American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 15

View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Member #4112

09-27-11, 23:35

Stan Da Man

09-27-11, 23:57

Neither are you since both Obama and Buffett have framed this as recent. I did check it and it is generally accepted, even by the "main stream media". To be from the 2010 but no later than 2009 tax years.

I love the way you like to move it around so you are not wrong. It's a hoot to watch you twisting and turning.

Come on Esten say it."I'm wrong"

I've got an office full of accountants and CPA's and they love to see these post's keep them coming.

By the way I noticed you are now including FICA in the "effective tax rate" calculation. What's next, you going to include Medicaid then both sides of Medicaid and FICA?

As a closing thought, since you are now trying to say the Buffett's secretay is making a total of $300K, making her one of the "evil rick", what's your problem with her paying an effective rate of 30% Thought this was what you wanted?

The IRS is still waiting on Buffett's and your check's!Buffett made the statement both in 2007 and 2011. Most recently, he did so in a NYTimes Op-Ed piece he wrote in August. That's linked earlier in this thread somewhere. The 2007 statement was made when he was out campaigning for Hillary Clinton. That's linked in here, as well.

To be fair, the only time he said his secretary made $60, 000 (at least the only reference I found) was in 2007. There has never been any suggestion that the secretary made a bonus, much less one in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That statement is just wishful liberal thinking to make Buffett not look like a liar on this. Hell, maybe she won the lottery or received some large inheritance one of those years, and Buffett's just rolling it all up together but forgetting to mention it. It doesn't matter. There's little doubt he's been lying.

Pummelling Esten seems cruel after a while. It's part of the reason I've stopped responding to him. Can we expect the Village Idiot to be smart enough to admit he's wrong? Doubtful.

Esten

09-28-11, 01:44

Neither are you since both Obama and Buffett have framed this as recent. I did check it and it is generally accepted, even by the "main stream media". To be from the 2010 but no later than 2009 tax years.Doppel, in the recent media coverage Buffett did not reference a recent 60K salary for his secretary. The 60K figure you were debating was from a statement Buffett apparently made in 2007, applicable to tax year 2006. Please post a link proving otherwise.

It's uncanny, almost every single time you post you stick your foot in your mouth.

Esten

09-28-11, 01:50

A perfect example of Buffett hypocrisyMeanwhile, Stan goes shuffling off to another effort to smear Warren Buffett, his tail between his legs after his argument was exposed as false. Although his new story doesn't involve Buffett, Stan still mentions "Buffett Hypocrisy" twice. I guess he needs to get his jabs in at Buffett any way possible.

This new story is about a former director of consumer marketing and brand management for Google between 1999-2005. No doubt he's cashed out some of his stock and is worth millions. How much he's cashed out, and where else he might have his money invested, isn't disclosed.

But once again, Stan is confident he knows enough about the finances of another person to reach his own conclusions. In this case, Stan is confident this former Google guy likely wouldn't be affected by a capital gains hike. Stan then portrays him as a hypocrite for wanting to raise other people's taxes but not his own.

But neither Buffett or this guy can be reasonably called a hypocrite. Both of them clearly want their own taxes raised. We know Buffett has the income. It's plausible the former Google guy does too; as a multi-millionaire it's unlikely his net worth is sitting in a bank account. It's more likely some of it is in investments, including Google and / or other stock. We don't know for sure.

Stan is quick to question and smear the character of others, but it is he himself that needs to look in the mirror.

Tiny12

09-28-11, 02:07

But neither Buffett or this guy can be reasonably called a hypocrite. Both of them clearly want their own taxes raised.Read this, I see no need to write it twice: http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Administration&p=419442&viewfull=1#post419442

Using your preference and ignoring corporate income taxes he pays indirectly by virtue of his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway, my educated guess is that Buffett will pay income tax on about 0.35% of the wealth he managed to accumulate. Under the Obama / Buffett / Esten tax plan for millionaires, he might pay 0.5% instead. And that's not per year. That's over his entire lifetime! Right, Buffett wants his own taxes raised, but by a ridiculously small amount considering how much he has made.

Buffett is a self serving hypocrite. Read the last paragraph in the link above if you want to know why he's self serving. Buffett's proposed tax plan provides competitive advantages to Berkshire Hathaway. One I didn't mention in the previous post -- if an ordinary millionaire buys a dividend-paying stock he'll pay 43% federal tax on the dividend under the Obama/Buffet/Esten plan (the rate come January 1, 2013, assuming there's no additional added millionaire's tax). Buffett by virtue of owning the stock through Berkshire Hathaway will pay 10.5% tax -- corporations like Berkshire pay a lower tax rate on dividends than individuals.

Canitasguy

09-28-11, 02:28

Esten. You are in good company!

Bill Gates, the wealthiest man in the US has put his support behind the so-called 'Robin Hood' tax targeting the wealthy which would be given to the poor. Gates will endorse the adoption of a controversial financial transactions tax (FTT) to be used as a new source of development aid for poor countries in a report to the G20 summit in November.

"The FTT ship has sailed, and the world's richest man is on board" says Richard Gower of Oxfam International.

And the AP gang thought only Obama and Esten were the socialists!

Member #4112

09-28-11, 11:07

You never answer the quetion just dance around it.

Bill Clinton's famous tactic. Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter attacks!

Keep them coming Esten, we love it. My folks look forward to coming in every morning to read your latest missive. It's becoming a big hit.

Even the two who voted for Obama in '08 can not believe how you keep screwing it up.

You should apply for the job of press secretary for the White House.

Esten

09-29-11, 01:18

Using your preference and ignoring corporate income taxes he pays indirectly by virtue of his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway, my educated guess is that Buffett will pay income tax on about 0. 35% of the wealth he managed to accumulate. Under the Obama / Buffett / Esten tax plan for millionaires, he might pay 0. 5% instead. And that's not per year. That's over his entire lifetime! Right, Buffett wants his own taxes raised, but by a ridiculously small amount considering how much he has made.

Buffett is a self serving hypocrite. Read the last paragraph in the link above if you want to know why he's self serving. Buffett's proposed tax plan provides competitive advantages to Berkshire Hathaway. One I didn't mention in the previous post. If an ordinary millionaire buys a dividend-paying stock he'll pay 43% federal tax on the dividend under the Obama / Buffet / Esten plan (the rate come January 1, 2013, assuming there's no additional added millionaire's tax). Buffett by virtue of owning the stock through Berkshire Hathaway will pay 10. 5% tax. Corporations like Berkshire pay a lower tax rate on dividends than individuals.Tiny, read Buffett's article.

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

This is all about individual taxes. Not corporate. Buffett said his 2010 federal tax bill was $6, 938, 744. He also said that was only 17. 4% of his taxable income. Making his taxable income about 40M.

Buffett doesn't think it's right that effective rates for wealthy people can be lower than what some in the middle class pay. To correct that he proposes to raise rates on taxable income in excess of $1 million. And that's what the 'Buffett Rule' does. It establishes a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year, to ensure they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers. If that rate is set at 28%, Buffett's tax would increase from 6.9M to 11.2M. The rate could be higher. In fact, Buffett also wrote he would leave rates alone for the other 99.7% of taxpayers (something I disagree with).

So his proposal is to raise taxes on people like him but not others. This is far from self serving hypocrisy. It is the complete opposite.

Tiny12

09-29-11, 01:54

Tiny, read Buffett's article.

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

This is all about individual Taxes. Not corporate. Buffett said his 2010 federal tax bill was $6, 938, 744. He also said that was only 17. 4% of his taxable income. Making his taxable income about 40M.

Buffett doesn't think it's right that effective rates for wealthy people can be lower than what some in the middle class pay. To correct that he proposes to raise rates on taxable income in excess of $1 million. And that's what the 'Buffett Rule' does. It establishes a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year, to ensure they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers. If that rate is set at 28, Buffett's tax would increase from 6. 9M to 11. 2M. The rate could be higher. In fact, Buffett also wrote he would leave rates alone for the other 99. 7% of taxpayers (something I disagree with).

So his proposal is to raise taxes on people like him but not others. This is far from self serving hypocrisy. It is the complete opposite.Esten, OK, based on your comments, although we disagree about how we'd go about reducing the deficit, I think we do both agree that you won't make a dent in it by increasing tax rates on the top 0.3% of taxpayers. If you carefully read what follows I believe you'll agree that Buffet's proposal will have virtually no effect on him.

I've read Buffett's editorial several times. I was well aware of how much tax he paid last year. Maybe I'm not being clear. Using your numbers, say Buffett's tax rate is increased so he pays $11.2 million per year in income tax. Buffet's probably making a lot more money now than he did 10 or 20 years ago and he's probably not going to live much longer. So I'm going to approximate the total amount he'll pay in income tax over his lifetime with the higher tax rate as 20 years x $11.2 million = $224 million. I just looked up the value of Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway stock on Bloomberg. It's $37 billion. Supposedly he was worth $50 billion+ before he gave away part of his net worth to the Gate's foundation. Anyway, divide $224 million by $50 billion. You'll get 0.45%. Using the higher tax rate, Buffett may pay about 0.45% of what he managed to accumulate over his lifetime in income taxes. Again, that's 0.45% OVER HIS LIFETIME. Not what he'd pay in one year. Most people who make $1 million+ per year, including those who have significant capital gains and dividends, are going to pay A LOT more. At least 30% of what they accumulate. Some spendthrifts will pay total income taxes greater than what they're left with at the time they die. The ratio will be over 100%.

I have a friend. He paid about $4 million in taxes last year. The majority of his income was capital gains and dividends. He's worth about $120 million. He paid 58% of what Buffett paid in income tax. He's worth 0.3% of what Buffett's worth.

Buffett has a great deal going. Practically all his wealth is in Berkshire Hathaway stock. He's all in favor of raising the tax rate on dividends because Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay dividends. And he's all in favor of raising the tax rate on capital gains because he never sells Berkshire Hathaway stock. In other words, he's all in favor of sticking it to others in a way that won't affect him. This is typical of other wealthy Democrats. Like John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, who pay nominal income tax on a billion dollar fortune because it's all in municipal bonds. Or attorneys who sue people, who do pay significant taxes but who depend on Democrat politicians to make after-tax megabucks. I have a couple of acquaintances in renewable energy -- they've done very well because of asinine policies that provide their projects with huge tax credits they can sell to companies that aren't even investing in their projects. They're Democrats.

In my previous posts, I gave examples of why Buffett is a self serving hypocrite, because his preferred tax policies help Berkshire Hathaway and him and hurt others.

Wild Walleye

09-29-11, 22:23

Tiny12

09-30-11, 14:02

I caught the tail end of an interview with Warren Buffet on 'In the Loop with Betty Liu' on Bloomberg television this morning. Betty is hot. Actually all the women on Bloomberg television are hot – much better than the worn out old hags on CNBC.

Anyway, there were three examples of Warren's hypocrisy.

1. Betty asked him about giving several billion dollars to the USA government. Warren said he'd do that if Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch would too. He mentioned Bloomberg because he's Betty's employer. He mentioned Murdoch because he knows there's a snowball's chance in hell Rupert would do that. Murdoch has about as much confidence in the USA government's ability to spend his money wisely as WW, Punter, Jackson, Doppelganger or Stan.

2. They discussed Berkshire Hathaway's stock buyback program. Why is Berkshire buying back stock instead of paying a dividend? Buffett in his writings from years back is clear on this. He prefers the buyback because shareholders have to pay tax on dividends. Buffet would have to pay a 15% tax on a dividend right now, and a 43.6% tax under the Obama / Buffett / Esten plan.

3. They discussed Berkshire's purchase of preferred stock from Bank of America. Why did Berkshire buy preferred stock instead of loaning BOA money? Because Berkshire pays a 10.5% federal tax rate on dividend income instead of a 35% tax on interest income. Please note that under the Obama / Buffett / Esten plan, if Buffett himself owned BOA preferred stock, he'd pay 43.6% tax on the income. But if Berkshire Hathaway owns the stock, the tax is 10.5%. Buffett wants to stick it to anyone who's stupid enough to own assets in his own name. It's fine though if you have legions of attorneys and accountants and some vehicle like an insurance company to help you avoid tax.

Ferdglob

10-01-11, 04:42

Walleye, [Deleted by Admin]. People voted for him because Bush was a fascist asshole who destroyed our civil liberties, destroyed the economoy, and put the country in a shitload of debt. At leat Obama is not trying to get the country out of the problems we are facing by sucking the cock of Halliburton. [Deleted by Admin]. Would you vote for the ***** who doesn't know where our country lies in the world? How about the guy who thinks education is for suckers and believes that only God could have created people? Then there's the Mormon, who believes that blacks are that color because they refused to bathe in god's lake. I've been readin your [Deleted by Admin] for years now, and I am sick and tired of your unimformed opinions. Go ahead and vote for the same policies that got us in this mess in the first place. It is insanity to believe that the same policies that got us in this mess will get us out.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was edited in accordance with the Forum's Zero Tolerance policy regarding reports containing any personal attacks or derogatory comments directed towards another Forum Member or the Forum Membership in general.

Jackson

10-01-11, 12:25

Ah, yes... a typical Obama supporter demonstrating the effects of years of drinking liberal kool-aid.

Observe the raw emotion, completely void of any provable statistics, references to journalistic resources, or even so much as a single sentence detailing the rational behind any of his statements.

Don't laugh too quickly gentlemen, this is what we face in the next election.

Thanks,

Jackson

Ferdglob

10-01-11, 12:49

Ah, yes. A typical Obama supporter demonstrating the effects of years of drinking liberal kool-aid.

Observe the raw emotion, completely void of any provable statistics, references to journalistic resources, or even so much as a single sentence detailing the rational behind any of his statements.

Don't laugh too quickly gentlemen, this is what we face in the next election.

Thanks,

Jackson-So you didn't seem to notice that under the Bush administration the government now has tha ability to wiretap phone calls and read emails without cause.

-You didn't notice the $8 Trillion in debt accumulated over his administration due largely to providing tax cuts without providing offsets in costs. And now you blame the dems for not cutting the costs when none of the Republicans had the balls to do it. However, now that you have partial control over the government, but not enough to actually do anything, you scream and cry like babies that it's the Dems that are against cuts, and you were for them all along. A nice bit of revisionist history I think.

- The Tea Party claims to be following the principles of Ayn Rand, but to a person they are all promoting a Christian agenda. If you think Sharia law is bad wait till you see Evangelical law. It is a fact that this is what Rick Perry is promoting.

I could address each point and provide you with facts, but you would just dismiss them because it didn't come from Fox News. And before you call me as another deluded liberal, I was a life long Republican until I saw what party has become. A bunch of clueless chickens who forget what they did five minutes ago and can do nothing but parrot Glen Beck and Hannity. A party that takes no responsibility for its actions. A party of overblown, hypocritical, moralists.

Tiny12

10-01-11, 14:02

Ferdglob

10-01-11, 15:00

Ferdglob, Why are you trying to argue for lower government spending and social and civil liberties with Libertarians? They agree with you, although I imagine they're a lot more tolerant of other's religious beliefs than you are.Why are you saying I'm intolerant? Because of my comment on Mormons? I guess that was out of line, especially since I did not give a context. I grew up in a Mormon town, and have read the book of Mormons. I'm just saying I could not imagine a President with that belief system. I am very tolerant of other's beliefs, as long as they do not try to force them on me or make them a part of my government.

As far as arguing with Liberterians, I see none that have weighed in on this debate. There is a big difference between Republicans, the Tea Party, and Libertarians. The Republicans and the Tea Party want nothing to do with Civil Liberties. In fact I would argue that with their "Social Conservatism" and their desire to mix church and state they are distinctly anti-libertarian.

Tiny12

10-01-11, 17:54

As far as arguing with Liberterians, I see none that have weighed in on this debate. There is a big difference between Republicans, the Tea Party, and Libertarians. The Republicans and the Tea Party want nothing to do with Civil Liberties. In fact I would argue that with their "Social Conservatism" and their desire to mix church and state they are distinctly anti-libertarian.Ferdglob, I think if you'd followed this thread longer your opinion might be different. Mongers are almost universally liberal on social issues. When it comes to social liberties, WW and Esten for example have more in common than you'd think.

The Republican party does have some people who are members of the party because they can't get elected on a Libertarian ticket. Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Jeff Flake come to mind. And the Republican party has a lot of politicians that think like Libertarians on economic issues. I can't think of anyone on the Democrat side of the aisle that comes close to being Libertarian on most issues. Maybe Dennis Kucinich on some issues, but on others he's out there.

About Obama. While I'm not sure exactly what the right approach or balance is to protecting civil liberties versus protecting against terrorism, I don't think anything has changed under Obama versus the way it was under Bush. I don't think foreign policy has changed much either. I do think he and a Democrat Congress made a much worse mess of the economy than Bush, and it pisses me off that he's playing the class warfare card.

About the Tea Party, if you look at the demographics they probably are more religious and socially conservative than the country on average. But I'd argue social issues have nothing to do with the Tea Party. The Tea Party supports lower taxes and lower government spending. If the majority of members are social conservatives, it's irrelevant to the aims of the group.

Esten

10-03-11, 01:32

Tiny,

Buffett had a 40 MILLION taxable income last year. His effective tax rate was 17.4%. The only way it gets that low is through investments taxed at lower rates. His ENTIRE 40 MILLION would be subject to the tax hike he proposes. He also suggested an additional rate increase for those who make $10 million or more, like him.

So your claim that his preferred tax policies help him is BOGUS.

BTW, Buffett has explained why Berkshire doesn't pay a dividend. Buffett's view is that a dollar re-invested back in the business returns more than a dollar that would have been paid out as a dividend. Buffett himself could receive close to 1 billion each year from a dividend. That's 1 billion that could be re-invested to benefit all shareholders. His philosophy is about growing Berkshire's wealth, not avoiding personal taxes.

Buffett has pledged his wealth (stock) to charity. The more the stock price rises the greater that charitable gift will be. He doesn't have to sell much of his stock now. Why should he? To prove something? He's still reporting a 40M income, on which he would pay several million more in taxes under his own proposal.

I have a friend. He paid about $4 million in taxes last year. The majority of his income was capital gains and dividends. He's worth about $120 million. He paid 58% of what Buffett paid in income tax. He's worth 0.3% of what Buffett's worth.What on earth does that mean? Net worth here is a red herring.

The relevant question is, what was his effective tax rate? I bet it was under 20% too, just like Buffett.

Tiny12

10-03-11, 16:00

Esten, that's my point. He has $40 million in personal, taxable income on a fortune of $40 billion plus. That's a return of 1/10th of 1% per annum. His fortune is structured so that it doesn't generate personal income. So, in comparison to the size of his net worth, he's going to pay virtually no personal income tax regardless of whether his personal tax rate is 17. 4% or 100%.

Berkshire Hathaway in recent years has generated single digit returns on equity and capital. The return to Berkshire shareholders over the last decade (being soley stock price appreciation since there are no dividends) has been 4% per year. If I were an investor in the stock, I'd want dividends. I'd take the dividends and reinvest in more profitable opportunities, instead of stock buybacks or railroads. This process, efficient allocation of capital, by the way, is important to creating a growing, efficient, productive economy, and it's hindered by a high tax on dividends.

Anyway, undoubtedly a big consideration of Buffet with respect to both dividends and his donations is to avoid tax. While he won't say it, he knows his capital is going to do more good in the world if it's allocated by the Gates Foundation instead of the USA government.

Buffett used to agree with me. Fifteen or twenty years ago he preferred a progressive consumption tax to income tax. The reason -- income tax on business income, capital gains and dividends inhibits investment. It's probably just coincidence, but twenty years ago he was a more successful investor than he is now.

Stan Da Man

10-03-11, 20:22

There's no doubt Warren Buffett's secretary comment was false. But, does anyone else find it odd that our President could speechify and engage in class warfare with something like the "Buffett Rule" without even having said what the "Buffett Rule" is? Sure, he's characterized it as a rule where the rich won't pay less taxes than their secretaries. But, what does that really mean? Where's his plan? Where's his proposal? Like his second budget proposal earlier this year, it exists only in a speech. He hasn't bothered to articulate what it really means.

For his part, Buffett already is backpedaling. His version of the Buffett Rule would affect only a few thousand people, who he calls "the ultra rich." It is doubtful that this is what Obama eventually will propose, assuming he ever gets around to proposing anything. But, Buffett recently went on record as saying athletes making $45 million a year, or newscasters making multiple millions a year in salary, would face NO TAX INCREASE under his vision.

Anyway, undoubtedly a big consideration of Buffet with respect to both dividends and his donations is to avoid tax. While he won't say it, he knows his capital is going to do more good in the world if it's allocated by the Gates Foundation instead of the USA government.Buffett has already come out and said exactly that. When asked why he didn't just give his funds to the government rather than charity, he said he believes the Gates Foundation would allocate his funds more efficiently than the government. Taxes are for saps. In other words, it's okay if they take your money. As for Warren, however, he structures his investments such that they get as little as possible, advocates for increasing tax rates on others, but his money is better spent elsewhere. I can't argue with his tax strategy or the idea that the government doesn't efficiently tax and spend. And, that's the point. Buffett may lend his name to Democrats from time to time. But, when he has to put his money where his mouth is, he does not believe the government spends wisely.

Esten

10-04-11, 00:53

Let me get this straight. If someone donates an appreciated asset to charity, but also supports higher personal taxes, that person is a hypocrite for not letting the government tax all their wealth?

These arguments trying to make Buffett look like a bad guy are silly and desperate. Buffett and Berkshire are two of the most respected names in business.... It's not worth debating these pointless arguments much further.

It is comical to look back at how persistent the slanderers were in attempting to paint Buffett and Obama as liars:

Doppelganger / Stan Da Man:
"I just can't wait to see you try to turn this one around as Obama purportedly tries to save the middle class from the evil rich with an outright lie."
"He's relying on a lie, told by Warren Buffett, that his secretary paid a higher rate of tax than Buffett."
"Buffett, of course, is lying."
"PolitiFact = PolitiCrap and so does your argument. Buffett and Obama's argument is a lie start to finish."
"Obama's 'Buffett Rule' is a lie, he knows it, you know it and so do most folks with a wit of intelligence. "
"There has been some excellent pushback exposing Obama's and Buffett's lies about taxes."
"HERE IS THE PROOF BUFFETT IS LYING!"
"So Buffett's claim his secretary paid 30% is a bald face LIE."
""Mr. Obama said, 'Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. ' The problem with that statement is that it's a lie.""

