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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (254648)	6/16/2008 11:33:06 AM
From: Geoff Altman	Respond to of 793750

might as well post the Newsbuster take: NYT Doesn't Cite Anyone in Assertion That 'Some' Say Obama's Plans Don't Raise Taxes By Soren Dayton \| June 13, 2008 - 09:35 ET New York Times's Larry Rohter today asked the question "Will the Real Tax and Spender Please 'Fess Up?" Fortunately, he tells us what the answer is, even though he has no facts to support it. He has this wonderful little nugget, in which he tries to refute John McCain's statement with two points: Some question whether Mr. Obama’s tax plan can even be characterized as an increase. Some also argue that contrary to Mr. McCain’s assertions, the Democrat’s proposals, if enacted, would actually reduce taxes for the middle class — the voters both candidates see as the key to victory. The first, bolded above, statement is completely unsourced. No one in the article makes this claim. The second point he actually defends. For example: In a study of the candidates’ plans made public Wednesday, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that in contrast to Mr. McCain, “Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers.” This is not the only place in the story that Rohter lets his bias shine through. He quotes an analyst from the Economic Policy Institute and describes the organization as "generally viewed as sympathetic to working families." EPI is significantly union funded and operated. These are the same unions that are investing heavily in Obama's campaign. In other words, he cites a labor-controlled front group as "sympathetic to working families", a substantial leap.

To: LindyBill who wrote (254648)	6/16/2008 1:02:58 PM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 793750

Now the Supreme Court has decided it has discretion to promulgate administrative rules for agencies. news.yahoo.com 2 hours, 8 minutes ago WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it easier Monday for some foreigners who overstay their visas to seek to remain in the United States legally. ADVERTISEMENT The court ruled 5-4 Monday that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States. The decision essentially embraced a proposed Justice Department regulation governing the treatment of similar cases in the future. Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, stayed beyond the expiration of his tourist visa in 1998. He married an American the following year and soon began trying to obtain a visa as an immediate relative of a citizen. But Dada and his wife apparently failed to submit some documents, causing immigration officials to deny the visa. Dada has been trying again to obtain the visa, but immigration authorities meanwhile have ordered him to leave the country. He agreed to leave voluntarily, which would allow him to try sooner to re-enter the country legally than if he had been deported. The court's task was to decide whether he could withdraw his voluntary agreement to leave the country and continue to try to adjust his status while in the United States. Immigration authorities recently ruled that Dada had entered a "sham" marriage in order to stay in the United States, but that finding was not part of the court's consideration. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four liberal colleagues. The four conservative justice dissented. Justice Antonin Scalia said, "The court lacks the authority to impose its chosen remedy." The case is Dada v. Mukasey, 06-1181.