Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I'm running on a tight budget, but I will get a pair...sm

Posted By: Democrat on 2006-06-18
In Reply to: Did you know that the American - Lurker

so hopefully they will get them a little after Independent Day.



Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Can't afford it. Only own 2 pair. LOL (nm)
.
All that tells me is he doesn't want to break in a new pair of shoes...
can't say as I blame him. lol.
That's right.. Just keep that wool pulled real tight down over your eyes.
xx
Could Tony Blairs Tight Fist be Coming to a City Near You...sm
I ran across this article today and it explains from British citizens point of view what happens when you allow leadership to dismantle the principles (Constitution) of a nation. I understand the *concept* behind the Patriot Act, wiretapping, and detainee laws (where the president is the decider), but if the public lets the powers that be slip in laws like this with no protest we could find ourselves under arrest and DNA swabbed for not returning a child's ball that landed in your yard.

(Long read but interesting.)


The Way Police Treat Us Verges on Criminal

Guilty until proven innocent now seems to be the watchword of a government that increasingly treats its law-abiding citizens with absolute contempt

Henry Porter
Sunday October 29, 2006
The Observer

A father and his eight-year-old son got off a train at Blackpool on a Friday evening two weeks ago to be confronted by a number of police officers moving passengers towards a scanner. There was a mildly threatening manner about them and it was clear that they expected everyone to pass through the scanner, which they said was being used to search for knives.

The man, whose name is Danny, quietly told the police that unless they had a very good reason, he would not be searched. One or two passengers hesitated, then joined him in refusing to go through the scanner. The police were clearly disgruntled, but couldn't do anything because Danny was right: they had to have reasonable grounds for suspecting he was carrying a knife in order to search him. 'I am not some rabid left winger or civil libertarian,' he wrote in an email to me. 'It just seems we are allowing a police state to be developed without an argument.' On the phone, he seemed to modify this by saying that the police behaviour had been oppressive.

Thank God there are still people like Danny who know the law and understand that part of its fragile essence is the respect for the rights of the innocent citizen when confronted with authority. The British Transport Police may insist that its Operation Shield, as this random trawl is known, is for the common good in that it fights knife crime, but think twice about the attitude it betrays and you realise that it is another small erosion in the esteem for the individual. Such behaviour makes everyone a suspect.

Tony Blair talks incessantly about respect, yet there are few who have done more to degrade authority's respect for the public. Nowhere is that better seen than in the behaviour of the police, which gradually becomes more coercive and imbued with the idea that we are all bad hats until we prove otherwise. We now live in a country where the idea of wrongful arrest has become a historic curiosity and where anyone can be arrested for the slightest offence and compelled to become part of the government's DNA database.

We live in a country where young boys - one was just seven - are taken aside and questioned for trying to knock conkers out of chestnut trees on public ground. Where a grandmother whose neighbour accused her of not returning a ball kicked into her garden was arrested, fingerprinted and required to give her DNA. The police went through every room in her house, even her daughter's drawers, before letting her go without charge or caution.

Where two sisters can be arrested after a peaceful protest about climate change, held in solitary confinement for 36 hours without being allowed to make a phone call, then told not to talk to each other as a condition of their bail. As this paper reported, their money, keys, computers, discs and phones were confiscated, their homes searched.

There is much more, all of it enabled by Blair's laws and encouraged by a vindictive and erroneous contention that defendants' rights must be reduced in the pursuit of more and quicker prosecutions. Our prisons are full, problem teenagers are, by default, exiled to a kind of outlawry and every citizen becomes the subject of an almost hysterical need by the authorities to check up on and chivvy them.

The government regards us not just as wedded to too many regrettable vices - smoking, speeding, drinking too much, eating unhealthy food and taking no exercise - but also as innately prone to law-breaking. Perhaps with good reason, since, according to the Liberal Democrat homes affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, some 3,000 criminal offences have been created by Labour. The more crimes there are, the more criminals there will be.