First they cited IRS tax tables to show Buffett's low tax rate wasn't possible. But they forgot about tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Then they cited the tables again to show his secretary's high rate wasn't possible. But they overlooked other compensation she might have plausibly received, supported by statements from a Wall Street compensation expert.

They could have just said Buffett's case isn't representative, or his secretary's case isn't representative. And then there would have been no argument. Even though this is just one example of a broader point Buffett and Obama are making.

But they dug in their heels and insisted it was a lie. Since they still have no evidence, and there are plausible explanations for Buffett's statement, the respectable thing would be for them to withdraw their accusation.

Will they ever admit they were wrong? Unlikely.

Tiny12

10-04-11, 02:15

Let me get this straight. If someone donates an appreciated asset to charity, but also supports higher personal taxes, that person is a hypocrite for not letting the government tax all their wealth?Esten,

O. K, it looks like we agree again. Yes, under policies preferred by Obama and Buffett, the government would indeed tax away the majority or even all the wealth of those making over $1 million per year, unless they donate a lot to charity. But, to your other point, no Esten, the reason he's a hypocrite is because

(a) over the course of his lifetime he's going to end up paying total personal income taxes and estate taxes that may add up to less than 1% of the net worth he accumulates or gives away AND

(b) he promotes policies that would require most Americans making over $1 million per year to pay total personal income and estate taxes that will amount from 60% to over 100% of what they will manage to accumulate or give away over their lifetimes (e. g, estate tax rate of 55%; income tax rate of 43. 6%; double taxation of corporate income and dividends / capital gains) , AND

he says he's in the same boat as the people in "b" above, who would incidentally be taxed to death under the Buffett plan, when he's really in group "a".

As I've written here before, you and Buffett are adding her payments towards her social security and medicare to the secretary's income tax to come up with her tax rate. Doppelganger and Stan are not. And Doppelganger and Stan may be including in Buffett's income tax rate the corporate income taxes he indirectly paid by virtue of his ownership of Berkshire Hathaway.

TejanoLibre

10-04-11, 03:58

Esten,

O. K, it looks like we agree again. Yes, under policies preferred by Obama and Buffett, the government would indeed tax away the majority or even all the wealth of those making over $1 million per year, unless they donate a lot to charity. But, to your other point, no Esten, the reason he's a hypocrite is because.

(a) over the course of his lifetime he's going to end up paying total personal income taxes and estate taxes that may add up to less than 1% of the net worth he accumulates or gives away AND.

(be) he promotes policies that would require most Americans making over $1 million per year to pay total personal income and estate taxes that will amount from 60% to over 100% of what they will manage to accumulate or give away over their lifetimes (e. G, estate tax rate of 55%; income tax rate of 43. 6%; double taxation of corporate income and dividends / capital gains) , AND.

He says he's in the same boat as the people in "be" above, who would incidentally be taxed to death under the Buffett plan, when he's really in group "a".

As I've written here before, you and Buffett are adding her payments towards her social security and medicare to the secretary's income tax to come up with her tax rate. Doppelganger and Stan are not. And Doppelganger and Stan may be including in Buffett's income tax rate the corporate income taxes he indirectly paid by virtue of his ownership of Berkshire Hathaway.To all my friends on this forum :

THIS is about getting LAID in BA!

Not about butt-fucking Obama or Romney or Palin, etc!

Come on boys!

There are many forums to discuss US policy and general BS!

This is my Rifle and this is my Gun!

This one's for Fighting and this one's for FUN!

Let's ALL get Laid!

Put this shit on the back burner or pm each other if you have a discrepancy!

The Boys on this board pay a lot of money and suffer numerous hours on shitty airlines to come down here and get laid!

NOTHING ELSE!

They want to forget about the USA!

It's called a fucking vacation dudes!

I Love all of you but let's trade secrects, chicas, prices and service!

TL

Esten

10-04-11, 23:29

To all my friends on this forum :

THIS is about getting LAID in BA!TL.... Man cannot live by pussy alone!

Especially for those of us stuck in Sex Prison most of the year!

The mind must have its distractions.

For whatever reason, some of us BA fans have found this board a place to hang out. But face it, this board is not very active in terms of chica info / reviews. So these more active Chit Chat threads move to the top of the thread list. I agree that can be a nuisance for those wanting to focus on chicas.

That's why I suggested to Jackson a long time ago to move the Chit Chat section to the bottom of the board / screen. So the first list of threads you see would always be about chicas and BA. You'd have to purposely scroll down to see the Chit Chat threads. Not sure how easy that is with vBulletin but it's worth a try. Ultimately it's Jackson's call if / where he allows the Chit Chat threads.

One more post TL, then I'll take a little break..... but there is a very interesting video I'd like to share (no chicas though).

Toymann

10-04-11, 23:39

DUDES! Chill the f*ck out please! If ya don't like the thread THEN DON'T READ IT! Simple as that. Nobody loves the pussy reports better than me BUT free speech fellas. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. Still waiting for you to take me up on my bet Esten. Time for you to take it like a man. Jajajajaja

Pps. tonight is a first for the Toymann. In about an hour I plan to get in the middle of my #1, #2 and #3 chicas all at the same time. And TL thinks he is the chica king of BA. LOL. No drops involved baby! If you don't here from me any more assume I didn't make it fellas. Unlikely but certainly possible! LOL. Now hows that you a chica post TL? #1 is a muy flaca tiny morocha. #2 is an alta morocha chakena and #3 is a nonpro best buddy of #1, also a morocha. Morocha madness taken to next level. Wish me luck fellas! You can nominate me to the monger Hall of Fame anytime TL. When I am gone speak of me well baby!

Esten

10-04-11, 23:51

Ps. Still waiting for you take me up on my bet Esten. Time for you to take it like a man. JajajajajaI'm still too chicken. Christie's out. Perry fizzled. It could be your Mormon boy after all. Or maybe Sarah Palin will jump in and save the day.

TL, on second thought, maybe you should take a break from all the pussy and join in the discussion. Come'on man! What's your view on Social Security?

Esten

10-05-11, 00:24

I'll take a little break after this. But check this video out:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/10/ronald-reagan-warren-buffet-rule-president-obama.html

In a 1985 speech, Reagan complained about tax loopholes for the wealthy. Because it was given at a high school, Reagan compared a millionaire to a bus driver, rather than a secretary.

"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," Reagan said.

After explaining how loopholes allow millionaires to pay less tax, Reagan asks the crowd, "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?" The crowd roared "More!" in response, causing Reagan to smile.

Member #4112

10-05-11, 12:46

Esten, what is the Buffett Rule exactly? Nothing on paper, no offer, no details, just another speech by Obama which is looking a lot like his last debt reduction proposal, which if memory serves the CBO said they don't score speeches. Come on Esten, since you seem to have the inside track with Obama give us the DETAILS!

Didn't we already do this one with the AMT, Alternative Minimum Tax?

Now Harry Reid is talking up a new surtax on 'millionaires' which in Obama's book means a married couple filing a joint return with income over $250K.

Between Obama's drive for 'social justice' and 'redistribution' he is even losing the support of his own party. Reid's surtax scheme is just a way to try and hold the Democrats together since Obama's jobs bill would not even pass the Democratic controlled Senate as it is now written, much less the House.

2012 is coming Esten (hear the theme from Jaws playing in the background)

WorldTravel69

10-05-11, 16:15

I heard that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times.

I'll take a little break after this. But check this video out:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/10/ronald-reagan-warren-buffet-rule-president-obama.html

In a 1985 speech, Reagan complained about tax loopholes for the wealthy. Because it was given at a high school, Reagan compared a millionaire to a bus driver, rather than a secretary.

"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," Reagan said.

After explaining how loopholes allow millionaires to pay less tax, Reagan asks the crowd,"Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?" The crowd roared "More!" in response, causing Reagan to smile.

Jackson

10-05-11, 17:10

"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," Reagan said.I agree, and among the many "loopholes" that should be eliminated are the mortgage interest deduction "loophole", the child credit "loophole", the married vs single filers "loophole", and the earned income credit "loophole".

Thanks,

Jackson

Stan Da Man

10-05-11, 19:28

I agree, and among the many "loopholes" that should be eliminated are the mortgage interest deduction "loophole", the child credit "loophole", the married vs single filers "loophole", and the earned income credit "loophole".

Thanks,

JacksonBut, the comments made by Reagan back then were about a completely different tax code, one that doesn't exist today in any way, shape or form. Liberals like to point out that, historically, tax rates have been much higher than today. But, that's like comparing today's tax system with a flat tax system in place in another country, and saying that the USA has much higher tax rates than the country with the flat tax system. It's apples and oranges.

Back when Reagan made his comments, tax shelters were quite common. The tax laws were set up to encourage them. They were eliminated with the '86 tax act. This, ultimately, led to the S & L crisis. Anyone who was in one of these tax shelters at the time can tell you how that worked. Real estate ventures that were set up to take advantage of the tax laws, without regard for profitability, suddenly lost their tax-preferred status and had to be economically profitable to make sense as an investment. As a consequence, commercial real estate like apartment buildings and shopping centers, lost half their value overnight. Poof!

Using Reagan's comments about an old tax code makes little sense. The "loopholes" that exist today are nothing compared to what existed back then. And, if Obama wanted to go that route, he had a golden opportunity. His Deficit Reduction Panel made a number of significant recommendations in these areas and Obama promptly ignored them all.

He is only interested in tax reform if it serves his class warfare rhetoric. He's never outlined what his so-called Buffett Rule means. He just wants to hide behind that rhetoric. Today, we see that Harry Reid is proposing his own Buffett-Rule, and his version already has been criticized by Buffett, who said he would not support it.

Obama's been on the campaign trail chanting "Pass this Bill" and stating that he wants an up or down vote on his supposed Jobs bill immediately. But, he can't convince his own party. So, McConnell tries to get it floored for a vote because everyone knows it won't pass, and it gets shot down by Reid. Obama has said he wants his bill passed unamended. Now, Reid's amending it. And, now Obama's saying he doesn't want a vote right away. Rather, it should be debated. More of the same from Obama. 13 months left until he's shown the door.

Jackson

10-05-11, 21:25

I heard that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times.Hey Stan,

I believe you intended to utilize this quote from WorldTravel69, not mine.

Thanks,

Jackson

Stan Da Man

10-07-11, 13:59

Hey Stan,

I believe you intended to utilize this quote from WorldTravel69, not mine.

Thanks,

JacksonYes. My bad. Always look before you click.

El Alamo

10-08-11, 12:37

As far as I can tell the world is awash with cash. Individuals and corporations have more cash sitting around than ever before.

The question is, where to put it? This will probably keep the stock market from crashing because some of it will end up there.

The only entity that cannot manage its finances are governments. Not surprising since governments are really cancers, indifferent to the health of the host and in fact, intent on killing the host.

And people like Esten/Obama want to feed this cancer.

Exon123

10-08-11, 22:15

Punter 127

10-09-11, 09:07

Keith Olbermann reads the Statement Released By The Wall Street Protesters published on You Tube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3peQq79Q&feature=player_embedded

Something to think about.

Copy & Paste it.

ExonSo are we to assume you agree with this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFZrNSa3b8g&feature=related

Toymann

10-09-11, 15:55

So are we to assume you agree with this guy?Ex is great guy and resonable fisherman BUT is a misguided liberal similar to WT69, and recently Ramiro. Guese thats why he can't go back to texas. LOL. Forgive Ex his shortcoming. He's getting old. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Exon123

10-10-11, 14:57

Hi Toymann,

Did you take "El Jeffe" fishing with you last month?

Exon

Stan Da Man

10-11-11, 13:58

Canitasguy

10-11-11, 15:52

Unlike the unwashed OWS protesters now calling into question whether things in the US are a bit off track, the nicely focused economic gurus at whose altars you and your ilk worshiped (and incredibly still do) were quite certain of their nostrums. They knew what they wanted. They articulated everything elegantly with self confidence that was mesmerizing.

They convinced political decision makers around the globe that unbridled financial markets would forever rise, that global wealth floating on oceans of debt was a good thing, that esoteric risk management practices had made markets safe and all would be well if they were left to master the universe as the gods they are. We know how that worked out. And if you can't quite grasp it, that's what all the fuss is about.

I see you, Jackson, Wally, Alamo, et al attack Esten as if you were all schooled macro-economists, rather than admittedly intelligent individuals (with a few well known exceptions), whose incessant navel gazing results in simplistic, demonstrably erroneous, fact-challenged, self-satisfied, self-inflated views of things.

Funny, but for a group of guys ostensibly brought together by mongering, you spend more time on intellectual onanistic activity on this site, than all the teenage boys at a small prep school in US sex prison beating their puds under their sheets.

Daddy Rulz

10-11-11, 16:46

Here are your Wall Street Occupiers:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/eyewitness-history_595200.html

Something to think about.

As that author notes, the group has no real demands or goals. They haven't even authorized anyone or any group to speak on their behalves and, to the extent someone tries to articulate what they're protesting, they get shot down by others who say that it's not what the protests are about. These folks are reminiscent of the protest chants from the misguided youths and miscreants protesting against the G7 a few years back:

"What Do We Want?" "We're Not Going To Tell!"

"When Do We Want It?" "Now!""In the US, it is about a system that privatized massive gains and then socialized huge losses; allowed bailed-out banks to resume past behavior with seemingly little regulatory and legal consequences; and is paralyzed when it comes to alleviating the suffering of victims, including millions of unemployed (too many of whom are becoming long-term unemployed, slipping into poverty, and losing access to safety nets). The result is a visible and growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in today's America."

Personally I refuse to identify with either group anymore. I don't think it was Republicans that privatized gain and socialized losses and I don't think it's Democrates that are trying to restore power to the poor. I think the whole blue v red thing is a smokescreen so we (the people) continue to blame each other for our ills while the richest 1, who could care less about party affiliations because they own them both, keep squeezing the margins until they quite literally own it all. I think soon small enterprise, like what Jax and a few others here do will eventually be nearly impossible in the US.

I think that the job market will be intentionally kept very tight for the next 5-10 years until worker attitudes shift back to a mentality more like what existed in the 30's where people would do anything for work regardless of the cost. Here's a great story from 1931 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0.9171,752972,00.html note paragraphs 1 and 4. They had to pay $1. 50 of their daily wage of $4. 00 to sleep in a bunkhouse and "Facing hunger, seeing hundreds of unemployed waiting around for their jobs, the striking workers modified their demands." As men died building the tunnel they would give the job to somebody standing there waiting. Why? Because the $2. 50 a day was the only thing keeping their families from starving.

Again I don't think this is a red v blue thing and I'm sure I'll get burned severly by the flamers but I agree with the people identifying themselves as 99%ers, something is seriously wrong with the state of our democracy.

Stan Da Man

10-11-11, 20:49

"In the US, it is about a system that privatized massive gains and then socialized huge losses; allowed bailed-out banks to resume past behavior with seemingly little regulatory and legal consequences; and is paralyzed when it comes to alleviating the suffering of victims, including millions of unemployed (too many of whom are becoming long-term unemployed, slipping into poverty, and losing access to safety nets). The result is a visible and growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in today's America."Hey Daddy:

You are entitled to your perspective that it's not a Red v. Blue thing. I disagree, but not to as great a degree as you might imagine.

A couple comments, though. First, your link doesn't work. I presume it was to something about worker conditions in the 30s. No matter. I've read enough Steinbeck to know what you're referencing. Suffice it to say that we would benefit if the pendulum swung back in that direction a bit. I don't suggest for a second that we go all the way back there. It was not a good time. But, the pendulum has swung fully the other way for quite a while.

As for starting a business by young entrepreneurs in today's regulatory climate, I can tell you that it's already illegal. I don't mean to suggest that people don't start businesses. But, I do mean to suggest that you have to break dozens of laws to get it done, including reporting requirements, insurance requirements, payroll laws, etc, etc, that are far too onerous for a start-up to understand, much less comply with. I've seen this first hand. By the time your business gets larger, you can comply with most of the regs, but then there are more and more of them that you can't navigate, have no hope of complying with, or simply don't even know about until the government shows up asking questions.

I'm not even talking about normal tax stuff. Some of the whacky environmental, federal and state reporting requirements are insane, as are all of the regulatory agencies set up to protect worker rights. I have horror stories. I'll give you just one of many. We have a former employee who sued claiming she was discriminated because of her sexual orientation. So, she filed a claim with the state governmental agency. Those geniuses then fire off a 50 question form, which you must respond to. Fully half of the questions were this variety."Identify each of your supervisors and their sexual orientation." "For each supervisor, identify each employee who works for the supervisor, name, address, telephone number, etc, and state each employee's sexual orientation." Mind you, these are questions coming from a government agency. As to each of these questions, my response was that I would be happy to poll our employees and supervisors about their sexual orientation if the government agency would indemnify us against the ensuing lawsuits. I haven't heard back yet. There are many, many, many more examples just like this. So, you're spot on when you say that start-ups have no chance, at least if anyone expects that they will comply with the laws or the amazingly stupid bureaucrats the government employs.

Finally, I absolutely agree that banks are a problem. I personally believe that the most recent crisis was started by government and their mandates via HUD that people who don't deserve a loan must get a loan. The left leaning among us think it was excessive risk taking by banks, but even they would concede that the government was at least partially at fault. Regardless of who you blame, though, the real question is, what have we done to fix this?

This is where the Red v. Blue comes in, because the short answer is, absolutely nothing. Indeed, Dodd-Frank permanently institutionalizes too-big-to-fail. It is impossible for the regional and community banks to compete with the too-big-to-fail banks. The new fees levied unfairly on the latter to fix the sins of the former have rendered it impossible to compete. The regional and local banks don't have the same access to the fed funds window that the TBTF banks do, nor can they compete across international lines with "hot money" made available by the Fed. In short, we have institutionalized a few chosen TBTF banks who we'll never be able to let fail now, so we'll always have to bail them out.

The better solution would, and still would, be to break them up. Or, if you're not going to do that, then impose an increasingly high set of FDIC tariffs on them as their assets under management get larger and their business model gets riskier based on business segments. The current regulations pay lip service to this latter idea, but it's only lip service.

I make no claim that Republicans are shining knights with only the people's best interests at heart. I claim only that the ones now trying to sidle up to the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, the Democrats and their union buddies, are the ones who brought you this mess in the first place, are the ones who had a chance to fix it, but are also the ones who took most campaign dollars from the banks last election, so they're not even trying to fix it. Look at how the Dems reformed Fannie and Freddie, which are huge Dem contributors. They've done nothing with these multi-billion losers despite repeated Republican efforts to fix the problem.

So, no, it's not all Red v. Blue. But, to the extent Dems claim to be the "people's" party, they are utterly hypocritical. Republicans may be more overtly Business friendly but at least they're not hypocrites. And, to the extent Dems complain about fat cat bankers, I cringe. Democrats have done more to perpetuate them than anyone in the past 60 years.

Daddy Rulz

10-12-11, 03:10

I think we as a country need more of our last posts and less of this "For the Liberal Knuckleheads." I'm a progressive, and I've served my country, and I work really, really, hard. I think the answer to our ills lies between our positions and not in further polarizing us. I'm a big fan of Stew Beef and went to the rally last October. It's time for us to bind together and take the best ideas and move forward. Some of those ideas will be conservative and some progressive. It's this us v them mentality that continues to hurt our country.

Stan Da Man

10-12-11, 04:47

I think we as a country need more of our last posts and less of this "For the Liberal Knuckleheads."Lest you take my poor attempt at humor out of context, that post and its subject line were a direct response to Exon's post about 5 earlier titled "For you Republican Motherfuckers." That may not excuse the title completely. But, in my defense, I would submit that those who give must be willing to receive. And, for Exon, the word "Motherfucker" is something of a term of endearment. I don't think he's so thin-skinned that he'll wilt at the word "Knucklehead," although the word "Liberal" may render me persona non grata.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that we all need to start softening our views to meet in the middle, either. As a friend of mine used to say,"I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."

But, we likely could find some common ground on banks. I'm not against them. I just think the current policies and regulations, and those of the past 20 years, cause them to be a pernicious problem. We need banks. We need lots of banks. But we don't need 5 humongous, monolithic banks. US banks have convinced the current administration that they can't compete against foreign banks unless they can grow to steroids-addled proportions, and foreign banks have convinced their home countries of the same. The country that wins will be the first to call bullsh*t.

Daddy Rulz

10-12-11, 12:38

Lest you take my poor attempt at humor out of context, that post and its subject line were a direct response to Exon's post about 5 earlier titled "For you Republican Motherfuckers." That may not excuse the title completely. But, in my defense, I would submit that those who give must be willing to receive. And, for Exon, the word "Motherfucker" is something of a term of endearment.I am aquainted with the "gentleman" in question, understood.

I saw a flow chart the other day showing the consolodation of the banks down to the big 4, I was shocked. I knew there had been some trimming down but my mind has been on my studies the last few years and I hadn't noticed the extent.

Esten

10-13-11, 00:32

It is great to see this Occupy Wall Street movement. What strikes me though, is why did it take so long for people to start raising their voice about this? It's probably because until recently there was simply little media coverage on this topic. And it's about time this became a front-and-center issue.

What are they protesting about? From the 'We Are The 99%' slogan it should be obvious - it's about the huge economic inequality between the top 1% and everyone else. More broadly, the top few %.

It's not about business itself. They don't care about the mom-and-pop and many other small businesses in the country. They are more concerned about large corporations, like Walmart, that help consolidate wealth in a few hands, sometimes by putting small business competitors out of business or acquiring them. And they are especially concerned how the financial industry concentrates wealth in a variety of ways, lobbying politicians and pressuring Corporate America.

I've posted on this topic many times before. A recent article in WSJ lays it out:

The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Most of America's Gains
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/09/16/the-top-5-grabbed-most-of-the-americas-gains/

A new chart from the Economic Policy Institute, using data from NYU Economist Ed Wolff, shows that more than 80% of the nation’s wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the wealthiest top 5%. The top 1% gained 40% of the nation’s total wealth gain, while the next 4% gained 41.5%.
81.5% of wealth gains went to the top 5%! So much for growing the pie! Truly unbelievable. If you could go back in time and ask the Founding Fathers, if the society they envisioned was one where the top 5% receive 81.5% of the wealth, what do you think their reaction would be? They would likely find the notion absurd.

I agree it's not entirely a red vs blue issue. Economic inequality has been increasing for decades under both parties. So what is the cause?

