World Politics

[Anonymous]

Scratching my head....

Billionaire Warren Buffett says folks like him should have to pay more taxes -- but it turns out his firm, Berkshire Hathaway, hasn’t paid what it’s already owed for years.

“We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years ... within the next 12 months,” the firm’s annual report says.

It also cites outstanding tax issues for 2005 through 2009.

Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/warren_buffett_hypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ

Good question.

 

[ChrisE]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...a-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824

Why? My theory is that the Obama administration is trying to secure its 2012 campaign war chest with this settlement deal. If Barry can make this foreclosure thing go away for the banks, you can bet he’ll win the contributions battle against the Republicans next summer.

Which is good for him, I guess. But it seems to me that it might be time to wonder if is this the most disappointing president we’ve ever had.

 

[redtreviso]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...a-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824

Won't even come close...perhaps for the summer it might look that way.. The Crooks always contribute after the fact when they need cover..Bush gave them their amnesty in September of 08.. The consequences for Obama are having the fed and wall street throwing their full weight against him and the whole country..No President has had the *alls to shake the money power tree since Andrew Jackson..

 

[ChrisE]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/29/terrorism

Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Can you name any national politician that you think is not corrupt?

Looking at my region, and whom I can think of off the top of my head, I can think of one person from my state: Peter DeFazio, a Rep. from west/central Oregon. He's frequently bucked even his own party, and is quite out of favor of Pelosi, and the Obama administration. Frequently speaks out about how much money influences politics as well.

DeFazio talking about the bailouts.

Speaking about Obama.

Speaking at a town hall about lobbying of the Congressional super committee.

 

[Bala Verde]

Did anyone see this tonight?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...-medications-amid-growing-drug-shortages.html

Interestingly, but not really new, is that they mentioned that market incentives force pharmaceutical companies to pull drugs from the market because they are not profitable enough.

Perhaps it is time to revise the 'compensation structure' for Pharma so as to ensure that the developed medication's impact is maximized. I once chatted with Prof. Pogge, who has been promoting an interesting idea in the context of development aid and public health concerns in the poorest countries.

this link: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1599392.htm

has a quick and dirty overview of some of his ideas. It's a little old, and perhaps certain elements have changed, but it summarizes the issue quite well.

THOMAS POGGE: By giving inventor firms incentives that are based on the impact of their invention on the global disease burden, it would direct their attention at those inventions that could reduce the global disease burden most cost-effectively, that, in the present world, are the diseases of the poor, where million and millions of people are suffering from malaria, from measles, from tropical diseases, from TB and so on.

THOMAS POGGE: The idea, the basic idea behind the second sort of patent is that you are treating the intellectual property component of any new medications developed as a public good, the knowledge component as a public good and it would be funded as a public good, that is, out of public monies.

 

[rhubroma]

Did anyone see this tonight?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...-medications-amid-growing-drug-shortages.html

Interestingly, but not really new, is that they mentioned that market incentives force pharmaceutical companies to pull drugs from the market because they are not profitable enough.

Perhaps it is time to revise the 'compensation structure' for Pharma so as to ensure that the developed medication's impact is maximized. I once chatted with Prof. Pogge, who has been promoting an interesting idea in the context of development aid and public health concerns in the poorest countries.

this link: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1599392.htm

has a quick and dirty overview of some of his ideas. It's a little old, and perhaps certain elements have changed, but it summarizes the issue quite well.

The pharmaceutical companies are evil, and basically contemptible.

I do not recall now a film of several years which portrayed these mendacious and thoroughly heartless companies for what they really are: namely, a bunch of vile profiteers.

If drugs can cure a disease, let's say various forms of cancer (which, according to some, have in some cases already been produced and do verily exist), however they can't fetch a decent market price for it because those drugs would be too affordable to the masses, then they simply don't hit the market.

Anyone know the film?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Pretty disturbing links there guys. The military one I suspected of course, but not to that degree. The article about the banking corruption really peels the layers back and shows us what many of us already suspected about Obama.

Frustrating, ugly, sad.

 

[redtreviso]

Rick Perry's letter to Mrs Clinton 1993

What a different world we live in now.

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

Governor Ann Richards

 

[Anonymous]

Rick Perry's letter to Mrs Clinton 1993

What a different world we live in now.

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

Governor Ann Richards

I guess RP can count on your vote then.

 

[redtreviso]

I guess RP can count on your vote then.

My vote has never counted,, but no I will vote against him as I have always and the *&^% that preceded him.

 

[redtreviso]

""The former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell pledged Tuesday to testify against former Vice President **** Cheney if he is ever tried for war crimes.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson told Democracy Now‘s Amy Goodman that he would participate in a trial even if it meant personal repercussions.

“I, unfortunately — and I’ve admitted to this a number of times, publicly and privately — was the person who put together Colin Powell’s presentation at the United Nations Security Council on 5 February, 2003,” Wilkerson said. “It was probably the biggest mistake of my life. I regret it to this day. I regret not having resigned over it.”

