U.S. Politics

Page 230 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
I disagree on how small a percentage that is, and what part of the work force they represent, I think it is substantial. [/color]
There's about 5.7 million business' in the US. About 17,000 have more than 500 employees. There are less than 5,000 US companies that have public exchange traded stock.

Corporate CEO's beholden to shareholders represent less than 0.087 of the total CEO's in the USA.

The stats on numbers of employees working at publicly traded companies is hard to pin down. It looks like, in 2006, it was about 20% of the workforce, but indications are it's lower than that now. In 2010, there were a little over 111,000,000 working... so the number would still be much higher than I thought on the employee side.

I was correct about the CEO's but wrong about the size of the workforce public companies employ.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Democrats. One gear.

Retirement savings tax breaks face scrutiny

The taxes deferred every year through 401(k)s, as as well individual retirement accounts and other employer pension plans, constitute the second largest tax “expenditure” in the tax code — a tax loophole, in the minds of many, and a tempting target.
If the government forced workers to immediately pay tax on the earnings they put in these accounts, the government could put $162.7 billion back into its coffers, in 2014 alone, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation figures.
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/retirement-savings-tax-breaks-face-scrutiny-84643.html?hp=l10

There is monumental irony here. I'm not sure if anybody here will see it.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Scott SoCal said:
How about 5 cents a mile for you Dodge pick up and 10 cents when you mount your 50 cal?
SOCIALIST talk! Don't get me all worked up. Start messing with a milage tax and that is the line in the sand man! The 50cal tax ....Ill say NO!
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
...seems that there is something akin to some internal bickering among the wrong wingers....

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

The #FireBoehner hashtag really took off last night on Twitter. No, it wasn’t started by evil liberals – it was the conservatives at American Majority Action (AMA) who started it. The gang smelled blood and the sharks are circling. The Daily Caller was promoting their version of online activism to “dispose” Boehner of his speakership. They’re mad at a “secret list” they think Boehner used to purge several “real conservatives” from House committees. Republican Reps. David Schweikert, Justin Amash and Tim Huelskamp come up often in these circles, with Freedom Works urging members to call Boehner’s office in order to instruct him to stop kicking real conservatives, such as the above three, from committees.

Conservatives suspect that Speaker Boehner (R-OH) was behind The Republican Steering Committee (Boehner chairs it) voting to remove Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI) and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) from the House Budget Committee. Who is going to tell these angry conservatives that it is reasonable to assume that Amash and Huelskamp were kicked off at the request or at least mention of Paul Ryan (R-WI), their hero at large? Ryan was after all kept on by the very same Steering Committee as budget chairman, in spite of his inability to do math on the campaign trail.

See, Amash and Huelskamp voted against Paul Ryan’s budget because it did not cut spending enough. Yes, that budget — the one the nuns protested for immorally cutting funding to needy Americans. These two are quite literally destroying the Republican Party’s image (as if that was hard to do at this point). Party leadership must feel they had to be cut off from having the ability to obstruct the GOP from making deals they need to make in order to spare their reputation more damage (read: fiscal cliff deal). No doubt Boehner agrees that these guys have to go if the Republican Party is going to have a fighting chance of not taking the total blame for yet another fiscal cliff/debt ceiling debacle. Boehner is not stupid. He has been, however, ineffective as a Speaker, but he’s also been placed in a horrible position by the Tea Party and he waited too long to grab the reins. He knows his career is on the line, and that’s why he’s threatening panel assignments and reminding his party that leadership is watching their votes.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/271173-boehner-members-punished-for-their-votes

In typical Republican fashion, the Party let the losers learn about their ouster the hard way – with the public, on the Internet from the media. Not cool, but this is the Republican Party. Authoritarianism is all fun and games until you’re on the wrong side of it. So the conservatives’ plan is to get 16 Republicans to refuse to vote for Boehner for Speaker in the new session, so that they can get “real conservative” ideas passed. Now, by real conservative ideas, we are not talking Paul Ryan crazy, but rather worse than Paul Ryan. Believe it.

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

...will be interesting to see, if a split occurs. which side will be issuing SoCal's marching order's....

Cheers

blutto
 
It would appear quite elementary, Scott, that today's capitalism and financialization have generated the opposite effect of the "trickle-down" theory; thus a "bottom-up" economy, rather than a "top-down" in terms of the movement of wealth. This gravity shift has meant that the ideologically based economic metaphor of the Reagan years has merely proven to be a false myth, given that the gap between the gains of the top wage earners and the diminishing salaries of those at the bottom has significantly grown since the 70's and 80's. Against the promise of that myth, therefore, the current generation of workers is worse off than those of their fathers and grandfathers.

