Cleo's Mom

Promise #6: No Tax Increase on Families Making Under 250k “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” Obama said in a September 2008 town hall meeting in Dover. Reality: In his first year in office, he proposed Cap and Trade, which would be a fat tax on everyone. He increased the cigarette tax by 159 percent, and now we have that proposed tax on fancy health care benefits. So on your paycheck stub there will now be a "cap and trade" tax deduction? I guess if you make over $250,000 and smoke and the cigarette tax goes up, you will pay more. ROFLMAO.

Obama: Rs Drove Us Into a Ditch. "Now They Want The Keys Back." And They Can't Have Them. Fri May 14, 2010 at 08:14:10 AM PDT This is good. Speaking at a DCCC fundraiser last night, President Obama used a very good analogy to describe the Republicans in terms of their governance and obstruction after driving us into the Great Recession. OBAMA: After they drove the car into the ditch, made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No! You can’t drive! We don’t want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out. "You would have thought at a time of historic crisis that Republican leaders would have been more willing to help us find a way out of this mess," Obama added. "Particularly since they created the mess." You tell 'em, Obama. :w00t:

So, I guess you were able to find a conservative media site. And Fox news reported on it too. Proves my point that if there was acceptance of latino students taking down the american flag and replacing it with the mexican flag - BEYOND THOSE WHO DID IT - then it would have been reported on. And when I say beyond those who did it I mean the school, the community, the general population.

This shows some latinos knocking an American flag off of a truck. This is not about the students taking down the American flag at a school. And of course it would be acceptable to those who took down the flag, but I want to know who beyond them it was acceptable to. Rupert Murdoch owns much of the media in this country and he is a big right wing conservative. Why didn't any of his publications publicize this news and speak about how "acceptable" it was to many? He and his Fox network sure don't worry about being PC.

Loserbob: You're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I go to the Irish festival every year where there are plenty of people wearing tee shirts bearing the Irish flag. If someone came with a tee shirt with the Italian flag, I would assume that was done on purpose with a kind of "in your face" attitude. But they would have the right to wear it. I think the kids who wore the American flag tee shirts had an "in your face" attitude but they certainly had the right to wear them. They did not have a right to wear the bandanas as that violated school code. And as I said before, they should have been ignored since they just wanted attention, which they got. And yes, soldiers have fought in many wars for our freedom and our freedoms are extended to all the people in this country.

What you said was that people found it acceptable that a group of hispanic students took down the american flag, put up a mexican flag and sometimes hung the american flag unside down under the mexican flag. What I am waiting for is some kind of proof to back up your statement that people found this acceptable. Surely something as outrageous as this garnered media coverage.

I don't care who prays, when, where or what about. I just choose to handle my problems my way and I am satisfied with my results. If people want to pray to God to have him intervene to solve all their problems, then go ahead.

This indicates this incident was not acceptable: High school students fined for raising Mexican flag 4:55 pm By Jennifer Woodard Maderazo · 9 Oct 2006 In my hometown of Houston, a group of high school students have been slapped with a fine for attempting to fly the Mexican flag on the school’s flagpole in honor of Fiestas Patrias, Mexico’s independence day: On September 15, a group of students say they just wanted to display their cultural pride. But school administrators say they broke the rules. Who knew the flagpole at Austin High could produce legal questions and cultural concerns all at once? Last month, five students tried to hoist a Mexican flag during school hours on the eve of a Mexican holiday. Campus police promptly ticketed the boys for disrupting an outdoor class, which they say was assembled nearby. HISD spokesperson Terry Abbott said, “It could have been for any kind of classroom disruption. We issue those types of tickets all the time. They’re very common.”

Please link the media coverage of this or be more specific as to who found this acceptable. Did the school district allow the flag to remain? Did they come out and say they found it acceptable? Did the townspeople say they foundit acceptable? I am sure this received media coverage, so why don't link it?

I'm with you on this one. I definitely would have handled this problem myself and got it resolved to my satisfaction. I am known as a tough consumer advocate and I would have either never paid that $80 to begin with or gotten it back because I would have called corporate GM. I would have reported this dealer to the BBB. I have done this type of thing many, many times over the years and I have always had it resolved to my satisfaction. I once had my AC serviced and soon after it broke on a Sunday when my elderly parents were coming for dinner on a very hot day. The company that fixed it was not available for 24/7 emergencies so I called one that was. They charged me $95. I sent that bill to the company that had originally serviced it and they reimbursed me. And I have plenty more stories like this.

Dominionists - now I have a name for the religious extremists and zealots. The description sure fits them to a T.

