#3
SO.... Robin Williams insults Australia, the least he could do is insult a place Robin Williams is actually _FROM_. I don't think Alabama quite fits.
#8
Yup intent, attitude, and tone tell if the insult is friendly or looking for a spot of trouble.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/31/2010 23:04 Comments ||
Top||
#9
My daughter just got back from LA - college kids in a beach house at Gulf Shores. She loved it. Of course, coming from a Chicago winter helped the impression.
She also liked the stop for dinner in the Birmingham suburbs, but locals warned from stopping in Montgomery. What's up with that?
#1
from a bitter retarded racist bitch, I'd say that's high praise
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/31/2010 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"The Tea Party emerges as not only outrageous, but they have turned up the volume in ways that even Code Pink have not been able to do."
Sounds like jealousy.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/31/2010 16:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I checked out "Going Rogue" by Mrs. Palin today, the closest thing to saying you like teapartiers at the top of your lungs around here in Dem Land
You should have seen the pursed lips on the librarian's faces as she scanned it. And as I walked out one muttered "Going Rouge" under her breath. It was Priceless!!!
We turn to the Wall Street Journal for the math on what it will cost to raise taxes on corporations' retiree prescription drug coverage. This is the provision that has caused several corporations to take markdowns recently.
The bottom line: by closing this loophole' which was originally created to dissuade companies from dumping retirees' prescription costs into Medicare Part D the government could lose more than five times what it brings in.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute calculates that the 28% subsidy on average will run taxpayers $665 in 2011 and that the tax dispensation is worth $233. The same plan in Medicare costs $1,209. Given that Congress has already committed the original sin of creating a drug entitlement that crowds out private coverage, $233 in corporate tax breaks to avoid spending $1,209 seems like a deal. If one out of four retirees is now moved into Medicare, the public fisc will take on huge new liabilities.
Emphasis mine. Such corporations have four main options: drop or reduce prescription coverage for their retirees, pass new costs along to cash-strapped consumers, lay off workers, or simply bear the tax losses and pass them along to shareholders.
Not good options, are they? As it sucks more and more money out of employers like Caterpillar, John Deere, AK Steel, AT&T, etc., (this provision alone will cause an estimated $14 billion in sudden losses), can we start referring to ObamaCare as the un-stimulus?'
#1
I think this pile of legal poo bill will hang around the necks of dhimocrats for a long time. Not to mention that it violates 3-5 of the Bill of Rights amendments.
The original estimate in 2006 was $84 million, this year it will be over $900 million. They have the highest healthcare costs in the nation, Emergency room visits are up 17%.
While most of the purported benefits of health-care insurance reform are years away, it took only a few days for a serious, unintended consequence to emerge.
Last week, telecommunications giant AT&T, which employs more than 280,000 people, announced it would take a $1 billion, non-cash, first-quarter loss because the bill ends an exemption on benefits for retirees.
Likewise, the largest maker of earth-moving equipment, Caterpillar, claims it will take a $100 million charge. Deere & Company, the world's largest producer of agriculture equipment, will take a $150 million charge. 3M, maker of Scotch Tape and other products, says it will take a hit of as much as $90 million.
It's all because a provision in the bill reduces the tax deductions for companies with drug coverage for their retired employees. The tax deduction and the subsequent government subsidies were designed to encourage those companies to keep their retirees covered rather than foisting them onto Medicare.
Now, it's likely those companies and others will simply shuffle those once covered under the private sector to Medicare. If not, corporations could offset the costs with layoffs or shift the cost to consumers.
Some business groups say the provision is a blow to corporate profits, and also could discourage companies from hiring more workers. Reform backers say those charges are overblown.
Verizon already has notified its employees to expect changes to their benefit plans because, it says, the new law "may have significant implications for both retirees and employers." And with more than 3,500 American companies no longer able to benefit from this tax structure, the number of employees affected is only going rise.
