View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency
The dollar has strengthened over 6% vs the euro since Brother Barak took office. Similarly DXY, which measures the strength of the dollar against a basket of currencies, is up almost 3%. By comparison, under Bush II the dollar fell over 40% against the euro. DXY fell around 30%.
Under the 114th Congress, I predict that both schadenfreude and the Dunning-Kruger Effect will reach all-time highs, although the US dollar probably won't.
Jackson is obviously consumed again by a flare up of an unfortunate chronic illness he has been afflicted with since 2008, ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). I happen to know that generally Jackson is a logical, rational person when not having a particularly acute flare up of ODS, as is the case here. If his logical thought process was not being overwhelmed by the symptoms of ODS Jackson would have realized that ALL INSURANCE IS PAID FOR BY THE "HEALTHY" SO THE "SICK" CAN USE IT. This is true of health, auto, fire, flood, home owners, liability insurances etc etc.
Lest the rest of Jackson's ultra right wing fan-boys forget, lets talk about today's reality under Obama: the stock market is at an all time high, the USD is gaining in strength worldwide, the federal budget deficit is at multi-year low, more people have health insurance than ever before, inflation is low, the US has become the largest producer of oil in the world and oil prices are plummeting.
Jackson and his fascist fan-boy lackey's are so blinded by ODS and their rejection of any policies not seen by them as benefiting their WASP ultra right wing greedy ilk they are unable to see just how good they have it under Obama's watch.Your response is nothing more than political distraction, as in "Don't look over there, look over here at these shiny baubles.".
Do you have to say about the actual topic of my post: MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber's comments in 2013 about the strategies behind the passing Obamacare?
Thanks,
Jax.
ElAlamoPalermo
11-14-14, 01:28
Your response is nothing more than political distraction, as in "Don't look over there, look over here at these shiny baubles.".
Do you have to say about the actual topic of my post: MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber's comments in 2013 about the strategies behind the passing Obamacare?
Thanks,
Jax.What is the objective relevance of the opinion about the process of how Obamacare was passed through Congress? It was passed by the US Congress using legal means and procedures and later upheld as Constitutional by the SCOTUS and is now the law of the land. You posting the opinion of some MIT professor about the process shows that YOU are only interested in political distractions when it comes to anything Obama.
As I stated earlier, today's reality under Obama: the stock market is at an all time high, the USD is gaining in strength worldwide, the federal budget deficit is at multi-year low, more people have health insurance than ever before, inflation is low, the US has become the largest producer of oil in the world and oil prices are plummeting. No amount of ODS derived nonsense offered by you or your fascist right wing fan-boys/lackeys cannot refute this reality.
MIT professors might not be very credible. We had a monger on this board who taught there. He was Argie and finally moved to Montreal. We gave him a going-away party at Nuevo Estilo and we all chipped in to buy him an hour with a chica. Later we found out he did a half hour and pocketed the difference. How very Argie.
So don't trust MIT professors.
The latest posts from Doppel and Jackson are just more examples of the Conservative modus operandi: Focus on something small or anecdotal, make it sound negative, and portray it as typical or representative of the whole.
Gruber is only one person, and speaks for himself. Any dope who was paying attention to the health care debate knew that features like the mandate and the age 26 provision were all about getting more, healthy people into the insurance pools to pay for the sick. Most people know that's how insurance works. Republicans had and used every opportunity to scare Americans about the law, and went far beyond such points. And still failed. Remember the creepy Uncle Sam ad ? Or the "death panels", "don't let the government get between you and your doctor", "massive job killer", etc. All lies from the Republicans who are the masters at misleading Americans. Their isolated accusations of Democrats may have some truth, but are simply laughable coming from them.
Anyways, carry on folks. I must fly South to attend to some important monger business. :)
What is the objective relevance of the opinion about the process of how Obamacare was passed through Congress? It was passed by the US Congress using legal means and procedures and later upheld as Constitutional by the SCOTUS and is now the law of the land. You posting the opinion of some MIT professor about the process shows that YOU are only interested in political distractions when it comes to anything Obama.
As I stated earlier, today's reality under Obama: the stock market is at an all time high, the USD is gaining in strength worldwide, the federal budget deficit is at multi-year low, more people have health insurance than ever before, inflation is low, the US has become the largest producer of oil in the world and oil prices are plummeting. No amount of ODS derived nonsense offered by you or your fascist right wing fan-boys/lackeys cannot refute this reality.Yaks, ah-huh, oops, catch a falling star, oh sure, bazooka, mama mia, amen!
What is the objective relevance of the opinion about the process of how Obamacare was passed through Congress? It was passed by the US Congress using legal means and procedures and later upheld as Constitutional by the SCOTUS and is now the law of the land. You posting the opinion of some MIT professor about the process shows that YOU are only interested in political distractions when it comes to anything Obama.Unbelievable. Gruber's comments would be like one of the Neoconservative architects of the Iraq war saying the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was fabricated. But because Gruber is a Democrat and the ACA was Obama's idea, you call this a mere distraction.
As I stated earlier, today's reality under Obama: the stock market is at an all time high, the USD is gaining in strength worldwide,There are a lot of moving parts in the stock and currency markets, most of which the president of the United States, acting solely through the executive branch of government, has little or no control over.
The Merval index hit new all time highs about every other month during Nestor Kirchner's presidency. Kirchner must have been great for Argentina.
Yes, the USD gained massively against the JPY, because Japan orchestrated a massive devaluation of its currency. And against the EUR, in part because some European countries have, for decades, followed failed policies that Obama has done his best to implement in the USA. These policies resulted in high unemployment, low or no growth, and lots and lots of government debt, and the Euro is weak versus the dollar as a result.
the federal budget deficit is at multi-year lowIndeed it is. And after a series of unprecedented peace time deficits under Obama, the national federal debt has risen from 11 trillion to 18 trillion dollars. Obama may go down as the most profligate president in the history of the USA. And to be fair, Bush Junior was also one of the worst.
more people have health insurance than ever before If Obama had implemented a SOCIALIZED low cost, high quality health care system like what the majority of the citizens of Hong Kong use, I might agree that he really accomplished something. Or if he figured out a way to make the system work through competition, like in Singapore, I'd also applaud. But he didn't. He made health care in America worse. More people will work part time or not work because of Obamacare. Healthcare costs will continue to rise, and likely exceed 20% of GDP in a decade. In the long term, health care is likely to bankrupt the country unless something changes. Quality has not improved.
You're a businessman. Say you sold a product that cost 50% more than your priciest competitor. And 300% more than other competitors that offered better-quality products than you do. How long do you think you'd stay in business? This analogy is like comparing U.S. health care to some of the pricier European systems (12% of GDP) or low-cost, high-quality systems like Singapore and Hong Kong (4% or 5% of GDP).
, inflation is low,Because the economy never properly rebounded from the recession and demand is still weak. Add to that declines in middle class income and massive underemployment during his administration.
the US has become the largest producer of oil in the worldThat's disingenuous. Do you really think Obama had anything to do with that? The USA became the largest producer of oil in the world in spite of the Obama administration putting some federal land off limits to exploration, and despite the administration instructing the EPA to put roadblocks in the way of hydraulic fracturing.
your fascist right wing fan-boys/lackeys cannot refute this reality.The reality is that the fascists are in the Obama administration. They think they should be able to side step Congress and the courts and do what they believe is best for the USA. If they lost big time in the last election, who cares. The electorate is stupid, and the Washington Democrat elite know best.
the Euro is weak versus the dollar as a resultWell, compared to when? The euro is certainly much stronger against the dollar than when the euro was introduced. I remember the first day of full trading because I was working at a currency trading firm. 1.12 to 1. So the dollar was about 10% stronger when it was introduced. By Jan of 2001 as Clinton left office it had strengthened to 0.94. By the time your boy Bush II left office it had weakened to 1.34. For those keeping score at home, the dollar weakened over 40% against the euro during Bush II's terms.
More people will work part time or not work because of Obamacare.And others will take their place. It's actually a more efficient process in that regard. People with only a slight to moderate need to work, like me, will move out of the workforce. Those somewhat younger will be promoted to take the place of me and my ilk. Then recent graduates can take the jobs of those folks. It more closely matches the needs of the workplace with the needs of the workforce.
Dickhead,
1. Can you point to anything positive I've written about George W. Bush? Bush II is not my boy. I never voted for him. The last time the dollar was clearly overvalued against the major European currencies in terms of purchasing power was during Reagan's presidency, in 1984 and 1985. Reagan was my boy.
2. With respect to employment and Obamacare, I was actually thinking of employers who won't hire full time workers because they can't afford to pay for the medical insurance. But since you mention it, yes, I would strongly favor a combination of incentives and force that would cause you to pay hundreds of thousands in income tax instead of wasting away in premature retirement.
Premature? I worked for forty-one years. I started a few years earlier than most people so I'm quitting a few years earlier than most people. If I'd stayed at my government job I would already have my 30 years in. Not much longevity in the family tree and my father and grandfathers worked until they dropped dead. I'd like to think I'm a little smarter than that. I think the current ACA situation might also be an incentive for people to quit their jobs and start their own businesses, and that could be a very good thing. They could take the risk because they'd still have health insurance. Some of those might also be people in my age group, and then you would not only get the benefit of their entrepreneurship but everyone below can move up a rung on the ladder.
To be honest with you, I don't really give a shit about anything but a strong dollar right now. Congress and the Democrats and the Republicans can all go fuck themselves. I hit Europe at 0.88 and 0.83 (all time low) and I hit Australia and NZ at .495 and .37 which were also close to all-time lows. That was a big part of my travel strategy back then. Europe at 0.83 was lots of fun. In 2010, living in Spain at 1.43, not so much. I'm having a hard time understanding why the dollar is so strong right now given all the paper sloshing about. I think it is one of those 'in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king' type of deals; every other country is even more fucked up. Real interest rates are usually the most highly correlated with the strength of a currency, but US real interest rates are near zero. Of course, so are the EU's.
Not to change the subject, but when real interest rates are high, it's time to consider annuities and TIPS. I locked in 3.6% over inflation on TIPS in 2000 and I think we could see those levels again, or close. I think real interest rates will rise slowly and steadily over the next three to five years.
I'm having a hard time understanding why the dollar is so strong right now given all the paper sloshing about. I think it is one of those 'in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king' type of deals; every other country is even more fucked up. Real interest rates are usually the most highly correlated with the strength of a currency, but US real interest rates are near zero. Of course, so are the EU's.I strongly agree.
You think too small. Instead of just visiting countries where the currencies and hookers are cheap, you should buy equities there. This would be a good way to spend your retirement. There's a strong correlation between quality $15 hookers and future stock market performance. Just look at Indonesia after 1998 and Argentina after 2001, after their currencies collapsed.
WorldTravel69
11-15-14, 14:49
I just could not resist.
We the People got fucked.
Big Business rules.
That is why this was the most expensive election Ever.
http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=218404b9b7d17b8e087467c45&id=426bfe27de&e=edfb8e492c
Instead of just visiting countries where the currencies and hookers are cheap, you should buy equities there.Not a bad idea, but inconsistent with my zero tax strategy because foreign equities spew off non-qualifying dividends. I used to buy WEBS back in the day but you run into a lot of concentration risk in those things, like the top ten holdings will be 79% of the fund and so forth. Right now all my foreign equities are in retirement accounts where the taxability of the dividends isn't an issue, but it will be in a few years. Another problem is that with globalization, the diversification benefits from holding foreign equities has eroded quite a bit.
So here we see that politics and the tax laws, while not driving my investment decisions, are influencing them. This is a bad thing and is why all forms of income need to be taxed at the same rate. I suppose one could make the argument that taxing foreign dividends more punitively helps keep capital at home. I'd argue it's just another tariff. Of course, I think the issue is not that foreign dividends are taxed at higher rates, but that domestic dividends are taxed at lower rates. Income, dividends, interest, capital gains, and lottery winnings all need to be taxed at the same rate (within the same bracket; do NOT confuse this with an argument for a flat tax!).
However, I would rather stick a chisel in my ear and bash it with a hammer than invest in Argentine equities.
Dickhead, Foreign dividends are qualified if the country where the company is domiciled has a tax treaty with the USA that has an exchange of information provision. I've had the tax rate debate with Esten ad nauseum, but when you have up to a 53% state and federal dividend tax rate on top of a 39% corporate tax rate on earnings distributed to shareholders you set yourself up for economic inefficiencies. Similarly, in normal times when inflation accounts for a large part of long term capital gains, taxing them at a high rate doesn't make sense.
Dickhead, Foreign dividends are qualified if the country where the company is domiciled has a tax treaty with the USA that has an exchange of information provision. I've had the tax rate debate with Esten ad nauseum, but when you have up to a 53% state and federal dividend tax rate on top of a 39% corporate tax rate on earnings distributed to shareholders you set yourself up for economic inefficiencies. Similarly, in normal times when inflation accounts for a large part of long term capital gains, taxing them at a high rate doesn't make sense.Oh god. That whole thing about inflation and capital gains was what was used to justify LIFO. I am aware of the whole treaty thing, of course. Your hypergrowth areas don't tend to have them. Plus they can expire. One of the WEBS had that problem, maybe Brazil? The thing went way up in value over a couple of years, then the treaty expired so the holders had to decide whether to sell and take the gain or accept the NQ divs.
You still don't get and never did get my point about the corporate tax so we'll let that stay where it is.
You still don't get and never did get my point about the corporate tax so we'll let that stay where it is.I get it. And it will never happen. The main reason: Corporations don't vote.
Also, they hand out campaign cash and lobbying bucks to get tax regulations changed. Politicians, lobbyists and the federal government aren't going to ever stop riding that gravy train.
Big Boss Man
11-15-14, 17:48
The way I understand it is if you keep foreign stocks in a tax-deferred (IRA, 401k, 403) account you are not allowed to take the foreign tax credit. As pointed out earlier some foreign dividends are qualified. I think all the big ones from Switzerland and Germany are qualified - Nestle, Novartis, Roche and Allianz come to mind. (Just took in the ass on Allianz when Gross left Pimco.).
Here's an explanation from Schwab:
"Deferred accounts.
Since you don't pay current taxes on investment income in your IRA or 401(k), there's no deduction or credit currently available for foreign taxes paid on investments held in these accounts.
Think of it as a timing issue: The amount you pay in foreign taxes today reduces your retirement assets, and therefore reduces the amount of tax the IRS is able to collect when you start making withdrawals.
A Roth account is another story since qualified withdrawals are tax-free in the United States. In the case of a Roth, you're just out the money. However, it could still make sense to hold foreign investments in tax-advantaged retirement accounts. There are many other factors to consider apart from what might be a relatively immaterial amount of foreign tax. ".
In other words, it takes a very sharp pencil to figure things out to the best advantage and as Schwab says is it really worth it.
Yep, that's true Boss but I don't have any federal tax liability so the foreign tax credit does me no good. And right, don't put them in the Roth. My international equities are index funds so I can't control what's qualified vs. Non, although the ratio tends to be fairly consistent from year to year.
The Gruber Confession, by Charles Krauthammer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-gruber-confession/2014/11/13/474595bc-6b6b-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html
=========================================================
Its not exactly the Ems Dispatch (the diplomatic cable Bismarck doctored to provoke the 1870 Franco-Prussian War). But what the just-resurfaced Gruber Confession lacks in world-historical consequence, it makes up for in world-class cynicism. This October 2013 video shows MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, a principal architect of Obamacare, admitting that, in order to get it passed, the law was made deliberately obscure and deceptive. It constitutes the ultimate vindication of the charge that Obamacare was sold on a pack of lies.
Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, said Gruber. Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.
First, Gruber said, the bills authors manipulated the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which issues gold-standard cost estimates of any legislative proposal: This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. Why? Because if CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. And yet, the president himself openly insisted that the individual mandate what you must pay the government if you fail to buy health insurance was not a tax.
Worse was the pretense that Obamacare wouldn't cost anyone anything. On the contrary, its a win-win, insisted President Obama, promising that the typical family would save $2,500 on premiums every year.
Skeptics like me pointed out the obvious: You cant subsidize 30 million uninsured without someone paying something. Indeed, Gruber admits, Obamacare was a huge transfer of wealth which had to be hidden from the American people, because if you had a law which made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.
Remember: The whole premise of Obamacare was that it would help the needy, but if you were not in need, if you liked what you had, you would be left alone. Which is why Obama kept repeating Politifact counted 31 times that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
But of course you couldn't, as millions discovered when they were kicked off their plans last year. Millions more were further shocked when they discovered major hikes in their premiums and deductibles. It was their wealth that was being redistributed.
As NBC News and others reported last year, the administration knew this all along. But White House political hands overrode those wary about the presidents phony promise. In fact, Obama knew the falsity of his claim as far back as February 2010 when, at a meeting with congressional leaders, he agreed that millions would lose their plans.
Now, its not unconstitutional to lie. But it is helpful for citizens to know the cynicism with which the massive federalization of their health care was crafted.
It gets even worse, thanks again to Gruber. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case claiming that the administration is violating its own health care law, which clearly specifies that subsidies can be given only to insurance purchased on exchanges established by the state. Just 13 states have set up such exchanges. Yet the administration is giving tax credits to plans bought on the federal exchange serving 37 states despite what the law says.
If the government loses, the subsidy system collapses and, with it, Obamacare itself. Which is why the administration is frantically arguing that exchanges established by the state is merely sloppy drafting, a kind of legislative typo. And that the intent all along was to subsidize all plans on all exchanges.
Re-enter professor Gruber. On a separate video in a different speech, he explains what Obamacare intended: If you're a state and you dont set up an exchange, that means your citizens dont get their tax credits. The legislative idea was to coerce states into setting up their own exchanges by otherwise denying their citizens subsidies.
This may have been a stupid idea, but it was no slip. And its the law, as written, as enacted and as intended. It can be changed by Congress only, not by the Executive. Which is precisely what the plaintiffs are saying. Q.E.D.
Its refreshing that the most transparent administration in history, as this administration fancies itself, should finally display candor about its signature act of social change. Inadvertently, of course. But now we know what lay behind Obamas smooth reassurances the arrogance of an academic liberalism that rules in the name of a citizenry it mocks, disdains and deliberately, contemptuously deceives.
=========================================================
A masterpiece from the man himself until I caught the name Charles Krauthammer. A noted antagonist of Barrack Obama, excellence par non. He bashes Obama daily on his appearances on Fox News Channel and columns on Washington Post. His pointy nose sees no end in sight, the freak growth a result of his holding a straight face as he twist and turn on facts to suit his ideological and bank account agendas. Very distinguished academic record, yet he still is a big defender of the Bush/Cheney legacy. Yes, sad but true, we all have our blind spots.
And I am sure he voted for Uncle Milt Romney who is quoted on Fox in regard to his "47%" statement.
"What I said is not what I believe.....my whole life has been devoted to helping people, all of the people.....Look, the Democrats have 47%, we've got 45%, my job is to get the people in the middle.".
And so our innocence(stupidity) is exploited. The masses taken for a ride. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Man's inhumanity against itself.
To Esten, EAP and my friend Rev BS,
You can't blow this off. It represents potentially the most damning revelation in American politics since Watergate. Any comparisons to Romney or Todd Akin are trivial. They lost their elections. Obamacare on the other hand became the most significant new government program created since the 1960's. As Nancy Pelosi said, you have to pass the bill to know what's in it. Only a few of the 535 people who voted for or against the bill really knew what it involved. The academics and bureaucrats who wrote it created a monstrosity.
But the insurance companies sure like it: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/politics/health-law-turns-obama-and-insurers-into-allies.html?_r=0.
I was looking at the real earnings report that came out today and I was kind of surprised to see that average hours worked (per worker) was up 0.3% over the last twelve months. I kind of thought the ACA would have the opposite effect, both because it gives people more freedom to work less and because of the employer coverage 30 hour ceiling. I am not as familiar with how this time series is constructed as I am with unemployment and inflation, but it seems like a pretty positive result. You had wages up 0.7% and hours up 0.3% so earnings were up 1.0%. To give that some perspective, real earnings have risen only about 0.75% annually on average over the last thirty years. So at least in the ACA's first year, it certainly hasn't had a catastrophic effect on the labor market, at least from a wage standpoint.
Last night I saw an ad for our state's health insurance exchange and I immediately thought of our earlier discussion of student loans for useless degrees. The ad showed a graduate student engaged in a variety of risky outdoor activities such as kayaking and rock climbing. He was talking about how he could budget a few hundred a month for health insurance but not (whatever amount he said; I forget) if "something unexpected" were to happen. I think insurers call this "moral hazard," where you are more willing to take risks that you are insured against. Anyway, I kind of wished Jackson had been there to ask the dude what his major was, and to tell him to pay for his own entertainment. I know when I was in grad school, I tended to avoid more extreme physical activities due to being only minimally insured. Of course, anybody with employer health coverage could go out and take the exact same risks.
I had a dream where the ACA barely survived the Republican congress but they relaxed all those pesky environmental laws. In the dream I took out a student loan for a worthless liberal arts degree, then worked an overpaid government job for ten years and got all the loans forgiven, then quit my job and went on Obamacare. And all the while I was using incandescent light bulbs and pouring my used motor oil down the storm drain.
Member #4112
11-19-14, 11:47
A masterpiece from the man himself until I caught the name Charles Krauthammer. A noted antagonist of Barrack Obama, excellence par non. He bashes Obama daily on his appearances on Fox News Channel and columns on Washington Post. His pointy nose sees no end in sight, the freak growth a result of his holding a straight face as he twist and turn on facts to suit his ideological and bank account agendas. Very distinguished academic record, yet he still is a big defender of the Bush/Cheney legacy. Yes, sad but true, we all have our blind spots.
And I am sure he voted for Uncle Milt Romney who is quoted on Fox in regard to his "47%" statement.
"What I said is not what I believe.....my whole life has been devoted to helping people, all of the people.....Look, the Democrats have 47%, we've got 45%, my job is to get the people in the middle.".
And so our innocence(stupidity) is exploited. The masses taken for a ride. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Man's inhumanity against itself.Rev, while you spend the majority of this post excoriating the author, Charles Krauthammer, you don’t take issue with what Gruber actually said in the videos. While Gruber most certainly is engaging in a bit of braggadocio regarding how the democrats and the liberal elite technocrats hoodwinked the American people as well as the CBO, to quote Nancy Pelosi “we have to pass it to see what’s in it” fame he only confirms what everyone suspected as this atrocity has continued to roll out.
ACA passed with a majority vote in both the Senate and the House then signed by Obama into law. But the bill was passed without a single Republican vote and after several back room deals to secure that majority, so this albatross is solely owned by Obama and the Democrats.
Obama again stands before the American people and commits another Pinocchio when he states the bill was transparent and he has mislead no one, remember “ if you like your plan you can keep your plan” and “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”, and “this is a penalty not a tax”. The revelations continue to emerge.
As a sidebar, Keystone XL failed in the Senate last night with 41 Democrats shielding Obama from an unpopular veto one last time. The result will be different when the new Congress convenes in January. This will be a most difficult 2 years for Obama as he will be forced to veto bills popular with the American people. I predict at some point sufficient numbers of Democrats will cross the isle and vote with the Republicans to override Obama’s vetoes.
Big Boss Man
11-19-14, 12:42
Why does the government have to approve building a pipeline anyway?
I own ETE and yesterday there was an announcement they were building a new pipeline.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/energy-transfer-partners-regency-energy-130000945.html
What makes Keystone different?
My hypothesis on what will happen the next two years is that Congress will engage in Keynesian fiscal policy.
Nixon was anti-communist, yet he opened diplomatic relations with China and Reagan was anti-tax yet he raised taxes in both California and United States. This Congress will be anti-fiscal policy but it will increase deficits all the while calling their policies revenue enhancing. Remember the Laffer curve. One possibility is that the Republicans will strip all the taxes out of Obamacare yet keep the benefits. After all, they do want to win in 2016 and why piss anyone off?
My opinion is that the world runs less on ideology and more on realpolitik. The people who end up winning belong to Henry Kissinger's school of thought.
Member #4112
11-19-14, 12:51
Why does the government have to approve building a pipeline anyway?
I own ETE and yesterday there was an announcement they were building a new pipeline.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/energy-transfer-partners-regency-energy-130000945.html
What makes Keystone different?
My hypothesis on what will happen the next two years is that Congress will engage in Keynesian fiscal policy.
Nixon was anti-communist, yet he opened diplomatic relations with China and Reagan was anti-tax yet he raised taxes in both California and United States. This Congress will be anti-fiscal policy but it will increase deficits all the while calling their policies revenue enhancing. Remember the Laffer curve. One possibility is that the Republicans will strip all the taxes out of Obamacare yet keep the benefits. After all, they do want to win in 2016 and why piss anyone off?
My opinion is that the world runs less on ideology and more on realpolitik. The people who end up winning belong to Henry Kissinger's school of thought.The State Department become involved due to the pipeline crossing an international border. Why they become involved is beyond me, perhaps just another delaying tactic by the Obama administration to appease the environmental wackos
My community voted to ban fracking and that was ruled to be an "illegal taking" of the property owners' right to frack. My question is, doesn't any zoning restriction constitute a taking of property owners' rights to some extent? And if so, how is this any different? It tends to piss off the citizenry when they vote against something and then big business just does it anyway while government sits idly by.
For the record, I have stated several times that I don't understand fracking and don't know if it's good or bad, and this vote happened before I moved here, but I just don't see the difference between voting to ban fracking and voting to ban say a sale barn or something else the citizenry finds obnoxious or inappropriate for a certain locale. Why is one "zoning" and the other "constitutes an illegal taking"?
A masterpiece from the man himself until I caught the name Charles Krauthammer. A noted antagonist of Barrack Obama, excellence par non. He bashes Obama daily on his appearances on Fox News Channel and columns on Washington Post. His pointy nose sees no end in sight...Excellent job of killing the messenger, but you didn't actually address the subject of my post, which was: MIT professor Jonathan Gruber's public comments detailing the deliberate lies and outright fraud the Obama administration engaged in to get Obamacare passed.
You can't blow this off. It represents potentially the most damning revelation in American politics since Watergate.Of course they can "blow it off", just like they've blown off every other incidence of Obama's lies in office: With the cooperation of a compliant media, which is currently engaging in a news blackout on this particular story.
In contrast, can anyone imagine the media storm that would follow anything similar about the Bush administration, such as the uncovering of video of an Army general closely involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom who was boasting that the Bush administration knew there were no WMD in Iraq but they decided to sell that story in order to secure Congressional approval of the mission.
The answer is that MSNBC would put that video on a loop and play it 24/7 and the NYT would make it the headline every day for months.
(BTW, yes, I know that there are many liberals who BELIEVE that the Bush administration lied about the existence of WMD in Iraq, but I'm not arguing whether that actually happened, I'm only contrasting the media's ACTUAL response to Gruber's confession to a THEORETICAL response by the media to a NON-EXISTENT video revealing that the Bush administration lied about WMD).
Thanks,
Jax.
