"Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consist of officers and employees of
the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly
implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages … These seven
Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers,
JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse.

Please read more here: http://www.mickeyz.net

FACT: * Barack Hussein Obama WAS A DEVOTED MUSLIM FOR 27YRS, THEN HE JOINED
A ‘BLACK CHRISTIAN CHURCH en USA IN ORDER TO START HIS EDUCATION LEADING TO
A POLITICAL CARREER IN AMERICA, AS ‘CHRISTIAN’ (required in America)"

FACT: You're absolutely sad, misinformed, and delusional.
FACT: You have not read factual documents, websites, and most likely watch right wing centric sensationalist news
FACT: GOD HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS OR GOVERNMENT
FACT: If GOD was real and gave two f*cks he 1.) would not have let 9/11 happen. 2.) would not have let your so called "muslim" become president because it would conflicting with Christianity 3.) would have obliterated all people like you that have destroyed this country and government with your religious babble ********. KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. NO ONE GIVES A F*CK I ASSURE YOU.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Moondog17
Warren Buffet put a challenge out to all billionaires to compare the percentage of their income that they pay to the IRS to the percentage that their secretaries pay. If they paid more than their secretaries he would pay 1 million dollars to a charity. No one has taken him up on the offer. Three of his friends tried it and they all realized that they paid less.
Read that story.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1

2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

"so what do you people think abou obamas new stimulus plan? will it help us ? or hurt us more?"

Well, there are two paths down the road.

The first is to be fiscally conservative for the sake of the future, and slash spending as much as you can, while you tell the U.S.American people that they have to buy less foreign products and reduce their dependence on foreign money. That would certainly be good in the long term. This was followed by Herbert Hoover, and turned out to be a disaster.

Obama chose the other way of increase spending and ignore the long term consequences, favouring a short term revival, much like FDR.

The similarity of his ideas to those of FDR do not guarantee success, especially in the long term, but...

...In the short term, if you followed the first path, you would have to deal with high unemployement, wide popular unrest, high crime rates and a resurrection of the Mafia, and much more that would effectively diminish the productivity of the U.S.A. since everybody would be running for cover rather than produce better.

As you know, any nations' debt is calculated in relation to its' annual GDP output. It makes sense because if the U.S.A. had the productivity of an African nation, it would be bogged in debt forever, while, if any African nation had the GDP of the U.S.A., it would have repayed its' debt very quickly.

Thus, reducing the GDP output is like increasing the debt, therefore neither the first path of Herber Hoover is very sound in the long term.

Of course, at FDR's time it was still possible to raise the GDP output to the point that the debt was dwarfed, but nobody can guarantee that it can be repeated today as well. Thus Obama has a huge challenge.

Of course, the only path that he could chose is the second path of FDR, since it was proven correct before, but any sort of success in the long term shall have to rely upon a reduction of the schism between poor and rich in order to decrease public discontent and subsequently crime...

2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?