naturestee
Well-Known Member
Whoa wait a minute! Bo, your hubby is UNION? And he's voting for McCain???
Something tells me he hasn't read up on the candidates' stances.
Something tells me he hasn't read up on the candidates' stances.
Food for Thought
- Thread starter seniorcats
- Start date
Help Support Rabbits Online Forum:
Bo B Bunny
Well-Known Member
Yeah, he's been listening to RUSH LIMBAUGH! :?
I think he's actually thinking about voting for the Independant tho LOL!
I think he's actually thinking about voting for the Independant tho LOL!
seniorcats
Well-Known Member
Spring wrote:
Back in the good old days, we knew the next day or in landslide cases, very late at night. These days it depends on how close the election is and how many people file law suits. Could be a couple of weeks, worst case scenario.
seniorcats
Well-Known Member
Here is aneditorial piece from journalist Michael Malone that I find thought provoking. The media's Presidential bias and decline, slanted coverage and the reasons why.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1
LadyBug
Well-Known Member
Bo B Bunny wrote:
umm....who is the independent?:whistling
seniorcats wrote:
:biggrin2:
umm....who is the independent?:whistling
seniorcats wrote:
oh yes, give him some from me and Jamie, too:biggrin2:. and if he's really good Jamie might even share some banana with oats with him
:biggrin2:
naturestee
Well-Known Member
seniorcats wrote:
That's a good read! I agree that the press has been far too nice to Obama and Biden.Although for all of CNN's supposed bias, when I have it on after work (10 pm-12 am) I usually see bad Obama story followed by bad McCain story followed by discussion by panels of people supporting both campaigns and independants of various sorts.
Of course what made me respect this particular author more than others who have written similar articles lately is that he's not whining about Palin's treatment by the press. I agree with his thought that if you're going into the big leagues you should be prepared for them, home life and history and all.
Oh Peg, my comment earlier about Palin giving money to the taxpayers was not about the normal annual check. She took extra money businesses (I think it was a windfall tax on oil companies?) and handed out the money to the citizens. Something like an extra $1000 or so per person? As much as I dislike big oil I think they should be treated just like other companies... meaning don't tax them extra but stop subsidizing them (which the feds currently do). Anyways, that is a more direct form of this "socialism"Palin is talking about- literally taking a sum of money directly from one group and giving it directly to another group.
That's a good read! I agree that the press has been far too nice to Obama and Biden.Although for all of CNN's supposed bias, when I have it on after work (10 pm-12 am) I usually see bad Obama story followed by bad McCain story followed by discussion by panels of people supporting both campaigns and independants of various sorts.
Of course what made me respect this particular author more than others who have written similar articles lately is that he's not whining about Palin's treatment by the press. I agree with his thought that if you're going into the big leagues you should be prepared for them, home life and history and all.
Oh Peg, my comment earlier about Palin giving money to the taxpayers was not about the normal annual check. She took extra money businesses (I think it was a windfall tax on oil companies?) and handed out the money to the citizens. Something like an extra $1000 or so per person? As much as I dislike big oil I think they should be treated just like other companies... meaning don't tax them extra but stop subsidizing them (which the feds currently do). Anyways, that is a more direct form of this "socialism"Palin is talking about- literally taking a sum of money directly from one group and giving it directly to another group.
BethM
Well-Known Member
TinysMom
Well-Known Member
Bo B Bunny wrote:
First of all - I almost never listen to Rush on the radio - I can't stand him most of the time. My mom loves him - Art loves to laugh at him and says his arrogance is part of his "showmanship".
Me? I usually avoid him whenever I can.
But lately I've heard him being interviewed various times on Fox...and he's got a different attitude when he's on there. Less...egotistical?
Anyway - I say all that to say - I'm not a Rush groupie - before I share this.
Also - when he shared this - he was NOT saying that the Democrats are GOING to do this....but he said it was something he heard about or read about or something...and it concerned him.