5 Voting Demographics Where Barack Obama Made Headlines According to exit polls, Obama dominated the youth and minority vote Posted November 6, 2008 1. Minorities: Ninety-six percent of black voters supported Obama. He also drew the votes of two thirds of Hispanics. 2. Young people: Obama won the under-30 crowd by 34 percentage points. This bested 19-point advantage over Bob Dole among young voters in 1996. 3. Women: Obama attracted 56 percent of female voters. Unmarried women also voted for Obama over Mccain by 70 to 29 percent. 4. White men: He had the support of 41 percent of white men. Before Obama, no Democrat since [Jimmy Carter) had earned more than 38 percent of the white male vote. 5. Hillary Clinton fans: Obama won over 84 percent of Democrats who backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Sources: Associated Press, Politico , Women's Voices Women Vote Plus Obama also got the Catholic, Jew, Asian and singles vote, whereas McCain go the rural, white, over 65, married and evangelical vote. Now, I know for a fact that Hillary supporters were middle class, because I worked for her campaign. All in all, I think Pres. Obama got a representative vote of the very diverse population of people here in America. :biggrin:

Obama's Amazing Statistics Thu May 13, 2010 at 12:44:50 PM PDT President Obama has been in office for exactly 478 days. That puts him only 32.74% of the way through his first term. While on the campaign trail, he made a total of 504 promises that can be verified by politifact.com. Of those 504 promises, how many of them would you guess to have had zero action taken on them? 400? 300? 250? 150? Bzzzzt. Too high. The answer: 3 Yes, that is correct. Of the 504 promises Obama made on the campaign trail, there are only 3 that his administration has not taken any action on. What is even more amazing is what those three promises are. More below... Here is the link. As amazing as this is, the three promises he has yet to take some kind of action on are even more amazing. Here they are... So what conclusions can we draw from this? I'd say that Obama is doing the job we elected him to do. I'd also say that those last three promises may get checked off in the very near future (I hope). We shall see. from: dailykos He is doing an amazing job, especially considering what a mess he inherited from the failed policies of bush. Sorry I voted for him? NEVER. I am so proud to have done so.

They weren't bush's or reagan's either but they were collected and spent by them. What is your point. Geez!!! And your life story of hard knocks is getting weary. It implies a "one size fits all" approach which fits nicely with your black & white view of the world and the simplistic solutions to which you ascribe. "If I can do it then anyone can" ignores the millions of individual circumstances that people find themselves in.

Absolutely. Pres. Obama has done an amazing job turning the disasterous economy he inherited around. We are seeing the positive results now. I even heard Mr. Coppertone (Boehner) say something positive about the economy.

April 2010 In any case where these polls agree is in how many Americans do not consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party - 60 percent in AP-GfK's poll, 62 percent in CBS/NYT’s. Of course support is not in itself a gauge of commitment. In another approach, 10 percent in a CNN/ORC poll say they’ve taken active steps to support the Tea Party. On one hand there’s always concern about social-engagement bias in surveys (people who answer polls also are more apt to be socially engaged in other ways). On the other, the result is similar to the 13 percent in a Quinnipiac poll last month who called themselves “members” of the party. In addition to measurement issues, these differences may mark the challenge in gauging support for a group that’s new to the scene, not a fully formed political party and indeed not well known. Fifty-two percent in the AP-GfK poll say they know only a little or nothing about the movement; just 16 percent say they know a great deal or a lot about it. (The rest, “some.”) In other measures, all these recent polls have about an even division in favorable/unfavorable ratings of the Tea Party movement, which is not particularly good, since this is perhaps the most basic test of popularity. It’s 28-30 percent in the AP-GfK poll and 21-18 percent in the CBS/NYT poll, both of which offer an option to express no opinion. It was 36-34 percent in a Fox poll last week and 41-39 percent in a Washington Post poll last month. In a potentially ominous result for GOP candidates who don’t toe its line, 66 percent of Tea Party supporters in the CBS/Times poll say they usually or always vote Republican. And another question from last week is interesting because it’s comparative, as is all election politics. Fox asked its respondents which party “best shares your values.” Result: Democratic Party 40 percent, Republican 25, Tea 19.

Where Pres. Obama and the democrats have taken us is from an economy on the brink of collapse with over 700,000 jobs being lost per month to an economy that has turned around and seeing positive job growth for the last 4 months. Of course, the teabaggers would NEVER give him credit for that. Where Pres. Obama has taken us is from a country that allowed 30+ million to go without healthcare insurance and 40,000 die each year with many insurance abuses to those who did have insurance. That all changed with the healthcare reform. Where Pres. Obama took us is from a foreign policy that was based on pre-emptive attacks to one where he will get us out of the two bush wars. Where Pres. Obama took us is from a cheney policy of torture to a proud america where we dont' torture. Where Pres. Obama took us is from a country where wall street banks and corporations were de-regulated and calling the shots to one where there is more, much needed regulations and accountability. And as far as unions are concerned: Without them we wouldn't have a middle class. Now I know that's what the neocons want - to go back to the two class system - they would be the rich, of course, and everyone else the poor workers with no protections or safety nets. That's how things were at the turn of the 19th to 20th century and that's what they would like to return to. And as far as the teabaggers are concerned - well, my opinion of them has been well documented on here as well as polls about who they are - basically the same 20% we've always had in this country that are against everything - mostly middle aged white men - they just gave themselves a name this time and became vocal because we have a black man in the white house. And white men are the only demographic that Pres. Obama didn't win in the 2008 election. AND I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR SOURCE ON YOUR HEALTHCARE COSTS PREVIOUSLY POSTED. EITHER POST YOUR SOURCE OR ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG.

