New Ethic Rules Less Then A Day

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I agree the bi-partisan rap is BS but can't say I blame them--the Rebs been pulling same on em for 12 years--I'd want a little payback myself if in their shoes.

Smurph--nothing about ethnic cleansing--It really doesn't matter to me as I can kick back anytime--but if one is in their 30's or 40's I see some sad times ahead--unless you like France's/Russia's economic climate.

If you can tell me how 50% of people can support themselves and the other 50% I'll reconsider statement. The 80/20 rule that applied for generations is now about 66/33.

--if you think U.S. jobs moving overseas has been bad you haven;t seen anything yet.

Liberals need to understand companies create jobs not visa versa--but you will some day.

 

[smurphy]

Why do you say liberals and then me as if we are the same? Just because I'm not you doesn't make me a liberal.

Anyway, DTB - Are you aware that the % of US population that is black has remained at the same 12-14% for the last 100 years?

Yes, I'm aware that the global market dictates many more jobs will continue to go overseas. It's innevitable.

I don't really know what you are talking about with the 66/33 thing. I know that we don't have 1/3 of the population on welfare, so I guess your talking about something else. Please explain...

 

[THE KOD]

I must admit I have trouble most of the time understanding what DTB is getting at .

:shrug:

 

[The Sponge]

I must admit I have trouble most of the time understanding what DTB is getting at .

:shrug:

Scott you need to get a copy of that paper dog wrote in college to be able to figure him out. Smurph passed out copies weeks ago didn't you get yours?. By the way dog when im being challanged about being a racist how come you never lend me a helping hand? do you sit there and read it and want to help me but you think its better that you don't?

 

[smurphy]

Scott you need to get a copy of that paper dog wrote in college to be able to figure him out.

:142smilie
you are now officially funnier than gardenweasel. keep up the good work.

 

[kosar]

The huge(around 75% for Kerry in 2004 as I recall, for example, but they always vote democratic in big numbers) percentage of Jews that vote democratic don't seem to bother Dogs, and the generally consistent 55-45 dem Asian vote doesn't bother him. Just the brothers.

Oh, brother.

Now back to the Jews. Their homeland has the most at stake in the ME.

You would think they would vote for whoever the felt gave them the best shot in Israel. Wouldn't that generally be their number one concern? Not sure.

But whatever the case, and i've directly asked this to Wayne several times before without an answer, of course, but what can you attribute this subset so dominantly voting Democratic to?

You have all the answers for why those negroes vote dem, but you haven't come up with anything for the Jews.

Rifle through your stats and actuarial charts and let me know.

Check the Asians while you're at it.

 

[djv]

Funny how I got ate alive her in past when I said such stupid things like. Screw the world how about we take care of thing here at home first.
DTB Liberals you say should find out what makes jobs. I'll take Clintons idea of over 22 million vs Bush 9.5 million. Maybe bush could learn from the liberals.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Table 1. Number of Tax Filers with Zero Tax Liability, 1950-2004

Year
Total Tax Returns Filed
Tax Returns with Zero Tax Liability
Percentage of Tax Returns with Zero Tax Liability

