|
 |
|
The Person To Replace Foxx In Washington
|
« Return to Topics
|
|
smalltownman
|
Posted 14:15, 07/06/2010
|
Over the past few years Virginia Foxx has proven herself to be a self-serving puppet of the GOP.
Her voting record against unemployment extensions are consistent with the rank and file Reupublicans who couldn't care less about the well-being and support of the number of unemployed voters and Americans.
It is PAST time to show Mrs. Foxx the road out of DC, and to replace her with Billy Kennedy.
I had the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Kennedy in East Bend before the start of the God and Country parade and feel he is a candidate that is genuinely concerned with the well-being of the residents of this district.
Below is a link that gives some idea as to the man and his visions for Carolinians and Americans:
http://www.billykennedyforcongress.com/index.htm
|
|
FED UP
|
Posted 14:55, 07/06/2010
|
smalltownman, you are wasting your breath with this crowd.
They would vote for Foxx over Jesus H. Christ, just as long as she has an R in front of her name.
|
|
Yoda_Joe_blie
|
Posted 15:25, 07/06/2010
|
|
Not true. When Jesus comes there will be no need to vote anymore.
|
|
Oogie
|
Posted 19:40, 07/06/2010
|
|
Paying unemployment, or any other, benefits requires money. From where will the gubmint get the money?
|
|
michelekibbler
|
Posted 22:25, 07/06/2010
|
|
Fed, you are wrong. I didn't vote for Foxx the first time, but she proved herself to me. She is the voice of the majority in the 5th district. Maybe you vote for the D in front of the name, but I look at issues, and how they vote. Foxx has wanted accountability for how money is spent, and there isn't anything wrong with that. Of course, the liberal media tries to spin in and say she doesn't care, etc., but look at the BP money and how it is going to be spent. Strippers are requesting the money, but guess what, they won't get it, the owners of the establishment will, it goes on and on. The money from Katrina didn't go where it was supposed to. She didn't have a problem with helping the people, but she knew that they money wasn't going to go to them, and it didn't.
|
|
Grams
|
Posted 22:34, 07/06/2010
|
|
Michele, you are exactly right. The reason she did not vote for the unemployment bill was all the bad spending that attached to it. She tried to get them to take those things off and she would happily vote for it but the dems refused so she voted no and she should have.
|
|
walks the talk
|
Posted 2:9, 07/07/2010
|
^^^Thanks, you last 2 posters.^^^
Exactly. Foxx works VERY hard, and I admire her greatly.
When someone votes 'no' to handing monies (tax dollars) out, AND you are only listening to main stream media,...Then you do NOT have the true facts, reasons, etc. I am thankful that Foxx does not so easily hand over MY money.
|
|
Sweet&Tart
|
Posted 22:42, 07/11/2010
|
|
Smalltown I hate to say it but it would seem you a wasting your breath here although I for one agree that it's time for a change.
|
|
commonsense
|
Posted 11:34, 07/13/2010
|
|
I don't think any of you people realize that unemployment benefits are not funded by taxes. The money is paid in on the persons behalf when they were working, it is not welfare and your taxes have nothing to do with it. So you see old possum face Foxx is just being an evil republican.
|
|
slab
|
Posted 12:39, 07/13/2010
|
|
I think the original unemployment of 26 weeks is covered by the employer's taxes, but the federal extensions are what the govt is paying for. While I understand why Foxx voted no, it wasn't the time to do it. Just like this.. 9/11 happened. We went to war. What if she voted no to go to war because where would the money come from? Of course we went to war because we were attacked and it was the right thing to do. Our country is in an economic crisis too and she needed to vote YES because it is the right thing to do.. She always votes no. Look at her record. I guess if Foxx gets the majority of the vote again then Michelle is right. She is representing the majority, but I sure aint one of them.
|
|
LeRoy B...
|
Posted 12:39, 07/13/2010
|
|
commonsense: there were too many other FREE programs in that one Bill is why OUR Honorable MS.Fox voted against it!!!!
|
|
commonsense
|
Posted 18:49, 07/13/2010
|
|
Leroy, There is not one single thing that you, me or anyone else can find honorable about the possum face Foxx. She is lower than even Jesse Helms was.
|
|
Sweet&Tart
|
Posted 21:42, 07/13/2010
|
|
Question. How is she suppose to represent the people, if she is too busy ignoring the people in favor of listening to extremists and big business? She looks after herself not us.
|
|
walks the talk
|
Posted 4:47, 07/14/2010
|
the Honorable Foxx..Refreshing! She ACTUALLY READS all about an issue before she votes on in.
