|
|
Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, as the country chose him as its first African American chief executive.
Share your thoughts on this historic election.
|
Posts:
8,620
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(24732 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 24, 2009 9:55 PM
|
Long time no see, Don.
In my cynical view, Obama is simply doing what he is told to do.
Trying to avoid the fate that JFK suffered.
It is utterly irrational to spend more blood and treasure over there, and immoral as hell.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,050
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24731 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 24, 2009 9:07 PM
|
> B'rack say he gonna finish da job in Afghanistan.
>
> Jeez, I guess just 10 months in that fucking job can
> make a smart man stoopid.
You don't think Obama's concerned that pulling back in Afghanistan will lose him the support for health care, of at least one or two of the hawks? Or cause them to turn that into a bargaining chip?
|
|
|
Posts:
339
Registered:
3/28/09
|
|
(24730 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 24, 2009 7:41 PM
|
Lodestone:
This is some well written points below. I just remember one counter point: that under Democrates and Gramm-Rudman the budget was pretty much Balanced before Georgie W. Took office with the Republican "Hawks". I just don't know the source of that info or if it is a quote from someone....
>Barack Obama is still a symbol for change. For better or for worse, it has yet to be decided.
>The financial crisis is being brought to bear.
>He has done nothing to deal with it except hold it back as it builds up behind government spending. However the force meeting the government spending called debt is growing stronger. Budgeting problems is helping it grow faster. Nothing is being done to stop the effects of debt. Just like people who overspend their credit, the US is going to break. There is no one for it to look to bail it out. There is no 'bankruptcy' for nations. It is economic ruin.
>Barack Obama is clear of causing the majority of the problem. Multitudes of governments from the beginning of the creation of the Federal Reserve has contributed to the growing debt. There was only 1 decade where it was reduced, and that was during the Roaring Twenties. It has increased since, with one president 40 years ago who tried to reduced but ultimately failed to reduce it.
>Now we have a housing crisis, economic crisis, and soon a national crisis where no entity in the world will bail out the US. Those who want Health Care and got it will lose it again if it was by government. The soldiers out in the world will be headed back home or stranded. The US will lose what is left of its reputation. This can happen all under Obama's watch, be it his fault or not. He has yet to address the problem. Hopefully he will address it before people paid the price with further interest.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,000
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24729 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 24, 2009 6:57 PM
|
> B'rack say he gonna finish da job in Afghanistan.
>
> Jeez, I guess just 10 months in that fucking job can
> make a smart man stoopid.
Jetfuel2,
At least we started with a smart man unlike 2001 & 2005 when we started with a fucking idiot.
--
Edited by s2grand at 11/24/2009 4:06 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
8,620
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(24728 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 24, 2009 4:55 PM
|
B'rack say he gonna finish da job in Afghanistan.
Jeez, I guess just 10 months in that fucking job can make a smart man stoopid.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,000
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
|
Posts:
5,000
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24726 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 23, 2009 10:56 PM
|
Lieberman, Lieberman, Joe Lieberman, party of one.
Dobbs, Dobbs, Lou Dobbs, party of one.
Would you two like to sit together? We'll assume no one else is joining you.
|
|
|
Posts:
796
Registered:
2/7/09
|
|
(24725 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 23, 2009 3:10 AM
|
Barack Obama is still a symbol for change. For better or for worse, it has yet to be decided.
The financial crisis is being brought to bear.
He has done nothing to deal with it except hold it back as it builds up behind government spending. However the force meeting the government spending called debt is growing stronger. Budgeting problems is helping it grow faster. Nothing is being done to stop the effects of debt. Just like people who overspend their credit, the US is going to break. There is no one for it to look to bail it out. There is no 'bankruptcy' for nations. It is economic ruin.
Barack Obama is clear of causing the majority of the problem. Multitudes of governments from the beginning of the creation of the Federal Reserve has contributed to the growing debt. There was only 1 decade where it was reduced, and that was during the Roaring Twenties. It has increased since, with one president 40 years ago who tried to reduced but ultimately failed to reduce it.