In an interview that aired on NBC Monday, Cheney told Jamie Gangel that unlike President George W. Bush, he did not have a “sickening feeling” when they discovered there were no weapons of mass destruction after the invasion of Iraq.
""


fascists busy googling.. who this colonel disparaging their Lord and savior Cheney?..

 

[redtreviso]

Republicans have to declare their stance for their impaired followers..

""
Congressman Ron Paul, who is campaigning for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, says that the theory of human evolution is just a theory - and one that he does not accept.

In a YouTube video of Paul addressing what appears to be a town hall meeting in 2007, the Texas representative let listeners know where he stood on the issue.

"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."""

and Jesus had a pet dinosaur...wheeeeeeeeeee

 

[Semper Fidelis]

guns

As long as RP brings out his pistols and Rifles then He has my vote. What else could I ask for? We need a President that totes a Weapon.

 

[Amsterhammer]

43% Now View 'Tea Party' Label As A Negative
Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Looks like it’s a little more popular to be a liberal or a progressive these days, although conservative remains the best political label you can put on a candidate for public office. Being linked to the Tea Party is the biggest negative.

Rasmussen Reports periodically asks Likely U.S. Voters to rate political labels, and the latest national telephone survey finds that 38% consider it a positive when a political candidate is described as “conservative.” That’s consistent with surveys for several years but down slightly from 42% in January. Twenty-seven percent (27%) see conservative as a negative political label, up six points from the prior survey. Thirty percent (30%) rate it somewhere in between.

“Tea Party” has suffered much worse. Considered a positive political label by 29%, 43% now think Tea Party is a negative description for a candidate. That’s a net rating of negative 14, making it the worst thing you can call a candidate. Twenty-three percent (23%) put it somewhere in between.

Last September, 32% viewed Tea Party as a positive label and 38% a negative one. That was the previous low point for the grassroots smaller government movement. But that negative finding fell to 32% in January.

The partisan divided on the Tea Party label is perhaps predictable: 56% of Republicans see it as a positive, while 70% of Democrats think it’s a negative. Voters not affiliated with either party also now regard Tea Party as a negative label by a 42% to 25% margin.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of non-Tea party members see the label as a negative.


The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 25-26, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Now slightly more voters (31%) view “progressive” as a positive label, but nearly as many (26%) see it as a negative. Still, that reverses the downward trend for “progressive” over the last four years. In July 2007, it was seen as a slightly more positive label than conservative.

The much maligned label “liberal,” which prompted most liberals to begin calling themselves progressives, still struggles along in last place. Twenty-one percent (21%) think calling a candidate a liberal is positive, while 38% view it as a negative. That compares to a low of 17% and 44% respectively in January of this year. Thirty-four percent (34%) place it somewhere in between the two.

Republicans continue to strongly dislike the liberal label, while Democrats lukewarmly defend it. Unaffiliated voters view it primarily as a negative or somewhere in between a positive and a negative.

Progressive, however, is a positive term for a plurality (49%) of Democrats and a negative one for a plurality (45%) of Republicans. Unaffiliateds are closely divided.

“Moderate” continues to have the best overall net rating. Thirty-seven percent (37%) see it as a positive label, while only 13% view it negatively. Forty-five percent (45%) rate it somewhere in between.

Several prominent Democrats and their media friends charged the Tea Party with being economic terrorists during the recent congressional debate over raising the debt ceiling for their refusal to accept any tax increases. But just 29% of voters think members of the Tea Party are economic terrorists.

More voters still think the average Tea Party member has a better handle on America’s problems than the average member of Congress does, but there’s a sharp difference of opinion between Democrats and Republicans. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Likely GOP Primary voters believe the Tea Party will help Republicans in the 2012 presidential election.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...011/43_now_view_tea_party_label_as_a_negative

 

[Amsterhammer]

Republicans have to declare their stance for their impaired followers..

""
Congressman Ron Paul, who is campaigning for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, says that the theory of human evolution is just a theory - and one that he does not accept.

In a YouTube video of Paul addressing what appears to be a town hall meeting in 2007, the Texas representative let listeners know where he stood on the issue.

"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."""

and Jesus had a pet dinosaur...wheeeeeeeeeee

Yup, they've got both kinds over there in the Hun camp.

"To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

Huntsman slams Perry on climate, Bachmann on gas prices

Last week, Jon Huntsman began to call out Gov. Rick "Four Pinocchios" Perry and others in his party for being anti-science. He started with the tweet above, which went viral.

On ABC's "This Week" with Jake Tapper on Sunday, Huntsman went even further, explaining that being anti-science would harm his party -- and America's future:

TAPPER: These comments from Governor Perry prompted you to tweet, quote: "To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." Were you just being cheeky or do you think there's a serious problem with what Governor Perry said?

HUNTSMAN: I think there's a serious problem. The minute that the Republican Party becomes the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.

The Republican Party has to remember that we're drawing from traditions that go back as far as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, President Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. And we've got a lot of traditions to draw upon. But I can't remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a party that was antithetical to science. I'm not sure that's good for our future and it's not a winning formula.

Whether it's bad for the Republican party remains to be seen -- that would require President Obama and his team (and other progressive politicians) to push back in the general election the way Huntsman has in the GOP race.

