World Politics

Page 352 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yes, but more to the point we have a congress/govt that only concerns itself with those entities that can pay for their political aspirations... which is one of the reasons I'm so against these folks designing a national heathcare plan, among other things.



Near as I can tell Bill Frist speaks for only Bill Frist. Trying to draw a link between minimum wage and a top marginal tax rate reduction is,at best, stupid.

There are a lot of unintended consequences with minimum wage rules. Have you looked at youth unemployment (particularly among minority kids)? There really is no such thing as an entry level job anymore.

Frist was senate majority leader and had presidential aspirations at the time..
The medicare fraud thing didn't help much but he disappeared anyway. As for your predictable defense against min wage hike.. That is beside the point..Frist showed that a contribution must be made to the rich before any concerns of the general population are addressed.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
""John Birch Society Celebrates Koch Family For Their Role In Founding The Hate Group
By Lee Fang on Jun 10, 2011 at 6:00 pm

Billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch have been dominant financiers for conservative front groups and nonprofits for nearly three decades. Their money has flowed to organizations dedicated to lobbying for corporate and upper income tax cuts, as well as to groups responsible for mobilizing Tea Party rallies against President Obama. But the Koch family’s association with fringe right-wing groups began a generation earlier with Fred Koch, the patriarch of the clan.

Fred not only founded the company now known as Koch Industries, he also was a founding member of the John Birch Society. As a founding board member, Fred helped engineer a hysterical wave of attacks on labor, intellectuals, public education, liberal clergy members, and other pillars of society he viewed as a threat. Birchers decried everyone from former President Eisenhower to water utility administrators as pawns in a global communist conspiracy. In the last two years, as the Koch name has become synonymous with right-wing plutocracy in the United States, the Koch family has played down its relation to the Birchers.

However, the New American, the official mouthpiece of the John Birch Society, published a piece this morning celebrating Fred and the Koch family’s pivotal role in developing the group:""

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/10/242334/john-birch-society-celebrates-koch/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
Frist was senate majority leader and had presidential aspirations at the time..
The medicare fraud thing didn't help much but he disappeared anyway. As for your predictable defense against min wage hike.. That is beside the point..Frist showed that a contribution must be made to the rich before any concerns of the general population are addressed.

Okay, Frist was wrong. He's not the first politician to think that way and won't be the last. So what? Do you agree with everything Harry Reid has ever publicly stated?

Frist showed that a contribution must be made to the rich before any concerns of the general population are addressed

Which reminds me. The IRS data shows that the "contribution" to the rich (Bush Tax Plan) really resulted in a higher percentage of income of a higher total income by a significant margin over the Clinton Tax Plan.

How do you explain this?
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Okay, Frist was wrong. He's not the first politician to think that way and won't be the last. So what? Do you agree with everything Harry Reid has ever publicly stated?



Which reminds me. The IRS data shows that the "contribution" to the rich (Bush Tax Plan) really resulted in a higher percentage of income of a higher total income by a significant margin over the Clinton Tax Plan.

How do you explain this?

Your cherry picked IRS data.. Someone with 100 mil in investments claims a 1 million dollar income and pays 28%.. Looks like they can just pick a percentage to have claimed to pay.. Thanks to Bush..

Frist is just typical of Republicans , elected or not.. If there was a cure for cancer some Frist would be there making sure the wealthy didn't have to wait in line behind someone less wealthy. (or behind someone less white)
 
What's happened, no, since the ideology of deregulation at the financial markets and lightening the fiscal burden of the wealthiest class, which was supposed to make the crumbs more copious that fell from the table of the rich upon the groping hands of the poor (or raise the water table, such that even the little boats buoy at a higher level): has been, to the contrary, the creation of an ever restricted group of mega-wealthy, who not only hold claim to a quantity of capital today that's as sensational as it is unedited, but that is proportionally much, much higher to the total national revenue than ever before.

