text:
Its a great news thatthat the government does apart from wars and transferring money to old and poor people has gotten creamed.
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Its a great news thatthat the government does apart from wars and transferring money to old and poor people has gotten creamed.
Just because no one will vote for Medicare cuts doesn't mean there won't be Medicare cuts. No one in Spain voted for Hospitals to run out of Medicine, but you don't get medicine without money, and there will come a point where there's no money.
If you don't decide to throw something off a sinking ship, all the somethings will wind up in the water. The threat isn't what people will compromise, it's if they will compromise.
In a nutshell: someone will always lose out to do something for the greater good, but no one wants to be that someone. So in the end, everyone loses. That actually sounds quite familiar to many places - not just in the US.
"Why me!?" (And then money shuffles into the pockets of activists, astroturfers, lobbists)
Just so I understand, is it The Economist's view that raising taxes and pulling money out of the private sector won't slow the economy down and thereby ultimately lowering tax receipts wont, in the end, being somewhat counterproductive? I believe for the democrats to pay for their spending they'll have to expand the economy. Simply raising taxes, as ideologically exciting as it may be, will not do it and in the end may be counterproductive.
Here's an IDEA: Let's cut retroactively all yearly the increases Congress has voted for itself, going back 10 years. Lets cur their salaries and FREE MEDICAL BENEFITS. They get the best medical care in the world free of charge, well not really free of charge - WE PAY FOR IT!! How about those expense funds each member of Congress has: $175,000,000 for pencils, or whatever they want to use it for. Not including things like entertaining, clothing, travel, shopping by their wives...because guess what WE PAY FOR ALL THAT STUFF TOO! Does the American public loathe itself so much that we make sure Congress has the best of everything at our expense...while we don't have enough money for decent food, forget about those new shoes you need, need a vacation, not in this lifetime and we certainly don't deserve free medical care. Only Congress and their families do. So let Congress give up their entitlements before they take away any of ours. WE HAVE THAT POWER BECAUSE WE PAY FOR ALL OF IT! What the hell is wrong with all of us, we need to wake up and cast off the economic shackles we're all wearing. Aren't you tired of our millionaire, con artist government officials laughing all the way to the bank? LET'S UP AND VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT AND GET A CONGRESS WHOSE SALARY WE SET, NOT ONE THEY SET AND VOTE THEMSELVES HUG INCREASES EVERY YEAR AND THEN SAY SOCIAL SECURITY HAS TO BE CUT. lET'S CUT THEM OUT. I KNOW THEY'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO HELP ME...CONGRESS ARE THE NEW TERRORISTS AND WE PAY FOR THEIR ANTI-CITIZEN ACTIVITIES. LET'S VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
Do the writers of The Economist not know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid? Let me explain some of the differences and also let me explain why we Republicans support Medicare and the Democrats support Medicaid:
1. Medicare covers only people who have worked. You qualify for Medicaid even if you are perfectly healthy but never worked day in your life.
2. People can only receive Medicare if they paid into the system. People can receive Medicaid even if they never paid in a single penny in tax.
3. Most people who receive Medicare vote Republican. Most people who receive Medicaid vote Democrat.
4. If we cut Medicare we will be asking 85 year old women to go get a job If we cut Medicaid we will be asking healthy 25 year old women to go get a job (and hold of on having more kids).
Perhaps this will help you understnad the difference between Medicare and Medicaid and also help you understand the difference between a Republican and a Democrat.
Most of the big spending in Medicaid is on seniors who require custodial care and have exhausted their assets, and the disabled. Spending on the actual working age poor is lower, because they require less health care.
The federal government covers a much higher share of Medicaid expenditures in the Red States than in the Blue States.
But WT, You do understand that the lion's share of welfare recipients in Red states are democrats. I live in a Red state. I know several people (including family) that collect welfare. They are all democrats. They all supported Mr. Obama in hopes of getting even more welfare benefits.
Medicare covers all seniors over the age of 65 regardless of working history (premiums may vary) and younger disabled persons. Roughly 42 million seniors and 8 million disabled. Income level and financial resources are not part of eligibility and it is entirely funded by the federal government.
Medicaid provides assistance for roughly 50 million people including one-third of all children and 60% of all nursing home patients. Eligibility is based on income (133% of the poverty line or less as of 2014) in addition to other requirements: children, pregnant women, various disabilities, and seniors in nursing facilities. Medicaid is managed by individual states who provide roughly 50% of the funding with the federal government picking up the rest of the tab.
Those are the facts about both programs, stereotypical judgement statements about the demographics involved may now be made based upon personal political preferences. (Note: it's actively one-third of all Americans and nearly every American over a long enough timeline that will be covered by both programs).
When referring to welfare, you should be referring to social security (20% of the federal budget) and other assistance programs (unemployment, food stamps, etc.) Whereas, Medicare/Medicaid (also 20% of the federal budget) are social health coverage plans required due to the exorbitantly high price of healthcare in the US. Discretionary defense spending is also 20% of the federal budget and together they form the holy trinity of unassailable government spending.
AARP disagrees with your "facts".
M.S. wrote "The once-temporary Bush tax cuts were made permanent..."
The argument over the "once-temporary Bush tax cuts", for some time now, has reminded me of the following saying -
"It is easy to invite Buddha into your house; however, it is difficult to ask him to leave."
To the extent this article is supposed to help my friends in the UK better understand America, there is some bad information in this article. Partially that's because it's really a round up of a dozen articles all with bad information in them. It's as if the Economist author's intent was to find the worst information in each of the other articles and cobble it all together.
Most important, the UK reader has to understand that U.S. Social Security and Medicare are primarily based on separate tax streams that have nothing to do with the United States income tax discussed in this article, the so-called Bush tax rates that were recently fixed at the rates w99% of us have been using here on a temporary basis for 12 years. Yes, we U.S. fiscal conservatives are trying to starve that beast and hopefully we have come even closer to success (although nothing is permanent; another Congress can raise the income tax rates any time it wants).
Social Security is based on a separate 12% tax on income up to $110,000 (all round numbers) and Social Security payouts are raised annually based on an antiquated estimate of inflation. (Truth in advertising: I am a Social Security beneficiary.) Lower income beneficiaries receive a higher payout proportionately. Higher income beneficiaries pay income taxes on Social Security payouts even though they already paid taxes on the share of their income that was put into the social security fund in their name. Social security payouts can begin as early as age 62 but must begin by age 70; the longer you wait the more you get per month. But of course if you wait, you're betting you live a long time; the general rule of thumb is that if you start collecting at 62 and live past 82, you "lose" money vs what you otherwise would have received in aggregate. There is no vesting; if you die before you start collecting, your heirs basically get nothing (but there is an exception for families with minor children). If you die after you start collecting but before you get back everything you paid in for 45 years, your heirs get nothing more.
The whole Social Security system can easily be made solvent by slightly tweaking any or all of the numbers mentioned above: the amount on which the 12% tax is paid, the 12% tax itself, the formula by which inflation is adjusted, or the age at which you can first collect. These sorts of tweaks have been made every 20 years or so since Social Security began and will certainly be made again. The whining in this article is meaningless.
Medicare funding is a little more complex. The vast majority of it is funded by another separate 3% payroll tax you pay over your working life and by premiums you continue to pay after you join the system, usually at age 65 whether or not you have retired and whether or not you are collecting Social Security. (Truth in advertising: I am a Medicare beneficiary.) Medicare is very inefficient and very bad insurance. It does not include catastrophic coverage but it also has very high co-pays and deductibles. It does not cover drugs, annual physicals, vision/aural/dental requirements and many other health care services. It does not cover us not only when we are in the UK but even if one of the many of us that lives along the Canadian or Mexican or Bahaminian borders just crosses over for an hour and has a heart attack. The big debate over Medicare here in the U.S. is more about fixing the actual problems with it as insurance than it does with fixing the revenue stream (which again could be accomplished with some very minor tweaking).
Of course, it's important to note that excess revenues from the social security tax are loaned to the government and spent in the current period. When those bonds are redeemed later (when expenditures exceed revenues by an increasing margin) the repayments must be funded by curent taxpayers. It's neither insurance nor a pension; just a tax and transfer scheme.
One must not forget the $100 Billion a Year that goes for Corporate Welfare; Earmarks, and other Pork that benefits the Rich. Must not forget either; the Billions wasted on Military Boondoggles, like the F-35. A TRILLION DOLLARS for 2000 Planes - - plagued with Probems? I think not! People need to consider national priorities other than putting money into Corporate Welfare to Benefit the Rich.
There are advances in healthcare delivery coming that are going to make all this moot if we get out of the way and let them be implemented. At present we are being held hostage to a system that is making lots of money for a few people and they just don't want to give it up. Same in the energy field.
Can you share a few examples of what these might be? We need a proactive approach to maintaining good health rather than costly and largely ineffective long term treatments. The trend in medicine seems to be to prolong lifespan but not the quality of life. The key is to allow people to lead independent productive lives, not to just languish in an assisted care facility. Or at least give us the option to terminate our own lives if we are trapped in broken bodies. I personally do not want that existence and it frightens me that I will end up there.
I totally agree I've had a few family members just veging out in a nursing home what a waste of money times that by thousands of people across the country. The problem with that is who's going to be the one that says we need to put people down like animals. Funny thing is when our pets are suffering we put them down so they don't suffer but granny with a stroke staring into out of space its wrong let them suffer its inhumane to put people out of their misery. I'm from Mass and we recently had a proposition on the ballot to be able to put people down that were suffering it was put down quite easily.
Short of 'putting them down' we'd simply migrate toward the approach the European systems use to ration care. The older the person, the more grim the prognosis, the less likely that extraordinary measures will be undertaken to extend life. Hospice is what we're talking about here to address the fact that the majority of lifetime health expense is today incurred in the final (usually miserable) months of life.
Medicare should survive largely intact until enough Baby Boomers are gone or are too senile to fill out their absentee ballots. This could be 25 years from now, by which time the federal budget will be consumed almost entirely by debt, drones, and dialysis. In that sense, I agree with Mr. Chait.
The other functions currently undertaken by government will go neglected or be taken up, patchwork style, by states (hopefully not just California). The upside is that some fruitful experimentation might happen, and corporate America will eventually get too frustrated at navigating this policy archipelago and acknowledge that for some social functions, a government with national jurisdiction is actually the most efficient institutional provider.
This leads to a discussion of one of our society's greatest undertakings: health care. The vast preponderance of objective analysis indicates that socialized, universal government healthcare is more efficient in terms of both cost and outcome than the hybrid monster we have now. Conservatives allege that an "all private" model would be more efficient still, and they might even be right (I just wish they wouldn't have run screaming from the "public option" so they could go head to head and we would know for sure).
But even "all private" healthcare would have to be universal, and universal coverage of the poor requires transfers. And even "all private" healthcare would need some claim limits to preserve solvency, and claim limits require death panels.
As far as I can tell, America's long term solvency and competitiveness depends on getting this right. We will ultimately have to have Medicare for all or perhaps Medicare for none. Either way, we will also need universal coverage, death panels, and the transfers and limits they imply. Sadly the Boomers will pull another trillion or so out of the current system before we can contemplate the necessary reforms.
"America will eventually get too frustrated at navigating this policy archipelago and acknowledge that for some social functions, a government with national jurisdiction is actually the most efficient institutional provider."
It may have dawned on them, that the party politcs they have so enthusiastically promoted for several decades is now serving them badly, but that might be hoping for too much. I think they are just confused and upset their magic cookie cart isn't baking up the goodies.
I'll try to respond to your message without sounding defensive. I'm a boomer and nothing could be further from the truth that what you just said. I personally believe that medicare is a flawed system and would welcome universal healthcare for all that is focused on preventive treatments and holistic quality of life and preventing catastrophic illnesses. So do many of my peers. But until we do have such a system in place, we will not stand by and watch healthcare coverage pulled out from under our feet just as we approach retirement. It seems that most of the proposals coming from the right are designed to slash coverage without regard to a long term solution designed for all. As for privatization, I fail to see how such a system would remove administrative and overhead costs since that is the system in place today. The insurance industry would implement a system that protects their profits while slashing coverage. Do you really trust corporations to do anything except maximize profits and cut expenditures for health services? That is not an effective solution and there is a reason why every other advanced economy has nationalized coverage.
Teacup - - you are a Hicup! The Nation could save $400 Billion a year in HC Costs, by adopting a Singe-Payer - - National Health Care Plan. The Infrastructure is in place. Put everyone that wants it, under Medicare. Seniors love it! A recent study concluded that about $785 Billion Dollars is wasted yearly in the HC Industry due to Fraud, Errors, and Waste. EVRYONE is scamming the CURRENT System: Patients, Doctors, Hospitals, Insurance companies, Big Pharma, and more.
Operating independently; rules and processes are established to benefit the Industry. Ask the Doctors; the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Good Health Care? I think not - - unless you are Rich! 195,000 died in Hospitals last year due to non-enforcement of protocols. Paying the blue and green aides $7.50 per hour doesn't get one much commitment.
So, we will continue to increase the bottom lines of the rich, private insurance companies; and, in the process, let our HC Costs exceed 2.5 X, that of other Developed Countries. Tis' a shame! But, when it comes to Selfishness and Greed; American Predator Capitalists, reign supreme.
I won't disagree, in fact you are just seeing a relative lull in my general outrage with the system. Single payer is one part of a solution, although not the only part, nor is it the only kind of system that can render universal coverage and better results.
The other part is changing the incentive structure of the medical industry. Simply put, they should profit from health, efficient return to health and the best bang for buck, not for procedures and tests per se.
so socialists have been so wildly successful at selling the concept of the welfare state and the concept of free government handouts that it is starting to endanger all the other things socialists want their government to do?
interesting theory at least.
Well Medicare as we know it is doomed, but that's because its clearly unaffordable at almost any tax rate. There are two options:
1. Limiting covered procedures/drugs by cost/benefit analysis in a one payer system (death panels). Keep to a budget by not doing expensive things, like the NHS but more drastic.
2. Fixed rate (variable subsidy) Medicare provided by private medical groups competing on what services and procedures are on offer. A voucher program that forces the providers to be heartless economizers, rather than the government, which just limits the growth of the voucher.
Or perhaps you'll get to choose from the two options. But Medicare as we know it, where you can get anything you and your doctor want, and he gets paid fee for service, will be dead. As the saying goes, "Anything that can't go on forever, won't".
You can keep "Medicare Unlimited" as Option 3, but with the taxpayer cost limited to that for options 1 and 2, and the beneficiary made to cover the difference. And that is what I would propose.
Option 1 could be called "Medicare Basic," with a picture of Hilary Clinton on the logo, "because the government knows best."
Option 2 could be called "Medicare Corporate" with a picture of Mitt Romney on the logo, "because you can always trust businesses that take your money now and make promises for later."
Options 3 could be called "Medicare No Death Panels," identified by a picture of Sara Palin.
Option 4 would be a picture of a Turkey Vulture and "Medicare: Massive Death Panels."
Wouldn't option 3 just be option 1 but with the option of supplemental private coverage? It would still require death panels to decide what's covered by the taxpayer-funded portion.
Option 2 would still require government death panels. Otherwise private insurers could tailor their plans to deny coverage for bad risks. There has to be a uniform level of coverage. If we're going to cover everyone, there's no way around death panels. I still favor the voucher system though because it promotes private innovations in cost reduction.
I wish we could drop the use of loaded words such as "death panels" as we conduct this debate. Clearly, no one can expect an unlimited commitment of public funds (or even insurance proceeds) to their health care. One way or the other it has to be rationed, and what may be appropriate for a 21-year old with a life threatening illness probably isn't for someone in their 80s. Call it "death panels" or a risk-based insurance premium, it's rationing just the same.
vouchers per se don't fix perverse incentives, that's fee for service. A system where health of populations and best bang for bucks is rewarded moves to a better incentive structure. Basically a system that sets an affordable percapita, then asks how can we achieve the best health and outcomes per buck?
For elective and plannable procedures and needs, a health care savings account allows people to save up for procedures and services they can price.
Capitation has had mixed results, mostly disappointing. You might be able to reduce bypass surgeries by focusing on cheaper prevention but you can't do that for cancer. The vast majority of the costs are "unpreventable." And capitation has the opposite perverse incentive. Not enough care. The physician forgoes a beneficial test or treatment because he doesn't make anything off it. For a variety of reasons health care costs are rising and there's not much we can do about it, nor should we think we necessarily need to do something about it.
At any rate, all this is stuff private insurers can experiment with. Let them compete. It doesn't guarantee dramatically better results but there's no harm in trying.
I agree with the HSAs.
"Rationing" isn't the best descriptor because it doesn't tell you how it's being rationed. "ObamaCare" was a loaded word until it wasn't. The left should co-opt "death panel." Take the fear out of it.
It's being rationed on the basis of some sort of cost-benefit analysis. Whether this assessment is being done by an employee of a private insurance carrier or a bureaucrat at the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services. Of course one can always purchase additional care using your own funds.
I actually think "rationing" has a more negative connotation than "death panel." "Rationing" sounds communist. "Death panel" sounds like a term a right-wing contrarian would embrace. Anyway that ship has sailed. We're calling it death panels. You can't put that back in the box any more than you can put "ObamaCare" back in the box. You're better off embracing it.
Honestly, I'm somewhat trying to accomplish what RR is suggesting by using "death panels" so freely. It is a loaded term, but I think its bluntness is what can make it acceptable in the long term.
Nope, Option 3 would cover absolutely everything. But the taxpayer funding for it would be limited, and the beneficiary payments for it would soar.
Option 1 is limited Medicare, supplemented by private insurance or direct payments.
Seniors pay for Medicare. They can either pay more or stop demanding more and more out of the program.
I'd go for death panels with options, ranging from implanted pain management (implants, because self-administered would surely be a recipe for drug addicts to prey on the elderly) to something akin to soylent green's euphoric last hurrah--of course omitting the part where folks are afterwards processed into crackers.
"But the cuts have effectively curtailed the vision of liberals who want government to do things like invest in basic scientific research, improve infrastructure, kick-start green technology and support education. In that sense, it's true, the ability of Republicans to block Democrats from expanding the tax base has been a conservative victory."
A victory that doesn't actually win ostensible aims is not victory, but incompetence. On the Democratic side, the fact they can't and won't Name the Problem, although it was during the health care legislation run up (Remember all the mentions of bending the curve?), is another form of incompetence.
By surrendering to what was 'practical' Obama failed miserably.
""A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
The Republicans are absorbed by ninny Norquist, and the Dems figure they blew their wad on Obamneycare.
Problem not solved.
The article seems to conflate Medicare and Social Security with a vaguely distasteful "welfare state" surrounded by the aroma of lazy slackers who only want to sup at the public trough.
Both Medicare and Social Security have specific employer/employee tax contributions, and indeed Social Security is nearly whole over its entire life cycle-- the real problem is that starting with Lyndon Johnson the Social Security (and to a lesser extent, Medicare) surpluses have been stealthily spent on everything and anything else. Indeed, the latest information implies that soon retirees will never recoup their "investment" in Social Security made over their working lifetimes, the retiree will die before they get their money back on average. The claim that SS is an entitlement is thus like saying a car that one has bought is an entitlement... stating that SS is "pay-go" is not germane either, since if that was the case why build up a surplus?? Oh, right, so that the politicians can hide bloated deficits elsewhere-- a tack also not germane to being an "entitlement".
Medicare is a bit different, as the payroll tax is not adequate to support the outlay. The payroll tax should rise, or the eligibility age should change, or Medicare made into secondary coverage, or any of numerous other fixes can be implemented short of reducing coverage and consigning seniors to a painful death in the gutter. The delusion that "somehow" one can "save" enough on a private sector income for retirement medical is laughable-- the majority of those wanting to reduce Medicare seem to be those that have other retirement medical coverage or perhaps wealthy enough to afford old age medical payments in America.
The primary thrust of the preceding is that both Social Security and Medicare have well defined specified income streams, not leeching from general revenues like most other programs such as Medicaid. Those trying to greedily attack programs with a real income stream almost invariably seem to want to use the revenues thus saved for some other purpose-- such malicious perfidy should be exposed for pain it causes retirees.
If Social Security really had a trust fund, not an accounting fiction, it would be investing trillions of dollars for its future beneficiaries, like the system in Canada. But it isn't. So you can pretend there's a trust fund, but if you can't withdraw from it without issuing new federal debt (and you can't), then it doesn't really exist. It's a pay as you go system, a tremendous success as a means to reduce poverty amongst the elderly, and a disappointing flop as a retirement savings plan for the middle class. Blame FDR for selling it as something that it wasn't.
