text:
Written on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 by Thomas Sowell
Many in the media and in politics have gone ballistic over the fact that Texas Governor Rick Perry called Social Security "a Ponzi scheme."
Although many act shocked, shocked, as if Rick Perry had said something unthinkable, Governor Perry is not even among the first thousand people to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Not only conservatives, but even some liberals, have been calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme for decades.
Moreover, neither the media nor the politicians who are carrying on over the use of the words "Ponzi scheme" show the slightest interest in any hard facts that would tell us whether Social Security is or is not a Ponzi scheme. It is a "gotcha" moment, and that is apparently what some people live for.
What makes this nonsense become fraud is the insinuation that calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme means advocating that people who are depending on Social Security be abandoned and left with nothing to live on in their retirement years. That is the big scare — and the big lie.
People getting Social Security checks are going to keep on getting those checks. Nobody has advocated anything else, or would dare to cut off a financial lifeline for millions of people.
What is at issue is the particular mechanism through which people can be provided for in their retirement years. Some politicians loudly proclaim that they want to "save Social Security." But programs exist for people — and it is the people who should be saved.
Whether or not the checks that retirees continue to get say "Social Security" is beside the point. The point is that they keep on getting the money they need to live on, whether that money comes from a different institution or from Social Security.
The fundamental problem of Social Security is that the irresponsible way its finances are set up, and the changing demographics of the country, mean that there is simply not going to be enough money in its trust fund to pay today's young people what they are legally entitled to, when time comes for them to retire.
The money is just not there, some of it having been spent for unrelated purposes. Making up a growing shortfall, as baby boomers stop paying into the system as they retire, and start drawing money out of the system, would mean ever-increasing burdens on the taxpayers that the taxpayers are unlikely to put up with.
Social Security worked fine when the small generation from the 1930s received pensions from the money being paid in by the larger and more prosperous "baby boom" generation that followed. It worked fine when the average life expectancy of the first generation was not long enough for most of them to collect Social Security checks for more than a few years — if at all.
Declining birth rates and greatly increasing lifespans have created havoc with Social Security's finances, which are based on having the first generation's pensions paid with money collected from the second generation — and the second generation's pensions paid by the next generation, etc.
Any private financial scheme set up in a similar way would be illegal. That is why Charles Ponzi went to prison.
The politically expedient way of dealing with the situation is to "save Social Security" with short-term fixes that kick the ever-growing shortfall down the road for some later Congress to deal with — or to be overwhelmed by, when voters refuse to pay ruinous tax increases to keep the system going.
Another way to deal with the problem is to give younger workers the option to set up privately-owned retirement accounts instead. These accounts would be beyond the reach of politicians, and based on each generation setting aside money for its own retirement. Studies have shown that private accounts would pay retirees far better than Social Security.
Meanwhile, people currently depending on Social Security can continue to get what they were promised, even if that requires taxpayer subsidies for the current generation of retirees — as distinguished from subsidizing unending generations to come.
These are the kinds of options that need serious discussions, instead of "gotcha" sound bites. Sound bites are usually not very sound, and they are an irresponsible way to discuss serious issues.
To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.
I am nearing retirement and have been paying into social security my entire working life (45 Yrs). My Social Security is considered part of my retirement and is required to support both my wife and myself. I do not consider Social Security a Ponzi Scheme. It is no different than most company retirement plans where retirement is considered part of the package that is included when we select the companies that we work for. This money was set aside for retiremnt support and is protected for our retirement. However, Social Security money has been unprotected and taken from that system to fund other government programs. I believe that we need to not only stop government waste, we need to stop the unnecessary spending and support we provide to forgin countries at the expensie of our own. We have invested in our retirement and should expet a full return on that investmnt.
it really doesn't matter wheather you consider s/s a ponzi scheme on ,thats what it is. if the money had been invested as it was supposed to be there would be plenty there but you dont get interest on iou;s
Alex, social security is not a ponzi scheme regardless of who says that. Earlier I figured this up on a person working for 47 years paying in $3750 per month making $25,000 per year. Remember, between the employee. and the employer. the government gets 15% of the persons wages. I used a retirement calculator and the amount of money being invested at 6% (this was on the low end of the scale for several years) a person would have earned $962,116.98 in their retirement. This would amount to $6167.41 per month, or over $70,000.00 per year for the social social recipient. Of course we have to take in all kind of variables as we know that some people do not work this long for various reasons. However, since the inception of the SS program people used to work many years at one job. My brother worked over 40 years paying into SS. I have know 0thers who have worked in excess of 45 years at their job. After paying out 15% for all these years toward SS, I feel those people on social security earn every penney they get. If they government had invested this money wisely (had not used it for the general fund) this fund would still be in good shape. It is those good for nothing Congress Member who wastedm this money. Be diligent of the Congress Member you will be voting for. Voting for Congress Members should be more important than voting for a president.
True, the money should be there; but my son
has been paying into social security all of
his working years and when he is illegible
for retirement, unless the government pays
back some of those IOUs he will never
receive social security.
The truth does hurt.
use my nickname – Queen Bee
Wayne937, you are living in 'La-La Land'. Social Security is not only a real live Ponszi Scheme, it is a slush fund with which to buy votes. Have you ever been in your local Social Security office? MOST of the people in there are looking to set up Social Security payments for disabilities or because they are "Poor, struggling, illegal aliens needing help". How much did these folks pay into the system? Unless you can get a window installed in your belly button, you'd better pull your head out of there or you'll bump into things. The constitution gives the Federal Government only TWO mandates…Postal Service and National Defense. Why does anyone think they can manage ANYTHING ELSE? How's that Post Office thing working for ya? How 'bout that Education Department? How d'ya like that Department of Energy?
Lone Star, you are right, I've seen this in S/S office myself and this is where a lot waste is going. They're giving our money to people that are not eligible. I've seen people apply that look like they're more well off than me. Expensive cars that I can't afford and so on.
Wayne, go to the Supreme Court ruling of 1937, Helvering v Davis. You will discover that the money collected was am income tax and excise tax, not an investment. The treasury collected the revenue and was not allowed to invest it; contrary to some of the thoughts above. Heree is one that will really get to you. The ruling in 1960 stated we do not have a legal right those dollars that were collected.
Yeah, let's all become government dependent. That will sure relieve the masses of having to think or act on their own behalf.
WTF ever happened to self sufficiency? What happened to individualism? Oh yeah, now I remember, big government has made those things unnecessary.
Only the stupidest of people deny the fact that SS is a PONZI scheme, which by definition is a scam where recipients must depend on the payment of monies by new players. Face it "Brunch" your dough was spent a long time ago and if there is no Ponzi, you get no money.
Whackajig says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 20, 2011 at 11:53 am
Yeah, let's all become government dependent. That will sure relieve the masses of having to think or act on their own behalf.
What ever happened to self sufficiency? What happened to individualism? Oh yeah, now I remember, big government has made those things unnecessary.
Only the stupidest of people deny the fact that SS is a PONZI scheme, which by definition is a scam where recipients must depend on the payment of monies by new players. Face it "Brunch" your dough was spent a long time ago and if there is no Ponzi, you get no money.
it wasn't intended to be, but politicians TOOK the money, and spent it, and with newly taken ss tax deductions, they pay off the older members. sounds a lot like bernie!!!
Whackajig, Independent people cannot be controlled by the government as easily as those who depend on the government for handouts. This is why the government like to get their tentacles wrapped around people, states and cities. If you accepted their aid you would lose your independence. I worked for a city back in the 60, 70's and 80's. I remember having a fellow come to our city telling us that we, the city, should never accept aid from the Federal Government. Guess what? years later they did and the the Federal Government basically took control. I believe this has now happened to all our States and city governments. This is why we as a nation have lost our independence. I don't believe we will ever get independence for our states and cities again. Once something is taken over by the Feds it is gone forever. As far as I am concerned this is direct Communism to the fullest extent.
Those who "invested" with Ponzi did so voluntarily. Social Security is more like a Chicago protection racket. You pay into it or there will be serious consequences.
Agreed and thank you. I was hoping I wasn't the last one on earth that realized the very existence of SS itself is a joke.
Government: "We don't think you're mature/intelligent enough to realize that one day you'll be old. We'll save for you."
No thanks. They can keep every dime I've paid in if they will just promise to take no more. Or at least for the love of Pete privatize it so that the government can't get to it and it can earn a decent rate of return. Every one of my investments does better than my SS.
Lets say that SS does work out for you. The average SS check is $1090. Boy that sounds like a swell retirement. I'd like to retire with a little more dignity than that.
Either way, I don't factor SS into my retirement planning. My way of looking at it – plan or starve.