What has rather panned out is consistent with the mental framework that animates the neoliberal agenda (less taxes for the rich, cuts in state run programs like education and health care, delocalization of manufacturing and production to more "labor friendly markets," mass credit consumption and private debt - to profit further on workers' salary deficiencies, Far West finance at the "casino" stock markets): namely, an enfeebled middle class and a precarious social state in exchange for uber-wealth at the highest tier of the civic pyramid.

This is why when a CEO who fails to produce the desired dividends for the shareholders and is then fired, but receives a multi-million dollar severance payment that was predetermined in the terms of his contract - while perhaps hundreds of 40k wage earner employees get laid-off in a massive downsizing policy to cut costs - the grotesque injustices of such an economic model become glaringly apparent.

The current economic malaise, moreover, that liberalism at the financial markets has wrought, demonstrates how its applied mental practices are poisonous to our democratic and progressive civilization.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Democrats. One gear.



http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/retirement-savings-tax-breaks-face-scrutiny-84643.html?hp=l10

There is monumental irony here. I'm not sure if anybody here will see it.
There is indeed monumental irony in all of this and I've pointed it out a thousand times. But you just go ahead and keep voting for that "party of fiscal responsibility" m'kay?

btw what ever happened to Rs calling for privatizing SS? Odd how you never hear that anymore. Wonder why.

Hey just saw that Jim DeMint is leaving the Senate. Awesome. What a ****ing joke that guy was.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
There is indeed monumental irony in all of this and I've pointed it out a thousand times. But you just go ahead and keep voting for that "party of fiscal responsibility" m'kay?

btw what ever happened to Rs calling for privatizing SS? Odd how you never hear that anymore. Wonder why.

Hey just saw that Jim DeMint is leaving the Senate. Awesome. What a ****ing joke that guy was.
There is indeed monumental irony in all of this and I've pointed it out a thousand times. But you just go ahead and keep voting for that "party of fiscal responsibility" m'kay?
You clearly have no idea what irony I'm talking about. Always the same. It's not about additional revenue and what's good long term. It's always about right now with you guys. This 401k tax now plan is sheer stupidity over the long haul. But you guys don't give a **** about that.... it's all about getting even with them, whomever 'them' is.

btw what ever happened to Rs calling for privatizing SS? Odd how you never hear that anymore. Wonder why.
Well, lessee... it was actually a portion of for younger workers. But, since we are stripping all contributions to pay for current beneficiaries there wouldn't be much to invest differently, now would there? Besides, you guys did what you always do. demonized the idea to death and scared the hell out of the average low information voter. Congrats on that.

Hey just saw that Jim DeMint is leaving the Senate. Awesome. What a ****ing joke that guy was.
Probably a step backwards for Heritage. Oh well. You guys don't listen to a thing they say anyways so no worries.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You clearly have no idea what irony I'm talking about. Always the same.
Look, Scott, hate to tell you buddy, but none of this would be necessary and we wouldn't be in this mess if you're guys had been a bit more fiscally responsible. Don't blame us or Obama for the mess your guys (and you, by voting for them) made. It's as simple as that. Stop blaming everyone else. We didn't do it.

It's not about...what's good long term. It's always about right now with you guys.
eh, carbon mitigation is too expensive so let's not do anything about emissions... :rolleyes:

Well, lessee... it was actually a portion of for younger workers. But, since we are stripping all contributions to pay for current beneficiaries there wouldn't be much to invest differently, now would there? Besides, you guys did what you always do. demonized the idea to death and scared the hell out of the average low information voter. Congrats on that.
See, now, this is exactly what I'm talking about:

In 2001, Ryan led a coterie of conservatives who complained that George W. Bush’s $1.2 trillion tax cut was too small, and too focused on the middle class. In 2003, he lobbied Republicans to pass Bush’s deficit-*financed prescription-drug benefit, which bestowed huge profits on the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. In 2005, when Bush campaigned to introduce private accounts into Social Security, Ryan fervently crusaded for the concept. He was the sponsor in the House of a bill to create new private accounts funded entirely by borrowing, with no benefit cuts. Ryan’s plan was so staggeringly profligate, entailing more than $2 trillion in new debt over the first decade alone, that even the Bush administration opposed it as “irresponsible.” When Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 elections, they reimposed a budget rule requiring that any new spending or tax cuts be offset by new revenue or spending cuts. Ryan opposed it, preferring to let new spending or tax cuts go on the national credit card. Instead, he continued to endorse Bush’s line that tax cuts were leading us to a glorious new era of prosperity and budget balance. “Higher revenues flowing into the Treasury, as a result of economic and job growth, have given us a real chance to balance the budget,” Ryan announced in 2007. “The president’s budget achieves the important goal of balancing the budget in the near term—without raising taxes,” he wrote in August 2008.
Are you starting to see the light, Scott? The guy who even the Bush people thought was too irresponsible is the same guy you think is Being Very Serious and Making the Tough Choices on fiscal issues. You've been royally duped, dude. It's the right who like to spend - and have been spending - taxpayer money freely and who don't understand basic economics. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, never have, never will, but folks like the Very Serious Paul Ryan cling to the idea for purely ideological reasons, not for economic ones.

Probably a step backwards for Heritage. Oh well. You guys don't listen to a thing they say anyways so no worries.
Sure we do. Where do you think Obamacare came from?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
rhubroma said:
It would appear quite elementary, Scott, that today's capitalism and financialization have generated the opposite effect of the "trickle-down" theory; thus a "bottom-up" economy, rather than a "top-down" in terms of the movement of wealth. This gravity shift has meant that the ideologically based economic metaphor of the Reagan years has merely proven to be a false myth, given that the gap between the gains of the top wage earners and the diminishing salaries of those at the bottom has significantly grown since the 70's and 80's. Against the promise of that myth, therefore, the current generation of workers is worse off than those of their fathers and grandfathers.

What has rather panned out is consistent with the mental framework that animates the neoliberal agenda (less taxes for the rich, cuts in state run programs like education and health care, delocalization of manufacturing and production to more "labor friendly markets," mass credit consumption and private debt - to profit further on workers' salary deficiencies, Far West finance at the "casino" stock markets): namely, an enfeebled middle class and a precarious social state in exchange for uber-wealth at the highest tier of the civic pyramid.

This is why when a CEO who fails to produce the desired dividends for the shareholders and is then fired, but receives a multi-million dollar severance payment that was predetermined in the terms of his contract - while perhaps hundreds of 40k wage earner employees get laid-off in a massive downsizing policy to cut costs - the grotesque injustices of such an economic model become glaringly apparent.

The current economic malaise, moreover, that liberalism at the financial markets has wrought, demonstrates how its applied mental practices are poisonous to our democratic and progressive civilization.
It would appear quite elementary, Scott, that today's capitalism and financialization have generated the opposite effect of the "trickle-down" theory; thus a "bottom-up" economy, rather than a "top-down" in terms of the movement of wealth. This gravity shift has meant that the ideologically based economic metaphor of the Reagan years has merely proven to be a false myth, given that the gap between the gains of the top wage earners and the diminishing salaries of those at the bottom has significantly grown since the 70's and 80's. Against the promise of that myth, therefore, the current generation of workers is worse off than those of their fathers and grandfathers.
Current generations are worse off in terms of retirement/health issues. that's true. You can blame it on Reagan if that makes you feel better. Look around... this current bunch is not concerned with bottom up, they are concerned with redistributing from the top. The unintended consequence is of course creating a dependency class that will lack incentive.

Don't know why you guys won't take pages out of Clinton's playbook.

cuts in state run programs like education and health care
Talk about myths... base-line budgeting allows a reduction in the rate of increase to be called a cut. It's tailor made for the low information electorate that the D's pander to. There are no cuts... just look at our current situation right now. What's acutally being cut?

workers' salary deficiencies
Deficient to what? The $100/hour baseline to raise a family of four?

The current economic malaise, moreover, that liberalism at the financial markets has wrought, demonstrates how its applied mental practices are poisonous to our democratic and progressive civilization.
The current economic malaise is due to stupid policies by stupid policy makers and there is no end in sight.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Look, Scott, hate to tell you buddy, but none of this would be necessary and we wouldn't be in this mess if you're guys had been a bit more fiscally responsible. Don't blame us or Obama for the mess your guys (and you, by voting for them) made. It's as simple as that. Stop blaming everyone else. We didn't do it.

eh, carbon mitigation is too expensive so let's not do anything about emissions... :rolleyes:

See, now, this is exactly what I'm talking about:

Are you starting to see the light, Scott? The guy who even the Bush people thought was too irresponsible is the same guy you think is Being Very Serious and Making the Tough Choices on fiscal issues. You've been royally duped, dude. It's the right who like to spend - and have been spending - taxpayer money freely and who don't understand basic economics. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, never have, never will, but folks like the Very Serious Paul Ryan cling to the idea for purely ideological reasons, not for economic ones.



Sure we do. Where do you think Obamacare came from?
Look, Scott, hate to tell you buddy, but none of this would be necessary and we wouldn't be in this mess if you're guys had been a bit more fiscally responsible. Don't blame us or Obama for the mess your guys (and you, by voting for them) made. It's as simple as that. Stop blaming everyone else. We didn't do it.
Yep. The dog ate my homework.

