Capt.Slog

Neither of these sets is remotely close to minimum wage, though.

Same reason that people have had to move throughout the centuries. Same reason people had to leave the rust belt when traditional industries died. It's not always that easy. Chuck No-one said it was, but remember, the USA was founded by people who moved, mostly under much more difficult circumstances than someone who just inherited a multi-million dollar ranch.

Maybe they are smart enough to know the difference between infer and imply.

Of course, the biggest beneficiaries are the small business owners who hire illegals for sub-standard pay and no benefits. The contractors can always hire citizens if they choose to.

1. Newsmax 2. "Estimated"

Answer Wendy's question: How much are you willing to spend to ensure that not a single illegal alien receives benefits? YOUR speculation is not an answer.

There are now millions of people, all of whom thought they were as smart as you think you are, who have lost 50% or more of their retirement savings in the last 6 months of Bush's presidency. And THAT is the reason we need some sort of insurance.

Nearly 3 million jobs LOST in the last 4 months. How many workers do you think Burger King can absorb? Next you'll be telling them to eat cake.

I agree he pissed away tax money with the bailouts/stimulus checks last summer and raised minimum wage which is wrong. I didn't agree with his 50billion foreign AIDS package either. PEANUTS compared with the money he pissed away in Iraq.

Oh, you foolish boy. 5% of your neighbors are already Cylons. And Johnny Five is ALIVE.

Same reason that people have had to move throughout the centuries. Same reason people had to leave the rust belt when traditional industries died.

Euthanasia?

I think those who are retiring this year are pleased to have Soc Sec because their nice safe 401Ks have tanked so badly. Those who invested in nice safe real estate are regretting it too. According to the Cato Institute's analysis, SocSec returns are generally** above both long term government bonds and TBills. Less than corporate bonds or the stock market, BUT THOSE ARE HARDLY SAFE SECURED accounts. ** effective rate depends on time period, income, and marital status. Stll, SocSec is generally better. www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-4.html A comparison of the pre-tax rates of return from the social security system (Tables 2, 3, and 4) with the average rates of return for alternative investments for the time period 1945-89 in Table 1 shows that the social security returns are very favorable. The returns for those retiring presently or in the near future are impressive. For 65-year-old couples (Table 2), the rates of return from the social security system range from 8.14 percent for 50/50 income split couples with 1990 incomes of $100,000 to 11.24 percent for one-earner couples with incomes of $10,000. These rates exceed those of all investments for the 1945-89 time period except the most risky, common stock, which had a rate of return of 13.57 percent. As predicted, couples with one earner have high rates of returns because they receive spousal benefits without making additional contributions. For 65-year-old singles, the rates of return ranging from 7.65 percent for a male beneficiary with income of $100,000 to 10.02 percent for a female with income of $10,000 are somewhat lower than for couples because of the lack of spousal benefits but still compare favorably with all investments except common stock. As anticipated, females have higher rates of return than males with the same income because of their longer life expectancy. Overall, the rates for many 65-year-old beneficiaries are almost twice as high as the average rates of return for long-term corporate bonds, long-term government bonds, and U.S. Treasury Bills for the 1945-89 time period. [3] Changing your tune now that your last one was proven to be a flop

Simplest explanation is usually correct - we were just ignoring you.

From FACTCHECK.ORG A new e-mail being circulated about Obama's tax proposals is almost entirely false. Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up.This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate. Estate Tax. The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more. The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent. Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent. "New Tax" Falsehoods: The e-mail continues with a string of made-up taxes that it falsely claims Obama has proposed. He has not proposed a tax on new homes with more than 2,400 square feet, or a new gasoline tax or a tax on retirement accounts. The most laughably false claim is that Obama would tax "water." Two claims in this message, while not completely false, are still grossly misleading. The claim that Obama would impose "new taxes on natural resources" may refer to his support for a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which indeed would impose large costs on industries burning coal, gas or oil and, indirectly, on their consumers. But McCain also supports cap-and-trade legislation, and even coauthored an early version of a bill that reached the Senate floor this year. Obama's plan would give the federal government more of the revenue from auctioning pollution permits than McCain's plan. Whether cap-and-trade amounts to a "tax" is a matter of interpretation. The fact is neither McCain nor Obama call it that. There is also some truth to the claim that Obama would impose "new taxes" to finance his health care plan, depending on your interpretation of "new." He has said he would pay for much of his plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view. It may well be that Obama will eventually propose tax increases to finance some of his plan. We've noted before that the "cost savings" that he says will finance much of his plan are inflated and probably won't materialize, according to independent experts we consulted. But it's wrong to say that he's proposing such taxes now. The short answer to our reader's question is, no, this message isn't real. It's a pack of lies. -Brooks Jackson Sources “Background Questions and Answers on Health Care Plan.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008. “Energy and Environment. “Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008. News Release: “CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama on CNBC’s “Closing Bell.” 27 March 2008. CNBC Web site. “Plan to Strengthen the Economy.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008. Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” 20 June 2008.