If I understand him right - the person I'm going to be quoting/writing about has been invited to testify before some subcommittee about this idea.
Ok...with that said - I'm gonna copy and paste some of what Rush said and give the link...
[line]Listen to this. Look at me. "A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. ... Under Ghilarducci's plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the US government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration." In other words, there is a plan that the Democrats are considering to convert your 401(k) to the Social Security Administration, your 401(k) then administered by the SSA, your private retirement plan becomes owned by the government. "The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation."
Now, the purpose of this plan is they think you'll go for this because you've seen these wild market gyrations, and you've seen your 401(k) plunge, so now they're thinking that you'll go along with the Social Security Administration running your private retirement plan at a guaranteed 3% a year. "The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated," so no longer would you get the deduction off the top of your income for whatever you contribute to your 401(k). The current system of tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated. Teresa Ghilarducci, "I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s. 401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won't have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break." So that's two people now that want to come along and take away the tax deductibility and subsidy of your 401(k). George Miller, who runs the committee, and some babe, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York.
"Ghilarducci outlined her plan last year in a paper for the left-liberal Economic Policy Institute, in which she acknowledges that her plan would amount to a tax increase on workers making more than $75,000--considerably less than the $250,000 Barack Obama has said would be his tax-hike cutoff. In addition, workers would be able to pass on only half of their account balances to their heirs," so that your 401(k) would be subject to the 50% death tax rate because the government's going to own it. The government's going to own your 401(k), and your 401(k) will guarantee you just 3% in government bonds administered by the government. Your private retirement account that the government set up and got you into, now they want to take over from you, just like Joe Biden wants to go out and make sure that these evil CEOs, their pensions go first. The concept that your money is your money will vanish when the Democrats take over Congress and Obama takes over the White House. All money will officially be government's.
Now, this is getting pretty brutal, so they had this babe up to testify before this committee, Teresa Ghilarducci, and she offered a sweetener. "Short-term I propose ... that the Congress allow workers to swap out their 401(k) assets, perhaps at August levels, for a guaranteed retirement account--just a one-time swap. ... How would this work? You go back to your districts and meet up with a 55-year-old who had had $50,000 in his account last month and now has $40,000 in the account. He can swap out that $50,000, valued in August, for that guarantee of what would become, if he retires at 62, a $500 a month addition to Social Security." So her plan is to have your 401(k) plan taken over by the government, invested by the government, the Social Security plan at 3%, and then your retirement is paid back to you in a Social Security check. Whatever your Social Security benefits are when you retire will be added to by whatever is in your 401(k). The point is that in your mind, if you go along for this, the government is in total charge of your retirement.
And the sweetener, the little hook here is for people to say, "Well, my 401(k) in August it was worth a lot of money, and now it's lost." Okay, we'll give you the August value. Your generous and benevolent government will give you the August value, and then they will take your plan and will put it in the Social Security Administration and will invest your plan in safe bonds at 3% a year, and then when you retire, that money in your 401(k) gets added to whatever your Social -- you get one check, your Social Security check. And in that check will be whatever your retirement account is, and you're essentially giving it up. You're essentially giving it up. By the way, gone also is any incentive to contribute to it, in terms of the subsidy you get off the top of your income for whatever you donate to your 401(k). Now, I don't want to totally alarm you here, it's by no means a certainty that Congress or Obama would embrace this proposal, but I'll tell you when you listen to them talk, this is the direction they're headed. You know they're going to come after pension plans. It's one of the largest sources of money out there, be it you California teachers, public employees, Teamsters Union, your pension plan, I guarantee you people like Obama and Democrats in the House are eyeing that as though it's theirs. Joe Biden, "Their pensions go first."
Here is the link to the full article (which I don't care for due to Rush's sarcasm)...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102408/content/01125109.guest.html
[line]
Now I went looking for this information because Rush shared it on a show - just a brief blurb about it - so I went to his website to find the information.
I also want to clarify...
One point that bothered me about what he said is...
So here comes the questions for y'all....especially those of you with 401Ks...
:biggrin2:
Ok - since someone (besides me) mentioned Rush's name -I want to bring something up.
First of all - I almost never listen to Rush on the radio - I can't stand him most of the time. My mom loves him - Art loves to laugh at him and says his arrogance is part of his "showmanship".
Me? I usually avoid him whenever I can.
But lately I've heard him being interviewed various times on Fox...and he's got a different attitude when he's on there. Less...egotistical?
Anyway - I say all that to say - I'm not a Rush groupie - before I share this.
Also - when he shared this - he was NOT saying that the Democrats are GOING to do this....but he said it was something he heard about or read about or something...and it concerned him.
If I understand him right - the person I'm going to be quoting/writing about has been invited to testify before some subcommittee about this idea.
Ok...with that said - I'm gonna copy and paste some of what Rush said and give the link...
[line]Listen to this. Look at me. "A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. ... Under Ghilarducci's plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the US government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration." In other words, there is a plan that the Democrats are considering to convert your 401(k) to the Social Security Administration, your 401(k) then administered by the SSA, your private retirement plan becomes owned by the government. "The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation."
Now, the purpose of this plan is they think you'll go for this because you've seen these wild market gyrations, and you've seen your 401(k) plunge, so now they're thinking that you'll go along with the Social Security Administration running your private retirement plan at a guaranteed 3% a year. "The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated," so no longer would you get the deduction off the top of your income for whatever you contribute to your 401(k). The current system of tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated. Teresa Ghilarducci, "I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s. 401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won't have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break." So that's two people now that want to come along and take away the tax deductibility and subsidy of your 401(k). George Miller, who runs the committee, and some babe, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York.
"Ghilarducci outlined her plan last year in a paper for the left-liberal Economic Policy Institute, in which she acknowledges that her plan would amount to a tax increase on workers making more than $75,000--considerably less than the $250,000 Barack Obama has said would be his tax-hike cutoff. In addition, workers would be able to pass on only half of their account balances to their heirs," so that your 401(k) would be subject to the 50% death tax rate because the government's going to own it. The government's going to own your 401(k), and your 401(k) will guarantee you just 3% in government bonds administered by the government. Your private retirement account that the government set up and got you into, now they want to take over from you, just like Joe Biden wants to go out and make sure that these evil CEOs, their pensions go first. The concept that your money is your money will vanish when the Democrats take over Congress and Obama takes over the White House. All money will officially be government's.
Now, this is getting pretty brutal, so they had this babe up to testify before this committee, Teresa Ghilarducci, and she offered a sweetener. "Short-term I propose ... that the Congress allow workers to swap out their 401(k) assets, perhaps at August levels, for a guaranteed retirement account--just a one-time swap. ... How would this work? You go back to your districts and meet up with a 55-year-old who had had $50,000 in his account last month and now has $40,000 in the account. He can swap out that $50,000, valued in August, for that guarantee of what would become, if he retires at 62, a $500 a month addition to Social Security." So her plan is to have your 401(k) plan taken over by the government, invested by the government, the Social Security plan at 3%, and then your retirement is paid back to you in a Social Security check. Whatever your Social Security benefits are when you retire will be added to by whatever is in your 401(k). The point is that in your mind, if you go along for this, the government is in total charge of your retirement.
