As I watched history being made this week I felt something I hadn't felt about our country in a very long time. A tiny bit of optimism. I really want to believe that this one man can make a difference, can change the path we have been on and unite us together for the greater good. But I keep reminding myself he is but one man. I know... I know... One person can make a difference, but can one person alone change an entire country? Of course, after saying that I think... look where the election of the village idiot got us!! Yet I try to look at this realistically. The senate and the house hold all the cards really, and both sides of the isle have been bought and sold so many times by big business that it is hard for me to believe we are going to see the change that so many of us yearn for. Our government moves at a snails pace, and we are a society searching for instant gratifications. I think of all those millions of people we saw celebrating the inauguration in Washington this week. The majority of them will become bored with it all when they don't get that instant action on our governments part and will find themselves once again apathetic to the cause. Sad thing is, without them no change will ever occur. At times I think the only thing that CAN change the ways of Washington is a mass uprising of her people. A scholar once said when asked about the difference between American politics and European politics, that in Europe the government fears the people, but in America the people fear the government. We need to show our government that they are our servants, not vise versa, before any change will ever materialize.
Changing the subject a bit, but I was so very tense while watching the inauguration. I was so fearful that this grassy knoll, JFK moment was going to flash before my eyes. It seems like any time there has been a leader that represented the working class man, someone has been there to take them out before they could rally us to the call! When Obama got out and walked down Pennsylvania Avenue, I was cringing the entire time. I bet the secret service had to be a wee bit nervous about the position he put himself in there. I know it's all about custom and tradition, but I kept thinking.... OBAMA... i thought you are a smart man!! Why are you doing this?? Get yourself a pope mobile cause we need you ALIVE!!
Friday, January 23, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
BAILOUT CENTRAL
OK. So we are coming up on the third financial bailout of astronomical proportions. I had many discussions with family and friends about this during the holidays. No one seemed overly excited about handing these huge corporations all this free money. Especially after finding out about the phat bonuses they handed themselves after receiving our tax dollars. If your company is on the brinks of bankruptcy, do you deserve to be financially rewarded for your contributions to it's demise??? HELL NO!!
The most interesting conversation and most compelling I think was with my father. His political views are pretty straight forward. He asked me what the population of the United States was. A little over 300 million. He says... how much was the Bailout we gave wall street. 700 BILLION. His thoughts were as follows. Why not give each and every American a million dollars. That would cost the government less than this corporate bailout, plus it would be giving the American people their own tax dollars back. The banks are in trouble because people can't pay their mortgages... give someone a million dollars and I bet they pay their mortgage so they don't lose their home which puts money back into the banking systems. If I had a sweet mil, you can bet I would be buying a house as would countless other Americans, rejuvenating the housing and real estate markets. Give people a million bucks and I bet a few of them will go buy a new car, saving the car industry as well as the many manufacturers tied to the industry. It would be fair. Everyone would get the same amount regardless of income or debt. At first I thought there's no way that could work, but then i started thinking about it. If we have all these BILLIONS of dollars that our government can throw at corporate America, then why not?? It's the "taxpayers" dollars, so why not give them to the TAXPAYERS. Let the taxpayers fix the problem by injecting the economy with cash flow where they see fit. It would be a better strategy than continuing to concentrate all our money into fewer and fewer hands by bailing out these corporations. Are we so consumed by greed on the legislative levels that sharing the wealth is worse than destroying our nation by devastating her people with financial crisis??
In college I had a class about Geo politics. We learned that in order for super power nations to exist, there have to be poor periphery nations for these super powers to feed off of and exploit in order to remain powerful. I feel that we have developed a similar form of geopolitics within our own country. The middle class has become the periphery that the ultra elite must continue to exploit in order to remain wealthy and powerful. Our governments leaders have become financially entangled with this social class of elitists, and in turn have become less and less of a true representation of their people.
Until we stop drinking the cool aid and wake up and see this, our country will continue down this path until we are all starving next to one another in the streets while Bill Gates flies over us in his private solar jet.
