Election Poll, June 2012 Debate - Oklahoma City, OK

[asdf]

shedevil wrote:

<quoted text>Yes he did say it but later tried to go back on it.well to late he already said it.He said they had a safety net after he said he didn't care about the poor to try take back what he had said.To late.When you all have no social security see who was right and who is wrong.

No it's not what he said. Maybe you should search for the whole video and not the liberal media edited commentary added version.

Of Romney didn't care about the poor he wouldn't have given almost 15% of his income to charity which is way more than Obama did and way more than is required by his faith. Romney knows the govt is not supposed to take care of the poor, WE are. Get up and volunteer your time and money to people instead of expecting the govt to do it

[BROvahqueen]

asdf wrote:

<quoted text>
Not all of us want socialism which is what you just described.
Btw as governor, it is okay for him to do something like that in his STATE not FEDERALLY. The STATES do what they want the federal government does not get to tell all the states what to do. THIS is the problem!
None of this has anything to do with Obama ruling by executive order and if Romney tries it I'll be just as pissed off

so·cial·ism noun \&#712;s&#333;-sh& #601;-&#716;li-z&#601; m\
Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

This has nothing to do with Socialism but what Romney will do to our job economy. Yes I thought we were off the subject of immigration because Romney never said whether he would reverse the executive order or not.

[asdf]

BROvahqueen wrote:

<quoted text>so·cial·ism noun \&#712;s&#333;-sh& #601;-&#716;li-z&#601; m\
Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

This has nothing to do with Socialism but what Romney will do to our job economy. Yes I thought we were off the subject of immigration because Romney never said whether he would reverse the executive order or not.

Yes this describes Obama and his Occupy losers perfectly. Everyone should share the wealth instead of earning their own.

[BROvahqueen]

bystander wrote:

<quoted text>
Just a couple questions on this post; How is 29% in, 18% out an increase in the jobless rate? Isn't that an 11% drop?
Romney has stated while health care reform was right for his state, it was not right for the country as a whole. State's Rights. It's in the Constitution.
Bill Clinton, last week, touted Bain Capital as a secure, job creating venture. You know something he doesn't? And, FYI, not all capital investments return a gain. Many, many do not. Take Solandra for example.
Everyone DOES have a fair shot and equal rights in this country! And frankly, if you're a minority you have MORE advantages. A white male is the most discriminated class in the country right now.
Through the ages there have ALWAYS been the achievers and then the lazy, unfocused who will depend on others to support them.
The Bible says,'the poor will always be with us.'
I do not understand why liberals cannot understand that the more you give someone, the more you are hurting them. They have to do it themselves, if not for any reason then to instill some ethics in their children.
Can you not see the riots in Greece that are over entitlements being cut because the country HAS NO MONEY to continue them. And, I fear, it will happen here.
Why has he not been impeached? Well, at this point, he's so far in a hole might as well let him ride it out. He's hamstrung at this point.
From 2008 to fall of 2010, the dems held a majority in the house and senate......they weren't going to allow an impeachment go forward. So the last 18 months, misuse of power is being investigated. And Obama care is still to be decided by the Supreme Court. Why is in front of a court if there is no question of it's legality?
Holder's on the stand everyday looking more and more corrupt, and on more than one issue. This administration is being rocked by serious scandals. Not adultry. National security! It will all come out and Barack and Michelle will be in Europe before it's all unwound.
I forget who said it: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But that is only true of the weak and shallow. I know some powerful men and women in several venues, most are fair and ethical.
Captialism is what the country was founded on.

When Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs, a rate twice the national average, and fell to 47th in job creation, fourth from the bottom. Instead of hiring workers in his own state, Romney outsourced call center jobs in India. He cut taxes for millionaires like himself while raising them on the middle class and left the state $2.6 billion deeper in debt. This was in October 2002. The unemployment rate in Massachusetts had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003, the year Romney took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping.[13] While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place by the end of his first year in office.[14] The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was 12th in the nation [15], a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office. The original statistics posted were the wrong ones I apologize. I think Clinton is a double agent for the GOP.

Why is in front of a court if there is no question of it's legality? If the Supreme Court decides that Obama Care affects the country negatively and decide against well thats their decision. I personally agree with not paying for people with my taxes who just need to get a job to pay for their own problems.