The policies you embrace are doing it right now. Today. The taxing of retirement plans will n ot achieve what you guys think and will actually reduce tax revenue over the long term. But you guys don't care about that.

eh, carbon mitigation is too expensive so let's not do anything about emissions...
Outlaw it. Start today. No time to waste. Tax anything that exhales. All part of the broader plan, right?

Are you starting to see the light, Scott? The guy who even the Bush people thought was too irresponsible is the same guy you think is Being Very Serious and Making the Tough Choices on fiscal issues. You've been royally duped, dude. It's the right who like to spend - and have been spending - taxpayer money freely and who don't understand basic economics. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, never have, never will, but folks like the Very Serious Paul Ryan cling to the idea for purely ideological reasons, not for economic ones.
You have to be kidding.

The most efficient tax rate is somewhere between zero and 100%. This;

Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, never have, never will
is among your dumber declarations.

Sure we do. Where do you think Obamacare came from?
Ah yes, the mandate. Is that the primary feature of Obamacare? If so, why is the bill thousands of pages long?
 
Scott SoCal said:
Current generations are worse off in terms of retirement/health issues. that's true. You can blame it on Reagan if that makes you feel better. Look around... this current bunch is not concerned with bottom up, they are concerned with redistributing from the top. The unintended consequence is of course creating a dependency class that will lack incentive.
Now that sounds like some paranoid hysteria from the anti-communist propaganda machine of the Cold War era. Well that’s just so passé. Haven't we gotten past that mentality Scott? There is no dependency class. There is, however, a tax avoiding class with huge capital deposits in Cayman, while many working slobs can't afford health insurance. The other paranoid obsession of you guys, is to see the current administration's calls for the rich to bear a greater fiscal responsibility (or even just pay their fair share), in the wake of a crisis the financialists caused, as somehow being an indictment against their wealth. I think in the name of those same poor slobs, who after all are the ones who have been called to bear the brunt of the fiscal burden caused by the crisis, this has been the only inevitable socially sane thing to do. I mean, why can’t we have a more democratic economy in this regard?.

Don't know why you guys won't take pages out of Clinton's playbook.
I don't see Clinton as anything but a more able politician than Reagan.



Talk about myths... base-line budgeting allows a reduction in the rate of increase to be called a cut. It's tailor made for the low information electorate that the D's pander to. There are no cuts... just look at our current situation right now. What's acutally being cut?
Look at the public schools Scott. They certainly have not been given adequite financing in relation to cost of living hikes and overhead costs. While they have not been subsidized to the extent that a mordern progressive state, which thinks of its collective future, demands. Whereas military spending has literally gone through the roof.


Deficient to what? The $100/hour baseline to raise a family of four?
Ever since liberalism's first war to "discipline" labor back in the 70's, US workers (and for that matter the world’s) have seen their baseline salaries diminish in proportion to inflation and cost of living increases. In compensation they were offered a "sweet deal" of readily accessible credit to offset their insufficient buying capacity. The deleterious results have been obvious: lifelong private debt, which is compounded further by not having their taxes pay for things like healthcare, university tuition and retirement pensions; so that one is always gasping for air, while the credit suppliers keep raking it in. Nice system.




The current economic malaise is due to stupid policies by stupid policy makers and there is no end in sight.
The current economic malaise was caused by one and only one thing: human greed.

What this world needs is more democracy in the economy, and not more economy in democracy. Why can’t we achieve this? Progressive policies had brought our civilization on the brink of achieving an auspicious proper balance, before greed took over. You mentioned Reagan as being a convenient scapegoat for guys like me to feel better. Certainly US capitalism has always fostered a level of greed in what must be regarded as simply endemic to "the system," however, I do find that Reagan marked the transition into an era with which the 80's has come to be synonymous. That era replaced one in which the material dreams of the masses were grounded in a certain ethic that perceived raw avidity as bad, into one that now sees greed as a most commendable virtue of financial. I don't think I'm wrong in believing that such a transition, was a lethal blow for democracy and progressive civilization.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Okay.:rolleyes:

Are you even remotely aware of what the role of the Senate is supposed to be? I realize, when in power, you guys hate checks and balances but surely you must realize why it exists...

Do we really want any Pres to unilaterally raise the debt limit on any whim?

Forgive me. I don't want any President to have a blank check especially when he is incompetent and surrounds himself with incompetence (Bernanke).

McConnell may have blown it. So what?

The larger issue should concern everybody but those in charge now are having their way with the low information majority.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yep. The dog ate my homework.

The policies you embrace are doing it right now. Today. The taxing of retirement plans will n ot achieve what you guys think and will actually reduce tax revenue over the long term. But you guys don't care about that.
Again: we wouldn't even have to be considering any of this stuff if the Rs hadn't spent-and-tax-cut our way into the fiscal mess that the fed is in now. The right has zero credibility on federal fiscal issues - none, zip, nada - and really just needs to sit down and STFU for a while.

I'm starting to suspect, however, that maybe the Rs are more clever than I give them credit for:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12/04/Why-the-GOP-Wont-Admit-Supply-Side-Econ-Has-Failed.aspx#page1

A true party of business would end our investment in the false promise of supply-side economics. However, a party with a goal of reducing the scale of programs such as Social Security and Medicare along with delivering tax cuts to wealthy political backers would use arguments about the economic effects of tax cuts to disguise its true intentions. Which description fits best? Many Republicans still claim that tax cuts for the wealthy enhance economic growth despite the evidence to the contrary, but it’s rare to hear a Republican admit that these supply-side policies have failed.
Hmm. Crafty ******s.


Outlaw it. Start today. No time to waste. Tax anything that exhales. All part of the broader plan, right?
OK all snarkiness aside for a moment: if you're truly concerned about the long-term health of the economy, reducing carbon (and other GHG) emissions should be your number one priority, cause all of this deficit, debt, budgetary stuff today is going to be child's play compared to the impact that unchecked climate change is going to have on local, state, national, and global economies. Doing nothing now is going to be very, very expensive down the road.

You have to be kidding.

The most efficient tax rate is somewhere between zero and 100%. This;



is among your dumber declarations.
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2276/no-gov-pawlenty-tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves

btw do you know who recently admitted that tax cuts don't pay for themselves? Glenn Hubbard, Mitt Romney's economic adviser during the election campaign. Even Mitt Romney knows that tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Time to let go of that myth, Scott.

Ah yes, the mandate. Is that the primary feature of Obamacare? If so, why is the bill thousands of pages long?
Dunno. Why don't you ask the Heritage folks? It was their idea. Anyway, I'd imagine that because even the ACA has to function within the framework of the for-profit insurer- and employer-based health care system that there's a ****load of bureacracy and legalese that is involved.

Course, if it's efficiency you're after, we could just scrap the entire for-profit insurer- and employer-based health care system and start over with a cheaper, more effective, and more efficient federal universal health care system that's been proven to work elsewhere in the world? That would be the logical solution.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Okay.:rolleyes:

Are you even remotely aware of what the role of the Senate is supposed to be? I realize, when in power, you guys hate checks and balances but surely you must realize why it exists...

Do we really want any Pres to unilaterally raise the debt limit on any whim?

Forgive me. I don't want any President to have a blank check especially when he is incompetent and surrounds himself with incompetence (Bernanke).

McConnell may have blown it. So what?

The larger issue should concern everybody but those in charge now are having their way with the low information majority.
It's not about governing or checks and balances or the debt ceiling, it's wasting everyone's time (and your money) needlessly playing political games. Fortunately it backfired and now he looks like a fool.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
rhubroma said:
Now that sounds like some paranoid hysteria from the anti-communist propaganda machine of the Cold War era. Well that’s just so passé. Haven't we gotten past that mentality Scott? There is no dependency class. There is, however, a tax avoiding class with huge capital deposits in Cayman, while many working slobs can't afford health insurance. The other paranoid obsession of you guys, is to see the current administration's calls for the rich to bear a greater fiscal responsibility (or even just pay their fair share), in the wake of a crisis the financialists caused, as somehow being an indictment against their wealth. I think in the name of those same poor slobs, who after all are the ones who have been called to bear the brunt of the fiscal burden caused by the crisis, this has been the only inevitable socially sane thing to do. I mean, why can’t we have a more democratic economy in this regard?.



I don't see Clinton as anything but a more able politician than Reagan.





Look at the public schools Scott. They certainly have not been given adequite financing in relation to cost of living hikes and overhead costs. While they have not been subsidized to the extent that a mordern progressive state, which thinks of its collective future, demands. Whereas military spending has literally gone through the roof.




Ever since liberalism's first war to "discipline" labor back in the 70's, US workers (and for that matter the world’s) have seen their baseline salaries diminish in proportion to inflation and cost of living increases. In compensation they were offered a "sweet deal" of readily accessible credit to offset their insufficient buying capacity. The deleterious results have been obvious: lifelong private debt, which is compounded further by not having their taxes pay for things like healthcare, university tuition and retirement pensions; so that one is always gasping for air, while the credit suppliers keep raking it in. Nice system.






The current economic malaise was caused by one and only one thing: human greed.

What this world needs is more democracy in the economy, and not more economy in democracy. Why can’t we achieve this? Progressive policies had brought our civilization on the brink of achieving an auspicious proper balance, before greed took over. You mentioned Reagan as being a convenient scapegoat for guys like me to feel better. Certainly US capitalism has always fostered a level of greed in what must be regarded as simply endemic to "the system," however, I do find that Reagan marked the transition into an era with which the 80's has come to be synonymous. That era replaced one in which the material dreams of the masses were grounded in a certain ethic that perceived raw avidity as bad, into one that now sees greed as a most commendable virtue of financial. I don't think I'm wrong in believing that such a transition, was a lethal blow for democracy and progressive civilization.