The tax exemption, offered as part of 2003's Medicare Part D, was a means of incentivizing companies to keep retirees on their prescription drug coverage plans. The Obama administration claimed that closing this supposed loophole would raise about $4.5 billion over 10 years to help offset the cost of the nearly $1 trillion health care reform.
Yet The Associated Press has reported that a large utility company in Michigan already has stated it would recover all losses from its customers through rate hikes.
Instead of acknowledging that top-down economic planning usually brings with it some unintended costs, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., immediately politicized the news by attacking industry. Without any authority, Waxman demanded that AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, and John Deere justify the "costs the companies plan to book related to the new health-care law."
Many of the hidden costs of this law will be evident soon enough, but we hope this provision doesn't end up costing the country more than it was meant to save.
#1
Instead of acknowledging that top-down economic planning usually brings with it some unintended costs, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., immediately politicized the news by attacking industry. Without any authority, Waxman demanded that AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, and John Deere justify the "costs the companies plan to book related to the new health-care law."
Ain't it amazing? Democrats can "demand" justification for a private enterprise's actions, but feel NO need to justify their own as public servants. C'mon 2010-2012.
#2
Already putting out the propaganda that repeal is unlikely, that nobody wins elections based solely upon running against an issue. I disagree: Geert Wilders are both winners of elections based on being against 1 issue.
Now if the Kansas Senate could get off its ass and get that bill through that would help and stop piddledicking with their gun bill we'd get somewhere.
#3
It's all because a provision in the bill reduces the tax deductions for companies with drug coverage for their retired employees.
Pensioners, boomers, etc, are evil and the essence the problem. Barry and the gov't will decide who gets life saving drugs and who must.... move along quietly.
Powerhouse student loan provider Sallie Mae tells Fox News that as a direct result of President Obama's new student loan overhaul, it will have to start cutting jobs... and soon.
"This legislation will force Sallie Mae to reduce our 8,600 person workforce by 2,500," Conwey Casillas, Vice President of Sallie Mae Public Affairs, told Fox in a statement.
The President was at Northern Virginia Community College in Alexandria Tuesday to sign student loan changes into law. The new bill includes a provision for the government to begin directly lending to students. The loans will bypass financial institutions which have traditionally provided the loans and, Mr. Obama says, soaked up billions in subsidies.
"Now, it probably won't surprise you to learn that the big banks and financial institutions hired a army of lobbyists to protect the status quo," the President said. "In fact, Sallie Mae, America's biggest student lender, spent more than $3 million on lobbying last year alone." One of those lobbyists was Jamie Gorelick. Once again she failed at her job.
Indeed, Sallie Mae has been outspoken on the plan, calling it a "government takeover" just last month.
"The student loan provisions buried in the health care legislation intentionally eliminate valuable default prevention services and private sector jobs at a time when our country can least afford to lose them," Casillas told Fox.
#1
Unintended consequences are damaging, but the intended are diabolic. determination of who gets the loan, what colleges comply with the govt. curriculum, benefits for government job training, on and on.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/31/2010 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Annointed One will decide who gets student loans and who has to repay them, or gets the loans cancelled and turned into free-ride scholarships, not the evil banks!
Barry and his cadre will also decide what educatioal institutions are appropriate for student loans along with what courses and programs students should be enrolled in.
#4
So, since SLM (Student Loan Marketing, Sallie Mae), a private corp, has been cut out of the loop by the "health" legislation, why do they need 6,100 employees? Just to process the outstanding loans? Doesn't the "government" take over that, also?
#5
Not to worry, those people can work for the government along with another 2500 from K mart, Burger King and other assorted job possitions that qualify for the new government jobs. See O is really helping the jobless !
#8
ION DAILY TIMES.PK OP-ED > THE REPUBLICAN JIHADIS. US-AMer JIhadis are fighting to EXPAND GOVT in America, whilst PAK Jihadis are interested in imposing their brand of DICTATORIAL GOVT.
The firm owned by the decorated general who withdrew his nomination to lead the Transportation Security Administration had received a consulting contract worth almost $100 million from the Army after certifying he was a "service disabled veteran," according to documents and interviews with government officials.
The disability he has cited was sleep apnea, a sometimes chronic breathing disorder that disrupts sleep. Oh good grief. That's entirely treatable ...
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert A. Harding, who became a federal contractor in 2001 after serving at the highest levels of military intelligence, withdrew his name late Friday at the end of a week in which he had been repeatedly questioned about his contracting activities. His withdrawal also came after The Washington Post raised questions with the White House on Friday about his disabilities status.
The White House declined to comment about the $100 million contract, awarded in July 2008, or about Harding's disability, including its cause, diagnosis or impact on his work.
White House spokesman Nicholas Shapiro said in a statement that in "nominating General Harding, the President tapped an individual with more than 35 years of military and intelligence experience who is dedicated to improving the security of our nation. The President is disappointed in this outcome but remains confident in the solid team of professionals at TSA."
Attempts to reach Harding on Saturday at his home were unsuccessful. In a Friday statement released by the White House, Harding did not address the disability questions but said, "I feel that the distractions caused by my work as a defense contractor would not be good for this Administration nor for the Department of Homeland Security."
Harding's turnabout comes two months after another TSA nominee withdrew, following revelations that he provided misleading information to Congress and the White House. Former FBI agent Erroll Southers gave differing accounts about incidents in which he inappropriately accessed a federal database to obtain information about his former wife's new boyfriend, possibly in violation of privacy laws.
Harding's withdrawal means that a security post administration officials have called the most important unfilled job in the government is still in limbo.
In nomination hearings this week, senators on the commerce and homeland security committees questioned Harding about a contract with the Defense Intelligence Agency that was terminated after $6 million worth of work several years ago. That contract was the subject of a federal audit.
Harding Security Associates agreed to return to the government $1.8 million, some of which government auditors found to be duplicate charges. A review after by the Pentagon's inspector general and others found no evidence of intentional wrongdoing.
Harding had a stellar rise through the Pentagon and contracting worlds. From late 1996 to 2000, he served as director of operations for the DIA. He then served as assistant deputy chief of staff for Army intelligence until retiring in August 2001.
Upon leaving government, Harding founded Harding Security Associates, a Virginia firm that received close to $200 million in federal contracts. He sold the company last year. The firm's biggest deal came in 2008. The Army consulting contract, apparently awarded as a "set-aside" for firms designated as owned by a service disabled veteran, had a potential value of $99.7 million and was to end in September 2011, according to federal contracting records. The principal place of work cited is Fort Belvoir and the work was to include tasks related to biometric identification, the records show.
The records show that Harding's company was considered a small "Veteran-owned," "Black owned," "Service Disabled Vet" owned firm that qualified for special contracting set-asides. The contract said the Army received only one bid on the deal.
The program to set aside federal contracts for service disabled veterans has come under fire recently for poor oversight and abuses. Harding's company was not mentioned in the reviews.
Whatever the reasons, Harding's withdrawal was so unexpected that talks with administration officials Thursday anticipated either his confirmation by Easter, or a recess appointment, several industry and federal sources said. Last week, acting TSA Administrator Gale Rossides announced a shuffle of senior staff in anticipation of Harding's arrival, they said. Yes indeed, "whatever the reason." More affirmative action in contracting.
#2
Career Army officers should have nothing to fear from contracting probes and investigations. If the perception of wrong doing is false, then the investigation will reveal it as such. If there is real smoke in the teepee.... then the back door is a liable option. General officers both active and retired are fully aware of the sensitivities regarding gov't contracting. Failing to seek a LEGAL OPINION (LO) prior to marching off into the sunset can result in a disaster. No LO, then your arse is hanging out. My sympathy meter remains pegged at ZERO.
#3
Nobody in their right mind will put their hat in the ring for the TSA leader position. If you really want to make things more secure with common sense ideas and principles, you will immediately run afoul of the Administration, as they will have a different agenda, based upon their ideological politics.
So it will be business as usual---Thousands Standing Around.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/31/2010 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sleep apnea a disability? Can I file for SS benefits for this?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
