Printable View
You won't get medical treatment if you don't have the insurance card when you go to the hospital? They are now giving illegals treatment when they show up at the hospital. It gets more complicated all the time.
Then Dems say the GOP is the party of no. It's crazy to say yes to this crap.
I find this ironic because not so long ago a "google bomb" was set up so that if you searched the phrase "failure" or "miserable failure" the list presented was an assortment of Bush images ... something many posters here found hilarious :raspberry: Google certainly offered no apoligies as they do in this case. I don't approve or agree with posting "offensive" images of the FLOTUS ... having not viewed them I have not formed an opinion on how "offensive" they might be... but I do find it funny that those who were 'amused' by like images of Bush are in such an uproar.
Google apologizes for offensive first lady image
2 hrs 51 mins ago
SAN FRANCISCO – Google Inc. is apologizing for a racially offensive image of the first lady that appears at the top of the list when users search for pictures of Michelle Obama on its site.
Google placed a text ad above the image titled "Offensive Search Results" that states "Sometimes our search results can be offensive. We agree."
Users who then click on the ad are directed to a letter from Google that explains its results "can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries" but notes that Google doesn't endorse content on these Web sites.
Google says its search formula relies on thousands of factors to rank a Web page's importance, and says it doesn't eliminate search results simply because of user complaints. However, Google says it will take down images in certain cases, such as when required by law to do so.
"We apologize if you've had an upsetting experience using Google," the company wrote.
Mountain View, Calif.-based Google also posted about the issue in a user support forum.
Spokesman Scott Rubin would not elaborate on how the image ended up as the number-one result for the first lady.
The Google letter says "a site's ranking in Google's search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query."
Rubin said the company did remove one site displaying the image from its results because it included viruses, which Google policy prohibits. But a different Web site later posted the same image, he said.
The White House declined to comment.
This is not the first time Google has apologized for content in its search results. The company issued a similar response in 2004 when the top result for the term "Jew" pointed to an anti-Semitic Web site.
___
On the Net:
http://www.google.com/resultsinfo.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091125/...search_apology
Tax soda, pizza to cut obesity, researchers say
Julie Steenhuysen – Mon Mar 8, 5:00 pm ET
CHICAGO (Reuters) – U.S. researchers estimate that an 18 percent tax on pizza and soda can push down U.S. adults' calorie intake enough to lower their average weight by 5 pounds (2 kg) per year.
The researchers, writing in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine on Monday, suggested taxing could be used as a weapon in the fight against obesity, which costs the United States an estimated $147 billion a year in health costs.
"While such policies will not solve the obesity epidemic in its entirety and may face considerable opposition from food manufacturers and sellers, they could prove an important strategy to address overconsumption, help reduce energy intake and potentially aid in weight loss and reduced rates of diabetes among U.S. adults," wrote the team led by Kiyah Duffey of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
With two-thirds of Americans either overweight or obese, policymakers are increasingly looking at taxing as a way to address obesity on a population level.
California and Philadelphia have introduced legislation to tax soft drinks to try to limit consumption.
CDC director Dr. Thomas Frieden supports taxes on soft drinks, as does the American Heart Association.
There are early signs that such a policy works.
Duffey's team analyzed the diets and health of 5,115 young adults aged age 18 to 30 from 1985 to 2006.
They compared data on food prices during the same time. Over a 20-year period, a 10 percent increase in cost was linked with a 7 percent decrease in the amount of calories consumed from soda and a 12 percent decrease in calories consumed from pizza.
The team estimates that an 18 percent tax on these foods could cut daily intake by 56 calories per person, resulting in a weight loss of 5 pounds (2 kg) per person per year.
"Our findings suggest that national, state or local policies to alter the price of less healthful foods and beverages may be one possible mechanism for steering U.S. adults toward a more healthful diet," Duffey and colleagues wrote.
In a commentary, Drs. Mitchell Katz and Rajiv Bhatia of the San Francisco Department of Public Health said taxes are an appropriate way to correct a market that favors unhealthy food choices over healthier options.
They argued that the U.S. government should carefully consider food subsidies that contribute to the problem.
"Sadly, we are currently subsidizing the wrong things including the product of corn, which makes the corn syrup in sweetened beverages so inexpensive," they wrote.
Instead, they argued that agricultural subsidies should be used to make healthful foods such as locally grown vegetables, fruits and whole grains less expensive.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100308/...F4c29kYXBpenph
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutombi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexter
Quote:
Originally Posted by sami s
Quote:
Originally Posted by JED
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Ann
Quote:
Originally Posted by common sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denise
Quote:
Originally Posted by J
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick
The government's answer to everything seems to be...."Take more of their money".....:(
They'll be too poor to eat, too poor to pay their mortgage, too poor to drive, too poor to have electricity and heat, etc......Nanny gov't. We will be/are totally dependent on them.
They blame the GOP for not passing this crap theough. The problem is with the Dems as they have/had enough votes to pass it without any GOP votes. It really doesn't matter as it is a bad idea all the way around. Reform the system that charges $2200 for a CAT scan or $100+ for a doc visit. Not force us all into crappy insurance.
Me
The Tax Issue Is Back
Jennifer Rubin - 04.13.2010 - 9:40 AM
A year ago, when the Tea Party movement was ignored or sneered at (much more so than now) by the Obami and the chattering class, the White House huffed that the rubes didn’t know that Obama had actually lowered taxes. The hordes were painted as confused — a tax revolt without the taxes. But the Tea Party crowd knew better. The grassroots movement was initially and remains a movement opposed to the massive growth of the federal government, the imposition of ObamaCare, the accumulation of massive debt, and the plethora of bailouts. It knew that after running up the tab, Obama would look for revenue to plug the gaping hole in the budget.
Rich Lowry observes: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...NQTfgwbaICmuBJ
So we hear whispers now of a VAT. And the bipartisan commission will certainly suggest all sorts of “revenue enhancers.” The Tea Partiers saw this coming, and so will the general electorate. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the prospect of many more tax hikes will be up for debate in the midterm elections. And having violated their pledge not to tax those making less than $200,000 to pay for health care, Democrats are poorly situated to defend middle-class taxpayers.Quote:
The tea-party movement is an act of pre-emption, based on the simple calculation that higher spending eventually means higher taxes. For all the tsk-tsking about its supposed irresponsibility, the movement is attuned to the future in a way that the president — who hopes to evade or hide the consequences of his budgetary choices for as long as possible — is not.
Obama has always been happy to boast that he’ll let the Bush tax cuts on high-end earners expire at the end of this year. This blow for justice will initially generate all of about $40 billion annually, or only about 5 percent of the cost of Obama’s stimulus bill. Over 10 years, it will raise almost $700 billion, or only enough to cover about half of the budget deficit this year alone.
Obama will need more, and he’s not going to get it all from “the rich.”
There was talk for some time that the tax issue had faded. Republicans would have nothing to argue about, claimed the mainstream pundits. But alas, like so much else, Obama has done a yeoman’s work for conservatives.
The tax issue is back. In a big way.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...p/rubin/275966
Who am I gonna believe? I wouldn't believe Obama if his tongue came notarized.
Millions face tax increases under Dems budget plan
By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer Wed Apr 21, 7:06 pm ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the Senate promise to cut the deficit by almost two-thirds over the next five years, but their budget plan could threaten about 30 million people with tax increases averaging $3,700 in 2012 and after because of the alternative minimum tax.
The alternative is tax increases elsewhere in the revenue code averaging up to $100 billion a year after 2011 to continue alternative minimum tax relief and also curb taxes on people inheriting large estates.
The Democratic plan released Wednesday by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota relies on such boosts in revenues to carve the deficit from $1.4 trillion last year down to $545 billion by 2015.
The minimum tax, or AMT, was enacted four decades ago to make sure wealthy people couldn't avoid taxes altogethe. But it wasn't indexed for inflation in people's incomes, so it gets "patched" every year or so in order to prevent people from being surprised by multi-thousand-dollar tax bills at tax time.
Estates larger than $7 million would also be threatened with higher taxes after 2011 if Conrad's plan is carried out.
Conrad says lawmakers will have to find revenues elsewhere in the budget to pay for AMT and estate tax relief after 2011, which could require tax increases averaging up to $100 billion a year elsewhere in the code if Congress is going to keep its promises under tough new budget rules.
Conrad says he hopes the dilemma will force Congress to overhaul the complicated and inefficient U.S. tax code. The Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, says that 33 million taxpayers would face the AMT in 2012, adding $3,700 on average to their tax liabilities.
Extending AMT and estate tax relief would cost $300-$400 billion over 2012-2015, Conrad said. Many observers say it'll be virtually impossible for Congress to produce offsetting revenues to extend the tax relief. GOP Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire predicted that when Congress confronts the problem in two years it will blink and simply borrow the money as it has done in the past.
The looming tax hikes result from the structure of President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax bills, whose provisions generally expire at the end of this year. Obama promises to fully extend them except for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couple making $250,000 a year. They include lower income tax rates, a $1,000 per-child tax credit, and tax breaks for investments and reductions in the estate tax, and their five-year cost of almost $800 billion would be covered by adding to the nation's $12.8 trillion debt.
But in the case of the AMT and estate tax, congressional Democrats have broken with Obama and promise that after two years of deficit-financed alternative minimum tax and estate tax cuts, Congress will have to come up with the money.
"If we want those things taken care of ... they've got to be paid for," Conrad said.
That's easier said than done.
Gregg said the Democratic plan is "a budget that kicks the can down the road. More spending. More deficits. More debt. Less prosperity."
The annual congressional budget is a nonbinding blueprint for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 and sets the parameters for subsequent tax and spending bills. This year, that means a cut of almost $9.5 billion from domestic agency budgets and foreign aid and a freeze, on average, of those accounts for the following two years.
Conrad's plan, to be approved by the Budget panel Thursday, would permit Democrats to advance legislation on priorities such as taxes, energy and job creation without fear of a Republican filibuster. That could boost clean energy programs and revive Obama's stalled jobs agenda.
Democrats haven't decided exactly what to include in the filibuster-proof measure, though Conrad promised it wouldn't be used to pass deeply controversial legislation to curb global warming.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/...xsaW9uc2ZhY2U-
Majority of Small Business Sector Faces MORE Taxes
http://www.atr.org/smallbusiness.htm...#ixzz0uoPic9E1
The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have said that they want to raise taxes in the top two income tax rates in January 2011. Under their plan, the 33 percent rate will rise to 36 percent, and the 35 percent rate will rise to 39.6 percent automatically in January. These rates affect families and small business owners earning at least $200,000 per year
Unlike corporations, small businesses usually don’t pay their own taxes. Rather, business profits flow through to the business owner. The business owner pays taxes on her small business by adding the profits to her income tax form. Therefore, personal income taxes are the same thing as small business taxes.
According to the IRS, most small business profits pay taxes in households making more than $200,000 per year. The IRS keeps track of two types of small business income: sole proprietors, and “pass-through” entities like partnerships and S-corporations.
All small businesses. There were 30 million tax returns reporting small business income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $981 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$488 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. A majority of small business profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan.
Sole proprietors. There were 22 million tax returns reporting sole proprietor income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $264 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$90 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 34 percent of sole proprietor profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.
S-corporations and partnerships. There were 8 million partners and S-corporation shareholders in 2008.
On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $717 billion. A majority of this profit--$398 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 55 percent of S-corporation and partnership profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.
January 31, 2012 at 9:59 pm by FPP
CBO: Taxes Will ‘Shoot Up by More Than 30 Percent’ Over Next 2 Years
The amount of money the federal government takes out of the U.S. economy in taxes will increase by more than 30 percent between 2012 and 2014, according to the Budget and Economic Outlook published today by the CBO.
At the same time, according to CBO, the economy will remain sluggish, partly because of higher taxes.
“In particular, between 2012 and 2014, revenues in CBO’s baseline shoot up by more than 30 percent,” said CBO, “mostly because of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower income tax rates and limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and the imposition of new taxes, fees, and penalties that are scheduled to go into effect.”
The U.S. economy, CBO projects, will perform “below its potential” for another six years and unemployment will remain above 7 percent for another three.
http://www.frontporchpolitics.com/20...-next-2-years/
The amount of money the federal government takes out of the U.S. economy in taxes will increase by more than 30 percent between 2012 and 2014, according to the Budget and Economic Outlook published today by the CBO.
At the same time, according to CBO, the economy will remain sluggish, partly because of higher taxes.
“In particular, between 2012 and 2014, revenues in CBO’s baseline shoot up by more than 30 percent,” said CBO, “mostly because of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower income tax rates and limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and the imposition of new taxes, fees, and penalties that are scheduled to go into effect.”
The U.S. economy, CBO projects, will perform “below its potential” for another six years and unemployment will remain above 7 percent for another three.
“The pace of the economic recovery has been slow since the recession ended in June 2009, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects that, under current laws governing taxes and spending, the economy will continue to grow at a sluggish pace over the next two years,” said CBO. “That pace of growth partly reflects the dampening effect on economic activity from the higher tax rates and curbs on spending scheduled to occur this year and especially next. Although CBO projects that growth will pick up after 2013, the agency expects that the economy’s output will remain below its potential until 2018 and that the unemployment rate will remain above 7 percent until 2015.”
According to the CBO report, federal tax revenues equaled $2.302 trillion in fiscal 2011, and will increase to $2,523 trillion in fiscal 2012, $2,988 trillion in fiscal in 2013, and $3,313 trillion in 2014.
As a percentage of GDP, according to CBO, federal tax revenues were 15.4 percent in fiscal 2011, and will be 16.3 percent in 2012, 18.8 percent in 2013, and 20.0 percent in fiscal 2014.
In dollar terms, the anticipated increase in federal tax revenue from fiscal 2011 ($2.302 trillion) to fiscal 2014 ($3.313 trillion) is $1.011 trillion. That is an increase of 43.9 percent.
From just 2012 to 2014, the increase in federal tax revenues from $2.523 trillion to $3.313 trillion equals $790 billion—or 31.3 percent.
The anticipated percentage increase in federal tax revenue is not only large when calculated in dollar terms but also when calculated as a share of GDP. The jump from 15.4 percent of GDP in fiscal 2011 to 20.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2014 equals an increase of 29.8 percent. The jump from 16.3 percent in fiscal 2012 to 20.0 percent in fiscal 2014 equals an increase over two years of 22.7 percent.
Federal tax revenues have averaged “about 18 percent of GDP for the past 40 years,” according to CBO. So, in the next two years federal tax revenues will rise from a level that is below the modern historical average to a level that is above it.
ttp://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-taxes-will-shoot-more-30-percent-over-next-2-years
Taxpayers across the income spectrum could be hit with some big increases if lawmakers don't renew a lengthy roster of tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, according to a new report. A typical middle-income family making $40,000 to $64,000 a year could see its taxes go up by $2,000, but the government would get $500 billion in revenue: http://yhoo.it/SU7yT6 Do you think the cuts should expire or be extended?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge