Just as some of us pay for life, car, nursing home, medical, dental or homeowners insurance... social security and medicare should be treated the same.
We should be forced to pay (already are) for the insurance policy (social security/medicare) all during our working days. Then, when the retirement age comes around, we should be evaluated financially. If we qualify (need) for the money and medical insurance then and only then do we get it. Yes, I'm talking about 'means' testing for qualification.
Now most of you will protest with, "that's not fair, I've paid in for years...I should get my money back!". Well folks, how many of you have paid for car insurance, homeowners insurance or even medical insurance all your life and never ever needed to use that policy? Thousands of dollars down the drain sort of speak. However, if you 'needed' that help, you would get it in the end, right?
What's the difference when it comes to social security or medicare? You will get your share 'if' you 'need' it. Just like any insurance policy you buy.
Imagine the money that those programs would save by doing this?
I must add however, that the 'means' testing should include your current bills for your home and transportation and any medical you currently pay. That way if you are in dept with everyday life requirements, that factor is taken into consideration.
To add to the savings, each and every recipient of social security should be required to provide information about their income/bills to be re--evaluated. Does that person that is making $100,000 a year really need that $1000 per month check from Social Security? Those questions need to be answered.
Social Security was created as an insurance policy -- not as a pension.
]]>What's your guess? Didn't it help the Kennedy's?
I think it might help to raise Obama's numbers up in the polls which in turn would give the Democratic candidates, that are hurting, the opportunity to bring him and possibly Michelle to their State to speak and cheer them onward to election day.
I wonder....is Mr. Obama fixed? Is she? Do they use birth control? Interesting questions. ]]>[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_igpyewuzQ]
Here's the problem with this theory by opponents of Obama. In case you didn't notice, the key gist of his comments in this interview in 2007 were repeated Tuesday night during Obama's speech to America.
I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to try to arrive at the political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there.
During his speech last night he said,
As was the case in Iraq," he said, "we cannot do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves."
Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders.
In other words, only a political solution will ultimately solve Iraq's security problems. No matter how many troops are there, it will take the Iraqi people to stand up and fight for their nation. All the surge did was give them time to vote a government in. Whether that government works out is the BIG question.
Tonight, I encourage Iraq's leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: The Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States.
President Obama was telling them that unless YOU do these things, American will no longer be by your side.
So no my friends, Obama hasn't changed his views. They are the same as back in 2007. You can drag a horse to the water but you can't make them drink it.
]]>Wouldn't it be great if Connie XXXX would have Obama come to Charleston and walk across the lake? Perhaps then we all would be as sure of his omnipotence as she.
If not for the Recovery and Reinvestment act, which was passed by only the Democrats and two Republicans in Congress, those shoes you wear might have been the last pair you bought for quite awhile since you might have been one of those 3 million workers whose job President Obama and the Democrats saved.
President Obama and the Democratic Party have already "walked on water" ALONE with the grace of GOD....possibly saving your ass and mine from a Great Depression. You think the 9.6 unemployment rate is bad, imagine if it had been 25% as it was during the Great Depression.
If the Republican Party had actually worked with the Democrats on the Recovery bill, it wouldn't have been GUTTED and perhaps even more money would have been out there to provide jobs with, better roads, better energy efficient homes and businesses as well. But instead they pretended to go along with the negotiating, asking for compromises and cuts -- of which the Democrats were foolish to hand out.
It was your pals (Bush/Cheney/GOP that put us in this mess to begin with and if you had any guts, you would admit it instead of trying to blame the Democratic Party so you can get your guys back in to get more tax cuts.
It took your guys 8 years and 6 tax cuts to get us here and you want President Obama and the Democratic Party to get it all solved and back to the Clinton years in less than two? Geez that's fair!?
Your man was floating on water claiming victory in Iraq -- and you had the gull to believe him. Your men claimed victory in Afghanistan several times over several years and you swallowed that koolaid too.
Your kind followed the Bush administration around like little puppies. Puppies that have very short attention spans.
Wake up mister -- you are in la-la land.
]]>LAWRENCE, Mass. -- A majority of Americans see no end in sight in Afghanistan, and nearly six in 10 oppose the nine-year-old war as President Barack Obama sends tens of thousands more troops to the fight, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
With just over 10 weeks before nationwide elections that could define the remainder of Obama's first term, only 38 percent say they support his expanded war effort in Afghanistan - a drop from 46 percent in March. Just 19 percent expect the situation to improve during the next year, while 29 percent think it will get worse. Some 49 percent think it will remain the same...
