I believe welfare was first created to help mothers whose husbands had died, raise their children to a point where they could take care of themselves. We are now on possibly the fifth generation of families who have lived on nothing but welfare. Who let this get out of control? How do we stop it? I'm all for helping the elderly and children get good health care but I'm not willing to keep paying through the teeth to those who don't care to help themselves.
How about a lifetime cap on benefits? Like you I don't mind helping the disabled, or those going through a life crisis but we need to stop fostering generations of people who never work. Having said that we also need to mandate a living wage and decent benefits for those who do work. In Japan the culture is that you work hard and usually long term for the company, in return for that companies treat their employees decently with a living wage and decent benefits. If we want people to work we need to make working pay.
If you put a cap on benefits you would have to ration them and that is one of the fears of this reform. The only way any health reform will work will be by taxing people based upon income levels, so each can afford health insurance. The more money you make the more you pay. With taxes now, the less you make the more you pay. It is like you get punished because you dont meet the income bracket or you fall into the wrong one. More, more, less less. This way everybody could have health insurance. Under the current system the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the the middle class carries the weight of both.
We also have to take notice of the working class poor.(I call this group the middle class, the government says middle class is the $250000 a year range, I beg to differ!!) This group is unseen in soceity, but the backbone of the U.S. work force. They make enough to pay rent but not enough to qualify to buy a house, they cannot afford 6 or 700 a month medical insurance payments for a family of 4 because groceries and necessities average $5 to $600 a month, they live from one pay check to the next, and etc. They are not drug addicts or alcholics, they are your everyday people. These people are often educated and work very hard for just enough money to survive.
These are families with two parents working, one kid in college, and two others on thier way to college. The unseen are making $40 to $60 thousand a year. They make too much money for any type of federal or state backed assistance programs.
Health benefits on a sliding scale may work or just tax people accordingly so we can afford heatlh insurance. Why should the rich get richer? Is this really what our country is based upon? sad but true.
Sorry, I was referring to "welfare" payments, that the prior poster had talked about not necessarily a cap on health benefits. I too am concerned for the "working poor" which is why I think the employer should be required to provide a benefits package
Thanks for the clarification.
I think welfare programs do put limits on thier programs and services. The people applying can only collect benefits for a certain amount of time and have to jump through several different hoops,etc to become qualified. It is not an "easy road". Actually takes a bit of effort. I imagine there are people who live this way, but I would have to say it is a small percentage. Most people do want to work and pay thier own way. It seems like alot of the posts remain focused on the actions of the minority not the majority.
I believe welfare was orginally supposed to be carried out by churches and other community based non profit orgnizations. No tax dollars involved.
I'm not so much against this on moral grounds, I think if we have money to run an overseas empire we should sure have money to take of at least the very young and old. What I'm afraid of is a mess like social security where we all pay in, only to be told years later that the fund is broke because the congress spent the money on other things.
i moved out of wyoming years ago and polls like this are the reason. to those of you who do not support healthcare for everyone i have some questions to ask you.
did you or anyone in your family attend public school?
have you ever needed the police? how about a fireman?
do you drive on city streets? use streetlights? how about walk down the nice sidewalks they put in on Gould?
anyone that is over 65 do you receive medicare benefits?
what about city water and sewer services?
do you drive on highways and interstates?
All of those things are provided by the "facist" government you're so opposed to. the same people that don't have jobs and don't pay taxes get to drive on roads that you pay for and use sewer that you pay for. can't you understand that maybe helping them with healthcare is just as important? i think it's selfish to not care enough about others that you can't pitch in so they can be healthy. i'm proud of our president and hope that he ignores the ignorant voices of the selfish and passes healthcare for everyone.
Give citizen's all the basic necessities. If a little is good why not a lot? People need clothing, housing, food,vehicles,etc. as well. If someone can't afford this stuff citizens should voluntarily give their money to the government so they can distribute it and everyone can have everything. YOU people that disagree are "selfish". I would be so proud of my president if he would just take the money from you "selfish" people. I'll bet you agree - huh "Seriously."
Wow - why don't you just try thinking a little more long-term and with something other than emotion.
