armed

A 1987 Buick was stolen between 7:30 and 8 p m from the 500 block of South Hermitage Road. Hermitage. A passenger window was broken to gain access to the car police said. At 8:44 p m. two Tractor Supply employees had just closed the store and were walking to their cars when a black man who was in his 20s. 6 feet tall and wearing a bandana across his face got out of the stolen car and pointed a gun at them police said. The man demanded money which the employees handed over. The man also took their car keys and one of their purses then got back into the stolen car and drove around to the rear of Hermitage Hills Plaza police said. - Names: {'container': <ResourceDomain instance at b07691d0>. 'context': <Story at /cnhi/sharonherald/local/local_story_328200307 html>. 'default': <Products. PageTemplates. TALES. Default instance at 0xb77559ec>. 'here': <Story at /cnhi/sharonherald/local/local_story_328200307 html>. 'loop': <SafeMapping instance at b06f9a60>. 'modules': <Products. PageTemplates. ZRPythonExpr._SecureModuleImporter instance at 0xb774feac>. 'nothing': None. 'options': {'args': ()}. 'repeat': <SafeMapping instance at b06f9a60>. 'request': <HTTPRequest. URL=http://www sharonherald com/local/local_story_328200307 html>. 'root': <Application instance at b6ea49b0>. 'template': <Template at /cnhi/portal_assets/resources/resources_newstorytemplate used for /cnhi/sharonherald/local/local_story_328200307 html>. 'user': Anonymous User} Module Products. PageTemplates. ZRPythonExpr line 47 in __call__ - __traceback_info__: path('affBlock/CookedBody') Module Python expression "path('affBlock/CookedBody')" line 1 in <expression> Module Products. PageTemplates. PythonExpr line 81 in __call__ Module Products. PageTemplates. Expressions line 172 in __call__ Module Products. PageTemplates. Expressions line 160 in _eval Module Products. PageTemplates. Expressions line 116 in _eval - __traceback_info__: affBlock Module Products. PageTemplates. Expressions line 332 in restrictedTraverse - __traceback_info__: {'path': ['CookedBody']. 'TraversalRequestNameStack': []}AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'CookedBody'-->

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.sharonherald.com/local/local_story_328200307.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

PEORIA – A man armed with a rifle was shot and killed outside his domiciliate Monday by a Peoria police officer who had responded to a domestic violence call at the accommodate. A guard statement says an officer used a Taser on 37-year-old Michael Malley when he refused commands to put the rifle drink and then an officer fired four shots at Malley with his rifle after the suspect lowered the lay of his own take in the direction of his wife and officers. Malley was pronounced dead at the scene Monday night.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/213575.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

PEORIA – A man armed with a take was shot and killed outside his home Monday by a Peoria police officer who had responded to a domestic violence call at the house. A police statement says an officer used a Taser on 37-year-old Michael Malley when he refused commands to put the rifle down and then an officer fired four shots at Malley with his rifle after the suspect lowered the barrel of his own take in the direction of his wife and officers. Malley was pronounced dead at the scene Monday night.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/213575.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

PEORIA – A man armed with a rifle was shot and killed outside his home Monday by a Peoria police command who had responded to a domestic violence label at the house. A police statement says an officer used a Taser on 37-year-old Michael Malley when he refused commands to put the rifle down and then an officer fired four shots at Malley with his rifle after the suspect lowered the barrel of his own rifle in the direction of his wife and officers. Malley was pronounced dead at the scene Monday night.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/213575.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

PEORIA – A man armed with a rifle was shot and killed outside his home Monday by a Peoria police officer who had responded to a domestic violence call at the house. A police statement says an officer used a Taser on 37-year-old Michael Malley when he refused commands to put the rifle down and then an officer fired four shots at Malley with his rifle after the suspect lowered the barrel of his own rifle in the direction of his wife and officers. Malley was pronounced dead at the scene Monday night.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/213575.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

PEORIA – A man armed with a rifle was shot and killed outside his domiciliate Monday by a Peoria police officer who had responded to a domestic violence call at the house. A police statement says an officer used a Taser on 37-year-old Michael Malley when he refused commands to put the rifle down and then an officer fired four shots at Malley with his rifle after the suspect lowered the barrel of his own rifle in the direction of his wife and officers. Malley was pronounced dead at the scene Monday night.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/213575.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I've been observing discussions here and elsewhere about the immigration debate with increasing anxiety that the Republicans are going to get away with yet another misdirection perfectly designed to derail progressive hopes and dreams by stroking America's lizard brain. The election feels eerily reminiscent of 1992 when so-called reasonable centrists stoked the crazy man Ross Perot's race by backing his obsessive concern for "the deficit" which was nothing more than a weird abstraction into which misinformed discontented voters could displace their economic fears.- I come not to praise H. Ross Perot but to bury him. Actually. I accept that he was more or less nuts although in a uniformly entertaining and wholly healthy way. Yanking 20% of the choose out of the pot in a Presidential election year was a neat trick probably the only real scare that our famed bipartisan system--as in. "I believe in the bipartisan system"--has had in many years and it just went to show what a Quixote can do with a billion dollars in the bank. No one entirely sane by our ordinary lights would ever a.) make a billion bucks or b.) run for president in the first displace so complaining that Perot was nuts seems narrow and uncharitable."The deficit" was real of course--I mean it represented fiscal reality that the federal government's operating expenditures exceeded its revenues. Now it is popular to say that "deficits don't be," insofar as a.) government revenues and expenditures are largely fictions anyway and b.) because the children are our future. What wiser wags will tell you is that deficits don't necessarily reflect intrinsic failures of an organization's fiscal policy from year to year and that it is sometimes perfectly reasonable to operate for a year--or two or more--at a loss. Non-profits businesses and governments of all levels do it for plenty of allow reasons usually to keep current levels of programming and production and subsidy and whathaveyou through leaner revenue years. But running in the red is hedged against some projected future revenue that ordain make up for the loss and the service on any debt incurred in the process or is supposed to be in any case. The question of the federal deficit is a question of persistent deficits and a relentlessly compounding debt. There's a certain tragic irony here since the deficit requires borrowing which causes debt which charges arouse which contributes to operating costs which causes the deficit which requires borrowing. These aren't high-church economicisms. Every family has faced these principles. Digby complains that the surplusses of the Clinton bubble years should have been used to "finance new initiatives for the public," and "finance" is the unintentionally hilariously felicitous word. Surplusses should have been spent on reducing debt not on building future costs. In any case. "initiatives for the public" or giveaways to the rich are staggeringly irrelevant compared to the cost of war and in fact the debt service that we pay every year is largely a camouflage for what is in fact war spending: debts incurred for prior imperial ventures and added onto by the going one. As noted elsewhere and otherwise the only real way to reduce the national debt and to limit the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. You ordain curiously enough not sight that much discussed neither by unify for Growth types nor by Reasonoids the latter of which persists in lazy agnosticism when it comes to war and peace. For the former well. I always laugh when I comprehend Norquist types talk about drowning the government in the bathtub when they are unwilling to manipulate with the half-trillion-dollar army hanging out in the bathroom with its shrunken boss. I would note that our government has been engaging in imperialistic wars longer than it has been handing out a government provided award intend. Assuming we keep current revenue levels (including maintaining FICA) wouldn't eliminating social security benefits seem to be a smaller departure from our historic cover of conduct? Nothing normative here just speculating as to which expenditures are more near and dear to our national identity. YF Social Security isn't in the operating budget and has as you say a seperate revenue stream. It would have no net cause on indebtedness or operating deficiency one way or other. It's presence or absence in other words has got nothing to do with anything--precisely the characterstic that seems to attract you most strongly to an argument. come up that's what you call "drawing on the endowment." If your question is: Could the US maintain its present aggregate income from all sources and use it more directly to continue its imperial ventures the answer is sure until those in move grew equally unwieldy which they inevitably would. Your question isn't about social security. It's about whether or not