Printable View
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
[URL]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/herbalife-down-56-as-ackman-says-hell-deal-deathblow-2014-07-21-139124[/URL]
[QUOTE=Esten;440544]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
[URL]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/herbalife-down-56-as-ackman-says-hell-deal-deathblow-2014-07-21-139124[/URL][/QUOTE]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.
[b]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.[/b] Please see [URL]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 [/URL]. You can see the party affiliations of the people and groups in the NYT article here: [URL]http://freebeacon.com/blog/hedge-funds-k-street-and-the-ugly-underbelly-of-the-democratic-party/[/URL]
Face it Esten. There are more Democrats doing favors for Wall Street than Republicans.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;440545]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.
[b]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.[/b] Please see [URL]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 [/URL]. You can see the party affiliations of the people and groups in the NYT article here: [URL]http://freebeacon.com/blog/hedge-funds-k-street-and-the-ugly-underbelly-of-the-democratic-party/[/URL]
Face it Esten. There are more Democrats doing favors for Wall Street than Republicans.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=DonB;440551]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.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=DonB;440551]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.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440559]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.[/QUOTE][I][b]Translation:[/b][/I]
Progressives are concerned [STRIKE] about the individual as much as anyone[/STRIKE] more about themselves than anyone else. Progressive policies [STRIKE]may[/STRIKE] will 'hurt' [STRIKE]some[/STRIKE] all individuals by [STRIKE] limiting some[/STRIKE] taking all their freedoms, but you have to look at the other side of the equation, where the [STRIKE] same and / or other individuals also[/STRIKE] progressives will benefit when [STRIKE] certain[/STRIKE] freedoms are restricted. Typically the benefit to progressives outweighs the harm to individuals. Ultimately it's all about [STRIKE]the individual[/STRIKE] power over the people.
[QUOTE=Esten;440559]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.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=RevBS;440560]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.[/QUOTE]Just what is government's task?
[URL]http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/06/auberon-herbert-advocate-reason-individual-rights-limited-government/[/URL]
Don B.
[QUOTE=DonB;440564]Just what is government's task?
[URL]http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/06/auberon-herbert-advocate-reason-individual-rights-limited-government/[/URL]
Don B.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Punter127;440563]
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.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=RevBS;440570]So much pain, persecution, frustration and hate there in the 2nd paragraph. Did it start with being ask to take out the trash?[/QUOTE]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!
[QUOTE=Tiny12;440545]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.
[b]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.[/b] Please see [URL]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 [/URL]. You can see the party affiliations of the people and groups in the NYT article here: [URL]http://freebeacon.com/blog/hedge-funds-k-street-and-the-ugly-underbelly-of-the-democratic-party/[/URL]
Face it Esten. There are more Democrats doing favors for Wall Street than Republicans.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440577] I could point out that Ackman isn't a Democrat because he voted for Romney[/QUOTE]I 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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440577]And it is clear what political party is more likely to tax, regulate, and reign in Wall Street.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440577] Beyond some threshold (say 1 M), such monster profits should be taxed at much higher rates.[/QUOTE] 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: [URL]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf[/URL]
[QUOTE=Esten;440577] Schumer is not my favorite politician, but he does support the Buffett Rule.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440577]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%.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=RevBS;440570]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.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440575]I think Punter was joking.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440575]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![/QUOTE]That's absurd, I [B]buy[/B] my electricity and natural gas from publicly owned [U]state regulated[/U] utilities, I [B]buy[/B] 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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440575]I think Punter was joking. It's how they deal with the frustration of being unable to effectively argue their positions.[/QUOTE]A Freudian slip more likely.
[QUOTE=RevBS;440588]A Freudian slip more likely.[/QUOTE][B]There You Go Again![/B]
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.
[QUOTE=Punter127;440587]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 [B]buy[/B] my electricity and natural gas from publicly owned [U]state regulated[/U] utilities, I [B]buy[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Punter127;440587]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.[/QUOTE]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?
[QUOTE]Democrats are more likely to provide special tax breaks and corporate welfare for Wall Street.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]You want to take capital away from those who use it best and allocate it to government instead. That's the progressive solution: [URL]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE]Lies 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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440602]I don't understand why you guys "Thank" each other when you actually don't agree.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;440590]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.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Tres3;440591]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.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440602]Conservatives and their media outlets routinely damage their own character by their own words. Some of us simply point it out occasionally.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440602] 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.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440603]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?[/QUOTE]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:
[QUOTE=Tiny12;440583]
Democrats are more likely to provide special tax breaks and corporate welfare for Wall Street. [/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440603]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.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440603] 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[B]Is MSNBC turning on Obama?[/B]
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".
