|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15669 Registered: May-04 | . Votes to Ban Pet Projects Did Not Deter Requests "The spending bill also contained dozens of earmarks for projects in the home states of Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, and Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, who appeared at a news conference Wednesday to criticize Democrats for what they called a pork-laden spending bill. Mr. Cornyn requested nearly $93.5 million, including $1 million for a National Wind Resource Center. Along with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, another Texas Republican, he asked for $2 million for the Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program, which transfers the knowledge and technology of the space program to small businesses, according to the group's Web site. Mr. Thune requested nearly $38.5 million, most of it with his fellow South Dakota senator, Tim Johnson, a Democrat. About $25 million was for construction at military installations. Asked about the earmarks, Mr. Thune said he supported the projects, but opposed the spending bill ... A few Democrats, including Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who has long pushed for an end to earmarks, said they intended to oppose the bill, which is expected to come up for a vote on Thursday. "The earmarking process is arbitrary and flawed, and our nation simply can't afford this kind of spending right now," Ms. McCaskill said in a statement. "Anyone who tells you they are opposed to earmarks and concerned about our national debt but still has earmarks in this bill cannot be taken seriously."; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/us/politics/16earmark.html?nl=todaysheadlines& emc=a24 GOP budget hawks chicken out early \i["Two years later in September 2006, I penned a piece for The Washington Post that is appropriate for President Obama today. "Our president was wrong to believe that the United States could fight a war, cut taxes and increase federal spending, all at once." In October 2006, I noted in Washington Monthly that Bush Republicans allowed the federal government to explode at record rates, with spending for the education bureaucracy up 101% under Bush, the Justice Department up 131%, Commerce up 82%, HHS up 81%, State up 80%, the Department of transportation up 65%, and the four agencies targeted for elimination by my 1994 class averaging 85% increases in Bush's first term."; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46325.html . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1949 Registered: Oct-07 | Here is the 'pigbook' link: from CAGW....Citizens Against Government Waste. These numbers are somewhat higher than the OMB numbers. However, NO MATTER whose numbers you believe, PORK is till less than maybe 1.5% of the budget. A quick scan down the list discloses as many democrats as republicans, leading to the provisional conclusion that the problem is not 'party' related but systemic. http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/ As for government growth, isn't that what I've been screaming about for months now? Bush? Carter? Clinton? Reagan? Ike? Government continues to grow. Please see link for a chart of 'US Government spending as a percentage of GDP' http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15670 Registered: May-04 | . Leo, that chart was presented at the very beginning of this thread. Spending crosses party lines but one party screams about the other's spending (while they must know that "cutting spending" is, as Bartlett pointed out, not the way out of the fiscal problems we face) and decries spending as the consumate evil of government while engaging in it wholesale - often in the same day. Cornyn and Thune are the ultimate hypocrits. It is hypocrisy of the first order to claim the problem lies with the other fellow when you and your own party - according to the charts provided by virtually any honest and non-partisan group - have been proven to have grown the government at astounding levels and to have spent above the incoming balance of revenue faster and with more abandon than the party you accuse of such dastardly deeds. "Wealth redistribution" is only a matter of which direction the wealth gets redistributed as we see by the growing disparity between the classes. Why should we pay for two wars costing $2 billion per week? Why should we be concerned when tens of billions of dollars in USD hard cash just disppears from Iraq and Afghanistan? Why should we be concerned at all as long as we get our tax cuts? Shrink revenues until the other side can't spend a dime and then give more tax cuts to the wealthy. D@mn everything else! The numbers are plain to see and while one set of numbers does not tell the entire story, in this case the evidence of several charts is comletely d@mning. In instance after instance it takes little effort to show the scam the Repubs have been pulling on the electorate for decades, just as the scam about "job killing policies" was shown to be a lie in the very first post in this thread. Just as the TP's have been scammed by the Repubs once again. Have you actually thought about the real world numbers of the Bush II administration and the real world job growth accomplished by the policies put in place? One million US jobs created over eight years is the general consensus for W's cumulative efforts(?). Given the hole the tax cuts, stimulus spending (remember the $300 per person give away?) and all the borrowing from foreign interests created, how much do you suppose each US job created in those eight years actually cost the average tax payer? OK, we all like to think we're right and the other guy is wrong and that we know the facts even when we don't, yet the Repub/TP base fails to see the truth of the numbers. Why? In most conversations I've had with R's and TP's when you present the facts, they simply dismiss them as liberal hogwash no matter what non-partisan study or report you show them to the contrary. How is that possible? What's missing in their thinking that they just don't get this? You said you didn't trust the government to put out numbers when I first posted these statistics. Now you show them to me as proof of what? Why not just face up to facts and adjust to the realities of the situation instead of burying your head in the sand and blaming it all on someone else? Blaming both parties is not the answer when one party has for decades pulled a successful scam on the public with their hypocrisy. Yes, the Dems will spend on social programs - like, say, education and child health care - but they are up front about their intentions. Isn't that what the D's base is PO'd about with Obama's progams? They thought all this money and power would be running as fast as Niagra Falls into the social contracts they wish to see implemented. When it is pointed out to them Obama has achieved more progress in such areas than most other Dem Presidents in the last century, they want more. That's ideology grown stupid. Yet, the BS of the Repubs running a campaign on cutting spending - when they know spending isn't the real answer - and deficit reduction - while they vote for blowing up the deficit with tax deductions for corporations and the top 2% all on borrowed money - is just absurd. When Mondale said he was going to raise taxes just as Reagan would - Reagan just wouldn't tell you we would do so - Mondale lost 49 states. Reagan did raise taxes several times and grew both the defict and the size of government just as the charts indicate and the current crop of Repubs won't believe he actually did that. When does blind (stupid) faith finally give out? I would rather vote for the person who tells me what they are going to attempt to accomplish than the person who flat out lies to my face and acts against my own best interest. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1953 Registered: Oct-07 | http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1172331/posts What some dems were saying before Bush became unpopular. Apparently nobody trusted the CIA when they said little or nothing was going on in Saddam's nuclear program. Here is a link to 'who's in charge here?'.......from 1921 to date. Look at party of president, and control of Senate and House. Government continues to grow no matter which party is in the white house and who controls the senate and house. It is possible or perhaps likely that government and/or economic growth rates are different when party control is 'split', but it seems that substantial agreement exists....no matter the party in the White House. Or, who is running Congress. Reagan, for example, did virtually ALL his evil while Democrats controlled the House. How could that happen? The Government was 'split' for 20 of 45 elections. Blaming or crediting a president without factoring in Congressional complicity is incomplete. http://www.dflorig.com/partycontrol.htm |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15673 Registered: May-04 | . Leo, IMO that proves what I've proposed; when provided with facts showing the hypocrisy of the R's and the TP's, the typical conservative/libertarian will simply dismiss the proof as liberal bias. I have literally no idea what introducing the opinions of the Dems regarding Saddam has to do with the current issue of Cornyn's and Thune's hypocrisy on fiscal matters. No one denies saying what is on record about Saddam, but the D's did not order the inspectors out of Iraq in order to begin the Shock and Awe invasion of a sovereign Nation which had not attacked the US. And Bush did knowingly lie about the yellow cake - he has admitted the statement should not have been in his State of the Union Address since it had not panned out as truthful evidence and the claim had been suspect from the beginning. They did not perform due dilligence as to the claim and the obviously forged documents which "proved" the claim. Most of the evidence acquired by the Bush Administration had come from political enemies of Saddam including "Curveball"; http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=iraq%2fcurveball&type= and Challabi, who has now become a rich and powerful man after the fall of Saddam; http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=Ahmed%20Chalabi&type=. The Bushies accepted the information they wanted and ignored the evidence and the advice they didn't want to hear. Most of that evidence would either be proven to be inaccurate or to have been known to previous administrations, none of whom thought invading Iraq to forceably remove Saddam was the proper course of action. Most of the advice, such as invading Iraq will destabilize the entire Middle East, has proven to have been accurate and prophetic. Almost ten years into the wars Iran has emerged as the real winner in the conflicts. After the invasion of two unarmed countries, the R's kept the funding for both wars off the YTD budgets instead funding each operation as an "emergency" for the duration of the R's control of Congress. In those years the Bushies wasted American treasure and lives in a mismanaged affair. I don't intend to get entangled in this topic any more than that. How the link you offered relates to the R's campaigning on cutting spending when disctretionary spending is but a small fraction of the budget, I don't know. How this relates to the hypocrisy of the R's digging the deficit further into the hole, I don't know. How this relates to individuals not wanting to face facts about the political philosophy they identify with, I do know. There are no answers for the questions I asked since they too are merely dismissed as liberal bias and countered with utter BS. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/study-some-viewers-were-misinfo rmed-by-tv-news/#more-52445 . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15674 Registered: May-04 | . "The Government was 'split' for 20 of 45 elections. Blaming or crediting a president without factoring in Congressional complicity is incomplete." Show me a chart which indicates which President did not get his wishes when it came to Congress. Until Clinton and the Repub take over of Congress in '94, it was virtually unheard of not to go with the President's wishes on the vast majority of items. Also show me which bills were vetoed by the likes of W who had control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. Then we'll compare that to the deficit spending vs GDP. Why don't you just yell, "Squirrel", and see if I go off chasing that too? C'mon, leo, putting a mustache on a horse doesn't make it a chocolate cake. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1955 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, isn't that exactly the point? Bills of law are supposed to be started in either the upper or lower house. If the President agrees, he signs the bill. If not, he can do a formal or pocket veto. Than, Congress can 'over ride' such veto. The President can ask for legislation, but it is up to Congress to 'give it to him'. The President does not 'automatically' get his way.... That is why if it is Repubs 'bad' and Dems 'good' than when the other guy wants something and you feel it is a matter of principle then it is a matter of conscience to deny the legislation. The problem is all the deal making and compromise of principle...no matter what you believe. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 1956 Registered: Oct-07 | http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html For your reading pleasure: |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2032 Registered: Oct-07 | US bond rating in question? May go down from 'AAA' rating. Congress? Debt ceiling? http://www.usdebtclock.org/ |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2048 Registered: Oct-07 | From the Darwin Awards: Gun Control, anyone? I'm going to fact check this. I don't know if I hope it's true....or false! 3rd Place > After walking around a marked police patrol car parked at the front > door, a man walked into H&J Leather & Firearms intent on robbing the > store. The shop was full of customers and a uniformed officer was > standing at the counter. Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber > announced a hold-up and fired a few wild shots from a target pistol. > The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire and several customers > also drew their guns and fired. The robber was pronounced dead at the > scene by Paramedics. Crime scene investigators located 47 expended > cartridge cases in the shop. The subsequent autopsy revealed 23 > gunshot wounds. Ballistics identified rounds from 7 different weapons. > No one else was hurt. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2097 Registered: Oct-07 | http://factcheck.org/2010/12/are-federal-workers-overpaid/ A topic which was recently in the news and even rated a Presidential comment....during his federal wage freeze remarks. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15889 Registered: May-04 | . OK, leo, what did you get from that article? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2174 Registered: Oct-07 | http://factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/ Brief article from FactCheck.org concerning Social Security and debt. And while a shortfall of 30 billion$ or even 100 billion$ is chumpchange by todays reckonings, which start at the Trillion$ level, it all adds up. SS is apparently now shipping more money than it takes in, which means that either the SS Trust Fund must now start coughing up, or since SS was put 'on budget' some years ago (Nixon? Johnson?) any shortfall now comes out of general revenue. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2178 Registered: Oct-07 | http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires Latest Forbes list of worlds Billionaires. Huge increase, year to year. Of top 10? 4 Americans and 2 from India with no other country repeating. Moscow has largest number of Billionaires in a single city. Worlds richest person is from Mexico! Total wealth represented is in the Trillions. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15954 Registered: May-04 | . "... since SS was put 'on budget' some years ago (Nixon? Johnson?) any shortfall now comes out of general revenue." "On-Budget"- In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget." The FY 1969 budget would not be implemented by President Johnson; it would instead be presided over by President Nixon, who took office on January 20,1969. This was 20 days into the 1969 fiscal year. When President Nixon took office, he too adopted the unified budget approach, and it was used by all Presidents thereafter until 1986. "Off-Budget" Again- In the 1983 Social Security Amendments a provision was included mandating that Social Security be taken "off-budget" starting in FY 1993. This was a recommendation from the National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka the Greenspan Commission). The Commission's report argued: "The National Commission believes that changes in the Social Security program should be made only for programmatic reasons, and not for purposes of balancing the budget. Those who support the removal of the operations of the trust funds from the budget believe that this policy of making changes only for programmatic reasons would be more likely to be carried out if the Social Security program were not in the unified budget." (Note that this was a majority recommendation of the Commission, not the unanimous view of all members.) This change was in fact enacted into statute in the Social Security Amendments of 1983, signed into law by President Reagan on April 20, 1983. The actual form of the 1983 change was somewhat complex. It provided: 1) That the Social Security and Medicare trust funds (and the income and outgo to these funds) be treated as separate budget functions, starting with the 1985 fiscal year and ending with fiscal year 1992. 2) For the initial budget year after enactment (FY 1984) the Congress would be bound to use the new procedures but the executive branch would not (because the FY 1984 President's budget had already been submitted to Congress under the old rules). 3) Starting with fiscal year 1993, Social Security and the Medicare Part A trust funds were not only off-budget, but were exempted from any general budget reductions that might otherwise apply to the entire federal budget (such as an across-the-board cut). The Part B Medicare trust fund, while also to be shown as a separate budget function, was not protected from general budget limitations. Thus, in this rather complicated fashion, the Social Security program was again off-budget by FY 1985. Perhaps the more important date here, however, was the 1993 date because that date exempted the Social Security program from the potential of generalized budget-cuts. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings- The next important change in Social Security's budget treatment came in 1985 with the passage that year of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This law--informally known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, or GRH, after its three principal Senate sponsors: Senators Phil Gramm of Texas, Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina--pushed forward from 1993 to 1986 the date by which the Social Security program would be made immune from generalized budget reductions. However, GRH also mandated that the Trust Funds be included in the budget for the purpose of determining if the total budget exceeded the deficit targets in the law. This provision was to be in effect for the entire time that GRH was in effect, which turned out to be 1986-1993. The import of this provision was that when the federal budget exceeded the Gramm-Rudman targets, automatic across-the-board sequestration of spending kicked in. So including Social Security in the triggering calculations made the sequestration less likely (since the Trust Funds were running surpluses after 1983). So while the Social Security program was off-budget, and immune from sequestration or other generalized budget cuts, its surpluses were still being used to reduce the size of the budget deficit. So, by 1986, Social Security was technically off-budget, but it was still being used in the deficit calculations. Absent other legislative change, this would have continued until 1993. However, in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 the law was changed to stop the use of the Trust Funds for any function in the unified budget, including calculations of the deficit. One sub-part of OBRA 1990 was called the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA), and it was this sub-part that specified this change in the law. The BEA budget treatment of Social Security basically remains the law to the present day. Summary- So, to sum up: 1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968; 2- On-budget from 1969-1985; 3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit; 4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990. Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed. http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2180 Registered: Oct-07 | Would it still be a 'fact' that shortfalls in SS revenues would be made up from the general fund? Keeping the SS monies in its own pocket was a nice idea, but what about the mythical (afaik) Trust Fund? If that consists of US debt in the form of bonds sold to the SS program than the convenient set of separate books doesn't mean much. Maybe the now moot argument about privatizing SS would not even have happened if at least part of the money had been invested in real stuff. Corporate bonds and preferred stocks, to name 2. What exactly IS in the SS piggybank? US bonds? If SS monies had even been invested in investment grade corporate bonds, that money would go back into the economy in a different and perhaps better way than funding more spending. If even half of the SS monies had gone into the broader stock market, and while they would have taken quite a hit, the money instead of being future (unfunded?) debt, would be out there doing some good. While I'll probably get the SS I paid for, will those a couple decades younger than I? What about the college class of 2012? Between student loans (what % of students take out such loans?) and trying to live and save, these guys are broke and don't know it yet. AND since this is supposed to be a hi-fi forum, will these poor folk be buying any Mac or Naim? That would seem to take a backseat to reliable transportation, eating and shelter. Also, another silly question, if I may. Let me see how this works. SS is now off budget, including the debt portion, right? Yet the 'Trust Fund' is mainly US paper with a face value in the billions. Right so far? Does the OBRA / BEA law mean that this money, owed and therefore debt, is now invisible to the budget? Man, where's my accountant and lawyer when I need 'em. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15957 Registered: May-04 | . I doubt your accountant and your lawyer could; first, explain how the SS trust fund actually operates in plain, clear language and secondly, agree on the way SS operates. IMO and the opinion of the Dems who FactCheck claims are in denial of their facts, this is one more issue where the right's talking points have become the accepted story line and the only possible fix is to do what the right wants done. That would be to dismantle all social programs which have been established by and are largely supported by the Dems and the vast majority of the working class in America. Even the most rabid Tea Partier still expects to have their share of SS and Medicare. To begin with you have to understand that this concept is inaccurate; "While I'll probably get the SS I paid for ... " You paid for your parents SS checks. That's how the system was established. The presently working people pay the revenues which are immediately paid out in benefits to the retirees. If the system were a one to one swap, there would have never been a trust fund as each dollar taken in would have immediately gone back out. Thanks to the baby boomers and a growing economy during the first thirty years of SS's existence, there were higher income revenues than pay outs. The system was meant to use those higher revenues - based on a growing economy - to establish a fund which could be used to draw interest and therefore grow the fund's assets. The problem we are facing now has to do largely with the baby boomers who are beginning to retire in large numbers just as the work force has shrunk due to the economic difficulties. Revenue is projected to remain flat for the next decade and what was once three to four workers paying for one retiree will become one or two workers paying for one retiree. The revenue taken in and directly channeled to the SS fund has, for the first time in its 70 year history, fallen below the outlay of the fund's promised benefit expenditures. That is not as big a problem as the right would lead you to believe. Think about the problem as if you had a checking and a savings account and you didn't make as much money this week to cover all your expenses. Since you have a reserve fund in your savings, you simply transfer money from one account to the other in order to cover the additional expenses. In the case of the SS trust fund, it operates just as any trust fund you would open with one exception. Just as with your trust account, there is no real accumulation of dollar bills sitting inside a lock box waiting for you to come pull a wad out to cover your loss of funds in your weekly paycheck or your higher than average costs. By giving your money to a bank or finacial institution and instructing them to set up a trust fund, you've given them the right to use that money in ways they see fit. Normally, the institution would invest those funds in ways that would, hopefully, draw interest and continue to add to the balance of the trust. Lots of rich folks live off those trust funds and the interest they pay. When the Repubs tell you 50% of Americans don't pay "income taxes" they are actually saying that 50% of Americans don't live off their trust funds and investments, they work for a living and pay "payroll taxes" instead. The Federal government does the same as your bank with the revenues devoted to SS when it comes to investments, has done so for 70 years and in the process has accumulated a substantial reserve from which to draw when funds are needed to cover "overdrafts". Just as with your personal trust fund you can't go into the vault and count the dollars that exist there, they are all on paper transactions. Still, just as with your personal trust fund, you can say there is "$XXXX" in the account even if you can't hold it all in your hand. The difference between your personal trust and the SS trust fund is what the revenues are being invested in and what they are accumulating. While there are some SS funds which go to market value investments, the bulk of the revenues buy Government Issued Securities. The one truth that W spoke when he wanted to divert a portion of the future revenues going to SS was that there are no real dollars which remain in the fund, just OIU's largely from the government to itself. As with you transfering funds between accounts, the goverment's right hand owes the government's left hand "X" amount of money to be paid with interest. W's problem was in saying the fund was essentially worthless as this called into question the financial security of the US Federal Treasury. If the President of the US says the US treasury is worthless and untrustworthy, there would be no reason for anyone to either lend us money or to invest in US bonds or securities. Chances are our creditors would immediately call in all their debts which would quickly collapse the system and send the world into bankruptcy. Even the majority of Repubs who wanted to be re-elected ran away from W on that one. One large difference between your personal trust fund and the SS fund is the US Treasury controls multiple trust funds which all operate in ways similar to the SS fund. Funds have been and are loaned between these funds with regularity. The significant difference this year is that what has always been the most reliable source for lending - the SS trust fund - doesn't have the ability to call on those reserves which are untouchable in the immediate situation even though they are available at a future date. So, the fund will borrow from another trust fund and the IOU's will be swapped back and forth between funds and paid back with interest. Does this add to the defict? In a very small way, yes, and that's the point most Dems are making. There are larger fish to fry than the payments between Treasury controlled trust funds which have substantial reserves. Can Factcheck say the statement that SS doesn't affect the deficit is false? Yes, but that's picking short curlies off the nether regions of a dead flea in comparison to the real issues of the defcit. This transfer of funds becomes another on paper transaction and the revenue required by the SS fund will be taken from the interest which would have been paid to the fund by, say, the Veterans trust. Locating exactly where the money is is no simpler than you locating exactly where your trust fnd dollars are residing. As with any transaction between, say, banks, states or nations, the transfer is largely all on paper. With the exception of the early days of the Iraq invasion, even when the US pays foreign aid, the transaction is largely on paper and there is no accumulation of cash involved. Why do you suppose so many people were upset to find out W was just shipping pallets of billions in cold hard cash ($100 bills) over to Iraq to serve as "walkin' around money" when Bremmer was in charge back in 2003-04? There was an "inadvertent loss" of almost $10 billion which was never investigated by the Repub Congress. That was cold hard cash that will never be recovered and can only be assumed was paid to W's cronies and those Iraqis such as "Curveball" and Challabi who aided and abbetted the invasion. The rich get richer and the taxpayer takes the hit. Saying SS is under water when revenues for this year have fallen short of outlays is a red herring. It's like saying you couldn't go into your bank and hold your dollars in your hand to take this many from the savings to transfer as dollar bills into your checking account. What do you do in that situation, leo? You go into the bank and you fill out a piece of paper and you trust the bank will credit your account the number of dollars you've put in the little blank on the paper form. IMO saying SS needs fixing by cutting benefits and adjusting retirement age is once again buying into the Repubs pay off to the rich. There are no SS taxes paid after the first $109,000 of income. Anyone making $1 million to $1 Billion per year pays SS taxes only for the first $109,000 of income. That means Bill Gates pays little more in SS taxes than what you and I together will put into the system, leo. Repubs refuse to discuss any new taxes or increased taxes since all Repub's running for Congress or higher office are being cajoled into signing Grover Norquist's pledge of no tax increases. Therefore, rather than growing revenue as was the plan with SS, revenues have shrunk as the rich have grown richer and the middle class - who are the most dependent on SS - have seen their wages stagnate and their jobs get shipped overseas over the last 30 years. A small adjustment upward in the cut off would mean SS would become solvent as far out as 75 years. Means testing the pay out to have the wealthiest individuals contribute slightly more but accept slightly less in payback would make the SS system viable as far as the eye can see. Similar fixes can be made to Medicare - which, due to dramatically rising health care costs - is the more pressing problem for social networks. But those options are off the table to the Repubs while cutting benefits to the middle and lower classes is the only option they will discuss. Any idea why that is, leo? If you found your income was constantly falling below your set outpay, what would be your response? You can't significantly alter the outgo as that has been fixed by many outside forces. Cancelling the paper isn't really going to change your situation. What would you do? Wouldn't you go to your boss and ask for a raise or find some way to increase your incoming revenues? So, why is that option not on the table for the government? Isn't that exactly what this thread has shown to be the historically plausible way to pull the nation out of any depression/recession? What were the tax rates for the highest income earners after post-WWII recession? What happened to the economy after WWII? Why are we so adverse to asking for the same sacrifice from the wealthy of today? You cannot balance the budget on the wages of the middle class which is rapidly disappearing. " If even half of the SS monies had gone into the broader stock market, and while they would have taken quite a hit, the money instead of being future (unfunded?) debt, would be out there doing some good." Drink some more KoolAid, leo. Soon you'll become numb to all the insanities you're being told. "While they would have taken a hit" is important here. If you were retired at the depths of the recession when the Dow had dropped from 14K to 7K in less than a year's time, you would have been permanently wiped out. Some people have no choice in when they retire, conditions dictate what they do with their life. The difference between the stock market and the US government is the security of the Treasury - which I know you will object to because you don't trust the government. Fine, whether you do or not isn't important. It's whether those people with monies and wealth far greater than you can imagine trust the Treasury that counts. "Doing some good"? For whom? Not for you or for me. The business community is sitting on $2 Trillion and there ain't no jobs being created by what they ain't spending. Anything invested in the stock market would have gone into the trust funds set up by those very people who took down the world's economy for their own gain. I'd rather not participate in any process that hedges its bets on failure. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15959 Registered: May-04 | . While we're back on this thread for the moment, remember when one of the rationales for invading Iraq was their piolts were firing on the US and NATO pilots who were enforcing the UN enacted "no fly zone"? So, what in the F**K are these Repubs thinking when they go on record demanding Obama institute a solely US enforced no fly zone over Libya? The vast majority of the oil coming out of Libya goes to China with the US receiving virtually nothing. Do we want another Gary Powers' type incident - or worse - just to protect China's interests?!!! Gimme a break! The Repubs really need to look elsewhere to pick on Obama. . |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1531 Registered: Apr-05 | I'm going to break the usual programming here for a special economic commentary: The way the oil distribution works and specially its pricing, it really doesn't matter who ends up supplying whom. The entire oil production is viewed by price-setters as one giant reserve where oil is pumped in by suppliers and pumped out by the users. It's true that US gets most of its oil from Venezuela and some from Saudi and other sources and that China gets most of its needs from Iran and Libya etc., but as we can clearly see the price of oil goes up worldwide even when there is disturbance in the supply from a minor producer such as Libya. Right now the productions are really tight and any flow disturbance will lead to increased prices. This also explains why the prices go up at the pump when something happens somewhere in the OPEC even though the oil itself was pumped, refined and shipped months ago. When the price goes up, it does so to any reserves, anything in the pipeline and any oil existing anywhere, because of the threat that the problem could last a long time and reduce availability. People usually think this is just price gouging by major corporations and usually I agree with them, but a further study of the actual process reveals the real causes. Back to the regular programming.... |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2184 Registered: Oct-07 | I agree with your first paragraph of # 15957. Who COULD explain SS in terms anyone but some kind of techno-geek or 'policy wonk' could understand? Paying yesterdays investors with money taken in from todays investors is the very definition of a Ponzi Scheme. Billing people who Don't Need SS anyway is just another income transfer. So, tomorrows obligations, assumed today, are to be paid for exactly HOW? And YES the SS system is underwater. For a benefit which was supposed to run on its own steam, they are now going to have to finance thru increased reliance on the general fund. And, you are right......what does 'Off-Budget' really mean? I would really like to hear the various explanations of the 'SS Trust Fund' and who thought it was supposed to be just what? It occurs to me that IF the Billions of dollars taken in before outgoing monies exceeded incoming monies had been invested in even a market index fund, that the darn thing would be hard pressed to run out of money.....for a a long time. I blame Rs and Ds equally. They both burn money like they own the mint....SAY, they DO own the mint! I find it interesting that Junk Silver is now selling for OVER 20x face value. That means that a silver (pre '65) quarter is worth about 5$. I'd be curious to see purchasing power compared between 1$ in '65 and 20$ today. Any thoughts on that? How's things in Chitown, Stof? I'm from the South Side....say Homewood and of course, a Sox fan, though watching the long suffering Cubs is a hobby. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2186 Registered: Oct-07 | And yes, I'd generally be in favor of picking an index year for SS contribution limits and growing the limit at the rate of inflation. Don't worry, means testing is coming which turns SS into just another tax on higher wage earners...and it may end up being expanded to include those who make 'regular' wages and sacrifice part of todays wage to stash funds away for tomorrows 'rainy day'. I'm sure that at some point if you have a certain threshold sum invested in the market, you'll be ineligible to collect SS.....or curtailed or perhaps simply taxed more. I don't know what current income limits are, but I know at some point you get taxed on income...even while collecting SS, which I suppose is fair. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15963 Registered: May-04 | . "The way the oil distribution works and specially its pricing, it really doesn't matter who ends up supplying whom." Not exactly the truth here, leo. Yes, prices rise and fall over the entire "pot" of oil extracted and shipped to the individual nation's refineries. A trader doesn't care which nation is getting the oil - only which state consortium produced the oil. In that sense, OPEC oil is just taken from a large pot everyone pulls from with no distinction of "this" is Iranian oil and "that" is Libyan oil. And oil is traded in USD so everyone gets paid in the same currency at the same value - which many oil producing states are trying to stop in order to damage the US economy. So, when the traders are drawing from the OPEC pot, all oil is just "oil from the same pot". If the price of oil goes up in China, it also goes up in Cleveland - as long as that oil came from an OPEC state. Mexico and Canada along with a few other oil producing states don't belong to OPEC and are not tied to their pricing structure. As such they can act as the "Walmart" of the oil producing states and hold down artificial profits taken by OPEC. How much they can do so depends on how much oil they are sending to any one nation. In this sense, oil is not just flowing from one large pot since there are multiple pots from which to draw and each pot has a limit to how much oil it holds. Unfortunately, at this time the US pot holds only about 3% of the world's total oil reserves and yet consumes about 25% of the world's oil based energy. Production of oil in the US is so small - not much more than that of Libya - that the US has very little power to influence the price of raw crude. Increasing oil production from the US reserves would have about the same effect on pricing as would buying one share of Microsoft. Consumer nations do contract with oil producing nations to buy "their" oil and, if we went to war with Libya, it would be largely an effort to protect China's interests. Think of OPEC oil as a pie that everyone has agreed to supply ingredients to and then share in the final product in accordance to how many of the ingredients they contributed. If China has contracted with Libya to provide "X" amount of ingredients, then China gets "X" amount of the final product. The same goes for other nations and, if the US has contracted to buy what amounts to 1% of those ingredients in the pot, the US is entitled to 1% of the pie. If they want more pie, they have to contract with other nations who are supplying more of the ingredients. That's why Poppy Bush went to war with Iraq in the 1990's, to protect the oil coming from Quwate. "Right now the productions are really tight and any flow disturbance will lead to increased prices." Don't know which Fox News show gave you this but it's not right. Oil production overall is high at the moment, has been for some time and reserves are in good shape. What's being traded are futures which will not hit the market for two months. Once again people are trying to make some cash off a disaster and loss of life. Libya's production is such a minor component of the total world's oil production that any true disruption of supply from their resources could easily be absorbed by other states - if they wanted to. As oil money funds the oil producing states almost in their entirety, it's not in their economic or political interests to up production when upping the price better works to their advantage. Traders in New York and London then set prices for futures betting on the price of raw crude going up as the OPEC pot holders raise prices at their whim. "When the price goes up, it does so to any reserves, anything in the pipeline and any oil existing anywhere, because of the threat that the problem could last a long time and reduce availability." Leo! Who are the major oil production states? At the moment; Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Venezuela. The US gets a good portion of its oil from Mexico and Canada. Iraq, which sits on the world's second largest oil reserve, is ramping up production but most of that oil has been purchased by - guess who, China and Russia. There's not much "threat" to the regimes in those Middle Eastern states and certainly nothing going on in Mexico and Canada. No crowds marching in the streets in Venezuela. The recent price hikes are the result of traders betting on disaster in a small portion of the oil producing states - a very small portion of the oil producing states. Oil is flowing from Egypt and has seen no real disruption since the revolution. The price increases have very little to do with actual unrest in Libya as oil is still flowing from Libya. Any future disruption in their supply chain would be not much more than a blip in the flow of oil - if OPEC decides to increase their production. "People usually think this is just price gouging by major corporations and usually I agree with them, but a further study of the actual process reveals the real causes." So, where'd you get your facts? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15964 Registered: May-04 | . "Paying yesterdays investors with money taken in from todays investors is the very definition of a Ponzi Scheme." Leo, you do remind me of my Repub neighbor. You have a bunch of misinformed talking points from Fox News and the talking heads who tell half truths at best and your hobby is to be p*ssed about anything that relates to the government. I'll bet you think government employees make twice as much as private sector workers. If you truly think the US Treasury is a Ponzi scheme, you have serious problems and your views are not in keeping with the rest of the world who have accepted the USD as the currency of choice for all transactions. Rather than going on about how screwed up your attitude towards the government is, let's do something different. "Paying yesterdays investors with money taken in from todays investors is the very definition of a Ponzi Scheme." If that is your very simplified "definition" of a Ponzi scheme, explain how a bank or the stock market is not a Ponzi scheme. How does a bank pay interest to yesterday's investors? How does a stock price rise in value? What securities have been provided to any investor in either? Banks fail. Stock prices tumble. Either can be wiped out by people you - the investor - cannot identify and who do not have your interests at heart. Have you ever watched "It's a Wonderful Life"? How is a company like Mary Kay Cosmetics not a Ponzi scheme? The company is built on the idea that each new "investor" is sponsored by a previous investor who benefits from the success of the newest investors and the investors those investors bring into the company. Mary Kay is a legend in entreprenurial start ups in a capitalist economy. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15965 Registered: May-04 | . "And YES the SS system is underwater. For a benefit which was supposed to run on its own steam, they are now going to have to finance thru increased reliance on the general fund." No, it is not "underwater". It has a reserve. The issue here is the revenue for this year has not matched the outpay for the first time in 70 years. Really, leo, didn't you read anything I posted about how funds are allocated? Would your trust fund be "underwater" if you didn't contribute to it this year but you had a reserve in the account? C'mon, leo, pull your head out. "It occurs to me that IF the Billions of dollars taken in before outgoing monies exceeded incoming monies had been invested in even a market index fund, that the darn thing would be hard pressed to run out of money.....for a a long time" My! you do like that Repub KoolAid. Is the US Treasury solvent? Is The USD the currency of choice for the rest of the world? Why is that so? Are your US Treasury bonds worth what you paid for them? Are they accruing interest? No bulls*t Fox News answer, leo. Is the US Treasury solvent? Do you remember the last two stock market crashes which were precipitated by greedy investors? How much is your investment in Washington Mutual and Lehman Brothers worth today? Leo, you are so full of sh*t about all of this it is unbelievable. "I blame Rs and Ds equally" Sure you do, leo, that let's you off the hook for allowing the Repubs to run wild with deficits for the eight years of Bush II. You did vote, didn't you?" "I blame them both for what the one side did while they held all the power to do it. They lied to me and the other guys didn't stop them. They had a three page summary for why I should be on the hook for $700 Billion given to their friends and the other guys didn't stop them." ROTFLMAO! "I'd be curious to see purchasing power compared between 1$ in '65 and 20$ today. Any thoughts on that?" Two thoughts; first, use a search engine. Second, this is like your constant complaint that the US government spends more today than it did in 1900 - unrealistic and irrelevant. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15966 Registered: May-04 | . "I don't know what current income limits are ... " Then you have no right to complain if you have no interest in how to solve the problem. You just have a hobby of b*tching about the government with ridiculously incorrect talking points. While we're at it, let's all have a good cry for the top 1% who control more wealth than the bottom 60% combined. Their wealth has only risen while the average middle class worker's has remained stagnant since the days when Reagan fired the air flight controllers for wanting higher wages and better working conditions to keep the US public safe. Let's compain about CEO pay that has gone from 6X the average worker's 1960 to 600X today. How about when the CEO is forced out because the company fails but takes way a golden parachute? How about someone like Christie Whitman who laid off 10,000 workers and made a foirtune doing it thanks to the stock market? Same with Mitt Romney. Boo-f*cking-hoo! for them. It's the fault of those greedy unions, eh? ROTFLMAO!!! . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15968 Registered: May-04 | . "Don't worry, means testing is coming which turns SS into just another tax on higher wage earners... " "Wolff's paper said that as of July 2009, the three lowest quintiles of U.S. households -- in other words, the poorest 60 percent of U.S. households -- possessed 2.3 percent of the nation's total net worth. Moore then multiplied that 2.3 percent by the nation's total net worth of $53.1 trillion and got $1.22 trillion. In other words, he was saying the poorest 60 percent of U.S. households had $1.22 trillion in net worth, which is less than the $1.27 trillion in net worth for the Forbes' 400 wealthiest Americans."; http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael -moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/ Oh, and it's not "wage earners" we're talking about here, leo. A good portion of the wealthiest individual's fortunes have been inhereted or come from investments and stock options. You don't really think Bill Gates has $56 Billion sitting in some bank account somewhere, do you? Let's see, Gates earned about $1 Million in "wages" last year - up about 4.4% and still just a small portion of his "income" from the increasing value of Microsoft stock alone; http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/21/technology/gates_pay/index.htm He paid SS withohlding on the first $109,000 only. "Latest Forbes list of worlds Billionaires. Huge increase, year to year. Of top 10? 