I don't have the statistic handy, but the total amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few in this elite club with respect to the figure that the rest of society generates, is a far greater percentage today than this relationship was 40 years ago. What this means is that in America after 30 years of catering to the rich, the imbalance and inequality between the few highest earners at the top relative to that which the remainder of society finds in its paychecks, has reached a level of excess that goes beyond any sense of decency or justice.

Thus a theory and ideology that was supposed to have made us all a bit better off, has instead, and quite naturally, proven to be a pure and false illusion that was predictable from the start. Predictable because the real scheme behind the facade was ever to favor the accumulation of wealth for wealth's sake alone, because this is what a certain American values above all else: namely, to find a sense of accomplishment in seeing how many among its business class can make it to the Forbes 500 list. To then package it off, finally, in that fantasy of the so called American dream, which says that anyone can enter into membership with this club, so long as he has the hard working attitude and fortune to arrive, because the state won't certainly hinder anyone's liberty to pursue getting rich, which is the greatest freedom of all.

The problem, however, was that all along what the people weren't told was that there is a limit to how many of them can have access to such wealth, and thus such liberty, which only increases the more that club is able to horde the profits and consequently further restrict its membership. While it has never found wanting the necessary pressure to bear on government and hence to keep the politicians attached to the puppet strings they work and master.

What appears to be called for today is a new legislation that breaks the stranglehold this group has gotten over society and to begin to favor a small business class in the majority that permits more steady, moderate economic growth that's more democratic and really will make the masses a bit better off, rather than the one that yields to a type of brutal capitalism that merely produces gargantuan earnings to benefit an alpha class in the plutocracy. And above all to end the irresponsible and hazardous wagering at an unprincipled Wall Street, which has not only caused everyone else to become rather fiscally more encumbered by the state, but poorer as well, for now and a couple of generations to come.

But then we get back to the lobbies and campaign financing and this leaves us little hope for a future in which a more sane distribution of profit will ever be realized.
 
Interesting article I read today about a Spanish journalist who infiltrated within the web of international terrorist groups for 6 years, not all of which were Islamic, from Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Fatah, to the Nazi skins, a Mexican drug and sex cartel and other of the world's most off limits groups.

Asked about the stereotypes and clichés that were at times dismantled, he spoke of an encounter he had at Bethlehem with the leader of the Al Aqsa Brigate Martire at the end of which he asked him if we should go to the mosque, he replied: "What for? Look, I'm a Christian."

Then when asked about the stereotypes the Arabs have toward Westerners, the response was that they're viewed as all Christians, they don't wash and they have a clergy of pedophiles.

He went from places like Sweden, Spain, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Syria and Venezuela, while having participated at the latter in a terrorist training camp with officials of the local military (who thus work two jobs). A known training ground for extremist violence, Chavez's state has prepared members of Farc, ELN (Mexico) and ETA (Basque).

As an infiltrate he said that he felt like a black man at a KKK meeting wearing a white hood and that the greatest thing a terrorist fears is remorse for his victims. In the end, the only thing he kept from those experiences was his Muslim faith, having converted to be accepted.

Sounds like a case falling excessively into the role.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
Your cherry picked IRS data.. Someone with 100 mil in investments claims a 1 million dollar income and pays 28%.. Looks like they can just pick a percentage to have claimed to pay.. Thanks to Bush..

Frist is just typical of Republicans , elected or not.. If there was a cure for cancer some Frist would be there making sure the wealthy didn't have to wait in line behind someone less wealthy. (or behind someone less white)

My 'cherrypicked' IRS data... you mean the data showing how much, as a percentafe of income, the top 1% pays? And how with a tax 'cut' actually produced significantly more tax as a percentage of income than during the much vaunted Clinton years? You mean that 'cherrypicked' data? Pffft.

You should probably take a coser look at Frist. While his political career you can skewer, his professional career is extremely impressive. I doubt the pediatric heart transplants he did were only on rich children. He's a real monster alright.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
My 'cherrypicked' IRS data... you mean the data showing how much, as a percentafe of income, the top 1% pays? And how with a tax 'cut' actually produced significantly more tax as a percentage of income than during the much vaunted Clinton years? You mean that 'cherrypicked' data? Pffft.

