Obama Wants a 100 Million for Brain Research.....

[MMC]

Obama calls for brain mapping project.....

The project would get more than $100 million in the proposed 2014 federal budget Obama plans to submit to Congress.

Obama combined science and the economy in his announcement, describing the proposed brain mapping project as the kind of government program that can generate jobs — and yet is at risk because of the federal budget sequester.
"We can't afford to miss these opportunities while the rest of the world races ahead," Obama said. "There is this tremendous mystery that is waiting to be unlocked."
In announcing the project, Obama added a call for increased support of federal research and argued against sequestration — an ongoing series of $85 billion in automatic, across-the-board budget cuts.

In its first year, $50 million of funding would come from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which pays for prosthetic research aimed at helping paralyzed soldiers. And roughly $40 million would be added to the $5.5 billion that the National Institutes of Health annually spends on neuroscience research already, according to Collins. A final $20 million would be research funds provided by the National Science Foundation for the effort.

"It's a tough time politically to take on an expensive, long-term project like this, but scientifically, the time is ripe, and the impacts on science and medicine could be enormous," says science budget expert Al Teich of George Washington University's Center for International Science & Technology Policy. "Neuroscience is arguably the hottest field in science these days, and we'd be foolish not to try and take advantage of the potential it offers."

However, some researchers, such as fruit-fly genetics expert Michael Eisen of the University of California-Berkeley, criticize the initiative as overly ambitious and overly centralized. "We don't even understand the fly," Eisen says. "I think there is a fundamental misreading of where innovation arises in science here. It doesn't come from centralized bureaucratic projects, but rather from individual labs.".....snip~

Obama calls for brain mapping project

Obama must have forgot about the R&D that comes thru the Medical Device Tax that he and the Demos threw up. Which is the one that now quite a few of those Democrats voted on in a symbolic gesture that they oppose that tax.

What happened didn't Obama include that in his Obamacare.....or was he looking to scam some more money? Thoughts?

 

[mak2]

This is old, and a great idea.

 

[Your Star]

This is old, and a great idea.

This.

 

[MMC]

This is old, and a great idea.

How so.....I didn't see this up in breaking new or here in health. Did someone already post this up?

What makes it a good idea? Do you think he should then rescind the medical device tax that he signed into law?

 

[Rainman05]

Obama calls for brain mapping project.....


Obama must have forgot about the R&D that comes thru the Medical Device Tax that he and the Demos threw up. Which is the one that now quite a few of those Democrats voted on in a symbolic gesture that they oppose that tax.

What happened didn't Obama include that in his Obamacare.....or was he looking to scam some more money? Thoughts?

Is that true? The part in red, that the money for such a project could have come from that tax and the dems threw it out? If so, then that shows a precarious intelligence on their part... but at least they have the decency to put some money in place for a project that could legitimately have a great impact on modern science. Still 100mil, how did they come up with that figure? Why 100mil. It sounds so... pulled out of the rabbit hat.

 

[mak2]

Oh I dont know if they posted it here or not, I heard about it a while back. Mapping the brain is a good idea. I am not a neuroscientist, and I didnt even stay in a Holiday Inn express last night so I will have to read it again to figure out how you got to device tax from it.

How so.....I didn't see this up in breaking new or here in health. Did someone already post this up?

What makes it a good idea? Do you think he should then rescind the medical device tax that he signed into law?

 

[MMC]

Oh I dont know if they posted it here or not, I heard about it a while back. Mapping the brain is a good idea. I am not a neuroscientist, and I didnt even stay in a Holiday Inn express last night so I will have to read it again to figure out how you got to device tax from it.

Here let me help you so that you wont have to book a room in the future just over this issue. And to think.....I am not either a Scientist or Doctor. But I do understand About the a Tax that affects Research and Development. So Thats how I got to the Medical Device tax.....I went with the R&D from the Medical Device tax. As a reminder of just how bad the medical device tax is, it's pretty much a tax within a tax that will not only kill jobs in the medical device industry, but will kill medical device innovation as well.

Not only does this tax increase costs on companies, it also increases costs on hospitals, doctors and people in need of medical treatment that requires medical devices to be used. As a consequence of this, biomedical or medical device engineering firms are already laying off workers who develop crucial medical products due to the "unforeseen" costs, or in other words, the costs of ObamaCare. Not to mention, the more money these companies pay to the government, the less money they have to invest in research and development.

Also Obama would take 50 Million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which pays for prosthetic research aimed at helping paralyzed soldiers. So what did you think of that Idea?

 

[MMC]

Is that true? The part in red, that the money for such a project could have come from that tax and the dems threw it out? If so, then that shows a precarious intelligence on their part... but at least they have the decency to put some money in place for a project that could legitimately have a great impact on modern science. Still 100mil, how did they come up with that figure? Why 100mil. It sounds so... pulled out of the rabbit hat.

No what I meant was they created the tax.....that's what I mean by throwing it out to the public. But Now in a Symbolic gesture they voted against it.

Democrat Controlled Senate Votes to Repeal ObamaCare Medical Device Tax.....

The Senate overwhelmingly passed a largely symbolic resolution calling for repeal of a 2.3 percent tax on medical device companies on Thursday, as more than 30 Democrats joined Republicans in approving it.

The tax helps to fund President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare law. It applies to a range of medical products - from bedpans to expensive heart devices - many manufactured in the home states of the senators backing the repeal.

The Senate voted 79-20 to call for repeal of the tax, but the resolution is non-binding and will not change the levy. The symbolic measure will be attached to a non-binding budget measure drafted by Senate Democrats that is expected to pass on Friday.

Full repeal of the tax may be difficult to achieve, given its $30 billion price tag and the opposition of key Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid.....snp~

Democrat Controlled Senate Votes to Repeal ObamaCare Medical Device Tax - Katie Pavlich

 

[mak2]

Which biomedical and device engineering have layed off workers?

Here let me help you so that you wont have to book a room in the future just over this issue. And to think.....I am not either a Scientist or Doctor. But I do understand About the a Tax that affects Research and Development. So Thats how I got to the Medical Device tax.....I went with the R&D from the Medical Device tax. As a reminder of just how bad the medical device tax is, it's pretty much a tax within a tax that will not only kill jobs in the medical device industry, but will kill medical device innovation as well.

Not only does this tax increase costs on companies, it also increases costs on hospitals, doctors and people in need of medical treatment that requires medical devices to be used. As a consequence of this, biomedical or medical device engineering firms are already laying off workers who develop crucial medical products due to the "unforeseen" costs, or in other words, the costs of ObamaCare. Not to mention, the more money these companies pay to the government, the less money they have to invest in research and development.

Also Obama would take 50 Million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which pays for prosthetic research aimed at helping paralyzed soldiers. So what did you think of that Idea?

 

[MMC]

Which biomedical and device engineering have layed off workers?

Sounds like you didn't think such was happening under Obama.....huh? Heres a couple just out of the Blue.

1. Medical device companies
Several medical device companies have already slashed jobs or are planning to do so because of Obamacare. Abbott Labs (NYSE: ABT ) began shedding the first of 1,900 jobs a few years ago. The company attributed the cuts partially to new fees and pricing pressures resulting from the Affordable Care Act.

Stryker (NYSE: SYK ) executives placed blame squarely on the 2.3% medical device tax included in Obamacare as the reason for eliminating 5% of its workforce -- 1,170 jobs. Most of Stryker's cuts were implemented by the end of 2012 before the new taxes went into effect.

However, other medical device makers still have possible staff reductions looming on the horizon. Medtronic (NYSE: MDT ) sent 500 employees home last summer and plans to cut another 500 jobs by the end of this year. Privately held Welch Allyn expects to eliminate 10% of its jobs over the next three years.

If you work in the medical device sector, there is some hope, though, that further jobs won't be lost. Momentum appears to be building on both sides of the aisle in Washington to either repeal or modify this particular component of Obamacare......snip~

Will Obamacare Cost You Your Job?

 

[MMC]

Which biomedical and device engineering have layed off workers?

Also Obama would take 50 Million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which pays for prosthetic research aimed at helping paralyzed soldiers. So what did you think of that Idea?

And what about this? You are a Vet Right? What do you think about him taking the money from here?

Nows here a fuuny thought.....when I heard Obama say Research and Development. Knowing it affects Veterans. Somehow Automatically when I heard the story. The Medical Device Tax came straight to mind.

 

[Helix]

This is old, and a great idea.

cosign.

 

[mak2]

Please try not to tell me what I think. Thanks. But here is what I do think, the cost will be passed on to the consumer immediately. If they are laying off R&D due to a tax, and R&D is profitable, why would they lay off future profit? Antoher RW scare tactic.

"The excise tax also will likely have very little effect on innovation in the medical device industry, despite claims to the contrary. The consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers has identified five pillars of medical technology innovation: financial incentives, human and physical resources, a favorable regulatory climate, demanding and price-insensitive patients, and a supportive investment community.[22} Each pillar comprises more than a dozen separate factors, and the tax rate is just one of the many factors affecting financial incentives"

Excise Tax on Medical Devices Should Not Be Repealed — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Sounds like you didn't think such was happening under Obama.....huh? Heres a couple just out of the Blue.


1. Medical device companies
Several medical device companies have already slashed jobs or are planning to do so because of Obamacare. Abbott Labs (NYSE: ABT ) began shedding the first of 1,900 jobs a few years ago. The company attributed the cuts partially to new fees and pricing pressures resulting from the Affordable Care Act.

Stryker (NYSE: SYK ) executives placed blame squarely on the 2.3% medical device tax included in Obamacare as the reason for eliminating 5% of its workforce -- 1,170 jobs. Most of Stryker's cuts were implemented by the end of 2012 before the new taxes went into effect.

However, other medical device makers still have possible staff reductions looming on the horizon. Medtronic (NYSE: MDT ) sent 500 employees home last summer and plans to cut another 500 jobs by the end of this year. Privately held Welch Allyn expects to eliminate 10% of its jobs over the next three years.

If you work in the medical device sector, there is some hope, though, that further jobs won't be lost. Momentum appears to be building on both sides of the aisle in Washington to either repeal or modify this particular component of Obamacare......snip~

Will Obamacare Cost You Your Job?

 

[MMC]

Please try not to tell me what I think. Thanks. But here is what I do think, the cost will be passed on to the consumer immediately. If they are laying off R&D due to a tax, and R&D is profitable, why would they lay off future profit? Antoher RW scare tactic.

"The excise tax also will likely have very little effect on innovation in the medical device industry, despite claims to the contrary. The consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers has identified five pillars of medical technology innovation: financial incentives, human and physical resources, a favorable regulatory climate, demanding and price-insensitive patients, and a supportive investment community.[22} Each pillar comprises more than a dozen separate factors, and the tax rate is just one of the many factors affecting financial incentives"

Excise Tax on Medical Devices Should Not Be Repealed — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Summary

Medical device makers are rallying to oppose a new “sales tax” that they argue will have broad implications for innovation and the sustainability of medical device manufacturers in the U.S. The new tax, referred to as the Medical Device Excise Tax (MDET), imposes an excise tax on sales of any “taxable medical device” by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the device, in an amount equal to 2.3 percent of the sales price. The MDET, which goes into effect January 1, 2013, is forecast by the Office of Management and Budget to raise $20-30 billion over a 10-year period, and will help finance the Affordable Care Act that was signed into law in March of 2010.

In a letter to Congressional leaders urging the repeal of the legislation, a coalition of over 400 medical device companies notes that it invests close to $10B in research and development annually. Outside of a few big players like Stryker, Medtronic and Boston Scientific, the medical device sector is largely a start-up and small business industry with over 80 percent of medical device companies employing fewer than 50 employees. Only two percent employ more than 500. The letter goes on to say the device tax will have the greatest effect on many of these small to mid-sized companies, which may owe more in taxes than they generate in profits since the tax is applied to total sales revenue. This, the coalition argues, would result in the elimination of jobs, cuts to research and development budgets, and roadblocks in the development of new therapies.

Among those voicing concern is the Medical Technology Alliance (MTA) and its regional associates such as The Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council (MassMEDIC) and MichBio. These groups have descended on Washington armed with data and worst-case scenarios from the industry to support their claims that the new tax while have far reaching effects on device makers. Their arguments include a recently published survey from MassMEDIC that polled forty-two senior industry executives who are planning a variety of moves to keep the 2.3 percent excise tax from hurting their bottom lines.

