will win two other Senate seats currently held by Republicans. In New Hampshire, former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen will win over incumbent John Sununu, and in New Mexico, Democrat Tom Udall will defeat Republican Steve Pearce.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell held onto his seat in Kentucky.
Delaware voters re-elected Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, to his seventh term. CNN's Ed Henry said there were lots of long faces in the lobby of the McCain headquarters at the Arizona Biltmore hotel as McCain allies watched returns showing Senate Republicans losing their seats. McCain and Obama were both expected to be watching the results come in from their home states. McCain said Tuesday night that he was "looking forward to the election results." "We had a great ride. We had a great experience. It's full of memories that we will always treasure," he said aboard his election plane. CNN does not project a winner in any state until all polls have closed in that state. CNN projections are based on actual results and exit poll data from key areas.
Richard (Rick) Henry
CEO & President
Leisure Destination Group
We are fortunate, that in our lifetime, such a person as Barack Obama has decided to accept the responsibility of the office of President. George Bush was such an incompetent leader and embarassment, that this time around Americans would accept nothing less than the best statesman and governor available, no matter from which political party he comes. Will he solve the nation's problems? Of course not. The US government is designed for the representatives of the people to formulate solutions. The president and the executive branch is designed to reflect the genuine intent of the American people, and challenge the congress to respond to the wishes of the people. So, change is gauranteed, because George Bush, by his unconscionable acts, galvanized the intent of the American people, and Barack Obama has received the mandate from the people. . .restore the country's integrity and respect within the international community, and then do everything possible to help restore balance within the global enviroment. The enormity of task is recognized and expressed by Obama, and the majority of the American people are agreeing to help in every way possible. My personal commitment is to get out of his way, and help in every way possible, which is why I am expressing my understanding within this forum.
Yes, we are in high spirits here in America, but it is tempered. America has been brought to the brink of the abyss by our present government administration, and all that has happened is that we've taken a step back. The same dark forces that have brought us to this point are still instilled in our government, industry, churches and military, and they will stand in the way of any positive or progressive change. Mr. Obama faces a challenge like none other in modern history.
Obama is the first post-boomer open-source President.
In February of 2007, a friend telephoned Marc Andreessen, the founder of Netscape and a board member of Facebook, and asked if he wanted to meet with a young man with an idea that sounded preposterous on its face. Always game for something new, Andreessen headed out to the San Francisco airport late one night to hear the guy out. A junior member of a large powerful organization with a thin, but impressive résumé, he was about to take on far more powerful forces in a battle for leadership. He wondered if the power of social networking, with its tremendous communication capabilities and aggressive database development, might help him beat the overwhelming odds facing him.
"It was like a guy in a garage who was thinking of taking on the biggest names in the business. What he was doing shouldn't have been possible, but we see a lot of that out here and then something clicks. He was clearly supersmart and very entrepreneurial, a person who saw the world and the status quo as malleable."
And as it turned out, Barack Obama, now president-elect, was right.
Like a lot of Web innovators, the Obama campaign did not invent anything completely new.
Instead, by bolting together social-networking applications under the banner of a movement, they created an unforeseen force to raise money, organize locally, fight smear campaigns and get out the vote that helped them topple the Clinton machine and then the Republicans. As a result, when he arrives at the White House, Obama will have not just a political base, but a database, millions of names of supporters who can be engaged almost instantly. And there's every reason to believe that he will use the network not just to campaign, but to govern. His e-mail to supporters on Tuesday night included the line,
"We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next."
The Bush campaign arrived at the White House with a conviction that it would continue a conservative revolution with the help of Karl Rove's voter lists, phone banks and direct mail. But those tools were crude and expensive compared with what the Obama camp is bringing to the Oval Office.
"I think it is very significant that he was the first post-boomer candidate for president. Other politicians I have met with are always impressed by the Web and surprised by what it could do, but their interest sort of ended in how much money you could raise. He was the first politician I dealt with who understood that the technology was a given and that it could be used in new ways."
The juxtaposition of a networked, open-source campaign and a historically imperial office will have profound implications and raise significant questions. Special-interest groups and lobbyists will now contend with an environment of transparency and a president that owes them nothing. The news media will now be contending with an administration that can take its case directly to its base without even booking time on the networks.
More profoundly, while many people think that Obama is a gift to the Democratic Party, he could actually hasten its demise.
Political parties supply brand, ground troops, money and relationships, all things that Obama already owns. And his relationships are not the just traditional ties of Democrats, teachers' unions, party faithful and Hollywood moneybags, but a network of supporters who used a distributed model of phone banking to organize and get out the vote, helped raise a record-breaking $600 million, and created all manner of media that was viewed millions of times. It was an online movement that begat offline behavior, including producing youth voter turnout that may have supplied the margin of victory.
"Thomas Jefferson used newspapers to win the presidency, FDR used radio to change the way he governed, JFK was the first president to understand television, and Howard Dean saw the value of the Web for raising money. But Senator Barack Obama understood that you could use the Web to lower the cost of building a political brand, create a sense of connection and engagement, and dispense with the command-and-control method of governing to allow people to self-organize to do the work."
All of the Obama supporters who traded their personal data for a ticket to a rally or an e-mail alert about the vice presidential choice, or opted in on Facebook or MyBarackObama, can now be mass e-mailed at a cost close to zero. And instead of the constant polling that has been a motor of presidential governance, an Obama White House can use the Web to measure voter attitudes.
"When you think about it, a campaign is a start-up business. Other than his speech in 2004 at the convention and his two books, Obama had very little in terms of brand to begin with and he was up against Senator Clinton, who had all the traditional sources of power, and then Senator McCain. But he had the right people and the right idea to take them on. When you think about it, it was like he was going up against Google and Yahoo. And he won."
There is tremendous power in opening up citizen access to government - think of how much good will and support Mayor Michael Bloomberg garnered by coming up with 311, a one-stop phone number for New Yorkers who had a problem.
Obama's 20-month-long conversation with the electorate is entering a new phase.
There is sense of ownership, a kind of possessive entitlement, on the part of the people who worked to elect him. The shorthand for his organizing Web site, "MyBo," says it all.
"People will continue to expect a conversation, a two-way relationship that is a give and take. People who were part of the campaign will opt in to political or governing tracks and those relationships will continue in some form."
The founders of America wanted a government that reflected its citizens but would be at remove from the baser impulses of the mob. The mob, flush with victory, is at hand, but instead of pitchforks and lanterns they have broadband and YouTube. Like every other presidency, the Obama administration will have its battles with the media, but that may seem like patty-cake if it runs afoul of the self-publishing, self-organizing democracy it helped create - say, by delaying health care legislation or breaking a promise on taxes.
That's the thing about pipes today: they run both ways.
"It's clear there has been a dramatic shift," said Andrew Rasiej, the founder of the Personal Democracy Forum, an annual conference about the intersection between politics and technology. "Any politician who fails to recognize that we are in a post-party era with a new political ecology in which connecting like minds and forming a movement is so much easier will not be around long."
- Forum
Join
Ecademy