View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency
Rockin Bob
04-23-14, 03:28
Punter, I take back what I said about you being brainwashed. You'd have to grow a brain first.
You also need to get a grip on reality. Any normal person who knows me and ElAlamoPalermo knows that when I say I'm going to kick his ass, I'm making a joke, and a pretty funny one at that. You seem totally, completely unable to see the humor in that.
The definitive biography of Lyndon Johnson was a four (4) volume work written by Robert Caro. These books cover LBJ's life from the time he was a child until he became President. My take on this enigmatic man was that he was a consummate, self-centered, and opportunistic politician. Would he play the race card for political gain? Absolutely! Was he a racist? I do not think so. LBJ was from the South, and realized early in his career that racial rhetoric was good for his career, because many of his mentors and benefactors were genuine racists. Many of those same mentors and benefactors were also democrats.
Racism is a difficult definition. Most of my enemies are white, but because of cultural differences, I am not friends with many people whose color, religion, or political persuasion I do not like. Does that make me a racist? I do not think so, but there are those who would disagree. I am often politically incorrect and opinionated, but I still do not consider myself a racist. Again, there are those myopic individuals who would disagree.
Tres3.
Punter 127
04-23-14, 11:59
Rockin Bob,
Really Bob, Reeeeally you was joking, Oh my! Well rest assured I seldom take the words of a nitwit seriously.
But It's ok Bob don't worry, I still love you as much as I ever did. I look forward to seeing you again the next time I'm in BA, you always give me a chuckle and put a smile on my face.
Have a nice day Bob.
ElAlamoPalermo
04-23-14, 12:33
Yes. I have for years a policy with private hospital system here in Argentina. I pay my entire premium without benefiting from any line item subsidy. Of course Rock will argue that some of the hospital's employees rode to work on subsidized public transportation, or that some of the medical staff was educated at subsidized public universities, etc. etc., but I am not a net beneficiary of these "trickledown subsidies".
Thanks,
JaxThe "private" hospital that you use receives heavily (utility bills would be 400-500% higher without the subsidies) subsidized natural gas, electricity, and water. You are a direct beneficiary of those subsidies.
ElAlamoPalermo
04-23-14, 12:53
Punter-.
The first twenty african americans elected to the US Congress were all Republicans; between 1935 and 1991 (coinciding with the dates I set forth marking the flip flop of the two parties on the political spectrum) there was a grand total of ZERO Republican african americans elected to the US Congress whereas 45 (forty five) Democrat african americans were elected during that same time period. Overall, since 1935 a grand total of 6 (six) Republican african americans have been sent to congress whereas 109 Democrat african americans have been elected during said period. No matter what collection of misquotes, bullshit, and fox news anecdotes you throw out there as evidence, there is nothing more indicative of party's constituents than who they are sending to congress.
While I'm not a social conservative, this is interesting.
Single-Parent Familes: An Inequality Culprit:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579493612156024266
Quote:
Why isn't this matter at the center of policy discussions? There are at least three reasons. First, much of politics is less about what you are for than who you are against, as Jonathan Haidt, a New York University psychology professor, noted in his popular 2012 book "The Righteous Mind." And intellectual and cultural elites lean to the left. So, quite simply, very few professors or journalists, and fewer still who want foundation grants, want to be seen as siding with social conservatives, even if the evidence leads that way.
Second, family breakup has hit minority communities the hardest. So even bringing up the issue risks being charged with racism, a potential career-killer. The experience of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is a cautionary tale: Moynihan, who had a doctorate in sociology, served in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration as an assistant secretary of labor and in 1965 published a paper titled "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," warning about the long-term risk that single-parent households pose for black communities. He was attacked bitterly, and his academic reputation was tarnished for decades.
The "private" hospital that you use receives heavily (utility bills would be 400-500% higher without the subsidies) subsidized natural gas, electricity, and water. You are a direct beneficiary of those subsidies.So now Jackson is a hypocrite because the private hospital that he pays through his insurance uses subsidized utilities? So what's the solution? How can he quit being a hypocrite? Go live in a cave and never come out?
Member #4112
04-23-14, 18:25
The "private" hospital that you use receives heavily (utility bills would be 400-500% higher without the subsidies) subsidized natural gas, electricity, and water. You are a direct beneficiary of those subsidies.Jackson you must be psychic, here is the very argument you predicted.
Does not matter how far down the food chain you are, your're still a moocher according to our liberal / progressive brethren.
ElAlamoPalermo
04-23-14, 18:26
So now Jackson is a hypocrite because the private hospital that he pays through his insurance uses subsidized utilities? So what's the solution? How can he quit being a hypocrite? Go live in a cave and never come out?The solution is for Jackson to stop calling US citizens parasites for benefiting from subsidized healthcare. At the point he ceases to be a hypocrite.
The solution is for Jackson to stop calling US citizens parasites for benefiting from subsidized healthcare. At the point he ceases to be a hypocrite.US citizens (and foreign nationals illegally in the USA) who accept Obamacare subsidies are parasites!
Damn that felt good.
Jax.
US citizens (and foreign nationals illegally in the USA) who accept Obamacare subsidies are parasites!
Damn that felt good.
Jax.
Very interesting that Jax framed his answer in terms of specific "line item" subsidies, whereas I always suspected Rock was referring to broader subsidies that help lower the costs of healthcare delivery, thereby helping keep individual costs lower. Even more interesting, is that Jax declares calling other people parasites makes him feel good. One wonders if he ever bothers to understand the personal and financial situations of these people, to put a human face on it, or if he is too wrapped up in his ideology to bother, and so just paints everyone with a broad brush.
Hey Jax, do you think it's possible to be a producer and a parasite at the same time? If so, why do you think a producer would also choose to be a parasite?
BTW, the DNC will not be replacing me. Debbie considers me a strategic asset, and George will continue to fund my trips to help maintain my board cred.
The best examples I can think of are Warren Buffet taking a big hit if the Buffet rule were implemented, and blaming George Bush for tax increases that occurred on January 1, 2013. Maybe in some bizarre, legalistic sense you can make your case. But using common sense, these positions are ridiculous and represent false information. I still don't know whether you actually believe things like this. I'm coming around to Jackson's point of view. You probably don't believe everything you write, but instead are trying to make a case or confuse the issue, like a politician or a very aggressive trial lawyer. You're not necessarily fabricating information, but you are distorting it.Tiny, your efforts to step in and help your collegues with their arguments would make Lassie proud. But if that's the best you got, I feel pretty good. These are very thin examples.
Buffett has previously disclosed his personal tax rate is typically somewhere near 15%. Doubling it to 30% would be an additional tax hit of 6-12 M on personal taxable income of 40-80 M (in the ball park of what he has reported before). Yes 6-12 M may not be significant to someone like Buffett, but generally speaking it's a big number, and likely a far bigger hit than your Koch heroes take by not getting an ethanol subsidy. I think you distort the discussion by trying to talk about Berkshire's wealth and corporate taxes, rather than Buffett's personal income and individual taxes. I know you have a grudge against him because his proposal impacts him much less than someone making only a few million.
I don't think I "blamed" Bush for recent tax increases. In fact I give him and Congress some credit for putting in the sunset provision. But the fact is the sunset provision caused the tax cuts to expire. So if someone is looking to blame someone for those tax rate increases, it would be those who enacted a law with an expiration date. Obama and Congress are responsible for making some of those cuts permanent. BTW, you think I always agree with Obama, but I disagree with him on making most of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent. I think that was a really bad move. To keep his campaign promise (not to raise taxes on the middle class), he should have just extended them until the end of his second term. That should have been simple enough. Since raising taxes on the middle class is politically very difficult, future revenue generation will likely again be focused on high earners, though perhaps that was Obama's calculus.
ElAlamoPalermo
04-24-14, 01:33
Damn that felt good.
Jax.Your opinion on US Citizens is quite clear. However your opinion on resident aliens in Argentina is not clear; do you believe that resident aliens in Argentina who DO NOT pay personal asset taxes and DO NOT pay personal income tax in Argentina (even though both are legally required of resident aliens) yet benefit directly from heavily subsidized healthcare are parasites?
P.S.: This is a hypothetical situation and not intended to infer that any specific resident alien in Argentina does not pay legally required taxes.
BTW, the DNC will not be replacing me. Debbie considers me a strategic asset, and George will continue to fund my trips to help maintain my board cred.I knew it! At last, the truth comes out.
Tiny, your efforts to step in and help your collegues with their arguments would make Lassie proud. But if that's the best you got, I feel pretty good. These are very thin examples.
Buffett has previously disclosed his personal tax rate is typically somewhere near 15%. Doubling it to 30% would be an additional tax hit of 6-12 M on personal taxable income of 40-80 M (in the ball park of what he has reported before). Yes 6-12 M may not be significant to someone like Buffett, but generally speaking it's a big number, and likely a far bigger hit than your Koch heroes take by not getting an ethanol subsidy. Esten, Let's revisit what you wrote most recently about the Buffett rule:
Liberals like Buffett and Soros support the Buffett rule, where they would take a significant hit. Tell me when the Kochs start supporting the Buffett rule, and maybe then I'll give them some credit. In the meantime, their free-market "liberty" propaganda will only continue to deceive the LIV, and perpetuate trends in economic inequality.Yep, looks like we're coming up with different numbers. Since Buffett is worth about $60 billion, by your estimates he would pay .01% to .02% more of his net worth per annum in income tax if the Buffett Rule, which he has so selflessly promoted, were implemented. My estimate was .009%.
Significant hit? Are you nuts? .01% or .02% of his net worth?
It wouldn't surprise me if Koch Industries' benefit from the ethanol subsidy, which they believe should be eliminated, were one or two orders of magnitude greater than the $6 million Buffett might lose out on annually if his special tax were implemented.
I think you distort the discussion by trying to talk about Berkshire's wealth and corporate taxes, rather than Buffett's personal income and individual taxes.
You've got that completely backwards. You're distorting the discussion by focusing only on his personal income and individual taxes and saying he's taking a significant hit, which is ridiculous. Exactly how does mentioning Berkshire's corporate taxes distort anything? All I'm saying is that the guy is not a freeloader, because he does indirectly bear his share of billions in taxes via his ownership in Berkshire.
BTW, you think I always agree with Obama, but I disagree with him on making most of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent. I think that was a really bad move. To keep his campaign promise (not to raise taxes on the middle class), he should have just extended them until the end of his second term. That should have been simple enough. Since raising taxes on the middle class is politically very difficult, future revenue generation will likely again be focused on high earners, though perhaps that was Obama's calculus.While I disagree strongly with your belief that higher taxes and higher government spending are good things, it's interesting that you apparently believe what's politically expedient or politically beneficial to Obama and the Democrat Party should outweigh what's best for the country.
Member #4112
04-24-14, 09:05
The simple answer is to enact a flat tax, then we could eliminate nearly all of the IRS. We ALL pay the same, no deductions. Abolish the inheritance tax and corporate tax. The removal of the corporate tax would immediately bring a flood of funds held off shore due to our current tax structure by corporations. Everybody pays.
For our liberal / progressive friends it is about "social justice", whatever that is.
WorldTravel69
04-24-14, 12:17
There is a simple way to have your tax done.
The IRS could do it. For people with no deductions the IRS knows how much taxes you pay. Because it is taken out of your paycheck.
That would save Millions of dollars.
The problem is the Companies that do taxes; Turbo tax, H&R Block, etc. Do not want that. The rich do not want that either, because then they will not be able to claim so many deductions.
The simple answer is to enact a flat tax, then we could eliminate nearly all of the IRS. We ALL pay the same, no deductions. Abolish the inheritance tax and corporate tax. The removal of the corporate tax would immediately bring a flood of funds held off shore due to our current tax structure by corporations. Everybody pays.
For our liberal / progressive friends it is about "social justice", whatever that is.
Member #4112
04-24-14, 16:00
There is a simple way to have your tax done.
The IRS could do it. For people with no deductions the IRS knows how much taxes you pay. Because it is taken out of your paycheck.
That would save Millions of dollars.
The problem is the Companies that do taxes; Turbo tax, H&R Block, etc. Do not want that. The rich do not want that either, because then they will not be able to claim so many deductions.WT69 tows the party line and continues to spread the inaccurate premise it's the evil rich. Why would anyone in their right mind wish to give the IRS more power, or worse yet just tell the IRS to take what they want in tax?
http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-taxes
Very enlightening article about how much we pay in taxes. Top 10% pay 71% of the taxes and liberals still think they are not taxed enough!
By the way, everyone has lost under Obama.
Obama campaigned in 2008 as the uniter not a divider and his would be the most transparent administration in the history of the US. Yet this man continues to attempt to divide the people by race, class, economics, gender and the list goes on. As far as transparency, his has been the worst since Nixon.
When you see the sign The IRS you are not reading it correctly it really means it's all TheIRS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/23/bob-dole-says-the-republican-party-is-way-more-conservative-than-it-was-even-20-years-ago-hes-right/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z8
Some of you are smearing the toilet seat these days. Especially those whose poster boy is Cliven Bundy.
Member #4112
04-24-14, 19:46
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/23/bob-dole-says-the-republican-party-is-way-more-conservative-than-it-was-even-20-years-ago-hes-right/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z8
Some of you are smearing the toilet seat these days. Especially those whose poster boy is Cliven Bundy.Sounds like a bunch of left wing clap trap to me REV.
You trot out Warren Buffet. I say he's a self-serving hypocrite.
All I'm saying is that the guy is not a freeloader, because he does indirectly bear his share of billions in taxes via his ownership in Berkshire. You seem to flip-flop on Buffett to suit your purpose. I know you don't like the Buffett Rule, but please review what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule.
It only affects personal income. Therefore, it has nothing to do with Berkshire and the taxes Berkshire pays. Any attempt to introduce Berkshire into a discussion of the Buffett Rule is dishonest. Under the rule, Buffett's effective tax rate would increase from about 15% to 30% for income over 1 M. You are trying to switch from a 15% tax hike on his income, to a 0.02% hit on his paper wealth. We can agree to disagree on whether his tax hit is significant or not. But your attempt to conflate discussion of the Buffett Rule is clear for all to see.
You seem to flip-flop on Buffett to suit your purpose. I know you don't like the Buffett Rule, but please review what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule.
It only affects personal income. Therefore, it has nothing to do with Berkshire and the taxes Berkshire pays. Any attempt to introduce Berkshire into a discussion of the Buffett Rule is dishonest. Under the rule, Buffett's effective tax rate would increase from about 15% to 30% for income over 1 M. You are trying to switch from a 15% tax hike on his income, to a 0.02% hit on his paper wealth. We can agree to disagree on whether his tax hit is significant or not. But your attempt to conflate discussion of the Buffett Rule is clear for all to see.HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS? I believe he's a self serving hypocrite because of his positions on the death tax and taxes on dividends. The "Buffett Rule" may or may not have existed when I wrote that, I don't remember. The death tax, which he supports, enabled him to buy off family businesses on the cheap, because they had to sell in order to pay the tax.
His position on taxation of dividends, which is the same as yours, would result in inefficient allocation of capital. If there's up to a 43.4% federal income tax on dividends on top of a federal corporate income tax up to 35%, corporations won't pay dividends. They'll keep the money in the corporation. If it's a corporation that's profitable and has need of retained earnings to grow the business, it doesn't matter. However, if it's a company that's not profitable or marginally profitable, it won't create value with the money and should instead pay earnings out in dividends. If the state + federal tax rate on dividends is, say, 50%, then corporate management has the perfect excuse to keep money instead of distributing to shareholders, who could invest in more profitable, higher growth businesses. The end result is that a high tax on dividends on top of a high tax on corporate income reduces economic growth. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT VIRTUALLY EVERY FIRST WORLD COUNTRY RECOGNIZES, and their tax systems are designed accordingly. You and Warren are alone on this one. The reason you believe what you believe is because you view stock ownership as a way by which the wealthy receive "free money" (your words), instead of an actual ownership position in a business. The reason Buffett believes what he believes is because he's a self serving hypocrite. Without writing a dissertation, higher taxes on dividends are a competitive advantage for Berkshire Hathaway, because unlike its competitors that aren't C corporations, Berkshire gets an 85% reduction in its dividend tax rate. And it is able to efficiently allocate capital within its business, better than most of its shareholders could invest the dividends, if Berkshire were to pay a dividend (and it won't).
I have no problem removing Berkshire Hathaway from the discussion of the Buffett Rule though. You just dwell on it either to confuse other people or confuse yourself. Somebody who's worth $60 billion is not going to give a rat's ass from a personal perspective if his tax is increased $6 million per year. The guy's got 10 years left to live if he's lucky, and $60 million over that period would be 1/1000th of his net worth.
I do respect him for what he plans to do with his estate, piggybacking the Gates Foundation. I do believe he bears more than his fair share of the tax burden indirectly through his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway. That doesn't change that he's a self serving hypocrite. That's not flip flopping, unless you're playing some stupid political spin game.
ElAlamoPalermo
04-26-14, 16:37
Mongers-.
Here is a lovely tidbit that perfectly represents the type of people who adhere to the views repeatedly expressed here by Jackson and his fascist fan boys (punter, doppel, etc).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hp&_r=1&assetType=nyt_now
http://news.yahoo.com/cliven-bundys-racist-comments-campaign-gift-democrats-200855352.html
Incredibly, two Republican senators went on Fox News and backed this guy.
Mongers-.
Here is a lovely tidbit that perfectly represents the type of people who adhere to the views repeatedly expressed here by Jackson and his fascist fan boys (punter, doppel, etc).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hp&_r=1&assetType=nyt_now
http://news.yahoo.com/cliven-bundys-racist-comments-campaign-gift-democrats-200855352.html
Incredibly, two Republican senators went on Fox News and backed this guy.
Try this one.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/cliven-bundys-pro-black-pro-mexican-anti-government-statements-completely-discredits-new-york-times/
Don B.
Mongers-.
Here is a lovely tidbit that perfectly represents the type of people who adhere to the views repeatedly expressed here by Jackson and his fascist fan boys (punter, doppel, etc).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hp&_r=1&assetType=nyt_now
http://news.yahoo.com/cliven-bundys-racist-comments-campaign-gift-democrats-200855352.html
Incredibly, two Republican senators went on Fox News and backed this guy.I don't understand the issue with the turtle, but it sounds like the guy is leasing land from the federal government on the cheap, and then not paying the bill. When leases like his come up for renewal, the BLM should either start leasing land at market rates or sell it to the highest bidders. Trying to make a crony capitalist a poster boy for Libertarianism rings hollow. While I hate to admit it, it sounds like Rand Paul was on the wrong side of this issue.
I do not condone, support, or agree with the racist statements that Donald Sterling is ALLEGED to have made; however, we must not overlook the fact that this is still America, and Mr. Sterling has the right to demonstrate that he is an ass. Mr. Sterling bought the team with HIS money, not someone else's, and certainly not the government's. The selling former owner ran all the way to the bank. The fans and players should make this a pocket book issue, IF it is shown that Mr. Sterling actually made the statements attributed to him. Racist statements by owners should nullify public finance (this is but one of the many reasons that I believe there should be a blanket prohibition of public finance of any part of a stadium or arena) of stadiums and arenas. The fans are fortunate that L.A. Has two NBA teams. All they need to do is stop buying tickets to the Clippers games, and vote with their feet. Losing professional sports teams have declining season and regular ticket sales all the time. Just because a team receives a portion of TV money does not mean that it does not need ticket revenue. A racist owned professional sports team could have miniscule season and regular ticket sales. Players do not have to sign contracts with the team, no matter how lucrative. Eli Manning proved that just because you were drafted by a team, you did not have to play for that team. Financial punishment is the only punishment that rich people like Mr. Sterling understand.
Obama should stay out of the matter.
Tres3.
Racism is everywhere in every color. But the reality is that people like Donald Sterling & Cliven Bundy do not think they are racists. Somehow, somewhere, they feel they were endow to exploit and dominate.
people like Donald Sterling & Cliven Bundy do not think they are racists.They do not think they are racists because they are incapable of rational thought. However, no one has to sell something to a racist if they do not want to. As the old radio ad says, "money talks, nobody walks". As for Cliven Bundy, he is guilty of much more serious offenses than racism.
Tres3.
Big Boss Man
04-27-14, 22:29
"As for Barkley's thoughts on Sterling, he said during halftime of the Pacers-Hawks game that this is the first big test for NBA commissioner Adam Silver.
"You can't have this guy making statements like that. He has to suspend him and fine him immediately...We can not have an NBA owner discriminating against a league that's...we're a black league," Barkley said.".
I always thought it was a league of the 450 best basketball players.
I do not condone, support, or agree with the racist statements that Donald Sterling is ALLEGED to have made; however, we must not overlook the fact that this is still America, and Mr. Sterling has the right to demonstrate that he is an ass. Mr. Sterling bought the team with HIS money, not someone else's, and certainly not the government's. The selling former owner ran all the way to the bank. The fans and players should make this a pocket book issue, IF it is shown that Mr. Sterling actually made the statements attributed to him. Racist statements by owners should nullify public finance (this is but one of the many reasons that I believe there should be a blanket prohibition of public finance of any part of a stadium or arena) of stadiums and arenas. The fans are fortunate that L.A. Has two NBA teams. All they need to do is stop buying tickets to the Clippers games, and vote with their feet. Losing professional sports teams have declining season and regular ticket sales all the time. Just because a team receives a portion of TV money does not mean that it does not need ticket revenue. A racist owned professional sports team could have miniscule season and regular ticket sales. Players do not have to sign contracts with the team, no matter how lucrative. Eli Manning proved that just because you were drafted by a team, you did not have to play for that team. Financial punishment is the only punishment that rich people like Mr. Sterling understand.
Obama should stay out of the matter.
Tres3.Agreed with all your comments.
The media also seems to be giving the woman a free pass, taping and leaking a private conversation (it appears). WTF?? From a quick check on Google, it looks like she is a classic gold digger. She already got a lot from him, maybe she wanted more. I wouldn't be surprised if she planned the whole thing, to push him to make some of the statements he did. When this guy comes forward with his public statement, I'll be looking to see whether she tried to extort him with the tape.
His position on taxation of dividends, which is the same as yours, would result in inefficient allocation of capital.I'm sure you know far more about Buffett than I do. You said some negative things about him, then some positive, so I couldn't figure out where you stood. Now I understand, you have both views of him.
I must admit, you do have me thinking with this phrase "inefficient allocation of capital". As you know, I've long viewed dividends paid by large corporations as essentially "free money" to wealthy investors and funds that park their cash in the stock. Wall Street parasites, leeching off the American worker. I've had a negative view of activists like Icahn who try to force companies to pay out their cash. What's good for these large shareholders is not always good for the company's workers. But as much as I dislike this, is it possibly still better than a company holding onto cash and doing absolutely nothing with it? If it's paid out to shareholders, while most of it will probably not trickle down into the Main Street economy, at least there's some non-zero chance that some of it will (compared with sitting on a balance sheet). To me, "inefficient allocation of capital" means capital that does not at least in part help the Main Street economy (vs. Wall Street/top 1%).
So Tiny, it's not often you guys prompt me to re-evaluate my thinking, but I may have to on this one. It might be a choice of the "lesser of two evils". Regardless, the question of what corporations should do with their cash is a separate discussion from the Buffett Rule, which is a simple and common-sense proposal to set a minimum (30%) tax rate for high earners, and not allow the Buffetts and Romneys of the world to get away with lower effective tax rates than middle class workers.
But as much as I dislike this, is it possibly still better than a company holding onto cash and doing absolutely nothing with it? If it's paid out to shareholders, while most of it will probably not trickle down into the Main Street economy, at least there's some non-zero chance that some of it will (compared with sitting on a balance sheet). To me, "inefficient allocation of capital" means capital that does not at least in part help the Main Street economy (vs. Wall Street/top 1%).Most dividend, capital gains, and ordinary corporate income is reinvested and will "trickle down" (not the words I would use) to the main street economy. If instead you heavily tax these sources of income, you reduce savings and fixed capital formation. In the long run this means the economy will grow slower and prosperity will be reduced for all. It's the same whether it's an economy, a government, a business or a family. If you don't invest and instead just consume, in the long run you're screwed. Again, if you look at tax systems in almost all first world countries, they tax dividends, capital gains and corporate income at lower rates than the maximum rate on ordinary personal income. These are reasons why.
Member #4112
04-28-14, 14:14
Tiny, it's a waste of breath. Esten never met a tax on the "evil rich" be it persons or businesses he did not like.
Republicans come out with a budget to cut spending and the Democrats come out with a budget to raise taxes over a trillion dollars. With the left so far out in la la land anything approaching the middle looks radical to them.
For our liberal / progressive friends it's all about income redistribution from those who have "too much" to those with "too little". It makes no difference if you worked for it or not.
Tiny, it's a waste of breath. Esten never met a tax on the "evil rich" be it persons or businesses he did not like.
Republicans come out with a budget to cut spending and the Democrats come out with a budget to raise taxes over a trillion dollars. With the left so far out in la la land anything approaching the middle looks radical to them.
For our liberal / progressive friends it's all about income redistribution from those who have "too much" to those with "too little". It makes no difference if you worked for it or not.I believe there is still hope for him Doppelganger. I hope he comes out of the desert and achieves true enlightenment on economic issues. And if not I say we duct tape him to a chair and make him watch Stossel reruns for 20 hours straight.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012.html\
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/05/2890091/wage-income-data/
We are in the midst of a downward curve in terms of quality jobs in America. Globalization & technology are the contributing factors. But it is the flight of manufacturing jobs that has changed the landscape for America. And so the middle class is shrinking fast. The fat cats are getting fatter by the minute.
And these are the same people who vocalize strongest against illegal immigration, yet they are the same people who gain the most from their cheap labor. All that shouting about a secured border is just a smokescreen to maintain the status quo. Why don't you admit it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012.html\
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/05/2890091/wage-income-data/
We are in the midst of a downward curve in terms of quality jobs in America. Globalization & technology are the contributing factors. But it is the flight of manufacturing jobs that has changed the landscape for America. And so the middle class is shrinking fast. The fat cats are getting fatter by the minute.
And these are the same people who vocalize strongest against illegal immigration, yet they are the same people who gain the most from their cheap labor. All that shouting about a secured border is just a smokescreen to maintain the status quo. Why don't you admit it?RevBS, I read an interview with Jagdish Bhagwatti, the famous economist. He believes technology is the big factor, and globalization is actually positive in that it makes prices of goods more affordable for the poor and middle class.
My question, as you have some sympathy, like I do, for the poor Mexican or El Salvadoran who's trying to feed his family by working in the USA -- how do you square the prosperity that globalization has brought to the poor in places like China, Thailand, etc. with your concern for flight of manufacturing jobs from the USA?
Your sources are biased. Income distribution after income taxes and transfer payments is more equal. I believe the Democrat party promotes inequality through pandering to teachers unions (and depriving children of good educations) and promoting joblessness.
ElAlamoPalermo
04-28-14, 21:09
With the left so far out in la la land anything approaching the middle looks radical to them.
For our liberal / progressive friends it's all about income redistribution from those who have "too much" to those with "too little". It makes no difference if you worked for it or not.Yes, it's obviously the progressives who are out in la la land. This nutcase in Nevada, who was initially supported by such towering conservative heroes as Rand Paul, uses much of the same terminology and rants against the same groups as Jackson and his fascist fan boys (among which you are obviously one of the biggest fan boys). This guy in Nevada, like Jackson and his fascist fan boys believes anybody who gets "free money" is a parasite and that blacks were better off as slaves. This is really the essence of which Jackson and his fascist fan boys are all about; they long for an antebellum South style plantation culture where whites rule as lords of the manor and everybody else is their servant; Jackson and the FFB's want all the money and power, don't want to pay any taxes, and want the rest of the country to live miserable lives of destitution.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/politics/cliven-bundy-interview/index.html
Most dividend, capital gains, and ordinary corporate income is reinvested and will "trickle down" (not the words I would use) to the main street economy. If instead you heavily tax these sources of income, you reduce savings and fixed capital formation. In the long run this means the economy will grow slower and prosperity will be reduced for all. It's the same whether it's an economy, a government, a business or a family. If you don't invest and instead just consume, in the long run you're screwed. Again, if you look at tax systems in almost all first world countries, they tax dividends, capital gains and corporate income at lower rates than the maximum rate on ordinary personal income. These are reasons why.Tiny, we've been doing this "trickle down" experiment ever since Reagan started cutting taxes 3 decades ago. The result? Massive gains for the top 10% (especially the top 1%) and meager gains for everyone else. Put down the textbook and look at the data. There is no problem with savings and capital formation. Big companies and wealthy investors have tons of cash to invest. Only a fraction of it is invested in ways that help Main Street, because returns on such investments are limited by limited opportunities. Hence, their cash is invested in financial instruments with guaranteed returns better than savings accounts or Treasuries. Buffett (again) was right when he said tax hikes won't stop the wealthy from investing. Not as long as those taxed investments are still giving good or better returns.
It seems that "hope" plays a big role in trickle down economics (AKA voodoo economics). But the results are in: helping the rich get richer does little to help the middle class.
I personally think this political thread contains the lowest level of discourse I have ever seen on the web. I do not agree with most of Jackson's politics nor his style of expressing his point of view.
Your hateful personal attack is not appropriate for any public forum. You owe Jackson an apology. Attack the ideas, not the man.
ElAlamoPalermo
04-30-14, 01:23
I personally think this political thread contains the lowest level of discourse I have ever seen on the web. I do not agree with most of Jackson's politics nor his style of expressing his point of view.
Your hateful personal attack is not appropriate for any public forum. You owe Jackson an apology. Attack the ideas, not the man.Hi Bob-.
I agree with your assertion that this thread contains an extremely low level of discourse; it's pretty clear to me that most of the participants of this thread are merely amusing themselves with the constant back and forth bickering that goes on. That being said, there is no way that Jackson takes any of what I write on here personally; I am merely offering the extremist counterpoint and counterarguments to what would otherwise be extreme unabated one-sided (what I view to be) irrational Obama hating.
Thanks,
EAP.
Hi Bob-.
I agree with your assertion that this thread contains an extremely low level of discourse; it's pretty clear to me that most of the participants of this thread are merely amusing themselves with the constant back and forth bickering that goes on. That being said, there is no way that Jackson takes any of what I write on here personally; I am merely offering the extremist counterpoint and counterarguments to what would otherwise be extreme unabated one-sided (what I view to be) irrational Obama hating.
Thanks,
EAP.Quote:
Jackson and his fascist fan boys believes anybody who gets "free money" is a parasite and that blacks were better off as slaves. This is really the essence of which Jackson and his fascist fan boys are all about; they long for an antebellum South style plantation culture where whites rule as lords of the manor and everybody else is their servant; Jackson and the FFB's want all the money and power, don't want to pay any taxes, and want the rest of the country to live miserable lives of destitution.
THIS IS NOT FRIENDLY BANTER. THIS IS HATEFUL. HITLER WROTE THAT JEWS DRANK CHRISTIAN BABY BLOOD, ALSO NOT FRIENDLY BANTER.
DEMOCRATS DRINK CHRISTIAN BABY BLOOD
Good one, thanks MiamiBob!
LMAO. Some welcome comic relief.
'Ol Adolph got "Christian baby blood" mixed up with Mogen David.;)
Member #4112
04-30-14, 22:15
I have to apologize as I don't remember which board member was complaining about gas prices in California but here is an interesting article on the subject.
While I am sure some on the board would point to the evil oil companies lining their pockets at our expense the real culprit is the EPA.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/bureaucratic-gas_634424.html
Member #4112
04-30-14, 22:29
Hi Bob-.
I agree with your assertion that this thread contains an extremely low level of discourse; it's pretty clear to me that most of the participants of this thread are merely amusing themselves with the constant back and forth bickering that goes on. That being said, there is no way that Jackson takes any of what I write on here personally; I am merely offering the extremist counterpoint and counterarguments to what would otherwise be extreme unabated one-sided (what I view to be) irrational Obama hating.
Thanks,
EAP.Well I guess there are a lot of Obama Haters out there according to the latest Washington Post / ABC Poll.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/post-abc-news-poll-shows-democrats-at-risk-in-november-as-obamas-approval-rating-falls/2014/04/28/2a448b04-cf07-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html
Since our liberal / progressive friends embraced the poll prior to this one claiming it showed a trend upward for the Democrats / Obamacare / Obama, I wonder if they will embrace this one with the same vigor?
It would appear Jackson's reach is much grater than his detractors have given him credit for. From the numbers in this poll there are a majority of Obama Haters out there.
Here is an interesting definition for Fascism / Fascists:
Fas•cism (noun).
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
So ElAlamoPalermo who are the real Fascists? Sounds a bit like Obama, the Democrats, the IRS, the EPA, the BLM et al to me.
288,000 jobs created in April. Unemployment rate down to 6.3%. Expect the Obama haters to obfuscate with alternate metrics nobody paid any attention to until Obama became president. But this is good data any way you cut it.
I guess the Affordable Care Act isn't such a job-killer. But we knew all along the Republicans were trying to scare and manipulate people. Now that their attack on the ACA has utterly failed, they somehow think that reviving the Benghazi story for the umpteenth time is going to help them politically. Now there's an example of wasted taxpayer money. You seriously can't make this stuff up.
Member #4112
05-04-14, 19:11
Esten, only you and your liberal / progressive friends are cheering the 6.3% U3 unemployment rate.
288,00 jobs created.
860,000 unemployed fell out of the job market and are no longer counted under U3.
How many more "Victories" like this can the economy stand? Sort of explains the 0.1% growth rate!
Member #4112
05-04-14, 19:12
Esten, I know you are a Warren Buffett fan, so how do you explain Buffett failing to vote Berkshire Hathaway's stock in the Coca Cola executive pay dispute. Remember Buffett opposed this pay package, yet abstained!
https://www.google.com/#q=Warren+Buffett+fails+to+vote+coca+cola+Stock&tbm=nws
I agree some, a very small minority, have rigged the game in their favor through interlocking boards of directors and similar maneuvers for self-enrichment at the stock holder's expense. I don't' believe anyone on Wall Street is smart enough to make multiple millions on "advice".
But Esten you have only one answer to any questions, TAX TAX TAX. Take from the productive and give to the unproductive, MORE MORE MORE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND CONTROL!
President Obama's Socialist-Marxist-Islamic-Communist master plan to destroy the US Economy reached another milestone in April. The USA Treasury Department put a $114,000,000,000 dollar surplus on the books. Federal coffers saw a 7% increase in individual income taxes and payroll taxes, a 15% increase in corporate income taxes, and a 37% increase in money paid to Treasury by the Federal Reserve. Last month, the CBO projected that the 2014 shortfall would decline to 2.8% of gross domestic product — or $492 billion. That is well below the 4.1% — or $680 billion — recorded for fiscal year 2013.
This devastating economic news is just one of many recent disasters resulting from President Obama's un-American fiscal policies. April also saw unemployment fall to 6.3 percent, the stock market hit a record high, consumer spending increased, the US uninsured rate imploded, and finally insurers confirmed Americans are paying their Obamacare premiums.
You need to control yourself. Over exuberance is not tolerated in AP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/05/08/the-five-stages-of-gop-scandal-mongering-a-readers-guide/?hpid=z2
Just in case you don't have a mirror or your mirror is cracked, a good look at yourself. I know, I know. It's hard to admit that you are an addict or ideologue of some kind. There are times when Constitution thumping is very similar to Bible thumping. Too much emotional righteousness and too little common sense. And so, nothing gets done.
Getting to the gates of heaven but unable to get in, it must be frustrating. It's time for soul cleansing of some kind. And a dose of humility will perhaps win over Saint Peter at the gate. That is, if you didn't walk over or bump some people off the path on your way there.
It is good to see the deficit below 500B, but we still have much work to do. Check out this blast from the past from CNN. If the Bush years had not squandered our surplus and left the country in a deep recession, we could have been looking at a debt-free nation next year...
Clinton: Pay debt by 2015
June 28,1999
http://money.cnn.com/1999/06/28/economy/clinton/
NEW YORK (CNNfn) - President Clinton on Monday proposed paying off the national debt by 2015 after issuing a new budget outlook that adds $1 trillion more to the overall budget surplus over the next 15 years.
The president, who plans to unveil a major Medicare reform initiative on Tuesday, said he wants to use the surplus to add decades of solvency to the Social Security and Medicare systems, which are otherwise expected to go broke as the "Baby Boom" generation retires.
"If we maintain our fiscal discipline, using the surplus to pay down the debt and using the savings to strengthen Social Security, America will entirely pay off the national debt by 2015," Clinton told reporters on the White House lawn.
Check out this blast from the past from CNN. If the Bush years had not squandered our surplus and left the country in a deep recession, we could have been looking at a debt-free nation next year...Pull your head out of the sand. When it comes to deficit spending, Obama is Bush on speed.
You forget the deep recession Obama inherited. Federal revenues were slashed and deficit spending was needed. Obama does now share part of the blame, but the situation was thrust upon him from the Bush years. You're fooling yourself if you think it would have been much different under any other president.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/05/08/the-five-stages-of-gop-scandal-mongering-a-readers-guide/?hpid=z2
Just in case you don't have a mirror or your mirror is cracked, a good look at yourself. I know, I know. It's hard to admit that you are an addict or ideologue of some kind. There are times when Constitution thumping is very similar to Bible thumping. Too much emotional righteousness and too little common sense. And so, nothing gets done.
Getting to the gates of heaven but unable to get in, it must be frustrating. It's time for soul cleansing of some kind. And a dose of humility will perhaps win over Saint Peter at the gate. That is, if you didn't walk over or bump some people off the path on your way there.Reverend, There is some irony. Lois Lerner, encouraged by prominent Democrat politicians including President Obama, tried to delay or prevent the exercise of first amendment rights by organizations that she didn't agree with. Now the House of Representatives is trying to abridge her fifth amendment rights. If the House wants her to testify then they should grant her immunity. Otherwise there's no cause to cite her for contempt.
It's interesting that six Democrats voted to hold her in contempt. I don't know what to make of that, unless they think it's something that would help them get re-elected.
The "Darwinian" free market system creates jobs and provides the greatest prosperity for all. Free markets don't get all the credit (or blame), it's the combination of a free market and the regulatory framework in which it works. Look at the postWWII economic expansion. The economic growth over this period was in part due to Keynesian economic policies and government spending. This in turn was enabled by progressive tax rates far higher (up to 86%) than they are today. The middle class expanded and prospered. Since Reagan started the era of tax cuts, the wealthy have prospered disproportionately, at the expense of the middle class. Here is an excellent graphic showing how prosperity was shared before and after 1979.
http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2011/07/golden-age-of-capitalism-in-pictures.html
Recent corporate shifts to 90 day payment terms now permit the largest companies to further prosper at the expense of smaller companies. These payment term changes free up Billions of dollars for companies like P&G. Of course, this will help P&G build new factories overseas, and sustain it's 57-year record of annual dividend increases to shareholders (AKA Wall Street parasites), at the expense of its suppliers. With a corresponding ripple-down effect on those suppliers, their employees and their hiring decisions. It's not enough to point out that politicians and government have allowed such consolidation of wealth and power. We must elect representatives who will pass legislation that will reverse these damaging trends, and ensure prosperity is shared more equitably.
P&G, Big Companies Pinch Suppliers on Payments
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324010704578418361635041842
Free markets don't get all the credit (or blame), it's the combination of a free market and the regulatory framework in which it works. Look at the postWWII economic expansion. The economic growth over this period was in part due to Keynesian economic policies and government spending. This in turn was enabled by progressive tax rates far higher (up to 86%) than they are today. The middle class expanded and prospered. Since Reagan started the era of tax cuts, the wealthy have prospered disproportionately, at the expense of the middle class. Here is an excellent graphic showing how prosperity was shared before and after 1979.
http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2011/07/golden-age-of-capitalism-in-pictures.html
Recent corporate shifts to 90 day payment terms now permit the largest companies to further prosper at the expense of smaller companies. These payment term changes free up Billions of dollars for companies like P&G. Of course, this will help P&G build new factories overseas, and sustain it's 57-year record of annual dividend increases to shareholders (AKA Wall Street parasites), at the expense of its suppliers. With a corresponding ripple-down effect on those suppliers, their employees and their hiring decisions. It's not enough to point out that politicians and government have allowed such consolidation of wealth and power. We must elect representatives who will pass legislation that will reverse these damaging trends, and ensure prosperity is shared more equitably.
P&G, Big Companies Pinch Suppliers on Payments
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324010704578418361635041842
"That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen by Frederic Bastiat, 1850".
Suggested reading for Esten, et al.
Don B.
Free markets don't get all the credit (or blame), it's the combination of a free market and the regulatory framework in which it works. Look at the postWWII economic expansion. The economic growth over this period was in part due to Keynesian economic policies and government spending. This in turn was enabled by progressive tax rates far higher (up to 86%) than they are today. The middle class expanded and prospered. Since Reagan started the era of tax cuts, the wealthy have prospered disproportionately, at the expense of the middle class. Here is an excellent graphic showing how prosperity was shared before and after 1979.
http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2011/07/golden-age-of-capitalism-in-pictures.html
Recent corporate shifts to 90 day payment terms now permit the largest companies to further prosper at the expense of smaller companies. These payment term changes free up Billions of dollars for companies like P&G. Of course, this will help P&G build new factories overseas, and sustain it's 57-year record of annual dividend increases to shareholders (AKA Wall Street parasites), at the expense of its suppliers. With a corresponding ripple-down effect on those suppliers, their employees and their hiring decisions. It's not enough to point out that politicians and government have allowed such consolidation of wealth and power. We must elect representatives who will pass legislation that will reverse these damaging trends, and ensure prosperity is shared more equitably.
P&G, Big Companies Pinch Suppliers on Payments
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324010704578418361635041842
We've had this argument already, several times. You blame all the country's ills on our tax system not being progressive enough, even though it's one of the most progressive in the world. I attribute the changes to globalism, technology, demographics and family structure. And believe the best solution, to provide greater prosperity and opportunity for all lies in better education and improved efficiency in government, the tax system, and regulation. Then I point to examples of countries with these efficiencies, which are among the most prosperous in the world, and you ignore them.
So what do you want to do about P&G? Should government mandate that all companies pay their bills in 30 days? About the "Wall Street parasites" that own P&G and collect "free money" in the form of dividends, the top 4 holders of record are pension and mutual funds managed or represented by Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street, and Fidelity. The fifth is Berkshire Hathaway whose largest shareholder is Warren Buffet. I see your point about Buffet's company being a Wall Street parasite, as Berkshire as a C corporation pays 0% to 10.5% federal tax (depending on its % shareholding) on its dividend income, versus up to a 23.8% rate for individuals.
ElAlamoPalermo
05-12-14, 02:31
Free markets don't get all the credit (or blame), it's the combination of a free market and the regulatory framework in which it works. Look at the postWWII economic expansion. The economic growth over this period was in part due to Keynesian economic policies and government spending. This in turn was enabled by progressive tax rates far higher (up to 86%) than they are today. The middle class expanded and prospered. Since Reagan started the era of tax cuts, the wealthy have prospered disproportionately, at the expense of the middle class. Here is an excellent graphic showing how prosperity was shared before and after 1979.
RL]You are omitting some key factors here as to why the US middle class was more prosperous in the pre-Reagan days; to begin with, legitimate competition from Korea and Japan in the automotive, industrial equipment, computing and electronic sectors was virtually nonexistent and competition from Germany was only in its infancy. Lack of solid competition allowed US companies to thrive and thus maintain large manufacturing employment bases. This was also before China made the shift from Maoist misery to the Deng Xioping manufacturing-for-export model and before NAFTA made manufacturing south of the border a no brainer. The world economy has simply undergone an enormous structural shift since 1979 that has not boded well for the lower middle / working class in the United States who have not made the adjustment to the new economy. The US tax code is certainly ridiculous and needs reform but outlandish top marginal income tax rates are probably not the answer to the problem.
The US tax system is much more progressive than other developed countries. This was written before the Obama tax increases on the top 1% took effect:.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/19/other-countries-dont-have-a-47/
Also, please note the comments about how taxes on "free money" (capital gains, savings, dividends) reduce growth. I haven't looked into this research, because the conclusions are so obvious to me, but maybe you should.
Member #4112
05-12-14, 10:34
Esten seems to need a short history lesson. The rise of American industrial might and the middle class took place after WWII. The American industrial complex thrived during the war producing war material for the European and Pacific theaters of operations through innovative production to meet those needs. After the war they began to apply those same methods to consumer goods, for which there was growing demand after the restrictions on their production during the war, creating jobs and wealth for the middle class.
While the American industrial base remained totally intact during the war due to the buffer of 2 oceans, Europe and the far east's industrial base was in shambles after the war and had to be rebuilt nearly from the ground up. The retooling of their industrial base was with late 1940 and 1950 forward equipment and the technological advances in production from American industry, while our industrial base was still rooted in early 20th century technology. This certainly took it's toll in competition going forward as our base continued to age.
By the way Esten, almost no one paid those absurdly high taxes as numerous methods were available to avoid them. Compared to John Kennedy's tax cutting, Ronald Reagan was a piker.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/e
Tell me it's not true.
Let's try again, link did not work previously. Added a few more in the same vein.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/04/is-america-an-oligarchy.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/
WorldTravel69
05-16-14, 20:35
Let's get that pipeline built, so we can have more of this.
Imagine how bad this would be in the middle of some state in the Mid West with no people around.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27426220
This pissed me off because I could not go to my favorite Strip Club!
Let's get that pipeline built, so we can more of this.
Imagine how bad this would be in the middle of some state with no people around.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27426220
This pissed me because I could not go to my favorite Strip Club!Know that area well. Worked & live there before moving on. Never did go to that strip club, had to play it safe. But once while munching on a hamburger across the street, the bus came to a stop, and happy group of Chinese seniors from Chinatown came spilling out, jostling each other and aiming for the club. Aaah, the early bird specials!
Let's get that pipeline built, so we can have more of this.
Imagine how bad this would be in the middle of some state in the Mid West with no people around.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27426220
This pissed me off because I could not go to my favorite Strip Club!So what's the alternative? Tankers like the Exxon Valdez? Trains carrying oil, like the one that killed 47 people in Quebec? Or maybe just give up all forms of transportation involving oil products? I'll take you seriously if you do that. I expect to see no more reports from you on hookers in places like El Salvador. Instead you may only bang women in California that you can travel to on your bicycle.
Pipelines are a relatively safe, efficient way to transport oil. You and I share a concern about USA involvement in wars in the Middle East. One of the best ways to prevent that going forward is to make North America self sufficient in oil. The alternative to the Keystone pipeline for the Canadians is to ship the oil to their west coast and sell to the Chinese. That's not good for the United States of America.
WorldTravel69
05-18-14, 16:15
But, the Keystone pipeline is not being built to make us independent from buying Oil.
It will be sold to other countries.
Why else would they build a line all the way to Texas? Lower or No Taxes?
Here is a track record list of Pipeline accidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century
So what's the alternative? Tankers like the Exxon Valdez? Trains carrying oil, like the one that killed 47 people in Quebec? Or maybe just give up all forms of transportation involving oil products? I'll take you seriously if you do that. I expect to see no more reports from you on hookers in places like El Salvador. Instead you may only bang women in California that you can travel to on your bicycle.
Pipelines are a relatively safe, efficient way to transport oil. You and I share a concern about USA involvement in wars in the Middle East. One of the best ways to prevent that going forward is to make North America self sufficient in oil. The alternative to the Keystone pipeline for the Canadians is to ship the oil to their west coast and sell to the Chinese. That's not good for the United States of America.
Member #4112
05-18-14, 16:27
Tiny, I loved a report a couple of years back from a group in California citizens who made a point of following a few select Serra Club members from a big protest against the rape of "mother earth" by oil companies and all the other usual suspects.
These folks followed the Serra Club folks as they drove home in their big SUVs and other similar gas hogs to their 4,000 sq ft and up homes in the upper income enclaves where they lived. In one case the offended Serra Club member drove up his drive past the Mexican yard men mowing, trimming and blowing his homes spacious grounds with 2 cycle power tools. I'm sure the mowers were 4 cycle though.
Perfect example of liberals / progressives / ruling elite, do as I say not as I do. The unwashed, ignorant masses are too stupid to know what is good for them so we the liberal / progressive / ruling elite will tell them.
As a Post Scrip.
I noticed on the news Obama is "mad as hell" about the VA scandal. If you go back and listen to the sound bites from Fast & Furious, Benghazi, and the IRS scandals, Obama said almost the same thing expressing his outrage and promise to get to the bottom of the scandal.
Esten how long before the VA scandal becomes another "phony scandal"?
Also noticed another one of those pesky emails linking Washington / White House to the IRS scandal popped up, what happened to the two guys in the broom closet explaination?
Doppelganger, I agree. It's hilarious when people like Al Gore, Michael Moore and George Clooney sound sanctimonious about carbon emissions, all the while flying around in their private jets.
Another peeve of mine are the environmentalists who condemn both fracking and CO2 emissions. The increase in gas production in the United States from fracking has reduced carbon emissions by more than all the solar and wind power in Europe. And solar and wind in Europe are subsidized to the tune of $60 billion a year. The subsidies played a big part in Spain's fiscal disaster. Natural gas production, on the other hand, not only replaces coal, which is dirty and emits more carbon, but also generates income taxes, severance taxes, property taxes, and lots of jobs.
Total CO2 emissions in the USA have actually dropped since 2008, mostly because of natural gas. Chinese emissions exceeded those of the USA in 2007 and will continue to increase. If you believe global warming is a problem, there's not a lot we can do about it. The future is in the hands of countries like China and India.
Finally, still on the subject of natural gas, WT69, please note the deaths in your link are mostly associated with natural gas explosions. Please also note that the number of deaths caused by natural gas pipelines is a very, very small number compared to deaths caused by coal, both in mines and as a result of dirty air. And natural gas replaces coal.
But, the Keystone pipeline is not being built to make us independent from buying Oil.
It will be sold to other countries.
Why else would they build a line all the way to Texas? Lower or No Taxes?
Here is a track record list of Pipeline accidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_centuryOr it is being sent to Texas because that is where a lot of the refineries are located.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#Texas.
Most of the refineries are located in the port states of CA, LA & TX.
And the US DOT has determined "Pipelines transport the lion's share of crude oil because they are the safest, most environmentally friendly and least expensive way to transport large volumes of energy products.".
http://news.yahoo.com/pipelines-safer-railroads-carrying-oil-110200452.html
My apologies for letting the facts interfere with a liberal agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/us/politics/economic-recovery-is-leaving-major-democratic-constituencies-behind.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0
The article above gets at the root of the problem we've been arguing about. Yes, the official unemployment rate is down. But the jobs aren't there, for women, blacks and others. And apparently support for Obama is dropping as a result.
We need to abandon the Obama platform and start with policies that will actually help the poor and the middle class. Stop pumping more and more money into the federal government and leave more for investment and the private sector, the engines of job growth. This worked during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Obama and Bush did the opposite and look where that's gotten us. And, in addition, we need to cut the umbilical cord between the teacher's unions and the Democrat politicians and start educating our children and young adults in ways that will get them good paying jobs.
WorldTravel69
05-20-14, 15:37
The Republican are the ones stopping job growth.
They will not support any job bills. They have not even suggested one! Come on, Name One?
With all the tax breaks business is getting, how come they are not hiring.
There tax breaks have been really cut.
How come they are not hiring.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/us/politics/economic-recovery-is-leaving-major-democratic-constituencies-behind.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0
The article above gets at the root of the problem we've been arguing about. Yes, the official unemployment rate is down. But the jobs aren't there, for women, blacks and others. And apparently support for Obama is dropping as a result.
We need to abandon the Obama platform and start with policies that will actually help the poor and the middle class. Stop pumping more and more money into the federal government and leave more for investment and the private sector, the engines of job growth. This worked during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Obama and Bush did the opposite and look where that's gotten us. And, in addition, we need to cut the umbilical cord between the teacher's unions and the Democrat politicians and start educating our children and young adults in ways that will get them good paying jobs.
With all the tax breaks business is getting, how come they are not hiring.
1. For those businesses that don't get tax breaks, marginal federal rates of 35% on corporations and 43.4% on unincorporated businesses. Combined with state income taxes the total income tax burden is as high as 47% for C corporations and 56% for other entities. The high tax burden stifles the incentive to invest and take risk in ways that would create jobs. It also means more goes into the pocket of the government, so businesses have less capital to grow and create jobs. WT69, Please note that Dickhead, whose political affiliation is the same as yours and who has studied this closely, would argue that there should be no corporate income tax. Also, see the following table, a comparison of world-wide corporate tax rates: http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx
2. Large expenditures and lots of time and effort to comply with regulations and navigate the tax system.
3. Stupid rules and tax regulations that discourage investment. For example, multinationals headquartered in the USA keep and invest large amounts of cash overseas, because if they brought the money back to the USA, they'd have to pay high taxes on it. So instead of bringing it back to and investing it here in ways that would create jobs, the capital stays overseas. Another example would be the Keystone pipeline. Why aren't people employed building it now? Because Obama, who knows better, has taken advantage of regulations that allow him to delay construction to appease wacko environmentalists. By "wacko", I mean they're not doing anything substantive to improve the environment, they're just killing jobs.
4. An education system ruled over by the teacher's unions and liberal arts types. USA teenagers now rank DEAD LAST in math skills in the OECD. Our education system isn't preparing workers that business wants. Other countries are doing much better.
As to the tax breaks, I think you and I agree. Get rid of them. Institute something like a flat tax.
The Republican are the ones stopping job growth.
They will not support any job bills. They have not even suggested one! Come on, Name One?OK, Admittedly, this is partly Republican propaganda, but see the following list:
http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/
I'm curious, exactly what actions have been taken or proposed by Obama and the Democrats that would significantly boost job growth? I can't think of any. In fact, what they've done is stifle growth in employment.
WorldTravel69
05-20-14, 16:28
The tax rate is still one of the lowest than most countries.
I had to pay taxes on my Social Security. Why is that?
Trackers:
That depends on which one tells the truth.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/18/house-republicans-blatantly-lie-america-claiming-passed-dozens-jobs-bills.html
1. For those businesses that don't get tax breaks, marginal federal rates of 35% on corporations and 43.4% on unincorporated businesses. Combined with state income taxes the total income tax burden is as high as 47% for C corporations and 56% for other entities. The high tax burden stifles the incentive to invest and take risk in ways that would create jobs. It also means more goes into the pocket of the government, so businesses have less capital to grow and create jobs. WT69, Please note that Dickhead, whose political affiliation is the same as yours and who has studied this closely, would argue that there should be no corporate tax. Also, see the following table, a comparison of world-wide corporate tax rates: http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx
2. Large expenditures and lots of time and effort to comply with regulations and navigate the tax system.
3. Stupid rules and tax regulations that discourage investment. For example, multinationals headquartered in the USA keep and invest large amounts of cash overseas, because if they brought the money back to the USA, they'd have to pay high taxes on it. So instead of bringing it back to and investing it here in ways that would create jobs, the capital stays overseas. Another example would be the Keystone pipeline. Why aren't people employed building it now? Because Obama, who knows better, has taken advantage of regulations that allow him to delay construction to appease wacko environmentalists. By "wacko", I mean they're not doing anything substantive to improve the environment, they're just killing jobs.
4. An education system ruled over by the teacher's unions and liberal arts types. USA teenagers now rank DEAD LAST in math skills in the OECD. Our education system isn't preparing workers that business wants. Other countries are doing much better.
As to the tax breaks, I think you and I agree. Get rid of them. Institute something like a flat tax.
OK, Admittedly, this is partly Republican propaganda, but see the following list:
http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/
I'm curious, exactly what actions have been taken or proposed by Obama and the Democrats that would significantly boost job growth? I can't think of any. In fact, what they've done is stifle growth in employment.
The tax rate is still one of the lowest than most countries.
Absolutely untrue. The corporate rate is the highest in the developed world. Please see the link in my previous post. And the total income tax rate on unincorporated businesses and individuals is among the higher in the world. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates. Please note the Wikipedia table doesn't include the 3.8% Obamacare tax, imposed on certain types of income.
As I said, some companies and people take advantage of loopholes to lower their rates. These loopholes should be eliminated and the tax rate should be flattened and lowered. Also, as I said, I'm sure my link included some Republican propaganda. Yours looks like it's 100% Democrat propaganda.
The corporate income tax is a complete fiction, absolutely unnecessary, and is totally irrelevant. Corporations cannot pay taxes. Only shareholders can pay taxes. The corporate income tax collected is only 1.3% of GDP whereas the individual taxes are 8%. The corporate income tax should be abolished, which would, of course, lead to higher individual rates. This would be offset by huge cost savings from not having to dick around with corporate tax planning, preparation, and record-keeping.
A rare example of bipartisan good news. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) passed 412-4 in the House and 91-7 in the Senate. Boehner and other Republicans claim it will create jobs. Yes, the same guy who said in 2009 "Government doesn't create jobs!" and pronounced the Stimulus a failure before multiple economic assessments proved him dead wrong. Of course government spending creates jobs, and when Republicans deny it you know they are lying through their teeth. But I will give them credit for working with Dems to get this bill passed.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/206655-house-passes-water-projects-bill
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-set-vote-123-billion-water-bill-23820352
Member #4112
05-29-14, 19:48
Esten, did you happen to notice the economy CONTRACTED during the 1st quarter 2014? Could it be poor economic policies by your favorite guy?
Esten, didn't we fix all the infrastructure during the first bailout with all those "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs that were ready to go? What about all those signs they had printed up touting this road or that bridge was being repaired by the bail out?
Only in America!! Donald Sterling made a racist remark to his mistress, was fined 2.5 million, created outrage, and laughs all the way to the bank when a Steve Balmer led group bids 2.0 billion for the Clippers. Meanwhile, black basketball players who are richer than most of us, but not very rich when compared to Sterling, Balmer, et al feel vindicated. They forget that the buyer was another rich white guy. Only in America can a rich white guy be "punished" by being forced to sell a franchise for a huge profit, and it is all perfectly legal.
What Mr. Sterling did was reprehensible in this age, but I still envy him.
Tres3.
Big Boss Man
05-30-14, 13:04
Only in America!! Donald Sterling made a racist remark to his mistress, was fined 2.5 million, created outrage, and laughs all the way to the bank when a Steve Balmer led group bids 2.0 billion for the Clippers. Meanwhile, black basketball players who are richer than most of us, but not very rich when compared to Sterling, Balmer, et al feel vindicated. They forget that the buyer was another rich white guy. Only in America can a rich white guy be "punished" by being forced to sell a franchise for a huge profit, and it is all perfectly legal.
What Mr. Sterling did was reprehensible in this age, but I still envy him.
Tres3.But only in America can you take 600 billion dollar company turn it into a 270 billion company and still become a billionaire. Is Ballmer the worst CEO in history? Further evidence that America is no longer a meritocracy. America mourns for the Los Angeles sports fan.
ElAlamoPalermo
05-30-14, 18:19
But only in America can you take 600 billion dollar company turn it into a 270 billion company and still become a billionaire. Is Ballmer the worst CEO in history? Further evidence that America is no longer a meritocracy. America mourns for the Los Angeles sports fan.Dick Fuld is the worst CEO in history; he took a $60 billion dollar company (Lehman Brothers) and steered it into the largest bankruptcy in corporate history.
Rc Collins
06-01-14, 14:27
Only in America!! Donald Sterling made a racist remark to his mistress, was fined 2. 5 million, created outrage, and laughs all the way to the bank when a Steve Balmer led group bids 2. 0 billion for the Clippers. Meanwhile, black basketball players who are richer than most of us, but not very rich when compared to Sterling, Balmer, et al feel vindicated. They forget that the buyer was another rich white guy. Only in America can a rich white guy be "punished" by being forced to sell a franchise for a huge profit, and it is all perfectly legal.
What Mr. Sterling did was reprehensible in this age, but I still envy him.
Tres3. You missed the big picture, there's nothing to be envious for here. To Sterling, Ballmer and all these other affluent middle age/old men, this is about power which is so much more important than money. Sterling is already a billionaire, another billion won't do much for him especially at his age. But being one of the few people in the world to own a professional sports team is a lot more important than money to him and people like him. Its the power, the prestige of being able to say you own one of these teams and well ..to be the life of the party showing it off to others. The LA Clippers is not worth 2 billion. Ballmer offered that pay that ridiculous amount of money to eliminate his competitors and because to him, owing the team is more important than money after all he is worth about 20 billion so he was willing to over-pay for the privilege of saying he owns a team. He's been trying to buy a team for several years and has to be beside himself with glee for getting his early Christmas toy.
Sterling is suing the NBA but if he could, he would pay 3 billion to get that team back. Much like in politics, this is about power not money which is why in the end Sterling loses and his punishment is losing his his prized possession while and the NBA and the lawyers as always are the big winners.
What Mr. Sterling did was reprehensible in this age, but I still envy him. Tres3. You think he is more happy than you are!
You think he is more happy than you are!I do not think Mr. Sterling is happier than I am, but I know I would be even happier if I had that money.
Tres3.
You missed the big picture, there's nothing to be envious for here. To Sterling, Ballmer and all these other affluent middle age/old men, this is about power which is so much more important than money. Sterling is already a billionaire, another billion won't do much for him especially at his age. But being one of the few people in the world to own a professional sports team is a lot more important than money to him and people like him. Its the power, the prestige of being able to say you own one of these teams and well . to be the life of the party showing it off to others. The LA Clippers is not worth 2 billion. Ballmer offered that pay that ridiculous amount of money to eliminate his competitors and because to him, owing the team is more important than money after all he is worth about 20 billion so he was willing to over-pay for the privilege of saying he owns a team. He's been trying to buy a team for several years and has to be beside himself with glee for getting his early Christmas toy.
Sterling is suing the NBA but if he could, he would pay 3 billion to get that team back. Much like in politics, this is about power not money which is why in the end Sterling loses and his punishment is losing his his prized possession while and the NBA and the lawyers as always are the big winners. Au Contraire-The big picture for me and most of the other citizens of the USA is the money, and what it will buy. Why do you think lotteries are so popular? They sell a chance to make a lot of money. They do not sell a chance for power. Some franchise owners buy a franchise, whether it is a sports team, car dealership or McDonalds as an investment, not for the power. They have a certain amount of power, but that is a secondary consideration. The investment comes first. Why do you think two other groups dropped out of the bidding? The numbers simply did not add up. I like to draw attention to Red Mcombs and the Minnesota Vikings. If you do not know who Red McCombs is, you have proven my point.
Tres3.
I do not think Mr. Sterling is happier than I am, but I know I would be even happier if I had that money.
Tres3. Maybe not you, but many people confuse conveniences with happiness. Money helps. Like being able to take a taxi over a bus, having a steak over a hamburger, etc. Of course, there is threshold of basic needs that need to be met, and that can differ on an individual basis. Then there is that virus call Upward Mobility that can afflict people until they die. When enough is never enough. I have enough good clothes until I die, yet I find myself reaching for my credit card when something catches my fancy. Why? I ask myself. For consultation, please call Jamie Dimon.
For a good hilarious frivolous read, Crazy Rich Asians by Kevin Kwan, will take you into this world of unrestrained indulgence.
Rc Collins
06-01-14, 21:29
Au Contraire-The big picture for me and most of the other citizens of the USA is the money, and what it will buy. Why do you think lotteries are so popular? They sell a chance to make a lot of money. They do not sell a chance for power. Some franchise owners buy a franchise, whether it is a sports team, car dealership or McDonalds as an investment, not for the power. They have a certain amount of power, but that is a secondary consideration. The investment comes first. Why do you think two other groups dropped out of the bidding? The numbers simply did not add up. I like to draw attention to Red Mcombs and the Minnesota Vikings. If you do not know who Red McCombs is, you have proven my point.
Tres3. People buying lotteries are not billionaires and of course those people are buying tickets in hope of striking it rich because they are not, that is a poor comparison you made. Sterling, Ballmer and his peers are already rich. They have money to buy everything they want and need so another billion to someone who has 20 moves them very little. Ballmer overpaid for a product, not because he saw an investment opportunity but because of power, prestige and the conquest so he is willing to lose money to get what he wants. That is not an investment that he will rely on to support his family, he already has that. Your car dealership / McDonalds example is also off the mark as the people making those investments are not billionaires, they want to be. Very few people get to purchase professional sport teams but the ones who do are loaded with dough, they are not middle of the road citizens who need the profits from the team to survive. Billionaires cannot be compared with the common man when it comes to investments and purchases. They can afford to lose money and can and do make some purchases regardless of the ROI. People who purchase sports teams do so more to run the team as a hobby, its not their primary investment.
If you don't think this is about power and prestige, look at and read Mark Cuban, Mickey Arison, James Dolan and Mikhail Prokhorov among others. Prokhorov went way over the salary cap to secure a championship but his team loss in the second round. When he was interviewed about it, he shrugged it off and indicated that he may be willing to do it again next year despite having to pay about 80 million in luxury tax to the NBA. Dolan's team is about 32 million over the salary cap and did not even make the playoffs but he still had 12 million more to hire a GM that may or may not work out. Comparing yourself to Sterling and saying you envy him shows you don't get the big picture. There's comes a time in a man's life when money ceases to be the most important element and that is when he has so many billions he'll never be able to lose it in his lifetime. When that happens, other things become more important to him. Sterling and Ballmer are sterling example of this with Sterling's quest of remaining as and for Ballmer being the owner of a professional sports team.
Sterling, Ballmer and his peers are already rich. . Billionaires cannot be compared with the common man when it comes to investments and purchases.
Do you begrudge someone getting rich? With very few exceptions, the rich people in the USA started as a "common man" and then became wealthy. That is, and I hope will always be, the American way. You do not have to be a rich sports team owner to behave obnoxiously and with poor taste. If someone who is wealthy wants to throw his money away, he can do so in America. After all, it is his money, not yours or the government's. Wealthy people have possessed some level of power throughout recorded history, not just since the advent of professional sports teams. Contrary to your assertions, not all sports team owners are wealthy, power hungry assholes. Can you name all of the NFL and NBA team owners, not to mention the many other sports team owners?
I am not a poor person, but at least I admit that I would like more and envy, but do not begrudge, those who have more.
Tres3.
the rich people in the USA started as a "common man" and then became wealthy.
Tres3. That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.
You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts. Look at the research. It is conclusive. Furthermore, the trend is that things are steadily getting worse. I'm not smart enough to have a solution, but at least we have to start with honesty about the problem.
The Chinese take lessons from the plutocrats in the USA about how to dupe people through advertising and media. It works. Your post is proof.
Member #4112
06-03-14, 16:49
That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.
You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts. Look at the research. It is conclusive. Furthermore, the trend is that things are steadily getting worse. I'm not smart enough to have a solution, but at least we have to start with honesty about the problem.
The Chinese take lessons from the plutocrats in the USA about how to dupe people through advertising and media. It works. Your post is proof. Well I see you are back US bashing and singing the praises of Europe.
Would you happen to have any of that "tremendous amount of research" laying around to prove your point.
After your latest election where the "right" ran riot it would appear the European immigration issue is front and center again. Not so liberal it seams.
That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.
You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts. Look at the research. It is conclusive. Furthermore, the trend is that things are steadily getting worse. I'm not smart enough to have a solution, but at least we have to start with honesty about the problem.
The Chinese take lessons from the plutocrats in the USA about how to dupe people through advertising and media. It works. Your post is proof. You obviously know very little about American History. I suggest that before you make a further fool of yourself, that you get a rudimentary high school American History book and read it.
Tres3.
That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.
Your second sentence is an exact description of England. Not the USA. Crikey! What rubbish!
That is false. There is a tremendous amount of research that indicates that wealthy people in the USA came from wealthy families, attended elite schools, and had connections that the common person does not have. The fact is that there is less upwards mobility in the USA than there is in Britain and many other countries.
You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts. Look at the research. It is conclusive. Furthermore, the trend is that things are steadily getting worse. I'm not smart enough to have a solution, but at least we have to start with honesty about the problem.
The Chinese take lessons from the plutocrats in the USA about how to dupe people through advertising and media. It works. Your post is proof.Apparently you do chose your facts. Read the attached article that states that 69% of people got their wealth through working vs. 6% who got wealthy through inheritance alone. It took me all of a few seconds to find this article. Why don't you show us where you got your information? You owe Tres3 an apology.
http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth/
"Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of "wealthy, and possibly "millionaire" once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by "working. " - See more at: http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth.".
Read the attached article that states that 69% of people got their wealth through working vs. 6% who got wealthy through inheritance alone. .When you add the percentage of inheritors who received the fruits of the labor of someone only a generation removed, the 69% is even larger. Connections and elite schools are a mixed bag. I know many well connected individuals who also went to elite schools who are not wealthy, just as I know many people who went to Community Colleges who are now wealthy.
Tres3.
To Sterling, Ballmer and all these other affluent middle age/old men, this is about power which is so much more important than money. Sterling is already a billionaire, another billion won't do much for him especially at his age. But being one of the few people in the world to own a professional sports team is a lot more important than money to him and people like him. Its the power, the prestige of being able to say you own one of these teams and well ..to be the life of the party showing it off to others. The LA Clippers is not worth 2 billion. Ballmer offered that pay that ridiculous amount of money to eliminate his competitors and because to him, owing the team is more important than money after all he is worth about 20 billion so he was willing to over-pay for the privilege of saying he owns a team. He's been trying to buy a team for several years and has to be beside himself with glee for getting his early Christmas toy.http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/05/30/steve_ballmer_buys_los_angeles_clippers_why_the_microsoft_billionaire_was.html
Rc Collins
06-07-14, 12:17
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/05/30/steve_ballmer_buys_los_angeles_clippers_why_the_microsoft_billionaire_was.htmlNice! I would accuse them of plagiarizing especially for this portion below, but this sentiment was blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer.
Which is why I sincerely doubt Ballmer is making this purchase based purely on economics. Sports teams might be more profitable than in the past. But they are also a status symbol for the global ultra-richa circle of people that, as you might have heard, has expanded in recent years. A basketball team in L.A. as opposed to Milwaukee is an even gaudier status symbol. In that way, the Clippers are a lot more like a famous Warhol than an oil well. And for Ballmera basketball fan who tried and failed to bring the Sacramento Kings to Seattle (which has been without a team since the Sonics left for Oklahoma City in 2008)the joy of owning his very own team is probably worth far more than whatever the returns on that team could add to his vast personal fortune. His bid might be cursed. But he probably doesnt care.
Tres3 made the following comment: ". The rich people in the USA started as a "common man" and then became wealthy. ".
I stated that there is a lot of research that disputes his assertion.
Then people told me I was bashing my country, ill-informed about history, etc.
Well I see you are back US bashing and singing the praises of Europe.
Would you happen to have any of that "tremendous amount of research" laying around to prove your point.
First of all, I am not bashing my country. I stand up for my country when South Americans, Europeans, or USA Citizens bash my country. I get in trouble for saying that the USA Is largely responsible for post World War II world prosperity and the tremendous expansion of human rights, democratic elections, and, yes, peace. Despite all the noise (the free press is a great thing but it lacks historical perspective), the period from 1945 to the present has been an historically unprecedented period of relative peace in the world, with a tremendous expansion of world prosperity and freedom (the the unfortunate exception of much of Africa, where the USA has not been much involved). During this period, the you. S,. Has been recognized as the leader, by foes and friends alike. My message of the USA contribution to the world is not popular, but it can be documented in terms of war deaths per year, wealth, spread of democracy, and population growth. The USA is the most successful and helpful country in the history of the world. No other country comes close. So call me a USA basher now.
But my country of which I am so proud, as a veteran, is not perfect. Vietnam was a huge mistake, but perhaps understandable. Iraq was an unforgivable disaster, not so much from the Iraqi point of view (they have had their chance for freedom now) but from the cost to the USA in lives and treasure and from the world-wide opprobrium that followed an unprovoked invasion. Reliable world surveys now indicate that the USA is perceived as the main threat to world peace even though the USA has saved their butts in the past. This world-wide perception, however faulty, threatens to throw the world out of its geopolitical orbit where the USA is the leader. That threatens world peace, with Chinese and Russian authoritarianism on the rise, and with pesky countries like Iran and North Korea capable of great turmoil if there is not a unified response to their threats. That's my point of view: Not exactly a USA basher.
Now onto social mobility: The 2012 Pew Economic Mobility study of income in the USA documents that 43% of children in the bottom quintile stay there as adults, and that 40% of children in the highest quintile stay there as adults. Only 4% of those in the lowest quintile make it to the top, and only 8% of those in the highest quintile end up on the bottom. If you are born into the top 20%, you have a 63% chance of staying above the average. If you are born into the lowest 20%, the odds are 2:1 that you will stay below the average.
Using parallel analyses of quintiles, Pew also found that social mobility in terms of income was substantially greater than the USA in Germany, France, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark, while about the same in Britain.
In a different study, M. Jantti found that 42% of people in the lowest quintile remained there, but that only 25% of people in Denmark and only 30% of people in Britain remained there.
Studies by Raj Chatty and colleagues are often cited by so-called conservative pundits because they found little change in social mobility (as measured by income) from 1972 to the 2000's. However, these studies simply confirm that there is limited social mobility in the USA The most that can be made of these studies is that perhaps things are not getting worse. Chatty et al actually stated that the "enduring problem" of social immobility is made worse because the gaps between the quintiles are getting wider and wider on an absolute basis. In other words, as is well documented in a host of studies, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting relatively poorer (the gaps are expanding).
Right-leaning commentators also cite a Garrett / USA Treasury study indicating that less than half of people in the top 1% of income in one year remain there the next year. Supposedly this supports the idea of mobility. Far from it. The data actually indicate that the vast majority of them remain in the top 10%. Once you got it, you keep it. And you keep others out.
So far the discussion has been based on income inequality. But the more important issue is wealth inequality. While income is correlated with wealth, the relationship is not linear. Depending on the study, up to 40% of Americans have negative wealth: they owe more than they are worth. At the other end of the scale, there is a huge industry devoted to helping rich people avoid disclosure of their total wealth. Income is easier to study than wealth because everyone has to file a 1040 every year but they never have to file a wealth statement until they die. Estates notoriously under-estimate total wealth because of trusts, offshore accounts, tangible assets such as gold, art, jewelry, anticipated royalties, undervalued real estate, especially foreign real estate, and other assets, etc. The only being who can estimate a rich person's true wealth is a dedicated divorce lawyer, and the lawyer always finds a lot more than anyone else.
What we do know is that the gaps between the rich and the poor are vastly greater when you think about wealth than about income. So while a poor boy or girl might become an orthopedist or a comedian with a large relative income, it is unlikely that the income will make up for generations of family wealth carefully squirreled away by squads of lawyers and accountants. The biggest scam in tax law is that a person does not have to pay taxes on unrealized capital gains. The business can keep appreciating for 50 years and there is no capital gains tax. However, the owners can live high on the hog by borrowing against their tax-free assets. Here I am not even talking about the unfair break that people get on realized cap gains or qualified dividends (for some reason the orthopedist and the janitor have to pay a much higher rate of taxes than the stock-holder who sits on his butt).
In comes T. Picketty with the most thorough analysis of wealth in the world since Adam Smith. Picketty's main focus is wealth, not income. Wealth is so much more important for the lives of real people. Using the best available data, Picketty in Capital in the 21st Century shows that the gaps between the rich and the poor have regressed to the levels of the 1890's in the United States. And he shows that things are getting progressively worse, primarily because of tax policy that systematically favors the rich while the middle class (like me) pay beyond our means (for me more than 30% in all taxes after all deductions and exemptions I could squeeze out). What percentage did Romney pay again? Yes, the rich pay a lot of taxes. The Wall Street Journal and Forbes keep reminding us of that. But the gap between the social classes in America keep getting wider and wider, and mobility between classes keeps getting less and less.
For many years people on the right have been shouting that we should forget about how much wealth the rich are accumulating because all boats are rising. But all boats are not rising at the same rate, not even close. Social immobility and inequality actually hurt the economy because the consumer is the engine of the economy in the USA.
And, yes, wealth mobility, as analyzed by Picketty, is less in the USA than in Britain or almost all of northern Europe. Is it USA bashing to face an unpleasant and ugly truth that goes against the American ideal? Or is better to cling to the false myth?
I agree with Picketty's analysis, but I do not agree with his recommendations to tax wealth directly. Just for the record.
To Dccpa You say you cite research, but you don't. Your website does not provide a whif of data, method, or provenance. http://www.consumerismcommentary.com. -their-wealth /.
Doggboy: read Capital in the 21st Century and Income Inequality by Gornick and Jantti. Yes, Britain is thought of as a society based on class. That's accurate history. But the USA has surpassed it.
The super-rich systematically remain super-rich through social events (including conference, charities, vacations, entertainment, parties), intermarriage (well-documented through research), education at elite institutions (even more well-documented), and political action. Through the magic of paid advertising, including talk radio which is paid advertising, they can appeal to religious sentiment, loss of working class jobs to automation and low-income countries, anger at people who apparently get something for nothing, and scientific ignorance. So global warming is not happening, and if it is happening it isn't made by people, and even if there is made people there is nothing we can do about it (Mario Rubio's position. You won't find him agreeing with those scientists). Dinosaurs lived along with Adam and Eve. The polls showing Obama is going to win have got to be wrong. The rest of the industrialized world really hasn't proven that government-sponsored health care is efficacious and cost-effective. The stimulus after 9/11 had no effect (that goes against the entire consensus of economists not directly on the payroll of foundations funded and controlled by the rich). Peer-reviewed social science simply has to be wrong if it threatens the American myth of social and economic mobility.
It's not stupidity. People are plenty smart. It is poor education. It is gullibility to slick advertising that cleverly appeals to the uneducated corners in the souls of people.
If is is America-bashing to say that there is a lack of social mobility, is it America-bashing to say there is too much government debt? - too much illegal immigration? - too much taxes on the middle class? - too much distrust and disunity between the red states and the blue states? -too little support for veterans? - Gridlock in representative government? Why is one criticism America-bashing but the others just have to do with facing the unpleasant truth?
The United States has faced bigger problems in the past, and I personally think we will work through this period of anger and division in the future. But I don't see how we can work through the problems until we face the truth. The USA has less social mobility than much of northern Europe. It is a fact.
Studies by Raj Chatty and colleagues are often cited by so-called conservative pundits because they found little change in social mobility (as measured by income) from 1972 to the 2000's. However, these studies simply confirm that there is limited social mobility in the USA The most that can be made of these studies is that perhaps things are not getting worse. Chatty et al actually stated that the "enduring problem" of social immobility is made worse because the gaps between the quintiles are getting wider and wider on an absolute basis. In other words, as is well documented in a host of studies, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting relatively poorer (the gaps are expanding).You want to know why?
1. Technology. While it created jobs for smart people and educated people, it has adversely affected wages and salaries for others. So should we do away with technologic innovations? No way, our lives are much better for them.
2. Globalization. Manufacturing has shifted to Asia and other places from the USA. Should we fight globalization, maybe charge high import duties and have government subsidize domestic loss-making corporations? Again, I'd say no way. Some say the great depression resulted from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and similar legislation in other countries, which jacked up import duties and reduced trade. Life is much better for the poor and middle class as a result of low priced shoes, clothing, and consumer goods. The rich would have no problem buying new shoes or big screen televisions regardless. I also perhaps have more sympathy for the person in Vietnam or Bangladesh or China getting by on a few dollars a day than you do, and would rather he didn't lose his job.
3. Education. This is the way to counteract the effects of "1" and "2" above. The education system works very well for some children. But for many it really sucks. The USA comes in DEAD LAST in standardized mathematics test for OECD countries. How can we complete and have good-paying jobs when we can't add?
So far the discussion has been based on income inequality. But the more important issue is wealth inequality. While income is correlated with wealth, the relationship is not linear. Depending on the study, up to 40% of Americans have negative wealth: they owe more than they are worth. This is a travesty. One of the big reasons is that people are encouraged to borrow instead of save. You get a tax deduction for mortgage interest, you pay tax on interest income. Government encourages people to borrow money to buy homes they can't afford. A large part of the population, instead of sacking away money in proper retirement plans, expects it can rely on Social Security, which is a giant, generational Ponzi scheme. Medical costs suck up 17% of GDP, and are on the way to 20% of GDP, soaking up money that could otherwise be used for savings. As the Reverend of the Church of B.S. has pointed out here countless times, you have a society that encourages consumerism and consumption and debt over savings. Paul Krugman, Esten and other pseudo-Keynesians think this is great, and maybe it is during a depression. But you can't do it perpetually and avoid bankruptcy, regardless of whether you're an individual, corporation or government.
As to the rest of your post, you're under a lot of misconceptions. You listen to what the press says about Romney without ever looking at his tax return. Yeah, the guy used to work for private equity and took advantage of every loophole in the book, loopholes like carried interest which should be eliminated. But he also gave a hell of a lot to charity which the Democrat leaning press conveniently decided to add back to his income before calculating a tax rate. He's not representative. The tax system at the federal level in the USA is the most progressive in the developed world. The top 1% pay 36% of the income taxes although they receive 19% of the income.
Then there's the 40% death tax. Look at the % of households in the USA worth over $100 million. It's a lot lower than Canada, and certain countries in Western Europe, largely because of the death tax which make wealth more difficult to accumulate over generations. Yeah, there's a ridiculous amount of work spent on trusts and other mechanisms to avoid the death tax. By some estimates the costs to the economy, including the legal and accounting costs, exceed the money raised.
Picketty made some major busts in his assumptions and calculations, which were pointed out by the Financial Times (which is not like the WSJ BTW, its editorial page is more left leaning) and various academics. Many of his conclusions are dubious.
So Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Page and Brin, Zuckerberg, Michael Dell, Harold Hamm and a host of others created great wealth. And we're all better off for it. What you and others fail to realize is that most wealth remains as capital, providing the investment and savings that fuel economic growth, instead of being spent on yachts, mansions, etc.
I'll close with a link to something by Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder, which actually did appear as an op-ed in the WSJ, which looks at inequality in blue states versus red states. Yes, a rising tide does lift all boats. And the reverse sinks ships:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/stephen-moore-and-richard-vedder-liberal-blue-states-have-greater-income-inequality-than-conservative-red-states-1401923793
To Dccpa You say you cite research, but you don't. Your website does not provide a whif of data, method, or provenance. http://www.consumerismcommentary.com. -their-wealth /.
Do you enjoy making a fool out of yourself or does it just come natural for you?
I didn't say I cited research, I linked an article that provided statistics. Of course you didn't like the statistics so you ignore them. Then you foolishly linked an article that disproves what you stated.
"Even the only one individual of twenty who inherited all his wealth was a business owner. ".
Think about what you said and what that line indicates. I am done with you as it is obvious you have no clue what you are talking about.
Picketty demolished.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/05/28/statistics_arent_enough_to_discredit_pikettys_failed_blood-soaked_ideas_101082.ht
Don B..
For the buffoon who said ideologues crack him up.
http://drhurd.com/46373/
Don B.
Don, Your link appears to be broken. This should work:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/05/28/statistics_arent_enough_to_discredit_pikettys_failed_blood-soaked_ideas_101082.html
Don, Your link appears to be broken. This should work:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/05/28/statistics_arent_enough_to_discredit_pikettys_failed_blood-soaked_ideas_101082.htmlTiny, it seems that you are a big enough person to acknowledge social immobility because you make a list of reasons for social immobility. I agree with several of your reasons because there is solid empirical evidence for much of what you say. However, the author of realclearmarkets thinks that you are a collectivist:
"The very idea of thinking about equality or inequality of wealth is a collectivist notion. " That makes Paul Ryan and many others collectivists also.
But who is the authoritarian? The author is literally telling people not to think about something because, to do so, makes you part of a bloodthirsty clique. Do you really want to associate yourself with the idea that thinking about certain things is bad? Do you really want to ignore data because the data measure things that the author says should not even be thought about? Thought control: do you really want to associate yourself with it?
Name-calling ("fool" indeed) and rage substitute for reason and empiricism. The author of realclearmarkets proves my point about the closing of so many minds to data that might challenge rage-filled beliefs. The author of realclearmarkets clearly does not refute Picketty. He doesn't even try.
Check out new book "Room to Grow" by conservatives Wehner and Levin. This is another example of conservatives finally admitting that social / economic immobility is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
OK, that's it for me. I have to go back to work, so you are cordially invited to have the last word. I'll check back in a few months.
I'll close with a link to something by Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder, which actually did appear as an op-ed in the WSJ, which looks at inequality in blue states versus red states. Yes, a rising tide does lift all boats. And the reverse sinks ships:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/stephen-moore-and-richard-vedder-liberal-blue-states-have-greater-income-inequality-than-conservative-red-states-1401923793Sorry I did not respond to this. I tried to look at it, but the link required me to buy a subscription to the WSJ so I could only read the first few lines.
I'm not surprised that blue states have more income inequality than red states. My thesis is that there is social immobility, and these people seem to be saying that there is immobility in the entire country, but that it is worse in blue states. So I take this as support for my thesis.
By the way, I pay $30 per month for Investors Business Daily which writes anti-Obama and anti-liberal editorials every single day, usually on the front page where you might expect news. I don't agree with much they say, but I try to understand their point of view. I also read the WSJ when I go to Panera's on U. S. trips. On long-distance car trips I listen to right-wing talk radio - amazing how they can take a fact, blow it way out of proportion, then play the victim, and then kindle the rage and paranoia. They would make old Joe Goebbels proud: It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.
Now I am truly gone, so do your best to call me names and point out my moral and intellectual degradation. I am thinking about things I should not be thinking about - so says your reference.
But just take a chance and read something evidence-based, something that is out of your little orbit once in a while.
Rockin Bob
06-10-14, 18:56
Now I am truly gone, so do your best to call me names and point out my moral and intellectual degradation. I am thinking about things I should not be thinking about - so says your reference.
But just take a chance and read something evidence-based, something that is out of your little orbit once in a while.Tatu Hei, thanks for your posts.
Once again, the usual suspects respond to post like yours with nothing but name calling and presenting nonsense like the realclearmarkets article which as you point out does nothing to refute Piketty and indeed doesn't try.
I don't see much in the way of reasoned responses to the issue at hand backed up by credible data.
I don't see much in the way of reasoned responses to the issue at hand backed up by credible data.Piketty's data wasn't credible. Apparently you didn't read my post, the long one. But if you want something more reasoned and more credible and heavy on data, including a link to Excel tables, see this:
http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/
In case you don't want to subscribe for your eight free articles a month, here's the introduction to this very long piece:
Professor Thomas Pikettys Capital in the 21st Century has data on wealth inequality at its core. His data collection has been universally praised. Prof Piketty says he has collected, as complete and consistent a set of historical sources as possible in order to study the dynamics of income and wealth distribution over the long run
However, when writing an article on the distribution of wealth in the UK, I noticed a serious discrepancy between the contemporary concentration of wealth described in Capital in the 21st Century and that reported in the official UK statistics. Professor Piketty cited a figure showing the top 10 per cent of British people held 71 per cent of total national wealth. The Office for National Statistics latest Wealth and Assets Survey put the figure at only 44 per cent.
This is a material difference and it prompted me to go back through Pikettys sources. I discovered that his estimates of wealth inequality the centrepiece of Capital in the 21st Century are undercut by a series of problems and errors. Some issues concern sourcing and definitional problems. Some numbers appear simply to be constructed out of thin air.
When I have tried to correct for these apparent errors, a rather different picture of wealth inequality appeared (the spreadsheets underpinning my analysis can be foundhere).
Two of Capital in the 21st Centurys central findings that wealth inequality has begun to rise over the past 30 years and that the US obviously has a more unequal distribution of wealth than Europe no longer seem to hold. Without these results, it would be impossible to claim, as Piketty does in his conclusion, that the central contradiction of capitalism is the tendency for wealth to become more concentrated in the hands of the already rich and the reason why wealth today is not as unequally distributed as in the past is simply that not enough time has passed since 1945.
This long post will outline the classes of data problems I have found in Chapter 10 of Pikettys book, which deals with the inequality of capital ownership. I will then show why these problems matter for each one of the four countries prof Piketty studies France, Sweden, UK and the US.
Finally, I will put all the revised data together to show that, based on the sources Piketty cites, the conclusions that (a) wealth inequality rose after 1980 and (b) wealth inequality in the US is larger than in Europe no longer seem to hold.
Piketty was provided a copy of this piece and given an opportunity to respond before publication. His response was extremely weak:
http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/piketty-response-to-ft-data-concerns/
This is another example of conservatives finally admitting that social / economic immobility is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.I already admitted it, as you noted. And have in the past pointed out solutions that might actually work, instead of the left's standard prescription of fucking business owners and distributing more welfare checks.
Rockin Bob
06-11-14, 00:03
Piketty's data wasn't credible. Apparently you didn't read my post, the long one. But if you want something more reasoned and more credible and heavy on data, including a link to Excel tables, see this:
Piketty was provided a copy of this piece and given an opportunity to respond before publication. His response was extremely weak:
Tiny 12, thanks for the response. I know that there was criticism of Piketty in the FT, and that he answered his critics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/thomas-piketty-response_n_5412036.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-piketty/response-to-financial-times_b_5412853.html
My take is that the data in general support his thesis, but that there was some question about interpretation of economic data in the case of Great Britain. I can't join you in saying his data wasn't credible and his response weak.
At least the FT more or less stuck with the issues. Some links have been posted here to bullshit articles like the one where the Ayn Rand fan writes "But some of life's losers don't see it that way. Festering with hatred for those who succeed, they prefer universal misery, including their own, to permitting anyone to excel. ".
Frankly, I really don't want to get into the discussion. If I did, the first thing I would do would be to actually read Piketty's book and see for myself what he has to say, rather than read someone else's take on it, be it Paul Krugman or the WSJ.
And again, as for solutions, the problems are complex. The status quo comes about as the sum total of all individual actions, individual situations, and you cannot just snap your fingers and change things just like that. And you will never change the fact that some people are going to be rich and some people poor, a lot more in the second category. It has been that way for all recorded history, at least in the Western world, and probably everywhere.
I agree, the solution is not to fuck businessmen or hand out welfare checks. But there has to be a more level playing field.
There sure are some idiotic policies coming out of Washington and Brussels, a lot of corruption. The government these days does not exist to provide for the general welfare, but looks out only for the interests of The Money. There are better ways of doing things. Exactly what, I don't know. The Founding Fathers but their faith in democracy and a system of checks and balances, but the general population are idiots and the corruption extends to all branches of government.
As far as democrats and republicans, I am reminded of what Waylon Jennings said, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between them."
Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, the result is always the same.
Bob, we agree there's a problem. If I were the omnipotent dictator of the USA, despite my Libertarian instincts, I'd try to solve it like Singapore. That is, I'd force people to save prodigiously. They could use their savings for retirement, medical care, education, and housing. And I'd improve the education system without spending an arm and a leg.
Piketty believes that if business owners and investors can achieve returns greater than the rate of growth of the economy, that's evil, and should be corrected. Being French, his solution is French, high wealth and income taxes. Taking away huge amounts of capital from those who use it most efficiently is unfair, as pointed out in Don's link. And just as importantly, it's unwise and a recipe for economic decline. To me this is obvious. Someone has a business that's growing 20% or 30% a year out of profits, generating jobs. So you create an extortionate tax on his assets and income so he can't grow faster than average wages or nominal GDP? It's crazy.
ElAlamoPalermo
06-11-14, 12:35
Republican House of Representative Majority Leader Eric Canter gets SLAUGHTERED in his own primary. Somebody finally pays the price for the most useless Congress of all time.
Republican House of Representative Majority Leader Eric Canter gets SLAUGHTERED in his own primary. Somebody finally pays the price for the most useless Congress of all time.Yep, the Tea Party candidate won. Glad to see you're finally coming around EAP.
ElAlamoPalermo
06-11-14, 19:32
Yep, the Tea Party candidate won. Glad to see you're finally coming around EAP.The Democrats were the real winner here; the more extreme right wing Tea Party types that the Republicans nominate, the better.
Big Boss Man
06-11-14, 22:43
The Democrats were the real winner here; the more extreme right wing Tea Party types that the Republicans nominate, the better.Kuchel was a Progressive Republican and Senate Minority Whip. Kuchel was also my hometown hero. He lost the Senate primary to a Conservative Republican named Max Rafferty. I realized you could not be a Progressive and a Republican so I became a Democrat when it was time to register. Leon Panetta who was on Kuchel's staff also made the same decision. Panetta is now a Democrat who served the Country under both Clinton and Obama. Fifty years later there are no Republicans holding statewide offices in California. Republicans need to build a bigger tent.
http://www.frumforum.com/thomas-kuchel-strong-defense-and-civil-rights/
As far as democrats and republicans, I am reminded of what Waylon Jennings said, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between them."
Yeah, you could probably say that about Hillary Clinton and Eric Cantor. They both have strong ties to Wall Street and lobbyists. Woe be it that people like David Brat come along. The main issue Brat campaigned on was crony capitalism, the favors that Wall Street banks and certain other big corporations have gotten from politicians. And he beat Cantor. That just sucks. After all, pork is the grease that lubricates the wheels of politics. Without the lobbyists and the investment bankers, nothing would get done in Washington and we'd all be screwed.
Tiny 12, thanks for the response. I know that there was criticism of Piketty in the FT, and that he answered his critics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/thomas-piketty-response_n_5412036.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-piketty/response-to-financial-times_b_5412853.html
My take is that the data in general support his thesis, but that there was some question about interpretation of economic data in the case of Great Britain. I can't join you in saying his data wasn't credible and his response weak.
At least the FT more or less stuck with the issues. Some links have been posted here to bullshit articles like the one where the Ayn Rand fan writes "But some of life's losers don't see it that way. Festering with hatred for those who succeed, they prefer universal misery, including their own, to permitting anyone to excel. ".
Frankly, I really don't want to get into the discussion. If I did, the first thing I would do would be to actually read Piketty's book and see for myself what he has to say, rather than read someone else's take on it, be it Paul Krugman or the WSJ.
And again, as for solutions, the problems are complex. The status quo comes about as the sum total of all individual actions, individual situations, and you cannot just snap your fingers and change things just like that. And you will never change the fact that some people are going to be rich and some people poor, a lot more in the second category. It has been that way for all recorded history, at least in the Western world, and probably everywhere.
I agree, the solution is not to fuck businessmen or hand out welfare checks. But there has to be a more level playing field.
There sure are some idiotic policies coming out of Washington and Brussels, a lot of corruption. The government these days does not exist to provide for the general welfare, but looks out only for the interests of The Money. There are better ways of doing things. Exactly what, I don't know. The Founding Fathers but their faith in democracy and a system of checks and balances, but the general population are idiots and the corruption extends to all branches of government.
As far as democrats and republicans, I am reminded of what Waylon Jennings said, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between them."
Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, the result is always the same.Not only is your opinion based on a false premise but you can't even get a quote right. It was George Wallace not Waylon Jennings.
Don B..
Member #4112
06-12-14, 11:09
Kuchel was a Progressive Republican and Senate Minority Whip. Kuchel was also my hometown hero. He lost the Senate primary to a Conservative Republican named Max Rafferty. I realized you could not be a Progressive and a Republican so I became a Democrat when it was time to register. Leon Panetta who was on Kuchel's staff also made the same decision. Panetta is now a Democrat who served the Country under both Clinton and Obama. Fifty years later there are no Republicans holding statewide offices in California. Republicans need to build a bigger tent.
http://www.frumforum.com/thomas-kuchel-strong-defense-and-civil-rights/BBS would that be the People's Republic of California whose current state deficit is greater than most countries, whose legal population is moving east in droves as well as businesses?
ElAlamoPalermo
06-12-14, 18:39
BBS would that be the People's Republic of California whose current state deficit is greater than most countries, whose legal population is moving east in droves as well as businesses?More flat out lies from Jackson's fascist fan boys. The fact is that California has a $3. 8 Billion USD projected budget SURPLUS for the fiscal year beginning on July 1st.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/california-voters-back-use-of-surplus-for-debt-poll-says.html
http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/ef84d1ce4d0d41c68dc96269a35c25ba/CA--California-Budget-Spending-Semantics
More flat out lies from Jackson's fascist fan boys. The fact is that California has a $3. 8 Billion USD projected budget SURPLUS for the fiscal year beginning on July 1st.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/california-voters-back-use-of-surplus-for-debt-poll-says.html
http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/ef84d1ce4d0d41c68dc96269a35c25ba/CA--California-Budget-Spending-SemanticsPlease define fascist.
Don B.
When Obama was re-elected, there was a sobering & somber hiatus from AP rightwingers. Stunned into silence, they came back with claims of voter fraud, voter stupidity and versions of of how democracy is suppose to work. Some even claim that all is lost and the end of America is in sight. Now, surprised that their limbs are still moving and emboldened by memories of the 2010 mid term elections, they are once again thinking and claiming that their turn has come. Come on, be real. I predict for 2014, the status quo will prevail in Congress.
I thought immigration reform would a big issue in this year's politics and elections. But it seems that the Democrats are going to leave it for Hilary Clinton to use for winning the 2016 presidency. So get ready to be slap again. But you have more than 2 years to duck!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/12/the-real-divide-in-the-gop-over-immigration/?hpid=z3
Member #4112
06-13-14, 00:28
More flat out lies from Jackson's fascist fan boys. The fact is that California has a $3. 8 Billion USD projected budget SURPLUS for the fiscal year beginning on July 1st.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/california-voters-back-use-of-surplus-for-debt-poll-says.html
http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/ef84d1ce4d0d41c68dc96269a35c25ba/CA--California-Budget-Spending-SemanticsI guess the next thing you will be telling us is the United States does not have a deficit!
Welcome to reality, read the link and tell me California has a surplus and not a deficit and a very big one.
http://capoliticalnews.com/2014/05/08/california-cash-deficit-10-billion-what-surplus-what-balanced-budget/
Rockin Bob
06-13-14, 04:12
Not only is your opinion based on a false premise but you can't even get a quote right. It was George Wallace not Waylon Jennings.
Don B..I stand corrected, it was George Wallace.
I just happened to remember an article about Waylon Jennings, here's the quote.
As we headed west on I-70, Waylon turned to me, grinned and said, "Man, what are you doing working for these assholes?
"Huh? We don't want the Republicans to take over the country again, do we?
"Son, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the lot of them. " Jennings was right, naturally. But I'm a slow learner and it took me another decade to figure that one out on my own.
Aside from that, what opinion, what false premise??
Member #4112
06-13-14, 11:25
I don't recall which crusty old west Texas sheriff said it about politicians:
"Hell son, a politician is just a cut above a child molester".
Nuf said.
Big Boss Man
06-13-14, 13:33
I guess the next thing you will be telling us is the United States does not have a deficit!
Welcome to reality, read the link and tell me California has a surplus and not a deficit and a very big one.
http://capoliticalnews.com/2014/05/08/california-cash-deficit-10-billion-what-surplus-what-balanced-budget/Except for a few minor exceptions like North Dakota (which is too small to matter in national statistics) almost all new job growth in the USA in the private sector in the last 2 years has been in Texas and California. There seems to be a whole cottage industry of bloggers telling us that the California model needs to fail. The logic is simple. If taxes matter then high tax states should not be successful.
Despite the taxes, rich people seem to want to live in California. New businesses like private space exploration (SpaceX) and electric vehicles (Tesla) have located in California. Of course, California has a large share of the Internet and Gaming industries. Foreign Direct Investment especially from Asia tends to land in California for geographic reasons. China has done 220 deals in California compared to 70 deals in Texas over the last decade. The enrollment in the University of California is 30% Asian. The University of Southern California has the highest enrollment of Chinese nationals in the country.
These new businesses tend to have high revenue per employee which is causing income inequality problems in California. Facebook is a successful new company but it still only employs 2000 people. The Toyota marketing division moving from California to Texas is 2000 people alone. BTW, Rick Perry was in California this week trying to get Tesla to relocate. Let's see if he is successful.
California versus Texas is a good healthy rivalry. Competition makes you better.
BBS would that be the People's Republic of California whose current state deficit is greater than most countries, whose legal population is moving east in droves as well as businesses?
I was riding in an airport shuttle in Vientiane, and I ask the friendly Laotian face, "what's going on?" He reply, "you from LA?" And I ask, "how you know?" He said, "you speak California English." and then sang.
Welcome to Hotel California.
Such a lovely place(such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of the year(any time of the year) you can find it here
Aaah man, California! Mucho gusto! Hollywood, Susalito, Santa Barbara, La Jolla, Napa Valley, Rose Parade, Disneyland, surf, porn, bulgogi & bimbimbab, mariachi, in & out, Santa Anita, oh, I better quit before I spasz out.
Homeowners have been able to refinance their mortgages to take advantage of low interest rates. It seems fair students should be able to refinance their student loans as well. This would benefit nearly 40 million individuals with more than $1 trillion in student loan debt.
Millionaires and billionaires who benefit from lower capital gains taxes often end up with effective tax rates around 15%, a lower rate than many in the middle class. It seems fair to end this unnecessary and wasteful special treatment, and introduce a minimum tax rate that corresponds to their high incomes (for example, 30%).
These two elements were in the bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D Mass.) that was voted on last week. The tax revenue would offset the lower interest payments the government would receive on student loans, so the bill would not increase the deficit. This should have been a no-brainer. Not just from a moral perspective but an economic one as well. Unlike the income of the ultra-wealthy, the savings that students would realize would almost entirely be re-circulated back into the economy.
Unfortunately, the bill was blocked with 56 votes in favor and 38 against. 60 votes were needed to move it forward. Aside from the three Republicans who supported Warren, the GOP showed who they really work for.
In Student Debt Fight, Billionaires Win
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2014/06/11/in-student-debt-fight-billionaires-win/
Homeowners have been able to refinance their mortgages to take advantage of low interest rates. It seems fair students should be able to refinance their student loans as well. This would benefit nearly 40 million individuals with more than $1 trillion in student loan debt.
Millionaires and billionaires who benefit from lower capital gains taxes often end up with effective tax rates around 15%, a lower rate than many in the middle class. It seems fair to end this unnecessary and wasteful special treatment, and introduce a minimum tax rate that corresponds to their high incomes (for example, 30%).
These two elements were in the bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D Mass.) that was voted on last week. The tax revenue would offset the lower interest payments the government would receive on student loans, so the bill would not increase the deficit. This should have been a no-brainer. Not just from a moral perspective but an economic one as well. Unlike the income of the ultra-wealthy, the savings that students would realize would almost entirely be re-circulated back into the economy.
Unfortunately, the bill was blocked with 56 votes in favor and 38 against. 60 votes were needed to move it forward. Aside from the three Republicans who supported Warren, the GOP showed who they really work for.
In Student Debt Fight, Billionaires Win
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2014/06/11/in-student-debt-fight-billionaires-win/Classic Esten. Classic Democrat deception.
Obama raised the tax rate on capital gains from 15% to 23.8% and re-implemented the Pease amendment. The end result, if someone sells out and generates a lot of income from capital gains, he'll be paying 23% federal tax, not 15%. Add state income taxes and the rate would be as high as 34.4% (California).
Government needs to wise up about the way it promotes education. Easy money provided by student loans causes some people to go to college who would be better off doing something else. The easy money also caused universities to jack up tuition rates to ridiculous levels. And then there are certain "for profit" institutions that scam students and the government out of billions of dollars a year for worthless educations.
College graduates make more money than others. So this is a subsidy for the middle class, upper middle class and wealthy. Which is the way the Democrat party operates. Don't target help towards people who really need it. Instead pass out free money that will get more votes. And, most importantly, use every opportunity to play the class envy card and blame it all on the rich, because that gets votes too. Warren knew the bill wouldn't pass. If she wanted to do something constructive she would have compromised and come up with something that 3 more Republicans would have voted for.
I do not think Mr. Sterling is happier than I am, but I know I would be even happier if I had that money.
Tres3.http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/06/13/money_buys_happiness_three_quick_lessons_about_life_satisfaction_in_america.html
Obama raised the tax rate on capital gains from 15% to 23.8% and re-implemented the Pease amendment. The end result, if someone sells out and generates a lot of income from capital gains, he'll be paying 23% federal tax, not 15%. Add state income taxes and the rate would be as high as 34.4% (California).Yes capital gains rates recently went up a few percent. Thanks for the reminder. While I overlooked that, it really doesn't change the argument one bit. State income tax is also as low as 0%, but has nothing to do with the argument or Elizabeth Warren's bill.
I'm sure if you asked middle class taxpayers paying a 28% tax rate, or higher earners paying the top 39.6% rate, most would say it's unfair for a billionaire to only pay 23%. And I'm sure most students would say it's unfair they cannot refinance their loans while homeowners can.
Tiny apparantly fails to appreciate the economic benefit of redistributive bills like Warren's. While most people with student loans can afford to pay them back, it's also true that they are still far more likely to spend their disposable income back into the economy, compared to millionaires and billionaires who invest their money in non-job creating financial investments. Isn't it interesting that after Obama raised taxes for high incomes just a few percent, both the deficit and the unemployment rate have come down? Funny how that works, huh. We need more of that, and millionaires and billionaires should be paying at least a 39.6% rate, not 23%.
Tiny is a classic Wall Street shill, trying to portray the top 1% as overtaxed, while the truth is the top 1% keep amassing a greater and greater portion of the American economic pie. Some estimates put their share at 40% of all wealth, and that number keeps growing.
Wealth Inequality Is MUCH Worse Than You Realize
http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-is-worse-than-you-think-2013-3
Tiny apparantly fails to appreciate the economic benefit of redistributive bills like Warren's. While most people with student loans can afford to pay them back, it's also true that they are still far more likely to spend their disposable income back into the economy, compared to millionaires and billionaires who invest their money in non-job creating financial investments. Isn't it interesting that after Obama raised taxes for high incomes just a few percent, both the deficit and the unemployment rate have come down? Funny how that works, huh. We need more of that, and millionaires and billionaires should be paying at least a 39.6% rate, not 23%.
So the 1 million jobs created by the evil fracking industry and the great wealth created from the jobs, royalties, product sales, etc. , has nothing to do with the deficit falling? And the increased capital gains from the government propping up the stock market has nothing to do the decreased deficit?
The fact that the unemployment rate falls as benefits expire has nothing to do with the unemployment rate falling? Extend unemployment benefits to 5 years and you will be back to over 10% unemployment within 1 quarter. Labor participation rate is at a 40 year low, but unemployment is falling?
Pesky facts.
Yes capital gains rates recently went up a few percent. Thanks for the reminder. While I overlooked that, it really doesn't change the argument one bit. 0.238/0.15 - 1 = 59%. The federal rate on long term capital gains went up 59%, from 15% to 23.8%.
I'm sure if you asked middle class taxpayers paying a 28% tax rate, or higher earners paying the top 39.6% rate, most would say it's unfair for a billionaire to only pay 23%.Billionaires pay 43.4% federal tax on all their income except long term capital gains and qualified dividends. Add state income tax and the rate is as high as 54% (California). With Tres' post (above) in mind, I'm assuming that billionaires make so much money their marginal rates about equal their effective rates.
Tiny is a classic Wall Street shillYou're the one that defended the Obama / Bush bale out of Wall Street, not me. Your party (Democrat) has been bought off by Wall Street, not mine (Libertarian).
trying to portray the top 1% as overtaxed, while the truth is the top 1% keep amassing a greater and greater portion of the American economic pie. The top 1% receives 18.7% of income but pays 37% of federal income taxes:
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T054-C000-S001-where-do-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html
The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. Please note this uses data before Obama increased taxes on the top 5% of taxpayers. The contrast would be even more stark now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/19/other-countries-dont-have-a-47/
Wealth Inequality Is MUCH Worse Than You Realize
http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-is-worse-than-you-think-2013-3 The level of wealth held by the poor and middle class is a very real problem. Instead of obsessing on screwing the 1%, Democrats should be thinking about how to get people who live paycheck-to-paycheck to save and invest. And how to improve the economy in ways that will create more jobs and increase wages.
While most people with student loans can afford to pay them back, it's also true that they are still far more likely to spend their disposable income back into the economy, compared to millionaires and billionaires who invest their money in non-job creating financial investments.
Do you even see the irony? You highlight wealth inequality. But you seem to want people to spend all their disposable income, so they have no wealth, thinking that consumption is the only thing that drives the economy. If most of income goes towards consumption and paying taxes, then we won't have sufficient after-tax profits, savings pools and equity investments to start new businesses and grow old ones. The economy will stagnate.
That may work well for Democrat party elites though. As long as people spend everything they make and depend on handouts provided by the party, that means more Democrat voters.
I'm sure if you asked middle class taxpayers paying a 28% tax rate, or higher earners paying the top 39.6% rate, most would say it's unfair for a billionaire to only pay 23%.
Once again you try to obfuscate the issue by comparing apples to oranges. You do not tell us what the MARGINAL rate is for billionaires, you only tell us the EFFECTIVE rate. At the same time you do not tell us the EFFECTIVE rate of higher earners, you only tell us the MARGINAL rate. Why do you not compare apples to apples for a change? I am not a billionaire. I am one of your "higher earners". In 2014 I had an effective rate of less than 20%, but a marginal rate of more than 40%.
Tres3.
So the 1 million jobs created by the evil fracking industry and the great wealth created from the jobs, royalties, product sales, etc. , has nothing to do with the deficit falling? And the increased capital gains from the government propping up the stock market has nothing to do the decreased deficit?This reminds me of the earlier discussion about the role of government and high tax rates in the post-WWII economic expansion. I never said or implied that the private sector did not play a role. Of course it played a huge role, just as it does today. But some people seem to think if I don't mention the private sector, I'm giving all the credit to the government. That's not the case. I'm simply pointing out the positive role of the government and government policy. In addition to Dccpa's misguided argument, I never called the fracking industry evil either.
My points about the post-WWII economic expansion and the situation today are the same:
(i) High tax rates on the wealthy do not interfere with economic growth;
(ii) High tax rates enable greater deficit reduction and government spending; and
(iii) Government spending stimulates the economy.
This reminds me of the earlier discussion about the role of government and high tax rates in the post-WWII economic expansion. I never said or implied that the private sector did not play a role. Of course it played a huge role, just as it does today. But some people seem to think if I don't mention the private sector, I'm giving all the credit to the government. That's not the case. I'm simply pointing out the positive role of the government and government policy. In addition to Dccpa's misguided argument, I never called the fracking industry evil either.
My points about the post-WWII economic expansion and the situation today are the same:
(i) High tax rates on the wealthy do not interfere with economic growth;
(ii) High tax rates enable greater deficit reduction and government spending; and
(iii) Government spending stimulates the economy.You call my facts a misguided argument and then you list 3 Keynsian fallacies.
The post WW2 growth was due to pent up demand. During the war, there wasn't much to buy as factories were diverted to the war effort. Everyone was buying war bonds. Once the war was over, the pent up demand drove growth for several years. Come on Esten, you can do better than that.
You call my facts a misguided argument and then you list 3 Keynsian fallacies.
The post WW2 growth was due to pent up demand. During the war, there wasn't much to buy as factories were diverted to the war effort. Everyone was buying war bonds. Once the war was over, the pent up demand drove growth for several years. Come on Esten, you can do better than that.Esten maintains that economic growth and employment participation are most strongly correlated with tax rates on the top 1% or 2% of the population. If you point out factors that actually are correlated with economic growth and employment, like growth of the energy sector, wars, interest rates, and unemployment benefits, he tells you you're misguided.
Does Esten actually believe this? Does he actually believe government can take enough away from 1% or 2% of the population to pay for universal health care, unlimited unemployment benefits, unfunded social security, a balanced budget, etc.? My guess is no. He just realizes it's a good argument for Democrats to get votes from LIV's.
Throughout the developed world, you will find a strong, long-term correlation between government expenditures as a % of GDP and the rate of growth of GDP. Long term, higher government expenditures correlate with lower economic growth and higher unemployment rates. In the USA, the size of government has grown dramatically since World War II, and the GDP growth rate has dropped accordingly. There were other factors at play too. The tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was not one of them.
0.238/0.15 - 1 = 59%. The federal rate on long term capital gains went up 59%, from 15% to 23.8%.LOL! Calculations like this just show how desperate you are to attempt to show how highly taxed the rich are. That 23.8% is still lower than what many other people pay (whether marginal or effective) who have lower incomes. Why should the very rich be allowed such tax breaks?
You're the one that defended the Obama / Bush bale out of Wall Street, not me. Your party (Democrat) has been bought off by Wall Street, not mine (Libertarian).That bailout was needed just as much for Main Street as Wall Street. If Democrats have been bought off by Wall Street, why are Democrats the most likely party to regulate Wall Street and raise their taxes?
The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. Except for the part where the very rich benefit from lower tax rates on financial "investments" (typically non-job creating), and end up with effective tax rates far lower than top marginal rates. Let's try a Tiny-like calculation: they pay 23.8% but should be paying at least 39.6%, so that's a 40% tax break.
The level of wealth held by the poor and middle class is a very real problem. Instead of obsessing on screwing the 1%, Democrats should be thinking about how to get people who live paycheck-to-paycheck to save and invest. And how to improve the economy in ways that will create more jobs and increase wages.It's about moral and sound economic policy, not about screwing anyone. Ask rich Democrats. Your approach of "let the free market work" is no longer delivering an equitable distribution of prosperity, as evidenced by the numerous statistics on growing income and wealth inequality. I do not see any way to reverse this trend other than government intervention.
LOL! Calculations like this just show how desperate you are to attempt to show how highly taxed the rich are. That 23.8% is still lower than what many other people pay (whether marginal or effective) who have lower incomes. Why should the very rich be allowed such tax breaks? Except for the part where the very rich benefit from lower tax rates on financial "investments" (typically non-job creating), and end up with effective tax rates far lower than top marginal rates. Let's try a Tiny-like calculation: they pay 23.8% but should be paying at least 39.6%, so that's a 40% tax break.The very rich pay 43.4% marginal federal tax rate on all their income except long term capital gains and qualified dividends. Add state income tax and the rate is as high as 54% (California). The long term capital gains tax rate for most Americans is 0% or 15%, which is lower than 23.8% paid by the very rich. Many of the "very rich" who pay the 23.8% rate don't do it year in and year out, for example a person who sells a business he's spent a lifetime creating.
The top 1% of taxpayers receives 18.7% of income but pays 37% of federal income taxes.
The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world.
You're saying financial investments don't create jobs? That's nuts. Take away all the depositors' money from the banks and eliminate corporate bonds and see what happens to the jobs market. The maximum marginal tax rate on interest income is 43.4% by the way, not 23.8%
Apologies to Tres, I've assumed the marginal rate = effective rate to simplify. And failed to note the maximum marginal rate on salary income is slightly less than 43.4%.
Is this beginning to sound repetitive?
It's about and sound economic policy, not about screwing anyone. Ask rich Democrats. Your approach of "let the free market work" is no longer delivering an equitable distribution of prosperity, as evidenced by the numerous statistics on growing income and wealth inequality. I do not see any way to reverse this trend other than government intervention.Rich Democrats like trial lawyers? Hedge fund managers who get carried interest? Wealthy farmers and alternative energy moguls who get government handouts?
There have been studies conducted by psychologists, where they test the proposition that people would prefer to have less, as long as they have more than their neighbors. That's true, people do feel that way, and it's related to the reason why the majority of Americans agree with you.
There have been studies conducted by psychologists, where they test the proposition that people would prefer to have less, as long as they have more than their neighbors. That's true, people do feel that way, and it's related to the reason why the majority of Americans agree with you.Shucks! Finally, you gave me the answer to my sleepless nights. My neighbor's wife tits are larger than mine.
Shucks! Finally, you gave me the answer to my sleepless nights. My neighbor's wife tits are larger than mine.Reverend, I have met you and I know you jest. Your tits are very large. (Just kidding).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/18/maybe-listening-to-dick-cheney-on-iraq-isnt-a-good-idea/?tid=pm_pop
What do you do with guys like that. The only patriotic act that he know is checking his bank account.
Punter 127
06-20-14, 03:05
They can't all be patriotic community organizers.
Please, somebody throw a cactus at this guy!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/18/maybe-listening-to-dick-cheney-on-iraq-isnt-a-good-idea/?tid=pm_pop
What do you do with guys like that. The only patriotic act that he know is checking his bank account.
"Youre damn right, Dick Cheney's heart's a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him."Rev BS and Sgt Ed Schultz cut from the same cloth?
They can't all be patriotic community organizers.
Rev BS and Sgt Ed Schultz cut from the same cloth?I don't even know who this guy is! But it was rumored that Hannity & you were caught holding hands? Oops, I mean a Koch Brothers banner? Why be a warrior for fossil fuels and high utility bills? Yes, I know, alternative energy is un-American. And you don't think there is connection between Iraq, Cheney and Halliburton. You think there is a huge difference between Cheney & Christina? They have the same mindset, to loot the system. Just in different ways while spewing patriotic jargon to inspire the choir, and misdirect & confuse the uncaring public.
Punter 127
06-20-14, 16:00
I don't even know who this guy is! But it was rumored that Hannity & you were caught holding hands? Oops, I mean a Koch Brothers banner? Why be a warrior for fossil fuels and high utility bills? Yes, I know, alternative energy is un-American. And you don't think there is connection between Iraq, Cheney and Halliburton. You think there is a huge difference between Cheney & Christina? They have the same mindset, to loot the system. Just in different ways while spewing patriotic jargon to inspire the choir, and misdirect & confuse the uncaring public.I'm not defending Cheney I don't even like the guy. I'm just tired of your cheap personal attacks on people. If you got a case to make against Cheney, Halliburton and Iraq lets hear it, otherwise you're just blowing hot air. Did Cheney do something illegal, if so why hasn't he been prosecuted?
Don't try to put words in my mouth I never called alternative energy un-american, did you pull that out of your ass? And when did alternative energy become cheaper than fossil fuel energy? (although it will be if the out of control EPA has its way.) I assure you when alternative energy becomes available and cheaper than fossil fuel Americans will buy it. But we absolutely don't have the ability to replace fossil fuel energy at this time. Would you have us sit in the fucking dark until we do have that ability? I guess you would also have us believe Obama and his boys are not "of the mindset to loot the system", can you say Solyndra?
The United States could be energy independent by now if Obama hadn't pissed away our time and money on alternative energy pipe dreams. We should have been converting everything possible to natural gas and we should have built offshore LNG loading facilities and LNG carriers. Just think what LNG along with the Keystone Pipeline would do for our economy, Russia knows how to play the game and now they have a pretty good hold on the balls of Europe. We could very easily tell the middle east to stick their oil up their ass, but Obama has refused to get onboard.
There was a time that I supported fighting for oil but not now, things have changed and we now have the technology and the resources to be energy independent, and I do not support sending troops back to Iraq.
You act as if Cheney got us in the Iraq war all by himself, do I need to remind you that Bush had bipartisan support for going into Iraq.
Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer just to name a few Democrats who voted for the Iraq Resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.
I'm just tired of your cheap personnel attacks on people. If you got a case to make against Cheney, Halliburton and Iraq lets hear it, otherwise you're just blowing hot air. Did Cheney do something illegal, if so why hasn't he been prosecuted?And so your words and the movements of your lips don't quite synchronized the way it should. A caricature in the steamy shaving mirror.
Corruption in America is not of the same variety as in third world countries. It is very sophisticated. It has been made legal by the biggest army of lawyers the world has ever seen. Just think Congress and the funding of elections, think Wall St. Think Treasury Secretaries. Think Cheney, from Secretary of Defense to CEO of Halliburton. Cheney is a super smart guy, definitely president material. If only he would use his talents for the betterment of the US and humankind. He has no conscience, unlike Bush, who is now trying to forgive himself for all the wasted lives under his watch. Painting, gardening, road biking, all such good healing therapies.
Your useless community organizer was amongst the legislators who vote nay. But you already knew that.
If you got a case to make against Cheney, Halliburton and Iraq lets hear it, otherwise you're just blowing hot air. Did Cheney do something illegal, if so why hasn't he been prosecuted?Exactly.
I assure you when alternative energy becomes available and cheaper than fossil fuel Americans will buy it.It's a simple as that. We use fossil fuels because fossil fuels are the most efficient (cheapest) form of energy on the planet at this time. When that changes, we will switch.
We could very easily tell the middle east to stick their oil up their ass, but Obama has refused to get onboard.Exactly.
There was a time that I supported fighting for oil but not now, things have changed and we now have the technology and the resources to be energy independent, and I do not support sending troops back to Iraq.I agree with your 100%. At the time, I was a solid supporter of America's attempt to liberate the Iraqi people from their murderious dictator, but with time I've come to see that these people lack the courage to fight for themselves for their own political freedoms, and you can't help people who won't help themselves.
I say now let's focus on our own energy independence and let the people in the Middle East live with the governments they deserve.
Thanks,
Jax.
Exactly.
It's a simple as that. We use fossil fuels because fossil fuels are the most efficient (cheapest) form of energy on the planet at this time. When that changes, we will switch.
Exactly.
I agree with your 100%. At the time, I was a solid supporter of America's attempt to liberate the Iraqi people from their murderious dictator, but with time I've come to see that these people lack the courage to fight for themselves for their own political freedoms, and you can't help people who won't help themselves.
I say now let's focus on our own energy independence and let the people in the Middle East live with the governments they deserve.
Thanks,
Jax.You guys keep continuing with those tired cliches, almost like listening to the Spanish soccer team press conferences.
Punter 127
06-20-14, 23:16
Corruption in America is not of the same variety as in third world countries. It is very sophisticated. It has been made legal by the biggest army of lawyers the world has ever seen. Just think Congress and the funding of elections, think Wall St. Think Treasury Secretaries. Think Cheney, from Secretary of Defense to CEO of Halliburton. Cheney is a super smart guy, definitely president material. If only he would use his talents for the betterment of the US and humankind. He has no conscience, unlike Bush, who is now trying to forgive himself for all the wasted lives under his watch. Painting, gardening, road biking, all such good healing therapies.By "army of lawyers" are you speaking of people like Michelle and Barack Obama or Hillary and Bill Clinton perhaps you're speaking of John Kerry or Harry Reid? I believe all those folks have a law degree, but funny thing is neither Cheney or Bush are lawyers. Tell me again what Cheney has done that's illegal? You can't just make shit up as you go along, but as we can plainly see you certainly try.
Your mirror is foggy & cracked!
Your useless community organizer was amongst the legislators who vote nay. But you already knew that.I don't have, don't need, and have never needed a " community organizer" and neither did America. If you're speaking of Obama please document his "nay" vote, because I do not already know that, and I believe your statement is false! What's that you said about a foggy & cracked mirror again?
By "army of lawyers" are you speaking of people like Michelle and Barack Obama or Hillary and Bill Clinton perhaps you're speaking of John Kerry or Harry Reid? I believe all those folks have a law degree, but funny thing is neither Cheney or Bush are lawyers. Tell me again what Cheney has done that's illegal? You can't just make shit up as you go along, but as we can plainly see you certainly try.
I don't have, don't need, and have never needed a " community organizer" and neither did America. If you're speaking of Obama please document his "nay" vote, because I do not already know that, and I believe your statement is false! What's that you said about a foggy & cracked mirror again?Obama was not elected to the Senate until 2004, and joined the Senate in 2005. On Oct. 2, 2002, as a Illinois state senator, he gave a speech opposing the war, and the votes for the war were cast later that month. But his opposition to the Iraq War has been consistent and well documented. Are you denying that? Ah, yes, but for the tree in the forest!
And for the "lawyers", ingenious as you are, I don't know what is your point.
"Community Organizer". Who came up with that, Donald Trump, the used car salesman? For me, he has always been the President. I know that is hard for you to swallow, its been a choking 6 plus years.
As usual, I will give you the last words. Otherwise, they drag on with no end in sight.
You're saying financial investments don't create jobs? That's nuts. Don't fabricate absolute statements and attribute them to me, please.
To your question, many financial investments don't create jobs.
Like when a billionaire parks his money in an established company's stock like Exxon, Walmart or Procter & Gamble, and collects basically "free money" on which he pays as little as 20% tax. Only a sucker thinks that allowing such a tax break for a billionaire is smart economic policy.
I listened to Fox News for ten minutes earlier this week. I thought the world was ending.
Fortunately, I changed the station and came back to reality.
Punter 127
06-21-14, 01:52
I stand corrected about Obama voting.
Obama was not elected to the Senate until 2004, and joined the Senate in 2005. On Oct. 2, 2002, as a Illinois state senator, he gave a speech opposing the war, and the votes for the war were cast later that month. But his opposition to the Iraq War has been consistent and well documented. Are you denying that? Ah, yes, but for the tree in the forest!
Thanks for the correction, I agree Obama made the speech against the war. But as for the consistency, well that's a little fuzzy. Why did it take him so long to get the troops out?
President Obama surprised a few people during a news conference Thursday by claiming that the 2011 decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq, a politically popular move on the eve of an election year, was made entirely by his Iraqi counterpart. The implication ran counter to a number of claims that Obama has made in the past, most notably during a tight campaign season two years ago, when he suggested that it was his decision to leave Iraq and end an unpopular war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/19/president-obama-took-credit-in-2012-for-withdrawing-all-troops-from-iraq-today-he-said-something-different/
"Community Organizer". Who came up with that, Donald Trump, the used car salesman? For me, he has always been the President. I know that is hard for you to swallow, its been a choking 6 plus years.
As usual, I will give you the last words. Otherwise, they drag on with no end in sight.Early career in Chicago.
After four years living in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama
Straight from the horse's mouth, Barack Obama often cites his time as a community organizer as one of the experiences that qualifies him to be POTUS. "I can bring this country together,"... "I have a track record, starting from the days I moved to Chicago as a community organizer."
How's that bringing the country together thing working out?
I believe the United States is more divided now than anytime since the Civil War.
Are you sure you want to give me the last word, maybe you could sing us a song? Perhaps some Blues would be in order this time. What's that you say, you need more inspiration?
How about this: NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll "found a majority, 54 percent, no longer believes that Obama is able to lead the country and get the job done."..."I mean, essentially the public is saying your presidency is over," Chuck Todd of NBC said on "Morning Joe."
That's NBC Dude, that should inspire some Blues.
I listened to Fox News MSNBC for ten minutes earlier this week. I thought the world was ending in love with Obama.
Fortunately, I changed the station and came back to reality.
Thanks for the correction, I agree Obama made the speech against the war. But as for the consistency, well that's a little fuzzy. Why did it take him so long to get the troops out?
Early career in Chicago.
After four years living in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama
Straight from the horse's mouth, Barack Obama often cites his time as a community organizer as one of the experiences that qualifies him to be POTUS. "I can bring this country together,"... "I have a track record, starting from the days I moved to Chicago as a community organizer."
How's that bringing the country together thing working out?
I believe the United States is more divided now than anytime since the Civil War.
Are you sure you want to give me the last word, maybe you could sing us a song? Perhaps some Blues would be in order this time. What's that you say, you need more inspiration?
How about this: NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll "found a majority, 54 percent, no longer believes that Obama is able to lead the country and get the job done."..."I mean, essentially the public is saying your presidency is over," Chuck Todd of NBC said on "Morning Joe."
That's NBC Dude, that should inspire some Blues.Sorry about the last word, you will have it for sure this time. I will be in Palawan for a week.
If at the moment, you are out of your 6 years of "blues", I must issue a friendly warning. If you depend on polls for your fix, then it is like doing some fancy shopping. It gives a momentary thrill & satisfaction, then it is the same old, same old again.
I am only "blue" when I hear or read about natural disasters that are so overwhelming that you feel the need to do something good or lend a helping hand. Politics is a game that is rigged. It will take the USA more than a lifetime to right itself, not economically, but its ethical and moral behavior. There is no integrity in America for now.
Don't fabricate absolute statements and attribute them to me, please.
To your question, many financial investments don't create jobs.
Like when a billionaire parks his money in an established company's stock like Exxon, Walmart or Procter & Gamble, and collects basically "free money" on which he pays as little as 20% tax. Only a sucker thinks that allowing such a tax break for a billionaire is smart economic policy.Well, I guess you're making progress. Earlier you appeared to believe the top marginal tax rate on long term capital gains and qualified dividends was 15%. Now you're at 20%. The actual federal rate including the Obamacare tax on income is 23.8%. The federal + state rate is as high as 34.4%.
My bad about "financial investments. " I thought you were referring to certificates of deposit, debt instruments, financial derivatives, and shares of financial companies like Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs. In your past posts, you've complained about trillions of dollars of cash held by companies and maintained that consumption is good and savings are evil. In addition to your problem with tax rates, I figured you were again failing to appreciate the role that savings play in the economy.
A billionaire that owns shares in Exxon indirectly pays corporate income taxes at a 42% rate. Plus additional property, production and sales taxes that may exceed the income tax. When he goes to sell his shares he pays a 43.4% or 23.8% federal rate, depending on how long he held them. And 23.8% federal tax on the dividends. When he dies the federal government gets 40% of what he owns.
But that's beside the point. Look at what billionaires primarily own. It's not portfolio investments like Exxon. Yes there are some like Warren Buffett who are asset shufflers. The majority of the fortunes though came from building businesses like Microsoft, Oracle, Walmart, Google, Amazon, Nike, Dell, etc. You want to take capital from them and others that use capital efficiently and do God knows what with it. Presumably spend it on consumption, that will indeed boost the economy in the short term, but at what cost to the future.
The strongest argument IMO is that stealing from people (which is equivalent to extortionate taxation, certainly at the level people like like Piketty support) is immoral. But that probably doesn't make sense to persons who believe the highest calling of mankind is to grow government. I guess I'm a sucker, because I don't equate theft with "smart economic policy."
Punter 127
06-24-14, 00:59
It will take the USA more than a lifetime to right itself, not economically, but its ethical and moral behavior. There is no integrity in America for now.I hardly think you're the guy to be speaking about "ethical and moral behavior ". And the lack of "integrity in America" starts with the current resident at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue, and extends from there to as far away as Bangkok, and now even Palawan.
Have a nice trip.
I hardly think you're the guy to be speaking about "ethical and moral behavior ". And the lack of "integrity in America" starts with the current resident at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue, and extends from there to as far away as Bangkok, and now even Palawan.
Have a nice trip.Just to put this into context, what did you think of the lack of integrity (or otherwise) of the previous incumbent and his vp?
Rc Collins
06-25-14, 23:39
There's no doubt that Neil Cavuto is a conservative who consistently bashes the left but he is the only one on Fox and one of the few conservative talkers who is not afraid to take on his own party. Here he is excoriating Michelle Bachman for stupidity from the right while pointing out why nothing gets done in Washington. It's always the other guy's fault when it comes to republicans and democrats and as Cavuto points Rome's burning. That anyone can be loyal to these parties while they continue to point the finger at each other and screw the tax payers is baffling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eswz4Fjrw20
Punter 127
06-27-14, 03:14
"Integrity"...No such critter in captivity in Washington D.C, and those in the wild are on the endangered species list.
Just to put this into context, what did you think of the lack of integrity (or otherwise) of the previous incumbent and his vp?If I had to pick I would call Bush the lesser of two evils, but I would add the caveat that the lesser of two evils is still evil. Take for example the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which both Presidents supported and Obama even expanded NDAA. Those Acts in my opinion paved a path that led directly to the aggrandizement of unchecked power and the overreach that we see today in the Executive Branch, which is becoming an elected dictatorship.
I'm not going to get into comparisons between Bush and Obama because in the words Hillary Clinton "what difference at this point does it make?" And surely you wouldn't try to justify the lack of integrity in one President by highlighting the lack of integrity of another. Or would you?
Punter 127
06-27-14, 03:24
Fox News is the most trusted TV News Source.
There's no doubt that Neil Cavuto is a conservative who consistently bashes the left but he is the only one on Fox and one of the few conservative talkers who is not afraid to take on his own party. Here he is excoriating Michelle Bachman for stupidity from the right while pointing out why nothing gets done in Washington. It's always the other guy's fault when it comes to republicans and democrats and as Cavuto points Rome's burning. That anyone can be loyal to these parties while they continue to point the finger at each other and screw the tax payers is baffling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eswz4Fjrw20I know Neil Cavuto is a conservative, I didn't know he was a Republican. But perhaps that type of reporting is why a recent poll which sought the views of "all Americans" showed Fox News as the most trusted TV News Source.
(MSNBC was the least trusted).
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2014/06/10/poll-msnbc-least-trusted-tv-news-source-fox-news-most-trusted
"Integrity"...No such critter in captivity in Washington D.C, and those in the wild are on the endangered species list.
If I had to pick I would call Bush the lesser of two evils, but I would add the caveat that the lesser of two evils is still evil. Take for example the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which both Presidents supported and Obama even expanded NDAA. Those Acts in my opinion paved a path that led directly to the aggrandizement of unchecked power and the overreach that we see today in the Executive Branch, which is becoming an elected dictatorship.
I'm not going to get into comparisons between Bush and Obama because in the words Hillary Clinton "what difference at this point does it make?" And surely you wouldn't try to justify the lack of integrity in one President by highlighting the lack of integrity of another. Or would you?Thanks, as I've said before, I'm no fan of Obama. I just get a bit tired of the hypocrisy of many on the right who criticise Obama of things when previous Republican presidents did the same things but on a larger scale. E. g. Reagan 318 executive orders, Obama 168.
Rc Collins
06-27-14, 09:39
Fox News is the most trusted TV News Source.
I know Neil Cavuto is a conservative, I didn't know he was a Republican. But perhaps that type of reporting is why a recent poll which sought the views of "all Americans" showed Fox News as the most trusted TV News Source.
(MSNBC was the least trusted).
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2014/06/10/poll-msnbc-least-trusted-tv-news-source-fox-news-most-trustedThis type of reporting by Cavuto is not the norm so this would not be a good example to make your point as most of his show time is spend bashing the left. Both MSNBC and Fox are clearly the worst places for news reporting as they both are partisan networks with an agenda.
However, the bigger picture in the story was not about news networks but about Cavuto's point of how both political parties continue to screw the tax payers by always blaming the other side and not doing their jobs.
If the trend described in the attached link continues, it does not look good for Obamacare, aka Affordable Care Act, or the politicians who supported it.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-26/obamacare-s-prognosis-grows-dimmer?cmpid=yhoo
Tres3.
I listened to Fox News MSNBC for ten minutes earlier this week. I thought the world was ending in love with Obama.
Fortunately, I changed the station and came back to reality.That's not wise. You should watch it and pay attention. Bad things happened to the members of the bourgeoisie who did not take the pronouncements of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez and their like seriously. These types have their own mouthpiece in the USA to pursue their pro-totalitarian, anti-free-speech agenda, and it's called MSNBC.
WorldTravel69
06-28-14, 02:24
http://www.oann.com/
That's not wise. You should watch it and pay attention. Bad things happened to the members of the bourgeoisie who did not take the pronouncements of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez and their like seriously. These types have their own mouthpiece in the USA to pursue their pro-totalitarian, anti-free-speech agenda, and it's called MSNBC.
WorldTravel69
06-28-14, 02:55
Jackson:
Tell Us what your opinions are:
You say you are "not a conservative. I am a member of the Libertarian Party, registered as an Independent", but again I say what are your views that make you not a Right Winger?
So tell us what are your views that you do not agree with the Republican Party Views?
We all know that the Republican party are racists.
All the Right Wingers are doing is making the United States of America is look Weak. They are the Anti-Americans. AKA Racists. Greed in Great. Traitors to the USA.
The rest of you are Independents, aka Liberalizations, and other anti-democratic parties what do you think that the Replication Party is doing wrong?.
Shouldn't all parties get together and make this country Strong?
Not look bad in the World?
If the trend described in the attached link continues, it does not look good for Obamacare, aka Affordable Care Act, or the politicians who supported it.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-26/obamacare-s-prognosis-grows-dimmer?cmpid=yhooRemember when the Affordable Care Act was going to kill jobs and seriously damage the country? Seems like a distant memory, as Republicans have all but stopped their regular bashing of the law. We now know that Republicans lied about the ACA and failed.
Now, their efforts to keep the fear alive can only resort to recycled speculation about how a shift to more unhealthy insureds will cause premiums to rise. Rather tame stuff that we've seen before, known about for a long time, and doesn't factor in a shift back to more healthy insureds as penalties rise.
This article was written by Lanhee Chen, who apparently is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution (conservative), was the policy director of Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign (conservative), and references an article in WSJ (conservative). Notice the colorful language "Obamacare's Prognosis Grows Dimmer" , "A nightmare for Affordable Care Act supporters", and "fraught with peril in the months and years ahead. " If this is the best the right-wing spin machine can come up with now, you know the ACA is doing all right.
We all know that the Republican party are racists.
All the Right Wingers are doing is making the United States of America is look Weak. They are the Anti-Americans. AKA Racists. Greed in Great. Traitors to the USA.
The rest of you are Independents, aka Liberalizations, and other anti-democratic parties what do you think that the Replication Party is doing wrong?. Shouldn't all parties get together and make this country Strong?What planet are you on? The USA is not a democracy. Instead it's ruled over by Barack Obama and Harry Reid. Obama pretty much runs the country the way he wants, ignoring legislation that's been signed into law. Reid has his back, and won't let anything pass Congress that conflicts with Obama's aims. Last year Senate Democrats proposed 676 amendments but were only allowed votes on seven. Republicans proposed 812 and got votes on 11. If Reid doesn't like a bill it never makes it to the floor. Yeah, the judicial branch has been swatting them down occasionally. But that could change now that Reid has decided he doesn't need 60 votes any longer to appoint judges. And Obama has decided he doesn't need a vote at all, he'll just figure out a way to get people appointed without Senate approval using wild legal theories.
You don't agree with the Democrat Party on civil liberties (e.g. prostitution, drug laws), foreign policy, or special interests and taxes. You should wise up and change parties. From your posts here you agree with about 80% of the Libertarian platform. But I guess you've lived in your California bubble too long. They've brainwashed you to believe Republicans are evil racists. And parties that actually believe in liberty and democracy are "anti-democratic. " And the Republicans are the only ones that refuse to get together and make this country strong. You've got it all backwards. It's like something out of Orwell's novel, 1984.
Jackson:
Tell Us what your opinions are:
You say you are "not a conservative. I am a member of the Libertarian Party, registered as an Independent", but again I say what are your views that make you not a Right Winger?
So tell us what are your views that you do not agree with the Republican Party Views?...WT, I've posted this a dozen times, but here it is again just for you.
==============================================
For the record, I am NOT a Republican, and I am NOT a conservative.
- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
- I am for health INSURANCE reform.
- I am for health JUSTICE reform.
I am a member of the Libertarian Party, registered as an Independent.
====================================
WorldTravel69
06-30-14, 13:17
You keep knocking the Demos, so tell us what you do not agree with, about the Republican Party?
WT, I've posted this a dozen times, but here it is again just for you.
==============================================
For the record, I am NOT a Republican, and I am NOT a conservative.
- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
- I am for health INSURANCE reform.
- I am for health JUSTICE reform.
I am a member of the Libertarian Party, registered as an Independent.
====================================
WorldTravel69
06-30-14, 13:20
Hobby Lobby wins its case.
http://news.yahoo.com/justices-cant-employers-cover-contraception-141923713--finance.html
You keep knocking the Demos, so tell us what you do not agree with, about the Republican Party?Good grief man, are you daft?
WT, before you post yet another request to know what I believe in that is contarary to the Republican Party's platform, please READ my comments below.
==============================================
For the record, I am NOT a Republican, and I am NOT a conservative.
- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
- I am for health INSURANCE reform.
- I am for health JUSTICE reform.
I am a member of the Libertarian Party, registered as an Independent.
====================================
WorldTravel69
06-30-14, 22:38
Just trying to make sure you did not change your mind.
Like the Republicans do when Obama agrees to something they wanted in the first place.
It looks we agree on almost everything, except the death penalty.
Good grief man, are you daft?
WT, before you post yet another request to know what I believe in that is contrary to the Republican Party's platform, please READ my comments below.
Remember how Republicans told us over and over how the Affordable Care Act was a big jobs killer.
The labor market continued to gain momentum and defy a mixed economy in June as employers added 288,000 jobs, the Labor Department said Thursday.
The unemployment rate fell to 6.1% vs. 6.3% in May. That's the lowest it's been since September 2008.
Economists had estimated that 215,000 jobs were added last month.
The economy has now gained at least 200,000 jobs a month for the past five months - the first such stretch since September 1999-January 2000.
Jobs blowout: Economy gains 288,000 in June
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/03/june-jobs-report/12111319/
BlueFalcon
07-03-14, 21:20
The strategy is Cloward / Piven and the tactics are Alinsky. To re-make the Republic, he has to break it first. The quilombo at the border, and all points north is just another beta test. I guess as far as jobs go, quantity is better than quality. Got to keep as many as possible on the dependency plantation until he can complete his "Fundamental Transformation".
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-03/june-full-time-jobs-plunge-over-half-million-part-time-jobs-surge-800k-most-1993
Remember how Republicans told us over and over how the Affordable Care Act was a big jobs killer.
Jobs blowout: Economy gains 288,000 in June
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/03/june-jobs-report/12111319/
Remember how Republicans told us over and over how the Affordable Care Act was a big jobs killer.Funny how we didn't hear a fucking peep from you when this news was released:
U.S. GDP Dropped 2.9% In The First Quarter 2014
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/06/25/u-s-gdp-dropped-2-9-in-the-first-quarter-2014-sharply-lower-from-second-estimate/
"On Wednesday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis released its third and final estimate of real gross domestic product for the first three months of 2014. The release showed output in the U.S. declining at an annual rate of 2.9%. This is relative to fourth quarter 2013, when real GDP grew 2.6%."
U.S. Economy Shrank in First Quarter by Most in Five Years
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-25/economy-in-u-s-shrank-in-first-quarter-by-most-in-five-years.html
"Gross domestic product fell at a 2.9 percent annualized rate, more than forecast and the worst reading since the same three months in 2009, after a previously reported 1 percent drop, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. It marked the biggest downward revision from the agencys second GDP estimate since records began in 1976. The revision reflected a slowdown in health care spending."
Anyway, the most important thing is that we're not talking about Obama's monumental incompentence.
Thanks,
Jax.
ElAlamoPalermo
07-03-14, 23:54
Funny how we didn't hear a fucking peep from you when this news was released:
U.S. GDP Dropped 2.9% In The First Quarter 2014
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/06/25/u-s-gdp-dropped-2-9-in-the-first-quarter-2014-sharply-lower-from-second-estimate/
"On Wednesday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis released its third and final estimate of real gross domestic product for the first three months of 2014. The release showed output in the U.S. declining at an annual rate of 2.9%. This is relative to fourth quarter 2013, when real GDP grew 2.6%."
U.S. Economy Shrank in First Quarter by Most in Five Years
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-25/economy-in-u-s-shrank-in-first-quarter-by-most-in-five-years.html
"Gross domestic product fell at a 2.9 percent annualized rate, more than forecast and the worst reading since the same three months in 2009, after a previously reported 1 percent drop, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. It marked the biggest downward revision from the agencys second GDP estimate since records began in 1976. The revision reflected a slowdown in health care spending."
Anyway, the most important thing is that we're not talking about Obama's monumental incompentence.
Thanks,
Jax.These statistics are a complete misnomer and totally misleading as the economic "freeze" was literally caused by the worst period of extended inclement winter weather in many, many decades that afflicted the entire eastern half of the United States. Just more anti-Obama BULLSHIT from Jackson and his fascist fanboys. BTW in case you couldn't stop foaming at the mouth enough to pay attention, the DJIA closed at another all time record high of over 17,000 today; the day Obama was inaugurated the DJIA closed at 7,949. Personally I think the stock market is extremely overvalued as a result of nonexistent interest rate yields, nevertheless the consensus disagrees with me as the market has seen 110%+ returns under Obama's watch.
These statistics are a complete misnomer and totally misleading as the economic "freeze" was literally caused by the worst period of extended inclement winter weather in many, many decades that afflicted the entire eastern half of the United States. Just more anti-Obama BULLSHIT from Jackson and his fascist fanboys. BTW in case you couldn't stop foaming at the mouth enough to pay attention, the DJIA closed at another all time record high of over 17,000 today; the day Obama was inaugurated the DJIA closed at 7,949. Personally I think the stock market is extremely overvalued as a result of nonexistent interest rate yields, nevertheless the consensus disagrees with me as the market has seen 110%+ returns under Obama's watch.Once again I ask you for your definition of fascist.
Don B.
BlueFalcon
07-04-14, 00:31
ElAlamoPalermo: DJIA. Really? Are you really that shallow? Do you not have an iota of critical thought capability, or do you just swallow "hook, line, and sinker" what CNBS or MSDNC is feeding you? Newsflash: The entire cyclical rally in the market from March 2009 has been the result of the Fed's debauchment of the currency via QE (think Harare or the Caracas stock exchange). Lenin was a big fan of currency debasement. As far as the market goes, what lies ahead will seem (mathematically cannot be) an order of magnitude more painful than what happened during the fall of 2008.
Here is a quick yet comprehensive tutorial on the Cloward / Piven strategy.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-03/cloward-piven-strategy-being-used-destroy-america
"We gave you a Republic, if you can keep it. " Ben Franklin.
These statistics are a complete misnomer and totally misleading as the economic "freeze" was literally caused by the worst period of extended inclement winter weather in many, many decades that afflicted the entire eastern half of the United States. Just more anti-Obama BULLSHIT from Jackson and his fascist fanboys. BTW in case you couldn't stop foaming at the mouth enough to pay attention, the DJIA closed at another all time record high of over 17,000 today; the day Obama was inaugurated the DJIA closed at 7,949. Personally I think the stock market is extremely overvalued as a result of nonexistent interest rate yields, nevertheless the consensus disagrees with me as the market has seen 110%+ returns under Obama's watch.
Once again I ask you for your definition of fascist.
Don B.It means SOB or bastard. Just less colorful.
Katie Pavlich at townhall.com wrote a nice piece titled "Obama's Scandal Playbook" detailing the Obama admininstration's standard procedures for managing it's many scandals.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/07/04/obamas-scandal-playbook-n1857416?utm_source=TopBreakingNewsCarousel&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingNewsCarousel
Step 1: Play Dumb.
Step 2: Investigate it Yourself.
Step 3: Blame Two-Bit Bureaucrats.
Step 4: Attack the Investigation.
Step 5: Pretend the Scandal Never Existed.
Thanks,
Jax.
Member #4112
07-05-14, 14:46
Not so fast Esten, exactly where did those 288,000 jobs come from? Could it be mostly from summer hiring perhaps? Don't you think all those "new jobs" which were created in June will disappear in August?
Follow this link for June jobs information:
http://www.macrovolatility.com/2014/07/unemployment-in-us-recedes-slightly-in-june-2014-but-for-the-wrong-reasons/
Oh and Esten what about those pesky new unemployment claims for June?
Follow this link for new unemployment filings for June:
http://ycharts.com/indicators/initial_claims_for_unemployment_insurance
Esten, as far as ObamaCare being a job killer, all you have to do is wait until August, September and October when all those cancellation notices begin to arrive for businesses.
Esten you up for another round after having your ass handed to you over European unemployment calculations where you were wrong as usual?
Esten is always quick to point out how unemployment has decreased under the Imperial Presidency of Obama quoting the DOL's U3 rate and ignoring the more accurate U6 rate and totally ignoring the workforce participation rate.
Follow this link for the U6 rate:
http://ycharts.com/indicators/us_u_6_unemployment_rate_unadjusted
Follow this link for a U3 / U6 rate comparison and explanation.
http://unemploymentdata.com/current-u6-unemployment-rate/
Oh and Esten before you start claiming the decrease in the workforce participation rate is due to baby boomers retiring, you are wrong again.
Follow this link to workforce participation rate composition by age brackets.
http://www.businessinsider.com/lfpr-falls-to-lowest-level-since-1978-2014-5
Have a nice day Esten.
BTW in case you couldn't stop foaming at the mouth enough to pay attention, the DJIA closed at another all time record high of over 17,000 today; the day Obama was inaugurated the DJIA closed at 7,949. Personally I think the stock market is extremely overvalued as a result of nonexistent interest rate yields, nevertheless the consensus disagrees with me as the market has seen 110%+ returns under Obama's watch.Yes, the DJIA is up 5% after inflation since its pre-recession peak in 2007. During the same time, the median household income in the USA, adjusted for inflation, has dropped 11%. Meanwhile, as you say, the stock market is overvalued because of low interest rates. This means that Mom and Pop savers, the hardworking bedrock of America who have their money in bank deposits, bonds, etc, will be even more dependent on government during retirement. This is all good in the eyes of Obama. More people dependent on government means more Democrat voters. Why doesn't he stand up to the teachers unions? Why does he want to hand out social security disability checks to anyone who asks and extend unemployment benefits indefinitely? Why doesn't he promote job-promoting policies, like reducing unreasonable regulations and taxes on American business and allowing multinationals to tax-efficiently bring money back to the USA to invest here? In other words, why doesn't he try to do something to increase middle class incomes and jobs instead of promoting handouts, to special interests and prospective Democrat voters?
Wise up EAP. By the time I was your age I had abandoned my membership in the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade and could see through the B.S. like what you've been reading.
ElAlamoPalermo
07-05-14, 17:17
Yes, the DJIA is up 5% after inflation since its pre-recession peak in 2007. During the same time, the median household income in the USA, adjusted for inflation, has dropped 11%. Meanwhile, as you say, the stock market is overvalued because of low interest rates. This means that Mom and Pop savers, the hardworking bedrock of America who have their money in bank deposits, bonds, etc, will be even more dependent on government during retirement. This is all good in the eyes of Obama. More people dependent on government means more Democrat voters. Why doesn't he stand up to the teachers unions? Why does he want to hand out social security disability checks to anyone who asks and extend unemployment benefits indefinitely? Why doesn't he promote job-promoting policies, like reducing unreasonable regulations and taxes on American business and allowing multinationals to tax-efficiently bring money back to the USA to invest here? In other words, why doesn't he try to do something to increase middle class incomes and jobs instead of promoting handouts, to special interests and prospective Democrat voters?
Wise up EAP. By the time I was your age I had abandoned my membership in the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade and could see through the B.S. like what you've been reading.More completely irrelevant bullshit likely due to Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) from one of Jackson's most reliable fascist fanboys. Obama was not the president in October 2007 nor was he responsible for the housing and investment bank ponzi scheme that led to fraudulent earnings and market highs followed by a disastrous collapse back to reality; Obama's baseline is January 20,2009. The rest of what you write is just standard issue Jackson-taught fascist fanboy propaganda and does not warrant a response.
ElAlamoPalermo
07-05-14, 20:26
http://news.yahoo.com/whats-making-us-economy-world-beater-5-factors-071916194.html
For all those suffering the affliction of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
Member #4112
07-05-14, 21:49
ElAlamoPalermo is always calling anyone who disagrees with him a Fascist Fanboy.
Well here is the classical definition of Fascist:
Fascist. Noun.
1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
2. (often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.
3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascist
I know where you are trying to go with this, declaring anyone on the right has "extreme right-wing views and therefore is a fascist based on the classic definition above is not only an intellectually dishonest gambit but just plain lazy in this day and time.
Perhaps back in the 1940's or 1950's the classical definition had relevance but no one is attempting to reinstitute the policies of Mussolini, not even the Italian's.
ELP, you are just engaging in bombastic name calling and attempting to denigrate your opponents when you have run out of ideas to argue.
Now I would put forward the proposition the Imperial Presidency of Obama not only is engaging the application of classic fascism:
Fascism. Noun.
1. often Fascism.
A. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
B. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
I would also put forward the argument Obama is engaging in economic fascism; see the two links below for a more in depth definitions. You can draw your own conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
ElAlamoPalermo
07-05-14, 23:52
A. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.htmlThe Bush / Cheney Neo-Cons, vehemently supported by Jackson and his fan-boys are the very definition of modern day fascists. They are responsible for two illegal and ultimately FAILED wars of aggression, the Patriot Act, originating uncontrolled NSA warrantless spying on US citizens, using Guantanamo as a modern day Gulag. Government controlled capitalism? How about KKR (Halliburton subsidiary, Cheney's company) getting dozens of no-bid contracts to provide services for the unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq?
Jackson and his fascist fanboys supported these war criminals and now howl and moan in a delusion manner because they were twice defeated by a black man who does not share their ultra right wing, modern day fascist ideology.
More completely irrelevant bullshit likely due to Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) from one of Jackson's most reliable fascist fanboys. Obama was not the president in October 2007 nor was he responsible for the housing and investment bank ponzi scheme that led to fraudulent earnings and market highs followed by a disastrous collapse back to reality; Obama's baseline is January 20,2009. The rest of what you write is just standard issue Jackson-taught fascist fanboy propaganda and does not warrant a response.Apparently there are a lot of people suffering from ODS, as polls indicate Obama is the least popular or one of the least popular American presidents in recent decades:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2678005/Obama-rated-WORST-president-World-War-II-embarrassing-new-poll.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/209167-poll-obama-just-as-unpopular-as-bush-43
The Bush / Cheney Neo-Cons, vehemently supported by Jackson and his fan-boys are the very definition of modern day fascists. They are responsible for two illegal and ultimately FAILED wars of aggression, the Patriot Act, originating uncontrolled NSA warrantless spying on US citizens, using Guantanamo as a modern day Gulag. Government controlled capitalism? How about KKR (Halliburton subsidiary, Cheney's company) getting dozens of no-bid contracts to provide services for the unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq?I did not vote for George W. Bush, was against sending American troops to Iraq the second time, was a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, and never supported neo-conservatives. If fact, as Esten has noted, I and others that you refer to above are actually neo-liberals.
ElAlamoPalermo is always calling anyone who disagrees with him a Fascist Fanboy.
Well here is the classical definition of Fascist:
Fascist. Noun.
1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
2. (often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.
3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascist
I know where you are trying to go with this, declaring anyone on the right has "extreme right-wing views and therefore is a fascist based on the classic definition above is not only an intellectually dishonest gambit but just plain lazy in this day and time.
Perhaps back in the 1940's or 1950's the classical definition had relevance but no one is attempting to reinstitute the policies of Mussolini, not even the Italian's.
ELP, you are just engaging in bombastic name calling and attempting to denigrate your opponents when you have run out of ideas to argue.
Now I would put forward the proposition the Imperial Presidency of Obama not only is engaging the application of classic fascism:
Fascism. Noun.
1. often Fascism.
A. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
B. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
I would also put forward the argument Obama is engaging in economic fascism; see the two links below for a more in depth definitions. You can draw your own conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Fascism should never have been placed on the right wing. The mistake was that because the Fascists and Nazis were enemies of the left wing communists they must be right wing. In fact their philosophies are the same and they were just rival gangs fighting over turf.
Don B.
Punter 127
07-07-14, 04:00
What About the Jobless Who Arent Looking?
Remember how Republicans told us over and over how the Affordable Care Act was a big jobs killer.
The labor market continued to gain momentum and defy a mixed economy in June as employers added 288,000 jobs, the Labor Department said Thursday.
The unemployment rate fell to 6.1% vs. 6.3% in May. That's the lowest it's been since September 2008.
Economists had estimated that 215,000 jobs were added last month.
The economy has now gained at least 200,000 jobs a month for the past five months - the first such stretch since September 1999-January 2000.
Jobs blowout: Economy gains 288,000 in June
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/03/june-jobs-report/12111319/The labor market remains much weaker than the last time the unemployment rate stood at 6.1 percent, just before Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008. The difference is shadow unemployment, to borrow a term Janet Yellen, the Federal Reserve chairwoman, used at her June press conference.
The government counted 3.8 percent of the adult population as unemployed last month. (The official unemployment rate of 6.1 percent is measured as a share of the labor force rather than a share of the working-age population.) By this measure, unemployment is getting close to pre-recession levels. In December 2007, 3.0 percent of the adult population was unemployed.
But hold the celebrations. Another 3 percent of the adult population reported that they are working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs. This figure remains far above the December 2007 level of about 1.8 percent. In fact, part-time jobs accounted for two-thirds of all new jobs in June. Some economists expect employers to draw on this pool of partially employed workers as the economy continues to expand. Others, however, argue that at least some of these workers will not be able to find full-time work because of their shortcomings or because the economy is shifting toward part-time jobs.
Finally, we have the people who are not counted as unemployed because they are not actively seeking work. We dont know how many of these people might return to the labor market as the economy improves. One simple measure: In June, the government reported that 2.7 percent of American adults said they were not actively looking for work, but they would still like a job now. About 2 percent of adults were in that category in December 2007.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/upshot/what-about-the-jobless-who-arent-looking.html?_r=1
"For the 49th time in 50 months, more jobseekers gave up looking than found work."
Over 14 million more people are now receiving food stamps than prior to Obama entering office.
Two-thirds of the jobs created in June were part time, is the economy shifting toward part-time jobs because of Obamacare? I guess Republicans should have said Obamacare is a "full time" jobs killer.
But hold the celebrations. Another 3 percent of the adult population reported that they are working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs. This figure remains far above the December 2007 level of about 1.8 percent. In fact, part-time jobs accounted for two-thirds of all new jobs in June. Some economists expect employers to draw on this pool of partially employed workers as the economy continues to expand. Others, however, argue that at least some of these workers will not be able to find full-time work because of their shortcomings or because the economy is shifting toward part-time jobs.
snip Some people (cough, Esten, cough) can't seem to read beyond the headlines and count a sign of defeat as a victory.
"They cited the increase in jobs (288,000). But anyone who takes the time to examine those jobs would say that statistic is preposterous -- 523,000 full-time jobs were lost and part-time jobs surged by 840,000.
Congratulations BO, you have split a full time job into 2 part time jobs so that the employers can avoid the Obamacare tax. More people than ever making too little to get by. Mission accomplished.
Labor force participation Esten, that is the only real employment statistic. All else is just governmental propaganda.
You know, if we could just convince all those currently unemployed people to stop looking for work, then the Unemployment Rate would officially be ZERO.
Thanks,
Jax.
An exerpt from a column written by Peggy Noonan for the WSJ:
=====================================
But the president is an executive, and executives manage. They set a tone, establish accountability, light fires, remind those to whom authority is delegated who's boss. They set expectations and standards. "If you can't cut it, you're out."
Mr. Obama has never seemed that interested in the management of government. It is completely believable that he read about the VA scandal in the newspapers, where he has learned of other administration scandals. It is believable he had no idea what was going on in a major, problem-plagued agency.
Making sure that things work doesn't seem to be his conception of his job. Words are his job. He argues for a bill, the bill becomes a program, and someone else will make it work. He talks about health care for three years, it debuts with a terrible crash, and he's shocked. Why didn't it work? He told it to! His background was one of some privation, but as an executive he acts like a man who grew up with 10 maids. "Let them do it, I'm too busy thinking."
Mr. Obama said, when he first ran for president in 2008, that the VA system was a mess and he'd clean it up. It has gotten worse under his watch. He must be shocked. He told it to get better! He said the words!
And the word is everything. The act, the deed, the follow-through, the making it happen doesn't seem to loom large on his agenda of concerns. Which makes this progressive era different from those of FDR and LBJ, who appropriately feared scandal and mess and kept a sharp eye on what was happening.
Some of this is surely due to the culture of Washington, where they don't hold the idea of management in high regard. Managing isn't interesting, like art or talking. It's not high-class. It's what boring people do! Interesting people make speeches and spin the press and smoke out the agenda and flip the narrative.
=====================================
The full column may be reviewed at...
http://www.peggynoonan.com/the-va-scandal-is-a-crisis-of-leadership/
Thanks,
Jax.
WorldTravel69
07-08-14, 17:22
How good are you?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0104/Could-you-pass-a-US-citizenship-test/Who-signs-bills
Oh, it's the AP men's glee club practicing again. A little bit loud and out of tune as usual. But I like their enthusiasm, they even hold hands when they practice. And when they finish, you should see their high 5's and the bumping of chests! Maybe another 6 to 8 years of practice, they might be able to put together a few songs. You would hope but it's the same song they have been polishing since 2008, and it is still quite ragged. It's more like Gregorian chanting. And I don't think the neighbors can hold off their their annoyance any longer, a public nuisance petition might soon be file. They might have to switch to knitting or checkers.
Oh, it's the AP men's glee club practicing again. A little bit loud and out of tune as usual. But I like their enthusiasm, they even hold hands when they practice. And when they finish, you should see their high 5's and the bumping of chests! Maybe another 6 to 8 years of practice, they might be able to put together a few songs. You would hope but it's the same song they have been polishing since 2008, and it is still quite ragged. It's more like Gregorian chanting. And I don't think the neighbors can hold off their their annoyance any longer, a public nuisance petition might soon be file. They might have to switch to knitting or checkers.So you actually have no response?
So you actually have no response?None whatsoever.
Exerpts from another Peggy Noonan column in the WSJ:
In a truly stunning piece in early June, Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown and Jennifer Epstein interviewed many around the president and reported a general feeling that events have left himwell, changed. He is "taking fuller advantage of the perquisites of office," such as hosting "star-studded dinners that sometimes go on well past midnight." He travels, leaving the White House more in the first half of 2014 than any other time of his presidency except his re-election year. He enjoys talking to athletes and celebrities, not grubby politicians, even members of his own party. He is above it all.
All this is weird, unprecedented. The president shows no sign—none—of being overwhelmingly concerned and anxious at his predicaments or challenges. Every president before him would have been. Instead he seems disinterested, disengaged almost to the point of disembodied. He is fatalistic, passive, minimalist.
It is weird to have a president who has given up. So many young journalists diligently covering this White House, especially those for whom it is their first, think what they're seeing is normal.
It is not. It is unprecedented and deeply strange. And, because the world is watching and calculating, unbelievably dangerous.http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-daydream-and-the-nightmare-1404421159
Ok, I do not have the official White House schedule but as I remember Regan took more time off than any president in history. If you deny this I will search the presidential archives for accurate information. My bet to you is for me a bottle of Grand mougueigh not the cheap brown label crap but the good stuff. Your comments about President bama are offensive. Keeping the USA out of a shooting war seem to be President Obamas number one priority. Most americans are with me.
Rc Collins
07-11-14, 02:46
Ok, I do not have the official White House schedule but as I remember Regan took more time off than any president in history. If you deny this I will search the presidential archives for accurate information. My bet to you is for me a bottle of Grand mougueigh not the cheap brown label crap but the good stuff. Your comments about President bama are offensive. Keeping the USA out of a shooting war seem to be President Obamas number one priority. Most americans are with me.A far right conservative like Peggy Noonan doing a hit job in a conservative newspaper like the WSJ is in no way newsworthy. Peg has written more than her share of anti-Obama doom and gloom pieces. Like most conservatives she will never have anything complementary to say about Obama and positive Obama stories will not be found in the WSJ. Be wary of stories where the accounts are credited to unnamed sources like the ones in her story.
Odd that the metrics for measuring unemployment changed once Obama came into office. These are the same metrics that were used in the past but now let's move the goal post to give him credit for nothing. The right wing's goal is never to give Obama credit for any positive accomplishment and some are even trying to get him out of office at all cost, let's get this impeachment going said Sarah Palin.
A far right conservative like Peggy Noonan doing a hit job in a conservative newspaper like the WSJ is in no way newsworthy. Peg has written more than her share of anti-Obama doom and gloom pieces. Like most conservatives she will never have anything complementary to say about Obama and positive Obama stories will not be found in the WSJ. Be wary of stories where the accounts are credited to unnamed sources like the ones in her story.
Odd that the metrics for measuring unemployment changed once Obama came into office. These are the same metrics that were used in the past but now let's move the goal post to give him credit for nothing. The right wing's goal is never to give Obama credit for any positive accomplishment and some are even trying to get him out of office at all cost, let's get this impeachment going said Sarah Palin.Are you going to argue that her analysis of the facts is flawed, or predictably regress into the usual liberal tactic of attacking the author?
Yea, that's what I thought.
Jax.
Rc Collins
07-11-14, 07:00
Are you going to argue that her analysis of the facts is flawed, or predictably regress into the usual liberal tactic of attacking the author?
Yea, that's what I thought.
Jax.If Chris Matthews, Ed Shultz or Lawrence O'Donnell wrote a similar piece against Bush or Cheney, you and your side would be similarly dismissive of it. However, I do question her because as I said she is using unnamed sources to report what is a gossip column. Coupled with her utter disdain for Obama which is surpassed only by the likes of Hannity, Nugent, Beck, Rove and other extreme right wing activist, she has no credibility. Its pretty much the same way conservatives dismissed anti-Bush/Cheney stories written by far left liberals.
Ok, I do not have the official White House schedule but as I remember Regan took more time off than any president in history. If you deny this I will search the presidential archives for accurate information. My bet to you is for me a bottle of Grand mougueigh not the cheap brown label crap but the good stuff. Your comments about President bama are offensive. Keeping the USA out of a shooting war seem to be President Obamas number one priority. Most americans are with me.Reagan's mental facilities were going downhill in the later years. What is BO's excuse?
Reagan's mental facilities were going downhill in the later years. What is BO's excuse?Based on the drumming into my head, he is Black, Muslim, Communist and the most despicable, a Community Organizer.
WorldTravel69
07-11-14, 21:27
Reagan's Mental facilities went down hill when he was Governor of California.
He must have been really nuts to close all the state mental hospitals and let all the nuts out on the streets.
And now there are more out there and In Congress tooooo.
Reagan's mental facilities were going downhill in the later years. What is BO's excuse?
He must have been really nuts to close all the state mental hospitals and let all the nuts out on the streets.I wondered how you got on the streets. Now I know.
Tres3.
Member #4112
07-19-14, 20:53
We hear all the time we live in a global economy and have to compete against other nations. Many of our major corporations are multi-national with operations spread around the globe. So you would think in a "global economy" the US government would be doing its best to help American companies compete as well as attracting foreign company to the US, right?
Wrong!
The US has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world and certainly the highest in industrialized countries at 35%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
This higher corporate tax rate is inducing more and more US companies to use a tactic called a corporate inversions, ie a transaction in which a USA -based multinational group restructures so that the USA Parent of the group is replaced by a foreign corporation, typically located in a low-tax country, to lower their tax rates to be more competitive in the global market. So what do our government officials and politicians do? Do they think globally and consider restructuring the tax system to lower corporate tax rate so US companies can compete more effectively here and abroad, no they start trying to finds ways to punish US corporations for moving to lower tax rate countries.
Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen says Congress needs to do something to stop corporations from moving overseas. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew recently sent a letter to congressional tax-writing committees to request legislation that prevents companies from leaving USA Tax bills behind, retroactive to May 2014.
So what's the problem here? Haven't these knuckleheads ever considered lowering the tax rate to keep US companies here and attract new business to the US? If the rate was lowered to something competitive, yep there's that ugly little word again liberals / progressives hate, with other industrialized nations how much of the cash held overseas by US companies would come flooding back? Perhaps if the Fed would raise interest rates to something reasonable instead of artificially keeping them low perhaps we might get a little investment money rolling in.
Well His Majesty is too busy fund raising, playing golf, shooting pool, swiging a beer, throwing parties at the White House and other such important issues to bother with Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza, shot down airlines, or the Ukraine to be annoyed by such small issues as the economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solar-energy.html?_r=0
In today's politics, the moment you win an election, you are working on winning the next election. There is really no long term agenda possible, no matter how great your ideas are, because if you do not prioritize the next election, there is no way you can implement anything meaningful, forget about substance. First you have the formidable opposition funded by the Big Boys, who could bulldoze you underground. And then you have an electorate who cannot tolerate any short term deprivation, who cannot see beyond their next pay check. So what you have is what you get. We are ones who vote the morons to Washington, they are actually who we are. They are actually doing what we would be doing if we were there. Don't kid yourself into thinking that we are better than them. It's the system, the culture, brother, pure Americana, circa 2014. There will be a day of reckoning somewhere in the future. But for now, don't worry, be happy.
When I was at a mid-price resort in El Nido, about 7 chalets, we had power partially from solar energy. That is during the day when the sun is up. A sure way to save some money. Can American homes be helped in some way by this innovation? Yes, of course, but just beware of the Big Boys kicking some sand in your face.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solar-energy.html?_r=0
In today's politics, the moment you win an election, you are working on winning the next election.
There is really no long term agenda possible, no matter how great your ideas are, because if you do not prioritize the next election, there is no way you can implement anything meaningful, forget about substance. First you have the formidable opposition funded by the Big Boys, who could bulldoze you underground. And then you have an electorate who cannot tolerate any short term deprivation, who cannot see beyond their next pay check. So what you have is what you get. We are ones who vote the morons to Washington, they are actually who we are. They are actually doing what we would be doing if we were there. Don't kid yourself into thinking that we are better than them. It's the system, the culture, brother, pure Americana, circa 2014. There will be a day of reckoning somewhere in the future. But for now, don't worry, be happy.
When I was at a mid-price resort in El Nido, about 7 chalets, we had power partially from solar energy. That is during the day when the sun is up. A sure way to save some money. Can American homes be helped in some way by this innovation? Yes, of course, but just beware of the Big Boys kicking some sand in your face.Reverend, interesting points. Respectfully, I disagree. That takes my opinion of the New York Times down a couple of notches. I doubt Koch Industries cares about this issue, one way or the other. It doesn't affect them. More likely it's the electrical utilities driving the issue. Or there's something we don't understand. The bill did receive overwhelming bipartisan support in the Oklahoma legislature. The vote in the senate was 41-0, and it was 83-5 in the house.
Doing what the Times lauds, that is mandating that a particular percentage of electricity come from renewables and subsidizing them heavily, is not wise. Spain did that and it's one of the reasons the country is almost bankrupt. Actually what this represents is bulldozing by the Big Boys, as you put it. Only the Big Boys, like Solyndra and Vinod Khosla, are special interests who donate to the Democrat party. Every time government starts micromanaging the economy, with quotas and mandates, it screws things up. Like Jimmy Carter, who decimated the Natural Gas industry in the United States in the late 1970's because the USA was running out of gas. Ha! It turned out that natural gas has put the USA in a position where it may become self-sufficient overall in energy, while at the same time reducing carbon emissions by displacing coal.
If you believe that global warming is (a) real and (b) the costs to ameliorate the problem are worth it, then institute a carbon tax to reduce emissions, and use the revenues to lower the income tax or pay off the debt. But there's no chance of that. First the politicians will never support a tax that will piss off voters when they have an alternative plan that enables them to pass out special favors like quotas and subsidies, while at the same time shifting the blame to the electrical utilities for higher prices. And second there's no way they'd use a carbon tax to do something responsible, when they could instead waste the money on pork and boondoggles.
No surprise to see the free market capitalists on this board, yet again arguing to help the rich. Their common theme:
- Lower tax rates on millionaires and billionaires (much less than the 39.6% rate they should be paying)
- Lower tax rates on corporations
The argument is that the rich will move their money elsewhere if we don't lower their taxes. That may be true to some extent, but lowering their taxes will only further increase their share of the economic pie and increase economic inequality, trends we need to reverse, not accelerate.
Of course, Wall Street loves these tax inversion (evasion) deals, because they reap huge transaction fees and improve corporate profitability, which positions the corporations to increase their payouts to Wall Street. Bankers are now actively pitching inversion targets to US corporations. Yep, the same folks and their greed that were most responsible for the financial crash and the Great Recession, now pursuing ever-new ways to make a buck, again at the expense of Americans. It's a great cycle for Wall Street: increase corporate profits -- increase corporate payouts -- increase the wealth of the top 1% -- accelerate by lowering tax rates for top 1%.
How Hedge Funds Are Pushing Companies To Leave America
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2014/05/01/how-hedge-funds-are-pushing-companies-to-leave-america/
The answer is not to feed into this "race to the bottom" mentality where we suck up to the top 1%. The answer is to pass deliberate, carefully structured legislation that prevents or discourages more lopsided wealth accumulation, and where possible reverses it through redistribution. Legislation to increase the hurdle to inversion deals is worth looking at.
Doppelganger's solution: Reduce the federal corporate tax rate so that it's not the highest in the developed world. Remove subsidies and special privileges, and make the tax system simpler, more efficient, and easier to comply with. Overall, Doppelganger's solution would grow the economy and jobs and make things better for corporate stakeholders, which include their employees, state and local governments, and pension funds and mutual funds that own their stock. It would also help small incorporated businesses that don't have armies of lawyers, lobbyists and accountants.
Esten's solution: First and most importantly, blame it on the top 1%. This has served Obama well and is a good Democrat talking point for the elections this year. And redistribute. Take the capital and investment out of the economy and distribute it as free money. This gets even more votes for Democrats.
Second, otherwise leave everything as it is except outlaw mergers that involve USA Corporations and would result in the merged entity being domiciled outside the USA. Will this punish Wall Street? I doubt it. The investment bankers, lobbyists and tax lawyers will find other ways to milk their clients and further contort the tax system so that it's even more inefficient.
I doubt Koch Industries cares about this issue, one way or the other. It doesn't affect them.I am by no means an expert on this subject, but Koch Brothers isn't funding the Liberterian Party because they want to solve America's problems.
The answer is to pass deliberate, carefully structured legislation that prevents or discourages more lopsided wealth accumulation, and where possible reverses it through redistribution.Any such legislation, no matter how "carefully structured", will have exactly the opposite effect.
I am by no means an expert on this subject, but Koch Brothers isn't funding the Liberterian Party because they want to solve America's problems.Nobody funds anyone "because they want to solve America's problems", period.
I am by no means an expert on this subject, but Koch Brothers isn't funding the Liberterian Party because they want to solve America's problems.Reverend, I think you're right, that their Libertarian instincts would be the reason they're donors to organizations that want to limit renewable energy quotas and subsidies. There's not much of an economic incentive, as they're involved in transportation fuels and chemicals, which don't compete with renewables. Like you I'm not an expert on the Koch's and their donations.
The issue appears to be that people using solar and wind at times put power back into the electric power grid and receive credit for it. An example might be a sunny day when a homeowner's solar system is generating more electricity than he needs. From the L. A. Times article that your NYT piece links to, it doesn't make economic sense for people to install solar or wind equipment unless they'll get credit at attractive rates for the excess electricity they generate. The utilities own, maintain and operate the transmission system. Based on a 2 hour lecture I sat through by one of the "air traffic controllers" of the power grid, the issue isn't as one sided as you think. For example, in Texas, there are commercial wind generators that actually sometimes pay to put power into the grid. This occurs maybe on a windy day when heating or cooling demand is low and there's too much power being generated, so the grid actually makes prices negative to lower the supply. Logically the wind generators would shut down to avoid paying money to the grid and to avoid the wear and tear on their equipment. But because the federal government pays them something like a 2 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit, and because the grid was only charging maybe a cent a kilowatt hour to allow them to generate the power, they'll make an after-tax profit if they keep generating. I presume the same thing could happen on a sunny day in Arizona -- the utilities lose money while they're crediting homeowners for excess electric power generated from their solar panels.
So a question, since utilities own the transmission system, what's to prevent them telling homeowners they can't use it? And why wouldn't they, if they're going to have to incur costs and have lower revenues by subsidizing the homeowners? My guess, there may be anti-monopoly laws that prevent this, since there's only one utility providing the electric lines in your neighborhood. Anyway, what Arizona finally ended up with, a $5 per month fee or whatever to hook your solar cells into the grid, seems on the surface reasonable to me, in compensating the utilities for what they're providing. $100/ month does seem excessive for a homeowner. But since we don't know the costs involved we can't say.
Esten's solution: First and most importantly, blame it on the top 1%. This has served Obama well and is a good Democrat talking point for the elections this year. And redistribute. Take the capital and investment out of the economy and distribute it as free money. This gets even more votes for Democrats. Tiny's mischaracterizations only indicate how weak his argument is. The progressive solution is not blame, but deliberate, carefully structured legislation that prevents, discourages or reverses lopsided wealth accumulation. If there is something to blame, it would not be the 1%, because many in the 1% actually understand the extent of economic inequality in this country, and support progressive efforts to address it. The blame instead would be on an inadequately regulated capitalist system, championed by free market capitalists like Tiny. Free-market trickle-down theory was largely disproven under Bush, and is only still espoused by self-interested beneficiaries, ideologues and suckers.
It's not about punishing Wall Street either, simply reigning them in. They won't do it themselves. And saying they "will find other ways to milk their clients" is a poor excuse for not taking any action. I am sure on the inside, many folks on Wall Street are laughing all the way to the bank at the extent to which they are able to leech off the economy and the fruits of American workers.
As Buffett said, "Theres class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and were winning.".
Tiny's mischaracterizations only indicate how weak his argument is. The progressive solution is not blame, but deliberate, carefully structured legislation that prevents, discourages or reverses lopsided wealth accumulation. If there is something to blame, it would not be the 1%, because many in the 1% actually understand the extent of economic inequality in this country, and support progressive efforts to address it. The blame instead would be on an inadequately regulated capitalist system, championed by free market capitalists like Tiny. Free-market trickle-down theory was largely disproven under Bush, and is only still espoused by self-interested beneficiaries, ideologues and suckers.
It's not about punishing Wall Street either, simply reigning them in. They won't do it themselves. And saying they "will find other ways to milk their clients" is a poor excuse for not taking any action. I am sure on the inside, many folks on Wall Street are laughing all the way to the bank at the extent to which they are able to leech off the economy and the fruits of American workers.
As Buffett said, "Theres class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and were winning.".
There is no point in attempting to debate Esten, he is too far gone.
Don B.
The progressive solution is not blame, but deliberate, carefully structured legislation that prevents, discourages or reverses lopsided wealth accumulation.Here's the progressive solution in more detail,
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
Here's a Wall Street job creator, trying to make an easy billion by shorting a stock to zero (bankrupting a company). Some would have us believe such people are paying too much tax on their (cough) hard earned money.
Herbalife down 6. 5% as Ackman says he'll deal deathblow
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/herbalife-down-56-as-ackman-says-hell-deal-deathblow-2014-07-21-139124
Here's a Wall Street job creator, trying to make an easy billion by shorting a stock to zero (bankrupting a company). Some would have us believe such people are paying too much tax on their (cough) hard earned money.
Herbalife down 6. 5% as Ackman says he'll deal deathblow
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/herbalife-down-56-as-ackman-says-hell-deal-deathblow-2014-07-21-139124Interesting example Esten. Do you believe dealing a deathblow to a pyramidal marketing scheme would be a bad thing? Do you believe people should be brainwashed to think they'll make millions by drawing their friends into Herbalife or Amway? Are you a big fan of Bernie Madoff? Charles Ponzi?
That said, agreed, he should be paying taxes on ordinary income, not carried interest. Fat chance of that happening though when Democrats like Chuck Schumer are in Wall Street's pocket.
But, if you insist on condemning Ackman for what he's doing with Herbalife, please note that he's a Democrat, and that he paid off Democrat politicians to try to bankrupt the company. Please see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/business/staking-1-billion-that-herbalife-will-fail-then-ackman-lobbying-to-bring-it-down.html?_r=1 . You can see the party affiliations of the people and groups in the NYT article here: http://freebeacon.com/blog/hedge-funds-k-street-and-the-ugly-underbelly-of-the-democratic-party/
Face it Esten. There are more Democrats doing favors for Wall Street than Republicans.
Interesting example Esten. Do you believe dealing a deathblow to a pyramidal marketing scheme would be a bad thing? Do you believe people should be brainwashed to think they'll make millions by drawing their friends into Herbalife or Amway? Are you a big fan of Bernie Madoff? Charles Ponzi?
That said, agreed, he should be paying taxes on ordinary income, not carried interest. Fat chance of that happening though when Democrats like Chuck Schumer are in Wall Street's pocket.
But, if you insist on condemning Ackman for what he's doing with Herbalife, please note that he's a Democrat, and that he paid off Democrat politicians to try to bankrupt the company. Please see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/business/staking-1-billion-that-herbalife-will-fail-then-ackman-lobbying-to-bring-it-down.html?_r=1 . You can see the party affiliations of the people and groups in the NYT article here: http://freebeacon.com/blog/hedge-funds-k-street-and-the-ugly-underbelly-of-the-democratic-party/
Face it Esten. There are more Democrats doing favors for Wall Street than Republicans.Money buys favors but that is only because there are favors for sale.
If we had a proper government that performed its only legitimate task, that of defending individual rights this discussion would be moot.
Esten, et al, do not understand this, they are so wrapped up in their progressive ideology, the collective over the individual.
Don B.
Money buys favors but that is only because there are favors for sale.
If we had a proper government that performed its only legitimate task, that of defending individual rights this discussion would be moot.
Esten, et al, do not understand this, they are so wrapped up in their progressive ideology, the collective over the individual.Progressives are concerned about the individual as much as anyone else. Progressive policies may 'hurt' some individuals by limiting some of their freedoms, but you have to look at the other side of the equation, where the same and / or other individuals also benefit when certain freedoms are restricted. Typically the benefit outweighs the harm. Ultimately it's all about the individual.
Anyone who really believes the only legitimate role of government is to protect individual rights is living in an ideological fantasyland. The role of government is determined by the people, and very few people (including Conservatives) would actually assign it such a ridiculously narrow scope.
Money buys favors but that is only because there are favors for sale.
If we had a proper government that performed its only legitimate task, that of defending individual rights this discussion would be moot.
Esten, et al, do not understand this, they are so wrapped up in their progressive ideology, the collective over the individual.
Don B.There are always favors for sale, and there is always somebody selling out. I think you have live long enough to know that by now.
In a complex and complicated modern world, you better believe the government has more than that one task. It's just not you and your horse, and your watering hole.
Punter 127
07-23-14, 04:10
Progressives are concerned about the individual as much as anyone else. Progressive policies may 'hurt' some individuals by limiting some of their freedoms, but you have to look at the other side of the equation, where the same and / or other individuals also benefit when certain freedoms are restricted. Typically the benefit outweighs the harm. Ultimately it's all about the individual.Translation:
Progressives are concerned about the individual as much as anyone more about themselves than anyone else. Progressive policies may will 'hurt' some all individuals by limiting some taking all their freedoms, but you have to look at the other side of the equation, where the same and / or other individuals also progressives will benefit when certain freedoms are restricted. Typically the benefit to progressives outweighs the harm to individuals. Ultimately it's all about the individual power over the people.
Anyone who really believes the only legitimate role of government is to protect individual rights is living in an ideological fantasyland. The role of government is determined by the people, and very few people (including Conservatives) would actually assign it such a ridiculously narrow scope.Like it or not, it's the role our Founding Fathers intended for the federal government. They envisioned a much broader scope of power for state governments, they very much opposed big federal government.
The world guys like Esten, Rev BS and their ilk envision will demand unctuous loyalty, any hint of perfidy will be dealt with in a manner reminiscent of Adolf Hitler. Progressives are nothing more than a cult built on propaganda and intent on enslaving the world in order to satisfy their hunger for power. What kind of a place will the world be once they complete their version of ethnic cleansing.
I never thought I would see the day that Americans would openly call for restricting the individual rights of other Americans in order to give more power the federal government. To me this is akin to just handing a mugger your billfold and then slitting your own throat.
There are always favors for sale, and there is always somebody selling out. I think you have live long enough to know that by now.
In a complex and complicated modern world, you better believe the government has more than that one task. It's just not you and your horse, and your watering hole.Just what is government's task?
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/06/auberon-herbert-advocate-reason-individual-rights-limited-government/
Don B.
Just what is government's task?
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/06/auberon-herbert-advocate-reason-individual-rights-limited-government/
Don B.Why don't you tell us about your time in the American gulags? And how of much your life has been violated by the majority rule.
Like it or not, it's the role our Founding Fathers intended for the federal government. They envisioned a much broader scope of power for state governments, they very much opposed big federal government.
The world guys like Esten, Rev BS and their ilk envision will demand unctuous loyalty, any hint of perfidy will be dealt with in a manner reminiscent of Adolf Hitler. Progressives are nothing more than a cult built on propaganda and intent on enslaving the world in order to satisfy their hunger for power. What kind of a place will the world be once they complete their version of ethnic cleansing.
I never thought I would see the day that Americans would openly call for restricting the individual rights of other Americans in order to give more power the federal government. To me this is akin to just handing a mugger your billfold and then slitting your own throat.So much pain, persecution, frustration and hate there in the 2nd paragraph. Did it start with being ask to take out the trash?
The world is evolving every second. Globalization brought on by technology has brought transformation everywhere. Wealth & money is being distributed across the globe. There is no turning back the clock.
So much pain, persecution, frustration and hate there in the 2nd paragraph. Did it start with being ask to take out the trash?I think Punter was joking. It's how they deal with the frustration of being unable to effectively argue their positions.
But yeah, that was a piece of work. Even stranger is that I doubt not a single one of these guys even supports the extremely narrow role of government they appear to be promoting. To support such a narrow role, they'd have to support the cessation of public works (roads, bridges, traffic lights, water supply, sewage, parks, beaches, etc), public transportation, public schools, police, firemen, Medicare, Medicaid, clean air and water, safe food and medication, and on and on and on. But hey, your rights would be protected!
Interesting example Esten. Do you believe dealing a deathblow to a pyramidal marketing scheme would be a bad thing? Do you believe people should be brainwashed to think they'll make millions by drawing their friends into Herbalife or Amway? Are you a big fan of Bernie Madoff? Charles Ponzi?
That said, agreed, he should be paying taxes on ordinary income, not carried interest. Fat chance of that happening though when Democrats like Chuck Schumer are in Wall Street's pocket.
But, if you insist on condemning Ackman for what he's doing with Herbalife, please note that he's a Democrat, and that he paid off Democrat politicians to try to bankrupt the company. Please see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/business/staking-1-billion-that-herbalife-will-fail-then-ackman-lobbying-to-bring-it-down.html?_r=1 . You can see the party affiliations of the people and groups in the NYT article here: http://freebeacon.com/blog/hedge-funds-k-street-and-the-ugly-underbelly-of-the-democratic-party/
Face it Esten. There are more Democrats doing favors for Wall Street than Republicans.It's all about policy Tiny. And it is clear what political party is more likely to tax, regulate, and reign in Wall Street.
I see you have invoked the classic right wing tactic to link Democrats to Wall Street when Wall Street looks bad. That's nothing more than a slippery diversion to a completely separate discussion. I could point out that Ackman isn't a Democrat because he voted for Romney, or Paul Ryan's private dinners with hedge fund managers, etc. But really what's the point. For obvious reasons both parties would like Wall Street's support, and Wall Street would like political support. This is a separate discussion from the far more important one, of what the parties are willing to do about Wall Street. Schumer is not my favorite politician, but he does support the Buffett Rule. And most Republicans don't. Remember, they signed a pledge to lobbyists (not the American people), to never raise taxes, which means to never address the absurd tax laws and loopholes that benefit the top 1%.
I see Ackman flamed out, but on the other side, Icahn made $234 million in one day on his stake in Herbalife. That's basically free money for Icahn, but when he cashes out he won't likely use his profits to create jobs, rather just play again in the Wall Street casino. Beyond some threshold (say 1 M), such monster profits should be taxed at much higher rates.
I could point out that Ackman isn't a Democrat because he voted for RomneyI disagree. Look at the pattern of Ackman's donations during the election cycles.
2014 - 18 to Democrats, 1 negative donation to Romney (Romney sent money back to him?
2012 - 8 to Democrats, 1 large donation to Romney.
2010 -- 22, all to Democrats.
2008 - 17, all to Democrats, including Obama.
Ackman, like you said, probably did vote for Romney. What Ackman did is indicative of Wall Street. Look at donations by people who work at places like Goldman Sachs. Historically they've predominantly donated to Democrats. But in 2012 there was a combination of factors. Many viewed Obama as incompetent. Others figured Romney, who benefited greatly from carried interest and who was a person many on Wall Street could identify with because of his experience with Bain capital, figured he'd be better for Wall Street or better for the country, or better for both. And, to provide some credit to your man, Obama has not been as pliable in the hands of Wall Street lobbyists as some of his Democrat colleagues. He's been more like Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, in a bad way, bailing out the stockholders and bondholders in the banks after the recession, while now imposing fines on banks, particularly the foreign ones, all out of proportion to their infractions.
And it is clear what political party is more likely to tax, regulate, and reign in Wall Street.Democrats are more likely to provide special tax breaks and corporate welfare for Wall Street. As to regulation, both parties suck. Simple requirements, like, say, tangible book value be a minimum of 8% to 10% of assets for financial institutions, are the solution. That combined with regulators who do their jobs and who aren't hamstrung by Congressmen who insist on things like loans to people who can't pay them back.
Beyond some threshold (say 1 M), such monster profits should be taxed at much higher rates. I would agree with you that hedge fund managers should not get special favors like carried interest. However, from your past posts, you intend this as a general statement, not to be applied just to fund managers and their special privileges. You want to take capital away from those who use it best and allocate it to government instead. That's the progressive solution: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
Schumer is not my favorite politician, but he does support the Buffett Rule.
Get him in a back room and see what he does. When he and Pelosi saw the writing on the wall, that Obama was going to raise rates, they tried to make sure their wealthy friends and donors making up to $1 million a year wouldn't be affected. Again, I have to give your man Obama points for being less of a hypocrite than his Democrat colleagues.
Remember, they signed a pledge to lobbyists (not the American people), to never raise taxes, which means to never address the absurd tax laws and loopholes that benefit the top 1%.Horse shit. First a number of Republicans would like to make the income tax system fairer and more efficient by simplifying the rules, eliminating loopholes, and bringing rates down. Some Democrats too, like Max Baucus. Obama, Harry and Nancy will have none of that though. Harry and Nancy realize cutting out special privileges reduces their power. Obama, like you, believes tax rates should be higher, not lower. As to the special loopholes benefitting the top 1%, that’s also horse shit. At the federal level, the USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world.
Punter 127
07-25-14, 03:26
So much pain, persecution, frustration and hate there in the 2nd paragraph. Did it start with being ask to take out the trash?
The world is evolving every second. Globalization brought on by technology has brought transformation everywhere. Wealth & money is being distributed across the globe. There is no turning back the clock.Money has always been distributed across the globe, it's the stealing and redistribution for political gain that bothers me.
No one is suggesting we go back to square one, but the ship is listing way to far to the left, we need to right the ship and reset our course before we capsizes.
As for taking out the trash, I will be very happy to help the American people start taking out the trash in November.
Punter 127
07-25-14, 03:40
I think Punter was joking.Nope not joking, exaggerating yes, but not joking. Perhaps political cleansing would have been a better choice of words, because that's what progressives like you and Rev BS try to do with your constant attempts at character assassination of people and media outlets that disagree with you.
But yeah, that was a piece of work. Even stranger is that I doubt not a single one of these guys even supports the extremely narrow role of government they appear to be promoting. To support such a narrow role, they'd have to support the cessation of public works (roads, bridges, traffic lights, water supply, sewage, parks, beaches, etc), public transportation, public schools, police, firemen, Medicare, Medicaid, clean air and water, safe food and medication, and on and on and on. But hey, your rights would be protected!That's absurd, I buy my electricity and natural gas from publicly owned state regulated utilities, I buy my water from a municipally-owned utility, fire protection is provided by volunteer and local city and county fire departments. Police protection is provided by city, county, and state governments, federal law enforcement only addresses crimes that violate federal laws. And we don't need a federal police force, as a matter of fact we have to much federal intervention in local law enforcement already, which has lead to the militarization of local law enforcement agency that we're seeing today. Our school systems are run by local school boards not the federal government, again federal intervention has led to the disastrous public school system we have today. Almost all of what you named off is owned by someone other than the federal government and most of what the fed does control should be turned over to the states. The primary function of the federal government should be interstate commerce and defense.
The idea that the federal government should extract money from the people in the form of taxes and then use that same money as a weapon to gain compliance with the political whims of the day whilst lining the pockets of their political cronies is ludicrous at best. Equally ludicrous is the suggestion that we could not have the above mentioned services without the federal government, if anything the fed makes these services more costly and less efficient. There is a role for the federal government but it should be very limited.
I think Punter was joking. It's how they deal with the frustration of being unable to effectively argue their positions.A Freudian slip more likely.
Punter 127
07-25-14, 10:04
A Freudian slip more likely.There You Go Again!
ROFLMAO.
Excellent post Punter. As Dccpa put it, government works best when it's closest to the people. If Californians want a "progressive" state and Texans want freedom and liberty, then why not let them have it.
Nope not joking, exaggerating yes, but not joking. Perhaps political cleansing would have been a better choice of words, because that's what progressives like you and Rev BS try to do with your constant attempts at character assassination of people and media outlets that disagree with you.
That's absurd, I buy my electricity and natural gas from publicly owned state regulated utilities, I buy my water from a municipally-owned utility, fire protection is provided by volunteer and local city and county fire departments. Police protection is provided by city, county, and state governments, federal law enforcement only addresses crimes that violate federal laws. And we don't need a federal police force, as a matter of fact we have to much federal intervention in local law enforcement already, which has lead to the militarization of local law enforcement agency that we're seeing today. Our school systems are run by local school boards not the federal government, again federal intervention has led to the disastrous public school system we have today. Almost all of what you named off is owned by someone other than the federal government and most of what the fed does control should be turned over to the states. The primary function of the federal government should be interstate commerce and defense.
The idea that the federal government should extract money from the people in the form of taxes and then use that same money as a weapon to gain compliance with the political whims of the day whilst lining the pockets of their political cronies is ludicrous at best. Equally ludicrous is the suggestion that we could not have the above mentioned services without the federal government, if anything the fed makes these services more costly and less efficient. There is a role for the federal government but it should be very limited.Unfortunately, the Feds have managed to infiltrate almost every state and local expenditure with "contributions" that have strings attached; however, even with the strings from Washington, state and local governments are more responsive to the needs of the people.
Tres3.
Perhaps political cleansing would have been a better choice of words, because that's what progressives like you and Rev BS try to do with your constant attempts at character assassination of people and media outlets that disagree with you.Conservatives and their media outlets routinely damage their own character by their own words. Some of us simply point it out occasionally.
So you disagree with Don B's statement that the only legitimate task of government is defending individual rights. That's what I thought. But yet you supported it by your "Thanks". Clearly his statement is untenable, so now you clarify that this is about the federal government, though you still disagree with Don by your citation of interstate commerce and defense. Thank you for being more specific. I don't understand why you guys "Thank" each other when you actually don't agree. And I'll bet you support more of a federal role than what you cited (for example, functions within the DHHS, would you replicate the FDA and CDC at each state level?). This seems to be a theme on the right; they bash government routinely and say they want small government, but when you get to specifics there are actually a lot of things they want the government to do.
Tiny, Political donations do not alone determine political affiliation. Has it not occured to you that Wall Street often donates to the party most likely to win, to establish a record of support to the party in power?
Democrats are more likely to provide special tax breaks and corporate welfare for Wall Street.
You want to take capital away from those who use it best and allocate it to government instead. That's the progressive solution: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdfLies and distortion. Look at the tax and regulatory legislation under Obama that Republicans opposed. Nowhere have I said I support communism and the abolition of private property (in your link). I do support higher taxation on Wall Street casino players, who absolutely do not use capital better than government. I'm pretty sure a $100 M infrastructure program will create more jobs and help the economy more than $100 M re-invested in a long or short position of a public company.
Your ongoing mischaracterizations are sad but not surprising. This is what Republicans (and Libertarians) must do; if they were to accurately describe the views and goals of Democrats, with proper context, their base would erode. Therefore constant mischaracterization is needed.
I don't understand why you guys "Thank" each other when you actually don't agree.It's call the "circling of wagons" as in the Frontier Days. Guns vs Bows and Arrows. That is how the NRA came into being, somebody said.
Punter 127
07-27-14, 02:19
Excellent post Punter. As Dccpa put it, government works best when it's closest to the people. If Californians want a "progressive" state and Texans want freedom and liberty, then why not let them have it.Thanks Tiny,
I'm in full agreement with your thinking, the only problem I see for a "progressive" state is they would still have to follow the Constitution, which they don't seem to like very much.
Punter 127
07-27-14, 02:33
Unfortunately, the Feds have managed to infiltrate almost every state and local expenditure with "contributions" that have strings attached; however, even with the strings from Washington, state and local governments are more responsive to the needs of the people.
Tres3.You're 100% correct, I think a case can be made that the infiltration you speak of is by design. Always be leery of strangers bearing gifts!
And progressives just keep getting stranger and stranger, just read some of the recent post on this thread.
Punter 127
07-27-14, 05:23
Conservatives and their media outlets routinely damage their own character by their own words. Some of us simply point it out occasionally.Progressives and their media outlets routinely damage their own character by their own words. Some of us simply point it out occasionally. Works both ways Dude.
you disagree with Don B's statement that the only legitimate task of government is defending individual rights. That's what I thought. But yet you supported it by your "Thanks". Clearly his statement is untenable, so now you clarify that this is about the federal government, though you still disagree with Don by your citation of interstate commerce and defense. Thank you for being more specific. I don't understand why you guys "Thank" each other when you actually don't agree. And I'll bet you support more of a federal role than what you cited (for example, functions within the DHHS, would you replicate the FDA and CDC at each state level?). This seems to be a theme on the right; they bash government routinely and say they want small government, but when you get to specifics there are actually a lot of things they want the government to do.The argument about big government has always been about the federal government everyone including you knows that, you're just trying to spin your way out of a hole you dug for yourself.
I don't speak for Don B nor I am I required to agree with every word he writes in order to thank him for a post, sorry Esten you don't get to make the rules. Thanks again for your post Don B!
I'm not going to cherry pick government agencies and programs with you because it's pointless.
But I will remind you that we already have "replication" of many things at state level. Do you know of a state that doesn't have a health department or DMV or highway department, I think most if not all even have their own OSHA. (the names may vary) Do you think the federal government should be allowed to tell California they can't sell medical marijuana? Do you think the Fed has the right to tell Colorado they can't legalize marijuana? Do you think terminally ill people should be refused the right to take experimental drugs because the FDA has refused to approve it because they're concerned it might cause pimples on you ass? (for the simpletons among us that was an exaggeration) I don't have a big problem with keeping some agencies like the FDA but they should be pretty much powerless and limited to making suggestions or recommendations to the states, let the people of each state decide what's right for them. The Constitution should be the only thing limiting the states.
Tiny, Political donations do not alone determine political affiliation. Has it not occured to you that Wall Street often donates to the party most likely to win, to establish a record of support to the party in power?You have a good point. The fact that Ackman made 64 donations to Democrats (ten of which were to Democrat PAC's) and one donation to a Republican (Romney) since 2008 does not determine his political affiliation. Maybe Ackman was just trying to promote his agenda. This would tend to support what I wrote, which you said was a lie and distortion:
Democrats are more likely to provide special tax breaks and corporate welfare for Wall Street. That is, Wall Street has found it easier to buy off Democrats than Republicans. Take a look at the links I posted about Ackman for example.
Nowhere have I said I support communism and the abolition of private property (in your link)....Your ongoing mischaracterizations are sad but not surprising. This is what Republicans (and Libertarians) must do; if they were to accurately describe the views and goals of Democrats, with proper context, their base would erode. Therefore constant mischaracterization is needed.I'm not trying to persuade the "base" of anything, especially the Republican base, since I'm not a Republican. I am only trying to help you on your voyage of self discovery. You explained here what a neoliberal is. As a result of your kindness, I realized that's what I am. I came out of the closet, and wear the neoliberal badge with pride. I'm just trying to return the favor. Seriously, I'd be trying to pin the Marxist label on EAP instead of you, in view of his continually calling some of us "Fascists", but his responses are pretty weak. And if you were dictator of the USA, you would take a huge chunk of the economy and move it from the private sector to the federal government.
I'm pretty sure a $100 M infrastructure program will create more jobs and help the economy more than $100 M re-invested in a long or short position of a public company.
That may be right, especially if the $100 million infrastructure program were run by private enterprise or a state or local government. Your guy in Washington takes a $800 billion stimulus program, and by the time he's finished pandering to his supporters and runs the money through the federal bureaucracy, we get poor value for the money spent.
Punter 127
08-02-14, 00:40
Is MSNBC turning on Obama?
A year ago you'd never have heard this discussion on MSNBC's Morning Joe.
"The MSNBC panelists, not a Tea Party member in the lot, make the very strong point that there's maybe just a little more than a "smidgen" of corruption at the IRS. And maybe the FBI, who couldn't find any problems at the IRS even before they had appointed an Obama campaign donor to investigate it".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFUF0vYNN04
Progressives and their media outlets routinely damage their own character by their own words. Some of us simply point it out occasionally. Works both ways Dude.I agree, MSNBC is a good example (at times). But I think conservatives outperform progressives here, in their endless attempts to cast Obama and Democrats in a negative light.
BTW, did you even watch the Youtube link you posted? They said Lerner's words demonstrated bias that fed the GOP narrative. They did not say that Lerner's actions were biased or corrupt. Guess what, the government is full of folks with bias. Democrats and Republicans. Like the Republican who said he was responsible for implementing the words "Tea Party" as a flag criteria. Lerner was dumb to put her opinions in an email, but an email does not equate with corruption. Let us know when you find that smidgen of corruption.
The last time we had 6 consecutive months of 200K+ jobs was 1997. That's right, 1997. Not even Bush and all those tax cuts could do better. Again we see the epic exposure of Republican falsehoods that trickle-down economics is superior, that Obama's policies have failed, and that the Affordable Care Act is a big jobs killer.
The US economy also set a new record for consecutive months of private-sector job growth. The labor market is clearly strong.
No doubt the ODS crowd will try to claim that part time jobs are up, and that wage growth is anemic because of Obama. Let's see if they can make a convincing case that any weakness in these areas are due to Obama's policies, rather than effects of capitalism and corporatism.
The US Jobs Market Just Accomplished Something It Hasn't Done Since 1997
http://www.businessinsider.com/july-jobs-report-200k-growth-for-first-time-since-1997-2014-8
I agree, MSNBC is a good example (at times). But I think conservatives outperform progressives here, in their endless attempts to cast Obama and Democrats in a negative light.
BTW, did you even watch the Youtube link you posted? They said Lerner's words demonstrated bias that fed the GOP narrative. They did not say that Lerner's actions were biased or corrupt. Guess what, the government is full of folks with bias. Democrats and Republicans. Like the Republican who said he was responsible for implementing the words "Tea Party" as a flag criteria. Lerner was dumb to put her opinions in an email, but an email does not equate with corruption. Let us know when you find that smidgen of corruption.Your calling someone biased is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Tres3.
Punter 127
08-04-14, 06:04
"She just plays into Republicans worst suspicions." (Joe Scarborough)
I agree, MSNBC is a good example (at times). But I think conservatives outperform progressives here, in their endless attempts to cast Obama and Democrats in a negative light.But of course you do, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
BTW, did you even watch the Youtube link you posted? They said Lerner's words demonstrated bias that fed the GOP narrative. They did not say that Lerner's actions were biased or corrupt. Guess what, the government is full of folks with bias. Democrats and Republicans. Like the Republican who said he was responsible for implementing the words "Tea Party" as a flag criteria. Lerner was dumb to put her opinions in an email, but an email does not equate with corruption. Let us know when you find that smidgen of corruption.Not only did I watch it, I heard what they said, you're the one who needs to read my previous post and play the video again starting at about the 1:27 mark, and remember this is the far-left-wing fringe MSNBC.
Here's what they said:
If the question is was there political, ideological bias inside the IRS, its hard to argue no after you read that, said Willie Geist.
And malice, added MSNBC contributor Nicolle Wallace. She (Lerner) equates Republicans as inferior to terrorists. I think motive is there, I think state of mind is there again, if this were a legal proceeding, they've got their gal.
Lois Lerner labeled people on the right "assholes" and "crazies" who are more likely to "take us down" than foreign terrorists. That's coming from a senior manager at the IRS, a group that is supposed to be absolutely non-partisan. She's entitled to her opinion about those who don't agree with her politically, I've said worse about progressives, and I will again. I believe progressives who want to replace the Constitution with "critical thinking" are the greatest threat the United States faces today.
But there's a difference between Lois Lerner and me, I'm not responsible for writing or enforcing IRS regulations, Lois Lerner was.
The problem isn't that she has different opinion than me, or that she even held a senior position at the IRS, it's that she acted on her opinion in her enforcement of IRS regulations. Anybody that doesn't believe that surely believes in the tooth fairy.
"The Department of Justice so far has declined to investigate the IRS and isn't likely to ever do so as long as Eric Holder is in charge. President Obama is Holders close friend and pulled his fat out of the fire by blocking the Fast and Furious investigation.
Obama has said there is not a smidgen of evidence tying Lerner's crusade against conservatives to the White House efforts to see Obama re-elected. That, of course, is what all the stonewalling and crashed hard drives are about. One of the impeachment charges against President Nixon was that he used the IRS to target political enemies. The smart money says thats exactly what Obama did, but any evidence of it has surely been scrubbed, and Lerner has been bought off or possibly threatened to keep her mouth shut."
I don't think the American people need proof beyond a shadow of a doubt in the court of public opinion, they know what transpired here. I also think your refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing is helping make the case for smaller government, which would have limited opportunities for abuse of power. It's time to start taking away the tools of evilness and our current tax system is a good place to start. It's time to reduce the IRS to nothing more than bill collectors by adopting a fair flat tax across the board, no exceptions. The flat tax would also take away some of the tools used to cater to special interest.
The last time we had 6 consecutive months of 200K+ jobs was 1997. That's right, 1997. Not even Bush and all those tax cuts could do better. Again we see the epic exposure of Republican falsehoods that trickle-down economics is superior, that Obama's policies have failed, and that the Affordable Care Act is a big jobs killer.
The US economy also set a new record for consecutive months of private-sector job growth. The labor market is clearly strong.
No doubt the ODS crowd will try to claim that part time jobs are up, and that wage growth is anemic because of Obama. Let's see if they can make a convincing case that any weakness in these areas are due to Obama's policies, rather than effects of capitalism and corporatism.
The US Jobs Market Just Accomplished Something It Hasn't Done Since 1997
http://www.businessinsider.com/july-jobs-report-200k-growth-for-first-time-since-1997-2014-8Suffering from sometimers Esten? You are seriously crowing about 6 consecutive months of 200 k+ jobs when we already exposed the prior month was a loss of several hundred thousand full time jobs and gains of part time jobs? You know those full time jobs that Obamacare killed and the part time jobs that Obamacare created. You can keep on spinning, but those previously employed on a full time basis are not singing BO's praises.
This reminds me of the joke where the blond is sitting on a bench bragging about how she now has healthcare thanks to Obama. Her friend congratulated her and asked whether her employer had covered her. No, the blond replied. I qualified for free healthcare because my employer laid me off.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101891054
"But in the interview, Obama chided business for a lack of social responsibility, citing a "general view" that "the only responsibility that a corporate CEO has is to his shareholders. ".
The arrogance of that statement is astounding. Why should those running companies only be responsible to the owners of those companies? Maybe because that is their job. Want to be socially responsible with company employees and assets, ask the owners for permission to do so or else do it on your own time with your own money.
BO would make a great leader for Argentina.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101891054
"But in the interview, Obama chided business for a lack of social responsibility, citing a "general view" that "the only responsibility that a corporate CEO has is to his shareholders. ".
The arrogance of that statement is astounding. Why should those running companies only be responsible to the owners of those companies? Maybe because that is their job. Want to be socially responsible with company employees and assets, ask the owners for permission to do so or else do it on your own time with your own money.
The BO would make a great leader for Argentina.I tell anybody who will listen that corporations have no business engaging in charitable or eleemosynary activities but nobody (except obviously you) gets it. Similarly I tell everybody that the corporate income tax is a complete fiction and a total waste of time and effort. These are both areas where emotion and rhetoric trump logic.
I think the CEO has a responsibility to the environment and to the community in which it operates, since this involves legitimate stakeholders (as opposed to shareholders). But I can't be green if my competitors aren't green, so hence you have regulations and I don't think you can expect a CEO to be any more environmentally conscious than society indicates its desire for (through the particular regulations selected). And, I think the best way the responsibility to the community can be discharged, given that environmental regs are being complied with, is to provide steady employment to the citizens of the community. And, the best way to do that is to be profitable. So I as CEO will seek to be as profitable as possible while complying with all the regulations that the community has indicated it wants. Then I will either pass those profits on to the shareholders as dividends, or retain them for expansion, or some of both. What I won't do is decide for the shareholders that saving the (spotted owl, harp seal, bastard children) is the right cause for them to contribute to. With multiple anonymous shareholders, how could corporate management possibly decide what charities the OWNERS of the corporation want to contribute to?
But every time I bring this up, I am just an unsympathetic scrooge.
Here's who the next Argie president should be, in my opinion. Saw him live once in Corrientes street.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicho_G%C3%B3mez
Every day when it's time to open up the daily paper, we are so emotionally jaded that the tragic events we read seem like they are from a different planet. And there seem no end to it. So it's nice, that out of the conflicts, natural disasters and craziness, to read about one sane man who can make a major contribution to his fellow human beings. Being humble, generous, kind. I would like to be like that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2014/08/05/kentucky-state-president-to-share-his-salary-with-schools-lowest-paid-workers/?hpid=z4
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.