You didn build that !

OverMyHead wrote: I heard Obama might be named to the US ski team. They say no one has ever taken a country downhill faster!

US marks 4 straight years of slowing health care costs

With the passing of Nelson Mandela (great man who's passing deserves acknowledgment for sure), It will be interesting to watch and see Obamas response, remembering that he set a precedent when he stiffed England and did not send a presidential delegation when Prime Minister Thacher passed away. If he or Biden attend this funeral it will be a major insult again to England as well as a strong statement about this administrations partisanship.   

Don't give them ideas about a "woody" tax. If they can find a way to tax us before we get out of bed in the morning they will. I can imagine Obama trying to say "You didn't build that!"

Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Dave, according to a spokesman from IL DNR they were 4 months behind on 10/06/13. There may not be a problem other than that.
Article

That sounds like a power of attorney for property. If the boat is titled in the name of the trust you must execute and submit this form
Statement of trust

If the owner who signed has power of attorney for property you must submit this form:

Power of attorney

Your paperwork is probably in the legal department waiting for an opinion / decision.

I think I know the hold up.
It is my understanding that a living trust only controls property used to fund the trust, and is valid principally in matters of probate. If the boat title does not list the trust as owner, but instead lists the individuals as owners the trust holds no power over that asset. I believe you need a notarized power of attorney showing the signer has power to dispose of jointly owned property.
You may want to call the DNR or consult an attorney. Government agencies are reluctant to transfer legal ownership of jointly owned property without both owners signatures for obvious reasons.
Vehicle transfer requires seperate payment to the DNR or SOS and the Illinois Department of Revenue be ause the two departments are autonomous.

I saw that recently Steve,I just got my paperwork from N3 to send in so I was checking out what to do. I'll bet they cashed your check ---

62 wood wrote: I sent it in May....today I checked the IL DNR site, they are 22 WEEKS behind. Twenty Two weeks!???? If we are so much as a day late with any of our paperwork, you can expect a penalty.   Can you say "double standards"?

22 weeks to get trailer tabs, but dead guys can register to vote same day!

62 wood wrote:    Does anyone else wonder where all the (I assume thousands) of shut down signs come from?

Laser printers I think, mostly. I did a quick image search and didn't see more than a few that looked like the one in your photo. Most of the ones there look like they were made by local officials, or at most, are from some stock pdf that was sent by a specific dept/division, e.g. the Park Service. Unless you have evidence that there are in fact thousands of identical high quality signs all over the country in considerable advance of the shutdown, I'd say your ideas are heading quickly into conspiracy theory. Which I guess was your point, but I don't think there is good evidence to go there yet, and I'd stop assuming anything. If you do have more evidence, please share.

Does anyone else wonder where all the (I assume thousands) of shut down signs come from?



They were posted within hours. Is the government that efficient in getting them printed quickly?   

or had 'em made up ahead of time.. "just in case"?

.

Jamin, Congrats on the new job. You are smart to follow the jobs that come when a state has minimal government intervention and taxes. Let me know when you are passing through.

Hansel wrote: I think John's point was that some things have traditionally been off the table when it comes to negotiation, because putting them on the table is a slap in the face to good governance, to say the least. For example, to my mind the Republicans that say, "We won't back up the debt of the nation" so that they can get their way are using a tactic that should automatically be off the table because it is so potent a weapon that it shouldn't even be an option. It is quite literally a form of Mutually Assured Destruction, but this time the one making the threats might just be crazy enough to push the button. Some things should always be off of the table. Debt limits being one of them.   If you wan't to stop upping the debt limit then you need to cut spending or increase revenue. Those are your only two options.

Since the Republicans control the House, which controls the purse strings, it is time they as adults step in and take the credit card away from an out of control teenager that is going absolutely nuts with spending. We will never default on our debt. We have plenty of money coming in to take care of that. BUT, the crazy spending has to stop!

We are spending big time to get our jollies now, and you and your kids will get the bill. I don't want that for you or my kids and grandkids.

What happens when you raise the debt limit? You keep spending don't you? Time to cut the credit card up, and get entitlements under control.

Nice to hear from you Hansel! I hope everything is well.

I think John's point was that some things have traditionally been off the table when it comes to negotiation, because putting them on the table is a slap in the face to good governance, to say the least.

For example, to my mind the Republicans that say, "We won't back up the debt of the nation" so that they can get their way are using a tactic that should automatically be off the table because it is so potent a weapon that it shouldn't even be an option. It is quite literally a form of Mutually Assured Destruction, but this time the one making the threats might just be crazy enough to push the button.

Part of the issue now is, if Obama caves to these demands where does it stop, for him or any other president? We've already seen how both parties have turned the once seldom-used filibuster into a tool to create further gridlock. Let's imagine they reach a short-term deal, as now appears likely, and six weeks from now Ted Cruz and friends start saying, "Well, abortion is murder and we're not going to authorize raising the debt limit unless the President signs a bill outlawing all abortion." Where does it end?

It would be like President Obama as Commander-in-Chief saying, "I'm going to start a war with Iran unless you Republicans start voting for everything the Democrats want." Obviously every citizen would be enraged, and rightfully so. What is the difference between these two scenarios, well probably a lot of things, but it illustrates that just because you can negotiate doesn't mean that it is something you should even be negotiating in the first place. When I heard all this talk of "hostage-taking" and "ransoms" I too thought it was baloney. But I'm rather convinced now that it really is that.

Some things should always be off of the table. Debt limits being one of them. And yes OMH Dave, that means that Obama was grandstanding and wrong when he said otherwise as a junior senator during the Bush Administration. He is, after all, a politician. If you wan't to stop upping the debt limit then you need to cut spending or increase revenue. Those are your only two options.

john b wrote:

I always liked those. I assume that the Battlestar Galactica fighters were the inspiration.

john b wrote: BTW I enjoy a good argument, but not at the expense of friendships or this great site.

I enjoy a good debate with friends.