WorldTraveller
-
Posts
1,037 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by WorldTraveller
-
-
You caught that too. I thought it was a pretty cavalier thing to say for a Commander in Chief.
I caught that as well. When I read that, it seemed characteristically self centered. But this shouldn't come as any surprise, he does this quite often.
-
Damn phone won't let me quote.
3rd: Public sector workers still spend their money in the PRIVATE sector. Which will help demand and create jobs.
Alaska: Fixing unemployment should be #1 priority RIGHT NOW. Fixing benefits takes time. Sacrificing employment and the economy is not a good plan. At the end of the day, teachers and other state/federal workers are losing jobs but that's cool, they're in the big bad public sector!
DC: Talking points. BLAH.
Pelosi was clearly wrong and sounded very stupid with that one. However, an unemployment chech is better than no check.
So even though, public sector unions brokered back room deals with politicians for over bloated unfunded pensions, less accountability for the quality of education through ineffective tenure programs and massively over budgeted public services at the expense of the taxpayer , in order for these politicians to get campaign funds, you want to enable this behavior by bailing them out with federal tax funds? That's your idea?
What happens when those funds run out? You want the state and local taxpayer to pay for this? You do realize that once the funds run out, that those layoffs will have to happen right? You do realize that is what the first "stimulus" from president Obama did right ? Now that those funds ran out, those layoffs are presently occurring. But no, it's those conservatives who are to blame for the cuts right, even though they weren't the ones who brokered these deals.
There is a reason why there is a huge backlash against these unions, and your solution is to keep bailing out these corrupt public sector unions and crooked politicians.
Sorry, that's just not gonna happen.
-
Are you sure about the impact on 401ks and pensions? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but those entities don't pay any taxes on retirees' funds, so the capital gains tax is irrelevant for those funds. Income taxes are paid once someone starts collecting on pensions and 401ks at retirement.
And "capital formation"? That term is so 1990s.
As for this entire welfare debate, I thought Clinton and the Republicans "ended welfare as we know it?" There are limits on eligibility and there are work requirements now. Since it's been pushed down to the states, there are some differences by state, but didn't the notion of permanent welfare queens die in 1996?
Do pension funds invest in mutual funds? How about properties?
Regarding capital formation, who cares if from your POV it's a "1990s" term? It still applies.
-
U.S. private sector debt is 250% of U.S. GDP.
U.S. public sector debt is 100% of U.S. GDP.
Why are the Tea Party and Mitt Romney crying about public sector (government) debt? Clearly the problem with our economy is the enormous private sector (individuals & businesses) debt.
What is the Right's solution? According to Mitt Romney "freer markets, and ending regulations "mainly on banks", "more energy" (despite the fact we are producing more than ever before? Excuse me Mitt? Did you just suggest returning our country to the same rules and play book that lead us into this recession? You need a better solution on private sector debt. All GOP solutions mean more private sector risk and borrowing. This is at a time of record private sector debt - it makes no sense. Sometimes the Government is needed to stimulate the economy. Think more like FDR righties.
Our public debt isn't really an issue, but politicians like to make it one to scare voters.
You are woefully misinformed.
-
1) I'm all for raising the capitol gains tax, however 35% is way to high even at it's peak.
2) It shouldn't be raised all at once. Highest it should go is 23%-25% and it should only go up 1% per year until it reaches those levels. Raising it too fast would be a shock to an already shaky economy.
Bill Clinton understood the importance of capital formation and lowering the cost of capital. Raising capital gains taxes effects 401ks, pension retiree funds and most importantly negatively impacts capital formation which in turn deincentivizes expansion.
If you wanted to have a healthier economy, this would not be a good idea.
-
-
My grandfather was opposed to his daughter marrying a black guy because it would "cause trouble" and wasn't "normal." Never heard him say boo about black people until that situation arose.
You know what. He was a bigot. He didn't like someone and didn't want them to be happy based on their race.
Your mom stands in the way of two people marrying who love each other for no other reason than they are the same sex. Your dad just finds it gross. That's awful.
That's ok , your parents may have been bigots, but mine certainly are not.
