Saracens 24 South Africa 23

How to describe one of the greatest moment’s in Saracens’ history?  Draw a crowd of 46,000 to Wembley – no problem.  Beat the World Champions and vanquishers of the British Lions – of course, if Leicester can.  But to do so in a style that could put an end to several international careers, and prove the starting point for many more?  To come from behind twice, when the game seemed completely against them, to play enterprising rugby and to dominate the scrum of a famous rugby-playing nation?  Certainly, it was effectively a South Africa A-team, but this was worthy of being called championship-winning rugby.

The first quarter turned out to be an awkward, but end-to-end affair.  For Saracens, defence was primary and Wikus van Heerden led by example, stifling South African attacks.  Unfortunately, he was also typical of Sarries’ occasional attacks, guilty on several occasions of losing the ball in the tackle. The game turned after Derick Hougaard missed an ambitious kick to touch from a penalty.  They began to slip out of the game as South Africa’s greater speed of delivery,  physicality  and lineout began to wear.

First, Earl Rose (continuing a line of South African full-backs with flair) tried a back-hand flip that sat up interminably for Adrian Strauss to run on to.  Then, returning a kick as the crowd began to get restless, South Africa broke down the right wing, their huge lock trading passes with winger Ndungane before charging past Noah Cato, who grabbed hold more in hope than conviction.  The chasing referee signalled that the video referee was needed to judge the score.  Thankfully, Cato had done enough.

Saracens were still absorbing hits of such magnitude as to give the lie to the assumption that both sides would try to avoid injuries at the sacrifice of the spectacle.  Michael Tagicakibau was here an unlikely, but noteworthy hero.  It wasn’t enough.  When de Kock was forced to concede a lineout after a clever kick, South Africa took their chance, drawing in defenders with the forwards before getting the ball out to Juan de Jonge, who slipped through a tackle to dive over.

Fortune then favoured South Africa, when a kick from Rose was knocked on into the path of Jongi Nowke, who ran in the simplest of tries.  The referee had thought that it had come off a Saracens hand.  It was unfortunate, but it favoured the better team at the time and reflected a widening gap between the two sides.  The score, at 6-18 was frustrating, but not necessarily unfair.

Half time brought some relief, and no more than for the audience and a certain cheeky chappy, Stuart Tinner.  News of Tinner’s £250,000 kick and the lift it had given the crowd apparently filtered back to the dressing room.  If it had any effect, it encouraged Saracens to become masters of their own destiny again.

What was more significant was the introduction of Alex Goode at full-back and Rodd Penney for Cato.  These two players turned the game on its head, offering a more unpredictable spark.  First, though, it was the forwards who put Sarries back in the match.  Having dominated the scrum since CJ van der Linde went off early in the first half, Ernst Joubert put pressure of Francois Hougaard’s clearence from a defensive scrum, charged it down, and picked up to return the score to 11-18.

South Africa counter-attacked, but were halted by a superb ankle-tap by Rodd Penney and turned over.  When they kicked again, Tagicakibau secured the ball, allowing Saracens to run from just outside the 22.  The ball was worked to Brad Barritt, who stepped inside and offloaded to release Hougaard.  The fly-half’s chip put the underwhelming Ruan Pienaar under the pressure of Joubert’s chase.  In the next breath, Kevin Barrett, on for de Kock, passed out of the tackle and the ball was sped wide.  Another replacement, Andy Saull, offloaded inside for Penney to race ahead.

If Penney had been able to find Tagicakibau, Saracens would have been level, but they didn’t have to wait long.  A scrum ten metres out gave Barritt the perfect chance to play first-receiver and the combination of his leg-power and Penney’s upper-body strength drove the pair over.

With the scores equal, the game turned into South Africa’s favour again.  Losing a lineout on their 22, Saracens were hit by a swiftly-executed move that saw Ndungane’s forward pass release Nokwe for his second try.  But South Africa’s tendency to live on the margins, shall we say, let them down as the referee began to pick up on their forward passes, halting their attacks.

Meanwhile, the crowd had been roused by the pluckiness on display on the black half of the field.  In a game-defining moment, Hougaard was smashed backwards taking a pass on the loop by Wynard Olivier.  In the next passage of play, Hougaard returned the favour, stopping Olivier dead in his tracks (with a little help from Mouritz Botha). When Hougaard kicked another penalty to make the score 21-24 with ten minutes to go, their was a palpable sense that Sarries might have the final laugh.

