Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (94350)	1/21/2005 11:58:37 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"From his life, we know that he surrounded himself with women, who were powerful and well respected in his circle," Well there was Mary Magdeline and... ? I only count one and she was a hooker, likely a beautiful, intelligent hooker but certainly not powerful unless you consider her powerful because she influenced Jesus. Salome was probably more powerful for influencing her step dad to hack off the head of John the Baptist. "that he was not vengeful," Actually he was quite vengeful or do you forget the account of the fig tree that Jesus withered because it did not bear fruit or the herd of pigs he drove over a cliff during an exorcism. ...that he had compassion for the poor and the sick, and not much else, really, do we know." The gospels are so vague and contradictory they can be used to explain away or justify practically anything. We also don't hear Christians quoting the passage where Jesus said to a woman that he came not to save gentiles but the scattered tribes of Israel. "The Essenes were probably vegetarians (they may have eaten fish)." Nice try Grainne but we really don't know anything about them. "Jesus was a radical leftist." So was Stalin. "And perhaps a Buddhist--there is much in common between his philosophy and Buddhism, and many believe he traveled to India and lived there for awhile (or perhaps even China)." This I doubt. "The harsh, judgmental, narrow-minded, warmongering, homosexual hating, zealously patriotic views of much of the American rightwing have absolutely nothing in common with Jesus." We will never know.

To: Grainne who wrote (94350)	1/22/2005 1:35:02 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

So we give tax breaks to the very wealthy, we start a war that we didn't need to start, and now to get the government out of the debt run up by stupid decisions, we will balance the budget on the backs of the poor and disabled. Yup, that's compassionate conservatism. ................ Bush to Seek Cuts in Medicaid, Benefits 1 hour, 2 minutes ago White House - AP By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) is readying a new budget that would carve savings from Medicaid and other benefit programs, congressional aides and lobbyists say, but it is unclear if he will be able to push the plan through the Republican-run Congress. White House officials are not saying what Bush's $2.5 trillion 2006 budget will propose saving from such programs, which comprise the biggest and fastest growing part. But lobbyists and lawmakers' aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, say he will focus on Medicaid, the health-care program for low-income and disabled people. Medicaid costs are split between Washington and the states. Many expect him to propose giving states more flexibility in using the $180 billion in federal Medicaid funds each year, but to limit the program's growth on a per-patient basis — in effect forcing the states to find ways to save money. Bush may also propose trimming doctors' reimbursements or weeding fraud from Medicare, the health insurance system for the elderly and disabled, the aides and lobbyists said. He may seek savings from agriculture and other benefit programs as well in the spending blueprint he will send to Capitol Hill on Feb. 7. There has not been a serious effort to pluck savings from such programs — called entitlements because the benefits go automatically to anyone who qualifies — since 1997. After two straight record federal deficits that peaked at $412 billion last year, many Republicans are eager to constrain government spending by curbing the growth of benefits. By law such programs, which consume nearly two-thirds of the budget, grow to keep pace with inflation and ever-larger numbers of recipients. Conservatives — including the chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees, Rep. Jim Nussle (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, and Sen. Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H. — may want to go even further than whatever savings Bush proposes. Many of them consider Bush's goal of halving the budget deficit by 2009 too timid, and see the coming retirement of the 76 million baby boomers as threatening to snowball federal spending. "There's this demographic tidal wave coming at us," Gregg said in a recent interview. "We've got to adjust our retirement structure to maintain a strong program for retirees" while making sure younger people won't "be taxed to the point where their lifestyle is significantly reduced." Other Republicans, recalling past Democratic attacks when such programs were targeted, are wary. Veteran Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., said many lawmakers would support such cuts if they would balance the budget in the short term but would be unwilling to "take a big hit" for incremental deficit reduction. By proposing an overhaul this year of Social Security (news - web sites), the biggest benefit program at more than $500 billion annually, Bush has asked GOP lawmakers to risk angering senior citizens worried about the retirement and pension program. Simultaneously pursuing savings from other programs would only increase many legislators' heartburn. They would face the wrath of doctors — major GOP contributors — should Bush propose limiting the Medicare payments physicians receive. Governors of both parties are already trying to head off any effort to trim Medicaid, while farmers, veterans and other groups would be sure to combat any efforts to curtail their benefits. "It's obviously going to be a very difficult lift," Nussle said recently. "Everyone has a program, everyone has a constituency, everyone has a point where they lose their courage to reform a government that is too big," he said. "Republicans need to wake up. You can't have tax cuts without spending restraint and get to a balanced budget." Among the fastest growing benefits is Medicare, which increased by an estimated 8.1 percent last year and is projected to pass $320 billion this year. Bush is considered unlikely to seek major savings from a program to which he and lawmakers added expensive prescription drug benefits less than two years ago. According to Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) estimates last fall, Medicaid spending grew by 9.4 percent while Social Security costs expanded by 4.5 percent. The budget office projected last September that this year's deficit will hit $348 billion, and stay in the $300 billion range through 2010. The office plans to release its newest estimates on Tuesday. In 1997 President Clinton (news - web sites) and the GOP-run Congress enacted a compromise aimed at balancing the budget in five years. Most of the $130 billion in five-year savings came from reducing health providers' Medicare reimbursements. That deal capped two years of battling in which Democrats criticized then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., for proposing Medicare savings. Republicans suffered losses at the polls due to that clash, and Gingrich said in an interview this week that for Bush to prevail this time, he will have to persuade voters to support his proposed savings.

To: Grainne who wrote (94350)	1/22/2005 1:38:01 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

300 million here 300 million there pretty soon you're talking real money... ............... Mystery in Iraq as $300 Million is Taken Abroad By DEXTER FILKINS Published: January 22, 2005 BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 21 - Earlier this month, according to Iraqi officials, $300 million in American bills was taken out of Iraq's Central Bank, put into boxes and quietly put on a charter jet bound for Lebanon. The money was to be used to buy tanks and other weapons from international arms dealers, the officials say, as part of an accelerated effort to assemble an armored division for the fledgling Iraqi Army. But exactly where the money went, and to whom, and for precisely what, remains a mystery, at least to Iraqis who say they have been trying to find out. The $300 million deal appears to have been arranged outside the American-designed financial controls intended to help Iraq - which defaulted on its external debt in the 1990's - legally import goods. By most accounts here, there was no public bidding for the arms contracts, nor was the deal approved by the entire 33-member Iraqi cabinet. On Friday, the mysterious flight became an issue in this country's American-backed election campaign, when Defense Minister Hazim al-Shalaan, faced with corruption allegations, threatened to arrest a political rival. In an interview on Al Jazeera television, Mr. Shalaan said he would order the arrest of Ahmed Chalabi, one of the country's most prominent politicians, who has publicly accused Mr. Shalaan of sending the cash out of the country. Mr. Shalaan said he would extradite Mr. Chalabi to face corruption charges of his own. "We will arrest him and hand him over to Interpol," Mr. Shalaan thundered on Al Jazeera. The charge against Mr. Chalabi, he said, would be "maligning" him and his ministry. He suggested that Mr. Chalabi had made the charges to further his political ambitions. Mr. Chalabi first made the allegation against Mr. Shalaan last week, on another Arabic-language television network. He said there was no legitimate reason why the Iraqi government should have used cash to pay for goods from abroad. He implied that at least some of the money was being used for other things. "Why was $300 million in cash put on an airplane?" Mr. Chalabi asked in an interview this week. "Where did the money go? What was it used for? Who was it given to? We don't know." The $300 million flight has been the talk of Iraq's political class, and fueled the impression among many Iraqis and Western officials that the interim Iraqi government, set up after the American occupation formally ended in June, is awash in corruption. It is not clear whether the money came from Iraqi or American sources, or both. "I am sorry to say that the corruption here is worse now than in the Saddam Hussein era," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, who said he had not been informed of the details of the flight or the arms deal. That charge is echoed outside of Iraq as well. Isam al-Khafaji, the director of the New York-based Iraq Revenue Watch, said corruption had become an "open secret" within the Iraqi government. "There is no legal system to bring charges against anyone not following the rules and not abiding by the law, especially if you're a powerful politician," Mr. Khafaji said. "That's the tragedy of Iraq: Everyone runs their business like a private fiefdom." Mr. Shalaan did not respond to several requests for an interview, but one of his aides insisted that the arms deal was legal and that the money had been well spent. Reached by telephone in Lebanon, the aide, Mishal Sarraf, said the arms deal had been approved by four senior members of the Iraqi government, including Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and Mr. Shalaan. He said it had been carried out quickly because of the urgency of the guerrilla war. He said he had not realized that the deal had been done in cash. "We don't want to hide anything," Mr. Sarraf said. He said the armaments themselves had been manufactured in Poland, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Ukraine and the United States. He said the money had bought armored personal carriers, tanks and even Humvees. Mr. Sarraf refused to say who received the money, saying it was too dangerous. "They could be killed," he said.