-
"Gay people will abuse the system by marrying so they can get health benefits...it will bankrupt the (government/biz world)" is one that's come up here. You know, because heteros have not had that opportunity.
"Let's just leave marriage to man-woman and call homosexual commitment something else because my book/god says that's an OK compromise." Because that makes any sense to legislate that kind of difference in treatment.
We'll get there. It's not a pressing issue but it does make all the people against look bigoted and stupid. Yes OC, bigoted.
I had this discussion yesterday with my parents. We went out for dinner and the topic came up, I told them that if I had to vote one way or another, I'd Vote to allow them to marry. What do I care? I figure why should I get in the way of the pursuit of happiness of someone else's future? Very simple approach.
My parents on the other hand, who harbor no ill-will towards anyone, have a different view than I do. My mother, a devout catholic has a view that is derived from religious teachings. Without going into detail, just that she has a moral compass that is guided by the bible. My father, not nearly as religious, has a different take, which is that he opposes gay marriage because he is more of a traditionalist. He is an old-school sorta guy.
I've never heard them speak negatively towards gays or any other minority group, just that they have a different view that you and I have. I think it's ok to disagree with people without referring to them as "bigots". I find this sort of view as one of intolerance and I wouldn't generalize that people who are opposed to gay marriage as such. Are there a lot of bigots out there? Certainly, but to cast a net on everyone who is opposed to gay marriage as bigots is a view that I find to be quite narrow.
-
This just in: Labor has a bad day in Wisconsin.
Think about it for just a second. Walker got more votes from the right than both recall opponents combined got left votes. And total Dem votes were more than a quarter-million shy of the 900,000 "names" on the petition. And in the end, the union challenger got her clock cleaned by the guy who lost to Walker in the last gubernatorial election.
Wicked.
That's actually quite astounding. Walker with virtually no opponent , which logically gave hardly any incentive for his supporters to show up and vote, had more votes than not just the two main candidates, but the third place finisher combined.
That's quite amazing, I would say that his supporters are extremely energized.
-
Oh no, another Tom sucker to deal with! If it's such a good point, tell us why!
What would you say are some of the reasons for the falling prices of crude?
-
ron paul wants lawlessness among markets. hes a pure neoliberal. in his ideology he feels humans will act moral with market forces.
i would argue markets are not all the same, and some have much more power than others, creating a system which is tempting to say the least...
imagine if we deregulated the highway or all traffic regulations... well yeah, just think of that scenario for 60 seconds..
Somehow I feel less intelligent after reading this post.
-
The European Union has the ECB "European Central Bank" not central banks.
Umm, that is a central bank.
-
don't think reuters and spiegle had much interest in that one...but your responses are predictable. yall already knew the world was really run by a loosely aligned group of multinational corporations...and that's the way you like it!
So if i am to understand you correctly, Exxon and other large multinationals control the "world"? Now when you say "world" , does that include the US, Germany,China and Australia? And if so, can you give some actual evidence in how they are "running" the world?
-
The solution in Europe is creating their own Fed. Europe has no Federal Reserve.
They are called "central banks"
-
kinda silly to look at the swing states en masse, as if that's how electoral votes are counted. but even then, declaring romney the likely victor in ohio, fla and va based on obama being ahead 2 points per this data is utterly ridiculous and based solely on wishful thinking. the piece should have been entitled "how i wish romney will win".
That doesn't make sense.
I'd be interested in seeing the indivdual break down state by state. You gotta figure Obama has a wide margin lead in Michigan and new Mexico, and probably a decent lead in PA and Wisconsin , and probably a lead in CO and NV. .
Considering the margin was two points and Obama having the lead in the six states I just mentioned, that most likely gives Romney the lead in NC, Ohio, Florida, NH and Iowa .
If that is the case, which Im pretty I'm not too far off, that would give Romney exactly 270 electoral votes, assuming he takes Indiana as well, which he will. Then there is still virginia, which could go either way. Like it or not, this race right now is 50/50 race. If the economy continues to stagnate as it has over the past two months, Romney will win. If the economy improves from where we are, Obama wins, it's that simple.
-
exxon's revenues are larger than a great many country's budgets. it's more like country in it's own right than an american company separate from the govt.