[BROvahqueen]

asdf wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes this describes Obama and his Occupy losers perfectly. Everyone should share the wealth instead of earning their own.

The richest million families have not worked three times (let alone 300 times) harder than the other 99 million families.

The richest 10% own 80% of the stock market, providing billions in "unearned income" that is taxed at less than half the rate of income earned through real work. The richest million families may have actually worked LESS than the other 99 million families.

A number of individuals have had one-year incomes over a billion dollars, enough to pay the salaries of 25,000 teachers or health care workers or emergency responders. It's questionable whether a guy who makes a billion betting on a mortgage collapse is worth even one teacher or health care worker or emergency responder.

Next is the woeful state of tax collections on the people making most of the money. Mitt Romney pays 15%, Warren Buffett 17.4%. The richest 400 Americans, 16.6%. The whole top 1%(a million families) paid less than 23% in 2006.

Average Americans pay more than that. Studies show that when state and local taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and excise taxes are tallied up, low-income people can be paying a higher percentage of taxes than the rich, perhaps up to 40% of their incomes.

Average Americans are also paying more than corporations. For every dollar of workers' payroll tax paid in the 1950s, corporations paid three dollars. Now it's 16 cents.

The super-rich like to believe their own initiative and creativity have been the primary drivers of growth in technology and science and business and medicine. Some innovative business leaders deserve credit for putting the pieces together on specific initiatives. But the pieces themselves were put together over many years by thousands of less conspicuous people. As Elizabeth Warren said, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."

Consider just a simple communications device. The pieces were put together by a procession of chemists, physicists, chip designers, programmers, engineers, production-line workers, market analysts, testers, troubleshooters, etc., etc. They, in turn, couldn't have succeeded without another layer of people providing sustenance and medical support and security and administrative assistance and transportation and office maintenance for the technologists. ALL of them contributed to the final product.

You say a lot of them DID get paid? Well, then, something's wrong, because few of the profits over the last 30 years went to this "middle class" of people to keep them financially secure, and to keep them educated in all the new technologies that are replacing their jobs.

The long-term dependency on the supporting members of society is the best reason for the most fortunate among us to care about everyone else. Sadly, research suggests that wealthy people have less empathy for people unlike themselves, because they no longer have reason to associate with them.

This psychological gap between the rich and the rest of us naturally diminishes the incentive for the 1% to support anyone beneath their economic class. Thus less tax revenue and more cutbacks. Cuts in federal spending have been accompanied by an onslaught of social ills, including the highest poverty and homicide and incarceration and obesity and mental illness rates, an increasing child mortality rate, the highest health care costs, low global rankings in math and science scores. We continue to cut the programs that support a stable society.

The most fortunate among us have succeeded because all of America has supported them for 60 years. Yet they've somehow come to believe that they did it all on their own. Nothing could be further from the truth. They should be thanking all the people who contributed to their success.

[Jackass]

BROvahqueen wrote:

<quoted text>
The richest million families have not worked three times (let alone 300 times) harder than the other 99 million families.
The richest 10% own 80% of the stock market, providing billions in "unearned income" that is taxed at less than half the rate of income earned through real work. The richest million families may have actually worked LESS than the other 99 million families.
A number of individuals have had one-year incomes over a billion dollars, enough to pay the salaries of 25,000 teachers or health care workers or emergency responders. It's questionable whether a guy who makes a billion betting on a mortgage collapse is worth even one teacher or health care worker or emergency responder.
Next is the woeful state of tax collections on the people making most of the money. Mitt Romney pays 15%, Warren Buffett 17.4%. The richest 400 Americans, 16.6%. The whole top 1%(a million families) paid less than 23% in 2006.
Average Americans pay more than that. Studies show that when state and local taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and excise taxes are tallied up, low-income people can be paying a higher percentage of taxes than the rich, perhaps up to 40% of their incomes.
Average Americans are also paying more than corporations. For every dollar of workers' payroll tax paid in the 1950s, corporations paid three dollars. Now it's 16 cents.
The super-rich like to believe their own initiative and creativity have been the primary drivers of growth in technology and science and business and medicine. Some innovative business leaders deserve credit for putting the pieces together on specific initiatives. But the pieces themselves were put together over many years by thousands of less conspicuous people. As Elizabeth Warren said, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."
Consider just a simple communications device. The pieces were put together by a procession of chemists, physicists, chip designers, programmers, engineers, production-line workers, market analysts, testers, troubleshooters, etc., etc. They, in turn, couldn't have succeeded without another layer of people providing sustenance and medical support and security and administrative assistance and transportation and office maintenance for the technologists. ALL of them contributed to the final product.
You say a lot of them DID get paid? Well, then, something's wrong, because few of the profits over the last 30 years went to this "middle class" of people to keep them financially secure, and to keep them educated in all the new technologies that are replacing their jobs.
The long-term dependency on the supporting members of society is the best reason for the most fortunate among us to care about everyone else. Sadly, research suggests that wealthy people have less empathy for people unlike themselves, because they no longer have reason to associate with them.
This psychological gap between the rich and the rest of us naturally diminishes the incentive for the 1% to support anyone beneath their economic class. Thus less tax revenue and more cutbacks. Cuts in federal spending have been accompanied by an onslaught of social ills, including the highest poverty and homicide and incarceration and obesity and mental illness rates, an increasing child mortality rate, the highest health care costs, low global rankings in math and science scores. We continue to cut the programs that support a stable society.
The most fortunate among us have succeeded because all of America has supported them for 60 years. Yet they've somehow come to believe that they did it all on their own. Nothing could be further from the truth. They should be thanking all the people who contributed to their success.

Wrong

[BROvahqueen]

Jackass wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong

Shutup. You'll never be the man your mother is. You definitely live up to your name.

[emma]

he is fighting for everyday people like me. REMEMBER HE HEALTH CARE COVERS A LOT OF THINGS THAT NO ONE HAS NOTICED

[asdf]

emma wrote:

he is fighting for everyday people like me. REMEMBER HE HEALTH CARE COVERS A LOT OF THINGS THAT NO ONE HAS NOTICED

healthcare reform is fine but it must be constitutional and mot socialized medicine and we must be able to afford. I benefit from the law too, doesn't mean it's right or constitutional. Tell me how you feel about it next year when the part of the law goes into effect that you cannot get healthcare unless you allow the government to put all of ur medical history in a computer chip and they have access to all of it. You can't thank GE for the technology too

[asdf]

asdf wrote:

<quoted text>healthcare reform is fine but it must be constitutional and mot socialized medicine and we must be able to afford. I benefit from the law too, doesn't mean it's right or constitutional. Tell me how you feel about it next year when the part of the law goes into effect that you cannot get healthcare unless you allow the government to put all of ur medical history in a computer chip and they have access to all of it. You can't thank GE for the technology too

That was supposed to be "you can thank". Stupid Autocorrect

[asdf]

By the way, GE pays zero in taxes Queen but they're really good friends with Obama and supplying a lot of stuff for his administration. Same company as MSNBC So much for fairness.

[asdf]

I'm sure you know about Obama holding $40,000/plate fundraisers at George Clooneys house a few weeks ago correct? Let's see where else his campaign money comes from and how his donors are now working in our federal government. Bribes??

From Iwatchnews.org

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/06/15/4880/oba...

Telecom executive Donald H. Gips raised a big bundle of cash to help finance his friend Barack Obama’s run for the presidency.

Gips, a vice president of Colorado-based Level 3 Communications LLC, delivered more than $500,000 in contributions for the Obama war chest, while two fellow senior company executives collected at least $150,000 more.

After the election, Gips was put in charge of hiring in the Obama White House, helping to place loyalists and fundraisers in many key positions. Then in mid-2009, the new president named him ambassador to South Africa. Level 3 Communications, in which Gips retained stock, meanwhile received millions of dollars of government stimulus contracts for broadband projects in six states—though Gips said he was "completely unaware" of the stimulus money.

These “bundlers” raised at least $50,000 and sometimes more than $500,000 in campaign donations for Obama’s campaign. Many of those in the “Class of 2008” are now being asked to bundle contributions for Obama’s re-election, an effort that could cost $1 billion.