I don't know about you but I'm betting that if those same 6 in 10 Americans were asked during this poll if they supported the war in Afghanistan back in 2001, they would have said YES.
These people are always willing to jump into a war or make demands for our national security; but when it comes to getting the job done right (instead of claiming victory several times during your administration when in fact no victory was seen (Bush/Cheney Admin))..they shy away.
Especially when the administration in power is their political foe.
]]>Fewer than one in three Americans favor extending tax cuts enacted into law by former President George W. Bush when they expire at the end of this year, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Friday.
The survey finds that 31 percent say they support allowing the cuts to continue for all taxpayers, regardless of income level. By contrast, the poll finds 51 percent believe the reduced rates should be kept in place for families earning less than $250,000 each year, but not for households bringing in more than that cash amount...
The Obama administration, as well as many Democrats, have signaled an intent to leave the decreased rates in place, with the exception of for taxpayers earning an annual income that exceeds $250,000.
I'm all for tax cuts when the economy is doing great; but somebody's got to help us out of this mess and if there is anybody more than able to, it's the richest among us.
Republicans claim that if we stop the tax cuts that it will hurt the economy, jobs will be lost, etc...
Think about it folks. These people making $250,000 a year or more have had these tax cuts for nearly 8 years now and look where they've gotten our economy. We're now in the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Did those tax cuts create jobs? If they did, why then, do we currently have an unemployment rate 9.6%? How in the world can Republicans claim such nonsense?
All those tax cuts did was make the rich richer. They put that money in their savings accounts instead of spreading their wealth by creating more businesses and jobs.
My theory is this. If you take money away from the rich, they tend to work harder to stay rich. They take more risks and invest more. And guess what that does folks? It creates JOBS. ]]>This White House has "vilified industries," complains the Chamber of Commerce. America is burdened with "an anti-business president," moans The Weekly Standard.
The reality is that America's supposedly anti-business president has led an extremely pro-business recovery. The corporate community has recovered first, and best.
Would that all presidents were this anti-business: according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, corporate profits hit $1.37 trillion in the first quarter--an all-time high. Businesses are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash reserves. Business spending jumped 20 percent last quarter, and is up by 13 percent against 2009. The Obama administration has dropped taxes for small businesses and big ones alike. Maybe the president could be anti-me for a while. I could use the money...MORE
I wish more of the media would report these facts. Most are reporting the opposite like The Weekly Standard.
The article points out that the Republicans won't allow anymore stimulus to help get the economy going in the way of consumers spending so it's up to "we the people".
Perhaps President Obama should do what everybody faulted George W Bush for not doing -- ask Americans to stand up and serve their nation.
Back then they were talking about the fact that Bush never took advantage of the patriotism that was out there right after 9/11. He just told everybody to go shopping. He should have asked Americans to serve their nation, join the military, help their community, help their family, etc..., instead he asked them to go shopping.
Well, perhaps President Obama should take advantage of the anger, frustration, disgust and sadness out there about the economy because of the lack of jobs. Perhaps he should use the bully pulpit on live television some evening and ask , "We the People" to step forward and help to finish pushing this, the worst recession since the Great Depression, back into the dark ages.
He should tell the nation what would have happened if not for the bailouts and stimulus package (show Americans that it could have been even worse).
He should then show what each package ended up doing in the way of jobs and companies. He should tell us what he's done for small and big businesses (give examples). He should tell us how many homes have been saved because of his and Congress's actions and admit that there are many still losing theirs.
He should then use what this writer for Newsweek pointed out -- remind folks of our history of recessions and what comes back first, second and last (jobs).
After explaining what's happened, what he's done, what history tells us -- he should immediately say something like the following:
"My fellow Americans, Congress and I are not miracle workers, we cannot solve it all. That my friends takes 'We the People", each and everyone of us as a group. Now is the time to step forward out of the shadows of fear with courage and a simple plan. A plan to get our nation back on track to it's fullest capacity.
If we all stepped forward and bought something we've been waiting to buy but shied away from doing so because we feared losing our jobs...just imagine the impact.
As former President Bush said immediately after 9/11......."Go Shopping". Stop being afraid. Even if just once a week or once a month. Go buy something you've been holding off buying. Go buy that dress, that suit, that new television or radio.
Imagine what doing that could do for our nations businesses. They'd have to restock and hire helpers to sell those products. People would be needed to make those items, etc... Jobs my fellow Americans-- that simple plan would create jobs again.
I'm going to quote another former President, John F. Kennedy. He once said, "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country".