"If someone can't afford this stuff citizens should voluntarily give their money to the government so they can distribute it"
We are already doing some of that. 35 million people currently receive Food Stamps.
I'm well aware of that Steve. But my comment seems to be in line with the previous comment. (People are selfish and because they won't give up their money to help others pay for health care they want our president to take it.) I know this thinking is absurd.
My point is: where do we stop? We give people food, the gov't already plays a role in trying to put people in homes they can't afford, and despite the fact that I know of no one not getting medical care, people want to quit trying to provide it by themselves and allow the gov't to give it to them. Incrementally, our limited government is becoming anything but "limited."
So what option is left? I see no mainstream politician ever mention things like small limited government and individual liberty. It seems all we have are two parties doing everything they can to claw out the most government benefits possible for their voting block. While I agree with a lot of things the "tea party" marchers want I find it incredibly bothersome to see the republican establishment attempting to ride on their coat tails. With he possible exception their has never been a more big government president than G.W. Bush, and he was supposed to be a republican. What are people who care about freedom to do?
I agree with you. There is already a great deal of socialism in our government, and we seem to continually move further in that direction. In the process, we continually lose liberty.
Wasn't it it a republican president who last year decided to give 700 billion to the wall street crooks? Now republicans have decided spending not much more than that on national health care is communism. What hypocrites! (and for the record I have very serious reservations about "Obama Care").
I'm not so much is favor of an all powerful government doing this as I am for having powerful labor unions that force employers to pay a living wage and decent benefits. For the last thirty years the elite in this country have waged a war on the middle class through free trade and unfettered immigration, it's way past time that the middle class defend themselves.
I know a lot of people that have a union mentality (many good friends), I've seen first hand the non-productive behavior that unions often condone, and I've seen the animal behavior strikers can display. The mentality that I am owed something is a big problem. Unions aren't the answer.
No unions are not perfect. But before unions we had no forty hour work week, no benefits, unsafe working conditions, child labor, pay not much better than slave wages. Thank god we have unions and god help us if the far right in this country is ever successful in destroying them. Those evil unions without them we could all work in sweat shops for third world wages, like in Bangladesh.
Of course, fire, police and water treatment departments are local organizations run by local governments that serve a need which is basically the same for everyone. Moving diverse healthcare needs under a national umbrella would be quite a different task.
The most common complaint about medicare is that it is inefficient and inflexible, which I believe is mostly due to the bureaucracy behind it. My observation is that state and local governments are typically much more efficient than the federal government. Nationalized healthcare might improve service for those who cannot currently afford quality care, but it comes with a host of disadvantages as well. I think the pros and cons are evident when comparing private hospitals to the V.A.
Something needs to be done to control the profit motive for healthcare companies, but there is a danger for loss of liberty under a national system, and we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This was written by the mormons, but it really hits alot of points about the health care debate. I am not mormon nor do a endorse any particular faith or religion.
I read somewhere that you could can rate or judge a country by how they treat and take care of thier elderly and poor.
People have truly gone mad. Excellent post.
It saddens me to see what our so called leaders have done to this country. Curtailed personal freedoms in order to chase terrorist boogieman, Destroyed our industry and jobs through free trade and unfettered immigration, bankrupted our treasury and devalued our dollar, thrown away lives in at least one needless war. Our so called leaders are a disgrace. As for parties it's like two robbers wearing different color clothes and perhaps stealing different stuff from my house, robbers none the less and equally despicable.
Why do you continually post these polls where the outcome and comments are so predictable?
If you have some ideas on other poll questions you would like us to use, please send them to us.
I'd like to see a poll question on the possibility of the powderhorn being incorperated as a town.
I support anything that provokes thought and discussion.
I'm very surprised to hear any of this from Sheridan folks.
I'm a banker at one of the banks here in town. I for one can say, I have not been the recipient of any government stimulus, nor has the bank to which I am employed received ANY kind of "bail-out" from the government. HOWEVER -- to those of you who bank with National Banks: I'd be kissing the next account statement you receive in the mail.. because had not those bail-outs been readily available, you'd be in a world of hurt trying to collect your lost funds in an insurance claim to the FDIC.
