Boxy.....throw up the white flag now, cause the obama ship is sinking faster than the titanic. The guy is a socialist fraud!
'Go to the light' where the rest of the X-obama supporters are going. Like I said before....presidents have been exceeding their power of the constitution for decades.........it's time to stop them.
And yes boxy....obama is one of them! Wake up and smell the coffee!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
MT seems to think that if he posts enough WORDS, it will be a persuasive argument.
His first paragraph... Lots of words... Looks impressive... BUT Tell me MT... just how much increased tax did you pay for Obama's... 1. ~ Bush tax cuts expiration? Are you or most of us on this board making a taxable income over $250,000? 2. ~How much of your tax increase was " Reinstate Superfund taxes"? 3. ~Tell me MT... the codify "economic substance doctrine" ---How much did this Obama tax cost you this year??? 4. ~So MT... did you get hit with the Obama... "$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas"? NO??? Me either. I don't think anyone on this board had to pay that Obama tax. 5. ~ Come on MT... you must have paid SOME of these terrible new Obama taxes... Maybe the "$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs"- Or the "$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers"??? NO? Really??? You didn't have to pay any of that $1Billion tax??? It seems all the taxes you sited were taxes on the rich. I've never paid any of the taxes you posted,
BUT,
The average person living in Rotterdam, DID get an OBAMA tax cut this year.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Smokers COST the country money... their tobacco tax never even comes close to compensating for the added cost of smoking.
The tobacco companies site the Tax Revenue argument to promote their product. The 'entire cost' of Tobacco use in the USA far outweighs the revenue from Tobacco Taxes. Tobacco use accounts for over 6% of US health related costs (2000).
Average days off per year (2001) Never smoked=3.86 Ex-Smoker=4.53 Smoker=6.16
Consider: Tobacco’s cost to governments, to employers and to the environment includes social, welfare and health care spending, loss of foreign exchange in importing cigarettes; loss of land that could grow food; costs of fires and damage to buildings caused by careless smoking; environmental costs ranging from deforestation to collection of smokers’ litter, absenteeism, decreased productivity, higher numbers of accidents and higher insurance premiums.
* total cost of fires caused by smoking: US$27 billion (2001) * World’s worst forest fire caused by cigarettes 300 killed 5,000 made homeless. (China 1987) * Smoking in America costs ALL Americans, not just the smokers.
Tobacco is the only product that, if used as directed, will kill you. (and those around you)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
While the majority of the tax cuts, passed last February, affected 95 percent of working families, when they took affect by April of 2009, the monetary value was not too large -- most families saw about $70 more in take home pay every month. Individual workers saw about $13 more a week. Here's your big tax cut that you rave about Box but does that equal the prescription drug plan that I may lose, the lose of my Health-care plan that I paid into for 36 years, Or not getting a raise in Social Security this year, and last my Medicare Insurance going up for the last 2 years.
You're right! The data is over 10 years old. Most Americans realized then that smoking costs all Americans much more than it raises in tax revenue. There is not much interest to "re-prove" what has already been proven.
The latest smoking statistics from England suggest that the costs of smoking are 5 times as much as previously thought: From the BBC 8 June 2009
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Shadow, Health Care: If you have health care, nothing should change under Obama care. **************************************** Social Security: Social Security payments are supposed to increase annually if U.S. consumer prices increase. But over the past 12 months, prices have declined. Specifically, the CPI-W -- the price index upon which Social Security adjustments are based -- has dropped 1.7 percent since September 2008. IF you're looking for someone to blame for not getting an increase in your SS... Then look to the Bush Economic Meltdown. When consumer prices fall, there will never be a SS increase. ABC news Oct. 15, 2009 http://abcnews.go.com/Business.....low/story?id=8835753
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Box the CBO has come out with a report that 51% and soon to be more will lose their current health-care from their company provided plans. The companies are going to dump all their employees into the government provided system and pay the penalty because they'll save millions from what they currently pay so you're wrong on the health-care statement. You didn't answer my question about the increase in the Medicare fee that has gone up the last 2 years. Cost of living has gone down but that results in a lose of income for me no matter the reason. What about the lose of my company provided drug plan that I paid into and I stand to lose. Obama Bin Lying isn't telling the whole truth, we're still finding things in the health-care bill that will cost us a lot of money.
* Congressional Testimony Often referred to as Comprehensive Immigration Reform, pro-amnesty groups seek to offer legal permanent residence to illegal aliens. Comprehensive Immigration Reform bills were introduced in Congress in both 2006 and 2007.
In 2006, separate versions were passed in the Senate and House, but an agreement was never reached in conference committee. In 2007, a version in the Senate proposed by Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy with support from Pres. Bush failed to reach a cloture vote. The grassroots effort from NumbersUSA members was a major reason why the amnesty failed.
Often referred to as Comprehensive Immigration Reform, pro-amnesty groups seek to offer legal permanent residence to illegal aliens. Comprehensive Immigration Reform bills were introduced in Congress in both 2006 and 2007.
In 2006, separate versions were passed in the Senate and House, but an agreement was never reached in conference committee. In 2007, a version in the Senate proposed by Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy with support from Pres. Bush failed to reach a cloture vote. The grassroots effort from NumbersUSA members was a major reason why the amnesty failed.
During the 2008 campaign, Pres. Obama offered support for amnesty, and with an overwhelming majority of supporters in the House and Senate, newer versions of the failed bills are likely to be introduced.
Update Senators Challenge Pres. Obama on Rumors of Executive Order Amnesty
Monday, June 21, 2010, 4:58 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA
Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can't secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate.
The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can't be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative.
Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).
We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.
While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.
We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible.
As part of an overall Immigration plan that is effective, the amnesty plan might be the best way to proceed. Many of the illegals in the USA have been here for years, are productive members of society, with jobs, homes, health insurance, and families.
If part of sealing our borders includes amnesty, I wouldn't necessarily be against it. The state problems in Arizona with SB1070 are caused by the Federal government's inability or unwillingness to pass and enforce good legislation regarding illegals.
Of course there are some Conservatives on this board that feel that the Federal Government is overstepping its bounds by dealing with border issues. They have posted that immigration is a State Issue, not a Federal issue.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I have a better plan first vote Obama Bin Lying out of office in 2012, second seal off the border, third fine the hell out of everyone here illegally for not paying taxes while they were here, fourth put them all back at the end of the line behind everyone who is trying to enter this country legally fifth anyone here illegally who has committed a crime gets deported immediately and last make them pay into Social Security and Medicare for at least 10 years b4 they can collect any benefits.
PHOENIX (AP) - Mexico is asking a federal court in Arizona to declare the state's new immigration law unconstitutional.
Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of a lawsuit challenging the law.
The law generally requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally.
It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets.
Mexico says its interest in having consistent relations with the United States shouldn't be frustrated by one state.
Mexico also says it has a legitimate interest in defending its citizens' rights and that the law would lead to racial profiling.
Logged
