I recently heard on the news that SSI Taxes have increased 14 times in 35 years. I have not verified that fact, but I have verified the current SSI tax is 12.4%. Some argue that half of this is paid by your employer. But let us be real, the employer passes all costs onto the employee through lower wages or benefits. That is 12.4% of your earnings. You can now add Federal, State, Medicare, sales, and hidden consumption tax to this figure. I would like to see a study on exactly how much of our money is used up in taxes.
When did the Democrat party become the fiscal conservative party? There is currently a battle over an amendment to the Senate budget called paygo. Which stands for Pay As You Go. Sounds good right? The amendment would mandate that legislation to raise spending or cut taxes would need the support of 60 of the 100 senators unless it was accompanied by enough spending cuts or tax increases to offset its effect on the deficit. Well this makes sense to me. But guess who is fighting it? The Republicans! Guess who is pushing it? The Democrats! The world is not right anymore. Nothing makes sense to me any longer.
The Senate Budget Committee rejected the Paygo amendment last week by a party-line vote of 12 Republicans opposed and 10 Democrats in favor. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio). Dianne Feinstein? I always disagree with this women! How do I find my self on her side? There must be something I am missing that makes this Bill wrong. There just has to be a reason!
Nussle and his counterpart on the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), have said they object to paygo because it would come down harder on tax cuts than on spending increases. The strictures of paygo would be brought to bear against all tax-cut legislation, but programs that guarantee benefits to qualified individuals, such as Social Security, have automatic increases built in so no legislation is needed to authorize the larger spending. And because there is no legislation for those increases, their argument goes, paygo would not apply.
Aha! I knew it! I knew there had to be a catch! My world is now right again. Whew, that was a close one.
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 23 years of age, was indicted on 6 counts in the case of planning to kill the President of The United States. If convicted he could do as much as 80 years in prison.
Let’s break this case down.
He was arrested in Saudi Arabia while going to school in that country on June 09, 2003.
On June 16, 2003 the feds searched is residence in Virginia and found the following:
A six page document describing various forms of surveillance techniques used by the Federal Government and private entities, and how to avoid such surveillance.
An undated 2 page document praising the Taliban leader Mullah Omar and terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and condemning U.S. military action in Afghanistan.
An issue of the magazine handguns with a subscription label in the name of Ahmed Ali.
Audio tapes in Arabic promoting violent Jihad, the killing of Jews, and a battle by Muslims against Christians and Jews.
A book written by al-Qaeda official Ahman al-Zawahiri, in which Zawahiri characterizes democracy as a new religion that must be destroyed by war, describes anyone who supports democracy as an infidel and condemns Muslim brotherhood for renouncing violent Jihad as a means to establish a Muslim State.
OK, that is some really scary stuff. Add to that he decided to leave the country to go to school in Saudi Arabia and you start to get a very troubling picture.
The indictment basically charges him with giving material support or resources to a terrorist organization; specifically al-Qaeda. This happened between September 2002 and June 2003.
He flew to Medina in 2000 to pursue religious studies and met with coconspirator #1.
In August 2000 he returned to the U.S. and kept in contact with coconspirator #1.
In September 2002 he flew back to Saudi Arabia. He met with coconspirator #1 and advised him of his desire to join al-Qaeda.
Between September 2002 and June 2003 coconspirator #1 introduced Abu Ali to coconspirator #2 in Medina.
It was the intent of Abu Ali to become a terrorist planner.
Between this time period Abu Ali discussed plans to kill The President George W. Bush. They discussed 2 plans: for Abu Ali to get close enough on the street to shoot the President and another involving detonating a car bomb.
He then met with coconspirator #3 about the assassination plans and received his blessing.
He was then introduced to coconspirator #4 and knew #2 and #4 were al-Qaeda.
He then tried to obtain a visa to fly to Iran with the intent of going to Afghanistan to join the Jihad against the American Military. But his visa was denied.
He then let them know he wished to further al-Qaeda’s objectives and moved in with a bunch of coconspirators. He then moved around using al-Qaeda lodging and was given money to buy a laptop, a cell phone, and books.
He then received training in guns, explosives and document forgery.
OK folks, I don’t know about you, but this seems like a bad guy to me. I don’t understand why we are not getting this picture from mainstream media. If this can be proved he is obviously a terrorist.
He was Arrested in Saudi Arabia and held there till August 2004. He confessed while under their care and is now indicted in the U.S. . The defense is now claiming that he was tortured so all the information attained under the torture is not admissible.