Your belief that SS is not a Ponzi scheme does not matter. It's a fact. There never was and never will be a 'Social Security Trust Fund'. All payments come out of the 'general fund' (they always have from day one), and Ronald Regan made that point clear way back in 1964 when he gave his famous speech, "A Time For Choosing". Please listen to it. It's on U-Tube. What you thought you were paying into was nothing more than politicians stealing your money. They didn't put it in an account with your name. They spent the money, and now you can only rely on their promise to steal from the next guy with taxes to give you what you think you deserve. You didn't have enough babies to bring in 'new investors', to pay for your retirement by taxing the next generation. The ponzi pyramid is shrinking, and the colapse is on the verge. All those years you were paying into the system, you were paying your parents social security, (and other welfare payments decided by politicians to buy their votes). The fact that they used the money for something else, is more proof that your payments were just another tax, and you allowed yourself to be taxed with the promise of a future return, which was based on a lie. It was a tax, and the Supreme Court has ruled as much. The money is gone. You are entitled to nothing.
"The most difficult thing to face in life , is TRUTH"
Jack Nicholson was right.
Patrick, in the very begining I believe that there was a talk about using a special SS trust fund for that very purpose. I checked and found out the government did in fact create a special social security trust fund beginning in Jan. 1937. I believe you owe me an apology, Patrick. Here is a synopsis of a very small of this website: If they had left the money alone in that fund we would be in a lot better shape than what we are currently in.
Trust Funds
After Social Security numbers were assigned, the first Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes were collected, beginning in January 1937. Special Trust Funds were created for these dedicated revenues. Benefits were then paid from the money in the Social Security Trust Funds. Over the years, more than $8.7 trillion has been paid into the Trust Funds, and more than $7.4 trillion has been paid out in benefits. The remainder is currently on reserve in the Trust Funds and will be used to pay future benefits.
If you would like to read more see this website: http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
Go about 1/2 way down and look for "Trust Funds"
brunch20, so-called "social security" was always a pay-as-you-go program from the very beginning. No money was ever "set aside" as you say. The first woman to receive "social security" paid in $44, however she received $21,000 in 'benefits'. Other workers paying in at the time covered what was being paid out to her. The money that was taken from them to pay her was not "set aside" for them in the future. Money that they MIGHT receive would be paid for (i.e. taken from) workers in the future at the time that they would receive payouts (i.e. transfers of money from current workers to current non-workers).
When the 'program' started, roughly 145 workers were paying in for every one 'retiree'. Now, there are three workers paying in for every one 'retiree'. The bulk of the 'baby-boom' generation is about to retire. When that happens, there will be one worker paying in to fund three 'retirees'. The math just does not work.
It is a pyramid scheme. The first ones in make out the best. The last ones in get screwed. The number of workers that money is taken from constantly declines, while the number of 'retirees' receiving money increases. Eventually, you get past a point where those paying in (i.e. that money is TAKEN from) will never, ever get any money because there are not enough future workers to foot the bill.
Mark, you had better read my post to Patrick. There was a special fund set up for SS back in Jan. 1937. The government had sticky fingers and robbed this fund.
If Roosevelt had been smarter and set the retirement age at 75, rather than 65, SS would be i good shape today an dfar into the future. When Bismark dreamed up the scheme, in the 19th century Germany, he set the retirement age so high that hardly anyone would live long enough to collect any money.
I should have provided a clearer reply. In no way am I completly dependent on Social Security for my retiremnt. What I was trying to say was that the government established a program that I paid into that was established to supplemet my retirement. If they can pay for millions of professional welfare recipiants, they sure as hell should meet their commitments to those who worked, invested in the system and paid their taxes!
But Welfare recipients are their voting base.
Of course they are! Do you expect people to voluntarily cut off their sole source of livelihood!
Sorry, But Social Security is a "Ponzi Scheme" and everyone knows it. To deny it would be to deny gravity. Numerically it can't hold up. It's like playing hot potato knowing that the last person is going to get burned and your the last person. We know when SS was started there were 46 contributors for 1 recipient and the facts that SS has continues to raise the contribution from under 2% to 14.5% today and getting closer to 1.75 contributor for 1 recipient. These are the facts and it doesn't hold well. The problem is it needs to be fixed for everyone, not just your generation. Also, the Government has been robbing from our Social Security by not setting the money aside, like Insurance or Annuity Company would. And why do Gov't Empoyees get to opt out? Not Right!
HR, it is a government insurance that we all pay into for our retirement. It is not any different than paying into a private investment firm for years and then getting your money when you retire. If SS is a ponzi scheme than so are all other private investments. The only thing different is the fact the government is running it.
HUGE DIFFERENCE, Wayne. The insurance companies
do not steal your hard earned income under threat of law every pay check. You do not have to subscribe to any insurance company plans.
You are absolutely right. Social Security would have been okay if the damn dumocrats years ago hadn't put the social security fund in the general fund, so that they could steal from it for their pork projectsl.
52 and sick since I was 14 for being forced to invest in a government retirement plan!
If you are given a choice to place that money in your own savings account or continue to hand it over to the government the fool would hand it to the government!
SS makes any Pub voter a sucker Lib voter! Again no one wants to take money from the old!
Ten million, 20 million, 30 million, 40 million… Hello Sharia flag, for English please press 2!
P.S. Did you vote this week at "you cut"? http://majorityleader.gov/YouCut/
I agree, most of us have paid into this system for 40 years and now we want what we are entitled too, period, just as all of you who pay SS should and will when you turn 65 + if you're able to retire.
brunch, I agree with you. The only difference is that we are forced to pay into SS. If the nut cases in Washingto DC had left it alone it would be in good shape today. We all know that a lot of younger folks do not invest in any kind of investments. These are those folks who insurance would be good for since if there was not any SS these folks would go on welfare after they retired and the taxpayers would end up keeping them anyway. At least with SS they will have something to live on. If they had left the money in the SS fund in tack, there would be plenty money left for all of us. You can bame Congress for this. Be aware when you vote for your Congress Members. Try to pick good Congress Members, preferably Republicans, and then follow them while they are in office to see how they are voting. We know that not all Republicans are honest either.
brunch20, sadly, doesn't understand that company pensions are NOT funded like Social Security.
Employees and employers pay funds into REAL ACCOUNTS and are then invested. The combination of funding, interest, dividends and investment growth then fund the employees pension. That is NOT HOW SOCIAL SECURITY WAS FINANCED. There was a similar element of that, as employee and employer taxes were collected and "invested". But that investment was in government issued instruments (IOUs). Those instruments paid interest, by issuing more government IOUs. The actual money paid in the Social Security taxes went to the General Fund AND SPENT! Payments to Social Security recipients were made from the General Fund. Now, Social Security payments to recipients EXCEED the incoming SS taxes. Thus, the crisis. Our beloved government is spending more than is received in ALL taxes.
Brunch20, Social Security officially became a Ponzi scheme the instant the government dipped into that fund for something OTHER than Social Security and left some nifty IOU's in the box. Like it or not, the government branded Social Security with the term PONZI when they used that money for things like foreign aid or restoring some really cool Historic Mosque in the Middle East. Calling the plan what it is does not mean you should'nt be paid your Social Security check…you should if you paid into the fund as required. Those two issues are not the same. Calling it 'PONZI' is simply the TRUTH. Get over it. No one is threatening to cut your Social Security, but the regime's reckless spending just may leave us all holding and empty bag.
Let me tell you the truth brunch20, Perry is telling the truth, and why can't anyone in America handle the truth. I am 59, just fought to get my social security disability, hurt on the job, worked for 42years. And let me tell you, the money we gave in for all those years, are gone gone gone. so you better start learning and start emailing and standing up for yourself, because obummer is stealing your money and giving it to terrorists, himself, his czars, his green jobs, I can go on and on. I am an activist from the 60's I want my country back, my husband is a very ill9/11 first responder and they get and will get nothing but pennies, this government wants them to die, just like they want us to die, so they do not have to pay you. I fought for 2years to get my pennies every month, you get punished for not being able to work anymore. so Rick Perry is telling the truth, so instead of putting people down, go and tell your socalled government, we are not sleeping anymore and we will not go away. vote obummer out, the repubs are no better, but systems have to be fixed,obummer is trying to make our country a food stamps, welfare country, so wake up. the truth is the truth, so do something, write and phone and become an active American. because you will get pennies.God bless
I'm 10 or 15 years behind you. At one time, it might have been a worthwhile program. If it had been run according to the original actuarial tables, and adjusted with reality, and not RAIDED, it might be healthy when I reach your age. But I have absolutely no such expectation. There is no trust fund. There is no security. It's just become part of the big socialist tax and spend program.
I want to get something out of what I contributed. That won't happen unless we make drastic changes.
Before you call Social Security a retirement plan, you need to check out the Supreme Court ruling from 1960. It states that we do not have a legal right to the money we have contributed. Furthermore, that contribution is really a tax on income. Bunch20 I do not mean to burst your bubble, and I am not saying you will not get SS, you just need to be aware of the truth as it relates to Social Security. Also remember it was contribed during the Great Depression.
How do you found retirement when no one had any savings?