Hougaard had been searching for a drop goal since Barritt had levelled the scores.  He had probably missed four or five from the half-way line over the course of the match, so when he tried again with five minutes remaining the crowd were perhaps justified in their chorus of boos.  But as the ball sailed ever so slowly through the posts, the cheers were considerably louder.

The Bokke had been out-fought, out-played and out-sung.  Though a development team, they apparently had less to prove than Saracens, whose ambition and hunger are fast changing the face of English club rugby.  The whole team had proved outstanding, even with a league derby against Wasps fast approaching.  In their desire for the Springbok scalp, Sarries produced one of the great performances in their history, but the way this season is shaping up, victory could prove neither a full-stop, nor even an exclamation mark.  Here’s hoping it’s a semi-colon, and the rest of the sentence is as good.

C’est fou ce que l’être humain peut être contradictoire, il crée, détruit, peut faire preuve de beaucoup d’ingéniosité , et en la fois se rendre lui même complice du mal qui lui est fait. Prenons un premier exemple, qui depuis l’antiquité avec les jeux romains perdure aujourd’hui sous la forme de sports médiatisés.

Prenons à tout hasard bien sur.. le football.

250 000 € c’est environ 20 ans de travail pour un smicar au 35h, mais c’est aussi le salaire mensuel d’un joueur très bien payé en France.

Puis bon au cas où ils n’auraient pas assez pour finir les mois, les sponsors offrent voitures, vêtements, maisons, et bien plus encore !
Enfin bon après on va pas plaindre les français c’est quand même les moins bien payé dans le monde du football de haut niveau.

Donc en gros pour faire simple, des usines ferment, des personnes perdent leur travail ou n’en trouve pas, d’autres n’ont pas assez pour se nourrir, se loger, ou même offrir un petit cadeau à leur gamin de 5 ans. Pendant ce temps un sportif dit de haut niveau va toucher tous les mois 250K + X€ de pub,+ cado de sponsors + la liste serait trop longue…

Enfin bon tout ça pour dire que si nous acceptons dans notre modèle économique qu’une personne puissent gagner 210 fois le salaire d’une autre personne effectuant un travail plus physique et mentalement éprouvant, je crois qu’il faut savourer une bonne bière en rentrant du boulot en regardant un match de foot sur chaine câblée (que l’on paye 30€ par mois ).

Ou alors on peut déjà décider d’arrêter simplement de regarder cette télé abrutissante et non divertissante, de passer ce temps gagné à voir ses gosses, faire du tricot, de la bouffe, une bonne soirée entre amis ou bien plus encore…

Vous pouvez aussi vous dire que l’on peut être fier de ses idéaux, que de ne pas accepter le système actuel et être révolté n’est pas synonyme d’être fou ou simple rebel, mais plutôt que vous faites parti des personnes les plus censées de ce monde qui attendent simplement le soulèvement d’un mouvement de révolution pour réinstaurer ou instaurer un semblant d’égalité et de dignité dans le monde dans lequel nous vivons.

Not raising taxes on the middle class was one of Obama’s signature pledges.  In fact, let’s go back and review it:

“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

And Obama repeatedly claimed to the cheering crowds that if he was elected their taxes wouldn’t go up a single dime.

In point of fact, during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly attacked Hillary Clinton for supporting the same sort of mandates he wants to impose on the American people now.  He even ran a huge ad campaign demonizing her for doing the very thing he is now doing.

Remember George H.W. Bush’s now famous pledge, “Read my lips, no new taxes?“  Congressional Democrats who controlled the House and Senate forced Bush the elder to raise taxes – and then demagogued him for having raised them.  In the case of Barack Obama, no rival party is manipulating him; he’s breaking his promises all on his own.

Senate Republicans pointed out yesterday that Democrat health plans would make Obama’s promise to the American people a cynically deceptive and incredibly manipulative lie:

John ensign (R-NV), Senate Finance Committee:  “[Obama] said, ‘But let me be perfectly clear: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime.’”

Mike Crapo (R-ID), Senate Finance Committee:  “If we can’t do health care reform without taxing people in the middle class – and the lower income categories – then we’ve got the wrong plan in front of us.

Republicans pointed to several tax provisions – one clearly labeled an ‘excise tax’ in Sen. Baucus’ plan – would fine a family as much as $1,900 if it didn’t buy health insurance.  And if one failed to pay the tax, the IRS would take more even more drastic action:

Sen. Ensign:  “We heard that the other day.  The effect is, up to a $25,000 fine and one year in jail.”

