national debt initiative program

No More Debt!!!!!! On November 3rd, we are going to be asked to borrow another $400 million to fund the state's Green Acres program. Regardless as to its history, this ballot initiative needs to go down to defeat. The program was created in 1961 – during a building boom that saw 20 percent .... The National Climate. Early in the year, when President Obama enjoyed a strong honeymoon upon Inauguration, it appeared that the new national mood would be a strong wind ... > ...The agencies will pay fees to participate in the program, which officials say will cover its cost. They are still working with the agencies to determine the extent of support needed. Earlier news reports said the initiative could cost ...But Kitzhaber, a Democrat, and others wanted to find a way to avoid having to drop residents from the federal-state health program for the poor and disabled, and they came up with a radical idea. ... That is going to drive the national debt through the ceiling. We are in a trajectory, if nothing happens, to default on our national debt. The implications are staggering. Q. On your Web site you talk about the problem of trapped equity in health care. ...The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which dates to 1994, has approximately 780 employees, spread among offices in Seattle, Washington, Beijing and London, with an initiative in Delhi, India. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Asset ... It just adds to the National Debt. Sorry I don't think borrowing money from China to give to some Third World Country is smart managing of the US debt. We have to stop using the National Credit Card and start digging out of debt. ...It's going to cost the taxpayers and people that have health insurance now, and if it doesn't, it's going to add terribly to our national debt.” Recent Entries Adult Time for Adult Crime: Ashley Jones ... A government run health insurance program would create a new entitlement program designed to do nothing more than force every American into government run health care. This is not a bug of the plan, it is a feature. Just ask proponents of the plan like Michael Moore who ...By Nicola Boden Last updated at 9:48 AM on 19th October 2009 Burden: National debt is claimed to be almost ... ... Author, Tory MP Brooks Newmark, claims the 'hidden liabilities' include Private Finance Initiative projects, the banking bailouts and public sector pensions.His report came as the CBI warned another £120billion needed to be cut from public spending amid fears of a 'VW recession' that will see the economy struggle for years.PFI projects add at least ...Consumers are not spending, there isn't much investment, government is spending and growing like, well, like the national debt. In retrospect, I'm happy it seems to be positive news for the economy, I just pray it is true and the country is emerging from this ... "We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals:I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the next couple of weeks. ...Paying Only the Minimum on Your Card- Credit card companies love it when you pay off your debt slowly, but you should loathe it. It won't necessarily affect your credit score, but that doesn't mean it's a good practice. ... Buying On a Card Just For Rewards - If you're paying off your balance on time and in full, using your cards to grab extra rewards isn't necessarily a bad plan, says Gail Cunningham, spokeswoman for the National Foundation for Credit Counseling. ...... director of the banking association, confirmed yesterday that the organisation and other credit providers had established a separate institution called the National Debt Mediation Association (NDMA) to manage the initiative. ..."I cut your pay because you ran up a huge debt... "I cut your pay because you ran up a huge debt... "THE TROUBLE WITH SOCIALISM IS THAT YOU EVENTUALLY RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY " MARGARET THATCHER ..... 7. Israel will not abandon the Roadmap, requiring an end to violence and incitement, for the Arab Initiative. For Obama to embrace the Plan, is to prejudge the outcome. 8. The Arab Initiative has no standing in the peace process. It is just an offer. ...
Back in 1980, there was a great battle over the Republican Party and its future. On one side was George Herbert Walker Bush, a liberal Republican from Texas, and the heir to the liberal Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. He was declared the "frontrunner" by the liberal media. In opposition to him was the elderly former governor of California, Ronald Reagan, who was a prominent Goldwater supporter in 1964 (when the liberal establishment of the party stabbed the party nominee in the back and voted for far-left Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson) and widely considered the heir to the conservative wing of the Republican Party. As we all know, Reagan won the nomination and the conservatives celebrated. Although at first, Reagan said that Bush would not be his VP, he eventually gave in and made the liberal from Texas his 2nd in command. A few months into his presidency, John Hinckley Jr., from a prominent pro-Bush family, and whose brother Scott had a dinner appointment scheduled with Bush's son Neil (the younger brother of W.) attempted to assassinate President Reagan and put the presidency into the hands of Vice President Bush. After this point, Reagan suspiciously "moderated" his views. After Reagan was term-limited, Bush replaced him as the president. In 1992, Rush Limbaugh and other now famous talk radio hosts first came to fame by supporting Pat Buchanan (who ran against Bush's tax increase and Bush's wars; Buchanan did not emphasize the culture war or "economic nationalism" anywhere near as much as he would later on) against President Bush in the Republican primaries.