The common denominator is free-market capitalism. Manipulated by the rich elite and their lobbyists. And supported by millions of people who don't understand the problem, or refuse to believe that capitalism itself could be part of the problem.

Jackson

10-13-11, 01:40

The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Most of America's Gains.Here's how I read that headline:

"The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Created Most of America's Gains

Daddy Rulz

10-13-11, 02:32

Here's how I read that headline:

"The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Created Most of America's GainsSorry Jefe not prior to 2001, until then the engine that drove the majority of wealth creation was middle class home appreciation. Since 2001 there has been a fundimental shift in accumulation of wealth in La Tierra de las Gordas. Not my opinion boss.

Jackson

10-13-11, 04:04

It is great to see this Occupy Wall Street movement. What strikes me though, is why did it take so long for people to start raising their voice about this?Oh, I don't know. Maybe it was because they have the collective organizational abilities of a bag of rocks?

They don't care about the mom-and-pop and many other small businesses in the country.Neither does Obama.

81.5% of wealth gains went to the top 5%!That's a great Class Warfare slogan, but it has nothing to do with why some people are poor.

Ask yourself this: Bill Gates became a multi-billionaire in the past 30 years. Are you any poorer because he made himself wealthy?

If you could go back in time and ask the Founding Fathers, if the society they envisioned was one where the top 5% receive 81.5% of the wealth, what do you think their reaction would be.They probably wouldn't think anything about it at all, given that this was the approximate distribution of wealth at the time. Remember all those "dead white men" who at the time risked everything they owned organizing the agricultural endeavors that created the wealth at the time.

Economic inequality has been increasing for decades under both parties.You are correct in that those who worked hard and created wealth for themselves are much better off than the lazy parasites who sat on their collective asses and waited for their government checks.

Rev BS

10-13-11, 04:55

So was watching the Fox political show, The Five. Poor Juan Williams played the token fool. I guess I am quite slow, but it finally occurred to me that Fox is pretty much a tabloid station. At times, The Five does remind me of this forum. Now, let's see who plays who? Ok, ok, just joking. I love all you guys.

Member #4112

10-13-11, 13:30

Esten is just beating the Class Warfare drum again. I doubt he has really listened to what the folks are saying in the War on Wall Street bunch. Basically it's; 'Give me a free home, education, food and any other material support I want, YOU pay for it while I sit on my lazy ass. '

This redistribution idea worked really well in Russia, Cuba, and North Korea. Why don't these guys move to the worker's paradise they so love and admire? Probably because they would be lined up against a wall and shot.

To preface my following remarks even liberals have to admit Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are the exception to the rule and there will always be those who make massive change through innovation and they will reap the rewards.

That said, I am going to agree CEO / Executive pay is way out of sync with reality; nobody is worth hundreds of millions of dollars in pay no matter who they are! What I find hilarious is the very thing liberals are complaining about, overpaid executives, is something they CAUSED! Do your homework, back in the 70's those folks who never held a job but went from undergrad to grad to professorships as 'business experts' decided the American business model was too conservative and needed to be more aggressive. To this end they proposed linking executive pay to performance. Back then CEOs / executives enjoyed a pay rate in the tens of multiples of their regular employees. As with all things the law of unintended consequences came into play with one wild scheme after another to 'boost company performance' had less and less to do with the true value of the company but were only designed to boost executive pay under the 'new rules'. Each successive round of schemes pushed the envelope a little further until now we have folks making 100s of millions of dollars in pay.

We can get into where the money should have gone later; reinvested in the company to produce more jobs and to the investors.

Esten

10-14-11, 01:30

Here's how I read that headline:

"The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Created Most of America's GainsMost people have probably heard of John Paulson. He's a billionaire hedge fund manager, most famous for generating returns of up to 600% by betting against mortgages in 2008 as the market crashed.

In 2010, Mr. Paulson personally made more than $5 Billion in profits. To put that in context, that's equivalent to 100, 000 workers making $50K. Or 5000 CEOs getting a $1 Million bonus.

Trader Racks Up a Second Epic Gain
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704268104576108390332589096.html

How did he do it? By doing what all hedge funds do - trading in stocks, ETFs, and other financial instruments. In some cases using high-speed computers with sophisticated algorithms to enter and exit trades in mere seconds. Playing both the short and long side of trades.

Did Paulson create $5 Billion in wealth?

Or did Paulson extract $5 Billion in wealth?

Moveon

10-14-11, 15:13

Most people have probably heard of John Paulson. He's a billionaire hedge fund manager, most famous for generating returns of up to 600% by betting against mortgages in 2008 as the market crashed.

In 2010, Mr. Paulson personally made more than $5 Billion in profits. To put that in context, that's equivalent to 100, 000 workers making $50K. Or 5000 CEOs getting a $1 Million bonus.

Did Paulson create $5 Billion in wealth?

Or did Paulson extract $5 Billion in wealth?Esten,

I would not be surprised if John Paulson paid less taxes than Buffet's personal secretary.

Long Live the REPUBLICAN PARTY! - hehehe

TejanoLibre

10-14-11, 16:11

Esten,

I would not be surprised if John Paulson paid less taxes than Buffet's personal secretary.

Long Live the REPUBLICAN PARTY!. HeheheCan't we get back to talking about getting laid boys?

TL

P.S - National Socialist Untill The Day I Die !

WorldTravel69

10-14-11, 20:45

Some of you say you want to do away with Unions.

This one is sort of a Dictatorial Union.

Let's Break this one!

I did not write this, just passing it on.

I could not find any thing negative on Urban Legends. Com.

Subject: Let us all speak up!

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC."You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only.

3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971. Before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land. All because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011.

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.

Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term (s) , then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the USA) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

Member #4112

10-15-11, 16:49

WT I agree with you completely on this one. It is a great idea, but I fear it has an ice cube's chance in hell of making it through.

I've posted several times regarding resending elected official's healthcare and retirement systems. They send the rest of us down the path of Medicare and Social Security but exempt themselves so they keep their 'private' plan.

By the way, Congress has to VOTE AGAINST IT'S PAY RAISES so as not to receive one. Many years ago they faded so much heat every time they passed pay raise for themselves they hit upon a strategy of making the raises automatic and requiring a majority vote to reject them.

Jackson

10-16-11, 13:16

Who are you, and what are your ransom demands for the safe return of WorldTravel69?

Some of you say you want to do away with Unions.

This one is sort of a Dictatorial Union.

Let's Break this one!

I did not write this, just passing it on.

I could not find any thing negative on Urban Legends. Com.

Subject: Let us all speak up!

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC."You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only.

3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971. Before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land. All because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011.

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.

Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term (s) , then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the USA) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

Exon123

10-16-11, 15:41

Can't we get back to talking about getting laid boys?

TL.

P. S. National Socialist Untill The Day I Die!Tambien. TL

WorldTravel69

10-16-11, 21:06

We are Mostly Lawyers. As you know, each of us have different views and can not agree on what the amount should be, much less anything else.

Who are you, and what are your ransom demands for the safe return of WorldTravel69?

WorldTravel69

10-23-11, 23:03

I just could not past this up.

Happy Reading. Ha Ha

El Alamo

10-25-11, 17:08

OK, I'm back in Key west and have nothing better to do than post on this board. Watching that middle of the road, completely balanced Fox news channel doesn't help matters.

Are we nuts? Economies worldwide are going to pot because of excessive government spending and excessive government debt. Haven't we learned anything? Spending more and piling on more debt.

My guess is that if Obama was a firefighter (his first real job) he would recommend throwing gasoline on burning buildings.

Jackson

10-25-11, 19:40

My guess is that if Obama was a firefighter (his first real job) he would recommend throwing gasoline on burning buildings.That's exactly what he would do if he thought it would get him votes from the people who didn't like the owners of the burning buildings.

In fact, Obama would burn down 49% of the city if he thought it would get the other 51% to re-elect him.

Hell, Obama would burn down the entire city just so he could tell the suburbanites it happened because 5% of the city's firefighters were laid off, and then Joe Biden would tell them that their homes would be next if Congress didn't pass Stimulus II today!

TejanoLibre

10-26-11, 06:44

That's exactly what he would do if he thought it would get him votes from the people who didn't like the owners of the burning buildings.

In fact, Obama would burn down 49% of the city if he thought it would get the other 51% to re-elect him.

Hell, Obama would burn down the entire city just so he could tell the suburbanites it happened because 5% of the city's firefighters were laid off, and then Joe Biden would tell them that their homes would be next if Congress didn't pass Stimulus II today!If the Taxes don't get you Inflation will!

TL

Moveon

10-27-11, 16:58

Jackson

10-27-11, 17:16

Yes, my fellow colleagues and Patriots of the far right. You really aren't surprised, are you?

Our fascist news channel in the US & the Republican's Party's mouthpiece did it again. Got caught with telling another lie on national television.

Apparently, FOX NEWS was reporting that President Obama had to cancel a trip to Japan, which was planned in advance, where he was going to apologize to the Japanese people for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

The anchors of the television station were all twisting their heads in disgust. Well, it turns out it was all bull and here is Mr. Goofy himself wagging his tail:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/fox_friends_we_should_have_clarified_that_our_repo.php?ref=fpblgHey Moveon,

"another broadcasting lie."

Really? Please list the other "broadcasting lie[s]".

I think you're suffering from "Fox News Derangement Syndrome".

I mean, it's just ONE cable news channel in an ocean of media news outlets.

You don't see people in the center or the right spending time obsessing about MSNBC, do you?

So what's the threat? Why are you so afraid of Fox News?

Thanks,

Jackson.

PS: I'm sure that Esten will, as usual, find an obscure reference of a conservative obsessing about MSNBC, while simultaneously ignoring the preponderance of the evidence that the right does not care one with about MSNBC. That's how liberals argue, by finding and quoting the obscure 1% and asserting that it's a representative comment.

Flame on!

Moveon

10-27-11, 17:45

Hey Moveon,

Why are you so afraid of Fox News?Who said I was afraid of FOX NEWS?

I watch it on occasion just for fun & amusement. I do admit, it becomes theatrical at some points of the programming.

Yes, when a news station bashes President Obama literally every minute of the day while praising and glorifying the likes of 2 yr term Alaskan former Governor Sarah Palin, Ron Paul and other similar wing nuts, well we all know the slogan for Fox News really should not read: "Fair and Balanced." "We Report. You Decide."

It's more like "Faked and Biased." "We Report. We Decide."

El Alamo

11-07-11, 15:50

Looks like Cain is finished. Not because of the so called sexual harrassment. Because he doesn't even know that China has nuclear weapons, wants to put warships off the coast of Iran and who knows what else. As far as foreign policy goes, Sarah Palin would be equivalent to Henry Kissinger when compared with Cain.

The next pretender will be the Newt. Has more baggage than a Samsonite outlet store.

I hate to say it but Obama must be licking his chops over this Republican lineup.

I say we bring back George Bush Sr. He has one good term left in him. If not, perhaps Nancy Reagan. By osmosis she probably absorbed enough from Ronnie to get us out of the mess we are in.

WorldTravel69

11-07-11, 16:28

Since you asked.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html

Really? Please list the other "broadcasting lie[s]".

Pedro Zero

11-07-11, 18:25

Since you asked.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html (1) How can a high-school sophomore, who Jennings saw around campus an additional two years after their meeting (in other words, the boy's junior and senior years in high school) have been over the age of consent, as the Huffington Post stipulates.

Never mind that Jennings is long-time gay activist whose personal role model once praised NAMBLA.

Matt Psyche

11-08-11, 00:54

I don't know why FOX and some people consider that apologizing would be a sign of weakness. The US government apologized to the Japanese Americans for the segregated camps during WWII. Germany apologized to Jewish people. Nobody think that these countries were weak or humiliated simply because they apologized.

Yes, my fellow colleagues and Patriots of the far right. You really aren't surprised, are you?

Our fascist news channel in the US & the Republican's Party's mouthpiece did it again. Got caught with telling another lie on national television.

Apparently, FOX NEWS was reporting that President Obama had to cancel a trip to Japan, which was planned in advance, where he was going to apologize to the Japanese people for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

The anchors of the television station were all twisting their heads in disgust. Well, it turns out it was all bull and here is Mr. Goofy himself wagging his tail:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/fox_friends_we_should_have_clarified_that_our_repo.php?ref=fpblg

Rev BS

11-08-11, 06:47

Herman Cain is toast. I was really looking forward to a black referendum between Cain & Obama, it is time for the minorities to clear the air about getting the shaft. But he was never going to be able to beat Romney anyway. It is amazing that Gingrich can somehow stay relevant, Palin & him are both con artists making a damn good living just playing the political circuit.

El Alamo

11-09-11, 18:14

Here is Obama's latest brainstorm on how to reduce unemployment, make America more competitive and get the economy moving again.

A 15 cent tax on the sale of Christmas Trees. The tax is to be used to improve the image of Christmas trees.

Number one, when did the image of Christmas trees need to be improved and number two, what business is it of the government to try to improve the image of Christmas trees.

I would gladly swap the braindead, milktoast, politically correct Obama we have now for an Obama who was world class sexual predator, pedophile, and serial killer but understood something about how economies function.

Member #4112

11-09-11, 19:31

Now it is the nasty OLD FOLKS that must be made to suffer.

Newest study finds that house holds age 65 and older have more wealth than house holds age 35 and younger.

Could it be the 65 and up folks worked all their life and saved for retirement and the 35 and under have another 30+ years to go to amass those funds? Or is it the 35 and under crowd is lazier, more shiftless, enter the work place later and are spending too much time hanging out at Occupy. Name the city?

What a load of crap!

Rev BS

11-11-11, 00:55

What with the Cain debacle and Coach Joe Paterno and Penn State football, it has been a humiliating and dismal few days. What we have seen is INTEGRITY taken to a new low in a society that is obssess with materialism and fame. It is a road that we have taken and it is a road that is being duplicated as other societies raise their standards of living. The frenzy of over-indulgence and glamor at the expense of family values, decency and integrity. It is not just a few individuals, it is where we are as a culture and society in 2011.

And so surrounded by flood waters in Bangkok, I venture out of my soi (lane) in a punt pulled by a bare-footed smiling young country boy who insisted that I only pay him only 10 baht rather than the 20 baht I was going to give him. And so, my day was redeem by a boy untainted by Goldman Sachs, BMWs, I phones, even McDonalds. He was just surviving the forces of nature and bad greedy politicians and multi-nationals.

WorldTravel69

11-19-11, 17:13

A news caster suggested that the Republican Candidates play Jeopardy and see if the can answer the really important questions.

I like it.

Rev BS

11-19-11, 22:58

A modern day "Lazarus", Newt Gringrich emerged from being written off to lead the GOP polls. The Republican voters, akin to the Madoff investors continue to ignore the "too good to be true" warning signs of the ultimate insider profiteer of Washington politics. Sometimes, you have to wonder if he is the poster boy of capitalism at it's very best or very worst.

Toymann

11-20-11, 03:57

Newt Who? Good if you are 70 years old. Maybe. As I projected almost a year ago. It's a one horse race fellas. Romney wins like secretariate many years ago! By 20 lengths. Still waiting for my be*tch Esten to climb out from under his rock and step up and take my bet. LOL. Doubt we will ever see him again on this thread. Best news for america is Romney is a turn around specialist and thats exactly what we need after the great Obomanation experiment. Damn liberals! Never give those fools the keys to the bus, goes off the road every time! Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. Here's my prediction for November 2012. North of 65 GOP seats in the senate, Romney gets north of 55% of the popular vote and the house has too many GOP seats to count. LOL. Going to take some serious work to get the ship on track but I think Romney will get the job done! GO ROMNEY GO!

WorldTravel69

11-21-11, 13:31

T. E. Lawrence: So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people. Greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.

History repeats itself.

Sounds like he meant:

Our CONGRESSMEN.

Jackson

11-23-11, 15:39

You know Obama's in trouble when Chris "A thrill up my leg" Matthews turns on Obama.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/21/chris-matthews-to-obama-just-tell-us-commander-give-us-our-orders-video/

In a Sunday evening interview on MSNBC, 'Hardball' host Chris Matthews spoke candidly not just of his allegiance to the president's agenda, but also of the frustrations many on the professional left are feeling with the administration's lack of leadership.

"There's nothing to root for," Matthews lamented. "What are we trying to do in this administration? Why does he want a second term, would he tell us? What's he going to do in his second term, more of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets? Where are we going? Are we going to do something his second term? He's yet to tell us."

"He has not said one thing about what he'the do in his second term," Matthews continued. "He never tells us what he's going to do with reforming our health care systems, Medicare, Medicaid. How he's going to reform Social Security? Is he going to deal with long-term debt? How? Is he going to reform the tax system? How?"

"Just tell us — why are we in this with him? Just tell us, commander. Give us our orders and tell us where we're going. Give us the mission."

"And he hasn't done it" Matthews said, blaming not just the president but those closest to him in the White House.

"I think it's the people around him," Matthews asserted."Too many people around are little kids with propeller hats on their heads. They're all virtual — politics, the social networking. Their idea of running a campaign is a virtual universe of sending emails around to people."

A real campaign, the MSNBC host continued, is "meetings with people. It's forging alliances. It's White House meetings and dinner parties that go on 'till midnight. And he should be sitting late at night now with senators and members of Congress and governors working together on how they're going to win this political fight that's coming in 2012."http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chris-matthews-has-harsh-words-for-obama-i-dont-have-a-sense-that-hes-ever-had-a-meeting/

Don’t you feel, I think everybody feels an absence of communication from the time he’s been elected. And it’s not about not being left-wing enough or too left. That’s not his problem. It’s connection. And Mrs. Obama, she’s an amazing asset. And what has she done? Obesity? How about connecting with the American people about being Americans? I don‘t think she’s, I don‘t think she’s happy. I don’t think they like being in the White House. The American people can tell that. They don’t seem thrilled at the fact the American people have selected them as our first family. I don’t sense the gratitude, the happiness level, the thrill of being president. Bill Clinton loved being president every minute and you knew it.I especially like the "And I think it's the people around him,... they're little kids with propellers on their heads."

El Alamo

11-25-11, 19:44

We are fucked. Can't stop the spending. Every cent sent to Washington DC is money flushed down the toilet. The government puts new meaning to the concept of spending money like drunken sailors.

I say we send everyone in the united States seeking medical care to Cuba. Cuba can do it cheaper than us and apparently, judging from thier life expectancy, better than us. Also, any adverse outcomes would have to be adjudicated in the Cuban court system. That should take care of our malpractice mess.

Also, just for good measure, I think we should start of policy of you were born with your own kidneys, heart, lungs, liver etc. When yours runs out of gas, tough shit. Also a cancer diagnosis should be considered just bad luck. Go to Cuba for 100 year old out of date therapy and quit complaining.

El Alamo

11-28-11, 14:26

Just when you think the world is coming to an end a glimmer of hope emerges.

Barney Franks, who single handedly created the real estate bubble and subsequent Obama depression, is going to retire.

Page boys can remove their chastity belts, bend over to pick up loose change and collect their paychecks without first giving Barney a BJ. It is safe to go in the water again.

Rev BS

12-01-11, 22:47

Ah, Herman Cain, as if you did not know that you had some skeletons in your closet, and that they would be flushed out? Or maybe, is it just your escapades are every much your normal everyday behavior and you see nothing wrong with them? Sure, we all have our moments that we are not proud of, but your talk and actions show that you thought that you were indestructible. Obama has not shown us that he is a great president yet, but you don't measured up to him in any category except for bluster. You did not do your people proud.

DoubleRTexas

12-02-11, 09:01

Lorenzo

12-03-11, 02:49

There are actually two messages here. The 1st is very.

Interesting, but the 2nd is absolutely astounding. And explains a lot.

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very.

Interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International.

Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years.

After diagnosis:

USA 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received.

Treatment within six months:

USA 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it.

Within six months:

USA 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within.

One month:

USA 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million.

People:

USA 71.

England 14.

Canada 18.

Percentage of seniors (65+) , with low income, who say they are.

In "excellent health":

USA 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%

And now for the last statistic:

National Health Insurance?

USA NO.

England YES.

Canada YES.

Check this last set of statistics!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked.

In the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.

You know what the private business sector is. A real-life business, not a.

Government job. Here are the percentages.

T. Roosevelt. 38%

Taft. 40%

Wilson. 52%

Harding. 49%

Coolidge. 48%

Hoover. 42%

F. Roosevelt. 50%

Truman. 50%

Eisenhower. 57%

Kennedy. 30%

Johnson. 47%

Nixon. 53%

Ford. 42%

Carter. 32%

Reagan. 56%

GH Bush. 51%

Clinton. 39%

GW Bush. 55%

Obama. 8%

This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration:

Only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!

That's right! Only eight percent-the least, by far, of the.

Last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big.

Corporations how to run their business?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one.

With the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk.

About business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has.

Never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff.

And closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia,

Government and / or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers."

"One of the penalties of not participating in politics is that.

You will be governed by your inferiors." Plato

Canitasguy

12-03-11, 14:11

This post cites a claim made by the discredited Glenn Beck who used inaccurate data promoted by the ultra conservative American Enterprise Institute that quoted a study by an individual who had already admitted his statistics were flawed.

But hey facts aren't really important on internet blogs- including AP

TejanoLibre

12-03-11, 20:04

Moveon

12-06-11, 06:16

Jackson

12-06-11, 13:21

Rev BS

12-07-11, 03:22

Interviewing Huntsman, Hannity said he could never serve as an ambassador under Obama, as he was not sure what kind of American Obama is. This is a guy who has sold his soul so that he can continue to misquote and misrepresent any issue for ratings, and he felt that Trump has alot to offer this country since he qualify under "being so successful and rich".

As for Trump, anybody that has that kind of hairpiece is a first class fraud.

Canitasguy

12-07-11, 14:38

Wild Walleye

12-07-11, 15:23

Now that the 9-9-9 Cain show has trotted off into the sunset we now have the latest laughable right-wing circus act.

Donald Trump will be hosting an up and upcoming Republican debate.

I have seen it all, my friends.

A Trump debate is not only laughable but clearly is making a mockery of the Republican Party.

This truly is Presidential!

Can't wait to see this new Apprentice act."It feels so good to be back here at the Dexter Lake Club"

Trump is no less qualified to host a debate than any of the other jaded, biased, predisposed, liberal hacks who have hosted past debates. I'm no Trump fan (he wouldn't know a conservative if it pulled the rug off the top of his head) but lets be honest, he is a tv personality just like all the talentless folks who get passed off as "news" people.