The “friend” of President G.W. Bush, that secretly recorded their conversations, apologized for playing portions of the tapes to his publisher. He has also canceled his tour, will be donating his royalties to charity, and is handing over the tapes to the White House.
Maybe he is a good guy after all.
The Big story in the news for the past couple of days has been covered to death; the Nichol’s escape and capture. But no one is willing to talk about the real story. A 6’4″, 200lb, un cuffed, ex college football player, guarded by a 5’1″, 51 year old, over weight, female guard. This is where all this political correctness has gotten us. No a 5’1″ 51 year old out of shape women cannot do the guarding job of a Big ole man. This is just a fact. In a case like this you want a couple of intimidating individuals guarding the prisoner. You don’t only want them to be able to physically control the prisoner, but also to discourage the attempted escape. The same is true in law enforcement. I am 6’4″ 275 pounds. I could probably loose 20 of those pounds. No, I doubt there are many women who will intimidate me. But even a 5’11” Man in good shape is going to think he can take most women. This encourages criminal individuals to try and resist arrest. That is not to say I think small men should do these jobs either; for the same reason. But all of this common sense thought cannot be talked about anymore. It is not “PC”. All this PC thinking is getting us into trouble, and placing people’s lives at risk; as happened in this case.
Could this have been different if there was a 200lb 6 foot tall, or taller, in shape officer gaurding the prisoner? Maybe, we will never know. should there have been more then one gaurd? You bet. But on prevuios occaisions it had been 2 women of inadequet physical stature gaurding Nichol’s, as stated by a juror. Notice now they have numerous large Men gaurding the prisoner. I think this makes a statement.
There should be height requirements in certain jobs. There should be requirements they stay in shape. There should be physical strength requirements that are above average. Dare I say gender requirements? That would be against the law. But the women should have to meet “all” the same requirements as the men. So young lady step up and bench press 200lbs or get out. Climb over the same wall as the men and run the same distance, in the same time required for men, or you don’t get the job. It is just patently wrong if there are physical and/or mental requirements for a job, that just because of your skin color or gender, you get a pass on the requirements. There should not be easier physical tests, or lower written test scores accepted. How is this discrimination? I have seen the folly of this first hand as a NYC Paramedic. The police and fire dept forced to give easier physical testing to women and hire people with lower test scores because they are a minority. Thus leaving better qualified people sitting on a waiting list for years. Can they do the job? Sort of, as long as women are not required to use physical strength. Then it all falls apart. In certain fields, this can be the difference between life and death. Is it OK if 70% of the time it is not a problem, but 30% it is a problem? What if it is only 5%? But someone’s life is depending on you that 5% of the time; is it still OK? Is it OK as a Paramedic to be forced to work with a 5’5″ normally built women who cannot carry her end of the stretcher all the time? Making it necessary to call for another ambulance to help carry the patient? Taking that ambulance out of service for others that need it? How about if it is a true, life threatening emergency; and time is all important? Do you want to wait for that second ambulance while you are dying?
I think we better re-think some of our anti-discrimination laws in this country. People’s lives depend on it.
Well if you listen to all the doom and gloomers over the last few years you are just waiting for the economy, spured on by The Presidents tax cuts, to tank. Here is an article showing the continuing rise in the job market.
I love good news.
I cannot understand how anyone cannot see the coming problem/crisis, whatever you wish to call it, for SSI. I am in my 40s and don’t plan to see a cent of SSI. The only way to keep it the way it is right now is to greatly raise taxes in the future. Let us raise the age of retirement again! yea! Let me see, start working at 16 years of age, and get to finaly retire at age 70! Wow! great idea! 54 years of busting my back for what? A small hand out from the government.
So here comes someone who says hey, we will lower your SSI tax and let you use, what we let you keep, of your own money to put in certain safe investment accounts. What me? Put my money in my own private account? To be used for my retirement? Bad idea. We can’t have me actually decide when I will retire and on how much money. No way! You just take more of my money and make sure, I can barely survive retiring at age 70. I like this idea much better.
People that live paycheck to paycheck cannot find any extra money to place in an IRA account for their retirement. This would give them their own money to put in an IRA account, or other safe funds for their retirement. I wish my wife and I had all the money that went into SSI and would have put it in an account for retirement. We could then retire comfortably.
I just do not understand what people are thinking.