The most interesting conversation and most compelling I think was with my father. His political views are pretty straight forward. He asked me what the population of the United States was. A little over 300 million. He says... how much was the Bailout we gave wall street. 700 BILLION. His thoughts were as follows. Why not give each and every American a million dollars. That would cost the government less than this corporate bailout, plus it would be giving the American people their own tax dollars back. The banks are in trouble because people can't pay their mortgages... give someone a million dollars and I bet they pay their mortgage so they don't lose their home which puts money back into the banking systems. If I had a sweet mil, you can bet I would be buying a house as would countless other Americans, rejuvenating the housing and real estate markets. Give people a million bucks and I bet a few of them will go buy a new car, saving the car industry as well as the many manufacturers tied to the industry. It would be fair. Everyone would get the same amount regardless of income or debt. At first I thought there's no way that could work, but then i started thinking about it. If we have all these BILLIONS of dollars that our government can throw at corporate America, then why not?? It's the "taxpayers" dollars, so why not give them to the TAXPAYERS. Let the taxpayers fix the problem by injecting the economy with cash flow where they see fit. It would be a better strategy than continuing to concentrate all our money into fewer and fewer hands by bailing out these corporations. Are we so consumed by greed on the legislative levels that sharing the wealth is worse than destroying our nation by devastating her people with financial crisis??
In college I had a class about Geo politics. We learned that in order for super power nations to exist, there have to be poor periphery nations for these super powers to feed off of and exploit in order to remain powerful. I feel that we have developed a similar form of geopolitics within our own country. The middle class has become the periphery that the ultra elite must continue to exploit in order to remain wealthy and powerful. Our governments leaders have become financially entangled with this social class of elitists, and in turn have become less and less of a true representation of their people.
Until we stop drinking the cool aid and wake up and see this, our country will continue down this path until we are all starving next to one another in the streets while Bill Gates flies over us in his private solar jet.
Alas.. the end of the holidays!!
I haven't been on my site since THANKSGIVING. Thats what working retail does to you. I am back now. Ready to refocus on my political discourse!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
One of my many debates elsewhere.....
MY RESPONSES TO YOUR RESPONSE......
First off, you may want to spell check your bulletins before posting....IDOIOT? Idiot is the correct spelling.
OPPS YOU GOT ME ON THAT ONE.
PROOF THAT IT WAS JUST MY OWN STUPIDITY THAT MADE ME VOTE FOR OBAMA!!
Obama was recorded at a rally about his view on clean coal and the coal industry...stating that they could build them if they wanted to, but he would tax them into bankruptcy.
"The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.
" Psalms 24:1
ACTUALLY HIS COMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT COAL FIRED PLANTS... NOT CLEAN COAL. AND IT WAS NOT TAXATION THAT WOULD FORCE THEM INTO BANKRUPTCY, IT WOULD BE FINES IMPLEMENTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. WHY SHOULD WE NOT WANT TO PROTECT OUR EARTH, ENSURING OUR CHILDREN HAVE A CLEAN WORLD TO GROW UP IN?? WHY IS THAT SUCH A ABOMINATION? Revelation 11:18. The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth.
Wingnuts? Is actually an Airforce term, McCain was in the Navy.
Is that a term used to bash people that support a WAR HERO/VETERAN?
I WAS SHOOTING FOR DEFINITION #3.2, THE RIGHT WING EXTENSION OF THE NOUN OBVIOUSLY. GUESS YOU COULD CALL ME A LEFT WINGNUT.
wingnut (plural wingnuts)
1.
A nut having wing-like projections so that it can be turned easily by hand
2.
A deciduous tree of the genus Pterocarya native to Asia
3.
(slang) a derogatory term for anyone perceived as odd, eccentric, and/or extreme
1.
often used among North American itinerant and street populations for a mentally ill homeless person
2.
a person who is politically very right-wing or left-wing
4.
(slang, rural US) Air Force personnel in towns that host a USAF installation
So are we suppose to be against Palin, because she has a teenager that is pregnant? Don't go there, my success today is because of a family supporting their pregnant teenage daughter. I've made money beyond any college degree because of my own experiences and who I am today.
