body~politic

~~~~~~~~~> Does DEBT  become SERFDOM ?

Tweet me @ColonialSerf, and let me know, and I'll share the answers HERE!!!

Saturday, July 30, 2011

For Reid, Durbin, and Obama, a (very) partisan record on debt ceiling | Byron York | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

For Reid, Durbin, and Obama, a (very) partisan record on debt ceiling | Byron York | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

For Reid, Durbin, and Obama, a (very) partisan record on debt ceiling

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., left, listens as Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Ill. tells reporters that they are moving ahead with a Democratic plan to trim the deficit and avert a debilitating default, Friday, July 29, 2011, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has frequently accused Republicans of playing partisan politics in the debt ceiling crisis. "The moment for partisan games is long since passed," Reid said on July 21. "It is time for patriots on both sides of the aisle to join hands and actually govern." On July 26, Reid released a statement headlined REPUBLICANS PUT POLITICS AHEAD OF THE ECONOMY. And on July 24, Reid cast himself as a bipartisan compromiser, trying to talk sense into his partisan adversaries. "We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his 'my way or the highway' approach," Reid said, "and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise."

A look at Reid's record, however, shows that in the last decade his own voting on the issue of the debt ceiling is not only partisan but perfectly partisan. According to "The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases," a January 2010 report by the Congressional Research Service, the Senate has passed ten increases to the debt limit since 2000. Reid never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control of the Senate, and he always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control.

Other Democrats have also accused Republicans of partisanship in the debt fight. "It's time for bipartisan leadership, not partisan gamesmanship," said the number-two Democrat in the Senate, Richard Durbin, after Republicans pulled out of budget talks with President Obama. And Obama himself described the debt debate as a "partisan three-ring circus" -- leaving no doubt that it is Republicans who are practicing partisanship.

At look at Durbin's record shows that he, too, has voted along absolutely partisan lines. In the last decade, Durbin never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control and always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control. As for Obama, there were four votes to raise the debt ceiling when he was in the Senate. He missed two of them, voted no once when Republicans were in charge, and voted yes once when Democrats were in charge.

Here are the ten votes to raise the debt ceiling since 2000, according to the Congressional Research Service report. Some were standalone measures, and others were included in larger legislation:

** On June 11, 2002, with the Senate in Democratic hands due to the defection of Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Jim Jeffords, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the total national debt to $6.400 trillion. Reid and Durbin voted yes.

** On May 23, 2003, with the Senate in Republican hands after the November 2002 mid-term elections, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the total debt to $7.384 trillion. Reid and Durbin voted no.

** On November 17, 2004, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the total debt to $8.184 trillion. Reid voted present. Durbin voted no. (In remarks on the Senate floor, Reid claimed that he would have liked to vote yes on increasing the limit, but that he had agreed to "live pair" his vote with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was absent but intended to vote no. Reid explained the two had made a deal to cancel out each other's votes. "I, therefore, withhold my vote," he said of the maneuver, which allowed him to say he would vote yes without actually voting yes.)

** On March 16, 2006, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the total debt to $8.965 trillion. Reid voted no, as did Durbin and Obama, then in his second year in the Senate.

** On September 27, 2007, with the Senate back in Democratic hands after the 2006 mid-term elections, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the national debt to $9.815 trillion. Reid and Durbin voted yes. Obama, running for president, did not vote.

** On July 26, 2008, the Senate passed a debt limit increase included in the Housing and Recovery Act of 2008 to bring the national debt to $10.615 trillion. Reid and Durbin voted yes. Obama did not vote.

** On October 1, 2008, the Senate passed a debt limit increase included in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to bring the national debt to $11.315 trillion. Reid, Durbin, and Obama voted yes.

** On February 13, 2009, the Senate passed a debt limit increase included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the stimulus bill, which increased the national debt to $12.104 trillion. Reid and Durbin voted yes.

** On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the total debt to $12.394 trillion. Reid and Durbin voted yes.

** On January 28, 2010, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the national debt to $14.294 trillion. Reid and Durbin voted yes.

The pattern of Reid's and Durbin's voting is difficult to miss: If Republicans control the Senate, they vote against raising the debt ceiling. If Democrats control the Senate, they vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling.