I don't find the ACA and WMD to be a very good comparison, since the actions in the latter case cost tens of thousands of lives while the ACA just costs money. The appropriate level of umbrage might be a tadly bit higher in the case of mass fatalities. But perhaps some deem dollars to be more important than lives.
Member #4112
11-19-14, 19:06
I don't find the ACA and WMD to be a very good comparison, since the actions in the latter case cost tens of thousands of lives while the ACA just costs money. The appropriate level of umbrage might be a tadly bit higher in the case of mass fatalities. But perhaps some deem dollars to be more important than lives.Dickhead, just answer the question without all the BS. Do you take issue with the MIT prof's statements as presented in the videos or not?
I know Reid, Polesi and Obama are going "Gurber Who", but the White House logs and their prior statements of all three preserved on video tell another story.
Dickhead, just answer the question without all the BS. Do you take issue with the MIT prof's statements as presented in the videos or not?
I know Reid, Polesi and Obama are going "Gurber Who", but the White House logs and their prior statements of all three preserved on video tell another story.It isn't actually an issue that interests me so I haven't read anything about it, and I never watch videos. Charles What's His Name is a brilliant guy but his brain has been warped by Zionism so I don't pay a lot of attention to him. Sorry.
The Keystone Pipeline crowd just took a hit yesterday as the Senate Republicans failed to override a Democrat filibuster by one vote 59-41. The bill is dead for the year, to be taken up again next year when there will be 8 new Republican senators on board for the oil people.
The pipeline is supposed to run thru 6 states down to the gulf refineries. This will be sand tar oil from Canada, the dirtiest oil in the world. Then it will be sent thru the US to waiting tankers to be shipped to foreign lands. So whose the flunkies in all this, the American people.
The oil company executives have said over and over they cant guarantee how much of this oil will be for US consumption. My question is this: why not. If they could say that say 75% would be used for US consumption it might go over better with the US population.
Another issue is this: the estimation of how many permanent jobs it will create to maintain the line has been way overblown and it turns out it wont create that many jobs at all. Last nite on MSNBC they sited some sources saying it will only create 35 permanent jobs. Say what???
Thanks.
Bayboy.
Member #4112
11-19-14, 23:19
My community voted to ban fracking and that was ruled to be an "illegal taking" of the property owners' right to frack. My question is, doesn't any zoning restriction constitute a taking of property owners' rights to some extent? And if so, how is this any different? It tends to piss off the citizenry when they vote against something and then big business just does it anyway while government sits idly by.
For the record, I have stated several times that I don't understand fracking and don't know if it's good or bad, and this vote happened before I moved here, but I just don't see the difference between voting to ban fracking and voting to ban say a sale barn or something else the citizenry finds obnoxious or inappropriate for a certain locale. Why is one "zoning" and the other "constitutes an illegal taking"?Since you are so concerned about a vote by the people to stop fracking has been overturned by a count, so how do you feel about entire states voting to not recognize gay marriage being overruled by those same courts?
Just curious, or is your concern selective.
Since you are so concerned about a vote by the people to stop fracking has been overturned by a count, so how do you feel about entire states voting to not recognize gay marriage being overruled by those same courts?Just curious, or is your concern selective.Well, not the same courts. This was our state court and our state has gay marriage although the AG did attempt to block its implementation. Gay marriage is another issue I am not interested in and don't follow. I don't think marriage, gay or straight, has any social relevance at this point, so that means it's just relevant to things like taxes and benefits and inheritance and such. If the question is, do I think states have the right to ban gay marriage, the answer is I don't know or care and haven't thought about it. So, that means I can't answer to whether, if they do ban it, that it's right for a judge to overturn it. I personally am a federalist and find having 50 different states with different rules rather annoying. So in general I am not much for states' rights. The issue should probably be unequivocally decided at the federal level and I don't care at all what they would decide.
On the gay marriage thing, my last observation would be that 100 years ago it was a big deal if two people of different "races" got married, and now it's not. 50 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable and now it's reality, and my guess is that in 50 more years it won't be a big deal. Basically, I think if someone does not believe in gay marriage, they should not marry a gay person and otherwise they should shut the fuck up.
As I stated, I have no opinion on fracking and so the decision did not concern me. I just think if banning fracking is a taking, then banning junkyards is a taking. That's unless I am missing some key difference rather than some arcane and politically fraught difference.
Member #4112
11-20-14, 00:04
Since you are so concerned about a vote by the people to stop fracking has been overturned by a count, so how do you feel about entire states voting to not recognize gay marriage being overruled by those same courts?Just curious, or is your concern selective.Well, not the same courts. This was our state court and our state has gay marriage although the AG did attempt to block its implementation. Gay marriage is another issue I am not interested in and don't follow. I don't think marriage, gay or straight, has any social relevance at this point, so that means it's just relevant to things like taxes and benefits and inheritance and such. If the question is, do I think states have the right to ban gay marriage, the answer is I don't know or care and haven't thought about it. So, that means I can't answer to whether, if they do ban it, that it's right for a judge to overturn it. I personally am a federalist and find having 50 different states with different rules rather annoying. So in general I am not much for states' rights. The issue should probably be unequivocally decided at the federal level and I don't care at all what they would decide.
On the gay marriage thing, my last observation would be that 100 years ago it was a big deal if two people of different "races" got married, and now it's not. 50 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable and now it's reality, and my guess is that in 50 more years it won't be a big deal. Basically, I think if someone does not believe in gay marriage, they should not marry a gay person and otherwise they should shut the fuck up.
As I stated, I have no opinion on fracking and so the decision did not concern me. I just think if banning fracking is a taking, then banning junkyards is a taking. That's unless I am missing some key difference rather than some arcane and politically fraught difference.Then I guess we can agree that people are not interested in an issue and don't follow it should shut the fuck up when it comes to comments.
I'm interested in the issue I commented on, which is whether zoning regulations are illegal takings similar to fracking bans. I'm not interested in telling people what gender their bed partners should be.
I'm interested in the issue I commented on, which is whether zoning regulations are illegal takings similar to fracking bans. You're not asking the right question. Fracking occurs underground, and I'm very skeptical that it causes environmental damage. I don't think it should be an issue. The question you should be asking is whether drilling an oil or gas well in someone's backyard is an illegal taking. The criticism directed towards fracking should actually be leveled towards faulty cement jobs or problems with the plumbing and surface footprint associated with wells.
Part of the answer to your quesetion would involve timing. If I own a house, and then some commercial development company comes in and gets government to re-zone an area and to force me to sell, then I think that could be an illegal taking. That may be similar to the situation you describe. The oil company has already paid money for the oil and gas leases, paid money for geological and seismic work, and then is deprived of that asset by a ban instituted after the leases were obtained.
I can see both sides to banning drilling in populated areas in Colorado. Banning it in rural areas is stupid, especially where the production is primarily natural gas. Anyone who believes global warming is real and who wants to ban fracking to produce natural gas is indeed an environmental nut job. Natural gas has done much, much more to reduce carbon emissions in the USA than any renewable energy source. Natural gas displaces coal for electricity generation, and coal emits much more CO2 per BTU than natural gas.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/4/
It's a big read. Hope you can handle it. Why Gruber is a side-show.
There are people who can't get over the ACA being passed and how it was passed. They claimed that they should have been consulted, wined and dined(no leadership) to have their views presented. And then, they would have no complaints if a health reform bill with universal care had been passed. Bi-partisanship, yeah right. These are the same people who would have opposed the Civil Rights Act had they been there in 2004.
ACA was the legacy that Obama wanted to hang his hat on. Do or Die. Mission accomplished. Even at the expense of Immigration Reform, although he will attempt to do something about it as he lame-duck to 2016. The Latinos are about to stone Obama, but wait, they must. It will be the Democrat's baby for 2016. Republicans can self-immolate on this issue, but it's their choice.
And sure, ACA is full of holes, but it is a beach-head secured. And if you are one of those soldiers that Obama sacrificed and left to die, I salute you. For you, Arlington awaits.
There is no movement to ban fracking in the rural areas. Rednecks love fracking for whatever reason. It's the cities on the Front Range that want to ban it, or in my case, the county. Actually it was a moratorium and not a ban. I've never lived anywhere that I knew of that used coal to generate power and I know I'm supposed to shut the fuck up about stuff I don't know anything about but coal just seems icky to me. Natural gas I like, although natural gas heating is not the best thing in the world for you. You're always going to have environmental issues in extractive industries, so my thinking is to minimize the need for and use of extracted products. I don't look for it to happen overnight.
One thing I was looking at recently was how the factory capacity utilization ratio still has not gotten back to historical norms. I think if capacity were tighter there might be more incentive to look for alternative energy sources, and for innovation in general. Now, of course, with gasoline prices sinking like an Italian cruise ship, there will be less incentive in the short run. The energy industry has repeated quite a few of its mistakes and if oil prices stay low for any length of time, some of the latest investments in the shale side of it might not work out. There are still several ghost towns in CO and WY from the last shale bust. Of course, there are rusty derricks all over TX and OK, etc., from conventional drilling's inevitable cycles so why should shale be any different?
But nobody's answering my question: What the fuck is so special about fracking? My community can decide it does not want massage parlors or e-cigarettes or angle parking or buildings over X feet high or almost anything else. So why can't they ban fracking if that's the community's desire? The one thing I came up with is that zoning changes often grandfather in existing uses, for the reasons Tiny mentions, but apparently we can't even ban it for newly purchased land. So, to me, it just looks like special treatment for the energy industry.
Punter 127
11-20-14, 04:23
I've never lived anywhere that I knew of that used coal to generate power and I know I'm supposed to shut the fuck up about stuff I don't know anything about but coal just seems icky to me. I'd be very surprised if you never lived in a place that used at least some electricity generated from coal, considering about 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39% attributed from coal.
In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were.
Coal 39%.
Natural Gas 27%.
Nuclear 19%.
Hydropower 7%.
Other Renewable 6%.
Biomass 1.48%.
Geothermal 0.41%.
Solar 0.23%.
Wind 4.13%.
Petroleum 1%.
Other Gases < 1%.
Natural gas I like, although natural gas heating is not the best thing in the world for you. You're always going to have environmental issues in extractive industries, so my thinking is to minimize the need for and use of extracted products. I don't look for it to happen overnight.I also like gas, but what's wrong with heating with gas? Gas is used safely for cooking, hot water, and heating in a huge number of American homes.
I don't have a thing against alternative energy sources when they become economically feasible, but they are not without problems of their own. I don't think you'll see fossil fuel energy go away in our lifetimes.
I dunno bro. Maybe. I grew up with heating oil. It could be that CO was using coal fired plants in the 70s and 80s. I did know it was still the largest single source. On (forced air) natural gas heating, it's not good for your skin and your sinuses (your hair too according to my lady friends, but I haven't actually noticed that) and if you don't clean the ducts regularly some people can get respiratory issues. That is probably more of an issue in the dry climates I've lived in than maybe where y'all are from. I'm not saying it's unsafe, just not as healthy as say radiant hot water heating. My favorite kind of heating is those tubes under the floor, similar to what they use for driveways in some places. Quieter too. I spent a summer in college putting those things in, hard fucking work too. I guess it might be the case with natural gas, in some locations, that the ultimate consumer might not know how the gas they are using is generated? Don't the utilities kinda buy that shit from wherever?
Let's shoot for a modest goal. I believe that in 20 years less than half the private cars will use fossil fuels and virtually none of the public transit. And the mileage of the remaining fossil fuel cars will be say 75 or 80 MPG. We can do that, right? I also think there is a lot of potential energy savings to be had in these apps where you can control your thermostat from your cell phone. Shit, I live in a three year old townhome and it doesn't even have a programmable thermostat (not that my friend who owns it would be able to figure out how to use one if we had one, but still). Seems like that should be a requirement for all new construction.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/4/
It's a big read. Hope you can handle it. Why Gruber is a side-show.
There are people who can't get over the ACA being passed and how it was passed. They claimed that they should have been consulted, wined and dined(no leadership) to have their views presented. And then, they would have no complaints if a health reform bill with universal care had been passed. Bi-partisanship, yeah right. These are the same people who would have opposed the Civil Rights Act had they been there in 2004.
ACA was the legacy that Obama wanted to hang his hat on. Do or Die. Mission accomplished. Even at the expense of Immigration Reform, although he will attempt to do something about it as he lame-duck to 2016. The Latinos are about to stone Obama, but wait, they must. It will be the Democrat's baby for 2016. Republicans can self-immolate on this issue, but it's their choice.
And sure, ACA is full of holes, but it is a beach-head secured. And if you are one of those soldiers that Obama sacrificed and left to die, I salute you. For you, Arlington awaits.So, in your opinion, the end does in fact justify the means?
ElAlamoPalermo
11-20-14, 16:35
So, in your opinion, the end does in fact justify the means?The "means" were that the ACA was passed by majority vote in both chambers of the US Congress, signed into law by the sitting US President and later declared Constitutional by the SCOTUS. The "end" is that the USA finally offers affordable healthcare to all its citizens and becomes the last member of the civilized world to do so.
WorldTravel69
11-20-14, 16:39
Get over it!
The people can have health care.
So, in your opinion, the end does in fact justify the means?
Regardless of what the means were, I don't think the merits of the ACA can be judged for many years, perhaps as long as an entire generation. My guess is that one of its biggest benefits will turn out to be the encouragement of entrepreneurship and small business incubation, by freeing creative talent from dependence on employers due to their dependence on employer health insurance. Possibly maybe perhaps some of the silly math I've pointed out will be partially somewhat corrected, maybe. Rates went down in much of my state due to new entrants to the marketplace, so I think the existence of the government subsidies is attracting more competition. Note the difference between the subsidy being given to the consumer, creating demand and competition, rather than to the provider, which would stifle competition. So I think they got that part of it right.
But it will be hard to put a dollar value on a healthier population, if one indeed does result. It will be hard to put a dollar value on the increased freedom of movement that labor will have, but it should increase efficiency in the long run. It will be hard to put a dollar value on the social benefits of fewer unwanted babies. Another result I predict is that personal bankruptcies will drop substantially, and you really can't put a dollar value on putting a bunch of lawyers out of work.
Punter 127
11-20-14, 17:21
I dunno bro. Maybe. I grew up with heating oil. It could be that CO was using coal fired plants in the 70s and 80s. I did know it was still the largest single source. On (forced air) natural gas heating, it's not good for your skin and your sinuses (your hair too according to my lady friends, but I haven't actually noticed that) and if you don't clean the ducts regularly some people can get respiratory issues. That is probably more of an issue in the dry climates I've lived in than maybe where y'all are from. I'm not saying it's unsafe, just not as healthy as say radiant hot water heating. My favorite kind of heating is those tubes under the floor, similar to what they use for driveways in some places. Quieter too. I spent a summer in college putting those things in, hard fucking work too. I guess it might be the case with natural gas, in some locations, that the ultimate consumer might not know how the gas they are using is generated? Don't the utilities kinda buy that shit from wherever?I think it's a safe bet that you had coal fired power plants in CO in the 70s and 80s considering Colorado currently receives more than 70 percent of its electricity from coal-fired power plants, and plans are in place to build more.
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/coal/colorado.php
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Existing_coal_plants_in_Colorado
I grew up in a house that had an old fuel oil furnace and it was a horrible stinky system, when we converted to natural gas we thought it was a god sent. If you think gas heat is dry give wood heat a try. Keeping the duct work clean is a problem for any forced air system be it heat pump, wood, gas, electric or even in air conditioning systems. I also like radiant hot water heating it's a very nice warm heat as was the old radiator systems, but the water in those systems has to be heated and I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of them are heated with fossil fuels.
Let's shoot for a modest goal. I believe that in 20 years less than half the private cars will use fossil fuels and virtually none of the public transit. And the mileage of the remaining fossil fuel cars will be say 75 or 80 MPG. We can do that, right? I also think there is a lot of potential energy savings to be had in these apps where you can control your thermostat from your cell phone. Shit, I live in a three year old townhome and it doesn't even have a programmable thermostat (not that my friend who owns it would be able to figure out how to use one if we had one, but still). Seems like that should be a requirement for all new construction.Let me work this one backwards, if I was living in the home of a friend that didn't have a programmable thermostat I would install one for him especially if I was paying the heating bill. They are fairly easy to install and anyone who can figure out how operate one can probable figure out how to install it. I tend to agree with you about potential energy savings and if I was in a situation where it was feasible I would enjoy living off grid, but mainly because I like being independent.
The best I can say about your "modest goal" and I don't intend any malice here but Dude it's a pipe dream. I'm unaware of any available technology to get 75-80 mpg. What would you power all the other vehicles with, batteries perhaps? If so how would you charge all these batteries, with electricity from fossil fuel?
Since this is the political thread lets move back that way and let me ask you this. If the federal government is going to subsidize battery powered cars, (which I don't support) don't you think the owners of those cars should be required to charge their batteries with electric from renewable energy sources, or be required to pay penalty/tax if they charge from traditional sources? The penalty/tax would help offset the cost of the subsidy.
Sidebar: where I grew up you seldom heard anyone say "y'all" now if you went a little farther south say down around Al Gore country you'd hear it a lot from them ridgerunners. However we did get a few visitors from over in Obama land that liked to say "you'ins" as in "you'ins are some sumbitches, I tell ya." Most of those guys were redneck flatlanders but their politics was bluer than blue, I'm talkin yellow dog Democrats, and I heard a lot of 'em up and moved to Colorado that's why they was able to elect a Republican governor in Obama land this year.
Now back to Jonathan Gruber and ObamaCare, a subject that's not going away anytime soon.
The people can have health care.The "people" had health care before Obamacare.
The "end" is that the USA finally offers affordable healthcare to all its citizensThe USA offered "affordable healthcare to all of its citizens" before Obamacare, all they had to do was buy it with their money.
The only difference is now they can buy it with my money.
Let's stop pretending that there was no health care in the USA before Obamacare.
Thanks,
Jax
Let me work this one backwards, if I was living in the home of a friend that didn't have a programmable thermostat I would install one for him especially if I was paying the heating bill. They are fairly easy to install and anyone who can figure out how operate one can probable figure out how to install it.It's a her and she's been separated from hubby over two years now and she won't even change a burned out light bulb. I did, in fact, offer to install one if she wanted to buy one and the few tools that would be needed. She declined this, which may have been a slight on my mechanical skills, but I think mostly it's because she's not here. Not that this point of view makes any sense, since it's she and not I who's paying the heating (and AC too), but it's a woman so sense is not a factor.
If the federal government is going to subsidize battery powered cars, (which I don't support) don't you think the owners of those cars should be required to charge their batteries with electric from renewable energy sources, or be required to pay penalty/tax if they charge from traditional sources? The penalty/tax would help offset the cost of the subsidy.Sure, if they can. But remember my proposal was not aimed at subsidizing any particular technology, just mpg in general. I don't really know how those charging stations function, although I'm sure you do. Is it mostly a marginal cost per car charged or is most of the cost in creating the capacity to begin with? The problem, as with many new technologies, is getting enough early adapters to achieve critical mass. Subsidies, while inherently evil, can sometimes help achieve that mass. Of course, then the subsidies have a nasty tendency to not go away once they're no longer needed. Kinda like the mortgage insurance deduction.
The USA offered "affordable healthcare to all of its citizens" before ObamacareI'm curious as to how you would go about defining "affordable." Percent of income? Percent of assets? Plus, your statement is pretty dubious considering that insurers routinely refused to cover those with pre-existing conditions, at any price. I'd be interested in your response to that. Maybe you want to amend that to:
"The USA offered affordable care to all healthy and wealthy citizens before Obamacare.".
That would be orders of magnitude more accurate. But anyway, thanks for helping to pay for the free hearing aids I got yesterday. $10,600 of taxpayer money and they stopped working after three hours. That's gotta be Obama's fault somehow.
Punter 127
11-20-14, 17:53
The "means" were that the ACA was passed by majority vote in both chambers of the US Congress, signed into law by the sitting US President and later declared Constitutional by the SCOTUS. The "end" is that the USA finally offers affordable healthcare to all its citizens and becomes the last member of the civilized world to do so.The "means" were ObamaCare being shoved through the sludge of parliamentary trickery, lies, horse trading, cooked-up numbers and false promises. Signed into law by the sitting US President who also lied, and later part of it was declared Constitutional by the SCOTUS, however other parts are still being evaluated. There is no "end" unless the law is repealed or struck down by the SCOTUS .
It's just a law, it's not even a constitutional amendment and it's certainly not chiseled in stone.
Member #4112
11-20-14, 18:11
The "means" were that the ACA was passed by majority vote in both chambers of the US Congress, signed into law by the sitting US President and later declared Constitutional by the SCOTUS. The "end" is that the USA finally offers affordable healthcare to all its citizens and becomes the last member of the civilized world to do so.You statement regarding offering "affordable" healthcare to "all its citizens" is just another falsehood. It maybe affordable to those receiving subsidies but is it not so for all those paying higher premiums after being forced off their original plans which did not meet ACA standards. Second even the Democrats and Obama admitted there would still be something like 20 to 30 million citizens without coverage when all was said and done. The second shoe drops in 2015 when companies employing more than 100 employees fall under ACA.
EAP is just spouting rubbish.
While some aspects of the law will be recycled into another healthcare bill, ACA/ObamaCare will parish and may do so this summer after the Supremes hear the subsidies case. I predict Roberts will be on the other side of the fence on this one.
Tonight Obamation will seal the fate of the Democrats for 2016. Conservatives could ask for no greater weapon against the liberals than Obama.
Punter 127
11-20-14, 18:59
Let's shoot for a modest goal. I believe that in 20 years less than half the private cars will use fossil fuels and virtually none of the public transit. Lets back up a bit. What I was trying to ask you is how would the non fossil fuel cars and public transit be powered in your "modest goal"?
(snip)
But anyway, thanks for helping to pay for the free hearing aids I got yesterday. $10,600 of taxpayer money and they stopped working after three hours. That's gotta be Obama's fault somehow.Actually, I would blame Obama if you got those hearing aids through ACA. Thems some expensive contraptions!
My father got hearing aids about a year ago, for around a 1/4 of the price. They work well - the biggest complaint he has is the battery lifetime. And he is far from rich...
"Making healthcare affordable" for everyone shouldn't mean putting crap on top of more crap so that the government can redistribute wealth. It should mean fixing the underlying problems so that we don't have to subsidize over-priced healthcare for those who truly can't afford it. If Obama had put his political capital into something like that (even if he'd failed!), I would have voted for him his second term.
Lets back up a bit. What I was trying to ask you is how would the non fossil fuel cars and public transit be powered in your "modest goal"?The engineers and scientists are going to have to solve that one, or Elon Monk or some other genius. I don't have any type of science background at all. Remember, I'm a liberal arts major. I took meteorology as my science. I can tell you all about the lifting condensation level but how to power vehicles, not so much. That's why I have no opinion on fracking or global warming; those opinions would be based on nothing. But I think you thought from my previous post that I somehow thought radiant heat came by osmosis or something. I'm not claiming it saves money. I don't know that either. And sure, it's the presence of the ducts and not the natural gas that causes the respiratory problems, but the point was that other types of systems don't have ducts at all.
Actually, I would blame Obama if you got those hearing aids through ACA. Thems some expensive contraptions!
My father got hearing aids about a year ago, for around a 1/4 of the price. They work well - the biggest complaint he has is the battery lifetime. And he is far from rich...
"Making healthcare affordable" for everyone shouldn't mean putting crap on top of more crap so that the government can redistribute wealth. It should mean fixing the underlying problems so that we don't have to subsidize over-priced healthcare for those who truly can't afford it. If Obama had put his political capital into something like that (even if he'd failed!), I would have voted for him his second term.That was the MSRP. I'll have to see what the insurance company actually pays the audiologist. Last time it was $5,400 but these are a newer technology. Notice I didn't say a better technology, although for the brief three hours they functioned ($3,533 an hour for those keeping track at home) they did seem considerably better. They do have a 3 year warranty versus 2 years for the older ones.
I thought it was kind of wasteful in the first place since the old hearing aids still work, but they are out of warranty so there was my incentive, plus I'm leaving. As much as they conk out, I think it's probably reasonable to have a second pair, but why the fuck do they conk out so much if they are supposed to be the latest and greatest? That would be my question.
I don't know if this means anything, but both the audiologists I have been to were super cute and had major hotties working at the front desk. This one is from Australia by way of Arkansas and you can just imagine how cute her accent is.
Why do so many Americans that I meet have partial hearing problems? The slanting of the neck for better ear positioning is a regular feature these days. Can we coin that as the giraffe pose?
But then it could be my whispering.
My 31 yo grand-nephew from the States who I am trying to rehabilitate into a useful citizen already has hearing problems. I have to ask him to tone down in public because he can't hear himself. Nothing like shouting about all the drugs he ate or the women who got naked on him while riding the subway in Bangkok. Fortunately, 90% of them don't understand English and the 7% don't get it because of the speed & slang of the conversation. Meanwhile, I just try to look casual as if we are talking about where the best pad-thai are.
The "end" is that the USA finally offers affordable healthcare to all its citizens and becomes the last member of the civilized world to do so.Do you really believe this? Is this what the pundits on MSNBC are spouting?
The USA does not offer affordable healthcare. Healthcare costs in the USA as a % of GDP, at 17.9%, are higher than anywhere else in the world. And they're projected by the United States government to rise to 19.9% of GDP in 2022. Take out Sierra Leone, Liberia, Tuvalu and U.S. territories and costs are at least 50% higher in the United States than any other country in the world.
As to your apparent belief that ALL citizens will have health insurance, that's not true. There were 48 million uninsured in 2011. After Obamacare takes full effect, in 2016, the CBO expects the number to go down to 30 million and remain flat. So after all this, there will still be 30 million people outside the system.
I can't understand how you guys can not only defend the ACA, but also believe it was a great accomplishment.
Here are my sources if you care to review the truth instead of living in a dreamworld:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS
http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2012.pdf
http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/the-uninsured-and-the-difference-health-insurance/
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43900-2014-04-ACAtables2.pdf
My community can decide it does not want massage parlors or e-cigarettes or angle parking or buildings over X feet high or almost anything else. So why can't they ban fracking if that's the community's desire? The one thing I came up with is that zoning changes often grandfather in existing uses, for the reasons Tiny mentions, but apparently we can't even ban it for newly purchased land. So, to me, it just looks like special treatment for the energy industry.I do not believe your community should outlaw massage parlors, e-cigarettes, angle parking, tall buildings, fracking or marijuana. Maybe your community should place restrictions on new oil and gas wells, which is a very different issue from fracking, as I've already explained. I will leave it at that, as I'm as dogmatic about fracking as you are about corporate taxation.