You should probably take a coser look at Frist. While his political career you can skewer, his professional career is extremely impressive. I doubt the pediatric heart transplants he did were only on rich children. He's a real monster alright.

Obviously if the Bush tax cuts were non existent as you are suggesting, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Who compiled that table like that? Heritage? Cato?.. You sure as hell didn't

Frist???? closer look.. Why don't you do that?..Medicare Fraud settlement.. a dime on the dollar scott? While you're at it look up stock traders in frist and delay's office and the FDA..I'm sure that kind of thing is cool with you though..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
Obviously if the Bush tax cuts were non existent as you are suggesting, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Frist???? closer look.. Why don't you do that?..Medicare Fraud settlement.. a dime on the dollar scott? While you're at it look up stock traders in frist and delay's office and the FDA..I'm sure that kind of thing is cool with you though..

Obviously if the Bush tax cuts were non existent as you are suggesting, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Wow. Your grasp of the obvious is mind blowing.

You still have not explaind how a tax cut wasn't a cut in either a percentage of income taxed or a reduction in real dollars to the treasury. Care to take a stab at it?

I didn't think so.

Frist? You accuse me of cherrypicking data... ok man.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Wow. Your grasp of the obvious is mind blowing.

You still have not explaind how a tax cut wasn't a cut in either a percentage of income taxed or a reduction in real dollars to the treasury. Care to take a stab at it?

I didn't think so.

Frist? You accuse me of cherrypicking data... ok man.

So why is your party all consumed with making those consistent tax percentages permanent?? You might as well have voted for the guy that wouldn't have ignored the August 6th PDB!!!!!!!

Frist should be in prison..
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
""With U.S. Federal law enforcement backing him up, Martin Woods investigation assisted the Feds to build an airtight case against Wachovia. Starting off, the Feds discovered that $13 billion dollars in drug money was transferred by the CDC into correspondent bank accounts at Wachovia to purchase airplanes for the use of trafficking drugs from Colombia to Mexico and then the drugs were shipped to the U.S.

This high-profile investigation ultimately revealed that from 2004-2007, a staggering amount of illegal drug proceeds totaling $378.4 billion dollars were transferred into Wachovia by the Mexico-based Casa Cambios that violated U.S. government anti-money laundering compliance."""

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/151135/american_banks_%27high%27_on_drug_money%3A_how_a_whistleblower_blew_the_lid_off_wachovia-drug_cartel_money_laundering_scheme/?page=entire


odds are the BCF gets a cut of all this.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
""Startling revelations from a Swiss banking insider (Bilderburgers)

Q: This is a very startling revelation that you are making. Why do you feel the urge to say this now?

A: Because Bilderberg is meeting in Switzerland. Because the world situation is getting worse and worse. And because the biggest banks in Switzerland are involved in unethical activities. Most of these operations are outside the balance sheet. It is a multiple of what is officially declared. Its not audited and happening without any taxes. The figures involved have a lot of zeros. Its huge amounts.

Q: So its billions?

A: Its much more, its trillions, completely unaudited, illegal and besides the tax system. Basically it’s a robbery of everybody. I mean most normal people are paying taxes and abiding by the laws. What is happening here is complete against our Swiss values, like neutrality, honesty and good faith. In the meetings I was involved in, the discussions where completely against our democratic principles. You see, most of the directors of Swiss banks are not locals anymore, they are foreigners, mostly Anglo-Saxon, either American or British, they don’t respect our neutrality, they don’t respect our values, they are against our direct democracy, they just use the Swiss banks for their illegal means.
"""