As a candidate, Obama spoke passionately about diminishing the clout of moneyed interests and making the White House more accessible to everyday Americans. In kicking off his presidential run on Feb. 10, 2007, he blasted “the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests,” who he said had “turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”

But just like other presidential aspirants, Obama relied heavily on mega-donors to propel his campaign across the finish line and many fundraisers have shared in the spoils of victory. Some took jobs in pivotal federal agencies such as the Department of Justice, Department of Energy and the Federal Communications Commission, while others have served on influential advisory commissions and boards that meet periodically to help formulate policy. Two dozen have been appointed ambassadors to foreign countries.

The White House said its appointees were highly qualified.“In filling these posts, the administration looks for the most qualified candidates who represent Americans from all walks of life,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said.“Being a donor does not get you a job in this administration, nor does it preclude you from getting one.”

The iWatch News investigation found:

• Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third, of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House. More than half the ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised more than half a million.

• The big bundlers had broad access to the White House for meetings with top administration officials and glitzy social events. In all, campaign bundlers and their family members account for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits. Half of them raised $200,000 or more.

• Some Obama bundlers have ties to companies that stand to gain financially from the president’s policy agenda, particularly in clean energy and telecommunications, and some already have done so. Level 3 Communications, for instance, snared $13.8 million in stimulus money. At least 18 other bundlers have ties to businesses poised to profit from government spending to promote clean energy, telecommunications and other key administration priorities.

There is more but it won't fit here. Go ahead and click it and read about it.

[notlocal]

BROvahqueen wrote:

<quoted text>
Average Americans are also paying more than corporations. For every dollar of workers' payroll tax paid in the 1950s, corporations paid three dollars. Now it's 16 cents.

As Elizabeth Warren said, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."

Consider just a simple communications device. The pieces were put together by a procession of chemists, physicists, chip designers, programmers, engineers, production-line workers, market analysts, testers, troubleshooters, etc., etc. They, in turn, couldn't have succeeded without another layer of people providing sustenance and medical support and security and administrative assistance and transportation and office maintenance for the technologists. ALL of them contributed to the final product.

This psychological gap between the rich and the rest of us naturally diminishes the incentive for the 1% to support anyone beneath their economic class. Thus less tax revenue and more cutbacks. Cuts in federal spending have been accompanied by an onslaught of social ills, including the highest poverty and homicide and incarceration and obesity and mental illness rates, an increasing child mortality rate, the highest health care costs, low global rankings in math and science scores. We continue to cut the programs that support a stable society.

Well, I do tax returns and there is another side to this. One single mom with one child, receiving welfare in several different categories, paid $1010. in federal withholding and received a check from IRS for $4800.+. And she got more on her state return. Her effective federal tax rate alone was PLUS 38.12%. And the baby daddy lives with her, working under the table while collecting federally subsidized unemployment. Now multiply that by the millions of US citizens doing the same thing.

That's where your and my tax dollars are going, not to the wealthy.

No one does get wealthy on their own. They work hard. Many wealthy inherit wealth, but they are quickly broke if they are not good stewards of what has been bestowed on them.

No one gets wealthy on hand outs, that's for sure.

Delaware and Nevada have the most advantageous tax rates for corportations. Lower the corporate tax rate, invite business and jobs. Something like 75% of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware. Jobs. I have no idea how Nevada got so far in the hole, but Delaware is doing well.

As for your simple communications devise, you prove your own point. It created many jobs and hence, retail spending, more jobs and more tax income. BUT some wealthy person had to gamble on it and invest the capital to do move forward on the production. Are you saying the catalyst for all of the above does not deserve to make a profit? You have described Capitalism perfectly. It works.

And most companies do teach the new technology within and promote from within. I know of many examples. Avon, for example, will take a fork lift driver, teach him the computer system, and then send him all over the world teaching other employees in their foreign shipping houses.

As for your next to the last paragraph. Ridiculous. Now you want to blame obesity on the wealthy? Along with every other ill of society? Why not on the lazy, unemployed, drug or alcohol user who is living off Uncle Sam? You have to own where your decisions land you.

We do not support the wealthy. We support the slackers and losers.

And if it were not for the charitable contributions that the wealthy make, our food banks, public housing and especially advances in medicine would not have been possible. They get cancer and heart disease and everything else just like the rest of us.

The wealthy do not live in a bubble as you seem to think and are not across the board selfish, greedy pigs. Many are very generous and thankful for the opportunity to be able to help. Yes, they are, for the most part, capitalists.

I apologize for any mispelling.

[asdf]

notlocal wrote:

<quoted text>Well, I do tax returns and there is another side to this. One single mom with one child, receiving welfare in several different categories, paid $1010. in federal withholding and received a check from IRS for $4800.+. And she got more on her state return. Her effective federal tax rate alone was PLUS 38.12%. And the baby daddy lives with her, working under the table while collecting federally subsidized unemployment. Now multiply that by the millions of US citizens doing the same thing.

That's where your and my tax dollars are going, not to the wealthy.

No one does get wealthy on their own. They work hard. Many wealthy inherit wealth, but they are quickly broke if they are not good stewards of what has been bestowed on them.

No one gets wealthy on hand outs, that's for sure.

Delaware and Nevada have the most advantageous tax rates for corportations. Lower the corporate tax rate, invite business and jobs. Something like 75% of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware. Jobs. I have no idea how Nevada got so far in the hole, but Delaware is doing well.

As for your simple communications devise, you prove your own point. It created many jobs and hence, retail spending, more jobs and more tax income. BUT some wealthy person had to gamble on it and invest the capital to do move forward on the production. Are you saying the catalyst for all of the above does not deserve to make a profit? You have described Capitalism perfectly. It works.

And most companies do teach the new technology within and promote from within. I know of many examples. Avon, for example, will take a fork lift driver, teach him the computer system, and then send him all over the world teaching other employees in their foreign shipping houses.

As for your next to the last paragraph. Ridiculous. Now you want to blame obesity on the wealthy? Along with every other ill of society? Why not on the lazy, unemployed, drug or alcohol user who is living off Uncle Sam? You have to own where your decisions land you.

We do not support the wealthy. We support the slackers and losers.

And if it were not for the charitable contributions that the wealthy make, our food banks, public housing and especially advances in medicine would not have been possible. They get cancer and heart disease and everything else just like the rest of us.

The wealthy do not live in a bubble as you seem to think and are not across the board selfish, greedy pigs. Many are very generous and thankful for the opportunity to be able to help. Yes, they are, for the most part, capitalists.

I apologize for any mispelling.

Thank you for explaining this way better than I could.

This is a "participation award" society we live in. No one was ever forced to work hard and win and they want their trophies NOW. And you know, some people don't even have to work at things, they just have God given talents. Life isn't fair and isnt supposed to be but our wonderful public school system has taught everyone that it should be.

[bystander]

BROvahqueen wrote:

<quoted text>
When Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs, a rate twice the national average, and fell to 47th in job creation, fourth from the bottom. Instead of hiring workers in his own state, Romney outsourced call center jobs in India. He cut taxes for millionaires like himself while raising them on the middle class and left the state $2.6 billion deeper in debt. This was in October 2002. The unemployment rate in Massachusetts had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003, the year Romney took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping.[13] While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place by the end of his first year in office.[14] The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was 12th in the nation [15], a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office. The original statistics posted were the wrong ones I apologize. I think Clinton is a double agent for the GOP.
Why is in front of a court if there is no question of it's legality? If the Supreme Court decides that Obama Care affects the country negatively and decide against well thats their decision. I personally agree with not paying for people with my taxes who just need to get a job to pay for their own problems.

Thank you for your frank admission that you had posted the incorrect information previously. No harm.

Clinton is an agent for himself and Hilary. It ends there.

So after reading all of the above, did Romney blame his predecessor for the figures; and do you think the upwards trend that he enjoyed and that followed his tenure had anything to do with policies he had put in place?

The Supreme Court had better make their decision on the law and constitution rather than if it effects the country negatively.

The Federal government cannot mandate that every citizen must purchase any commodity. That's a very slipperly slope, my friend.

[notlocal]

asdf wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for explaining this way better than I could.
This is a "participation award" society we live in. No one was ever forced to work hard and win and they want their trophies NOW. And you know, some people don't even have to work at things, they just have God given talents. Life isn't fair and isnt supposed to be but our wonderful public school system has taught everyone that it should be.