Now that sounds like some paranoid hysteria from the anti-communist propaganda machine of the Cold War era. Well that’s just so passé. Haven't we gotten past that mentality Scott? There is no dependency class. There is, however, a tax avoiding class with huge capital deposits in Cayman, while many working slobs can't afford health insurance. The other paranoid obsession of you guys, is to see the current administration's calls for the rich to bear a greater fiscal responsibility (or even just pay their fair share), in the wake of a crisis the financialists caused, as somehow being an indictment against their wealth. I think in the name of those same poor slobs, who after all are the ones who have been called to bear the brunt of the fiscal burden caused by the crisis, this has been the only inevitable socially sane thing to do. I mean, why can’t we have a more democratic economy in this regard?.
47 million on food stamps. By design? You tell me.

Tax avoiding class? Perhaps. Those with wealth moving from California would certainly fit this definition. You guys have never, ever understood much about human behavior. It appears you never will.

Look at the public schools Scott. They certainly have not been given adequite financing in relation to cost of living hikes and overhead costs. While they have not been subsidized to the extent that a mordern progressive state, which thinks of its collective future, demands. Whereas military spending has literally gone through the roof.
Facts are tricky, aren't they?

Question:
How much money does the United States spend on public elementary and secondary schools?

Response:
School districts had total expenditures of approximately $610.1 billion in 2008–09, including about $519.0 billion in current expenditures for public elementary and secondary education. Of the remaining expenditures, nearly $65.9 billion was spent on capital outlay, almost $16.7 billion on interest payments on debt, and $8.5 billion on other programs (including programs such as community services and adult education, which are not a part of public elementary and secondary education).

After adjustment for inflation, current expenditures per student in fall enrollment at public schools rose during the 1980s, remained stable during the first part of the 1990s, and then rose again. There was an increase of 37 percent from 1980–81 to 1990–91; a change of less than 1 percent from 1990–91 to 1994–95 (which resulted from small decreases at the beginning of this period, followed by small increases after 1992–93); and an increase of 34 percent from 1994–95 to 2008–09. In 2008–09, current expenditures per student in fall enrollment were $10,591 in unadjusted dollars. In 2007–08, some 55 percent of students in public schools were transported at public expense at a cost of $854 per pupil transported, also in unadjusted dollars.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

I don't see Clinton as anything but a more able politician than Reagan.
I'm not surprised.

In compensation they were offered a "sweet deal" of readily accessible credit to offset their insufficient buying capacity.
Insufficient to what? Poor decisions? Who held a gun to anyone's head forcing them to borrow?

You act like a "worker" is born in to some inescapable condition.

What this world needs is more democracy in the economy, and not more economy in democracy. Why can’t we achieve this? Progressive policies had brought our civilization on the brink of achieving an auspicious proper balance, before greed took over. You mentioned Reagan as being a convenient scapegoat for guys like me to feel better. Certainly US capitalism has always fostered a level of greed in what must be regarded as simply endemic to "the system," however, I do find that Reagan marked the transition into an era with which the 80's has come to be synonymous. That era replaced one in which the material dreams of the masses were grounded in a certain ethic that perceived raw avidity as bad, into one that now sees greed as a most commendable virtue of financial. I don't think I'm wrong in believing that such a transition, was a lethal blow for democracy and progressive civilization.
Progressive civilization is code for equal outcomes. The most any civilization can do is provide equal opportunity. The rest is up to you.

This fascination of "income inequality" is just so sad. Just eliminate all possibility of wealth creation and we can all live communally in drab grey apartment buildings together. Sounds great.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
It's not about governing or checks and balances or the debt ceiling, it's wasting everyone's time (and your money) needlessly playing political games. Fortunately it backfired and now he looks like a fool.
McConnell certainly looks like a fool. Correct there. But that's the thing. He looks like a fool in a political sense.

It's exactly about checks and balances. Obama declared yesterday that with respect with the debt ceiling raise, "I'm not going to play that game." He said it at least twice to the BRT breakfast meeting. If I'm in congress on either side I'm thinking to myself... " uh, yeah, you're gonna have to work with us because that is how our system is set up... at least for now."

We'll see what happens... I'm of the mind the R's will capitulate to Obama's demands. Personally, I would not but then I'd never be in DC in the first place.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
I'm sure this is just a coincidence.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, was 7.8% for the month of November, up significantly from 7.0% for October. Gallup's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 8.3%, nearly a one-point increase over October's rate.