And the sweetener, the little hook here is for people to say, "Well, my 401(k) in August it was worth a lot of money, and now it's lost." Okay, we'll give you the August value. Your generous and benevolent government will give you the August value, and then they will take your plan and will put it in the Social Security Administration and will invest your plan in safe bonds at 3% a year, and then when you retire, that money in your 401(k) gets added to whatever your Social -- you get one check, your Social Security check. And in that check will be whatever your retirement account is, and you're essentially giving it up. You're essentially giving it up. By the way, gone also is any incentive to contribute to it, in terms of the subsidy you get off the top of your income for whatever you donate to your 401(k). Now, I don't want to totally alarm you here, it's by no means a certainty that Congress or Obama would embrace this proposal, but I'll tell you when you listen to them talk, this is the direction they're headed. You know they're going to come after pension plans. It's one of the largest sources of money out there, be it you California teachers, public employees, Teamsters Union, your pension plan, I guarantee you people like Obama and Democrats in the House are eyeing that as though it's theirs. Joe Biden, "Their pensions go first."
Here is the link to the full article (which I don't care for due to Rush's sarcasm)...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102408/content/01125109.guest.html
[line]
Now I went looking for this information because Rush shared it on a show - just a brief blurb about it - so I went to his website to find the information.
I also want to clarify...
- I did not hear Rush say the democrats are planning on doing this.
- I am not saying that the democrats are planning on doing this.
- I am not saying it is going to happen.
One point that bothered me about what he said is...
So her plan is to have your 401(k) plan taken over by the government, invested by the government, the Social Security plan at 3%, and then your retirement is paid back to you in a Social Security check. Whatever your Social Security benefits are when you retire will be added to by whatever is in your 401(k). The point is that in your mind, if you go along for this, the government is in total charge of your retirement.
[line]
So here comes the questions for y'all....especially those of you with 401Ks...
- How do you feel about this? How do you feel about the fact that the money will be invested with a guaranteed 3% interest rate?
- How do you feel about the fact you won't get the tax breaks on your contributions?
- How do you feel about the government being in total charge of your retirement?
:biggrin2:
BethM
Well-Known Member
TinysMom
Well-Known Member
BethM wrote:
When I found her as an adult and talked to her (and her family) and were reunited with them - it was a beautiful thing and she is just an awesome person.
I see where you're coming from - but all I can say is that I'm glad my birthmom AND her family didn't consider abortion even an option to be discussed when she was abused for the last time - at the age of 13.
When I found her as an adult and talked to her (and her family) and were reunited with them - it was a beautiful thing and she is just an awesome person.
BethM
Well-Known Member
BethM
Well-Known Member
A little bit off-topic......Does anyone else find this Sen. Stevens thing to be ridiculous? I am completely baffled that there are no laws (according to the news reports I have heard) that would prevent Stevens, now a felon convicted on 7 counts, to continue service in the Senate (if he were re-elected), while in many states convicted felons can't even vote!?! How can this happen?
This sort of thing makes my head hurt.
This sort of thing makes my head hurt.
JadeIcing
Well-Known Member
BethM wrote:
I have a question who believe abortion shouldn't be legal.
Would you rather it be legal and people can have it done at a clinic or hospital or would you rather they have it done illegally at some back room in someone house an possibly die?
I again want to mention that I know that no matter would have an abortion. I just believe it should be a persons choice and they should be able to do it in a controlled environment.
Trust me I don't like those people either.
I have a question who believe abortion shouldn't be legal.
Would you rather it be legal and people can have it done at a clinic or hospital or would you rather they have it done illegally at some back room in someone house an possibly die?
I again want to mention that I know that no matter would have an abortion. I just believe it should be a persons choice and they should be able to do it in a controlled environment.
JadeIcing
Well-Known Member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp
From this one. Sorry made me giggle.
Are they having issues with each other or not?
Right about now I don't care about the world I care about HERE!
From this one. Sorry made me giggle.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_el_pr/mccain
Are they having issues with each other or not?
I am alittle behind on this but when is the last time we have heard anything along these lines being a threat. We will ALWAYS be at risk from someone.
Right about now I don't care about the world I care about HERE!
gentle giants
Well-Known Member
That is one of the great things about this country, though. For situations like that, where a woman can't afford the healthcare she needs for herself and her baby, we have things like WIC and the medical card. When my husband and I got pregnant with our twins, we would not have been able to get all the care needed for a high risk pregnancy without help. But that help is there available, basically allyou have to do to be eligible is be pregnant or have a child under three years old.
