- May 23, 2010
- 2,410
- 0
- 0
Scott SoCal said:Even the freaks understand that your kind are idiots. That's not my fault.
whatever you say..rambo
Scott SoCal said:Even the freaks understand that your kind are idiots. That's not my fault.
Scott SoCal said:Janeane, is that you?
![]()
redtreviso said:Funny how right wing goosesteppers hate Janeane so much..did she run for office?
Scott SoCal said:No but she should. You'd wet your panties to vote for her.
She's the anti-Palin. I hope she runs.
redtreviso said:martin(s),.,.. no sr groupos.. athena groupos with sr 9 per side,, hand adjusted spoke holding thingys...
now go back to your csco BNing and republican cSing
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, deputized by the government to oversee brokers, is lobbying to replace the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a regulator of registered investment advisers who manage about $40 trillion. Congress is considering the move as a cheaper alternative to increasing resources for the SEC, since Finra’s $877 million budget is paid by the brokers it regulates.
Finra paid its top 10 executives a combined $11.6 million in 2009, based on data in an annual report. Ketchum received $2.24 million in salary, incentive pay and retirement benefits in 2009, the annual report said.
State securities regulators say the issue for them with Finra is a lack of cooperation on sharing examination information. About two years ago, Finra stopped routinely sending examination reports on brokers to state securities regulators, said Bob Webster, a spokesman for the North American Securities Administrators Association.
The Boston Consulting Group found in a March report ordered by the Dodd-Frank Act that self-regulatory organizations, including Finra, don’t have to regularly disclose information to the SEC regarding their regulatory operations. The SEC also doesn’t have a consistent set of metrics or standards to assess Finra, the report said. Nester, the SEC spokesman, declined to comment on the agency’s oversight of Finra or Finra’s regulation of brokers.
“When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year],” the former president told the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday evening.
"It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate. We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay. But how can they do that by Aug. 2?”
Scott SoCal said:Bill must be reading this thread.
Bill Clinton calls for corporate tax cut
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58275.html
I wonder what Krugman will have to say about this.
redtreviso said:35 25 wtf? what about all those 15s and zeros? 25 isn't going to please those who are paying NOTHING
or whatever’s competitive
Scott SoCal said:Say it ain't so...
Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job
The stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.
When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.
The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html
Maybe the Obama admin should listen to suggestions coming out of the business community rather than his cadre of Keynesian acedemics that have repeatedly been very wrong?
Nawww... that will never happen.
Bala Verde said:Funny
The economist reported a couple of weeks ago that the total stimulus, up till now, only costed 130B and is likely to go down.
http://www.economist.com/node/18805615
redtreviso said:<snipped>
The rise of triple fundamentalism on the American right creates a crisis of political discourse in the United States. Back when conservatism was orthodox and traditional, rather than fundamentalist and counter-revolutionary, conservatives could engage in friendly debates with liberals, and minds on both sides could now and then be changed. But if your sect alone understands the True Religion and the True Constitution and the Laws of the Market, then there is no point in debate. All those who disagree with you are heretics, to be defeated, whether or not they are converted.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/05/lind_three_fundamentalisms
We live in a crossfire culture where public discourse is riven with persistent, vitriolic strife. Political conflicts rage, tearing apart the fabric of
social sympathy and understanding. Partisans of both the right and the left appeal to idiosyncratic convictions about the good society or about the
constitutional and political order without adequately explaining why their convictions should prevail.
Accordingly, the defining feature of American constitutional citizenship is a commitment to deliberativism as the public language structuring political debate. Tenacity and responsiveness ground this attitude.We must hold our own in debate and simultaneously give a sympathetic hearing to our adversaries. Deliberativism, however, is not merely an instrumental value for dealing with difference and diversity. It is also a way of appreciating the importance of other people and their different systems of values and what implications this has for resolving conflict in the political world. It is also the price free people must pay for their equal freedom.
Where the religion is deliberative, at least in its application, communitarian
democracy implies the legitimacy of religion in public debate. Deliberative
religions may be used in public justification just as other forms of
deliberation. Further, a dedicated religion may be expressed in public debate
by translating it into deliberative discourse. Only where the religion is
dedicated without the capacity for translation into deliberative premises is
it excluded from political justification. And dedicated secular justifications
are excluded as well
Scott SoCal said:Gee Red, what do you call those that disagree with you??
I think this was written with those who think like you in mind.... I actually hope you read it although I'll bet you won't.
redtreviso said:disagree with ME? that is not the same as not agreeing with them. it is your kind who gather and proclaim their mutual hate for ??????? and demand kindred agreement. Not joining the club is all it takes to be considered completely contrarian to everything they might think of.. I'm perfectly happy to oblige...
I think this was written with those who think like you in mind.... I actually hope you read it although I'll bet you won't.
Scott SoCal said:You didn't read it. I won my bet.
redtreviso said:i went to get some food instead.
patricknd said:i hope none of it was harvested by exploited migrant farmworkers. we must have our standards.![]()