But BO had nothing to do with cooking the books before the election. Separately, it looks like a great time to increase taxes.



looks like those constituency groups addicted to government are the one's getting hammered.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....looks like the team that SoCal cheers for so enthusiastically did something positive for a change and made some history today by establishing a new low in the fine art of high falutin poltical games-man-ship ( as opposed to doing something like say governing which is sorta what one would think they should be doing on the people's dime )...

...well, some moran, in fact the head moran, from the wrong wing filibustered his own bill!?...like is that cool or what!?....just doing their thang to move the country forward....

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

OMG - Reid just spanked McConnell!
In this afternoon's edition of "What fun it is to have a unified Democratic Party that knows what its doing," Senate Majority Leader Reid just spanked Senator Minority Leader McConnell...big time.

McConnell brought up a bill that would allow the President to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally unless Congress mustered a 2/3 majority to stop him. He assumed Reid would block the vote rather than see it go down in defeat.

Instead, Senator Reid said, "Go ahead, make my day" and McConnell wound up having to filibuster his own bill.

“The Republican leader objects to his own idea,” Reid declared on the floor. “So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill.”
McConnell claimed he never agreed to hold a simple majority vote on the bill.

“What we’re talking about here is a perpetual debt ceiling grant in effect to the president. Matters of this level of controversy always require 60 votes,” the GOP leader said.

Senate Majority Whip **** Durbin (D-IL) scoffed at that notion that a senator would ask for a vote on a bill in good faith while requiring that it be “filibuster-proof.”

“This may be a moment in Senate history, when a senator made a proposal that, when given an opportunity for a vote on that proposal, filibustered his own proposal,” he said. “I don’t think this has ever happened before.”
If you're not enjoying how badly the Republicans are getting beaten these days, you're not paying close enough attention.

This is a GREAT time to be a Democrat!!!!!!!!

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

....that's a heck of a team you got there SoCal....

Cheers

blutto
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
blutto said:
....looks like the team that SoCal cheers for so enthusiastically did something positive for a change and made some history today by establishing a new low in the fine art of high falutin poltical games-man-ship ( as opposed to doing something like say governing which is sorta what one would think they should be doing on the people's dime )...

...well, some moran, in fact the head moran, from the wrong wing filibustered his own bill!?...like is that cool or what!?....just doing their thang to move the country forward....

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

OMG - Reid just spanked McConnell!
In this afternoon's edition of "What fun it is to have a unified Democratic Party that knows what its doing," Senate Majority Leader Reid just spanked Senator Minority Leader McConnell...big time.

McConnell brought up a bill that would allow the President to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally unless Congress mustered a 2/3 majority to stop him. He assumed Reid would block the vote rather than see it go down in defeat.

Instead, Senator Reid said, "Go ahead, make my day" and McConnell wound up having to filibuster his own bill.

“The Republican leader objects to his own idea,” Reid declared on the floor. “So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill.”
McConnell claimed he never agreed to hold a simple majority vote on the bill.

“What we’re talking about here is a perpetual debt ceiling grant in effect to the president. Matters of this level of controversy always require 60 votes,” the GOP leader said.

Senate Majority Whip **** Durbin (D-IL) scoffed at that notion that a senator would ask for a vote on a bill in good faith while requiring that it be “filibuster-proof.”

“This may be a moment in Senate history, when a senator made a proposal that, when given an opportunity for a vote on that proposal, filibustered his own proposal,” he said. “I don’t think this has ever happened before.”
If you're not enjoying how badly the Republicans are getting beaten these days, you're not paying close enough attention.

This is a GREAT time to be a Democrat!!!!!!!!

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

....that's a heck of a team you got there SoCal....

Cheers

blutto
Don't look now... B's late to the party (again).

So what do you think of them new unemployment figers? Amazun' ain't it?

Your team's legacy. Embrace it.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Don't look now... B's late to the party (again).

So what do you think of them new unemployment figers? Amazun' ain't it?

Your team's legacy. Embrace it.
...still relying on Gallup for your information eh.... was thinking that maybe the last election cycle may have taught you something...guess not....

...and speaking of teaching, here is your free life lesson for the year...to maximally enjoy parties, arrive late, leave late.... only the worst kind of insufferable cranks seem to have an arching need to arrive on time ( and then invariably leave early because no one wants to talk to them )....


Cheers

blutto
 
Scott SoCal said:
47 million on food stamps. By design? You tell me.