And you little junior-high twits that make fun of how a person looks are lower than slime. You are so much like chris matthews..he thinks obamessiah is so cute that he (matthews) gets shivers up his legs. Sure, 'looks' is a way to base a vote.
Go, Foxx!
|
|
slab
|
Posted 9:10, 07/14/2010
|
|
walks that's some good kool-aid you got there. You sound like Fed Up. So she works VERY hard, is Honorable and Refreshing? Does she have any faults in your mind?
|
|
walks the talk
|
Posted 3:3, 07/15/2010
|
|
Everyone has faults.
|
|
BlizzardAge
|
Posted 5:13, 07/15/2010
|
Yoda:
He's not coming. You can unpack your bags.
|
|
Country Bumpkin
|
Posted 10:53, 07/15/2010
|
|
He will be here like a thieve in the night.
|
|
Sillystring
|
Posted 11:52, 07/17/2010
|
|
I bet Smalltownman is Billy Kennedy. Foxx has my vote. It's time these lazy folks be forced to get off there arses. I'm glad she is there for us.
|
|
walks the talk
|
Posted 2:30, 07/18/2010
|
|
Sillystring..^^^^Right on!
|
|
Oogie
|
Posted 7:25, 07/18/2010
|
"If you could spend vast amounts of other people's money just by saying a few magic words, wouldn't you be tempted to do it? Barack Obama has spent hundreds of billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money just by using the magic words "stimulus" and "jobs."
It doesn't matter politically that the stimulus is not actually stimulating and that the unemployment rate remains up near double-digit levels, despite all the spending and all the rhetoric about jobs. And of course nothing negative will ever matter to those who are part of the Obama cult, including many in the media.
But, for the rest of us, there is a lot to think about in the economic disaster that we are in.
Not only has all the runaway spending and rapid escalation of the deficit to record levels failed to make any real headway in reducing unemployment, all this money pumped into the economy has also failed to produce inflation. The latter is a good thing in itself but its implications are sobering.
How can you pour trillions of dollars into the economy and not even see the price level go up significantly? Economists have long known that it is not just the amount of money, but also the speed with which it circulates, that affects the price level.
Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that the velocity of circulation of money in the American economy has plummeted to its lowest level in half a century. Money that people don't spend does not cause inflation. It also does not stimulate the economy.
The current issue of Bloomberg Businessweek has a feature article about businesses that are just holding on to huge sums of money. They say, for example, that the pharmaceutical company Pfizer is holding on to $26 billion. If so, there should not be any great mystery as to why they don't invest it.
With the Obama administration being on an anti-business kick, boasting of putting their foot on some business' neck, and the president talking about putting his foot on another part of the anatomy, with Congress coming up with more and more red tape, more mandates and more heavy-handed interventions in businesses, would you risk $26 billion that you might not even be able to get back, much less make any money on the deal?
Pfizer is not unique. Banks have cut back on lending, despite all the billions of dollars that were dumped into them in the name of "stimulus." Consumers have also cut back on spending. For the first time, more gold is being bought as an investment to be held as a hedge against a currently non-existent inflation than is being bought by the makers of jewelry. There may not be any inflation now, but eventually that money is going to start moving, and so will the price level.
Despite a big decline in the amount of gold used to make jewelry, the demand for gold as an investment has risen so steeply as to more than make up for the reduced demand for gold jewelry, and has in fact pushed the price of gold to record high levels.
What does all this say? That people don't know what to expect next from this administration, which seldom lets a month go by without some new anti-business laws, policies or rhetoric.
When you hire somebody in this environment, you know what you have agreed to pay them and what additional costs there may be for their health insurance or other benefits. But you have no way of knowing what additional costs the politicians in Washington are going to impose, when they are constantly coming up with new bright ideas for imposing more mandates on business.
One of the little noticed signs of what is going on has been the increase in the employment of temporary workers. Businesses have been increasingly meeting their need for labor by hiring temporary workers and working their existing employees overtime, instead of hiring new people.
Why? Because temporary workers usually don't get health insurance or other benefits, and working existing employees overtime doesn't add to the cost of their benefits.
There is no free lunch-- and the biggest price of all is paid by people who are unemployed because politicians cannot leave the economy alone to recover, as the American economy has repeatedly recovered faster when left alone than when politicians decided that they have to "do something."
Thomas Sowell
|
|
smalltownman
|
Posted 7:51, 07/18/2010
|
|
Wow, great cut-and-paste there Oogie. Why not give credit to the author otherwise you are committing plagiarism.
|
|
Oogie
|
Posted 8:57, 07/18/2010
|
|
smallmind, did you see the name Thomas Sowell?
|
|
smalltownman
|
Posted 12:16, 07/18/2010
|
|
No, because by the time I skimmed to the end of that diatribe my eyes had glazed over from fatigue!
|
|
Oogie
|
Posted 7:34, 07/19/2010
|
|
small mind has determined to remain an idiot.
|
|
commonsense
|
Posted 23:45, 07/22/2010
|
|
smalltown, Don't worry about it. Sowel has never been on the right side of the issues and just likes to say things that are not true. He and Oogie want you to feel sorry for all those millionares. I wonder what income bracket that jerk sowell is in, I bet he is on up there with his hatred of poor people.
|
|
Newday
|
Posted 6:18, 07/23/2010
|
One major problem with your post Oogie is that the stimulus was thought up by the Republicans. Obama just finished a job put together by Bush.
I would have been just fine letting all those car companies and banks go broke. So quote Sowell all you want but first maybe you might want to make sure it wasnt the Republicans all along. The Lying Republicans all they wanted was one more chance to grab at the money. Thanks to Bush they got it.
|
|
michelekibbler
|
Posted 22:39, 07/30/2010
|
Dems controlled Congress at this time, and this is a fact:
1. The CEO's of the largest banks were ordered to Washington some time back. They each received a phone call on Saturday and were told to be in Washington on Sunday. Now..., The alert on Saturday with orders to be there on Sunday would have limited the banks in getting the word out or learning what was going on, wouldn't it....
2. On Sunday the CEO's were told they were getting 'bailout money' in the billions. The CEO's had not asked for the money and some did not even want it.
3. The CEO's were told the money would be a loan to them at Prime +1.00%. Problem: The banks loan out money at Prime + 0.00% to Prime +0.50% (some higher, some lower) and the bank's cost of money would be too high to make money. In short, this would be a bad investment for the banks.
4. Some of the banks said they didn't want the money. They were told they would take the money or have their banks audited until something wrong was found in the way their bank did business. Audits are expensive, especially ones that are not needed. Add to that the fact that even the best run bank would have some problems the government would then exploit. (This amounts to blackmail)
5. The question now is: Why did the government do it? I don't have that answer in any form as proof, but it seems that the banks would then be forced to bailout the mortgage mess without the public placing the blame where it belonged: FannieMae and Mac.
6. Mortgage problems started with Bill Clinton in the late 1990's when they told the banks to loan money for housing to unqualified buyers to make it possible for more Americans to own their homes. This sounds good and get votes, but it does not work. Warnings were sounded but the government (politicians) did not want to hear the warnings. The predicted problems in loans not being repaid came true and by 2008 included loans to all types of buyers, all sharing the same problem: They could not repay the loans.
7. Certain politicians profited in the form of 'special loans' on their mortgages...They have and will get away with it...Who is going to prosecute? The Democrats? Don't hold your breath.
8. What about the 'Auto Bailout'? Does it amount to the same kind of government interference? Are we being blackmailed by the UAW by threat of millions of jobs being lost if they don't get their way? Why is Chapter 11 not being used as it is written and intended to be used? If the auto company has a workable plan that is reviewed and approved by a judge as being workable, and then monitored closely to be sure the plan approved is followed, why is it not the first choice of the politicians?
|
|
Newday
|
Posted 9:7, 07/31/2010
|
MicheleK,
Ive read over your post and tried to remember what was going on at the time. Some of it I have my doubts about but you have a question I will attempt to address. You said why did the goverment do it? Make an offer you cant refuse to the banks.
Well I have a good friend who was in the mortgage insurance business. I dont remember all the small details but he said the main problems occured in the leveraging of the money from Fannie and Freddie and yes the banks were at fault for taking the money. It wasnt the fault of political powers that be nearly as much as the greed of the banks.
Freddie or Fannie offers a group of loans and if they are paid on time its no problem because the rate is extremely cheap to the banks however if the money is not lent out in a certain period the bank begins to pay Fannie and Freddie which is a problem.
Now if the borrower is unable to pay the loan where does it go--back to the banks---who arent recieving payments that are due again--Freddie and Fannie----and the leverage on the loans is higher in default so it really costs the banks if they lend unwisely.
So the banks took money and lent it unwisely, that is not Clintons fault, its the greed of the bank plain and simple. Yes the money was made available and cheap for the banks to get. You are right on the money with that. Banks were encouraged to lend but that was a choice they made.
But would you take a loan so that if something happened to you it would wipe you completely out? I dont think I would but that is exactly what all of banks did.
Money was lent to everyone with a hole in his shoe and nowhere to go. But the banks were taking a chance on some cheap money and they figured a certain number of the loans would default. They apparently grossly underestimated the amount of loans that would default and in their money lending orgy they just kept shoving loans out as fast as they could go.
It was all done in greed and best practices were not used.
I dont see how one can possibly blame Clinton or anyone for that matter. No one holds a gun to your head and says you have to borrow money or else. That was corporate greed taking over of a ripe situation that they thought or would have liked to have thought they could get away with.
Now as a result of that much more conservative measures have been put into place to prevent that folly from ever happening to that magnitude and yes money is extremely tight in this country.
Each time we see an abuse of the freedoms we have because of greed you can bet someone is going to be financially deprived because of it and then you get regulation right behind it. The moral of the story is: Greed causes us to end up losing freedom when all we have to do is exercise some good sense. Not Clintons fault, it was the greedy banks fault and why did the goverment do it? Maybe it was punishment for the way they had been doing business? Take the money or face extreme consequences. Perhaps they were giving the banks a little castor oil?
|
|
Damn Yankee
|
Posted 21:34, 08/11/2010
|
|
we need more people like Foxx in Congress. Can we clone her?
|
|
Heathenism
|
Posted 21:44, 08/11/2010
|
|
Foxx? Hell no.
|
|
michelekibbler
|
Posted 0:21, 08/12/2010
|
|
Yankee, I wish we could.
|
|
walks the talk
|
Posted 2:14, 08/12/2010
|
America's National Debt is growing at more than
$4 BILLION a day.
Foxx? YES!!
And Yankee, I wish we could clone her, too.
|
|
liberalbender
|
Posted 16:32, 08/12/2010
|
|
I prefer to tell Ms Foxx that she has convinced some of us that "Just say no" is a rallying cry....so we will "just say no" to her re-election.
|
|
mex1
|
Posted 17:15, 08/12/2010
|
I prefer to tell Ms Foxx that she has convinced some of us that she is the right one for yadkin county "just say yes" to her re-election.
|
|
hot
|
Posted 17:16, 08/12/2010
|
|
yes to foxx
|
|
yellowdog
|
Posted 17:17, 08/12/2010
|
liberalbender
are you dumb
|
|
liberalbender
|
Posted 23:31, 08/12/2010
|
|
what yellowdog calls dumb-i call making an informed choice based on research of issues and voting record.
|
|
michelekibbler
|
Posted 0:1, 08/13/2010
|
|
lib, if you look at her voting record, you will see that she expects accountability when taxpayer money is used. When she voted no to some of the money for the Katrina victims, it wasn't because she didn't want them to have it, she wanted to know how the money was going to be spent. Guess what, the money that was supposed to go to them was wasted and not accounted for, just like she thought would happen. I did not vote for her the first time she ran, I voted for Harrell, but thank goodness, she won. I am proud to have her represent the 5th District.
|
|
walks the talk
|
Posted 1:37, 08/13/2010
|
^^^Right on^^^
She works hard, makes informed decisions, and cares where my money goes. She actually KNOWS what all is in a bill before the vote comes. A lot of the reps don't even know what the hell they are voting on.
"If everyone is thinking the same, then someone isn't thinking".
Yeah for Foxx!
|
|
slab
|
Posted 11:0, 08/13/2010
|
|
I agree with Foxx's reasoning on the votes, but there is an exception to everything and the humane treatment of your fellow citizen is one of them. Just because you are rich and well off Foxx, doesn't mean the rest of us are. She might win re-election just because the dems are ruining our country, but I sure hope she doesn't (for my own selfish reasons). NO to Foxx!
|
|
Sweet&Tart
|
Posted 22:23, 08/29/2010
|
|
Small I liked that video. Posted it on my fb a few nights ago.
|
|
Grams
|
Posted 22:33, 08/29/2010
|
|
That's a BS video!!
|
|
|