Social Security Works And Can Be Called Anything "But Ponzi" When The Politicans Get There Hand Caught-In The Cookie Jar And "Borrow" Like Most Children, Yikeess, Never Pay-Back, That Is Both Sides Of DC. Now All We Do Is "Fire" The Politicans Who Have Been Stealing From The Social Security Fund, Yippee, That Should Cut The Payroll In Half For DC, With Term Limits Too Follow, And The "Good Old Boys Are Gone". God Bless America And The Tea Party Patriots, With Sarah Palin POTUS.
Tom you counterdict yourself.All you said is true but one thing.Isn't that exactly how a ponzi scheme works.The ones who control it steals from it for their own gain and when it can no longer sustain itself cause of no more money it becomes bankrupt.I'm not sure who wrote the billthat alowed congress to take a penny from it with a promissary note for it but anyone who did ought to be sent away and all of their wealth confiscated.Oh ***p I could go on and on.And I mean from all parties.
It is Ponzi Scheme I've been on SS for 8 years now I've got all money back now I'm living non yours how does that feel
Here's someone telling the truth at least.
I would be happy if I got my money back with 2% per annum.
Leo, maybe you did not work long enough to deserve yours. LOL.
Another naive, ignorant, self-serving "Gimme" (probably) Democrat. You have a point about SS and Ponzi schemes, the differences between SS and a Ponzi Scheme is that membership in the scheme is voluntary and when the scheme goes broke it is shut down. If your only investment in your retirement is SS, than you have shown a complete lack responsibility and self reliance. My wife and I worked and paid into SS for over 40 years. When she died at age 63, not having applied for SS benefits, she receive a total of a couple hundred dollars for burial expenses for the 4 decades she paid into the system. If she had simply put the same money into a simple interest bearing savings account, she would have left a considerable amount to her heirs. When I retired, my SS benefits were cut by 3/4ths because, since I had saved my whole working life, my SS benefits were considered a "windfall". But I'm not bitter or whiny about it. The government can stuff their "benefits". The return on my saving is more than my SS benefits would have [aid anyway. I have no sympathy for those who want to rely on government for personal subsistence and make no provisions for self-sufficiency.
That's because you chose not to pay into it. Soory, but that being the case, you deserve nothing. If you did pay you 40 quarter + then you will just get a few hundred dollars. Most of us working people paid way beyond our 40 quarters, try 40 years.
Obviously you didn't even read my note. Both my wife and I paid into SS for OVER 40 YEARS! But we also provided ourselves with an additional form of retirement income. Because we exercised that personal responsibility and self reliance I was deemed the recipient of a "windfall" and lost most of my SS benefits. I'm just saying, people who whine about the demise of SS need to shut up and start taking care of themselves.
El Loco, I don't know whether you are referring to me, or to some one else. If you're referring to me your dead wrong. If you have followed my post I am most likey one of the most Conservative persona you will ever find. I don't believe in big government. If by the fact that you call SS a ponzi scheme because you are required to pay into it, instead of it being voluntary, they I will agree with you. If SS would not not have been manatory, people would never have any type of a retirement period. You know as well as I do when people are young they never think about getting sick, or retiring. These would be the type of people the taxpayers would be funding anyway. I do believe that people should have a choice in what kind investments they want, however. Please, when you refer to some one as a Liberal, make sure you have your facts straight.
No. I was referring to brunch20.
A Ponzi scheme benefits those who get in it first and harms those who come later because it runs out of funds. SS will never run out of funds. Also it pays off by age, unlike a PS. The US dollar may become worthless, but that is not the fault of SS.
If you read the SS Act of 1935, you will learn that the funds were always designated to go directly to the Treasury. The Secretary was required by law to invest the surplus (over and above immediate needs) SS funds in US Government interest bearing debt instruments. 76 years later that is still what is happening. Nobody raided the lock box because it never existed.
I've posted this before, but the website chose to delete it. So I'll try again.
Entitlements & Entitlement Programs
Entitlements: Where did they get the idea that the Social Security and Medicare Programs are entitlements.
If I remember correctly the first time that the phrase was used, it was at a Congressional hearing regarding the budget. Laura DeAngela Tyson, who was Clinton's economic advisor, coined the phrase and apparently it stuck.
Considering that the average income you can expect from Social Security is just $11,510 per year, which means that millions of Americans who are at or near retirement age are headed toward a true nightmare scenario. And with staggering inflation looming ahead, the situation is going to get a whole lot worse.
Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did as well. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the government pays on the money that it borrows), after 51 years of working (that was me) you'd have $1,043,352.75. If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $31300.58 per year, or $2,608.38 per month, and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retired at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! Can you now see just how badly we, the citizens of this country, are being ripped off? In other words the government has stolen from you $19790 per year over your working life. Also don't forget the monies left in the system after you die, it reverts to the government, not your family. Just another rip off, since you paid into what was supposed to be a trust fund. And just think, if the system were privatized and you bought an annuity and with the same money that you were putting into SS and it paid, on average 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. And guess what, the remaining monies, after your death, in that annuity would go to your family.
Entitlements my ass, I paid cash for my Social Security Insurance! Just because they borrowed (stole) my money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity for illegal aliens or handouts to foreign countries! Congressional benefits like free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days: now that's welfare; and they have the nerve to call my retirement benefits entitlements!
Someone please tell me what the Hell is wrong with all those people that run this country! No, don't, I think I know. They're all on the take.
We're broke and can't help our Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, or Homeless etc.?
Our retired seniors living on fixed incomes receive no aid. In fact Congress has made it even more difficult for seniors to obtain medications at a reasonable price. All because of the drug lobbies. You can go to Canada and get the same drugs for 60% to 75% less than you would have to pay here. Nor do they get any breaks on what they have to pay for Medicare, while our government gives Hundreds of Billions to Foreign Countries and illegal aliens! And here's another small tidbit for you to swallow. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, is trying to get passed a law that would prohibit the citizens of this country from obtaining the same medications available here in the U.S. from outside the U.S. And this is the land of the free, yeah right?
They call Social Security and Medicare entitlements even though most of us have been paying for them all our working lives. And now, when its time for us to collect, the Government is running out of money. Why did the Government borrow (steal) from our Social Security in the first place? Because it was there, and burning a hole in their collective pockets. They have now turned Social Security into the largest Ponzi scheme in the world. They are no better than Bernie Madoff, and should be treated as such. But we all know that will happen!
Social Security and Medicare should be privatized. If that were to happen the monies going into these programs would be out the hands of those criminals. As an example of what would happen, all you have to do is look at what happened in Chile when they privatized their SS program. Their economy grew by 15% for the next five years. And the health care that was provided became much more affordable. The cost of healthcare declined by 60%. Why? Because it was put on a competitive basis?
We have many adoptable children in this country who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans. Why is that? I'll tell you why! It's the bureaucracies and red tape (regulations) that make it near impossible to adopt a child born in this country.
In recent months we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile, Pakistan…home to bin Laden…literally BILLIONS of DOLLARS! Add to that $770 Million to rebuild Muslim Mosques throughout the Middle East, and that to people who hate us.
AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without needed medication, mentally ill going without treatment, etc., supposedly the most prosperous country in the world. What happened? I'll tell you, it's the progressives. I guess I should say this quietly, it's the socialist.
Imagine if our Government gave us the same support they give the people who hate us. Sad, isn't it? The progressives are winning!
Here is a VERY interesting list of entitlements that is, at the very heart of the dispute, why the Democrats refuse to budge and are insisting on raising taxes. Americans must find out what all this budgetary wrangling is all about, to save money. Most of these entitlement programs have been established during the late 1960's to early '70's, but the funding for these programs has been increasing steadily over the years. The Nation (we) cannot sustain this wasteful over spending any longer, because, one day, America will default.
If you believe this, the whole country must know what is going on behind closed doors and in the shadows of this budgetary mockery. All of these programs are funded by our tax dollars, and are usually established for the benefit of some Congressmen's constituents, or lobbyist.
There are a number of other programs that are not listed as entitlements, but are also classified as budgetary items that could (should) be examined for further cuts.
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting. Read to the end.
* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
* Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland . $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program.. $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
* Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
* Exchange Programs for Alaska , Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts . $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
* Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
* Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually savings.
* U.S. Agency for International Development.$1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia . $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
* Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
* Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings. WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2
Billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of $15 billion total savings.
* Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. Lord help us!!!!!
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings. E-Gads!!!
* Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Inter-govern-mental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings
* Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
* Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings..
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
* TOTAL SAVINGS: In just the first year $8.387 Trillion
* TOTAL SAVINGS: An additional $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
My question is, what THE HELL is all this doing in the budget in the first place? Do you think that these savings just might save this country from default?
Instead they want to cut Social Security and Medicare for folks who paid for them every working day of their lives!!!
This post needs to be sent to every congressman, senate, president, would be presidents and anyone else in power. They could learn by cutting the spending like this does. SS doesn't have to be a ponzi scheme. It could be a nice retirement savings if the government didn't have charge of it. The problem was congress thought since the money is there then let's use it rather than run short on the pork we want.
You are 100% correct.
No thanks, I'd rather save for myself like a big boy.
Get debt free folks and it's easy to build wealth and save for yourself.
Dave Ramsey for the win.
Lamont, I wrote something similar to what you wrote, earlier. I figured a person working for 47 years at an average of 25,000 for every year for all those 47 year he and his employer would be paying in $3750 per month to the social security trust fund. Had the government invested that money at 6% (on the low end for those years) he would have had earned $962,116.98 at the beginning of his retirement. That would amount to $6167.41 per month, or better than $70,000 per year. What happened to that money? Was it wasted, some one did not know how to make a good investment, or was it stolen from the fund. I suggest maybe all three were responsible. I don't believe that most people who worked for thirty or more years, and retire at age 65 will ever get their money back unless they live well beyond the average life time age of 78 years.
Thank you lamont for posting it again. I hope you don't mind that I copied it and am sending it to everyone on my email list. You get the credit of course.
Thank you, Lamont.
It is what it is, "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul".
When FDR designed SSI the average American was living 59 years and seven months. 98% of the contributors were dead before they reached 65. Today we live 77 years and the system cannot support all the recipients, but it can be repaired with means testing and by putting the money in investments instead of letting Congress spend it.
The Two Minute Conservative at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com has political analysis, science and humor. Daily on Kindle.
Adrian, I think you had use the investment calculator and figure an average time of 30 years a person had worked and money they were making for all those years. I have known some who worked for 50 years. Between the employee and the employer they pay in a total of 15%. Earnings on this money at 6% in a good investment firm over all these years will surprise you. You can find a good investment calculator here: http://www.bloomberg.com/personal-finance/calculators/retirement/
THe Social Security trust fund was to be locked up and not touched by any politician. A lot of older people rely on SS in fact I am one of them who also receives Social Security from the UK. Also I get my Companies pension. Perry is a politician who is carrying a lot of socialist baggage for instance amnesty for illegals. To call it a Ponzi scheme is not helping any senior. Has anyone asked this ex Democrat what he would do for the elderly. Suggest Politicians not raid the Social Security Trust fund.One would have thought a penalty reprimand et al be exercised for stealing from the cookie jar.
BillyC, I would never believe what a politician would tell me. The best thing to do is watch how they vote on different bills on different bills. I belileve you can do that one congress.org I hope I have the right website here. At least you can try it and see if it is the right one.
Let me try that again http://www.congress.org and see if it will show up at a website.
If it looks like a Ponzi scheme, acts likes a Ponzi scheme and smells like a Ponzi scheme, it must be a ……
This should open a national Moral discusion . . . . what is deficit financing if not a scheme to dump debt on future generations?
All we need for the current system to work is more workers. So either we take more off welfare and or let more immigrate. Otherwise here comes the reduced benefits (needed anyway, actually.)
Good point Jim. It will never happen, but that would work. Of course 50% of the wage earners aren't paying income tax either. When Bush tried to put all the illegals into a program whereby they could work here only if they paid into SS, insurance, and income tax – all hell broke loose.
Sowell says "here is not enough money in the trust fund —". There is no money in the trust fund: It is juat a pile of worthless IOU's. The government has spent it all and then some.
In 1957, FICA rate was 2 percent–I was earning 50 cents per hour, so I paid 8 cents per day to Social Security Account. The really good thing was that I was earning quarters toward retirement some day–I needed 40 quarters to qualify for SS at age 65.
In 1996, the FICA rate was 6.2 percent and was paid until the worker earned $62,700. This was matched by employer at the 6.2 percent rate as well, so the total FICA amount was 12.4 percent. After this amount ($62,700) was earned, NO FICA deductions were made for the remainder of the year. I don't have all information by years, but I do believe the combined employee/employer FICA today is less than 15 percent on wages up to $102,000.
Anyone who can tell you how much they've paid into Social Security and on what earnings for their entire working years is a much better record keeper than I because the rates have changed almost yearly since 1956 when I held my first job (2 percent on wages to $4,800 per year) to present (15 percent on wages to $102,000).
Rules have also changed again and again. As more people retire and start drawing SS, and we live longer and longer, it really makes no difference if it's called entitlements, ponzi scheme, or "what is owed me by the government because I paid in all these years," if the outgo is more than the income, it can't last. The "kids" younger than 50 better be planning on something other than Social Security for their retirement (at 75 or so), or they are really gonna be in a pickle!!! Social Security is not enough to live on today unless there are other perks to go along with it–like a home and car paid for, a pretty good nest egg that the taxes have already been paid on, and really good health.
The money was taken for one reason and used for another-ask Newt G. how it works;He was Speaker when it was used to balance the budget in the ninties. Same as gasoline tax,only the D.O.T. dosn't promise drivers retirement. These social programs are designed to lure voters and their children for life.
I do'nt remember being asked to pay into SSI.
The Federal Goverment TOOK IT.
I'm not asking for a free hand out !
If you make enought money to pay in and have a personal retire account. Great,
But many of us are not so lucky to be able to do both.
Perhaps at the early stages of Social Security as well as the Labor Unions were created with the very best of intentions, but unfortunely not totally thought out. History is always the only way to grade any government program. I guess I'm suggesting "hind-sight" to be the best determination of succcess.
Social Security didn't start out to be a Ponzi fraud, but, our elected leaders, maybe because of need, greed, or ambition made this into what it is today, a program that will not continue without a serious correction. As it is now,and if this was a private activity, someone would be going to jail.
GOD Bless The U.S.A.
Ponzi sceme? Just a fact of life people. You,I, and everyone has been lied to fo years. This is what you get when you "depend" on Government. The facts have been there for ages. Just now people are waking up to reality? Stupidity is not an option.
obama knew what was coming down the pike. It also fit into his "Plan" for America. Americans are about to experience exactly what Hugo Chavez did to Venezuela. The boot of Marxism will be firmly shoved on the neck of American's freedoms, liberties, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Just a fact of life people. Reality sucks sometimes people. This is one of those times. Get use to it.
But Henry, is this what we deserve? Should we just lay down now and give in to those that will do further damage? I'm sure that is not what you want or meant by your note.
I do agree with you that we have some very difficult conditions to correct. It is up to us to do that job. Individually as well as collectively inside groups of like minded people.
GOD Bless The U.S.A.
This fund was intended for one purpose only, that did not include using it as a 'slush fund' for a multitude of 'pet projects' that weren't covered in 'the' budget. Congress freely & openly put their hand in this cookie jar & had the audacity to act mortified when they 'discovered' no one was re-filling it fast enough. And, yet, continued to justify their bridges to nowhere. Wonder how so many were RE-elected???
GW had a plan where individuals could be responsible for a portion of their own welfare by investing where Uncle Sam couldn't reach Frankly, with all the solutions/answers offered by the general population, I'm amazed more were not willing to take on the task of providing thier own future.
When I earn over 11K annuel, I lose a portion of my check, I pay a monthly premium for medical & prescriptions ($200 mo) & am covered for just the same 80% as a private insurance. I am over 70 & blessed w/ good health. So have not used much of medical. I figure to collect in monthly checks what I paid in will take another 25 yrs unless I'm stricked w/ something catostrophic.
"Ponzi scheme" is no more than a sound bite that those not liking Perry can lazily latch onto rather than looking for other reasons (& there are afew more important ones)
I pray I will never become a slave to entittlements
Ponzi Scheme: "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation." Sure sounds like Social Security to me. While a true Ponzi Scheme is illegal, Social Security is a creation of government (therefore legal), and thus avoids the "illegal" label normally attached to a Ponzi Scheme. That does not change the fact that Social Security IS a Ponzi Scheme, by definition.
I guess if Social Security is Ponzi scheme than what is all the Government retirements? They dont have to work 45 years to get a retirement that is worth more than when they worked. Lets cut that out then there will be enough for people that paid into thr Social Security system. YES YES
By declining birth rates, you mean, "The Pill" (Birth Control) and Abortion!
Does it really matter that people are living longer? Isn't a big part of SS failing that our lovely(?) government decided this was their money to spend and put an IOU in the pot, spend the money and never paid any of it back? It wouldn't have been the total answer to it not being there for EVERYONE who paid into it but it sure as hell would have helped. It would have helped a hell of a lot more also if illegals weren't getting some of it. Of course, obummer is trying his best to make all illegals legal.
Social Security is NOT a Ponzi scheme, nor is it an entitlement! It is and was designed to be an annuity to SUPPLEMENT your retirement! YOU ARE PAYING INTO IT EVERY TIME YOU GET PAID! Or, if like me, you are retired and no longer work, you PAID for it your ENTIRE WORKING LIFE!! The system is broke only because of what was allowed to happen during the LBJ administration, and the Carter administration! Had it been LEFT ALONE it would be FINE!! Please read the following!!
Dick Kantenberger
Gifted Education Writer
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. FACTS ARE FACTS!!
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be COMPLETELY voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65% on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month —
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' — you may be interested in the following:
———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —-
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the DEMOCRATICALLY controlled House and Senate.
———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The DEMOCRATIC Party.
———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —–
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The DEMOCRATIC Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— –
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the DEMOCRATIC Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The DEMOCRATIC Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
———— — ———— ——— —– ———— ——— ———
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the DEMOCRATS turn around and tell you that the REPUBLICANS want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve.
Does Social Security pay interest on revenue that you put into the system for 40 years? When I started working in the late 1960's I only made $2.00 an hour and some of that went to SS. But the all money I paid in back then has lost significant value today. So I guess my contribution back in the 60's went to the elderly in the 60's and the people paying into the system today will go to retiree's today. What happens when 80 million baby boomers all go on SS and the current working class can't foot the bill? The truth is they can't and those who contributed for decades won't collect their share. That is a Ponzi scheme.
In a way I agree with him.Our Washington elects made ss a ponzi they took money to fill thier pockets.To help thier speacial groups.Replaced it with IOUs.So yes it became a ponzi.Thats not what it was for,And by the way have not paied it back.I wonder can they be sued & get it back.After all they bail out everything .They did steal from SS funds????? At least we could get a ++ return.
Maybe I should throw my name in the ring everyone is.Im a combat vet and very much a Patriot.I wolld not take any lip lashing&write my own speech and live up to it.
By the way the word would stand .Oh well just to get a laugh
Jul 01
Jun 30
Jun 28
Jun 27
Jun 26
Jun 25
Jun 24
Jun 23
Jul 01
Jun 29
Jun 29
Jun 27
Jun 26
Jun 25
Jun 24
Jun 23


text:
lydia622520's soup
My stream
My TV
My friends
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here
to check if anything new just came in.
1080p files to Sony Xperia P/Go-Import 1080p Movies to Xperia P/Go with best Xperia Movie Converter
Sony Xperia P
with a fantastic screen, high-resolution and high-class feel make this a great smartphone for media fans, it lacks the 12-megapixel camera and 1.5GHz dual-core CPU and larger 4.3in screen of the Xperia S, but its 1GHz dual-core CPU, 8-megapixel camera and 4in screen still provide the Xperia P with a fantastic specification. And the
Sony Xperia Go
is a slim, compact phone that lines up at a minimalist 9.8mm thick and 110g in weight, just 0.5mm thicker than the smartphone-defining Apple
iPhone 4S
and considerably lighter than a number of its similarly priced lower mid-market rivals such as the
Samsung Galaxy Ace
Well, both
Sony Xperia P and Xperia Go can not play 1080p movies
. So in this article, I would like to show you how to enable 1080p videos/movies playable on Sony Xperia P/go smoothly with the best Sony Xperia Movie Converter via converting 1080p files to Sony Xperia P/go.
To work out the certain reason and solution, I did several tests 1080p video on Xperia P/go. Synthesize the testing results;
playing 1080p videos/movies on Sony Xpeira P/go
is not supported due to the video format and file size limit. The following solution to play full HD media files on Sony Xperia phones also including Sony Xperia T/TX/U/J/V/sola flawlessly without any limit. Now Reading...
An alternative approach is to convert/compress 1080p files to Sony Xperia phones fully compatible video format with the optimal video bitrate with the decent
Sony Xperia Movie Converter
. It can easily help you to convert any 1080p file AVI, MKV, WMV, FLV, MOV to Sony Xperia favorable video format MP4 and then tweaks the video/audio parameters like video bitrate, frame rate, etc to optimize movie playback performance on Xperia phones.
Step 1: Download, install and run the best Sony Xperia 1080p video converter and then add your 1080p source movies AVI, MKV, WMV, FLV, MOV, etc to it.
Step 2: Click the Format menu, and select Sony >> Sony Ericsson Xperia Arc S MPEG-4 Video(*.mp4) as the target format for Xperia go, Xperia P.
Step 3: Tap the Settings button; tweaks the video, audio settings to optimize 1080p video on Xperia go/P performance. We recommend you to set the video size fully fit the phone's screen resolution. For example, the best video size for Xperia P is 960*540. And 1000kps~1500kps video bitrate will be proper.
Step 4: Hit the Convert button; it will start to
compress 1080p files to Sony Xperia P/go
MP4 video with the best video/audio settings. After the conversion, viewing full HD 1080p movies on Sony Xperia P/go with smooth playback would be easy.
Related guides:
Fix Sony Xperia USB connection problems
1080P MKV/FLV/AVI/MOV to Sony Xperia P/Go
Import Panasonic HDC-HS900 1080/50p AVCHD to iMovie 8/9/11
Putting and Ripping DVD to Nokia Lumia 920 playback
Xperia P can not playback 1080p video
why xperia go cannot play 1080p movie
Sony Xperia P 1080p video lags
1080p video playback on Xperia go
Sony Xperia 1080p converter
1080p mkv to Xperia P
Xperia go 1080p avi
Sony Xperia T 1080P
can Sony Xperia U support 1080p
best video settings for Sony Xperia P
Sony Xperia go video settings
← Front page

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Sports Network
DATE & TIME: Wednesday, January 30, 7 p.m. (et)
FACTS & STATS: Site: Tom Gola Arena (3,400) -- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Television: None. Home Record: UMass 6-2. La Salle 9-1. Away Record: UMass 5-1, La Salle 5-4. Neutral Record: UMass 2-2, La Salle 0-0. Conference Record: UMass 3-2, La Salle 4-2. Series Record: Series is tied, 14-14.
GAMES NOTES: The giant killing La Salle Explorers will return to Tom Gola Arena on Wednesday night to face off with the Massachusetts Minutemen in an Atlantic-10 Conference battle.
A 70-65 win over Richmond on Sunday helped UMass bounce back from a humbling loss at home to George Washington. The victory was the third in the last four games for the Minutemen who are 13-5 overall, wile managing to fight to 3-2 in league play. That is tied for just seventh in the conference currently. UMass has been excellent on the road where it has five wins in six trips. The Minutemen will also play an away contest against Charlotte next.
After stunning then No. 9 Butler (54-53), La Salle went into Richmond and knocked off a second top 25 opponent on Saturday with a 69-61 win over then No. 19 VCU. The Explorers have won four of their last five games overall and are now 14-5 on the season including a 4-2 mark against league foes. That conference record has the Explorers a half game ahead of UMass and in a five- way tie for second place. Next up La Salle will venture out to play George Washington.
The Explorers have won seven of the last eight meetings between these squads, including a series sweep a year ago. The recent string of wins has allowed the Explorers to even the all-time series at 14 wins a piece.
There were four ties and just as many lead changes in the second half of UMass' battle with Richmond. The Minutemen took the lead for good with 2:11 left when they pulled ahead by one on a pair of Sampson Carter free throws after Carter was fouled after collecting an offensive rebound. UMass then turned up the heat on defense and forced the Spiders to miss their last nine field goal attempts.
Relying on defensive strength has not been a luxury that UMass has had this season. The Minutemen are allowing 71.8 points per game on the campaign in large part because of the torrid offensive pace they run themselves. UMass is the third highest scoring team in the A-10 (72.8 ppg) despite shooting just 41.7 percent from the field. Ball movement is key for the Minutemen who hand out the third most assists in the conference (14.6 pg). Chaz Williams (16.4 ppg, 7.2 apg) has been the driving force for the Minutemen both as a scorer and distributor. The 5-foot-9 guard leads the A-10 in assists and is fifth in scoring. With Jesse Morgan (13.4 ppg) out for the year with a torn ligament in his knee Terrell Vinson (11.5 ppg) is now the second best option.
La Salle went into halftime leading 34-25 against VCU. The Explorers then allowed the Rams to rip off a 17-0 run to open the second half. The Explorers weren't ready to quit though, as a 22-7 run pushed La Salle back up by seven and an 8-of-8 effort from the free-throw line allowed the Explorers to hold on.
On the offensive end La Salle has been right in line with UMass as the Explorers score at a 71.6 points per game rate while shooting a superior 44.1 percent from the floor. La Salle has been rather weak on the boards (32.9 pg) ranking among the bottom four teams in the league. La Salle does have more success than the Minutemen on defense as the Explorers let up 65.1 points per game on 44.8 percent shooting. Ramon Galloway (17.2 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 3.1 apg) and Tyreek Duren (14.5 ppg, 3.4 apg) have been tremendous in the backcourt for La Salle with their ability to score and find open teammates. The duo are also disruptive on the defensive end as each collects more than two steals a game. Jerrell Wright (10.1 ppg, 6.4 rpg) is the best interior threat, while Tyrone Garland (13.1 ppg) provides a spark off the bench.
With Galloway and Duren in the backcourt the Explorers will have no trouble handling Williams and keeping the Minutemen at bay. Expect La Salle to keep on rolling.
Sports Network Predicted Outcome: La Salle 72, Massachusetts 65


text:
Snickers 'cctv' by Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO
Mr. T is giving more young men a dressing-down through a new viral campaign created by Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO.
A series of short films shows the A-Team star keeping a watchful eye over the conduct of the British public through a set of CCTV cameras.
The footage will appear on www.getsomenuts.tv, and the site will also offer feature a shop your mate competition, which allows users to upload similar footage of their friends committing unmanly acts to win a series of prizes.
Video 1: teaser
Video 2: park


text:
Chief Justice Willy Mutunga has said he had no option but to swear in the three senior police officers whose appointment was rejected by Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
Deputy Inspector Generals of Police Grace Kaindi, Samuel Arachi and CID Director Ndegwa Muhoro were sworn in by the CJ yesterday.
The three who were appointed by President Kibaki were sworn in despite objects from the Prime Minister.
The PM rejected the three last month stating that he was not consulted. He said he had serious objections against the three nominees and that consultations on the matter were still underway.
Chief Justice Willy Mutunga said he had no choice but to swear in the senior police officers since there was no case challenging their appointment.
He said although the principal's objections had raised legal issues on the integrity of CID director Ndegwa Muhoro only the court could handle the matter.


text:
premium services
online directory
customer care
Markets :: Specialty Chemicals :: Rubber processing chemicals
IndianOil to Build India's First SBR Plant
11:26 AM MDT | August 4, 2008 | Chemical Week Editorial Staff
IndianOil aims to sign an agreement with two international partners by the end of August to build India's first styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) plant, company sources tell CW. The 120,000-m.t./year SBR unit will be constructed at IndianOil's Panipat site at which the company is building a petchem complex based on an 860,000-m.t./year, Lummus-process ethylene plant, due for completion by the end of 2009. Total costs of the SBR plant, including a butadiene extraction unit, will be about Rs7.61 billion ($177.5 million). IndianOil will hold a 48% stake in...
This information is only available to Chemical Week subscribers.
Forgot your user ID or password?
Not an IHS Chemical Week member yet?
Here's why you should be:
100% Satisfaction Guarantee
contact us | about us | customer care | privacy policy | sitemap | advertise
Copyright © 2015 IHS, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


text:
Enter a title for your worksheet.
Separate each word with a space or a new line. Any characters other than a-z will be disregarded.
Lost for words? Then why not browse our word lists? Just select the words you want and Worksheet Genius will fill this page in for you.
These are the instructions that will be written at the top of the page.
Enter a number between 1 and 5.


text:
Andrea Mitchell, interviewing Sen. Tom Harkin:
Are you willing to give up the public option, are you willing to trigger it or delay it or make it less of a, more of an option and less important in a final package, in order to get a deal.
I'm still waiting for Mitchell to ask a Joe Lieberman or a Ben Nelson if they will insist on getting everything they want, or whether they are willing to accept a public option "in order to get a deal" ...
In his response, Harkin indirectly illustrated Mitchell's double-standard:
Now, you know, a lot of bills that pass around here, we don't like everything that's in them. There may be one or two things we don't like. But we do like the majority of things that are in the bill. And I think that's what we're looking at with health reform. Some of my colleagues may not like a public option, but they like all the other things. And I don't think they'll vote against a bill simply because it has a public option in it.
Andrea Mitchell just asked Valerie Jarrett whether Barack Obama would follow House Democrats in insisting on "the public option, do or die."
I'm still waiting for Mitchell to ask a conservative whether they insist on "the public option, don't or die."
A couple of weeks ago, I noted that in an interview with Sen. Bernie Sanders, Andrea Mitchell asked "Is it better to have nothing than to have a plan that does not include the public option," and pointed out that she doesn't ask similar questions of Senators who oppose the public option. She doesn't ask them "is it better to have nothing than to hae a plan that includes the public option." I explained at the time:
It seems to me that framing -- a choice between nothing and what liberals want -- is common, while conservatives don't face such questions in the health care debate.
So here's a challenge for Andrea Mitchell: The next time you interview a Ben Nelson or a Joe Lieberman or a Mary Landrieu or a Chuck Grassley, ask them "Is it better to have nothing than to have a plan that includes the public option."
Well, Andrea Mitchell just finished an interview with Joe Lieberman -- and no, she didn't ask him anything remotely like that.
Instead, she let Lieberman get away with a string of falsehoods, not challenging any of them:
Lieberman: A government-run health insurance plan: The public doesn't support it. They know that ultimately taxpayers will pay for it. They don't want us to add to the debt. They feel that the existing system, private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid does pretty well.
In fact, the public option polls quite strongly.
In fact, health care reform with a strong public option would cost taxpayers less than a similar plan without such an option.
In fact, few people (other than private insurers) think the existing system does pretty well.
But Andrea Mitchell didn't challenge Joe Lieberman on any of those false claims (or on the apparent inconsistency between his disdain for "government-run" health insurance and his praise for Medicare and Medicaid.) Nor did she ask him the type of questions she asks people like Bernie Sanders.
And that goes a long way towards explaining the difficulty in passing meaningful health care reform.
From the September 4 edition of NBC's Nightly News:
Loading the player reg...
From the September 4 edition of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports:
Loading the player reg...
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell:
Meanwhile, the president is on vacation. He is on a 25 acre estate in Martha's Vineyard. We understand a $35,000 rental for the week. His personal expense, his family's expense. Communications for the President, as always, and security, provided by the taxpayer. No one begrudges him the vacation.
Really? Then why do you keep talking about the expense?
From the August 21 edition of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports:
Loading the player reg...
From the August 21 edition of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports:
Loading the player reg...
Here's how MNSBC's Andrea Mitchell just described Tom Ridge's statement that the Bush administration played around with terror alerts and threat levels for political purposes:
"Former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge is accusing former Bush officials of trying to use the politics of fear to get President Bush re-elected in 2004."
This is a grotesque understatement. Ridge's claims, if true, don't merely mean that Bush aides tried "to use the politics of fear" to win re-election. They mean the Bush administration put American lives at risk in order to win votes.
Baselessly screwing around with the terror alerts make people take them less seriously. If there is any merit at all to those alerts, their efficacy is lessened by the actions the Bush folks allegedly took.
Describing that as simply "using the politics of fear" is absurd. Saying "If you vote for the other guys, they won't keep America safe" is "using the politics of fear." Changing the terror threat levels for political purposes is reckless and dangerous; an abdication of their responsibility to govern according to the public interest rather than their political interest.
But to media elites, it's just a question of whether maybe the Bushies got a little rough in the way they practiced politics. Nonsense.
UPDATE: This attitude, by the way, helps explain the major media's reluctance to "look back" at what the Bush administration did. They seem to think it's no big deal; the Bush folks were just a little too aggressive politically. Well, no, that isn't really the problem at all.
More from Andrea Mitchell:
Medicare has not controlled costs to the satisfaction of the fiscal hawks. And people worried about the deficit say that Medicare is the worst possible paradigm for a new, expanded health care system.
Hmmm. Do people who are really worried about the deficit say this -- or do people who say they are worried about the deficit say this?
See, Medicare has very low overhead costs, and Medicare costs have grown at a much slower rate than costs for private insurance. To the extent that the Medicare system faces financing trouble, it is largely a result of a growth in health care costs, not of a flaw in Medicare itself.
And the people who Mitchell is referring to oppose health care reforms that would do the most to control skyrocketing health care costs -- things like single-payer, or a public option. And as Paul Krugman recently noted, "There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option."
So, aside from her apparent lack of understanding of why Medicare costs have increased, Mitchell is unjustifiably crediting critics of reform with being "worried about the deficit." We don't know that they're actually worried about the deficit, or capable of understanding how it can be reduced. All we know is that they say they are worried about the deficit. So that's all Mitchell should say; anything else is mind-reading.
Actually, that's not quite right: She should also note that they oppose the very proposals that would do the most to keep the deficit in check.
(Also worth noting: It is not the case, as Mitchell suggests, that "people worried about the deficit" are united in the belief that Medicare would make a poor model for health care reform.)
Andrea Mitchell to Sen. Bernie Sanders, moments ago:
"Why is this so important? Is it better to have nothing than to have a plan that does not include the public option?"
It seems to me that framing -- a choice between nothing and what liberals want -- is common, while conservatives don't face such questions in the health care debate.
So here's a challenge for Andrea Mitchell: The next time you interview a Ben Nelson or a Joe Lieberman or a Mary Landrieu or a Chuck Grassley, ask them "Is it better to have nothing than to have a plan that includes the public option."
First Andrea Mitchell attributed Hillary Clinton's response to a question in Congo to a "bad hair day," and now Tina Brown joins in with an over-the-top bit of psychobabble that also invokes Clinton's hair as an explanation:
And not only that, but (and I say this in solidarity, not belittlement) the African humidity had wreaked havoc on her hair. It had gone all flat and straight, which puts any woman in a bad humor. (Let's not forget: It was a sympathetic reference to the female-specific chore of keeping perfectly coiffed that made Hillary's eyes fill with tears back in New Hampshire.) Plus, the grueling State Department schedule means these days she can never get to the gym.
Believe it or not, that isn't any crazier than the rest of Brown's fevered imaginings.
And like Maureen Dowd, Brown expects us to believe that Hillary Clinton's response was caused in part by her annoyance at Bill Clinton celebrating his birthday "at such a fancy, high-priced restaurant as Craftsteak?" I'll say this again: Yes, Craftsteak is obscenely expensive, but I'm pretty sure the Clintons, worth tens of millions of dollars, can cover a dinner there.
Is there some of Mad-Libs book of pre-fabricated insanely speculative columns about the Clintons these people all picked up at a mid-1990s CPAC convention? If so, how was I not aware of it earlier?
Anyway, all of this crazytalk about flat hair and expensive steaks is as unnecessary as it is implausible. I'm not saying Clinton was right to respond the way she did -- but her response was perfectly understandable based on nothing more than the content of the question as it was relayed to her. There's really no need to invent some fantasy in which she was cranky because her husband sprung for the Kobe beef on his birthday.
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell just invited Republican Senator Judd Gregg to criticize the White House for not releasing a mid-year economic report:
MITCHELL: Senator I wanted to ask you about the delay in the mid-year review, the White House economic report. Usually it comes out in July, the White House now says it's going to be delayed. They say it's just that they haven't gotten it all together yet. You see a different scenario here; what are you suggesting?
And Gregg took the invitation to suggest some sort of conspiracy:
GREGG: The fact that those numbers aren't going to come out until congress goes on a break here in August is, I think a little interesting that that decision, that that's the situation.
But does the White House really say they just haven't gotten it done? No. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs actually pointed out yesterday that the mid-year review does not usually come out in July during presidential transition years:
GIBBS: Look, as happens in virtually every transition year in government, mid-year reviews tend to get pushed back because of the transition of moving people in and out of their former and current jobs. For instance, the mid-session review under the most previous administration took place on August 22. President Clinton's first year in office, the review was released on September the 1st.
So I think the notion that this is somehow motivated by anything other than a transition from one administration to the next is a little on the silly side.
So, let's recap: Mitchell brought up a phony controversy, explained it in a GOP-friendly way, ignored the White House's debunking of the controversy, and invited her Republican guest to allege some sort of conspiracy -- a conspiracy that has been debunked by the White House explanation Mitchell ignored.
I can't wait to see Howard Kurtz explain how this demonstrates MSNBC's leftward tilt.
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell just said: "When you look at the president and what he's trying to achieve, the newest poll from the Washington Post, ABC, today shows that he personally has 59 percent popularity. You can't knock that, but when you look at the issues ..."
Well, no. The poll in question found that 59 percent of Americans approve of the way Obama is doing his job. (Actual question: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?") That's different from his "popularity."
I've made this point before, and I suspect some find it pedantic. Here's why it isn't: The whole point of these news reports is that people like Obama, but don't like what he's doing. The distinction between personal popularity and job approval is central to these reports, and reporters consistently get it wrong.
There was a time when reporters seemed to understand this. In 1998, for example, the media frequently made the point that President Clinton's job approval ratings were higher than his personal favorability ratings. But now they blur the difference between those two things, because it plays into their storyline that Obama is popular but his actions are not (a storyline that happens to dovetail with the GOP's caricature of Obama as a substance-free "celebrity.")
Consider two hypothetical sentences:
"People like President Obama personally, but don't like the way he's handling health care and the financial crisis as much."
"People approve of President Obama's overall job performance, but don't like his handling of health care and the financial crisis as much."
Those two sentences have different meanings. Journalists -- who are, after all, professional communicators -- should understand this.
It does President Obama an injustice to claim that polls that find the public approves of his handling of his job merely find that the public personally likes him. And that injustice is a perfect reflection of the Republicans' portrayal of Obama.
Loading the player reg...


text:
News & Public Affairs
Greenpeace to put coal in Duke's stockings at St. Pete rally listen12/09/14 Seán Kinane
WMNF Drive-Time News Tuesday Listen to this entire show:
Tags: Greenpeace, Duke, Duke Energy, nuclear, nuclear power, nuclear energy, advanced cost recovery
State Representative Dwight Dudley filed legislation Tuesday to keep utility companies from charging higher rates when billing cycles are longer. In a press release, the Democrat from St. Petersburg said Republican State Senator Charlie Dean will file a companion bill soon. It comes in response to Duke Energy Florida adjusting the timing of meter reading that added several days to customers' bill earlier this year resulting in overcharges.
Meanwhile, two local state lawmakers filed bills t...Be the first to comment
In Pinellas 200 alternative energy advocates hold hands to oppose offshore drilling listen05/20/13 Seán Kinane
WMNF Drive-Time News Monday Listen to this entire show:
On Saturday 200 Tampa Bay residents protested against oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
They lined up along the shore of Treasure Island in Pinellas County, held hands and chanted "Hey ho, hey ho, fossil fuels have got to go."
For more than three years, Hands Across the Sand has been a way for people to show their support for alternatives to oil drilling.
Members of community groups and environmental organizations parti...Be the first to comment
Greenpeace holds direct action training camp in Manatee County listen02/28/12 Kelly Benjamin
WMNF Drive-Time News Tuesday Listen to this entire show:
The environmental activist organization Greenpeace is in the Tampa Bay area this week holding a direct action training camp for young activists interested in using non-violent civil disobedience to call attention to environmental problems.
Over 70 activists from around the country are in the woods of rural Manatee County this week to learn how to more effectively commit non-violent direct action. That's actions that are meant to raise awareness and effectively achieve political, economic, ...Be the first to comment
Greenpeace ship brings message opposing dirty coal to St. Pete listen02/27/12 Janelle Irwin
WMNF Drive-Time News Monday Listen to this entire show:
A brand new ship built for Greenpeace with sustainability in mind stopped off in St. Petersburg this weekend. The crew of the Rainbow Warrior III is on their maiden voyage to Rio de Janeiro to combat environmental crimes like illegal timber harvesting in the Amazon. But during their stay at the Port of St. Petersburg, Greenpeace spokesperson David Pomerantz welco...Be the first to comment
Civil Society throws lifeline to climate negotiators at COP 16 in Cancun listen12/10/10 Kelly Benjamin
WMNF Drive-Time News Friday Listen to this entire show:
Today is the last day of negotiations at the United Nations Climate Change Summit in Cancun, Mexico. WMNFâs Kelly Benjamin reports that Civil Society activist organizations are hoping to throw a lifeline to negotiators so they can pass a dealâ¦
At the beach in Cancun this morning, members of Greenpeace and TCKTCKTCK, an alliance of environmental organizations working toward an ambitious and binding climate change agreement, used a giant inflatable life preserver to throw a lifeline to d...2 comments
Greenpeace Launches Expedition to Study Impacts of Gulf Oil Spill listen08/11/10 Allie Wilkinson
WMNF Drive-Time News Wednesday Listen to this entire show:
The environmental organization Greenpeace wants to uncover the true extent of the oil disaster in the Gulf. Theyâre launching a three-month research expedition from St. Petersburg.
Greenpeace and several academic institutions are setting course to sample the waters and marine life of the Gulf aboard their âArctic Sunriseâ research vessel. They think thereâs no truth to the recent news that most oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster has been eliminated. Dan Howells is the Greenpea...Be the first to comment
IWC Compromise Would Allow Commercial Whaling listen03/02/10 Kate Bradshaw
WMNF Drive-Time News Tuesday Listen to this entire show:
The International Whaling Commission is meeting in St. Pete Beach this week to discuss a possible lift of its 1986 ban on commercial whaling. Three of the delegationâs eighty-eight member nations continue to take whales using what some call loopholes in IWC policy. The proposed move has drawn fire from conservationists, and sparked a beach front protest.
Today the IWC began discussions on a compromise that would bring Japan, Iceland, and Norway into compliance by allowing them to whale, ...Be the first to comment
EPA proposes new greenhouse gas regulations listen12/28/09 Joshua Lee Holton
WMNF Drive-Time News Monday Listen to this entire show:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a rule change in the Clean Air Act, such that only the biggest polluters will be subject to regulations for greenhouse gas emissions. Today is the last day the EPA is taking public comments about the rule; comments are open until midnight tonight.
The EPA announced earlier this month that greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to both public health and the environment. The news came right before the climate conference in Copenhage...Be the first to comment
Tampa joins 3000 candle light vigils for Copenhagen Climate Conference listen12/14/09 Joshua Lee Holton
WMNF Drive-Time News Monday Listen to this entire show:
With one week left in the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, religious groups across the globe are congregating with fellow secular advocates to demand a binding climate agreement from world leaders. With about 500 events in the US, local faith based organizations in Tampa also held a vigil on Friday.
Cold and windy weather didnât deter more than a dozen climate change advocates who huddled in front of Senator Bill Nelsonâs Tampa office last Friday night. Faiths ...1 comments
Greenpeace calls on Bilirakis to support chemical plant safety listen08/18/09 Mitch E.Perry
WMNF Drive-Time News Tuesday Listen to this entire show:
Environmental activists today called on GOP Congressman Mike Bilirakis to support Congressional legislation that would reduce the risk of chemical plants across the country, such as the Howard F. Curran Wastewater Treatment Plant in Tampa.
Matt De Vlieger is the Florida Field Organizer with Greenpeace. Speaking in front of Congressman Bilirakisâ Temple Terrace District office, He stood in front of a map of the greater Tampa area, with symbols showing the over 100 schools and hospitals...Be the first to comment
- 2015
- 2014
- 2013
- 2012
- 2011
- 2010
- 2009
- 2008
- 2007
- 2006


text:
Travellers weigh in on Canada's worst airports Add to ...
Featuring video from CTVNews.ca
Last updated
Most common complaints include long lines at check-ins, bad food options and delays getting through security
Watch More Video:
Therapy dogs calm travelers amid heightened security
Air Canada's first female pilot takes final flight before retirement
Travellers beware: Air Canada carry-on begins luggage crackdown
National Geographic taps Edmonton as top travel destination
Tasering incident at Toronto airport sends man to hospital
Rapper Kanye West settles lawsuit with photographer
Passengers on Air Canada flight are 'pretty lucky': Safety board
Antarctic adventurer says missing his family was biggest challenge
Three things to consider before buying travel health insurance
'Tis the season for family travel! Five ways to make that flight more fun
Toronto travellers, your options for getting to Pearson Airport are about to get more limited
Stepped-Up Ebola screening start at New York City airport
A glimpse at the Ebola screenings that have started at Canadian airports
Canada is stepping up Ebola border checks: Ambrose
C Series' first carrier backs away
Sick of the beach? There's a new travel trend kicking off and it promises to take tourists off the beaten path
The niche – and sometimes fringe – travel industry that finds hidden treasures in unlikely places
Why airport security is zeroing in on your mobile devices
Toronto Port Authority CEO weighs in on Porter expansion proposal
Ground crews back on tarmac at Toronto's Pearson Airport


text:
Ventura tightens belt
Ventura is a community that isn't afraid to lead. On many issues, from protecting agricultural land to green practices to focusing on urban infill development, we have taken a leadership role in the state. Last year, we were one of the first municipalities to critically examine every city expense and cut the $11 million necessary to balance our city budget as a result of the economic downturn.
Our top-level managers agreed to a 10 percent reduction in pay. Forty city jobs were eliminated. One of the most controversial steps we took was to negotiate with all of our employee unions to take at least a 5 percent cut in compensation for 15 months. For the firefighters, this meant postponing the enhanced retirement benefits that had been approved for future implementation by our City Council on a 4-3 vote prior to the recession. The cooperation of Ventura's city employees sets a positive example for the entire state.
Public safety is one of the basic responsibilities of government and we take that role seriously. We value our police and fire personnel and the vital part they play in keeping our community safe and prosperous. We believe that Ventura deserves outstanding police officers and firefighter/paramedics. To retain and attract outstanding individuals requires us to be competitive with other agencies. However, the statewide pension system for state, county, school district and local governments is not financially sustainable. I believe Ventura can be a leader in pension reform.
That likely means moving from "defined benefit" plans (which guarantee a certain retirement income and are increasingly costly to taxpayers) to "defined contribution" plans (which are more fiscally sustainable) for new employees. "Defined benefit" systems were once the standard in private corporations, but almost all have moved toward "defined contribution" approaches. Government will need to make the same transition for new hires.
July 20, the Ventura City Council voted unanimously to work toward the goal of pension reform by appointing a Compensation Task Force made up of City Council members, city staff and community members. Their charge is to look closely at this issue and make recommendations to the council this fall.
Another element of Ventura's economic stability plan will be up to the voters in November. The council recently approved putting a half-cent local sales tax measure on the ballot, to give the taxpayers a choice about city government funding and services. Currently, only 16 percent of the sales and property taxes you pay stay in Ventura. The rest goes for state programs, county services and local school districts. Now, the state is taking millions of dollars more of our city's shrinking revenues to make up for its own budget crisis.
Ventura has a balanced budget — the City Council has made cuts to live within our means. But with these cuts, the high quality of services that our community deserves, such as repaving our deteriorating streets, repairing our sidewalks, keeping Wright Library open and maintaining our public safety at current levels, is at risk. This local, temporary half-cent sales tax increase would generate more than $8 million each year to pay for vital services right here in Ventura.
Because this is a city tax, not a state tax, 100 percent of the money will stay in our community — the state cannot touch it. It is a protected, local source of income that is not subject to the state's fiscal irresponsibility.
The average cost for each resident will be less than $75 per year because out-of-town visitors account for much of our sales-tax revenue. The tax will automatically end in four years.
The City Council-adopted spending plan for the new revenue will allocate funds for services that matter most to our residents:
— Repair streets and maintain parks.
— Keep Wright Library open and improve library services.
— Restore and improve our emergency response times through full use of Medic Engine 10, supplement our police gang- prevention unit and increase the downtown foot patrols.
— Keep our beaches clean and safe.
The spending plan does not include increases in compensation.
If you'd like to set up a neighborhood meeting to speak with me about these issues, please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.com or 654-7827.
— Christy Weir is Ventura mayor.
Subscribe to the Ventura County Star
Need Help? Call us at 1-877-710-6182.
Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm / Saturday: 6:30am-10:30am / Sunday: 7am-11am


text:
UTSA newsletters
» UTSA Expressions -- Student Center for Community Engagement and Inclusion
UTSA magazines
» Giving
» Discovery -- UTSA Research
» Innovations -- College of Engineering
» Ovations -- College of Liberal and Fine Arts
» Spectrum -- College of Education
UTSA hosts Minority Enterprise Development Week Oct. 17-20 at Downtown Campus
(Oct. 18, 2011) -- With the theme "Emerging Industries and Markets: A Blueprint for Success," Minority Enterprise Development Week 2011 (or MED Week) is dedicated to recognizing outstanding minority entrepreneurs and advocates, as well as supporting the small business community. Read the agenda of the week's events running Oct. 17-20.)
The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) Business Center (formerly the Minority Business Enterprise Center) is one of 11 centers and programs comprising The University of Texas at San Antonio Institute for Economic Development. MED Week events include a reception to recognize and introduce this year's winners and a workshop on the logistics of establishing and operating a business.
The main event of the week is the MED Week Awards luncheon Thursday, Oct. 21 at the Granthem Center, Tripoint, 3233 N. St. Mary's St.). To make reservations for the ticketed event, call 210-458-2480.
"MED Week celebrates the accomplishments of outstanding minority entrepreneurs and leaders and provides a platform for small and minority-owned businesses to learn about business growth strategies, receive premier training and enjoy networking opportunities," said Orestes Hubbard, director of the MBDA Business Center and the local host of the annual event.
This year's 12 MED Week honorees come from several industries including financial, IT, health care and construction. Each has a story to tell, and we will get to hear from them during several events.
MED Week is sponsored nationally by the U.S. Commerce Department's Minority Business Development Agency and the Small Business Administration. Locally, the UTSA Institute for Economic Development and SBA District Office are program organizers. View a full schedule of MED Week events.
2011 MED Week honorees
Minority Emerging Global Firm of the Year: Merko Group LLC
Minority Emerging Sustainable Firm of the Year: Milcon Construction LLC
Minority IT Firm of the Year: Intellica Corporation
Minority Emerging Firm of the Year: FARR Builders
Minority Federal Contractor of the Year: Dependable Health Services Inc.
Minority Service Firm of the Year: Osirus Inc.
Minority Entrepreneur of the Year: Bill "Clark" Kent, BTL Technologies
Regional Access to Capital Award: Liquid Capital
SBA 8(a) Graduate of the Year: Zeitgeist Wellness Group
SBA 8(a) Firm of the Year: Milcon Construction
MBDA Executive Director's Award: Small Business Academy


text:
Unfortunately this product has been discontinued. Please, find below some alternatives we would like to suggest.
Priest Costume
Monk Costume
Spanish Inquisition Costume - Monty Python Ref.: 33609M
Roll-Over Image to Zoom | See Large Image
Customer Reviews
Overall Rating Write a review
- Reviewed by:
- Date: 02 Nov 2011
- Location: Milton Keynes
- Nobody expected it!
- Pros: Raised a few smiles, Comfortable, Lots of Fun, Fits Well, Authentic Looking, Unique
- Best Uses: Just For Fun, Costume Party
- Bottom Line: I used this costume on two separate occasions. One for a Halloween club night, and another for a Halloween charity gig. I was surprised by how comfortable it was, especially when playing a gig! It was even better for the club night, as I had received various compliments throughout the evening with one person describing it as "the best costume of anyone's in the club by far!". All in all, well worth the money!
|Secure Shopping with Escapade