However, after the Republican landslide in 1994 and the defeat of liberal Republican Bob Dole in 1996, the media immediately declared George W. Bush, the son of the previous Republican president as the "frontrunner" for the 2000 Republican nomination. In 2000, Bush declared himself a "compassionate conservative" and ran as the "conservative" candidate against "liberal" John McCain (who, of course, is slightly more liberal than Bush). As president, Bush proceeded to govern to the left of every president since LBJ. Although even the Dole campaign had pledged to abolish the Department of Education, Bush doubled its size. Bush also expanded government involvement in medical care more than any president since LBJ with his Medicare Part D (of course, the Clintons pushed HillaryCare, but that never passed). Rather than ending welfare, Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives to hand over management of welfare programs to churches (apparently, these churches must have forgotten about the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal"). Rather than attempting to make participation in Social Security voluntary (which was the Social Security reform that Barry Goldwater supported, although he was forced to backpedal on this during the 1964 campaign), Bush supported a "privatization" of Social Security that would have invested the Social Security "trust fund" in the stock market. Bush pushed an "ownership society" in which the government sought to make sure everybody owned a home (of course, this program was nearly as destructive to the American people as the "Great Society"). Bush handed out billions of tax dollars to the banksters and began the process of nationalizing the car companies (a process which was completed when Obama founded Government Motors). Bush also ran record deficits and caused a skyrocketing of the national debt.

How exactly did many people get the idea that the far-left Bush administration was some kind of "conservative" administration? Yes, he may not have been far enough left for some leftists, but he was significantly to the left of their heroes Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, so I suspect their dislike of him is mostly due to jealousy (and to dislike of the specific cultural values he wished to use government to impose). Why do many who claim to be on the right still see the need to act as apologists for a far-left president?


Today, it is up to all Mexicans to act with true patriotism, to make better use of our resources for the benefit of all Mexicans.

Mexican men and women, good evening.

I am addressing you at a key point in the history of our nation.

Today, exercising the powers vested in me by the Constitution, I submitted a reform proposal to Congress to make the best use of the potential of our petroleum industry and strengthen Petróleos Mexicanos.

Seventy years ago, General Lázaro Cárdenas' vision gave Mexico a future.

Today, it is up to all Mexicans to act with true patriotism, to make better use of our resources for the benefit of all Mexicans.

Mexico requires lofty goals and a vision of the future.

First of all, I would like to make it quite clear that petroleum is and will continue to belong exclusively to Mexicans. PEMEX will not be privatized. Petroleum is an emblem of national sovereignty and has been vital to the development of Mexico.

The initiative does not seek to privatize but rather to strengthen Petróleos Mexicanos.

Mexico is losing ground vis-à-vis international competition. PEMEX has dropped to 11th position after being one of the world's leading oil companies.

The causes are not only financial but mainly technological and operative. As a result, the country’s oil reserves are declining.

At current production rates, we have proven reserves for just over nine years of production. Production has fallen and we now extract 300,000 fewer barrels than 3 years ago.

This means that we have stopped receiving approximately $100 billion pesos annually, with which we could have quadrupled the Oportunidades Program budget, which supports the country’s poorest families.

Despite being an oil-rich country, four out of every ten liters of the gasoline we use in our cars comes from other countries, since PEMEX lacks the necessary capacity to refine petroleum.

The good news is that it is possible to increase the capacity to find new oil reserves, that it is possible to boost Petróleos Mexicanos’ production capacity for the country's benefit.

Fortunately, we have the capacity and the potential to adjust our course. We have workers who have provided proof of their capacity, responsibility and patriotism.

We have major inland seams and near the coasts but it is estimated that over half our potential reserves are in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. We should take advantage of that wealth.

That is why the aim of the reform is for Mexico to have oil, not only for the next few years, but for future generations of Mexicans and for oil wealth to produce more well-being for all.

The initiative I sent Congress seeks to strengthen PEMEX by guaranteeing its status as a public firm at all times and guaranteeing Mexicans' exclusive ownership of oil and the company's control of exploration, drilling, exploitation and petrochemicals.

The initiative does not seek to modify the Constitution. It will guarantee that the company continues to belong to all Mexicans.

The principles proposed for reinforcing Petróleos Mexicanos are as follows:

First. I propose to give Petróleos Mexicanos the financial and managerial autonomy it requires to cope with new challenges as well as possible.

In particular, we wish to give PEMEX greater freedom as regards the handling of its budget and debt, so that it can re-invest any surplus in improving the firm. This will enable more resources to be allocated to new petroleum and gas exploration and production projects.