Foreigners like Phil Gramm(R-Tx)

http://noviden.info/article_239.html
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
redtreviso and Romperroom.... Quick CNN is doing a rerun of the repub....debate..yalls favorite contributers are on ......bachMAN......and greenRICH. GO get yalls hate on! ..end this OBAMAS depression! :D
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
redtreviso and Romperroom.... Quick CNN is doing a rerun of the repub....debate..yalls favorite contributers are on ......bachMAN......and greenRICH. GO get yalls hate on! ..end this OBAMAS depression! :D


Clown Convention..

bachmann_and_bush_kiss.jpg
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
House Republicans And U.S. Chamber Team Up To Weaken Anti-Bribery Law


""
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce thinks a law that prohibits American businesses from paying bribes to foreign government officials is hurting U.S. companies, and Republicans in the House agree. But don't accuse them of being pro-bribery.

"Nobody here is in favor of bribery," said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)

at a Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday examining the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). But Sensenbrenner and House Republicans made clear they intend to change the law as it currently stands.

Sensenbrenner called the FCPA statute vague and said it was too open to the interpretation of the Justice Department, arguing that the feds could even apply the law to paying for cab rides for their overseas workers if they wanted. But a Justice Department representative pointed out that all the panelists advocating for reform couldn't point out one example of when they believed the feds had overreached by prosecuting over a cup of coffee or taxi ride and touted recent cases involving bribery with a Ferrari, a yacht and a $170,000 payment toward a credit card bill.

Sensenbrenner argued that companies "lack guidance on how expensive a gift must be to be considered a bribe" and said prosecutions should be more effective, fair and predictable. He argued that the way the law could be enforced could "put at a significant disadvantage to our foreign competitors."""

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/house_gopers_us_chamber_team_up_to_weaken_anti-bribery_law_video.php
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,268
1
0
Cobblestones said:
The first stimulus was simply too small. It had fairly close to the desired effect (when you compare actual measured effect with projections). These same projections also showed that a more effective stimulus would have to be about twice as big. What is lacking is the political will to see that through, so we're stuck with a too small stimulus (which nevertheless performed fairly close to expectation).

Concerning the value of the dollar. In fact, a weaker dollar can help the export industry (this is by the way also the reason why Germany benefits from the euro). Moreover, it helps tourism. How many more tourists will come to the US this year and spend money because of the weak dollar. Now, the US economy is neither based on tourism, nor on export. But it might help to balance out the foreign trade deficit a bit (also because imports are getting more expensive). Anyway, there will be sections of the economy who will welcome a weaker dollar (but admittedly, some others won't).

Same with inflation. Some people will profit from higher inflation, some won't. It's usually seen as an overall drawback, but moderate inflation, over a short time, can be used to solve some structural problems (just ask the Greek, they wish they could inflate their way out of their mess). In fact, if you really think inflation will hit soon, I'd recommend to take out a few huge fixed interest loans (30 yrs are still pretty low) and buy investments. It will be like printing money if you're correct.

But I don't think you are. Contrary to you, I see the imbalance mostly on the revenue side, not the spending side. It would help a lot to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire for the highest income brackets. It would also help to bring the estate tax rates (and exemption rates) to what it was, say, 10 years ago.

Concerning California. Most if not all of their problems stem from the one simple fact that it takes a 2/3 majority to add a tax, while it takes a simple majority to repeal a tax. California will remain in this fvcked up state until sanity returns and that particular law goes away. I assume at one point, that law was supposed to provide stability for planning purposes. But look what it did to the state. California's infrastructure is declining because there's no money to maintain it. People commuting 2 hours per day or more. Some school districts in California perform terrible. It wouldn't surprise me if the California workforce is falling behind as well.

Those are all factors in business decisions which have to do with the spending side of government, not the revenue side. Here you have the results when a government cannot spend what it should, because it is held hostage on the revenue side. It's what you get when you 'starve the beast'. Except, you're not starving 'the beast' which is supposed to be government, you starve everybody by driving businesses out of your state.

The Economist had an interesting piece on the TARP, which was not an actual expense of $700B, as many seem to claim or believe, but merely an maximum set on spending to shore up troubled companies, including carmakers and financial firms, in case it was deemed necessary.