Now we have a housing crisis, economic crisis, and soon a national crisis where no entity in the world will bail out the US. Those who want Health Care and got it will lose it again if it was by government. The soldiers out in the world will be headed back home or stranded. The US will lose what is left of its reputation. This can happen all under Obama's watch, be it his fault or not. He has yet to address the problem. Hopefully he will address it before people paid the price with further interest.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,000
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24724 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 9:24 PM
|
From Associated Press
By DAVID ESPO (AP Special Correspondent)
Associated Press writer Donna Cassata contributed to this article.
Historic health care bill clears Senate hurdle
November 21, 2009 9:50 PM EST
WASHINGTON - Invoking the memory of Edward M. Kennedy, Democrats united Saturday night to push historic health care legislation past a key Senate hurdle over the opposition of Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama. There was not a vote to spare.
The 60-39 vote cleared the way for a bruising, full-scale debate beginning after Thanksgiving on the legislation, which is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.
The spectator galleries were full for the unusual Saturday night showdown, and applause broke out briefly when the vote was announced. In a measure of the significance of the moment, senators sat quietly in their seats, standing only when they were called upon to vote.
In the final minutes of a daylong session, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Republicans of trying to stifle a historic debate the nation needed.
"Imagine if, instead of debating whether to abolish slavery, instead of debating whether giving women and minorities the right to vote, those who disagreed had muted discussion and killed any vote," he said.
The Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the vote was anything but procedural - casting it as a referendum on the bill itself, which he said would raise taxes, cut Medicare and create a "massive and unsustainable debt."
For all the drama, the result of the Saturday night showdown had been sealed a few hours earlier, when two final Democratic holdouts, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced they would join in clearing the way for a full debate.
"It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option," said Landrieu, who won $100 million in the legislation to help her state pay the costs of health care for the poor.
Lincoln, who faces a tough re-election next year, said the evening vote will "mark the beginning of consideration of this bill by the U.S. Senate, not the end."
Both stressed they were not committing in advance to vote for the bill that ultimately emerges from next month's debate.
Of particular contentiousness to moderates is a provision for the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, subject to state approval - a part of Reid's bill expected to come under significant pressure as the debate unfolds.
Even so, their announcements marked a major victory for Reid and the White House in a year-end drive to enact the most sweeping changes to the nation's health care system in a half-century or more.
At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement saying the president was gratified by the vote, which he says "brings us one step closer to ending insurance company abuses, reining in spiraling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance, and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it."
The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide subsidies to those who couldn't afford it. Large companies could incur costs if they did not provide coverage to their workforce. The insurance industry would come under significant new regulation under the bill, which would first ease and then ban the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
Congressional budget analysts put the legislation's cost at $979 billion over a decade and said it would reduce deficits over the same period while extending coverage to 94 percent of the eligible population.
At its core, the legislation would create insurance exchanges beginning in 2014 where individuals, most of them lower income and uninsured, would shop for coverage. The bill sets aside hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits to help those earning up to 400 percent of poverty, $88,200 for a family of four.
The House approved its version of the bill earlier this month on a near party line vote of 220-215, and Reid has said he wants the Senate to follow suit by year's end. Timing on any final compromise was unclear.
All 58 Senate Democrats and two independents voted to advance the bill. All 39 votes in opposition were cast by Republicans. GOP Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio was the only senator not to vote. Montana Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who has labored on health care for more than a year, flew in from his home state on a government plane for the vote and was returning afterward to be with his ailing mother.
While timing made Landrieu and Lincoln the final two Democrats to announce their intentions, Sen. Paul Kirk of Massachusetts had a clear claim as the 60th vote.
Appointed to office this fall after the death of Kennedy, who championed health care issues for decades, Kirk said he spoke for those "who for so many years revered and loved and elected and re-elected (him) ... that I think they're all - they all, as we do, have him in our minds and our hearts tonight. ..."
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., echoed those sentiments later in the evening when he referred to Kennedy's "lifelong quest" for national health care and said "tonight and in the days to come we will pay him the highest compliment by fulfilling that" goal.
At a post-vote news conference, Reid said he had telephoned Kennedy's widow, Vicki, with the news.
