Barack Obama is President of the United States of America

[dorothyrd]

From what I have read, there are already problems with the bail-out not doing what it intended. I also am unhappy with how many perks went into it and it went from 700 to 850 billion dollars because of those perks just to get it to pass.

My issue with government is how big it has gotten. I think we need infrastructure, police, schools, fire safety, but when the government keeps spending and spending and spending more than they have....well that is just foolish. Every paycheck I check my budget to make sure I am not over spending on foolish things,which is human nature and easy to do. I just wish government would do that.

And about reaching across the aisle, I will believe that when I see it. The start has been far, far, far left...no reaching there.

No one has answered my question about Canadian health care. I posted about the story about the French health care and the problem with the large deficits. How is Canada paying for their wonderful health care? and is it going into a deficit?

 

[sparrow13]

Exactly! Thanks for bringing this up, Cathy!

We teachers are only paid for 10 months out of the year; we are basically unemployed workers during summer break, through no fault of our own except for our choice of profession.

Yes, we teachers did go into teaching knowing that we would be making less money. However, my husband (who is also a teacher) and our many, many teacher friends all agree that one of the reasons for our deplorable state of eduction is because our government does not pay teachers enough or invest enough money into our educational system. If teachers' salaries were higher, teaching would attract smarter individuals who would want to dedicate their lives to teaching. Why go into teaching, making a starting salary of maybe $30,000-40,000 a year, when you can work for a company that will pay much more than that?

When Republicans grumble about our poor educational system, though, it angers me. Our teachers need more pay and our schools need more money, but that would mean more tax money going into them. Is that a terrible thing? I don't think so, but, hey, that's because I believe that an educated public is one of the greatest strengths of a country.


ETA: And I just wanted to say thanks to Fidget Queen for your interesting post! Carola, I love reading your posts! Thanks for taking the time to explain things so well!

I have no problem paying for good schools and good teachers. I do have a problem throwing good money after bad. Billions and billions of dollars are spent on education each year and *still* our kids can't read or write. And study after study has shown that more money does not equal better education. There are any number of charter schools and schools of that type that spend far less per pupil than do the public schools, with better results.

My solution? Give teaching back to the teachers and to the communities. Let the teachers do what they are paid to do, teach and guide. Allow them to implement discipline. Let them go "off book" if they think it will excite the students and inspire learning. Reward the good ones handsomely and get rid of the deadwood ASAP.

 

[carres1973]

I have no problem paying for good schools and good teachers. I do have a problem throwing good money after bad. Billions and billions of dollars are spent on education each year and *still* our kids can't read or write. And study after study has shown that more money does not equal better education. There are any number of charter schools and schools of that type that spend far less per pupil than do the public schools, with better results.

My solution? Give teaching back to the teachers and to the communities. Let the teachers do what they are paid to do, teach and guide. Allow them to implement discipline. Let them go "off book" if they think it will excite the students and inspire learning. Reward the good ones handsomely and get rid of the deadwood ASAP.

AMEN!!! And please stop teaching to the achievement test! I remember back in my day (*ahem*) when we were taught multiplication by memorization (1 times 1 is 1, 1 times 2 is 2...). We were taught to spell by memorization. My kids are now taught in very different ways with counting out the times tables and such. I am not saying it is right or wrong just that since the scores have continued to go into the tank, maybe it's time to re-look at the system. Listen to the teachers. I am sure they have wonderful ideas to engage their students. Let them teach!

Carrie

 

[diane57]

For those who are worried about big government and its programs, I just want to remind you that for the money we have spend on the Iraq war, we could have provided health insurance for every man, woman and child in America, and repaired all of our highways and bridges. (And probably had a bit left over to provide assistance to those evil people in crippling pain in wheelchairs and with delusional schizophrenia who are "taking advantage of the system" by accepting help from government programs. I'm telling you, those SOBs should just get off their lazy asses and stop taking advantage of those of us who "choose" to work hard!!!!) If you are going to define "socialism" as funding programs that help people be healthy and have enough to eat and keep them off the streets when they are truly unable to work, we need to think of some other term to call a system of government that spends most of our tax money on a war that has killed thousands of American troops and innocent civilians, and destroyed our reputation, and sent billions of dollars to rebuild a foreign country that we ourselves destroyed, and forced us into the hugest financial deficit in history.

