|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 24916.html
Man, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black! What about Obama's donors and bundlers? I really thought Obama was above something like this.
"One of Obama's campaign websites" talked about donors who gave money to Mitt Romney. What's the problem with that? It's public information. Romney's people do it about Obama donors, too. What's not public is who gives money to the SuperPACs and to Americans Elect, the new nationwide political party.
Would you provide more information about the way Romney's people do this? [EDIT, after reading habee's post] Even if it actually is public information, I don't think the candidates should be the ones exposing each other's contributors - especially, as the article said, since the President wields the kind of power he does. Let the media and bloggers be the ones to reveal that information.
No, it's not public information. According to ABC, only the names of registered lobbyists who serve as bundlers have to be disclosed.
Do you spend all day looking for such baloney? Tell me please, just what Romneys solution to job growth is? Healthcare? Student Loans? His stance on the Ryan Plan? National security? Immigration? Heck, his stance on anything that he stands firm on!
Baloney? Ha! Yep, I do it 24/7. That's why I never have time to write any hubs. In case you haven't noticed, I've also posted positive things about Obama and about Mrs. Obama, along with negatives about Republicans. No one forced you to read this post, BTW.
Habee, pay this no mind. You have provided documentation authenticating your post. Yes, sometimes we have haters but that is par for the course! Post on!
Just one, one? One thing Romney plans to do and has since the beginning? You're right, no one forced me to read the post. Now I'm a hater by gmwilliams post. No, not a hater, just sick of all the baloney being spewed out there by both parties!
I've explained this before. I think Romney will handle the economy and the deficit better. I think he'll reform SS so that my kids and grandkids will have it when they retire. As was reported yesterday, our national debt has now exceeded our GPD, and that really concerns me. We can't borrow our way out of debt. I don't agree with Romney on every issue. In fact, I agree more with Obama on some, and I'll be okay if Obama is reelected. I just don't think this "calling out" Romney donors and falsely accusing them is very presidential. It seems rather "Nixonian."
Obama now wants to fund the student loan interest increase with SS funds, with SS insolvency due by 2033. The GOP proposed the fund's come from the Health Care Slush Fund, which is doling out millions to all those corporations he rails about so often, GE, VERIZON, ATT, IBM, as well as his BFF's at the UAW, AFL-CIO,SEIU,WASHINGTON POST, CBS, TEAMSTERS etc.etc. I expect when the heat rises he'll reach for the emotionally charged Chicago Deringer strapped to his hip, proclaiming the SLUUUSSSH Fund is for Women's Health Care and Disadvantaged Albino Pygmi's in the Congo It's robbing Peter to Pay Paul taught in Obama acccounting 101.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/06/washi … lush-fund/
And speaking of Social Security, could all of this be true?
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this.
It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family
and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter
whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and
card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the
United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the
message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want
to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
But it's worth a try.
RG, bringing these things to light will cause Leftwing Nuts to label you as Raaaccccissst.
Hi Repairguy, How you doing tonight?
Amidst your lengthy statement about Democrats against Social Security, I discovered a serious error. I did not have the time to search all your claims, however, this one error clearly indicates that you have not taken the time to check them all either. And you claim this one is your favorite? Clearly, you are one of those willing to cut and paste any statement that supports a point of view without any regard for the accuracy and truthfulness of their post.
Immigrants can move to the USA and receive Social Security retirement benefits “even thought they never paid a dime into it!” This is a FALSE statement.
Go to the Social Security web site and read: "Everyone born in 1929 or later needs 40 Social Security credits (sometimes referred to as a quarter of coverage) to be eligible for retirement benefits. You can earn up to four credits per year, so you will need to work in at least 10 years to become eligible for retirement benefits… If you become disabled or die before age 62, the number of credits needed depends on your age at the time you die or become disabled. A minimum of six is required regardless of your age."
You are wrong, Repairguy, to tell people otherwise. Spouses and dependants may qualify to collect a portion of the earned benefits of US citizens or DOCUMENTED immigrants who have paid into the system. I don't make this stuff up. Read all about it on the SSI web site:
Can anyone qualify for benefits without working and contributing?
Go to http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/494 and read "Can I buy credits if I do not have enough?
"You cannot buy credits towards the 40 credits required for Social Security retirement. To earn credits, you must earn wages in a job covered by Social Security or have net income from self-employment."
How about illegal immigrants?
Go to http://loyalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/do- … ocial.html and read "Do Illegal Aliens Receive Social Security Benefits?