Second, and in conjunction with the above, the aim is to create a new administrative structure for Petróleos Mexicanos and give the firm greater powers of decision, administration and hiring so that it can have access to state-of-the-art technology and increase its capacity to implement projects.

In particular, the aim is to establish a special system for hiring, acquisitions and public works that is different from the rest of the government, which would allow the firm to be much more efficient.

Third. In order not to have to import gasoline, diesel and other products from abroad, as we do now, in other words, in order to reduce our dependence on foreign countries for refined petroleum products and to reinforce our energy sovereignty, the aim is to allow PEMEX to contract firms specializing in the construction and running of new refineries for Petróleos Mexicanos.

This will permit the creation of far more jobs, trigger regional development in places where new refineries are built, produce cleaner, environmentally friendly gasoline that will protect our families' health and totally eliminate Imports, in addition to reinforcing the national petrochemical industry.

This will enable much cheaper fertilizer to be produced in the country for people in the countryside.

I should point out that during this process, PEMEX will continue to own the country's oil and all the by-products obtained from it.

Fourth. I propose to
Fourth. I propose to nothing
president barack O G.O.A.T has spoken
wow
i cant believe president fox got my speech


Imagine that last fall, before being elected, Barack Obama had outlined the positions he has embraced since being inaugurated. An honest campaign speech could have gone something like this:

"As we approach Election Day, the American people should not waste the crisis we find ourselves in.

"Consequently, if elected, I promise to get us over the Bush financial meltdown with a stimulus program that will borrow $787 billion - which, of course, will add to the already sizable budget deficit (nearly $500 billion) projected in the Bush administration's last budget.

"By March of next year, my new $3.6 trillion budget will include a spending bill with over 8,500 budget earmarks to target in-need constituents.

"In addition to the stimulus/borrowing plan, I intend to devote $634 billion to fund a new supplementary national health-care system. But that is not all. Unfortunately, the initial Bush bank bailout of some $700 billion also may well have to be augmented by an additional $750 billion.

"Although my new spending proposals may raise the federal deficit in my first year to $1.75 trillion, I promise the American people that by the end of my first term, I will halve the federal deficit - albeit adding another $3 to $5 trillion to the national debt.

"Those savings can be accomplished by upping the federal income tax to about 40 percent on those rich 5 percent of Americans who currently pay only 60 percent of our aggregate income taxes - as well as lifting Social Security caps on their payroll taxes and cutting out many of their tax deductions.

"With state income taxes, federal income tax, and Social Security and payroll taxes, along with new cutbacks in deductions, some of these rich will pay over 60 percent of their incomes in taxes. That is not an unreasonable rate in comparison with past levels - or the fact that well over 40 percent of Americans do not make enough to pay any federal income taxes.

"I expect that Wall Street may react negatively to these proposals. We may see the Dow fall an additional 2,000 to 3,000 points after I'm elected. It may descend to under 7,000 during my first weeks of office. And this may be the moment when the economy continues to cool and unemployment rises.

"But to deal with this reaction of entrenched interests, I promise a fresh team of hard-nosed American professionals - understanding that it is impossible to ensure that none have past insider connections and occasional tax problems.

"From the former Clinton administration, I will select Rahm Emanuel to run my staff. To oversee revenue, Timothy Geithner will assemble a large team at Treasury. Senator Clinton herself will run State, and I will anchor my cabinet with pros like Tom Daschle, Eric Holder, Bill Richardson, and Hilda Solis.

"On matters of protecting civil liberties, I assure the American people that I have examined the Patriot Act, the FISA accords, and renditions - and I have discovered that they, in fact, do not shred our Constitution. I will, however, shut down Guantanamo Bay - but must keep it open another year and appoint a task force to study the issue.

"Our new direction in energy policy will center on cap-and-trade initiatives that promote wind and solar power. While we won't rule out oil, gas, coal, and nuclear development, problems with greenhouse-gas emissions and nuclear waste mean that these ossified 20th-century industries - including new offshore-drilling development - must be discouraged and further taxed or regulated to subsidize our green future.

"Abroad, I promise to give America a new image. My first television interview will be with al Arabiya. Due to both new initiatives and my unique background, I can reassure them that no longer will the United States alienate the Muslim world. Our aim is to return to stable and friendly relations with the Middle East characteristic of 20-30 years ago.

"Indeed, on matters in the Middle East, I will bring back my suspended adviser Samantha Power. I look forward to her input, along with that of Charles Freeman, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and critic of Israel, as head of the National Intelligence Council, to craft new directions in the region.