Jackson

12-07-11, 16:30

"trotted off into the sunset"

"laughable right-wing circus act"

"mockery of the Republican Party"

Amazing. The election in almost a year away, the Republicans haven't even selected their candidate, and yet the left wing "politics of personal destruction" has already begun.

Here's a radical idea for you Obama sycophants: How about we have a discussion about how to solve the issues facing our country instead of personally attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

Answer: Because the liberals can't win on the merits of their arguments, and they all know it.

Thanks,

Jackson

Canitasguy

12-11-11, 15:14

[i]"the left wing "politics of personal destruction" has already begun.

Obama sycophants. Personally attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

JacksonJacko. The Republican candidates weekly TV series. Debates of the Giants. Are mostly one candidate personally attacking another. Doing liberals work and saving voters time in concluding who has answers to the economic crisis your buddies visited on the globe.

Punter 127

12-19-11, 01:01

Sol Sanders | Follow the money No. 97 | A pipeline to. Well, almost. Eternity.

Camouflaged by Congressional political badminton and Pres. Barack Obama's demagoguery, the Keystone XL Pipeline Project represents solutions to economic and security issues far exceeding its general appreciation.

Half truths on all sides have obscured the project's underlying fundamentals. Some are only emerging as additional research and technology is applied – most of it, for a change, good news in that it boosts estimates of access to available North American new fossil fuels reserves even if at higher prices.

Contrary to claims of Congressional proponents, the project is not an immediate positive economic bonanza. Like all natural resource development projects, construction employment will be temporary and jobs minimal when the pipeline is actually functional. Of course, given the current environment, any new jobs of any duration not added to the public payroll. The project is funded privately at something over $7 billion. Is a godsend.

Its importance lies in its contribution to what should be a longer term USA energy strategy, a consideration often missing in heated partisan debate.

First of all, direct access to the Canadian tar sands affords fallback access for the almost bottomless USA energy maw – developing rapidly long- term whatever the short-term diminished demand of a temporarily crippled economy. Scandal after scandal is proving the Obama Administration's so-called green energy strategy corrupt as well as wasteful and ineffectual. Keystone, on the other hand, would put crude into the Texas petrochemical refinery complex already absorbing Venezuela's similar heavier oil – those reserves recently reestimated upward with spectacular finds on the Orinoco River.

That would give the USA not only an emergency alternative to the Venezuelan crude, fourth largest of our import sources, but leverage against the machinations of gringo-baiting Venezuelan Pres. Hugo Chavez. Given that country's long troubled history, necessary insurance is needed even in a post-Chavez Venezuela [soon perhaps with reports the fiery demagogue may soon fall victim to cancer largely untreated so he could continue exercising his one-man rule].

The expanded pipeline proposal also now would pick up on its way the more attractive sweet crude from the Bakken strike in North Dakota, already one of the largest in USA history and apparently linked by new successful prospecting and new shale recovery technologies to huge neighboring regional deposits. With Bakken already having added an estimated 10% to American reserves, these could turn into the largest petroleum find in USA history.

As the pipeline travels south, it also aims at untangling a crude gathering traffic jam in Oklahoma and expanding the tanker delivery scene on the Texas coast.

But radical environmentalists had chosen – with the help of the usual Hollywood suspects assuaging their guilt for their gratuitously huge earnings – to make Keystone a major test. That was despite three years research by experts for the State Dept. Had not turned up sufficient environmental issues to block the project. When local interests in Nebraska– ignoring the relatively clean record of the country's vast pipeline networks – argued spills might threaten a critical local aquifer, the Canadian company countered with a $100-million-dollar detour around it.

Washington rumors are Sec. Of State Hillary Clinton was not only not consulted but not forewarned when Pres. Obama, anticipating the 2011 election, threw a bouquet to enviromentalistas who had been increasingly jaundiced at his 2008 promises. But with even normally loyal trade unionists joining the outcry against the White House postponement to go ahead until after next year's election, it was inevitable the issue would become a cudgel for the Republicans.

Canadian threats to transfer their affections to the Chinese market might have some validity – although even Chavez is arranging swaps with Iran for his Chinese sales with Venezuelan crude supposedly sold to Beijing flowing into Texas. But level-headed Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper – an economist and native of Canada's provincial giant oilwell, Alberta– may have overestimated American common sense. [Recent hints suggest Ottawa feels it is dealing with an overburdened, troubled USA and has to demonstrate inordinate patience for both their sakes. One has to wonder what the two chief executives talk about in frequent and what appear to be pleasant meetings! ] But, in fact, Canada's role as No. 1 foreign energy supplier to the USA– something forgotten in much of the talk about 'American energy independence' – probably, rightfully, isn't going away in the near future. The Republicans may be seeing to that.For Obama to block or even delay the Keystone pipeline is just utter madness!

El Alamo

12-20-11, 13:19

Obama considers the private sector to be a nuisance. In Obama's perfect world, everyone would be community organizers. For Obama the private sector is only a source to extort money in order to reward birdbrain solar energy advocates, welfare recipients and various supporters who have no idea what a real job is.

Obama, when it comes to the economy, is more clueless than Jimmy Carter. Fortuneately for us Jimmy Carter was replaced by someone who understand the power of the private sector. We might not be so lucky this time.

Rev BS

12-23-11, 12:34

Well, as American troops come home, leaving Iraq to chaos and civil war, you would think that it is time to rethink foreign policy. But at the last Iowa Republican presidential debate, most candidates were ready to bomb Iran when ask what they will do if Iran started to blockade the Straits of Hormutz. Only Paul and Houseman seem to think that there could be other options. I guess we can't have the world's greatest fighting force just relaxing for a while. And then we are told that we will be committing sucide if there are any cuts in the defense budget. The War Machine is still alive and humming.

Member #4112

12-23-11, 18:49

After watching the folks in Washington, both Democrat (spend, spend, spend) and Republican (apparently leaderless) , for the last few years it makes you wonder if the ending of Tom Clancy's book 'Debt of Honor' would not be the best of all possible outcomes!

Punter 127

12-24-11, 03:52

Canitasguy

12-24-11, 14:38

So what do you and Canitasguy think should be our response to a 'blockade the Straits of Hormutz'?What with Christmas shopping, wrapping gifts, drinking punch and kissing my chicas under the mistletoe, I guess I missed the news on the blockade! Looking at the news I see the media missed it too! Punter. Maybe you better head over there and check your sources. And why aren't you more worried about a blockade of the Panama Canal by Danny and Hugo (a global security expert like you should easily figure out who they are?)

Quality Time

12-24-11, 17:30

So what do you and Canitasguy think should be our response to a 'blockade the Straits of Hormutz'?Bring all of the NATO warships to the strait and park them there. Talk to all nations about splitting up the assets of Iran. Bring in the towing ships to dig out the sunken wrecks. Be ready to invade

Rev BS

12-24-11, 20:39

So what do you and Canitasguy think should be our response to a 'blockade the Straits of Hormutz'?There are numerous stategies, but being macho is not one of them. Does China feel it need to bomb Iran.

So, is it because we are "leader of the free world" (Military / Industrial Complex) or is it because of our mega-consumption of energy (Big Buisness) that drives our foreign policy? We are told that the world's resources of oil is infinite. So we continue to ridicule alternative energy and ignore alternative lifestyles. Our problems are mostly self-inflicted, e. g. Congress.

"Excess" describes our lifestyle, yet, most would not even know what that means. Is that why Americans laugh at the guys who wear speedos? A couple of my friends came to visit me in Bangkok, they work very hard and makes over 6 figures yearly. They threw money around, plenty from where that came from. They are within 6/7 years of 65, yet, none of them are financially ready to retire and will continue to work past 65. That's America for you.

Anyway, I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone Happy Holidays (politically correct).

Punter 127

12-25-11, 07:02

There are numerous stategies, but being macho is not one of them. Does China feel it need to bomb Iran.Are you joking? How many days would China accept her economy being paralyzed before they would take action? Do you think Iran will stop oil going to China?

Would you mind sharing with us some of these 'numerous strategies' you speak of?

Would 'numerous strategies' be akin to the strategy used in Libya, or the one used to destroy our relationship with Pakistan or perhaps our current Iraq strategy? How about the strategy of thumbing our nose at our Canadian friends over the Keystone pipeline?

So, is it because we are "leader of the free world" (Military / Industrial Complex) or is it because of our mega-consumption of energy (Big Buisness) that drives our foreign policy? We are told that the world's resources of oil is infinite. So we continue to ridicule alternative energy and ignore alternative lifestyles. Our problems are mostly self-inflicted, e. g. Congress.Funny thing, seems like everything was the Presidents fault when Bush was in office, now it's Congress? Who's fault was it when the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House?

How much of a role did Congress play in Libya?

When alternative energies become economically feasible and safe the world will embrace them.

Should we build more nukes?

What 'alternative lifestyles' are you talking about, do you want us to go back to riding horses, or living in the woods and eating nuts and berries?

"Excess" describes our lifestyle, yet, most would not even know what that means. Is that why Americans laugh at the guys who wear speedos? A couple of my friends came to visit me in Bangkok, they work very hard and makes over 6 figures yearly. They threw money around, plenty from where that came from. They are within 6/7 years of 65, yet, none of them are financially ready to retire and will continue to work past 65. That's America for you.I don't really see what wearing Speedos has to do with the Straits Hormuz, but I'm guilty of laughing when I see fat old men in Speedos, but I also laugh when I see ladyboys strutting down Beach road in Pattaya. (can you connect the dots?)

However I do not laugh at the fat old Russian ladies on Pattaya beach in bikinis, they make me puke.

In one paragraph you have judged people that think guys in Speedos are funny, you have judged your friends for the way they spend the money they earned, and their lifestyle, and you have stereotyped your friends and the American people. WOW That's some paragraph.

FYI my first job was at the age of 12 and I retired at the age of 57, I live in a condo in Cebu Philippines and I maintain an apartment in Pattaya Thailand. I would be living in BA but it just became to expensive. Twice a year I visit the USA with side trips to South America and/or Europe, and plan to visit more Asian countries in the future.

How do I fit your American stereotype?

Now let me see if I can clarify my original question to you. What do you think America the 'World' should do if the Straits Hormuz are blocked tomorrow? I'm primarily interested in what you think we should do if it happens tomorrow, not what we should have done in the past or what our long term strategies should be.

I suspect you will continue to avoid the question.

You do understand that we're talking about World economies being paralyzed, right?

Iran's threat in the Straits Hormuz is a prime example of why we need the Keystone pipeline, and why we need to utilize our own resources. Then and only then should we look at fantasy world make you feel good alternatives.

Anyway, I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone Happy Holidays (politically correct).Thanks, I'll take this opportunity as well to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, and a happy New Year. I hope I haven't offended anyone but for me Christmas will always be Christmas, and I refuse to kowtow to political correctness.

Rev BS

12-25-11, 16:01

If the Straits of Hormutz was blockaded by President Ahmadinejad tomorrow, I would invite him to meet me in Yalta in order to apologize for our past misdeeds, in particular, our overthrowing the ruling government in 1953 and installing the Shah as our puppet. I would personally kill him using a special CIA-designed tie. Right in front of a shocked Putin, to whom I say,"behave, or you could be next'.

The I will go to the American public to announce that we are now on a war footing and that there will now be a military draft, that petrol will be rationed, kids will go to school 6 days a week, and food consumption will be based on colories required by job classification. I am sure Americans are willing to walk rather than drive to the 7-11 and eat a regular hamburger rather the quarter-pounder or double / double. We will have a leaner and meaner American tomorrow instead of the bloated and bankrupt America today.

I will be reelected in 2012.

Rev BS

12-25-11, 21:53

The more pertinent question is what would lead Iran to block the Straits of Hormutz. It would do so only in retaiiation for sanctions it deem to punish and isolate Iran. History is repeating itself here. Sanctions did not seem to work against Iraq, Cuba, Myanmar except to make it's people suffer. And going back futher, Japan and Pearl Harbor. Sanctions denying oil to Japan because of their expansionist policies by the same western colonial club who had already divy up the world between themselves. Basically saying,"you can't join the club because you are too late".

Israel & Palestine, that is the thorn in our relationship with the Middle East. But oil, black gold remains the love of our lives. We will surely kill for it.

Our perspective and loyalty really depends on which side of the fence we are on, and how it will affect our lives and pocketbooks. Yes, we are human after all.

WorldTravel69

12-29-11, 02:56

Toymann

12-29-11, 05:24

The movie "Air America" was on the TV the other day." Watch it or Get it "On Demand" or Buy It.

In case you Young Republican Americans don't remember or have ever been in the Vietnam War or seen it, you should watch the Movie!"in Search Of Oil!

It was one of the first real news articles about the Republican Party's Fuck Ups in Vietman.

The Third Republican Fuck Up War is now Over. Good thing a Republican is not in office, or he War would be Still Going On, In Some Form or another.

Peace be With Us! And You!

Now if we can end the Second Re-pubic-can War in Afghanistan that would Sweet.

How many friends did you lose in those wars?

I did!

Or was it how many of your Profits that you lost or you made?

From a Poem or Music or the 60s; How does it Go "Cold Hearted Bastards"?For a guy that has constantly pleaded with the admin to close this thread (along with your hopeless wingman TL) WHY DO YOU POST HERE? Sorry, WT69 but your usefulness on this board is coming to an end old fella. Your privado posts are long out of date and really seem little help to the "privado crowd". Why not come back to Argentina and start updating your privado posts. Your posts on this thread just make it all too clear that you may be loosing it! Better to burn out than to fade away dude. Say Hi to Nancy for me at breakfast manana. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

WorldTravel69

12-29-11, 07:17

Maybe you are too young to remember Our History?"

Is Greeead that Greaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

For a guy that has constantly pleaded with the admin to close this thread (along with your hopeless wingman TL) WHY DO YOU POST HERE? Sorry, WT69 but your usefulness on this board is coming to an end old fella. Your privado posts are long out of date and really seem little help to the "privado crowd". Why not come back to Argentina and start updating your privado posts. Your posts on this thread just make it all too clear that you may be loosing it! Better to burn out than to fade away dude. Say Hi to Nancy for me at breakfast manana. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

WorldTravel69

12-29-11, 16:11

My next trip is in C. A.

Working for your pleasures.

For a guy that has constantly pleaded with the admin to close this thread (along with your hopeless wingman TL) WHY DO YOU POST HERE? Sorry, WT69 but your usefulness on this board is coming to an end old fella. Your privado posts are long out of date and really seem little help to the "privado crowd". Why not come back to Argentina and start updating your privado posts. Your posts on this thread just make it all too clear that you may be loosing it! Better to burn out than to fade away dude. Say Hi to Nancy for me at breakfast manana. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Ken Brown

12-29-11, 17:17

WT,

Is this so? If true, that is good news. Have some real estate in San Juan Del Sur (investment). Would be nice to combine that with a bit of pleasure. The chica rates are not available in many within this list. Any updates due?

In either case, thanks for your efforts.

Best,

Ken

WorldTravel69

12-29-11, 17:25

Join us, if you want to on the 15th of January.

We, my buddies Bayboy and DerChef will be there for 10 days.

We are going to meet a few other mongers there.

So far our plans are 4 days in Managua, three or so in Granada and a few in San Juan del Sur.

WT,

Is this so? If true, that is good news. Have some real estate in San Juan Del Sur (investment). Would be nice to combine that with a bit of pleasure. The chica rates are not available in many within this list. Any updates due?

In either case, thanks for your efforts.

Best,

Ken

WorldTravel69

12-29-11, 17:28

I was thinking about working on the List in April, but since my finances do not qualify me as being in the Middle Class, I need you to pay Jackson my dues and two weeks rent at the Mansion.

Thanks Brother Toymann.

For a guy that has constantly pleaded with the admin to close this thread (along with your hopeless wingman TL) WHY DO YOU POST HERE? Sorry, WT69 but your usefulness on this board is coming to an end old fella. Your privado posts are long out of date and really seem little help to the "privado crowd". Why not come back to Argentina and start updating your privado posts. Your posts on this thread just make it all too clear that you may be loosing it! Better to burn out than to fade away dude. Say Hi to Nancy for me at breakfast manana. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Punter 127

01-03-12, 01:46

Kinda looks like the rats are deserting the ship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7mwP5Di5NE&feature=player_embedded

Toymann

01-04-12, 05:14

Be afraid Esten, BE VERY AFRAID! Tick Tick Tick. Go Mitt Romney in 2012! It's a done deal. Just remember who told ya first buddy. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. It doesn't matter who the VP nomination will be. VP's just pick the music for the dance on Saturday night. LOL!This quote is from 2/17/2010 (long ago in this thread). So it begins. Just remember who went on the record long ago. I am quite looking forward to seeing Mitt kick Obomanation around like a sad little teleprompter fraud later this year. Still waiting for Esten to crawl out from under his rock. A moderate business orientated republican in the White house combined with a republican senate and house is certainly our only hope for a US comback in the coming years. Never underestimate the US people dudes. Never forget who called this long ago. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Toymann

01-04-12, 16:11

Mitt Romney's landslide victory in Iowa was by a mear 8 votes.

But the fact is after spending in the neighborhood of 5 million dollars in Iowa this time, he actually recieved 6 fewer votes than he did 4 years ago, in my humble opinion he lost big time.

Now the CockSucker will probably win New Hampshire, it will be closer than people think. But after that things are going to get whole lot harder since the MotherFucker's got South Carolina & Florida in front of him and by then the competition is going to start "picking on Him", Newt has already promised to shoot his "Wad" at Romney which is going to weaken him "Mucho"

But I hope the MotherFucker get's the nomination. The reason? , Romney would be the "Easiest to Beat" in the general election next fall.

Now to win the Presidency the CockSucker's got to win the South, and those "Bible Belt","Bible Thumping" Southern Baptist right wing religious MotherFuckers are "Not" going to elect a member of a "Religious Cult". Their Christian's and won't deal with the "Devil".

Toymann, you might be able to "out Fish me" and "out Fuck me" but I know mt Politic's

By the way, Rio Man" stopped by my house for a couple nights 3 weeks ago, we had a Blast.

Hope to see you in March.

ExonBrother Ex. Hope we can connect in March for sure. As far as your polical savy and post goes I will repost it for all to see at the correct moment. That will be sometime in Nov 2012. LOL. Monger On Buddy. Toymann

Jackson

01-04-12, 20:11

Mitt Romney's landslide victory in Iowa was by a mear 8 votes.

But the fact is after spending in the neighborhood of 5 million dollars in Iowa this time, he actually recieved 6 fewer votes than he did 4 years ago, in my humble opinion he lost big time.

Now the CockSucker will probably win New Hampshire, it will be closer than people think. But after that things are going to get whole lot harder since the MotherFucker's got South Carolina & Florida in front of him and by then the competition is going to start "picking on Him", Newt has already promised to shoot his "Wad" at Romney which is going to weaken him "Mucho"

But I hope the MotherFucker get's the nomination. The reason? , Romney would be the "Easiest to Beat" in the general election next fall.

Now to win the Presidency the CockSucker's got to win the South, and those "Bible Belt","Bible Thumping" Southern Baptist right wing religious MotherFuckers are "Not" going to elect a member of a "Religious Cult". Their Christian's and won't deal with the "Devil".

Toymann, you might be able to "out Fish me" and "out Fuck me" but I know mt Politic's

By the way, Rio Man" stopped by my house for a couple nights 3 weeks ago, we had a Blast.

Hope to see you in March.

ExonExon,

I know that you hate Romney simply because he's Mormon, but other that spewing hate speech, can you make any sort of positive case as to why the American people should re-elect Obama?

Let me say this another way: Excluding the fact that he was the occupant of the White House at the moment that the Navy SEALS killed OSB, can you cite any examples of anything that Obama has done that you believe constitutes a good job?

Please provide specifics to backup your claims, including links to credible sources.

Thanks,

Jackson

Moveon

01-05-12, 05:00

Exon,

Can you make any sort of positive case as to why the American people should re-elect Obama?

JacksonHere's just a few:

The President was able to avoid another GREAT DEPRESSION.

Obama care: Health Insurance fairness in the future - for the middle class, needy and poor.

Saved our auto industry from those Republicans who wanted GM and Chrysler to tank.

Helped with Dodd-Frank: Financial Regulations for the banking system, thank goodness.

I could go on if you would like me to.

-hehehe

Punter 127

01-05-12, 05:18

I will agree with the hand-job connoisseur that Romney is not a shoo-in for the Republican nomination. But to say he can't win because he's a Mormon is reminiscent of JFK being unable to win because he was Catholic or Obama being unable to win because he's black. I grew up along the Mason Dixon line on the edge of the Bible Belt and I've spent a lot of time in the south and I assure you the people there are very aware of the outright attack on Christianity by the left wing, hell we've seen it right here on this forum. At one time Mormons may have been viewed as devils in the bible belt as Exon suggest but things have changed and those folks are left with devil left or devil right, they've already seen what devil left Obama is like, I suspect they will go with devil to the right Romney if those are the choices.

I suggest the reason Romney is not popular with Republicans is because he's to liberal, but if he gets the nomination he could do well with independents and Republicans will fall in line to oust Obama.

Toyman says 2012 is win win win for the Republicans no doubt it's their election to lose, and it appears to me they're doing everything they can to do just that. Over confidence and weak candidates will kill you, and there are a lot of things that can derail the Republican train between now and November.

The biggest threat I see to the Republicans is the possibility of a third party candidate like Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann or even Donald Trump (who I think would sell his mothers soul for a buck) , any of these people could pull enough votes to hand the election to Obama. I'm sure team Obama is doing all they can to encourage this.

Several other things could effect the election such as picking Hillary Clinton as VP, which would be a very smart move for Obama, I think it might happen because his base needs a boost.

There is a strong possibility of another war before the election, for sure the war drums are beating and the sabers are rattling, depending on how things go it could be a plus are a minus for Obama. He would be wise to avoid war but he very well may not. On the other hand Israel may make some moves to try an turn American Jews against Obama.

Look for the October surprise, I'm not sure what it will be (possibly a war) but you can bet they will come up with something if things look bad for Obama.

Also look for skewed economic reports that resemble an Al Capone tax return making it look like things are getting better, more QE may also be used for this purpose, the numbers can always be adjusted later. The European situation could very well make it impossible for Obama to manipulate the numbers here at home, so they will do everything they can to keep the EU afloat.