Key findings of the survey include:

• As of February 2012, 10 months before the tax goes into effect, only 25 percent of responding companies have put systems into place to comply with the MDET.

• 44 percent of respondents stated that their companies would pass the cost of the new tax on to end users such as hospitals, clinics, purchasing organizations and doctors. This would result in higher costs for medical devices sold in this country.

• 39 percent of respondents stated that their companies would assume the cost of the MDET, implementing internal cost reductions to meet revenue losses, taking the following actions:

− 50 percent will cut R&D operations

− 25 percent will implement workforce reductions

− 25 percent will outsource manufacturing to lower cost areas

The survey also found that 49 percent of respondents said that the MDET would have a ‘significant impact’ on their company’s operations.

The CBPP also argues the effect of the excise tax on consumers’ costs for health care and health insurance will be minimal. The CBPP goes on to explain that spending on taxable medical devices represents less than 1 percent of total personal health expenditures, so a small increase in their price would have non-material effect on health insurance premiums.

Many proponents of the health care reform law, including the CBPP, justify the MDET and other new sources of tax revenue arguing that medical device companies will experience an increase in revenue as a result of millions of newly insured citizens. However, if Massachusetts, with its universal health care law, serves as an example, opponents to the tax will point to the MassMEDIC survey that shows none of the responding device makers reported an increase in unit sales in Massachusetts since 2006.....snip~

The Medical Device Excise Tax (MDET)

The Problem that come is that the only time they pass the Price off to the Consumer.....is when some new device or innovation comes out. Most Small Research Companies have no way to pass cost on while conducting research. Moreover there would be reductions from the Fed since that's where the majority of their funding comes from..

I wouldn't even try to tell you what to think. That's why I asked the question you had missed the first time round.

 

[mak2]

Summary

Medical device makers are rallying to oppose a new “sales tax” that they argue will have broad implications for innovation and the sustainability of medical device manufacturers in the U.S. The new tax, referred to as the Medical Device Excise Tax (MDET), imposes an excise tax on sales of any “taxable medical device” by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the device, in an amount equal to 2.3 percent of the sales price. The MDET, which goes into effect January 1, 2013, is forecast by the Office of Management and Budget to raise $20-30 billion over a 10-year period, and will help finance the Affordable Care Act that was signed into law in March of 2010.

In a letter to Congressional leaders urging the repeal of the legislation, a coalition of over 400 medical device companies notes that it invests close to $10B in research and development annually. Outside of a few big players like Stryker, Medtronic and Boston Scientific, the medical device sector is largely a start-up and small business industry with over 80 percent of medical device companies employing fewer than 50 employees. Only two percent employ more than 500. The letter goes on to say the device tax will have the greatest effect on many of these small to mid-sized companies, which may owe more in taxes than they generate in profits since the tax is applied to total sales revenue. This, the coalition argues, would result in the elimination of jobs, cuts to research and development budgets, and roadblocks in the development of new therapies.

Among those voicing concern is the Medical Technology Alliance (MTA) and its regional associates such as The Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council (MassMEDIC) and MichBio. These groups have descended on Washington armed with data and worst-case scenarios from the industry to support their claims that the new tax while have far reaching effects on device makers. Their arguments include a recently published survey from MassMEDIC that polled forty-two senior industry executives who are planning a variety of moves to keep the 2.3 percent excise tax from hurting their bottom lines.

Key findings of the survey include:

• As of February 2012, 10 months before the tax goes into effect, only 25 percent of responding companies have put systems into place to comply with the MDET.

• 44 percent of respondents stated that their companies would pass the cost of the new tax on to end users such as hospitals, clinics, purchasing organizations and doctors. This would result in higher costs for medical devices sold in this country.

• 39 percent of respondents stated that their companies would assume the cost of the MDET, implementing internal cost reductions to meet revenue losses, taking the following actions:

− 50 percent will cut R&D operations

− 25 percent will implement workforce reductions

− 25 percent will outsource manufacturing to lower cost areas

The survey also found that 49 percent of respondents said that the MDET would have a ‘significant impact’ on their company’s operations.

The CBPP also argues the effect of the excise tax on consumers’ costs for health care and health insurance will be minimal. The CBPP goes on to explain that spending on taxable medical devices represents less than 1 percent of total personal health expenditures, so a small increase in their price would have non-material effect on health insurance premiums.