I AM NOT SURE WHERE YOU GOT THAT I DON'T LIKE PALIN BECAUSE SHE HAS A PREGNANT TEENAGE DAUGHTER??? I TEND TO BASE MY JUDGMENTS IN THE POLITICAL ARENA ON MORE SUBSTANTIAL FACTS. I SIMPLY DID NOT FEEL AS IF SHE WAS AT ALL READY TO LEAD OUR NATION. THERE WERE OTHER WOMEN WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT HAD GIVEN YEARS OF THEIR BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THEY WERE MORE EDUCATED TO THE WAYS OF WASHINGTON, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND FAR MORE QUALIFIED YET WERE PASSED OVER FOR SARAH PALIN. EVEN PEOPLE IN YOUR OWN PARTY HAVE VOICED THIS SAME CONCERN. MYSELF, BEING A STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN, AGREED. THERE WERE MANY WOMEN OUT THERE THAT COULD HAVE DONE A MUCH BETTER JOB AND HAVING A PREGNANT DAUGHTER HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OPINION. IT WAS ALMOST AS IF HER LOOKS, HER CUTE LITTLE WINKS AND PIT BULL IN LIPSTICK COMMENTS WERE WHAT PUT HER AHEAD OF HER MORE EXPERIENCED COUNTERPARTS. SOME OF US ARE BEYOND LOOKERS GETTING ALL THE BREAKS. YOU WILL PROBABLY COME BACK WITH ALLEGATIONS ABOUT OBAMAS QUALIFICATIONS AND LACK OF EXPERIENCE, BUT AT LEAST HE RECEIVED A LAW DEGREE FROM HARVARD, SERVED AS A US SENATOR FOR TWO YEARS, AND WAS A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOR 12 YEARS, WHICH SHOWS HE HAS AN ABOVE AVERAGE UNDERSTANDING OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
The 150k is both parties (Democrat or Republican) agreed amount to spend on each candidate. The parties supplied the wardrobes.
Did you forget that each outfit worn by Sarah Palin was auctioned and proceeds were sent to charity?
DO YOU REMEMBER THE HOOP LA THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CAUSED OVER JOHN EDWARDS $400 HAIR CUT??? SOUNDS LIKE THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK ON THIS ONE. ALSO THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THIS AUCTION HAS TAKEN PLACE. I BET IT WILL BREAK THE 7 YEAR OLDS HEART TO PART WITH HER LOUIS VUITTON PURSE.
What good deeds has Obama done? Community organizing???
(ACTUALLY, THESE ARE FROM SENATE. GOV, RATHER THAN BLEEDINGHEARTLIBERALS.
COM)
Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation Signed into Law by the President
Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.
He authored the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) (S. 1180) to strengthen and expand federal homeless veteran programs that serve over 100,000 homeless veterans annually. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, Senator Obama passed an amendment to increase funding for homeless veterans programs by $40 million. These funds would benefit programs that provide food, clothing, mental health and substance abuse counseling, and employment and housing assistance to homeless veterans.
The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act (S.
2261)
The bill would shed light on the almost 16,000 earmarks that were included in spending bills in 2005. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists.
The Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act (The CLEAN UP Act) (S.
2179)
The bill aims to improve public access to information about all legislation, including conference reports and appropriations legislation, in particular after hurried, end-of-session negotiations. Conference committee meetings and deliberations would have to be open to the public or televised, and conference reports would have to identify changes made to the bill from the House and Senate versions. Finally, no bill could be considered by the full Senate unless the measure has been made available to all Senators and the general public on the Internet for at least 72 hours.
In 2005, Senator Obama introduced the Lead Free Toys Act (S. 2048), requiring the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to ban any children's product containing lead.
n addition to protecting the quality of the air we breathe, Senator Obama believes the U.S. needs to do more to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. He is a cosponsor of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 1151), which was introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman.
Senator Obama cosponsored the Combat Meth Act (S. 103) which provides more money for fighting methamphetamines, tightens up control on the sale of meth ingredients, and provides assistance to children of meth abusers. The legislation would limit access to cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, the primary ingredient used to make methamphetamine. This bill passed the Senate on September 15, 2005, and was signed into law.
Senator Obama cosponsored Dru's Law (S. 792) which creates a nationwide sex offender database and requires greater monitoring of sex offenders upon their release from prison. The bill passed the Senate on July 28, 2005.
He also cosponsored the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. This bill increases the penalties for sex crimes against children under the age of 12, and creates a national Internet site known as the National Sex Offender Public Registry. The bill will also provide grants to local law enforcement to assist in preventing and investigating sex crimes against minors.
Senator Obama cosponsored extension of Violence Against Women Act (S. 1197), which passed the Senate on October 4, 2005, and was signed into law. The Act provides increased funds to law enforcement to combat violence against women. It also establishes a sexual assault services program and provides grants for education programs to prevent domestic violence and encourage reporting of abuses.
Senator Obama drafted an amendment, which was included in the Safe Drinking Water Act, which passed the EPW Committee on July 20, 2005. The Obama amendment would provide $37.5 million over the next five years to protect the country's drinking water from a terrorist attack. It also instructs Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control to develop the tools needed by drinking water systems to detect and respond to the introduction of biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants by terrorists.
AND THIS DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO COVER THE GOOD DEEDS HE DID AS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER. WHICH I MIGHT ADD BEGAN, AT THE DEVELOPING COMMUNITIES PROJECT, A CHURCH BASED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION ORIGINALLY COMPRISED OF EIGHT CATHOLIC PARISHES IN CHICAGO.