Team Obama is the placental expulsion of the old Chicago Daley machine that has taken on a life of it's own. With these guys the end justifies the means, things like honesty, ethics or morality and doing what's best for the country are not in their play book.

The Obama machine has given us an Attorney General that refused to protect the rights of white voters in Philadelphia and has allowed guns to flow to drug cartels in Mexico in order to further a political agenda, not to speak of engaging in unauthorized military action in Libya, these guys don't mind blood on their hands it's just part of doing business for them. I do however look for Obama to push Eric Holder out, but only because he can't afford the baggage as 'Fast and Furious' heats up.

Don't underestimate this bunch of Chicago thugs, this will be the dirties campaign staged by the worst President in the history of the USA. They will not go quietly, but go they must.

Rant over.

Punter 127

01-05-12, 15:16

What most of these "Right Wing Red Neck Republican CockSucker's", (this includes my dear friend Punter)

ExonNot exactly a complement but better than a stick in the eye I guess, I would have felt neglected if you hadn't called me a cocksucker. But lets set the record straight I'm not a Republican, it's true I left the Democrat party circa 1980 but I never joined the Republican party, I'm a registered Independent. Furthermore I don't even vote in primary elections because I refuse to declare affiliation with a political party. I understand that you live in the desert and it's hot but you should turn on the AC and let your brain cool down a bit and then maybe you will be able to see the error of your political ways, this is not your fathers Democrat party we are talking about.

I am please that you are still able to separate friendship from politics, not many people today can do that.

BTW your old buddy Flexible Horn and I will be teaming up next week in Cebu for a little mongering adventure.

Happy New Year Buddy.

Texas Tornado

01-07-12, 01:29

Here's just a few:

The President was able to avoid another GREAT DEPRESSION.

Obama care: Health Insurance fairness in the future. For the middle class, needy and poor.

Saved our auto industry from those Republicans who wanted GM and Chrysler to tank.

Helped with Dodd-Frank: Financial Regulations for the banking system, thank goodness.

I could go on if you would like me to.

-heheheJust goes to show that one man's Nirvana is lunacy to others.

Jackson

01-07-12, 16:28

Here's just a few:

The President was able to avoid another GREAT DEPRESSION.

Obama care: Health Insurance fairness in the future. For the middle class, needy and poor.

Saved our auto industry from those Republicans who wanted GM and Chrysler to tank.

Helped with Dodd-Frank: Financial Regulations for the banking system, thank goodness.

I could go on if you would like me to.

-heheheThis is what happens when you drink the MSNBC kool-aid.

Canitasguy

01-08-12, 15:47

This is what happens when you drink the MSNBC kool-aid.Jackson thinks this thread is his own little Fox News.

Like Beck he invents fictions to deny facts he finds disconcerting or demonizes those who disagree with him and show him out of his depth.

Then our hefty Jefe mimics Roger Ailes approach at Fox, which is based on Lenin's approach at Pravda. He bans anyone who makes him look the uninformed fool he is!

This comment is with all due respect. Emphasis "due"!

El Alamo

01-12-12, 19:10

Historians already are starting the debate = who was worse = Carter or Obama.

To me it is a dead heat. Obama was able to send helicoptors to take care of Bin Laden without aborting the mission due to mechanical mishaps. Carters helicoptors to free the hostages in Iran aborted due to mechanical failure.

On the other hand, carter actually had some experience running a peanut farm while Obama hasn't even run a popcicle stand.

It is a bout between the the bad news bears and the three stooges

Rev BS

01-24-12, 21:00

America, we know is the best country in the world and the land of opportunity. For quite a few of us, we have benefited and enjoyed the "golden era". It was a time when you could work for one employer your whole life, and you could be middle class and raise a family with only a high school degree. There were only a few isolated economic downturns in the last 50 years.

That "golden" era is now gone, it is not quite the same America even if it is still the richest and most powerful. At the gate to the bridge that will take us to a prosperous life, it is more crowded. And the bridge is also more narrow, with competition from within and outside the country increasing every day. That free box of golden Washington apples or California grapes I used to get is history, it fetches top dollars from Japan and elsewhere.

Everything goes in cycles, and the economy is no exception. I think we are seeing a natural bounceback. 2008 being 3+ years back. So next year, whoever wins the election will claim it is their ideology and it will be their policies that will be responsible. Wish it was that simple.

Year of the Dragon in Asia. Major upheavals in the air? In the end, wealth does not end unhappiness and conflicts, the personal conflicts among friends nor the class warfare being tossed around in the debates. What is needed is more honesty, kindness and sincerity. Ah, but that would be utopia, no?

Jackson

11-17-12, 18:01

Greeting everyone,

I generally refrain from republishing commentary I've observed elsewhere, but this op-ed piece perfectly captures my thoughts on the future of our once-great country.

Thanks,

Jackson

The Decline and Fall of the American Empire

The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted. As I write, with almost all the votes counted, President Obama has won fewer votes than John McCain won in 2008, and more than ten million off his own 2008 total.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate. The notion of the 'Reagan Democrat' is one cliché that should be permanently retired.

Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today's America.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the 'loss leader' or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47, 000, 000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too those who anticipate 'free' health care, who expect the government to pay their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

Imagine two restaurants side by side. One sells its customers fine cuisine at a reasonable price, and the other offers a free buffet, all-you-can-eat as long as supplies last. Few – including me – could resist the attraction of the free food. Now imagine that the second restaurant stays in business because the first restaurant is forced to provide it with the food for the free buffet, and we have the current economy, until, at least, the first restaurant decides to go out of business. (Then, the government takes over the provision of free food to its patrons.)

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation (by the amoral Obama team) of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which '47% of the people' start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – 'free stuff' – from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is dumb – ignorant, and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. Obama could get away with saying that 'Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules' – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the 'rich should pay their fair share' – without ever defining what a 'fair share' is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to 'fend for themselves' – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. Obama could get away with it because he knew he was talking to dunces waving signs and squealing at any sight of him.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: 'Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person! ' Stevenson called back: 'That's not enough, madam, we need a majority! ' Truer words were never spoken.

Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico (even if they came from Cuba or Honduras) , and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc, even though the money is gone. He could do and say all these things because he knew his voters were dolts.

One might reasonably object that not every Obama supporter could be unintelligent. But they must then rationally explain how the Obama agenda can be paid for, aside from racking up multi-trillion dollar deficits. 'Taxing the rich' does not yield even 10% of what is required – so what is the answer, I. E, an intelligent answer?

Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his 'negative ads' were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil's bargain of making unsustainable promises, and by talking as the adult and not the adolescent. Obama has spent the last six years campaigning; even his governance has been focused on payoffs to his favored interest groups. The permanent campaign also won again, to the detriment of American life.

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. Conservative ideas failed to take root and states that seemed winnable, and amenable to traditional American values, have simply disappeared from the map. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.

A second cliché that should be retired is that America is a center-right country. It clearly is not. It is a divided country with peculiar voting patterns, and an appetite for free stuff. Studies will invariably show that Republicans in Congress received more total votes than Democrats in Congress, but that means little. The House of Representatives is not truly representative of the country. That people would vote for a Republican Congressmen or Senator and then Obama for President would tend to reinforce point two above: the empty-headedness of the electorate. Americans revile Congress but love their individual Congressmen. Go figure.

The mass media's complicity in Obama's re-election cannot be denied. One example suffices. In 2004, CBS News forged a letter in order to imply that President Bush did not fulfill his Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War, all to impugn Bush and impair his re-election prospects. In 2012, President Obama insisted – famously – during the second debate that he had stated all along that the Arab attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was 'terror' (a lie that Romney fumbled and failed to exploit). Yet, CBS News sat on a tape of an interview with Obama in which Obama specifically avoided and rejected the claim of terrorism – on the day after the attack – clinging to the canard about the video. (This snippet of a '60 Minutes' interview was not revealed . Until two days ago!) In effect, CBS News fabricated evidence in order to harm a Republican president, and suppressed evidence in order to help a Democratic president. Simply shameful, as was the media's disregard of any scandal or story that could have jeopardized the Obama re-election.

One of the more irritating aspects of this campaign was its limited focus, odd in light of the billions of dollars spent. Only a few states were contested, a strategy that Romney adopted, and that clearly failed. The Democrat begins any race with a substantial advantage. The liberal states – like the bankrupt California and Illinois – and other states with large concentrations of minority voters as well as an extensive welfare apparatus, like New York, New Jersey and others – give any Democratic candidate an almost insurmountable edge in electoral votes. In New Jersey, for example, it literally does not pay for a conservative to vote. It is not worth the fuel expended driving to the polls. As some economists have pointed generally, and it resonates here even more, the odds are greater that a voter will be killed in a traffic accident on his way to the polls than that his vote will make a difference in the election. It is an irrational act. That most states are uncompetitive means that people are not amenable to new ideas, or new thinking, or even having an open mind. If that does not change, and it is hard to see how it can change, then the die is cast. America is not what it was, and will never be again.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama's future at America's expense and at Israel's expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. That Obama's top aide Valerie Jarrett (I. E, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in Teheran is not a good sign. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality. As Obama has committed himself to abolishing America's nuclear arsenal, it is more likely that that unfortunate circumstance will occur than that he will succeed in obstructing Iran's plans.

Obama's victory could weaken Netanyahu's re-election prospects, because Israelis live with an unreasonable – and somewhat pathetic – fear of American opinion and realize that Obama despises Netanyahu. A Likud defeat – or a diminution of its margin of victory – is more probable now than yesterday. That would not be the worst thing. Netanyahu, in fact, has never distinguished himself by having a strong political or moral backbone, and would be the first to cave to the American pressure to surrender more territory to the enemy and acquiesce to a second (or third, if you count Jordan) Palestinian state. A new US Secretary of State named John Kerry, for example (he of the Jewish father) would not augur well. Netanyahu remains the best of markedly poor alternatives. Thus, the likeliest outcome of the upcoming Israeli elections is a center-left government that will force itself to make more concessions and weaken Israel – an Oslo III.

But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The most powerful empires in history all crumbled – from the Greeks and the Romans to the British and the Soviets. None of the collapses were easily foreseen, and yet they were predictable in retrospect.

The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. Across the world, America under Bush was feared but not respected. Under Obama, America is neither feared nor respected. Radical Islam has had a banner four years under Obama, and its prospects for future growth look excellent. The 'Occupy' riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.

Esten

11-18-12, 15:58

Glad to see you brought this thread back, Jackson. I was going to do so myself, but when I saw you closed the 2012 Election thread I thought you might be tired of the political discussions. So I thought I'd give it a rest for awhile. But since you yourself resurrected this thread, I see we are good to go.

The author of this article is dead wrong in saying that a majority of Americans do not believe in liberty, hard work, free enterprise and private initiative. Not only is it wrong, but also rather insulting. The article is reminiscent of Romney's 47% comment, where half the country is written off as a segment that just wants free stuff. Romney made a similar statement after the election, that is now being denounced by other Republicans.

Democrats also value these things, we just believe in a system that is more effective is giving people opportunities to get ahead. But you still don't get ahead if you don't put in the work.

What a joke this author thinks the decline started in 2007. Food stamps and other safety net programs have existed for a long time. The real decline began with Reagan, ever since then we've seen the rise of Wall Street and Corporatism, tremendous growth in wealth at the top, and small gains for everyone else. Shifting the pie to the top squeezes everyone else, creating even greater need for the safety net.

What % of the population doesn't want a shot to work hard and get ahead, who just want to sit on their ass and collect free stuff? I've asked this question before but never got an answer. That's because you don't know, or it's probably a small number that contradicts this false belief that the country is full of freeloaders.

Maybe people voted for Obama, not because of free stuff, but because they believe the Democratic blueprint for a strong economy and a strong middle class is simply better?

Personally, I would flush this 'free stuff' view of the world down the toilet along with the birther crap.

Jackson

11-18-12, 16:58

Jackson

11-18-12, 17:43

What % of the population doesn't want a shot to work hard and get ahead, who just want to sit on their ass and collect free stuff? I've asked this question before but never got an answer. That's because you don't know, or it's probably a small number that contradicts this false belief that the country is full of freeloaders.Here's your answer: 20%

Now, how about you answering a question which I have posed on several past ocassions without response: What percentage of the total US income tax burden should be paid by the top 10% of income earners?

Thanks,

Jackson

Dickhead

11-18-12, 18:31

WorldTravel69

11-19-12, 14:04

100%

Everything they get is paid by the laborers.

Here's your answer: 20%

Now, how about you answering a question which I have posed on several past ocassions without response: What percentage of the total US income tax burden should be paid by the top 10% of income earners?

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

11-19-12, 14:10

100%

Everything they get is paid by the laborers.As usual, the liberals avoid answering the question.

Member #3320

11-19-12, 14:59

"Obama is a preparation freak" said one member of his cabinet, who spoke on the condition of anonymity."He makes his own luck." (Newsweek, Nov 8th 2012)

Silver Star

11-19-12, 21:04

I think the top 10% should pay about 20%. How about starting with the bottom 10% paying 0% and then the middle 10% pays 10%, and so forth? Then see what kind of tax rates would accomplish that, and see what those look like.How about making big government small enough so that no income tax is required at all? Most of what Washington spends money on, it should not be doing in the 1st place. (Welfare and Warfare State)

Dickhead

11-19-12, 22:29

How about making big government small enough so that no income tax is required at all? Most of what Washington spends money on, it should not be doing in the 1st place. (Welfare and Warfare State)Well, there has been no empire in history that did not tax its citizens. In the early days a lot of times it was tariffs and duties, which are bad. Sales taxes are better than trade barriers. And then income taxes are better than sales taxes, because sales taxes are inherently regressive while income taxes need not be. So that is the ideal in theory.

Then in practice bullshit gets added to achieve social goals, such as the mortgage interest and charitable deductions. This is not an indictment of a progressive income tax versus a flat tax; it is an indictment of legislators' propensity to propose bullshit, some of which gets achieved. This is why I want to reduce the physical size of Congress to say 200 or 250 from its current size. Fewer legislators, fewer laws.

You extreme fiscal conservatives don't get that what you propose is 1929 all over again. Yes, reduce military spending. Yes, reduce transfer payments. Yes, increase tax revenue. Yes, pass a law now that addresses all of those things for several years to come (but not forever because things change; I would propose a seven to ten year plan). No, you can't immediately reduce government by 50% and taxes by 50% and this and that by 50%. 5-10% annual changes in these types of things are needed. The more concrete and mid- to longish- term the proposals can be, the more believable they are. This is what will soothe markets, increase consumer confidence, and lead to a good blend of mild inflation and reasonably full employment. And those are the conditions that stimulate investment and income.

So if we reduce the deficit by 10% every year for 10 years, does it go away?

Rev BS

11-19-12, 22:30

I could be wrong, but most failures and declines of any sort are often self inflicted. And sometimes, they are evolutionary in nature, so that no matter how you tried to escape or avoid, you are just caught in the tidal wave of development and progress. And thus, history is made.

For example, I thought about the issue of immigration and its impact on recent elections. Illegal immigration was allow to fester and prosper for decades under the guiding hand of the business lobby. Cheap labor was what they wanted, and that's what they got. And so the children of illegal immigrants then multiplied and became a legal deciding force in the 2012 elections. Bush & McClain were friends of immigration reform but his own party stifled and beat down their attempts to get any immigration legislature enacted. So the die was somewhat set for the 2012 presidential election.

Monday quarterbacking is so much fun. My question is whether people like Russ Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Shawn Hannity, do you shoot them or deport them. Maybe, they will immigrate to Siberia.

Dickhead

11-19-12, 22:49

I wonder how supply siders deal with immigration. A weakness of supply side economics, as opposed to demand side economics, is you have to forecast demand farther in advance if supply side techniques are to work, because you have to provide the infrastructure, inventory buildup, etc. In advance. It is not as nimble of a strategy and requires more capital sooner, which flies in the face of the time value of money. I really think that this is an inherent weakness, in that it inevitably adds an additional forecasting variable and thus additional imprecision. So the supply siders are saying, how many méxicans are we going to need, but the demand siders are one step ahead by calculating what to do with the méxicans who are already here instead of building fences and shit.

Righties, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. Have economic strategies that are reactive instead of proactive. There are some advantages to this, such as not going off half-cocked and etc, but I really think the tendency to look backwards accounts for the slight yet definite outperformance of lefties, Democrats, etc, over the last hundred years or so. Democrats have some silly programs that Republicans need to audit, and numerous government agencies can be (slowly but definitely) eliminated. But Republicans need better economists because the numbers just continue to refute their positions.

Silver Star

11-19-12, 23:52

Well, there has been no empire in history that did not tax its citizens. In the early days a lot of times it was tariffs and duties, which are bad. Sales taxes are better than trade barriers. And then income taxes are better than sales taxes, because sales taxes are inherently regressive while income taxes need not be. So that is the ideal in theory.

Then in practice bullshit gets added to achieve social goals, such as the mortgage interest and charitable deductions. This is not an indictment of a progressive income tax versus a flat tax; it is an indictment of legislators' propensity to propose bullshit, some of which gets achieved. This is why I want to reduce the physical size of Congress to say 200 or 250 from its current size. Fewer legislators, fewer laws.

You extreme fiscal conservatives don't get that what you propose is 1929 all over again. Yes, reduce military spending. Yes, reduce transfer payments. Yes, increase tax revenue. Yes, pass a law now that addresses all of those things for several years to come (but not forever because things change; I would propose a seven to ten year plan). No, you can't immediately reduce government by 50% and taxes by 50% and this and that by 50. 5-10% annual changes in these types of things are needed. The more concrete and mid- to longish- term the proposals can be, the more believable they are. This is what will soothe markets, increase consumer confidence, and lead to a good blend of mild inflation and reasonably full employment. And those Are the conditions that stimulate investment and income.

So if we reduce the deficit by 10% every year for 10 years, does it go away?US shouldn't need an income tax because it is a Constitutional Republic, not an Empire, and did fine without an income tax which was originally banned in the Constitution. Texas, Florida and many other states are doing just fine without an intrusive income tax. Interesting is both of these states have been growing in population so I guess we are voting with our feet.

WorldTravel69

11-20-12, 02:37

Silver Star

11-20-12, 03:35

Where are they Now?

Everyday the Smart Republicans are coming forward and saying how bad a choice he was.

Saying that he did not understand what the People wanted, what he wanted was only for the Rich.

Are You The One of the New Republican Enlightened Ones?

Or Are You Still Stuck in the Bubble?

From I have Read lately, I think most of you are still Stuck in the Bubble, as is Jackson.WT Congratulations on your win, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular vote totals for President.

I'm Libertarian and I'm stuck with Obama's economic BUBBLE that is going to pop faster than we think, did you see Treasury Sec Geithner wants to get rid of the debt ceiling completely so they can borrow forever? I'd like to make an even money bet with you during that during the current administration (thru the end of term in 2017) that S&P will lower the USA's credit rating (again) , if so I win. If S&P increases the rating back to AAA, I lose. If the rating stays the same as now at AA+ it is a tie. I won't include Fitch or Moody's since they haven't downgraded yet, that would be like taking candy from a baby, it's just a question of when not if on those 2. WT69, do you think the USA's credit rating will get better in the coming years, or maybe you just don't think deficits matter anyway. We sure got a lotta red ink in the last 4 years. Would like your thoughts on deficit spending and balancing the budget. I have a feeling your solution (if any) is tax the rich and not cut any spending)

Dickhead

11-20-12, 10:42

US shouldn't need an income tax because it is a Constitutional Republic, not an Empire, and did fine without an income tax which was originally banned in the Constitution. Texas, Florida and many other states are doing just fine without an intrusive income tax. Interesting is both of these states have been growing in population so I guess we are voting with our feet.The economy did not 'do just fine' before the income tax. It was a series of huge booms and bust, partly because the main source of revenue was import duties or tariffs, which were shown to be inefficient early in the nineteenth century by Ricardo. In the early twentieth century Heckscher and Ohlin proved the inefficiency under an even wider set of circumstances. Then, the lessen was clearly learned in the Great Depression, which was made longer and worse by the use of tariffs or import duties. So THAT is why income tax systems came to dominate. If you want to go back to mercantilism and customs houses, you are living in the right place!

Esten

11-20-12, 13:57

Now, how about you answering a question which I have posed on several past ocassions without response: What percentage of the total US income tax burden should be paid by the top 10% of income earners?

Thanks,

JacksonI gave you an answer TWICE to that question, Jackson. In fact the first time, you thanked me for finally giving an answer to your question. Why you keep posting this question again, and claiming nobody ever gave you an answer, is very puzzling.

WorldTravel69

11-20-12, 14:21

Here is some that like Free Things.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-15/farm-counties-topping-subsidy-list-backed-romney-bgov-barometer.html

Jackson

11-20-12, 14:42

WorldTravel69

11-20-12, 14:43

Ryan wants Austerity and that ain't working in Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/krugman-the-austerity-agenda.html

Yes, this article is a few months old, but it carries the same message.

If I knew how to balance the budget I might been a politician or a banker.

Isn't it great that the Market is doing better now than when Obama first started? I think it was around 7500s.

WT Congratulations on your win, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular vote totals for President.

I'm Libertarian and I'm stuck with Obama's economic BUBBLE that is going to pop faster than we think, did you see Treasury Sec Geithner wants to get rid of the debt ceiling completely so they can borrow forever? I'd like to make an even money bet with you during that during the current administration (thru the end of term in 2017) that S&P will lower the USA's credit rating (again) , if so I win. If S&P increases the rating back to AAA, I lose. If the rating stays the same as now at AA+ it is a tie. I won't include Fitch or Moody's since they haven't downgraded yet, that would be like taking candy from a baby, it's just a question of when not if on those 2. WT69, do you think the USA's credit rating will get better in the coming years, or maybe you just don't think deficits matter anyway. We sure got a lotta red ink in the last 4 years. Would like your thoughts on deficit spending and balancing the budget. I have a feeling your solution (if any) is tax the rich and not cut any spending)

Silver Star

11-20-12, 15:16

Jackson

11-20-12, 15:34

Member #2041

11-20-12, 15:36

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits [from the] the public treasury With the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."

Alexander Fraser Tytler.

