Welcome to the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum
This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Voters haven't paid much attention to his "Service" plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the "civilian national security force" would be just as "well-funded" as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, "billions and billions" of dollars. Here's how.
The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.
Let's imagine "tens of billions" in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his "civilian national security force" to be "just as well-funded" would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.
Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon's reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That's $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.
In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he's never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it's not clear if math means anything to him at all.
......."and that means higher taxes".
But all the Obama supporters think that this doesn't apply to them
Last I heard his 'cut-off' was down to $150K from $250k....
Keep believing that you're in the "Safe Zone" and his tax increases aren't going to effect you.
Me46 FWH42 Married 19 yrs EA 4/07 - 4/08 (Confirmed by polygraph that it had not gone PA) Dday1 4/13/08 Dday2 8/8/08 S26 S16 D10 Trying to Recover
OBAMA: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have acivilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
I watched the snipped link first - and then I watched the entire speech (link to entire July 4th speech is located once you open the 'more info' button)
.... and now I am more confused about his meaning/intent.
I think the scariest comments have been Obama expressing his opinion about the flaws in the US constitution.... What fundamental flaw is he talking about?
The president will swear an oath of office that he/she will defend and protect the constitution !
Huh?
Yes, that is another big concern of mine. How can he swear to protect something he thinks is fundamentaly flawed?
I think the scariest comments have been Obama expressing his opinion about the flaws in the US constitution.... What fundamental flaw is he talking about?
The president will swear an oath of office that he/she will defend and protect the constitution !
Huh?
Yes, that is another big concern of mine. How can he swear to protect something he thinks is fundamentaly flawed?
This is also a HUGE concern that I have too!
His comments about EVERYONE's 2nd ammendment rights really bother me.
Those on the LEFT think that those on the RIGHT are afraid of change....this is so far from the truth. I, like most others, WANT Change, just not OBAMA's idea of change...
Me46 FWH42 Married 19 yrs EA 4/07 - 4/08 (Confirmed by polygraph that it had not gone PA) Dday1 4/13/08 Dday2 8/8/08 S26 S16 D10 Trying to Recover
If anyone thinks that by decreasing our military forces is going to make this a better country, is going to make the extremest not come after us, on our soil AGAIN....they are sadly mistaken.
From what I read (eg. here ), once you get past the hysteria and the Youtube clips, Obama's and McCain's plans for military size are not all that different.
There are differences on how they think the troops should be used (nation-building, etc), but that often changes with the reality on the ground anyway.
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.
There is another, less known, reason.
During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.
The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.
Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.
In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.
In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.
Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.
Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an “‘agenda of balance’ that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.” Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.
The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:
“The effort is timely: a series of test cases - based on a new wave of scholarship, a recent decision by a federal Court of Appeals in Texas, and a revised Justice Department policy-are working their way through the courts. The litigants challenge the courts’ traditional reading of the Second Amendment as a protection of the states’ right to organize militia, asserting that the Amendment confers a much broader right for individuals to own guns. The United States Supreme Court is likely to resolve the debate within the next three to five years.”
The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms. The OSU connection also gave Joyce an academic money laundry. When it decided to buy an issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review, it had a cover. Joyce handed OSU $125,000 for that purpose; all the law review editors knew was that OSU’s Foundation granted them that breathtaking sum, and a helpful Prof. Cornell volunteered to organize the issue. (The review was later sufficiently embarassed to publish an open letter on the affair).
The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.
Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.
PLEASE, I'm sincere, explain to me WHY you would purposely vote for someone that YOU KNOW is going to take MORE of your MONEY.
Why would you vote for someone that wants to TAKE YOUR money and GIVE it to someone else??
I really, truly DO NOT get it...
I believe in sharing with those less fortunate than I. I believe that I have been BLESSED and believe in giving back a portion of what I have been given.
I, in no way, believe that John McCain shares this CORE BELIEF of mine.
This woman shares my views, eloquently explaining my viewpoint.
I believe in sharing with those less fortunate than I. I believe that I have been BLESSED and believe in giving back a portion of what I have been given.
Mimi - a very commendable feeling. And you have the resources to act on your belief.
But there is a BIG difference between YOU deciding to share YOUR money with and the Goverment taking your money and giving to whomever THEY think needs it "more than you," perhaps even to some you might not want to contribute to if it were up to you.
Originally Posted by mimi_here
I, in no way, believe that John McCain shares this CORE BELIEF of mine.
Then I take you have not checked out the charitable giving of the McCain's and the Obama's.
The difference in who seems to share your belief is STARK, despite all the rhetoric of Obama. He remains committed to taking YOUR money to use for HIS "giving." He DOES NOT "give of his own resources" whereas the McCain's do. It would seem patently obvious who DOES share your belief and who has put it into action with their OWN resouces.
OBAMA: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
"JUST AS Powerful." Powerful as what, to use force to impose whatever THEIR agenda might be?
"JUST AS Strong." Yep. LOTS of "like-minded" individuals who can collectively impose their will regardless of any dissent or opposition.
"JUST AS well-funded." Yep. Chalk up another one for "balancing the budget" and NOT increasing taxes.
READ HIS LIPS. It's all out there for anyone willing to LISTEN.
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
Where would Obama get the money to fund this at the same level as the Pentagon?
From ONLY the "nasty" 1% of taxpayers, didn't you know that?
What's another cost of HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars annually compared to Obama's "VISION" for America?
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
What would its mission be?
Now THAT is a relevant and very good question. But Obama is, as he is with most things, remarkably SHORT on those nasty little "details" called "specifics."
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
Where would it get its authority?
Why from Obama, Pelosi, and Reid....naturally.
OPR using OPM to fund and promote THEIR Socialist agendas.
But there is a BIG difference between YOU deciding to share YOUR money with and the Goverment taking your money and giving to whomever THEY think needs it "more than you," perhaps even to some you might not want to contribute to if it were up to you.
OBAMA: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Where would Obama get the money to fund this at the same level as the Pentagon?
What would its mission be?
Where would it get its authority?
********************************
Marsh, here is a link to what Brown planned for a national security force in the UK.... maybe this is what Obama has in mind....(speculation, on my part.)
What fundamental flaw is he talking about? **************************************
From the clip I saw, the fundamental flaw (in the constitution) he was talking about was the fact that when it was written, african americans were not considered american citizens, but slaves(property)w/ no civil rights.
Obama feels that you are selfish if you do not want to spread your "wealth" through higher taxes.
The U.S. is probably the most generous country in the world. Giving freely of ourselves is not enough for Obama. He wants MORE and he intends to take it.
What fundamental flaw is he talking about? **************************************
From the clip I saw, the fundamental flaw (in the constitution) he was talking about was the fact that when it was written, african americans were not considered american citizens, but slaves(property)w/ no civil rights.
Nia, if that is what Obaman "meant," then he is either woefully ignorant of American History (not an unusual possibility since he is a product of schools that have essentially stopped teaching History and replaced it with the "biased leanings of the teachers") OR he is deliberately trying to "play the RACE card" to whip up emotional support regardless of the FACTS.
Either way, Obama IS USING this as a Race Issue to further his political ambitions. Makes you wonder HOW the Emancipation Proclamation AND the Constitutional Amendment EVER passed the Congress AND the States for ratification with all thos "bad white people" controlling the voting.
The facts are that NOT all blacks were slaves even before the Civil War and the 13th Amendment. And that situation, where it DID exist, WAS already addressed by the Constitution in the form of Amendments, the SAME sort of way that WOMEN where given the right to VOTE so that all women COULD vote.
Obama is taking a position that does not examine at all the TIME in which the Constitution was written, nor does it take into consideration that we HAVE a way of "changing" things that DOES NOT involve the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench" in the manner in which they have DENIED any "right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to ANY unborn child.
REMARKABLY SIMILIAR, it seems to me, to the original idea that the STATES, individually, determined the "right" of slavery (but now it's "the woman" who determines abortion or life for the baby).
Anyway, here is some relevant reading if anyone is interesting in informing themselves of FACTS and not political "spin" to whip up the masses.
Question: What does the Constitution say about slavery?
Answer: The words "slave" or "slavery" do not exist in the Constitution. However, slavery is referred to in a couple of places. For one thing, there was the 3/5 Compromise where every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives. Further, the government was given the power to restrict the slave trade. Finally, there was a section where it says that if people held to service or labor (slavery) in one state escape them must not be freed by the laws of another state.
Thirteeth Amendment to the Constitution
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Obama feels that you are selfish if you do not want to spread your "wealth" through higher taxes.
The U.S. is probably the most generous country in the world. Giving freely of ourselves is not enough for Obama. He wants MORE and he intends to take it.
Correct me if I am wrong but, don't we still have to pay taxes no matter who is in office? We have been paying taxes every since we were old enough to have an allowance and buy candy from the candy store. When we pay taxes what is that money used for? No matter who is in the office we will have to pay. The only certainties in life is death and taxes. The welfare and medicaid systems have been in play for quite some time. The only difference to me would be what the majorities of the taxes collected will go towards. You can either choose for them to go towards the war or towards the medicaid and welfare systems. The president is not the only person who makes a law, if the house is it against guess what? It has to go back to the drawing board. It wasn't one person that determined Roe vs Wade. The only person in recent events that called executive power is Bush. He did that to start a war not only the house was against but also the United Nations. Just something to ponder.
Last edited by DIG; 11/02/0807:13 AM.
Me (32) H (33) 3 DD's 9,8,2 1 DS 4 Married 4/19/99
According to Mrs. W I am now Delightful in GA. LOL