SURPRISING THEY WOULD HIRE THE ANTI CHRIST, HUH?
Who did he beat in his first election?
THAT WOULD BE ALICE PALMER, WHO GAVE UP HER STATE SENATE SEAT TO RUN FOR CONGRESS. SHE WAS DEFEATED IN THAT ELECTION BID (FROM WIKIPEDIA....."After her defeat, Palmer broke her promise to Obama not to run for re-election to her State Senate seat and filed nominating petitions with 1,580 signatures on December 18, 1995—the last day to file nominating petitions. Obama challenged Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions and those of the three other prospective candidates. Nearly two-thirds of the signatures on Palmer's nominating petitions were found to be invalid, leaving her almost 200 signatures short of the required 757 signatures of registered voters residing in the Senate district; neither of the other three prospective candidates had the required number of valid signatures, leaving Obama, who had filed nominating petitions with over 3,000 signatures on the first filing day, as the only candidate to earn a place on the March 1996 Democratic primary ballot. By requesting the challenge, Obamas signatures were also verified.
"
SO IT WAS OK THAT GEORGE BUSH DEMANDED A RECOUNT IN HIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, BUT FOR OBAMA TO DO SO IS JUST UNFORGIVABLE????
He registered homeless people in Chicago!
AND HOMELESS PEOPLE, EVEN HOMELESS VETERANS, ARE NOT WORTHY OF POLITICAL ACTION IN YOUR EYES? DO THEY NOT ALSO HAVE RIGHTS? IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTING WERE DROPPED IN THE EARLY 1800S. IT IS NOT SURPRISING TO SEE THE HOMELESS IN CHICAGO COMING OUT IN SUPPORT OF OBAMA, CONSIDERING HE WAS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER THERE AND WORKED ON THEIR BEHALF. THE CAMPAIGN SIMPLY OFFERED TRANSPORTATION FROM HOMELESS SHELTERS TO REGISTRATION SITES. THEY DID NOT FORCE THEM TO VOTE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. SO YOU WOULD CONDEMN HIM FOR HELPING THE POOR, THE MEEK, THE DOWNTRODDEN?? AFTER YOUR RECENT MISSION TRIP TO AFRICA, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE YOU WOULD GIVE A LITTLE MORE REVERENCE TO THOSE WITH LESS THAN YOU.
What ground is there really to stand on.
You may want to check your resources other than BLEEDINGHEARTLIBERALS. COM.
Sad thing is it's over and this is what we deal with the next 4 years.
First off, you may want to spell check your bulletins before posting....IDOIOT? Idiot is the correct spelling.
OPPS YOU GOT ME ON THAT ONE.
PROOF THAT IT WAS JUST MY OWN STUPIDITY THAT MADE ME VOTE FOR OBAMA!!
Obama was recorded at a rally about his view on clean coal and the coal industry...stating that they could build them if they wanted to, but he would tax them into bankruptcy.
"The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.
" Psalms 24:1
ACTUALLY HIS COMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT COAL FIRED PLANTS... NOT CLEAN COAL. AND IT WAS NOT TAXATION THAT WOULD FORCE THEM INTO BANKRUPTCY, IT WOULD BE FINES IMPLEMENTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. WHY SHOULD WE NOT WANT TO PROTECT OUR EARTH, ENSURING OUR CHILDREN HAVE A CLEAN WORLD TO GROW UP IN?? WHY IS THAT SUCH A ABOMINATION? Revelation 11:18. The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth.
Wingnuts? Is actually an Airforce term, McCain was in the Navy.
Is that a term used to bash people that support a WAR HERO/VETERAN?
I WAS SHOOTING FOR DEFINITION #3.2, THE RIGHT WING EXTENSION OF THE NOUN OBVIOUSLY. GUESS YOU COULD CALL ME A LEFT WINGNUT.
wingnut (plural wingnuts)
1.
A nut having wing-like projections so that it can be turned easily by hand
2.
A deciduous tree of the genus Pterocarya native to Asia
3.
(slang) a derogatory term for anyone perceived as odd, eccentric, and/or extreme
1.
often used among North American itinerant and street populations for a mentally ill homeless person
2.
a person who is politically very right-wing or left-wing
4.
(slang, rural US) Air Force personnel in towns that host a USAF installation
So are we suppose to be against Palin, because she has a teenager that is pregnant? Don't go there, my success today is because of a family supporting their pregnant teenage daughter. I've made money beyond any college degree because of my own experiences and who I am today.