Cycle Of Democracy (1770) So in summary, what the quote that Jackson posted is saying is that our Founding Fathers didn't know what the fuck they were doing. Pardon me if I beg to disagree. We've had 230 or so years of an existence proof to the contrary as we have become the most successful, prosperous nation on the planet. Our nation has always had a system of checks and balances to correct any movement that went too far in the area of too much freedom and not enough mandated responsibility, to too much government control at the expense of freedom. The fact is, we are in the process of correcting back the excesses of the Reagan-Bush 1 years, and if Obama and or his successor over-steps the mandate to restore some government regulation to the party, eventually we will correct back (and probably over-correct again).

Dickhead

11-20-12, 18:10

"All government is essentially of the nature of a monarchy."

Andrew Fraser Tytler.

So now we know what kind of government Jackson really wants!

Jackson

11-20-12, 20:38

So in summary, what the quote that Jackson posted is saying is that our Founding Fathers didn't know what the fuck they were doing. Pardon me if I beg to disagree. We've had 230 or so years of an existence proof to the contrary as we have become the most successful, prosperous nation on the planet. Our nation has always had a system of checks and balances to correct any movement that went too far in the area of too much freedom and not enough mandated responsibility, to too much government control at the expense of freedom. The fact is, we are in the process of correcting back the excesses of the Reagan-Bush 1 years, and if Obama and or his successor over-steps the mandate to restore some government regulation to the party, eventually we will correct back (and probably over-correct again).Yada, yada, yada.

All you're doing now is trying to convince yourself that liberal policies will solve the world's problems.

The die is cast.

All we're going to be doing now is waiting and watching as the liberals drive the country over the cliff.

Of course, liberals don't care if they drive the country over the cliff, so long as they're driving.

Anyway, the only question for me now is what do I need to do to avoid getting hurt in the inevitable (and entirely predicitable) crash.

Thanks,

Jackson

Silver Star

11-21-12, 01:23

Member #2041

11-21-12, 05:16

Yada, yada, yada.

All you're doing now is trying to convince yourself That liberal policies will solve the world's problems.

The die is cast.

All we're going to be doing now is waiting and watching as the liberals drive the country over the cliff.

Of course, liberals don't care if they drive the country over the cliff, so long as they're driving.

Anyway, the only question for me now is what do I need to do to avoid getting hurt in the inevitable (and entirely predicitable) crash.

Thanks,

JacksonThe fact is, historically, Liberal Keynesian policies have proven to be better catalysts for economic growth than the Conservative ones have ever been. The data is quite unambiguous on that score. You Righties and Libertarians are very good about repeating Mantras about cutting taxes being the cure for everythingt that ails the Economy, but none of you have ever actually made the case with data. And when the data is compiled and analyzed and ends up discrediting your mantra, all you can do is whine about it.

Silver Star

11-21-12, 19:10

The fact is, historically, Liberal Keynesian policies have proven to be better catalysts for economic growth than the Conservative ones have ever been. The data is quite unambiguous on that score. You Righties and Libertarians are very good about repeating Mantras about cutting taxes being the cure for everythingt that ails the Economy, but none of you have ever actually made the case with data. And when the data is compiled and analyzed and ends up discrediting your mantra, all you can do is whine about it.There eventually comes a day of reckoning for all of the borrowing to artificially prop up an economy. It's all good until you run out of credit. Want to take me up on the S&P Credit Rating Bet? I bet it goes down before up before Jan 2017.

Mountaineer

11-21-12, 21:54

There eventually comes a day of reckoning for all of the borrowing to artificially prop up an economy. It's all good until you run out of credit. Want to take me up on the S&P Credit Rating Bet? I bet it goes down before up before Jan 2017.That's pretty far out for a bet. Good luck collecting your winnings over 4 years later.

Member #2041

11-21-12, 23:12

There eventually comes a day of reckoning for all of the borrowing to artificially prop up an economy. It's all good until you run out of credit. Want to take me up on the S&P Credit Rating Bet? I bet it goes down before up before Jan 2017.Unfortunately, as long as there are enough wackos in the Congress who have taken Grover Norquist's pledge, to throw the USA into disarray, there is no way to be sure Obama will be able to get any of his policies implemented.

Silver Star

11-21-12, 23:16

Unfortunately, as long as there are enough wackos in the Congress who have taken Grover Norquist's pledge, to throw the USA into disarray, there is no way to be sure Obama will be able to get any of his policies implemented.OK, I understand your reason for declining, maybe we can do the bet in 2014 if Democrats get full control of government.

Silver Star

11-21-12, 23:18

That's pretty far out for a bet. Good luck collecting your winnings over 4 years later.Chances are I can collect quicker than that, with Democrats and Republicans running the show together, it should not be too long before we get ANOTHER S&P downgrade.

Jackson

11-24-12, 17:12

TOP-10 "Only In America" Observations ~ by a Canadian:

1) Only in America, could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.

2) Only in America, could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black.

3) Only in America, could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

4) Only in America, can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America, would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.

6) Only in America, could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."

7) Only in America, could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8) Only in America, could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

9) Only in America, could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.

10) Only in America, could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.

Esten

11-24-12, 17:36

6) Only in America, could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."Nonsense! Those criteria alone are not generally what is considered extreme. It's the balancing of budgets strictly by slashing spending, including popular government programs, without raising any revenue, that is considered extreme.

10) Only in America, could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.LOL, I love how those who sympathize with the "poor rich", who pay so much in taxes, always fail to mention how much income and wealth the "poor rich" have.

Only in America, could some people think it's fair for a wealthy investor like Romney to pay a 14% effective tax rate, while many others who actually work for a living, pay north of 25. Thank goodness those people are in the minority.

Tiny12

11-24-12, 21:16

Nonsense! Those criteria alone are not generally what is considered extreme. It's the balancing of budgets strictly by slashing spending, including popular government programs, without raising any revenue, that is considered extreme.

LOL, I love how those who sympathize with the "poor rich", who pay so much in taxes, always fail to mention how much income and wealth the "poor rich" have.

Only in America, could some people think it's fair for a wealthy investor like Romney to pay a 14% effective tax rate, while many others who actually work for a living, pay north of 25. Thank goodness those people are in the minority.You're taking a special case. The press wasn't giving Romney any credit for his charitable contributions and other itemized deductions when they came up with the 14% effective rate. That would have raised the rate a bit. Also the guy was in private equity. I've read, but haven't verified, that he was paying long term capital gains rates on his share of performance fees received from Bain funds. This is a tax loophole that Democrats and Republicans have kept in effect through the years.

Looking at the IRS tax statistics from 2009, the most recent year, those who made over $200,000 per year paid 50.2% of the income tax, received 25.8% of the income, and paid at a tax rate, as a % of taxable income, of 26.8%. They represented 3.7% of the 140 million tax individual tax returns filed. Based on what you read in the press they'd represent about 2% of taxpayers.

If you want to go up the income chain a little, those making over $500,000 paid 29.8% of the income tax, received 13.9% of the income, and paid at an average tax rate of 28.6%. They were 0.9% of tax returns filed.

The median tax rate for all 140 million returns was 10.0% and the average was 17.8%.

I believe that those making over $200,000 per year, who apparently the Democrats intend to depend on to balance a $1 trillion budget deficit, are already paying their fair share. They're paying 2.7 times more as a % of their income than the median.

Please remember that people are paying state income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes on top of their federal income tax.

You've got a point in your Romney example. Crony capitalism does contribute to inequality. While I believe raising tax rates on business and investment from current levels is stupid, eliminating the carried interest loophole, bailouts of shareholders and bondholders in financial institutions, payments to wealthy farmers, subsidies for renewable energy, etc, are good ideas. I'd argue though that some of the popular government programs you refer to must be slashed or properly funded. And the top 2% can't afford to pick up all the slack in medicare and pensions. You'll bankrupt them, especially if medical costs continue at 17% of GDP. If the middle class and upper middle class want to continue with their entitlements the way they're structured now, they'll have to pay for it. There's no other option, mathematically. We must get entitlements and government debt under control. Otherwise we'll end up like Greece someday, with no money to pay for education, help to the truly needy, etc. And rioting in the streets.

Jackson

11-25-12, 17:32

Only in America, could some people think it's fair for a wealthy investor like Romney to pay a 14% effective tax rate, while many others who actually work for a living, pay north of 25.Your talking percentages specifically to obfuscate the facts.

Let's talk numbers.

Last year Romney wrote a check to the IRS for $1.9 million.

How big was the check you wrote?

Thank goodness those people are in the minority.Congratulations. With a liberal government permanently in place in DC, that miniority of successful individuals will inevitably get even smaller.

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten

11-25-12, 17:52

Tiny - I'm fine cutting spending, if need be even some of the big government programs, as along as there is also a corresponding significant revenue increase.

I say let's go back to the Clinton-era tax rates for everyone. First the top brackets, then maybe in a couple years the other brackets. I suspect this is Obama's plan and the "fiscal cliff" agreement will involve only a 2 year extension for the other brackets.

BTW, I bet that Top 10 list wasn't written by a Canadian. It sounds too plugged into American politics, especially the right wing view. What Canadian follows the tax history of Geithner and Rangel? The giveaway is when it says "responsible for our tax code". And look at point #8, it's dumb downed to make the oil companies look innocent and have us forget about oil speculators. This is just more right wing propaganda, and the author put "by a Canadian" in the title to try to give it some independent credibility. There is no end to what these guys will come up with to influence opinion. Based on the election results, most people see this kind of crap for what it is.

Esten

11-25-12, 18:04

Your talking percentages specifically to obfuscate the facts.

Let's talk numbers.

Last year Romney wrote a check to the IRS for $1. 9 million.

How big was the check you wrote?LOL!
You're pulling my leg Jackson, I know it...

Chicago Guy

11-26-12, 19:00

I disagree with everything you've written, but there's no reason to argue because the country has passed the tipping point and there's nothing I can do about it.I agree with your analysis, but I hope the Journal is right on this one:

"These columns have viewed this election as more consequential than others for a single reason—ObamaCare. Tax rates do economic damage when they rise, but they can be cut again. Regulations can be adapted to or phased out. Spending can be cut. But the Affordable Care Act will spread like termites in the national economy and public fisc. Mr. Obama will no doubt use his second term to consolidate this liberal entitlement dream, with its ultimate goal of single-payer health care.

Some of our conservative friends will argue that Mr. Obama's victory thus represents a decline in national virtue and a tipping point in favor of the "takers" over the makers. They will say the middle class chose Mr. Obama's government blandishments over Mr. Romney's opportunity society. We don't think such a narrow victory of an incumbent President who continues to be personally admired justifies such a conclusion.

Perhaps this fear will be realized over time, but such a fate continues to be in our hands. There are few permanent victories or defeats in American politics, and Tuesday wasn't one of them. The battle for liberty begins anew this morning."Http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578102971575770036.html

Rev BS

11-26-12, 20:48

I agree with your analysis, but I hope the Journal is right on this one:

Http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578102971575770036.htmlYou can never win a game if you continue to be in the wrong formation, jump off-side, fumble the ball, throw interceptions, run wrong routes, punts blocked, kick shanked, or worse, run the wrong way towards your own goal after being getting hit in the head. Keep firing the coaches, it won't do any good. Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, etc, all had to spend a long time in the wilderness before reaching the top of the mountain again.

So because of ObamaCare, Papa John's CEO, John Schnatter (a big GOP donor) threatened to raise per pizza. 11-14 cents. That's peanuts. I drop more than that the in taxi seats all the time.

Jackson

11-28-12, 01:26

I know a lot of women who think exactly like these two.

28594

Dickhead

11-28-12, 03:26

Toymann

11-28-12, 03:39

I wonder how many of the people bitching about Obamacare actually have looked at what it says and does. I mean looked at independently. Because I have. I am not going to say I have read the whole bill but I have read most of the more salient parts. It isn't really very radical at all. I look at it as an investment in infrastructure. Your true low lifes won't have their shit together to buy insurance regardless. It is mostly going to help the working poor. It is socialism for sure, and wealth redistribution to a moderate extent. Mechanically what it does is create a constantly increasing marginal tax bracket instead of the 'cliff effect' we see now.

If you go to business school, you learn, or should learn, that having a product with inelastic demand is less risky than having one with elastic demand. These small businesses that are whining and bitching are going to learn this lesson again. Those with relatively inelastic demand will pass most of any cost increase on to consumers in the form of higher prices. That will lead to some inflation but the current environment can withstand some inflation. Those with relatively elastic demand will yield some profit to be redistributed. Hopefully they priced the risk of elasticity into the rate of return they demanded on their capital. If they did not, then fuck them.

Most likely the most idiotic post you have ever made Dick. Go back to academia! You are so totally out of touch and it totally cracks me up. It is so apparent that you have never made a payroll in your life. Your investment comments made it clear to me long ago you just might be fool, this comment has removed all doubt. Give me a break! Stop pontificating on stuff you have no idea about. Book knowledge on its own is no replacement for real life experience. You and yours just crack me up! Crawl back into the university library and stop commenting on the real world dude. Sorry to burst your bubble but this comment shows nothing but pure ignorance. Nothing more. The US voting crowd asked for this, now just wait and see what they get. Be careful what you ask for professor, you just might get it. IALOTFLMAO. See ya. Toymann.

P. Damn, you are one dumb son of a be*tch!

pps. let me give you a snapshot on the post Abomacare landscape..... decreased providers, slower and decreased care, more expensive healthcare costs (especially for non-government insurers), welcome to socialist medicine in a hybrid system. Something you never factored into your ivory tower model dude. In canada, like almost all socialist countries with government healthcare almost ALL those with a job pay taxes. Not just 50% of the population. If ya flip burgers in canada guess what? Ya pay taxes. There are no deductions in socialist countries professor thus most everyone has some skin in the game. Love your analysis but damn, are you out to lunch!

WorldTravel69

11-28-12, 04:21

The downgrading was because of the GOP.

Boehner said we must not let it go any higher, but he agreed that it was OK when a White Man was President.

The GOP is about to let our countries rating go lower, because of their Racist policies.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/07/07/bush-raised-debt-ceiling-five-times/

WT Congratulations on your win, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular vote totals for President.

I'm Libertarian and I'm stuck with Obama's economic BUBBLE that is going to pop faster than we think, did you see Treasury Sec Geithner wants to get rid of the debt ceiling completely so they can borrow forever? I'd like to make an even money bet with you during that during the current administration (thru the end of term in 2017) that S&P will lower the USA's credit rating (again) , if so I win. If S&P increases the rating back to AAA, I lose. If the rating stays the same as now at AA+ it is a tie. I won't include Fitch or Moody's since they haven't downgraded yet, that would be like taking candy from a baby, it's just a question of when not if on those 2. WT69, do you think the USA's credit rating will get better in the coming years, or maybe you just don't think deficits matter anyway. We sure got a lotta red ink in the last 4 years. Would like your thoughts on deficit spending and balancing the budget. I have a feeling your solution (if any) is tax the rich and not cut any spending)

WorldTravel69

11-28-12, 13:29

Need I say More?

I know a lot of women who think exactly like these two.

28594

Jackson

11-28-12, 14:29

Need I say More?They voted for Obama, so of course there's nothing more to be said.

Wild Walleye

11-28-12, 16:13

The downgrading was because of the GOP.

Boehner said we must not let it go any higher, but he agreed that it was OK when a White Man was President.

The GOP is about to let our countries rating go lower, because of their Racist policies. [/url]You have the part about the credit rating exactly backwards.

The US Credit rating is specific to the risk of US Treasury securities. That is the likelihood of a US default on it's obligations (interest and principal) as they relate to treasury securities. How could increasing deficit spending make the US less likely to default on its obligations?

Think about it this way:

- a guy makes $100k / year.

- His effective tax rate is 20, so he has $80K in disposable spending.

- he has a $5k / mo mortgage ($500k balance)

- he pays $1k / mo in car payments ($50k balance)

- he pays $1k / mo to service his credit cards ($50k balance)

- his monthly bills run $2k / mo.

Net of taxes, he brings in $80k. His annual expenses are $108K and he owes $600k.

You are the loan officer at the bank. If this guy is granted more debt, do you think that he will be more likely or less likely to default?

Now, what nobody seems to bother to say is that the US Govt can't default on its treasury securities. End of story. If the US didn't have the money necessary to meet its obligations, it would print more. Further, there is no shortage of funds within the federal government. The 'one' payment that they absolutely must make is on the federal debt. If there wasn't enough cash lying around, they would have to not pay other obligations (entitlements, etc.) in favor of servicing the debt (that is the law). If the president, regardless of skin color, failed to service the debt, it would be an impeachable offense. The fact that this president lied to the American people about a potential default, for political gain, is one of the more despicable things I have seen, and I have seen quite a lot.

How could refusing to increase the debt limit harm the US credit rating? It couldn't. The US credit rating was lowered strictly because of the fact that the US was/is not behaving in a fiscally responsible manner: was / is running huge annual deficits (more than $1T each of the last four years) ; the legislature has not passed a budget in three years and the national debt is growing at an exorbitant rate (increasing 50% every 3-4 years). The GOP's contribution to that problem is its legacy of bending over and spending, just like their liberal counterparts.

There is a black guy in the WH who called the prior white president unpatriotic for increasing the national debt. Now that same black guy says it is imperative for the good of the nation for him to cripple the country with debt (pretty twisted logic). In your way of thinking, he too is a racist (actually, I agree completely with you on this one, he is a racist).

If there aren't real spending cuts, I say, let's go over the economic cliff. The house controls the purse strings. They should just pass the spending provisions that they want and send it to the senate. If they (senate and president) don't like it, f*ck 'them.

Toymann

11-28-12, 16:47

If there aren't real spending cuts, I say, let's go over the economic cliff. The house controls the purse strings. They should just pass the spending provisions that they want and send it to the senate. If they (senate and president) don't like it, f*ck 'them.Since when did the US become a country of those that don't pay and those that think others need to pay! All Americans are supposed to be created equal. That said, lets all go over the falls together. It s absolutely preferable to giving the government MORE money to just piss away. Even Esten should be happy about going over the cliff. It works for moderate liberals as just look At all the cuts to defense plus the revenue generated would be substantial. Woo hoo, paddle as fast as you can, the falls are just around the next bend in the river. My dos centavos! Toymann

Esten

11-28-12, 17:28

Since when did the US become a country of those that don't pay and those that think others need to pay! All Americans are supposed to be created equal.That's our progressive tax system we've had for a long time. I wonder when Republicans are going to make up their mind. On one hand, they bitterly oppose any increase in federal taxes, including for those who pay no tax. On the other hand, they bitterly complain about the people who pay no tax.

Even Esten should be happy about going over the cliff. It works for moderate liberals as just look At all the cuts to defense plus the revenue generated would be substantial.I'd be fine going over the cliff, but it won't happen all at once. Republicans will cave to extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the lower brackets only. If they don't, the blame will be entirely on them. This is very predictable. Republicans don't have much leverage on this point. They are trapped with the expiration.

PS. Why the childish, name-calling rants against other posters? Bad form, Toymann...

Toymann

11-28-12, 17:51

PS. Why the childish, name-calling rants against other posters? Bad form, Toymann.Dude, this is the political thread. It's totally tradition here to rant and rave and call each other names. It's all in fun, don't ya know. Would you prefer some lame politically correct debate on this thread. How boring. Wt69 calls all republicans baby killing Neanderthals after his morning breakfast meeting with Nancy. Dickhead loves to pontificate like like he s some sort of academic arbitrator who is just so much smarter than the unwashed masses. I suppose that we should just all discuss like a boxing match regulated by queensbury rules. No low blows, biting, kicking, etc. Is this really what you want? How boring. That said, who am to howl at the moon. I will treat all posts going forward like a high school debate forum. Won't that be entertaining! It's all in fun and I suggest you look in the mirror my friend. At one time or another virtually every poster on this thread, including you, have shown "bad form", to put it in your terms. Just my dos centavos. Toymann

Esten

11-28-12, 18:13

No... we don't want just boring, polite discussion! I'm just suggesting, when it comes to other posters on the board, maybe there's a balance somewhere...

Anyways, I have some reviews to post.

Dickhead

11-28-12, 19:47

It seems Boehner and Obama had a bit of a love fest today and at least the stock market was optimistic about a compromise. A few weeks ago I said I thought the marginal tax rates above 15% would end up somewhere between the current rates and the previous rates and Boehner seemed to be saying the same thing. I think it also might happen that another bracket may emerge around $500, 000 and they will let that go to 39. 6. Then the Dems seemed to be willing to deal on Medicare or Medicaid or both. I think raising Medicare eligibility to 67 to conform to OASDI would be logical and tolerable, and could be phased in over say 5 years. That should be a pretty significant number, cut-wise. Medicaid I know less about but it seems like it would be hard to contract that after it was just expanded to 133% of the federal poverty level. Surprisingly, no one seems to be talking about capital gains tax rates and that makes me think they are going to let those revert to the former levels, which are still preferential. Everybody should keep in mind that dividends revert to being taxed at ordinary income rates next year absent any agreement to the contrary. You don't want to let taxes dictate your investment strategy, in general, BUT you might want to adopt a policy of, whatever stock you are planning on selling anyway, sell it a few days before the ex-dividend date.

I must admit I don't want to take Silver Star's bet about the downgrade. It could happen. If the debt gets downgraded a notch, interest rates will rise, but that will be a partial cure for the deficit in the short run. I don't think the chance of a downgrade is 50% so I should in theory take his bet, but I only bet on sure things. You have to look at how worldwide investors ran to US treasuries in 2008 and 2009 even though a lot of the problems originated in the US. It is a 'lesser of the evils' type of thinking, so I think a one notch downgrade and commensurate interest rate rise is not the end of the world. I mean, if you think about it, fuck it. We should just issue a shit load of junk bonds right now to fund the next say 100 years and then we screw people who haven't even been born yet.

This week I was looking at excess reserves in the banking system. Normally these would be zero, hence the term 'excess' but they are huge right now. Down just a bit from their peak but if and when an agreement, any remotely reasonable agreement, is reached, I think investment and growth will pick up pretty rapidly. The lenders are hunkered down in the face of the uncertainty and that's a big reason why the stimulative monetary policy of the past few years hasn't taken effect.

Yet.

WorldTravel69

11-28-12, 20:20

Where does it say they voted for Obama?

Funny, Romney got 47% of the Vote. How's that for Irony.

They voted for Obama, so of course there's nothing more to be said.

WorldTravel69

11-28-12, 20:30

The first thing they should cut is the subsidies to the Tobacco Industries.

I know it isn't much S46, 000, 000, but it will help.

Because tobacco kills 1200 people a day.

Dickhead

11-28-12, 20:40

Being a US investor looking to place funds right now, seems a lot like mongering at Ness. A lot of relatively unattractive competing opportunities.

Dickhead

11-28-12, 20:47

The first thing they should cut is the subsidies to the Tobacco Industries. I know it isn't much S46, 000, 000, but it will help. Because tobacco kills 1200 people a day.It is $191 million, not $46 million:

http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=tobacco

Corn subsidies were $4. 6 billion In 2011 (same source) and much of that corn goes to ethanol and should be replaced with HEMP. 40% of all tobacco subsidies go to a single state, if you can believe that, which is why the whole concept of the senate is fucked.

WorldTravel69

11-28-12, 21:23

It would lead to a Financial Disaster.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/141093-boehner-failure-to-raise-debt-ceiling-would-mean-financial-disaster

You have the part about the credit rating exactly backwards.

The US Credit rating is specific to the risk of US Treasury securities. That is the likelihood of a US default on it's obligations (interest and principal) as they relate to treasury securities. How could increasing deficit spending make the US less likely to default on its obligations?

Think about it this way:

- a guy makes $100k / year.

- His effective tax rate is 20, so he has $80K in disposable spending.

- he has a $5k / mo mortgage ($500k balance)

- he pays $1k / mo in car payments ($50k balance)

- he pays $1k / mo to service his credit cards ($50k balance)

- his monthly bills run $2k / mo.

Net of taxes, he brings in $80k. His annual expenses are $108K and he owes $600k.

You are the loan officer at the bank. If this guy is granted more debt, do you think that he will be more likely or less likely to default?

Now, what nobody seems to bother to say is that the US Govt can't default on its treasury securities. End of story. If the US didn't have the money necessary to meet its obligations, it would print more. Further, there is no shortage of funds within the federal government. The 'one' payment that they absolutely must make is on the federal debt. If there wasn't enough cash lying around, they would have to not pay other obligations (entitlements, etc.) in favor of servicing the debt (that is the law). If the president, regardless of skin color, failed to service the debt, it would be an impeachable offense. The fact that this president lied to the American people about a potential default, for political gain, is one of the more despicable things I have seen, and I have seen quite a lot.

How could refusing to increase the debt limit harm the US credit rating? It couldn't. The US credit rating was lowered strictly because of the fact that the US was / is not behaving in a fiscally responsible manner: was / is running huge annual deficits (more than $1T each of the last four years) ; the legislature has not passed a budget in three years and the national debt is growing at an exorbitant rate (increasing 50% every 3-4 years). The GOP's contribution to that problem is its legacy of bending over and spending, just like their liberal counterparts.

There is a black guy in the WH who called the prior white president unpatriotic for increasing the national debt. Now that same black guy says it is imperative for the good of the nation for him to cripple the country with debt (pretty twisted logic). In your way of thinking, he too is a racist (actually, I agree completely with you on this one, he is a racist).

If there aren't real spending cuts, I say, let's go over the economic cliff. The house controls the purse strings. They should just pass the spending provisions that they want and send it to the senate. If they (senate and president) don't like it, f*ck 'them.

Jackson

11-29-12, 02:12

PS. Why the childish, name-calling rants against other posters? Bad form, Toymann.I agree.

Thanks,

Jackson

Toymann

11-29-12, 02:51

I agree.

Thanks,

JacksonNo need for piling on dude. I already indicated that I would ease up. Based on your post and the new politically correct world you want on this thread. You'll have no need to worry about anymore political posts from me. Enjoy El Jeffe. Toymann.

Ps. Nice to see you sticking up for dickhead. His sensitivity on the board is well known. Good to see you two have kissed and made up. His post regarding his academic analysis of obomocare deserved a betch slap. But, I get it. Enjoy the new gentile political thread. You asked for it, you got it. Toymann out.

Toymann

11-29-12, 02:54

I will treat all posts going forward like a high school debate forum.Thought I made made myself clear. Guess not. Monger on dudes. Toymann

Tiny12

11-29-12, 13:55

You'll have no need to worry about anymore political posts from me.Toymann, why don't you stay around and tone it down. I appreciate your perspective. Every time I saw Thomas Peterffy's political advertisement on television this fall I thought about Toymann. You've lived in a socialist country, and accomplished much in another society where there has been economic liberty, at least up until now.

You're the best cage fighter in this thread. Member #2041 is second best. I agree with you on most issues and almost always your posts are entertaining to me. But I'm not sure the low blows, biting and kicking, as you put it, are healthy. My favorite nonsexual fantasy used to be making obscene gestures and yelling obscenities at Nancy Pelosi in a public forum. That has been replaced. Now it's defecating on Member #2041. I expect some on the left may have similar thoughts about Toymann. You've got a talent for biting sarcasm but I think would be better served if you harnessed it a bit. Make the posts more about the issues instead of about personalities. And again, I at least appreciate the substance of your posts, and would miss them.

Just kidding 2041, if you're still reading this thread.

Member #2041

11-29-12, 13:58

Toymann, why don't you stay around and tone it down. I appreciate your perspective. Every time I saw Thomas Peterffy's political advertisement on television this fall I thought about Toymann. You've lived in a socialist country, and accomplished much in another society where there has been economic liberty, at least up until now.

You're the best cage fighter in this thread. Member #2041 is second best. I agree with you on most issues and almost always your posts are entertaining to me. But I'm not sure the low blows, biting and kicking, as you put it, are healthy. My favorite nonsexual fantasy used to be making obscene gestures and yelling obscenities at Nancy Pelosi in a public forum. That has been replaced. Now it's defecating on Member #2041. I expect some on the left may have similar thoughts about Toymann. You've got a talent for biting sarcasm but I think would be better served if you harnessed it a bit. Make the posts more about the issues instead of about personalities. And again, I at least appreciate the substance of your posts, and would miss them.

Just kidding 2041, if you're still reading this thread.I was. But now I'm out of here. I'll have nightmares for a while after reading this post

Toymann

11-29-12, 14:07

Toymann, why don't you stay around and tone it down. I appreciate your perspective. Every time I saw Thomas Peterffy's political advertisement on television this fall I thought about Toymann. You've lived in a socialist country, and accomplished much in another society where there has been economic liberty, at least up until now.

You're the best cage fighter in this thread. Member #2041 is second best. I agree with you on most issues and almost always your posts are entertaining to me. But I'm not sure the low blows, biting and kicking, as you put it, are healthy. My favorite nonsexual fantasy used to be making obscene gestures and yelling obscenities at Nancy Pelosi in a public forum. That has been replaced. Now it's defecating on Member #2041. I expect some on the left may have similar thoughts about Toymann. You've got a talent for biting sarcasm but I think would be better served if you harnessed it a bit. Make the posts more about the issues instead of about personalities. And again, I at least appreciate the substance of your posts, and would miss them.

Just kidding 2041, if you're still reading this thread.My tantrum is now over! El Jeffe pisses me off some times with his selective rules enforcement. I still won't post too much on this thread as we are years away from the next election. You will find my prediction on healthcare in the new America will sadly come true in spades! Monger on TinyDude. Toymann

Jackson

12-05-12, 21:32

Romney said "When I'm elected, I will put Americans back to work."

And 51% of the Americans said,"Fuck that!"

Dickhead

12-05-12, 22:19

Some things are starting to appear more likely than others. Raising the Medicare age to 67 is going to happen. There is a tweak to the CPI formula for Social Security and tax bracket adjustments that is reasonable and moderate and gradual. That will happen too. Next will be face saving measures that allow taxes to go up for the rich without explicitly raising brackets. The likelihood of a limitation on the mortgage interest deduction is increasing and this surprises me. Then there is raising the OASDI payroll tax ceiling, or even eliminating it, which if they eliminate it, would cost Alex Rodriguez something like $780, 000 a year. In turn Obama said something like the top rate has to go up next year but maybe could be reduced down the road. What I said earlier about compromising on the tax rate appears less likely as now they seem to be in loophole-closing mode. I think Obama should offer to eliminate at least one entire agency. Let Boehner submit three and Obama can pick one. Maybe repeat that again in two years. Also Obama does not seem to be talking about taxing capital gains the same as ordinary income and seems content to let the former 10% and 20% come back. Earlier he was making noise about 10% and 25.

Esten

12-07-12, 01:58

What a story. Mitch "My Number One Goal Is To Defeat Obama" McConnell made a motion for a vote on legislation that would let the president extend the country's borrowing limit on his own. In fact this was McConnell's own idea in last year's debt ceiling standoff. I guess he wanted to show that even Democrats would not support such a bill. But Reid said it might be a good idea, and proposed a straight up or down vote. McConnell then said no.

"This may be a moment in Senate history when a senator made a proposal and, when given an opportunity for a vote on that proposal, filibustered his own proposal," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). "I think we have reached a new spot in the history of the Senate we've never seen before."Debt Ceiling Bluff Called By Harry Reid, Leaving Mitch McConnell To Filibuster Himself
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/debt-ceiling-mitch-mcconnell_n_2251515.html

WorldTravel69

12-07-12, 13:31

When will the Republicans learn?

Some of you hate Unions, but what the Republican Congress is doing is the same as the Unions.

They Want More Money for their People.

Photos from Old Ale House in Chicago.

Rev BS

12-17-12, 12:30

Now that the GOP is reluctantly waving the white flag in regard to taxes of the rich, the end is in sight to a constructive compromise in regard to spending & reducing the deficit. The effort to make Obama a failure and limit him to one term ended one of the most destructive and unproductive 4 years in American history. Now, the GOP face losing the House in 2014 if they allow America to fall off the cliff. Yet, millions remain stubborn and angry and hoping that their version of America can come back from the dead in 2016. Yes, anything can happen.

Just like Facism is making a comeback in Greece, with nationalist groups marching & making Nazi salutes and beating up any foreigners that are of a different color. Now, for sure, anything can happen.

When I was a kid, my friends and I would play cops & robbers, or act out a battlefield scene with homemade weapons. Killing was fun. You could say that was 3rd world, and over here, we are 1st world and we don't have to pretend. And so mental illness is trotted out to be the villain. Like the plea of insanity for any henious crime. What is the plea, NRA? Not guilty, judge. Yes, we cannot allow legislation to come between us and our profits. Ever faithful, they trot the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms. Samuel Jackson said it best,"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". Perhaps, it is true, that you feel more American if you have a gun in your waistband. I think thay should make all naturalized citizens do that when they are sworn in, so as to have that "feeling". Myself, my dick, small as it is, would shrink even more with a gun in my waistband.

But optimism runs in my blood, so I see changes & progress in many areas in the next 4 years. Things can only get better politically as the GOP do damage control and try to regroup and rearm. Sombreros and burros in the GOP, what is the world coming to? So as usual, a body massage will take care of whatever problem.

Jackson

12-18-12, 02:19

The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance.

Cicero, 55 BCSo, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,067 years.

Rev BS

12-18-12, 03:55

So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,067 years.Countries, societies, teams, individuals have always shown a capacity for self destruction. It is nature's way of redistributing the wealth.

But now, it seems that America is coming to terms with it's addiction. We have to abandon building the Tower of Babel and check in for rehabilitation. We could have started down this road 2 or 3 years ago, but you know, somebody did not want to play ball. But now, there is hope and that is a good feeling. But everybody has to pitch in.

With the SS costs of living cuts down the road, I am going to have to abandon my penis enlargement surgery and also my dream of buying a harem. The name of the game now is sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. I have done my part.

El Perro

12-18-12, 07:59

With the SS costs of living cuts down the road, I am going to have to abandon my penis enlargement surgery and also my dream of buying a harem.You're just upset about those 19 Uzbek chickies that got popped over on Soi 3 the other night. Don't worry, I'm sure there's more where they came from.:)

Rev BS

12-18-12, 08:27

You're just upset about those 19 Uzbek chickies that got popped over on Soi 3 the other night. Don't worry, I'm sure there's more where they came from.:)I can't hide anything from you. By the way, congrats on winning the AP Pulitzer prize for 2012.

Moveon

12-18-12, 18:43

Traveling overseas, I often get asked: 'What's wrong with you people over there killing each other with guns all the time? '

What's there to say other than saying: 'We have that right to bear arms? It is written in our Constitution? '

With the typical Republican TEA Party members reacting like Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas "wishing" that the now deceased Principal of the Newtown Elementary School in Connecticut "had a M-1 Assault Rifle in her office to use" or the delusional GOP Governor of Texas, Rick Perry stating: "let teachers carry concealed weapons" one really has to wonder. What's this fixation with guns?

Maybe I should carry a gun when visiting my dentist, my mechanic, or GOD forbid - the DMV? Or, how about the Post Office? Yes, let all those Postal workers walk around with guns as well!

When approximately 40% of the gun sales in the US do not require a criminal background check, that is wrong and idiotic. (i.e., gun auctions, private sales, etc)

When there are laws that allow a citizen to carry a concealed weapon on a college campus, church, bar, etc – that is ludicrous.

When there are laws allowing citizens to use and have armor-piercing ammunition, well, let's just say that is absurd.

With RED states like Wyoming that are actually considering the legal use of silencers?

I say: "God Bless America."

28615

Los Angeles Times, "Wyoming Lawmakers to Decide on Silencers" 12/1/12

Rocky2

12-18-12, 23:47

Traveling overseas, I often get asked: 'What's wrong with you people over there killing each other with guns all the time? '

What's there to say other than saying: 'We have that right to bear arms? It is written in our Constitution? '

With the typical Republican TEA Party members reacting like Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas "wishing" that the now deceased Principal of the Newtown Elementary School in Connecticut "had a M-1 Assault Rifle in her office to use" or the delusional GOP Governor of Texas, Rick Perry stating: "let teachers carry concealed weapons" one really has to wonder. What's this fixation with guns?

Maybe I should carry a gun when visiting my dentist, my mechanic, or GOD forbid. The DMV? Or, how about the Post Office? Yes, let all those Postal workers walk around with guns as well!

When approximately 40% of the gun sales in the US do not require a criminal background check, that is wrong and idiotic. (I. E, gun auctions, private sales, etc)

When there are laws that allow a citizen to carry a concealed weapon on a college campus, church, bar, etc – that is ludicrous.

When there are laws allowing citizens to use and have armor-piercing ammunition, well, let's just say that is absurd.

With RED states like Wyoming that are actually considering the legal use of silencers?

I say: "God Bless America."

28615

Los Angeles Times,"Wyoming Lawmakers to Decide on Silencers" 12/1/12Think about it

Esten

12-19-12, 00:33

You want only the bad guys armedYeah, current laws allow citizens to carry guns so they can take out people who go on shooting rampages, that's really working well isn't it.

Mpexy

12-19-12, 03:22

Yeah, current laws allow citizens to carry guns so they can take out people who go on shooting rampages, that's really working well isn't it.Right to own in your home vs right to carry / concealed carry so you can be armed at the right time (or all the time) to try and interdict the rampager are two totally separate issues. Many recent rampage events including latest one in CT occurred on grounds where state or local institutional regs (eg school board employment rules) prevented adult residents from being armed in the first place.

You're trying to imply that rampages have happened in concealed carry states with significant portion of state residents freely able to carry and not blocked by local employment regs whether the state allows it but yet was unable to and hence carrying firearms don't help.

Can you name an example please where a rampage occurred in an unrestricted gun control state and where the local institution didn't restrict armed carry and therefore where these hapless armed adult residents did nothing to prevent the crime?

(As opposed to aforementioned Texas where you hear about citizens shooting a gun toting criminal in the act of committing a crime all the time)

Mpexy

12-19-12, 06:54

Are you drunk? I can barely understand you. You need see Vanna White and buy some commas. But Columbine qualifies. CO is pretty unrestricted and Englewood has no further restrictions beyond CO. And anyway, what difference does it make what the state law is if your mother is a fucking gun nut and has 20 guns for you to choose from? Why would it matter? And unless we enact customs-like borders between the states, what does it matter if it is unrestricted in one state vs. Restricted in another? Does the name Virginia have any significance to you? Like now pot is legal in WA; good luck keeping it out of Idaho. Guns, same thing.
Why open with such a provocation when I have directed none at you?

Esten made the allegation that citizens toting guns has made no difference in the outcome of rampage shootings. Implying that there were situations where rampages occurred in locations where people actually were or at least had unrestricted rights to be armed yet failed to prevent or deter.

Quote. "Yeah, current laws allow citizens to carry guns so they can take out people who go on shooting rampages, that's really working well isn't it."

My sole point was that in my opinion Esten's statement saying armed residents have made no difference is not valid unless there is sufficient examples where rampages occurred at a location with armed residents.

Columbine does not qualify because regardless of CO state carry laws, the school had a no firearms on premise regs and hence no teachers had the unrestricted choice to be armed. May still not have made a difference but that wasn't my point. If someone is going to say having X present failed to prevent Y occurring, then it's reasonable to ask show us sufficient examples where X indeed was there.

Esten

12-20-12, 01:27

You're right Mpexy, it's a more complicated argument and it depends on local gun laws.

I'm just talking to this general argument that gun ownership is a good thing because it deters or stops crime. Some may argue we need more freedom to own and carry guns, but I have no interest in that debate. I am tired of the almost daily news stories of people getting injured or killed by guns, let alone the massacres. I do not see how more guns will have a significant benefit. I think we need very, very strict gun laws and they need to be enforced.

And once again, as I've said before, this is another area where Americans suffer at the hands of the GOP.

Mpexy

12-24-12, 14:39

A game of one upmanship of the latest idiot from both sides of the political aisle that gets caught red handed against their stated principles is one neither side can win.

There has always been politicians from both sides proclaiming themselves as family values icons, then falling spectacularly from grace, unless you are conveniently ignoring the suck ass democrat family values politicos along with the suck ass conservatives.

Example. Couple months ago, self proclaimed family values senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) put out a campaign commercial touting his family values over his repub opponent. Five days later the story broke re: his mongering in the Dominican Repub because the idiot clashed with couple of hookers over not paying their fee.

That doesn't make democrats or republicans, liberals or conservatives, any worse or better than the other in my opinion. Seems there are just as many suck ass hypocrites on both sides.

Dickhead

12-29-12, 21:16

Do you ever have any original thoughts?

WorldTravel69

01-03-13, 04:32

No Posts since then.

Let the New Year Begin.

Down with Ruling Class, AKA the Republicans.

WorldTravel69

01-03-13, 04:36

Check This:

WAR + Bush's debt.

Jackson

01-04-13, 13:45

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'the like to know.

http://hardnoxandfriends.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/san-antonio-theater-shooting/

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2GOP72zBX

WorldTravel69

01-04-13, 14:16

Since the Sandy Hook shootings, there have been over 400 people killed with guns in the USA.

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'the like to know.

http://hardnoxandfriends.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/san-antonio-theater-shooting/

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2GOP72zBX

Jackson

01-04-13, 15:38

Since the Sandy Hook shootings, there have been over 400 people killed with guns in the USA.Such hypocrisy.

In the same period of time, more than 4,200 people were killed in car accidents, but I don't hear you suggesting that we take away everyone's cars.

Oh wait, I forgot. You're from San Francisco, so you probably do believe that we should all be riding bicycles everywhere.

Jackson

Mpexy

01-04-13, 16:15

Such hypocrisy.

In the same period of time, more than 4, 200 people were killed in car accidents, but I don't hear you suggesting that we take away everyone's cars.

Oh wait, I forgot. You're from San Francisco, so you probably do believe that we should all be riding bicycles.

JacksonDuring my residency years at a major metro hospital trauma unit, for every one gsw there were a hell of a lot more stabbings.

You'd have to add kitchen and utility knives to the banned cars following WT69's logic.

And sure, knives are less efficient than guns. But same time period as Sandy Hook, crazed Chinese guy in China stabbed 22 kids in a school, with a knife. My point is crazy idiots need to be stopped, preferably by an armed on-site citizen who can at least have option to defend themselves rather than constantly ban what only law aiding citizens are going to follow as ban rules

Silver Star

01-05-13, 00:24

During my residency years at a major metro hospital trauma unit, for every one gsw there were a hell of a lot more stabbings.

You'd have to add kitchen and utility knives to the banned cars following WT69's logic.

And sure, knives are less efficient than guns. But same time period as Sandy Hook, crazed Chinese guy in China stabbed 22 kids in a school, with a knife. My point is crazy idiots need to be stopped, preferably by an armed on-site citizen who can at least have option to defend themselves rather than constantly ban what only law aiding citizens are going to follow as ban rulesEver notice that there are no rampage shootings at gun shows? Hmmm, wonder why

Esten

01-05-13, 02:12

A gun analogy with cars seems ridiculous. Cars have a clear and practical utility for most people and in some cases are a necessity. Whereas, the vast majority of people do not need a gun in their daily lives.

There's a perceived function of protection, that sometimes is demonstrated like in the San Antonio story below (though that involved an off-duty police officer, who nobody is disputing would be qualified to carry a gun). The main question is, how many lives are saved vs. killed from gun ownership by the general population (not including law enforcement) ? I'll bet for every story like San Antonio, there are 10 or 100 stories of someone getting killed. That alone would be enough to make the case for a broad ban on guns.

Yes the pro-gun San Antonio story only got local media coverage. But there are thousands of stories of gun deaths that also only get local coverage. What about the 17-year-old who was shot to death in Queens on December 29 ? Bet you never heard that one either.

Some facts:
- Someone with a gun in their home is twice as likely to be murdered in their home as someone without.
- A young man is 10 times as likely to kill himself if there is a gun in the home.
- A woman is only five times as likely to kill herself when a gun is present, but women are three times as likely to be murdered by a family member if there is a gun in the home.

It's a simple question: Does the harm outweigh the good? I bet it's by a mile.

Peter Sideburn

01-05-13, 02:47

A gun analogy with cars seems ridiculous. Cars have a clear and practical utility for most people and in some cases are a necessity. Whereas, the vast majority of people do not need a gun in their daily lives.Esten's points are well taken however they have nothing to do with an individual and you can't say that an individual with a gun at his house is 5 times more likely etc. You can't apply a population statistic to an individual. I'll give you an example:

A researcher studied Brad Pitt and his crew at a bar and found they were 95% likely to pick up the chick of their choice. My fat butt went to the same bar expecting to have 95% likelihood as well but struck out again and again. The point is you have to know the population studied. You have to know that the population studied is statistically similar to the population you are talking about before you can even claim to know the population's risk but even then you can't predict an individuals risk with certainty at all.