While this has no pertinence to the actual poll question, I noticed many of you were posting about a topic to which I am very familiar.
As far as the health care plan goes --
I don't personally care to help pay for an irresponsible 16 year old girl get an abortion of a perfectly healthy baby. Nor do I care for some illegal immigrant drug lord to be able to obtain health care on my dollar.
I only use my local credit union I'll never use a bank again for any ourpose what so ever.
your in the same boat as a lot of other people.. The banks caught wind of this about 25 years ago... Has your credit union changed names as of late? Ever ask why ? Over the comming years that credit union will feel a lot more like a bank... IMHO
Kind of off topic, but as a banker do you support an audit of the Federal Reserve? Do you support fractional reserve lending? Did your bank ever finance a home mortgage and then flip it to a bank like Chase Manhattan for a few bucks. Did your bank ever support the derivatives markets? Does your bank use selective lending policies? Did your bank ever support the lobbying of changing or putting restrictions on credit unions if so why. In your opinion why does “birds of a feather flock together” not apply to your bank. Banking destroyed a whole country, and put the whole world at war. Banking cost millions of lives all in the name of profit. It seems to me, that money changes never learn.
If you'd like to pull the "banker terms" out of your hat..
1. Yes I support an audit of the Federal Reserve. While I myself haven't seen anything "fishy," it's a good idea to monitor the honesty and integrity of everyone.
2. Fractional Reserve Lending is a universal practice in modern lending. The Federal Reserve requires every bank to keep a certain percentage of the combined total of deposits as cash and highly liquid assets. The rest is ours with which to do what we choose. Some give it to their employees as big bonuses, others, like us, provide low interest loans to community members. Terrible people, aren't we?
3. It's called secondary market lending. We, as a small, local community bank, cannot grant certain loans for home mortgages. Thus, we make the loan, put it out there for bigger banks to purchase, and generally, come out relatively even in profit/loss margins. We make virtually nothing.
4. It's illegal to use selective lending policies. There's something out there called the "Community Reinvestment Act," which we are audited for every year. The act ensures that every bank is making loans to a diverse group of people in diverse areas of the community. To make "selective loans" would put us out of business.
5. And no, we are not affiliated with local credit unions in any way. We see them as competition, like we see other banks as competition. We are ready and willing to compete to provide the same low interest loans, fee-free, high interest-bearing checking and savings accounts.
Any other questions?
Great response ! and I truly do mean that.
Lets look at point 2. "Fractional Reserve Lending" I agree with you it is, as you say a universal practice in modern lending. This is what I take issue with. Let's say you make me a loan at 12% for a million dollars. You only have to have a small fraction of that physically on hand. The rest is loaned to you via the privet federal reserve at less then 1% . Ok I get that part fine.. But what do you pay people who put money in your bank for long terms savings 3 maybe 4 % ? look at that margin. And what is TRULY at risk, its the MONEY of people who have come to you for saving their money. Then the bank turns around and leverages that persons savings account, seem fair ? More and more to the general public these days people are saying no.
point 3 "secondary market lending" In my eyes that's an omission that you contributes to the problem this country is currently facing. You brokered the deal.
point 4 "Community Reinvestment Act" that alone is all about high risk loans, with higher interest rates associated to them. But did the APR of return on lets say a standard savings account go up. No the bank pocketed the profit and hosed the person who wanted to save.
point 5. I get it, the credit union is competition.. But they are non profit competition. Your banking industry turns around and says that's not fair ? not-for-profit cooperative institutions, why does your industry take offense to that ?
Yes, I agree entirely.
HOWEVER, one must stop to consider the fact that as well as grocery stores, clothing stores, and car sales, that a bank is a BUSINESS.
Yes, we mark-up. But so does every other effectively functioning business. Do you think that the pop-tarts you just bought are really worth 3.75? Or the shirt you just purchased for $25? I have worked in many other industries and can with experience say, clothing and food are marked up at LEAST 50%.
Now take a look at banking. We would NEVER make a million dollar loan at 12%. EVER. Let's say, depending upon our customer's credit history and financial ability to repay, the interest rate would be somewhere around 5-6%. When considering that we can offer up to 4.5% on a savings or checking account, that's a pretty significantly low up-charge. A 1.5% mark-up, rather than 45-50% that you without question pay in other industries?
**and keep in mind, the bank also has employees to pay.
Secondary market lending -- I still stand buy it. We want to provide our customer's service, yet are unable financially to do so, because of the fact that we ARE protecting our customer's deposits.
The Community Reinvestment Act is not only pertinent to the high risk, high interest loans. It ensures that we are making loans to all types of people. Whether rich, poor, or right in the middle. It protects the customer from discrimination, and protects us from being accused of doing so. While we still have to use "sound lending practice," it is the purpose of the act to make sure that no one is denied a loan because of discrimination. Whether that involves making a high risk loan is an entirely different discussion.
As far as Credit Unions go..
Be wary of the "non-profit" gigs. The non-profit "RENEW" owner still makes over 100,000 a year. AND they manage to employ some 100-some employees. They've got to be making something...
I too work at a bank in town. You have done a good job explaining things. I would just add that in my opinion, most of the mess was made by bad mortgages where income, employment, and asstets weren't verified. And, since the problem grew to such a huge level, there are three groups to blame - the customers not being honest, the lenders that didn't verify, and the regulators not catching them. I don't think any area banks would loan without checking and documenting. There were also the adjustable rate mortgages that customers weren't prepared for. Again, plenty of blame to go around.
I would also say that on the other topic that I would not want tax dollars to fund abortion. Without getting into an abortion debate; Damien and others want to use the phrase 'personal responsibility' and I say if it is the woman's choice (which I say not), she can pay for it.
The blame game is over, the question is what is each person going to do to make the world a better place? May sound pretty crazy, but it just makes sense to me. We cannot undo what has been done, but we can continue on towards a better future and hopefully make better choices.
Damian (which is me) has not mentioned anything about "personal responsibility" or if I did, please mention the post where I wrote that. I do see how "personal responsibility" could of been assumed by some of my posts. I did mention freedom of choice (which I say yes)and yea she can pay for it, he can pay for it, we can pay for it, they can pay for it. Paying for the abortion is not the issue, the issue is whether women have the choice. Each situation is different and should be handled as such. Thank goodness for freedom of speech and freedom of thought and most of all freedom of choice. Let us not debate abortion, that might provoke thought.
America is great and will be well into the future.
You have mentioned several times about people taking responsibility for their actions. Check your posts.
Abortion is not the topic of this, health care and who should pay for it is.
Read the post "HEALTHCARE" the answer lies there within. I did read my posts, I must still be missing it. Thanks for the assist. I only mentioned abortion because someone used it as an example in an earlier post.
I failed to mention it was on other topics that you had mentioned that. I agree that is good policy to account for your actions.
When I last used a bank (about fifteen years ago) they would let the checks hit the account as they came in, but weren't able to "post" a deposit until the next day...I'll never do business with that bank again.
Every bank is like that. If you look on your deposit slips, or make yourself aware of the signs that are posted when you walk in, that's the way it is.
Deposits are made into a bank. They are then imaged, and a "cash letter" is sent to the Federal Reserve and is processed there. It's actually at 6:00 pm that your deposit, if made before the standard cut-off time of your bank, will be posted to your account available for use in the system. It's nothing to do with the bank at all -- it's the way your deposit has to be made. It's unfortunately inconvenient for those who want to immediately withdraw or use, but my suggestion would be to withold some cash from the deposit you are making if you need the funds before 6:00 that evening.
There are certain holds that can be put on a check to make sure it will clear another bank, if it is over a certain, very high-dollar amount.
I'm sorry that you've had poor experiences with other banks in the past, but I can honestly say with absolute integrity, that we have never run into any problems with our customers.
At my credit union the deposits are credited to my account that minute.
Yes, they are credited to the account. As are ours. You can write checks on them, withdraw cash from the atm, and from our financial institution. However, if you use your card on those deposited funds, it wouldn't work for you until 6:00, unless you already had cleared funds to cover the purchase in your account.