It is a fact of life on Capitol Hill that the party in control of Congress bears the responsibility of raising the debt ceiling. That can become a difficult task when control of the House and Senate is split between Republicans and Democrats, as it is now. One might think it would make leaders who have voted along strictly partisan lines think twice before denouncing the other party as partisan. But it has not prevented Reid, Durbin, and Obama from doing just that.

POSTSCRIPT: Some readers have suggested that Reid's, Durbin's, and Obama's partisan votes were no different than the equal and opposite partisanship of Republicans. That's not the case. Look at the record of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the votes discussed above:

** On June 11, 2002, when Democrats were in control of the Senate and Reid and Durbin voted in favor of raising the debt limit, McConnell also voted in favor of raising the debt limit.

** On May 23, 2003; November 17, 2004; and March 16, 2006, with Republicans in control of the Senate, McConnell voted in favor of raising the debt limit.

** On September 27, 2007; July 26, 2008; and October 1, 2008, with Democrats back in control of the Senate, McConnell voted in favor of raising the debt limit.

** On February 13, 2009, McConnell voted against the stimulus, which included a debt limit increase. McConnell also voted against debt ceiling increases on December 24, 2009 and January 28, 2010.

As a whole, McConnell's voting record on debt ceiling increases does not hew to partisan lines as closely as Reid's, Durbin's, or Obama's.

Pelosi Goes Nuclear in House; Calls Boehner Darth Vader - Nancy Pelosi - Fox Nation

Pelosi Goes Nuclear in House; Calls Boehner Darth Vader - Nancy Pelosi - Fox Nation

Liberal Hate Speech - BernardGoldberg.com

Liberal Hate Speech - BernardGoldberg.com

Liberal Hate Speech



If we try real hard, maybe we’ll be able to detect a pattern developing here on how liberals elites are reacting to what they see as conservative Republican intransigence in the debt ceiling debate.
Let’s start with one of the elitist elites, Tom Friedman, star columnist at the New York Times, who compared the Tea Party to Middle East terrorists. “If sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst,” he wrote, “the Tea Party will take the G.O.P. on a suicide mission.”
Then there is fellow liberal elite journalist Peter Goodman who used to write about economics for the New York Times and is now business editor at the Huffington Post. He minced no words in a post (that was later toned down by higher-ups): “The same Republicans who have so eagerly prosecuted the war on terror, running up huge deficits in the process, are now behaving like the enemies on which they have squandered so much blood and treasure: They are acting like terrorists. Yes, terrorists.”

Or how about this guest column on Politico from William Yeomans, who teaches law at American University in Washington and used to work for Ted Kennedy: “It has become commonplace to call the tea party faction in the House ‘hostage takers.’ But they have now become full-blown terrorists.”
Have you spotted the pattern yet, Eisnstein?
Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg News was quite colorful on the syndicated TV talk show Inside Washington when she compared the Tea Party caucus in Congress to terrorists: “I mean, they’ve strapped explosives to the Capitol and they think they are immune from it.”
But Steve Rattner, the former “car czar” in the Obama administration who now opines on MSNBC respectfully disagrees with Ms. Carlson. The Tea Party caucus isn’t strapping explosives to the Capitol. No, they’re strapping explosives to themselves. Here’s what he said on Morning Joe: “I imagine these Tea Party guys are like strapped with dynamite, standing in the middle of Times Square at rush hour and saying, ‘either you do it my way, or we’re going to blow you up, ourselves up, and the whole country up with us.’”
And finally we have “I feel a thrill running up my leg” Chris Matthews on MSNBC who said, “Well, the GOP has become the Wahhabis of American government, willing to risk bringing down the whole country in the service of their anti-tax ideology.” You know the Wahhabis – the Muslim fundamentalists so often associated with hate.
Didn’t President Obama tell Americans to tone it down after the massacre at Tucson? Liberal elites, I guess, didn’t get the message.
But I think I know why they’re throwing the T word around so much these days. If I’m right, it’s because they got tired of throwing the R word around. It wasn’t that long ago that liberal elites, especially those in what passes for the mainstream media, used to call conservative Republicans “racist” over the slightest disagreement with Mr. Obama. Don’t like ObamaCare? You’re a racist! Don’t like spending nearly a trillion bucks on stimulus? You’re a racist!