Frankly the vast majority of gun murders in the US are committed by prior felons who are already breaking the law in many ways including by possessing a weapon. Many of the others are committed by insane people with history of mental health issues meaning they also are breaking the law if they possess a weapon.

If you want to stop gun violence keep all violent criminals in jail after their first offense and take dangerous mentally unstable people off the streets. Consider all gang members as enemies of the state and remove them and you will drop the murder rate by 75. Over 500 murders a year in Chicago with the strictist gun laws in the country and people pretend all we need is a few more restrictions on law abiding citizens and no one will ever be killed.

By the way the Constitution guarantees personal / individual freedoms and no one should try to take away an individual's personal freedom based upon a population statistical argument that just doesn't hold any water at all. If you want to start this the slippery slope will take away your other freedoms as well. For example, freedom of speech would be gone long before the second amendment is touched as most GSWs occur after someone opens their mouth and free speech regularly puts individuals and groups at risk. Although US leaders all swear to uphold the Constitution, many openly hate the fact it "gets in their way."

Pete

WorldTravel69

01-05-13, 22:27

Come On Jackson. How many killed in Cars, were intentional?

I don't mind people owning guns, so long as they are sane.

How did that nut at the school get an assault rife?

Did his mother buy it to protect herself from him?

If she did, it looks like that didn't go well.

Such hypocrisy.

In the same period of time, more than 4, 200 people were killed in car accidents, but I don't hear you suggesting that we take away everyone's cars.

Oh wait, I forgot. You're from San Francisco, so you probably do believe that we should all be riding bicycles everywhere.

Jackson

Jackson

01-06-13, 00:23

Cars have a clear and practical utility for most people and in some cases are a necessity.Lots of people feel exactly that way about guns.

Anyway, let's get it out on the table: Exactly what new gun laws do you wish to see enacted?

Personally, I think we have enough gun laws. What we need to do is enforce the laws we have now.

What say you?

Thanks,

Jackson

WorldTravel69

01-06-13, 13:53

Here is what a person wrote in the S. F. Chronicle. I tend to agree.

"Fix the 2nd Amendment.

Since our Supreme Court failed in upholding the true meaning of the Militia Amendment (the Second) , the time has come for states to vote to repeal this grossly misinterpreted and antiquated provision and replace it with an updated and better-defined constitutional provision that anticipates the killing technologies of the future and one that the majority of citizens and responsible licensed gun owners agree upon: Individuals who are not enlisted in a public or government protection agency may not possess arms or any type of weapon designed for mass killing and destruction."

Lots of people feel exactly that way about guns.

Anyway, let's get it out on the table: Exactly what new gun laws do you wish to see enacted?

Personally, I think we have enough gun laws. What we need to do is enforce the laws we have now.

What say you?

Thanks,

Jackson

Punter 127

01-06-13, 16:14

Here is what a person wrote in the S. F. Chronicle. I tend to agree.

"Fix the 2nd Amendment.

Since our Supreme Court failed in upholding the true meaning of the Militia Amendment (the Second) , the time has come for states to vote to repeal this grossly misinterpreted and antiquated provision and replace it with an updated and better-defined constitutional provision that anticipates the killing technologies of the future and one that the majority of citizens and responsible licensed gun owners agree upon: Individuals who are not enlisted in a public or government protection agency may not possess arms or any type of weapon designed for mass killing and destruction."The second amendment is Not Broken, it protects the Individual Right to keep and bear arms just as the framers intended, the Supreme court got it right.

Your S. F. Chronicle quote is just more Left-Wing BS, leave the Constitution alone!

Fix the society that creates these nutjobs.

Silver Star

01-06-13, 18:19

Here is what a person wrote in the S. F. Chronicle. I tend to agree.

"Fix the 2nd Amendment.

Since our Supreme Court failed in upholding the true meaning of the Militia Amendment (the Second) , the time has come for states to vote to repeal this grossly misinterpreted and antiquated provision and replace it with an updated and better-defined constitutional provision that anticipates the killing technologies of the future and one that the majority of citizens and responsible licensed gun owners agree upon: Individuals who are not enlisted in a public or government protection agency may not possess arms or any type of weapon designed for mass killing and destruction."I'm glad George Washington and crew had access to firearms, firearms come in handly when a revolution is needed against a tyrannical government. That is why the 2nd ammendment is there in the 1st place.

Caricoso

01-06-13, 19:04

I'm glad George Washington and crew had access to firearms, firearms come in handly when a revolution is needed against a tyrannical government. That is why the 2nd ammendment is there in the 1st place.I just wonder how we "citizens" can stop a government's army with our guns at home. Just curious!

WorldTravel69

01-06-13, 21:02

Article printed in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?_r=0

Punter 127

01-06-13, 22:37

'Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion. '

'In 2010, 10, 228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

Of the 1, 210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.

Of the 211 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2010, over half (131) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.

In 2010, over 1. 4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among USA adults each year.

Drugs other than alcohol (e. G, marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol. '

Should we make alcohol illegal and have stronger punishment for drug use?

Caricoso

01-06-13, 23:10

Peter Sideburn

01-06-13, 23:39

I just wonder how we "citizens" can stop a government's army with our guns at home. Just curious!If a country tried to invade the US East Coast do you think it is likely they would receive more resistance from an armed or an unarmed population? Look at history and the answer should be pretty clear. If we were being invaded groups otherwise known as militias would form and would coordinate attacks on any invading force. This can be quite effective actually especially when they then blend back into the citizenry. If this weren't important then why does our and every other country's state department track the number of armed citizens in countries around the World? Wake up, the fact that 100 million armed citizens would greet any invading force certainly helps restrain counties with many soldiers but relatively little supply and air capability.

Similarly, look at World history. Armed citizenry tends to keep leaders in check because they can't exert their illegal will on the people as a dictator as easily. There is no guarantee that the military would come to their aid as the code of conduct makes it clear that military members must follow legal orders. A tyrant giving orders that do not conform to the Constitution which gives the tyrant power in the first place would not be lawful and therefore, should not be followed. You can't beat the tanks, but you can defeat the desire to fire on one's citizenry and exact important and meaningful change back to the foundation of the country. The formers never wanted another omnipotent King to be in place because the US Government is of the people and for the people. At some point, we got to PC and stopped having citizens dedicated to service get in office (in many cases) and instead created a new profession, largely of inept lawyers (no offence to the good ones) , called politicians.

It is only a matter of time until the "king" tries to get rid of Presidential term limits. WE should enact term limits for all of Congress so politics as a profession and the need to be in the back pocket of "sponsors" would be lessened.

Pete

Jackson

01-07-13, 03:19

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Member #2041

01-07-13, 03:46

Silver Star

01-07-13, 11:01

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

-

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100, 000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300, 000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

-

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!Nobody invades the Swiss, they are armed too, and they also mind their own business internationally.

Caricoso

01-07-13, 13:14

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

-

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100, 000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300, 000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

-

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!So if all these people were armed with guns and rifles?

Now I realize I am a 'coward' because when I was in a conflict, all I had in my mind was to run home to make sure that my family was ok.

I that time the more frightening experience I had was when a soldier points at me with his rifle and said. MOVE! (I moved!)

What would you do in a situation like that?

Wasn't General Patton that said something like. I don't want my soldiers to die for their country! I want the enemy to die for his?

Caricoso

01-07-13, 13:20

Nobody invades the Swiss, they are armed too, and they also mind their own business internationally.Nobody invades the swiss because the "nobodies" (not even during WW2) have all the money in that country! They are really smart!

Jackson

01-07-13, 16:55

So are you claiming that the the thing that prevents the USA Government from detaining anyone whom it deems a threat is that they may be armed with say, a Bushmaster AR15 maybe a Glock, maybe an Uzi, and maybe a Sig Sauer, and several large magazines with each? If so, you cannot be serious. The USA has much bigger, much badder weapons that it can use on anyone whom it deems to be a criminal. For example, occassionally, bad drug operations have been taken down with armored tanks and RPGs. I would suggest that the thing that ACTUALLY prevents the U.S. from detaining/exterminating anyone whom it wishes to is the silly little requirement that they have probable cause to arrest you, and then you as a citizen have a Constitutional right of a fair trial.Hi,

Some of you guys are so tactically inexperienced that you're embarrassing yourselves, especially when you trout out that tired, worn out "Hey man, your hunting rifles and pistols are no match against the army's superior firepower" argument.

Let me explain if to you as if you were a child.

First, any tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, will seek to subjugate the citizenry in order to continue to feed off of their productivity. There would be no point in completely annihilating the citizenry because then they'd would have reduced themselves to having conquered a rock.

Second, the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Finally, to answer Caricoso comments.

Now I realize I am a 'coward' because when I was in a conflict, all I had in my mind was to run home to make sure that my family was ok.Given that in your world you wouldn't have any weapons, what exactly would you do if they weren't "ok"?

And...

I that time the more frightening experience I had was when a soldier points at me with his rifle and said. MOVE! (I moved!)

What would you do in a situation like that?The answer: Move on, go home, get your rifle, get on a roof top, and take the fucker out.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

WorldTravel69

01-07-13, 17:48

Some Guns are Okay, but not Assault rifles or heavy duty Weapons.

Last week in a Gun turn drive, besides Assault Rifles they received two Rocket Launchers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/29/local/la-me-1230-rocket-launcher-20121230

WorldTravel69

01-07-13, 18:00

Jackson we are talking about Gun Control in the USA not in some foreign country.

"First, any tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, will seek to subjugate the citizenry in order to continue to feed off of their productivity. There would be no point in completely annihilating the citizenry because then they'd would have reduced themselves to having conquered a rock.

Second, the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq."

Jackson

01-07-13, 18:34

Some Guns are Okay, but not Assault rifles or heavy duty Weapons."Assault rifles" refers to a physical style of rifle, generally mimicking an AR-15. However, the term "assault rifle", while intimating to pusses and providing fodder to liberal pundits, does not denote if a so-called "assault rifle" is a single shot, bolt action, semi-automatic (one trigger per shot), or fully automatic.

In any event, fully automatic weapons are already illegal, so I'll ask the same question I posed earlier in the thread:

Histrionics aside, EXACTLY what new gun laws do you wish to see enacted?

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

01-07-13, 18:44

Jackson we are talking about Gun Control in the USA not in some foreign country.You just don't get it.

It's precisely because American citizens are armed that our government is in check and cannot subjugate us.

An armed citizenry is the best defense against a tyrannical government.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said,"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. "

Stranger

01-07-13, 20:53

I normally don't post on this tread, and probably won't again, don't have time, too much girls and booze!

But El Jeffe I am soooo on your side on this! But you are technical wrong; fully automatic weapons are not illegal in the US, they are taxed! After all the treats of revolutions in the early 30`s the US government become frightening of the WORKERS actually going into a hardware store and buying the same shit the enforced had they created a mass hysteria with 'gangsters' and taxed fully automatic weapons and 'silencers' (actually a hearing protector, makes as much sense as banning exhaust systems on cars because bank robbers can sneak away) so WORKERS could not afford them (200 USD in 1934).

In 1986 it was sneaked in a provision in the Volker-McClure. Act of 1986 that freeze the exiting numbers of fully automatic guns, diving up prizes. That mean that today a' rich fascist factory owner' can buy one of the few general electric minigun in existence and laugh all the way while Joe six-pack obviously can't.

As long as you do not have a felony arrest, passes background check get a NFA license in ALL states EXCEPT CA, DE, DC, Hi, NY, WA.

The 'rocket launchers' mentioned was empty tubes, any guy that served in the army know it get fired 100 000's of them every year and the tubes are like empty cans of coke, garbage that until very recently got sold in Surplus shops for nothing.

WT69; you are so far in the wilderness on this subject I have no reply other than to say that you having so much fucking time in Gay capital so please read some history and eat less propaganda bullshit!

Stranger that rely Loooove to have this convention in a month!

"Assault rifles" refers to a physical style of rifle, generally mimicking an AR-15. However, the term "assault rifle", while intimating to pusses and providing fodder to liberal pundits, does not denote if a so-called "assault rifle" is a single shot, bolt action, semi-automatic (one trigger per shot) , or fully automatic.

In any event, fully automatic weapons are already illegal, so I'll ask the same question I posed earlier in the thread:

Histrionics aside, EXACTLY what new gun laws do you wish to see enacted?

Thanks,

Jackson

Stranger

01-07-13, 22:12

Boy, you guys are just too funny!

(Jackson, if these moron posts are you written as a joke to wind up guys I will not be happy!)

Some gold nugget of idiocy:

'I would suggest that the thing that ACTUALLY prevents the USA from detaining / exterminating anyone whom it wishes to is the silly little requirement that they have probable cause to arrest you, and then you as a citizen have a Constitutional right of a fair trial. '

Hey did you know that they had more rights than that in the good old USSR? The point is that the a paper mean jackshirt, what are YOU going to do when the power that be do decide not to follow it? Cry until they feel sorry for you?

(You obviously have had a deep look into all the NDAA 2011?)

But this takes the buiscet:

'Wasn't General Patton that said something like? I don't want my soldiers to die for their country! I want the enemy to die for his? '

And that is an argument against guns? Yep, makes perfect sense!

Shit this is too fun to be true; people don't get that stupid and an Internet connection! Jackson, stop it!

Stranger

Caricoso

01-07-13, 22:52

Hi,

Some of you guys are so tactically inexperienced that you're embarrassing yourselves, especially when you trout out that tired, worn out "Hey man, your hunting rifles and pistols are no match against the army's superior firepower" argument.

Let me explain if to you as if you were a child.

First, any tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, will seek to subjugate the citizenry in order to continue to feed off of their productivity. There would be no point in completely annihilating the citizenry because then they'd would have reduced themselves to having conquered a rock.

Second, the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Finally, to answer Caricoso comments.

Given that in your world you wouldn't have any weapons, what exactly would you do if they weren't "ok"?

And.

The answer: Move on, go home, get your rifle, get on a roof top, and take the fucker out.

Get it?

Thanks,

JacksonFabulous! So if I get on the roof of my house and I see a "couple of tanks" with army soldiers around I do what?

Did I say that (as it was usual every morning!) the official radio communicating something like anyone found with any type of weapons or attempting to do this or that, will be an enemy of the state?

That means. You were a roasted chicken!

Aqualung

01-08-13, 02:19

Boy, am I having fun here!

Esten

01-08-13, 02:25

Esten's points are well taken however they have nothing to do with an individual and you can't say that an individual with a gun at his house is 5 times more likely etc. You can't apply a population statistic to an individual.And Peter's point is well taken, but he's provided nothing to invalidate the results of the study. Nobody said every individual's risk is the same as the broad population. The population risk is an average, some individuals will be lower risk and some higher. Nothing complicated here. The full study can be read at the American Journal of Epidemiology (the PDF is also free) : aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

A researcher studied Brad Pitt and his crew at a bar and found they were 95% likely to pick up the chick of their choice. My fat butt went to the same bar expecting to have 95% likelihood as well but struck out again and again. The point is you have to know the population studied. You have to know that the population studied is statistically similar to the population you are talking about before you can even claim to know the population's risk but even then you can't predict an individuals risk with certainty at all.If Brad Pitt is around, the odds of picking up a chick increase.

If a gun is around, the odds of being killed by a gun increase.

Pretty simple actually. Again with the caveat we are talking about averages.

By the way the Constitution guarantees personal / individual freedoms and no one should...Yawn...

Tiny12

01-08-13, 02:34

I would suggest that the thing that ACTUALLY prevents the U.S. from detaining/exterminating anyone whom it wishes to is the silly little requirement that they have probable cause to arrest you, and then you as a citizen have a Constitutional right of a fair trial.This is off the subject of guns, but USA governments detain and exterminate a lot of innocent people without probable cause or fair trials. There are so many laws on the books, penalties are so severe, and lawyers are so expensive that most people plead guilty instead of going through a trial.

Esten

01-08-13, 02:48

If a country tried to invade the US East Coast do you think it is likely they would receive more resistance from an armed or an unarmed population? Look at history and the answer should be pretty clear. If we were being invaded groups otherwise known as militias would form and would coordinate attacks on any invading force. This can be quite effective actually especially when they then blend back into the citizenry. If this weren't important then why does our and every other country's state department track the number of armed citizens in countries around the World? Wake up, the fact that 100 million armed citizens would greet any invading force certainly helps restrain counties with many soldiers but relatively little supply and air capability.ROTFLMAO! An invasion of the East Coast would not be met by a civilian militia, it would be met by aerial carpet bombing after refusing orders to turn back.

This is the 21st century, not the 18th century. There is no civilian militia, and no need for one. WT69 is 100% correct, the second amendment is outdated.

Jackson

01-08-13, 04:03

Fabulous! So if I get on the roof of my house and I see a "couple of tanks" with army soldiers around I do what?Oh, I don't know, maybe grow some balls?

I guess armed resistance isn't for everyone.

Jackson

01-08-13, 04:06

And Peter's point is well taken, but he's provided nothing to invalidate the results of the study. Nobody said every individual's risk is the same as the broad population. The population risk is an average, some individuals will be lower risk and some higher. Nothing complicated here. The full study can be read at the American Journal of Epidemiology (the PDF is also free) : aje. Oxfordjournals. Org / content / 160/10/929. Full.

If Brad Pitt is around, the odds of picking up a chick increase.

If a gun is around, the odds of being killed by a gun increase.

Pretty simple actually. Again with the caveat we are talking about averages.

Yawn.Okay, here's some more stats for you:

"Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem."

- Gary Kleck,"Point Blank: Handgun Violence In America

Caricoso

01-08-13, 06:11

Oh, I don't know, maybe grow some balls?

I guess armed resistance isn't for everyone.Grow some balls eh? How about getting more neurons in the brain and realize that you don't fight an army with a slingshot?

Jackson

01-08-13, 10:13

Grow some balls eh? How about getting more neurons in the brain and realize that you don't fight an army with a slingshot?That's my point: I'll have a rifle and my balls, but all you'll have is a slingshot because you're afraid of firearms.

"If you can't run with the big dogs, you better hide under the porch."

And to respond to your tired old argument about "army vs armed citizen", I will repeat what I wrote just a couple of days ago:

...the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.And I will repost my question to you from the same post...

...all I had in my mind was to run home to make sure that my family was ok.Given that in your world you wouldn't have any weapons, what exactly would you do if they weren't "ok"?

Gandolf50

01-08-13, 12:43

Punter 127

01-08-13, 14:29

The truth is I think most people whether pro or con gun control would like to see automatic and semi-automatic weapons outlawed for private "use" (or for private ownership.). I can't see why or how anyone can say that they "NEED" one. If a collector wants one, fine. Just make it so it can't ever be used again! Personally I think if every house had a 12 gauge in it there would be a hell of a lot loss home robberies.I think you're wrong, the left is trying to label all semi-automatic weapons as assault weapons. There are many hunting guns and personal protection guns that are semi-automatic, this includes Rifles, Handguns, and your beloved Shotguns. Not all semi-automatic weapons are assault weapons and it's not about "NEED" it's about being FREE.

And for all you estens out there that think the "second amendment is outdated";

It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the USA Constitution in Merriam Webster's first sense of the term—to 'disregard' it.

Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.I think it's sad that the left is trying to exploit this tragedy, to push their political agenda of gun control.

They never let a serious crisis go to waste!

Obama 2008 - "I Am Not Going To Take Your Guns Away, That Just Ain't True"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkUpp22fHyw&feature=player_embedded

Caricoso

01-08-13, 14:42

That's my point: I'll have a rifle and my balls, but all you'll have is a slingshot because you're afraid of firearms.

"If you can't run with the big dogs, you better hide under the porch."

And to respond to your tired old argument about "army vs armed citizen", I will repeat what I wrote just a couple of days ago:

And I will repost my question to you from the same post.

Given that in your world you wouldn't have any weapons, what exactly would you do if they weren't "ok"?So you know me to certify that I am afraid of firearms right? I was in the army for two years, and among other things I learn not to be afraid 'never' 'never' of the F. A. L's MAG's 45 Cal. Ak47. Bazookas, ballonets, and grenades we were handling. But 'yes' I recorded in my mind to be afraid (very afraid!) of the idiot who does not how to use them, respect them, or is totally nuts!

Of course you will give to a 14 year old a Ferrari because 'HE' asks for it, and feels capable of handling that car at 200 miles / hr. On the freeway.

That's responsibility!

Silver Star

01-08-13, 20:14

So you know me to certify that I am afraid of firearms right? I was in the army for two years, and among other things I learn not to be afraid 'never' 'never' of the F. A. L's MAG's 45 Cal. Ak47. Bazookas, ballonets, and grenades we were handling. But 'yes' I recorded in my mind to be afraid (very afraid!) of the idiot who does not how to use them, respect them, or is totally nuts!

Of course you will give to a 14 year old a Ferrari because 'HE' asks for it, and feels capable of handling that car at 200 miles / hr. On the freeway.

That's responsibility!Fear the government that fears your guns

WorldTravel69

01-08-13, 21:16

Maybe I should move back into the Gay City. Less Gun Murders, Just sex, drugs and rock 'n roll.

But California has the most, and my City Richmond, is one of the top cities for Gun Murders and that is close to the one with more. Oakland.

We have Big Time Gang Problems.

I am thinking about buy a Hand gun, and a Shot Gun, realizing that my Martial Arts weapons, Samurai Swords, Chinese Swords, Knifes and throwing stars, etc. Might not be good enough to save my life.

Come on over and help clean them out!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Esten

01-09-13, 02:14

"Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem. "

- Gary Kleck,"Point Blank: Handgun Violence In AmericaGiven there are around 300 Million guns in the country, a 1-2% rate of violent crime is a huge number.

This illustrates the seriousness of the problem and the need to address it. What would I do specifically ? I'll leave that to the experts. But it looks like they will address it around the edges, with a few fixes, while preserving ownership for the qualified masses. I am skeptical this will put much of a dent in the violent crime rate but willing to give it a try. Ultimately, I think there will still be too many cracks in preventing the "bad guys" from getting guns (whether through legal or illegal purchase, or theft). How do you identify a "bad guy" with an inclination for violence but no record ? How do you stop such a person from stealing a gun when there are so many guns out there, sometimes owned by a family member ? So ultimately, a broad ban on guns may be needed, and I would strongly support it.

WorldTravel69

01-09-13, 03:36

What should we do about these Gangs?

http://www.hbo.com/#/documentaries/witness-south-sudan

KONY! KONY! How do you Feel about Him?

Guns unlimited!

Kill! Kill that Mother Fu__ker! That is how I Feel!