1950
53,060,098
14,873,416
28.0%

1951
55,447,009
12,798,399
23.1%

1952
56,528,817
12,652,544
22.4%

1953
57,838,184
12,615,033
21.8%

1954
56,747,008
14,113,948
24.9%

1955
58,250,188
13,561,123
23.3%

1956
59,197,004
12,938,358
21.9%

1957
59,825,121
12,959,806
21.7%

1958
59,085,182
13,433,048
22.7%

1959
60,271,297
12,774,384
21.2%

1960
61,027,931
12,966,946
21.2%

1961
61,499,420
12,916,655
21.0%

1962
62,712,386
12,620,023
20.1%

1963
63,943,236
12,620,015
19.7%

1964
65,375,601
14,069,263
21.5%

1965
67,596,300
13,895,506
20.6%

1966
70,160,425
13,451,349
19.2%

1967
71,651,909
12,978,971
18.1%

1968
73,728,708
12,440,000
16.9%

1969
75,834,388
12,112,994
16.0%

1970
74,279,831
14,962,460
20.1%

1971
74,576,407
14,660,035
19.7%

1972
77,572,720
16,703,713
21.5%

1973
80,692,587
16,425,425
20.4%

1974
83,340,190
16,005,423
19.2%

1975
82,229,332
20,738,595
25.2%

1976
84,670,389
20,249,022
23.9%

1977
86,634,640
22,253,502
25.7%

1978
89,771,551
21,083,246
23.5%

1979
92,964,302
20,999,319
22.6%

1980
93,902,469
19,996,225
21.3%

1981
95,396,123
18,671,399
19.6%

1982
95,337,432
18,302,132
19.2%

1983
96,321,310
18,304,987
19.0%

1984
99,438,708
17,799,199
17.9%

1985
101,660,287
18,813,867
18.5%

1986
103,045,170
19,077,757
18.5%

1987
106,996,270
20,272,474
18.9%

1988
109,708,280
22,572,948
20.6%

1989
112,135,673
22,957,318
20.5%

1990
113,717,138
23,854,704
21.0%

1991
114,730,123
25,996,536
22.7%

1992
113,604,503
26,872,557
23.7%

1993
114,601,819
28,166,452
24.6%

1994
115,943,131
28,323,685
24.4%

1995
118,218,327
28,965,338
24.5%

1996
120,351,208
29,421,858
24.4%

1997
122,421,991
28,950,791
23.6%

1998
124,770,662
31,722,764
25.4%

1999
127,075,145
32,529,065
25.6%

2000
129,373,500
32,555,897
25.2%

2001
130,255,237
35,491,707
27.2%

2002
130,076,443
39,112,547
30.1%

2003
130,571,319
41,467,439
31.8%

2004*
131,113,969
42,545,501
32.4%

 

[smurphy]

Table 1. Number of Tax Filers with Zero Tax Liability, 1950-2004

Year
Total Tax Returns Filed
Tax Returns with Zero Tax Liability
Percentage of Tax Returns with Zero Tax Liability

1992
113,604,503
26,872,557
23.7%

1993
114,601,819
28,166,452
24.6%

1994
115,943,131
28,323,685
24.4%

1995
118,218,327
28,965,338
24.5%

1996
120,351,208
29,421,858
24.4%

1997
122,421,991
28,950,791
23.6%

1998
124,770,662
31,722,764
25.4%

1999
127,075,145
32,529,065
25.6%

2000
129,373,500
32,555,897
25.2%

2001
130,255,237
35,491,707
27.2%

2002
130,076,443
39,112,547
30.1%

2003
130,571,319
41,467,439
31.8%

2004*
131,113,969
42,545,501
32.4%

Wow! those numbers really began to spiral out of control under Bush and his tax cuts. Interesting. Well, with the new minimum wage I believe you will see a dip in this number.

Look - I essentially agree with you on wanting to get rid of the Earned Income Credit. If the minimum wage is high enough, then the EIC can completely dissappear. If everyone working full time has wages at or above the liveable index, then we can get this % back in the 20 range (like we had under Clinton).:mj07:

 

[djv]

It was strange how Clinton got rid of deficit and ended with very nice surplus. And top 2 % didn.t complain they were making to much money.

 

[IntenseOperator]

this was posted on the 4th

What else besides throwing parties and saying the "marble ceiling" is gone has been done? or is going to be done?:shrug:

I think Nancy has three more days?

 

[IntenseOperator]

Jan 9, 2:54 PM EST

House Democrats Move on Terror Bill

By BEVERLEY LUMPKIN
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats moved Tuesday to implement some of the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 commission as the first in a string of bills over the next two weeks aimed at asserting their new control over Congress.

The bill would redirect homeland security funds to more urban areas based on their likelihood of becoming a target of terrorists and eventually require that all cargo containers bound for the United States be scanned for nuclear materials and explosives.

"Here's a chance for Congress to stop dragging its feet," said Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the new Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "It's been three years since the 9/11 Commission issued its report. Now is the time to put words into action."

Republicans found themselves in the same position that Democrats said they had occupied the past 12 years when the GOP had control of the House, frozen out in writing the bill and with no chance to offer amendments to it.

"We as Republicans had no say whatsover on this legislation," said Rep. Peter King of New York, the homeland security panel's former chairman and now its senior GOP member. He said the bill "gives false hope to the American people" because technology for scanning all cargo containers is not available now.

The bill is the first of six that new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., promised to pass within the first 100 hours of Congress. On Wednesday, the House is scheduled to take up a bill increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, followed by another bill Thursday to expand federally funded stem cell research.

The anti-terrorism bill also would also require screening of all air cargo on passenger planes and consolidate efforts to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Its fate was less clear in the Senate, which held hearings Tuesday on many of the same issues. Because of questions about the costs and impact of some provisions - such as how more intensive cargo inspections might hamper global commerce - it is uncertain how much of the bill is likely to become law.