I've said from the time my presidential campaign started back in 2007 that 'change' will require patience and 'your help'. Time is of the essence, now is the time for you, me, our families, our neighbors and our fellow Americans to get up off that couch and recliner and start getting this country back on its feet with an economic backbone stronger then ever before in it's history.
I and your representatives in Congress need your help. We will do what we can to get the ball rolling; but it takes all of us, "we the people", to make it truly work again.
I sincerely hope you will stand up with me to the call of duty."
While my words may not be even close to the way he should put it, they give you the gist of my idea. Think it would help?
]]>George W. Bush pushed back publication of his memoirs, "Decision Points," out of fear that a public reminder of his presidential legacy would hurt Republicans heading into November's midterm elections, Bush's friends tell the Financial Times.
The FT reports that Bush refused to allow publication in September, which would have been a better time to unveil his book from a sales perspective. Instead, it's slated to hit stores on Nov. 9, one week after Election Day. Bush isn't scheduled to give any interviews for the book tour until Nov. 8.
Too bad. I am sure as Republicans feared, that bringing back some memories of the Bush years would indeed have hurt the GOP. That's the problem. Americans have short memories. They only look at the past 1-2 years to decide how to vote. They forget or ignore their history. That is why when I'm told to stop talking about the Bush years that it is now the Obama years-- I refuse to do so. While it may be Obama in the leadership, it was when George W. Bush took office that the awful things we are now seeing started or were put into play. The two wars, the deficit increasing, the economy tanking, the bailouts, the invasion of our privacy, the torturing of prisoners and losing the respect of our allies.
Yes, let us indeed remember the Bush years. I sincerely pray that bits and pieces of the book are leaked out in October so that voters can once again see those pictures of "Mission Accomplished" banner on the ship, Bush and the Treasurer walking hand in hand discussing the bailouts, show the unemployment rates at that time, show those horrific pictures of prisoners being tortured, the telecommunications companies invading our privacy, the Republican lead congress that wrote bills interfering with a private families decision to pull the plug on a relative and last but not least the attack on 9/11 -- remind folks who was in charge then.
They should show Condi Rice telling Congress how the Bush administration was warned ahead of time, 3-4 months in advance of the attack that Bin Laden determined to attack the U.S., then show how that same administration went on summer break during what is called the highest state of alert in our nation's history.
Then show how those same Republicans in charge back then are now blocking health care for 9/11 responders and for the rest of us. Show how they refused to vote to help our nation from going into another Great Depression.
By all means ..... show their history to Americans BEFORE November's election. Remind them what they left behind by voting for the Democrats and President Obama.
]]>A government report Tuesday offered more evidence that the recovery is being stalled by sluggish consumer spending. Personal spending was unchanged in June, reflecting a third straight month of lackluster consumer demand. Incomes were also flat, the weakest showing in nine months.
The disappointing Commerce Department report on spending and income was among a raft of data released Tuesday that confirmed the economy ended the April-to-June quarter on a weak note.
Directly below that headline is, "GM sales rise 5%, as buyers return to Dealers"
GM's sales rose 2.6 percent over June and 5 percent from July of last year, helped by promotions to make room for 2011 models.
GM says sales from its four brands -- Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac -- jumped 25 percent over July of 2009. Buick and Cadillac sales more than doubled. GM's total sales include Pontiac, Saturn and Hummer, which are brands it has sold or is discontinuing.
While income growth was flat in June, incomes did post solid gains in April and May.
Are you as confused as I am about what is really going on with consumers and the economy?
I don't know about you but I am saving more but I've also not stopped buying. I buy just as much food, gas, luxury items and clothes as I did 5 years ago. My sister is currently buying a home. My neighbors are putting new roofs and siding on and getting new air conditioners. Two of my friends just bought new cars. So where is this decline in buying happening?
Oh, don't get me wrong, there are people hurting out there that have lost their jobs and homes; but gosh folks, not everybody has done that. People are still working and making good money and spending that money as well. Just look at your local mall or Walmart or car dealer...they are usually packed.
"IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing...
The first of these started when the Nixon administration defaulted on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world...
The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts...
The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector. Here, Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation. As a result, the combined assets of conventional banks and the so-called shadow banking system (including investment banks and finance companies) grew from a mere $500 billion in 1970 to $30 trillion by September 2008.
The article tells in detail how the above happened.
You should also listen to the video of CNN's Zakaria Fareed saying the easiest way to cut the deficit is to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
While I am the first to always accept a tax refund or less taxes, I'm also well aware that when the budget is short, you cut out the benefits....that includes to your self.