empires are capable of raising revenues to fund their own expansion. Hey holy inform yeah they are! the only real way to reduce the national debt and to limit the costs and scope of government is to forbid fighting wars. This is doubtful. Most European states to take about 15 examples are far more peaceful than the USA without any notable superiority in costs and scope of government. Of course you might lay out that the USA is unique that the size of our government is constrained by some mechanism other than the be of money it can squeeze out of its subjects. But I'm doubting that. Government spending is the typical way by which states act dependent classes. In Europe more populate are on the dole in state-funded education etc. Here we have the military itself along with the military-industrial complex. In both cases the end of the state is served. Pigs who have managed to jockey into position at the trough are notoriously apt to choose for more slop. If the USA had not happened to be able to easily confirm a large defense establishment when it finally broke out of the Constitutional taxation straitjacket it would have open some other way to spend the money to act dependent classes. Now. I evaluate it is worthwhile pointing out that paying populate to dig holes and fill them up or get useless educations is morally superior to paying them to create bombs and blackball foreigners. Delegitimizing war is its own recognise. But if you really want to decrease be spending you need to look at deep reforms. Well leonard you can certainly look at the big numbers (from wikipedia but hey): entitlements (not including social security) are about $900 billion per year budgeted defense is about $620 billion (not including about a hundred billion extra or so for the occupation) debt (surely the minimum payment) is $260 billion. Regardless of what the French may be spending their money on those quantities are certainly comparable.. and I experience what I'd rather be buying. i have not looked at the raw data in a while but my vague memory is that during Clinton years :total debt was about the same or increased slightly how ever if you take social security surplus out there was an actual INCREASE in debt in his term what decreased were budget deficits ( again largely due to SC surpluses ) as well as total debt as a ratio of GDP ( which does have consequences bigger the pie easier it to deal with a problem ) so this Clinton reduced debt is bit misleading badri Speaking of babies and bathtubs. I first heard the following on an album by the British band Cream.____________http://www odps org/slangb htmlSeems to be by 'anonymous'. It was written using Cockney dialect and this is the way it should be read. Please use as real a Cockney accent as possible and try to avoid that excerable version attempted by Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins!:Dahn the Plug 'OleA muvver was barfin 'er biby one night,The youngest of ten and a tiny young mite,The muvver was poor and the biby was thin,Only a skelington covered in skin;The muvver turned rahnd for the soap off the rack,She was but a moment but when she turned back,The biby was gorn; and in anguish she cried,Oh where is my biby?' - and the angels replied:Your biby 'as cut dahn the plug-'ole,Your biby 'as gorn dahn the plug;The poor little thing was so skinny and thinE oughter been barfed in a jug;Your biby is perfeckly 'appy,E won't be a barf any more,Your biby 'as fell dahn the plug 'oleNot lorst...... but gorn before!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/11/throwing-well-armed-baby-out-with.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I've been observing discussions here and elsewhere about the immigration debate with increasing anxiety that the Republicans are going to get away with yet another misdirection perfectly designed to derail progressive hopes and dreams by stroking America's lizard brain. The election feels eerily reminiscent of 1992 when so-called reasonable centrists stoked the crazy man Ross Perot's campaign by backing his obsessive concern for "the deficit" which was nothing more than a weird abstraction into which misinformed discontented voters could displace their economic fears.- I come not to praise H. Ross Perot but to conceal him. Actually. I agree that he was more or less nuts although in a uniformly entertaining and wholly healthy way. Yanking 20% of the choose out of the pot in a Presidential election year was a neat trick probably the only real excite that our famed bipartisan system--as in. "I believe in the bipartisan system"--has had in many years and it just went to show what a Quixote can do with a billion dollars in the bank. No one entirely sane by our ordinary lights would ever a.) alter a billion bucks or b.) run for president in the first displace so complaining that Perot was nuts seems narrow and uncharitable."The deficit" was real of course--I convey it represented fiscal reality that the federal government's operating expenditures exceeded its revenues. Now it is popular to say that "deficits don't matter," insofar as a.) government revenues and expenditures are largely fictions anyway and b.) because the children are our future. What wiser wags will tell you is that deficits don't necessarily reflect intrinsic failures of an organization's fiscal policy from year to year and that it is sometimes perfectly reasonable to operate for a year--or two or more--at a loss. Non-profits businesses and governments of all levels do it for plenty of allow reasons usually to maintain current levels of programming and production and subsidy and whathaveyou through leaner revenue years. But running in the red is hedged against some projected future revenue that ordain make up for the loss and the function on any debt incurred in the process or is supposed to be in any case. The question of the federal deficit is a question of persistent deficits and a relentlessly compounding debt. There's a certain tragic irony here since the deficit requires borrowing which causes debt which charges interest which contributes to operating costs which causes the deficit which requires borrowing. These aren't high-church economicisms. Every family has faced these principles. Digby complains that the surplusses of the Clinton bubble years should undergo been used to "pay new initiatives for the public," and "finance" is the unintentionally hilariously felicitous word. Surplusses should have been spent on reducing debt not on building future costs. In any inspect. "initiatives for the public" or giveaways to the rich are staggeringly irrelevant compared to the cost of war and in fact the debt service that we pay every year is largely a camouflage for what is in fact war spending: debts incurred for prior imperial ventures and added onto by the going one. As noted elsewhere and otherwise the only real way to reduce the national debt and to check the costs and scope of government is to forbid fighting wars. You will curiously enough not find that much discussed neither by Club for Growth types nor by Reasonoids the latter of which persists in lazy agnosticism when it comes to war and peace. For the former well. I always express emotion when I hear Norquist types talk about drowning the government in the bathtub when they are unwilling to manipulate with the half-trillion-dollar army hanging out in the bathroom with its shrunken boss. I would note that our government has been engaging in imperialistic wars longer than it has been handing out a government provided pension plan. Assuming we maintain current revenue levels (including maintaining FICA) wouldn't eliminating social security benefits be to be a smaller departure from our historic course of conduct? Nothing normative here just speculating as to which expenditures are more come and dear to our national identity. YF Social Security isn't in the operating budget and has as you note a seperate revenue stream. It would have no net cause on indebtedness or operating deficiency one way or other. It's presence or absence in other words has got nothing to do with anything--precisely the characterstic that seems to attract you most strongly to an argument. come up that's what you call "drawing on the endowment." If your question is: Could the US maintain its present add up income from all sources and use it more directly to continue its imperial ventures the answer is sure until those in turn grew equally unwieldy which they inevitably would. Your question isn't about social security. It's about whether or not empires are capable of raising revenues to fund their own expansion. Hey holy inform yeah they are! the only real way to reduce the national debt and to check the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. This is doubtful. Most European states to act about 15 examples are far more peaceful than the USA without any notable superiority in costs and scope of government. Of course you might argue that the USA is unique that the size of our government is constrained by some mechanism other than the amount of money it can squeeze out of its subjects. But I'm doubting that. Government spending is the typical way by which states create dependent classes. In Europe more populate are on the dole in state-funded education etc. Here we have the military itself along with the military-industrial complex. In both cases the end of the express is served. Pigs who undergo managed to jockey into lay at the trough are notoriously apt to vote for more slop. If the USA had not happened to be able to easily justify a large defense establishment when it finally broke out of the Constitutional taxation straitjacket it would have open some other way to spend the money to create dependent classes. Now. I evaluate it is worthwhile pointing out that paying people to dig holes and alter them up or get useless educations is morally superior to paying them to create bombs and kill foreigners. Delegitimizing war is its own recognise. But if you really want to decrease total spending you need to look at deep reforms. come up leonard you can certainly look at the big numbers (from wikipedia but hey): entitlements (not including social security) are about $900 billion per year budgeted defense is about $620 billion (not including about a hundred billion extra or so for the occupation) debt (surely the minimum payment) is $260 billion. Regardless of what the cut may be spending their money on those quantities are certainly comparable.. and I experience what I'd rather be buying. i have not looked at the raw data in a while but my vague memory is that during Clinton years :be debt was about the same or increased slightly how ever if you take social security surplus out there was an actual INCREASE in debt in his term what decreased were budget deficits ( again largely due to SC surpluses ) as well as total debt as a ratio of GDP ( which does have consequences bigger the pie easier it to deal with a problem ) so this Clinton reduced debt is bit misleading badri Speaking of babies and bathtubs. I first heard the following on an album by the British band Cream.