Well, no. It's not always fair. But that's not an excuse to fold up and take whatever hand out is given you and then ask for more.

No one can control everything that may happen to them in life. But they can control their reaction, which is where character begins. In my opinion.

This country still is the land of opportunity compared to any other and that includes education and employment. Capitalism works and liberalism creates poverty, dependence and, finally, total capitulation to the grantor. As it is intended to do.

It will always fail.

I will always to adhere to the wisdom of, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for life."

[notlocal]

asdf wrote:

By the way, GE pays zero in taxes Queen but they're really good friends with Obama and supplying a lot of stuff for his administration. Same company as MSNBC So much for fairness.

That pisses me off so much! Jeffery Immelt (or however you spell it), now a Obama appointee IN the White House.
Well, I guess that was one move that was tranparent. To anyone with a brain. The only one this White House has made.

[bystander]

emma wrote:

he is fighting for everyday people like me. REMEMBER HE HEALTH CARE COVERS A LOT OF THINGS THAT NO ONE HAS NOTICED

Emma, he's not fighting for you. He's not even fighting....just issuing edits that he know will be overturned. And he doesn't care.

They packed so much pork and other issues into the Obamacare, no one understands it. It's about a lot more than health care.

He cares about the Jeffery Immelts and George Clooneys of the world. Has no affection for or reflection about the middle class. He was never part of it.

The Dems have had control of the house and senate since January 3, 2007. The DOW was 12,621.77; GDP was at 3.5%; unemployment was 4.6%.

On Janaury 3, 2007 Barney Frank (D) took over the House Financial Services Committee and Frank Dodd (D) took over the Senate banking Committee.

George Bush asked 17 times, beginning in 2001, to stop Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac because it was risky to the country. Democratic congress cut him off every time.

Budgets come from the Congress. The congress has been controlled by the democratic party since January 3, 2007 and to this day control Congress. We have no budget.

The deficit Obama inherited was the the 2007, the last budget from the Republicans, generated a lower than any deficit in five years prior and the fourth straight annual decline.

Obama took office in 2008 and the Democratic congress passed the massive spending omnibus bill which Barack then gleefully signed.

Let he and Michelle go. They don't care about us.

[notlocal]

shedevil wrote:

<quoted text>Yes he did say it but later tried to go back on it.well to late he already said it.He said they had a safety net after he said he didn't care about the poor to try take back what he had said.To late.When you all have no social security see who was right and who is wrong.

No one over the age of 40 is going to lose or see a decrease in their retirement social security. So relax.

They may rasie the retirement age from 80% at 62 to 64 and 100% at 65 to 67.

They may, and I hope they do, start drug testing and reinvestigating all Social Security DISABILITY receipents. That would save a TON of money.

And they may revamp the SS withholding system for those under 40.......like, they can have a choice if they want to pay SS and medicare in the form of a tax on their wages, or plan for themselves, forego the tax and not be entitled to file or receive SS at any age.

They may reconstruct some other SS benefits like for children of parents age 65 and over. Larry King's kids get a SS check. Or if they don't, they are entitled to it if under 18.

They may begin basing payments to children under age 18, who have one deceased parent, from automatic and base it on financial need.

Those four things would generate, perhaps billions in savings.

But no administration is going to cut off or decrease SS payments to retirees and grandma is not going off a cliff.

[BROvahqueen]

asdf wrote:

I'm sure you know about Obama holding $40,000/plate fundraisers at George Clooneys house a few weeks ago correct? Let's see where else his campaign money comes from and how his donors are now working in our federal government. Bribes??
• Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third, of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House. More than half the ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised more than half a million.
• The big bundlers had broad access to the White House for meetings with top administration officials and glitzy social events. In all, campaign bundlers and their family members account for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits. Half of them raised $200,000 or more.
• Some Obama bundlers have ties to companies that stand to gain financially from the president’s policy agenda, particularly in clean energy and telecommunications, and some already have done so. Level 3 Communications, for instance, snared $13.8 million in stimulus money. At least 18 other bundlers have ties to businesses poised to profit from government spending to promote clean energy, telecommunications and other key administration priorities.
There is more but it won't fit here. Go ahead and click it and read about it.

Well if that really happened that is some dirty business dealings right there.