 

[sparrow13]

For those who are worried about big government and its programs, I just want to remind you that for the money we have spend on the Iraq war, we could have provided health insurance for every man, woman and child in America, and repaired all of our highways and bridges. (And probably had a bit left over to provide assistance to those evil people in crippling pain in wheelchairs and with delusional schizophrenia who are "taking advantage of the system" by accepting help from government programs. I'm telling you, those SOBs should just get off their lazy asses and stop taking advantage of those of us who "choose" to work hard!!!!) If you are going to define "socialism" as funding programs that help people be healthy and have enough to eat and keep them off the streets when they are truly unable to work, we need to think of some other term to call a system of government that spends most of our tax money on a war that has killed thousands of American troops and innocent civilians, and destroyed our reputation, and sent billions of dollars to rebuild a foreign country that we ourselves destroyed, and forced us into the hugest financial deficit in history.

I think if you reread the posts by people like myself who said we are against handouts, you'll see that most of us made the point that we are not talking about those truly in need, such as the mentally ill or handicapped, among others. We are talking about people who are perfectly able to work, and choose not to. Of course there are many many many handicapped people who successfully hold down jobs, too.

I agree with your statements about the war.

Sparrow

 

[carres1973]

But that is not how socialism is defined, Sparrow. Socialism is defined as a social and economic system in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. Socialis means that people work to produce, not for pay, and receive what ever they need without having to buy it.

Now I don't know why people get so incredibly bent out of shape that the new Democratic government will take money from us and give it to the lazy bums turning the US into a marxist country. Well, I know where it comes from but it is unfounded!!

The US and many other industrialized countries are some form of "socialist democracy". I don't think capitalism, democracy and socialism are mutually exclusive. If you define capitalism is an economic system of profit maximization, in it's purest definition a survival of the fittest.

If you combine the best of capitalism and socialism you would have a system that understood that if the individuals are well they will LIKE to be in that system and work harder, therefore be more profitable. An example of "socialist" influxes would be maternity leave, health care, worker wellness programs, possibly longer vacations (quite frankly the 2 weeks vacation in the US are ridiculous, there are lots of research examples that show that people perform better if they get time off work, but that is a totally different discussion), etc.

No one says take away from the people who work and give it to the lazy bums. Welfare in my opinion is for the ones that temporarily fall on hard times. Do I realize that there are some people who abuse the system?? Sure I do!!! But to not give help to people who need it because there are a few bad apples??

That being said, I am all for capitalism!! The way I see it, you work hard in order to achieve. What I find though is over the last decade this is not enough. The discrepancy between rich and poor has become extraordinary. If you just look at what CEOs of this country are making, IT IS OUTRAGEOUS!!! To stay with the example of a teacher, they make anywhere from $ 40 to 60k, a CEO makes in the vicinity of $ 3 to 20 Mio, sometimes more. There is no justification for that!! Period. A CEO doesn't work that much harder.
Over the last decade there has been a very one-sided "distribution of wealth", most of the "perks" and tax breaks went to the top 5 %. In my opinion it is a wrong philosophy that if the top is doing good, the wealth will "trickle down", instead of realizing that a system is only as good as its weakest link is. If the middle class is doing well, just by means of numbers the economy will get a boost.

Now, the prospect of no government is tempting but we all know that it is impossible. Government has it's place to do things that we as individuals can not do and if it is run well we all can benefit from it, rich and poor. The problem is that politics often get in the way of governing effectively.

And unfortunately, scare tactics and frightening people by throwing around buzz words like socialism, communism, marxism, liberal, dangerous etc. is how elections are usually won. I am glad, however, that it did not work this time.

I am all for "socialized medicine" and I work for a hospital! I feel the emergency departments and current healthcare systems is over-stretched because of having to carry the burden of the un- or under-insured. This "over-strechedness" is then passed back to we the insured.

The issue I have is taxing the wealthy to give to the poor. As Nancy said, many of the wealthy got that way because of family inheritance. This inheritance has been taxed several times already. Should we raise their taxes so they have to pay once AGAIN? How about those go-getter types like Bill Gates or the founders of Yahoo or Google? They worked their butts off to get everything they have. Should they be taxed more to give to the poor? Why? They already do A LOT for charity. Isn't that better than the government getting the money?

Where I TOTALLY agree with you is in company CEO's who have done nothing but lucked into a good position. However, how do you differentiate them from the hard-workers and "good guys" like the former CEO of Southwest?