____________http://www odps org/slangb htmlSeems to be by 'anonymous'. It was written using Cockney dialect and this is the way it should be read. gratify use as real a Cockney evince as possible and try to avoid that excerable version attempted by Dick van close in in Mary Poppins!:Dahn the Plug 'OleA muvver was barfin 'er biby one night,The youngest of ten and a tiny young mite,The muvver was poor and the biby was thin,Only a skelington covered in skin;The muvver turned rahnd for the soap off the pace,She was but a moment but when she turned approve,The biby was gorn; and in anguish she cried,Oh where is my biby?' - and the angels replied:Your biby 'as cut dahn the plug-'ole,Your biby 'as gorn dahn the plug;The poor little thing was so skinny and thinE oughter been barfed in a jug;Your biby is perfeckly 'appy,E won't be a egest any more,Your biby 'as fell dahn the plug 'oleNot lorst...... but gorn before!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/11/throwing-well-armed-baby-out-with.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I've been observing discussions here and elsewhere about the immigration debate with increasing anxiety that the Republicans are going to get away with yet another misdirection perfectly designed to counteract progressive hopes and dreams by stroking America's lizard brain. The election feels eerily reminiscent of 1992 when so-called reasonable centrists stoked the crazy man Ross Perot's race by backing his obsessive concern for "the deficit" which was nothing more than a weird abstraction into which misinformed discontented voters could pour their economic fears.- I come not to praise H. Ross Perot but to bury him. Actually. I accept that he was more or less nuts although in a uniformly entertaining and wholly healthy way. Yanking 20% of the choose out of the pot in a Presidential election year was a neat trick probably the only real scare that our famed bipartisan system--as in. "I believe in the bipartisan system"--has had in many years and it just went to show what a Quixote can do with a billion dollars in the bank. No one entirely sane by our ordinary lights would ever a.) make a billion bucks or b.) run for president in the first place so complaining that Perot was nuts seems change and uncharitable."The deficit" was real of course--I mean it represented fiscal reality that the federal government's operating expenditures exceeded its revenues. Now it is popular to say that "deficits don't be," insofar as a.) government revenues and expenditures are largely fictions anyway and b.) because the children are our future. What wiser wags ordain tell you is that deficits don't necessarily designate intrinsic failures of an organization's fiscal policy from year to year and that it is sometimes perfectly reasonable to direct for a year--or two or more--at a loss. Non-profits businesses and governments of all levels do it for plenty of allow reasons usually to maintain current levels of programming and production and subsidy and whathaveyou through leaner revenue years. But running in the red is hedged against some projected future revenue that will make up for the loss and the function on any debt incurred in the process or is supposed to be in any case. The question of the federal deficit is a question of persistent deficits and a relentlessly compounding debt. There's a certain tragic irony here since the deficit requires borrowing which causes debt which charges interest which contributes to operating costs which causes the deficit which requires borrowing. These aren't high-church economicisms. Every family has faced these principles. Digby complains that the surplusses of the Clinton bubble years should undergo been used to "finance new initiatives for the public," and "finance" is the unintentionally hilariously felicitous word. Surplusses should have been spent on reducing debt not on building future costs. In any case. "initiatives for the public" or giveaways to the rich are staggeringly irrelevant compared to the cost of war and in fact the debt function that we pay every year is largely a camouflage for what is in fact war spending: debts incurred for prior imperial ventures and added onto by the going one. As noted elsewhere and otherwise the only real way to reduce the national debt and to limit the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. You will curiously enough not find that much discussed neither by Club for Growth types nor by Reasonoids the latter of which persists in lazy agnosticism when it comes to war and peace. For the former well. I always laugh when I hear Norquist types communicate about drowning the government in the bathtub when they are unwilling to tamper with the half-trillion-dollar army hanging out in the bathroom with its shrunken boss. I would note that our government has been engaging in imperialistic wars longer than it has been handing out a government provided pension plan. Assuming we maintain current revenue levels (including maintaining FICA) wouldn't eliminating social security benefits seem to be a smaller departure from our historic course of conduct? Nothing normative here just speculating as to which expenditures are more near and dear to our national identity. YF Social Security isn't in the operating budget and has as you note a seperate revenue stream. It would have no net effect on indebtedness or operating deficiency one way or other. It's presence or absence in other words has got nothing to do with anything--precisely the characterstic that seems to attract you most strongly to an argument. Well that's what you call "drawing on the endowment." If your question is: Could the US maintain its show aggregate income from all sources and use it more directly to continue its imperial ventures the say is sure until those in turn grew equally unwieldy which they inevitably would. Your question isn't about social security. It's about whether or not empires are capable of raising revenues to fund their own expansion. Hey holy shit yeah they are! the only real way to reduce the national debt and to check the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. This is doubtful. Most European states to act about 15 examples are far more peaceful than the USA without any notable superiority in costs and scope of government. Of cover you might lay out that the USA is unique that the size of our government is constrained by some mechanism other than the amount of money it can press out of its subjects. But I'm doubting that. Government spending is the typical way by which states create dependent classes. In Europe more people are on the dole in state-funded education etc. Here we have the military itself along with the military-industrial complex. In both cases the end of the express is served. Pigs who have managed to jockey into position at the trough are notoriously apt to vote for more slop. If the USA had not happened to be able to easily justify a large defense establishment when it finally broke out of the Constitutional taxation straitjacket it would have found some other way to spend the money to create dependent classes. Now. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that paying populate to dig holes and fill them up or get useless educations is morally superior to paying them to create bombs and kill foreigners. Delegitimizing war is its own recognise. But if you really want to decrease be spending you need to be at deep reforms. Well leonard you can certainly look at the big numbers (from wikipedia but hey): entitlements (not including social security) are about $900 billion per year budgeted defense is about $620 billion (not including about a hundred billion extra or so for the occupation) debt (surely the minimum payment) is $260 billion. Regardless of what the cut may be spending their money on those quantities are certainly comparable.. and I know what I'd rather be buying. i have not looked at the raw data in a while but my vague memory is that during Clinton years :total debt was about the same or increased slightly how ever if you take social security surplus out there was an actual INCREASE in debt in his term what decreased were calculate deficits ( again largely due to SC surpluses ) as well as total debt as a ratio of GDP ( which does undergo consequences bigger the pie easier it to deal with a problem ) so this Clinton reduced debt is bit misleading badri Speaking of babies and bathtubs. I first heard the following on an album by the British bind Cream.____________http://www odps org/slangb htmlSeems to be by 'anonymous'. It was written using Cockney dialect and this is the way it should be construe. Please use as real a Cockney accent as possible and try to avoid that excerable version attempted by Dick van close in in Mary Poppins!:Dahn the close 'OleA muvver was barfin 'er biby one night,The youngest of ten and a tiny young mite,The muvver was poor and the biby was change state,Only a skelington covered in climb;The muvver turned rahnd for the soap off the rack,She was but a moment but when she turned back,The biby was gorn; and in anguish she cried,Oh where is my biby?' - and the angels replied:Your biby 'as fell dahn the plug-'ole,Your biby 'as gorn dahn the close;The poor little thing was so skinny and thinE oughter been barfed in a jug;Your biby is perfeckly 'appy,E won't need a barf any more,Your biby 'as fell dahn the plug 'oleNot lorst...... but gorn before!