Many proponents of the health care reform law, including the CBPP, justify the MDET and other new sources of tax revenue arguing that medical device companies will experience an increase in revenue as a result of millions of newly insured citizens. However, if Massachusetts, with its universal health care law, serves as an example, opponents to the tax will point to the MassMEDIC survey that shows none of the responding device makers reported an increase in unit sales in Massachusetts since 2006.....snip~

The Medical Device Excise Tax (MDET)

The Problem that come is that the only time they pass the Price off to the Consumer.....is when some new device or innovation comes out. Most Small Research Companies have no way to pass cost on while conducting research. Moreover there would be reductions from the Fed since that's where the majority of their funding.

I wouldn't even try to tell you what to think. That's why I asked the question you had missed the first time round.

No problem, you are right I did miss the jist of the article at first. Thanks. I still think this is a RW scare tactic.

 

[MMC]

Please try not to tell me what I think. Thanks. But here is what I do think, the cost will be passed on to the consumer immediately. If they are laying off R&D due to a tax, and R&D is profitable, why would they lay off future profit? Antoher RW scare tactic.

"The excise tax also will likely have very little effect on innovation in the medical device industry, despite claims to the contrary. The consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers has identified five pillars of medical technology innovation: financial incentives, human and physical resources, a favorable regulatory climate, demanding and price-insensitive patients, and a supportive investment community.[22} Each pillar comprises more than a dozen separate factors, and the tax rate is just one of the many factors affecting financial incentives"

Excise Tax on Medical Devices Should Not Be Repealed — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Here are some ramifications.....Either way I think Obama can get the 50 mil from somewhere else other than the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Myself I think he could have took that 50 Million from the 128 Million he just sent to the Syrian Rebels. You know after he just got done sending the other 60 Million to them. No need to take from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency at All.....in my Book!

Ramifications for the Industry

Given the uncertainty associated with the new excise tax, there may be opportunities to restructure operations, especially related to a company’s supply chain, to better navigate the new tax laws. In a November 2011 Ernst & Young Tax Practice presentation entitled “Making Sense of the New Excise Tax on Medical Devices”, it’s authors Christopher J. Ohmes and Michael Udell point out that while the tax might merely be added to the invoice price of taxable medical devices and passed along to customers in a manner similar to, for example, the manufacturers excise tax on tires, this scenario is unlikely because Medicare and Medicaid, the Veterans Administration, and the Department of Defense pay for the majority of the medical device sales and uses in the United States. In this scenario, it is likely private payers that will bear the brunt of any price increases introduced to offset the MDET. Manufacturers may try to push the tax back onto their suppliers or try to reduce their operating costs in response to this new tax.

Also, there may be pressure to limit taxable medical device sales as companies seek to unbundle arrangements consisting of both the use of property and services and to modify the item defined as a medical device to determine whether component parts can be excluded from the medical device definition. By way of example, Ohmes and Udell ask if a keyboard used to initiate the operation of a procedure could be excluded from the definition of a medical device. This response could be complicated, because the act of unbundling some components to avoid federal excise tax may expose a previously exempt medical device to additional state and local sales taxes.

In some cases, medical devices that are profitably manufactured in the United States may no longer be sold profitably. The profitability of some rental arrangements likely will be substantially reduced. It is also possible that captive U.S. manufacturing arrangements may become uncompetitive in comparison with the importation of a similar good. As the January 1, 2013, effective date of the tax approaches, medical device manufacturers may need to consider that the MDET may simultaneously create tension within distribution channels and supply chains.

A Final Note on Renewal of the Medical Device User Fee Act (MDUFA)

The second issue facing the medical device industry is the renewal of the MDUFA, which creates a new user fee agreement negotiated between the medical device industry and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). It provides new guidelines for how companies will pay for their product-approval submissions, as well as the timeline the FDA has to conduct those product reviews. These changes are generally welcomed by the industry since they offer more stringent terms for “pay-for-performance” expectations – something that is sorely lacking at the agency. It seems in this case, the industry is content to pay higher fees since it is puts a greater importance on the FDA acting quickly, and a more equitable way to measure approval times......snip~

The Medical Device Excise Tax (MDET)

 

[MMC]

No problem, you are right I did miss the jist of the article at first. Thanks. I still think this is a RW scare tactic.

