birdog1960

lobbyists can't fly commercial?

i suppose when you can only see in black and white, a corporate jet used for lobbying and paper for the copy machine are the same thing. nuance is not your strength.

game seems, for all practical purposes over, but the only way i see to have fun in this mess is to restart. is this a buying opportunity ? might as well risk it with fake money. all in with ANR at 27.45. will do the math later. Buying 382 shares ANR at 27.45 cash=10.10 total value portfolio =$10,495

ya know, i reread this paragraph this am and it's schizophrenic. you're talking out both sides of your mouth. you "don't see it that way" despite the fact that the s&p said it exactly that way and you go on to say that "it was an indictment of the dysfunction" while at the same time arguing that that indictment wasn't important to the decision. the semantics matter...it's the difference of the tea party being equally or mostly liable for the downgrade happening friday. if they gain instead of lose support as they deserve, the game is likely over for the american economy. and as ...lybob said, it's not the progressives that signed a stonewall pledge that excludes any chance of reasonable compromise. the discussion is necessarily poartisan since the issues and positions are so clearly partisan.

agree with everything above except the degree that the dysfunction played in the decision. s&p clearly stated it as the first reason mentioned. it does however appear we are arguing semantics. unfortunately, this political gamesmanship has real consequences and is substantive in the differencs of opinion. it has certainly changed my plans. i was looking at buying some real estate and have now backed off. wonder how many other folks are doing the same. just what we needed to help move things along.

yeah, that's the major issue here there seems to be no shortage of publications taking their decision to downgrade the US credit rating seriously. haven't seen much mention of their failings in the last crisis from the conservative side. if they were so roundly dismissed by the financial press why do they hold any credibility in this matter?

totally agree but i would add that it's not only memories that are weak but also the ability to comprehend straightforward statements especially when they don't agree with ones beliefs. when this happens, the memories will necessarily be incorrect.

so what was the head of sovereign rating at s&p talking about? do you not accept that he had significant input into the decision to downgrade? or do you just know better....thought so.

think about what the country will like like in the wake of the necessary cuts without simultaneous tax increases to acheive a balanced budget. much weaker schools,hospitals, universities, social services of all types, parks, infrastructure, not to mention impoverished and undertreated sick and elderly. a significantly downsized military. what about the employment rate when a significant number of gov't jobs are cut? i like jerry brown's approach in california: institute austerity in lieu of tax increases and wait for people to get fed up. are you really ready for an america that looks nothing like what you've known your entire life? that's what you're asking for.

it's generally considered customary to actually cite a source for a quotation. my source is the video that was linked watch it and tell me then that i am the one misrepresenting what he said. do your ears work less well than your eyes? perhaps you should study lip reading.

did anybody but the liberals here even listen to this guy? sure appears there's some selctive hearing loss. this guy is head of sovereign ratings for s&p. should we be listening to his words or your biased interpretations? there's really not a lot of ambiguity in what he said. it IS about the acrimony in gov't. it is about ignoring simpson-bowles which included major tax increases as well as entitleement reform. Keep in mind that S&P rated many of the companies requiring bailout with the onset of the first recession, AAA. their objectivity should be viewed with great skepticism. nevertheless, misreprennting their publicly stated reasons for the downgrade helps no one. yet, they maintain a socialized medical system that's way cheaper than ours on a per capita basis. coincidence?

well, i did say vast majority. you appear to be doing your part to support the "unconscience" outliers.

bad news? sounds like an unfair tax advantage to the few that can afford a tesla roadster to me. it's a $7500 discount on a supercar. makes it even closer to a high end vette.

look up the definition and then honestly ask yourself if the adjective is apt

you "discovered" nothing with your disingenuous question. you unsuccessfully attempted to illustrate your preconceived conclusion. nice try though.

a fair and straightforward question that is not easy to answer....no, i don't think the majority is always right regarding the opinions they voice. i do however think that a significant majority have an inherent, internal sense of fairness (call it conscience or instinct) that they share. for instance, the vast majority of people don't think it's fair to steal from others, or to take out loans they can't possibly pay back or to default on those loans when they could possibly pay or to sell loans to people who they know will never be able to pay them back or to ... but do the majority of people act according to that conscience? usually, all though it seems less recently. nevertheless, we have what is ostensibly a representative govt. the majority's opinions should be acted upon.

because we (the govt) uses tax laws to encourage or inhibit behavior (duh!) do we really want to encourage more auto, credit card and student debt at a time when personal debt just hit an all time high? do we want to encourage business investment? the trick is to mold the tax laws and behavior in a way that is perceived as fair, balanced (sad that it gags me to use this noble phrase) and is actually effective at attaining these goals.

but the engineers are almost never creative enough to envision the unique concepts that they sometimes are able to apply.

wow, another potential member of the optimists club! i not so respectfully disagree.

i've already answered while partially humoring a silly, juvenile attempted trap. and gg and d/c don't seem to get that deducting business expenses as well as the individual business owners personal expenses would be doubly unfair to nonbusiness owners. anyone with any inherent sense of fairness would see this but guess who doesn't have that sense? obviously, fairness is an arbitrary concept but one on which a sizable majority of people can usually agree.

um, congress, maybe? and we've all recently seen how fair and pragmatic it can be. stop being ridiculous...it's unbecoming

because they aren't personal expenses. paper for the copy machine, water, electric, decent wages for the employees don't personally benefit me. if i closed my business and became an employee, i would lose no loophole. i'd actually almost certainly do better.

you're an idiot