I AM NOT SURE WHERE YOU GOT THAT I DON'T LIKE PALIN BECAUSE SHE HAS A PREGNANT TEENAGE DAUGHTER??? I TEND TO BASE MY JUDGMENTS IN THE POLITICAL ARENA ON MORE SUBSTANTIAL FACTS. I SIMPLY DID NOT FEEL AS IF SHE WAS AT ALL READY TO LEAD OUR NATION. THERE WERE OTHER WOMEN WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT HAD GIVEN YEARS OF THEIR BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THEY WERE MORE EDUCATED TO THE WAYS OF WASHINGTON, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND FAR MORE QUALIFIED YET WERE PASSED OVER FOR SARAH PALIN. EVEN PEOPLE IN YOUR OWN PARTY HAVE VOICED THIS SAME CONCERN. MYSELF, BEING A STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN, AGREED. THERE WERE MANY WOMEN OUT THERE THAT COULD HAVE DONE A MUCH BETTER JOB AND HAVING A PREGNANT DAUGHTER HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OPINION. IT WAS ALMOST AS IF HER LOOKS, HER CUTE LITTLE WINKS AND PIT BULL IN LIPSTICK COMMENTS WERE WHAT PUT HER AHEAD OF HER MORE EXPERIENCED COUNTERPARTS. SOME OF US ARE BEYOND LOOKERS GETTING ALL THE BREAKS. YOU WILL PROBABLY COME BACK WITH ALLEGATIONS ABOUT OBAMAS QUALIFICATIONS AND LACK OF EXPERIENCE, BUT AT LEAST HE RECEIVED A LAW DEGREE FROM HARVARD, SERVED AS A US SENATOR FOR TWO YEARS, AND WAS A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOR 12 YEARS, WHICH SHOWS HE HAS AN ABOVE AVERAGE UNDERSTANDING OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
The 150k is both parties (Democrat or Republican) agreed amount to spend on each candidate. The parties supplied the wardrobes.
Did you forget that each outfit worn by Sarah Palin was auctioned and proceeds were sent to charity?
DO YOU REMEMBER THE HOOP LA THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CAUSED OVER JOHN EDWARDS $400 HAIR CUT??? SOUNDS LIKE THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK ON THIS ONE. ALSO THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THIS AUCTION HAS TAKEN PLACE. I BET IT WILL BREAK THE 7 YEAR OLDS HEART TO PART WITH HER LOUIS VUITTON PURSE.
What good deeds has Obama done? Community organizing???
(ACTUALLY, THESE ARE FROM SENATE. GOV, RATHER THAN BLEEDINGHEARTLIBERALS.
COM)
Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation Signed into Law by the President
Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.
He authored the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) (S. 1180) to strengthen and expand federal homeless veteran programs that serve over 100,000 homeless veterans annually. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, Senator Obama passed an amendment to increase funding for homeless veterans programs by $40 million. These funds would benefit programs that provide food, clothing, mental health and substance abuse counseling, and employment and housing assistance to homeless veterans.
The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act (S.
2261)
The bill would shed light on the almost 16,000 earmarks that were included in spending bills in 2005. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists.
The Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act (The CLEAN UP Act) (S.
2179)
The bill aims to improve public access to information about all legislation, including conference reports and appropriations legislation, in particular after hurried, end-of-session negotiations. Conference committee meetings and deliberations would have to be open to the public or televised, and conference reports would have to identify changes made to the bill from the House and Senate versions. Finally, no bill could be considered by the full Senate unless the measure has been made available to all Senators and the general public on the Internet for at least 72 hours.
In 2005, Senator Obama introduced the Lead Free Toys Act (S. 2048), requiring the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to ban any children's product containing lead.
n addition to protecting the quality of the air we breathe, Senator Obama believes the U.S. needs to do more to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. He is a cosponsor of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (S. 1151), which was introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman.
Senator Obama cosponsored the Combat Meth Act (S. 103) which provides more money for fighting methamphetamines, tightens up control on the sale of meth ingredients, and provides assistance to children of meth abusers. The legislation would limit access to cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, the primary ingredient used to make methamphetamine. This bill passed the Senate on September 15, 2005, and was signed into law.
Senator Obama cosponsored Dru's Law (S. 792) which creates a nationwide sex offender database and requires greater monitoring of sex offenders upon their release from prison. The bill passed the Senate on July 28, 2005.
He also cosponsored the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. This bill increases the penalties for sex crimes against children under the age of 12, and creates a national Internet site known as the National Sex Offender Public Registry. The bill will also provide grants to local law enforcement to assist in preventing and investigating sex crimes against minors.