Mass surveillance has begun on our motorways and in our town centres. Metropolitan drivers increasingly find themselves pressed into numberplate-recognition camera traps on the same principle that inspires Operation Shield. Everyone has something to hide unless they can prove otherwise, which is why the police also enthusiastically pursue samples for the DNA database. (Incidentally, by next year, the total number of profiles will rise to three million, one in five of which will belong to black people.)

The police are in their very own heaven and demand more and more powers of instant justice, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. These will allow them to crush people's cars, issue more on-the-spot fines and ban 'undesirables' from any area they choose without having to go to court. Even parish councils are to become part of this culture of minatory bossiness. Instead of having to apply to central government to introduce new bylaws, they are to be given powers by Ruth Kelly, the Communities and Local Government Minister, to levy instant £100 fines for skateboarding, not cleaning up dog mess, busking and, no doubt, scrumping for apples and playing Pooh sticks. How will it end - with CCTV cameras watching small boys for inappropriate behaviour in the vicinity of horse chestnuts?

In his frantic terminality, Blair plans the sinister information-sharing index, otherwise known as the universal child register, and last week was musing that we should all have our DNA stored on the national base. Link this to his earlier remarks about identifying problem children who might grow up to be a menace to society by intervening before they were born and you begin to feel the chill of the technology-driven authoritarianism.

What runs through all this seems to be a rather surprising dislike of the British people. It was once possible to believe the government's unusual attention to law, order and behaviour was benevolent yet ill-conceived. Now it looks more like the result of late-onset sociopathy, influenced by a long period in power and the degenerate entanglement between Downing Street and the seething red-top newspapers.

The prevailing account of Britain in the current political establishment has become deeply pessimistic and, to my mind, wrong. Yes, we have problems with home-grown terrorism, loutishness, a swelling underclass, unintegrating minorities, but there is another story. Britain is also a success and it should occur to one of our political leaders to defy the orthodoxy of decline and compliment the nation on its adaptability and deep reserves of virtue and toleration.

Think of the charitable activity in this country, of the level of public debate that wells up in BBC programmes such as Any Questions, the deep interest in history, the eagerness of the audiences at arts festivals all over Britain, the humour and generosity of spirit, the commitment to local communities, to understanding each other's needs and of the array of passions and hobbies which absorb so many millions of people whose quiet, law-abiding fulfilment as Britons goes undescribed by the furious negativity of the moment. It is these people, with their stored-up virtue and unself-conscious decency, who the government seeks to turn into suspects and infantilise by its morbid intrusion.

It is not the government's business to encroach on our experience as individuals in a democracy, to threaten us with so much oppressive legislation and always to assume our guilt. But there is another reason and that is because we are soon going to have to have the debate about individual liberty in the context of rapid climate change. That will only work if the government treats us like adults and says: 'Look, this is potentially the greatest crisis civilisation has ever faced and we need your help.' The resulting contract must be between equals - the people and the state - and in a relationship where respect flows both ways.That, ultimately, is what this nagging and suspicious government threatens.

The budget surplus from BC was a ...
PROJECTED surplus that would happen over 10 years IF no added spending, IF no added programs. Even if the war in Iraq had not happened, Congress could not go 10 years without adding spending and added programs. You act as if there was 559 billion dollars laying around. There wasn't.

I realize that you have bought into the whole socialist class warfare thing. Like O's hero Alinsky said...it doesn't matter if it is the truth or not...it just matters if you can make them believe it.

And they darned sure have made sure you believe it.


Nothing has been passed except the budget. sm

The budget funds Volunteer America, and includes a provision to set up a commission to STUDY whether or not "mandatory volunteerism" should be established.  My prediction is that it won't happen.