SS actually is a trust fund, and buys bonds from saved revenue to fund future obligations. Of course, under the Fed's zero interest, past bonds that earned 5-6% when are redeemed are reinvested in bonds that earn 1%. Even at 5-6%, SS is projected to go negative in 2032 (don't recall the interest rate in that projection); at 1%, SS will start running a negative balance in but a few short years.
That being said, the government has washed out distinctions being revenue streams, trust funds, agencies not back by government guarantees (Fannie Mae, anyone), private banks (TBTF banks), insurance companies (AIG), private pension funds (GM), and any boy and his dog who has a lobbyist on K Street. They all get funded; until they can't.
SS has no trust fund. The excess revenues are lent to the government and promptly spent. Gone. Poof. All that's left is a future promise to pay benefits, which is funded from future taxes (when the bonds are redeemed).
It's nothing more than a tax and transfer program. Which would be fine if it weren't for the distortive effects on federal budget analysis.
I wish you and other commentators would stop repeating the fiction that taxes were only raised on income above $400,000 for individuals ($450,000 for couples). It may be buried in the fine print, but the phase out of deductions and exemptions represents a significant tax increase on incomes great that $250,000 even if the marginal rate was not increased.
"But public attention is a very limited commodity; it's impossible to actually marshal public attention to each of the individual programmes that get cut when "government" gets cut". This is certainly a good excuse to use to keep the public out of the conversation isn't it. The public attention wouldn't be so limited if the politicians and journalists took the time to objectively explain the issue, if they didn't get into the phoney "it all has to be balanced rhetorically", and the damn politicians were actually interested in solving a problem vs playing lap dogs for big special interests. Blaming the public for not being involved is an easy out for the politicians, they don't have to work very hard that way. It falls directly into those "don't worry your pretty little head about it" "thats a man's job""trust me" "barefoot and pregnant"and "legitimate rape" categories.
Isn't it time to stop treating the public as though they don't really exist except when money is needed/wanted for campaigns, "investigative journalism", and to keep special interests funded?
"it's true, the ability of Republicans to block Democrats from expanding the tax base has been a conservative victory"
I agree that 'starve the beast' idea doesn't work. But in regards to the above quote, could you please point me to the liberal politician who wanted to broaden the base? I may have missed one, but i don't recall anybody wanting to raise taxes on middle class. From what i recall, even you, M.S., only argued for rolling back the tax cuts for the rich. Nothing about broadening the base - idea that i'm actually quite sympathetic to.
"I may have missed one, but i don't recall anybody wanting to raise taxes on middle class."
The payroll tax was increased on the working middle class. But not the retired middle class.
That was a temporary break in response to recession. But so, in theory, were the Bush tax cuts.
Well, yes, true. But i don't recall Obama or any other Democrat campaigning on 'lets revert the payroll tax back' platform. All they were touting were tax hikes on the rich. Bush tax cuts were for 10 years, with extension afterwards - not too temporary in my book.
The payroll tax reversion didn't expand the tax base. It reverted to higher tax rates. Democrats opposed expanding the tax base, or at least they oppose it as an alternative to raising rates. MS is wrong.
I agree. The middle class is the group that should pay in taxes what it expects in benefits. Until that's true, the rest is shenanigans.
This is a big reason why I want a flat tax with a possible exception of a millionaires' bracket just to placate the left. We now have 3 filing statuses, 7 tax brackets (not including the implicit 0-bracket), and countless deductions and credits. This is insane. We should have 1 filing status (multiple individuals can file jointly by simply adding up their income), 1-2 tax brackets, 1 personal tax credit, and 1 child tax credit. Let everyone's taxes and benefits rise or fall simultaneously.
I'm pretty neutral on neutral taxation, but you bet. Set it up.
Interesting post.
I'm getting myself confused with the definitions of Democratic, Republican, Liberal and Conservative. I know they are almost too broad to define, but they aren't interchangeable.
We might also benefit from a refresher on the definitions of President and Prime Minister. America's expectations of their president seem a bit muddled.
Muddled? Just because we expect of a President everything one expects of a head of state, including non-partisanship. Plus everything one expects of a head of government, including partisanship. (Walking on water optional. But barely.)
What's muddled about that? ;-)
It really is muddled. I'd like to see the presidential veto abolished.
I disagree on the presidential veto, it's really his only check against the power of Congress. Each branch has power to check the other two, and removing the president's check against the legislative branch would be a very bad idea in my book.
Why not let the president veto Supreme Court decisions too then? We don't need checks for checks' sake.
There should be no check on the will of the governed expressed through Congress. Congress can remove a president or Supreme Court justice but not vice versa. Sometimes laws conflict so the Supreme Court has the task of sorting that out but that's not a check on Congress. That's a legal necessity. Granted, judicial review is not a legal necessary but nor is it explicitly required by the Constitution. It's a judicial convention we've grown accustomed to. Congress can even override a presidential veto. Congress was intended to be supreme but the Founders weren't able to rid themselves of the last remaining vestige of monarchy. The presidential veto violates the principle of separation of powers and democracy itself. Abolish it.
The presidential veto violates the principle of separation of powers and democracy itself. Abolish it.
If you want to call a Constitutional Convention to order, go for it!
Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution grants the President the authority to veto legislation passed by Congress.
As for SCOTUS, the checks are in the appointment process.
The President picks the Justice to nominate, Congress can aye or nay.
Don't they teach how the gov't works in schools anymore?
You're about 10 steps behind the rest of us. We're talking rocket science and you're contribution is that Newton said stuff falls as if you think we somehow missed that.
"This will not provide enough revenue over the long term to support America's welfare state (Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid) at anything like current levels."
Sure it will. The current pace of increase relative to GDP? That's another matter.
"The cuts have effectively curtailed the vision of liberals who want government to do things like invest in basic scientific research, improve infrastructure, kick-start green technology and support education. In that sense, it's true, the ability of Republicans to block Democrats from expanding the tax base has been a conservative victory."
Unless as a result the Blue States have these things, as states take up the burden, and the Red States do not. Which was the pre-New Deal situation.
Red states have taken up the burden. They are the ones with low joblessness and good economies, enabling them to be more innovative and successful. You'll notice that it's all the blue states that are on the brink of bankruptcy and who are having trouble balancing their budgets, which means they can't " improve infrastructure, kick-start green technology and support education."
I was just in Oklahoma, a Red State. It's crime rate has soared in recent years, which surprised me. Its public schools have collapsed. But its economy is doing relatively well.
It's teacher pension funds is among the least well funded in the U.S.
I was just in Oklahoma, a Red State. It's crime rate has soared in recent years, which surprised me. Its public schools have collapsed. But its economy is doing relatively well.
Its teacher pension funds is among the least well funded in the U.S.
States with Democratic governors that expected to run budget surpluses in 2012 include Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Delaware, Oregon, Colorado, Montana, Kentucky and Minnesota.
Granted Montana and Kentucky are really red states that happen to have Democratic governors. But then again Michigan, Wisconsin, New Jersey and New Mexico, which also expected to run surpluses, are really blue states that happen to have Republican governors. Seems like a wash overall.
Uh, Texas is about as red as states come and the only reason we didn't go bankrupt is our legislature eviscerated the education budget (underfunded by several $billion). That's not a recipe for long term success - education is becoming more important for success, not less. They also cut the social safety net to the bone and we're about to lose medicare funding because we can't seem to separate church and state here (it involves Planned Parenthood funding).
And except most red states are net beneficiaries of blue state fed taxes. But they can be my guest and send the money back. After several decades of largess for government employees especially police. firemen and prison guards, indulged by the right and the rest indulged by the left, muncipalities, and states are now canibalising services to pay their bloated pensions. It is up in the air if the damn will break, and these pension funds will be restructured. All of them bought the Kool Aid of 10% ROI forever, ignoring most of it has been a bubble.
You have that right - - WT. The Rich do not want to pay for anything that resembles the Public Good. Not, Education, Environment, Health Care, Alternative Energy, Infrastructuere - - no Nothing! Yet,they are quick to the Corporate Welfare Trough - - to the tune of a $100 Billion annually. They also got Rich by Off-shoring 20 Million Jobs over the past 30 years. They have also benefitted greatly from $3 Trillion in Tax Cuts over that same 30 year period.
As for the HeartLand: Red States have done well as we see the emergence of a new Class of Millionaires - - Large Farm Operators - - who, often receive Subsidies from Uncle Sam.
We are either going to have One Nation - - Indivisible - - or We Are Not! Extreme Selfishness will lead to Civil War; as Pundits are saying that, the Nation has not been this Divided since the Civil War.
You have that right - - WT. The Rich do not want to pay for anything that resembles the Public Good. Not, Education, Environment, Health Care, Alternative Energy, Infrastructuere - - no Nothing! Yet,they are quick to the Corporate Welfare Trough - - to the tune of a $100 Billion annually. They also got Rich by Off-shoring 20 Million Jobs over the past 30 years. They have also benefitted greatly from $3 Trillion in Tax Cuts over that same 30 year period.
As for the HeartLand: Red States have done well as we see the emergence of a new Class of Millionaires - - Large Farm Operators - - who, often receive Subsidies from Uncle Sam.
We are either going to have One Nation - - Indivisible - - or We Are Not! Extreme Selfishness will lead to Civil War; as Pundits are saying that, the Nation has not been this Divided since the Civil War.
You have that right - - WT. The Rich do not want to pay for anything that resembles the Public Good. Not, Education, Environment, Health Care, Alternative Energy, Infrastructures - - no Nothing! Yet,they are quick to the Corporate Welfare Trough - - to the tune of a $100 Billion annually. They also got Rich by Off-shoring 20 Million Jobs over the past 30 years. They have also benefitted greatly from $3 Trillion in Tax Cuts over that same 30 year period.
As for the Heart-Land: Red States have done well as we see the emergence of a new Class of Millionaires - - Large (some small), Farm Operators - - who, often receive Subsidies from Uncle Sam.
We are either going to have One Nation - - Indivisible - - or We Are Not! Extreme Selfishness will lead to Civil War; as Pundits are saying, that, the Nation has not been this Divided since the Civil War.
Americans like their public services, as well as paying for them at discounted rates via Republican tax cuts.
My guess is that the public services will continue, and the country will figure out a way to pay for most of them -
Either via an asset tax (given that 1% of the country owns apx. 40% of the assets), and/or a VAT.
And oila, fixed (sort of).
Asset tax of any significance will simply cause asset values to collapse. VAT will work, but it's quite regressive, thus it won't be very popular in US.
"Asset tax of any significance will simply cause asset values to collapse."
Hmmm... Interesting comment, but I'm not so sure.
The tax as I see it could be a function of who owns it and how much they already own, and not a function of the asset itself.
So, for example, Warren Buffet might be assessed 0.5% on his assets over $5 million.
He could then sell a property for whatever reason, and you and I could but it. It doesn't mean, however, that he would sell it at a discounted rate.
If i knew that Buffet had to sell to raise cash for taxes, i would never pay full price for his assets. Given that market value is subjective, his assets would be worth whatever i'd be willing to pay for them. And since i know that i'd have to pay tax too, i'd make sure to plea poverty. hence asset collapse.
"If i knew that Buffet had to sell to raise cash for taxes..."
"...i would never pay full price for his assets."
Given a world population of apx. 7 billion, others may.
"Given that market value is subjective, his assets would be worth whatever i'd be willing to pay for them."
The market is bigger than you and me.
"And since i know that i'd have to pay tax too, i'd make sure to plea poverty."
Again, we're not the entire market.
"hence asset collapse."
I wouldn't short the market just yet. :)
"Again, we're not the entire market."
This is true, but why would anybody pay more than they had to? Most people shop for cheapest price when given a chance. At the very least, any rational investor would try to depreciate out book value of an asset, and attempt to conceal cash flows (lobby, deductions etc). It's just a reasonable expectation.
"This is true, but why would anybody pay more than they had to?"
As investors, we don't know what "had to" is.
"Most people shop for cheapest price when given a chance."
The dot.com and recent housing bubbles show that the market will often purchase assets as a (f) of rising asset prices, with the hope at selling at a higher price.
In other words, in the view of the market, sometimes increasingly expensive is good, vs. cheaper.
"At the very least, any rational investor would try to depreciate out book value of an asset, and attempt to conceal cash flows (lobby, deductions etc). It's just a reasonable expectation."
You believe the market is rational, and makes those kinds of calculations as a group?
For example, when equity managers on trading desks purchase the QQQ when the 50 day moving avg. crosses the 200 day moving avg., you think they're making that calculation?
"You believe the market is rational, and makes those kinds of calculations as a group?"
Not really, but i'd advise you NOT to base fiscal and/or monetary policy based on irrational bubbles. You are quite right to note that a lot of people make irrational decisions. But in the long run, those people get butchered in the marketplace. Thus, you should not rely on them for any significant long run cash flows.
Once irrational people get butchered out, markets will equilibrate to asset values that account for your wealth tax. Count on it.
"Once irrational people get butchered out, markets will equilibrate to asset values that account for your wealth tax. Count on it."
Got it. So, here's my question -
As I write this, the Dow is at 13,442. Is that rational, or irrational, fair value? And, if so, as defined by what?
And, let's say that a wealth tax is implemented tomorrow, and the market goes up to 13,450, taking other market information into account.
Again, would that be rational, or irrational, fair value? And, again, as defined by what?
In other words, what might be irrational to you, might be rational to the market. How would you know the difference?
One example is gold. Buffet says that buying gold is irrational because it doesn't provide cash-flows, while a whole lot of gold bugs made a lot of money over the last few years.
Buffet's rationality cost him a whole lot of money.
So, why are you so confident that your rationality wouldn't do the same? Or, are you smarter than Buffet? :)
In the meantime, taxes on capital gains for those on higher incomes just went up, as did the market. Was the market irrational?
"As I write this, the Dow is at 13,442. Is that rational, or irrational, fair value? And, if so, as defined by what?"
It is irrational, based on the state of the economy. It is rational, based on Fed actions. My question to you - is it rational during a flash crash, or is it an arbitrage opportunity?
And i wouldn't know the difference until i bet my own money on it and feel the consequences. :)
"One example is gold. Buffet says that buying gold is irrational because it doesn't provide cash-flows, while a whole lot of gold bugs made a lot of money over the last few years."
Buffet is correct. If your game is long term, gold is only about as good as inflation expectations. Which means, not good enough. Doesn't mean you can't make a lot of money in short term playing bubbles, but when it comes to say monetary or fiscal policy, i wouldn't base it on gold.
"In the meantime, taxes on capital gains for those on higher incomes just went up, as did the market. Was the market irrational?"
Perhaps. You yourself mentioned that 1% controls 40% of assets. It would be foolish to think there won't be counter action on behalf of 1%. Perhaps you should short the market and make a lot of money?
Malkavian, thanks for the conversation. Unfortunately, I need to move on to some other stuff.
I'd just say that you seem quite convinced that you can predict the market, and can determine what is and is not rational. Good luck with that. :)
That's not just me - it's all of us. :) And our collective decisions make the market. Some end up wrong, some are correct. Who is who? only the future knows.
I liked our conversation as well.
A consumption tax combined with a non-loophole-ridden estate tax can accomplish everything a wealth tax can, with, I suspect, a lesser incidence of tax avoidance.
We may not all agree on what level of taxation is appropriate or the best method of collection but I'd hope we can, more or less, agree on the big picture tax regime. And an asset tax has no place in that big picture.
We already have an asset tax of 2% or so. It's called inflation. It doesn't require a huge bureaucracy to determine asset values (and it would have to be HUGE). You can hedge against inflation so maybe you want an asset tax on inflation hedges. But you actually want to give people an inflation hedge as a savings option. The alternative is to discourage asset build-up. A vacation would be tax-advantaged compared to savings. That's a horrible incentive. If you want to tax wealth, just tax their income at a higher rate instead of a trickling tax over a lifetime.
A consumption tax can accomplish everything an estate tax can with a lesser incidence of tax avoidance and incentive distortion.
I was actually going to say "...but RR would have a lot more to say on this topic than I can."
"We already have an asset tax of 2% or so. It's called inflation."
You can't rebuild New Jersey after Super Storm Sandy with inflation.
Consumption taxes are regressive.
"If you want to tax wealth, just tax their income at a higher rate instead of a trickling tax over a lifetime."
As we've seen, the money isn't there when taxing the income of wealthy folks, and hence the need to look at taxes on assets.
Actually, we have them locally already, in property taxes. So, it's not like we don't use them.
"You can't rebuild New Jersey after Super Storm Sandy with inflation."
It frees up money for spending like disaster relief and it pays for mortgages and student loans.
"Consumption taxes are regressive."
You're the one who suggested a VAT. A consumption tax can be as progressive as you want it to be. An income tax can be as regressive as you want it to be.
"As we've seen, the money isn't there when taxing the income of wealthy folks, and hence the need to look at taxes on assets."
Where does the money come from then?
"Actually, we have them locally already, in property taxes. So, it's not like we don't use them."
Broken down, a property tax is a land tax plus a wealth tax. The former is an efficient tax. The latter ideally shouldn't exist. A wealth tax in justifiable insofar as it approximates an income tax. If you have a big house, chances are you also have a large income. But it's not the most efficient way to go about it.
"It frees up money for spending like disaster relief and it pays for mortgages and student loans."
So, say I own an apartment complex in California, and it's value increased 2% this past year, entirely due to inflation. How does that end up as cash to fix a boardwalk in Atlantic City?
"You're the one who suggested a VAT."
Indeed I did. Combined with a tax on assets.
"Where does the money come from then?"
Apologies, but I don't understand your question.
"Broken down, a property tax is a land tax plus a wealth tax."
Looks like an asset tax to me.
"A wealth tax in justifiable insofar as it approximates an income tax."
This is an opinion stated as fact.
Anyway, the following is the logic tree, in my view:
1) The federal gov't spends more than it takes in in providing services, and in tax giveaways.
2) Federal debt now apx. equals GDP, and the bills will need to be paid someday, somehow.
3) Services can be cut back (defense, medicare, etc.), as can tax giveaways, the latter which tend to help the affluent most directly (writing off business operating costs, capital costs, depreciation, etc.).
4) And, given that 1% own 40% of assets, one additional way to balance the books is through an asset tax.
5) A VAT will most likely be added one day as well, to spread the opportunity to increase revenue.
That's basically it.
If you can get equivalently inflated rent from your tenants, that apartment is an inflation hedge. It'd be different if you couldn't or if you were holding it all in cash. As I stated, inflation isn't an asset tax insofar as inflation hedges are concerned. I also stated why we want inflation hedges. Without them, you'd be discouraging wealth accumulation and encouraging things like vacations and entertainment which would escape your wealth tax. That's why an income or consumption tax is preferable.
"the money isn't there when taxing the income of wealthy folks"
So where is it then? The wealthy get their money from somewhere and it can be taxed at that point, instead of annually.
Asset tax, wealth tax, whatever you want to call it, I was saying that portion of the property tax is less efficient compared to an income or consumption tax.
I'm not gonna get into another debate with you over opinions vs. facts. If you disagree with something, offer counter-arguments.
You were doing fine from #1 to #3. Few would disagree. Most of us also favor a VAT. #4 is what you have to defend. You can raise revenue from the wealthy by taxing private jets more but how is that better than the alternatives? How is your wealth tax better than simply taxing income or consumption at a higher rate?
"#4 is what you have to defend."
I believe I've provided my thoughts on this. Again, assets of the top 1% (40% of total), and further, top 20% (80% of total) is where the money is.
RR, I'm gonna move on. Have a great weekend.
Here's my own logic:
1. We want government to provide public goods. National defense, roads, law enforcement, basic research.
2. We want government to provide a safety net for those who are unable to escape poverty through no fault of their own.
3. With the exceptions of #1 and #2, government crowds out private investment.
4. Cut spending on #3. E.g., solar panel subsidies and NPR.
5. Levy usage fees. E.g., a mileage tax to pay for roads.
6. Levy a land tax. Likewise a radio spectrum tax.
7. Cap-and-trade. It should be revenue-neutral to produce Kaldor-Hicks efficiency.
8. Levy a VAT.
9. I have a few ideas for welfare pursuant to #2. I'm not sure how much of a work requirement I'd want to impose. In any case, they all involve cash transfers, school vouchers, and mandatory health, unemployment, and retirement savings/insurance.
10. I'd leave sin taxes up to the democratic process but they should all be revenue-neutral for the reason stated in #7.
Your answer is "because that's where the money's at." But that doesn't answer my question of why that's the best way to raise the money. Why not a higher consumption tax?
All taxes are regressive, because the wealthiest figure out how to minimize them. Everyone else either pays the full rate or sees the price of goods increased as taxes are passed through.
A VAT would help with our trade imbalance, and if it replaced payroll and corporate taxes would be a much fairer and more reliable source of revenues with lower costs of compliance--for example it would make an ideal dedicated revenue stream for the entitlement programs.
"All taxes are regressive, because the wealthiest figure out how to minimize them."
Only if loopholes are created which allow them to.
Regarding a VAT, even though I referenced one above, it's actually a type of sales tax, which is regressive.
So, if one is ever created, I'd politely suggest that other taxes should be added (i.e., an asset tax), or existing ones modified (closing of loopholes which benefit the wealthy) to offset the negative impact of regressive taxation
Closing loopholes is a great idea, no doubt, with or without a VAT. To offset the more visible 'regressive' nature of a VAT, I suggested using it to replace corporate income taxes (which are passed through to the consumer anyway, along with the quantifiable direct costs and substantial but unknown inefficiencies associated with corporate tax minimization) and payroll taxes (which hit the worker's income directly, reducing her opportunities for both consumption and savings).
There are so many countries with low joblessness not only red states.
Thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics. The blog is named after Alexis de Tocqueville's study of American politics and society
The Economist explains: Who would pay a "mansion tax"
The Economist explains
Football and British politics: David Cameron's own goal
Game theory
Britain's election campaign: April 26th: The silence of David Cameron
The week ahead: A very normal affair
Football and politics: David Cameron's own goal
America's Ukrainian mission: Training wheels
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more


