idrankwhat

Well I stand corrected. Please refer to item #43. He said.."I have a newer bridge other than the bridge I sold ya in the middle of the desert, and it doesn't have water either. Oh and while you're at it work harder!" Item #43 was President #43. The difference between the two bridges is that one of them will be built here in the US, with our own workers, who will (after taxes) spend their paychecks in our own stores. The other was a bridge in the desert of another country, that we paid a premium price for (plus expenses and nearly tax free), that was either never built or is was so poorly constructed that it has already fallen apart.

You're confusing #44 with #43. We were sold that bridge. And then we even paid the contractors who didn't build it.

It was an excellent speech. But if you want to dismiss the rest of it because of one debatable sentence, go right ahead. IMO, he should have dropped that sentence. Besides the fact that it will most likely be the only content that is discussed today, one could argue that the entire bill is an earmark. But that's what a stimulus bill is. From the OMB: "Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient,....."

It's not free use. The banks generate interest from the money on the deposit. That should be enough. The problem lies in that the bank's priorities are in serving their executives and shareholders. Interest rates are low so the traditional method of revenue wasn't deemed profitable enough. They quickly found out that they can make more money through fees. They can make even more money if those fees cause delinquency. The bank's idea of a good customer is one that is living from paycheck to paycheck and is struggling to keep their account in the black. Late fees, overdraft fees, etc., are now the bank's primary sources of revenue. Back in the early days of the ATM you couldn't over draw your account. You would get a message that stated that you had insufficient funds. Now you can overdraw your account, and you will get hit with a sizeable fee. This desire to profit from failure is part of what drove the housing crisis. The banks didn't give a crap if the customer couldn't pay back the mortgage. They took the fees at closing, bundled up the note with a bunch of others, sold off the package and hedged against it. I think it's crap.

You're right, but to be fair to Mike I also knew where the implications would lead. The partisan aspect regarding the implementation of misdirection and diversion bears itself out as consequence whether we are talking about the success/failure of talk radio programming or some of the exchanges in this thread.

I didn't think Air America was still in business... It may not be. It was built on the "vegetarian steakhouse" business model. Most of us to the left of the arbitrary lib/con line don't like misinformation, no matter how LOUD or sensational it is.

Fiscal discipline...focus. Good point. The previous administration took a very disciplined approach to raiding the Treasury and having little to show for it.

Can I answer this one?!?!?!?!!? I read your posts Marg. I'm not sure what to think about folks who argue without taking the rebuttal into consideration....except that they have a future in talk radio.

There are some funny parts. I just dont see the humor in it like my wife does. She's damn near rolling on the floor laughing. All I can do is try. Aye! A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Say no more!

No! Do, or do not. There is no "try".

At least the private industry folks don't have to know COBOL to do their jobs. Then again, they may have to use Vista. I'm not sure which is worse. http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/04/14/Pentagons-Accounting-Mess

What are you talking about. He's already kept his first promise.

Looks trendy to me

That would be awesome. Post 'em all. But so you know, I was only exaggerating a teeny bit in my earlier reference.

But America needs the money hole!!! Certainly an overstatement, but I agree with you. I think it's a step in the right direction. Any attempt at transparency is a good thing. I'd love to see something similar for the Pentagon's budget. Certainly not the full monty, but open accounting for most of it should be available. It might help us find those folks who bill us $1,000,000 shipping for a few cents worth of washers faster.

Actually stated he he wants everything Obama does to fail. And he stated very clearly about one minute in that he wants the stimulus package to fail.

At least we've been given a site that can be vetted. That's a "change" for the better. And I'm sure that although I think it's a great idea that it will surely come back to bite Obama in the ass. Previously people had nothing to complain about except that their dollars were disappearing with very little accounting of where that money went. Now people will have a site they can find specifics and say "look where they're wasting our money". More information = more criticism.

No, but it's controlled through a "third party" by way of an agreement between Israel, the US, the PA and Egypt. I'm having a hard time piecing that one together. The EU monitors have to be present for the border to be open. That's rarely the case these days for more than a couple of reasons. Egypt has opened the Rafah crossing from time to time, typically to allow people to receive medical treatment and to let some supplies in. But they can't keep it open because of the agreement and because Egypt doesn't think it can securely handle 1.5 million suffering (and angry) people. It seems that Egypt wants to help more, but can't do it legally or without the risk of being over run. That seems the most likely reason that Egyptian eyes seem to divert with regard to the tunneling activity. It's a financially lucrative means of allowing aid without "allowing" it.

An old friend sent this to me just for you. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/02/video-palestinian-bulldozer-attack-kills-2-in-jerusalem/ I believe you are now "it". Jew in a bulldozer, please. Ooops, you're right. I forgot that one. Don't want to play any more today. But if you're interested in where I'd probably go for the counter argument material, it's here. Poke around for a while. There's some good info there.

Rachel Corrie's incident aside, the destruction of homes and orchards that Billvon was referring to is just another example of the on going policy of collective punishment. But to be clear in the context of the thread, Israel's war crimes do not justify Hamas' war crimes, and vice versa.

No you don't.

I don't know if I'll get banned for saying this, but on this particular topic you argue like a neo-con. But I already knew that so I'll take responsibility for lighting that fuse. Sorry, and have a nice day.

Actions speak louder than vows.

Got any cool videos of Palestinians, or anyone else for that matter, running over people with Caterpillar bulldozers? Tag, you're it.

Spoken like both sides. Spoken like both sides. Spoken like both sides. And where did the power come from? And where did the power come from? Spoken like both sides. Hypocrisy is annoying.