I do not believe your community should outlaw massage parlors, e-cigarettes, angle parking, tall buildings, fracking or marijuana. Maybe your community should place restrictions on new oil and gas wells, which is a very different issue from fracking, as I've already explained. I will leave it at that, as I'm as dogmatic about fracking as you are about corporate taxation.My fucking soon-to-be-ex community did in fact outlaw marijuana despite the fact that 54% of the voters in our town voted for the amendment that legalized it. So, this week the adjoining school district was presented with $905,000 in marijuana tax money and we got nothing. Now I have to consume additional fossil fuels to drive to the next town. But at least it's a hybrid.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/21/house-panel-debunks-benghazi-theories/19367265/
Obama bashers are like hounds in a fox chase. Frenzied, yelping, they are always in heat when they have the tiniest of a drift of an Obama scandal. Under the pretensions of patriotism & truth, their outrage of Obama verge on the ridiculous more often than not. At the end of the day, the catch was never worth the chase. But to their grave, they will bring their conviction that Obama was nothing but a fraud, even a traitor. Nail him to the cross! How can a son of a carpenter or a Kenyan immigrant perform miracles? "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."(Matthew 13.57).
I know some of you will puke at any Biblical references, but in reality, you can really understand & differentiate goodness & evil very well there. Something not always very clear in secular society.
The "people" had health care before Obamacare.
The USA offered "affordable healthcare to all of its citizens" before Obamacare, all they had to do was buy it with their money.
The only difference is now they can buy it with my money.
Let's stop pretending that there was no health care in the USA before Obamacare.
Thanks,
JaxI know FIRST HAND that a HUGE number (in the millions-perhaps tens of millions) of the population did not and COULD not get medical insurance even if they were willing to pay a million dollars a year. What stupid ignorance to reality!!
However, even if you finally had to admit (which you would never do regardless of the evidence) that millions did not and COULD not get insurance it wouldn't matter one ounce to you-callousness is a Republican prerequisite.
Try living in reality (and the US) for a while and perhaps you will see reality-on second thought that will be an impossibility.
Stowe.
I know FIRST HAND that a HUGE number (in the millions-perhaps tens of millions) of the population did not and COULD not get medical insurance even if they were willing to pay a million dollars a year. What stupid ignorance to reality!!
However, even if you finally had to admit (which you would never do regardless of the evidence) that millions did not and COULD not get insurance it wouldn't matter one ounce to you-callousness is a Republican prerequisite.
Try living in reality (and the US) for a while and perhaps you will see reality-on second thought that will be an impossibility.
Stowe.Obamacare will leave 30 million people uninsured and thus out of the health care system. Jackson has proposed a system that would provide health care for all, as an alternative to what we have now. See http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=435065&highlight=argentina#post435065. (Stowe, you'll have to scroll down the page to read what he wrote -- I can't get the link to work correctly.) When the bottom fell out of the Argentine economy, he contributed money and time to help people who were truly poverty stricken.
I could say that the problem with Democrats is that they all want to sit at home watching television collecting their government checks while the rest of us bust our asses to support them. And not only that, but if someone were to propose something related to healthcare or education that would lower costs and improve quality, it would be over their dead bodies. That's because Democrats are never happy unless they're flushing somebody else's money down the toilet. I don't really believe that, but it makes more sense that what some of what you guys have been spouting here about the "callous" types that disagree with you.
Hmm. I followed that link and I saw where Jackson briefly discussed a system and then stated it wouldn't work because the liberals would bankrupt it. Maybe you could extract the relevant part of the post to which you refer.
Jackson also said this: "Regarding pre-existing conditions, I'm all for eliminating pre-existing conditions as a barrier to buying health insurance if anyone can figure out a way to deal with the inevitable issue of people waiting until they have a health issue before they decide to buy health insurance."
The penalties for not having insurance address this, and increase fairly dramatically. So it's at least a partial solution. Now, the mentality of not buying health insurance until you are sick is one of those things I was saying may take a long time to change. But I think it will, over time, because the subsidized insurance is a good deal and most people will figure that out and will have it. Gradually the mindset will change to where health insurance is taken for granted (pluses and minuses to that as well), and playing the waiting game will no longer be necessary or desirable. Lots of people didn't buy car insurance when they didn't have to, remember? I was one of them. But, now it's well ingrained in almost every state (I think NH still does not require auto insurance), and it's gotten more ingrained. When they first made it mandatory in this state, you could still register your car without it (like you were promising not to actually drive it) and now you can't. The ACA will turn out much the same way, gradual acceptance until it becomes socially institutionalized.
But then again, maybe the Republicans will dismantle the whole thing in 2017. I guess I'd better manipulate the piss out of it for the next few years. Oh, wait minute; I was already doing that. Never mind.
Maybe you could extract the relevant part of the post to which you refer.Here it is:
As a compromise to those who wish to buy votes, I stated that I would support a tax funded system of free public hospitals in the USA. Of course, I'm envisioning concrete block facilities staffed with doctors and nurses trained at tuition-free government medical schools and working for military payscales.
A somewhat similar system in Hong Kong, which operates aside private healthcare, provides good quality care at much, much lower cost than the system in the USA.
Here it is: A somewhat similar system in Hong Kong, which operates aside private healthcare, provides good quality care at much, much lower cost than the system in the USA.Right, and then he says, "such a system would never work in the USA." So that's pretty typical conservative rhetoric: complaining about something but not offering any solutions. And, if the system he alludes to is so great, why have no Republican presidents made any moves towards implementing such a system? You guys can complain about the ACA all you want, and it's sure not perfect. But it's a case of a politician actually getting something done, and for that by itself should be applauded.
But fair is fair and now that the ACA is paying for my hearing aids, I'll pay for your crying towels. Do you want the money sent to Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or one of the other groups that does your thinking for you? What do you think, a gross of crying towels? Will that be enough? Or should I make it a great gross?
Right, and then he says, "such a system would never work in the USA." So that's pretty typical conservative rhetoric: complaining about something but not offering any solutions. And, if the system he alludes to is so great, why have no Republican presidents made any moves towards implementing such a system? You guys can complain about the ACA all you want, and it's sure not perfect. But it's a case of a politician actually getting something done, and for that by itself should be applauded.
But fair is fair and now that the ACA is paying for my hearing aids, I'll pay for your crying towels. Do you want the money sent to Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or one of the other groups that does your thinking for you? What do you think, a gross of crying towels? Will that be enough? Or should I make it a great gross?I'm not a Republican. I do on the whole dislike Democrat politicians more than Republican politicians though.
I would actually favor a system like Singapore's that keeps health care private but encourages competition, eliminates crony capitalism, and makes sure all individuals are covered. And all at lower cost to the consumer and the taxpayer than what the USA has now. My second choice would be a system like Hong Kong's, which involves public health care. No mainstream Republican or Democrat would support either of these solutions. I may be to the left of you on this issue, although you do appear to have no appreciation for the fact that the health care system without changes will probably bankrupt America, which is typical of the left. I have to admit that spending lots of money so a country or state or locality eventually goes bankrupt is indeed getting something done.
It isn't that I have no appreciation for the effect of the changes, it's that I don't agree with you on the ultimate outcome. It's not that easy to bankrupt an entity that has the right of seigniorage. And in my state, we're ending the first year of the ACA with large surpluses and an unemployment rate below 4%. Inflation was negative last month. None of the economic woes the gloom and doomers predicted are surfacing (yet). Enrollment is increasing nicely in the first year of renewal, by the early numbers. That means more economies of scale and more efficiencies, oops I mean relatively less inefficiency, for the new and growing system. Despite my own considerable trials and travails with the bureaucratic aspects of the system, I'm moderately sanguine about it going forward.
I think the Hong Kong system, which Tiny's posts have led me to study, would be a fine theoretical model for us to draw on. If you look at health care costs in the US, I think you need to look first at the excessive compensation structure. If you look at the industrialized countries who spend far lower percentages of GDP per capita compared to the US, in none of those places are doctors making the type of money they do in the US. Work on that and work on getting the pharmaceuticals out the drug pushing business and back into the drug providing business, and then maybe a dual public-private system a la Hong Kong could function in the US. Singapore I did not study because Islam makes me puke. I've been to Hong Kong, and clearly there is still an economic stratum that is excluded from affordable health care. It's probably not nearly as large as the percentage here, though. I base that on the large number of amputees, harelips, and so forth that I saw there, stuff that was probably correctable at some point.
Hong Kong is a model of efficiency and other countries would do well to study not just its health care system but its transportation system and probably a few other systems as well. Their system of prostitution is not bad either, and is for the most part a tribute to the effectiveness of free and unfettered markets. HK has the best looking independent streetwalkers of anywhere I've ever been, and that's saying something.
Here is one inherent problem with free markets and unfettered capitalism that nobody really likes to talk about: It's based on the premise that all people are created equal. But, they're not. So the ones who are born with and into "more equal" circumstances crush those who are born with lesser abilities and economic advantages. The intergenerational effect from this is exponential and not linear, and an overly stratified society results. A way to address that is (conservatives cover your eyes and ears and go hide in a closet) wealth redistribution. A reasonably efficient way of achieving wealth distribution is progressive taxation. Stripped to its fiscal core, the ACA is nothing more than an example of graduated income tax rates. So, even if I were to ignore the huge and largely unjustified benefits I'm personally receiving from it, it has a lot of conceptual appeal. I believe the true measure of any society is how it treats its weakest members. The US leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, in my opinion, and the ACA is a large step in the right direction.
Wouldn't my side of things have gotten more votes this past election if the mulatto Muslim messiah had announced his illegal, subversive, and unconstitutional immigration plan before the mid-terms? What am I missing here?
We need merit-based immigration and not this whatever jackass evaded capture the longest gets to stay bullshit.
It's not that easy to bankrupt an entity that has the right of seigniorage.If we just print more money, won't we end up like Argentina and Brazil in the 1980's, or Zimbabwe more recently?
And in my state, we're ending the first year of the ACA with large surpluses and an unemployment rate below 4%. Inflation was negative last month. None of the economic woes the gloom and doomers predicted are surfacing (yet). Enrollment is increasing nicely in the first year of renewal, by the early numbers. That means more economies of scale and more efficiencies, oops I mean relatively less inefficiency, for the new and growing system. Despite my own considerable trials and travails with the bureaucratic aspects of the system, I'm moderately sanguine about it going forward.If you're addressing my point about health care costs bankrupting the USA, this is irrelevant. The gloom and doomers are mainstream. Unfunded liabilities of the federal government are huge, over 200 trillion dollars by some estimates, and I believe Medicare and Medicaid account for the majority of that. Obamacare will soon be adding another $150 billion a year on top of Medicare and Medicaid. The irony is that some countries spend less as a % of GDP for healthcare for their entire populations than what we spend on Medicare and Medicaid alone. And they have better outcomes for things like life expectancy and infant mortality. The system is royally fucked and if nothing changes we will go bankrupt. Yes, that will occur after you die, so you can afford to be moderately sanguine.
Here is one inherent problem with free markets and unfettered capitalism that nobody really likes to talk about: It's based on the premise that all people are created equal. But, they're not. So the ones who are born with and into "more equal" circumstances crush those who are born with lesser abilities and economic advantages. The intergenerational effect from this is exponential and not linear, and an overly stratified society results. A way to address that is (conservatives cover your eyes and ears and go hide in a closet) wealth redistribution. A reasonably efficient way of achieving wealth distribution is progressive taxation. Stripped to its fiscal core, the ACA is nothing more than an example of graduated income tax rates. So, even if I were to ignore the huge and largely unjustified benefits I'm personally receiving from it, it has a lot of conceptual appeal. I believe the true measure of any society is how it treats its weakest members. The US leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, in my opinion, and the ACA is a large step in the right direction.First, everything you've read about inequality probably looked at before tax income. If you adjust for taxes, transfer payments, household size, retirement benefits and the like, the relative changes that have occurred in recent decades aren't that drastic. See Table 1 in http://journal.southerneconomic.org/doi/pdf/10.4284/0038-4038-2013.175. I looked at progressivity some time ago, and if memory serves me correctly, the USA had the most progressive tax system in the developed world. I'm sure that's right for OECD countries. And that was BEFORE OBAMACARE AND BEFORE THE BUSH TAX CUTS WERE RESCINDED. You tax people at up to a 43.4% federal tax rate (39.6% before Obamacare), and add up to a 13.3% state rate, then add on property taxes and take away 40% of what they've got after they die and you end up with a pretty progressive system. Some might argue if that's conceptually appealing, then confiscation and theft should be conceptually appealing too. I might not go that far.
I would argue that the best cure for inequality is a better educational system. And spending isn't the problem. Our expenditures on education are comparable or higher than most other developed countries. The problem is with the system. I see some Republicans trying to fix it, with things like vouchers and accountablilty from educators. And some Democrats fighting them every step of the way. Also, more needs to be done about helping children in poverty, instead of heavily subsidizing Medicare and Social Security for older Americans, who are relatively well off compared to younger Americans.
WorldTravel69
11-23-14, 05:09
Maybe you should watch this program.
Jackson one of the most.
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-roosevelts/
All the republicans hated the Democrats then, because he and his wife want freedom and health care fore ALL.
Same as Now.
He had to deal with the same racial problems that the Good Old White Boys did then and still do not want!
Singapore I did not study because Islam makes me puke.You might be thinking of Brunei? The rich oil mini state?
I said Singapore and I meant Singapore. I know that Buddhism is a bit more prevalent than Islam in Singapore but it's a good 1/4 or 1/3 Muslim and I choose to avoid it, similar to the south of Thailand. One thing nobody wants to talk about is the birth rate among Muslims. It's so much higher than Buddhists' rate that Islam will probably be the majority religion there in one or two more generations. Could happen in Thailand too.
"If we just print more money, won't we end up like Argentina and Brazil in the 1980's, or Zimbabwe more recently?".
The key difference is that in those other countries, the printing press is in the hands of the legislative branch. Not the case in the Yew Ess. The other difference is that the Yew Ess has a lot more success in collecting the taxes it imposes.
If you want better schools, for my money the way to achieve it is to make everyone attend the same school. Rich, poor, black, white, etc. No private schools. No parochial schools. No home schooling. I definitely agree it's not about money. I spent fifteen years in higher education watching the quality of incoming freshmen get worse and worse as more and more of this No Child Left Behind and outcomes based learning and crap proliferated. Eliminate athletic scholarships; that would be a start.
"If we just print more money, won't we end up like Argentina and Brazil in the 1980's, or Zimbabwe more recently?".
The key difference is that in those other countries, the printing press is in the hands of the legislative branch. Not the case in the Yew Ess. The other difference is that the Yew Ess has a lot more success in collecting the taxes it imposes.Thanks for that, honestly, I didn't think about the taxes part. So a highly indebted USA will be more like Japan, a poor economy for decades? I'm not sure that's any better. And I'm not sure that's a good analogy, as while the Japanese hold most Japanese government debt, much of ours is owned by Chinese, Saudi Arabia, etc.
f you want better schools, for my money the way to achieve it is to make everyone attend the same school. Rich, poor, black, white, etc. No private schools. No parochial schools. No home schooling.
You read about schools that far outperform others, and also health care systems like Mayo's that produce great results at far lower cost than the average. If you could get rid of the crony capitalism, teacher's unions, etc. and encourage something like a free market in education and health care, I wonder if these could predominate. You would need to insure that underprivileged kids could attend the best schools, chosen by their parents. I doubt we'd see eye-to-eye on that, as you seem to prefer statist solutions controlled by elites in the federal government, while I think that's a recipe for disaster. I could however see implementing Jackson's alternative to the present system, because health care is so truly screwed up.
I said Singapore and I meant Singapore. I know that Buddhism is a bit more prevalent than Islam in Singapore but it's a good 1/4 or 1/3 Muslim and I choose to avoid it, similar to the south of Thailand. One thing nobody wants to talk about is the birth rate among Muslims. It's so much higher than Buddhists' rate that Islam will probably be the majority religion there in one or two more generations. Could happen in Thailand too.I just looked it up and 13% of the population is Malay (Islamic) and 9% is Indian. Most of the Indians are probably Hindi. That said, the only place I've ever felt threatened by a Muslim was in Singapore, so much so that when asked my nationality I pretended like I was from Argentina. I've spent months in Indonesia and never felt threatened or unwelcome. That's compared to about 10 days total in Singapore.
Tiny, the Malay population in Singapore is very moderate, even secular as they are fully absorbed in the economy success of Singapore.
There are 1.2 million foreign workers in Singapore, mostly in the lower end. Construction, marine & service sectors. US has around 2,000 business entities there. At one time, I have heard of 40,000 thousand Americans in Singapore. Latest statistics not possible, I think it has become an sensitive issue.
Been to Singapore 3 to 5 times the last 3 years, so quite in tune with the local situation. Will be there in 2 weeks on the way to Australia. Mostly from talking to taxi drivers, amongst others. The growing resentment of foreign workers is very serious. At the medium level up, many locals feel they are denied advancement because of expatriates. At the lower end, they are looked down upon, especially the Indians & Bangladeshis. Mainly, because they infringe on the space of the locals. Singapore being such a small place.
The gap between the rich and the rest are growing wider & wider. The economic stress level in Singapore is super high at every level & facet of life.
Nothing wrong with the "the survival of the fittest" model, but if the present government does not counter that with more social benefits, its "corporate" management style is going to be rejected by the people. The last election was an eye opener for the incumbent party, a party that has been in power since independence, in 1965.
WorldTravel69
11-24-14, 14:43
Why is this happening?
Politics!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/falling-apart-america-neglected-infrastructure/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-blocks-60-billion-infrastructure-plan/2011/11/03/gIQACXjajM_story.html
Punter 127
11-24-14, 20:07
Why is this happening?
Politics!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/falling-apart-america-neglected-infrastructure/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-blocks-60-billion-infrastructure-plan/2011/11/03/gIQACXjajM_story.htmlDon't worry I'm sure his majesty will issue an order to fix the problem.
Here's a little something for you and your ilk. (yes that would be you Rev).
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?msg=Time%20left%20until%20Obama%20leaves%20office&p0=263&year=2017&month=1&day=20&hour=0&min=0&sec=0
Don't worry I'm sure his majesty will issue an order to fix the problem.
Here's a little something for you and your ilk. (yes that would be you Rev).
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?msg=Time%20left%20until%20Obama%20leaves%20office&p0=263&year=2017&month=1&day=20&hour=0&min=0&sec=0You sure have a hard-on for me. Do I look that good?
Punter 127
11-24-14, 22:54
THE LAW OF TENFOLD RETURN
You sure have a hard-on for me. Do I look that good?Not on you best day dude!
But since you and Obama have been Bible thumping recently I think it only appropriate to respond with, "You reap what you sow".
Of course the fact that I see you as a soft target plays a role as well.
So Obama, I mean Jesus said:
"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28.
And Obama, I mean Jesus said.
""And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." John 8:32.
Amen.
Punter 127
11-25-14, 12:39
Sadly, I am always soft. Way to much information.
A few days ago the Republican controlled House committee whose job was to find out who was at fault in the Bengazi attack a few years ago finally came to a conclusion: neither the Obama administration NOR Hilary Clinton was at fault in the attack on our embassy. The Republicans spent all this time screaming and hollering about this incident. I guess they'll have to find something to get hyped over.
Maybe the IRS had it out for their right-wing conservative groups and tried to stop them from a tax write-off.
WorldTravel69
11-25-14, 14:13
New panel.
http://news.yahoo.com/boehner---i-m-ready-to--re-appoint--members-to-special-benghazi-panel-in-new-congress-001822450.html
A few days ago the Republican controlled House committee whose job was to find out who was at fault in the Bengazi attack a few years ago finally came to a conclusion: neither the Obama administration NOR Hilary Clinton was at fault in the attack on our embassy. The Republicans spent all this time screaming and hollering about this incident. I guess they'll have to find something to get hyped over.
Maybe the IRS had it out for their right-wing conservative groups and tried to stop them from a tax write-off.
The House committee investigating the Bengazi attack has wasted $3.3 million already on their findings.
A few days ago the Republican controlled House committee whose job was to find out who was at fault in the Bengazi attack a few years ago finally came to a conclusion: neither the Obama administration NOR Hilary Clinton was at fault in the attack on our embassy.The issue is not who is "at fault" for the attacks having occurred.
The issue is the ensuing "it was a spontaneous response to a youtube video" cover up.
The House is investigating the cover up.
Of course, it all begs the question "If they weren't 'at fault', then what were they covering up?".
The answer: They were covering up the fact that a US Dept of State Diplomatic facility had been attacked and destroyed and that an American ambassador had been killed by Muslim terrorists during a terrorist attack.
Why the cover up? The Obama Administration was actively campaigning on their insistence that Obama had defeated Al-Qaeda and terrorism in general largely due to his incredibility brilliant diplomatic initiatives. An Islamic terror attack at that time would have destroyed the credibility of that narrative and possibly cost Obama the election.
Get it?
Probably not, given the previously muted reaction to MIT professor Jonathan Gruber's public comments and my realization that the members of this forum are apparently indifferent towards elected government officials espousing outright lies to the American people in pursuit of their political agendas.
Thanks,
Jax.
WorldTravel69
11-25-14, 15:56
http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/22/no-cover-intelligence-failure-military-inaction-benghazi-attacks-house-panel-finds/
Where is the Independent or Libertarian Panel report?
You have been brainwashed by Fox's Bullshit and it is just stuck in your mind, it never happened.
The issue is not who is "at fault" for the attacks having occurred.
The issue is the ensuing "it was a spontaneous response to a youtube video" cover up.
The House is investigating the cover up.
Of course, it all begs the question "If they weren't 'at fault', then what were they covering up?".
The answer: They were covering up the fact that a US Dept of State Diplomatic facility had been attacked and destroyed and that an American ambassador had been killed by Muslim terrorists during a terrorist attack.
Why the cover up? The Obama Administration was actively campaigning on their insistence that Obama had defeated Al-Qaeda and terrorism in general largely due to his incredibility brilliant diplomatic initiatives. An Islamic terror attack at that time would have destroyed the credibility of that narrative and possibly cost Obama the election.
Get it?
Probably not, given the previously muted reaction to MIT professor Jonathan Gruber's public comments and my realization that the members of this forum are apparently indifferent towards elected government officials espousing outright lies to the American people in pursuit of their political agendas.
Thanks,
Jax.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/22/no-cover-intelligence-failure-military-inaction-benghazi-attacks-house-panel-finds/
Where is the Independent or Libertarian Panel report?
You have been brainwashed by Fox's Bullshit and it is just stuck in your mind, it never happened.Okay WT69,
Do you ever have an original thought, or is everything you have to say written by someone else?
Anyway, please identify which of these statements from my post (actually written in my words) qualify as "Fox's Bullshit":
1. "a US Dept of State Diplomatic facility had been attacked and destroyed".
2. "an American ambassador had been killed by Muslim terrorists during a terrorist attack.".
3. "The Obama Administration was actively campaigning on their insistence that Obama had defeated Al-Qaeda".
4. "An Islamic terror attack at that time would have destroyed the credibility of that narrative and possibly cost Obama the election.".
So, which of these statements is inaccurate?
Or are you just talking bullshit because you can't argue the facts?
Curious minds want to know.
And please, don't send us yet another link. Take the time to showcase that brilliantly intellectual mind of yours by writing something original.
Thanks,
Jax.
WorldTravel69
11-25-14, 16:48
Answer Fox.
That is where you get all your bullshit to write your bullshit.
I am not a writer, that is why I let other people; that believe in the same things as I do, say it for me.
Your questions 1-4 you read from the headlines, you did not say them, just repeated them after Fox twists the stories.
I have more in my life to do than write and read all the bullshit you write; such keeping the List and Maps up to date, so YOU can make more Money.
Okay WT69,
Do you ever have an original thought, or is everything you have to say written by someone else?
Anyway, please identify which of these statements from my post (actually written in my words) qualify as "Fox's Bullshit":
1. "a US Dept of State Diplomatic facility had been attacked and destroyed".
2. "an American ambassador had been killed by Muslim terrorists during a terrorist attack.".
3. "The Obama Administration was actively campaigning on their insistence that Obama had defeated Al-Qaeda".
4. "An Islamic terror attack at that time would have destroyed the credibility of that narrative and possibly cost Obama the election.".
So, which of these statements is inaccurate?
Or are you just talking bullshit because you can't argue the facts?
Curious minds want to know.
And please, don't send us yet another link. Take the time to showcase that brilliantly intellectual mind of yours by writing something original.
Thanks,
Jax.
Rc Collins
11-25-14, 17:17
A few days ago the Republican controlled House committee whose job was to find out who was at fault in the Bengazi attack a few years ago finally came to a conclusion: neither the Obama administration NOR Hilary Clinton was at fault in the attack on our embassy. The Republicans spent all this time screaming and hollering about this incident. I guess they'll have to find something to get hyped over.
Maybe the IRS had it out for their right-wing conservative groups and tried to stop them from a tax write-off.The investigation which was led by Republican Mike Rogers of Michigan denied and refuted all of Fox and the GOP talking points. Upon hearing the news of this Fox and some far right politicians like Lindsey Graham bashed the report which again was GOP led (so you have to ask if Mike Rogers and the other Republicans on the panel were/are now in Obama's pocket) as being inaccurate. They claimed the findings in the report were inaccurate because the findings did not confirm their predetermined conclusions, simple as that.
In terms of a cover up and the Youtube video portion of this story, the panel found that the YouTube assessment was incorrect but it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people. Simply put, this is damning to Fox and the GOP but they will never accept it because it does not fit their narrative of this story.
Remember also that this issue has now been investigated seven times by seven different panels all at tax payers expense. Also the findings by all the other panel/groups were similar to or the same as this recent one. Yet, there is still another investigation scheduled to be led by Republican Trey Gowdy. No expense is too much when it comes to investigating an issue already investigated multiple times when the intent of the investigation to find your version of the truth and to take Obama down at all cost.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/gop-led-house-report-debunks-benghazi-allegations-27100053
From the report:
We spent thousands of hours asking questions, poring over documents, reviewing intelligence assessments, reading cables and emails, and held a total of 20 committee events and hearings," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the committee's chairman, and Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the ranking Democrat, in a joint statement. We conducted detailed interviews with senior intelligence officials from Benghazi and Tripoli as well as eight security personnel on the ground in Benghazi that night. Based on the testimony and the documents we reviewed, we concluded that all the CIA officers in Benghazi were heroes. Their actions saved lives," they said.
The Bengazi attack on our embassy occurred a short time after the overthrow of Moammar Ghadafi, made possible in part by our and England's bombing raids on the Ghadafi forces. The country was in flux at the time and not very secure, and it still is not secure now as terrorist groups are fighting it out for control of Libya. Your statements:
"a US Dept of State Diplomatic facility had been attacked and destroyed".
"an American ambassador had been killed by Muslim terrorists during a terrorist attack.".
While true, doesn't mean there was a coverup of what happened by the Obama administration. While unfortunate that our ambassador was killed and a few other Americans also, but spending all this time with a House committee hoping to find blame is just a total waste of time and money.
Thanks.
Bayboy.
Political gamesmanship. A never ending game. And so it goes, that often, the politicians end up speaking from the side of their mouth and looking up into the sky. Role reversals depending on who is in the hot seat for the moment. And their mindless base caught up in the frenzy game, repeating the propaganda as gospel truth. A never ending sad saga.