Of course pregnancy (an unwanted one, at any rate) will take a toll on a woman emotionally. But do you think that an abortion wouldn't? That is something that any woman who has an abortion has to live with for the rest of her life, that she made the decision to end the life of her child, however that child's life came about. I wouldthink personally that would be far more scarring than having to spend nine months carrying it to term.
BethM
Well-Known Member
gentle giants wrote:
I know there is an emotional toll on a woman who has an abortion. But the point is it should be *her* choice to make.
I think we will be agreeing to disagree on this one.
The Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, and I think this issue is one that really pushes that line.
As for the WIC program, I just looked up the income guidelines, and I wouldn't even qualify. Sure, it does help a lot of women, and that would be a great thing for someone who wanted to do adoption. If it were me, though, I wouldn't be able to do that. (Which I find to be really sad, I know I already have trouble sometimes meeting basic expenses, and I know how hard it is for those who make even less.) And even though I have health coverage, I wouldn't be able to afford the co-pays, and if I had to buy prenatal vitamins, it would have to come out of my grocery budget. The time I missed from work would also count against me come next years review.
So, yeah, there are programs out there, but they don't help everyone who needs help. It's like the morning after pill. Sure, it's out there. But it's really not a realistic option for a lot of women.
seniorcats
Well-Known Member
At the moment I can't think of any Supreme Court decision that has subsequently been overturned by a later Supreme Court. Even the current Chief Justice has acknowledged thatover turning Roe V. Wade, which camefrom an earlier court, would be nearly impossible. The President cannot write a law. It isn't a part of the executive branch powers. The Supreme Court cannot make law. It can only decide the merit of cases it decides to accept andif the law has been correctly applied.
Let's say state 'x' decided to pass a law making abortion illegal in any circumstance.Since 1973, every attempt by a state to limit or illegalize abortion has been struck down by the Supreme Court. Let's say Justice Stephens, who is ancient, drops dead and Justice Ginsberg, who has health issues, retires. Both are very liberal justices. The next President appoints 2 ultra conservatives.Even if an abortion case were brought to the Court and they decided to hear,Roe v. Wade cannot be overturnedsimply because the majority of Justices do not like abortion.
Even if the 'worst case scenario' happened and State 'x's abortion law was found legal and Roe V. Wade overturned, it would only effect that one state. Every other state in the nation would have to pass anti-abortion laws and no doubt go through years of appeals to get abortion made illegal.
Some states have already passed what are called 'trigger' laws - or 'just in case' laws as I call them. These trigger laws make abortion legal in that state even if R v W is overturned.
On the other hand, what will happen when there are few or no doctors willing to perform abortions? Do a little research and you will find many younger students in medical school and just coming out of school are refusing to learn or do the procedure. In some states, South Dakota for one, there are no doctors who do abortions. From my research I understand it's becoming an issue in other countries as well. Should doctors be forced to learn and perform abortions?
The good news is the abortion rate is declining and has been declining in the past couple of years. The bad news is, that's only among caucasian women. Among black women, the rate is increasing. My friend Suzette asked me to attend a lecture her minister husband and otherswere giving at his church. I went last week.The church is about 95% African -American and 5% white. The topic of the lecture was 'Abortion As Black Genocide'. I had never considered this before. I found the speakers and the audience very passionate on the subject. We were referred to the Black Genocide Project for more information http://www.blackgenocide.org/ The site does provide much food for thought which is why I am sharing it. It gave me, a mostly white partly Passamaquody Indian woman, much food for thought.