"We expect to open new dialogues with Basher al-Assad of Syria and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran without preconditions. And to further the cause of peace in the Middle East, the United States will pledge almost $1 billion to help rebuild the Gaza strip that is governed by Hamas."

Now all that would have been hope and change that we could have voted on.
Thank you, Mr. Victor Davis Hanson for your truthful words you so skillfully put into Hussein Obama's mouth.


Imagine that last fall before being elected, Barack Obama had outlined the positions he has embraced since being inaugurated as president. An honest campaign speech could have gone something like this —

”As we approach Election Day, the American people should not waste the crisis we find ourselves in.

“Consequently, if elected, I promise to get us over the Bush financial meltdown with a stimulus program that will borrow $787 billion - which, of course, will add to the already sizable budget deficit (nearly $500 billion) projected in the Bush administration's last budget.

“By March of next year, my new $3.6 trillion budget will include a spending bill with more than 8,500 budget earmarks to target in-need constituents.

“In addition to the stimulus/borrowing plan, I intend to devote $634 billion to fund a new supplementary national health-care system. But that is not all. Unfortunately, the initial Bush bank bailout of some $700 billion also may well have to be augmented by an additional $750 billion.

“Although my new spending proposals may raise the federal deficit in my first year to $1.75 trillion, I promise the American people that by the end of my first term, I will halve the federal deficit - albeit adding another $3 trillion to $5 trillion to the national debt.

”Those savings can be accomplished by upping the federal income tax to about 40 percent on those rich 5 percent of Americans who currently pay only 60 percent of our aggregate income taxes - as well as lifting Social Security caps on their payroll taxes and cutting out many of their tax deductions.

”With state income taxes, federal income tax, Social Security and payroll taxes, along with new cutbacks in deductions, some of these rich will pay over 60 percent of their incomes in taxes. That is not an unreasonable rate in comparison with past levels - or the fact that well over 40 percent of Americans do not make enough to pay any federal income taxes.

“I expect that Wall Street may react negatively to these proposals. We may see the Dow fall an additional 2,000 to 3,000 points after I'm elected. It may descend to under 7,000 during my first weeks of office. And this may be the moment when the economy continues to cool and unemployment rises.

”But to deal with this reaction of entrenched interests, I promise a fresh team of hard-nosed American professionals - understanding that it is impossible to appoint some without past insider connections and occasional tax problems.

”From the former Clinton administration, I will select Rahm Emanuel to run my staff. To oversee revenue, Timothy Geithner will assemble a large team at Treasury. Sen. Clinton herself will run state, and I will anchor my Cabinet with pros like Tom Daschle, Eric Holder, Bill Richardson and Hilda Solis.

”On matters of protecting civil liberties, I assure the American people that I have examined the Patriot Act, the FISA accords and renditions - and I have discovered that they, in fact, do not shred our Constitution. I will, however, shut down Guantanamo Bay - but must keep it open another year and appoint a task force to study the issue.

“Our new direction in energy policy will center on cap-and-trade initiatives that promote wind and solar power. While we won't rule out oil, gas, coal and nuclear development, problems with greenhouse gas emissions and nuclear waste mean that these ossified 20th-century industries - including new offshore drilling development - must be discouraged and further taxed or regulated to subsidize our green future.

“Abroad, I promise to give America a new image. My first television interview will be with al Arabiya. Due both to new initiatives and my unique background, I can reassure them that no longer will the United States alienate the Muslim world. Our aim is to return to stable and friendly relations with the Middle East characteristic of 20 to 30 years ago.

“Indeed, on matters in the Middle East, I will bring back my suspended adviser Samantha Power. I look forward to her input, along with that of Charles Freeman, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and critic of Israel, as head of the National Intelligence Council, to craft new directions in the region

“We expect to open new dialogues with Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran without preconditions. And to further the cause of peace in the Middle East, the United States will pledge almost $1 billion to help rebuild the Gaza strip that is governed by Hamas.”

Now all that would have been hope and change that we could have voted on.
I have no expectations that libs will be able to concentrate long enough to read this.


I read this article today.....
Do you think America should remove anti-American and anti-Jewish political grandstanding from the podium of the General Assembly?

Legislation will seize U.N.
property amid continual anti-American, anti-Jewish sentiment

( WASHINGTON, DC ) – U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) introduced legislation today that would effectively move the United Nations headquarters out of the United States. The legislation is being introduced amid incessant anti-American and anti-Jewish political grandstanding from the podium of the General Assembly.