Look at your home budget for a minute. Lets say that your current income is great which allows you to put away a nice little savings for vacations or that new car, perhaps 10% of your weekly income. Let us also say it allows you to live your daily lives rather nicely (steaks every weekend, a movie or two a week, get that new suit or dress and get that new saw or purse).
Now lets say that income drops. You get a cut in pay, you lose your job or your business slows down which makes profits short. What will you do?
Most likely you will cut your daily expenses (luxury items first) right? What if things get really sticky and you are nearly broke? Will you continue putting what money (10%) you have into savings (paying yourself as economists call it)? Probably not. You'd keep the money in your pocket to pay the daily bills, right?
Now, lets say that the 10% you were paying yourself was a tax cut you were receiving from the government. The government is having financial problems. What should they do? Cut expenses (luxury items first) of course; but now it's really getting sticky and it is nearly broke...what should the government do? Stop the tax cuts of course. They should keep some of that money to pay the bills....didn't you? You kept that money you were saving in your pocket to pay the bills because you could no longer afford to give yourself a payday (tax cut).
It is only logical that you cut expenses as much as possible and then you stop the luxury items....like tax cuts....at least till the job (economy) comes back.
One last point I'd like to make is. The cost of living increases on a daily basis. The cost of running the government, building those roads, building those army tanks and guns and even feeding those soldiers goes up every year. How do you expect to keep up with that cost increase with the same income every year? Especially when that income drops such as it has since 2009 when we nearly came a breath away from the worst depression ever.
]]>
Candidates like Rand Paul, Mark Kirk, David Vitter are grabbing headlines and raising eyebrows for self-made controversies that have sometimes plagued -- and sometimes boosted -- their candidacies. What else separates the three candidates from the rest of the 2010 pack?
So far, they're all outraising their opponents.
Controversy-plagued U.S. Senate candidates from Nevada to Kentucky are experiencing significant fundraising success, according to campaign finance disclosures for the second quarter of this year.
Perhaps this would be a way for President Obama to raise his poll numbers and the funding for Democrats across the nation as well.
How about showing Republicans in the past talking about shutting down (privatizing) Social Security and Medicare, stopping unemployment benefits, raising the age of retirement, making families pay for nursing home care for their mom or dad, putting women in jail for aborting, invading families lives with Congressional referendums demanding you keep a family member alive, stopping folks from voting, bombing Iran (bomb, bomb, bomb Iran - McCain), sending our young to fruitless and costly wars without claiming them in our budgets, history making deficit creators, liars about leaking CIA agents names and torturing prisoners and cutting college funding, etc... all the while demanding more and more money to go to the rich in the form of tax cuts.
While some of these ideas haven't been discussed lately (no need to show any current candidates unless they've said something similar), they 'are' in the back of Republican's minds. Perhaps Obama should remind folks what the Republican Party stands for. Show faces and names if need be.
Get the GOP members angry and out there defending themselves for once...Cause a Stir in the media -- grab the headlines.
So far it's been all about Obama and what he and the Democratic Party are doing to our country. Well, perhaps it is time for folks to be reminded of what they would have if they vote the GOP back into office. Is that really what they want? Do they really want the "Fend for yourself", "Home invaders", "Body controllers" , "Just Bomb'em - war lovers", "Deficit builders", "Only the Smart get to Vote", "Only the rich get educations" and "Liars and Torturing" crew --back in control? Really?
]]>"Coalition forces, including many brave Afghans, have brought America, Afghanistan and the world its first victory in the war on terror," the president said. "Afghanistan is no longer a terrorist factory sending thousands of killers into the world."
Dec 15, 2008: Bush claimed emphatically, "I never said the Taliban was eliminated." Read the following....
September 2002: "The Taliban's ability to brutalize the Afghan people and to harbor and support terrorists has been virtually eliminated."
September 2004: "And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free."
December 2004: "In Afghanistan, America and our allies, with a historically small force and a brilliant strategy, defeated the Taliban in just a few short weeks."
October 2005: "Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago."
"In Afghanistan, we removed the brutal Taliban from power and destroyed the training camps where terrorists trained to kill Americans."
BENTON HARBOR, Mich., Nov 5 (Reuters) - Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday urged President Barack Obama to commit enough troops to win the war in Afghanistan, warning hesitation would embolden U.S foes and devastate its allies.
"I don't see how he can do anything other than move aggressively to achieve victory," the Wyoming Republican, a harsh critic of the new administration, said in a speech to a Michigan business group.
"Our adversaries take heart from our hesitation and vacillation," Cheney said.
