Good Morning!

I want to buy 1 way paid text link from your site home page http://www.seofaststart.com on monthly basis.

We are not interested in yearly deal. . Our site ishttp://www.webprofits.com.au

Our budget is $10/month.

If you are interested, please send me your rate per month and paypal information. We accept only paypal.

Thanks for your time..

Regards

Pauleen

Doesn't make sense with all the debt we are adding this year unless there is a huge drop in the interest rate the US is paying, but I doubt it.

I agree with you on defense spending. Wiki shows Bush budgeted 515 billion for the DOD for 2009. You also have to add the 145 billion for the "Global War On Terror" for a total of 660 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Obama is asking for 663 billion dollars for DOD in the 2010 budget he has submitted. This number includes overseas operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

I'm for an exit strategy to remove our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. I thought this was at least one thing I agreed with Obama on. However, it looks as if his plans are changed. He wants to increase the DOD budget by 3 billion and is sending additional troops to Afghanistan.

Amen concerning Medicad, Medicare, and SSI. Something has to be done, but no one is ready to tackle it. Instead, we are in the process of adding more freebies like "free" healthcare.

I was all for Bush's proposal to let individuals keep their SSI payments in private accounts. Of course the huge dip in the stock market provides and excellent argument of why that shouldn't be the case. But, I still think I can better manage my money than the government.

I'm for spending on infrastructure, but the benefits of that spending are temporary. If you build a road, everyone is out of work until it needs to be rebuilt and the project can't self sustain.

But what if built 100 new nuclear plants across the United States? You create a project that provides clean energy, sustains itself, and produces thousands of high tech, high paying, permanent jobs. This is the type of spending I'm for.

I agree we need a simple tax system. I've never heard of a negative income tax. The concept is interesting, but my concern is it provides an incentive for some people not to work. It is wealth distribution.

In this type of system, would someone get this negative tax in addition to or in replacement of our current freebies like welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.

Consumption Tax -

Also an interesting concept. My state survives only from a sales tax. We have no type of income tax. This works fine for us.

But if you institute a 20% national sales tax to replace the income tax, what about the money I have in savings? If I have $100K in my personal savings, I've already paid income tax on that money. A new consumption tax means I get double taxed on that money and the buying power of my savings is reduced by the amount of the tax overnight.

Could you somehow address those types of issues if you put a consumption tax in place?

"Defense" spending is ridiculously high, and will be hard to reduce even if the country stops waging war, because of the obligation to veterans.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to grow at a ridiculous rate. The monetary system is broken. Legalized Ponzi schemes created the current financial mess. All of this requires structural changes.

I am in favor of government spending on infrastructure for transportation, information, and energy.

I am in favor of a simple tax-based system that creates a minimum income with strong incentives to work and produce, such as a negative income tax or a consumption tax with a rebate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Flat_Tax_with_Negative_Income_Tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

I doubt either of those plans will ever be implemented.

As a successful businessman and a self described fiscal conservative, you can't be happy with the direction our country is headed. It's pretty frustrating.

I'm not going to argue the Republican's would have done any better. They wouldn't have.

What's left for the average American who would like to see the country live within it's means.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born US citizen. Courts dismiss frivolous lawsuits all the time, and the Supreme Court has no reason to consider the matter further. Facts are facts. You can't sue to overturn the truth.

But I hear Costa Rica is nice.

http://wwwDOTisraelnationalnewsdotcom/Blogs/Message.aspx/3074

http://polarikdotblogtownhalldotcom/

You also said "repeating all that stuff doesn't make it true" which implies that the other comments I made weren't accurate either. I'm curious. Which ones? William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, the Pentagon bombing, racist church, Louis Farrakhan, media bias etc.

Knowing that a Presidential candidate has these type of affiliations isn't propaganda. It's evidence of who he is as a person.

There is a clear bias with the media. Look at how the media reacted to Trent Lott over a simple comment he made to Strong Thurman who was a Democrat. If John McCain would have spent the last 20 years in a church that gave a lifetime achievement award to a KKK member, don't you think the media would have made a big deal about it? Why did Obama get a pass?

As far as the birth certificate goes, why not release it? He has spent $800,000 fighting the release of the birth certificate, not proving to everyone he has one. It should be a simple process. Allow the State of Hawaii to release it if it exists.