4 Americans and 2 from India with no other country repeating. Moscow has largest number of Billionaires in a single city. Worlds richest person is from Mexico! Total wealth represented is in the Trillions." You'll have to really work at it to get me feeling any empathy for these folks paying 0.5% more in SS witholdings. For Gates alone that would work out to what? about $50,000 more in witholding. Poor boy! That would only leave him with another $950,000 to live on - not counting his actual "income" that is. Oh, yeah! I feel his pain! How many retirees do you think could manage to live out their entire retirement on $50k in Social Security income? What's your monthly stipend going to come to, leo? Here's a thought; what if Gates didn't earn any actual wages for one year? Would you consider him to be "underwater", leo? . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2189 Registered: Oct-07 | How big a check do you think Gates could write? Where's the money? try this:: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx The balance? invested. These wealthy people you decry are not simply sleeping on a serta stuffed with 20s, that money is out there. Want a loan for your factory? Home loan? Auto loan? It's gotta come from somewhere. These are the guys who can buy your corporate bonds and fund much economic activity. Jan, read my last post. I'm in FAVOR of indexing SS contributions to inflation and raising the income limit. 100 grand in this day and age? Peanuts. Increase the upper limit by 10% a year until it catches up with inflation since....say 1950....early post war. And furthermore, the original article I ref'd was on fact check. A 'Jan Approved' source. Now its not? Please clarify. And of course they'll never go under. Not as long as those bums in Washington continue to have a checkbook which is seemingly inexhaustible. I blame 'em all, sure. I think that makes more sense than just pointing a finger the the Rs. IF SS is indeed 'off budget' that should mean they keep there own set of books, right? Well, spending 10$ for every 8$ coming in is the very definition of 'going broke'. Why weren't the excess funds invested in something with a better yield? Well, it sure is an easy way to get a loan for minimal expense. We'll sell em bonds! By the time the money is needed, we will be down the road than let 'em figure it out for themselves. And finally, How can you even think I suggested 'empathy' for those rich guys on the Forbes list? I said or suggested no such thing. A simple recitation of fact. Here is the list, make of it what you will. I think the take away is the huge %age year-to-year increase when NOBODY else even got a 2% raise. My monthly stipend will be a lot less than had that money actually been invested on my behalf or I had control of it and simply invested in a market index fund or probably even US Savings bonds......As far as I can tell, SS was just another pocket to pick. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/products.htm I'd love to see how the numbers work out had I taken just MY SS contribution and invested in various low-risk ways. Add my employer contribution (I love the euphemisms) and rerun the calcs. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2190 Registered: Oct-07 | http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/cbb.html SS taxable income limits by year. It was 3000$ in 1950! Cost of living adjustments? http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/colaseries.html From the Actuaries:: This will put all but the hard core to sleep:: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15969 Registered: May-04 | . "Want a loan for your factory? Home loan? Auto loan? It's gotta come from somewhere. These are the guys who can buy your corporate bonds and fund much economic activity." More talking points, leo. If this is what "the guys who can buy your corporate bonds and fund much economic activity" can do, why aren't they doing it? Why is the corporate world siting on $2 TRILLION that could be invested in "corporate bonds and fund(ing) much economic activity"? . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2193 Registered: Oct-07 | I am well aware of how much money is 'sitting out'. And WHY would they not be investing in new equipment, hiring, research, and all the other activities a healthy business engages in? All that money sitting there....hmmmmm.....who does it benefit? I liked the 'follow the money' quote from Watergate days. This is choking the economy. Most businesses depend on the 'float'. Car dealerships pay about 100$ per month on 'lotting' and really don't 'own' there inventory. I'll bet your beloved hi-end store is working the numbers in a similar fashion. You may have 'a million dollar inventory', but how much of that is owned by the business and how much is 'rented' or leased? I'm sure YOU'VE never written a check which had it been cashed right that second would have bounced....than made the deposit tomorrow to 'cover it'. If so, you would be the ONLY person to not do so. One reason that makes some kind of sense is that money is sitting out due to fear of some sort. And these are generally not risk averse people. So, I would ask, WHAT is their to be afraid of? I would suggest uncertainty is on the list. Some, not me, have suggested the government is stirring the pot and rule changes breed such uncertainty.....I just don't know. But fear it is. Just my opin...... I have a friend who is part of a partnership owning several million dollars in real estate. Some parts are 'free and clear'....no mortgage. They couldn't get a 50k$ 'improvement' loan. My brother is out in Pahrump....God only knows why. But, there are several hundred homes on the market. Try to get a loan. Very high requirements and few FSBO. The banks appear to be willing to sit on the properties and eat the taxes while waiting to score big when the market rebounds. Keep your eye on Vegas. Junk Silver is going for nearly 25x face value. Funny thing, is at one time a quarter would buy a couple loaves of bread. Same as that same SILVER quarter will, today. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15970 Registered: May-04 | . "How big a check do you think Gates could write? Where's the money?" From most appearances Gates is a pretty good liberal, more so since his marriage. He backs Obama and gives freely to Democratic programs. He joined with other liberal millionaires/billionaires to say the wealthy should be more prolific with their wealth rather than passing it down to another generation of offspring who will live off the trust funds. I'd say he ascribes to the rising tide lifts all boats theory of government. 9 out of 10 times I'm in favor of Gates' position. "The balance? invested. These wealthy people you decry ... " Aaaaahhhh, the benefit of talking points, they make a conversation so short by interrupting the flow of real thinking. Contrary to what you have been told on a repeated schedule Dems and libs don't "decry" the wealthy, we have quite a few of them in our ranks. We do have a problem with those of the wealthy who use their money and power to further enrich and to benefit themself. Now, a rich lib is more likely to advocate a program that, say, tries to keep rainforests from being eviscerated by the wealthy Repub heir to the logging fortune who dislikes Federal regulations telling him/her where they can't dump refuse so as not to poison entire rivers and streams. Or Libs give to and work for a program that feeds and educates children while putting food in their mouth and clothes on their back. That's when the talking heads on the right call them enviromental whackos and tell you guys how "touchy feely" the libs are with their causes. "And furthermore, the original article I ref'd was on fact check. A 'Jan Approved' source. Now its not? Please clarify." Not at all a problem, though on occasion I've disagreed with their conclusions. But what is judged can be a specific word in the phrase or a conclusion drawn with which Politifact disagrees. What someone reads into what is on the printed page can be something completely unlike what is on the printed page or what was being judged. Here's what they judged; "Some senior Democrats are claiming that Social Security does not contribute "one penny" to the federal deficit. That's not true." Yet after reading that article you've come to the conclusion, "YES the SS system is underwater." What you've decided to believe and what Politifact was judging are two completely dissimilar and unrelated conclusions. I'll ask you once again, if Gates drew no wages for one year, would he be considered "underwater"? And, is the US treasury solvent? You seem to lay all blame for all things at the feet of the government. Yet you don't spend much time actually objecting to those whose actions brought the world economy to the brink of disaster. Once again, contrary to what you've been told, this was not simply politicians who caused the economic problems of the last few years. Certainly not by their policies which favored lower income buyers. "I blame 'em all, sure. I think that makes more sense than just pointing a finger the the Rs." A typical Tea Party response for sure. Vote for the R's but blame the D's. Otherwise they would have to face up to what they've allowed. Why not blame the R's? Don't you remember who wanted tax cuts which added a trillion dollars to the deficit but barely created a milion jobs in eight years? Haven't you heard about the new Repub budget that actually looses 700,000 jobs - which they will blame on Obama? Don't you remember who cooked up the unfunded Medicare Part D by twisting arms and threatening illegal activities? Don't you remember W promising a balanced budget by 2009? And the tens of billions in give aways to the pharmaceutical and energy industries during the Bush II years? Don't you remember the balanced budget he was handed? Don't you remember two wars without end? The first wars in US history that were not funded by raising taxes and selling bonds? Haven't you heard about the R's now screaming about Obama's budget when he has placed those wars on budget while for eight years W and the R's treated them as "emergency" appropriations? How about W's $300 per person "stimulus" that was all borrowed money, printed by the Treasury without good faith backing and which did nothing to create a single job? Don't you remember the 3 page justification for TARP? Why not lay most of the blame at the feet of those who caused the problems? The R's themself admit to "going astray". Fine! I agree!!! Go back and look at the numbers in the front of this thread and you should too. "IF SS is indeed 'off budget' that should mean they keep there own set of books, right? Well, spending 10$ for every 8$ coming in is the very definition of 'going broke'." Hardly, ask anyone who has started a business about how profitable they were over the first five years. Besides, what you've just combined into some sort of twisted logic has nothing to do with each individual thought. Try this one more time, leo, the SS trust fund has a reserve. The projected shortfall can be taken care of by just slightly increasing the withholding above $%109,000. But the Repubs won't allow it through Congress. The R's scream about cutting spending while insisting billionaires get tax breaks that add another $1 TRILLION to the long term debt. Tell me again why I shouldn't think the R's have played a major role in the economics of today. "Why weren't the excess funds invested in something with a better yield?" In other words, why didn't the goverment ask you what you think today when they began the program 70 years ago? Because, you were too busy drinking the Repub KoolAid even back then. US Treasury notes have been considered the safest, most productive investments possible for the last 3/4 century. Really, leo, this BS about "better yields" is absurd. If you want to risk your money on the stock market, that's your business. People used to buy US bonds for security and out of a desire to help the Country. War Bonds, ever hear of those? Where are they during these two wars? That whole spirit of helping the Country - "Ask what you can do for your Country" - has gone the way of Frank Capra movies. The prevailing attitude, particularly amongst the R's who refuse to have a billionaire part with an extra buck, is "Ask what your Country can do for you". "And finally, How can you even think I suggested 'empathy' for those rich guys on the Forbes list?" I know, you blame everyone. "My monthly stipend will be a lot less than had that money actually been invested on my behalf or I had control of it and simply invested in a market index fund or probably even US Savings bonds" Consider the facts for once, leo. You probably began contributing to SS when you were in your teens and not even considering retirement as a prospective plausibility. What financial advisor would have told someone in their twenties, thirtes and even forties not to take a safe, long term investment to tide you over when your other investments went South? Through the last 70 years the SS trust fund has done exactly what it was designed to do, grow with a growing economy. Your money has been invested and there is a surplus from which you will draw benefits. You know exactly how much of a stipend you will recieve for the rest of your life given the many choices in retirement age presented to you every six months by the SS dept. But now that's not making you happy. You prefer your hobby of b*tching about the government. Some people wouldn't be happy if they got hung with a new silk rope. Tell me, leo, since you don't appear to actually read any of these articles you link to, what do you think the SS trust fund has been investing money in if not in US bonds and securities and US Treasury notes? "I'd love to see how the numbers work out had I taken just MY SS contribution and invested in various low-risk ways. Add my employer contribution (I love the euphemisms) and rerun the calcs." I don't get this, everyone who tries to feed me this line acts like they are Warren Buffett. It's always like you could always pick the winners and you would never loose money. As if the last two recessions didn't wipe a number of retireees out when they lost over half their projected funds. Like you can p*ss further up a tree than anyone else! " Here is the bad news. To capture the moment, here is a quote from the Wall Street Journal this week: "In nearly 200 years of recorded stock-market history, no calendar decade has seen such a dismal performance as the 2000s." So, how bad can it be? If you take inflation into account, the actual returns are even worse. The C fund is based on the S&) 500 index. "Since the end of 1999, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index has lost an average of 3.3% a year on an inflation-adjusted basis...." The first decade of the new century has not been a good one for stock investors. There are many reasons including the bursting of the tech bubble; the terrorist attacks in 2001, and the housing market and bank failures in 2008. For example, the C fund had losses of about 9% in 2000, 12% in 2001 and 22% in 2002. There were significant gains from 2003-2007 but the economic problems of 2008 produced a loss in the C fund of almost 37%. Those investors that also had money in the G and F bond funds are ahead as these funds did not have a negative year during the entire decade."; http://www.fedsmith.com/article/2267/worst-decade-stocks-history-but-all-tsp.htm l# "Investors Hope the '10s Beat the '00s Since End of 1999, U.S. Stocks' Performance Has Been the All-Time Clunker; Even 1930s Beat It"; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704786204574607993448916718.html "Retirement Planning Suppose Pat is 55 years-old, receives a $100,000 windfall, and is planning to use it to retire at age 65. Historically, the average 10-year stock market return is about 10%/year. If Pat plans on a 10% return, he expects to have about $260,000 at retirement. However, that's not money Pat can be 100% sure of. This chart suggests over the past 100 years, equivalent investors would have accumulated retirement portfolios of anywhere between $90,000 and $580,000! The good news is that in the past there were lots of 10-year periods when he would have ended with more than $260,000 -- sometimes much more. The bad news is that the probability of accumulating the planned $260,000 is less than 50%; i.e., chances are less than 50-50. In fact, based on past results, the single most likely outcome is a retirement portfolio of between $200,000 and $250,000, which could necessitate some lifestyle adjustments. Worse, there's even a chance he'll fall into the $50,000 to $100,000 range, ending with less than he started with; investors who invested $100,000 at the end of 1928 would have had only $87,700 10 years later.; http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2010/12/variability-of-stock-market-ret urns-10.html Get it? The stock market and most investments are a risk and you can't always count on winning. Since you didn't make the investments in winning or loosing stocks, here's what you should remember ... "Simply put, past price histories cannot tell you whether a company is undervalued or overvalued today. With that out of the way, here are four things you should avoid: 1. No profits What counts as "very profitable" varies by industry, but generally, you want to see companies with a return on equity of at least 10%. Every one of the 10 worst recession stocks lost money in 2000. 2. Too much debt Several of the worst stocks had onerous debt loads. Too much debt limits a company's ability to take risks and increases the chances of a blowup, should the business hit a rough patch. The worst stocks didn't have a buffer between their operating incomes and interest payments and, in most cases, actually had negative operating income. (In fact, seven of the 10 worst recession stocks had no operating earnings with which to pay the interest on their debt!) 3. Overpaid CEOs When I showed this list of worst stocks to Fool co-founder Tom Gardner, he immediately brought up the issue of executive compensation. At the Fool, we've always noted that excessive compensation can indicate that the folks in management lack internal motivation and may induce them to maximize short-term performance at the expense of their company's long-term health. To take a recent example, Lehman Brothers CEO Dick Fuld -- whose salary, bonuses, and options from 2000 to 2007 came out to more than $15,000 per hour (even assuming 80-hour work weeks!) -- oversaw the destruction of a company that predated the Civil War.; http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/02/19/the-10-worst-recession-stocks.a spx What's the saying? "Better safe than sorry". Over eighty per cent of Tea Partiers expect to receive SS and Medicare no matter what it does to the deficits or whether they amount to "Big Government". Now, don't you suppose that had they been given the opportunity to choose between investing in SS or in stocks, if they had chosen stocks and had gone bust, that they wouldn't be screaming about how unfair it was for the government not to look out for their investments? And that they wanted a share of what the folks who did invest in SS are now getting? When all you can do is b*tch about government, it doesn't matter how you get around to it, just as long as someone tells you there is something to b*tch about. In case you hand't noticed, leo, I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. It's a whole lot easier for someone to sit on the sidelines b*tchin' rather than trying to do something productive. All I've seen you do for over 400 posts is b*tch about whatever the talking heads tell you you should be b*tchin' about. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15971 Registered: May-04 | . "Car dealerships pay about 100$ per month on 'lotting' and really don't 'own' there inventory. I'll bet your beloved hi-end store is working the numbers in a similar fashion. You may have 'a million dollar inventory', but how much of that is owned by the business and how much is 'rented' or leased?" I've worked in both industries and can tell you there aren't very many similarities between how inventories are stocked or paid for in the two. If an audio shop has a component for more than 30 days, they probably own a fair share of it. Over 90 days, it's their's to keep. There's hardy any floor planning in the audio industry today. The exact opposite is true for most of the auto industry. That's not surprising when the average retail price of the commodity being stocked is almost $24k. Also, I can't name a single audio maufacturer who regularly does their own financing other than Sony. Which is easier to repossess, a car or a boom box? "I'm sure YOU'VE never written a check which had it been cashed right that second would have bounced....than made the deposit tomorrow to 'cover it'. If so, you would be the ONLY person to not do so." You've lost me, what's that prove? "The banks appear to be willing to sit on the properties and eat the taxes while waiting to score big when the market rebounds." Gee! doesn't that amount to "transfer of wealth"? Wasn't the housing "bubble" the largest transfer of wealth from one class to another? And you blame the politicians! I blame the politicians who didn't do their job to keep this from occurring. I don't know, who would you say that is? The party who gets the largest contributions from the people who don't want government regulators looking over their shoulder? Naaaaaw, that's not how the game works. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15972 Registered: May-04 | . What about that Ponzi scheme you claimed the government was running, leo? How is a bank or a stock or Mary Kay any different in how they pay their investors? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2194 Registered: Oct-07 | Well, paying yesterdays investors with todays investments is pretty much the definition of a Ponzi scheme, though it may technically be a 'robbing peter to pay paul' situation. A proper stock will produce wealth for people. Actual value. Exchanging goods and services in order to make a profit for the benefit of those who work for said company, those who own the company thru participatory stock ownership and those who use the product or service who perceive some worth in the purchase of said product or service. Also, Mary Kay is not a Ponzi. It MAY be a MLM scam, but certainly not a Ponzi. (Multi Level Marketing) which is more of a Pyramid than a Ponzi. SS has no profits to pay the 'investors', just money coming in, flowing out and a GIGANTIC IOU payable to the 'stockholders' BY the 'stockholders'. Example of press dealing with housing bubble. I'm sure Barney didn't really mean there were no problems with fanny/freddy. And of course, BushII didn't really try to help straighten out the market. And from The Daily Show http://www.distressedvolatility.com/2009/07/barney-frank-on-home-ownership-2005- vs.html As for contributions / money to pols:: yes indeed the Rs lead about 70:30 or over 2:1 if you use the home builders lobby as measure. Another group, the financial people have hooks in everybody. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/background.php?ind=C02++ Here are the money people....the builders are small potatoes by comparison:: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?lname=F10&year=a During the 2008 election cycle, Democrats did indeed out hustle the Repubicans and had them by about 6:4 in donations. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F10 |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15973 Registered: May-04 | . "Well, paying yesterdays investors with todays investments is pretty much the definition of a Ponzi scheme ... " That is exactly how a bank operates. No? And a stock. If no one invests, no one gets paid. Substantial risk is involved with either. The "value" is all perceived and there is no real "product" which is being manufactured. "A proper stock will produce wealth for people. Actual value." And an "improper stock" will do what for people? Are you trying to tell me the SS trust fund which has existed for 70 years and has revenue assets which amount to approximately $2.6 trillion in reserve(http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/assets.html) has not created value? These assets are backed by the full force of the US Treasury. By what logic do you claim the fund has created no value? Is the US Treasury solvent? If so, the fund and its securities have value. "Exchanging goods and services in order to make a profit for the benefit of those who work for said company, those who own the company thru participatory stock ownership and those who use the product or service who perceive some worth in the purchase of said product or service." The assistance provided by the SS fund is multifold. It covers not only the retirement type funds we all associate with SS but also survivor's benefits which can be paid well before retirement. SS funds also pay for disability assistance which can be paid at any age. For qualified lower income citizens the fund also provides additional assistance to cover some medical expenses. What part of that process do you not define as a "service"? Are Veterans Benefits a "service" or are they worthless? What part of that service is unlike the service provided by a bank? The reserve has been built by the revenues which came from those who own the fund, the American citizen. The "stock" value is held in Treasury securities which are not subject to market influences. Are you now trying to tell me there is no perceived value by the recipients of SS, DI or survivor's benefits? If that's the case, why wouldn't the TP'ers just ignore their SS benefits along with Medicare? The way a Ponzi works is to establish "perceived value" in the minds of the investors. It is only those "who perceive some worth in the purchase of said ... service" investing in the Ponzi scheme who make it work. If there is not perceived value, there is no investment. If there is no investment, there is no Ponzi. Or, do I have it wrong here? People invest in Ponzi's and don't expect to gain something of value? You've failed to convince me that a bank or the stock market in any way do not operate in a manner similar to a traditional Ponzi scheme. Nice try, fancy language, but no cigar. There is no more "value" to a stock or a bank than there is in the SS trust fund. The bank and the stock are, in effect, issuing IOU's to the investors. That they might never pay off on those IOU's is the risk the investor assumes. Treasury securities are the safest form of investment. MLM's have always struck me as a nice way to say, "It's a Ponzi but we won't look too hard". The line between the two is often no more than whether or not a product or service is actually being delivered to the point no one looks very hard. That's how Maddoff managed to get by for a few decades, right? "Example of press dealing with housing bubble. I'm sure Barney didn't really mean there were no problems with fanny/freddy." A blog post is your "proof"? Did you actually watch the Daily Show interview? Or, have you just been told Barny Frank deserves all the blame for the housing bubble? To recap what was said in the interview, Repubs controlled Congress for a dozen years and the Dems were the party out of power. Repubs deregulated the financial markets returning the markets to the exact same status as before the Great Depression when the banks caused the failure of the financial system. Frank and other Dems voted to reinstitute regulation when the Dems resumed control of Congress in 2007. By that time most of the damage had been done to the economy and it was simply a matter of time. Derivatives had been created and swapped to the point those who were trading them couldn't identify who owned the derivative or what was actually in it. That took place with the assistance of the Repubs' unregulated, look the other way approach to free markets. Derivatives were being swapped internationally. If the entire housing bubble was only due to those people who couldn't afford what they were buying, then the problem would have been isolated to just the US market. Right? Germany, Japan and France didn't have programs to provide housing to those areas which had previously been redlined in the US, did they? The case is the entire world economy was affected by the failure of the markets worldwide. They were affected by the swapping of derivatives. the people who were buying houses had nothing to do with the creation of those derivatives. They were created by the people who were creating the loans to hedge their bets against the bad loans they were peddling. If by "those people who couldn't afford what they were buying" the code words are not "black", "immigrant" and "other", then you and I are listening to different versions of Rush and Hannity. They seem to forget there was an entire industry built around (white) people who spent several years flipping houses by assuming interest only loans for homes they couldn't otherwise afford. Even now the banks are being found "negligent" (at best) for their loan practices. They cannot produce the paper to prove they actually own houses which they have forclosed. There is substantial proof they were moving people into sub-prime loans when the buyer could have afforded a better loan - but that would have taken away some of the financial incentives to the lender. The largest transfer of wealth in history, leo. The banks now own millions of properties they didn't own ten years ago and they can't prove they actually should have possession of tens of thousands of the homes they claim. There is proof many of the loan practices were deceptive and, to this day, continue to be so. You're going to have to actually make a point with your Open Secrets links. Just telling me campaigns were contributed to doesn't tell me anything. Campaigns have had contributors for decades. It's what those contributors expect in return and what the elected official is willing to provide that matters. I consider Open Secrets to be a valuable resource in the election process, that's why I introduced the site to this thread a long time ago. But I consider the actual work of the elected officals - such as the Repubs who are rushing to strip collective bargaining rights from those unions who provide campaign financing primarily to Dems while hiding behind the guise of budget reform - to be far more telling of what is being provided to those who have contributed. I consider the fact that Repubs claim fiscal responsibility while insisting their largest donors receive tax cuts which break the bank when it comes to the total debt of the US to be very indicative of what is being provided to the monied contributors by those who were elected to do their bidding. So far, while no one should be comfortabe with the way campaign financing is done in the US, the Repubs have resisted every attempt to make the process more transparent or more fair to the public at large. When the Repubs filibuster a bill sponsored by Dems which would make large contributions made by corporations and unions public knowledge, I can see who is paying off whom. You can't? You're going to have to actually make a point with those links, leo. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2196 Registered: Oct-07 | One quick point than off to bed. In 1950, the max wage for SS deduction was $3000. In current dollars, based on PURCHASING power, that would be just over $27,000. The current max for SS deduction is what.....106,000$s? The SS deduction salary cap has therefore increased nearly 4x the rate of inflation for a 60 year span. I have no idea yet how to factor in the changing ratio of 'contributors' to beneficiaries. Or the changing wage demographic. or any other factor. But a 4x increase against inflation is pretty good. By ALL means. EVERY contribution should be public knowledge....or at least knowable. Continue to ban foreign contributions. Maybe treat soft and hard money the same? Ban contributions from entities other than a real, check signing person. I'm still not comfortable with the idea of corporate personhood extending into political matters. And the open secrets link? A direct rebuttal to a false statement you made about who got the most money from real estate monied interests. Yes, everybody and every institution 'games' the rules. Every rule has an exception. Every person or corporate tries to get the maximum benefit. These guys have teams of lawyers looking for 'the really big loophole'. What's the surprise that when the government policy was to loosen lending rules that these guys took advantage....than bundled them and sold 'em like you'd sell scrap iron? I doubt anyone from a financial / real estate / mortgage banking house would expect the government to go to bat for them for better fishing rights for native Americans for the huge contributions they pony up. When user group / lobby group 'x' contributes, you bet your last Peso that the subject of the subtext is whatever the group is interested in. The Defense lobby would hardly ask for a bridge project....unless it directly led to the door of a factory or office building doing defense work. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15977 Registered: May-04 | . Maybe you should have waited to post that in the AM after some sleep. You keep looking backwards to find money values that IMO have no real comparison to what is ocurring today. What has transpired in virtually every sector of life in the US has changed the equations to the point where there are no 1=1 comparisons. CEO pay and the number of millionaires - let alone billionaires - in the US and the world have no relationship to the numbers from 1950. In 1950 most people could only dream of owning a car and certainly not their own house - remember why Levitton - those little houses full of ticky tacky - was created? To buy a $14k house you put down 20% and financed the rest for 10 years. You mowed your own lawn, watered the lawn with a hose and cleaned your own house after cooking your own meals. One wage earner was sufficient for the average family as there was no credit card debt to pay off. You paid $1,300 cash for the car and $0.19 for the gasoline that was coming from Texas and refined in your neighborhood. You knew that 'cause you could smell the fumes from the refinery. Most people with decent paying jobs were working for about $300-400 per month; http://www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/prices-1950.htm and quite a few were working for far less. The Great Migration had yet to occur and the baby boomers were only just starting to be born. There were no highways, air conditioning was only in theaters and department stores, a television would cost you the better part of a month's wages and we were asking the wealthiest individuals to help pay off war debts and finance a growing economy. The top IRS tax rate was 91% and there were few loopholes to exploit. Ronald Reagan was making about $10k per month and paying his mother $75 per week to help answer his fan mail. Most CEO's earned about 4-10X that of their employees; http://www.chartingstocks.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ceo_pay.gif Most employees believed in the American dream of getting ahead through honest work and that they would leave their children a better world. Archie Bunker was two decades yet to come. The Dow Jones remained around 1000 points since it had recovered from the Depression twenty years prior and only the few wealthiest individuals were participating in it. No one had any idea what a "mutual fund" or a "derivative" was, let alone "Reagonomics" - also known as "Voodoo Economics". You worked for Sears Roebuck, the Post Office or the railroads and joined a union because of their benefits and their pensions. Low income housing districts were severely red lined. "Negroes" rode in the back of the bus - if the bus stopped for them at all - and gave up their seat to any white. Black performers like Nat King Cole were unwanted in a "whites only" hotel, restaurant or neighborhood. Migrant workers were the only immigrants anyone heard of and only those who lived on small family owned farms - remember them? - ever saw them let alone paid them to do work they wouldn't. There is nothing I can actually think of that is a fair comparison between 1950 and today. "And the open secrets link? A direct rebuttal to a false statement you made about who got the most money from real estate monied interests." Again, two things; first, then you should have made a direct rebuttal since I have no idea what your point was or is. Second, which statement of mine were you rebutting? I don't remember ever saying anything "about who got the most money from real estate monied interests." If I have, I still contend it is who pays off whom that is the deal breaker. You'll have to work hard to convice me the Repubs are not farther in the back pocket of the wealthiest individuals and corporations than are the Dems who have come late to that party. The rest of your post isn't all that clear and you might want to try again after a few cups of coffee. You seem to be going on about your usual "I blame them all" rant. Of course, you do, leo, of course you do. . |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1532 Registered: Apr-05 | as long as that oil came from an OPEC state. Mexico and Canada along with a few other oil producing states don't belong to OPEC and are not tied to their pricing structure. As such they can act as the "Walmart" of the oil producing states and hold down artificial profits taken by OPEC. I can't imagine why Canada and Mexico or any other non-OPEC country would sell a commodity below price to anybody, would you? It's the very basic law of supply and demand that relates to commodities that are constantly in demand. When the price of gold goes up it goes up all over the world, you may get a discount from your favorite store, but not for long. The gold ring at the store will go up in price, because the store owners cost to replace that ring next time will be that much more. I have never watched Fox news, but you don't have to look any further than the price increase in the barrel of oil (It dipped into the teens at one point in the 1990's, but generally traded at around the high 20's and low 30's. However, even at the time of worldwide recession it only went down to the mid 70's in 2008) to know that the demand has increased tremendously in the past 10 years due to the expanding needs of BRIC countries and supply has not kept up. Iraq, as you mentioned, is just beginning to get back up to capacity. Iran has problems getting foreign investment and technologies to open new areas for drilling due to government instability as well as sanctions and either way their oil is full of sulfur and expensive to refine. Just today the price of oil is again in heavy flux because the traders don't know exactly how to offset the declining needs of Japan (the world's third largest economy) because of their manufacturing decline with the fact that due to their nuclear factory's' shutdown they will need more oil to produce electricity. So as you can see the price of oil can increase due to both the supply country issues (Libya) as well as the demand country's issues. I see that your original statement had more to do with going to war (or no fly zone) in Libya for the sake of oil than whether or not the unrest should cause a price increase. I don't have an opinion about the first one way or another, but am stating that right now the tightness in the oil market makes the traders very jittery. My solution: Get off of the dependence on oil for energy needs which relegates the product to the industrial needs (plastic, asphalt, everything you see at Walmart) and reduce our prices for consumer goods. Leo Chicago has changed a lot in the past 15 years, mostly for the better, though it has been affected by the downturn. However some things never change: Cubs still lose |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15989 Registered: May-04 | . "I can't imagine why Canada and Mexico or any other non-OPEC country would sell a commodity below price to anybody, would you? It's the very basic law of supply and demand that relates to commodities that are constantly in demand. When the price of gold goes up it goes up all over the world, you may get a discount from your favorite store, but not for long. The gold ring at the store will go up in price, because the store owners cost to replace that ring next time will be that much more" For two reasons I can think of; first, the exact reason you stated - gold. The price of gold is, across the board, for a specific purity of gold. Less purity and the value is less - it's actually one of the traps you are warned about when buying gold. The same with oil, there are various grades of oil being produced and not all are valued at the same price. "Sweet" crude is low sulfur content while "sour" crude is meant to be refined into other petroleum products. Or the cost of refining it to more useable products is higher and, therefore, the raw product is less valuable to the buyer. Shale oil is lower grade and more difficult to extract, therefore, it's pricing is reflected in its quality. Conversely, rising oil prices overall make the extraction of shale oil more desireable than in previous decades. When oil sells for $35 a barrel, shale oil is left in the ground. Iran's oil is lower grade product than other but they have tremendous reserves. As a member of OPEC, they still have a reasonable amount of sway in pricing. Kind of cool, when you think that OPEC really amounts to a group of oil producers arguing with each other over the price they get for products that are not equal. Iraq has not been much of a consideration for decades as Saddam didn't play well with his neighbors and they weren't all that happy with his setting his own oil fields on fire back in '91. To my knowledge the US has actually lost most of the contracts with Iraq for their future oil production. But take a look at which nations are the largest oil producers; http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html A few of those nations happen to be - at this time - our allies. Russia has real problems shipping its oil since it has to move the product through Afghanistan. Why do you think they were interested in Afghanistan in the '80's and we wanted to stop them? Also, keep in mind any other form of energy a nation can develop weakens the pricing structure of the largest producers unless they, like the US with its supply of natural gas and hopefully wind and solar before long, can also be the nation that has large reserves. This makes it a bit more complicated than just who has the most oil today and at what price. Why would anyone sell their oil cheaper than any other oil? To sell it, of course. Unlike gold or diamonds, oil has a finite lifespan. To be valuable it must be extracted, barrelled, shipped and refined in "X" amount of time or it begins to loose its value like two day old bread. To move their product out at its prime, it must continue to flow. Consider what I posted, Stof, and consider what you hear as the ups and downs of oil futures trading are reported through a week's time. Prices rise as one producer sells one container full of oil. Prices fall as another producer sells more oil from another location at a different negotiated value. If the producer has been sitting on a finite lifespan product for awhile waiting for prices to rise, they may need to move that oil to make way for new extraction product coming down the pipe. For whatever reason, the price of commodity futures moves up and down constantly, literally thousands of times a day. If you have a commodity with a finite lifespan which is trading in futures with more coming behind it - not what's in reserve but what hasn't even been pulled from the ground yet - you want to move that product. To do so the producers go to the traders who are the real price setting agents here. They trade anywhere from thousands of barrels of oil to millions of barrels of oil per day's production. When there is a disruption or cause for concern in one area of the world, the traders begin to search for other sources. Remember, like a salesperson on commission, they get nothing unless they move product. So it is in their interest to trade futures at whatever price they can negotiate - up or down. Obviously, they make higher commission when they; a) sell each unit at a higher price or, b) sell more volume at a lower price. They are moving a product and like the salesperson, they get paid only when they move something out to make way for something to take its place. Each producer has "X" amount to trade over "Y" amount of time before two things might occur. Either the value of their product will rise or the value of the other guy's product will fall. On a vastly larger scale this is no different than the old "gas wars" we used to see. To sell a product in a competitive market, you have to price it to sell. In the end, the producers have something of value they want to sell. It shouldn't be hard to figure out how you sell something away from another producer, you offer a better price. I'm not going to tell you Mexico or Canada can control the price of OPEC oil to the extent OPEC has to drop its prices by, say, $30 a barrel if the other two nations up production by a few thousand barrels a day. Right now the world needs oil rather than wants oil - even moreso with the Japanese situation. With the emergence of new and growing demand (China and India) the market has become more competitive when it comes to buying a finite product. They ain't making any more oil, they're only pulling out what's already there and there is a finite supply of it. For all intents and purposes, whoever has the product, has the power over whoever wants the product. That puts the largest producers mostly in control of the price of the overall product. In that sense OPEC through Saudi, Iranian and UAE production, is the Walmart of the oil production facilities. When you have the largest reserves from which to pull, you also have tremendous weight in the market. That is why the oil producing nations of (mostly) the Middle East banned together to form OPEC in the first place - in a sense, they are a union exercising collective bargaining. (Interstingly enough, when I entered OPEC into a search engine, "collective bargaining" came up as one of the favorite options.) As one united seller their power in the market is increased rather than having each and every oil producing nation trying to outstrip the other when it comes to price. As a group of producers with several of our allies as major producers, we still have some sway though a few lesser members (Venezuela and Iran) are trying to take that away. Now, go back to my earlier example, the supply of oil to any one nation. Think of the world's oil supply as that one large pie divided into sections between the various producers. Nations scramble to sign contracts with oil producing nations to ensure they have a relatively stable supply of energy - a piece of the pie. If you've diversified your sources, you've also lowered the potential for a price increase by any one nation holding you hostage for their oil. As the US has moved away from Middle East oil being the major source (other than our own resources) of oil, we have managed to put a small wedge of stability in our gasoline prices in the form of Mexico and Canada. Is the wedge large enough to keep us from feeling the effects of an OPEC price rise? Hardly, for the reasons I've stated above. But, when prices from OPEC begin to rise, if you had a product in the tens of millions of barrels that you could sell for even a few pennies per barrel less than the OPEC price, what would you be doing? No doubt, OPEC holds the trump cards since they sit on the world's largest reserves. But as in bridge, bidding is a good portion of the game. Knowing when and how to play your cards is key to playing the game well. "Just today the price of oil is again in heavy flux because the traders don't know exactly how to offset the declining needs of Japan (the world's third largest economy) because of their manufacturing decline with the fact that due to their nuclear factory's' shutdown they will need more oil to produce electricity. So as you can see the price of oil can increase due to both the supply country issues (Libya) as well as the demand country's issues." No disagreement there. But natural disasters such as what occurred in Japan aren't typically driving the price of oil. A nation builds their own reserve just as the US has its own Strategic Reserves from which it can pull should a need arise. After that, the market forces take hold. In this case, whether Japan can act swiftly enough through enough of its allies to put a lid on rising prices will determine the effect of the disaster on the rest of the world. The market is still reacting in the same manner as it always does, everyone who has something to sell is trying to sell it while prices are rising and not sit on it until prices begin to drop. The thing to remember is they only have so much to sell at any one time based on how much they can extract from the ground, pipe to a dock and ship to a refinery. The refinery can only produce "X" amount of energy products from what they receive. So, the price of oil alone is still only a small bit of what determines the final price of energy. The bottom line remains the final product must be sold to make any profit and there are alot of different factors in what determines that final price. That's what competition brings to the market. OPEC is powerful but OPEC is not the only player or even the only group with a pie. If I'm selling something and the guy across town is selling the same thing, we have to compete to be the actual seller. The one who doesn't sell is the loser. This changes somewhat when what you are selling is in high demand but you still have to be the one who sells. Everyone knows the bottomline cost of what they are selling. It's up to them to actually sell the product for the lowest price in order to move it rather than sit on a product with a finite lifespan. Does that tell you what you need to know about what I had posted? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15990 Registered: May-04 | . "My solution: Get off of the dependence on oil for energy needs which relegates the product to the industrial needs (plastic, asphalt, everything you see at Walmart) and reduce our prices for consumer goods." I'm for that. Then get rid of the oil for plastics, fertilizers and pesticides among other things that do little good for the environment. That will meet substantial resistance from the politicians. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2204 Registered: Oct-07 | If the stuff Jan suggests were indeed eliminated, crop yields per acre would drop.....a bunch. Adding the imaginary 'perfect distribution doesn't make a difference. Everyone would be on half-rations in no time. Earth population is mid 6 billion somewhere while US is about 5% of that. Politicians will not hold for such reductions as their populations starve. If someone could come up with even 90% of current yields and cut pollution / resource drain at the same time.......that'd work. |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1533 Registered: Apr-05 | No Jan there is nothing in this post that I disagreed with. My original point was that, even though greed is always a factor, issues such as the uprising in Libya, especially when it goes violent, can affect the price of oil even if temporarily. The latest news I read is that the future markets have decided that Libya's situation will not disrupt the flow and therefore have dropped the price of oil. The one thing that you did not mention, but I'm sure you are aware of is that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have the ability and regularly do go against the the wishes of OPEC (so for instance they increase production when the rest of OPEC wants to increase prices) and in effect have such a large sway as to set the prices on their own usually with a little cajoling from US. The other point I wanted to make is that I didn't think the sweet crude sold the same price as the high sulfur and sandy stuff. My understanding was that because Iran's oil is generally of the sulfury type, their overall cost of production is higher so that they make less money on an $80 barrel of oil than other countries due. (So in essence anything below $65 a barrel is bad news for them) So I don't know if that's related to having their oil processed to make it into the higher grade. |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1534 Registered: Apr-05 | I'm for that. Then get rid of the oil for plastics, fertilizers and pesticides among other things that do little good for the environment. Since we are solving all of our worlds problems here, how do you suggest we replace plastic? Or use some other substance to make it? I don't know about that Leo, I think obviously your point is true in the short term and it won't happen in that way, but take a look at the latest technologies in indoor farming, urban agriculture and vertical farming and there are technologies being developed that could reduce our dependence on fertilizers tremendously while actually increasing yield. What is called closed environment agriculture is actually doing a lot to 1) Reduce the energy needs to grow stuff 2) Do it without any needs for pesticide since it's indoors and you have great control over what comes and goes and 3) Grow stuff year around without the worry about climate change and most of the catastrophes cause by drought and floods etc. Take a look here: http://ag.arizona.edu/ceac/ Unfortunately both our current working technology and our public policies in terms of subsidies are only working to push agenda's that worked in the 1950's. } |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15992 Registered: May-04 | . "If the stuff Jan suggests were indeed eliminated, crop yields per acre would drop.....a bunch." The elmination of what "stuff" would cause this result, leo? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2205 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan wrote: I'm for that. Then get rid of the oil for plastics, fertilizers and pesticides among other things that do little good for the environment. Take that out of the equation and yields will drop. Add to the list certain manipulated crops or crops in which a single cultivar have replaced the dozens of varieties which were formerly grown. A crop of all a certain type is most vulnerable to a single pest or disease. Those 'greenhouse' techniques will come in handy in space and I can hardly see ..... the coffee or citrus growers going for it. http://www.cheapvegetablegardener.com/2009/04/make-your-own-upside-down-tomato.h tml |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15993 Registered: May-04 | . "Since we are solving all of our worlds problems here, how do you suggest we replace plastic? Or use some other substance to make it?" A search engine can provide some ideas. The largest problem here is political. Like most things that have to do with money, political interests hold significant sway in the information you will find. It's very difficult to actually see information that cannot be refuted by the opposing campaign using their own set of facts. Since plastics and petroleum have become such a major influence in every apsect of our modern life, just discussing a reduction in their use becomes a battlezone. Obviously, the technology exists to reduce our dependence on non-biodegradable petroleum products but there is strong resistance to its acceptance. Not only are the monied interests leading the charge against those who would reduce their fortunes, there are the utter curmudgeons who are proud of the fact they can afford to be absolutely profligate in their use of finite resources. It is to them a function of "freedom" and "what it means to be an America" to not give an inch to an opposing viewpoint. The "Nanny State" is the constant opponent of those who are "reasonable, free thinking and independent". The "Anti-intellectual" movement has become the driving force in one side's campaigns. More importantly, the "intellectuals" are not to be engaged in compromise, they are to be defeated - period! Listen to Rushbo and you'll hear the callers proclaim how few miles per gallon their SUV gets, that they refuse to recycle, that they burn 100 watt light bulbs 24/7 or that they run their AC with the windows open (no sh*t!). They get their congrats from the MahaRushbo and they are soooooo proud of themself. My repub neighbor is a contractor and he is incensed at any rule that restricts his profits in anyway. The new regulations on dealing with lead based paint will mean a slight bit of additional work for the week or less it takes to prep a house for painting. He sees no value in the precautions when there are only "how many cases of autism reported to be caused by lead?" His week of inconveniences are more important to him than a lifetime of problems for another person. How do you even begin to counter that? I've tried and I get nowhere because he sees his problems as larger than the problems of others. Like Tom Delay who began his career as an exterminator here in roach infested Texas, he sees anything which restricts whatever he wants to do as an intrusion by the government into his personal life. He has his "facts" and no amount of information is about to work its way into his world. And he is not alone, for the most part, we all do the same. You say you've never watched Fox. You should IMO. Hearing an alternative view is not going to harm anyone. You may laugh out loud on occasion or bang your heard on others, but knowing why someone is not seeing your viewpoint is far more instructive than just working within the echo chamber of those with whom you already agree. Take comfort in the polls which indicate Fox viewers are the most uninformed of all people. Remember that doesn't mean they are on occasion not closer to the truth than you might want to think. In other words, no one has a monoply on stupidity or on the truth. Back to the reduction of plastics, in contrast to Cheney's view I would say conservation is a virtue. We need to be more aware of how we live and what impact we have on the environment. You can't solve a problem until you recognize there is a problem. Once that happens the momentum builds. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15994 Registered: May-04 | . "Take that out of the equation and yields will drop." That isn't the information I can find, leo. It's the information those who promote "conventional" petroleum and chemical land management would care for you to find. But there is substantial evidence that raping the earth has no benefit to the farmer other than making it easier to decide how to poison the soil and waterways and those who ingest the final product. A few weeks ago they were passing out free samples of General Mills cereals in (plastic) packages hung on the front door. Looking at the ingredients list for Lucky Charms and Cinnamon Crunch I found TSP (trisodium phosphate) as an ingredient in both cereals which are aimed at children. Have you ever used TSP to clean the rust stains off your aluminum and plastic lawn chairs? And, yes, I can find a defense of its use in food products. As I was informed a while back, "organic" has been changed in its definition. If there is evidence the final product contains a carbon molecule, it is now considered to be "organic". Obviously, sodium and phosphates are organic by that definition. What struck me as the most absurd is that petroleum byproducts are now considered to be "organic". A CD disc made from polycarbonate is an "organic" material as is the packaging it comes in. As Frank Luntz has so aptly demonstrated in the Repub political battles, verbiage is the first and most important volley in any war. Anti-intellectualism - being and remaining stupid by desire - is a close second. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 15995 Registered: May-04 | . "Add to the list certain manipulated crops or crops in which a single cultivar have replaced the dozens of varieties which were formerly grown. A crop of all a certain type is most vulnerable to a single pest or disease." Yet another reason "conventional" land management techniques are gradually falling by the wayside. Quite a few farmers - most especially the factory farms which supply cheap products to those manufacturers who produce cheap food products - never stop to consider the final cost of land management based on methods other than those they have used in the past. They certainly never stop to consider the cost to the health and well being of those who consume their product and its run off into the water supply. Substantial amounts of information suggest sustainable (non-petroleum and non-chemical) techniques along with "traditional" crop management actually result in lower overall costs. Less resources, most especially water, is used and less of what goes on the soil runs off into the water table. Simple changes such as tilling under residual crops rather than leaving the soil barren after each harvest will result in healthier soil which in turn feeds healthier plants. Mulching will reduce water evaporation and maintain productive soil temperatures which will extend the time period where plants set fruit and ripen. Unfortunately, seed companies have a tremendous lobby in state and federal capitals. They are investing big money promoting genetically altered seeds which are said to be resistant to the effects of certain herbicides and the invasion of some pests. The average farmer sees truly organic management as weak in these two areas and will too often use a mix of "organic" techniques and more conventional methods which oftentimes provides the benefits of neither. http://www.acresusa.com/magazines/magazine.htm . |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1535 Registered: Apr-05 | Sorry to hear about your neighbor Jan. For whatever value politics may have, trying to filter science through the eyes of politics is never healthy. I don't watch Fox news because I don't watch much TV and certainly don't get my news from that medium anymore. In the same way I think that truth works its way through eventually, especially now in the age of internet. I know we are all a bit older, but most people under 30 don't pay much attention to the TV and radio blowhards. There is evidence to be positive about. 10 years ago no one believed Toyota was going to make any money in selling a dual engine hybrid car. This year at the auto show in Chicago the companies that did not have a hybrid or electric engines received very little attention. On my way to Indianapolis last summer I was really shocked at how many wind turbines were installed in the farm field. They had to be in the thousands and all in one year. Geothermal energy is finally receiving the attention it deserves and the problem with solar seems to be that the technology is moving too fast and becoming so much better that it's hard to nail it down and invest heavily in its installation. So I think alternative energy is coming and our reliance on oil should be decreasing soon. |
|
Gold Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 1536 Registered: Apr-05 | Even the corporations are at it http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/03/pepsi-green-bottle-made-of-corn-husks -pine-bark.html |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2206 Registered: Oct-07 | Don't worry, folks, the Gene Guys will soon be featuring drought tolerant crops. http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Ogallala-Aquifer.html We'll need 'em when we start running out of water. The Colorado has reach the Sea Of Cortez 4 or 5 times in the last 4 decades. I was planning a trip when I 'discovered' this fact. I'd need a camel to get from when the river 'ends' to the Sea Of Cortez. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16000 Registered: May-04 | . http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/mar/15/marcia-fudge/rep-marcia-fu dge-says-some-largest-corporations-pa/ |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2207 Registered: Oct-07 | Who is responsible? Not those pesky Rs again? How about all of 'em.......??? A good case of the tax code being 'for sale to highest bidder'. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2208 Registered: Oct-07 | http://www.petbreedersandowners.com/HSUS_LOBBYGATE_COVER-UP.pdf HSUS under investigation? that's the Humane Society....the pet people! |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2209 Registered: Oct-07 | http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/www/contents.html could we make it longer? or more complicated? This is my favorite part! http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/www/contents.html Is there a SINGLE taxpayer who is not in violation (perhaps only 'technical') of some part of this nonsense? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16001 Registered: May-04 | . "Who is responsible? Not those pesky Rs again? How about all of 'em.......??? A good case of the tax code being 'for sale to highest bidder'." Oh, leo! Really! Here's an idea, leo. Why don't you spend some time going through all the laws and regulations which have created this situation and report back to us which bills got what number of votes from each party for its passage. Rather than just blaming everyone out of hand as you usually do, why not find some actual facts instead of just constantly ranting? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16002 Registered: May-04 | . "HSUS under investigation? that's the Humane Society....the pet people!" And that's such an informative piece of work you've posted. Where'd it come from? Who created it? Someone with a partisan slant that doesn't like where the money might be going? C'mon, leo, this is pure BS and nothing more. When you have some facts, I'll be interested. As is typical of your posts, you throw anything you find against the wall and hope something sticks. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16003 Registered: May-04 | . "Is there a SINGLE taxpayer who is not in violation (perhaps only 'technical') of some part of this nonsense?" I suppose I am not in violation. I've been filing IRS returns for the better part of the last forty two years and they've never notified me of any violations. What's your point, leo? The tax code is complicated? No disagreement. That doesn't excuse the point raised by my post regarding the number of corporations not paying taxes. Nor does it excuse the amount of revenues being lost to those corporations as favors doled out to campaign donors while the R's now scream about deficits and debt they largely created during their more than a decade in control of at least one leg of the government. IMO, they raised that leg and p*sssed on the taxpayer and now they're against wanting anyone but the least well off to pay for their sins. Let's go back and recall the tens of billions in "compensation" aid to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries by the R's when they illegally passed Medicare Part D. Or the tens of billions handed to the energy companies as subsidies for exploration of future energy needs also provided by the R's and W. Read it again, leo; "You'll have to work hard to convice me the Repubs are not farther in the back pocket of the wealthiest individuals and corporations than are the Dems who have come late to that party." . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16004 Registered: May-04 | . If the stuff Jan suggests were indeed eliminated, crop yields per acre would drop.....a bunch. Adding the imaginary 'perfect distribution doesn't make a difference. Everyone would be on half-rations in no time. Earth population is mid 6 billion somewhere while US is about 5% of that. Politicians will not hold for such reductions as their populations starve. If someone could come up with even 90% of current yields and cut pollution / resource drain at the same time.......that'd work" Since I never saw you being specific about any of the "stuff" you feel is going to ruin the world, I assumed you meant a return to updated but largely traditional farming practices and away from "conventional, chemical based" methods of land (un)management. Assuming that, I gave Acres USA a call; http://www.acresusa.com/magazines/magazine.htm I asked if they could direct me to a reliable, non-partisan source of information regarding crop yields and production costs vs returns for what are commonly referred to as "organic" management techniques vs the "conventional" methods which have become accepted practice through subsidies by the seed and chemical industries over the last seventy years. Acres USA was kind enough to direct me towards ATTRA; http://attra.org/,http://attra.org/,http://attra.org/ After contacting ATTRA, Nick McCann was generous enough to send me a link to a PDF which has just the information I was looking for. Try this one, leo; http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/organicag/researchreports/orgeconomics.pdf The way I read that paper, your prediction of, "crop yields per acre would drop.....a bunch", and, "Everyone would be on half-rations in no time", amounts to just more typical uninformed leo rants. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16098 Registered: May-04 | . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2281 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, Where / how do you find this stuff? http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v10n3p24.htm There ARE Christians that believe in 'environmental stewardship' |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16102 Registered: May-04 | . I'm guessing the ARE also some Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, theistic existentialists, Wiccans, etc. who are interested in and are committed to "environmental stewardship". I find this "stuff" because it's out there, leo, and it's not all that difficult to see or hear. I would say the problem with the video I linked to is it presents numerous individuals who have numerous "followers" who are being told this is both the message of God and (therefore) a political issue rather than a strictly moral issue of just governance. The concepts stated in that video are Randian in overdrive in the objectivist attitudes which promote r@ping anyone and anything that stands in your way to making higher and higher profits at the expense of whomever or whatever gets in your way. When this attitude is then linked to; 1) the demonization of those with opposing views, and 2) the political power of one particular party there needs to be more than a few "Christians that believe in 'environmental stewardship'" paying attention. This is evil stuff and everyone - but particularly those who do have a concern for the planet and how mankind treats it and every creature that inhabits it - should be speaking out against the ideas presented here. There is no difference here between what is being said by powerful individuals and those individuals who preach and condone racism or a political party which takes money away from those who need assistance with basic human needs. If a poltical party accepts these individuals as speaking for their interests, then that political party also must face the condemantion of such ideas as are being expressed in this video and their association with the individuals who are promoting those ideas. That video is dangerous simply because the people speaking have an inordinate hold over their followers who have "faith" they are being provided with the word and the will of God. Faith then supplants all reason and what follows is not, by any thinking person's inclination, the desire of anything we have come to know as "God's will". That this is then provided a political slant is, IMO, beyond merely "dangerous". Excuse me for the monent while I link to a highly partisan webpage to access more information about what the "believers" are being fed; http://www.alternet.org/story/150690/meet_the_religious_right_charlatan_who_teac hes_tea_party_america_the_totally_pretend_history_they_want_to_hear?akid=6885.58 35.cMbs5J%26&t=2 This goes beyond blaming both sides, leo. This is what people hear 24/7 if they allow the propaganda into their minds. When they do that, there is no room for any other information. This serves to bring no one together and manages only the purpose of those who stand to benefit from division. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2284 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, you must have even a lower opinion of the average intelligence of people than I. I can't believe anyone.....or more than even a very small %age of people....whose voting attendance record is spotty at best, give this ANY traction at all. The people in the vid? Couldn't have possibly read or understood the Bible. Now, is this a Joke? I hope so. Could YOU fill it out? And in 45 minutes, no less? http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ds5513-proposed.pdf |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16113 Registered: May-04 | . The video isn't bashing taxes and the growing number of government workers since 1916, eh? Not on your radar I suppose. Leo, I have the ultimate faith in people of "average intelligence". Unfortunately, I find that more and more of the religious right and the Republican party leaders who pander to them are not of average intelligence or courage. The right has always had their share of loony tunes. They have been larger in number and, most importantly, far more dangerous than any group embraced by the left. From the Birchers, who called Eisenhower a Communist, to McCarthy and Reagan, who saw Communists everywhere, the right has always pandered to and made their heroes from the extremes of irrational thinking. But the hatred with which the right has, over the past three decades, infected the media, and the internet in particular, with their devisive hate speech has reached proportions which only serve to, first, marginalize the philosophy of the Republican party and, second, promote simple hatred and violence performed in the name of partiotism and God. Listen to the words used in that video, leo. According to those speaking, the environmentalists are; "seducing our children", "their lust for power extends to the highest levels" this against an image of the White House, this "cult" has a "twisted view" and they are employing "spritual deception", listeners risk "falling prey to its deadly ...", "it is deadly to the Gospel of Jesus Christ", and "it is your enemy". They are condemning "humanism" as being against the will of God. Is it that far of a stretch to then apply the same words and condemnations to anyone who is seen as agreeing with "the Environmentalists"? Who do you suppose that might be to the average "Value Voter"? I would prefer to be in agreement with you that there only exists a very small percentage of people who take this sort of propaganda seriously if the facts did not suggest the exact opposite. The Republican party has long embraced the religious, social conservatives and pandered to their interests with hopes of mobilizing their votes. This has existed as long as "The Southern Strategy" has existed within the Republican party. Your assumption these are people with "very spotty voting records" is, of course, ridiculous. These are the people who are driven to vote by their blind faith, along with their fear of "the other", by those whom they view as religious leaders speaking directly to them and for God. Several of those speaking in the video have direct ties to the Republican party and to specific Republican officials including members of Congress and Republican Presidents who actively seek their advice on social issues. Most of the groups represented in the video are active in high dollar lobbying and have direct lines to the Republicans who seek not only their advice but their endorsements. Presidential candidates are foolish to avoid Tony Perkins and his Family Research Council's "Value Voters Summit" where Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, Brownback, DeMint and Bachmann have recently made appearances. Bachmann has used these congregations to label Obama "the Evil One". This depsite the fact the g@y bashing and hate baiting Perkins and his followers have been named as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center; http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/11/30/tony-perkins-defends-family-research-co uncil-sort-of/ Perkins has a radio program with a network of 1.5 million listeners over 600 stations. That is equal to the number of stations broadcasting the similarly hateful ideas of Rush Limbaugh on a daily schedule. And the constant 24/7 barrage of far right wing/social conservative mantras is what is at the heart of this. AFA, represented on the video, has a network of more than 200 stations (as do most of the other groups represented in the video) and a participating membership of 1/2 million who have faithfully followed along as they denounced SpongeBob SquarePants or have promoted other lunatic ideas aimed at marginalizing entire groups. If "evidence" is presented to support their claims, it is similar to what Perkins falsely states in his MSNBC appearance above - one of almost 700 apearances or interviews he conducts each year - which refers to a non-existent, made up for this statement group which has no relevance to the issues. More likely "God's Lobbyists" are willing to join Glenn Beck "University" and use his viewership to spread their stories without so much as a whif of proof. So do not misjudge the scope of "faithful" listeners who are buying into this crap. Now, if you were a faithful minion of Jesus, what would you do if "your enemy", who is a "twisted" "cult" member, was "seducing your children" and going against "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" as these people claim? What have other people listening to these words done? How many people did it take to gun down a worker at a Democratic Headquarters in 2008? How many people did it take to fly a small plane into a government building in Austin? How many people did it take to fire the gun at Dr. Tiller? Either time? Who promoted the phrase "Tiller the Baby Killer"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYulgba5BPE What is the number of viewers watching that program - the #1 "news" show on cable TV? How many of the claims made by O'Reilly in that video were actually supported by facts and proofs when he flatly states he doesn't care what his guest has to say? How was the killing of a doctor who performed legal procedures met by the far right? In describing the murders of doctors and health care personnel who worked at abortion clinics, (Ann)Coulter said the victims had been shot, "...or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure performed on them with a rifle." Perkins' use of the Scripture was only slightly less menacing than Coulter's flippant analogy. "We read that Phineas arose and he took action...," Perkins said. "Not only is prayer required...I warn you that if you begin to pray for our nation that, at some point in time, you're gonna be prayin' and you're gonna feel a tap on your shoulder and hear, 'Son, daughter, I've heard your prayer; now I want you to do something about it.'" http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2007/04/religious-right.html How many others have taken it upon themself to "do something about it"? How many belong to "The Army of God"? http://www.zimbio.com/George+Tiller/articles/25/Dr+George+Tiller+Murdered+Army+G od+AOG+Member These are people who are promoting "God's Will" to more than a "small percentage of people", leo. These are people who are dangerous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs5QdwSvhnM&feature=related And the Republican party embraces them rather than denounces them. The Republican party elects them to office; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWwTKPswsPE&NR=1&feature=fvwp (Forward to 1'35" in the video if you wish.) "... whose voting attendance record is spotty at best, give this ANY traction at all." Leo, in case who haven't been paying attention, 7 out of 10 self proclaimed "Republicans", when polled a few weeks ago, either were certain Obama was not a US citizen or were uncertain of his place of birth. Some 60% believe he is not a Christian. A majority of incoming Tea Party elected Republicans in the House and Senate share the views of the religious "leaders" in the video when it comes to the environment; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html?pagewanted=2 The Republicans stand on the floors of Congress and question Obama's place of birth and his religion. No Republican leader will take a stand against the nutjobs for fear of alienating their baseline voting block. They have now succeeded in having a sitting American President "show his papers". http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/dont-stop-believing/?nl=todayshe adlines&emc=thab1 Donald Trump is still playing to suspicions of President Obama. And it's no longer theoretical. It's theological. For the detractors, truth is no longer dependent on proof because it's rooted in faith: faith that American exceptionalism was never truly meant to cover hyphenated Americans; faith in 400 years of cemented assumptions about the character and capacity of the American Negro; and faith that if the president doesn't hew to those assumptions then he must be alien by both birth and faith. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/opinion/30blow.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha 212 The Tea Party has embraced both the Birthers and the Birchers and those sitting in elected offices are taking their "truths" from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Leo, no one in that video is attacking taxes or the government worker. That doesn't mean they are not dangerous. That Republicans will not take a stand against such hate speech but will actually actively embrace those who promote these ideas. This says the current Republican party is not only without a real world philosohy but they are willing to go along with the most ignorant and hateful of all ideas. There is no "blaming both parties" that can apply here. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16114 Registered: May-04 | . "Now, is this a Joke? I hope so. Could YOU fill it out? And in 45 minutes, no less? http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ds5513-proposed.pdf" Once again, leo, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have no idea where the document came from or what it is supposed to mean. It has "PROPOSED" stamped on its front so, evidently, this is not an official document. I have no idea what its relevance is to anything. It's just typical "leo" in this thread. And, as usual, I can't comment on anything when I have no idea why you introduced it or what meaning I should take from its existence. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2292 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, please don't be intentionally thick. The doc I linked is indeed marked 'proposed'. It is supposed to be the new passport application. I don't believe it could be. Looking over the required data and thinking about the 45 minute estimated time of completion made me smile. I doubt many could fill in every blank, time limit be XXXXX. Is it a real document? Another internet hoax, probably. Or at least, I hope so. I just wanted to address a single point with an example. I was driving to LAX to drop off some passangers. One of my riders was a pretty intelligent, 21 yr old young lady. Good, self motivated student. Pretty smart and working 2 jobs while going to school. No slouch. We passed a couple crosses, fairly well lit upslope from us, off the freeway. She remarked they shouldn't be there. Why not? I asked. I didn't get a good answer and dropped it. I still don't know why a cross on (probably) private property should have offended anyone. And, as typical as you feel my comments are, you should re-read your own comments. Vintage stuff. Full of accusations. If you dispassionately scrutinized both sides with the same zeal you apply to republicans........ And it's funny, you dislike Trump going after a dead, ridiculous issue and totally give some of the wacky stuff dems say a complete pass. You also completely ignore, for the sake of 'controlling the argument', those things upon which we may find agreement. Something like the Debt Reduction Commission may be a fruitful place to start. If we took some of the recommendations apart, we may not be that far apart. So where are the dems in getting this enacted? or at least part of the public debate? http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2010/11/obamas-bipartisan-commissio n-proposal.html Now, I didn't read the editorial part, but the recommendations got swept under the table and have not been heard from again. I wonder why? Those Pesky r's again? I can't remember what Simpson called tax breaks for the wealthy.....something like......'Tax Entitlements'....which should be eliminated. I haven't read the report, but I'll bet it contains plenty to talk about. Here is the text of the report. http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMo mentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16116 Registered: May-04 | . "Is it a real document? Another internet hoax, probably. Or at least, I hope so." Then why bring it up? If you don't know, leo, if you have no proof of what it really is, why introduce it? If it is an internet hoax, what does that prove? That there are even more nuts out there who feel they can start a baseless rumor and have people like you follow along? You don't know what it really is, but you wanted me to comment on it? The internet was made for people like you, leo. "We passed a couple crosses, fairly well lit upslope from us, off the freeway. She remarked they shouldn't be there. Why not? I asked. I didn't get a good answer and dropped it. I still don't know why a cross on (probably) private property should have offended anyone." Then why bring it up? How do you know she was "offended"? Crimeny, leo, you don't, she didn't answer you. You haven't even laid the groundwork for anyone to factually assume she has an objection to a well lit cross as anything other than something she finds out of place in that location. You haven't established any facts, but you prefer to run with what you prefer to imagine as the truth. You are the prime candidate for Trump's accusation that Obama was a poor student - or so he has been told. Trump hasn't even defined the word "poor" and yet he knows there are people who will fill in all the blanks he has left wide open to the fringe interpretations of his "accusation". Here's one for you, leo, I have been told 85% of people die in bed. What's that say about beds? I blame both sides for this, don't you? Geez, leo, don't make this so d@mn easy. "And, as typical as you feel my comments are, you should re-read your own comments. Vintage stuff. Full of accusations. If you dispassionately scrutinized both sides with the same zeal you apply to republicans........ And it's funny, you dislike Trump going after a dead, ridiculous issue and totally give some of the wacky stuff dems say a complete pass." And you don't think you've just made any accusations of guilt? Leo, I have provided proofs for what I have claimed and I've explained why I am including it in my post. I don't just say, "What do you think about this?", when there's nothing there to think about. I've included quotations, video footage, real world press releases which establish what I have claimed to have been said, or done or "PROPOSED". What more do you want? What actually satisfies leo when it comes to proof? Just saying you don't know why a girl objected to crosses? When, reading what you posted, you don't even know she was specifically objecting to the crosses. As you wrote it, she was objecting to their location, "She remarked they shouldn't be there." That's enough proof for you, but actual information about what has been said or done is not? The Army of God is real, leo. They have killed people. And Ann Coulter has made jokes about it. And the Repubs have consulted with and sought the endorsement of the fringe elements of their base. That's a fact. What you have introduced is nothing. And you've done it repeatedly over the course of this thread. You are so d@mn busy looking for someone to blame, you don't even bother to present facts or to check whether what you've posted - without any refernce to where it came from - is possibly another internet hoax. If you don't feel I have proven my points, then make the case for the innacuracies in what I have stated or for what statement is lacking factual proof. But do not just accuse me of making false accusations when I can point to the quotes and the numbers I have outlined in my post. You accuse Democrats of saying "whacky stuff". Like what, leo? Don't just make the accusation without proof. I have no compelling reason to follow your accusations down the rabbit hole after the two "points" you've failed to prove above. Show me the Democrat equivalent to the John Birchers who have ridden along on the coattails of the Repubs for over seventy years. Show me the Democrat equivalent to McCarthy or Tony Perkins or any of the people speaking on the Green Dragon video on any of their other positions. Or show me the Dems who would laugh at the comments of someone like Ann Coulter or make her a hero of their cause. Show me the Democrat who panders to the big*ts who hate immigrants or Muslims. Just to name the "enemy du'jour" for the Repubs now that we've changed the name back from "Freedom Fries". Point out the Dem who actively seeks out the endorsement of the liberal equivalent of the people on that "Green Dragon" video. Show me the Democrat who is willing to cuddle up to someone like David Barton. Don't know David Barton? You should since I linked to an article about him just a few posts back. But facts like that just aren't what you deal in, are they, leo? Instead of making baseless accusations, show me the Dem who actively seeks out the endorsement of any radical group. Show me the Dem who has close ties to the NRA as they preach liberals will take away your guns. If you can't - and, I mean really can't, not just make more false accusations - then, please, withdraw your statement. This is what Politifact and Factcheck sites are for, leo. Not some right wing blog about Obama's failings. Show me the pure hate speech, the denigration of entire groups or the humor based upon lessening an opponent on the left that is similar to what pours out of the right 24/7 through talk radio and the internet. "Something like the Debt Reduction Commission may be a fruitful place to start. If we took some of the recommendations apart, we may not be that far apart. So where are the dems in getting this enacted? or at least part of the public debate? http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2010/11/obamas-bipartisan-commissio n-proposal.html Now, I didn't read the editorial part, but the recommendations got swept under the table and have not been heard from again. I wonder why? Those Pesky r's again?" Awww, leo, why do you make this so easy? Where are the Dems in getting this "enacted"? Getting what "enacted", leo. The "Debt Commission's" job was to come up with "suggestions". There is no law to "enact". There are broad "suggestions" within the Debt Commission's work, but you haven't read it so you wouldn't know what. You haven't read it but you're willing to go after the Tax portion of the Commission's work without even knowing what the suggestions are or even what former Sen. Simpson actually said about them. Again "I haven't read the report, but I'll bet it contains plenty to talk about." If you haven't read the report, why bring it up, leo? There can be no two way discussion of something one party knows nothing about other than the word "taxes". Have you not been paying attention, leo? When Obama proposed his "plan" for the economy in a recent speech, there were elements of the Debt Commission's "framework" within his plan. There are no specifics to enact which have come from the Commission. The suggestions are nothing more than that - suggestions - and are meant to be the basis for a debate which Obama began by establishing the Commission in the first place. He then made his suggestions after the R's had introduced the "Ryan Plan" which the CBO scores as actually increasing the national debt, harming the middle class and doing damage to many social safety nets while boosting the income of the top few per cent of US citizens; http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11966/11-17-Rivlin-Ryan_Preliminary_Analysis.pdf All of this was done using fake numbers which were developed by the Heritage Foundation, a Rush Limbaugh advertiser and favorite for his daily dose of "facts"; http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/04/heritage_breaks.html And which totally ignores any of the suggestions made by the Commission. How do I know this? Because the Ryan plan is merely more recycled crap from an identical plan he and the Repubs introduced long before the Debt Commission had said anything. I suspect you didn't even realize those ideas announced early on by Simpson and Bowles (the co-chairs of the Commission) were not the actual results of the complete Commission's work. I suppose you don't even know that not all of the Commission's members agreed with what Simpson and Bowles released as their own "outline" of agreement. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/129385-fiscal-commission-members-au thor-separate-budget-plans No, you latched onto "taxes" and that's all you care to hear. Is it those "pesky R's" again? Well, I think anyone who can actually read even the outlines of what came out of the Debt Commission's work and also the plan from Ryan, which has been backed by all but four House Republicans, would see the Ryan plan has nothing in common with the DC's plan. And those four Repubs who voted against the Ryan plan, they didn't think the Ryan plan went far enough in cutting down or wiping out ideological enemies of the right. We now have the Ryan plan and the Obama proposal, next comes the recommendations from the Gang of Six. Have you heard of them, leo? If not, then you really shouldn't be talking about "enacting" anything. If you have, then why did you bring up "enacting" anything? "Here is the text of the report." But you haven't read it? You didn't bother? But you want me to? All 60+ pages of it. And do what, tell you what's in it? No, I'm certain that now you'll begin pulling sentences out of it that you think prove something without providing context. And then I'm supposed to comment on it. I'm not interested in your games any longer, leo. You don't have facts and you don't care to use facts when they are available. You feel presenting facts or using news reports, quotes and actual video footage to support a position is "controlling the argument". Once again, leo, . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16121 Registered: May-04 | . "What if Sanity Prevails in Washington"; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/magazine/mag-01lede-t.html?src=me&ref=magazine |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16122 Registered: May-04 | . "Go after the teachers"???!!!; http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201104180045 When does the ridiculous right wing run out of enemies to "go after"? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16124 Registered: May-04 | . Of course, I didn't expect the rightwing nut jobs to praise Obama for the death of Bin Laden. But when do the R's finally get enough of loudmouths like Limbaugh and tell him "whacky stuff" like this, "... the Dems wished 9-11 had occurred under Clinton", is too far and too dangerous. According to Rushbo, teachers are "parasites", retirees are "non-productive" and the unemployed are "slackers". Leo? The Dems say "whacky" stuff? OK, but the R's say hateful stuff or, at worst, do not refute the hateful stuff said in their name. . |
|
Gold Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 1254 Registered: May-05 | Here I thought I was going to read about whether CDs should be intentionally recorded out of phase. Geez!!!! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16127 Registered: May-04 | . "I have been told 85% of people die in bed. What's that say about beds? I blame both sides for this, don't you?" We're discussing beds here, Dak, and their danger to both the top 1% of income earners and the other 99%. Until out of phase CD's become a political football, they're unlikely to be discussed in this thread. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16131 Registered: May-04 | . "The problem with David Barton is that there's a lot of truth in what he says," said Derek H. Davis, director of church-state studies at Baylor University, a Baptist institution in Waco, Tex. "But the end product is a lot of distortions, half-truths and twisted history ... Mr. Barton burst onto the conservative scene in 1988, when he published a study that blamed a decline in SAT scores and other social ills, like violent crime and unwed births, on the Supreme Court decisions in 1962 and 1963 that banned prayer in public schools; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05barton.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc =rss&wpisrc=nl_fix "Former U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy that Barton's "pseudoscholarship would hardly be worth discussing, let alone disproving, were it not for the fact that it is taken so very seriously by so many people."; http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/barton-s-bunk-religious-right-historian-hits-th e-big-time-tea-party-america . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2298 Registered: Oct-07 | http://athousandpointsofresistance.blogspot.com/2010/12/unhinged-left-sampling-o f-destructive.html There is enough hate speech to go around, don't you think? Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith. Alexis de Tocqueville |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16134 Registered: May-04 | . "I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know." Groucho Marx - the other "Marx" brother and his "hate speech" toward the well known Republican emblem of an elephant. To the best of my knowledge, no Democrat of the day was so bold as to demand an apology from Marx for his over the top remark. No Democart distanced themself from Marx as a result of this slacious slur. In fact, most everyone laughed at the hate filled comment. I'll address your "list" when I have time, leo. Just do one thing for me. Since you post, "There is enough hate speech to go around, don't you think?", but the link you provide only lists supposed infringements performed by Democrats and liberals and, for the most part, only reported by conservative bloggers, I have a feeling you've once again not done any leg work when it comes to factual accountings of your mini-rant. I think if you had bothered to check the veracity of, say, a half dozen or so of the most recent items on that list, you probably wouldn't have posted that list as proof of hate coming from both sides. Let's take one of the items for now just to begin; 69 9/3/09 A 65-year old man, protesting Obama Care, had his finger bitten off by a member of MoveOn.org. Here's my search engine wording, "65-year old man had his finger bitten off by a member of MoveOn.org." Here's the first result; KTLA News 12:58 a.m. PDT, September 3, 2009 ktla-finger-bitten-rally THOUSAND OAKS -- A 65-year-old man had his finger bitten off Wednesday evening at a health care rally in Thousand Oaks, according to the Ventura County Sheriff's Department. Sheriff's investigators were called to Hillcrest and Lynn Road at 7:26 p.m. About 100 protesters sponsored by MoveOn.org were having a rally supporting health care reform. A group of anti-health care reform protesters formed across the street. The finger-biting incident occurred after a member of the group protesting health care reform, William Rice, 65, of Newbury Park, became involved in a heated discussion with a member of Code Pink, sheriff’s Capt. Ross Bonfiglio said. After the argument, Rice returned to where his own group was standing. A man from Moveon.org’s area then walked over to the opponents and verbally confronted Rice, allegedly calling him names and acting aggressively, Bonfiglio said. Rice later told investigators he felt threatened by the man and punched him in the nose, Bonfiglio said. The punch set off a fist fight between the two men, during which the tip of Rice’s left pinky finger was bitten off, Bonfiglio said.; 0,7135717.story,http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-finger-bitten-rally,0,7135717.story Apparently, and all I'm going on are news stories here, the man - who was opposing Government run health care - walked to a local hospital to have the tip of his pinky finger re-attached. The hospital billed Medicare. (hold for laughter) Here's how Politico reported the incident; KTLA in Los Angeles reported, citing law enforcement officals, that a 65-year-old man had his finger bitten off Wednesday evening at a health care rally in Thousand Oaks, and a witness described a confrontation that began with the man who would lose his finger striking another man on his way to the MoveOn vigil.; http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/MoveOn_California_fracas_fingerbiting_regrettable.html So this dreadful "hate speech" that you see coming from the left and which is reported almost exclusively by the rightwing bloggers, was instigated by the righty. He was the first to walk over and confront the lefty and he was the first one who got physically violent when he punched the lefty in the face, leo. Did you know that? Did you bother to research the information? Or any of the other "facts" stated in that link you want to - I assume - stand by as your proof of equal treatment coming from both sides? There's a video I want to show you about another one of those "facts" but it will have to wait until I have more time. Then I'll take on several of the other entries in an attempt to be fair to just how many of those items are being ridiculously reported. "I still don't know why a cross on (probably) private property should have offended anyone." If what you posted is what you truly consider proof of left wing hate, no one would expect you to understand "why a cross on (probably) private property should have offended anyone." Just do this for me, leo, tell me what the search engine wording was that brought you to that particular entry. I think that might be informative to where I want to go with any rebuttal of your "facts". . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16145 Registered: May-04 | . May 6, 2011 The Spring Quiz By GAIL COLLINS I. Match that quote: 1) "He got the position himself. I didn't get it for him." A) Donald Trump, on Donald Jr.'s job as an executive vice president at the Trump Organization. B) Wisconsin lobbyist whose college-dropout son was named to an important state job and then given a promotion and 26 percent raise two months later. C) Hosni Mubarak on how son Gamal rose to be general secretary of the Egyptian government's policy committee. D) Queen Elizabeth on naming Prince William the Duke of Cambridge. ***** 2) "Frankly, my toilets don't work in my house, and I blame you." A) Participant in a "This Old House" episode. B) Participant in an "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" episode. C) Participant in a "Selling New York" episode. D) Senator Rand Paul to Department of Energy official during a hearing on energy efficiency standards. ***** 3) "There's no question, at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate." A) Gen. Stanley McChrystal on his interview with Rolling Stone. B) Newt Gingrich on adultery. C) Bernie Madoff on his Ponzi scheme. D) Retiring Senator John Ensign in his farewell address. ***** 4) "We will carry on this struggle until in God's good time, with all His power and might, He steps forth to the rescue and liberation of our God-given American liberty." A) Abraham Lincoln on the Civil War. B) Mayor of tornado-ravaged Tuscaloosa, Ala. C) Gen. David Petraeus, addressing the troops in Iraq. D) Representative Steve King of Iowa on repealing the health care reform act. ***** II. Match the governor: 1) Aide: "He likes a cold room." 2) "So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother, and you're not my sister." 3) "I went to work at 11 years old. I became governor. It's not a big deal. Work doesn't hurt anybody." 4) "I do chase women, like the prime minister of Italy, but that's about it." A) Paul LePage of Maine. B) Robert Bentley of Alabama. C) Andrew Cuomo of New York. D) Arne Moltis (O.K., he's only a gubernatorial candidate) of West Virginia. ***** III. Match the Republican presidential hopefuls: 1) Newt Gingrich 2) Mitt Romney 3) Mitch Daniels 4) Tim Pawlenty 5) Mike Huckabee 6) Michele Bachmann 7) Ron Paul 8) Herman Cain A) Criticized President Obama for doing exactly what he demanded Obama do about Libya. B) Latest book tells about a joke he pulled on a man who had just been fitted for a new hearing aid, by "moving my lips as if I were talking but without saying anything so he'd think something was wrong." C) Latest book fails to mention that he once drove to Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car. D) Told a New Hampshire audience: "You're the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord." E) Attacked Superman for encouraging "this whole globalist trend." F) Recently debated a Barack Obama impersonator on Fox. G) Recently said only an "insane person" would like to run for president. H) Promised to discriminate against Muslims if elected. ***** EXTRA CREDIT: Match the state with the bill proposed in the current legislative session: 1) Undertake a study on whether the state should create its own currency in case the Federal Reserve breaks down. 2) Make it a state crime to hire an undocumented worker, except for jobs like nannies, housekeepers or lawn mowers. 3) Make the state a coal company "sanctuary" exempt from federal environmental laws. 4) Declare global warming is "beneficial to the welfare and business climate" of the state. 5) Require every adult in the state to own a gun. A) Kentucky B) Montana C) Tennessee D) South Dakota E) Texas ANSWERS: I: 1-B, 2-D, 3-B, 4-D; II: 1-C, 2-B, 3-A, 4-D; III: 1-A, 2-C, 3-G, 4-B, 5-E, 6-D, 7-F, 8-H; Extra Credit: 1-C, 2-E, 3-A, 4-B, 5-D. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/opinion/07collins.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines &emc=tha212&pagewanted=print . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16146 Registered: May-04 | . Q.1) What year do the health benefit exchanges that will be used for the purchase of health insurance go into effect? A. 2011 B. 2016 C. 2014 D. They're already in operation in all 50 states. Q.2) What happens if you don't obtain health insurance under the individual mandate in the law? A. You'll get 30 days in jail B. You'll pay a 5 percent surcharge on your income tax up to a maximum of $5,000 per family C. You'll pay a penalty of the greater of $695 a year per person, up to a maximum of $2,085 per family, or 2.5 percent of household income D. Your citizenship will be revoked Q.3) Does the law include death panels? A. Yes, seniors will be required to have discussions with their physicians about their end of life plans once every five years B. No, death panels are a myth though physicians are allowed to discuss end-of-life plans with seniors C. Yes, but administered on a local level by hospitals D. Yes, all Americans will be mandated to visit a primary care physician annually to discuss their end-of-life plans Q.4) What are the names of the tiers of standard benefit plans that will be offered by insurance companies? A. Basic, citizen, citizen plus and ambassador B. Bronze, silver, gold and platinum C. One, two, three and four D. Good, better, preferred and best Q.5) What provisions does the law have specifically for young adults? A. It creates a new young adult plan to be sold by insurers to those who are lacking insurance, available up to age 26 B. It allows young adults up to age 26 to be covered on their parents' plans in all individual and group policies C. It prevents hospitals, doctors and other health care providers from suing people under the age of 26 for medical debts D. It creates new health spending accounts available only to people under 26 Q.6) Who is exempted under the law's requirement to obtain health insurance? A. American Indians B. Young adults under age 26 C. Physicians D. Residents of New York state and Nebraska Q.7) Which employers are exempt from offering health insurance to their employees? A. Restaurant chains with five or fewer locations B. Employers with 50 or fewer employees C. Employers with 100 or fewer employees D. Wal-Mart Q.8) Who will become newly eligible for the expanded Medicaid program in 2014? A. Undocumented immigrants B. All parents of children under 18 regardless of income C. All adults under age 65 with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level D. All members of Congress and their staffs Q.9) What has happened to indoor tanning services under the health care law? A. Users of indoor tanning services must pay a 10 percent tax B. Owners of indoor tanning salons must post prominent notices warning of cancer risks C. Indoor tanning salons are outlawed with a phase-in period beginning in 2011 D. Users of indoor tanning services now must pay a 20 percent tax Q.10) Which of these new insurance market rules is not included in the health care law? A. Health insurers are prohibited from raising premiums by more than 5 percent a year in the individual market B. Individual and group health plans are barred from placing lifetime limits on the dollar value of coverage C. Individual and group health plans are banned from placing annual limits on the dollar value of coverage D. Insurers are limited to 90 days for any waiting periods for coverage Answers: 1) C 2) C 3) B 4) B 5) B 6) A 7) B 8) B 9) A 10) A . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16149 Registered: May-04 | . Your favorite topics, leo, taxes and spending ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/boehners-unreality-check-on-the-deficit/2 011/05/10/AFUC6PjG_print.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/opinion/11wed2.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-05-11/boehner-s-views-on-economy-contradicted-by-indicators-studies.html . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16150 Registered: May-04 | . A conservative billionaire who opposes government meddling in business has bought a rare commodity: the right to interfere in faculty hiring at a publicly funded university. A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University's economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise." Traditionally, university donors have little official input into choosing the person who fills a chair they've funded. The power of university faculty and officials to choose professors without outside interference is considered a hallmark of academic freedom. Under the agreement with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, however, faculty only retain the illusion of control. The contract specifies that an advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it's not happy with the faculty's choice or if the hires don't meet "objectives" set by Koch during annual evaluations. http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/billionaires-role-in-hiring-decisions-at-f lorida-state-university-raises/1168680 . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16151 Registered: May-04 | . http://factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/ "Two-thirds of Wisconsin corporations don't pay state income taxes."; http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/may/11/one-wisconsin-now/one-wisconsin-now-says-two-thirds-wisconsin-corpor/ . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16152 Registered: May-04 | . With shrinking budgets and billion dollar deficts everywhere, what should a city do with $100k? Winter Park pays consultant $2,500 a day to help fight union organizing effort. Winter Park is paying a consultant $2,500 a day to help the city's staff dissuade about 150 city workers from joining a union. Employees in the public works, parks, fleet maintenance and water departments are likely to vote in June or July on whether to join the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, known as AFSCME. In the past few years, the city has done away with longevity bonuses and pay increases because of the economy. In late April, city commissioners voted 4-0, with Commissioner Carolyn Cooper not in attendance, to approve a contract with Kulture LLC, a firm specializing in labor relations. Under the agreement, the city will pay Kulture $2,500 a day, plus expenses, up to about $100,000. 0,11562.story,http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/os-winter-park-un ion-dispute-20110509,0,11562.story A spokesman for the city told the Orlando Sentinel that it didn't 'do a political background check' on Kulture before hiring the firm and that the city just wants to inform workers about their options. Yet a cursory look at Kulture and the activities it conducts shows what the firm is all about: union-busting. Kulture's website is replete with right-wing ideology. It hosts op-eds claiming that sweatshops are an opportunity for the 'third world poor' and bragging that the 'labor movement is dead.' Its webpages direct users to far-right sources of information such as the Ayn Rand Institute and The Federalist Society. It also hosts the anti-union laborunionreport.com, which hosts anti-labor articles and a monthly 'anti-union report.' The organization's CEO, Peter A. List, has said that 'unions are a by-product of a bad relationship.' 'We're basically hiring them to make sure that factual, accurate information is given to our employees before they make a vote on whether or not to join a union,' says Winter Park spokeswoman Clarissa Howard. But one has to wonder how hiring a radical, Ayn Rand-promoting anti-union organization will do anything but try to scare workers into submission.; http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/584382/florida_city_paying_%242%2C5 00_a_day_to_radical_union-busting_firm_to_stop_workers_from_organizing/#paragrap h3 http://www.uskulture.com/Helpful_Links.htm http://www.1-888-no-union.com/ How many of you would rather have money spent on a library or school? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16155 Registered: May-04 | . While J.D. Foster, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he feels both CES and CPS are valid measures, he wondered whether Boehner had oversold cause and effect. "The real issue is the statement that the Bush tax cuts 'created' these jobs," Foster said. "Would the economy have created no jobs during this period but for the tax cuts?" And Gary Burtless, a labor economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, argues that "the more basic point is that under either measure of employment gain, the proportional rise in employment in the Bush Administration after passage of his initial tax cut was comparatively small." Burtless put together a comparison of recent two-term presidential administrations' job growth over the equivalent period -- the 81 months starting in the June after the president's inauguration. George W. Bush produced smaller job gains than most recent administrations regardless of which employment measure is used. Employment under Bush grew by 4.5 percent using CES and 7 percent using CPS, whereas employment grew by double digits under presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, and also under the combined eight-year administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, who finished Nixon's term after he resigned, and John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/11/john-boehner/john -boehner-says-bush-tax-cuts-created-8-million-/ |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16156 Registered: May-04 | . Malkin: "This President... Has Embraced An Impulse Among The Cultural Left To Display Hostility To Law Enforcement" ; http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105120008 (with video) Equal amounts of hate speech from both sides, leo? How can that be? How many "liberal" or "left wing" sources of speech do you have available to you without resorting to the internet? Fox News does this crap all day, every day. Here in Big D there are at least seven stations that run right wing political talk radio virtually 24/7. Most of the hosts know their key to more cash and wider reknown is to be even more outrageous than the big boys who do have to be a bit careful of FCC rules. As the media outlets have been purchased by the right leaning owners, multiple outlets in each market - here in Dallas one owner, Belo, controls two TV channels (if you don't count the "alternate" digital channels), at least two radio channels and the only daily newspaper - have leaned further and further to the right and are spreading the rightwing message through more numerous outlets. If you want someone screaming about socialism, tea party, anti-taxation, anti-spending, anti-union, etc. you will have no problem finding it if you have access to a $5 radio or a TV. How many leftwing outlets are available to you on the radio or TV in your location, leo? Wouldn't it stand to reason with a half dozen or more outlets pumping out the rightwing crap each and every day, all day in most cities and over the airwaves across the nation, that there just might be a higher % of hate speech coming from the right? Even if you don't agree with that logic, the point to be made is the Repubs embrace the talkers who churn out the hate speech. He11, they even have their presidential candidates engaging in it; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#42996975 and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/42997303#42997303 Which vice presidential candidate was it whose stump speeches called Obama a "terrorist" and made no attempt to deflect the calls of "traitor" and "Muslim" from the audience? How many times a day can you hear Beck and Hannity on the TV and radio? Hannity has been going on about Common and Michelle Obama's relationship to the invitation he received to attend the WH poetry conference; http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-11-2011/tone-def-poetry-jam and http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-11-2011/tone-def-poetry-jam---lyrics-controversy So to answer your question about equals, no, there is no equality in what comes from each side. And there never will be until the Repubs call for civility and reason from their spokespeople. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16159 Registered: May-04 | . http://bipartisanpolicy.org/projects/economic-policy-project/savego http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bipartisan_Policy_Center . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2300 Registered: Oct-07 | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(radio_network) free market, anyone? While some shows had over 1,000,000 unique listeners / week, they still couldn't make the nut. Some are still active on other networks or stand alone shows. Rush has what......25,000,000 listeners per week? Rush's TV show was a DISMAL failure, though. His time slot in my market was sometime between the 'prayer for the day' and the test pattern. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2301 Registered: Oct-07 | Size of government? up up and away! http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp Actually, this isn't too bad. The total number of employees has stayed nearly constant and while I haven't graphed the military vs civilian sectors, simple subtraction shows the decrease in numbers is almost exclusively due to military cutbacks. The vast majority of employees are in the Executive branch. These numbers peaked during Bush I. On a per capita basis, the number of employees per citizen is down. I would love to see the fed employment data for the year ref'd in Jan's post, #16113 I'd wager a direct coorelation between taxation and number of fed employees. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2304 Registered: Oct-07 | A little early to tell if this is a 'true fact' or not, but Bees ARE in trouble. Would people give up cell phones to save the bees if this article is confirmed? I doubt it. Maybe, more 'unintended consequences'. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/13/cell-phones-caused-mysterious-worldwid e-bee-deaths-study-finds/?test=latestnews |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16161 Registered: May-04 | . So I was talking about the tremendous amount of hate speech and crap that constantly flows from the right wing media and you post "free market"? So, in your opinion, the 1% of the population who choose to listen to, say, Rush Limbaugh are there for the hate speech and crap? The inundation of the right wing media with hate speech and lies is due to the free market wanting even more hate and lies? And that's what it takes to be successful in the "free market" in your opinion? If that's the case, I suppose I'm fairly happy that Air America failed. I just don't think that's the reason AA went under. Tell me, leo, why do you think there are a dozen stations in any major market pumping our right wing crap and barely a liberal voice to be heard? Back to 1962 again, eh? Oh well, at least we've moved forward from the early 1900's. "I would love to see the fed employment data for the year ref'd in Jan's post, #16113 I'd wager a direct coorelation between taxation and number of fed employees." Of course you would, leo. And you could actually find that information of you tried. One problem though, there's no reference to any federal employees in my post #16113. "A little early to tell if this is a 'true fact' or not, but Bees ARE in trouble. Would people give up cell phones to save the bees if this article is confirmed? I doubt it. Maybe, more 'unintended consequences'." http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/13/cell-phones-caused-mysterious-worldwid e-bee-deaths-study-finds/?test=latestnews I marvel at what you post when you have no idea whether it's a fact or not. You might want to find another source for your "I don't know if this is true or not" file. Using Fox as your source for anything, you might not even get the actual day of the week right. http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=fox%20news%20viewers%20l east%20informed&type= http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=fox%20news%20viewers%20least%20informed&type= http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/ http://mediamatters.org/ Say, did you ever come up with the wording on that search engine request I asked for? There wasn't much truth in that either and what was there was left out for effect. . . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2305 Registered: Oct-07 | Limbaughs listenership is at least 10x any of the AirAmerica offerings. If the way you want to calculate is based on the population of the US, than divide by 10 to get AAs impact. Good question. What DOES it prove? Well, this depends on viewpoint. You'd say something like 'hate sells'. I'd be a little more generous and say that nobody was willing to advertise on AA so they could say whatever they wanted. Rush is after all is said and done, a money machine. you said: '...and the growing number of government workers since 1916' in reference to a post of mine. I'd just like to see how fast the number of government employees has grown in relation to tax revenue. again, perhaps, 'my favorite subject'. don't forget the famous words of Deep Throat.....'follow the money'. old ground. And, I wish you'd quit simply shooting the messanger who delivers the news you don't want to hear. Object to the facts, as you are wont to do. You have a fine record, Jan. virtually every historical reference is, to you, rubbish. You've blown off bunches of quotes from many people who are really smarter than you think you are. It's off no value to you that the SAME $0.25 coin minted prior to 1964 is still worth what it was IN '64. I recently got a very nice haircut / shave / trim....the tonsorial works. I half jokingly offered 1$ in silver. My haircutters eyes widened. He'd never seen real silver before. The coin was accepted as payment. At that time, the melt value of a silver dollar was about 27x face value. Collector value was higher. Wait till the current debt gets paid off with ever cheaper dollars. US bond rating will be downgraded and SS will be sucked dry even more quickly than the new, less optimistic projections. (note: not predictions) Please also, note the confidence levels of each projection. Good Stuff. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2011/VI_E_stoch.html |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16164 Registered: May-04 | . "Limbaughs listenership is at least 10x any of the AirAmerica offerings." If only one person listened to Limbaugh, his listenership would be ten megazillion, quadrillion times any Air America offering since AA does not exist at this time. "Good question. What DOES it prove? Well, this depends on viewpoint. You'd say something like 'hate sells'. I'd be a little more generous and say that nobody was willing to advertise on AA so they could say whatever they wanted. Rush is after all is said and done, a money machine." I'd be a bit more elaborative than that, leo. Just as El Rushbo billed himself early on not as a journalist but as an "entertainer", there is more to Limbaugh than just simple hate speech. That is a big component of his listenership I would guess. There is, I suppose, a simple blind hatred for the other side, unabated and even encouraged by the pejorative rants of someone who clings to decades old lies and espouses no value in compromise, which needs to be fed to many of his listeners. To be fair, Limbaugh and O'Reilly are nowdays not even close to the worst of the bunch in their language and ideology and can, at times, be quite laughable from any political/philosophical perspective. They are just the most obvious examples when it comes to pointing out the lies and hatreds told by the rightwing. To be honest, and to judge by any listing of "pants on fire lies", found on any respected webpage, the lack of a need for facts has become the playground of the right even into the halls of Congress where elected representatives can stand on the floor of either house and tell blatant lies about their opposition; http://www.goodsearch.com/search.aspx?source=goodshopbar&keywords=not+intended+t o+be+factual Anyone questioning the citizenship or the Un-American, hateful intentions of the President and his administration can and will grab the attention of the rightwing, poisonous cabal. Unfortunately, the fact checkers do not have the time nor the resources to expend on those beneath the loudest of the shouters from the right and, therefore, the likes of Mark Levin, Savage - and hundreds of other local yokals who make these gents appear to be paragons of virtue and generousity - get ignored by Politifact or Factcheck.org but not by the thousands of listeners who have their receiver tuned to rightwing BS 24/7. My impression of these listeners is they are so uncomfortable forming their own opinions and so desperate for confirmation of those base hatreds and fears they feel affecting their lives that they require and, indeed, need the confirmation of the rightwing nutjobs just to function in a somewhat normal life. The Repub party has for decades been the strict, punishing "Father Party" against the Dem's more nuturing and caring "Mother Party". I've seldom met a real Republican whom I would say does not have the attitude there should be none of their money "confiscated" by the government to be given to anyone who does not look, think, speak, believe, worship or live just as they do. That can almost always be extended to those who also feel they have the right to take from others whatever they can afford to. If you listen to the rightwing talkers for more than a few minutes, you will find them validating those fears which the right feels makes them less appreciated and always in danger. The true conservative is always, in the words of the right wing pundits, the put upon group of citizens who are in danger of ... something! and they are always the persecuted group. Go listen to the Green Dragon video again; "they" are your enemy, "they" are seducing your children, "they" are power hungry and "their" power grab reaches to the highest elected offices. Pure Father McCoughlin, Joe McCarthy, John Birchers, Ronald Reagan "red scare" crap where "they" are ever present, always the serpent slithering through the grass and always about to destroy the right. The right wing listeners are also in need of constant confirmation of their identity as humans - mostly, IMO, due to their frequent bouts with inhumanity toward their fellow man. They are portrayed as the true patriots while the Dems are Socialists, Facists and Communists who are coming to "confiscate" their goods and their chilren, they wear three cornered hats and have a need to be heavily armed for fear they will spend a nano-second "unprotected" from "those people". It doesn't take long to figure out the rightwing sales job, leo. Limbaugh does not see color in a person's skin - according to his own self-aggrandizing words - but he talks about it constantly. At least once a month you can hear Rushbo trying to talk his listeners back into the fold by defending his view of conservatism/Reaganism/objectivism - while rewriting and ignoring all the pertinent and extremely inconvienent, though basic, facts contained in those ideologies - and its unwavering, unbending precepts and rules. While in the real world, at least once every few months you can witness the right wing being torn apart by the likes of Gingrich and his three marriages - not to mention his other and numerous character flaws, Romney by his lack of a principled stance on anything - even quicksand, their purely ideological extremes against their political foes when they've been put in office to do the people's work - to create jobs and secure our future, their clinging to God, guns and gays as a once every two year election cycle battle cry. Then there is the simple and obvious hypocrisy which has infected the Repubs for the last few decades; the divorces and numerous affairs, hiking the Appalachian Trail, trips to South America, wide stances in airport restrooms all involving partners of both sexes - some at the same time, etc. The wives who must stand silently by their man or lay in a hospital bed while being told they are being served divorce papers as their "man" goes after a President for what he did in his personal time, what he didn't do at all to Vince Foster, or what they claim his wife did long before he was elected to the office of President. In short, the smear jobs the right has become so adept at ginning up with facts to back them up. The purely political pay offs of Ensign, Abaramhoff, Delay, etc. If Repubs are not constantly being told to look the other way, if they are not constantly being fed the idea "you are the chosen people upon whom God has granted 'exceptionalism'" there would be no one other than the most cynical of the bunch who would concede to being a Republican. The Republican Party is extremely challenged by its own members' actions and words. Their mantra has been - as Limbaugh states it - to win and to win at any cost to anyone. And that message has become ever more strident over the last two decades. Their strategy has been to deflect attention away from themself and their donors by moving the blame to those people who bought houses they couldn't afford or to the over paid, over-privileged civil service workers who are "parasites". Leo, even the Catholics have told Boehner his policies - the modern Republican/conservative policies as driven by the likes of Rushbo and the self professed Ayn Rand/corporatist acolytes within the party - are "anti-life"!!! And the Repubs haven't really started yet on the retirees who are "non-productive" drains on society! That and more explains why there are so many who listen intently for the deceitful confirmations of their own value, thinking it might allow them to rest at night. That more than explains why facts are no longer welcome in the modern Republican Party. Hatred? There in massive amounts. Fear and persecution? Never more than a breath away from the explanation of anything. Glorification of the indefensible? At the root of it all. You can build a fortune on that if you are as clever as Rushbo is at glorifying your "I'm only in this for myself/objectivist" motives. Why did Air America fail? Lots of reasons but I don't think any of the above. AA came into existence at a time when Bush was plunging the nation into two unpaid for "shock and awe" wars against nations who had not attacked us and who had no real defenses against the US military, when Bush had the philosophy that "deficits don't matter", when he was playing highly partisan and crony payback politics and was, quite frankly, relying on lies to the American public and illegal retribution to political opponents to continue the same policies forward. If you listened to AA, you heard very little potboiler stuff about the Repubs. No one needed to be talked down off the ledge. Sites such as Politifact, Media Matters, Factcheck and other respected and award winning investigative truth tellers appeared on the web which validated every major wrong doing and power grab of the right - and there were plenty. There was then no need for AA. No one on the left needed their suspicions confirmed by pundits when they could find anything they needed in the more mainstream press. The left has never been a party based in fear of "The Other" as has the right. As Will Rogers said, the Democratic Party has always been less organized and less willing to march to one tune than are the Republicans. There was no need for the constant affirmation that we were caring (Mother Party) patriots who were free to march not in lockstep and jackboots to the decrees of a very small minority who placed themself (rightfully in their opinion) above all others - the very essence of Rand's objectivist philosophy. If you have no one to fear and you need no exterior confirmation of who you are, why do you need someone to tell you those things? Along with the somewhat "unnecessary" message coming from AA, those radio station owners who had devoted enormous resources over several decades to building up the corporate mouthpieces like Limbaugh would have a difficult time giving the opposing viewpoint any time whatsoever. AA always played on smaller channels without the reach of the megawatt clear channel range. Here in Dallas there was a very short distance I could travel before reception became a problem. Not so for Limbaugh whose station can be heard well up into Missouri and beyond. The explanation is quite simple; if you want to push the corporate viewpoint, don't allow the opposing viewpoint to be heard. If you're not heard, the sponsors don't spend money where it doesn't reach the broadest audience. Without sponsors, you're right, leo, the free market - if that's what you care to call a mono-theistic, corporate worshipping, greed is good steamroller - wins out. " I'd just like to see how fast the number of government employees has grown in relation to tax revenue." Why? What is it you have against federal or state employees? The US has grown constantly, leo. Therefore, it only stands to reason the workforce has increased to accommodate that growth. What is your problem with that concept? "You have a fine record, Jan. virtually every historical reference is, to you, rubbish. You've blown off bunches of quotes from many people who are really smarter than you think you are. It's off no value to you that the SAME $0.25 coin minted prior to 1964 is still worth what it was IN '64. I recently got a very nice haircut / shave / trim....the tonsorial works. I half jokingly offered 1$ in silver. My haircutters eyes widened. He'd never seen real silver before. The coin was accepted as payment. At that time, the melt value of a silver dollar was about 27x face value. Collector value was higher." My first reaction to that little story leo, would be; then you are an idiot. To give away anything that is worth "27X plus" its own value for something so fleeting as a haircut is not reasonable unless you are a true philanthropist or you have received news of your imminent demise. Otherwise, leo, I have not, IMO, "blown off bunches of quotes from many people who are really smarter than you think you are." I've blown off your repeated rants which have no point nor any inclination toward veracity, of which there are multiple examples. That I care not to play your game doesn't mean I think myself smarter than anyone else, I'm just not willing to play a game that has no reason or boundaries of logic. Your claim that "the SAME $0.25 coin minted prior to 1964 is still worth what it was IN '64" is illogical and would appear to be quite false if what then follows it is true. I don't deal in the illogical or the false ideology, leo. I check my facts and I often check yours. Your's prove not to be all that trustworthy. Do I need to return to your "from both sides" website to add more proofs of how this is not at all what it appears? I can that without any effort other than the time it takes to list the falsehoods and prevarications present on that page. I only wish you had done so before you posted such BS as proof of anything. You have resorted to Fox News and rightwing bloggers to "prove" multiple "somethings" that can all too easily be disproven. If that is to you "blowing off" anything, then we have a problem and it lies in where you are getting your information and what you feel is proof of anything. "Wait till the current debt gets paid off with ever cheaper dollars. US bond rating will be downgraded and SS will be sucked dry even more quickly than the new, less optimistic projections. (note: not predictions) Please also, note the confidence levels of each projection. Good Stuff." You seem to have concluded that I am for any of that. What you should conclude is that any reasonable person would be against the likes of Limbaugh and Fox News telling lies about the results of such policies and then rooting for the very destruction of reasonable social safety nets this nation has come to enjoy - because they do. I don't see government as the enemy, leo. I don't see the growth of the federal or state workforce as an alarm against tyranny. And I don't view taxes as "confiscation". Those are important areas where you and I differ. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16165 Registered: May-04 | . When is a deal not really a deal? Apparently, when it's agreed to by Republicans ... May 15, 2011 Going Back on the Deal Last year, Republicans refused to renew unemployment benefits unless the high-end Bush-era tax cuts were preserved. After the White House agreed to keep the tax cuts through 2012, they agreed to extend federal jobless benefits through 2011. Now, they want to renege. The House Ways and Means Committee, on a strict Republican vote, recently passed a bill to let states use federal jobless money for other purposes, including tax cuts for business. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/opinion/16mon1.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha 211&pagewanted=print Need proof? http://www.offthechartsblog.org/%E2%80%9Cforward-funding%E2%80%9D-for-unemployme nt-insurance-hardly/ So, if the Repubs are willing to renege on the unemployment portion of the deal, are they also prepared to renege on the other half - providing continuing tax cuts to the top 2% - which only adds fuel to the continuation of long term debt and deficits? As the Geico commercial asks, "Do you live under a rock?" http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3396 . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16166 Registered: May-04 | . Bush Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook Some commentators blame recent legislation the stimulus bill and the financial rescues for today's record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO's and other organizations' budget projections. Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [6] (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure 1). Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.[7]} http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036 . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16167 Registered: May-04 | . Chart Book: The Legacy of the Great Recession The United States went through its longest, and by most measures worst economic recession since the Great Depression between December 2007 and June of 2009. This chartbook will document the course of the economy following that recession against the background of how deep a hole the recession created '" and how much deeper that hole would have been without the financial stabilization and fiscal stimulus policies enacted in late 2008 and early 2009. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3252 . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16168 Registered: May-04 | . Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? Updated April 15, 2011 (Policy Basics Archive Federal Spending, 2001-2008: Defense Is a Rapidly Growing Share of the Budget, While Domestic Appropriations Have Shrunk ) The federal government collects taxes in order to finance various public services. As policymakers and citizens weigh key decisions about revenues and expenditures, it is instructive to examine what the government does with the money it collects. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 Sourcewatch says ... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16170 Registered: May-04 | . This time House Republicans say they will refuse to raise the debt ceiling '" a step that could inflict major economic damage '" unless Mr. Obama agrees to large spending cuts, even as they rule out any tax increase whatsoever ... On Saturday the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal ridiculed those worried about the consequences of hitting the ceiling as the 'Armageddon lobby.' It's hard to know whether the 'what, us worry?' types believe what they're saying, or whether they're just staking out a bargaining position. But in any case, they're almost surely wrong: seriously bad consequences will follow if the debt ceiling isn't raised. For if we hit the debt ceiling, the government will be forced to stop paying roughly a third of its bills, because that's the share of spending currently financed by borrowing. So will it stop sending out Social Security checks? Will it stop paying doctors and hospitals that treat Medicare patients? Will it stop paying the contractors supplying fuel and munitions to our military? Or will it stop paying interest on the debt? Don't say 'none of the above.' As I've written before, the federal government is basically an insurance company with an army, so I've just described all the major components of federal spending. At least one, and probably several, of these components will face payment stoppages if federal borrowing is cut off ... So hitting the debt ceiling would be a very bad thing. Unfortunately, it may be unavoidable. Why? Because this is a hostage situation. If the president and his allies operate on the principle that failure to raise the debt ceiling is an unthinkable outcome, to be avoided at all cost, then they have ceded all power to those willing to bring that outcome about. In effect, they will have ripped up the Constitution and given control over America's government to a party that only controls one house of Congress, but claims to be willing to bring down the economy unless it gets what it wants. Now, there are good reasons to believe that the G.O.P. isn't nearly as willing to burn the house down as it claims. Business interests have made it clear that they're horrified at the prospect of hitting the debt ceiling. Even the virulently anti-Obama U.S. Chamber of Commerce has urged Congress to raise the ceiling 'as expeditiously as possible.' And a confrontation over spending would only highlight the fact that Republicans won big last year largely by promising to protect Medicare, then promptly voted to dismantle the program ... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/opinion/16krugman.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc= tha212 The Chamber urges Congress to raise the current debt ceiling as expeditiously as possible. http://www.uschamber.com/issues/letters/2011/letter-urging-congress-approve-legi slation-raise-debt-ceiling-and-avoid-governme Failure to raise the debt limit does not force a U.S. default on debt payments. U.S. Rep.® Randy Forbes on Thursday, May 5th, 2011 in a statement. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/may/16/randy-forbes/rep-randy-forbes-says-holding-line-debt-limit-does/ . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16171 Registered: May-04 | . Michele Bachmann Challenged To Debate A High School Sophomore Dear Representative Bachmann, My name is Amy Myers. I am a Cherry Hill, New Jersey sophomore attending Cherry Hill High School East. As a typical high school student, I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted. The frequency and scope of these comments prompted me to write this letter. Though I am not in your home district, or even your home state, you are a United States Representative of some prominence who is subject to national media coverage. News outlets and websites across this country profile your causes and viewpoints on a regular basis. As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere. Though politically expedient, incorrect comments cast a shadow on your person and by unfortunate proxy, both your supporters and detractors alike often generalize this shadow to women as a whole. Rep. Bachmann, the frequent inability you have shown to accurately and factually present even the most basic information about the United States led me to submit the follow challenge, pitting my public education against your advanced legal education: I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics. Hopefully, we will be able to meet for such an event, as it would prove to be enlightening. Sincerely yours, Amy Myers http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-603375 . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2318 Registered: Oct-07 | Love the Debate idea. Get Nancy P. involved, too. After some of her remarks I'm guessing she is only a few oars away from Bachmann, but on the other side of the boat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc I wish I had place marked a site I found when looking up some demographic info. A survey was conducted of talk show audience members about knowledge of current events. Surprisingly, or not, one of the Fox guys came out on top. And the audience for this one was not as well educated as many others. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 2319 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, it may be too 'low brow', but did you EVER see 'The Advocates' TV show? This one was a keeper so it couldn't be left on the air. The format was a gem. Start with a current issue. Have 2 'advocates'...a 'pro' and a 'con'....or however the 2 sides break down. Each advocate is allowed to call witnesses and present evidence. http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/advocates/204855 OR http://wgbhalumni.org/profiles/k/kubany-susan/ |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16172 Registered: May-04 | . "A survey was conducted of talk show audience members about knowledge of current events. Surprisingly, or not, one of the Fox guys came out on top." Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest individuals in the US. Surprisingly, or not, he wears glasses. And all of this proves ... what? And the fact you cannot find the information proves ... ? Please don't get the idea I'm "blowing you off", leo. But, "I'm just not willing to play a game that has no reason or boundaries of logic." . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 16173 Registered: May-04 | . Regarding the Pelosi remark, "cnsnews"?! C'mon, leo! If all you're going to do now is resort to rightwing crap, then why bother? . |