"Many people believe that illegal immigrants or undocumented workers receive social security benefits. That is false. Talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage not only seem to be part of spreading the untrue piece of information, it also leads to the message being passed around by word of mouth, via emails and online petitions.
Also read "Illegal immigrants apparently get in on the Social Security's administrative system and receive benefits."
"Not true. Undocumented workers will never be entitled to claim social security benefits. Illegal immigrants are known to provide false social security numbers in order to prove they are documented workers, thus giving them to chance to start working. In October 2005, the earnings on which workers contribute towards Social Security racked up $520 billion.
However, some people still seem to believe that illegal immigrants are entitled to Social Security benefits. One fact that probably pushed the rumor is the vote in 2006 for an amendment to immigration reform laws. Although Senate passed the amendment with a 50-49 vote, the bill died and there ended the amendment. Therefore, the truth is that illegal immigrants will only have a right to Social Security once they are granted amnesty, and when that does happen, they will have a right to Social Security benefits for prior work done in the country.
Do illegal immigrants pay into the Social Security system and never collect retirement benefits?
"Undocumented workers also contribute towards Social Security taxes - the figure stands at a surprising $6 billion annually. The National Immigration Law Center says the money is directed towards the Earnings Suspense File, which is a repository for Social Security taxes which are paid by illegal immigrants who have either used false identities, forged document or incorrect Social Security numbers."
Before spreading false statements about Social Security, read the information on the government web site to learn first hand how Social Security works. Those who thrive on bashing their political opponents by promoting fear and jealously of foreigners do not always get it right. We all need to work together to keep the facts straight and lies out.
Have a great day, Repairguy.
Exactly right Q, I work with foreign students, who come here for the summer...they still have FICA taken out of their checks, which obviously they will never see.
I enjoyed that history lesson you provided. It would be good if it were in a hub so we can 'share' it on Facebook with friends.
It's typical of how Obama came to power, through Chicago style intimidation tactics and playing sensitive issues to stir fear. Mr.Obama can be judged by the company he keeps, many of his cohorts have broken out in handcuffs as of late. Three of his opponent's withdrew from the Senate race allowing him to gain election unopposed. I question, as others do, if the seat he acquired was up for sale when he left it, if it was not for sale when he won it. Did he put his DOJ onto the jig to retaliate against it going to a Republican? Go to the site below the "Teflon Don's" picture and read up on his BFF's .No president in modern history has divided the country more than this president. He's shameless in his tactics of playing emotional mind game's with women by turning a contraceptive issue into a smear campaign against what he calls the GOP's desire to take away women's health care. Women have always had access to most of the very things Obama Claims he's trying to protect. His administration knew this, so they have created calculated legislation as they did with requiring religious institutions to provide contraceptives so they could direct animosity to the GOP. Much the same as the legislation just introduced requiring what they have framed as a womens fairness in payroll act, requiring employer's to disclose what a male counterpart is paid, knowing any GOP resistance will inflame womens emotions with the GOP. His true agenda is not in the womens interest at all, but is to play to his union cronies and his consistantly growing socialization in government.
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q … 447/?&
It's appalling. But I expect some of the President's supporters will be along soon to explain why this is acceptable, necessary, and perhaps even commendable. . .
To anyone with an open mind, this should help give a glimpse of his character.
lol....really! I've talked to quite a few people and many, voting for Romney, don't like him. But dislike President Obama more. Amazing, they will vote to oust one and take a chance on another, not knowing where he stands on anything. Kinda like buying a lottery ticket and hoping to win big! lol
Hmmmm. Quite interesting article. It seems that Obama is mistrustful of Republicans and he wants to ascertain accountability. However, isn't this list thing going too far. I think so!
What's the problem? These people ARE the enemy in my book, and it's time they are shown for who they are.
Hiding in shadows..shadow gvt. Has gotten us where we are. Billionaires who hide money should not be able to hide affiliation.
You support RMoney, Russsshhhhhhhh, Fixed Shmooze---I want to know--so I can get as far away from you as I can!
You all STILL want Obama to fight fire with kindness...That doesn't work. You have to fight Nasty with Nasty. And there are none nastier than Repuglicans.
Welcome to your world...the one you created with Lee Atwater. Ruined a good and decent man. (Dukakis)
You know I don't like Rush - I've called him out on these forums. I've done the same with Zimmerman, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Beck, and Romney. I'm not like you - I don't think one side is evil and the other is god-like.
Give me a break. God-like nothing. Just pols who don't put profit over people 24/7, 365 days a year. Your dude is more interested in his bank account and those of his peers than this country. Every thing he proposes will help 2 sectors: the rich and the uber rich.
And I have tried to be specific.....THIS crop of GOP, this GOP, this Cult. If you want to act like these are your average everyday Republicans go ahead. They are not.
The sooner they die a political death, the better we will all be.
Oh--and Romney supports the NDAA.
Since you all had fun bashing Obama for it.....maybe you can admit that you are not that different than me. You play favorites too. And the amount of threads you start that are negative towards Obama far outweigh anything positive you may say about him.
Yeah I just hate it when millionaires unfairly try to run the political game. And they're all Republicans. LOL!
Some may feel all Republicans, but I know both are guilty!
I do not care one iota for Blue-Dogs, and have made that clear. Are they Republicans? No--they are Democrats.
Fair enough? Now--which on that list is Obama? Ehhhhhhhh.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr … ezra-klein
Did he hide his donation? No he didn't He came right out with it...ON HIS SHOW.
So--what are the GOP donors trying to hide? We see where hiding gets us: ALEC.
WE have a right to know where the Obama-Bashers come from, what their agenda is, and who they work for. It is, after all OUR country too....not just the 7 figure and up crowd.
We can't afford to buy influence...we should know who does. IMO
Firm Gives $1 Million to Pro-Romney Group, Then Dissolves, MSNBC, August 2011.
"Need a good example of the secret money fueling the 2012 election? This mystery company donated $1 million to the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future—and then promptly dissolved. At the time, it was one of the biggest contributions of the election cycle."
You go Obama. THIS is their stock-in-trade...and WHY we need sunlight on it!
Yes once you libs find out who they are you can drag them out in the street and stone them to death for the hateful crimes of outsourcing jobs, and not liking socialism.
The mess we're in started with Reagan, Bush Sr continued, Clinton signed NAFTA, Bush Jr more of the same, and now Obama continueing in the tradition of the previous Presidents. No with your theory, everyone needs to be stoned to death. Have a good day!
If Obama is continuing the same bad policies, why are you supporting him?
Bad policy as far as wasting time setting up trade agreements and helping other countries finacially, rather then helping the impovished at home. I support him for many reasons. Healthcare, unemployment down, economy on an upswing, and the following link, as the accomplishments are too numerous to list here. http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/mai … -2009.html
I was referencing your statement about Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama. Are you two different people? You seem to be contradicting yourself, so I'm confused.
Answer was quite clear. I hoped he would have done away with NAFTA and eliminated foreign aid until we got our finances in order. Then you asked why am I supporting him. Again, here is the link. http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/mai … -2009.html
From the article:
These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."
1) So, the Obama campaign is pointing out that a contributor "outsourced jobs." What's the big deal? The author of the article states Schorr and Fox were "outed." Really? Are they keeping their outsourcing a big secret? This is a legal activity so how is this a smear? It is merely a fact.
2) The author states Fiorentino is "scored" for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Again, a legal activity. Is Fiorentino ashamed of his work?
3) A hedge-fund manager, a lobbyist, and an energy CEO are "accused" of "profiting from oil." Again, are they embarrassed by how they've made their money? How is stating how they make their money a smear?
4) Is VanderSloot a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement"? Again, is he ashamed of that?
Really, I fail to see what is so horrible. I fully support sunshine laws for campaign financing. If Romney wants to make a list of major Obama donors and explain what they do for a living and where they have previously spent their money, I'm all for it. If he wants to put me in a the list and describe me as "a bitter foe of factory farming and outspoken supporter of women's rights," then go for it! Of course, he probably doesn't care about my pittance of a donation.
I'm not ashamed of my donations, but some people don't want people to know who they vote for or support. They see it as a private matter. In fact, they say it's the reason voting booths have those little curtains. lol
Like you, my donations have always been small, so I don't think they'll show up on the Obama website, but I wouldn't care if they did.
I agree that voting should be private, but I also believe that major donations should be disclosed. I think the author of this article was trying to make it look like Obama was attacking and smearing, but I just don't see it, at least not as it was presented here.
I wouldn't like to be accused by the POTUS as "betting against America" just because I donated to the Romney campaign. Private citizens should be able to donate to any candidate they like, without fear of reprisal from the POTUS.
@PrettyPanther, I agree, those people were outed for not having the best interests of the American people in mind in the past. And I also agree all major donations should be disclosed to see if they have a hidden agenda in their donation.
Again no answer, sorry. You "think" he will do this or that. What plan has he set in concrete to make SS better, reduce the national debt, healthcare, create jobs and so on. I'm not trying to attack you here, by no means, but I have yet to hear Romney's plan to do any of those things. Other then he supports the Ryan plan and that scares me. He appears to be a candidate without a plan?
The details are posted on his website:
Habee, even though I support Obama, I do feel your pain. As an American and/or better yet as a human being on God's earth, you have a right to support whatever candidate you wish. You have a long road ahead of you on this post, good luck!
Thanks! BTW, my best friend is a hardcore liberal Dem, and we "discuss" issues all the time, but we never get angry. I respect her opinions, and she respects mine. That's what America is all about!
He has the same plan as President Bush had. And that didn't work now did it? He also seems to think lower the tax burden and the wealthy will create jobs.
And instead of using our youngest and brightest, the following quote (from your link) worries me. Quote:"The United States needs to attract and retain job creators from wherever they come. Foreign-born residents with advanced degrees start companies, create jobs, and drive innovation at an especially high rate."
LMAO...no, not at all. Read his statement. Needs to attract? What's wrong with attracting the youngest and brightest from this country? I love the way, you avoid answering with a question. I thought you mentioned a daughter with college degrees unable to find work? Perhaps her chance will be replaced with foreigh born residents if Romney is elected? His statement suggests foreign born residents are more motivated then Americans? I can only assume you agree with his statement, seeing how you avoided answering it?
Sorry, I looked back, but I don't see your asking me a question.
If legal immigrants come here to invest in America and provide jobs for Americans with the businesses and industries they start, that's a good thing.
Of course it is. America was/is/ and will be continued to be built by immigrants. It is they who constantly provide new blood to the socioeconomic and sociopolitical processes of this great and noble country.
So instead of offering an opportunity for an American, it's better to bypass them and rebuild using foreign interests? Do you remember the impact of NAFTA and the H-1B program for nurses?
YOU are the one who said Obama has followed in the same BAD footsteps as the previous presidents - not me.
As for immigrants starting businesses here, of course, I had rather businesses be started by Americans. But...can we have too many businesses and too many jobs? We don't have to "attract" Americans - they're already here.
Are you talking illegal immigrants or legal ones starting a business here.?? If they are legally here then what would be wrong with that. If they are not here legally then NO.
Oh look at these 2 nice and respectful posts about our president...I'm waiting for someone-- ANYONE to ake them to task for their divisive comments........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................just as I thought. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
ONLY complain whem LMC does it~!
(Repairguy47) The POTUS is still a PUTZ.
(Unknown whiner) Stop that repairguy!!
(Unknown whiner) Fine, I'm reporting you to the Cartagena,Colombia division of the Secret Service!
(Bill Clinton) Did someone say Colombian Prostitutes?
(Unknown whiner) Never mind Repairguy, carry on.
So true, the administration is so rife with scandal, The comic writers don't have to write anymore...they just follow the new's....It's one big Jerry Springer episode.
Will Obama Pardon Rezco and Blago? Of course he will, it's the Chicago Way.
No silly---you are supposed to treat the opposition with respect and stop dividing the country.
at least I am...maybe you get a pass....and all the RW's here. They sure seem to.
I only speak for myself, I don't care what others may have to say about the PUTZ.
Nixon was from Chicago?
Scooter Libby was from Chicago?
well, I'll be darned. Horn-swaggled and twirtipated!
Habee, this is getting good.....wonder where this discourse is going! Have a good night!
by Holle Abee5 years ago
I think it's going to help Obama. It will provide him with the chance to seem presidential, and some people tend to back the sitting prez in times of disaster. I feel for everyone in the storm's path. Living just...
by David5 years ago
Why did Mitt Romney lose the election?Why do you think he lost? Was it his policies, VP, Sandy or???Let's please keep this political and not get into name calling or other non-productive things.
by movingout5 years ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Congress allocate and approve the money? And all the POTUS can do is ask for it? If that's the case, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are responsible for this growing debt...
by David Stillwell5 years ago
As voters, Why are we excepting either Romney or Obama as presidential candidates for 2012.The argument over leadership and leadership abilities, lost job, jobs sent overseas, economic policy, foreign policy, national...
by mio cid5 years ago
Romney says to Obama :take your campaign of division, anger and hate back to chicago.Which in right wing nut code language means take your campaign back to N town you angry black man.
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
the United States, are YOU happy with or regret the choice that you have made? Why? Why not?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.