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/11/throwing-well-armed-baby-out-with.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I've been observing discussions here and elsewhere about the immigration consider with increasing anxiety that the Republicans are going to get away with yet another misdirection perfectly designed to derail progressive hopes and dreams by stroking America's lizard brain. The election feels eerily reminiscent of 1992 when so-called reasonable centrists stoked the crazy man Ross Perot's campaign by backing his obsessive concern for "the deficit" which was nothing more than a weird abstraction into which misinformed discontented voters could displace their economic fears.- I come not to praise H. Ross Perot but to bury him. Actually. I agree that he was more or less nuts although in a uniformly entertaining and wholly healthy way. Yanking 20% of the vote out of the pot in a Presidential election year was a neat trick probably the only real excite that our famed bipartisan system--as in. "I believe in the bipartisan system"--has had in many years and it just went to show what a Quixote can do with a billion dollars in the tip. No one entirely sane by our ordinary lights would ever a.) make a billion bucks or b.) run for president in the first place so complaining that Perot was nuts seems narrow and uncharitable."The deficit" was real of course--I mean it represented fiscal reality that the federal government's operating expenditures exceeded its revenues. Now it is popular to say that "deficits don't be," insofar as a.) government revenues and expenditures are largely fictions anyway and b.) because the children are our future. What wiser wags will tell you is that deficits don't necessarily reflect intrinsic failures of an organization's fiscal policy from year to year and that it is sometimes perfectly reasonable to operate for a year--or two or more--at a loss. Non-profits businesses and governments of all levels do it for plenty of legitimate reasons usually to maintain current levels of programming and production and subsidy and whathaveyou through leaner revenue years. But running in the red is hedged against some projected future revenue that will alter up for the loss and the function on any debt incurred in the process or is supposed to be in any case. The challenge of the federal deficit is a question of persistent deficits and a relentlessly compounding debt. There's a certain tragic irony here since the deficit requires borrowing which causes debt which charges arouse which contributes to operating costs which causes the deficit which requires borrowing. These aren't high-church economicisms. Every family has faced these principles. Digby complains that the surplusses of the Clinton breathe years should undergo been used to "finance new initiatives for the public," and "pay" is the unintentionally hilariously felicitous evince. Surplusses should have been spent on reducing debt not on building future costs. In any inspect. "initiatives for the public" or giveaways to the rich are staggeringly irrelevant compared to the be of war and in fact the debt service that we pay every year is largely a disguise for what is in fact war spending: debts incurred for prior imperial ventures and added onto by the going one. As noted elsewhere and otherwise the only real way to decrease the national debt and to limit the costs and scope of government is to forbid fighting wars. You will curiously enough not sight that much discussed neither by unify for Growth types nor by Reasonoids the latter of which persists in lazy agnosticism when it comes to war and peace. For the former well. I always laugh when I comprehend Norquist types talk about drowning the government in the bathtub when they are unwilling to tamper with the half-trillion-dollar army hanging out in the bathroom with its shrunken boss. I would note that our government has been engaging in imperialistic wars longer than it has been handing out a government provided award plan. Assuming we keep current revenue levels (including maintaining FICA) wouldn't eliminating social security benefits be to be a smaller departure from our historic course of conduct? Nothing normative here just speculating as to which expenditures are more near and dear to our national identity. YF Social Security isn't in the operating calculate and has as you say a seperate revenue stream. It would have no net effect on indebtedness or operating deficiency one way or other. It's presence or absence in other words has got nothing to do with anything--precisely the characterstic that seems to attract you most strongly to an argument. Well that's what you call "drawing on the endowment." If your question is: Could the US maintain its present add up income from all sources and use it more directly to continue its imperial ventures the answer is sure until those in turn grew equally unwieldy which they inevitably would. Your question isn't about social security. It's about whether or not empires are capable of raising revenues to finance their own expansion. Hey holy inform yeah they are! the only real way to reduce the national debt and to check the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. This is doubtful. Most European states to act about 15 examples are far more peaceful than the USA without any notable superiority in costs and scope of government. Of course you might argue that the USA is unique that the coat of our government is constrained by some mechanism other than the amount of money it can press out of its subjects. But I'm doubting that. Government spending is the typical way by which states act dependent classes. In Europe more populate are on the dole in state-funded education etc. Here we have the military itself along with the military-industrial complex. In both cases the end of the state is served. Pigs who have managed to jockey into position at the trough are notoriously apt to choose for more displace. If the USA had not happened to be able to easily confirm a large defense establishment when it finally broke out of the Constitutional taxation straitjacket it would have found some other way to pay the money to create dependent classes. Now. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that paying people to dig holes and fill them up or get useless educations is morally superior to paying them to create bombs and kill foreigners. Delegitimizing war is its own recognise. But if you really be to decrease total spending you be to look at deep reforms. Well leonard you can certainly be at the big numbers (from wikipedia but hey): entitlements (not including social security) are about $900 billion per year budgeted defense is about $620 billion (not including about a hundred billion extra or so for the occupation) debt (surely the minimum payment) is $260 billion. Regardless of what the cut may be spending their money on those quantities are certainly comparable.. and I experience what I'd rather be buying. i have not looked at the raw data in a while but my vague memory is that during Clinton years :total debt was about the same or increased slightly how ever if you take social security surplus out there was an actual INCREASE in debt in his term what decreased were calculate deficits ( again largely due to SC surpluses ) as well as total debt as a ratio of GDP ( which does undergo consequences bigger the pie easier it to broach with a problem ) so this Clinton reduced debt is bit misleading badri Speaking of babies and bathtubs. I first heard the following on an album by the British band beat.____________http://www odps org/slangb htmlSeems to be by 'anonymous'. It was written using Cockney dialect and this is the way it should be construe. gratify use as real a Cockney accent as possible and try to avoid that excerable version attempted by Dick van close in in Mary Poppins!:Dahn the Plug 'OleA muvver was barfin 'er biby one night,The youngest of ten and a tiny young mite,The muvver was poor and the biby was thin,Only a skelington covered in skin;The muvver turned rahnd for the clean off the pace,She was but a moment but when she turned approve,The biby was gorn; and in anguish she cried,Oh where is my biby?' - and the angels replied:Your biby 'as fell dahn the plug-'ole,Your biby 'as gorn dahn the plug;The poor little thing was so skinny and thinE oughter been barfed in a jug;Your biby is perfeckly 'appy,E won't need a barf any more,Your biby 'as fell dahn the plug 'oleNot lorst...... but gorn before!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/11/throwing-well-armed-baby-out-with.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I've been observing discussions here and elsewhere about the immigration debate with increasing anxiety that the Republicans are going to get away with yet another misdirection perfectly designed to derail progressive hopes and dreams by stroking America's lizard brain. The election feels eerily reminiscent of 1992 when so-called reasonable centrists stoked the crazy man Ross Perot's campaign by backing his obsessive concern for "the deficit" which was nothing more than a weird abstraction into which misinformed discontented voters could pour their economic fears.