"Our not following through will have devastating consequences not only for Afghanistan but also for our NATO allies. This is the first time ever (NATO members have) committed troops to combat."
Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East and Central Asia, struck a note of caution on the war in Afghanistan, saying making headway against the insurgency probably will take longer than in Iraq.
"Achieving progress in Afghanistan will be hard and progress there likely will be slower in developing than was the progress in Iraq," Petraeus told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today. "Nonetheless, as with Iraq, in Afghanistan hard is not hopeless."..
Petraeus said he fully supports the policy and cautioned lawmakers to "withhold judgment" on whether it is successful until December 2010, when the strategy and will be assessed with an eye to beginning a drawdown of U.S. forces in July 2011.
Isn't it odd how you can be told that you have eliminated the enemy and given the world a victory in doing so, only to be told 5 years later that the same war will take longer to succeed then the war in Iraq?
Knowing all the above, this same former Vice President Cheney is demanding that President Obama "follow through" in Afghanistan. If we had victory there back in 2004, why then must Obama "follow through"? Hasn't Obama just 'finished picking off the enemy and shouldn't he now say something to the effect, President Bush and Congress back in 2002 declared victory in Afghanistan. Our troops have added to that victory and are now ready to begin pulling out. Karzi has been reelected 3 times now by that country's people. They are ready to move on and so are we.
President Obama should come up with an agreement with Karzi for him to allow the U.S. to enter the country at any given time to remove terrorists, in exchange for moving out of the way and giving their country back to them by the summer of 2011.
Anyone approved to receive cash assistance or SNAP (Food Stamps) benefits will be issued an Illinois Link card. The Illinois Link card is a plastic card that looks and works like a debit card. If you are eligible for cash and SNAP benefits, you will access both with the same card. Only one Illinois Link Card is issued per case.
1. Every public school is required to provide a free meal to students eligible to receive free meals. My school does not participate in the National School Lunch Program or School Breakfast Program. How is a student determined to be eligible for free meals?
Students must receive free meals if they are eligible to receive food stamps or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), or if their household income falls within guidelines published annually by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). These Income Eligibility Guidelines are posted annually on our website at http://www.isbe.net/nutrition/htmls/data.htm#income.
So, the State provides money for the home that is for food as well as providing money for free meals at schools. So they are technically feeding the child four times a day if you include the free breakfast.
If the family qualifies for both, do they receive a cut in the amount of Link card they receive? I don't know. Do you?
If they don't however, perhaps they should-- if the State is hurting so badly and cannot cover all social programs.
I am the first to admit that I
do not know the rules for Link cards or free meals. I may be missing an
important rule, I don't know. And for those that only receive the free
meal and no link card, they should continue to do so.
Think about it though. Let's say the family receives a total of $10 a day per child on their Link card for breakfast and lunch. Let us also say that $10 is the cost of the free meals in one day at the school. That one child just received $20 to eat breakfast and lunch that day. Do you spend that much for breakfast and lunch? That accumulates to about $100 per week invested in that child's two meals in one week, a total of $5200 per year.
Let us also say that family has three children. That total no becomes $15,600 per year spent on that one family just for breakfast and lunch. That doesn't even include the weekends.
Now, if you had just 100 families with 3 children each, the State (taxpayers) have forked out a total of $1,560,000.
Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the way the State gives out Link cards and free lunches. Just for those 100 families, the state could have saved $780,000 if they made the families use their Link cards to buy those free lunches with instead. The family could buy the lunches in advance by month, quarterly or yearly depending on how the Link card is paid out.
Opinions? ]]>Those words are as bad as were President Barack Obama's when he ignored possible war crimes of the previous administration and said instead, "I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards... My orientation is going to be to move forward."
What these two
men don't get is, history teaches. If we ignore the past, then we will
never learn from it. If we continue to ACT as though anybody IS above
the law then what is the meaning of the Rule of Law? Why are we a
nation or laws? Why even bother?
Jeb Bush is on the move. He is on the attack. Feeling the waters sort of speak. He is well known enough to be able to wait till the last year of an election cycle to begin a campaign for president...and he and his people know this.
At one point before George W. was given the presidency, if I had to choose between George and Jeb, it would have been Jeb. However, it sounds like he is just another pass the buck kind of guy (ignore my past, my families past...I'm different).
Jeb Bush is a BUSH. Plain and simple. God help America if he and his crowd should ever get two feet inside the White House as President or even Vice President.
And yes, the same goes for the Clinton family. Enough already. There are good men and women out there that can do this job just as well. Enough of the Family Power Grabbers....please. ]]>