marks2065

Are you sure you did you math right? That's $5.5Trillion SPENT. Did you mean promised? The bailout had cost around $4T before Jan 20th, thanks be to George.

Jeane...you got that kind of backwards ya know. The other way didn't work out so good QuoteAfter reading this thread, you seem to be a little off with people, do you have your period?

The DC law is based on the California list. The article and JR are being deceptive by focusing on the "color" of the part in question. The Cali list is a crock of crap - a gun that is safe one year doesn't suddenly become unsafe because the manufacturer didn't pay the $200 / model danegeld. DC is going to get their ass handed to them again, if they're not careful.

So you're okay with the police detaining and questioning people who utter politically incorrect speech? Should she call the police on students who gave a speech on the legalization of drugs, to see if they have any illegal drugs in their possession on campus? Should she call the police on students who give a speech on relaxing laws against illegal immigrants, to ensure that they are legal citizens themselves? I guess you are COMPLETELY oblivious to what has been happening on college and high school campuses.... whats the death toll to now?????

I'm a good conservative, and I'm all for this one too. Look, if we are going to have illegal kids in the US, we at a BARE MINIMUM need to make sure they are healthy - not to, as you say, keep the illegal flow coming in, but to maintain a level of public health. You don't want kids, legal or illegal, coughing with TB or taking cold medicine for Pneumonia. As an extreme exaggeration, you don't want to have mexican leper colonies in the rockies...

Yea...we can go back and forth... it will be REALLY fucking stupid. I guess you missed my point. Quotebut the stock market is up, god did make it happen. or did he shut his mouth long enough to let wall street do something? questions......

Nearly 3 million jobs LOST in the last 4 months. How many workers do you think Burger King can absorb? Next you'll be telling them to eat cake.

+1 You can add to that one thing... shut down every lobbyist in Washington.. make ANY attempt to influence a politician with perks or campaign contributions a felony offence of trying to bribe a federal employee.

Well, as long as you are sure, I guess there's no need to consult with reasonable people who might rely on evidence to support their assertions. How much in taxes do you think those illegal immigrants paid into the system. Surely you're not naive enough to believe that they don't pay taxes, right?

Answer Wendy's question: How much are you willing to spend to ensure that not a single illegal alien receives benefits? YOUR speculation is not an answer. How much would it cost to make someone show legal status before they send a check? no exact figures needed. you show proof you are legal and then you get a check. were is the cost increase you are looking for?

Have you any evidence to support that assertion?

this is a loophole purposly made available to keep illegal imagration flowing. The Obama administration has already shown this by allowing medical coverage to illegal children by removing the "must show legal status" when appliing for child health care.

Answer Wendy's question: How much are you willing to spend to ensure that not a single illegal alien receives benefits?

From FACTCHECK.ORG A new e-mail being circulated about Obama's tax proposals is almost entirely false. Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up.This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate. Estate Tax. The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more. The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent. Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent. "New Tax" Falsehoods: The e-mail continues with a string of made-up taxes that it falsely claims Obama has proposed. He has not proposed a tax on new homes with more than 2,400 square feet, or a new gasoline tax or a tax on retirement accounts. The most laughably false claim is that Obama would tax "water." Two claims in this message, while not completely false, are still grossly misleading. The claim that Obama would impose "new taxes on natural resources" may refer to his support for a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which indeed would impose large costs on industries burning coal, gas or oil and, indirectly, on their consumers. But McCain also supports cap-and-trade legislation, and even coauthored an early version of a bill that reached the Senate floor this year. Obama's plan would give the federal government more of the revenue from auctioning pollution permits than McCain's plan. Whether cap-and-trade amounts to a "tax" is a matter of interpretation. The fact is neither McCain nor Obama call it that. There is also some truth to the claim that Obama would impose "new taxes" to finance his health care plan, depending on your interpretation of "new." He has said he would pay for much of his plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view. It may well be that Obama will eventually propose tax increases to finance some of his plan. We've noted before that the "cost savings" that he says will finance much of his plan are inflated and probably won't materialize, according to independent experts we consulted. But it's wrong to say that he's proposing such taxes now. The short answer to our reader's question is, no, this message isn't real. It's a pack of lies. -Brooks Jackson Sources “Background Questions and Answers on Health Care Plan.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008. “Energy and Environment. “Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008. News Release: “CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama on CNBC’s “Closing Bell.” 27 March 2008. CNBC Web site. “Plan to Strengthen the Economy.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008. Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” 20 June 2008.

Quotebut if that money was investeds for me i would do better at retirement. also I wouldn't be paying for someone elses lack of self control.

Changing your tune now that your last one was proven to be a flop

I think those who are retiring this year are pleased to have Soc Sec because their nice safe 401Ks have tanked so badly. Those who invested in nice safe real estate are regretting it too. According to the Cato Institute's analysis, SocSec returns are generally** above both long term government bonds and TBills. Less than corporate bonds or the stock market, BUT THOSE ARE HARDLY SAFE SECURED accounts. ** effective rate depends on time period, income, and marital status. Stll, SocSec is generally better. www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-4.html A comparison of the pre-tax rates of return from the social security system (Tables 2, 3, and 4) with the average rates of return for alternative investments for the time period 1945-89 in Table 1 shows that the social security returns are very favorable. The returns for those retiring presently or in the near future are impressive. For 65-year-old couples (Table 2), the rates of return from the social security system range from 8.14 percent for 50/50 income split couples with 1990 incomes of $100,000 to 11.24 percent for one-earner couples with incomes of $10,000. These rates exceed those of all investments for the 1945-89 time period except the most risky, common stock, which had a rate of return of 13.57 percent. As predicted, couples with one earner have high rates of returns because they receive spousal benefits without making additional contributions. For 65-year-old singles, the rates of return ranging from 7.65 percent for a male beneficiary with income of $100,000 to 10.02 percent for a female with income of $10,000 are somewhat lower than for couples because of the lack of spousal benefits but still compare favorably with all investments except common stock. As anticipated, females have higher rates of return than males with the same income because of their longer life expectancy. Overall, the rates for many 65-year-old beneficiaries are almost twice as high as the average rates of return for long-term corporate bonds, long-term government bonds, and U.S. Treasury Bills for the 1945-89 time period. [3]