At my prior bank (first interstate) they were not credited.
Like I said, I am very proud of the fact that as a bank, we have had no complaints.
It is my upmost intention to provide every customer of ours with the best possible service I can. I have an understanding of my customer's needs, and they understand that sometimes banking is a little bit inconvenient -- in general, at banks, credit unions, and savings institutions. But it's not because we as bankers want it to be that way, it's because we are REGULATED that way. :/
First of all I agree with you on your points about health care. I myself have issues with paying health care costs for someone who does not work, illegal immigrant, and or any irresponsible person. However I still feel that we will see a health care bill signed before Obama leaves office and it will not benefit you or I.
A big fat no! I don't support Obama's attempt to make himself a king or a dictator. Can you imagine if Wyoming had actually elected Gary Trauner? Wyoming would be lined up behind this mess, yes, against everything Wyoming stands for; if we had elected Gary Trauner we would be part of this pant load.
you just don't get it, there is no left or right... you think it makes a difference as to who we elect ? If you do the joke is on you... Mark my words, he WILL get something passed, and you can bet it will not be good for you or I. However the point still stands it will pass in time, before he leaves office.. Like I keep pointing out, it did not matter that 95% of the american people did not want to have ANYTHING to do with the 700 billion dollar BANKER bail out.. Did it matter ? No. Bush may have floated the bill but the majority democrats passed it. like I said there is no left or right, there is no democrat vs. republican... open your eyes.. The bankers have taken control of BOTH sides, people need to wake up..
It does in fact matter who we elect -- Are you suggesting then, that our nation is a communist country?
I'd say we are a LOT more like a fascist country than we were say twenty five years ago. Were turning into a sort of tin pot third world banana republic. Neither party really gives two bits for personal freedom or responsibility in this country any more. What we have for political parties are two pigs feeding the public trough in a struggle of who can give their friends the most public money with no regard what so ever as to the good of this country.
Well lets see, we have warrant less checkpoints now days. We have do not fly lists with a no judge or jury. We now have free speech ZONES, appointed aka NOT ELECTED officials who hold the position of "ZAR" I could go on, you tell me where we are headed. You tell me what path we are going down.
Well put, If Americans had any sense we would all default en mass on every credit card in the country, Just send the bankers a note that we are of the understanding that the 700 billion should have been enough to cover the bill, with change left over.
This goes back to my original idea of the MASS publishing of everyone's social security number.. Why, that's how you send a REAL message to the banks. WHY, the fraud that revolves around that number all tracks back to the BIG banks.. I say pay your credit card bill for now, or you face legal issues later. But if everyone picked a day to LEGALLY make their social security number PUBLIC, say 10/10/2010 what do you think the banks would do between now and that time frame. If anything it would show that the bankers are forcing the hand of our elected officials. If the idea took off it would be one of the biggest bear traps the American people could ever set to the point of being historic. Like the story Sheridan media put out, one line says it all.. Kurt Layher "Unfortunately, once money has been wired overseas, it is nearly impossible to retrieve. In fact, some countries in Africa depend on income from scammers for a significant portion of their revenue." If our elected officials want us the American people to play in the New World Order, they need to see what the price is... IMHO
Watching sports on TV is always far more important then taking action with local goverment.
Let's let government take more control over our health. I see where Barack is coming from. He had no dad to take care of him and so it did take a community to take care of him. I can see that is where he is coming from. I don't agree with it at all. Someone once told me that first there is tyranny then a fight for democracy then back to tyranny. That means that democracy is not easy and we get lazy after 200 years and then we vote an administration in that will write us out a check. We are there I am afraid. Cookie
Democrats take care of the poor, republicans take care of the rich, and no one looks out for the working middle class. Voting anymore is like choosing between a pile of poo and a bag of garbage for lunch, with mandatory double servings.
Democrats care for the people who are poor because they DON'T WANT to work. They are the enablers. Republicans make sure that the middle class people who work their tails off don't have to SUPPORT those who DON'T WANT to work. They are the motivators.
Tell me, which would you rather be leading the country?
If you're willing to dig, take a look at the statistics.. There are FAR more registered democrats on the government welfare payroll than independent and republican registers.
Republicans have done nothing for the middle class the last eight years, except perhaps to destroy it, Bankers on the other hand find great friends in the republican party. On another subject I'm disgusted at the lack of respect for the Bill of rights and personal freedom in this country.
I do find great friends in the Republican party.
I for one, do not want my hard earned dollars going to irresponsible mothers of 6 kids with 6 different fathers who refuses to work because she can more easily apply for welfare. I don't want 1/8 of my salary to go toward the abortion of an innocent baby, toward the health care of an illegal immigrant, toward the absolute and imminent demoralization of a once great country. And the Republican party works to ensure that I don't have to. Unfortunately, they don't have much say in the matter at the present moment in time.
How can you so adamently stand for the democrats, and then completely harp on the state of the economy and the bail-outs? What political party, exactly, do you think issued those?
The democrats.. Because that's what they do. Give hand outs to those who don't want to do it the hard way.
I entirely agree that this nation is and has been headed in the wrong direction for years. And while I do admit that Bush made MANY mistakes in his years of service, I also stand beside him for the mere fact that he did have the best interest of our country in mind.
I would a million times over prefer a president who cherishes the interest of the American people over, well, who we have in office now.
Take a look at our country..
Now take a look at who's leading it.
If I remember correctly, was'nt Bush still president in September 2008? Didnt Bush approve billions of taxpayer dollars to be used to bailout several companies that were going under. Wasnt the stock market crashing at that time?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but Obama wasnt even leading the country in Sept of 2008, Bush was. Obama came afterwards and is still trying to clean up the mess of the previous adminstration. Doesnt matter if it was Republican or Democratic, a mess is a mess.
Where is Bush now? You never see him on the news. It is like he vanished from the face of the earth. From what I can tell, Bush had big money and big business in mind and really lost the true sense of what our country is about, the people. Why give billions to business's that were obviously mis managed?
This is still a great country going through great change. Do you think it would be better to do nothing about our health care? What if the actions Obamas administration does actually improve our country and makes a positive impact, etc. what will you say then?
If I can pay a little more to make a difference, then I will. I am a patriot and will assist this country as needed. I will gladly assist that mother with 6 kids, that is working 2 jobs and is still on welfare because the dead beat fathers do not pay thier child support. I will gladly give support to the women that choose an abortion, because it is a womens choice, not a mans choice for a women. What if every situation is not the same? Did you ever consider each situation be dealt with on an individual level?
It is always better to have tried and failed then to have not tried at all.
I am so sorry for the way you feel.
It really and truly must be miserable to be one of those to blame for completely demoralizing our country. This country was founded upon Christian principles. It would absolutely break my heart to see the look on our forefathers faces.
And I believe they are talking about Obama's grandose "Stimulus Package." I'm pretty sure that since Obama's signature is on it, he was president at the time. But good attempt to sound brilliant.
And if your idea of patriotism is supporting the malicious, corrupt, free-loading ways of others, I am truly scared for the fate of our country.
This is a typical republican response. Blame others and do not take any responsibility for anything. The blatent misuse of Christian Principles.
I am talking about the Bush administrations actions that caused a complete economic collapse of our nation and therefore causing the next administration to take drastic measures to save the U.S. Hence "Stimulas Package"
I am truly sad that some people tend to be very narrow minded and have tainted perceptions of reality. I am also glad in way. Yep I am a patriot and not too bright, I did in fact support Bush when he ran our country into the mud, but I feel a little better now that we have a President that is at least trying to do things better. Your attempts to sound brilliant are not too bad either. Your positive way of thinking blinds me with its light.
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” - President John Adams, (Treaty of Tripoli)
"Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. A Patriot must be a religious man." - John Adams in a letter to his wife, 1775
"[R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle...Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." - George Washington in his Farewell Address, 1797
The founders may have taken pains to not specifically reference Christianity, but they certainly did not consider this to be a secular nation.
It could be that the founders considered that one day our nation might have a President that was Muslim or of a different religion then Judaism or Christianity, or that freedom to practice all religions, including christianity would be very important. Just a thought.