Probably not, given the previously muted reaction to MIT professor Jonathan Gruber's public comments and my realization that the members of this forum are apparently indifferent towards elected government officials espousing outright lies to the American people in pursuit of their political agendas.You don't understand. The people are stupid. Therefore the elite must lie in order to do what is best for the people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDomkBtJC7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI
I'm bringing this up because this guy, Jonathan Gruber, he's an M.I.T. professor who worked on the Obama health care plan. Big controversy because they found a tape of him basically saying that the American people are stupid because he -- a lot of tapes -- because what he was saying to get the bill passed we had to do a lot of sleight of hand or else they would not have voted for it. If we called it a "tax" -- even though it was a tax -- you have to basically slip a pill in the dog's food in a piece of ham to get the dog to eat the pill. I agree, and I've heard nobody else in America say that. Everybody on the left and the right: "Oh, how could he call American's stupid?" - Bill Mahr
I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University. -William F. Buckley Jr.
I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory "Government by sortition." It's been tried.
The House committee investigating the Bengazi attack has wasted $3.3 million already on their findings.
...but spending all this time with a House committee hoping to find blame is just a total waste of time and money.It could have been a whole lot LESS money spent if Eric holder had cooperated in the investigation as Obama had promised his administration would do.
Get it?
Answer Fox.
That is where you get all your bullshit to write your bullshit.
I am not a writer, that is why I let other people; that believe in the same things as I do, say it for me.I understand your desire to let other people do the writing for you, but do you have to let them do the thinking for you too?
Please, for once just try to author an original thought for yourself. I'm sure we'll all be impressed at the depth of your unfettered insight.
Here, let me get you started: Barak Obama is the greatest president in the history of the human race because...
[Write your original thoughts here]
Your questions 1-4 you read from the headlines, you did not say them, just repeated them after Fox twists the stories.
I have more in my life to do than write and read all the bullshit you write; such keeping the List and Maps up to date, so YOU can make more Money.For your information, I personally authored every word in my post.
Nothing was copied from any source.
You're welcome.
While true, doesn't mean there was a coverup of what happened by the Obama administration. While unfortunate that our ambassador was killed and a few other Americans also, but spending all this time with a House committee hoping to find blame is just a total waste of time and money.So why is the Obama Administration stonewalling the Congressional investigation?
What would be the point of covering up a non-coverup?
7 panels have investigated the Bengazi incident. And they have all come to the same conclusion that the administration did nothing wrong in its handling of the situation. How many more of these Republican controlled House committees are going to try and find some minutae so they can point the finger at Pres. Obama.
WorldTravel69
11-28-14, 14:25
Most everything you post is from hearsay.
Or your opinions on issues you heard on FOX.
Try BBC or One America News Network http://www.oann.com; except at night, when they have some right winger spewing his bullshit.
or, http://america.aljazeera.com/
If you can get them, which I doubt being your in Buenos Aires.
I listen to about 6 or 7 news stations, because I can get them.
Daddy Rulz
12-08-14, 04:47
I can't read this thread, it makes my eyes bleed.
However I thought this might be interesting;.
New US Ambassador to Argentina Makes it to The Daily Show
http://bubblear.com/jon-stewarts-take-new-us-ambassador-argentina/
Spirit Rider
12-09-14, 01:41
Most everything you post is from hearsay.
Or your opinions on issues you heard on FOX.
Try BBC or One America News Network http://www.oann.com; except at night, when they have some right winger spewing his bullshit.
or, http://america.aljazeera.com/
If you can get them, which I doubt being your in Buenos Aires.
I listen to about 6 or 7 news stations, because I can get them.You must be the most delusional person on the planet if you think those news organizations are unbiased. A better description would be here are two examples of the two greatest propaganda networks for their respective agendas.
Of course you have demonstrated over and over again that your world view is so skewed that extreme nut jobs seem unbiased to you.
I can't read this thread, it makes my eyes bleed.
However I thought this might be interesting;.
New US Ambassador to Argentina Makes it to The Daily Show
http://bubblear.com/jon-stewarts-take-new-us-ambassador-argentina/Your post is what makes my eyes bleed. The ignorance and naivety of Jon Stewart, and you, Mr. Daddy Rulz, are breathtaking. So the new USA ambassador to Argentina doesn't speak Spanish and knows absolutely nothing about South America or diplomacy. So his life experience is funding and carrying out political campaigns. What you don't understand IS THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT CRISTINA NEEDS. Her popularity ratings are low. She doesn't know what to do with those bags of cash stashed in her house and Swiss Bank Accounts. How do you launder the money and get it headed towards its highest use, in political campaigns? What to do about that pesky Mr. Baez, who did her dirty work and got caught? Making Noah Mamet ambassador to Argentina was a master stroke. These are the kinds of problems he knows how to fix. There is no better way to ingratiate the United States of America in the eyes of the leader of Argentina. This is like a gift from God for Cristina, or actually a gift from Barack Obama. Who cares, they're one and the same.
Seriously, thanks for the link, very interesting.
Daddy Rulz
12-09-14, 04:38
Your post is what makes my eyes bleed. The ignorance and naivety of Jon Stewart, and you, Mr. Daddy Rulz, are breathtaking. So the new USA ambassador to Argentina doesn't speak Spanish and knows absolutely nothing about South America or diplomacy. So his life experience is funding and carrying out political campaigns. What you don't understand IS THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT CRISTINA NEEDS. Her popularity ratings are low. She doesn't know what to do with those bags of cash stashed in her house and Swiss Bank Accounts. How do you launder the money and get it headed towards its highest use, in political campaigns? What to do about that pesky Mr. Baez, who did her dirty work and got caught? Making Noah Mamet ambassador to Argentina was a master stroke. These are the kinds of problems he knows how to fix. There is no better way to ingratiate the United States of America in the eyes of the leader of Argentina. This is like a gift from God for Cristina, or actually a gift from Barack Obama. Who cares, they're one and the same.
Seriously, thanks for the link, very interesting.Oh I know, fuck you asswipe. You don't know me, you have never met me, the only person demonstrating ignorance here is you. If you did know me you would know I'm a card carrying member of the apathetic party. I thought it was funny and political so I shared it for comic release you fucking cumstain.
If you would like to talk about naivete, I would direct you to your involvement in this thread. You still think that there is a difference between these guys, that one is somehow better than the other and you spend hours of your life wasting your time here. You are emotionally involved in things that you will never, ever influence. Please continue seeking relevance here, I on the other hand will be out having a life because Carlin got it right a long time ago;.
"Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. . . You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. ".
Yet you continue to insist that one is somehow better than another, that one somehow represents your interests better than another. Wake the fuck up, this has been going on for decades, you have no, zero, seriously no access in any way to your government, your views or best interests are not being represented. I should probably go back and remove the insults, you are much more pitiful than you are contemptible. You are arguing about which Oligarch that you would prefer to be fucked by.
Sad.
Oh I know, fuck you asswipe. You don't know me, you have never met me, the only person demonstrating ignorance here is you. If you did know me you would know I'm a card carrying member of the apathetic party. I thought it was funny and political so I shared it for comic release you fucking cumstain.
If you would like to talk about naivete, I would direct you to your involvement in this thread. You still think that there is a difference between these guys, that one is somehow better than the other and you spend hours of your life wasting your time here. You are emotionally involved in things that you will never, ever influence. Please continue seeking relevance here, I on the other hand will be out having a life because Carlin got it right a long time ago;.
"Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. . . You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. ".
Yet you continue to insist that one is somehow better than another, that one somehow represents your interests better than another. Wake the fuck up, this has been going on for decades, you have no, zero, seriously no access in any way to your government, your views or best interests are not being represented. I should probably go back and remove the insults, you are much more pitiful than you are contemptible. You are arguing about which Oligarch that you would prefer to be fucked by.
Sad.Not to get involved but I always love to see George Carlin quoted. A member of the great deceased comedic triad along with Richard Pryor and Bill Hicks.
OK, I learned my lesson. Next time I just say "Thanks, hilarious," and shut up.
I do not believe you or Jon Stewart is ignorant or naive. That was a misguided attempt at irony and humor. I thought your link was humorous. The word "seriously" at the end should have been a tip off. The percentage of my posts about George W. Bush that are negative would be about the same as the percentage of my posts about Barack H. Obama that are negative. I am one of the minority that shares your views about the NSA. If you get fucked by politicians and wish not to complain about it, or if you wish to withhold support for those politicians that do share your views because there aren't enough to make a difference, that's understandable. There is a contingent here that believes Barack Obama walks on water. If you are not a member then my final comment was not directed at you.
WorldTravel69
12-09-14, 13:42
Are you saying that FOX is unbiased?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/12/01/the-real-benghazi-scandal/m2kWG5SzdvT0JO6ChxcuhP/story.html
You must be the most delusional person on the planet if you think those news organizations are unbiased. A better description would be here are two examples of the two greatest propaganda networks for their respective agendas.
Of course you have demonstrated over and over again that your world view is so skewed that extreme nut jobs seem unbiased to you.
Are you saying that FOX is unbiased?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/12/01/the-real-benghazi-scandal/m2kWG5SzdvT0JO6ChxcuhP/story.htmlOnce again, WT posts yet another link to somebody else's opinion, along with yet another cartoon.
WT, you just don't get it.
This is a discussion forum, wherein the partipants articulate their own opinions on the topics being discussed.
If everyone followed your example, this thread would be a link exchange, i. e...
"Here's a link to an article I like"
Followed with a response...
"Okay, here's a link to an article I like"
Followed with...
"Okay, but here's a link to another article I like"
Etc., etc., etc.
Get it?
Now please try to author your own comments, and please stop sending us to links to government mouthpieces like the BBC (owned by the British Government), RT (Russia Times, owned by the Russian Government), and Aljazeera (owned by the ruling family of Qatar).
Thanks,
Jax.
WorldTravel69
12-09-14, 14:39
I can't laughing at your posts. Just like Daddy said, you make my eyes bleed.
Why should I write about something when some one did it for me?
Un like you, you parrot what Bill O'Reilly says.
Once again, WT posts yet another link to somebody else's opinion, along with yet another cartoon.
WT, you just don't get it.
This is a discussion forum, wherein the partipants articulate their own opinions on the topics being discussed.
If everyone followed your example, this thread would be a link exchange, i. e...
"Here's a link to an article I like"
Followed with a response...
"Okay, here's a link to an article I like"
Followed with...
"Okay, but here's a link to another article I like"
Etc., etc., etc.
Get it?
Now please try to author your own comments, and please stop sending us to links to government mouthpieces like the BBC (owned by the British Government), RT (Russia Times, owned by the Russian Government), and Aljazeera (owned by the ruling family of Qatar).
Thanks,
Jax.
A couple of months ago I went over to my local Starbucks for some coffee and lo and behold my county supervisor was there. He invited me to join him at his table and we talked local politics. Then my US congressman showed up with his secretary. She bought me a coffee, and we then carried on the conversation of local hot political issues. Both these pols were democrats. I was on cloud 9 thinking, man I'm hanging out with the big dogs in my county.
No I didn't raise hell, just did a lot of listening, throwing in my 2 cents here and there. That's about as close as I'll ever get to the power brokers.
Spirit Rider
12-10-14, 03:03
Are you saying that FOX is unbiased?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/12/01/the-real-benghazi-scandal/m2kWG5SzdvT0JO6ChxcuhP/story.htmlNot saying that at all. , but Fox News Channel is no more biased to the right than ABC / CBS / NBC are biased to the left. However, you are certainly hilarious in quoting the Boston Globe on the issue of bias. Although the Globe has certainly tempered somewhat since John Henry bought it from the NY Times last year. You know the RED lady "all the news that's made up to print. ".
Daddy Rulz
12-10-14, 11:48
There is one and only one bias in media, profit nothing else. They have audiences they cater to in order to create ratings to sell advertising, nothing more. There is nothing wrong with that, I do it myself in my work. However; debating about which outlet is more accurate is meaningless.
Spirit Rider
12-10-14, 12:36
There is one and only one bias in media, profit nothing else. They have audiences they cater to in order to create ratings to sell advertising, nothing more. There is nothing wrong with that, I do it myself in my work. However; debating about which outlet is more accurate is meaningless.I don't disagree entirely. For instance, I consider PBS' News Hour to be the most unbiased news source available. Now, if you would evaluate the staff, you would probably find their personal views lean more to the progressive side.
However, the big difference is that they have integrity and a commitment to report the news without bias. I don't believe this just a function of where their funding comes from. Typical journalists are so colored by their world views they can't even imagine their own biases (right or left). In fact I have seen many of the most biased journalists adamantly insist they have no biases.
We are human we all have our own worldview and biases. A truly objective person sees them in themselves as well as others. I remember seeing a journalist responding to the question about why they became a journalist. Her response was "I wanted to save the world. " That statement right there disqualifies her, because she clearly has an agenda. Your only commitment as a journalist should be to the truth even if it hurts. Unfortunately, most journalists, producers, executives will bury stories that don't meet their world views.
Looking for an unbiased news source? Try C - Span. I get 1-2-3 on my cable TV. They try and stay even handed on all the issues and don't take sides. Just the news and only the news.
Member #4112
12-11-14, 11:46
As our members disabuse each other in vulgar personal assaults, perhaps we should remember the season and lighten up a bit. After all gentleman its only life, nothing serious.
On that note I received the following and wished to share it with you all. Food for though.
Interesting Observation.
During the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and ended with the Surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945, the USA Produced 22 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203 submarines, 34 million tons of merchant ships, 100,000 fighter aircraft, 98,000 bombers, 24,000 transport aircraft, 58,000 training aircraft, 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars, 3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks.
We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed the-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed the atomic bomb, and ultimately conquered Japan and Germany.
It's worth noting that during the almost exact amount of time, the Obama administration couldn't build a web site.
As our members disabuse each other in vulgar personal assaults, perhaps we should remember the season and lighten up a bit. After all gentleman its only life, nothing serious.
On that note I received the following and wished to share it with you all. Food for though.
It's worth noting that during the almost exact amount of time, the Obama administration couldn't build a web site.May I suggest you visit an ophthalmologist.
During the last 3 1/2 years the Republicans keep saying they haven't had time to read the Affordable Care Act.
Member #4112
12-11-14, 18:17
During the last 3 1/2 years the Republicans keep saying they haven't had time to read the Affordable Care Act.First:
As usual just can't seem to stay on topic, comment has nothing to do with the post.
Second:
Your statement is false. Please provide some proof to back up such an obvious misrepresentation.
Member #4112
12-11-14, 18:40
May I suggest you visit an ophthalmologist.You may not like the observation but your dislike does not negate the fact it is true. The website still is not functioning as advertised.
Both FDR and Obama are Democrats, but I doubt FDR would find much to admire in our current president and much to dislike.
I would suggest you read one or all of these biographies of FDR:
FDR by Jean Edward Smith.
Traitor to His Class by H. W. Brands.
FDR's Folly by Jim Powell.
Franklin and Winston by Jon Meacham.
Six Months in 1945 by Michael Dobbs.
Powell's is a good counter point to the "New Deal" and it's shortcomings as well as the man himself.
Please do not attempt to compare the feeble, bumbling, incompetent, prevaricating current occupant of the White House with FDR. I am sure after becoming familiar with FDR you may come to see he would probably consider this president to be anti-American.
Please do not attempt to compare the feeble, bumbling, incompetent, prevaricating current occupant of the White House with FDR. I am sure after becoming familiar with FDR you may come to see he would probably consider this president to be anti-American.Joe Montana vs Tom Brady? The only clear thing is that we will never agree? But we can express our opinions.
The Dow Jones has been hovering in the high 17,000's. It has been quite a remarkable winning run. How, why? I really don't care. I remember a guy at the post office telling me he had to keep working because of the beating he took on his 401 k in 2008. So last night, I was eating Indian rojak & drinking tea tarik in Singapore with my high school buddies. And a few days ago, I was eating fresh sashimi in Sydney. 2 very expensive cities. And in a few months, I'll be in the Seychelles. Thanks, Barack.
No, no, no. No caviar, no Cuban cigar for me. Nothing like that. I live on my socialist SS income. So my 2 economy RD tickets cost 398 dollars total on Malaysian Airlines. Except for a few bawling kids, flight was great with inflight entertainment & food / service commendable. And 450 dollars for a clean / comfortable room in quiet trendy Birchgrove for 6 nights. Ferries & buses 3-10 minutes walk.
Thanks, FDR & Obama, the 2 run & pass duo threats. They did the job for me.
Here's some good ammo for the anti-government folks. It's pretty heinous.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/despite-promises-social-security-still-trying-to-collect-old-debts-from-kin/ar-BBgM6X1
ElAlamoPalermo
12-17-14, 23:17
Obama announces reestablishment of diplomatic and limited economic relations with Cuba.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-17/obama-to-announce-u-s-cuba-relations-shift-as-gross-is-released.html
Another history altering achievement for what is turning out to be a truly historically remarkable presidency.
WorldTravel69
12-17-14, 23:25
The Republican Congress is moaning.
Obama announces reestablishment of diplomatic and limited economic relations with Cuba.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-17/obama-to-announce-u-s-cuba-relations-shift-as-gross-is-released.html
Another history altering achievement for what is turning out to be a truly historically remarkable presidency.
Punter 127
12-18-14, 02:00
But
The Republican Congress is moaning."Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) slammed the Obama administration for exchanging imprisoned aid worker Alan Gross with Cuba for three Cuban spies. Menendez calls it a dangerous precedent and one that absolves the Castro regimes behavior.
Let's be clear, this was not a humanitarian act by the Castro regime. It was a swap of convicted spies for an innocent American, the New Jersey Democrat said in a statement. President Obama's actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/17/Senate-Dem-Obama-Has-Vindicated-The-Brutal-Behavior-of-the-Cuban-Government
Looks like some Democrats are also upset, but we would never expect you to acknowledge it.
Who cares whether it "absolves the Castro regime's behavior" or not? The Castro regime is dying its own death and Fulgencio Batista would have turned the whole island into a fucking casino anyway. The whole revolution stemmed from us "absolving the behavior" of Batista and his cronies. How is Cuba even relevant nowadays? What the fuck do we need them for? Cigars? Legal hydroponic marijuana going to take all the market share from Cuba. "Made in USA. " Like we even need to go there when there is Puerto Rico and the DR.
Think how stupid it was of them to let all those baseball stars defect and become citizens of whatever suckass country Aroldis Chapman got his papers from, when they could have auctioned off rights to them, like Korea and Japan and I think maybe Taiwan are doing. Oh yeah; he has residency in Andorra. Gee, I wonder why Andorra. He doesn't really look like his ancestors came from there or anything.
WorldTravel69
12-18-14, 04:38
The Good Old White boys Demos are also mad about what the black man wishes.
If you check your history about the southern states they were mostly Democrats, but, their beliefs were Republican. Servitude was okay. Or Like Now Minimum Wage, With no Health Care.
I just had dinner, but had to pay on my dinner bill an extra 3% for their workers Heath Care, because the employer would not pay their employees Health Care.
I Know you were too young to know what they misled us in school to believe in or what they told us to believe in what was the truth. It was just like they told us that all Indians were devils or Heathens.
I did too believed in what the told us, but my mind was not sure about what they said, so I read and listen to more points of View.
They lied to Us.
"Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) slammed the Obama administration for exchanging imprisoned aid worker Alan Gross with Cuba for three Cuban spies. Menendez calls it a dangerous precedent and one that absolves the Castro regimes behavior.
Let's be clear, this was not a humanitarian act by the Castro regime. It was a swap of convicted spies for an innocent American, the New Jersey Democrat said in a statement. President Obama's actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/17/Senate-Dem-Obama-Has-Vindicated-The-Brutal-Behavior-of-the-Cuban-Government
Looks like some Democrats are also upset, but we would never expect you to acknowledge it.
Member #4112
12-18-14, 13:54
WT69/ Esten / Dickhead et al.
You guys are right the US is a racist, oppressive, militarily aggressive country ruled by the greedy evil rich who run the government and industry in a rigged system to deny people a living wage and healthcare benefits.
Then why do so many people risk their lives to come here and not to the worker paradise of Cuba, Venezuela, China and all the rest?
WT69/ Esten / Dickhead et al.
You guys are right the US is a racist, oppressive, militarily aggressive country ruled by the greedy evil rich who run the government and industry in a rigged system to deny people a living wage and healthcare benefits.
Then why do so many people risk their lives to come here and not to the worker paradise of Cuba, Venezuela, China and all the rest?Show me even one post where I have talked about the workers' situation in any of those countries. I haven't been to either Cuba or China and I was 20 years old and drunk when I was in Venezuela. I don't know jack about the workers' situation in those places, and I haven't written squat about any of them. You must have me confused with some other left-wing asshole. I'm not even very far to the left and you would know that if you paid attention. The single and only thing I know about working in any of those countries is that China denied me a work visa. So fuck China.
Punter 127
12-18-14, 17:51
The Good Old White boys Demos are also mad about what the black man wishes.I hate to be the one to break it to you but Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez is a Cuban American Democrat from New Jersey, so he is not "white' nor is he from the south. It might also surprise you to know he has been a very strong supporter of Obama. However because he disagrees now you classify him a racist, how typical. Bigoted race baiters like you have played a huge role in the deteriorating race relations in the country. You and your ilk have help create a tender box that's flaming up nation wide with your hackneyed race accusations. IMHO.
If you check your history about the southern states they were mostly Democrats, but, their beliefs were Republican. Servitude was okay. Or Like Now Minimum Wage, With no Health Care.You're the one who needs a history lesson, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and he was a Republican. The history of racism in this country is bred in the bone of the Democrat party, they are responsible for the creation of the KKK and Jim Crow laws. Who in the Republican party has supported slavery? There may be some white supremacist in the Republican party, but the list of white supremacist in the history of the Democrat party is very long. You can argue that the parties swapped positions but that's unprovable and simply a bogus talking point. The Democrat party continues to try and control people today only their tactics have changed. Today we have the government plantation where government giveaways are used to control people. The bottom line is you can not wish the history of the Democrat party away.
I just had dinner, but had to pay on my dinner bill an extra 3% for their workers Heath Care, because the employer would not pay their employees Hearth Care.I thought ObamaCare was supposed to eliminate such problems?
I Know you were too young to know what they misled us in school to believe in or what they told us to believe in what was the truth. It was just like they told us that all Indians were devils or Heathens.
I did too believed in what the told us, but my mind was not sure about what they said, so I read and listen to more points of View.
They lied to Us.I suspect there is 5 years or less between our ages, and I never heard the American Indians referred to as "devils" and the only time I can remember them being called "Heathens" was when your buddies in Hollywood did it in the movies, but never in school.
However I can't speak for the teachings of the government schools in socialist California, anything is possible there.
WorldTravel69
12-18-14, 21:04
Freed the slaves. Both houses were controlled by Republicans.
Yes the Tennessee confederate soldiers and the Southern Democrats were responsible for the creation of the KKK and the Jim Crow laws.
The manager of the restaurant said something about the city of Berkeley Marina laws that said we had to pay 3% to help with the employees heath care. The manager could explain the law either.
Ever read "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee"?
I hate to be the one to break it to you but Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez is a Cuban American Democrat from New Jersey, so he is not "white' nor is he from the south. It might also surprise you to know he has been a very strong supporter of Obama. However because he disagrees now you classify him a racist, how typical. Bigoted race baiters like you have played a huge role in the deteriorating race relations in the country. You and your ilk have help create a tender box that's flaming up nation wide with your hackneyed race accusations. IMHO.
You're the one who needs a history lesson, Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and he was a Republican. The history of racism in this country is bred in the bone of the Democrat party, they are responsible for the creation of the KKK and Jim Crow laws. Who in the Republican party has supported slavery? There may be some white supremacist in the Republican party, but the list of white supremacist in the history of the Democrat party is very long. You can argue that the parties swapped positions but that's unprovable and simply a bogus talking point. The Democrat party continues to try and control people today only their tactics have changed. Today we have the government plantation where government giveaways are used to control people. The bottom line is you can not wish the history of the Democrat party away.
I thought Affordable Health Care Act was supposed to eliminate such problems?
I suspect there is 5 years or less between our ages, and I never heard the American Indians referred to as "devils" and the only time I can remember them being called "Heathens" was when your buddies in Hollywood did it in the movies, but never in school.
However I can't speak for the teachings of the government schools in socialist California, anything is possible there.
Most of the time when used, the writer actually is implying "In My UN-HUMBLED Opinion", I am a stud.
Sorry for the interruption, it's 7 am, and I had 3 cups of coffee already.
I just had dinner, but had to pay on my dinner bill an extra 3% for their workers Heath Care, because the employer would not pay their employees Health Care.You are not required to pay that, and are free to refuse, and should. Let them raise prices if they want, but that "surcharge" bullshit is just political whining.
Spirit Rider
12-19-14, 04:38
A presidential proclamation and executive order. Freed the slaves. Both houses were controlled by Republicans.Sorry, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. I was a pure publicity stunt. It freed slaves ONLY in states that were in rebellion, where the union had no jurisdiction. In other words, entirely backwards if the intent was to free slaves. It didn't free slaves that were in union states where he actually had the ability to do so.
Robert Menendez is a Cuban American Democrat from New Jersey, so he is not "white' The first part of that statement is certainly true, but how the second part follows from it eludes me. I can't even get to post hoc ergo propiter hoc with that one. You are saying that no Cuban Americans can be white. Seems like a racist assumption. Hmm. Aren't a lot of Cubans of Spanish descent? So Spaniards aren't white? And if European people aren't white, who is? But anyone can google Menéndez and decide for themselves how white he is or isn't. The boy looks pretty pale to me but then I just got back from Hawaii.
The history of racism in this country was bred long before today's political parties emerged. Weren't we like kinda mean to the indigenous people? Weren't there slaves in the US colonies? Isn't colonialism sort of inherently racist? These people are inferior so let's occupy their land and exploit them economically and sexually? Kill most of them off? Did I miss something here?
Then in 1776 or 1789 was there a race to abolish slavery and property qualifications for voting? I think not. I say we blame all the racial problems on the Whigs. If it weren't for those god damn Whigs everything would have been peachy and it would have been a racial Shangri-La. Really, nothing like the modern day Democratic or Republican parties existed in 1863 so it's just absurd to blame or credit one or the other for emancipation or lack thereof. Or we could blame it on the Bull Moose Party, given the virulent racism of Teddy Roosevelt.
I don't really think the US has reached the point of no racism nor will it ever. But, I think we've gotten to a tipping point where for every racism there is an equal an opposite racism. So the fulcrum does not need to be moved any more in relation to the lever, or the seesaw is balanced, or something like that. Some might argue that "racism" is nothing more than protective xenophobia.
Punter 127
12-19-14, 08:17
The first part of that statement is certainly true, but how the second part follows from it eludes me. I can't even get to post hoc ergo propiter hoc with that one. You are saying that no Cuban Americans can be white. Technically you're correct, but I was responding to WT's use of "The Good Old White boys" which I don't believe he was speaking of (white) Cubans, Spaniards, or Latinos. I think we all know who he was talking about, when he first lashed out it was Republican, and when his hand was called he came back with the following statement.
The Good Old White boys Demos are also mad about what the black man wishes. Hmmm, no polemic against WT 69 from you for his statements?
The history of racism in this country was bred long before today's political parties emerged. Weren't we like kinda mean to the indigenous people? Weren't there slaves in the US colonies? Isn't colonialism sort of inherently racist? These people are inferior so let's occupy their land and exploit them economically and sexually? Kill most of them off? Did I miss something here?Yes, you seem to have missed the fact that todays Democrats like WT 69 want to blame all racism on "old white guys", they also inject words like "southern" and "successful" in the mix. Seems kind of odd that you haven't picked up on all that? But I don't remember you ever speaking a single word about any of those type of statements.
Then in 1776 or 1789 was there a race to abolish slavery and property qualifications for voting? I think not. I say we blame all the racial problems on the Whigs. If it weren't for those god damn Whigs everything would have been peachy and it would have been a racial Shangri-La. Really, nothing like the modern day Democratic or Republican parties existed in 1863 so it's just absurd to blame or credit one or the other for emancipation or lack thereof. Or we could blame it on the Bull Moose Party, given the virulent racism of Teddy Roosevelt. Racism can be found worldwide it is not limited to the USA, IMHO there are very high levels of racism in some parts of Asia. I disagree with you about the Democratic and Republican parties, granted they have evolved but they are still the same parties. However it was WT 69 that first brought up the history of the parties.
If you check your history about the southern states they were mostly Democrats, but, their beliefs were Republican. Servitude was okay.Where does he come up with this crap?
I don't really think the US has reached the point of no racism nor will it ever. But, I think we've gotten to a tipping point where for every racism there is an equal an opposite racism. So the fulcrum does not need to be moved any more in relation to the lever, or the seesaw is balanced, or something like that. Some might argue that "racism" is nothing more than protective xenophobia.I can't say that I disagree with you here, but go tell it to those that cry racism ever time someone disagrees with Obama.
Punter 127
12-19-14, 08:35
Sorry, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. I was a pure publicity stunt. It freed slaves ONLY in states that were in rebellion, where the union had no jurisdiction. In other words, entirely backwards if the intent was to free slaves. It didn't free slaves that were in union states where he actually had the ability to do so.You are correct it was the 13th Amendment that ended slavery nationwide, or in the Union if you prefer.
WorldTravel69
12-19-14, 13:31
I gave it and more to the waiter.
You are not required to pay that, and are free to refuse, and should. Let them raise prices if they want, but that "surcharge" bullshit is just political whining.
WorldTravel69
12-19-14, 13:40
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez and his parents were most likely supporters of the Dictator Batista and were some of the 1%ers that could afford to leave Cuba.
The Cubans that were left behind; under Batista did not get free schooling and health care, as they do now. They had to work the fields of the rich.
Their Economy is in shambles, because of the Embargo. It is only hurting the Cuban people.
It's funny how our Government seem to support Dictators; in parts of the world; in Latin American and the Middle East.
It was embarrassing when I started traveling that I had to apologize for being an American. In Sweden I met a lady and some of her friends at a park. One guy told me he was going to Vietnam and kill Americans. I had to tell him that I did not vote for Nixon. After that when I traveled I just told people that I was from San Francisco or California.
I do miss Cuba.
Sorry, I meant to say Good Old White Republicans. Their new committees make up has one woman and one Latino.
Punter that sounds like an English phrase. Are you even an American?
I hate to be the one to break it to you but Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez is a Cuban American Democrat from New Jersey, so he is not "white' nor is he from the south. It might also surprise you to know he has been a very strong supporter of Obama. However because he disagrees now you classify him a racist, how typical. Bigoted race baiters like you have played a huge role in the deteriorating race relations in the country. You and your ilk have help create a tender box that's flaming up nation wide with your hackneyed race accusations. IMHO.
Hmmm, no polemic against WT 69 from you for his statements?As his posts themselves generally constitute a better argument against his positions, I don't bother with polemics in his case. I mean, something like this: "The Good Old White boys Demos are also mad about what the black man wishes"? Does that really merit a polemic? My thinking is no. In your case there is a faint ray of hope, and I don't think the first part of your post came out the way you meant it to.
I just had dinner, but had to pay on my dinner bill an extra 3% for their workers Heath Care, because the employer would not pay their employees Health Care.
I gave it and more to the waiter.It's disappointing that you simply don't recognize a fundamental axiom of business: All costs paid by any business are always passed on to the consumer.
I know that it's a liberal mantra that all business are fountains of money waiting to be tapped by saintly politicians to be righteously spent on "social justice" programs, said additional taxes to be magically absorbed by said businesses, but that's just not reality.
Case in point: The Obamacare tax on "Cadillac Plans". Obama told the unions that their members wouldn't have to pay the "Cadillac Tax" because the tax was to be paid by the insurance companies, but of course the insurance companies passed the cost of the tax onto the union policyholders.
This particular restaurant decided to add the Obamacare costs to the bill as a surcharge instead of raising all of their menu prices by 3%, but one way or another, the cost of providing health care to the employees is absolutely going to be passed onto the consumer. Period.
They lied to Us.Do you mean like "If you like your plan you can keep your plan. Period."?
It's disappointing that you simply don't recognize a fundamental axiom of business: All costs paid by any business are always passed on to the consumer.
Ever take Economics 101? Remember the part about the popcorn stand? Your "fundamental axiom" is just not true.
Ever take Economics 101? Remember the part about the popcorn stand? Your "fundamental axiom" is just not true.Nitpicking again.
I'll rephrase my comments: It's disappointing that you simply don't recognize a fundamental axiom of all business (that wish to remain in business without government subsidies): All costs paid by any business (that wish to remain in business without government subsidies) are always passed on to the consumer.
Ever take Economics 101? Remember the part about the popcorn stand? Your "fundamental axiom" is just not true.Is that the one where you spit out the kernels as part of the "trickle down" theory?
Is that the one where you spit out the kernels as part of the "trickle down" theory?No, "trickle down" theory is when the entrepreneur running the popcorn stand makes a profit and then uses it to buy a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th popcorn stand, thus hiring more employees himself, and motivating the popcorn supplier and the manufacturer of said popcorn stands to hire more employees, etc. etc. etc.
Somehow, the liberal media has cast this phenomenon as something evil, I guess because it only rewards those who work hard.
Thanks,
Jax.
Nitpicking again.
I'll rephrase my comments: It's disappointing that you simply don't recognize a fundamental axiom of all business (that wish to remain in business without government subsidies): All costs paid by any business (that wish to remain in business without government subsidies) are always passed on to the consumer.Nope, sorry. You're wrong. I know you hate it when that happens. The relative concept to the popcorn stand is "perfect competition." In perfect competition, the business cannot pass on increases in its costs to the consumer, and profits get driven towards the cost of capital. Most competition is "imperfect," and that means that businesses can indeed pass on some, but not all of their cost increases. The extent to which they can do so is called the "excess burden of a tax." Only when the market becomes close to monopolistic, can business pass anywhere close to "all" their cost increases on to the customer. This is true with or without subsidies. Subsidies can act to move market conditions towards monopoly and away from perfect competition, but only in an absolute and unregulated monopoly would your statement be true, and even then it would only be true if you assume infinite effective aggregate demand, which is pretty unrealistic.
Think about it. If what you said were even remotely true, competition would not affect prices.
No, "trickle down" theory is when the entrepreneur running the popcorn stand makes a profit and then uses it to buy a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th popcorn stand, thus hiring more employees himself, and motivating the popcorn supplier and the manufacturer of said popcorn stands to hire more employees, etc. etc. etc.
Somehow, the liberal media has cast this phenomenon as something evil, I guess because it only rewards those who work hard.
Thanks,
Jax.My fault Jackson. I had the popcorn stand confused with the jelly bean stand...
Trickle-down economics is associated with tax breaks (or we can just call them targeted reductions) for the wealthy, or for corporations, to stimulate job and business creation (and capital spending as well), and eventually everyone else will (allegedly) benefit. An example would be accelerated depreciation. Another example would be low-income housing tax credits. Trickle-down is a subset of supply-side economics. Both supply-side and demand-side economic stimulation can be effective. I am more a demand-sider or Keynesian not for any particular philosophical reason, but because both my research and my experience tell me demand side economics works more quickly. That's even leaving out the fact that I haven't seen very much trickle, and what I have seen hasn't trickled very far.
Daddy Rulz
12-19-14, 18:22
Handjobs for the homeless, vote for Spanky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isqj49WkoTg
Nope, sorry. You're wrong. I know you hate it when that happens. The relative concept to the popcorn stand is "perfect competition." In perfect competition, the business cannot pass on increases in its costs to the consumer, and profits get driven towards the cost of capital. Most competition is "imperfect," and that means that businesses can indeed pass on some, but not all of their cost increases. The extent to which they can do so is called the "excess burden of a tax." Only when the market becomes close to monopolistic, can business pass anywhere close to "all" their cost increases on to the customer. This is true with or without subsidies. Subsidies can act to move market conditions towards monopoly and away from perfect competition, but only in an absolute and unregulated monopoly would your statement be true, and even then it would only be true if you assume infinite effective aggregate demand, which is pretty unrealistic.
Think about it. If what you said were even remotely true, competition would not affect prices.Very enlightening.
WorldTravel69
12-20-14, 13:11
You could always take off the jelly shell, eat the inside and trickle down the shell.
Wait, or is that hand me down?
My fault Jackson. I had the popcorn stand confused with the jelly bean stand...
Big Boss Man
12-20-14, 13:55
From the BBC:
Mr Rubio said he didn't care if "99% of people in polls" disagreed with his stance, a message that could resonate in Florida, the traditional home of the Cuban exile community but also a state that is increasingly becoming more diverse and less dominated by Cuban affairs.
Mr Rubio told CNN on Wednesday he reserved the right "to do everything within the rules of the Senate to prevent that sort of individual from ever even coming up for a vote," referring to the confirmation process for ambassadors in relation to Cuba.
Isn't this type of behavior and attitude similar to what we accuse Obama of doing to the detriment of the country?
Of course we children of the sixties grew up reading "Profiles in Courage" in the 5th and 6th grades where this type of behavior was celebrated.
On the one hand, fuck Cuba, but on the other hand, our policy towards them could have been changed as soon as the Berlin Wall fell and by now we would have another playground similar to the DR but easier to get to. From an economic standpoint there is little reason for us to pursue them since they are just a bunch of broke dick motherfuckers. But Cubans could possibly make better wetbacks than Mxicans or Central Americans, because there is a higher educational level there. By extension, a better educated hooker is a more interesting hooker. Perhaps now we will see more cubanas in places like Costa Rica or at Campo Alegre. I had to go all the way to Spain to fuck a cubana. There was one at Catto's for a while but I would never meet her price. She was a real borracha and I think she was more interested in hanging out and drinking.
The whole embargo thing is so 19th century, and to try to exclude a market that is 90 miles away seems doomed to failure anyway. We've wasted resources on that stupid island far beyond its economic importance ever since we stole the thing from Spain. Plus there aren't any Muslims there. Islam is the threat, not fucking Communism which was given a thorough trial in various areas and did not do too well in any of them.
What's funny now is that the Republican Cuban-Americans in Florida weren't even born when Batista bit it, and you still can't tell those fuckers a thing. They know it all. Here's a news flash for all those assholes: Batista was a sadistic dick. He raped the treasury before he left, and he ended up just fine in quiet iberian luxury. Castro did him a favor because someone would have popped a cap in his ass sooner rather than later. But what the fuck do we know? We supported Efraín Ríos Montt, to say nothing of Anastasio 'Nicaragua es mi finca' Somoza Debayle, for christ's sakes. Under Republican presidents, of course, but it's still pretty hard to believe from an historical standpoint.
This particular restaurant decided to add the Obamacare costs to the bill as a surcharge instead of raising all of their menu prices by 3%, but one way or another, the cost of providing health care to the employees is absolutely going to be passed onto the consumer. Period.Absolutely. This has the nature of a sales tax. Sales and excise taxes are passed onto the consumer, regardless of whether the business is a monopoly or in a competitive industry where returns are reduced to the cost of capital.
With respect to the larger picture, I would have said that most costs are passed onto the consumer, not all costs, but that's nitpicking.
No, "trickle down" theory is when the entrepreneur running the popcorn stand makes a profit and then uses it to buy a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th popcorn stand, thus hiring more employees himself, and motivating the popcorn supplier and the manufacturer of said popcorn stands to hire more employees, etc. etc. etc.
Somehow, the liberal media has cast this phenomenon as something evil, I guess because it only rewards those who work hard.
Thanks,
Jax.Great analogy. This ties in with your first point. Profits are a small percentage of revenues. Most profits are re-invested, thus growing jobs and the economy. Good luck trying to convince ideologues though, they're convinced profits are spent mostly on luxurious houses, cars, etc. , and nothing's going to change their opinions.
Absolutely. This has the nature of a sales tax. Sales and excise taxes are passed onto the consumer, regardless of whether the business is a monopoly or in a competitive industry where returns are reduced to the cost of capital.Well, actually, no:
http://thismatter.com/economics/tax-incidence.htm
And, in fact, sales taxes and excise taxes do not behave similarly. I think this situation also has elements of a payroll tax:
www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/.../bush_tax...
Not sure if that link will work but you can google 'who bears the burden of payroll taxes' if it does not. This next one is probably the best overall explanation of who pays what taxes and to what extent. Note that it is authored by a conservative think tank.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/tax-incidence-tax-burden-and-tax-shifting-who-really-pays-the-tax
Jackson and Tiny are both just flat out wrong on this one.
Well, actually, no:
http://thismatter.com/economics/tax-incidence.htm
And, in fact, sales taxes and excise taxes do not behave similarly. I think this situation also has elements of a payroll tax:
www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/.../bush_tax...
Not sure if that link will work but you can google 'who bears the burden of payroll taxes' if it does not. This next one is probably the best overall explanation of who pays what taxes and to what extent. Note that it is authored by a conservative think tank.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/tax-incidence-tax-burden-and-tax-shifting-who-really-pays-the-tax
Jackson and Tiny are both just flat out wrong on this one.WT69 paid a tax of 3% of sales. How is that not a sales tax?
Your link says, "Generally, because sales taxes are assessed on many items, buyers bear most of the burden of sales taxes, since there are few other things that they can buy that are tax-free. On the other hand, excise taxes, which are taxes on particular products, would, in many circumstances, hurt the sellers more because buyers can buy untaxed goods. This elastic demand pushes the tax burden on the sellers. However, there are some items where demand is inelastic because there are no close substitutes, such as alcohol and tobacco, so the tax burden for these items falls more on the buyers. ".
So since this is a sales tax, I think they're saying you're flat out wrong. An excise tax is a sales tax. The only distinction is that it's levied as a function of weight or volume instead of cost. I've looked at closely at several companies that bear excise taxes on alcohol and gasoline over periods when excise taxes increased. The excise taxes were passed onto the consumer. The margins of the companies, using gross revenues less excise tax in the denominator, weren't affected in the long term.
Why do you think sales and excise taxes are regressive? It's because they're passed onto the consumer.
Umm, it's a tax on a particular product or service, so it's excise and not sales. By the way, I don't argue that most of the burden of a sales tax falls on the consumer. That is consistent with a lack of (non-taxable) substitutes, which would decrease elasticity of demand and increase the incidence of the tax on the consumer. This tax can be avoided by eating at home or driving a bit farther away, or avoided by multiplying the pre-surchage, pre-sales tax amount by 115% and then adding the sales tax, and then paying that total amount (which is what I would do). That ability to substitute increases elasticity of demand and decreases the incidence of the tax on the consumer.
Now, while it is clearly not a sales tax ("Excise taxes (insert ellipses here) are taxes on particular products"), I believe it to have elements of a payroll tax because it is an alternative to paying higher wages. It bears repeating that the whole idea of employer-paid health care, which makes no particular logical sense other than having certain economies of scale available, arose due to the inability to pay higher wages because of WWII wage and price controls. And, the burden of a payroll tends to fall on the employee, meaning that most of it does not get passed on to the customer.
But righties are barking up the wrong tree even talking about the incidence of a tax, which is what we are discussing here. The Heritage article I cited should put you on the right track. You supply siders want to talk about the deadweight loss from a tax. That's the argument you should be making. Trickle-down claims to reduce the "deadweight triangle" over time.
I do find it interesting that the one article claims there are no close substitutes for alcohol. I've certainly found a number of them over the years.
WorldTravel69
12-20-14, 16:37
Good news, there are Cuban chicas in Quito.
Here is a post from a monger in country:
"That's a good guess for US $20 chongos, except for 155 which is full of beautiful Cuban girls. The most beautiful Colombian girls stay in their homeland, the ones who work in Ecuador are average (for Colombia, for Ecuador they are stunning). Doll House and Extasis are the high class night clubs (obviously very expensive) but in those places Cuban girls are majority (and just as the same level as the ones of the 155). ".
On the one hand, fuck Cuba, but on the other hand, our policy towards them could have been changed as soon as the Berlin Wall fell and by now we would have another playground similar to the DR but easier to get to. From an economic standpoint there is little reason for us to pursue them since they are just a bunch of broke dick motherfuckers. But Cubans could possibly make better wetbacks than Mxicans or Central Americans, because there is a higher educational level there. By extension, a better educated hooker is a more interesting hooker. Perhaps now we will see more cubanas in places like Costa Rica or at Campo Alegre. I had to go all the way to Spain to fuck a cubana. There was one at Catto's for a while but I would never meet her price. She was a real borracha and I think she was more interested in hanging out and drinking.
The whole embargo thing is so 19th century, and to try to exclude a market that is 90 miles away seems doomed to failure anyway. We've wasted resources on that stupid island far beyond its economic importance ever since we stole the thing from Spain. Plus there aren't any Muslims there. Islam is the threat, not fucking Communism which was given a thorough trial in various areas and did not do too well in any of them.
What's funny now is that the Republican Cuban-Americans in Florida weren't even born when Batista bit it, and you still can't tell those fuckers a thing. They know it all. Here's a news flash for all those assholes: Batista was a sadistic dick. He raped the treasury before he left, and he ended up just fine in quiet iberian luxury. Castro did him a favor because someone would have popped a cap in his ass sooner rather than later. But what the fuck do we know? We supported Efran Ros Montt, to say nothing of Anastasio 'Nicaragua es mi finca' Somoza Debayle, for christ's sakes. Under Republican presidents, of course, but it's still pretty hard to believe from an historical standpoint.
An interesting example of the behavior of sales taxes and excise taxes can be found in Hawaii. Hawaii alleges not to have a "sales" tax but rather a "general excise" tax. It applies to things like gross rental revenue as well as to all purchases. Now, landlords can pass this tax on explicitly to tenants if they choose to, and separately identify it. But in the case of long-term leases to residents (as opposed to short-term vacation rentals), they mostly don't. Why?
Here we can see that what matters is not whether a tax is labeled "sales" or "excise," but rather how it actually functions. I go shopping for food. Yeah, I could go fishing or fly to the mainland and bring back food from Oregon where there is no tax, or something like that. But mostly, I'm going to have to pay the 4.16 (repetend)% tax and suck it up. Demand inelastic in the short run, burden of tax on consumer. In the long run, if it pisses me off enough, I actually could move to OR, and in the long run many islanders fish to supplement their grocery purchases. So in the long-run a local who fished might avoid 20% of the tax or something like that.
Now let's look at shopping for an apartment. Totally different elasticities. Both food and shelter are necessities but each shelter purchase occurs much less frequently and is much more avoidable. I have to eat but I don't normally have to move. I can't be standing in a line of people at the grocery cashier and try to bargain away the tax. But, I sure can when I'm negotiating a lease. More elasticity for the consumer equates to sharing less of the burden of the tax.
The "excise" tax in HI is way too general to meet the requirements of an excise tax. In both the food and the shelter case, the tax works like a "sales" tax. But, it works very differently between the two classes of products. If we want to leave Intermediate Microeconomic Theory 356 and return to Econ 101, the popcorn stand owner can pass virtually none of a tax on to its customers, because they have a largely undifferentiated product but a fine dining restaurant can pass a fair amount of it on, because they have a differentiated product.
WT69's tax is applied to all classes of a particular product, and so works like an "excise" tax. Fine dining will be more successful in passing it on than casual dining. It can be seen why in Tiny's two examples of excise taxes, they will fall on the consumer. Many of the conditions for inelasticity are met: shortage of close substitutes in the short run, each purchase is a relatively small portion of income, consumer views product class as necessity and not luxury, purchase price not commonly negotiated, and so forth. Similar research on a luxury product would be interesting. Jewelry, or precious metals, or something. I do not agree that excise taxes are inherently regressive. I think they are the opposite when applied to luxury goods.
In accounting everything boils down to the matching rule, in finance everything boils down to the time value of money, and in economics everything boils down to elasticity of demand. Mostly everything, anyway.
So I don't know if the "San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance (SFHCSO) Surcharge" is what WT69 "had" to pay, but if that's the case, it isn't a sales tax, an excise tax, or any kind of tax, since it goes directly into the pocket of the business owner and never gets remitted to the government. If the business owner chooses to employ the surcharge, they have to allegedly and eventually spend the same amount or more on employee health care. Many cheated and charged way more than they spent. Anyway, that ain't a tax. That is no different than saying "tomato slice surcharge, 10 cents," instead of raising the price of the BLT by ten cents. It's a complete load of malarkey.
Politically this again begs the question of why employers should be involved in or responsible for their employees' health care. I can't think of an argument in favor. I think any advanced government should make sure that affordable health care is available to its citizens, so I like the ACA much more than I like employer mandates. I still haven't made up my mind on the individual mandate. I think it depends to some extent on the degree of safety net involved. So, let's start with a situation where there is absolutely no safety net. No insurance, the hospital lets you die in the parking lot. At that point, it looks like vehicle insurance and registration. I could never buy health insurance and never get sick. If I'm going to die in the parking lot, I'm more likely to buy the insurance. Similarly, I could drive without a license and never get caught. But they will impound my vehicle and blah blah so I pay the fee for the license. Seems like just a matter of degree.
Now let's put in safety nets. You make laws that say for example the public hospital has to take you. Right away fewer people are going to buy health insurance. In one state if I drive my one car with the plates off my other, I get in trouble but it's not an automatic license suspension. In another state, it is an automatic suspension. I risk it in one but not in the other.
So I'd rather see a public hospital system paid for out of general revenue. You could go there when you had to, and they couldn't turn you away, but you would owe that money forever. How much of that the system can recover versus how much gets written off would be an issue, but the general fund might as well bear that burden. Seems like that would just be a minimum of socialistic wealth transfer to keep from having a bunch of dead bodies in hospital parking lots. Then you might want to look at what might actually be cost-effective from an overall societal standpoint to provide for free, whether that's vaccinations or flu shots or whatever, and add that in as a basic "entitlement" if it would cost the other taxpayers more not to provide it (your kid getting measles because I can't afford to vaccinate mine, and so forth). That would make good political sense even if it did benefit a bunch of shiftless lazy bastards, right?
Here's an example of how trickle-down economics works.
Let's suppose Wall Street and the top 1% make $100 Billion a year. They do this by getting the best information and financial management services money can buy, high-speed trading, writing activist letters to profitable companies, collecting dividends and interest, lobbying for lower tax rates than their secretaries and to be bailed out by taxpayers when their risky bets go bad, and other various means of collecting basically "free money" on the backs of productive American workers.
Now let's suppose this group spends $5 Billion into the US economy. That money trickles down and benefits the other 99%.
So with trickle-down everyone shares in the pie of prosperity: a small group gets $95 Billion and everyone else gets $5 Billion.
Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/22/joe-scarborough/scarborough-top-1-took-95-gains-under-obama/
Well, if they do "high-speed trading" and make a couple of million, and they are in the state and city of New York, they will pay a marginal tax rate of 39.6 federal + 3.9 medicare + 8.82 state + 3.648 city = 55.968% marginal rate. And, the incremental rate will be very close to the marginal rate.
Now let's assume for the sake of argument the secretary makes $100,000. That's a decent salary for a secretary, even in NYC. Assuming single tax status, that would be an 18.334% federal tax rate. The state tax would be 5.133% and the city rate would be 3.066%. The income would be subject to 7.65% FICA. So, that's 34.183%. These numbers assume 2014 and the standard deduction. The incremental or average rate for the high-speed trader would be a tiny bit lower than the 55.968%, but I doubt by even a percentage point, but that would depend on how much of this theoretical $100 billion was made by one taxpayer.
Hence, we can toss out that inaccurate and bloviated rhetoric as there is no set of actual circumstances under which it could occur. The Wall Street fat cats' sins are cancelling each other out. They can't possibly be high speed trading and paying a lower rate than their secretaries! It reminds me of when Willie Mays was playing for the Giants, a reporter wrote that the only things he was interested in were hitting home runs and resting. Willie said, "If I'm hitting home runs, I'm not resting, and if I'm resting, I'm not hitting home runs. If those are my only sins I gotta get to heaven!"
Well, if they do "high-speed trading" and make a couple of million, and they are in the state in city of New York, they will pay a marginal tax rate of 39.6 federal + 3. 9 medicare + 8. 82 state + 3. 648 city = 55.968% marginal rate. And, the incremental rate will be very close to the marginal rate.
Now let's assume for the sake of argument the secretary makes $100,000. That's a decent salary for a secretary, even in NYC. Assuming single tax status, that would be an 18.334% federal tax rate. The state tax would be 5. 133% and the city rate would be 3. 066%. The income would be subject to 7. 65% FICA. So, that's 34.183%. These numbers assume 2014 and the standard deduction. The incremental or average rate for the high-speed trader would be a tiny bit lower than the 55.968%, but I doubt by even a percentage point, but that would depend on how much of this theoretical $100 billion was made by one taxpayer.
Hence, we can toss out that inaccurate and bloviated rhetoric as there is no set of actual circumstances under which it could occur. The Wall Street fat cats' sins are cancelling each other out. They can't possibly be high speed trading and paying a lower rate than their secretaries! It reminds me of when Willie Mays was playing for the Giants, a reporter wrote that the only things he was interested in were hitting home runs and resting. Willie said, "If I'm hitting home runs, I'm not resting, and if I'm resting, I'm not hitting home runs. If those are my only sins I gotta get to heaven!Who was that idiot reporter?
I don't remember the reporters' names but he talks about it in his autobiography. He also does a very good job of explaining Republican / supply-side vs. Democratic / Keynesian / demand-side economics. Check it out. Basically he gives a description of trickle-down policy, followed by a description of transfer payments. Then he says they probably come out about the same in the long run. Then he says something like, "But I've seen what happens in the meantime, and that's why I'm a Democrat. " Willie's a bit of an Uncle Tom but he has a way of making sense. A lot of righties are devotees of Joseph Schumpeter and the so-called "Austrian School," but maybe they should be reading Mays' autobiography instead of worrying about Kondratiev cycles.
I don't remember the reporters' names but he talks about it in his autobiography. He also does a very good job of explaining Republican / supply-side vs. Democratic / Keynesian / demand-side economics. Check it out. Basically he gives a description of trickle-down policy, followed by a description of transfer payments. Then he says they probably come out about the same in the long run. Then he says something like, "But I've seen what happens in the meantime, and that's why I'm a Democrat. " Willie's a bit of an Uncle Tom but he has a way of making sense. A lot of righties are devotees of Joseph Schumpeter and the so-called "Austrian School," but maybe they should be reading Mays' autobiography instead of worrying about Kondratiev cycles.Stretching doubles into triples comes to mind.
I know he hit 20 triples one year and that's hard to do. But the park had a lot to do with it.
I don't remember the reporters' names but he talks about it in his autobiography. He also does a very good job of explaining Republican / supply-side vs. Democratic / Keynesian / demand-side economics. Check it out. Basically he gives a description of trickle-down policy, followed by a description of transfer payments. Then he says they probably come out about the same in the long run. Then he says something like, "But I've seen what happens in the meantime, and that's why I'm a Democrat. " Willie's a bit of an Uncle Tom but he has a way of making sense. A lot of righties are devotees of Joseph Schumpeter and the so-called "Austrian School," but maybe they should be reading Mays' autobiography instead of worrying about Kondratiev cycles.I had one macroeconomics class. The professor, who was one of the top advisers to a president that was slightly to the left of Obama, was a big fan of Kondratiev cycles. They seemed like bull sh*t to me, along with a lot of the rest of the course material.
Keynes was right, deficit spending is a great tool during recessions. The problem is that USA federal politicians don't run budget surpluses when times are good. They run perennial deficits, getting the nation deeper and deeper into debt. I do not think you are correct in believing this is benign because the USA Dollar is currently the world's main reserve currency. Some day there will be hell to pay.
Just as bad is the belief that the private sector should be highly taxed and shrink relative to the size of federal government, which is implicit in Democratic demand-side economics. The private sector is much more efficient than the USA federal government. Please note I didn't say Keynesian demand-side economics. While I never studied Keynes, I don't believe he had a preference one way or the other, for tax cuts or government spending increases during recessions.
Punter 127
12-21-14, 12:37
WT 69 we can play games if you want, it's up to you.
Punter that sounds like an English phrase. But I know in my heart Punter, you are a truly great American.Yes WT 69 I'm from one of the free states, people from free states tend to be very different than you ignorant assholes from the Peoples Republic of California. Not only am I from a free state but I supposedly have Native American in my ancestry, but not the same tribe as Elizabeth Warren.
My apologies to the few normal people from California, but I needed to get down to a level that hopefully WT 69 will be able understand.
Punter 127
12-21-14, 13:17
As his posts themselves generally constitute a better argument against his positions, I don't bother with polemics in his case. I agree about WT 69's post but somebody needs call him and the other village idiot out from time to time. IMHO.
In your case there is a faint ray of hopeThanks, (I think) some times I see a "faint ray of hope" in some of your post as well, I even agree with you once in a while. lol
But fair enough for now I guess.
Sorry for the slow reply I'm on a road trip and have limited internet time.
I had one macroeconomics class. The professor, who was one of the top advisers to a president that was slightly to the left of Obama, was a big fan of Kondratiev cycles. They seemed like bull sh*t to me, along with a lot of the rest of the course material.
Keynes was right, deficit spending is a great tool during recessions. The problem is that USA federal politicians don't run budget surpluses when times are good. They run perennial deficits, getting the nation deeper and deeper into debt. I do not think you are correct in believing this is benign because the USA Dollar is currently the world's main reserve currency. Some day there will be hell to pay.
Just as bad is the belief that the private sector should be highly taxed and shrink relative to the size of federal government, which is implicit in Democratic demand-side economics. The private sector is much more efficient than the USA federal government. Please note I didn't say Keynesian demand-side economics. While I never studied Keynes, I don't believe he had a preference one way or the other, for tax cuts or government spending increases during recessions.Keynes did, in fact, prefer government spending because it works faster. I don't think I ever said more debt was "benign. " I just view the value of a currency differently than you do. I believe it stems from the power of a government to tax its citizens. I don't know if you are a gold bug, you often talk like one, but I don't think specie currency is necessary so any given dollar amount of debt becomes less onerous when you don't have to dig gold out of the ground to meet your A / P.
You and I will never get past the "private sector should be highly taxed" until you understand the futility of corporate taxation. Some day there will be hell to pay for a lot of things, but I'm honestly more worried about what aggressive capitalism is doing to the environment than I am about the US dollar collapsing.
Kondratiev waves are normally a righty thing and not a lefty thing.
Well, if they do "high-speed trading" and make a couple of million, and they are in the state and city of New York, they will pay a marginal tax rate of 39.6 federal + 3.9 medicare + 8.82 state + 3.648 city = 55.968% marginal rate. And, the incremental rate will be very close to the marginal rate.
Hence, we can toss out that inaccurate and bloviated rhetoric as there is no set of actual circumstances under which it could occur. The problem with Dickhead's analysis is that nobody is claiming that high-speed trading alone enables someone to pay a lower tax rate than their secretary. I did not claim that, rather I listed high-speed trading and lobbying for lower tax rates as two of numerous things that Wall Street does to increase their take. And the many articles that have been written on the topic of effective federal tax rates do not claim this either. In fact the media articles are very clear that the lower tax rates some of the ultra-wealthy enjoy are due to qualified dividends, long-term capital gains and especially the "carried interest" provision that hedge fund managers enjoy. The low tax rates reported by folks like Buffett and Romney are well-documented. Even Republicans have proposed legislation to end some of these wasteful provisions for the wealthy. Ironically, the only "inaccurate and bloviated rhetoric" here is an argument that Dickhead himself has invented.
None of this changes the fact that Wall Street is leeching massive sums off the US economy, little of which is trickling down.
Let's suppose Wall Street and the top 1% make $100 Billion a year. They do this by getting the best information and financial management services money can buy, high-speed trading, writing activist letters to profitable companies, collecting dividends and interest, lobbying for lower tax rates than their secretaries and to be bailed out by taxpayers when their risky bets go bad, and other various means of collecting basically "free money" on the backs of productive American workers.And yet, paradoxically, if these investors didn't do everything that you've enumerated, there wouldn't be any jobs for "productive American workers"
Esten, once again you are proffering the false narrative that wealth is a zero sum game, which I will torpedo with a single statement: Are you any poorer because these investors made some money?
Now let's suppose this group spends $5 Billion into the US economy. That money trickles down and benefits the other 99%.It's their money, and in a truly free society they can spend it where ever they choose.
So with trickle-down everyone shares in the pie of prosperity: a small group gets $95 Billion and everyone else gets $5 Billion.Let me correct this for you: "So with trickle-down everyone shares in the pie of prosperity: a small group of investors who risked their money gets $95 Billion and everyone else who didn't risk a single cent gets $5 Billion, plus their salaries, benefits, pensions and whatever else is in their agreed upon compensation package.
"So with trickle-down everyone shares in the pie of prosperity: a small group of investors who risked their money gets $95 Billion and everyone else who didn't risk a single cent gets $5 Billion, plus 55.968% of $95 billion, collected in taxes and redistributed, plus their salaries, benefits, pensions and whatever else is in their agreed upon compensation package.Fixed that for you!
And yet, paradoxically, if these investors didn't do everything that you've enumerated, there wouldn't be any jobs for "productive American workers" Wrong. There are many, many ways to make money and become wealthy enough to invest in job-creating ventures. Investment money won't dry up if hedge funds stop high-frequency trading, or if activists stop threatening profitable corporations, or if taxes go up. 2014 has been the best year of job creation since 1999, but the wealthy are dealing with the highest tax rates since the Bush Tax Cuts. Predictably, you've made a simplistic statement with nothing to back it up.
Esten, once again you are proffering the false narrative that wealth is a zero sum game, which I will torpedo with a single statement: Are you any poorer because these investors made some money?I'm doing well. Others have lost their jobs, in part because of Wall Street greed. Here's how it works. Investors (AKA Wall Street) communicate their expectations to corporations for financial performance. The CEO, Executive team and BOD all basically take their marching orders because their finances are largely determined by their stock awards and the company stock price, which Wall Street controls. Guidance is passed down the organization. Operating costs are a common focus, and labor is a key component here. Any project that can eliminate a few headcount gets attention. The more the headcount reduction, the more attention the idea gets. Such projects are continuously getting implemented across corporate America every year. Not to mention M&A which is great for Wall Street but typically leads to job losses. The net effect is a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. With all due respect, I wouldn't expect a small businessman to have much direct experience with this.
It's their money, and in a truly free society they can spend it where ever they choose.Thank you for this succinct statement of why we should not rely on trickle-down economics.
"So with trickle-down everyone shares in the pie of prosperity: a small group of investors who risked their moneyYou're confusing leeching free money off the US economy with actual risk-taking that creates jobs. We should disabuse ourselves of the notion that the wealthy must be allowed to accumulate obscene profits (95% of all income gains in recent years) to sustain jobs for everyone else.
What's all this about high-speed trading? Somebody read Michael Lewis's book. "High-speed" trading is a pretty relative term, but in and of itself it provides liquidity and marketability. It's true that a lot of that is intraday, but it still benefits me as a small investor when I want to say enter a limit order between the bid price and the ask price. A lot of the "high-speed" trading takes place in the futures market, where, in contrast to the spot equity market, for every winner there is an equal and opposite loser. Of course futures traders do benefit from the 60/40 rule, which has a very dirty history (hint: where is the futures exchange located? Who was the US Rep. from there for a long time? What key committee position did this person hold?), and so they would not face 55.968% taxation due to this graft they receive. I'd have to do the math again but I think it would be approximately 10 percentage points lower. But aside from that break, it benefits me as an individual and largely passive investor to have a bunch of people trading against each other and beating each others' heads in, in the futures market.
And hopefully we have established by now that I only care about myself, so I think "high-speed" or program trading is great!
Esten, It's interesting you choose to highlight 2009 to 2012. During this period President Obama's party controlled one or both houses of Congress.
The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. Look at the OECD studies, which were done before Obama further raised taxes on high income earners and successful unincorporated businesses. If you want to know why an increasing share of income was / is going to a small percentage of the population, look at the following.
1. Long term unemployment benefits. I would have preferred lower taxes on business (marginal rates are the highest in the world) and investment and spending on infrastructure to boost employment during the recession.
2. More people who are able to work going on social security disability.
3. The Affordable Care Act encouraging part time employment over full time employment.
Of course if people work less, or not at all, they make less money.
The biggest long term reasons the middle class and poor are losing out is because of globalization and technology. The cure is better education. If politicians would stop kowtowing to teachers unions and get an education system in place that works, there's a solution.
You don't seem to appreciate that improvements in productivity, getting more work out of fewer people, is the most important long term way to grow income. And it requires some of the actions you dislike. If you can improve productivity, increase employment participation, and control the politicians' spending, you've put the nation on the track to long term prosperity.
I agree that crony capitalism, like carried interest, should be stamped out of Wall Street.
Nobody's really mentioned one of the biggest advantages Wall Street has: the specialist gets to see the limit order book. That inherent advantage alone will doom many who try to trade against them. I'm trying to figure out how to turn that into some kind of conspiracy, but I can't decide if it's a left wing conspiracy or a right wing conspiracy. It has been ever thus back to Charles Dow and Edward Jones, but I bet fewer than 10% of stock investors understand the implication.
Tiny, the system that enables such lopsided wealth accumulation in the US is far too entrenched and expansive for any one president or administration to change significantly in a short period of time. The first few years Obama was cleaning up the mess his predecessor left him, and while the middle class was getting squeezed the rich still had plenty of cash to ride the stock market back up. Obama did take at least some steps to address the issue (ACA, tax changes, etc), without them economic inequality would be even worse.
Here's the distinction we need to make. There are investors who risk their money to start and grow a company. Along the way, jobs are created and at some point, hopefully, the company becomes profitable and the investor makes a profit off his investment.
Then there are those who come along to make money off already profitable companies. Like a parasite, they attach themselves to the host whether the host wants it or not. These leeches typically don't create jobs, but in a passive mode they don't generally cause job losses either. In an active mode, these leeches can and often do cause job losses. Here's a good example.
Amgen, bowing to hedge fund pressure, to cut up to 1,100 more jobs
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-amgen-job-cuts-20141029-story.html
In a surprise statement at an investment conference in New York, the Thousand Oaks firm said it would eliminate up to 1,100 jobs, boosting the total announced cuts this year to as many as 4,000, about 20% of its global workforce. Wall Street cheered, sending shares up 6% on the day to $157.19, a gain of $8.99.
The job cuts were part of a sweeping set of financial maneuvers the company intended as a way to funnel money back to Wall Street investors. The company also said it would buy back $2 billion in stock and increase its dividend 30%. It also made an ambitious promise of double-digit earnings growth for the next three years.
The fight between management and activist investor Daniel Loeb is part of a broader argument over whether such high-stakes face-offs result in short-term benefits to shareholders at the expense of a company's ability to invest in its operations and thrive long term.
Question for the Obama haters. Are you happy with the dollar being at its highest value for 11 years, or is this another sign of the 'communist dictator' ruining the economy?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/dollar-surges-to-11-year-against-biggest-rivals-1420221525
Punter 127
01-05-15, 15:26
Question for the Obama haters.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/dollar-surges-to-11-year-against-biggest-rivals-1420221525IMHO the words of an average run-of-the-mill Kool-Aid drinking progressive apply well here.
Hate is such a strong emotion.
And such a heavy burden to carry around. I prefer the word "dislike" better. "Irritated" or "annoyed" might even be more correct. BTW I can't read your linked article without a paid subscription, perhaps after I get my whopping thirty one dollar Social Security raise this month. Gee thanks Berry.
Just for the record I support replacing John Boehner as speaker of the house, IMHO he has proven himself to be nothing more than leftwing light.
But none of this really matters anyway because Obama is yesterdays news as the 2016 campaign is well underway.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/opinion/paul-krugman-presidents-and-the-economy.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0
"Do those who were blaming Mr. Obama for all of our economic ills now look like knaves & fools? Yes, they do. And that's because they are. ".
As expected, the numbers came in last week showing 2014 was the strongest year in job growth since 1999. Employers added 252,000 jobs in December, making it the 11th straight month of payroll increases above 200,000, the longest stretch since 1994. A total of 3 Million new jobs were created in 2014. GDP expanded at an annual pace of 5% in the third quarter, the healthiest advance in 11 years.
Now, remember quotes like this from Rick Scott, "Obamacare is the biggest job killer in the history of this country." Or from Ted Cruz: "Look, my focus has been jobs, economic growth and, in particular, ObamaCare. ObamaCare: it's the biggest jobs killer in this country.". Pretty much every Republican is on record repeating this talking point. A talking point we now know was false, as the numbers demonstrate from the first full year of ACA implemention in 2014. Of course, most critical-thinking Americans knew they were being lied to (as usual) by Fox News and Republicans looking for political advantage.
Job growth was brisk in December, capping the best year for hiring in 15 years
http://fortune.com/2015/01/09/job-growth-increased-briskly-in-december-capping-the-best-year-for-hiring-in-15-years/
Streak of Solid Hiring Bolsters Confidence About 2015
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/us-adds-strong-252k-jobs-unemployment-56-pct-28108810
Here's the distinction we need to make. There are investors who risk their money to start and grow a company. Along the way, jobs are created and at some point, hopefully, the company becomes profitable and the investor makes a profit off his investment.
Then there are those who come along to make money off already profitable companies. Like a parasite, they attach themselves to the host whether the host wants it or not. These leeches typically don't create jobs, but in a passive mode they don't generally cause job losses either. In an active mode, these leeches can and often do cause job losses. Here's a good example.
Amgen, bowing to hedge fund pressure, to cut up to 1,100 more jobs
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-amgen-job-cuts-20141029-story.htmlI know people who work and have worked at Amgen. What they say is that for many yrs Amgen has been a pretty cushy place to work, lots of perks and job security, lots of buracracy and fluff. Amgen has built up alot of layers of fat over the yrs. So its good someone has gone in and done some hr surgery at Amgen. Most companies can use this sort of housecleaning now and then.
As expected, the numbers came in last week showing 2014 was the strongest year in job growth since 1999. Employers added 252,000 jobs in December, making it the 11th straight month of payroll increases above 200,000, the longest stretch since 1994. A total of 3 Million new jobs were created in 2014. GDP expanded at an annual pace of 5% in the third quarter, the healthiest advance in 11 years.More propaganda from the King of Propaganda.
First, as we've all discussed in the past, the official unemployment rate is an inaccurate count of the number of people who claim to be looking for work. In other words, if everybody without a job just stopped looking for a job tomorrow, we'd have an unemployment rate of ZERO. The only number that counts is the percentage of citizens who are working, and that number is at 62.7% for Dec 2014, down slightly from 62.8% in Dec 2013.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Second, we could have been looking at these kind of numbers four years ago if Obama hadn't buttfucked every taxpayer and every employer in the country by borowing trillions of dollars to give to his constituents and by shoving Obamacare up the country's collective asses.
Third, the reason we are now FINALLY showing some signs of economic improvement (abet 4 years late) is because A) the new Republican majority in the Congress has given the job creators in the country reason to be optimistic in the knowledge that Obama'a radical agenda has now been thwarted, and B) oil production on PRIVATE land in the USA has driven down the price of energy, no thanks to Obama.
Esten, it's so funny how you look at these things. It's like if you shot a man, and he falls to the ground, and 4 years later as he is just now able to stand on his own two legs again, and you enthusiastically proclaim "See, I told you that you can shoot these guys all you want because they can take it. ".
Anyway, the most important thing is that we're not talking about Obama's most recent foreign policy fuckup: Leaders from dozens of European and Mid-East countries walk arm-in-arm in Paris to show their resolve to defeat Islamic Terrorism, and Obama stays home. Talk about the mother of Unforced Errors.
Thanks,
Jax.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/tom-hanks-on-his-two-years-at-chabot-college.html?_r=0B
Never mind that debate. But here's another great proposal from the clueless Obama for the everyday American. Free Community College. So instead of nitpicking like saying he should not be playing golf when an American has been executed, why don't you try to see the big picture, and that is giving the masses a better chance at improving their lives. And here is Tom Hanks to give you his opinion in the article above.
WorldTravel69
01-14-15, 23:44
Was never Free. I paid for the Classes I took. They are having money problems now.
I think Tom forgot the classes were not free. Almost, but not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/tom-hanks-on-his-two-years-at-chabot-college.html?_r=0B
Never mind that debate. But here's another great proposal from the clueless Obama for the everyday American. Free Community College. So instead of nitpicking like saying he should not be playing golf when an American has been executed, why don't you try to see the big picture, and that is giving the masses a better chance at improving their lives. And here is Tom Hanks to give you his opinion in the article above.
oil production on PRIVATE land in the USA has driven down the price of energy.Certainly increased oil supply from this land has had an effect on the oil price, but its a minor factor in the general picture.
The four main factors are:
1. Low demand because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels.
2. Iraq and Libya are maintaining their input despite the trouble in those regions.
3. The Saudis and their friends have decided not to reduce their own market share to restore the oil price. They could curb production but prefer to maintain their market share. Hurting enemies like Iran and Russia is a bonus.
4. Increased oil production in the USA.
The most vulnerable producers in this scenario are the frackers in the USA. The investment in this type of production depends on a high price. It will be interesting to see what happens to these investments if the current low price doesn't recover.
We don't need the Keystone XL Pipeline going through 7 states. We have a glut of oil now. Prices of gas are still coming down all over the USA. The oil is coming mainly from Western states like No. Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado etc. And Alberta, Canada oil is already coming across the border and being transported by rail and truck to the refineries. Theres no need to build the pipeline. At these low prices it doesn't work out financially.
You have to blame the drop in oil prices on Obama. Did some of you experts saw that coming? Somehow, all the delays and postponements of the bill will now allow it to undergo further reviews and debates. Some who despise him even called him the false Messiah. Very entertaining 24 months coming up. Get ready for the ride.
President Obama needs to have a pen with a lot of ink in it because he will be vetoeing a lot of bills from the GOP led House and Senate.
Member #4112
01-15-15, 13:52
We don't need the Keystone XL Pipeline going through 7 states. We have a glut of oil now. Prices of gas are still coming down all over the USA. The oil is coming mainly from Western states like No. Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado etc. And Alberta, Canada oil is already coming across the border and being transported by rail and truck to the refineries. Theres no need to build the pipeline. At these low prices it doesn't work out financially.And you think these prices are going to last? Is it not better to have a pipeline from a continental friendly partner than to tanker it all the way from places which are not particularly friendly to us.
Additionally pipeline transportation is far safer than either rail or trucks.
Punter 127
01-15-15, 14:15
We don't need the Keystone XL Pipeline going through 7 states. Canada oil is already coming across the border and being transported by rail and truck to the refineries. Theres no need to build the pipeline. At these low prices it doesn't work out financially.Perhaps you can explain how transporting oil by rail and truck is safer or even better for the environment, because I find your argument ludicrous.
I would much rather have oil flowing through a pipeline than rolling down the highway or through major cities by rail.
My understanding is the pipeline will be financed by private funds and the governments only involvement is issuing the permits. So why should we care if it works out financially?
It's there money isn't it?
President Obama needs to have a pen with a lot of ink in it because he will be vetoeing a lot of bills from the GOP led House and Senate.Yes and that way he can build a legacy of being the President of no, now even the low information voters will be able to see who's really the do nothing obstructionist in Washington.
Whats ludicrous is the claims by rightwingers about all the jobs the pipeline is going to create. The reality is very few permanent jobs will come out of this project. From the refineries the gas will be put on tankers and sent to countries like China, India, Japan etc. And the American people will get nothing out of this. The pipeline will make the big oil companies a lot of money, but the people not much.
Wow. You honestly believe everything you are told by TPTB.
The bureau of bullshit statistics. No better than the argentinian indec. Lets just hope US Shale can keep it up. At 46 bucks a barrel. LOL.
As expected, the numbers came in last week showing 2014 was the strongest year in job growth since 1999. Employers added 252,000 jobs in December, making it the 11th straight month of payroll increases above 200,000, the longest stretch since 1994. A total of 3 Million new jobs were created in 2014. GDP expanded at an annual pace of 5% in the third quarter, the healthiest advance in 11 years.
Now, remember quotes like this from Rick Scott, "Obamacare is the biggest job killer in the history of this country." Or from Ted Cruz: "Look, my focus has been jobs, economic growth and, in particular, ObamaCare. ObamaCare: it's the biggest jobs killer in this country.". Pretty much every Republican is on record repeating this talking point. A talking point we now know was false, as the numbers demonstrate from the first full year of ACA implemention in 2014. Of course, most critical-thinking Americans knew they were being lied to (as usual) by Fox News and Republicans looking for political advantage.
Job growth was brisk in December, capping the best year for hiring in 15 years
http://fortune.com/2015/01/09/job-growth-increased-briskly-in-december-capping-the-best-year-for-hiring-in-15-years/
Streak of Solid Hiring Bolsters Confidence About 2015
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/us-adds-strong-252k-jobs-unemployment-56-pct-28108810
Punter 127
01-15-15, 16:03
Prove it!
Whats ludicrous is the claims by rightwingers about all the jobs the pipeline is going to create. The reality is very few permanent jobs will come out of this project. From the refineries the gas will be put on tankers and sent to countries like China, India, Japan etc. And the American people will get nothing out of this. The pipeline will make the big oil companies a lot of money, but the people not much. If what you say is true why does the plan call for a leg of the pipeline to run to Patoka Illinois, not many tankers in Patoka.
Haha. People really think shale oil is profitable. Its all being financed by tax payer funded " free money " and junk bonds. 600 Billion worth so far. The industry could keep the ponzi going at 100 bucks a barrel. At 46 bucks. There is no chance. They won't even be able to refinance unless the tax. Payers get stuck with another bill. But what's another trillion between friends?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-12/shale-debt-matters-most-to-stock-investors-as-oil-plunges.html
Punter 127
01-15-15, 16:15
More with Less.
U.S. Crude Production Advances Even as Prices Decline
Drillers that unlocked the shale oil boom in the USA Are finding it hard to shut off the nozzle.
USA Crude production rose even as prices slumped to the lowest in more than five years and the number of rigs targeting oil decreased. In North Dakota's prolific Bakken shale formation, output rose in November as the number of new wells coming online fell by 73 percent.
The increases illustrate how improvements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology may prop up USA Crude production even as companies cut spending, idle rigs and lay off thousands of workers with*oil prices*down more than 50 percent since June.
"We have an oversupply of crude," Michael Hiley, head of energy OTC at LPS Partners Inc. In*New York, said yesterday. "Production keeps going up. There is not a great correlation between the rig count and production because drilling has gotten more efficient over the last several years".
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-14/u-s-oil-output-advances-to-record-even-as-prices-drop.html
They say some wells are now profitable even at $30 barrel and others will be as technology advances.
I say let get serious about exporting oil and natural gas, if we become completely energy independent we can tell countries like Iran, and their ilk to go pound sand as their economies collapse.
Oil and especially natural gas advances have given us an opportunity to increase revenue through exports, this may well be the only chance we have of getting a handle on our nation debt.
LOL. Sometimes it's better to let people be blissfully ignorant.
Lost in all of the rhetoric and noise about Keystone XL is the Canadian decision to tell the US politicians to go pound sand. The Canadians plan to use a combination of new construction, conversion of existing gas pipelines to oil, and reversal of direction to pipe oil all the way from Alberta to the Canadian East. They will use some and export some without being hamstrung by USA politics. The environmentalists need to hope and pray that the price of a barrel of oil stays low, because that is the only thing that will stop oil sands oil from being produced and sent to market.
Tres3.
Punter 127
01-15-15, 16:56
LOL. Sometimes it's better to let people be blissfully ignorant.LOL, probably best to just ignore jackassery as well.
Have a nice day.
Don't worry most intelligent people have been ignoring your MSM jackassery for years. Hegelian dialectic trolls. How 1999.
And dont worry anyone who wasnt shorting the CHF had a great day.
LOL, probably best to just ignore jackassery as well.
Have a nice day.
Wow. You honestly believe everything you are told by TPTB.
The bureau of bullshit statistics. No better than the argentinian indec. Brilliant analysis. I guess Wall Street and all the economists that base their financial modelling and forecasts on BLS statistics are being duped too, and somehow don't even realize it. Heck, even Jackson posted a link to BLS to support his argument in his last post. What a laugh, keep fooling yourself BadMan.
Punter 127
01-16-15, 01:29
You really can't possibly imagine how much I don't care what you think!
Don't worry most intelligent people have been ignoring your MSM jackassery for years. Hegelian dialectic trolls. How 1999.
But what in the fuck would a pathetic little loser like you know about intelligent people?
Actually 1999 was a pretty good year for me, but wasn't you still sucking on momma's teats and shitting yellow back in the motherland at that time? You know comrade, I'm talking about before you learned to speak English.
I know you at least had to be going by your other name at that time, what was it Blue-boy 13 or something like that.
If there are any trolls here you're surely numeral uno amongst them.
I had hoped when you started posting again that you had changed but you're the the same little prick you always was. Maybe you should start your own forum again, I'm sure everyone will rush right over to join, just like the bad old days. Who knows maybe you can get three members this time.
I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults. It seems every time you can't make a point or if someone disagrees, here come the insults. How Pathetic!
If you want to debate issues fine, but if you just want to engage in childish insults every time somebody disagrees with you, well you can just go fuck yourself for all I care.
I never saw so much spit flying!
I never saw so much spit flying!Happy New Year Rev.
Looks like 2015 will be another lively year on AP.
Was this drivel supposed to anger me or something? Said alot more about you and your mental state than it ever could about me. You dont even know me.
LOL. Someone needs to take their meds. Dementia is not a good look for you. You really are just as stupid as your posts imply....
You really can't possibly imagine how much I don't care what you think!
But what in the fuck would a pathetic little loser like you know about intelligent people?
Actually 1999 was a pretty good year for me, but wasn't you still sucking on momma's teats and shitting yellow back in the motherland at that time? You know comrade, I'm talking about before you learned to speak English.
I know you at least had to be going by your other name at that time, what was it Blue-boy 13 or something like that.
If there are any trolls here you're surely numeral uno amongst them.
I had hoped when you started posting again that you had changed but you're the the same little prick you always was. Maybe you should start your own forum again, I'm sure everyone will rush right over to join, just like the bad old days. Who knows maybe you can get three members this time.
I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults. It seems every time you can't make a point or if someone disagrees, here come the insults. How Pathetic!
If you want to debate issues fine, but if you just want to engage in childish insults every time somebody disagrees with you, well you can just go fuck yourself for all I care.
Brilliant analysis. I guess Wall Street and all the economists that base their financial modelling and forecasts on BLS statistics are being duped too, and somehow don't even realize it. Heck, even Jackson posted a link to BLS to support his argument in his last post. What a laugh, keep fooling yourself BadMan.You seriously believe that wall street really bases its forecasts on bls stats? LOL. You do understand the bls changes their methodology more often than an escort changes undergarments right? Double LOL. And if you are talking about real wallstreet analysis. And not the crap that gets peddled to the muppets. I mean retail investors. You do know in GS' brilliant " analysis " and investment recomendations for 2015, they advised all their investors to short the CHF and predicted GLD would be at 1000 right? They also predicted oil would stay around 80 all year... Smh....Just forget everything I posted and believe the BLS (The Bureau Of Lies And Subterfuge) all you want.
And actually Jacksons previous posts acknowledged just how cooked those statistics are. The difference is he blames it on the administration du jour.
Read and open your eyes. Just kidding. I know you won't which is why its pointless to post any links but ill humor you. But if you want to stop fooling yourself, read some real analysis and get a clue.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/03/15/government-wrong-on-jobs-and-wages-again/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2013/11/19/fake-unemployment-report-shocker/
I'm not going to post more interesting links. They would go over your head. But seriously, keep believing what you want. I love muppet slaughter just as much as the next guy.
Rc Collins
01-16-15, 09:20
You really can't possibly imagine how much I don't care what you think!
But what in the fuck would a pathetic little loser like you know about intelligent people?
I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults. It seems every time you can't make a point or if someone disagrees, here come the insults. How Pathetic!
If you want to debate issues fine, but if you just want to engage in childish insults every time somebody disagrees with you, well you can just go fuck yourself for all I care.
I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults.I just don't understand why people don't look at the man in the mirror before they launched these partisans attacks. Many on all sides including independents attack, its not a one way street.
However, this is just like in politics where its do as I say and not as I do, and criticize the other side for doing exactly you and your side are doing. The is just so hypocritical and having been on the receiving end of a similar attack from you before when I never 'turned to insults', I'd say you do have more than anger issues to get this worked up so often. I do have my armor on and am prepared for your next attack.
Guys / dudes, fellow mongers can we lower the insult ratio, stop the swear words and have an 'intelligent' discussion about politics.
I'd like to finish out my Keystone discussion with the envitable outcome. The Republican controlled House and Senate will pass the bill; President Obama will veto it and the GOP will try to get enough Democrat Senators to override. But they will fall short of the 67 votes needed, and the bill be dead until the next time.
Punter 127
01-16-15, 13:51
I was not nor am I angry.
I just don't understand why people don't look at the man in the mirror before they launched these partisans attacks. Many on all sides including independents attack, its not a one way street.I do agree it's not a oneway street and I did not intend to imply it was, but there just seems to be much more of it from the left on this forum. That's just my opinion. I am still allowed to have an opinion aren't I?
However, this is just like in politics where its do as I say and not as I do, and criticize the other side for doing exactly you and your side are doing. The is just so hypocritical and having been on the receiving end of a similar attack from you before when I never 'turned to insults', I'd say you do have more than anger issues to get this worked up so often. I do have my armor on and am prepared for your next attack.It's true I have disputed your post in the past but please show where I attacked you personally. The worst thing I can find that I ever said about you was that you and another member were "birds of a feather" and that the two of you were tag teaming me, both statements were meant to be humorous, and that was after you suggested I was a liar. You see I debate and dispute post but I don't normally attack the person, but I do however respond to personal attacks with counter attacks, and once you open that door all bets are off. There is a difference between personal attack and disputing or debating a post.
The three quotes that you quoted are from one post in which I was responding (counter attack) to a personal attack by badman. The dislike between badman and me goes back several years, long before you joined the forum. His most recent claim that I don't know him is wrong as usual, he has over 1500 post, we all know him very well, at least those of us that have been around awhile. Oh BTW I have met him in person as well, we were introduced in a restaurant in BA a few year ago by none other than Jackson himself. He may not have known I was Punter 127 because we were introduced by our real first names only, but considering the number of people who made a point afterwards of tell me he was badman, I suspect he was told who I was as well. Or perhaps there's a medical reason he doesn't remember, it happens.
So unless you can show where I attacked you in the past I suggest we get back to talking about politics.
Punter 127
01-16-15, 14:02
I'd like to finish out my Keystone discussion with the envitable outcome. The Republican controlled House and Senate will pass the bill; President Obama will veto it and the GOP will try to get enough Democrat Senators to override. But they will fall short of the 67 votes needed, and the bill be dead until the next time.You may be right, that would be the expected outcome, but I'm not so sure this time. I think you will see more Dems turning on Obama on issues like this that have strong public support because they need to get reelected, Obama doesn't.
The US part of that pipeline isn't going to be built anytime soon. There is simply no money in it at the current price of oil. There is simply no money in fracking unless its tax payer funded and refinanced by junk bonds. Its a bubble. And yes it destroys the environment. The Russians who invented fracking were some thoughtless idiots.
The only people who want the pipeline are frackers and those investing in that ponzi scheme and more so now that the price of oil is so low. If they can skim an extra 4-8 dollars on trasportation costs per barrel, they will jump at the chance. To the detriment of everyone else.
On the flipside, I don't see this pipeline becoming a reality anytime soon, especially with 46 bucks a barrel and with the drone emperor in office.
You've read my posts and you met me at a dinner once, that doesn't mean you know me. You must be delusional. And look back at the thread before telling bold faced lies. I never once quoted or insulted you. You quoted me and implied " jackassery " whatever that term means. So please stop living in a parallel world where everyone is " attacking " you. You started it. And then as most paranoid schizophrenics do you lashed out on some tourette syndrome induced rant about " sucking on mommas teats " " shitting yellow " etc.
You've apparently done this before to other posters and as you said, you will do it again. I'm assuming you're quite old so this should be pretty embarrasing on your part.
And if I ever did meet you at a dinner. I apparently didnt care about the encounter enough to remember it. I've met a few people from the forum at dinners. I only consider a few my friends and worth remembering or even treating with. Get back on your meds and try to stay on topic.
I was not nor am I angry.
I do agree it's not a oneway street and I did not intend to imply it was, but there just seems to be much more of it from the left on this forum. That's just my opinion. I am still allowed to have an opinion aren't I?
It's true I have disputed your post in the past but please show where I attacked you personally. The worst thing I can find that I ever said about you was that you and another member were "birds of a feather" and that the two of you were tag teaming me, both statements were meant to be humorous, and that was after you suggested I was a liar. You see I debate and dispute post but I don't normally attack the person, but I do however respond to personal attacks with counter attacks, and once you open that door all bets are off. There is a difference between personal attack and disputing or debating a post.
The three quotes that you quoted are from one post in which I was responding (counter attack) to a personal attack by badman. The dislike between badman and me goes back several years, long before you joined the forum. His most recent claim that I don't know him is wrong as usual, he has over 1500 post, we all know him very well, at least those of us that have been around awhile. Oh BTW I have met him in person as well, we were introduced in a restaurant in BA a few year ago by none other than Jackson himself. He may not have known I was Punter 127 because we were introduced by our real first names only, but considering the number of people who made a point afterwards of tell me he was badman, I suspect he was told who I was as well. Or perhaps there's a medical reason he doesn't remember, it happens.
So unless you can show where I attacked you in the past I suggest we get back to talking about politics.
Punter 127
01-16-15, 15:00
And look back at the thread before telling bold faced lies. I never once quoted or insulted you. You quoted me and implied " jackassery " whatever that term means. .Bullshit!
You started by post this right behind one of my post.
LOL. Sometimes it's better to let people be blissfully ignorant.I jokingly followed with this. (Notice it started with "LOL" just as you did.).
LOL, probably best to just ignore jackassery as well.
Have a nice day.If you don't know the meaning of jackassery how could you be insulted by it? You then attacked with this.
Don't worry most intelligent people have been ignoring your MSM jackassery for years. Hegelian dialectic trolls. How 1999.
And dont worry anyone who wasnt shorting the CHF had a great day.I don't see where I "implied jackassery" anymore then you implied " blissfully ignorant". We've seen your games before, nothing new here.
Btw I'm finished arguing with you, you can have the last insult.
I await the arrival of Dickhead, Moore and hunt99. Exon123 as d'artagnan.
I await the arrival of Dickhead, Moore and hunt99. Exon123 as d'artagnan.The good old days.
Why don't you two give the mudslinging and mutual accusations a well deserved rest?
Tres3.
So back to fracking and the pipeline. Can anybody give some real figures as far as profits in the industry versus debt? Also what is the environmental impact of fracking? And since when did taking the environment into account, when you exploit it, become only the realm of environmentalists?
There is alot of " windbaggery " going on in this thread and posting links to other peoples opinions but very little hard facts being posted or even debated. Hopefully we can get some clarification from the proponents and opponents. It would make it a much more worthwhile discussion. It would make it a real discussion actually.
Here is a simple point I would like someone who knows what they are talking about to refute intelligently, for the year end reports for March 31,2014 for 127 oil companies, cash input for the fracking division was 677 Billion USD while revenue from operations only totalled 568 billion USD. Please explain how this means profitable?
These are solid figures. The only way these companies are able to stay in business is more zero interest loans, paid for by the taxpayers since all printed money gets put on our tab, ie federal income tax. That and junk bonds that only lead to more derivatives. And while everybody was busy demonizing Russia over the Ukraine and we passed the Freedom for Ukraine act. At the same time the government passed the December 14th budget that had a provision that repealed the Lincoln Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, which protected depositor funds by requiring the largest banks to push out a portion of their derivatives business into non-FDIC-insured subsidiaries.
Thanks to JP Morgan and Co and their paid and bought politicians, the US taxpayers could be on the hook for these oil derivatives when the fracking bubble bursts. And it will burst. That means bank bail ins for the rest of us.
Sleight of hand and misdirection for the masses. And here we are debating a pipeline in a pre planned hegelian dialectic that will lead nowhere except to where those behind the smoke and mirrors want it to.
Good luck drinking the kool aide fellas. Those in the know, know. Those who don't. Well it will be muppet slaughtering time.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/shale-drillers-feast-on-junk-debt-to-say-on-treadmill.html
Why don't you two give the mudslinging and mutual accusations a well deserved rest?
Tres3.I'm not slinging mudd. Someone has a problem controlling their outbursts on the forum. For whatever reason that may be. Its not my problem. The dude wants to spit bile. Let him. The breakdowns are quite entertaining to say the least.
Here is a simple point I would like someone who knows what they are talking about to refute intelligently, for the year end reports for March 31,2014 for 127 oil companies, cash input for the fracking division was 677 Billion USD while revenue from operations only totalled 568 billion USD. Please explain how this means profitable?A lot of the cash spent is for "capital" expenditures so it flows directly to the balance sheet, and does not flow to the income statement. Presumably, the companies are buying some type of asset that has value with that cash and therefore provides some form of collateral for the borrowed cash. It is somewhat akin to you borrowing more than you make to buy a house. Of course that is an oversimplification of a complex issue.
Tres3.
Investing in capex? That is your reasoning why fracking isn't profitable? I haven't seen those figures, have you? Do you know what portion is capex and what portion is opex? And how much just goes to servicing bad debts in order to keep refinancing said bad debts?
Now can your assumtion be verified? And even if it can be, how can a company continue to stay afloat if every year they spend more than they make. 100+ billion more? And im not talking net profit. Im just saying that 100+ billion more goes out than comes in every year.
From what I know of the fracking industry is that most of their money goes into opex. Its extremely expensive to keep drilling hundreds of wells and disposing of all the toxic waste associated with drilling. And every year these wells become less profitable so they have to keep drilling an ever increasing amount of wells. With QE and 100 bucks a barrel they could keep this ponzi scheme going. At 46 a barrel and no QE, I don't see this as a reality.
Can you show a break down of these figures capex opex etc so as to verify the merit of your argument?
A lot of the cash spent is for "capital" expenditures so it flows directly to the balance sheet, and does not flow to the income statement. Presumably, the companies are buying some type of asset that has value with that cash and therefore provides some form of collateral for the borrowed cash. It is somewhat akin to you borrowing more than you make to buy a house. Of course that is an oversimplification of a complex issue.
Tres3.
Nothing that happened in 2008 has been fixed. The only difference is, this time it won't be only the housing bubble that bursts but the derivatives in the commodities markets, ie the fracking ponzi scheme and their junk bonds, as well as others. And the tax payers will still have to bail them out. Only now the banks can take the bail out directly from deposits, ie bail ins, FDIC insured my ass.
http://time.com/3631398/bank-derivatives-swap-congress/
Fracking has nothing to do with some stupid pipeline to nowhere. The devil is in the details.
Rc Collins
01-16-15, 20:57
I was not nor am I angry. .You sure sound angry to me and to others below. Most people who resort to profanity and insults do so when they are angry as in your post. If we were having a face to face discussion and you responded in person the way you do here, my take away would be that you're angry.
I do agree it's not a oneway street and I did not intend to imply it was, but there just seems to be much more of it from the left on this forum. That's just my opinion. I am still allowed to have an opinion aren't I?].The attacks occur on all sides, that you see more from the side you're opposed to has more to do with ideology and that perhaps you see what you want to see.
It's true I have disputed your post in the past but please show where I attacked you personally. The worst thing I can find that I ever said about you was that you and another member were "birds of a feather" and that the two of you were tag teaming me, both statements were meant to be humorous, and that was after you suggested I was a liar. You see I debate and dispute post but I don't normally attack the person, but I do however respond to personal attacks with counter attacks, and once you open that door all bets are off. There is a difference between personal attack and disputing or debating a post.
We were having a discussion about your political affiliation. I did not suggest you (personally) were a liar, I said you could not be classified as an independent voter (despite your claim of being registered that way) because you would never vote for a democrat, (a point that you conceded) and offered some facts and a well accepted logical theory which you summarily dismissed as bullshit and elevated the tone of your post with profanity and callous dismissiveness without any insults from me.
So unless you can show where I attacked you in the past I suggest we get back to talking about politics.The post is there for you to see, I won't quote it anymore. You do have this gift of sounding angry when you say you're not and being hypocritical as I pointed out then and in that last post, its similar to what we see in American Politics today.
WorldTravel69
01-16-15, 21:07
You guys need to get Laid.
Me Too.
You guys need to get Laid.
Me Too.I propose a BDSM session as therapy. And a surrogate for Inadequacy.
BadMan, Tres' explanation is good, although, as he says, simplified. There are kernels of truth in what you say, combined with a lot of confusion. Yes, capex is higher than operating cash flow for oil and gas companies that predominately exploit shale, using hydraulic fracturing. No, this is not abnormal for any company in any industry that's growing rapidly. The reason, increases in working capital required to grow the business, like increased inventories and accounts receivable, reduce operating cash flow. Most companies that grow reasonably fast will either have to take on more debt or sell equity to do that. That said, yes, many of these oil and gas companies did borrow more than they should, and did drill in places that don't make sense if the price of oil is $45 per barrel. The less profitable companies are like rats on a treadmill, having to continually drill more wells to just replace production, and, prior to the drop in prices, having to go deeper into debt to satisfy Wall Street's obsession with reserve and production growth. While you are correct that operating expenses are higher than capital costs, the ratio of capex to opex is higher for oil and gas than for the majority of industries. Oil and gas is very capital intensive.
I strongly disagree with you on a couple of points. With respect to the environment, there's been a lot of scaremongering. It's not as bad as you think. The "toxic waste" generated is insignificant. Hydraulic fracturing has been a plus for the environment, if you believe global warming is real. The reason, natural gas has replaced a lot of coal as a result of frac'ing, and that has reduced emissions of CO2 in the USA much more than renewables have. Also, it's easy for you to say this was a big boondoggle for some companies, which indeed may go bankrupt, given that you know the price of oil is now $45/ barrel. That's the nature of companies that produce commodities. They're subject to booms and busts. The overall effect of exploitation of shales, along with things like the Keystone pipeline, would be to make North America self sufficient in energy, if the politicians allow it to happen. That would reduce our trade deficit. We wouldn't be mortgaging America to the Chinese, the Saudis and other big exporters to the extent we are now. And the politicians wouldn't feel as compelled to become involved in wars in places like the Middle East to protect the supply of oil.
I tend to agree with you about the "0" interest rates, although I'm not as knowledgeable about that as others here.
First lets tackle the environmental issue since you seem to have glossed over it by saying it's insignificant. Let me ask you. How much fresh water is used in hydraulic fracturing? 150,000 gallons a day per job sound about right? Of course insignificant. And what happens to that water after the process is completed? And once that water becomes toxic waste, where does all that toxic water go?
I'm from California. I'll tell you where alot of this " insignificant " toxic waste goes.
" California Halts Injection of Fracking Waste, Warning it May Be Contaminating Aquifers ".
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/fracking-10-06-2014.html
http://www.propublica.org/article/ca-halts-injection-fracking-waste-warning-may-be-contaminating-aquifers
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/business/kern-gusher/x634489929/State-poised-to-shut-down-11-local-oil-injection-wells
Also please tell me about the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that made the shale boom possible by exempting the new horizontal drilling technology from the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act? I mean this isn't " scare mongering " (a quite odious and anti intellectual term if I ever heard one). These are facts and repeating facts to the public when their health and safety is at risk isn't scaremongering. It's one of the reasons we pay taxes (not to fund the shale oil boom). So that we are told when our fresh drinking water is being poisoned by industrial waste.
Now after these companies are done horizontally fracking the hell out of these sites what happens to the land? Is it stable to use for other purposes? Are giant sink holes a side effect of fracking? Higher instances of earthquakes maybe?
I could go on but by the general tone of your post I can see you don't really know much about the science behind all this " scaremongering " as you call it. So I'll leave this aside for now. Though I would really like to debate these points with knowledgeable individuals that have actually read the studies and don't have blinders on. Not saying you do but the insignificant and scaremongering comments lends to that perception.
We can go back to the overal economics of fracking. Although I will admit I'm not an expert on the oil industry. I'll defer to T Boone Pickens on that one. I do understand how it works. My question was mainly rhetorical. And I guess your answer is they can show huge deficits on the books for various reasons and still be able to make a profit in real terms. I can understand that. But I also know that these fracking companies, all of them, were barely breaking even. I mean how profitable can you be if you're sinking in debt. Or is that the new normal? And that was with QE3 just giving away money to investors at zero interest rates, these companies selling 600 billion in junk rated bonds and 100 bucks a barrel oil. All these factors and these companies could barely break even on the books. Now tell me how are they going to do that now? How can these companies keep operating without FREE money? Keep giving any industry free money and they can keep operating and paying off the interest on its debts. Let them sell their extracted product at inflated prices and I'm sure the books won't look so bad. Allow them to keep refinancing those debts and let them sell junk bonds in the billions and sure, they will stay afloat. But that doesn't make them profitable and more importantly, what happens when you take those things away? I would like an honest answer.
Now lets be honest. At 45 dollars a barrel, the fracking industry isn't profitable. It simply isn't. Yes I know some wells have lower extraction costs but the reality is those wells are drying up. The cheapest oil is usually the first to be extracted. After that you are looking at anywhere between 70-120 USD in order to be " profitable " with an average of 85 a barrel.
Last question. Do you as an investor believe that oil prices will recover to that level in the next 12-18 months? Do you understand all the economic and geopolitical factors involved in order for that to become a reality? I'm just asking because I sure don't.
Bottom line. At 100 bucks a barrel you could make an argument for the fracking industry (obviously omitting the junk bonds and free QE money in your analysis). But at current prices, it just doesn't make any sense. It cheaper to buy the oil from our " buddies " in the GCC. What good is energy independence if it bankrupts our economy? Or creates a bubble so big that when it bursts it could bring down our entire economy with it? Wasn't 2008 a lesson for anyone?
I think the only hope these industries have left right now is QE4. And we all know who ends up footing the bill for that. But then again what's another 3 trillion among friends.
I guess it's true what someone told me the other day, the market doesn't really care about fundamentals anymore (or technicals or sentiment for that matter). The market only cares about what the FED will do next.
You can't have true capitalism with the Federal Reserve and you can't have a true free market with Quantitative easing. They distort and manipulate everything for the financial benefit of the few. To the detriment of the rest.
End rant.
BadMan, Tres' explanation is good, although, as he says, simplified. There are kernels of truth in what you say, combined with a lot of confusion. Yes, capex is higher than operating cash flow for oil and gas companies that predominately exploit shale, using hydraulic fracturing. No, this is not abnormal for any company in any industry that's growing rapidly. The reason, changes in working capital, like increased inventories and accounts receivable, reduce operating cash flow. Most companies that grow reasonably fast will either have to take on more debt or sell equity to do that. That said, yes, many of these oil and gas companies did borrow more than they should, and did drill in places that don't make sense if the price of oil is $45 per barrel. The less profitable companies are like rats on a treadmill, having to continually drill more wells to just replace production, and, prior to the drop in prices, having to go deeper into debt to satisfy Wall Street's obsession with reserve and production growth. While you are correct that operating expenses are higher than capital costs, the ratio of capex to opex is higher for oil and gas than for most other industries.
I strongly disagree with you on a couple of points. With respect to the environment, there's been a lot of scaremongering. It's not as bad as you think. The "toxic waste" generated is insignificant. Hydraulic fracturing has been a strong plus for the environment in the USA, if you believe global warming is real. The reason, natural gas has replaced a lot of coal as a result of frac'ing, and that has reduced emissions of CO2 much more than renewables have. Also, it's easy for you to say this was a big boondoggle for some companies, which indeed may go bankrupt, given that you know the price of oil is now $45/ barrel. That's the nature of companies that produce commodities. They're subject to booms and busts. The overall effect of exploitation of shales, along with things like the Keystone pipeline, would be to make North America self sufficient in energy, if the politicians allow it to happen. That would reduce our trade deficit. We wouldn't be mortgaging America to the Chinese, the Saudis and other big exporters to the extent we are now. And the politicians wouldn't feel as compelled to become involved in wars in places like the Middle East to protect the supply of oil.
I tend to agree with you about the "0" interest rates, although I'm not as knowledgeable about that as others here.
I could go on but by the general tone of your post I can see you don't really know much about the science behind all this " scaremongering " as you call it. So I'll leave this aside for now. Though I would really like to debate these points with knowledgeable individuals that have actually read the studies and don't have blinders on. Not saying you do but the insignificant and scaremongering comments lends to that perception.
I probably know the science and engineering better than anyone who will read your post. I share your desire not to debate the issue with individuals who aren't knowledgeable.
There are costs and risks associated with all energy sources. The risks associated with natural gas are less than with the only current, realistic alternative, coal. And there's currently no alternative to oil for transportation fuels that's not outrageously expensive. Do you believe people are willing to pay $1000 a month for their monthly electric bills and to forego travel on airplanes? Because that's what it's going to take to create the world you want. Maybe there are a lot of people in California and Germany willing to make the sacrifice. Most of the rest of the world is not.
I'm assuming here that you're not a hypocrite, who believes it's great if Texans have gas wells in their backyards to produce the natural gas you consume. But you shouldn't have the view outside your kitchen window obscured by a windmill. If that's what you believe, then this isn't going to make much sense to you.
Probably huh? Too bad you can't seem to answer any of the questions I posed other than to say " I know it all " and " there is risk involved with all energy sources ". How utterly disappointing. But I guess it's better than to have to hear you try and wing it.
Probably huh? Too bad you can't seem to answer any of the questions I posed other than to say " I know it all " and " there is risk involved with all energy sources ". How utterly disappointing. But I guess it's better than to have to hear you try and wing it.OK, you got it.
1. If a disposal well operator knowingly injected oilfield waste into an aquifer used for drinking water, he should be put in jail. And the regulators in charge should be fired. That said, I don't believe this is common. As to your articles, two of your sources are about as unbiased as ExxonMobil and I can't read the piece from the Bakersfield newspaper.
2. The environmental considerations for horizontal drilling are no different than considerations for vertical wells. Period. If state regulators are incompetent, as would appear to be the case in California if your sources are correct, then maybe the EPA should be involved. In states with lots of oil and gas history (actually including California) the state regulators usually know what they're doing better than the EPA. You belief in the infallibility of the federal government and that Washington should call the shots in, say, Oklahoma, is misguided.
3. The land does not become unstable after frac'ing. You don't create sinkholes -- that's laughable. Frac'ing doesn't cause earthquakes, unless you define minor tremors as earthquakes. Salt water injection wells have caused some earthquakes, mostly low magnitude. Again, this gets down to relative risks. The risk and damage caused by saltwater injection (contamination to drinking water, earthquakes, etc.) is miniscule compared to the harm to people and the environment caused by coal.
As to the economics, you're rambling and I don't know what you're getting at. Low priced natural gas and oil are going to bring down the economy because of some sort of conspiracy that the Fed's involved with? The federal government's going to bail out the oil companies? (Yeah right, fat chance.) Since part of the acreage that's been exploited using hydraulic fracturing won't be economic, frac'ing should be outlawed? There are areas where the Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Wolfcamp will make money with $50 oil. There are companies that will make money. The inefficient and overleveraged operators will go bankrupt. That's capitalism. This is not going to be like the mortgage crisis. Low oil and gas prices are going to be good for the economy -- they will cause about a 0. 4% boost in GDP in 2015 according to the economists.
Your reply is what you call scientific and informed? Really? No links. No stats. No referenced studies. Nothing. Sounds like a standard reply to me. Nothing in depth. I was expecting more. As far as what's happened in California, what do you mean my sources? I picked the first links that came up on google. This news was all over the tv and internet a couple months ago. I guess that means you're not as informed as you think.
And to think this is an isolated event is naive at best. The environmental considerations aren't the same. Too much water and energy being used. Too much land being ruined. Too much polluted water to dispose of. Companies just inject it back in to the ground half the time because its cheaper than disposing of it properly. They got caught in California in the middle of a draught. Other than that I'm sure it would have gone unnoticed.
I notices you glossed over the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and what this deregulation has meant for fracking and the environment. I'm guessing you've never read it.
Fracking does cause sink holes. It's not laughable at all. Unless you can disprove it by scientific method. It's funny you seem to use the appeal to authority method in all your arguments yet you post nothing that can back up your premise. Literally nothing. You've appointed your self some sort of authority on the matter. LOL.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/20/are-humans-causing-more-sinkholes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2399929/Incredible-moment-Louisiana-sinkhole-swallows-40ft-high-trees-swamp.html
And as far as earthquakes and tremors. Now were parsing and debating semantics. Yes it causes them. Large or small and the frequency is increasing.
As to the economics. You clearly didn't understand anything I posted so you called it ramblings. What conspiracy did I write about? Do tell. That when massive speculative bubbles burst, that will bring down our economy? LOL. That's exactly what happened in 2008. And if oil prices don't start climbing asap that's what's going to happen again. No conspiracy.
http://internationalbanker.com/comment/fracking-bubble-waiting-burst/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11259411/US-shale-boom-is-same-as-dotcom-bubble-says-Russian-oil-executive.html
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article48786.html
Those darn conspiracy theorists. And just to clarify, these aren't my sources, just the first links that came up in a search. I wouldn't post my sources that would apparently be biased.
Im sure there is alot that you know but I'll stop now because it's clear you know and understand much less than you think you do. And simple science and theory becomes " laughable " and environmental hazards are " miniscule ". Let me guess, you must own stock?
Fsio.
OK, you got it.
1. If a disposal well operator knowingly injected oilfield waste into an aquifer used for drinking water, he should be put in jail. And the regulators in charge should be fired. That said, I don't believe this is common. As to your articles, two of your sources are about as unbiased as ExxonMobil and I can't read the piece from the Bakersfield newspaper.
2. The environmental considerations for horizontal drilling are no different than considerations for vertical wells. Period. If state regulators are incompetent, as would appear to be the case in California if your sources are correct, then maybe the EPA should be involved. In states with lots of oil and gas history (actually including California) the state regulators usually know what they're doing better than the EPA. You belief in the infallibility of the federal government and that Washington should call the shots in, say, Oklahoma, is misguided.
3. The land does not become unstable after frac'ing. You don't create sinkholes -- that's laughable. Frac'ing doesn't cause earthquakes, unless you define minor tremors as earthquakes. Salt water injection wells have caused some earthquakes, mostly low magnitude. Again, this gets down to relative risks. The risk and damage caused by saltwater injection (contamination to drinking water, earthquakes, etc.) is miniscule compared to the harm to people and the environment caused by coal.
As to the economics, you're rambling and I don't know what you're getting at. Low priced natural gas and oil are going to bring down the economy because of some sort of conspiracy that the Fed's involved with? The federal government's going to bail out the oil companies? (Yeah right, fat chance.) Since part of the acreage that's been exploited using hydraulic fracturing won't be economic, frac'ing should be outlawed? There are areas where the Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Wolfcamp will make money with $50 oil. There are companies that will make money. The inefficient and overleveraged operators will go bankrupt. That's capitalism. This is not going to be like the mortgage crisis. Low oil and gas prices are going to be good for the economy -- they will cause about a 0. 4% boost in GDP in 2015 according to the economists.
Badman, about your California links, if some factories illegally dump waste into rivers, you don't close all the factories in the USA and move the jobs and production to China. This is not a hydraulic fracturing problem by the way. It's an oilfield waste problem that, in California, has very little to do with frac'ing. While hydraulic fracturing has been around for 60 years, it never took off in California like it has in some places in recent years.
The idea that hydraulic fracturing would cause sinkholes is hilarious. Sorry about the authority thing, but unless you want me to start posting links to textbooks and unless you're going to read them, I don't know exactly how to convince you. Basically sinkholes occur where you have karst. You don't frac karst, you don't need to -- flow rates from karsted reservoirs are among the highest in the world. You frac intervals that have very low permeability. The fracture doesn't result in a giant gaping hole. It results in a small parting of the earth, which is propped open by sand grains included in the frac fluid. And oftentimes the fractures close despite the sand grains. The width of a hydraulic fracture is a fraction of an inch.
Your main complaints aren't against hydraulic fracturing, they're against water injection, which is associated with all oilfield operations, regardless of whether the wells have been frac'ed. You appear to want a world with "0" risk, where no tremor is going to knock a glass off your table or no crooked or incompetent operator will inject oilfield waste into an aquifer. But you're probably not willing to live with the results, by giving up your car powered by gasoline, or air travel. And you'd probably be very unhappy with your electric bills if it were all generated by solar, wind and hydro. The renewables suffer from some of the same shortcomings that you attribute to oil and gas by the way, for example, the footprint on the land. There's no free lunch, and you're not willing to pay the price for what you want.
More propaganda from the King of Propaganda.
First, as we've all discussed in the past, the official unemployment rate is an inaccurate count of the number of people who claim to be looking for work. In other words, if everybody without a job just stopped looking for a job tomorrow, we'd have an unemployment rate of ZERO. The only number that counts is the percentage of citizens who are working, and that number is at 62.7% for Dec 2014, down slightly from 62.8% in Dec 2013.I understand the jobs and GDP numbers hurt, Jackson, because they provide irrefutable proof that what Fox News and Republicans told Americans about the ACA was a Big Lie. But calling the numbers propaganda isn't going to help your cause. These numbers are established metrics that have been calculated essentially the same way for decades across both Republican and Democratic presidents. They are widely followed in business and financial circles as measures of economic performance. If you said that other metrics like the LFPR are also important then that would be reasonable. But to say the numbers I mentioned don't count is a clearly farcical attempt at deflection. Man, you are going to have a tough time dealing with all the "propaganda" because it isn't just coming from the BLS but from numerous other sources like Gallup.
Mentions of Jobs as Top USA Problem at Six-Year Low
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181136/mentions-jobs-top-problem-six-year-low.aspx
In his further attempt at deflection, Jackson says we should be talking about Obama not attending the march in Paris. The most shallow and superficial story we've seen in years, peddled by serial Obama denigrators, and a handful of entertainers and media desperately competing for ratings. Apparently, the strong economic numbers don't count, but Obama missing a photo-op does. Folks, this is simply laughable. And if Obama had attended, we all know their story would then be that Obama wasted taxpayer money flying overseas for a symbolic photo-op.
With the unemployment rate now down to 5.6%, and 2014 the strongest year of job creation since 1999, it is clear that Americans were lied to by Fox News and Republicans about the ACA impact on jobs.
Punter 127
01-18-15, 01:00
We were having a discussion about your political affiliation. I did not suggest you (personally) were a liar, I said you could not be classified as an independent voter (despite your claim of being registered that way) because you would never vote for a democrat, (a point that you conceded) and offered some facts and a well accepted logical theory which you summarily dismissed as bullshit and elevated the tone of your post with profanity and callous dismissiveness without any insults from me.I wouldn't really call it a discussion, I would describe it as you trying to make me look like a liar and browbeat me in to accepting your definition of an Independent voter, at least that's the way it came across to me. I made a statement and you insisted that what I had said was wrong because it didn't meet some criteria that you apparently dreamed up, you claim it's "accepted logical theory", accepted by who, you? Of course the key word is "theory" and you offered nothing to support your "theory" other than your own thoughts. I offered facts and I eventually even presented Wikipedia's definition of an Independent voter as support. But I guess we were supposed to blindly take your word over theirs.
My being registered as an Independent is not a claim it's a fact and I have a voters registration card to prove it. Sorry I can't show it to you here for obvious reasons.
I don't believe I ever said I would "never" vote for a Democrat or conceded such a point, I believe that's just simply untrue. If you can find where I ever made that statement please quote it so we can all see it, otherwise please acknowledge that you misspoke.
Here's what a review of our post reveals.
The question was;.
What are the chances you will vote for a democrat in the next election given that their policies will always be liberal and appear to be in direct contrast to your postings?The answer:
The chances of me voting for a Democrat are slim to none, but I do not accept that their policies are and always will be "liberal". In fact I don't think todays Democrat party is "liberal" at all, it's progressive totalitarian (aka: nannyism) and that's a far cry from being "liberal". Show me a Democrat that meets the following definitions of "liberal" and I'll consider voting for them.
1. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
3. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.
4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:
Individual freedom or rights, get it?The question was limited to the next election and the answer was a far cry from " never vote for a democrat. " As a matter of fact I even gave you a list of what it would take for me to consider voting for a liberal (Democrat). Those five definitions of a true liberal came from a dictionary, no "theories" just facts. Being an independent simply means you have no party affiliation nothing more nothing less. There have been many Independents in the history of our country as far back as George Washington (I). Today U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is officially an Independent, but caucuses with the Democrats, what do you think the chances are that he will vote for a Republican? Did you tell Senator Sanders that by "accepted logical theory" he's not really an Independent? The truth is, if I was going to align myself with any party it wouldn't be the one you tried to put me in, it would be the Libertarian party, but I prefer to remain Independent.
I truly hope your memory is just foggy, and that you didn't intentionally mis-state my words. I'll let the readers decide that for themselves. However, I do find your refusal to quote the post... Well lets just say it's interesting.
It's unfortunate that you don't like the way I write or the language I use, I don't much like the way you write either. However I can deal with it and apparently you can't. May I suggest you put me on your ignore list, then you will never see what I write. Just a suggestion.
Rc Collins
01-18-15, 02:26
I wouldn't really call it a discussion, I would describe it as you trying to make me look like a liar and browbeat me in to accepting your definition of an Independent voter, at least that's the way it came across to me. I made a statement and you insisted that what I had said was wrong because it didn't meet some criteria that you apparently dreamed up, you claim it's "accepted logical theory", accepted by who, you? Of course the key word is "theory" and you offered nothing to support your "theory" other than your own thoughts. I offered facts and I eventually even presented Wikipedia's definition of an Independent voter as support. But I guess we were supposed to blindly take your word over theirs.
My being registered as an Independent is not a claim it's a fact and I have a voters registration card to prove it. Sorry I can't show it to you here for obvious reasons.
I don't believe I ever said I would "never" vote for a Democrat or conceded such a point, I believe that's just simply untrue. If you can find where I ever made that statement please quote it so we can all see it, otherwise please acknowledge that you misspoke.
Here's what a review of our post reveals.
The question was;.
The answer:
The question was limited to the next election and the answer was a far cry from " never vote for a democrat. " As a matter of fact I even gave you a list of what it would take for me to consider voting for a liberal (Democrat). Those five definitions of a true liberal came from a dictionary, no "theories" just facts. Being an independent simply means you have no party affiliation nothing more nothing less. There have been many Independents in the history of our country as far back as George Washington (I). Today U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is officially an Independent, but caucuses with the Democrats, what do you think the chances are that he will vote for a Republican? Did you tell Senator Sanders that by "accepted logical theory" he's not really an Independent? The truth is, if I was going to align myself with any party it wouldn't be the one you tried to put me in, it would be the Libertarian party, but I prefer to remain Independent.
I truly hope your memory is just foggy, and that you didn't intentionally mis-state my words. I'll let the readers decide that for themselves. However, I do find your refusal to quote the post... Well lets just say it's interesting.
It's unfortunate that you don't like the way I write or the language I use, I don't much like the way you write either. However I can deal with it and apparently you can't. May I suggest you put me on your ignore list, then you will never see what I write. Just a suggestion.The answer is right here for you and my memory is fine. I will not be bothered to go search for a post that is readily available for you and all to see. Slim to none is as close to never as one will get but you are free to camouflage this issue as you like and the only mis-stating here is you but since you have shown that you will readily say one thing but do another as you did on two separate occasions that I pointed out to you, your mis-stating is hardly surprising. The language issue is about courteous posting, why do you have to spit fire and launch attacks when you disagree, that's my point but spin that however you like.
Wiki is the last source you should use to support any claim, no peer reviewed there, but its about your mind set not the legal definition. Bill O'Reilly also claims to be an independent but at every turn he attacks Democrats and look the other way at Republican's failures. No Democrat will try to convince him to vote for them as he is locked in for the right despite his claim, he also is not an undecided voter. Good to see you CAN respond without elevating the temperature of your post, even if it had to be pointed out to you, although you introduced points not in evidence. However, I will offer you your own suggestion of the ignore list as it may do well for your anger issues as you have issues with other posters here as well (beyond the policy disagreements) but I guess they're all wrong too. I take none of this seriously or personally so I have no need to put you or anyone else on any list. Nothing being said here will affect my life to the point where I need to elevate my blood pressure or attack anyone.
President Obama needs to have a pen with a lot of ink in it because he will be vetoeing a lot of bills from the GOP led House and Senate.
Yes and that way he can build a legacy of being the President of no, now even the low information voters will be able to see who's really the do nothing obstructionist in Washington.
Of course an Independent who ignored his GOP years of being the party of no and obstructionists would now preemptively call out the other side for doing the same his party did for years. Yes, that too is hypocritical.
Punter, a mutual acquaintance told me you hail from the same state as I do. If you still vote there, you might want to consider the Democrat candidates for the Criminal Court of Appeals, especially for the positions where no Libertarian is running. I suspect they're more likely to implement the liberal ideals you and I believe in, although to be honest I've never studied the positions of the individual candidates.
Punter 127
01-22-15, 06:33
Slim to none is as close to never as one will get [snip]Absolutely not, as a matter of fact it's a huge stretch when you consider "Slim to none" was a reply to a question about the next election, but of course you knew that before you made your fictitious statement, now didn't you, after all you're the one that wrote the question to begin with.
Wiki is the last source you should use to support any claim, no peer reviewed there, but its about your mind set not the legal definition.You seem to be all over the page one post you say we were talking about "party affiliation" now your talking about "mind set." (Apples and oranges.)
What we've been discussing is being an Independent voter, not impartiality. I am definitely not an impartial voter, and I never claimed to be. I believe you have the two confused. I doubt you can find any independent voters who are completely impartial. Some may try, but who is really completely impartial?
Perhaps in the very beginning what you really meant to say or should have said was impartial voters and not Independent voters. If you had said impartial voters this discussion would have never taken place, but to say a person must be impartial before they can be considered an independent is simply laughable. I'll stick with the official definition of an independent such as that listed on wikipedia, which is a much better source than anything you've offered. You can continue to believe in your "accepted logical theory" or any other myth if you like.
This is my last reply to you on this subject because you've offered nothing to support your position, absolutely nothing. I may reply to the last section of your post where you "bothered" yourself to post quotes, if I get time, but only because it's a different topic.
But know this, to change someones words and/or to imply something other than the original intent of those words in order to sensationalize your own position is skulduggery, such deplorable acts seldom go unexposed on this forum.
Rc Collins
01-22-15, 21:35
But know this, to change someones words and/or to imply something other than the original intent of those words in order to sensationalize your own position is skulduggery, such deplorable acts seldom go unexposed on this forum.This is so rich and again hypocritical, you're lecturing me on honestly when you have a history of being called out by other posters here for your own dishonesty and telling "bold face lies". You've exhibited a pattern of saying one thing while doing another but now you're taking a moral high ground to lecture me, please, look in the mirror sir! A few post ago you made the dishonest statement that the attacks seem to be mostly from the left and when I pointed that out to you that it occurs from all sides, you replied that you didn't mean to imply that even though you stated it. You're in absolutely no position to lecture me about honesty with your track record here. I used your own words against you, I said what you said and came to a conclusion and offered plenty to support my point. You refused to accept them because of your ideology. So good to know that you know you're deplorable acts seldom go unexposed on this forum, you should take note of it.
What we've been discussing is being an Independent voter, not impartiality. I am definitely not an impartial voter, and I never claimed to be.We've come full circle on this and you've made my point. Initially I made a statement to another poster and said no independent person could deny it. You chimed in and said you were independent and denied the statement. You made the independent claim presumably to give you credibility with the point you were making because being independent would somehow make you impartial. I said you were not independent because all your post here is about bashing Obama and the Democrats while elevating Republicans I told you that you had made up your mind and therefore not independent.
I did not seek you out and challenge your party affiliation, if I did then you could make the argument you 're making. I responded to you in the context of the original post and said you were an Obama / Democratic Party basher and therefore not independent, but all along it was in the context of this discussion. Now you're trying to spin it to your advantage. Bill O'Reilly does this nightly on his show and most fair minded people knows he is a shill and not independent despite his claim of being one. The fact that you now admit you're not an impartial voter is what the discussion was about all along and you know it because I told you that your bias against the Democrats meant you were not an independent as your mind was made up.
I also told you that if another poster here, claimed to be independent but bashed the GOP at every turn while praising the Democrats at will, you and others would rightly call him out for being a partisan. There's no denying that.
I doubt you can find any independent voters who are completely impartial. Some may try, but who is really completely impartial?You're so wrong about this! By default and by definition true independents are impartial unlike you. That's why they are independent because they don't vote party lines, they vote for the candidates they want or like not the party because they are true independents.
Punter 127
01-23-15, 04:50
Fellow Mongers,
In my last post I said I would not reply to RcC on the subject of independent voters and I'm not going to, primarily because I think I've proven my point. But I am going to point out a few discrepancies in RcC's statements and you can judge for yourselves who is and who isn't being deceptive here.
Todays post;.
A few post ago you made the dishonest statement that the attacks seem to be mostly from the left and when I pointed that out to you that it occurs from all sides, you replied that you didn't mean to imply that even though you stated it.Now the actual post.
I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults. It seems every time you can't make a point or if someone disagrees, here come the insults. How Pathetic!Clearly stated as an observation and an opinion not an absolute fact. Note the word "seems".
RcC.
I just don't understand why people don't look at the man in the mirror before they launched these partisans attacks. Many on all sides including independents attack, its not a one way street.I replied with a clarification:
I do agree it's not a oneway street and I did not intend to imply it was, but there just seems to be much more of it from the left on this forum. That's just my opinion. Apparently he doesn't understand the meaning of the word "seems".
Today he claims his original statement (the one that started all this) was:
Initially I made a statement to another poster and said no independent person could deny it. And here is his real original statement:
Setting your verbal gymnastics aside, the statement below is a factual conclusion no independent voter can deny. And my reply;.
I'm a (registered) "independent voter" and I deny your so called "factual conclusion", I view your statement as an "argument from ignorance" because it can't be proven or disproven. I didn't state or imply impartiality.
RcC seems to have a very convenient memory, but he does make an excellent case for always being "bothered" to use actual quotes.
I'm fairly sure we'll have to endure at least one more unsubstantiated tirade from Mr. RcC. But as far as I'm concerned unless he can substantiate his claims his rants are meaningless.
Time to move on.
Daddy Rulz
01-23-15, 05:21
Thought some of you guys might like this. Bad Lip Reading of the 2012 Presidential Debates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgmARwtptoo&sns=fb
Rc Collins
01-23-15, 08:01
You really can't possibly imagine how much I don't care what you think!
But what in the fuck would a pathetic little loser like you know about intelligent people?
snip- well you can just go fuck yourself for all I care.
Bullshit!
You started by post this right behind one of my post.
Btw I'm finished arguing with you, you can have the last insult.
You just don't get it do you? snip
. So you can scream your meaningless opinion from the fucking roof tops if you like, snip.
I'm fairly sure we'll have to endure at least one more unsubstantiated tirade from Mr. RcC. But as far as I'm concerned unless he can substantiate his claims his rants are meaningless.
Time to move on.You are accusing someone of tirades and rants, the king of tirades and rants? Most accusations you make can be turned right back at you, hypocritical they are. In the very post you start off by stating that you're not going to address the independent voter issue, then you contradicted yourself by doing so. Once again proving your words are meaningless as you typically say and do the opposite thing.
You should thank me for guiding you to having a civil discussion where you 'weren't flipping out with anger, you're welcome.
Punter 127
01-23-15, 10:21
Punter, a mutual acquaintance told me you hail from the same state as I do. If you still vote there, you might want to consider the Democrat candidates for the Criminal Court of Appeals, especially for the positions where no Libertarian is running. I suspect they're more likely to implement the liberal ideals you and I believe in, although to be honest I've never studied the positions of the individual candidates.Thanks for the suggestion, despite the bogus picture some try to paint of me I always try to look at all the candidates. The only time I rule out a candidate by party (applies both main parties) is if I think they will let the party bosses control them, like so many of the Blue Dog Democrats did.
I'll give your suggestion some thought.
BTW, I agree that you and I fit the definition of true liberals, but I stopped saying I'm a liberal long ago because IMHO the left-wingers have hijacked the word and bastardized it. Similar to what some are trying to do with the definition of an independent voter.
I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults. It seems every time you can't make a point or if someone disagrees, here come the insults. How Pathetic!Hear! Hear!
Thank You!
Jax
A TKO for RC Collins.
The word "seems", lost in the torrent of accusations & allegations. The escape clause! Whitewashing of verbal abuse, sugar-coated as metaphors and humor when confronted. Bogus!! For sure, nailed to the cross.
Thanks for the suggestion, despite the bogus picture some try to paint of me I always try to look at all the candidates. The only time I rule out a candidate by party (applies both main parties) is if I think they will let the party bosses control them, like so many of the Blue Dog Democrats did.
I'll give your suggestion some thought.
BTW, I agree that you and I fit the definition of true liberals, but I stopped saying I'm a liberal long ago because IMHO the left-wingers have hijacked the word and bastardized it. Similar to what some are trying to do with the definition of an independent voter.I believe most Democrats promote policies that are bad for the economy and bad for me. Normally I don't vote for them at the national level. I used to vote for a Democrat Congressman who shared my views on many issues and was not, at first, controlled by party bosses. In hindsight maybe I should have voted for Clinton when he ran against Dole. Except for raising taxes, Clinton did most things right. He might not have, though, if it weren't for Republicans in Congress.
When it comes to crime and punishment, Democrats on the whole are more in line with my way of thinking than mainstream Republicans. They're not as inclined to lock people up and throw away the key, make possession of pot a felony, impose the death penalty, allow the police to stop you in your car and take and keep all your money without ever charging you, etc. That's why I've voted for them for the Criminal Court of Appeals.
Anyway, your "affiliation" as an Independent means you think for yourself, and that should be applauded. There are too many people out there, both Democrats and Republicans, who don't, and who reflexively support ANY policy and any candidate promoted by their party. That's just bad.
The way the White House and congress is situated now I don't think much is going to happen the next 2 years.
Pres. Obama and the Dems want:
2 yr. Free junior college, tax the rich, paid medical leave, babysitting reimbursement, raise the minimum wage, vocational training, etc.
Republicans want:
Keystone XL Pipeline, stop abortions, NO immigration bill, stop gay marriages etc.
I don't think any of these programs or ideas are going to pass. Obama will be doing a lot of vetoeing and congress and be doing a lot of blocking of these bills.
Punter 127
01-24-15, 22:15
I believe most Democrats promote policies that are bad for the economy and bad for me. Normally I don't vote for them at the national level. I used to vote for a Democrat Congressman who shared my views on many issues and was not, at first, controlled by party bosses. In hindsight maybe I should have voted for Clinton when he ran against Dole. Except for raising taxes, Clinton did most things right. He might not have, though, if it weren't for Republicans in Congress.
When it comes to crime and punishment, Democrats on the whole are more in line with my way of thinking than mainstream Republicans. They're not as inclined to lock people up and throw away the key, make possession of pot a felony, impose the death penalty, allow the police to stop you in your car and take and keep all your money without ever charging you, etc. That's why I've voted for them for the Criminal Court of Appeals.I agree with you about Democrat policies and will go a step farther and say some of those policies are bad for the American people and often go against our founding principles. The 1996 election was one of those elections where I wanted to vote "none of the above".
I never thought Dole would make a good president and I didn't see Perot a viable option. I saw Clinton as to far to the left especially on health care and the Second Amendment. But I think you're right about the Republicans in Congress keeping him in check. But I also felt both he and the Republicans had sold out the American people with NAFTA. However I must praise him for moving to the center and working with the Republican Congress after the failure of Hillary care.
When it comes to crime and punishment I have mixed emotions. I think there are some crimes heinous enough to warrant the death penalty especially violent crime against children. But I can certainly understand why some people don't support it. I just don't have much sympathy for those who commit violent crimes or repeat offenders.
Having said that I think we have a lot of crimes that should not be considered crimes. For example I think recreational drugs and prostitution should be legal, I believe in euthanasia and the right to die, it's your body and I support individual rights, as long as you don't hurt other people. I also strongly oppose the militarization of local police agencies, if conditions deteriorate to the point of needing military type forces we should utilize the National Guard. The police should be protecters not intimidators, and they should strive to be part of the community and not an occupying force.
While I agree with your thinking about judges, the problem is they can be limited and controlled by the legislative branch with laws such as mandatory sentencing. But it's a good idea for as long as it last.
There are too many people out there, both Democrats and Republicans, who don't, and who reflexively support ANY policy and any candidate promoted by their party. That's just bad.I could not agree more, it seems like they think of it as a sport, their team can do no wrong and wining is everything.
Rc Collins
01-24-15, 22:43
A TKO for RC Collins.
The word "seems", lost in the torrent of accusations & allegations. The escape clause! Whitewashing of verbal abuse, sugar-coated as metaphors and humor when confronted. Bogus!! For sure, nailed to the cross.Thanks Rev, you nailed it! Did you see the State of the Union Speech, if so what are your thoughts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cse5cCGuHmE
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/23/could-john-kasichs-balanced-budget-tour-set-up-2016-bid/
Why not? History points to a Republican win in 2016 but they will be bog down by the Immigration swamp that they are so unwilling to compromise on. Romney or Bush? If so, you are saying you really want Hilary Clinton? If not, who? Rubio should be selling lemonade and Cruz, fajitas. But here's a guy that maybe I could check out and be happy with. Obama has set the stage for the US to strengthen and progress forward, and Kasich can cement it with a pragmatic approach.
Upon further review.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/23/could-john-kasichs-balanced-budget-tour-set-up-2016-bid/
Why not? History points to a Republican win in 2016 but they will be bog down by the Immigration swamp that they are so unwilling to compromise on. Romney or Bush? If so, you are saying you really want Hilary Clinton? If not, who? Rubio should be selling lemonade and Cruz, fajitas. But here's a guy that maybe I could check out and be happy with. Obama has set the stage for the US to strengthen and progress forward, and Kasich can cement it with a pragmatic approach.
Upon further review.Kasich might be my top pick for President for 2016, who I believe would do the best job of the possible candidates. He was re-elected governor of Ohio in 2014 by 30 percentage points. This is despite him being a Republican, and Ohio voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012. He took on the teacher's unions, repealed the estate tax, cut the income tax, and balanced the budget four years in a row.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.