And don't get me started on professional athletes! Talk about over-paid!!!

I also agree that trickle-down economics doesn't work. This was a buzz-word back in the Regan days. It didn't work in the 80's and it isn't working now. Here is a novel concept...do away with the EIC. Why are we rewarding people and giving them more on a tax return than they paid? AND I believe EIC was a Regan or Bush (the first) incentive!!!

Carrie

 

[hiitdogs]

No one has answered my question about Canadian health care. I posted about the story about the French health care and the problem with the large deficits. How is Canada paying for their wonderful health care? and is it going into a deficit?

I can't answer your question about Canadian health care but having lived in Germany and having worked as a consultant for international companies which also included financial evaluations on staffing I know how many of those "socialized" health care programs work. Many in Europe are similar in their outline but I will take Germany as an example.

Health insurance in Germany is a right and health coverage is mandatory. The cost for everyone who works is a percentage of your income up to a certain cap. Right now it is 15 % of your income up $ 5,500 (I believe that is the current cap), it is split half by employer and half by employee. There is another thread that gives more detail on that http://www.thecathenation.com/forum/showthread.php?t=229278&highlight=german+health

I have no indication that the European health care system is broken, I would say it is not perfect but it is less broken than the current US health care system. Maybe you can share a link or let me know where you heard that information. Health insurance in Germany by definition can not make profits.

It is interesting that we always hear stories in America how in countries like France or Canada are far behind that of the US. That for all important medicine they come to the US because their country can't take care of it, or that they have to wait six months or a year or more for basic dental care. Yet when you talk to people living in these countries, they tend to adore their system and think the system of the USA is broken and far inferior.

I guess my question is if most industrialized countries in the world, except for the US, have national healthcare and it's so bad, why aren't those countries abandoning their system?
Voluntary participation in health insurance is a failing policy. Too many are uncovered and those covered are at the mercy of a poorly regulated industry focused only on profit.

Another question if Vice President Cheney with his serious heart condition can benefit from a single-payer, government-run healthcare plan , why can't all Americans benefit from the same? I bet Sen. McCain is loving his government run health plan because with his history of melanoma he couldn't get covered in the free market.

How much do you think it costs every single one of us if a hospital or doctor gets stiffed out of money due to the fact that people go bankrupt over medical bills. That cost is being passed on to us.

Health insurance should be a right of every American and health insurance and profits can't go hand in hand because it will by definition short-change the person whose health is effected. If we don't get a grasp on it, this current system will bankrupt the US, morally and financially.

 

[dorothyrd]

Carola, the story was on the CBS morning news on Sunday October 26. I always watch it and stretch after a work-out.
They were very favorable toward the French system, doctors and people were happy with the care, but the draw back was the billions in deficit the system is in now. The comment at the end of the story was, it is wonderful, but it cannot go on because it is not paying for itself. The amount that was being taxed on the people was not enough by a lot. So it makes me wonder how it is paid for...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/sunday/main4546041.shtml

 

[dani21496]

Dani, that is too cool

That is a great picture, Dani!!!!

I am with you, I also teared up during Obama's speech, as did both my kids who watched it with me.

How Cool!!!

Thank you!

Great pic Dani! My only brush with "political royalty" was shaking hands with Jeb Bush when I was stationed in Florida.

Carrie

Carrie, were you in the military? I was in the Navy from 88-92. I went to bootcamp in Orlando.

Dani I got chills reading your post and seeing that picture! How awesome and something for you to treasure forever for sure!!

Thanks everyone!!!

Dani, I remember seeing that picture from your photo trail a year or so ago....how cool!!!

ETA, I sat next to now Governor Tim Kaine when he was mayor of Richmond. He lives in our neighborhood (well, not right now, since he lives in the Governor's Mansion). And Doug Wilder and Mark Warner are seen around a lot...Richmond's not that big, I guess. Just ask Karl Rove, who thinks that being mayor of my city is not as difficult or as important as being the mayor of Wassila (sp?)!!!!

How neat!!!