Senator Obama cosponsored extension of Violence Against Women Act (S. 1197), which passed the Senate on October 4, 2005, and was signed into law. The Act provides increased funds to law enforcement to combat violence against women. It also establishes a sexual assault services program and provides grants for education programs to prevent domestic violence and encourage reporting of abuses.
Senator Obama drafted an amendment, which was included in the Safe Drinking Water Act, which passed the EPW Committee on July 20, 2005. The Obama amendment would provide $37.5 million over the next five years to protect the country's drinking water from a terrorist attack. It also instructs Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control to develop the tools needed by drinking water systems to detect and respond to the introduction of biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants by terrorists.
AND THIS DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO COVER THE GOOD DEEDS HE DID AS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER. WHICH I MIGHT ADD BEGAN, AT THE DEVELOPING COMMUNITIES PROJECT, A CHURCH BASED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION ORIGINALLY COMPRISED OF EIGHT CATHOLIC PARISHES IN CHICAGO.
SURPRISING THEY WOULD HIRE THE ANTI CHRIST, HUH?
Who did he beat in his first election?
THAT WOULD BE ALICE PALMER, WHO GAVE UP HER STATE SENATE SEAT TO RUN FOR CONGRESS. SHE WAS DEFEATED IN THAT ELECTION BID (FROM WIKIPEDIA....."After her defeat, Palmer broke her promise to Obama not to run for re-election to her State Senate seat and filed nominating petitions with 1,580 signatures on December 18, 1995—the last day to file nominating petitions. Obama challenged Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions and those of the three other prospective candidates. Nearly two-thirds of the signatures on Palmer's nominating petitions were found to be invalid, leaving her almost 200 signatures short of the required 757 signatures of registered voters residing in the Senate district; neither of the other three prospective candidates had the required number of valid signatures, leaving Obama, who had filed nominating petitions with over 3,000 signatures on the first filing day, as the only candidate to earn a place on the March 1996 Democratic primary ballot. By requesting the challenge, Obamas signatures were also verified.
"
SO IT WAS OK THAT GEORGE BUSH DEMANDED A RECOUNT IN HIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, BUT FOR OBAMA TO DO SO IS JUST UNFORGIVABLE????
He registered homeless people in Chicago!
AND HOMELESS PEOPLE, EVEN HOMELESS VETERANS, ARE NOT WORTHY OF POLITICAL ACTION IN YOUR EYES? DO THEY NOT ALSO HAVE RIGHTS? IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTING WERE DROPPED IN THE EARLY 1800S. IT IS NOT SURPRISING TO SEE THE HOMELESS IN CHICAGO COMING OUT IN SUPPORT OF OBAMA, CONSIDERING HE WAS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER THERE AND WORKED ON THEIR BEHALF. THE CAMPAIGN SIMPLY OFFERED TRANSPORTATION FROM HOMELESS SHELTERS TO REGISTRATION SITES. THEY DID NOT FORCE THEM TO VOTE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. SO YOU WOULD CONDEMN HIM FOR HELPING THE POOR, THE MEEK, THE DOWNTRODDEN?? AFTER YOUR RECENT MISSION TRIP TO AFRICA, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE YOU WOULD GIVE A LITTLE MORE REVERENCE TO THOSE WITH LESS THAN YOU.
What ground is there really to stand on.
You may want to check your resources other than BLEEDINGHEARTLIBERALS. COM.
Sad thing is it's over and this is what we deal with the next 4 years.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Majority Rule!
Sorry I have been MIA for a bit if there's even anyone out there paying attention to my rants! The Obama campaign had me busy!! But I am back!!
Our government was created on the principle of majority rule. But now that the majority has shifted, you in the minority come out with these messages of doom and disaster in our path. If you are the "patriots" you have described yourselves as, then you should give some credence and reverence to the principles of this countries constitutional right to chose who will lead us by majority . Would you change it? Would you destroy our constitution and silence the majority just to get what you want?
We just spent 8 very long and devastating years in the "minority" of this countries politics. Does no one remember what this country was like economically before George Bush? You that complain you are losing everything you have "worked so hard for" weren't complaining that you were losing everything during the 1990s! You were just as well off then as you are today if not more so. Yet those of us in the minority have sat back and did with less and less, year to year. Lower pay increases, higher insurance costs, lower wage jobs, higher gas prices, higher heating bills, higher grocery costs.... how many times have you heard someone say... "everything is going up but our paychecks????"