text:
What Does DogFriendly.com Offer? Select From Our Pull-Down Menu Dog-Friendly Hotels & Lodging Dog-Friendly City Guides ...Attractions, Restaurants & More Dog-Friendly Ski Resorts Dog-Friendly Camping/RV Parks Dog-Friendly Beach Guide Dog-Friendly Outdoor Dining Dog-Friendly Attraction Guide Dog-Friendly Park Guide Off-Leash Dog Parks Public Transportation & Dogs Dog Camps Dog-Friendly Events Dog Photo Gallery Dog & Pet Store Dog Travel Guide Books Top 10 Dog-Friendly Cities Top 10 Dog-Friendly Resorts DogFriendly.com's Newsletter Book Reseller Information Advertise with DogFriendly.com Online Press Kit About Us/Contact Us
U.S. Dog Travel Guides
Dog City Guides
Outdoor Dining
Dog Parks
Dog & Pet Store
Campgrounds & RV Parks
Dog Travel Books
Mobile Apps
Dog Photos
The Promenade Shops At Evergreen Walk
The Promenade Shops At Evergreen WalkPet-Friendly Shopping Centers503 Evergreen WaySouth Windsor,Connecticut 06074 860-432-3398 Get Map or Directions This one destination offer guests a variety of dining, shopping, and entertainment opportunities. Dogs are allowed in the common areas of the mall; it is up to individual stores whether they allow a dog inside. Dogs must be well behaved, leashed, and under their owner's control at all times.
Air Travel
Highway Guides
Books and Ebooks
List Your Property
About Us
Press Kit
Contact Us
Recommend Places

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Top Definition
A guy feeds a dog an ex-lax candy bar and then gets the diarrhea-laden dog to shit in a girls mouth. While the dog is shitting in her mouth, the guy is packing her pussy with a mixture of peanut butter and ground meat. The guy then face fucks her through the runny dog shit while the dog ass fucks the girl and works her twat with his paw. When the girl is done being used like a piss mop in a zoo, the man makes her clean the excess shit off the dogs ass by way of a rim job (hence RIM Tin Tin) who is 69'ing her eating the peanut butter ground meat mixture, all the while the guy is whipping the girl's ass with the dog's leash.…
I couldn't wait, I gave her a Rim Tin Tin right on the dining room floor... that'll be a Thanksgiving dinner the family won't soon forget.
de Fidon't
1 mai 2009


text:
While we have made very significant investments in and progress toward reducing errors in hospital care, patient safety continues to be a major focus for the hospitals of HCA East Florida.
In addition to our existing initiatives, efforts are now underway in:
- preventing hospital associated infections
- preventing blood clots in patient's legs (a serious complication after surgery)
- enhancing timeliness in emergency care
- assuring competence through training programs for staff and credentialing processes for physicians
It is our hope that our proactive efforts will improve the standard of care in the communities we serve and raise the bar on patient safety for the nation. View the Patient Safety Goals of our hospitals.
Our Initiatives:
Patient Safety Resources:
- Patient Safety Video (opens in new window)
- Personal Medication Record (PDF - 24 KB)
- Get Involved with Your Health Care
The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration introduced this website to help the public make well informed health care decisions. With accurate and trusted health care information and tools to compare health care providers and facilities, consumers can make informed choices.


text:
10 Random InDesign CS5 Tips and Techniques
Share this Episode
Adjust your embed size below, then copy and paste the embed code above.
442 x 256
515 x 296
640 x 367
Custom Size
Community Translation
Your transcript request has been submitted.
Adobe TV does its best to accommodate transcript requests. It can take a few weeks for the transcript to become available in the Community Translation Project, so keep checking back.
About This Episode
In this episode Terry White gives us 10 useful tips and techniques for Adobe InDesign users. These 10 random tips all work in InDesign CS5, but some will work in previous versions of InDesign too.
Runtime : 00:19:13
Added : 10/19/2010
About this show
Adobe Evangelists - Terry White
Worldwide Creative Suite Design Evangelist Terry White provides experts tips and tricks, walking you through everything you need to know about what's new for designers in Creative Suite.
Older Episodes
Next episode in this show
Other Suggested Episodes
Products used in this episode


text:
We've been in the industry for over 10 years, so we know our products and more importantly, the right identification products for your business or school. We'll help you find professional and simple solutions to your needs.
(based on 6 reviews)
Ratings Distribution
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Stars
of respondents would recommend this to a friend.
Best Uses
Reviewed by 6 customers
Sort by
Displaying reviews 1-6
Back to top
Blue Lanyard Badge Reel Combo
By tml
from Chester, PA
Comments about idville Blue Lanyard Badge Reel Combo:
This is the second time my company purchased this product.
Reorder regularly
By Purchasing Supervisor
from Sheboygan Falls, WI
Versitile product
Fast shipping but poor quality product
By twells
from Cincinnati, OH
First lanyard broke within 5 minutes of someone putting it on -the blue tether actually pulled out of the black plastic part that is the fastener.
Veterans Affairs is a FAN
By VARO
from Lincoln, NE
We like the break-away aspect, which prevents injury if the lanyard becomes tangled in in something. The cord on the badge reel is super strong, and rarely breaks.
Service and delivery comments:
We received our last order the next day!
Great Lanyard!
By purchasing
Exactly what we needed.
I would buy this product again.
By Yolie
from Johnson City, TX
This product is used by all staff of the cooperative to carry our name/access badges.
Delivery was prompt and in good condition.


text:
Main Content
Support your favorite team – the Rays – with MLB style when you sport this Classic Baseball Two Seamer bracelet. Made from genuine baseball leather, this adjustable bracelet features red baseball stitching and boasts a woven Rays logo in the center. You may never catch a fly ball; but you can definitely wear a little piece of Tampa Bay spirit with you wherever you go. Showing off your team pride never looked so sporty!
- Adjustable clasp
- Imported
- Made from genuine baseball leather
- Made from the authentic elements of a baseball
- Measures approximately 6" x 1"
- Officially licensed Rays bracelet
- One size fits most
- Woven graphics
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game
or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are
received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items
are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite
number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Common Conditions
Featured Topics
Health concern on your mind?
See what your medical symptoms could mean, and learn about possible conditions.
WebMD Pain Coach
Find Information About:
Drugs & Supplements
Get information and reviews on prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, vitamins, and supplements. Search by name or medical condition.
Drug Basics & Safety
Having trouble identifying your pills?
Enter the shape, color, or imprint of your prescription or OTC drug. Our pill identification tool will display pictures that you can compare to your pill.
Save your medicine, check interactions, sign up for FDA alerts, create family profiles and more.
Drug News
WebMD Mobile Drug Information App
Featured Content
WebMD cuts through the hype to reveal the best kept secrets for healthy hair.
Living Healthy Centers
Diet, Food & Fitness
Beauty, Balance & Love
Living Well
WebMD Allergy App for iPhone
Protect yourself and your family by learning which health precautions and vaccines are advised for your destination.
Family and Pregnancy Centers
WebMD Pregnancy App for iPhone
WebMD Health Experts and Community
Talk to health experts and other people like you in WebMD's Communities. It's a safe forum where you can create or participate in support groups and discussions about health topics that interest you.
WebMD Second Opinion
WebMD Communities
Got a health question? Get answers provided by leading organizations, doctors, and experts.
WebMD Newsletters
WebMD Symptom Checker helps you find the most common medical conditions indicated by the symptoms difficulty swallowing, enlarged or swollen glands, sore throat and stiff neck including Viral pharyngitis, Tonsillitis, and Scarlet fever.
There are 55 conditions associated with difficulty swallowing, enlarged or swollen glands, sore throat and stiff neck. The links below will provide you with more detailed information on these medical conditions from the WebMD Symptom Checker and help provide a better understanding of causes and treatment of these related conditions.
Viral pharyngitis is a sore throat caused by a virus, and causes throat pain and cold-like symptoms.
Tonsillitis is painful swelling in the tonsils, causing sore throat, red tonsils, pain, fever, and more.
Scarlet fever is a red itchy rash on the body caused by streptococcal bacteria.
Symptoms of heartburn and GERD are a burning feeling in the chest, throat, or mouth, nausea, and more.
Mononucleosis is a viral infection causing extreme fatigue, sore throat, fever, rash, muscle aches, and more.
Strep throat is a throat infection causing symptoms including a red sore throat with white patches.
Indoor allergens are the things that cause an allergic reaction: dust, dust mites, mold, pet hair and more.
Laryngitis is an inflammation of the larynx, or voice box, causing hoarseness and loss of voice.
Mumps is a contagious viral disease that causes painful swelling of the glands that produce saliva.
Epiglottitis is a rare, life-threatening illness that keeps air from getting to the lungs.
Thyroid cancer is cancer of the thyroid gland and can cause a cough, hoarseness, a lump in the neck, and more.
Hypothyroidism your body functions slow down, making you gain weight and feel tired all the time.
A thermal burn of the mouth or tongue can cause pain, blisters, peeling skin, and temporary loss of taste.
Muscle strain occurs when muscles are stressed, overworked, or injured due to physical activity or labor.
Dust exposure can cause congestion, runny nose, cough, shortness of breath, tightness in the chest, and more.
Exposure to smoke can cause coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, chest tightness, chest pain, and more.
Acute sinusitis, an inflammation of the sinuses, causes sinus pain and tenderness, facial redness and more.
The common cold is a viral respiratory infection causing sore throat, stuffy or runny nose, headache and more.
Osteoarthritis happens when the cartilage in your joints breaks down causing pain, stiffness, and swelling.
When someone has a panic attack, that person feels a sudden, intense fear that can't be controlled.
A stroke occurs when blood and oxygen to the brain are cut off, and causes numbness, confusion, and more.
Torticollis are spasms of the neck muscles causing neck pain and stiffness, tilted head, and more.
Transient ischemic attacks cause headache, numbness, tingling, or weakness in the face, arm, or leg, and more.
Tuberculosis usually infects the lungs, causing a bad cough with blood, chest pain, fever, chills, and fatigue.
Thyroid nodules usually don't cause symptoms, but can cause a visible lump, neck pain, hoarseness, and more.
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a virus that causes symptoms similar to the common cold.
Sjogren's syndrome is an autoimmune disorder that most often causes dry eyes and dry mouth.
Lyme disease is a bacterial infection spread through tick bites; symptoms include rash, fever chills, and more.
Dermatomyositis is a condition that causes muscle swelling and weakness, and a rash on the face and joints.
A goiter is an enlarged thyroid gland, causing a lump in the throat below the Adam's apple.
Located throughout the body, lymph nodes often swell and become tender when fighting an infection.
Myasthenia gravis is caused by abnormal immune responses that weaken muscles, particularly of the face.
A peritonsillar abscess is a pus-filled sore in back of the throat causing sore throat, chills, and more.
A skin abscess, or boil, is a swollen, painful, red and warm lump of skin that may rupture and drain pus.
Symptoms of swallowing an object include coughing, choking, vomiting, throat pain, breathing trouble, and more.
Esophageal varices are caused by high blood pressure and lead to a bloody cough and black, tarry stools.
Thoracic aortic aneurysm is the swelling of the chest aorta and can cause chest or back pain.
Esophagitis, an inflammation of the lining of the esophagus, causes chest pain, nausea, and more.
When hiatal hernia symptoms do occur, they include chest pain and burning, sweating, a bitter taste and more.
Barrett's esophagus occurs when the lining of the esophagus is damaged, usually by acid reflux.
Esophageal cancer starts in the lining of the esophagus and can cause difficulty swallowing.
Tetanus is a potentially fatal toxic infection and causes stiffness in the jaw and neck, fever, and more.
Throat cancer can cause symptoms including difficulty swallowing, hoarseness, and chronic cough.
Anthrax is a deadly bacterial infection that causes symptoms such as blisters and swelling.
Kawasaki disease is an uncommon inflammation of the blood vessels; the most common symptom is fever.
Toxic shock syndrome is a serious bacterial infection and causes fever, low blood pressure, a rash, and more.
Hypothyroidism in children can cause delayed growth, weight gain, a puffy face, a large tongue, and more.
Chagas disease is caused by a tropical parasite and can cause fever, ill feeling, and swelling around the eye.
Plague is a rare but deadly bacterial infection causing fever, vomiting, seizures, organ failure, and more.
CREST syndrome is a rare autoimmune disease that causes tissues to harden throughout the body.
Bird flu is spread to people from birds and causes fever, cough, sore throat and muscle aches.
West Nile virus is an infection spread by mosquitoes, and can cause diarrhea, fever, abdominal pain, and more.
Shingles is a painful, blistering, skin rash typically found on the back and sides of the chest.
Lymphoma is a cancer of the lymphatic system and can cause lymph node swelling, weight loss, fatigue, and more.
Cat scratch disease is a bacterial infection caused by a cat scratch or bite.


text:
Eczema Types, Symptoms And Treatments
What is Eczema?
A type of dermatitis, eczema affects the epidermis or external layer of the skin. There are 10 different types of eczema including atopic, contact dermatitis, xerotic, seborrheic dermatitis, dyshidrosis, iscoid, venous, dermatitis herpetiformis, neurodermatitis and autoeczematization.
Autoeczematization is caused by infections and is only cured when the original infection is dealt with. Neurodermatitis offers a thickening and coloring of the skin caused by repeatedly rubbing and scratching. The treatment for both includes changing the behaviors to scratch and antihistamines.
Resources of Eczema Interest:
- Teen Eczema
- Eczema (Atopic Dermatitis)
- Infantile Eczema
- What causes eczema?
- Eczema Home Treatment
- Fast-acting Eczema Treatment
A problematic itch and a symmetrical rash on the knees, arms and back or thighs that gets worse at night is dermatitis herpetiformis. Caused by celiac disease, it can be treated using a changed diet and the original disease.
Stasis dermatitis or venous eczema is due to bad circulation, and affects ankles of those persons over 50. Scaling red skin that darkens and itches are common symptoms. Found commonly as a precursor to leg ulcers, it is treated with reducing swelling and helping circulation.
Exudative or discoid offers symptoms of dry rash or round oozing areas that have definite borders on the lower legs. Becoming worse in winter time, there is no cause or cure and it will come and go on its own schedule. Eczema usually refers to a range of persistent or recurring skin rashes, itching and dryness.
Dyshirdrosis is found on the soles of the feet, sides of toes and fingers as well as on the palms of hands. Small vesicles or bumps, thickening of the skin and cracks on the skin along with itching that worsens in the evening are common. Known to get worse in the warmer weather, this condition is treated only with over the counter anti itch medications.
More About Eczema
Cradle cap or seborrhic dermatitis is much like dandruff in babies. Symptoms include peeling or greasy scalp, eyebrows and face. Considered harmless except in severe cases, it causes thick scalp rashes that are yellow, caused by a lack of biotin. Curing it means increasing biotin levels in the body.
Winter itch called xerotic offers dry skin cases the chance to become eczema. It gets worse in cold months and the torso and legs are affected the most often. Cause is related to ichthyosis and appears much like a dry river bed with no treatment available.
Contact dermatitis can be due to an irritant or allergy, and is cured by removing said items that cause the reaction. Atopic is related to allergies that are inherited, and is associated with asthma. Presenting with itchy red spots, this condition is treated in much the same way as contact dermatitis.
Using a natural and safe Eczema Lotion will help you to find relief quickly and easily! If you are looking for the Eczema Cream that will meet your needs and requirements, you can find it today!
Most Effective Eczema Treatment
Our ProEcza contains 1% Hydrocortisone Anti-Itch Cream. ProEcza effectively relieves the itching and inflammation from eczema, dermatitis, rashes, insect bites, poison ivy, poison oak and poison sumac. Provides "on contact" relief where skin problems originate in seconds without stinging!
All Stop ProEcza ingredients were specifically chosen for their moisturizing and repairing qualities. You'll find relief from this remarkable cream even if you have become resistant to the skin repair effects.


text:
Men's Socks
Showing 99 ItemsShop Dinodirect mens fashion socks, available in new and classic styling. Features of our socks for men such as mens toe socks, cotton sock for men, Middle Long Socks, fancy socks, men ankle socks, mens argyle socks, chaussettes noires, etc. Socks for men can really make you feel comfortable.
Men's Socks By Style
Athletic Socks
(1) -
Dress Socks


text:
Mercedes Russell leads All-Stars
CHICAGO -- Mercedes Russell had 16 points and had 12 rebounds to lead the West to a 92-64 win over the East in the girls McDonald's All-American game at the United Center on Wednesday night.
The Tennessee signee was voted the game's MVP.
"I couldn't have done it without my teammates" said Russell, a 6-foot-5 forward. "We've been working really hard in practices, but I couldn't have done it without them."
The West jumped out to a 20-10 lead behind Tyler Scaife's seven points. Rebecca Greenwell extended the lead to 31-13 on a 3-pointer. The Duke signee came up limping after being fouled on a layup attempt with 3:28 left in the half. She did not return and finished with eight points, going 2 for 3 from 3-point range.
"It's painful, but it's not excruciating, it's nothing new, it's something I have dealt with this whole season," Greenwell said. "I think I am going to have an MRI soon. Before I even hurt it I had arthroscopic surgery scheduled for Tuesday because I had this ongoing knee problem all season."
Scaife, the player of the year from Arkansas, finished with 15 points and four assists.
Diamond DeShields had 15 points and Makayla Epps added 13 for the East. DeShields has signed to play at North Carolina and Epps is going to Kentucky.
North Carolina had the most All-Americans with three. DeShields played with Stephanie Mavunga and against future Tar Heel Jessica Washington.
"That was a good feeling. I am so proud of having a recruiting class of three McDonald's All-Americans," DeShields said. "To know that I will be going to the next level to play with those two girls is pretty exciting."
The East managed to get within 10 points at the end of the first half on a layup by Taya Reimer. Voted female player of the year, she is headed to Notre Dame.
Alaina Coates had back-to-back baskets for the East to get within 53-45 early in the second half, but the West answered with an 11-0 run, capped by Linnae Harper's layup. The Rutgers commit attends Whitney Young High School, which is just blocks from the United Center.
"I'm just lost for words to play in Chicago, in my hometown in front of my fans and friends," Harper said. "I am really excited and it just hit me this is my last high school game."
Russell led the West in the first half with eight points and seven rebounds.
Kaela Davis, the daughter of former NBA player Antonio Davis, led the East with 10 points in the first half, while DeShields, the daughter of former major leaguer Delino DeShields, added eight.
Davis finished with 10 points.
Use a Facebook account to add a comment, subject to Facebook's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your Facebook name, photo & other personal information you make public on Facebook will appear with your comment, and may be used on ESPN's media platforms. Learn more


text:
Jun 19, 2012
Tags: Games Workshop, Bio Agenc
By Tanya Dernaika
on Dec 29, 2014
read more
By michael lee
on Oct 30, 2014
on Oct 22, 2014
By Bob Sanders
on Sep 2, 2014
By Florie Hubac
on Jul 15, 2014
L'Oreal USA has launched a review of their $2.3 billion dollar media account
WPP in global creative talks with Emirates.
Hennessy calls review of global creative business.
I wanted to be a circus-trick girl and clearly that's what I do today!
Always look for the best solution that you have in mind


text:
An anonymous survey of British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA) members conducted this spring has revealed that 84% of participants find the regulations "obtuse" or "problematic to understand," which makes adhering to them difficult.
To continue reading this article, become a member of TheHorse.com.
It's FREE and you'll get full access to more than 20,000 articles, video, free reports & more.


text: Category: Multimedia/Graphic/Graphic-ViewersGSA Image Analyser 2.7.4Author: GSA Operation System: Windows AllLicense: TrialSize: 7.5 MBDate: 2007-04-23 The "GSA Image Analyser" is an application designed to analyse 2D-Images of any kind. GSA Image Analyser can recognize and count objects in an image but also calculate the distance and areas in it. The images can be imported from many sources (file, scanner, microscope). GSA Image Analyser is designed to solve many problems. GSA Image Analyser has been used for counting cells and calculating the size of plant roots. Requirements: · 128MB RAM Limitations: · 30 days trial · saving and some other features are not available Download software Unlock software Download serilas


text:
On a world where the single massive continent has been literally cut in two by mountains and rivers since the dawn of time, the ongoing wars between those on the opposing sides have continued for so long that the memory of when they first started has long been forgotten. But now, as the war between the alliances of Roxche and Sou Beil extends the conflict into its 130th year, a chance encounter and a hastily staged rescue attempt launches fighter pilot Allison and marksman and bibliophile Will on an incredible journey - a journey that could possibly end the wars once and for all!
Contains episodes 1-13.
Special Features: Clean Opening Animation, Clean Closing Animation.
Spoken Languages: Japanese, English subtitles.
Submit your own review of this item.
People Ordering This Have Also Been Interested In:
See more products people have ordered with this one.
Do you have questions about this item or a correction to the description? Send us some feedback!


text:
De La Rosa set for fresh start against Brewers
The start of the 2013 season couldn't come soon enough for Rockies left-hander Jorge De La Rosa.
After a trying rehab from June 2011 elbow surgery, De La Rosa missed much of the '12 season. When he finally got back to the mound in late September, he struggled in three starts, never making it past the fourth inning.
On Tuesday, De La Rosa gets that fresh start he's been looking for. He faces Milwaukee, aiming to help the Rockies avoid an 0-2 start to their 2013 campaign.
"I've started feeling like me again," De La Rosa said. "Last year was a tough year, but I'm back to finding me."
Countering De La Rosa will be Brewers right-hander Marco Estrada, who made three starts during the spring and posted a 1.88 ERA.
"I'll be relaxed [during the game], but there will be a few butterflies," Estrada said. "Then once I get that first pitch out of the way, it's like, all right, here we go."
Estrada started last season in the Brewers' bullpen, but ended up making 23 starts. He posted a 3.64 ERA and went 5-7 on the year. He pitched mostly in relief in 2011, but spent some time as an early-season fill in for Zack Greinke.
"Now that I'm here [as a starter], it feels like the right thing," Estrada said. "It is a milestone. It's a milestone just to be part of a Major League team, and getting the chance to start means the world to me. I always have seen myself as a starter, even when I wasn't. [Relief work] was hard for me; not knowing when you were going to pitch. Starting, mentally, is easier. At least for me it is."
The Brewers won in 10 innings on Monday, with Jonathan Lucroy's walk-off sacrifice fly serving as the decisive blow. The Crew rallied to score three runs in the eighth and take the lead before Colorado's Dexter Fowler tied the game in the ninth with a homer.
Rockies: Rutledge transitioning to second
Rockies infielder Josh Rutledge went 1-for-5 in his first game as a full-time second baseman.
Rutledge performed well enough last year to warrant a roster spot this season, but with Troy Tulowitzki returning from injury, he was forced out of his spot at shortstop.
"There are nerves no matter where you're playing or what's going on, especially the first game," Rutledge said. "We had a long spring, and everybody is ready to get things going."
Brewers: Lohse to follow Peralta
Brewers manager Ron Roenicke set his pitching rotation on Monday, splitting up Estrada and newly signed right-hander Kyle Lohse. Wily Peralta will get the start on Wednesday against Colorado, and Lohse will pitch Friday against the D-backs.
"As far as Lohse mixing in with our other staff, [he is] a little bit similar, maybe, to Marco Estrada, so we wanted to try to split that up a little bit," Roenicke said. "I think with Peralta, who is a 'stuff' guy, between Marco and Lohse, we're comfortable with that."
Mike Fiers will pitch on Saturday to round out the rotation, as lefty Chris Narveson was pushed to the bullpen when Lohse signed.
Worth noting
• De La Rosa was held out of his last Spring Training start, pitching instead in a Minor League game because the big league club was facing the Brewers. Rockies Manager Walt Weiss didn't want Milwaukee hitters entering the game familiar with De La Rosa's pitches. Estrada faced the Rockies on April 21 last season, tossing five solid innings while allowing just one run -- a Troy Tulowitzki homer.
• With Monday's victory, the Brewers snapped a four-game losing streak against Colorado.
AJ Cassavell is a reporter for MLB.com Follow him on Twitter @ajcassavell. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.


text:
January 28, 2013
Today's top stories
- Lance Armstrong to ride with USPS team mates – and young pros – at Gran Fondo Hincapie this weekend
- Video: Ripcor the Movie – Riding With Mamils
- Chris Froome says he may skip 2015 Tour de France, target Giro d'Italia instead
- Wiggle Super Series 2015 launched today – but you'd best get in quick!
- Nottingham 'ghost bike' to be removed – may be replaced by permanent memorial
- Second phase of London's Quietway network announced as major junction review programme also gets underway
- Just In: Raleigh Maverick Comp
- We have a winner for the Vulpine autumn clothing bundle worth over £500
- Updated: Tour de France 2015 route - little time trialling, but bonus seconds are back (+ flythrough video)
- Rose Xeon Team GF-3100 road bike
Latest comments
"The trend began in the United States but is becoming increasingly common in the UK."
This ...
Can't argue with that. Proper research and good advice from the right people is the best way to ...
My local bike shop build their own frames, have a bit of a cult following and are collaborating with...
What fans? If they actually existed in serious numbers then they wouldn't need to be "calling ...
Indeed. Wouldn't it be good if all manufacturers gave you the option not having the bike ...
Since when is a Gran Fondo a race?
Contador is the man to beat. Tinkoff Saxo are strong, Rafal Majka will play an even bigger part ...
Not impressed with any of it. The roadie has to have been provocative. I also think that his claims ...
Yes deda bars too, tried the 42's first and they were way too narrow and cramped even though in ...
Thanks for the input so far.
Interesting comment about the wheels, I too am a heavier rider and ...
Latest blogs
Trev Allen, October 21, 2014
ForestCyclist, October 16, 2014
Dave Atkinson, October 14, 2014
jimmythecuckoo, October 14, 2014
Dave Atkinson, October 9, 2014
On the Forum
- Steel v Titanium: let battle commence
- Strength Training in the Gym
- In support of the the local bike shop
- What's the low-down on Ribble?
- BMC SLR01 sizing question
- Thoughts on the Whyte Suffolk
- Cycling in New Zealand?
- Metric Century Challenge 2013-2014
- Lead mudguards!
- Opinions sought - black, white or silver.
- Ad for cheap power meter on the site.
- Windstopper Base Layers for Autumn/Winter Riding
- Knocked off my bike by a car last night. Advice needed.
- hit by a van.. Advice please
- Recommends for lower priced sunglasses with interchangeable lens for the missus
- Another, deeper fantasy idea
- First road bike advice.
- Quiet Turbo Trainer
- Please Help Me To Develop An Outdoor and Adventure Product
- Help identifying and Removing 90's BB
Events coming up
- Adult Cyclocross TrainingOctober 24, 2014 - 18:30
- Wiggle Circuit Breaker SportiveOctober 25, 2014 - 07:45
- Worthing Critical Mass Kids Cycling DayOctober 25, 2014 - 10:00
- Rapha Super Cross Series Round ThreeOctober 25, 2014 - 11:00
- St Crispin's Day Night RideOctober 26, 2014 - 00:01


text:
So I took on the task of winterizing myself this year. I've already flushed the engine with anti-freeze, changed out the oil and filter, changed out the tranny fluid, & fogged the cylinders. It's pretty straight forward......So I thought. But as I'm into it I've uncovered some issues (or at least some questions).
1.) I pushed on the throttle body to fog the intake and engine rev'd and the red engine light kicked on. I threw this up on another thread and solution might have to wait till spring since I've already winterized. Hope disconnecting the batts over the winter will solve it or I'll have to make a trip to the dealer (3hrs one way) to get the code cleared first of the season.
2.) Pulled the floor to check alignment (still on the list of to do's) and I see anti-freeze leaking from somewhere. As I further inspected I found it to be coming from the mufflers? This should NOT be should it? Boat is only 3 years old with 182hrs. I don't see anywhere to drain the mufflers of any fluids? Could this be from freeze damage? ATTACHED PICTURE
3.) A couple of Zip Ties were broke holding the blower vent hose so I re-enforced the hose to ensure I didn't end up with a transmission problem like Waynes345 and have wire wrapped up all over the shaft.
4.) Planning on cleaning out the bilge area when I'm all done. What works the best? Do you do it in spring or before storing? I was thinking of spraying it out with water and a bit of dish soap and seems to make more sense to do it in the spring? Just cautious about putting and raw water anywhere in the boat at this time of year!
Results 1 to 10 of 22
Thread: 1st Time Winterizer
1st Time Winterizer
2007 Moomba Outback - going, going, GONE
Why Not? Play Hard! Get wet
Viking, from the looks of it there is a crack on the back side of the muffler and most likely on the radiused transition from the inlet end to the body (thinnest part). As easy as it appears to take out the muffler, me personally I would be all over it. Gotta love a DD to be able to work on it! There are two drains on my V drive mufflers (outboard/bottom) both sides but I have never gotten out more than teaspoon or 2 of water when I winterize. I would pull it and fix it myself with bondo and repaint it until I had another issue with it, which I doubt you ever would.
2006 Moomba OBV-"If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you".
I haven't taken the UltraMarine Silencers off yet but looking at them they are BOTH leaking on the engine side of the silencers where they diameter of the muffler widens. Looks like they are both cracked and flaking off there. How long should they last? Seems to me that 3 or 4 seasons is a little premature for failure?
Should I use OEM replacements or is there something better out there?
And is there any way to drain the muffler/silencers in a DD for the winter?
2007 Moomba Outback - going, going, GONE
Why Not? Play Hard! Get wet
viking - Not good. There should be no leak of any kind. The little bit present could end up being a big problem if not addressed. Maybe take it to your dealer? I pulled the floor and inspected the mufflers on my '07 Outback. Completely dry and nothing wrong. Please keep us posted. - Deerfield
2007 Outback
2012 RAM Crew Cab
2015 Subaru Forester
10-24-2010, 08:24 AM #5Senior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Location
- Cottage Grove, MN
- Posts
- 753
I noticed mine leaking where the muffler meets the transom. There is a hose clamp over that area, so I figured it just needs to be tightened. I didn't do anything about it. The rate of flow is a trickle, so I'm not too concerned about it.
2006 Outback V - Gone
2008 LSV - Gone
2013 other brand
10-25-2010, 01:06 PM #6Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Location
- Milwaukee, Wi
- Posts
- 263
I pushed on the throttle body to fog the intake and engine rev'd and the red engine light kicked on. I threw this up on another thread and solution might have to wait till spring since I've already winterized. Hope disconnecting the batts over the winter will solve it or I'll have to make a trip to the dealer (3hrs one way) to get the code cleared first of the season.
You sprayed the fogging oil directly into the intake? I was under the impression that these were DRY intakes and you were not suppose to do that. Can someone clarify?08 Outback
82 American Skier
if you have the non-extcat motors, then you should fog the intake. if you have the ext-cat catalyst system, then you should not fog the intake..
it's in the indmar winterization faq's on their website.'06 Supra Launch 20SSV-gone but never forgotten
Exactly as SandM indicated. And my boat is not Catalytic exhaust so it is ok to fog through TB. I never did get it done though as I tripped the code and decided against it. Did fog through spark plug holes though.
2007 Moomba Outback - going, going, GONE
Why Not? Play Hard! Get wet
your perfectly fine fogging thru the spark plug holes on any engine, its just easier to fog thru the TB on non cat engines, not necessarily better tho
09 21v LAUNCH
run your engine after you change your oil
68 th Member. WS420,HSE Revolution, OJ 466, Acme1157,1100 sacs,Kicker HLCD's n IX500.4, Supra Coolies
Pulled the port side muffler tonight to confirm leakage and this is what I found.
Looks to be a hairline crack right where I anticipated. I'm certain the starboard side is the same. Only think I can figure is freeze damage from water sitting in muffler?? Why isn't there a way to drain these on DD's?
2nd thought...........Previous owner had dealer service it and so did I until this year and they use anti-freeze method to winterize?
Going to call UltraMarine to see what they say. I guess I need to try my hand at glasswork
2007 Moomba Outback - going, going, GONE
Why Not? Play Hard! Get wet


text:
Product 39/215
This pack contains : * 15 elements full size png 300 DPI 1200 pixels minimum
File type : 1 zip File size : 23Mo
Type of use : This product is for commercial and personal use. Not for freebies. Thank you to consult creator's Term Of Uses included in the zip file.
Designer: Scrap Angie Product model: sa-cu-pack27 File Size: 23 Megs License: Commercial, S4H/S4O and Personal use allowed
This product was added to our catalog on Monday 18 February, 2013.


text:
Blood Was Everywhere
In Blood Was Everywhere, the nightmare of the unsolved, random murder is brought to life as a faceless killer wreaks havoc on the lives of average people in a small Massachusetts town.
Cast: Paul Kratka, Larry Holden, Phil Ristaino, Kimberly Simone, Ashley Arnold
Produced by:
Directed by:
Written by:
Running time:
Opens: Nov 05, 2011 Massachusetts
Theaters for Today |
Pick a day
on this day. |


text:
Categories in Cordless Hammer Drills (9)
DEWALT Cordless Hammer Drills
Cordless hammer drills gives you the same functionality as a cordless drill, with the ability to turn on a hammering motion for increased power. Hammer drills allow you to drill concrete, brick, or concrete block with ease. To get the best results make sure you use the correct type of hammer drill bit.
For information on finding the correct drill for you, be sure to check our Cordless Drill Buyer's Guide.
DEWALT DC233KL36 Volt 1" SDS Rotary Hammer Kit
Sale Price: $770.59
DEWALT DC901KL36 Volt Nano Cordless Hammer Drill and Driver
Sale Price: $471.44