Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Right.

When was the last time the Security Council passed a resolution condemning Israel?

May 19, 2004. UN Resolution 1544.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
May 19, 2004. UN Resolution 1544.

Oooooh, burn.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It happens after the mid-terms.

That is when I believe it happens.

Originally posted by sgtclub Incidentally, has anyone been watching Terry McCaulliffe as guess host on Fox News this week?

No - what did I miss?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Watch. By the time the major withdrawals start, the law will change, and there will be a tax imposed.

I'm reasonably confident you're right. One of two (or maybe both) things will happen:

1) all gains will be taxed (i.e., you have a basis equal to what you put in)

2) there will be a "surtax" designed to equilibrate the actual tax rates, so that if you put in at 24%, and current tax rates are 32%, there will be a 8% tax on withdrawals (or something like that) so that you end up paying the tax you "should have" paid.

One possible problem with implemenation--once any idea of this is floated, won't everyone drain their roths before congress acts? I suppose they could make it retroactive, but they do have to get reelected.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm reasonably confident you're right. One of two (or maybe both) things will happen:

1) all gains will be taxed (i.e., you have a basis equal to what you put in)

2) there will be a "surtax" designed to equilibrate the actual tax rates, so that if you put in at 24%, and current tax rates are 32%, there will be a 8% tax on withdrawals (or something like that) so that you end up paying the tax you "should have" paid.

One possible problem with implemenation--once any idea of this is floated, won't everyone drain their roths before congress acts? I suppose they could make it retroactive, but they do have to get reelected.

I think there are early withdrawal penalties. Maybe that link you posted (the one I'm shunning) discusses this.

Equilibrating (is that a word? probably not) would be administratively a pain in the ass, if not impossible -- having to pull tax records from 15 or more years ago.

Do you have kids?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Unless I'm quite mistaken, the salary for a junior enlisted soldier (E-4 and below), won't take a family of four above the poverty line. The benefits help some (PX, AAFES grocery shopping, health care) -- but (I think) there are tens of thousands of junior enlisted families that qualify for and receive AFDC.

That, Burger, is one reason why military pay and benefits might could use to be somewhat higher. (Although you could also take the position that young junior soldiers should not get married or have children. Good luck.)

S_A_M

The issue I was identifying was the across-the-board increase in pay rates. That has little to do with specific pay grades. If you want to get into a discussion of who should be paid what for what type of work, then we can have a lengthy debate--low-level enlisted should get more at the bottom end. Lawyers should get more at the top end. If Bush wanted to raise the pay of the lowest in the military, he could do that with a one-time increase, on teh ground that the military is underpaid. But that's not the rhetoric he's been using.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sexual Harassment Panda
May 19, 2004. UN Resolution 1544.

Read the text. This hardly helps your point.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think there are early withdrawal penalties. Maybe that link you posted (the one I'm shunning) discusses this.

Equilibrating (is that a word? probably not) would be administratively a pain in the ass, if not impossible -- having to pull tax records from 15 or more years ago.

Do you have kids?

Sure, it's a pain the ass, so you start there, but end up like you do with SS, which is include 85% in income, if your income is above a certain level. IIRC, originally it was 50%, which was justified on the basis that the 50% your employer paid in was not part of your income then, so you should pay tax now. Now it's 85%, and I'm not sure why, but maybe because they just wanted to take more.

What's the relevance of kids? That I care about their tax rates? Or are you paigow?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
http://www.variety.com/VR1117919604.html

(CNN signs Larry King through 2009)

CNN really needs to jettison this guy. Honestly, one of the ways I even became aware of Fox News was channel surfing, looking for something other than Larry King. The linked article mentions his numerous important interview subjects and moments, but on a day to day basis, his show is typically insignificant gossip. Sure, he's interviewed presidents, but when you tune in he's interviewing a Tammy Faye or Elizabeth Taylor or some attorney with insights on the MJ case. It's enough to drive me over to Hannity & Colmes or whatever Springerian freak show they're showing on Fox. The King is dead, but CNN keeps saying "long live the King."

He was in detroit about 10 years ago for the crisis of the moment. Next morning i'm on the 6 AM DC flight- First Class of course!
All of a sudden I feel a grip on my shoulder from behind making his way up the aisle grabbing seats or passengers as he goes is Larry. He looked like Skeletor then. Through 2009? My ass.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, it's a pain the ass, so you start there, but end up like you do with SS, which is include 85% in income, if your income is above a certain level. IIRC, originally it was 50%, which was justified on the basis that the 50% your employer paid in was not part of your income then, so you should pay tax now. Now it's 85%, and I'm not sure why, but maybe because they just wanted to take more.

What's the relevance of kids? That I care about their tax rates? Or are you paigow?

I'm paigow. Do you object to answering the question?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm paigow. Do you object to answering the question?

No, I object to your asking it.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Read the text. This hardly helps your point.

This is a UN resolution. They don't write resolutions threatening to bust a cap in yo' ass.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, I object to your asking it.

Okay then. I most sincerely apologize. I was just curious.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Read the text. This hardly helps your point.

Following is the full text of the UN Security Council Resolution No. 1544 (19/05/2004):

“The Security Council,

“Reaffirming its previous resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 1322 (2000), 1397 (2002), 1402 (2002), 1403 (2002), 1405 (2002), 1435 (2002), and 1515 (2003),

“Reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of
12 August 1949,

“Calling on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law,

“Expressing its grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967,

“Condemning the killing of Palestine civilian that took place in the Rafah area,

“Gravely concerned by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying power in the Rafah refugee camp

“Recalling the obligations of the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel under the Road Map,

“Condemning all acts of violence, terror and destruction,

“Reaffirming its support for the Road Map, endorsed in its resolution 115 (2003),

“1. Calls on Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law;

“2. Expresses grave concern regarding the humanitarian situation of Palestinians made homeless in the Rafah area and calls for the provision of emergency assistance to them;

“3. Calls for the cessation of violence and for respect of and adherence to legal obligations, including those under international humanitarian law;

“4. Calls on both parties to immediately implement their obligations under the Road Map;

“5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

http://www.jerusalemites.org/facts_documents/un/32.htm (emphasis added)

Burn, burn, burn.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
Following is the full text of the UN Security Council Resolution No. 1544 (19/05/2004):

“The Security Council,

“Reaffirming its previous resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 1322 (2000), 1397 (2002), 1402 (2002), 1403 (2002), 1405 (2002), 1435 (2002), and 1515 (2003),

“Reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of
12 August 1949,

“Calling on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law,

“Expressing its grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967,

“Condemning the killing of Palestine civilian that took place in the Rafah area,

“Gravely concerned by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying power in the Rafah refugee camp

“Recalling the obligations of the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel under the Road Map,

“Condemning all acts of violence, terror and destruction,

“Reaffirming its support for the Road Map, endorsed in its resolution 115 (2003),

“1. Calls on Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law;

“2. Expresses grave concern regarding the humanitarian situation of Palestinians made homeless in the Rafah area and calls for the provision of emergency assistance to them;

“3. Calls for the cessation of violence and for respect of and adherence to legal obligations, including those under international humanitarian law;

“4. Calls on both parties to immediately implement their obligations under the Road Map;

“5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

http://www.jerusalemites.org/facts_documents/un/32.htm (emphasis added)

Burn, burn, burn.

You keep saying "burn, burn" as if paigow gave you a bad case of jock rot.

Explain to me how any of this is consistent with the 17 resolutions imposed upon Iraq, and, more importantly, how the US is failing to assist the UN enforce this particular one.