#1
I lost about 1/4 of my retirement in the last round of looting. The AARP is party to second round 2 of looting. The AARP IS NOT a friend to seniors.
#2
Even the threat of Gov't takeover is a win for big Gov't. As people panic and pull out of their 401K's, they immediately incur a tax liability. It's a win-win for Uncle Samishak.
#4
...Now think about this: Why would anyone ever put another dime in a 401K after the government confiscates it? Proof that these morons can't think more than up to the next election.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
05/12/2010 20:47 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Not much. Money inside 401Ks will be re-invested in similar areas outside to tax-vehicle.
#7
If the Repubs are smart (I can dream can't I?) they will shout this from the rooftops. The Dems can say the Repubs are doing the bidding of their Wall Street pals, but the public won't believe that.
The Obama administration threatened to veto parts of its own health care bill after budget scorekeepers found that the package would add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending. After it becomes a bill, can a president then veto any part of it? Press was always on Bush because he wrote so many signing statements (his thoughts on the bill)
President Obama's budget office charged Congress with finding $115 billion in spending cuts or tax increases to offset the price tag hike. The figure approached the amount of money the Congressional Budget Office previously estimated the law would save, and pushed the total 10-year cost of the package past $1 trillion. It comes after a separate Medicare office report found the bill would raise spending by about 1 percent over the next decade.
But the Office of Management and Budget stood by the administration's original claims that the law would reduce the deficit and tasked Congress with making sure that happens — or else.
"The Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion in the first decade, and that will not change unless Congress acts to change it," budget office spokesman Ken Baer said. "If these authorizations are funded, they must be offset somewhere else in the discretionary budget. The president has called for a non-security discretionary spending freeze, and he will enforce that with his veto pen."
The Congressional Budget Office said the added spending includes $10 billion to $20 billion in administrative costs to federal agencies carrying out the law, as well as $34 billion for community health centers and $39 billion for Indian health care.
The costs were not reflected in earlier estimates by the budget office, although Republican lawmakers strenuously argued that they should have been. Part of the reason is technical: the additional spending is not mandatory, leaving Congress with discretion to provide the funds in follow-on legislation — or not.
Congressional estimators also said they simply had not had enough time to run the numbers.
Costs could go higher, because the legislation authorizes several programs without setting specific funding levels.
The health care law provides coverage to more than 30 million people who are uninsured, offering tax credits to help them purchase health insurance through new competitive markets that will open for business in 2014. When Congress passed the bill in March, the CBO estimated the coverage expansion would cost $938 billion over 10 years, while reducing the federal deficit by $143 billion.
"If Congress were to approve all of this new discretionary funding authorized in the health care bill, almost all of the administration's highly touted savings would be made null and void," said Jennifer Hing, spokeswoman for Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee.
#1
The Obama administration threatened to veto parts of its own health care bill after budget scorekeepers found that the package would add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending.
he's lying.Again.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/12/2010 23:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
14 terms in the House, then to lose in the primary. And you have to wonder, because WV is a heavily Democrat State, yet the Dems are set on destroying the coal industry. Even Senator Byrd, that old Klansman, has told them to surrender their way of life.
After all those years of support for the Democrats, to be thrown under the bus.
#6
Could it be that the DNC is replacing its long-toothed, ready to retire congressmen with young, hip, "moderate" candidates? Out with the old in with the new? If I wanted to keep seats this is how I'd do it. The ideologues fall on their swords, and their successors get all of the needed support to vie for their seats.
I wonder what Mr. Oliverio's stance on healthcare will be if he's elected. I wonder just how "conservative" he really is.
GCO member Jesus Gonzalez' federal lawsuit in Wisconsin was dismissed after the judge granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. In his lawsuit, Gonzalez challenged his arrest in two separate incidents for disorderly conduct when openly carrying in retail stores. The court found no specific disorderly conduct on Gonzalez' part, but went on to observe:
No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct which is virtually certain to create a disturbance.
This is so because when employees and shoppers in retail stores see a person carrying a lethal weapon, they are likely to be frightened and possibly even panicky. Many employees and shoppers are likely to think that the person with the gun is either deranged or about to commit a felony or both.
Further, it is almost certain that someone will call the police. And when police respond to a man with a gun' call, they have no idea what the armed individual's intentions are. The volatility in such a situation could easily lead to someone being seriously injured or killed.'
#1
So we should assume this Judge is a serial-rapist right? After all he has all the equipment (assuming he's male, and fully equipped).
If the weapon is holstered, there is no need for anyone to panic. Only the media's hyperventilating creates the false impression that the weapon is going to jump out and start shooting people at random.
Having said that there are people out there who are so terrified that they freak out even at the sight of one - even holstered. But that is not a reason to deny someone's 2nd amendment rights.
#3
I was talking with a very liberal woman who had recently been to Arizona and was appalled to see a woman with a shoulder rig carrying openly in public. I also remember a woman (similar type) who we were having lunch with in Kentucky a few years back. She just about freaked out when she saw a man wearing a pistol on his hip. She wondered if we should do something and I said, no he is most likely legal and/or law enforcement (He was just eating his lunch, minding his own business). There is mass hysteria, usually amongst the liberal element of our society with regards to firearms.
#4
I recently saw a couple of middle aged .... fellows.... out for dinner at a local resturant. One of them was wearing a small automatic pistol, with matching black cell phone holster and belt. Helps to accessorize.
#7
The article didn't go on to say if this guy had a permit to carry
I don't know about Wisconsin, but in VA there is no permit needed for open carry. The open carry laws in VA are in many ways less restrictive than those governing concealed carry (which requires a permit). I imagine that many other states have similar laws to VA (28 other states honor VA concealed carry permits).
#10
this "Judge" should be immediately disbarred and arrested as he has violated the very laws he swore to uphold.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/12/2010 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It appears that the Judges first name is "Lynn", most probably a female, maybe that's why people are "likely..panicky".
Of course this doesn't apply the the regulars here, none of whom would appear "panicky" at the mere sight of a legal weapon. Most likely they would know how to use it better than most I would opine.
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.
