Texsox

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) Complete waste of time for them, but also career suicide if they didnt pursue the case. f***ed either way. Exactly. And highlights why stupid, drunk, or stoned people get caught far more often than smart people.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) If they're on a payroll (using a fake/ stolen SS), they're paying taxes. They're also paying all sorts of sales tax. How many laid off engineers from Caterpillar or Motorola are going to work minimum wage jobs as dish washers or apple pickers? I know three people, who have been laid off for over a few months, and none are looking to accept anything close to a minimum wage job.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) I'm sure there are plenty of people living in this country legally that could use that minimum wage job right about now. Plus, they'd actually pay taxes on the money they made from that job. Check the tax code. People at the minimum wage do not pay much of anything in Federal taxes. With the EITC and other deductions, some actually receive more than they paid in. And, if the illegal does not have a social security number, they do not receive much in benefits. So when someone with a social security number takes that job, we actually lose revenue. Which is why the government has not tackled a problem that has been around since Reagan. From the IRS website calculator. Head of Household with two children earning $16,000 per year. Based on the information you previously entered, your anticipated income tax for 2009 is $0. If you do not change your current withholding arrangement, your withholding for 2009 will approximately equal your tax, and any refund or balance due should be less than $25. Tip It’s a good idea to review your withholding at the beginning of 2010 (or anytime there is a change in your tax situation).Following is a recap of information you entered on the preceding pages on which the above advice is based. Review this information for accuracy. You may want to print this page for your records. Note: some spaces in the recap table were left blank intentionally. Prepared February 11, 2009.Filing Status: Head of householdSomeone else can claim you as a dependent: NoNumber of jobs: 1Number of dependents: 2Will you be 65 or older 1/1/2010: NoAre you blind: NoChild & dependent care credit qualifying persons: 0Child & dependent care credit expenses: Eligible children for child tax credit: 2Other credits: Total salary: 16,000Total retirement plans: 0Tax withheld to date: 0Projected withholding for rest of year: 0Total earned income other than salary: Other nonwage income: Adjustments to income: Total itemized deductions: 0

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 07:34 AM) I agree with that. But I also think that it is silly to expect Republicians to see out thier agenda in the same breath. Why are they being vilified for doing exactly what the Democrats are doing? Because maybe if we demand more, we may get? Maybe because we expect Republicans to be better than Dems instead of sinking to their level?

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 07:16 PM) He could simply say "due to lack of solid evidence, we will no longer pursue this as a criminal investigation." They have a picture of him smoking something out of a pipe. It could have been tobacco or salvia (not sure if it's legal in that state,) but it most likely wasn't. That's not strong enough to hold up in the court of law. He could, and open himself up to speculation from his next opponent who would paint him as soft on drugs, and awe struck by a celebrity. People would ask why he didn't investigate further. A case was handed to him on a silver platter, if he fumbled it, who would ever vote for him? Or, if it isn't an elected official, why would his bosses not fire him? The picture was one piece of evidence. Cops then investigate to see if they can find more evidence. They don't just stop at one part.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 10:25 AM) which caused her to have a fear of contracting AIDS, often referred to as AIDS phobia," the suit says. thats funny. she is just out trying to get money from him If I found out someone I was in a relationship with, lied about having Aids, I'd be trying to get money at the least. Actually I am surprised he is not facing criminal charges as well. But perhaps the burden of proof is different in the two cases. Much like OJ was not guilty in criminal court, but lost the civil court case.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 11:30 AM) Steele's a great example of problems with the current system. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2006/no...0611280003nov28 Exactly. I would think anyone looking at that would realize the loophole needs to be closed.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 11:26 AM) I would give them one pension for 38 yrs of service. Not two pensions. And there should be a minimum amount of time you have to serve in a position to receive a pension or a kicker to a pension(aka. BOBBI STEELE and the rape of the Cook County taxpayer). I agree there should be a minimum number of years served. Would one 38 year pension be smaller than the two 18 + 20 year pensions?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 11:05 AM) The private pension system is not supported directly by my taxes. The public system is and is absolutely in need of reform. The problem is the people who would reform the system have a direct investment in the system itself. Hence, no reform anytime soon. If a person earns two pensions from two different positions, why is that a problem? What am I missing? Let's use this example, A person works 20 years for the Highway Department, then 18 for the DMV and receives two pensions. How would you fix that?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 10:57 AM) I would suggest cutting State payrolls by at least 20% because the legacy costs of these stiffs is unrealistic. I love the people who say gov't jobs are real jobs. Police Fire etc. Yes they are real jobs, and Clinton put 100,00 cops on the street, great. But after the initial outlay by the gov't, who supports these positions? Local and state taxpayers, right. The last thing we need now is an increase in state and local taxes to pay for more gov't workers. Re-work the pensions of these people and you have real reform and REAL cost savings. One pension for every gov't employee, not one for each level of gov't you served. Cool. The only disagreement I have is if it is earned, I see no problem in someone getting what they earned. My dad receives multiple pensions based on multiple private sector jobs he held, I see no reason why the same would not be fair for public sector. Now if you wish to say that some of those individual pensions are unfair, I'd love to take a look at them. But it seems that the trend is lower pay and retirement for Americans. Perhaps it is necessary.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 10:48 AM) You mean increase the members of AFSCME so the DEMS can pay back in spades their lapdogs. So what would you suggest?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 09:07 AM) Supposedly, when Alomar spit in the umpire's face it was in response to the umpire making a comment about his sexuality. There have been rumors about Robby for years. Whether all this is true, I don't know. If he does have the disease, I pray for him. Just from reading the articles, it seems that if he knew he had the disease, she did as well. She seemed to have all his medical visits and info. Probably a money grab. The question will be what did he know, and when did he know it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 09:19 AM) And those processes are 100% related to each other. How something is manufactured can have a direct bearing on how safe it is. etc. What something is grown in, can affect how it should be labeled. Correct. Read both websites. So you have a government agency (FDA) that already is testing new drugs to see if they are safe or not. Do you want the USDA to open a lab to perform similar tests on food items? Or do you want to combine all that testing in one agency? It's almost like outsourcing. Then do you want the USDA to begin testing cosmetics, blood supplies, x-ray machines, etc. or Do you want the FDA to begin visiting farms and packing sheds and advocating for farms? Combine all this into one mega agency sounds daunting and a recipe for a nightmare. Industry has gone small and faster, not larger and cumbersome. I think the government should follow that lead. Plus the industry doesn't want it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 09:15 AM) What about companies who fall under both? Personally, I believe all consumer protections should go under one agency. Manufacturers already interface with multiple government agencies. We would have to combine OSHA, FDA, USDA, IRS, Customs, Fire, perhaps INS, etc. As long as there are not conflicting regulations, it may not be a problem. Again, all this is conjuncture to try to understand why the agribusiness industry does not want a merger. I agree, where there is overlap, it should be eliminated. However, after poking around both websites, it was unclear to me where the overlap might be.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 08:50 AM) I think you're right, but why should it be that way? We would have to see the product delineation to determine that. One area I remember reading about are food supplements. Are the simply foods or are they drugs? The FDA seems to be more involved in food as it related to health issues. Food safety, supplements, nutrition, labeling, testing, etc. The USDA seems to be more involved in the growing, manufacturing, distribution, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 08:58 AM) Exactly. You want the same philosophy to move through the whole system, that way no matter your product you know what to expect. Otherwise you lead to confusion and contradictive rules. But if your company is either controlled by the FDA or USDA, why would there be any confusion or contradictory rules? It would seem that if the industry is against the merger, they are not suffering from those problems. They also probably see a future of "we did it that way when the FDA was inspecting, why are you now asking us for something different". And what do we do with the inspectors? Hire new ones, move the existing ones to the new agency, who pays for relocation, etc. etc.

Happpy Birthdday Shipps!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 08:09 AM) 100% agree. The biggest problem with our federal government is none of the agencies is set up to cooperate with the others that are related. Their budgets are separate, as are their workloads. Its actually a disincentive to work together, because they are more worried about their budget numbers, than their productivity. In that regard they work like most private sector companies, more as competitors than partners. What I have a concern about is the cost of that communication.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 08:39 AM) But what about them both regulating different portions of our food industry? Shouldn't that fall under one agency? I believe it is by product. So they may not overlap. Kind of like, you take beef, I'll take carrots.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 08:29 AM) USDA and FDA are two very different things. Now if you want to combine them only to eliminate duplicity, fine. B ut FDA does many different things then USDA, which is why my initial reaction. I'm kind of leaning towards Kap on this one. I feel drugs and food should be in two different agencies. Perhaps a better alignment of the two would be a plus. What caught my eye is the industry opposes it. Generally, I support the industry's position. I wonder why they do not want one agency.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 06:38 PM) Yet another example how the "war" on drugs is a complete waste of cash. How does this sheriff have the luxury to not be investigating unsolved crimes or other offenses that involved innocent people getting hurt? When you are plastered all over the world as having committed a crime, doesn't it seem wrong to ignore it? And how f***ing stupid to try and sell the bong on eBay? The Sheriff is in a no win circumstance. Ignore it on the front page, and how would they ever arrest anyone for drugs again?

It's Happy Hour. Go home.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 02:47 PM) LINK You gotta love The Onion.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:59 PM) LOL Yes, I meant lambic, not limbic. Slip of the keyboard. the text to speech program i am playing with sounded like limp dick

QUOTE (DABearSoX @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) That is not a bad idea - it would depend on the ingrediants that are used in those things - when brewing I tend to think less is more b/c strange chemicals/additives can lead to off flavors in the final product I was wondering at what stage would be optimal to introduce the flavoring. Also, those things are sweet, it may be tough to control the sweetness. I do know it takes fewer grapes to flavor a jelly than strawberry. Which is why grape jelly or lam is so damn cheap. I'd be looking at grape flavor even though I think strawberry would make a better beer.