But that got old. Nobody pays attention to that nonsense anymore. If you’re a racist just because you didn’t like President Obama’s worldwide apology tour, then what word should we use to describe skinheads and neo Nazis who moronically toss the N word around to describe not only our president but anyone who looks like him.
So the elites had to try something new to fill the void, like calling conservatives with whom they disagree on fiscal policy “terrorists.” It gives them the satisfaction they so desperately need now that “racism” has become passe.
There’s a term for this, you know. It’s called Liberal Hate Speech.

With 41 as a Killing #… - By Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner - National Review Online

With 41 as a Killing #… - By Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner - National Review Online

With 41 as a Killing #…

43 senators sign a letter opposing the Reid bill, telling the Senate Leader:

The only possible justification for a $2.4 trillion increase in borrowing authority is to allow the President to avoid any accountability for these issues before his 2012 election

More from the letter:

We are writing to let you know that we will not vote for your $2.4 trillion debt limit amendment which, if enacted, would result in the single largest debt ceiling increase in the history of the United States. In addition to this unprecedented increase in borrowing authority, your amendment completely fails to address our current fiscal imbalance and lacks any serious effort to ensure that any subsequent spending cuts are enacted.

The plan you have proposed would not alter the spending trajectory that is putting our economy and national security at risk. In return for an unprecedented $2.4 trillion debt limit increase, your amendment reduces spending by less than $1 trillion over the next decade. Setting aside the $200 billion shortfall between the CBO scored savings and the $2.4 trillion debt limit increase, identified by the Congressional Budget Office, most of the proposal’s alleged savings are based on a false claim of credit for reductions in war-related spending that were already scheduled to occur. This amendment proposes no change to our military posture and, for that reason, these savings are the sort of widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism about our ability to tackle our fiscal challenges. The only possible justification for a $2.4 trillion increase in borrowing authority is to allow the President to avoid any accountability for these issues before his 2012 election. It is by constantly putting off these tough decisions that we have found ourselves with a national debt nearly equal to the size of our gross domestic product. The time for action is now, we cannot wait until we accumulate another $2.4 trillion in debt.

For all of these reasons, we must oppose your unprecedented $2.4 trillion debt limit amendment. Given the nation’s enormous future spending challenges, it would be irresponsible to give the President this unprecedented additional borrowing authority without requiring the enactment of significant spending reductions and reforms. We urge you to abandon this reckless proposal and instead pursue a more responsible course of action that would rein in spending, reassure the financial markets, and help promote private sector job growth.

Pelosi Goes Nuclear in House; Calls Boehner Darth Vader - Nancy Pelosi - Fox Nation

Pelosi Goes Nuclear in House; Calls Boehner Darth Vader - Nancy Pelosi - Fox Nation

Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill - Washington Times

Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill - Washington Times


Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill

← return to Inside Politics

Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it's actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.

Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats' bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise.

"We would be happy to have that vote tonight," Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans' leader, offered.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.

He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn't insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist.

"There is now another filibuster. That's what this is. It's a filibuster to stop us from moving forward," he said.
Mr. Reid complained that if the House had been held to the same super majority rules the Senate often operates under, Republicans' proposal never would have passed over there earlier in the day.

Under the rules, to end a filibuster usually requires a vote be delayed until two days after the parliamentary motion is made. But the Senate this year has repeatedly set 60-vote thresholds and held the votes without the two-day delay.

For their part, Democrats pointed to reports back in April that showed Republicans themselves were thinking about not insisting on the 60-vote threshold. Those plans were scuttled when it became clear some in the GOP wanted to scrape for every inch in the fight.

In lieu of a Senate vote, House Republicans themselves will introduce and then vote to kill the Reid plan on Saturday afternoon as a way to try to force negotiations into the next phase.

Zero Private-Sector Jobs Created In Past 11 Years

Zero Private-Sector Jobs Created In Past 11 Years

Zero Private-Sector Jobs Created In Past 11 Years
By Jed Graham
Wed., Jan. 27, 2010 6:21 AM ET

It’s been pretty widely discussed that the past decade was a lost one for job creation. But focusing on private payrolls alone would also wipe out nearly all of the employment gains from 1999, among the better years on record.