Those of you that are whining now that you are going to lose everything, are being a bit over dramatic if you ask me. Some of us down on the bottom, the ones thats hard work apparently isn't worth the same as yours, have been making sacrifices for a good while now. You forget that it's our meager incomes buying your goods and services that keep you wealthy. It has nothing to do with working hard or not. Tax cuts for the middle class are not tax cuts for people that haven't been willing to "work hard" as you put it. We work very hard. Some of us work 48 hours a week or more and still barely make ends meet. Considering a person making minimum wage can work 40 hours a week and still be below the poverty line takes the whole lazy makes you poor statement off the table.
We will go back to the tax tables of the late 1990's. The only thing you are going to lose is your precious tax cut that Bush gave you. The same one that paired with the war helped dig the big hole we call our deficit. The middle class didn't get that break. We sat here and paid relatively the same amount of taxes we did in the 90s the past 8 years. But now that someone wants to give US the break... you guys just can't stand it. Well you had your turn, and now it's ours. Thank goodness you are in the minority!!! Greed is a very ugly thing.
Our government was created on the principle of majority rule. But now that the majority has shifted, you in the minority come out with these messages of doom and disaster in our path. If you are the "patriots" you have described yourselves as, then you should give some credence and reverence to the principles of this countries constitutional right to chose who will lead us by majority . Would you change it? Would you destroy our constitution and silence the majority just to get what you want?
We just spent 8 very long and devastating years in the "minority" of this countries politics. Does no one remember what this country was like economically before George Bush? You that complain you are losing everything you have "worked so hard for" weren't complaining that you were losing everything during the 1990s! You were just as well off then as you are today if not more so. Yet those of us in the minority have sat back and did with less and less, year to year. Lower pay increases, higher insurance costs, lower wage jobs, higher gas prices, higher heating bills, higher grocery costs.... how many times have you heard someone say... "everything is going up but our paychecks????"
Those of you that are whining now that you are going to lose everything, are being a bit over dramatic if you ask me. Some of us down on the bottom, the ones thats hard work apparently isn't worth the same as yours, have been making sacrifices for a good while now. You forget that it's our meager incomes buying your goods and services that keep you wealthy. It has nothing to do with working hard or not. Tax cuts for the middle class are not tax cuts for people that haven't been willing to "work hard" as you put it. We work very hard. Some of us work 48 hours a week or more and still barely make ends meet. Considering a person making minimum wage can work 40 hours a week and still be below the poverty line takes the whole lazy makes you poor statement off the table.
We will go back to the tax tables of the late 1990's. The only thing you are going to lose is your precious tax cut that Bush gave you. The same one that paired with the war helped dig the big hole we call our deficit. The middle class didn't get that break. We sat here and paid relatively the same amount of taxes we did in the 90s the past 8 years. But now that someone wants to give US the break... you guys just can't stand it. Well you had your turn, and now it's ours. Thank goodness you are in the minority!!! Greed is a very ugly thing.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
"Sharing the Wealth"
I guess I will start with fully explaining my stand on the “rich”. First, I am not talking about someone who makes $500,000 a year... they are not the “rich” I am against. I am speaking of the 1% that owns more wealth than the bottom 90% of the population. The same 1% that earns more income annually than the bottom 50% of us. We have the greatest income inequality of any other industrialized country. Wall Street salaries have went from a 20/1 CEO to class worker ration to a 250/1 ratio in the last 8 years. You speak of the horrors of wealth redistribution, yet it has been going on in the United States since the Great Depression... just the other direction. UP. The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. And it has led us to where we are today.
“As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass
consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of
existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to
provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and
services offered by the nation's economic machinery. Instead of
achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products
that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in
new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in
the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game
stopped."
Sound familiar?? This was stated in 1941 after the Great Depression by Marriner Stoddard Eccles who was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR. We learn very little from our past. And here we are again. Foreclosures are hitting record highs; Americans are declaring bankruptcy at rates ten times that during the great Depression; more college students drop out because of debts than due to poor grades. We now have one of the highest rates of childhood poverty in the world even though we also have the highest number of billionaires. Our dollars worth is declining daily. Our deficit is the highest in the history of our country. And it is all due to the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few.
The republicans have successfully convinced the upper middle class that they are rich and that a democratic controlled government is going to reach into their pockets and take their money. This is absurd. The American dream is a fantasy they use to control their constituents. The average upper middle class American will never find themselves in that 1% of the population that I feel is destroying our country from the inside out. The same 1% that the republican party so strongly protects. It is an illusion. They plant this seed of fear of losing your money just to keep you from demanding what is rightly yours. The democrats are not going to take your riches because they only exist in your fantasy world.