"And if your idea of patriotism is supporting the malicious, corrupt, free-loading ways of others, I am truly scared for the fate of our country."
It is not I that supported the bailout of the wall street criminals to the tune of 700 billion dollars, nor did I "support" the misguided stimulus package. One day I hope to see all those that betrayed the public good face justice, and they will include both democrats and republicans my partisan little friend.
I must agree given the choice I'd much rather help the poor than the rich. I'm a libertarian and at my heart and don't think anyone in this country is entitled to tax dollars, but I'm much more outraged at the bailout for the banksters than at anything else that has ever happened in this country.
You don't get it, there is no left or right any more...
Bush had the interest of the banking elite in mind, no one else, and the Obama administration has the interests of illegal immigrants in mind. Just two different piles of garbage that's all. Besides didn't GWB have two terms in office to close the border, and sent those immigrants home???????? It will be many years before I vote for another republican, but that doesn't mean I'll be voting for democrats either.
Do you realize how much it would take to "close the borders?" I have done EXTENSIVE research on illegal immigration. They had over 12,000 border patrol agents strung from California to Florida. And over 200 checkpoint stations along the way. You can't simply "close the border."
How about we bring our troops home? We could save hundreds of millions of dollars per month and close the borders at the same time. The U.S. could control the border. Bring them home Obama!!!!!
Could someone remind me, which administration started that war and where are those mass weapons of destruction?
It was the Bush administration that started the war, no weapons of mass destruction to be found, but a LOT of oil, strange coincidence huh?
Worked out great for the global bankers to hand pick people for the new government after we ousted the old. How dare that country try to trade rice for oil to India without involving an American dollar exchange rate.. We showed them didn't we.
I think the army we have arrayed in Iraq could be a start. There's just no excuse for what GWB did, and tried to do concerning immigration was truly a disgrace. I'm just amazed that the government can listen to my phone calls, read my e mails, search with out warrants, and occupy two countries on the other side of the world but can't manage to secure their own border. Say didn't Cynthia Loonis vote to give Egypt two hundred and fifty million dollars to secure their border?????? And republicans can't figure out why Obama is the president. Obama is president because REPUBLICANS were the worst managers of the public trust in out countries history for the past eight years....
Wow, aren't we quick to judge?
Rich bankers? You've got an entirely wrong impression of me, and many other bankers, for that matter. Unless you're the CEO or Shareholder in a bank, there's no "getting rich" for anyone.
If it were appropriate to do so, I'd share my salary with you. Let's just say, if I worked as an associate at Wal-Mart for two years, I'd make more there than I do here.
The IRS has taken control of goverment on many levels. The only way to back them down and set them back 15 years would be to have every american openly publish their name and social security number on the internet. Chances of that heppening are slim to none..
I'm very disturbed about the additional power it would give the IRS, and with the speed that they seem to want this passes. I can't see why it cant be deliberated more.
speed ? I seem to remember like 5 or 6 months ago the dished out a 700 BILLION dollar check to the banking system. that was way faster then this...
The money given to the banks from the taxpayers in the middle of the night was a national crime, one which I will forever hold the republican party responsible for.
Are you kidding ? I hold both parties responsable.. The Democrats have the majority vote on the floor.. No, vote can pass without a majority. People need to get this left right paradime out of their head.. If there is any paradime it is us against them at this point.
Perhaps, but GWB was the driving force behind it. Anymore voting is like looking at a lunch counter menu and having only a pile of poo, and a sack of garbage to choose from....mandatory double helpings. Your sure right abut the us against them it's every working American against the pigmen in DC (of both parties) and their banker friends. I hate to see the republican establishment trying to ride the coat tails of the tea party movement after what they did to this country for eight years.
I agree totaly.... and your spot on about the bankers, from 1913 on they have slowley been ripping this countery apart piece by piece and selling it off to over seas interests. The writting is on the wall for all to see. When they put all our national parks up as collateral for the debt we owe to china our countery was officialy dead.
Sadly no one cares enough to do anything, when I talk to people about becoming more involved all I get are excuses and apathy. Politicians love apathy.