Oh! Way way back in the early 60's my mom, a pretty blonde former model raced to the airport to meet RFK - he made a bee-line over to her, and shook my hand (I was about 18 months old) and contrary to his wolf image, he told my mom, "Have I got a good looking boy for her!" (meaning RFK JR.), and said he hoped he could count on my mom's vote...so that was one............then, Nelson Rockefeller used to fly out of Albany and my grandpa would take me to see the planes on weekends...and Rocky took a fancy to my macho Italian grandpa showing up with a little blond girl every week, and took time to learn my grandfather's name and would yell, "hey Mike," when he'd be taking off in his jet..........OH!!!!!!! I took Christie Whitman's blood pressure when she was in the hospital and I was moonlighting...she would've been the right VP pick for McCain....
Barack was at our local airport in Newport News and my neighbor got a picture with him (he works there)....and he's going to use photoshop to morph me into the picture to make it look like I met him......does that count????
AND I had a papal audience with JohnPaul II when I was a student in Rome..he came out to hear a little kid choir and my pal and I were just sitting on the steps and he came over and gave us a cross-blessing and said "Que Bella!"..........
So, I'm kind of the Forrest Gump of meeting politicians and Popes!

Wow! You really are kind of the Forrest Gump of meeting people!! Heehee! I love how RFK tried to set you up with RFK, JR.

Dani, that's awesome! WAY better than when my mom met David Lee Roth.

Dani, that is so awesome!!

Thank you!!!!

Is anyone else worried about Obama's safety? I know he's going to have secret service people, but there are some crazy people in this world.

Yes, I'm worried about this. Oh, God I pray it never happens.

What an awesome picture, Dani! Thanks for sharing it!

Thank you!

(I don't know how to copy a post into my message yet)

Click the QUOTE button at the bottom right hand corner of the person's post. The quote will show up in your text box. For multiple people's quotes, click on the "OFF" button in the bottom right hand corner. It will turn to "ON" after you click it and then click Post Reply. They will all show up in your text box, like what I just did here.

 

[hiitdogs]

The issue I have is taxing the wealthy to give to the poor. As Nancy said, many of the wealthy got that way because of family inheritance. This inheritance has been taxed several times already. Should we raise their taxes so they have to pay once AGAIN? How about those go-getter types like Bill Gates or the founders of Yahoo or Google? They worked their butts off to get everything they have. Should they be taxed more to give to the poor? Why? They already do A LOT for charity. Isn't that better than the government getting the money?

Where I TOTALLY agree with you is in company CEO's who have done nothing but lucked into a good position. However, how do you differentiate them from the hard-workers and "good guys" like the former CEO of Southwest?

I am not saying tax the wealthy to give to the poor. I am saying there is a discrepancy between the rich and poor that has become outlandish.

Since you mention the inheritance tax, if it is structured right (and many rich people have their trusts and estates attorneys to shield them) there is no or little inheritance tax. Aside, people don't get taxed on what they own in investment but they get taxed on the profit that the investment makes. Meaning, if I have $ 1 Mio invested and I make $ 100,000 in profit or interest off that money the $ 100,000 is what will be taxed. In general, long-term capital gains (over 1 year investment) will be taxed at 5 to 15 % in taxes.

Now if someone could explain to me how it is fair that someone who "earns" $ 100,000 by investing money that they have, don't lift their bum, wouldn't have to pay taxes (or in the current case 5 to 15%) on that $ 100,000 income whereas if the normal working stiff busts their butt to make $ 100,000 has to pay 28 % taxes? Not exactly a morale booster, is it?

About the CEO salaries, the problem as I see it is that in the current system CEOs of companies make gigantic amounts of money compared to the other employees who work there, it is not only disproportionate, we all are paying for those enormous salaries since those companies are passing the cost on to us, the consumer.
Since I am already paying for their salary, do I have a problem that those CEOs are in a higher tax bracket and have to pay more in taxes than I do. Not one bit!! It's not that they exactly land in the poor house because they pay $ 2 Mio in taxes of their $ 10 Mio income. They still make $ 8 Mio. Not even depending on their performance.

Just look at the practice of "golden parachutes". I am big on personal responsibility, you break it, you own it and you don't get paid for screwing up while others in the company lose their jobs, pensions and livlihood.

In respect to the concern that others have voiced that money is taken from one group to give to another. Maybe someone can explain to me who is taking from which group and which group specifically is given the money that is taken. Maybe I am a little dense here.

 

[dani21496]

Yea, Dani, that IS awesome. I looooove the photo.

Thank you!

Dani that is so cool that your husband got to meet our next president. I am so glad that he won

Thank you, Barb! Me too!

Dani, I'm so jealous of your DH's picture with Obama!!!

I'm ecstatic about Obama's impending presidency!! I watched all the coverage and speeches, and McCain sounded like the old, normal, respectable McCain, and Obama was just... wow. I cried like a baby for about an hour watching history unfold.

Something I heard on NPR the other day that made me tear up:

Rosa sat so Martin could walk.
Martin walked so Barack could run.
Barack ran so our children can fly.


Congratulations, USA... now let's get to work!!

MC

Absolutely beautiful!! We cried too! It's funny because I was laughing and cheering and crying all at the same time!!!

I and my entire family were so happy when Obama was declared the Presidential Winner.

I literally cried with joy.

And John McCain's concession speech was pure class. I love the way he handled the crowed when some weenies began to boo President-Elect Obama' win.

And on a superficial note, I loved Michelle Obama's dress and cardigan. And I had never -thought of it until I read it. She colour-coordinates her family's dresses.

Obama's little girls are so cute!

Agreed with everything here! I loved her outfit too and her hair and makeup. Their whole family is just gorgeous.

Wow, Dani, that picture is something to be treasured.

And it was taken way before the so-called "terrorist fist bump" between Barack and Michelle!!

I'm over the moon about Obama -- and just thrilled that the TV ads from all the candidates (Obama included) are over!!!!

Yes, so true! It was taken back in 2004. I don't see any terrorists around!!

 

[hiitdogs]

They were very favorable toward the French system, doctors and people were happy with the care, but the draw back was the billions in deficit the system is in now. The comment at the end of the story was, it is wonderful, but it cannot go on because it is not paying for itself. The amount that was being taxed on the people was not enough by a lot. So it makes me wonder how it is paid for...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/sunday/main4546041.shtml

Hmmh, the yearly deficit for running the French health care in 2007 was 4.2 Bio Euro (about $ 6 to 7 Bio, depending on exchange rate), half of what the US is paying per month for the Iraq war.

http://www.pr-inside.com/the-french-pharmaceutical-market-has-r846734.htm

They will probably have to raise the co-pay (especially for drugs since this is the highest cost) or allow more OTC medication. I would say that the French won't be happy if their co-pay would go from $ 20 to say $ 50 for serious illness but they have everything else covered or a few $$ more on prescription drugs. But for Americans who have seen their life savings disappear or gone into bankrupcy over medical bills or can't go to a doctor at all, I betcha this copay looks pretty darn good.

Instead of just rejecting other health care models flat out, why don't we just learn from how other countries are doing it, and improve it. I know we are the most innovative country on Earth and the best of the best but it doesn't hurt to look to other countries for ideas. I would say the European model works with some adjustments.

 

[Fitnessfreakk366]

Toastythemosty67 -

I believe there are people less fortunate and people that take advantage. I don't want to give handouts and breaks, etc. to the people that take advantage. But some people in our country work more than one job and are very honorable hardworking people. Those are the ones I am talking about.

I agree whole heartedly to not help the people who take take take and don't want to put out the hard work to achieve their own stability.

But there are people in our society that have done everything right. For instance, teachers. They have one of the most honorable professions in our country but their pay and benefits stink. So if my tax dollars have to go to help perhaps a single mother who works as a teacher, I am more than willing to help. Does that make me a socialist?

I just hope the government can weed out the people that do deserve more and the people that don't.

My husband works for a tax credit property where many many people live there for FREE. Some of them are legitimate, either they are disabled and cannot work anymore or they are too old to work. BUT... there are MANY that live there on my damn tax dollar for free (free rent, utilities and get $$ for food every month) and are capable of working and choose not too. And when I say MANY of them, I'd say about 60% of the people that live at this tax credit facility can work but choose not too. They are living on my dime and the government is letting them do so.

Will our system be able to weed this crap out? I doubt it. In fact, it will probably get worse before it gets better.

I pray every day that things change. I'm sick of living paycheck to paycheck. And I'm sick to death of paying for people to live for free.

 

[baylian]

I just hope the government can weed out the people that do deserve more and the people that don't.

My husband works for a tax credit property where many many people live there for FREE. Some of them are legitimate, either they are disabled and cannot work anymore or they are too old to work. BUT... there are MANY that live there on my damn tax dollar for free (free rent, utilities and get $$ for food every month) and are capable of working and choose not too. And when I say MANY of them, I'd say about 60% of the people that live at this tax credit facility can work but choose not too. They are living on my dime and the government is letting them do so.

Will our system be able to weed this crap out? I doubt it. In fact, it will probably get worse before it gets better.

I pray every day that things change. I'm sick of living paycheck to paycheck. And I'm sick to death of paying for people to live for free.

Can I have a BIG AMEN to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LaughingWater]

Instead of just rejecting other health care models flat out, why don't we just learn from how other countries are doing it, and improve it. I know we are the most innovative country on Earth and the best of the best but it doesn't hurt to look to other countries for ideas. I would say the European model works with some adjustments.

This is what I'd like to see. The way our healthcare system is working now leaves a lot of room for improvement, and there's no reason to ignore other countries' models.

Another facet of this would be the legal aspect. Many talented doctors, including my husband, have left clinical medicine because of the ever-increasing threat of bullshit lawsuits. The docs who continue to see patients are practicing defensive medicine, which isn't good for anyone, physically or financially.

In addition to a form of national healthcare, I want to see legal protection for both patient and physician.

 

[dorothyrd]

I agree, that is why I am asking the questions. What we have is not good, but is it all rainbows and sparkles the other way? No, so what would fix it so it works for us? I hope the right people are looking at this instead of just imposing something that may not work on us. And the otherside of the coin is, don't hem and haw and not do anything just because someone from the other side proposes something, work together.

It is like Social Security. It does not get "fixed" because no one seems to want to touch it. There are actually lots and lots of ideas out there, read the Social Security report from the bipartison committee that gets published every couple of years. Since 2005 there were 77 plans written(yes I counted them because I had to do a speech on it), yet, none were moved forward, because one faction or another shoots it down.

For these big issues, health care, Social Security, there has to be some payment out, but I also want responsibility from government to quit spending on needless things(some may say the war, and it does seem there is more and more withdrawels being done, military bases in IRaq are being closed and handed over to the Iraqy police, the latest set on November 4, so there IS movement there,hmmm, you have to dig into the news stories to find that, but yes, it is happening). But there is a lot of needless spending. It needs to stop, so the big issues can be addressed.

Realize both candidates proposals this year were unrealistic and would make the deficit worse. Lots of promises, but now reality, how to get things back on track....not easy, and President-elect Obama needs our prayers, and support, and I hope he can get it right, we need him to.

 

[dorothyrd]

Oh and Dani, very cool picture.

 

[sparrow13]

This is what I'd like to see. The way our healthcare system is working now leaves a lot of room for improvement, and there's no reason to ignore other countries' models.

Another facet of this would be the legal aspect. Many talented doctors, including my husband, have left clinical medicine because of the ever-increasing threat of bullshit lawsuits. The docs who continue to see patients are practicing defensive medicine, which isn't good for anyone, physically or financially.

In addition to a form of national healthcare, I want to see legal protection for both patient and physician.

I agree with your legal comments. My best friend's dad eventually stopped practicing the OB part of OB/GYN simply because the threat of lawsuits and the insurance were just too much.

 

[wellness]

I don't know where you heard that. The bill was initiated by President Bush and Secretary Paulson on a 3 page piece of paper giving FULL authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to spread the $ 700 Bio as he pleases without oversight. Here is the original bill submitted to Congress. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09222008/news/nationalnews/bush_administrations_bailout_bill_130254.htm

Obama outlined 4 principles that needed to be addressed in this bill which was added to the bill with bipartisan support.
Obama's proposed additions included

• A ban on generous payouts / golden parachutes for "irresponsible CEOs on Wall Street" for financial institutions who participate in the bailout program
• Replacing Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's absolute authority over the bailout's execution with a bipartisan independent board.
• An investor stake for taxpayers. So that the American people would be able to share in the upside once the market recovers and not only has to stick out their necks for the downside
• Assistance for people who are in danger of foreclosure.

These were adopted through bipartisan support, however the bill did not pass in the House of Representatives until several Earmarks (aka Pork Barrel spending) were added in the second try to sway a handful of Republicans who previously withheld their support.

Now, as someone in the real estate industry I can tell you that foreclosures are not inevitable. The first round of foreclosures had a snowball effect bringing down even people who had not bought more than they can afford. If you have several foreclosures in your neighborhood, it inevitably brings down your home value and if you lost your job, you need to relocate, your bank cancels your Home Equity Line and calls it in, you are toast. And you haven't done anything wrong.
If nothing will be done to stop those foreclosures it will keep spiraling down and it effects every single one of us.

Hi again
You are correct, Bush and Tres.Secret. Paulson where the "architects" of the Emeregency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. However, this original form was not NOT passed and was heavily critized. The house republicans were mainly responsible for turning down the original because of excessive pork spending.

It was when the Senate made changes, "improvements", then resubmitted, and it was this version that was passed. So yes the Senate wrote some of it. No bill can go to the floor for a vote without the approval of the majority party (democrats). And yes both Obama and McCain voted for it. It was McCain that first proposed a board to oversee the Treasury Dept. Managt of the bailout appointed by Democ. and Repub. Obama then agreed with Mccain.

Many are concerned about these foreclosures, for that reason, we are all affected by it.
As far as foreclosures, if you don't have the money, you don't have the money. My statement was "if you couldn't afford it then, its not gonna change now." I am speaking in general terms. Unless for some reason, in a down economy, you run into more money. Unfortunately in most cases, that will not be the case. There are always exceptions, but you can't make the excpetion the rule. One can't ignore that many bought homes they couldn't afford to begin with. Hence, personal responsiblity. (side note: every high school student should have to take a personal finance class and economics class before graduation)

Regardless of any of this, I personally do not agree with the Bail out. A private industry that made risky loans and poor business desicions should be held responsible and not bailed out. The government should not bail out a private industry for making these poor desicions. If that's the case, should the govt bail out the auto industry? Or retail stores? Where does it end?
How will people learn if there are no consequences.

Granted this is a unique situation the US is in, being in debt didn't happen overnight.
God Bless our new president, he has many issues to tackle. I do have faith in the American people. We will come out stronger and better!
God Bless-

 

[angie_nrs]

And I have to disagree with that. Teacher may teach because they have a calling and love their jobs, but too many fine teachers leave teaching because the pay does not match the call, and they cannot afford to support their families as teachers - and many companies are realizing just how wonderful these teachers are and luring them away.

We NEED good teachers for our children. I have had the absolute honor of meeting some very fine teachers in my life, both my own and those of my daughters. A good teach inspires and creates enthusiasm and fire and can inspire a student to go far beyond what that student ever thought possible. To tell me that these shapers of our next generation and of our very children do not deserve breaks, and help whenever possible, is a slap in the face to caring parents and good teachers everywhere. I will always stand behind good teachers.

A side note - others obviously feel the same as I live in a very good school district. Our neighbors are able to sell their houses at 2007 rates because of the school district. We have not felt the housing crunch here - yet. It's not because our neighborhood is anything special - a mix of 1500 sq foot houses and 2400 square foot ones - but the school district is rated in the top 100 every year. Our kids get into better colleges because our school is highly rated. Getting into better colleges means better careers, and I don't have to tell you want better careers can do for someone. All because we have some really good teachers. And we would happily pay more in taxes to keep those teachers and the calliber of the school.

I think you might have missed my point. I DO think a good education is very important. I have 2 kids in school right now and think good teachers are critical.

You are lucky that the housing crunch hasn't hurt you. I live in Michigan so we have not been as fortunate. The teachers in our district make 30-40K per year with full health insurance. That is a very good salary up here, especially considering we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation and I'm sure the cost of living is relatively low compared to other states. People are still leaving in droves here every day b/c jobs are few and far between, which means less tax dollars go to our schools. So, I guess I was just speaking about my area in particular, since I really don't know how other states pay their teachers.

Actually, the point of my post didn't really have a whole lot to do with teachers at all. My point was that no matter what profession a person decides to choose, the government shouldn't be expected to help them out b/c the career they chose doesn't pay well. No matter what career path a person chooses, they should have an idea of what the pay rate is before they ever enter in to it and adjust their expenditures accordingly. I hope that doesn't come off as sounding harsh, but I see so many people up here living beyond their means and then expecting someone/anyone to bail them out. I guess I feel so passionately about this b/c I live well below my means and have saved up for a rainy day when many people around me are living "high on the hog" and now are crying bloody murder b/c they can't do it anymore - yet they drive nicer cars and live in a nicer house than I do. It just seems like the financially responsible people in this country are the ones who will be getting boned.

Cathy - I certainly did not mean to offend you or any of the other wonderful teachers out there. I wish all teachers were as commited to the job as you are, but unfortuantely not all are. There are some teachers up here who do in fact take on part time work in addition to their teaching during the school year. I did not mean to suggest that anyone do that in order to keep teaching. I just meant that it is an option for some. I very much value good teachers such as yourself.