“The U.N. has coddled brutal dictators, anti-Semites, state sponsors of terrorism, and nuclear proliferators – while excluding democratic countries from membership and turning a blind eye to humanitarian tragedies and gross violations of human rights around the globe,” Tancredo said. “The U.N.’s continued presence in the United States is an embarrassment to our nation, and the time has come for this ineffective organization to pack its bags and hit the road.
”

The United Nations is hosting dictators from around the world this week, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s brutal dictator. His speech has drawn thousands of protestors in New York City.


Tancredo’s bill, dubbed the U.N. Eviction Act, would direct Attorney General Michael Mukasey to initiate condemnation proceedings against all United Nations properties within the United States, and sell the property to the highest bidder on the open market. The proceeds will be given to the Treasury Department to pay down the national debt. The bill would also bar the future purchase of property in the United States or U.S. territories by the U.N. or any of its agencies, and revokes the diplomatic privileges and immunities that U.N. officials and representatives currently enjoy.


“I refuse to sit idly by while Americans are forced to host Islamofascist dictators, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, so they can spew anti-American rhetoric just blocks from Ground Zero,” Tancredo continued.


The United Nations, an organization known for its bureaucracy and conciliatory actions, has become a showcase for anti-American dictators like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and, of course, Ahmadinejad. The organization has also become little more than a rubber stamp for Chinese and Russian foreign policy initiatives – blocking membership by the democratic nation of Taiwan in the world body, and failing to take any meaningful steps to halt the ongoing genocide in Sudan or the illicit nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran.


“If the U.N. is so keen to accommodate the foreign policy demands of rogue nations and dictatorships, perhaps the world body might be more comfortable relocating to one,” concluded Tancredo. “I’m sure Ban Ki-Moon will have no trouble securing a new location in downtown Pyongyang or Tehran.
”

I agree with the first two questions...they seem to be more bad, than good!
I meant, first two answers! Thanks guys..


this is a newspaper article. i was wondering literally HOW education can get you out of poverty:

"It felt like our whole future had been destroyed."

Returning from hiding to her village in Sierra Leone, 15-year-old Mary Smart was stunned to find her classroom burned to the ground by rebels. The rebels ransacked her school and killed her teachers, as they had done countless times across the country, in the hope of keeping the population uneducated. But it didn't work. Now that the country's civil war is over – with largely peaceful elections held last month – Mary and others have begun returning to class, refusing to have their education taken from them.

Mary wants to be a lawyer, she says. That way, she can defend the rights of other children to ensure they also get to go to school.

This is the kind of success story that next Saturday's International Literacy Day is meant to honour.

But while we are celebrating stories like Mary's, we must remember just how low on the world's list of priorities literacy has become. Less than 3 per cent of official development assistance is spent on education, with just a fraction of that going to literacy programs. While it would cost just $7 billion (U.S.) to teach every person to read and write, one in six is illiterate.

By contrast, the U.S. and Europe alone spend upwards of $18 billion every year on makeup products.

That's a discouraging disparity. It means that there are still 120 million children not in primary school and that nearly a billion people cannot read papers like this one.

No one doubts that even a basic education is vital. The UN estimates that earning potential increases by as much as 10 per cent for every year of schooling. Basic literacy vastly improves a family's quality of life: they are better able to find jobs, prevent diseases and protect their rights and dignity.

What's key about education is that it allows people to lift themselves out of poverty. It's not charity, but rather a long-term and sustainable path to development.

Countries in the developing world, from Brazil to Senegal, are becoming aware of these benefits and in recent years have introduced national literacy strategies.

Ethiopia's initiative is called the Education Sector Development Program. It provides alternative learning for children not in school, literacy classes for youth and even basic skills training for adults.

With a literacy rate of only 41 per cent, the program will go a long way in helping ordinary Ethiopians out of poverty. It is expected to reach more then five million people by 2011.

But these countries are struggling to fund their programs. Kenya spends just over $30 per person on education, while China spends about $20. Canada spends nearly $1,500 per person on education.

Part of the problem is that many developing world countries are saddled with debt repayment, diverting billions of dollars a year away from social services. Burkina Faso spends five times more on its debt than it does on education.

That is where the developed world can help. By dropping crippling debt repayments for countries that show good governance, the West can ensure poor nations have more money for education.

And by linking aid and trade deals to education spending, countries can know that their money is being put to good use.

Three per cent of official development assistance is simply not enough. Because, as Stephen Lewis once said, "education is the solution to everything."
what would happen if this problem isn't corrected?