I think those who are retiring this year are pleased to have Soc Sec because their nice safe 401Ks have tanked so badly. Those who invested in nice safe real estate are regretting it too. According to the Cato Institute's analysis, SocSec returns are generally** above both long term government bonds and TBills. Less than corporate bonds or the stock market, BUT THOSE ARE HARDLY SAFE SECURED accounts. ** effective rate depends on time period, income, and marital status. Stll, SocSec is generally better. www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-4.html A comparison of the pre-tax rates of return from the social security system (Tables 2, 3, and 4) with the average rates of return for alternative investments for the time period 1945-89 in Table 1 shows that the social security returns are very favorable. The returns for those retiring presently or in the near future are impressive. For 65-year-old couples (Table 2), the rates of return from the social security system range from 8.14 percent for 50/50 income split couples with 1990 incomes of $100,000 to 11.24 percent for one-earner couples with incomes of $10,000. These rates exceed those of all investments for the 1945-89 time period except the most risky, common stock, which had a rate of return of 13.57 percent. As predicted, couples with one earner have high rates of returns because they receive spousal benefits without making additional contributions. For 65-year-old singles, the rates of return ranging from 7.65 percent for a male beneficiary with income of $100,000 to 10.02 percent for a female with income of $10,000 are somewhat lower than for couples because of the lack of spousal benefits but still compare favorably with all investments except common stock. As anticipated, females have higher rates of return than males with the same income because of their longer life expectancy. Overall, the rates for many 65-year-old beneficiaries are almost twice as high as the average rates of return for long-term corporate bonds, long-term government bonds, and U.S. Treasury Bills for the 1945-89 time period. [3]

was it this guy link "Our great God is not surprised by this, or anything," Nate Adams, executive director of the Illinois Baptist State Association, said in a statement. "That he allows evil and free will to have their way in tragedies like this is a mystery in many ways. But we know we can trust him no matter what, and draw close to him in any circumstances." Translation - "WHATEVER!".

My stepson travels back and forth to college on Amtrak. No hassles, no problems.

That's some funny shit right there There are 180,681 employees and an additional 539,000+ retired and surviving spouses. Imagine running your company when you're paying pensions and benefits to 539,000 additional people who no longer contribute to the bottom line. It's not possible. Sure, the car makers agreed to this package...under threat of strikes. The greedy union members will bring this industry to its knees. Apparently the concept of leadership, and the responsibility that goes along with it, totally evades you. The unions have no duty to run GM - management does, and that includes negotiating contracts with the unions. GMs leaders greedily accepted the rewards of their positions while failing miserably to run the corporation effectively.

I've not heard of anyone being denied their SocSec payments, and I believe the system is solvent for some 30+ years even if no changes are made. UNLIKE those who depended on their 401k for retirement this year. I think those who are retiring this year are pleased to have Soc Sec because their nice safe 401Ks have tanked so badly. Those who invested in nice safe real estate are regretting it too.

it seems pretty obvious to me that an inheritance tax is the fairest of them (the taxed individual is dead so it's not going to affect them much, if at all

Oh dear. You know the dollar amount at which inheritance tax kicks in, right? It's not as if the government is taking money from starving widows and orphans.

Easy as you are spending the money to buy an item the item is taxed, it is not taxing money you spend on it so you are not being doubled taxed. How does that not apply to spending money you inherited? What if the money you inherit was not earned in the first place? Our system generally taxes transactions - earning, spending, dividends, etc. Why should the transaction of inheritance not be the same?

I've not heard of anyone being denied their SocSec payments, and I believe the system is solvent for some 30+ years even if no changes are made. UNLIKE those who depended on their 401k for retirement this year.

In 2006 Toyota's top 37 executives earned a combined $21.6 million in salary and bonuses, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. U.K. firm Manifest Information Services, which analyzes proxy information, estimates Toyota's top executive, Hiroshi Okuda, earned $903,000 in 2006. At Honda, the top 21 earned $11.1 million, combined in 2006, in salary and bonuses, SEC filings show. Ford's CEO, Alan Mulally, got $27.8 million in salary and bonus in his first few months on the job, including an $18.5 million signing bonus. GM's CEO made $15.7 million in 2007, a year when GM LOST $39BILLION Anyone notice a pattern there? Thats because the cost of living in Tokyo is much lower than in Detroit. Oh... wait.... Never mind.