Tax avoiding class? Perhaps. Those with wealth moving from California would certainly fit this definition. You guys have never, ever understood much about human behavior. It appears you never will.
It's simple Scott, (but also for this reason unfathomable with the world's governments we actually have) legislate so that off-shore tax havens are illegal. Human behavior has got nothing to do with it, while shameful politics does. Why don't they do this? An interesting prospective was offered by my old Italian (as in septuagenarian) friend, who thinks we need to lessen the free-market trade incentives, by taxing the hell out of imported goods. Rebuild local economies and reestablish local cultures, in other words: i.e. globalization is not a fortuitous economic project for the masses. Now I don’t know if he’s right, but I appreciate the non-conformist mentality in a man of his age, in questioning what has come to be simply perceived as the implacable destiny of human civilization.

At least 50 million are without any form of health coverage. 47 million on food stamps. Is that by design? I have no idea, though starving to death aint pretty and neither is dying in the superpower for a banal cause. "By design" indeed, the question though is by whose?

Facts are tricky, aren't they?

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

I'm not surprised.
So you pull up some lame chart as evidence to prove me wrong, which though indicates zero, at least nothing of value. Per pupil in which district? What is the distribution of such expences, because I'm sure such sums are not being spent on students in the Chicago slums? You're real good with "facts," however reality escapes you.

To that issue considering how finance has grown exponentially in recent decades, for which unconscionable sums of cash are generated – tens and hundreds of billions – and also extinguished each day at the stock market, I figure the spread between what was being spent on each student in America back in the 60’s and that which is being spent today should be at least ten times greater. But I don’t know. While I don’t believe that just throwing money into the system is a panacea capable of “curing” what ails US public education today, if not accompanied by a fortuitous cultural shift that places value in a system of collective education at the public’s service, which doesn’t discriminate against low income families (this is what I take to mean “progressive” democratic civilization, which by contrast you view as “penalizing” the already privileged wealthy). For this very discriminatory reason, I could never ideologically approve of the right’s call for a radical privatization of education. I realize though that mine, in light of today’s neoliberal regime, smacks of chimerical utopia; however, the money invested in each emerging citizen’s education does indicate where a state’s priorities lie. Instead how much is spent on each missile?

Insufficient to what? Poor decisions? Who held a gun to anyone's head forcing them to borrow?

You act like a "worker" is born in to some inescapable condition.
No, a "worker" has been placed in the cage that was built for him. Getting out is naturally doable, for a few that is. However, my point was that the system has been cast terribly out of balance, to place undue advantages for the top wage earners. All the statistics regareding the distribution of wealth among Americans of the upper, middle and lower classes since the 70's demonstrate this. While, yes, nobody forced workers to borrow, though it wasn't as if they had a choice either.

It was rather a new "mechanism" of finance that, quite unbeknownst to them, was foisted upon workers, at the moment when liberalism was not far from achieving its clamorous victory over unionized labor. At the same time, where is it written that massive financialization of the consumer market was the only applicable solution? Certain institutionalized edifices appear to have been established as if by Divine edict; however, we tend to forget that they are merely human constructs out of a host of possibilities. The important thing is to realize what interests were behind the choices that were made at the time, over those that have been negated.Your gun analogy can thus also be formulated within context of another direction: as in to whose head would it be held.

Progressive civilization is code for equal outcomes. The most any civilization can do is provide equal opportunity. The rest is up to you.

This fascination of "income inequality" is just so sad. Just eliminate all possibility of wealth creation and we can all live communally in drab grey apartment buildings together. Sounds great.
Well it’s about "social equality," which in reality has got nothing to do with "income inequality." This means that each has the same rights, irrespective of one's income, as regards access to a decent education, medical care, etc. The rich make all the money they want, but why has the fiscal income been so horrendously managed by the state? Why can't they be made to pay their fair share without the right screaming bloody "socialism" and why do the fiscal paradises even exist as an anti-social incentive for them to exploit? I've already stated what my and your idea about progressive society means, which in their diametrical antithesis can never be reconciled. Why, though, does society, which has paid so much into the State, get so little from it in return; to say nothing about why it has been forced to pay for the foibles of the banks under the mandate of those same legislators it voted into office? Why have the lobbyists been able to highjack this democracy? So, again, the system has gotten horribly out of balance, but why can't we render the economy more democratic? Everything has been horribly managed, Scott, and in the interests of those who have the most to profit from such a mismanagement condition. My questions are of course rhetorical. In the meantime the social malaise around these parts is consequently destined to become more acute. Sounds great.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Don't look now... B's late to the party (again).

So what do you think of them new unemployment figers? Amazun' ain't it?

Your team's legacy. Embrace it.
Looks pretty good to me.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/271623-economy-adds-146k-jobs-unemployment-falls-to-77-percent

The economy added 146,000 jobs in November while the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent.

It's the lowest the jobless rate has been since December 2008, and the report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was higher than estimates that had predicted Hurricane Sandy would hold total job growth down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY