I just found the following from his website: As a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs committee, as early as February 2005, Senator Obama warned of a shortfall in the VA budget. Four months later, the VA reported that in fact it had more than a $1 billion shortfall. Senator Obama cosponsored a bill that led to a $1.5 billion increase in veterans' medical care. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, Senator Obama cosponsored measures that would have provided additional funding increases for veterans.

In January 2007, Senator Obama reintroduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act to improve the VA’s planning process to avoid budget shortfalls in the future. The bill requires the VA and the Department of Defense to work together and share data so that we know precisely how many troops will be returning home and entering the VA system.

He authored the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) to strengthen and expand federal homeless veteran programs that serve over 100,000 homeless veterans annually. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, Senator Obama passed an amendment to increase funding for homeless veterans programs by $40 million. These funds would benefit programs that provide food, clothing, mental health and substance abuse counseling, and employment and housing assistance to homeless veterans.

Working with Senators Akaka and Craig, Senator Obama passed legislation in December 2006 to provide comprehensive services and affordable housing options to veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Housing and Urban Development and nonprofit organizations. This legislation was signed into law and is modeled on parts of the SAVE Act and the Homes for Heroes Act, a measure that Senator Obama had previously authored.

There's more if anyone would care to read it: http://obama.senate.gov/issues/veterans/index.html

He's also on an education committee, and his contributions and proposals are found here: http://obama.senate.gov/issues/education/

Thank you Lil Dancer and I would also add as accomplishments, Senator Obama has given many voters a voice that never felt they had one, united and excited young voters, brought this country together in a way I have not seen since John F. Kennedy and, yes, given me hope for a change. I honestly don't remember when "hope" and "change" became dirty words. My favorite quote has always been "Never take a person's hope away . . . it might be all they have." I've kept that in mind all of my life. I never stomp on people's dreams or hopes. The good part of all of this is that Senator Barack Obama has the intelligence, broad spectrum of plans on ALL the issues and guts to back them up with. (I should say I also love Hillary, but for a few different reasons.) I don't know about you but I'll vote for hope and change anytime over same old, same old. Just my opinion.

Whether it be Obama. Clinton what is the difference. This explanation seems to fit the bill.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat I'm all ears.

sgtsixpack
Hear, Hear! Some people just don't get it.
I certainly don't agree with what's been going on with ANY of the "Republicrats" in the last years. Our politicians are an embarrassment to the notion of democracy.

It is time we return to a "people's government" much like New Hampshire where the legislature is populated by your neighbors and meet a few WEEKS a year at little pay and actually accomplish something.

Washington is OUT OF CONTROL in so many ways it's impossible to count.

I've been doing some reading about the Revolution and Civil War of late and am wondering where are the real leaders in our country today? North or South, it didn't matter, the men and women of the day were commited to their cause and willing to work (or die) for it. Today no one can be bothered as long as they have a new car or the latest gadget. "Survivor" and "Lost" will soon become the real reality!

Ken Burns recent film "The War" also got me to thinking that if we were faced with a similar threat today, the U.S. would fail because of the apathy and general public's intellectual malaise.

Sorry to say, unless the populace regains control, I am not optimistic for our country's future.

Sgt.

You are so right. But if you look at the candidates, 2 are very socialist/marxist and the other is a populist. So it cannot get any better.

That's not to say you give up, but be prepared for a very loonnnggg spell of economic disaster and terrorism unchecked.

Actually, I'm confused by your story Stgsixpack. Are you saying that only Republicans work hard for their achievements? :dontknow: Are you saying that Republicans work hard for their wealth and refuse to share it? :dontknow: Because if you're looking for a dim future, guess who laid the groundwork.

I did some research on taxes and found this infomation at this link. Some of the political candidates want to repeal the "Bush" tax cuts and "increase the taxes for the rich only" See where you fall in this table and determine if you fall into the "rich" who will have there taxes increased with the repeal of the tax cut. There are also other sources that support this same data and these are averages for those earnings.

<http://www.taxfoundation.org/> www.taxfoundation.org

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2007
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,100
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $8,900
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $15,150
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K - tax $8,200
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $11,600
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $24,100

This was just on CBS news:

To hear President Bush tell it, he's on the side of the angels when it comes to federal spending.

In his Saturday radio address, he blasted congressional Democrats for pursuing "tax and spend policies," while trumpeting his own commitment to keep taxes low and restrain federal spending.

He said his plan will produce a balanced federal budget by 2012.

But what Mr. Bush didn't mention, and what he almost never mentions, is the National Debt.

With good reason.

On the day he took office, the National Debt stood at this unfathomable number:

$5,727.776.738,304.64

In fiscal shorthand, that's $5.7 trillion dollars. Trillion with a "T."

Six and a half years later, the Bureau of Public Debt tells us the National Debt clocks in at a staggering:

$8,835,268,597,181.95

That's $8.8 trillion – an increase of $3.1 trillion dollars since January 20, 2001. And that amounts to a jump of 54% during Mr. Bush's watch.

If you wanted to pay it off, dividing it equally among the U.S. population (estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau to be 302,103,675), it would come to $29,245.82 for every man, woman and child.

Sot it's not really hard to understand why Mr. Bush almost never mentions it.

The National Debt has gone up more on his watch than under any other president.

That means it took the Federal Government 225 years to accrue $5.5 trillion in debt under 42 U.S. presidents. But under President Bush alone, it has soared another 35.2%.

And the National Debt is not just a big number, it's an expensive one.

This year alone, it costs taxpayers $247.3 billion in interest payments.

It hardly gives the president bragging rights about fiscal discipline.

Bush spend like a drunken sailor for social programs just like a Democrat.

The tax cuts stimulated the economy, YES.



BUT, my friends --- BUSH IS NOT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION.

Hint: Check out the Subject line ;D

We all GET that Bush is not running for reelection. What we're trying to wade through is what rubbish our NEW president will have to clean up after this "Aw shucks, let's just throw some more money away and head down to Crawford to hide" mentality leaves office. Personally I don't think McCain has a clue about what to do on the economic front for the people of America. Guess you figured out by now, my vote is for the Dems.

Bottom line -- They are ALL 3 blind mice. Unfortunately, one of them has to win.

Much of politics is a compromise and compromise rarely makes anyone truly happy. I know that much of what I want from the government is not what the majority in TV wants. That's okay. I'm entitled to my opinion. You're entitled to yours. In November, neither of us will really be able to vote for what we want. We'll have to pick what is closest to our beliefs. Perhaps even one day we will again be able to pick the best candidate rather than the lesser of two evils. Sadly, I don't think this election is it -- not for President, not for Congress.

I don't think we have 3 Blind Mice. I think we have one intelligent, albeit, young mouse, one seasoned, albeit, misunderstood mouse, and one tired old rodent that ought to get off the treadwheel, before he falls off! lol Just my opinion.

Ha, ha!! Love it Chelsea24!!