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFUF0vYNN04[/URL]
[QUOTE=Punter127;440619]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.[/QUOTE]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, [B]1997[/B]. 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
[URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/july-jobs-report-200k-growth-for-first-time-since-1997-2014-8[/URL]
[QUOTE=Esten;440708]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.[/QUOTE]Your calling someone biased is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Tres3.
"She just plays into Republicans worst suspicions." (Joe Scarborough)
[QUOTE=Esten;440708]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.[/QUOTE]But of course you do, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
[QUOTE=Esten;440708]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.[/QUOTE]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:
[I][b]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,[highlight] if this were a legal proceeding, they've got their gal.[/highlight][/b][/I]
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.
[I]"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]
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.
[QUOTE=Esten;440711]The last time we had 6 consecutive months of 200K+ jobs was 1997. That's right, [B]1997[/B]. 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
[URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/july-jobs-report-200k-growth-for-first-time-since-1997-2014-8[/URL][/QUOTE]Suffering 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.
[URL]http://www.cnbc.com/id/101891054[/URL]
"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.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;440724][URL]http://www.cnbc.com/id/101891054[/URL]
"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.[/QUOTE]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 [B]stake[/B]holders (as opposed to [B]share[/B]holders). 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.
[URL]http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicho_G%C3%B3mez[/URL]
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.
[URL]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[/URL]
[QUOTE=Dccpa;440718]Suffering 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.[/QUOTE]Cherry-picking and lies. Here is the data from BLS:
[URL]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm[/URL]
[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194[/URL]
Full-time jobs did indeed drop from May to June. But they increased from June to July. Year-over-year, [U]full-time jobs are up 2.4M[/U] while [U]part-time jobs are down 0.1M[/U]. The May to June change was a complete outlier. In the BLS chart in the second link, "Part-Time for Economic Reasons" jobs are clearly in a downtrend. The drop in part-time jobs ("Working part time, but want full-time work") is also shown in this NYT table: [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/01/business/jobs-0802.html[/URL].
More importantly, there is no clear evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having any significant effect on jobs. There were some right wing propaganda sites that tried to spin the June jobs report that way, but not all. The conservative Washington Examiner wrote last month "There's no conclusive evidence linking Obamacare to the growth in part-time employment. " If it was such a fact, no conservative media outlet would be so out of step. Looks like you've been duped, Dccpa.
[QUOTE=Esten;440744]Cherry-picking and lies. Here is the data from BLS:
[URL]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm[/URL]
[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194[/URL]
Full-time jobs did indeed drop from May to June. But they increased from June to July. Year-over-year, [U]full-time jobs are up 2.4M[/U] while [U]part-time jobs are down 0.1M[/U]. The May to June change was a complete outlier. In the BLS chart in the second link, "Part-Time for Economic Reasons" jobs are clearly in a downtrend. The drop in part-time jobs ("Working part time, but want full-time work") is also shown in this NYT table: [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/01/business/jobs-0802.html[/URL].
More importantly, there is no clear evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having any significant effect on jobs. There were some right wing propaganda sites that tried to spin the June jobs report that way, but not all. The conservative Washington Examiner wrote last month "There's no conclusive evidence linking Obamacare to the growth in part-time employment. " If it was such a fact, no conservative media outlet would be so out of step. Looks like you've been duped, Dccpa.[/QUOTE]Speaking of lies, how about your first link? Here is a nice simple summary from your chosen web site that doesn't try to dazzle with details. Where oh where is that 2. 4 jobs you mentioned? I only see 330 k you for July and yoy for June showed a net loss.