When Congress held its nose in 2008 and approved the Troubled Assets Relief Programme (TARP) to spend up to $700 billion to alleviate panic, the White House reckoned it might end up losing half of that amount. In the end $411 billion was ploughed into financial firms, carmakers and schemes to reduce foreclosures and restart private lending. As of June 7th $308 billion of that had been paid back. The Treasury values the remainder at $130 billion but could quite plausibly garner more. In that case it will turn a cash profit on TARP, although the picture would be worse if the Treasury’s subsidised lending rates are also counted as a cost.

To put those numbers in perspective, an older quote (2010) from USA today:

Afghanistan will cost nearly $105 billion in the 2010 fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, including most of $33 billion in additional spending requested by Obama and pending before Congress. Iraq will cost about $66 billion. In fiscal 2011, Afghanistan is projected to cost $117 billion, Iraq $46 billion. To date, Pentagon spending in Iraq has reached $620 billion, compared with $190 billion in Afghanistan.

So the remainder of $130B in TARP stimulus, which could be lower when the bailed out companies continue paying down their debt, is as much as is being spent annually on 150.000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is more worrying, and which seems to confirm that stimulus was not used enough, is the last paragraph of the economist article, and which is something many people could find fault with (why big companies, but not ordinary citizens who are underwater)

Yet in their zeal to protect the taxpayer, American policymakers may have done too little. The Treasury earmarked some TARP funds to refinance homeowners facing foreclosure. But the backlash against bail-outs was so intense that it attached stringent conditions that deterred participation. Of the $46 billion allocated, less than $2 billion has been spent, one reason why the housing market remains so weak. The interventions succeeded at stemming the crisis. They have been a failure at spurring a decent recovery.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
The Economist had an interesting piece on the TARP, which was not an actual expense of $700B, as many seem to claim or believe, but merely an maximum set on spending to shore up troubled companies, including carmakers and financial firms, in case it was deemed necessary.



To put those numbers in perspective, an older quote (2010) from USA today:



So the remainder of $130B in TARP stimulus, which could be lower when the bailed out companies continue paying down their debt, is as much as is being spent annually on 150.000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is more worrying, and which seems to confirm that stimulus was not used enough, is the last paragraph of the economist article, and which is something many people could find fault with (why big companies, but not ordinary citizens who are underwater)

TARP may or may not be profitable in the end but, up to this point, has had a huge impact on the average bank's loan prtfolio particularly related to small business lending. Banks do not lend to small business anything like what they used to because of Federal Regulator handcuffs placed on banks by TARP rules and the near insolvency of the FDIC. Banks can now pay almost nothing for deposits placed in their banks, invest those deposits in a favorable risk environment (non loan), take advantage of the arbitrage between the market for deposits and the market for, say, inflation indexed bonds all the while keeping Federal Regulators off the back. And still make a lot of money by not lending.

It's a real problem with an easy fix. But we have to consider those running the show and what their other priorities are and it's not helping pave the way for small business expansion.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
TARP may or may not be profitable in the end but, up to this point, has had a huge impact on the average bank's loan prtfolio particularly related to small business lending. Banks do not lend to small business anything like what they used to because of Federal Regulator handcuffs placed on banks by TARP rules and the near insolvency of the FDIC. Banks can now pay almost nothing for deposits placed in their banks, invest those deposits in a favorable risk environment (non loan), take advantage of the arbitrage between the market for deposits and the market for, say, inflation indexed bonds all the while keeping Federal Regulators off the back. And still make a lot of money by not lending.

It's a real problem with an easy fix. But we have to consider those running the show and what their other priorities are and it's not helping pave the way for small business expansion.

Not TARP.. Gramm–Leach–Bliley dummy
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
Not TARP.. Gramm–Leach–Bliley dummy

No. TARP came with rules. Still have rules even to banks who never took a penny.

Go back to sleep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.