But there's no question that having one of the two major political parties in the most powerful country in the world being anti-science is a disaster for the nation and the world. In the full online interview with ABC (video below), Huntsman starts to explain just how counterproductive and self-destructive it is for the party:

I think we ought to be straight-up and rational and stick with the facts. And when we have a body of science -- you know, if you had 98 out of 100 oncologists, cancer doctors, who basically said the following course of treatment is going to be good for prostate, breast, or colon cancers, we would all salute and say, "Finally, we have a consensus among the scientific community."

We raise up our young people, we tell them to get a good education and tell them to move forward and solve the great challenges of today, find a cure for cancer, make the world a better place. We then get the results [and] are willing to jettison it and to shun it? I just think that's the wrong direction.

I'm here to tell you that a lot of people in this country, a lot of people the Republican Party, I think, are willing to embrace science and willing to embrace the realities that have been present around whether to surround evolution or whether it's climate change. And I'm here to tell you that for us to be successful as a party, we must be a party that respects science, not one that runs from science.

Will other leading Republicans stand up for science?

http://www.grist.org/election-2012/...s-perry-on-climate-and-bachmann-on-gas-prices

The mere fact that this division of opinion exits, that these 'anti-science' neanderthals are prepared to stand up and embarrass themselves in public, is a source of great mirth to those looking in from abroad. Head shaking doesn't even come close.....

 

[redtreviso]

The mere fact that this division of opinion exits, that these 'anti-science' neanderthals are prepared to stand up and embarrass themselves in public, is a source of great mirth to those looking in from abroad. Head shaking doesn't even come close.....

They have to... They dare not say that the world is more than 6000 years old..

 

[Cobblestones]

They have to... They dare not say that the world is more than 6000 years old..

Faith-based creation 'science', faith based economy, faith based fiscal policy, faith based foreign policy. Tea party=US taliban. The parallels are there. Tea partier Rick Perry wants an ultrasound of every uterus in Texas. Is that what is meant by making the government inconsequential? He's a career politician, never ran a business of any consequence in his entire life. His state has been sucking on the federal teat, he himself has been handing out the federal dole, used it for photo ops, and then turned around to talk about secession. This guy is a class A prime hypocrite. I challenge you to find a better example of what's wrong with the political class in the US.

Perry knows precisely one thing. And that is how to profit for himself by saying and doing whatever is convenient right then and there.

 

[Anonymous]

Faith-based creation 'science', faith based economy, faith based fiscal policy, faith based foreign policy. Tea party=US taliban. The parallels are there. Tea partier Rick Perry wants an ultrasound of every uterus in Texas. Is that what is meant by making the government inconsequential? He's a career politician, never ran a business of any consequence in his entire life. His state has been sucking on the federal teat, he himself has been handing out the federal dole, used it for photo ops, and then turned around to talk about secession. This guy is a class A prime hypocrite. I challenge you to find a better example of what's wrong with the political class in the US.

Perry knows precisely one thing. And that is how to profit for himself by saying and doing whatever is convenient right then and there.

I agree with your points on Perry... and much of the above could be used word for word to describe Obama as well.

The American political class is a mess (by and large).

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Sounds like most politicians, actually.

 

[redtreviso]

I agree with your points on Perry... and much of the above could be used word for word to describe Obama as well.

The American political class is a mess (by and large).

So hitch your train to the armageddonists and the Jesus had a pet dinosaur group..They'll give CISCO Systems and you a tax break..You can use it to dress up your carbon fibre racing sailboat when you go race against Larry Ellison.

 

[redtreviso]

25 CEOs Paid more than their companies paid in taxes..

They also pay more to lobbyists.

http://front.moveon.org/25-corporations-paid-their-ceos-more-than-uncle-sam/

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Almost, almost funny how Immelt is one of Obama's buddies, and one of his advisers.

Since the Dems are so connected to the worst of corporate bribery, I'd like to see someone like Walter Wise, head of the ironworkers union, be an adviser to Rick Perry.

 

[Anonymous]

25 CEOs Paid more than their companies paid in taxes..

They also pay more to lobbyists to get the scotties to *iss themselves about corporate tax rates

http://front.moveon.org/25-corporations-paid-their-ceos-more-than-uncle-sam/

You are funny. You wet your pants over Fox news and post a bunch of crap from moveon.org.

Since you are reacting (typical)... these corporations paid no taxes last year (btw, legal or illegal??) and paid their CEO's (board approved) whatever they paid them.

Tell me, did these CEO's also avoid paying income taxes? The correct answer is no. Did these CEO's write the tax code? Nope. Doing anything illegal? Uh, no.

Is this about the left's all out class warfare? Yes sir. BTW, How many jobs are provided by the companies listed above?

I particularly like how Moveon goes after GE and Immelt (and I'm no fan of Immelt). How ironic is this? Didn't they get the memo? GE has made huge investments in green technology, particularly in 2009 and 2010. They reduced their taxable income by making investments in technology to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. This must really leave someone like you torn (that is if you were even aware of this, which I doubt).

 

[Anonymous]

So hitch your train to the armageddonists

I think I have made it pretty clear that I will not vote for Obama.