In hours of debate before the Saturday evening vote, a few Republicans piled copies of the 2,0974-page bill on their desks while others criticized it as a government takeover of health care and worse.
"Move over, Bernie Madoff. Tip your hat to a trillion-dollar scam," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., likening the bill's supporters to the imprisoned investor who fleeced millions.
In her remarks, Landrieu said, "I've decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done." She also touted the $100 million included in the legislation to help her state cover its costs under Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor.
Lincoln referred repeatedly to the political controversy surrounding the issue. She said $3.3 million has already been spent by outside groups advertising either for or against health care legislation, and said, "these outside groups seem to think that this is all about my re-election. I simply think they don't know me very well."
To finance the expanded coverage, Reid proposed higher taxes as well as cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars in projected Medicare payments. Hardest hit would be the private insurance Medicare plans, although providers such as home health agencies would also receive significantly less in future years than now estimated.
The bill raises payroll taxes on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Reid eased the impact of an earlier proposal to tax high-value insurance plans, which has emerged as one of the principal methods for restraining the growth in health costs.
The bill includes tax increases on insurance companies, medical device makers, patients electing to undergo cosmetic surgery and drugmakers.
---
|
|
|
Posts:
5,000
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24723 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 6:36 PM
|
Here's one of those things I found looking up other things. This one is mostly for the guys, Internet Pinball Database:
http://www.ipdb.org/
|
|
|
Posts:
3,050
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24722 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 6:05 PM
|
> Don17000
>
> The shares had no value, because the corporation they
> were shares of had no value, and wasn't going to have
> any until the deal went through.
>
> You wrote that your father transferred shares over
> the the new corp.? If a share has no value, then the
> share does not exist, the corporation to which the
> shares belong to, do not exist. So, there must have
> been so value of those shares.
>
> I guess the question is when does business begin or
> when is the business created?
>
> In your example the corp was created to serve a
> purpose, maybe a holding company. It sounds like it
> was being used to invest, and provide some type of
> tax benefit.
>
> The corporation continued operations. The
> corporation was set up to provide some type of
> service to its members. So, over the years the
> corporation was kept, to be used when that service
> was needed. Because its services were never needed,
> that does not change what it is. A business.
>
No, not a business. Just a corporation. No transactions. No decisions. No business. Each time you post this, you just prove you really don't know what a business is, or how it differs from a corporation. I think we get that now.
> So, say you open up a writing business, where in your
> write stuff for people. If no ever comes in and uses
> your service, are you still a writer? Yes. Does the
> business not exist, because no one used it? No.
That's not the same thing at all. I would be trying to promote the business, spending money for supplies, making decisions about where to search for and attract customers. If I don't actually get any customers, it's a business running at a loss. But if I'm not actually trying to get customers, even the IRS would say it isn't a business, not even for tax purposes. They would call it a hobby.
As
> long as you continue operations, the business will
> still be a business. Just as your father's
> corporation did not provide its intended services,
> does not mean it was not still a business.
No, the fact that it never did any business meant it was not yet a business, only a shell corporation. A corporation can't BE a business, unless it DOES business.
A
> business was created and continued, to provide a
> service. That service was not needed, but the
> business continued until the service was needed or
> was dissolved.
>
This would be true if the business was engaged in trying to find customers, or otherwise making business decisions, even if that was limited to ordering business cards.
> Another example of that, is a corporation of
> f which I am currently Treasurer, and have been 4
> times President, the South Florida Writers
> Association. We are there to serve our members and
> the community, but we conduct business, we have
> regular monthly business meetings, we hold annual
> elections of board members, etc.
>
> No term limits? What type of writer are you, books,
> articles? Can I read some of you writing?
No, we have no term limits. Most people don't want to be President, they just want to enjoy the benefits. I ended up being President for 4 years because nobody else wanted the job, and somebody had to do it.
You've been reading some of my writing on this board!
I'm currently working on a novel, and also on that Glenn Beck rebuttal I mentioned. I just published a poetry collection called "Rhyme and Punishment" which is a collection of limericks and sonnets based on weird but true news stories.
Some samples are on my website, which is here.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,000
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24721 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 5:58 PM
|
Obviously one of the mods is a sore Michigan fan.
I guess right now they're all sore.
--
Edited by s2grand at 11/21/2009 3:26 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
2,938
Registered:
6/8/09
|
|
(24720 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 5:19 PM
|
Enough with the sophistry Sunaz.
Back to non-stupid reality, Obama's promised healthcare reform looks closer to being reality as Majority Leader Reid has amassed the 60 votes needed to open debate on the Democratic healthcare plan.
It looks like the Dems are getting tired of the mindless lock-step obstructionism of the Repugs.
Are the Repugs a political party or a Borg Community? Do any of those asshats have a mind of their own?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,050
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24719 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 5:15 PM
|
> Don17000
>
> How about, because you can live and work without
> health insurance, but it's illegal to acquire a car
> without any?
>
> Well soon that won't be the case. The difference is
> that you don't have to buy a car, therefore don't
> need care insurance.
>
> Also, you don't need insurance to operate a car.
> Renting a car, driving for a business, or using a
> a friend's car. You don't need insurance to drive,
> you do need a lincense.
>
I think you still need to be insured. If you're driving a friend's car, or any car, and you're pulled over, you either furnish proof of insurance, or you will be cited for driving without insurance. A rental car company will want to see your proof of insurance. If you have none, they probably won't rent to you without your buying their CDW.
If you drive for a company, you're supposed to be on the company's insurance.
> You can still purchase a car, and not have insurance.
> You don't need insurance if you are leaving the car
> r in the garage.
In my area, the dealer will not transfer title to you if you don't furnish proof of insurance. I don't know if that's changed, but I don't see why it would. I think the only exception is if the car is being sold as scrap.
It is however illegal to drive a
> car without insurance.
>
> But they can still get health care without
> insurance, and they can pay for insurance without
> getting any health care.
>
> Paying insurance is the way in which most pay for
> their healthcare costs. And yes copays and
> deductibles.
>
> Maybe with yours, although I think you're wrong
> here. With mine, there are discounts offered to
> non-smokers. And preexisting conditions mean they
> offer less coverage, or maybe none at all. Heavy use
> of health insurance may mean they'll deny the claims
> and drop you.
>
> They can't charge someone more if they are unhealthy.
> They can provide discounts for activities that are
> e healthy. Smoking is an act, not health. It may
> affect your health, but an insurance giving you a
> discount for not smoking or going to a gym does not
> mean you are healthier or will cost less. But, if
> someone weighs 500 lbs and another weighs 200 lbs,
> the premium cannot be based on health. The heavier
> person will not be charged more for their insurance
> because of their weight.
Going to a gym doesn't mean there will be fewer claims. Lots of people get injured in gyms, and even more pick up infections.
I don't know if premiums can be based on health.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24718 of 25107)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 4:34 PM
|
Don17000
The shares had no value, because the corporation they were shares of had no value, and wasn't going to have any until the deal went through.
You wrote that your father transferred shares over the the new corp.? If a share has no value, then the share does not exist, the corporation to which the shares belong to, do not exist. So, there must have been so value of those shares.
I guess the question is when does business begin or when is the business created?
In your example the corp was created to serve a purpose, maybe a holding company. It sounds like it was being used to invest, and provide some type of tax benefit.
The corporation continued operations. The corporation was set up to provide some type of service to its members. So, over the years the corporation was kept, to be used when that service was needed. Because its services were never needed, that does not change what it is. A business.
So, say you open up a writing business, where in your write stuff for people. If no ever comes in and uses your service, are you still a writer? Yes. Does the business not exist, because no one used it? No. As long as you continue operations, the business will still be a business. Just as your father's corporation did not provide its intended services, does not mean it was not still a business. A business was created and continued, to provide a service. That service was not needed, but the business continued until the service was needed or was dissolved.
Another example of that, is a corporation of which I am currently Treasurer, and have been 4 times President, the South Florida Writers Association. We are there to serve our members and the community, but we conduct business, we have regular monthly business meetings, we hold annual elections of board members, etc.
No term limits? What type of writer are you, books, articles? Can I read some of you writing?
|
|
|
|
|
