Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (97429)	5/3/2007 8:15:00 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 173976

Obama Placed Under Secret Service Protection : edwardrat gets no protection !!!!!! By JEFF ZELENY Published: May 3, 2007 Senator Barack Obama, whose crowds at political rallies across the country often have numbered in the thousands, was placed under Secret Service protection yesterday, a spokesman for the agency said. The secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, authorized the protection for Mr. Obama after consulting with a Congressional advisory committee that reviews security for presidential hopefuls. The decision to assign agents to Mr. Obama, nearly nine months before voting begins in the Democratic primaries for president, is the earliest the Secret Service has ever issued a security detail to a candidate. A spokesman for the Secret Service, Eric Zahren, said the agency was not aware of any specific threat against Mr. Obama. Mr. Zahren declined to provide details of what had prompted the elevation of security for Mr. Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is the only other presidential candidate who receives Secret Service protection, Mr. Zahren said. But her security comes through her role as a former first lady. Presidential candidates often resist security protection until the last possible moment, saying it restricts movement and prevents them from campaigning directly with people. But since Mr. Obama announced his candidacy nearly four months ago, he has been accompanied by a private security detail hired by his campaign. Aides said the guards, some of whom were former federal agents, were in response to the large crowds and the fact that he is running to become the first black president. The aides have declined to discuss whether Mr. Obama has received any specific threats. In an interview yesterday, Michelle Obama, the senator’s wife, said the Secret Service protection underscored the notion that “we are moving to the next level” of the presidential campaign. The 2008 race is accelerated in every respect, she said, including unusually large crowds and attention. “Security was one of many issues that I have and will have in the course of this campaign,” said Mrs. Obama, who has talked openly about fearing for her husband’s safety. “But I’ve thought through in my mind all the possible scenarios and how we’re going to handle it.” Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, declined to comment on whether the security decision had been made in response to a specific threat against Mr. Obama or his family, but said several criteria were taken into account before authorization was made. “That includes things like the candidate having certain financial standings, preeminence in public opinion polls and actively campaigning,” Mr. Knocke said. “We’re not going to comment on the timing or the details.” Generally, candidates are placed under security protection around the time they receive their party’s nomination. In the 2004 election, Senators John Kerry and John Edwards received their secret service detail in February 2004, about eight months before the general election. While Mr. Obama’s detail comes well ahead of that, with about a year and a half to go before the presidential election, he is not the first candidate to receive security in early stages of a race. The Rev. Jesse Jackson drew early Secret Service protection because of threats during his campaigns for president in 1984 and 1988. Anahad O'Connor contributed reporting

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (97429)	5/4/2007 5:48:59 PM
From: tonto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

To: SecularBull who wrote (315391) 11/6/2002 1:09:25 PM From: Kenneth E. Phillipps Read Replies (2) of 761906 Actually, I would like everybody to enjoy the same health plan I have which is the federal employees plan from MY WIFE's employment

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (97429)	5/5/2007 1:29:21 PM
From: tonto	Respond to of 173976

Kenneth has difficulty telling the truth... To: David Lawrence who wrote (309807) 10/19/2002 3:36:40 PM From: Kenneth E. Phillipps Read Replies (1) of 761923 So you don't favor a cut in payroll taxes. Such a cut would allow me to pay MY Secretary some health care benefits. I don't need such a plan because the taxpayers already pay for mine through MY WIFE's federal employment. To: JDN who wrote (497885) 11/24/2003 3:58:50 PM From: Kenneth E. Phillipps Read Replies (1) of 761923 I am a senior on Medicare. The drug plan is meaningless to me. MY WIFE is a federal employee so I have the same generous plan as Congress. To: JakeStraw who wrote (474289) 10/10/2003 2:12:32 PM From: Kenneth E. Phillipps Read Replies (1) of 761923 The problem is that I have MY medical insurance and MY WIFE's insurance paid for almost 100% by the federal government right now so I have no need for national health insurance. I already have it. o: John Carragher who wrote (363369) 2/25/2003 1:22:32 PM From: Kenneth E. Phillipps Read Replies (2) of 761923 John, I am one of the elderly (66) with a few stocks. I vote for prescription coverage. That one is easy. I already have good coverage because MY WIFE is a federal employee. If I didn't, we would probably be paying $700 to $800 per month - just for drugs. This is a huge problem for the elderly who only have medicare. o: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (356275) 2/8/2003 8:40:43 PM From: Kenneth E. Phillipps Read Replies (2) of 761923 Lizzie, you may not be depending on Social Security to finance a part of your retirement any maybe you don't need to but a lot of people are. Those people who have paid well over $100,000 into Social Security are counting on getting some of that money back and will be very resentful if they don't. There is one good reason why the government will not cut back on Social Security for the next 10 years. They need it to finance other government operations and to fund tax cuts and tax breaks for a privileged few. What a scam! I am 66 and receive $1500 per month. I work part time as an attorney and WIFE works for the government so I am doing just fine but, believe me, there will be huge resentment when those boomers don't get their SS. To: Alan Smithee who wrote (24996) 5/23/2004 9:46:01 PM From: Kenneth E. Phillipps Read Replies (4) of 81523 Alan, like you, I am a resident of WA state. When we were raising 3 kids on one salary, it was tough. The sales tax made it a lot tougher. Now that MY kids are raised, MY WIFE and I have two incomes and the tax burden is mild. Fairness would dictate a state income tax. To: GROUND ZERO who wrote (549449) 3/8/2004 11:37:18 AM From: Kenneth E. Phillipps Read Replies (2) of 761923 GZ, I certainly disagree with you. Government did help train me for MY job by subsidizing MY college and law school education. Government did train MY WIFE for her job. Government did help MY son train for his job as a Pharmacist and MY other son for his job as a banker. Government has helped hundreds of MY clients train for jobs. To: TideGlider who wrote (526184) 1/19/2004 9:11:42 AM From: Kenneth E. Phillipps Read Replies (3) of 761923 I am one of the elderly covered by Medicare. I am also covered by Government employees thru MY WIFE's employment. I do know, first hand, what it is like to be caught with major medical expense without insurance. My insurance coverage has been Medicare for the past 5 years.