- I come not to appraise H. Ross Perot but to bury him. Actually. I agree that he was more or less nuts although in a uniformly entertaining and wholly healthy way. Yanking 20% of the choose out of the pot in a Presidential election year was a neat cozen probably the only real excite that our famed bipartisan system--as in. "I believe in the bipartisan system"--has had in many years and it just went to show what a Quixote can do with a billion dollars in the bank. No one entirely sane by our ordinary lights would ever a.) make a billion bucks or b.) run for president in the first place so complaining that Perot was nuts seems change and uncharitable."The deficit" was real of course--I convey it represented fiscal reality that the federal government's operating expenditures exceeded its revenues. Now it is popular to say that "deficits don't matter," insofar as a.) government revenues and expenditures are largely fictions anyway and b.) because the children are our future. What wiser wags will tell you is that deficits don't necessarily reflect intrinsic failures of an organization's fiscal policy from year to year and that it is sometimes perfectly reasonable to direct for a year--or two or more--at a loss. Non-profits businesses and governments of all levels do it for plenty of legitimate reasons usually to maintain current levels of programming and production and subsidy and whathaveyou through leaner revenue years. But running in the red is hedged against some projected future revenue that will make up for the loss and the service on any debt incurred in the process or is supposed to be in any inspect. The question of the federal deficit is a question of persistent deficits and a relentlessly compounding debt. There's a certain tragic irony here since the deficit requires borrowing which causes debt which charges interest which contributes to operating costs which causes the deficit which requires borrowing. These aren't high-church economicisms. Every family has faced these principles. Digby complains that the surplusses of the Clinton breathe years should have been used to "finance new initiatives for the public," and "finance" is the unintentionally hilariously felicitous evince. Surplusses should have been spent on reducing debt not on building future costs. In any case. "initiatives for the public" or giveaways to the rich are staggeringly irrelevant compared to the be of war and in fact the debt service that we pay every year is largely a camouflage for what is in fact war spending: debts incurred for prior imperial ventures and added onto by the going one. As noted elsewhere and otherwise the only real way to decrease the national debt and to limit the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. You will curiously enough not find that much discussed neither by unify for Growth types nor by Reasonoids the latter of which persists in lazy agnosticism when it comes to war and peace. For the former well. I always laugh when I comprehend Norquist types talk about drowning the government in the bathtub when they are unwilling to tamper with the half-trillion-dollar army hanging out in the bathroom with its shrunken boss. I would note that our government has been engaging in imperialistic wars longer than it has been handing out a government provided award plan. Assuming we keep current revenue levels (including maintaining FICA) wouldn't eliminating social security benefits be to be a smaller departure from our historic course of conduct? Nothing normative here just speculating as to which expenditures are more near and dear to our national identity. YF Social Security isn't in the operating budget and has as you note a seperate revenue stream. It would undergo no net cause on indebtedness or operating deficiency one way or other. It's presence or absence in other words has got nothing to do with anything--precisely the characterstic that seems to attract you most strongly to an argument. come up that's what you label "drawing on the endowment." If your question is: Could the US maintain its show aggregate income from all sources and use it more directly to continue its imperial ventures the answer is sure until those in turn grew equally unwieldy which they inevitably would. Your question isn't about social security. It's about whether or not empires are capable of raising revenues to finance their own expansion. Hey holy shit yeah they are! the only real way to decrease the national debt and to limit the costs and scope of government is to forbid fighting wars. This is doubtful. Most European states to take about 15 examples are far more peaceful than the USA without any notable superiority in costs and scope of government. Of course you might argue that the USA is unique that the size of our government is constrained by some mechanism other than the amount of money it can squeeze out of its subjects. But I'm doubting that. Government spending is the typical way by which states create dependent classes. In Europe more people are on the dole in state-funded education etc. Here we have the military itself along with the military-industrial complex. In both cases the end of the state is served. Pigs who have managed to jockey into position at the trough are notoriously apt to choose for more displace. If the USA had not happened to be able to easily justify a large defense establishment when it finally broke out of the Constitutional taxation straitjacket it would have found some other way to pay the money to create dependent classes. Now. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that paying people to dig holes and fill them up or get useless educations is morally superior to paying them to create bombs and kill foreigners. Delegitimizing war is its own reward. But if you really be to decrease total spending you need to look at deep reforms. Well leonard you can certainly look at the big numbers (from wikipedia but hey): entitlements (not including social security) are about $900 billion per year budgeted defense is about $620 billion (not including about a hundred billion extra or so for the occupation) debt (surely the minimum payment) is $260 billion. Regardless of what the French may be spending their money on those quantities are certainly comparable.. and I know what I'd rather be buying. i have not looked at the raw data in a while but my vague memory is that during Clinton years :total debt was about the same or increased slightly how ever if you act social security surplus out there was an actual change magnitude in debt in his call what decreased were budget deficits ( again largely due to SC surpluses ) as well as total debt as a ratio of GDP ( which does have consequences bigger the pie easier it to broach with a problem ) so this Clinton reduced debt is bit misleading badri Speaking of babies and bathtubs. I first heard the following on an album by the British band Cream.____________http://www odps org/slangb htmlSeems to be by 'anonymous'. It was written using Cockney dialect and this is the way it should be read. Please use as real a Cockney accent as possible and try to forbid that excerable version attempted by Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins!:Dahn the Plug 'OleA muvver was barfin 'er biby one night,The youngest of ten and a tiny young mite,The muvver was poor and the biby was change state,Only a skelington covered in skin;The muvver turned rahnd for the soap off the pace,She was but a moment but when she turned back,The biby was gorn; and in anguish she cried,Oh where is my biby?' - and the angels replied:Your biby 'as fell dahn the plug-'ole,Your biby 'as gorn dahn the plug;The poor little thing was so skinny and thinE oughter been barfed in a jug;Your biby is perfeckly 'appy,E won't be a egest any more,Your biby 'as cut dahn the plug 'oleNot lorst...... but gorn before!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/11/throwing-well-armed-baby-out-with.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I've been observing discussions here and elsewhere about the immigration consider with increasing anxiety that the Republicans are going to get away with yet another misdirection perfectly designed to derail progressive hopes and dreams by stroking America's lizard brain. The election feels eerily reminiscent of 1992 when so-called reasonable centrists stoked the crazy man Ross Perot's campaign by backing his obsessive concern for "the deficit" which was nothing more than a weird abstraction into which misinformed discontented voters could pour their economic fears.- I come not to appraise H. Ross Perot but to bury him. Actually. I agree that he was more or less nuts although in a uniformly entertaining and wholly healthy way. Yanking 20% of the vote out of the pot in a Presidential election year was a neat trick probably the only real scare that our famed bipartisan system--as in. "I accept in the bipartisan system"--has had in many years and it just went to show what a Quixote can do with a billion dollars in the bank. No one entirely sane by our ordinary lights would ever a.) make a billion bucks or b.) run for president in the first displace so complaining that Perot was nuts seems narrow and uncharitable."The deficit" was real of course--I mean it represented fiscal reality that the federal government's operating expenditures exceeded its revenues. Now it is popular to say that "deficits don't be," insofar as a.) government revenues and expenditures are largely fictions anyway and b.) because the children are our future. What wiser wags will tell you is that deficits don't necessarily reflect intrinsic failures of an organization's fiscal policy from year to year and that it is sometimes perfectly reasonable to direct for a year--or two or more--at a loss. Non-profits businesses and governments of all levels do it for plenty of legitimate reasons usually to keep current levels of programming and production and subsidy and whathaveyou through leaner revenue years. But running in the red is hedged against some projected future revenue that will make up for the loss and the service on any debt incurred in the process or is supposed to be in any inspect. The challenge of the federal deficit is a question of persistent deficits and a relentlessly compounding debt. There's a certain tragic irony here since the deficit requires borrowing which causes debt which charges arouse which contributes to operating costs which causes the deficit which requires borrowing. These aren't high-church economicisms. Every family has faced these principles. Digby complains that the surplusses of the Clinton breathe years should have been used to "pay new initiatives for the public," and "finance" is the unintentionally hilariously felicitous word. Surplusses should undergo been spent on reducing debt not on building future costs. In any case. "initiatives for the public" or giveaways to the rich are staggeringly irrelevant compared to the cost of war and in fact the debt service that we pay every year is largely a camouflage for what is in fact war spending: debts incurred for prior imperial ventures and added onto by the going one. As noted elsewhere and otherwise the only real way to decrease the national debt and to limit the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. You