And speaking of wealth redistribution and “sharing the wealth”, what would you call the $700 billion dollar bailout? Taking money from who.... the middle class tax payer.... and giving it to wall street? Using our taxpayer dollars to buy banks?? Doesn't this sound like evil socialism?? At least in true Socialist states, the government buys up PROFITABLE industries instead of failing ones. I would describe myself as a Democratic Socialist. The right wing has wrongly equated democratic socialism to communism and totalitarianism, which is completely incorrect. To me, Democratic Socialism is the belief that all people are entitled to the basic rights of health care, college educations and workers benefits. We do not want the government to own everything, but for it to ensure that all citizens are provided for equally and in a fair manner within the structure of a democratic society. Many countries in Europe would be described as Democratic Socialist states. Their governments and countries have not collapsed around them either. These same Europeans are the ones that have made the greatest strides in saving us from our current economic crisis. These same European countries have higher currency rates, higher life expectancies and far more efficient infrastructures. Why? Because their wealth is not disproportionately concentrated.
I am not saying every aspect of socialism is acceptable. But I do not understand why our democracy can't evolve? Why can't every American be guaranteed health insurance? Why is that such a bad thing? Why can't every child be guaranteed a college education? Why can't every American worker be entitled to paid vacations? Oh, forgive me, I forgot... it's because we have to protect that 1% of our citizenship that holds all our capital. Their ability to accumulate wealth is far more important than the health and well being of the other 99% of us. And to think that 1% is concerned about us.... and is using all that capital they have hoarded up to create nice cushy jobs with great benefits so we can all live happily ever after is naive to say the least. They already sent those jobs to India or China.
“As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass
consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of
existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to
provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and
services offered by the nation's economic machinery. Instead of
achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products
that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in
new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in
the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game
stopped."
Sound familiar?? This was stated in 1941 after the Great Depression by Marriner Stoddard Eccles who was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR. We learn very little from our past. And here we are again. Foreclosures are hitting record highs; Americans are declaring bankruptcy at rates ten times that during the great Depression; more college students drop out because of debts than due to poor grades. We now have one of the highest rates of childhood poverty in the world even though we also have the highest number of billionaires. Our dollars worth is declining daily. Our deficit is the highest in the history of our country. And it is all due to the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few.
The republicans have successfully convinced the upper middle class that they are rich and that a democratic controlled government is going to reach into their pockets and take their money. This is absurd. The American dream is a fantasy they use to control their constituents. The average upper middle class American will never find themselves in that 1% of the population that I feel is destroying our country from the inside out. The same 1% that the republican party so strongly protects. It is an illusion. They plant this seed of fear of losing your money just to keep you from demanding what is rightly yours. The democrats are not going to take your riches because they only exist in your fantasy world.
And speaking of wealth redistribution and “sharing the wealth”, what would you call the $700 billion dollar bailout? Taking money from who.... the middle class tax payer.... and giving it to wall street? Using our taxpayer dollars to buy banks?? Doesn't this sound like evil socialism?? At least in true Socialist states, the government buys up PROFITABLE industries instead of failing ones. I would describe myself as a Democratic Socialist. The right wing has wrongly equated democratic socialism to communism and totalitarianism, which is completely incorrect. To me, Democratic Socialism is the belief that all people are entitled to the basic rights of health care, college educations and workers benefits. We do not want the government to own everything, but for it to ensure that all citizens are provided for equally and in a fair manner within the structure of a democratic society. Many countries in Europe would be described as Democratic Socialist states. Their governments and countries have not collapsed around them either. These same Europeans are the ones that have made the greatest strides in saving us from our current economic crisis. These same European countries have higher currency rates, higher life expectancies and far more efficient infrastructures. Why? Because their wealth is not disproportionately concentrated.
I am not saying every aspect of socialism is acceptable. But I do not understand why our democracy can't evolve? Why can't every American be guaranteed health insurance? Why is that such a bad thing? Why can't every child be guaranteed a college education? Why can't every American worker be entitled to paid vacations? Oh, forgive me, I forgot... it's because we have to protect that 1% of our citizenship that holds all our capital. Their ability to accumulate wealth is far more important than the health and well being of the other 99% of us. And to think that 1% is concerned about us.... and is using all that capital they have hoarded up to create nice cushy jobs with great benefits so we can all live happily ever after is naive to say the least. They already sent those jobs to India or China.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