The point is not whether anyone supports this bill or not, the question is whether it is constitutional and will be upheld in court. Unless any on here are constitutional attorneys or authorities, I will defer to them: Many are claiming that Arizona’s controversial new immigration law is unconstitutional. The reason? Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: The Congress shall have Power….To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; The “Rules of Naturalization” clause is, traditionally speaking, what grants Congress the authority to regulate immigration. If a power is not enumerated in the Constitution as vested in the Congress, then it is delegated to the states. However, if it is an enumerated congressional power, states do not have jurisdiction over the issue as pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. Some textualists might argue that the “naturalization” element of the clause definitionally refers (or referred at the time of the document’s drafting) to “investing aliens with privileges of naturalize citizens.” As such, it can be distinguished from the concept of “emigration” or “immigration” which refers to people moving from place to place. However, even if we wanted to take a textualist approach, clearly, when people immigrate to our country, this necessarily involves conferring the privileges of naturalized citizens. Thus, it is the Congress which has authority over the “uniform Rule” of this process, in other words, its regulation. Anyway, this much isn’t really controversial to American jurisprudence. Immigration has been a federally regulated issue for quite some time. What we do have are special laws which permit the cooperation of state governments and law officials to enforce federal laws. But this authority is very, very narrow and really only there to aid federal enforcement. Furthermore, it is a power that is granted by the federal government. It doesn’t work the other way around. Here is the law from 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c which outlines the authority of state law officials and immigration enforcement: (a) In general. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who– (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States. (:smile2: Cooperation. The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials. What the Arizona law does really goes beyond this. Under reasonable suspicion, Arizona law enforcement may check the documentation status of certain individuals. It also permits Arizona law enforcement to arrest, without warrant, any person with probable cause of being removable from the United States. However, state law enforcement has to have confirmation from the federal government to arrest or detain individuals here illegally (unless they are committing some other crime). Illegals cannot just be arrested by the independent volition of local law enforcement for being here illegally. At the very least, they would need confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to whom illegal individuals would then have to be turned over. Or so it would seem. Crafters of the Arizona legislation say that the preceding worries aren’t valid because they claim they are merely enforcing the federal laws already in place. However, if Arizona is trying to so do by granting themselves new powers, then it’s just not clear how they can possibly do so. The legislation will very likely face serious constitutional issues in the future, no matter how well intentioned it may be. That being said, I do think Arizona’s legislation is well-intentioned and, in principle, I’m a fan of the spirit of its measures. I’m expecting there to be cogent legal arguments out there its behalf, which I’m very interested in considering. But, conservatives who claim to revere the merits of legal process cannot countenance laws which compromise the integrity of our legal system. Trying to enact productive legislation is great, but the bottom line is that the legal justification must come first. The larger issue that the Arizona immigration legislation raises, I think, is what ought we to do when the federal government is woefully remiss in carrying out its duties and protecting its citizens? Surely, Arizona cannot stand idly by while its borders are inundated by wards of a narco-state and innocent Americans die as a result. Is the situation so urgent that Arizona must enact laws which it is not, strictly speaking, authorized to do? Or is the legislation really within the legal authority for Arizona to implement in the first place? I leave this discussion open for others to weigh in on. Special thanks to brilliant legal discussion with Matthew Austin for analysis on this post.

And the fact that the Indians were living the same way they had for 500 years when Columbus arrived served them well. It was only after the white man arrived with his "progress" did he spread his diseases to the Indians.

I'd rather be a bleeding heart liberal than a heartless neocon anyday. You betcha!!

I didn't know the first dog was involved in taxes. But I digress. When Warren Buffet pays 17.7 % of his income in taxes and his secretary pays 30% of hers, in actual dollars he is contributing a lot more to the federal income taxes collected than she is, but it's taking a much bigger chunk of her earnings. But since the rich are getting richer, and the middle class poorer, it only stands to reason that in actual dollars they are paying more in taxes but as you can see from my tax rate charts, their rate has been going down, down, down since saint ronnie. Additionally, they only pay 15% on capital gains which are a big part of their wealth.

They have been getting a free ride for too long. And this increase on payroll taxes will help the middle class, not just the poor. So to say the rich will pay more taxes to pay for the poor is not correct.

So, you can understand then how people can view the teabaggers as Obama hating racists. If you don't want that personal perception of you, then don't hang out with those like that. If you believe it applies to Pres. Obama, then it applies to the teabaggers.