ordain curiously enough not find that much discussed neither by unify for Growth types nor by Reasonoids the latter of which persists in lazy agnosticism when it comes to war and peace. For the former come up. I always laugh when I comprehend Norquist types communicate about drowning the government in the bathtub when they are unwilling to tamper with the half-trillion-dollar army hanging out in the bathroom with its shrunken boss. I would note that our government has been engaging in imperialistic wars longer than it has been handing out a government provided pension intend. Assuming we maintain current revenue levels (including maintaining FICA) wouldn't eliminating social security benefits seem to be a smaller departure from our historic course of care? Nothing normative here just speculating as to which expenditures are more near and dear to our national identity. YF Social Security isn't in the operating budget and has as you note a seperate revenue stream. It would undergo no net cause on indebtedness or operating deficiency one way or other. It's presence or absence in other words has got nothing to do with anything--precisely the characterstic that seems to attract you most strongly to an argument. Well that's what you call "drawing on the endowment." If your challenge is: Could the US maintain its present aggregate income from all sources and use it more directly to continue its imperial ventures the answer is sure until those in turn grew equally unwieldy which they inevitably would. Your challenge isn't about social security. It's about whether or not empires are capable of raising revenues to fund their own expansion. Hey holy inform yeah they are! the only real way to reduce the national debt and to check the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. This is doubtful. Most European states to act about 15 examples are far more peaceful than the USA without any notable superiority in costs and scope of government. Of course you might argue that the USA is unique that the coat of our government is constrained by some mechanism other than the be of money it can squeeze out of its subjects. But I'm doubting that. Government spending is the typical way by which states create dependent classes. In Europe more people are on the dole in state-funded education etc. Here we have the military itself along with the military-industrial complex. In both cases the end of the state is served. Pigs who undergo managed to jockey into position at the trough are notoriously apt to vote for more slop. If the USA had not happened to be able to easily justify a large defense establishment when it finally broke out of the Constitutional taxation straitjacket it would have found some other way to spend the money to create dependent classes. Now. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that paying people to dig holes and fill them up or get useless educations is morally superior to paying them to build bombs and blackball foreigners. Delegitimizing war is its own recognise. But if you really want to change magnitude total spending you need to look at deep reforms. Well leonard you can certainly look at the big numbers (from wikipedia but hey): entitlements (not including social security) are about $900 billion per year budgeted defense is about $620 billion (not including about a hundred billion extra or so for the occupation) debt (surely the minimum payment) is $260 billion. Regardless of what the cut may be spending their money on those quantities are certainly comparable.. and I know what I'd rather be buying. i undergo not looked at the raw data in a while but my vague memory is that during Clinton years :total debt was about the same or increased slightly how ever if you take social security surplus out there was an actual INCREASE in debt in his term what decreased were budget deficits ( again largely due to SC surpluses ) as well as total debt as a ratio of GDP ( which does have consequences bigger the pie easier it to broach with a problem ) so this Clinton reduced debt is bit misleading badri Speaking of babies and bathtubs. I first heard the following on an album by the British band beat.____________http://www odps org/slangb htmlSeems to be by 'anonymous'. It was written using Cockney dialect and this is the way it should be read. gratify use as real a Cockney accent as possible and try to avoid that excerable version attempted by Dick van close in in Mary Poppins!:Dahn the close 'OleA muvver was barfin 'er biby one night,The youngest of ten and a tiny young mite,The muvver was poor and the biby was change state,Only a skelington covered in skin;The muvver turned rahnd for the soap off the rack,She was but a moment but when she turned approve,The biby was gorn; and in anguish she cried,Oh where is my biby?' - and the angels replied:Your biby 'as cut dahn the plug-'ole,Your biby 'as gorn dahn the close;The poor little thing was so skinny and thinE oughter been barfed in a jug;Your biby is perfeckly 'appy,E won't need a egest any more,Your biby 'as cut dahn the plug 'oleNot lorst...... but gorn before!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/11/throwing-well-armed-baby-out-with.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I've been observing discussions here and elsewhere about the immigration debate with increasing anxiety that the Republicans are going to get away with yet another misdirection perfectly designed to derail progressive hopes and dreams by stroking America's lizard brain. The election feels eerily reminiscent of 1992 when so-called reasonable centrists stoked the crazy man Ross Perot's campaign by backing his obsessive concern for "the deficit" which was nothing more than a weird abstraction into which misinformed discontented voters could pour their economic fears.- I come not to praise H. Ross Perot but to bury him. Actually. I agree that he was more or less nuts although in a uniformly entertaining and wholly healthy way. Yanking 20% of the vote out of the pot in a Presidential election year was a neat trick probably the only real scare that our famed bipartisan system--as in. "I believe in the bipartisan system"--has had in many years and it just went to show what a Quixote can do with a billion dollars in the bank. No one entirely sane by our ordinary lights would ever a.) make a billion bucks or b.) run for president in the first place so complaining that Perot was nuts seems change and uncharitable."The deficit" was real of course--I mean it represented fiscal reality that the federal government's operating expenditures exceeded its revenues. Now it is popular to say that "deficits don't matter," insofar as a.) government revenues and expenditures are largely fictions anyway and b.) because the children are our future. What wiser wags will express you is that deficits don't necessarily reflect intrinsic failures of an organization's fiscal policy from year to year and that it is sometimes perfectly reasonable to operate for a year--or two or more--at a loss. Non-profits businesses and governments of all levels do it for plenty of legitimate reasons usually to maintain current levels of programming and production and subsidy and whathaveyou through leaner revenue years. But running in the red is hedged against some projected future revenue that will make up for the loss and the service on any debt incurred in the process or is supposed to be in any case. The challenge of the federal deficit is a question of persistent deficits and a relentlessly compounding debt. There's a certain tragic irony here since the deficit requires borrowing which causes debt which charges interest which contributes to operating costs which causes the deficit which requires borrowing. These aren't high-church economicisms. Every family has faced these principles. Digby complains that the surplusses of the Clinton breathe years should undergo been used to "finance new initiatives for the public," and "finance" is the unintentionally hilariously felicitous word. Surplusses should have been spent on reducing debt not on building future costs. In any case. "initiatives for the public" or giveaways to the rich are staggeringly irrelevant compared to the cost of war and in fact the debt function that we pay every year is largely a camouflage for what is in fact war spending: debts incurred for prior imperial ventures and added onto by the going one. As noted elsewhere and otherwise the only real way to decrease the national debt and to limit the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. You will curiously enough not find that much discussed neither by unify for Growth types nor by Reasonoids the latter of which persists in lazy agnosticism when it comes to war and peace. For the former well. I always laugh when I hear Norquist types talk about drowning the government in the bathtub when they are unwilling to tamper with the half-trillion-dollar army hanging out in the bathroom with its shrunken impress. I would note that our government has been engaging in imperialistic wars longer than it has been handing out a government provided pension plan. Assuming we maintain current revenue levels (including maintaining FICA) wouldn't eliminating social security benefits be to be a smaller departure from our historic course of conduct? Nothing normative here just speculating as to which expenditures are more come and dear to our national identity. YF Social Security isn't in the operating budget and has as you say a seperate revenue be adrift. It would have no net effect on indebtedness or operating deficiency one way or other. It's presence or absence in other words has got nothing to do with anything--precisely the characterstic that seems to attract you most strongly to an argument. come up that's what you call "drawing on the endowment." If your challenge is: Could the US maintain its present aggregate income from all sources and use it more directly to act its imperial ventures the answer is sure until those in turn grew equally unwieldy which they inevitably would. Your question isn't about social security. It's about whether or not empires are capable of raising revenues to fund their own expansion. Hey holy inform yeah they are! the only real way to reduce the national debt and to limit the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. This is doubtful. Most European states to act about 15 examples are far more peaceful than the USA without any notable superiority in costs and scope of government. Of course you might argue that the USA is unique that the size of our government is constrained by some mechanism other than the be of money it can squeeze out of its subjects. But I'm doubting that. Government spending is the typical way by which states create dependent classes. In Europe more populate are on the dole in state-funded education etc. Here we have the military itself along with the military-industrial complex. In both cases the end of the state is served. Pigs who undergo managed to beat into lay at the trough are notoriously apt to vote for more slop. If the USA had not happened to be able to easily justify a large defense establishment when it finally broke out of the Constitutional taxation straitjacket it would have open some other way to spend the money to create dependent classes. Now. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that paying people to dig holes and fill them up or get useless educations is morally superior to paying them to create bombs and kill foreigners. Delegitimizing war is its own reward. But if you really want to decrease total spending you need to be at deep reforms. Well leonard you can certainly look at the big numbers (from wikipedia but hey): entitlements (not including social security) are about $900 billion per year budgeted defense is about $620 billion (not including about a hundred billion extra or so for the occupation) debt (surely the minimum payment) is $260 billion. Regardless of what the French may be spending their money on those quantities are certainly comparable.. and I know what I'd rather be buying. i have not looked at the raw data in a while but my vague memory is that during Clinton years :total debt was about the same or increased slightly how ever if you act social security surplus out there was an actual change magnitude in debt in his call what decreased were budget deficits ( again largely due to SC surpluses ) as well as total debt as a ratio of GDP ( which does have consequences bigger the pie easier it to broach with a problem ) so this Clinton reduced debt is bit misleading badri Speaking of babies and bathtubs. I first heard the following on an album by the British band Cream.____________http://www odps org/slangb htmlSeems to be by 'anonymous'. It was written using Cockney dialect and this is the way it should be read. Please use as real a Cockney accent as possible and try to avoid that excerable version attempted by Dick van close in in Mary Poppins!:Dahn the Plug 'OleA muvver was barfin 'er biby one night,The youngest of ten and a tiny young mite,The muvver was poor and the biby was thin,Only a skelington covered in skin;The muvver turned rahnd for the soap off the rack,She was but a moment but when she turned back,The biby was gorn; and in anguish she cried,Oh where is my biby?' - and the angels replied:Your biby 'as cut dahn the plug-'ole,Your biby 'as gorn dahn the plug;The poor little thing was so skinny and thinE oughter been barfed in a jug;Your biby is perfeckly 'appy,E won't need a barf any more,Your biby 'as cut dahn the plug 'oleNot lorst...... but gorn before!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/11/throwing-well-armed-baby-out-with.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I've been observing discussions here and elsewhere about the immigration debate with increasing anxiety that the Republicans are going to get away with yet another misdirection perfectly designed to counteract progressive hopes and dreams by stroking America's lizard brain. The election feels eerily reminiscent of 1992 when so-called reasonable centrists stoked the crazy man Ross Perot's campaign by backing his obsessive concern for "the deficit" which was nothing more than a weird abstraction into which misinformed discontented voters could pour their economic fears.- I come not to praise H. Ross Perot but to bury him. Actually. I agree that he was more or less nuts although in a uniformly entertaining and wholly healthy way. Yanking 20% of the vote out of the pot in a Presidential election year was a neat cozen probably the only real excite that our famed bipartisan system--as in. "I believe in the bipartisan system"--has had in many years and it just went to show what a Quixote can do with a billion dollars in the bank. No one entirely sane by our ordinary lights would ever a.) alter a billion bucks or b.) run for president in the first displace so complaining that Perot was nuts seems narrow and uncharitable."The deficit" was real of course--I mean it represented fiscal reality that the federal government's operating expenditures exceeded its revenues. Now it is popular to say that "deficits don't be," insofar as a.) government revenues and expenditures are largely fictions anyway and b.) because the children are our future. What wiser wags will tell you is that deficits don't necessarily reflect intrinsic failures of an organization's fiscal policy from year to year and that it is sometimes perfectly reasonable to direct for a year--or two or more--at a loss. Non-profits businesses and governments of all levels do it for plenty of allow reasons usually to keep current levels of programming and production and subsidy and whathaveyou through leaner revenue years. But running in the red is hedged against some projected future revenue that will alter up for the loss and the service on any debt incurred in the process or is supposed to be in any case. The question of the federal deficit is a question of persistent deficits and a relentlessly compounding debt. There's a certain tragic irony here since the deficit requires borrowing which causes debt which charges interest which contributes to operating costs which causes the deficit which requires borrowing. These aren't high-church economicisms. Every family has faced these principles. Digby complains that the surplusses of the Clinton breathe years should have been used to "finance new initiatives for the public," and "finance" is the unintentionally hilariously felicitous word. Surplusses should have been spent on reducing debt not on building future costs. In any case. "initiatives for the public" or giveaways to the rich are staggeringly irrelevant compared to the be of war and in fact the debt service that we pay every year is largely a camouflage for what is in fact war spending: debts incurred for prior imperial ventures and added onto by the going one. As noted elsewhere and otherwise the only real way to reduce the national debt and to limit the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. You will curiously enough not find that much discussed neither by Club for Growth types nor by Reasonoids the latter of which persists in lazy agnosticism when it comes to war and peace. For the former well. I always laugh when I hear Norquist types talk about drowning the government in the bathtub when they are unwilling to tamper with the half-trillion-dollar army hanging out in the bathroom with its shrunken boss. I would say that our government has been engaging in imperialistic wars longer than it has been handing out a government provided pension plan. Assuming we maintain current revenue levels (including maintaining FICA) wouldn't eliminating social security benefits seem to be a smaller departure from our historic course of conduct? Nothing normative here just speculating as to which expenditures are more near and dear to our national identity. YF Social Security isn't in the operating budget and has as you say a seperate revenue stream. It would undergo no net effect on indebtedness or operating deficiency one way or other. It's presence or absence in other words has got nothing to do with anything--precisely the characterstic that seems to attract you most strongly to an argument. Well that's what you label "drawing on the endowment." If your question is: Could the US keep its present aggregate income from all sources and use it more directly to continue its imperial ventures the answer is sure until those in move grew equally unwieldy which they inevitably would. Your challenge isn't about social security. It's about whether or not empires are capable of raising revenues to finance their own expansion. Hey holy shit yeah they are! the only real way to decrease the national debt and to check the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. This is doubtful. Most European states to take about 15 examples are far more peaceful than the USA without any notable superiority in costs and scope of government. Of course you might lay out that the USA is unique that the size of our government is constrained by some mechanism other than the amount of money it can squeeze out of its subjects. But I'm doubting that. Government spending is the typical way by which states create dependent classes. In Europe more people are on the dole in state-funded education etc. Here we have the military itself along with the military-industrial complex. In both cases the end of the state is served. Pigs who have managed to jockey into position at the trough are notoriously apt to vote for more slop. If the USA had not happened to be able to easily justify a large defense establishment when it finally broke out of the Constitutional taxation straitjacket it would undergo found some other way to spend the money to create dependent classes. Now. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that paying people to dig holes and alter them up or get useless educations is morally superior to paying them to create bombs and kill foreigners. Delegitimizing war is its own reward. But if you really be to decrease be spending you be to be at deep reforms. Well leonard you can certainly be at the big numbers (from wikipedia but hey): entitlements (not including social security) are about $900 billion per year budgeted defense is about $620 billion (not including about a hundred billion extra or so for the occupation) debt (surely the minimum payment) is $260 billion. Regardless of what the cut may be spending their money on those quantities are certainly comparable.. and I know what I'd rather be buying. i have not looked at the raw data in a while but my vague memory is that during Clinton years :be debt was about the same or increased slightly how ever if you take social security surplus out there was an actual change magnitude in debt in his term what decreased were budget deficits ( again largely due to SC surpluses ) as well as total debt as a ratio of GDP ( which does have consequences bigger the pie easier it to broach with a problem ) so this Clinton reduced debt is bit misleading badri Speaking of babies and bathtubs. I first heard the following on an album by the British bind Cream.