Why should it be some Right Wing Scare tactic.....already the Democrats have voted with Repubilicans symbolically to Repeal it. What do you think that tells Obama when 79 -20 want this tax dropped. Basically due to the R&D.

I would think it is a good thing when Both parties recognize that there is something wrong with this part of Obamacare.....and both want to fix it or change it. Do you think they were giving Obama a heads up politically as to why he might see such take place?

 

[mak2]

Do those democrats have a company in their district? This is another scary story from the right about the evils of Obama care. The tax will be passed on, the real concern about UHC or Obamacare is the bottom line. Period.

Why should it be some Right Wing Scare tactic.....already the Democrats have voted with Repubilicans symbolically to Repeal it. What do you think that tells Obama when 79 -20 want this tax dropped. Basically due to the R&D.

I would think it is a good thing when Both parties recognize that there is something wrong with this part of Obamacare.....and both want to fix it or change it. Do you think they were giving Obama a heads up politically as to why he might see such take place?

 

[MMC]

Do those democrats have a company in their district? This is another scary story from the right about the evils of Obama care. The tax will be passed on, the real concern about UHC or Obamacare is the bottom line. Period.

I don't know about that,some of them do.....I hear Florida has quite bit. There are about only like 400 of them across the country. So it affect both sides Republicans and Democrats. As to what states have them. When one has only 20 Democrats standing for the Tax out of their majority. Then it has nothing to do with a right wing scare tactic.

Yeah the tax will be passed on to Hospitals, Suppliers, Doctors, Manufactures and Engineers. As you can see minimal to the consumer. I

I would have to agree with you there is a real concern over Obamacare in itself.....let alone any taxes within taxes.

 

[mak2]

We need a UHC system like the rest of the civilized world. All healthcare costs, including this tax, eventually get to the consumer, and everyone will get a bit of profit on the way. that is why we have the most expensive system in hte world.

I don't know about that,some of them do.....I hear Florida has quite bit. There are about only like 400 of them across the country. So it affect both sides Republicans and Democrats. As to what states have them. When one has only 20 Democrats standing for the Tax out of their majority. Then it has nothing to do with a right wing scare tactic.

Yeah the tax will be passed on to Hospitals, Suppliers, Doctors, Manufactures and Engineers. As you can see minimal to the consumer. I

I would have to agree with you there is a real concern over Obamacare in itself.....let alone any taxes within taxes.

 

[MMC]

We need a UHC system like the rest of the civilized world. All healthcare costs, including this tax, eventually get to the consumer, and everyone will get a bit of profit on the way. that is why we have the most expensive system in hte world.

Couple of weeks ago.....the Irish Prime Minister or Dignitary was over here talking to some about relocating to his country.

Still Obama needs to come up with another way rather than stealing money from the Advanced Research Projects.....to move money to a field that is already getting 5.5 Billion. 50 million is a drop in the bucket with those kind of numbers. But that 50 Mil could be used by that agency.

 

[bubbabgone]

"Obama Wants a 100 Million for Brain Research"
That can be mined for a couple pages of jokes but let's let that go.

Nice idea ... can Obama possibly actually reallocate the funding for this from something else?
Solyndra would have kicked off this thing 8 times over. Not to mention the other failed green scams.
And whenever he starts blaming his sequester you know he's got ulterior motives.

 

[CanadaJohn]

This is old, and a great idea.

Memory is the first thing to go, better fire up that research fast.

 

[MMC]

"Obama Wants a 100 Million for Brain Research"
That can be mined for a couple pages of jokes but let's let that go.

Nice idea ... can Obama possibly actually reallocate the funding for this from something else?
Solyndra would have kicked off this thing 8 times over. Not to mention the other failed green scams.
And whenever he starts blaming his sequester you know he's got ulterior motives.

Heya BB. :2wave:I went with the reducing the money to the Syrian Rebels.....although I did here some news on Fisker and that they got an extra 32 million from some loan before it all fell apart. There has to be some where he could pull it from.

Course if Congress would repeal this tax. That Might help some.

 

[mak2]

You remember what goes next?

Memory is the first thing to go, better fire up that research fast.