|
|
Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, as the country chose him as its first African American chief executive.
Share your thoughts on this historic election.
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24545 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 11:34 PM
|
You can read how well the post office is doing. I guess this is the future of healthcare.
US Postal Service still losing billions
|
|
|
Posts:
35,615
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(24544 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 11:32 PM
|
John Sidney McCain, III's pal Phil Gramm's bank. This is only the Big Fish but hopefully someday they'll reel in all the small fry too.
Offshore Bank Accounts Revealed To IRS By 14,700 Taxpayers
First Posted: 11-17-09 03:39 PM | Updated: 11-17-09 07:22 PM
MIAMI (AP)-- More than 14,700 U.S. taxpayers came forward to disclose billions in offshore bank accounts in 70 countries under a voluntary Internal Revenue Service program allowing most to avoid criminal prosecution as long as they pay what they owe, IRS officials said Tuesday.
A flood of people came forward in the last days before the amnesty program expired Oct. 15, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said. The final total far surpasses the number who disclose offshore accounts in a typical year -- about 100 -- and comes amid a broad U.S. crackdown on international tax evasion at Swiss bank UBS AG and other institutions.
"To put it simply, this is a historic milestone for the nation's hardworking taxpayers," Shulman said in a conference call from Washington.
The total in taxes, interest and penalties collected from those in the voluntary disclosure program will be in the "billions of dollars," Shulman said. The disclosures involved accounts on every continent but Antarctica.
Taxpayers flocked to the amnesty program after the U.S. reached an agreement in August with the Swiss government and UBS to obtain names of 4,450 U.S. taxpayers believed to be hiding assets in secret bank accounts. Earlier this year, UBS paid a $780 million penalty under a deferred prosecution agreement filed in a Florida federal court that included disclosure of an additional 150 names.
Seven of those people have been charged criminally, with at least two getting sentenced to prison time.
Shulman said the combination of the UBS disclosures and the amnesty program have fundamentally changed the offshore tax landscape, particularly in Switzerland where bank secrecy was the tradition for centuries.
"It shows we are serious about piercing the veil of bank secrecy," he said. "The whole game has changed."
Also Tuesday, the IRS and Swiss unveiled the criteria being used to determine which American UBS accounts will be disclosed under the August agreement.
Accounts being targeted include those that contained 1 million or more Swiss francs at any time between 2001 and 2008; instances in which there was clear fraudulent actions, such as false documents; and accounts that earned an average of 100,000 francs a year for at least three years.
The equivalent amounts in U.S. dollars vary widely depending on the year, as the dollar lost over a third of its value against the Swiss franc during that period. One million francs was worth about $600,000 in 2001, compared with about $900,000 seven years later.
U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, who chairs Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, called the criteria "disappointing" because it means some of Switzerland's bank secrecy will remain intact.
"It complicates and muddies what should have been a straightforward agreement by UBS and the Swiss government to disclose Swiss accounts hidden from the United States by U.S. account holders," said Levin, D-Mich.
The Swiss have until the end of August to hand over the names. Swiss officials said the first 400 names will be chosen by the end of this week, with another 100 expected to be ready by the end of the month. Those taxpayers who are picked for disclosure can appeal to Switzerland's top administrative court.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,001
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24543 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 11:31 PM
|
> > > And the Steelers will lose a game every now
> and
> > then.
> > > We understand that here in the 'Burgh.
> >
> > The fin/steeler game at the end of the season
> may
> > just mean something after all.
>
> At least to the Steelers.
pw,
I remember a Steeler/Panthers game end of the 1996 season that meant something to both. I was there.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24542 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 11:29 PM
|
> Don17000
>
> > What else shall we expect from a House leader
> who
> > doesn't know the DOI from the USC?
>
> What would you expect from a president who thinks
> there are 57 states?
>
> No surprise he can't count jobs.
What should we expect from a Vice President who thinks FDR was using the television to talk to the American people? I hear the graphics and theme song for FDR's fireside chats were incredible.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24541 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 11:24 PM
|
Don17000
> For those that use McVeigh and Moussaoui as examples
> of how KSM should be treated, remember McVeigh was an
> American citizen who acted alone, not a group attack,
> and Moussaoui was in the US at the time of his
> arrest.
>
Wasn't Terry Nichols helping McVeigh?
Yes, but as I wrote, it was not a group attack, an isolated incident.
And didn't we bring the perps of the 1993 WTC attack to court, and try and convict them, in NYC?
Yes. But we treated that as a law enforcement problem, instead of an act of war. Thanks to that failure, we had four other attacks.
Ever hear of Manuel Noriega? Seems to me, he also was not a US citizen, and was also captured on foreign soil. He was tried and convicted in US Federal Court.
He was classified as a prisoner of war, but he was found guilty of drug trafficking and money laundering. As far as I know he did not attack the US and was charged with crimes not related to acts of war. Not even close to KSM.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,350
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(24540 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 11:05 PM
|
Taking suspects in custody to trial for their crimes is a "bad" choice?
Wow. That's some fucked up logic. If you don't like it, tough. Constitution trumps irrational fear.
|
|
|
Posts:
426
Registered:
10/25/04
|
|
(24539 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 9:36 PM
|
> >
> > > KSM is not a citizen and was not in the US
> at
> > the
> > > time. He is also part of a group that has
> > declared
> > > war on the US, already committed an act,
> and
> > planning
> > > more.
> > >
>
> Don:
>
> > He was planning attacks against Americans, to
> be
> > launched on American soil. That gives US courts
> a
> > jurisdiction.
> >
>
> Of course, but the Bush maladministration didn't want
> to have to prove anything and didn't want to be held
> to civilized treatment of prisoners- so the Military
> Tribunal nonsense.
This one is just like Afghanistan, Iraq, and even health care...take your pick of 'bad choices'. There is NO good alternative. It is the burden of actually having to LEAD instead of campaign.
That being said, I still like the fact that America voted into office our first black president. It speaks volumes about how cool a nation that we are. It sends a fantastic message to the youth of our nation and the world.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24538 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 9:27 PM
|
Don17000
Actually, they have. You may not have been paying attention. Universal coverage means a dramatic drop in cost shifting. That brings down the costs, because there are 20% more people paying the costs.
No it does not. You are adding in people with preexisting conditions, which will cause rates to increase, then you are removing lifetime maxes, and insurance companies will not be able to drop people. All three will cause rates to increase. And as the amount of those with insurance increase, the number of doctors, nurses and others will increase. So, the demand for healthcare will increase, meaning the rates will rise.
They've been doing that all along, Sunny. What do you think "cost-shifting" is?
That is not lowering costs, just hiding them.
It probably will improve service, and the employment picture, if it leads to hiring more people. It will definitely lower costs. As for whether it will be deficit neutral or not... I don't think anybody can do more than guess at this point, since there's nothing concrete about how the public option, if there is one, will be working, what kinds of stuff will be taxed and at what rate... Way too many variables to predict.
Healthcare is the one industry that continues to hire people and continues to grow. So, reform does not deserve credit for it.
The CBO, eh? They are basing their computations on the bill in its current form, aren't they? Is that the form of the Bill that will be enacted into law? Ummmm.... No.
Well what exactly are we supposed to judge it on? The bill passed by the house, is going to be pretty close to the final bill. The only discussion is the public option, whether or not it will be created or triggered. Everything else will be mostly the same.
I think the only thing we can be sure of about the provisions in the bill now, is that it will be changed in the conference committee before it goes to the WH for signature or veto.
So the only thing we can be sure of regarding the CBO's predictions, is that their figures are inaccurate.
So, nothing can ever be judged? The estimates by the CBO take everything into account. The CBO is the way bills are judged. The CBO states the public option will be more expensive than private insurance. Under current circumstances, that is our best way to form an opinion.
The house is much further to the left, than the senate, so the house created a bill that will not be lowering costs, but some how the senate will.
There has been little to show, estimate, or prove any type of savings in any of the bills, discussions, or debates.
The demand for healthcare insurance, services, and equipment will be increasing, which will lead to higher prices.
People are not responsible with their own health and how they use their insurance, that will not change when adding in these new people.
If you want to argue, you could say that a large portion of the uninsured are young and will not need to use their insurance as much. But, whatever "surplus" created by that, will be washed away by preexisting conditions, no maxes, and no dropping. Add in the that another portion of the uninsured are poor, which usually means unhealthy. On top of that, the way in which most people misuse their insurance, costs will be increasing. I am not even taking into account the taxes that will be raised on the healthcare services and products.
If over the next decade we get healthier, then we will see savings, otherwise fugettabout it.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,942
Registered:
6/8/09
|
|
(24537 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 8:08 PM
|
>
> > KSM is not a citizen and was not in the US at
> the
> > time. He is also part of a group that has
> declared
> > war on the US, already committed an act, and
> planning
> > more.
> >
Don:
> He was planning attacks against Americans, to be
> launched on American soil. That gives US courts a
> jurisdiction.
>
Of course, but the Bush maladministration didn't want to have to prove anything and didn't want to be held to civilized treatment of prisoners- so the Military Tribunal nonsense.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,942
Registered:
6/8/09
|
|
(24536 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 8:04 PM
|
Sunass:
> So, please explain why the question is stupid? They
> were not treated like common criminals but terrorists
> and war criminals, and tried in military tribunals,
> not in the Federal District court in Virginia or NY.
You have adequately established your ignorance and your inability to understand the English language already. Give it up.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,050
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24535 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 7:25 PM
|
> Did we bring those that conspired to kill Lincoln to
> court, did we bring the person who cordinated Pearl
> Harbor to court?
>
> No, so why do we bring KSM and friends in to court?
>
> For those that use McVeigh and Moussaoui as examples
> of how KSM should be treated, remember McVeigh was an
> American citizen who acted alone, not a group attack,
> and Moussaoui was in the US at the time of his
> arrest.
>
Wasn't Terry Nichols helping McVeigh?
And didn't we bring the perps of the 1993 WTC attack to court, and try and convict them, in NYC?
> KSM is not a citizen and was not in the US at the
> time. He is also part of a group that has declared
> war on the US, already committed an act, and planning
> more.
>
He was planning attacks against Americans, to be launched on American soil. That gives US courts a jurisdiction.
> McVeigh and Moussaoui were arrested, KSM was
> captured. Arrest signifies law enforcement, capture
> signifies military action.
Ever hear of Manuel Noriega? Seems to me, he also was not a US citizen, and was also captured on foreign soil. He was tried and convicted in US Federal Court.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,050
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24534 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 7:10 PM
|
> It seems as if health reform will end up raising the
> cost of healthcare, instead of decreasing it. They
> have no shown any savings or how it will occur.
Actually, they have. You may not have been paying attention. Universal coverage means a dramatic drop in cost shifting. That brings down the costs, because there are 20% more people paying the costs.
They
> are merely taking money from Peter to pay Paul.
> Hiding costs in other bills.
>
They've been doing that all along, Sunny. What do you think "cost-shifting" is?
> So, it will not be deficit neutral, lower costs,
> improve service.
It probably will improve service, and the employment picture, if it leads to hiring more people. It will definitely lower costs. As for whether it will be deficit neutral or not... I don't think anybody can do more than guess at this point, since there's nothing concrete about how the public option, if there is one, will be working, what kinds of stuff will be taxed and at what rate... Way too many variables to predict.
Don't forget the reason for the
> public option, to bring competition in the insurance
> industry and provide a lower cost insurance, yet the
> CBO says the public option will be more expensive
> than private insurance, so exactly how will that
> lower costs?
The CBO, eh? They are basing their computations on the bill in its current form, aren't they? Is that the form of the Bill that will be enacted into law? Ummmm.... No.
I think the only thing we can be sure of about the provisions in the bill now, is that it will be changed in the conference committee before it goes to the WH for signature or veto.
So the only thing we can be sure of regarding the CBO's predictions, is that their figures are inaccurate.
|
|
|
Posts:
13,544
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(24533 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 6:43 PM
|
|
Obama's Union SS are not helping. MSMv2.0 needs an immediate update.
|
|
|
Posts:
13,544
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(24532 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 6:42 PM
|
This is Obama media on China:
We've a bad deal because we're buying their cheap toys, while they are buying our country.
Gee, I wonder who was buying our toxic financial instruments through the housing bubble.
This is not how we draw a hard line with the (Chin)nise.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,001
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24531 of 25130)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 17, 2009 4:33 PM
|
Since 1991 the RNC, the Republican National Committee, has been offering abortion coverage from CIGNA for its employees. They CHOSE to opt in FOR abortion coverage. NOW Michael Steele is re-evaluating.
Here's Politico article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456.html
Psst, Psst, look over here, look over here. Don't look there.
It's not what you think. Watch the watch, Watch the watch.
Do as WE say, not as WE do. WE are special, WE are not YOU. And don't you ever forget it!
--
Edited by s2grand at 11/17/2009 1:40 PM PST
--
Edited by s2grand at 11/17/2009 1:49 PM PST
--
Edited by s2grand at 11/17/2009 1:49 PM PST
|
|
|
|
|