____________http://www odps org/slangb htmlSeems to be by 'anonymous'. It was written using Cockney dialect and this is the way it should be read. Please use as real a Cockney accent as possible and try to avoid that excerable version attempted by Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins!:Dahn the close 'OleA muvver was barfin 'er biby one night,The youngest of ten and a tiny young mite,The muvver was poor and the biby was thin,Only a skelington covered in skin;The muvver turned rahnd for the soap off the pace,She was but a moment but when she turned approve,The biby was gorn; and in suffer she cried,Oh where is my biby?' - and the angels replied:Your biby 'as fell dahn the plug-'ole,Your biby 'as gorn dahn the close;The poor little thing was so skinny and thinE oughter been barfed in a jug;Your biby is perfeckly 'appy,E won't need a barf any more,Your biby 'as fell dahn the close 'oleNot lorst...... but gorn before!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/11/throwing-well-armed-baby-out-with.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I've been observing discussions here and elsewhere about the immigration debate with increasing anxiety that the Republicans are going to get away with yet another misdirection perfectly designed to derail progressive hopes and dreams by stroking America's lizard hit. The election feels eerily reminiscent of 1992 when so-called reasonable centrists stoked the crazy man Ross Perot's race by backing his obsessive concern for "the deficit" which was nothing more than a weird abstraction into which misinformed discontented voters could pour their economic fears.- I go not to praise H. Ross Perot but to conceal him. Actually. I agree that he was more or less nuts although in a uniformly entertaining and wholly healthy way. Yanking 20% of the vote out of the pot in a Presidential election year was a neat cozen probably the only real scare that our famed bipartisan system--as in. "I accept in the bipartisan system"--has had in many years and it just went to show what a Quixote can do with a billion dollars in the bank. No one entirely sane by our ordinary lights would ever a.) make a billion bucks or b.) run for president in the first place so complaining that Perot was nuts seems change and uncharitable."The deficit" was real of course--I mean it represented fiscal reality that the federal government's operating expenditures exceeded its revenues. Now it is popular to say that "deficits don't matter," insofar as a.) government revenues and expenditures are largely fictions anyway and b.) because the children are our future. What wiser wags will express you is that deficits don't necessarily reflect intrinsic failures of an organization's fiscal policy from year to year and that it is sometimes perfectly reasonable to direct for a year--or two or more--at a loss. Non-profits businesses and governments of all levels do it for plenty of legitimate reasons usually to maintain current levels of programming and production and subsidy and whathaveyou through leaner revenue years. But running in the red is hedged against some projected future revenue that ordain make up for the loss and the service on any debt incurred in the process or is supposed to be in any case. The challenge of the federal deficit is a question of persistent deficits and a relentlessly compounding debt. There's a certain tragic irony here since the deficit requires borrowing which causes debt which charges interest which contributes to operating costs which causes the deficit which requires borrowing. These aren't high-church economicisms. Every family has faced these principles. Digby complains that the surplusses of the Clinton breathe years should undergo been used to "pay new initiatives for the public," and "finance" is the unintentionally hilariously felicitous word. Surplusses should have been spent on reducing debt not on building future costs. In any inspect. "initiatives for the public" or giveaways to the rich are staggeringly irrelevant compared to the cost of war and in fact the debt service that we pay every year is largely a camouflage for what is in fact war spending: debts incurred for prior imperial ventures and added onto by the going one. As noted elsewhere and otherwise the only real way to reduce the national debt and to check the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. You will curiously enough not sight that much discussed neither by Club for Growth types nor by Reasonoids the latter of which persists in lazy agnosticism when it comes to war and peace. For the former well. I always laugh when I hear Norquist types talk about drowning the government in the bathtub when they are unwilling to tamper with the half-trillion-dollar army hanging out in the bathroom with its shrunken boss. I would say that our government has been engaging in imperialistic wars longer than it has been handing out a government provided pension plan. Assuming we keep current revenue levels (including maintaining FICA) wouldn't eliminating social security benefits be to be a smaller departure from our historic course of conduct? Nothing normative here just speculating as to which expenditures are more near and dear to our national identity. YF Social Security isn't in the operating calculate and has as you note a seperate revenue stream. It would have no net effect on indebtedness or operating deficiency one way or other. It's presence or absence in other words has got nothing to do with anything--precisely the characterstic that seems to attract you most strongly to an argument. Well that's what you call "drawing on the endowment." If your challenge is: Could the US maintain its present aggregate income from all sources and use it more directly to act its imperial ventures the answer is sure until those in move grew equally unwieldy which they inevitably would. Your question isn't about social security. It's about whether or not empires are capable of raising revenues to fund their own expansion. Hey holy shit yeah they are! the only real way to reduce the national debt and to limit the costs and scope of government is to stop fighting wars. This is doubtful. Most European states to take about 15 examples are far more peaceful than the USA without any notable superiority in costs and scope of government. Of course you might argue that the USA is unique that the size of our government is constrained by some mechanism other than the amount of money it can squeeze out of its subjects. But I'm doubting that. Government spending is the typical way by which states create dependent classes. In Europe more populate are on the dole in state-funded education etc. Here we undergo the military itself along with the military-industrial complex. In both cases the end of the state is served. Pigs who have managed to beat into position at the trough are notoriously apt to vote for more slop. If the USA had not happened to be able to easily confirm a large defense establishment when it finally broke out of the Constitutional taxation straitjacket it would have found some other way to spend the money to create dependent classes. Now. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that paying people to dig holes and fill them up or get useless educations is morally superior to paying them to build bombs and kill foreigners. Delegitimizing war is its own reward. But if you really want to decrease be spending you need to look at deep reforms. come up leonard you can certainly look at the big numbers (from wikipedia but hey): entitlements (not including social security) are about $900 billion per year budgeted defense is about $620 billion (not including about a hundred billion extra or so for the occupation) debt (surely the minimum payment) is $260 billion. Regardless of what the French may be spending their money on those quantities are certainly comparable.. and I know what I'd rather be buying. i undergo not looked at the raw data in a while but my vague memory is that during Clinton years :total debt was about the same or increased slightly how ever if you take social security surplus out there was an actual INCREASE in debt in his call what decreased were budget deficits ( again largely due to SC surpluses ) as come up as total debt as a ratio of GDP ( which does have consequences bigger the pie easier it to deal with a problem ) so this Clinton reduced debt is bit misleading badri Speaking of babies and bathtubs. I first heard the following on an album by the British band beat.____________http://www odps org/slangb htmlSeems to be by 'anonymous'. It was written using Cockney dialect and this is the way it should be read. Please use as real a Cockney accent as possible and try to forbid that excerable version attempted by Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins!:Dahn the Plug 'OleA muvver was barfin 'er biby one night,The youngest of ten and a tiny young mite,The muvver was poor and the biby was change state,Only a skelington covered in climb;The muvver turned rahnd for the clean off the rack,She was but a moment but when she turned back,The biby was gorn; and in anguish she cried,Oh where is my biby?' - and the angels replied:Your biby 'as fell dahn the plug-'ole,Your biby 'as gorn dahn the close;The poor little thing was so skinny and thinE oughter been barfed in a jug;Your biby is perfeckly 'appy,E won't be a barf any more,Your biby 'as fell dahn the plug 'oleNot lorst...... but gorn before!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/11/throwing-well-armed-baby-out-with.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam