Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2009 22:00:52 GMT -4
Was there voter fraud in the national election. There was a lot of talk right up to the election about it might happen, but after that.....I haven't heard about it actually happening. If it occurred, I would think it would be making the news like the ongoing battle in the senate race in Minnesota.
Where did this voter fraud actually take place. I watch Fox news every night, if it happened.....they would be talking about it since day one. If it did, somebody there must be asleep at the switch.
If it had happened, I would think it would be at the Supreme Court by now. That ain't what's the hot issue right now being discussed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2009 22:37:34 GMT -4
...and we have another addition to the short list of "touchy people who take everything personally". No touchy person here. I like a good debate, as long as it's civil and respectful. That doesn't happen much though, a lot of people don't actually listen, just want to pontificate and attack. Let's make a list and open it up for everyone. I'll start...... The 2nd amendment. I am a gun(s) owner myself. If any gun control at all is bad or an infringement on the right to bear arms........ then why is it OK to infringe on the 4th amendments right to privacy with unwarranted surveillance of US citizens in the name of National Security. If the quick response to this one is that you have nothing to hide, then what to you have to worry about. If true......you should also have no problem then with speed cameras and red light cameras since if your obeying the traffic laws....you should have nothing to worry about there either. Let's get it going.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Mar 9, 2009 22:50:19 GMT -4
OK, I also like a good debate, and the "shoe fits" comment wasn't intended to be disrespectful. Its my humor. It doesn't always translate to text.
To answer the later part of your comment, I don't like invasion of privacy, surveillance, speed cameras, red light cameras, no-knock warrants, DUI checkpoints, the list goes on and on and on......I'm not a republican (not to insult republicans, but I'm going off the assumption that you included those issues because you thought I was)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2009 23:27:39 GMT -4
OK, I also like a good debate, and the "shoe fits" comment wasn't intended to be disrespectful. Its my humor. It doesn't always translate to text. To answer the later part of your comment, I don't like invasion of privacy, surveillance, speed cameras, red light cameras, no-knock warrants, DUI checkpoints, the list goes on and on and on......I'm not a republican (not to insult republicans, but I'm going off the assumption that you included those issues because you thought I was) Nope, wasn't making any assumptions at all. Based on the limited info from postings, we all probably really don't know much about each other. We all have our hot buttons that we are more vocal about, and that may stereotype us. From my postings, most would think I'm a liberal democrat. I am a democrat, a moderate though. Same middle ground as when I was a republican. I'm a very right and wrong, law and order type of person. Laws and rules are followed.....no exceptions, no favoritisms, no getting around them to suite my own agenda. The one sided arguments, finger pointing, accept no blame for my actions gets me going. I definitely like debating that stuff. All is good. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kl on Mar 10, 2009 13:54:58 GMT -4
From Nick Turse: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The revised and upgraded unemployment figures released on Friday were nothing short of staggering: almost two million jobs lost in the past three months as the official unemployment rate rose to a quarter-century high of 8.1%. Nearly three million Americans are now officially unemployed for six months or more, while another 8.6 million are "working part time because they cannot find full-time employment." Just the previous day, the government released figures showing, not surprisingly, that food stamp recipients had also soared by another 700,000 in February -- 651,000 jobs had been lost that same month -- to a record total of 31.8 million.
Food stamps may be the major government bailout program against hunger, but most bailout efforts by the Obama administration and its predecessor have been focused on pouring multi-billions repeatedly into ever more failing financial institutions, which, as economist Joseph Stiglitz writes, "years of reckless behavior, including bad lending and gambling with derivatives, have left [them], in effect, bankrupt." This includes, of course, $45 billion siphoned into Citigroup, whose stock hit the one-dollar mark just days ago, and into that black-hole-of-a-disaster, the global insurance company A.I.G., which got another $30 billion last week, bringing its grand bailout total (to date) to $163 billion.
Money-mad bankers, who helped put millions out of work and start a cascading global financial crisis that seems without end, evidently feel no shame as they receive millions in bonuses while milking their banks and the government for everything they're worth. On the other hand, increasing numbers of Americans feel deep shame, when they shouldn't, because they have to resort to the nation's private system of food banks and other free food outlets once they find they can't stock their refrigerators and cupboards adequately enough to feed themselves and their children.
This is a nightmare that Nick Turse -- in the fourth installment of his Tough Times series for TomDispatch on American economic hardship -- captures as he reports on what's happening to food banks nationwide. It's worth keeping in mind that, under the pressure of massive need and desperation, banks like Citigroup and Wells Fargo aren't the only ones that could fail and that it's ordinary Americans who really need, and deserve, the bailing out. Tom
|
|
|
Post by kl on Mar 11, 2009 12:41:05 GMT -4
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2009 13:05:14 GMT -4
kl, that type of discontent and heresy is going to cause someone to smite you, probably more than once too.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Mar 11, 2009 13:48:07 GMT -4
I know mj. But there are times that the mood needs to be lightened up. Smite away folks.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Mar 11, 2009 18:03:45 GMT -4
What a load
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Mar 11, 2009 23:25:08 GMT -4
UN-F*&%ING BELIEVABLE!
From MSNBC:
WASHINGTON - Calling it an "imperfect" bill, President Barack Obama signed a $410 billion spending package Wednesday that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. He insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business."
The massive measure supporting federal agencies through the fall contains nearly 8,000 pet projects, earmarked by sponsors though denounced by critics.
Isn't this what Obama promised would NOT happen. 50 days into his presidency, he's back to Chicago politics. It sure looks to me like he's "starting the old way of doing business" except on a grand scale. So much for "change", it's just corruption with more peoples money. What a disappointment.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Mar 13, 2009 12:07:02 GMT -4
Did you know that $3.8 billion in "earmarks" in the $410 billion budget is .01% of the total bill and that 40% of those "earmarks" came from Republicans? I guess that's why 8 R senators joined all but 3 D senators.
Does anyone remember that failure 43's "choice" for the second highest office in the land went to a CEO of the biggest no-bid contractor the U.S. employs? The ethical bar for the current administration is exponentially higher.
Why is it, only Jon Stewart of the "liberal media," tore up CNBC for their "cheap populism" rallying the losers on the "trading floor" while assailing the "losers" who have lost their homes?
How can you care about the Dow going down and be against bailing out big companies?
Hasn't the Dow been dropping since October 2007?
|
|
|
Post by dej on Mar 14, 2009 3:08:54 GMT -4
I guess the urge to lighten things up has passed!!
Anyone who has caught a snippet of news or glanced at a paper knows there are plenty of Republican earmarks to go along with the majority of Democratic earmarks. I think the point Frank was making can be clearly shown by 2 quotes.
Candidate Obama in 2008 "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country."
President Obama in 2009 "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said.
By the way, I also noticed you forgot to mention that the "CEO of the biggest no-bid contractor the U.S. employs" got those no-bid contracts during the adminstration that preceded the one where he held the second highest office in the land. Giving credit where it's due, it also appears that he may have actually paid his income taxes during his years as a CEO.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Mar 14, 2009 3:39:10 GMT -4
Did you know that $3.8 billion in "earmarks" in the $410 billion budget is .01% of the total bill The correct numbers were 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion, and it's 1.8% of the budget, not .01%. I realize that to some a few extra billion is insignificant to some, but as somebody who doesn't even meet the Democratic criteria of wealthy, it seems like a heck of a lot of tax money to me.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Mar 14, 2009 14:18:35 GMT -4
....and no-bid contracts aren't always a bad thing. For instance, if Agency ABC wants its field agents to learn how to do round-house kicks, and it wants Chuck Norris to teach them how to do it, that agency shouldn't have to put the project out for bid so Joe Schmoe from Schmoe's Karate school can underbid Chuck Norris and end up teaching the class for less, but doing a substandard job at it.
|
|
|
Post by cheapshotartist on Apr 10, 2009 18:56:09 GMT -4
At a time when most states and counties are holding the line on employees salaries, laying employees off and terminating employment and in most cases, forcing furlough days in order to save money I could not believe what I just read. Our Sheriff, after knowing what the job paid when he ran for office, is getting a 100% pay raise within 2 years putting him well over $100,000! I would say that the post a while back about him pursuing a huge pay increase was right. I looked and looked in the Sheriff Office Press Release Thread but didn't see a word about it. Guess he has has had his own "Stimulus Plan" from day one unbeknownst to us, UNBELIEVABLE Please tell me the time to vote again is getting near. If this is our elected officials way of showing us they are fiscally responsible, they need to be shown the door.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Apr 11, 2009 9:55:32 GMT -4
And our elected officials here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, has rejected 125 million in stimulus funds to aid the unemployed. So sad. Have a feeling alot of these official will be unemployed the next time we walk into the polls.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Apr 12, 2009 0:40:58 GMT -4
A major reason Virginia rejected the money, and a few other states probably will also, were the strings attached that would create a huge expansion of eligibility, including part time workers. If the money were offered for states to use, without having to change their programs or rules of eligibilty, I doubt any state would reject it. But unlike the Federal government, most states have to operate with a balanced budget. The politicians that voted against it may have been looking to the future. Where's the money going to come from next year to pay for the expanded program? Another stimulus bill??
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Apr 12, 2009 7:43:49 GMT -4
Where's the money going to come from next year to pay for the expanded program? Another stimulus bill?? BINGO! I've been saying that in the talk at work, how do WE pay for this crap next year? or the year after.... this is bad, bad, bad.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Apr 12, 2009 10:14:49 GMT -4
From what I understand, what strings the feds do attach to the stimulus package, especially where it concerns umemployment, is that it's only a temp situation to aid the states, as well as their unemployed as that benefit runs out.
But I sure would like to know how Wells Fargo posted that first quarter profit, after getting bailout money, buying wachovia in a bargain basement deal, as well as failing to help their mortgage holders in upside down homes?
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Apr 12, 2009 19:41:37 GMT -4
Going back a couple of days, while the QAC Sheriff may feel he deserves a salary increase and may lobby for an increase, he doesn't grant himself the increase. Be unhappy with the Sheriff if you like, but it was the Commissioners who voted in the raise.
From what I could find after a quick check, the QAC Sheriff is being paid far less than his peers in neighboring counties. The raise just might be overdue and reasonable.
Definitely one of the concerns with the state taking the stimulus money is how to pay for the same programs next year. The state is living beyond its means but instead of cutting back, it found a one-year source of income to continue its overspending. Where is the money going to come from next year?
I didn't know about the Wells Fargo profit report. Definitely suspicious of whether all the really bad news earlier in the year didn't include a bit of exaggeration intended to score a huge bailout package. Got the banks, the Dems, the congress, and the Pres all pushing for the spending. I wonder.
On the other hand, I don't see why the banks should be under any obligation to help the borrowers who are upside down in their mortgage. The banks may *want* to help these people so they can continue to pay, but I don't think the banks should be obligated to help them.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Apr 13, 2009 0:18:42 GMT -4
From what I understand, what strings the feds do attach to the stimulus package, especially where it concerns umemployment, is that it's only a temp situation to aid the states, as well as their unemployed as that benefit runs out. The strings attached are not temporary. That's why Kaine was trying to have Virginia law AMENDED to meet the requirements for the money. In about 30 states, it will require legislative changes and/or amendments by state legislatures to qualify for the money. If these changes are put into place, it would later take more legislative action to undo the changes. Once a legislature approves new forms of spending, or expansion of programs, what are the odds that they will vote the following year to end that spending? Based on past history. I'd have to put my money on state tax increases to at least maintain the "temporary" level of spending.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Apr 13, 2009 0:31:06 GMT -4
But I sure would like to know how Wells Fargo posted that first quarter profit, after getting bailout money, buying wachovia in a bargain basement deal, as well as failing to help their mortgage holders in upside down homes? Actually you kind of answer your own question. The bailout money enabled them to get Wachovia in one heck of a deal for them, writing off most of Wachovia's losses in the process. The other factor was the surge in refinancing for lower rates, mostly by people who aren't upside down in their mortgages. About 70% of their new mortgages are these type of refi's. In spite of what pundits would have you beleive, there are people out there that opted not to mortgage themselves over their heads.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Apr 13, 2009 7:10:34 GMT -4
But I sure would like to know how Wells Fargo posted that first quarter profit, after getting bailout money, buying wachovia in a bargain basement deal, as well as failing to help their mortgage holders in upside down homes? Actually you kind of answer your own question. The bailout money enabled them to get Wachovia in one heck of a deal for them, writing off most of Wachovia's losses in the process. The other factor was the surge in refinancing for lower rates, mostly by people who aren't upside down in their mortgages. About 70% of their new mortgages are these type of refi's. In spite of what pundits would have you beleive, there are people out there that opted not to mortgage themselves over their heads. I read that too, but must have read it quick. Wells Fargo did write off that 3.5 billion in bad debt from Wachovia.
|
|
|
Post by cheapshotartist on Apr 13, 2009 14:00:21 GMT -4
The Commissioners did not come up with the 100% increase in salary out of the clear blue. As was previously posted, the Sheriff started his campaign for a higher salary right after he was elected. I think it is pretty selfish to push for a 100% pay raise for himself while his deputies got how much of a raise? ? Whether the raise is justified is neither here nor there, the fact is that NO County employee should be getting a raise with the economy like it is. The Sheriff knew what the salary was when he took the office. A quick check will show that State employees have not had a step increase let alone any salary increase in years, let alone one for 100%. I am in fact unhappy with him for selfishly pushing for a raise of that magnitude at a time like this for himself and also not pleased with the Commissioners putting it through. Like I said, come on election time, I really think it's time to clean house in Queen Anne's County.
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Apr 13, 2009 15:43:16 GMT -4
|
|