Budget has NOT been passed yet....sm
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-stbudg0112604697mar31,0,2797230.story
GOP Budget & Tax Plan

Among the alternatives that the GOP is proposing for the 2010 budget:


1.  Roll back a significant portion or all of the stimulus that has not yet been distributed as of 2010.


2.  Indiiduals earning less than $50,000 or couples earning less than $100,000 could either file under the current tax provisions or pay a flat 10%.  Others earning more would pay a flat 25%.  All who choose the flat tax rate could literally file their taxes on a form the size of a single index card.


You have to think about some of the implications of these tax ideas to understand the less obvious benefits, among which would be the stanching of the flow of investment outside the country and attraction of foreign investment, and an enormous savings in the waste of time and money that presently go to nothing more productive than filing taxes.  A simple scheme like this would also be much more difficult to defraud than the complex system currently in place. 


On this last point, just consider all the back taxes that Obama has collected from his tax-scofflaw political appointees - over $100,000!  Not one of the excuses that any of them offered for not paying their taxes - i.e., that the tax laws are too complicated even for that "brilliant" idiot, Geithner (who now heads up the IRS).  Not one of them could have skated by "paying their back taxes" while apologizing that they just couldn't get a handle on what they're supposed to pay.  Now, multiply just those people by all the other tax cheats in this country who couldn't use similar excuses (or schemes, whichever term you prefer). 


It's simple:  What do you make?  Withhold 10% and you owe nothing at the end of the year.  Fill out your card, send it in, and you're done.  And you tax accountants who have helped your clients avoid taxes for years...we need accountants for other purposes, so you won't starve either.


 


 


Yeah and guess what the Bush family has tight ties with the Bin Ladin family....

so give it all a rest would you. 


The Solution to the Budget Deficit


by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective




Peter

Peter Peterson. (Photo: Reuters)




    Peter Peterson is coming to get your Social Security and Medicare. Peterson was the commerce secretary in the Nixon administration. He then went on to make billions of dollars as one of the top executives at the Blackstone Group, a private equity fund. Mr. Peterson is known as one of the top beneficiaries of the fund managers' tax break, through which he personally pocketed tens of millions of dollars.


    Mr. Peterson has been using his Wall Street wealth to attack these social insurance programs for decades, but he recently stepped up his efforts. Last year, he spent $1 billion to endow the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to further his efforts.


    In politics, it's not easy to counter the impact of $1 billion. In addition to its money, the Peterson crew enjoys the support of many important news outlets, most importantly The Washington Post, which pushes his line on both its editorial and news pages.


    In fact, The Post even went so far as to identify Peterson's foundation by its boilerplate, an organization that "advocates for federal fiscal responsibility," instead of telling readers of its political leanings, the normal mode of identification for such organizations. (The Center for Economic and Policy Research was established "to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives.")


    While the Peterson crew may have the money and the support of the media, the rest of us can rely on logic and ridicule to counter the attack. In this spirit, we have the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. (Mr. Peterson is apparently fond of having things named after him. In addition to his new Peter G. Peterson Foundation, he also has a think tank named after him, the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics.)


    The Peterson tax credit would essentially take the Peterson crew at their word. They claim that they are worried that huge tax burdens will leave future generations worse off than the generations that preceded them.


    This isn't true. There is no plausible scenario, short of war or environmental disaster, that would leave future generations worse off than their parents or grandparents. But we don't have to argue with the billionaire; let's just give future generations the option to trade places with their parents or grandparents who made out so well.


    This is where the tax credit comes in. The tax credit would allow an individual to trade her after-tax income for the after-tax income that someone born 20 or 40 years sooner would have earned at the same age. For example, if someone born in 1990 believes in 2020 that their grandparents got a better deal, they would simply check off the year 1940, and they would have their taxes adjusted so that they would have the same after-tax income of a person born in 1940, when they were also age 30.


    Of course, the young ones would end up big losers in this story. Real wages, on average, will be more than 50 percent higher in 2020 than they were in 1970. Even if tax rates were, on average, 5 percentage points higher, workers in 2020 will still have after-tax wages that are more than 40 percent higher than their counterparts in 1970.


    This means that anyone who chose to take advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit would end up as a big loser. That is why it can help solve the deficit problem. If people check off the tax credit, they will pay more in taxes and, therefore, increase government revenue.


    It might be hard to convince large numbers of people to voluntarily pay more in taxes. This is where the Peterson Foundation comes in. They are spending huge amounts of money trying to convince young people that they are being ripped off by their parents and grandparents. They are even promoting front groups of young people to advance this effort.


    With his billion dollars, Peterson could convince a huge number of gullible young people to tax advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit. Insofar as he is successful in this effort, he can help to generate billions of dollars that can be used for items like health care, preschool education, and other pressing needs.


    So, let's join efforts with Mr. Peterson and encourage his followers to take advantage of the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. There is a word for taking money from willfully ignorant young people who would deny their parents and grandparents the Social Security and Medicare benefits they need to survive: justice.


Tomorrow is when Obama's budget will come out....
nm
But pigs are balancing the budget
That's why it's not working and not balancing. They're too busy with their open checkbook spending on themselves like there's no tomorrow.

Maybe that's the plan though. Take everything we can and let the taxpapers continue to foot the bill.
Like all those years of prosperity, budget surplus
scorched earth administration?
Here is a site that shows the federal budget

over the past 3 years, including charts. This is by the National Debt Awareness Center. There are lots of other links on there to check out too but, again, I am short on time today.


http://www.federalbudget.com/


This is an article from U.S. News about the budget outlook:


http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/02/25/hot-docs-bleak-and-uncertain-federal-budget-outlook-as-deficit-climbs.html


I saw today where they passed a budget to take us through the next couple months to the tune of $896B. Filled with pork. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to look it up tomorrow.


 


Deficit Soars in Obama's Budget
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29392964/
Yep, that'll happen when pigs balance the budget......
nm
Excuse me, but during Clinton administration, we had a balanced budget for the first time in ......s
American history, plus a surplus. I am not saying that everything that Bill Clinton did was good, and keep in mind that you were living in one of the most expensive areas of the country (I used to be a Californian, San Francisco is outrageous), for most of us, there was relative prosperity and peace, even though the Terrorists were were already threatening, but that also went back to Daddy Bush's time. How anyone can think that things are better now, I can't imagine! I am happy for you if you feel you personally are better off,that is great, but area you even seeing the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are filing for unemployment, many for the first time in their lives? Every day more lay-offs and closings? Banking deregulation under the Republican adminstration killed this country in so many ways, not to mention trillions for a war where.....we accomplished what? Why can't the Iraqi people fight for their own independence and freedom, as we did, and as the French did? We got rid of Saddam, and yes he was evil, but Osams is still on the loose. Afghanistan I could see, to get that demon, but going into Iraq? That all came down to oil interestes, IMHO, and Halliburton made a bundle. IMHO
Glenn Beck:Obama's budget a loaded weapon aimed at you.
By Glenn Beck
Host, “Glenn Beck“

Hello America,

If you had any doubt that we were on “The Road to Socialism,” President Obama’s just released budget should clear up that confusion. In fact, we’re so on The Road to Socialism that Barack Obama’s budget reads like he went to MapQuest and printed out turn-by-turn directions to get us to socialism as quickly as possible. So far, President Obama is really making a big scary mess of things and this budget is a giant step in the wrong direction.

Believe me–I understand that I’m not the only one who feels this way. But there have been lots of times in my career when I felt like I was all alone in my thinking (and that’s exactly why I’m having my “We Surround Them” event on March 13th…so you know that you’re not alone –click here for more details). So it’s always comforting for me when I hear others saying the same thing. Just this past weekend on “FOX News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked Arizona’s Republican Senator Jon Kyl, “How big a change in direction does the Obama budget represent in the relationship between government and the American people?” Without missing a beat, Senator Kyl quoted The Wall Street Journal by saying, “The budget represents a historical shift in the ideological direction of U.S. economic policy.” No mincing words there. Then he reminded everyone that The Wall Street Journal also stated in an editorial that President Obama is attempting to expand the role of government to such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back. A respected United States Senator and The Wall Street Journal–oh, I like that company. (Too bad we’re all agreeing on how bad things are getting.)

Here are some of the budget’s broad strokes:

* Obama’s budget takes the size of our government to the largest it’s been since World War II.
* It’s got a $1.4 trillion tax increase in it (and oh yeah–we’re in the middle of a recession).
* It doubles the debt in eight years.
* It never balances the budget and proposes that, for the next 10 years, our deficits are at a record high.

Hmmm. Usually I like to frame things in a “good news / bad news” context. That just won’t work here, but I don’t want to be a big downer. So let me put on a happy face and say that all the above was merely the regular, garden-variety bad news! Now here comes the super awful really bad news:

* Like a loaded weapon, this budget is aimed directly at you.

Is there a quicker way to end a honeymoon period for a new president than to propose a bunch of new taxes? It’s going to take a lot of serenading from Beyonce to make people forget about having less money…especially in this economy. See, not only is there a proposed huge tax increase for the energy and manufacturing sectors (and those get passed on to everyone), but overall tax rates are going up. All this is a real gut shot for small business. What too many people fail to remember is that small business is big business in America–over 70% of all American business is done by a small business. That means it’s likely that you either own or work for one, so President Obama wants more of your money (and I’m guessing it’s not like you have a whole lot extra lying around these days.)

And then there’s Obama’s suggestion of a “long-term investment in the economy.” That’s a fancy way of saying “increased spending.” (You don’t exactly need a decoder ring to figure that one out.) Another $30 billion for AIG…after they paid out six and seven figure bonuses and recorded the highest quarterly loss ever–over $60 billion–in U.S. history? How deep can our pockets be expected to be? Remember–every dollar the government “invests” in failing businesses is one of your dollars. If you had a stock broker who made the kind of crappy investments Washington has been making (and wants to make more of), you’d have fired them long ago.

This really isn’t that new a story–Democrats have a reputation of taxing and spending because, well…they always tax and spend. President Obama tries to soften his budget’s blow by stating that the tax increases don’t kick in until 2011. Um, Mr. President? It’s not exactly like 2011 is off in the sci-fi future where we’ll all have flying cars and live the life of George Jetson. Just like you need to plan ahead for re-election, small business owners need to do the same thing–plan for their future. So congratulations–now they’re doing that by bracing themselves for the tax avalanche coming their way in just a little over a year and a half from now. So instead of fueling the economy now–when we need it–business will tighten its belt and lower today’s bottom line in preparation for tomorrow’s new taxes. That lowers tax receipts! Instead of getting better, things get worse. Even I get that, and I’m the alcoholic rodeo clown.

Is it Election Day, 2012 yet?
That is not what HE says he is running as, it is what...sm
everyone else says he is running as.
Yes we do have the right. If you are running for ...sm
the hightest office in the land, we have the right to logically judge whether that person could reasonably be expected to complete his term. If someone has a serious disease that could affect his/her capability of doing so, we have the right to know that before we cast our vote. This goes for both candidates. Transparency, isn't that what both candidates say they are for?
Is he actually running?

Oh? Is someone new in the running?...nm
xx
We just keep running to and fro don't we?

Whatever we hear, read or see on TV MUST be fact. 


VOTING A WRITE-IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS!!!


You obviously know nothing about running a
xx
Running it

Downhill................


I seems that YOU are running out
of valid points as you start to take refuge in bashing?!

I am not going to engage in tit-for-tat fights with posters, ESPECIALLY NOT on the Politics Board.


Your aren't running for VP and won't be
McCain camp made such as issue about Obama's lack of foreign travel, boasting about how many times he had been overseas to visit the troops, and claiming that made him a more viable foreign policy candidate. He openly challenged Obama to make his trip overseas, gleefully hoping that Obama would end up looking like a rookie. Obama responded in kind, met with world leaders, garnered open support from Iraq's president and turned out 250,000 Berliners for his speech. Not too shabby for a rookie. So, if there was so much flap over Obama's not having been overseas and how that made him inexperienced, what does it say about his VP pick, who applied for a passport last year? McCain can't have it both ways. This issue is being raised to point out McCain double standards.
Running From Reality
 If there was one pre-eminent characteristic of the Republican convention this week, it was the quality of deception. Words completely lost their meaning. Reality was turned upside down.

    From the faux populist gibberish mouthed by speaker after speaker, you would never have known that the Republicans have been in power over the past several years and used that titanic power to lead the country to its present sorry state.


http://www.truthout.org/article/running-from-reality


mccain is running

quit trying to deflect the issue.  McCain a poon dog.


 


Probably because he's running for president, no?
Where do you people live?  What era?  Geez.
I certainly don't want her running our country.
She scares me.
And I certainly don't want Obama running it
After what I heard at the debate, and his viewpoints on the bailout. Don't trust him.
but those 4 are not running for president! nm
x
If you were running for President ---

Okay, I have an idea.  If you were able to run for President or even be the top adviser for the next President, what would your plans be for getting us out of this economic crisis?  Everyone seems to hate Obama's plans, and nobody really knows McCain's plans, so help us out here - what would you do?


He already has. Hello? He is running for president. All sm
candidates are cleared way before the actual election. They would not take the chance of having someone elected president and then find out he fails to pass an FBI check.
of course he would say that stuff - he was running against him! nm
x
Yes....she is his running mate.
His VP.....she is NOT running for president.  Barrack Obama is.  And even saying that.....at least she has run a state and had to make executive decisions.  She has been successful in her job as governor and has a high approval rating.  What does Obama have other than the unique ability to flip flop on everything he has ever said and voted for. 
I am running scared
Of course you are right, Obama is closet Muslim. He was been faking practicing Christianity for 20+ years, even going so far as to have his daughters baptised just to fool us. Wow, why didn't I realize it until just now.

Oh, and the Muslims really hate the Jews. I better go find an attack to live in when Obama is elected.

Thanks so much for your help in getting me to see things so much more clearly now.
If they are running for our president, we SHOULD know this...
00
I would prefer her as HIS running mate, but...
I would be fairly happy with either!  I have mixed feelings about Hillary, but like I've said, I'm sure she would do a fine job.  I just happen to reeeeally prefer Obama.
Running scared? Ahhhh, don't think so
when McCain loses.  The only way he will win is if they cheat - which we all know is possible - just ask Gore.
Romney is not running, Biden is...
and he was talking about the guy he is running with. Nice attempt at dodging.

As for Kilkenny...she is a Dem with a bone to pick, i.e., "She has hated me since 1992." lol. On Wiki all she said was "there was some talk about banning books but she never followed through with it."

So which is the lie and which is the truth?
Thought of that, but Obama is running for the top
nm
George Bush isn't running....
and there is a democratic congress who has not done squat since we elected them 2 years ago. Are you going to vote a straight Republican congressional ticket or are you by your own description intellectually challenged?

It is a valid question.
You would think Sarah Palin is running for the top
nm
clinton not running McCain is

nm


 


Obama should not be in the running for the highest
nm
Go Ron Paul....now running on an independent
xx
Who cares - she is not running. Even Obama said
Out. For some reason you seem to think Gov. Palin would have been able to stop her daughter. If you want a baby bad enough your going to find a way (place) to get pregnant. Her daughter didn't consult with the parents. This is not Gov. Palins fault and even then it's not a "fault". Her daughter wanted to have a baby and so she got pregnant. End of deal! Leave the spouses and kids out of the hatred you hold for the candidates.
well that good cos she's not running for president
you all seem to forget she is not running for pres. Barack and McCain are.
That's all you got? Glad you're not running
xx