House leaders, who symbolically labeled the bill H.R. 1, were eager to contrast their action on the issue with the Republican-run Congress' failure to approve some of the 41 recommendations the commission. That panel made its proposals three years ago in an effort to prevent a repeat of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Democrats will be - and hopefully we'll be doing this in a bipartisan way - putting the protection of the American people very high on our priority list," Pelosi told reporters on Monday.

Though many Republicans were expected to support the measure, some objected to provisions of the bill and the speed with which Democratic leaders planned to whip it through the House, bypassing hearings.

Democrats declined to cite the bill's total price tag. A similar measure introduced in the Senate last year by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., was estimated at $53 billion over five years, but it included some costs not covered in the new proposal. Funding for the bill would come in separate spending legislation.

The House also planned to vote on a separate measure creating a new House committee that would closely monitor the budget and actions of the U.S. intelligence community. Congressional jurisdiction over intelligence is currently spread among several committees.

The bill moves toward the 9/11 Commission's recommendation to centralize congressional oversight in either a joint House-Senate panel or one committee in each chamber.

Many of the commission's recommendations have already been enacted, including some changes in the organization of intelligence institutions, in air security systems and in strategies for disrupting terrorist financing.

Other recommendations were not acted upon because of costs and political differences. Among them was one that would give Transportation Security Administration screeners at airports the right to join unions and provide them with whistle-blower protections.

The Democrats' bill would direct the Homeland Security Department to phase in the inspection of all cargo carried on passenger aircraft over the next three years. It would also require scanning of all containers bound aboard ships for the U.S. Large ports would be given three years and smaller ports five years to comply.

Homeland security grants would be allocated to states according to risk assessment rather than population under the bill, which also calls for shoring up ways to keep nuclear weapons out of terrorists' hands. Better emergency communications systems for state and local first-responders would be sought as well.

 

[IntenseOperator]

Anyone alse hear that the new congress decided to take the day off for the OSU/Fla game?:com:

Was wondering if that was just radio gossip.:shrug:

 

[kosar]

Anyone alse hear that the new congress decided to take the day off for the OSU/Fla game?:com:

Was wondering if that was just radio gossip.:shrug:

Yeah, it's true. They were scheduled to have a night session but decided just to take the whole day off. Of course, the more serious minded on both sides of the aisle who actually wanted to work are blaming the other party.

At least John McCain got to meet the captains of both teams at midfield right before the coin toss. :shrug:

 

[IntenseOperator]

Yeah, it's true. They were scheduled to have a night session but decided just to take the whole day off. Of course, the more serious minded on both sides of the aisle who actually wanted to work are blaming the other party.

Same ol' same ol'

 

[IntenseOperator]

Dam new congress passed new ethic rules in first day. Last congress couldn't get it done in a year. Good start.

Don't mean to beat this to death.....but this was posted on the 4th.

Have they chiseled in time to find a cure for cancer? amongst all the issues they are knocking down?

 

[smurphy]

Ethics hit a snag because the Republicans won't give it enough support now. They want a provision for the President to be able to do his little line item veto thing.

Come on, GOP! Worry about that later. Let's get SOMETHING in. Show the public you give a shit, for once!

....In other news, the Dems have completed #5 on their initial list of 6 by lowering interest rates on most student loans.

I appreciate the spin from stubborn Republicans, but anyone with an ounce of logic can see that the new Congress (Dems anyway) are making real efforts.

 

[IntenseOperator]

Nancy has moved on now to put together a special committee on global warming.

Sounds like many of the points in the "1st 100 hours speech" are going to be filed.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

ie--Global Warming
been interesting watching the bickering of meteorologist vs a lady from weather channel

AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION
January 19, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano marc_morano@epw.senate.gov

After EPW blog post yesterday Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 check out this blog post from ABC-TV Alabama affiliate weatherman James Spann http://www.jamesspann.com/blog.htm

Also check out Weather Channel response to the controversy http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....a-23ad-430e-1c42aad22006&Region_id=&Issue_id=

From Spann blog - his bio:




"In 2005 I upgraded the AMS seal of approval to the new "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" designation. The CBM is the highest level of certification from the AMS, and involves academic requirements, on-air performance, a rigorous examination, and continuing education.Official bio here: http://www.abc3340.com/news/talent.hrb?i=188

The Weather Channel Mess
January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed

Well, well. Some ?climate expert? on ?The Weather Channel? wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent ?global warming? is a natural process. So much for ?tolerance?, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can?t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at ?The Weather Channel? probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don?t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against ?The Weather Channel?, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won?t go.

 

[IntenseOperator]

Dam new congress passed new ethic rules in first day. Last congress couldn't get it done in a year. Good start.

Damn, we are rolling right along now!!!