[URL]http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost[/URL]
Now look at your second link. Notice the increase, let me say that again, INCREASE in part time jobs since Obamacare took effect. And before you try to spin the yoy decrease, that has been mentioned by employers that they cut jobs as Obamacare took effect in January. We won't know the full effect of the job damage from Obamacare for years.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;440750] We won't know the full effect of the job damage from Obamacare for years.[/QUOTE]The Congressional Budget Office tried to estimate it, and came up with the loss of 2. 5 million full time job equivalents by 2024:
[URL]http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixC.pdf[/URL]
I don't know that we want to go to the European extreme, but as society industrializes, the work week normally shrinks. So it might be time to re-think the idea of 40 hours as full time. I admit it's handy since it divides the 24 hour day nicely and if we wanted to maintain that the work week would have to go to 32 (or 4 eights) and that seems a bit low to remain competitive. You look at carbon footprints and so forth and it argues for more hours per day and fewer days per week. I think moving to 4 tens as the norm would increase productivity and reduce employee expenses. At least in my state, you would still be looking at 20 minutes of paid break and 30 minutes of unpaid lunch whether it's 5 eights or 4 tens, so you'd gain 20 minutes per week as an employer. Employees would largely prefer it and it would have positive externalities.
No new schools should be built until all schools are operating say 80 hours per week. Government offices should be open from 7 AM to 9 PM. Basically, physical facilities should be used exhaustively like they are in the private sector. That's going to mean more maintenance expense and we need to address the roads and bridges sooner rather than later. Now, the tax burden falls on the transporter. There is a free rider problem. I don't have a car, so I pay no gas tax, but yet I consume products that were transported by rail or truck, so I still have an interest in a good transportation infrastructure whether I drive or not.
Libertarians and their ilk tend to support usage-based fees and so do I, but the problem is, usage can be really tricky to figure out. I more think that infrastructure should be financed from general rather than specific revenues. Like an airport. Suppose I am afraid to fly so I never fly. Does that mean I don't benefit from the airport? I still do because people can visit me, and I can send freight, and some goods can be marketed more cheaply by air whether I fly or not, and so forth. Non-drivers are free riders. They don't pay for driver's licenses or gas or anything like that, but they still benefit from the existence of roads.
Obamacare is going to increase the free rider problem, but my guess is that the increase in the coverage rate will offset this. We can now see that the states that somewhat inexplicably decided not to expand Medicaid are not seeing coverage increases, but those states that expanded have seen very significant gains:
[URL]http://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/05/obama-health-law-tale-two-americas/13655519/[/URL]
The truest test of any society is how it treats its weaker members and increased health care coverage, especially coverage for preventive care, is a definite step in the right direction. It might take 100 years to hit the tilting point where the future benefits are greater than the past costs, but I don't think so. I think we are already there. Just think about how heinous it was to not cover people with pre-existing conditions. What the fuck were they supposed to do, just curl up and die? I think that ultimately, the Affordable Car Act will [B]increase[/B] labor force participation, due to better pre-natal, infant, youth, and adult continuing care, although that might take a generation or two.
Dccpa, the numbers are crystal clear in the first BLS link. In the row "Full-time workers", the number is 118489 for July 2014 and 116156 for July 2013. A difference of 2333 (thousands) or 2. 4 M (rounded up). No lies just facts. In the second link, you are again cherry-picking two points (July 2014 vs. January 2014) which show a very slight increase in part-time jobs. But it's easily within the noise observed over the clear multi-year downtrend, which includes other brief periods where the slope was positive before again going negative. And, there is nothing linking this with the ACA, as the employer mandate hasn't even gone into effect.
Tiny's CBO report is old news, but good news. The CBO clearly stated it's estimates were not of people losing jobs. Rather, they were for people voluntarily choosing to work less as health insurance becomes more affordable. Imagine, someone juggling 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet and pay for insurance, now can work 1 or 2 jobs, spend more time with their family or pursue more education, etc. That is [I]freedom[/I], and likely to exert upward pressure on both labor demand and wages.
I know some right wingers are desperate to find any support they can, but it's hopeless. The data is overwhelming that the jobs market keeps getting stronger, and the data is absent that the ACA has significantly affected jobs. Get over it, your propaganda has been exposed as a fraud.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans are now benefitting from the ACA. Here is just one story of thousands. Even the NRA would applaud an outcome like this one.
Study: Obamacare helping more youth to get mental health treatment
[URL]http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/study-obamacare-helping-more-youth-get-mental-health-treatment[/URL]
Well, what do you know. What an elite force, just the team to go to Iraq and clean up the mess. And take care of Putin on the way home.
Sylvestor Stallone, Jason Statham, Antonio Banderas, Jet Li, Wesley Snipes, Harrison Ford, Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger and a host of others. Now if they only could resurrect Steve McQueen and Eli Wallach, I might even join them.
Funny, I am so out of it that I didn't even know about the Expendables till today.