[QUOTE=Tiny12;439880]Yep, the Tea Party candidate won. Glad to see you're finally coming around EAP.[/QUOTE]The Democrats were the real winner here; the more extreme right wing Tea Party types that the Republicans nominate, the better.
Printable View
[QUOTE=Tiny12;439880]Yep, the Tea Party candidate won. Glad to see you're finally coming around EAP.[/QUOTE]The Democrats were the real winner here; the more extreme right wing Tea Party types that the Republicans nominate, the better.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439881]The Democrats were the real winner here; the more extreme right wing Tea Party types that the Republicans nominate, the better.[/QUOTE]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.
[URL]http://www.frumforum.com/thomas-kuchel-strong-defense-and-civil-rights/[/URL]
[QUOTE=RockinBob;439870]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."
[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=RockinBob;439870]Tiny 12, thanks for the response. I know that there was criticism of Piketty in the FT, and that he answered his critics.
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/thomas-piketty-response_n_5412036.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-piketty/response-to-financial-times_b_5412853.html[/URL]
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.[/QUOTE]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..
[QUOTE=BigBossMan;439884]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.
[URL]http://www.frumforum.com/thomas-kuchel-strong-defense-and-civil-rights/[/URL][/QUOTE]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?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439887]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?[/QUOTE]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.
[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/california-voters-back-use-of-surplus-for-debt-poll-says.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/ef84d1ce4d0d41c68dc96269a35c25ba/CA--California-Budget-Spending-Semantics[/URL]
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439890]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.
[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/california-voters-back-use-of-surplus-for-debt-poll-says.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/ef84d1ce4d0d41c68dc96269a35c25ba/CA--California-Budget-Spending-Semantics[/URL][/QUOTE]Please 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!
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/12/the-real-divide-in-the-gop-over-immigration/?hpid=z3[/URL]
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439890]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.
[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/california-voters-back-use-of-surplus-for-debt-poll-says.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/ef84d1ce4d0d41c68dc96269a35c25ba/CA--California-Budget-Spending-Semantics[/URL][/QUOTE]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.
[URL]http://capoliticalnews.com/2014/05/08/california-cash-deficit-10-billion-what-surplus-what-balanced-budget/[/URL]
[QUOTE=DonB;439886]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..[/QUOTE]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??
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.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439896]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.
[URL]http://capoliticalnews.com/2014/05/08/california-cash-deficit-10-billion-what-surplus-what-balanced-budget/[/URL][/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439887]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?[/QUOTE]
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
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2014/06/11/in-student-debt-fight-billionaires-win/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Esten;439923]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
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2014/06/11/in-student-debt-fight-billionaires-win/[/URL][/QUOTE]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.