Let's say state 'x' decided to pass a law making abortion illegal in any circumstance.Since 1973, every attempt by a state to limit or illegalize abortion has been struck down by the Supreme Court. Let's say Justice Stephens, who is ancient, drops dead and Justice Ginsberg, who has health issues, retires. Both are very liberal justices. The next President appoints 2 ultra conservatives.Even if an abortion case were brought to the Court and they decided to hear,Roe v. Wade cannot be overturnedsimply because the majority of Justices do not like abortion.
Even if the 'worst case scenario' happened and State 'x's abortion law was found legal and Roe V. Wade overturned, it would only effect that one state. Every other state in the nation would have to pass anti-abortion laws and no doubt go through years of appeals to get abortion made illegal.
Some states have already passed what are called 'trigger' laws - or 'just in case' laws as I call them. These trigger laws make abortion legal in that state even if R v W is overturned.
On the other hand, what will happen when there are few or no doctors willing to perform abortions? Do a little research and you will find many younger students in medical school and just coming out of school are refusing to learn or do the procedure. In some states, South Dakota for one, there are no doctors who do abortions. From my research I understand it's becoming an issue in other countries as well. Should doctors be forced to learn and perform abortions?
The good news is the abortion rate is declining and has been declining in the past couple of years. The bad news is, that's only among caucasian women. Among black women, the rate is increasing. My friend Suzette asked me to attend a lecture her minister husband and otherswere giving at his church. I went last week.The church is about 95% African -American and 5% white. The topic of the lecture was 'Abortion As Black Genocide'. I had never considered this before. I found the speakers and the audience very passionate on the subject. We were referred to the Black Genocide Project for more information http://www.blackgenocide.org/ The site does provide much food for thought which is why I am sharing it. It gave me, a mostly white partly Passamaquody Indian woman, much food for thought.
seniorcats
Well-Known Member
And while I am wide awake and on a roll, the information posted by some on the 'morning after' pill is inaccurate according to Planned Parenthood. The pill is effective for up to 5 days after unprotected sex not 72 hours as has been posted several times.
The morning after pill is available WITHOUT a prescription according to Planned Parenthood and can be obtained at drug stores and PP offices. So no need to worry about having a pharmacist refuse to dispense it.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.htm
They do make this statement: Plan B is safe, effective, and should be widely available. But, because of certain policies and personal bias, some women may have a hard time getting it. If you are having trouble getting emergency contraception from your local pharmacy or health care provider, contact your local Planned Parenthood health center. We can help you get the medicine you need.
I almost forgot - I live in podunk, the sticks, ya know.... I called the information line at our local hospital and asked if the hospital ER dispensed the morning after pill and was told most ER's do this now. It's offered and given if accepted. If it's avaiable in hicksville, it sould be available at just about any hospital.
The morning after pill is available WITHOUT a prescription according to Planned Parenthood and can be obtained at drug stores and PP offices. So no need to worry about having a pharmacist refuse to dispense it.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.htm
They do make this statement: Plan B is safe, effective, and should be widely available. But, because of certain policies and personal bias, some women may have a hard time getting it. If you are having trouble getting emergency contraception from your local pharmacy or health care provider, contact your local Planned Parenthood health center. We can help you get the medicine you need.
I almost forgot - I live in podunk, the sticks, ya know.... I called the information line at our local hospital and asked if the hospital ER dispensed the morning after pill and was told most ER's do this now. It's offered and given if accepted. If it's avaiable in hicksville, it sould be available at just about any hospital.
seniorcats
Well-Known Member
BethM wrote:
H-m-m-m-m-m, I have some friends whose 'children' are now in their 30's and they are still not surviving on their own outside the womb.
I think we will be agreeing to disagree on this one.
H-m-m-m-m-m, I have some friends whose 'children' are now in their 30's and they are still not surviving on their own outside the womb.
Bo B Bunny
Well-Known Member
:laugh:I know a LOT of people like that!
seniorcats wrote:
seniorcats wrote:
H-m-m-m-m-m, I have some friends whose 'children' are now in their 30's and they are still not surviving on their own outside the womb.