I'm not following where you are going with this. If you don't mind, could you clarify your point?
-
Since when did we get out of the recession?
Sorry, I'm not talking about how people feel, I'm talking about the actual technical definition of a recession which is two straight quarters of negative GDP
Absolutely. The other solution is to not turn your country into one huge welfare state to begin with. Maybe American voters will figure that out before November.
I agree completely
-
Iwhile I agree that there need to be structural reforms for deficit spending cutting measures, if this guy had it his way, we'd certainly fall into another deep recession. It's very simple, id you take too much money out of the economy too swiftly, demand for goods and services fall, which in turn effects tax revenues..
The solution is to have pro growth policies in the near to mid- term and structurally reform long term spending.
-
This is what Romney needs to say about all the social canards brought up by the dems and the MSM: "I'm not going to get embroiled in those minor, not presently pertinent or non-issues. The focus has to be on getting this country back on the road to prosperity. So quit asking "gotcha" questions and talk about fixing this economy that is ready to collapse unless there is a drastic change in direction".
That would come off as insensitive.
-
LOL France? Lol Greece and their Neo-Nazi influence in government...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/06/greek-neo-nazis-warn-the-time-for-fear-has-come/
That's an odd party, sort of a hybrid of a super anti immigrant right wing kind of party meshed with uber left wing social policies. A conglomeration of extreme opposing views.
-
No, I think the market is going to tank tomorrow...this certainly will bring the euro debt crises front and center again. Hollande pledge to refocus EU fiscal efforts from austerity to growth. How does expect to do this with increased benefits, shorter working hours and earlier retirement.
The problem was that there was too much austerity, so painful, and devastating to their economies that they continued to fall In a vicious circle of sorts. While the proble is too much structural spending, the solution isn't as obvious as most peole believe. The common answer is to cut spending through strict austerity measures. The problem with that is if done in such a draconian fashion that you take away demand from the economy which in turn reduces tax receipts, which in turn the bond markets would ask for more cuts, which would create even less growth and so on and so on. Sort of like a negative feedback loop.
So it was quite unpopular from the nations that were adopting strict austerity measures and somewhat expected that thosepresident would get foted out. typical swing of the political pendulum.
The problem is that what Hollaind is proposing includs more structural debt problems by reducing the retirement age and adopting an absurd tax rate for the wealthy which will undoubtedly decent icicle risk taking. I don't have a problem with short-term targeted spending to stimulate an economy, but these are structural long-term budget busters
-
On the bright side, with all the mounting debt concerns over in France, they will look to tax income above $1 million at near a 90% marginal rate and lower retirement from 62 to 60 under the new president.
-
From today's New York Times, yes......the New York Times.
Well, Ross Douthatts views aren't shared by the ny times editorial board. I did read a ny times editorial piece the other day, acknowledging the weakness of the labor market, what I found to be very amusing isn't so much their proposed remedy, which of course was more soending, and that is to be expected from them, but rather that they had the gall to ask politicians to stop the partisanship and not be so ideological.
The irony was dripping
-
If the unemployment numbers are, in fact, as wrong as many people say, it ultimately won't matter what the published number really is. The discontent will be unavoidable come election day. If the pundits are wrong, and unemployment drops below 8% because hundreds of thousands continue to leave the work force, and the people actually believe in the number over the truth, then they will re-elect Obama...and we will get precisely what we deserve.
I would normally agree with you, but I have been heartened to see all the mainstream outlets reporting the jobs numbers for what they really are and highlighting the drop in labor particpation rate, and that the unemployment rate has mainly been dropping due to people fleeing the labor markets because of the despair that they are feeling.
This undercuts the Obama administrations claim of the lowering unemployment rate, and I am sure that they were a bit surprised how the media hammered that point home.
Wisconsin recall election
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by WorldTraveller
Because Paul Ryan stands for fiscal responsibility and has the gravitas and courage tto attempt to address our countries most pressing and burdensome liabilities, whereas you support a party that would rather kick the can down the road and made the cynical calculation to not produce any credible long-term plan and would rather demagogue Ryan's serious plan in order to rile the leftist sheeple base like yourself.
Congratulations, you fell for it.