Next Friday’s employment report comes with an annual benchmark revision that the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated would erase 855,000 private jobs (and add 31,000 government jobs).

Subtract that from the seasonally adjusted December payroll number of 108.44 million and that would leave just 107.59 million private payroll jobs. That’s the least since January 1999, when there were 107.40 million.

That’s prior to payroll changes in the current month, but an increase in private payrolls could be optimistic given that the 448,250 average level of initial jobless claims over the past four weeks is still pretty high.

If you then consider the jobs that don’t factor into the BLS payroll survey — farm jobs and the self-employed — the absence of private-sector job creation might stretch back a couple of additional months. According to the BLS household survey, farm jobs have been on a steady decline while the size of the self-employed population has budged very little.

There are a few interpretations. Those who don’t see a continuing jobless recovery make the case that payrolls have been cut to the bone and will spring back, at least somewhat, to keep pace with even modest demand growth.

An alternative perspective is that the nation’s job-creating machine is badly broken and needs to be repaired. But some might disagree whether a government or less-government solution is required.

What do you think?

Meanwhile, in case you were wondering, government jobs are up by 2.4 million since January 1999.

Update: Welcome Neal Boortz readers.


BLABBERMOUTH.NET - GOJIRA Drummer Talks Upcoming Album, 'Sea Shepherd' EP

BLABBERMOUTH.NET - GOJIRA Drummer Talks Upcoming Album, 'Sea Shepherd' EP

Friday, July 29, 2011

Silicon Valley Roller Girls

Silicon Valley Roller Girls

Federal Court Denies Petition To Bar Texas Governor From Prayer Rally : The Two-Way : NPR

Federal Court Denies Petition To Bar Texas Governor From Prayer Rally : The Two-Way : NPR

Sherman & Tingle Explain What Happened To Q101? | Q101 | Chicago's Alternative


Join us please. We are choosing to do what we do. This is independent Alternative Radio for Chicago. The World Famous Q101 LIVES at http://Q101.com
 
Please tell your friends on Facebook, Twitter...Jewel...Chipotle...WHEREVER!
 
Let's all row in the same direction and build THE BEST community in the history of radio online.  We'll make it as easy as we can. The apps will all soon be free. More Q101 streams are coming, and the Q101 Shows will live on!
 

Subject: Walking Eagle

Subject: Walking Eagle

President BARACK OBAMA was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago in upstate New York .

He spoke for almost an hour about his plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living. He referred to his time as a U.S. Senator and how he had voted for every Native American issue that came to the floor of the Senate.

Although President Obama was vague about the details of his plans, he seemed most enthusiastic and spoke eloquently about his ideas for helping his "red sisters and brothers."

At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented Obama with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name,
 "Walking Eagle."
The proud President Obama accepted the plaque and then departed in his motorcade to a fundraiser, waving to the crowds.

A news reporter later asked the group of chiefs how they came to select the new name they had given to the President.
They explained that "Walking Eagle" is the name given to a bird so full of shit it can no longer fly.

Senate Democrats

End This Crisis - John Boehner - National Review Online

End This Crisis - John Boehner - National Review Online

Cleric Fights Saudi Bid to Ban Child Marriages - WSJ.com

Cleric Fights Saudi Bid to Ban Child Marriages - WSJ.com

Gaga Takes the Plunge - Lady Gaga - Fox Nation

Gaga Takes the Plunge - Lady Gaga - Fox Nation

Blog - A Time for Democrats’ Choosing: Now It’s in Reid & Obama’s Court

Blog - A Time for Democrats’ Choosing: Now It’s in Reid & Obama’s Court

Sessions Slams Obama on Senate Floor: 'The President Thinks It's All About Him!' - Debt Crisis - Fox Nation

Sessions Slams Obama on Senate Floor: 'The President Thinks It's All About Him!' - Debt Crisis - Fox Nation

The Permanent Insurgency - By Michael Walsh - The Corner - National Review Online

The Permanent Insurgency - By Michael Walsh - The Corner - National Review Online

The Resignations in Turkey - By Victor Davis Hanson - The Corner - National Review Online


News that the top echelon of Turkey’s military offered their joint resignations is not much of a surprise, given ongoing politicized trials against particular officers, and the general acceptance that a secular military is at odds with an increasingly Islamicized government. But there will be lots of long-term ramifications. Turkey, as an historical window on the West, has been praised as about the only Middle East Islamic nation that accepted democracy without foreign imposition, and is often referenced as proof that there is nothing antithetical between constitutional government and a resurgent Islamism.
But with such departures of secular officers, the message grows more complicated and may be that if a high-ranking military official is Islamist, the way to advancement is assured; while the old secular path leads nowhere. Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah seem to be more the eventual models, in which the military becomes a protector of Islam and ensures that the armed forces serve rather than prevent the insidious religious take-over of social institutions. Elections without strong independent judiciaries, constitutional protections of human rights, and freedom of unfettered expression and dissent mean little. In Turkey’s case, Erdogan brilliantly has curbed civil liberties and attacked the military under the guise of ensuring that a traditionally interventionist and secular defense establishment respects the verdict of elections, and he acts with the confidence that results from a rather strong economy under his leadership.
At some point, an ambitious Turkey, its military and government now in sync as in past Ottoman fashion, will reassert its prior influence in the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean without too much worry over what a NATO rendered impotent in Libya, an imploding European Union, or a nearly insolvent U.S. might say. Greece — without money or many friends these days — should be worried, both over the unresolved tensions in Cyprus and over disputed areas in the Aegean. If Turkey pressed a bit, what would it have to worry about? A Germany angry over treatment shown its friend Greece? An ascendant and powerful NATO as evidenced through its brilliant air campaign against Qaddafi? A strong and assertive U.S. as shown by reset diplomacy over the last three years, and the financial health of America?
Israel too should be concerned. Turkey increasingly lends financial and spiritual support to the anti-Israeli coalition, and sees such frontline activism in line with a long tradition of uniting the Arab world behind one-world Islamism, directed from Istanbul. I think we are beginning to see the outlines of reset U.S. retrenchment as regional powers reassert influence in their respective spheres of influence. In short, I don’t think Turkey in the future is going to pay much attention to what the EU, NATO, or the U.S. has to say about its particular relationships with an Iran, Israel, Iraq, or Syria.

White House Prodding Rating Agencies to Endorse Reid Plan: Report

Thursday, July 28, 2011

All Shall Perish - Black Gold Reign Lyrics

All Shall Perish - Black Gold Reign Lyrics

Will they see?
Will they hear?
Will they see this?
Will they feel this?
Will they hear the voice of resistance or will they bring us down for their bloodshed?
Trade us all 'til black gold rains
Fought this fight, there's no end in sight except for our rights
Will they blind us all?
"Be all that you can be"
Forever in vain, our wasted beliefs
Erase the truth
So with that fall from grace will they burn it all down in an emphatic
Fading away
Fading away
To this time
To when we began
Forever from cleansing the blood on our hands
Release the truth
Destroyed in anguish, another million faceless
And I wish we had eyes to view our demise
Tomorrow, together we rise
With their fallen disguise we must hunt the despised
Thieves; high class murderers
They can't taste this anger that flows through our veins
A separation of our own god damned nation that lets us die
Leaders that follow a golden tomorrow
They bleed us dry
We let them rise

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

TRANSCRIPT: WH spokesman struggles to explain why Obama hasn't released detailed plan | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

TRANSCRIPT: WH spokesman struggles to explain why Obama hasn't released detailed plan | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

Texas Lawmaker Calls for Congressional Probe Into Ban of Christian Prayers at Military Funerals - FoxNews.com

Texas Lawmaker Calls for Congressional Probe Into Ban of Christian Prayers at Military Funerals - FoxNews.com

Freedom of Religion, Violation

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
By David Hogberg
Sun., March 21, 2010 3:24 PM ET

With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a county where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. UPDATE: Taxing cosmetic surgery was part of the final bill (section 10907). However, it was replaced by a later section of the bill that taxes tanning salons (section 10907). So, If you get a tan at a tanning salon, you will pay an additional 10% tax. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough.

A Step Forward, but a Long Journey Remains - By Paul Ryan - The Corner - National Review Online

A Step Forward, but a Long Journey Remains - By Paul Ryan - The Corner - National Review Online

Debt chess match in Congress - POLITICO.com Print View

Debt chess match in Congress - POLITICO.com Print View

The Unchecked Power of the NLRB and Big Labor | RedState

The Unchecked Power of the NLRB and Big Labor | RedState

Professor Obama lectures on debt crisis: He has many ideas, but no answers

Professor Obama lectures on debt crisis: He has many ideas, but no answers

The Associated Press: Prosecutors ask to cut sentence of Muslim activist

The Associated Press: Prosecutors ask to cut sentence of Muslim activist

Rule of Cool - Television Tropes & Idioms

Rule of Cool - Television Tropes & Idioms

America Rocks at Killing Zombies | Ology

America Rocks at Killing Zombies | Ology

Monday, July 25, 2011

Louisiana Couple Sued by Homeowners' Association Over Banner Honoring Son's Military Service - FoxNews.com

Louisiana Couple Sued by Homeowners' Association Over Banner Honoring Son's Military Service - FoxNews.com

Program Offers Cash Incentives To Live Downtown « CBS Detroit

Program Offers Cash Incentives To Live Downtown « CBS Detroit

William F. Buckley, Jr.

"Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples’ money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people’s freedom and security."
-- William F. Buckley, Jr.

We May Not Be Broke on Aug. 2 After All - FoxBusiness.com

We May Not Be Broke on Aug. 2 After All - FoxBusiness.com

Dennis Miller Radio: Rants - Dems Hate Losing to the Squares

Dennis Miller Radio: Rants - Dems Hate Losing to the Squares

Dennis Miller tells the Dems that spending less won't be as bad as they think

Republicans Make Gains With Latino Candidates : NPR

Republicans Make Gains With Latino Candidates : NPR

Singing Talent in Astrology

Singing Talent in Astrology

Singing Talent in Astrology

Posted: Jun 15, 2011 |Comments: 0 |

There is a word in English that everybody loves music and flower for enhancing his/her mood. It is impossible to become a singer of reputation and fame unless and until there is talent of such affair in the singer concerned.

According to astrology it is noticed that whether such talent lies in the native or not. Singing is an art and such talent automatically flourish to the person concerned for establishment in
life.

Factors influencing singing talent:

  • Moon: deep feeling and emotions
  • Venus: love for music
  • 2nd house/5th house: significator of singing talent
  • 3rd house: vocal capabilities
  • 10th house: indicates reputation of the native
  • 11th house: success and achievements of life.

Different astrological combinations for a good singer:

  • Those who are familiar singers have Moon and Venus either in 2nd, 5th, and 10th house, own house, exaltation etc, otherwise they cannot become a singer at all.
  • The 2nd house rules speech, if placement or lordship of ascendant and 2nd house is benefice in nature the native will be a great singer.
  • 2nd house in an airy sign indicates vocalist.
  • If in a horoscope 2nd house is strong and Venus is related to 10th house, indicates singing profession.
  • 3rd house indicates quality of voice, so benefice planets placed in 3rd house/ascendant or theirs lords are benefice in nature indicates excellent singing skills.
  • Taurus as the lord of ascendant indicates natural inclination for singing.
  • Venus placed in 3rd house, benefice planet/s placed in 2nd house and if lord of 3rd house is a benefice planet and posited in 4th house indicates a very successful singer who will get a huge name and fame due to his singing talent.
  • In Virgo ascendant, if Mercury is placed in it owns sign/ ascendant; Venus is placed in 2nd/9th house; Mars placed in 3rd house or aspects the 3rd house indicates an enormously successful singing profession.
  • In Cancer ascendant if Moon is strong and Sun and Mercury combined in 2nd or 3rd house the native will be a famous singer.
  • In Libra ascendant strong Venus placed in ascendant indicates success in singing line, if Jupiter and Mars are also favourably placed in this ascendant indicates huge fame and money received from this profession.
  • In Pisces ascendant, if Jupiter is favourable; a benefice planet / Mars placed in 2nd house and Venus is also favourably placed indicates a successful singer.

BY

GEETA JHA SPIRITUAL HEALER]

INDIA


Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/astrology-articles/singing-talent-in-astrology-4907694.html#ixzz1T5g6BP8i
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution No Derivatives

Twitter

-view CSL mobile version -



Webring Translator Thingamajig