One blogger backs up the tax increases in the Democrats’ plan by citing their own bill:

All the Democrat bills include tax penalties, administered through the Internal Revenue Service, for individuals and families who do not purchase “government-approved” coverage. Page 29 of the Baucus bill would subject families with incomes higher than three times poverty to an “excise tax” of up to $3,800 per year. Likewise, page 167 of the introduced version of House Democrats’ government takeover of care (H.R. 3200) includes the following language:“There is hereby imposed a tax” on individuals who do not purchase “government-approved” insurance-and neither the House nor the Senate bills exempt those with incomes under $250,000 from the penalties. How is what the legislation plainly calls a new tax on all Americans not purchasing “government-approved” insurance not a tax increase on the middle class?

So Republicans, serving as the guardians of the president’s pledge on taxes (and who ELSE is serving as guardians of the presidents’ pledges on anything?), offered amendments to exempt most taxpayers.

Sen. Crapo:  “It will remove all taxes,fees, and penalties from the bill that apply to families earning less than $250,000 per year.”

The Democrats have chosen to embark upon an incredibly deceitful and false assertion that what is clearly a tax someone isn’t a tax.  Give it up; it’s a TAX (see this also).  And in fact it is a tax with penalties imposed by the iron-gloved hand of your ever-friendly and compassionate Internal Revenue Service.  BECAUSE IT’S A DAMN TAX.

And in point of fact both taxes that the Senate Finance Committee is debating would fall heavily on those who make less than that magical $250,000 a year. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for instance, 71% of those families facing the tax for refusing to buy health insurance make less than $110,000 a year. The change in deductibility would hit most heavily at even lower incomes.

Democrats didn’t dispute the impact of the taxes, but rather – and amazingly – simply accused Republicans of simply making political points:

Sen Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman, Senate Finance Committee:  “Basically what you’re saying is you want to, you want to gut the president’s program.  More than that, you want to gut health reform.”

It’s an interesting – and yet all too typical – tactic from the Democrats.  They’re liars.  They have broken their word to the American people.  They got themselves elected by making one false promise on top of another.  But Republicans are the ones to blame, because Democrats have put on their “Carnac the Magnificent” hats and read the hearts and minds of Republicans’ motives in exposing the Democrats’ lies.

The fact is, the Democrat’s reform efforts depend on getting more healthier young people, for instance, to buy insurance and spread the risk.  And Sen. Baucus didn’t apologize for forcing them to do so:

“If we’re serious about making sure that Americans have health insurance, we have to have shared responsibility.  We all have to participate.”

And outside the committee, Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) suggested there is very likely no way around higher taxes:

“I’m prepared to go to my constituents and tell them there are tough choices to be made.”

Maybe Ron Wyden is prepared to force millions of people to pay high taxes that Barack Obama promised them that they would never have to pay, but what about the people who are going to now have to pay those taxes?

This is a question of lack of honesty, or lack of competence: were Democrats so clearly incompetent that they truly didn’t know that they wouldn’t be able to cover 45 million more people for less money?  Did they truly believe that their promises not to raise taxes on the middle class could even possibly be fulfilled given their massive government spending?

But that’s okay.  Because they’re going to make you pay for their broken promises.

The amendments to halt any tax increase failed by only one vote – with, of course, only Democrats voting against it.  Their vote is a cynical admission that the Democrats are dishonest thieves who will lie to your face about being on your side even as they prepare to rob you blind.  Just the two provisions debated yesterday would raise taxes by over $35 billion over ten years.  And yes, people making under $250,000 would be forced to pay higher taxes – in spite of President Obama’s word to the American people.

If you thought Republicans were bad, Democrats are proving that they are the worst kind of dishonest, arrogant, and cynical hypocrites imaginable.  The Party that self-righteously proclaimed its “transparency” have voted against amendments that required them to read the bills they pass – and even mocked bothering to read such bills, and then said there’s no point to bothering to read the bills they vote on.  If it’s bad enough that Democrats won’t bother to read their own damn bills, they now refuse to allow YOU a chance to read them either, essentially claiming that you are too stupid to understand them.  Moreover, Democrats have ave voted against even bothering to require that bills even be written before they are voted upon.

It’s long past  (and I mean two years of false campaign promises in addition to the last nine months past) holding Democrats accountable to their past promises and demanding that they live up to their rhetoric.  And if they can’t pass their legislation without breaking their campaign promises, then they are offering false and depraved legislation that should never be allowed to pass.

A sobbing little girl stood near a small church from which she had been turned away because it was “too crowded.” “I can’t go to Sunday School,” she sobbed to the pastor as he walked by. Seeing her shabby, unkempt appearance, the pastor guessed the reason and, taking her by the hand, took her inside and found a place for her in the Sunday School class. The child was so happy that they found room for her, and she went to bed that night thinking of the children who have no place to worship and study.

Some two years later, this child lay dead in one of the poor tenement buildings. Her parents called for the kind-hearted pastor who had befriended their daughter to handle the final arrangements.

As her poor little body was being moved, a worn and crumpled red purse was found which seemed to have been rummaged from some trash dump. Inside the red purse was found 57 cents and a note, scribbled in childish handwriting, which read: “This is to help build the little church bigger so more children can go to Sunday School.“

For two years she had saved for this offering of love. When the pastor tearfully read that note, he knew instantly what he would do. Carrying this note and the cracked, red pocketbook to the pulpit, he told the story of her unselfish love and devotion. He challenged his deacons to get busy and raise enough money for the larger building.

But the story does not end there…A newspaper learned of the story and published it. It was read by a wealthy realtor who offered them a parcel of land worth many thousands. When told that the church could not pay so much, he offered to sell it to the little church for 57 cents!

Church members made large donations. Cheques came from far and wide. Within five years the little girl’s gift had increased to $250,000 – A huge sum for that time (near the turn of the century). Her unselfish love had paid large dividends.

This is a true story, honestly! When you are in the city of Philadelphia, look up ‘Temple Baptist Church’, with a seating capacity of 3,300. And be sure to visit ‘Temple University’, where thousands of students are educated. Have a look, too, at the Good ‘Samaritan Hospital’ and at a Sunday School building which houses hundreds of beautiful children, built so that no child in the area will ever need to be left outside during Sunday School time. In one of the rooms of this building may be seen the picture of the sweet face of the little girl whose 57 cents, so sacrificially saved, made such remarkable history. Alongside of it is a portrait of her kind pastor, Dr. Russel H. Conwell, author of the book, “Acres of Diamonds“.

This is a true story, which goes to show WHAT GOD CAN DO WITH 57 CENTS.

“Read my lips.  No. New. Taxes.”

This was just what the GOP wanted to hear from then-VP George HW Bush in 1988 and was exactly the promise he was forced to break as President when faced with a democrat controlled congress and a host of initiatives that he urgently wanted to pass.

President Obama is in a similar pickle. As candidate he made many promises and one was this – no tax hike on “middle class” Americans.  Middle class to Obama is anyone earning under $250,000 per year in income.  He faces a democrat congress and has a host of initiatives, including deficit reduction.

Taxes will go up.  The question is – will the magic $250K mark be the Maginot line for the IRS blitzkrieg that is about to hit the economy?

He will use Bush’s line “new” meant no new types of taxes.  Obama can say that he was talking about income and associated taxes.  He never said anything about a carbon or health care tax.

Time will tell whether the voters will notice and react.  Until then, read Obama’s lips:

Reuters report:

Report on tax hike on energy:

aku terima satu email dari rakan sekerja semlm
14 keping gambar yang menarik
rasanya
tak salah kalau kita berkongsi
so
aku post kat blog ni
hehe

Gambar mikroskopik tentang badan kita. Tak boleh dilihat dengan mata kasar!

Gambar-gambar berikut telah dirakam menggunakan mikroskop elektron pengimbas (SEM). Saiz mikro organ-organ badan manusia telah diperbesarkan sebanyak lebih kurang 250 000 kali ganda.

1. Vilus pada usus kecil

Macam lapisan lemak lak

2. Telur/Ovum dengan sel korona

Lawa kan.macam bebola getak

3. Sperma di atas telur / ovum

ni sekumpulan sperma yang sedang berusaha memasuki ovum

4. Sel kanser paru-paru

berhentilah merokok kawan2

5. Sel darah merah

gambar ni aku paling suk.buat aku lagi semangat nak derma darah

6. Sel bulu-bulu halus dalam telinga

serius? bulu2 dalam telinga kita?

7. Saraf perasa pada lidah

banyaknya saraf untuk rasa makanan kita

8. Salur darah dalam saraf optik

no word to describe

9. Neuron Purkinje (lapisan pada otak)

10. Plak Gigi

macam manalah plak dlm gigi aku lepas makan agaknya

11. Hujung rambut yang pecah

macam batang kayu lak.pokok yang patah

12. Embrio manusia (kelihatan masih ada sisa sperma)

sekumpulan tentera yang kalah dalam pertandingan merebut ovum

13. Embrio manusia berusia 6 hari (warna keperangan)

kita pernah menjadi sebesar ini dulu

14. Alveoli Pada Paru-paru

hmm..

tak de apa yang aku boleh katakan lagi
Subhanallah
Allah Maha Besar
aku insafi kejadianNya

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

WASHINGTON – The Obama White House left open the possibility Sunday that the president would break a campaign promise and raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 to support his health care overhaul agenda.

White House adviser David Axelrod said the administration wouldn’t rule out taxing some employees’ benefits to fund a health care agenda that has yet to take final form. The move would be a compromise with fellow Democrats, who are pushing the proposal as a way to pay for the massive undertaking without ballooning the federal deficit.

“There are a number of formulations and we’ll wait and see. The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going,” Axelrod said. “We’ve gotten a long way down the road and we want to finish that journey.”

Read entire article

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obama-breaks-promise-embraces-healthcare-tax/

Ostern ist mittlerweile, ebenfalls wie Weihnachten, zu einem kommerziellen Untag verkommen. Keiner weiß mehr so richtig was am heiligsten Feiertag im Jahr wirklich zelebriert wird und man ist nur mehr auf schnelle Schokolade aus.

Auf den Tag genau vor 3,5 Mio Jahren schickte man uns einen Hasen auf die Erde. Er sollte uns vor Invasoren aus dem Weltall schützen und darauf achten, dass wir Menschen jeden Abend brav unser Mahl, seinen Leib, speisen. Das ging auch eine zeitlang gut. Doch die Menschen maßten sich an ihr Schicksal selbst die Hand nehmen zu wollen und verstießen den Hasen. Er starb wenigen Wochen später verarmt und einsam in einem Kellerverlies an einer Überdosis Carotin.
Nach einigen Jahren stand er von Toten auf und schlüpfte aus einem bemalten Hühnerei. Es sei ihm eben bei den ganzen Leichen zu langweilig geworden, meinte Meister Lampe damals lapidar zu seiner Auferstehung. Obwohl ihm das seinerzeit schon eingeführte Eierpecken einen permanenten Hirnschaden zufügte, hoppelte der nun debile Hase fröhlich durch die Welt und legte bunte Eier in, mit essbarem Gras gefüllte, Nester. Das erfreute die Menschen so sehr, dass der Osterhase seine eigene Nachmittags-Talkshow bekam und eine Modelinie (lässige Streetware zu erschwinglichen Preisen) auf den Markt brachte. Zwischenzeitlich versuchte er sich auch als Politiker und Schlagersänger. Allerdings beides nur mit mäßigen Erfolg.

Das alles darf, vor allem kurz vor Ostersonntag, nicht vergessen werden. Denn ohne den Hasen hätten wir weder (bunte) Eier noch erschwingliche Streetware für jedermann.

Quelle: 2gewinnt

Relevante 2gewinnt Beiträge
5 Dinge … (Ostern)
Ohren hoch und durch

Homajon

Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan

Truly, I didn’t expect to find a story critical of Obama’s tax plan on the ABC news website but there it is!  It certainly comes off as vaguely critical of the messiah, Barack Obama.  The author, Emily Friedman, has focused on how Obama’s tax plan will impact people making over $250,000 annually.  The consensus among the interviewees is that they will do what is necessary to earn less to avoid Obama’s punitive taxes.

“Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder, Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out of paying the taxes proposed in Obama’s plan.

‘I’ve put thought into how to get under $250,000,’ said Poczatek. ‘it would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off.’

‘Generally it means being less productive,’ she said.

‘The motivation for a lot of people like me – dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers – is that the more you work the more money you make,’ said Poczatek. ‘But if I’m going to be working just to give it back to the government — it’s de-motivating and demoralizing.’”

Dr. Poczatek is absolutely right.  The demoralization that she’s feeling is a natural side-effect of redistributive economics.  The real unintended consequences of Obama’s tax policy will be the loss of productivity.  Think job losses now are bad?  Just wait.

“Obama’s budget proposal calls for $989 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years, most of which will be earned from increased taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 and from families who make more than $250,000.

The expiration of the Bush administration’s tax cuts at the end of 2010 would garner an estimated $338 billion, $179 billion would come from the elimination of some itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers and $118 billion would be brought in from a hike in the capital gains tax. The remaining $353 billion would come from taxes on businesses.”

Not many are talking about how the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will affect the economy but we should be.  The expiration of those cuts will equal a tax increase for the bulk of taxpayers.

The ABC news piece also features a poll.  The question is, “is it fair to reduce salaries to sidestep President Obama’s tax proposal?”  As of 8:08 this morning, the answer “Yes. I also would find ways to decrease my salary to avoid taxes” had a significant lead.

Anuncio verídico publicado en el Portal Financiero de un diario de EE.UU.  
Una mujer escribió pidiendo consejos sobre cómo conseguir un marido rico. 

Eso de por sí ya es gracioso, pero lo mejor de la historia es que un tipo le dio una respuesta bien fundamentada.

Ella:  
‘Soy una chica linda (maravillosamente linda) de 25 años.
Estoy bien formada y tengo clase. Estoy buscando a algún hombre con quien casarme que gane como mínimo medio millón de dólares al año.
¿Tienen en este portal algún hombre que gane 500.000 dólares o más?
Quizás las esposas de los hombres que ganan esa cifra me podrían dar algunos consejos.
Estuve saliendo con hombres que ganan de 200.000 a 250.000, pero no puedo pasar de esos 250.000, lo que no alcanza para vivir en Central Park West.
Conozco a una mujer, de mi clase de yoga, que se casó con un banquero y vive en Tribeca, y ella no es tan bonita como yo, ni es inteligente. Entonces, ¿qué es lo que ella hizo y yo no hice? ¿Cómo puedo llegar a igualar su suerte?
Rafaela S.
——————————

El:   
‘Leí su consulta con gran interés, pensé cuidadosamente en su caso e hice un análisis de la situación. Primeramente debo decirla que no estoy haciéndole perder su tiempo, pues yo gano más de 500.000 al año. Aclarado esto, considero los hechos de la siguiente forma: Lo que Ud. ofrece, visto desde la perspectiva de un hombre como el que Ud .  busca, es simplemente un pésimo negocio. He aquí el porqué:
Dejando los rodeos de lado, lo que Ud. propone es un simple negocio. Ud. pone la belleza física y yo pongo el dinero.
Propuesta clara, sin entrelíneas. Sin embargo existe un problema.
Con seguridad, su belleza va a decaer y un día va a terminar, y lo más probable es que mi dinero continúe creciendo. Así, en términos económicos Ud. es un activo que sufre depreciación y yo soy un activo que paga dividendos. Ud. no sólo sufre depreciación, sino que como ésta es progresiva, no para de   aumentar! Aclarando más, Ud. tiene hoy 25 años y va a continuar siendo linda durante los próximos 5/10 años, pero siempre un poco menos cada año, y de repente si se compara con una foto de hoy, verá que ya estará envejecida. Esto quiere decir, que Ud. está hoy en ‘alza’, en la época ideal de ser vendida, no de ser comprada.
Usando lenguaje de Wall Street, quien la tiene hoy,   debe de tenerla en ‘trading position’ (posición para comercializar), y no en ‘buy and hold’ (comprar y mantener), que es para lo que Ud. se ofrece.. Por lo tanto, en términos comerciales, un matrimonio (comprar para mantener) con Ud. no es un buen negocio a medio/largo plazo, pero sin embargo el arrendamiento podría ser en términos sociales un negocio razonable, algo   que podría llegar a meditar y pretender.
Es más, pienso que mediante certificación de cuán ‘bien formada, con clase y maravillosamente linda’ es, en un futuro cercano yo mismo   podría ciertamente estar interesado en alquilar esa ‘máquina’, si bien antes de ello me gustaría probarla como es práctica habitual en cualquier actividad comercial. En otras palabras, no me importaría hacer una prueba o ‘test drive…’ para terminar de concretar la operación de arrendamiento.
Si quiere me puedo ir apuntando una hora en mi agenda.
Jack Paul Henderson
Inversor

Prisoner Addresses at foot of report

Three people (two of whom are from Bristol) were remanded in custody by Brighton Magistrate’s court on Monday as they faced charges in relation to the break in and decommissioning of ITT-EDO MBM late Friday night in protest at the company’s supply of components used by the Israeli military in Gaza.

7 men have so far been charged with Burglary and Criminal Damage and those who entered a plea said they were not guilty. The CPS said they expected to charge another arrested woman as soon as she was released from hospital after being injured during the action.

One man from Brighton who was arrested outside the factory premises and states he had no knowledge of the intentions of the decommissioners was remanded till a committal hearing in the Crown Court next week, another man from Brighton was bailed not to return to the city and given curfew conditions.

In the afternoon two men who had admitted intending to smash up the factory in a video made before the action and posted on the internet were remanded, while three others were bailed not to return to the city with other conditions including not to protest against ITT EDO MBM.

The CPS said the company estimated the cost of material damage at £250,000 before any loss of business was taken into account. The threshold of £10,000 is required to justify a Crown Court jury trial.

Three of the arrested were remanded into custody at Brighton Magistrates court on Monday, They are:

Christopher Osmond VT7548 HMP Lewes 1 Brighton Road Lewes East Sussex BN7 1EA

Robert Alford VP7552 HMP Lewes 1 Brighton Road Lewes East Sussex BN7 1EA

Please now start sending letters of support to keep their spirits up. We will try and find out what can be sent in to this prison, but envelopes, stamps, paper, postal orders and newsletters are usually ok

Advice on what you can do to help:

e- mail smashedo@riseup.net

ideas on prisoner support: http://bristolabc.wordpress.com/

Update: Sorry I couldn’t be at the 250,000 Hits Party. I was at a Christmas party and it lasted much longer than I expected! I’m so sorry. It sounds like it would’ve been a great party. I’ll make sure I throw an even better one for 300,000 hits and the site anniversary (December 22nd). It should be in about two weeks. Once again, I’m very sorry.

It’s my 250,000 Hits party on Saturday. Here’s your invitation:

If you can’t read it, here’s what it says:

• Matterhorn
• Plaza
• 10:00am PST
• Saturday 6th December

The activities will include: dancing, karaoke, Sled Racing, Find Four, Card Jitsu and soccer. Also the party will be recorded and put onto Youtube!

PLUS: Everyone at the party will be entered into a prize draw to win a rare member penguin.

See you there!

It’s going to be great!

Until next time…

Waddle on!

Bodge101

**PLEASE NOTE** This blog has been relocated. For updates to this post and to view more recent postings, click here.

$120,000 must be the new $150,000, no, it’s the new $200,000, no, the new $250,000. Huh??

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, in a radio interview on Denver, Colorado radio station 850 KOA today stated that people with incomes under $120,000 would receive tax cuts:

After months of stating that Obama would give tax cuts to “all working families” that made less than $250,000, that number has changed four, perhaps five times this week.

Those numbers for people who will have tax bulls-eyes tacked to their foreheads just keeps changing. In the whole “spreading” or redistributing the wealth scheme, those who will have their wealth “spread around” seem to be making less and less from one day to the next.

On Wednesday, “Oh, That’s Just Joe Being Joe” Joe Biden said the Obama-Biden tax plan would lower taxes for everyone making less than $150,000:

Perhaps in a “slow economy” or “financial crisis”, we just need to redefine the definition of “rich”. Wednesday, apparently, rich was $150,000, during Obama’s thirty minute indoctromercial, it was $200,000.

Perplexed by the four different numbers now floating, Fox News Stuart Varney, filling in on Neil Cavuto’s Your World, invited an Obama spokeswoman on to clear things up.

**Warning – Duct Tape Alert**

Please wrap your head securely in Duct tape prior to viewing as your head is likely to explode about 90 seconds in:

This link will take you to the Fox News site where you can view the video.

Miss Law seems to lower the threshold now to $45,000 – $50,000 if I get anythinng that makes any sense out of what she said.

If Mr. Obama, his running mate, a former Ambassador to the U.N. and sitting governor, or his “spokeswoman” can’t walk a straight line, let us do so here. Let’s examine some of the ways in which Miss Law tried to tap dance around directly clarifying which particular number is the one we are to believe:

1. $150,000 and $120,000 were amounts used because they fall inside $250,000, and so does $200,000
2. It’s not Mr. Obama who stated anything but $250,000, it was Joe Biden, and Governor Richardson
3. Since it wasn’t Mr. Obama himself, we’d have to ask Joe Biden and Gov. Richardson what they meant
4. Gov. Richardson and Sen. Biden were just saying those particular amounts because of the people they were talking to probably don’t make more than those amounts of money
5. Mr. Obama did say $250,000 and then $200,000, but that’s not equivocating
6. The discrepancies in amounts just reflect the struggle to define what “middle-class” is
7. Middle-class is really $45,000 – $50,000

Miss Law really cleared things up, didn’t she? Let’s see if we understand her correctly, taking these explanations, one at a time and correcting the circular logic:

1. It’s not a question of what falls inside the amount in question, and that’s not the context or language that was used by any of the speakers. It’s a question of where the threshold lies.
2. First, it was Mr. Obama who was among those confusing the issue. But also, if a candidate or campaign sends out someone to speak on their behalf, they are obligated to have their facts straight. If they don’t have those facts straight, don’t send them out. If they say something that represents the candidate’s point of view, we will take the person at face value. Otherwise, the candidate himself should call a press conference and clear things up. Besides, since Miss Law was speaking on the campaigns behalf, hence the word, “spokeswoman”, are we not to believe anything she says either.
3. We don’t need to ask Biden or Richardson anything. They already spoke. Were they rogues out there without campaign permission? Can we have Miss Law’s cell phone number so we can call and ask her what she meant?
4. So the campaign is admitting that they say things to different people in different places?
5. Huh?? Then what the heck is it?
6. The discussion is not regarding the “struggle to define middle-class”, it’s an effort to nail down a dollar amount at which certain incomes will be taxed higher and others given cuts. Apparently we are being clearly told that until the “struggle” is resolved, we’re not going to be clear on that murky middle-class definition. Hence, the threshold for “rich” is TBD. In other words, we won’t really know what the amount is until after Sen. Obama is elected.
7. Now we’re getting down to it. That $45,000 figure is suspiciously like the $41,600 figure we’d heard about earlier in the campaign: Sen. Obama had at one point in the U.S. Senate voted to raise taxes on  people with incomes above that amount.

Let us examine the definition of the word “equivocate”, courtesy of Merriam-Webster’s:

equiv·o·cate

1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Seems like the whole loopy discussion is the definition of “equivocate”.

Finally, let’s move totally into the land of common sense and sound reasoning. Is there any real doubt about what’s going on here? We’re being bombarded with so many amounts at this stage, so later, if elected President Obama can stake a claim on whichever amount is most convenient.

This is my last political blog of the season, because quite honestly–I can’t take it anymore!  We are political junkies around here, but as it is with all “junk,” eventually you just have to throw it out.  But after reading the articles and blogs–most of them focused on “redistributing the wealth” and the magic number “$250,000,” I wanted to give my say.  It’s a bit different and I feel it’s all in the words. 

First and foremost, I am in no way questioning the character or motives of Senator Obama.  I don’t know his heart, but assume that he wants the best for the country.  Secondly, I think he is quite accomplished.  He came from a modest and chaotic upbringing to be an extremely successful man–he has lots of achievements, marked intelligence and personality. 

But on the fairness and tax issues–he’s just wrong.  Here’s why.  Fairness cannot be determined by a plan, a law or even a handout.  It’s all dependent on the perspective.  Is it fair that a single mother of three lives on food stamps in government housing, works hard at the local convenience store and sees little of her children? She doesn’t think so.  Is is fair that the small business owner works 80 hours a week, misses his family and sleep, and yet gets taxed more because of it?  He doesn’t think so.  There are always mitigating circumstances that affect each situation, so how do you define fair?  Our government doesn’t have a simple definition for anything–you’re going to leave “fair” up to them?  It’s a word that means something different to neighbors in government housing and neighbors in Beverly Hills. 

So now that we know that fair can’t be defined, then let’s talk specifics.  The additional dollars in taxes paid aren’t even the issue; it’s what kind of behavior it promotes.  First let’s take the low or middle income person who gets an additional $1500 or so in a refundable tax credit (means they get it no matter what, if any, taxes they pay).  It’s likely they will take it and spend it.  They may buy food, pay bills, splurge a little–that’s good for the economy and good for them.  But it is probably not used to improve their situation much–not enough to start a business, go to college, send their kids too a better school–none of that. 

Now let’s look at the small business owner that “takes home” $250,000 a year and then is bumped into paying approximately $7500 to $9000 more a year in taxes.  If they aren’t scrambling to the accountant to figure out a way to get under it (retirement savings, charitable contributions, etc.)–they pay it.  That is immediately $7500 less they have to pay in employee salary, contractor work, benefits, etc.  They might decide to pay one person a little more to do more work and lay someone else off.  Or if you aren’t using it on your business you might forgo the landscaping, painting the house, cleaning the house, buying the car…please stop me, because I could go on.  (Remember when you are a small business person, it’s all the same money.)  Okay, let’s say you get $250,000 in salary–same applies for you.  Now here’s where it hurts–the people that do the landscaping, clean your house, work at the dealership–they’re the ones that might lose their jobs because Mr. $250,000 isn’t doing business with them anymore.  And they are in the low to medium income bracket (see paragraph above). 

So I ask you, what good is an additional $1500 tax refund when you don’t have a job?  You think I’m crazy, tell that to my landscaper who told me yesterday he’s trying to figure out how to get his customers to spend some money.  His family doesn’t go hungry, but he may have fewer employees (read: fewer jobs for lower income folks). 

So in the name of fairness, is an additional 3% a big deal? It could be fair in theory, but in practice it doesn’t work.  So instead of looking at Senator Obama’s accomplishments, let’s look at his policies.  And listen to his words and realize sometimes “fair” just isn’t fair at all.