The reason Republicans made gains is a) a relentless propaganda machine, led and paid for by Rupert Murdoch and a number of other wealthy Americans like the Koch brothers and b) because Democrats ended up with too few votes in the Senate to actually accomplish anything, and Republicans were more interested in regaining power than in putting the country on a solid footing.
Well, I voted for Obama in 2008. In 2010 I voted straight Republican down the line. And I can tell you it wasn't because of Murdoch or because the Democrats didn't pass enough legislation.
It's because Obama, who ran as a moderate, swung so far to the left that even many Democrats couldn't support him. That's _why_ he couldn't get the votes he needed to pass his agenda despite the Democrats having fillerbuster-proof majorities in both houses of Congress.
He pushes _terrible_ legislation.
★ Bailouts to banks with no requirements that banks use the money to make loans.
★ Skyrocketing budget deficits.
★ Health care that forces people to buy insurance when they don't want it (which he ran _against_ as a candidate), does nothing to control costs, and is probably unconstitutional.
★ EPA regulations on energy production that will make the economy even worse and do nothing whatsoever for the environment.
George Bush and the Republicans got us in this mess, that's true. But Obama is a one-man economic wrecking crew.
Well, I voted for Obama in 2008. In 2010 I voted straight Republican down the line. And I can tell you it wasn't because of Murdoch or because the Democrats didn't pass enough legislation.
It's because Obama, who ran as a moderate, swung so far to the left that even many Democrats couldn't support him. That's _why_ he couldn't get the votes he needed to pass his agenda despite the Democrats having fillerbuster-proof majorities in both houses of Congress.
He pushes _terrible_ legislation.
★ Bailouts to banks with no requirements that banks use the money to make loans.
★ Skyrocketing budget deficits.
★ Health care that forces people to buy insurance when they don't want it (which he ran _against_ as a candidate), does nothing to control costs, and is probably unconstitutional.
★ EPA regulations on energy production that will make the economy even worse and do nothing whatsoever for the environment.
George Bush and the Republicans got us in this mess, that's true. But Obama is a one-man economic wrecking crew.
There are a few errors in your reasoning...
Quote:
★ Bailouts to banks with no requirements that banks use the money to make loans.
The Bank bailout was a product of the Bush administration.
Quote:
★ Skyrocketing budget deficits.
Also a product of the Bush administration.
Quote:
★ Health care that forces people to buy insurance when they don't want it (which he ran _against_ as a candidate), does nothing to control costs, and is probably unconstitutional.
The health care bill that was passed, although I don't believe it is unconstitutional, is in the form it is because that's the only form in which Republicans would allow it through the Senate. I agree we'd have been much better off with single payer national health insurance, but we have what we have because Republicans cared more about not having truly effective health care reform than they did about what's good for the country.
Quote:
★ EPA regulations on energy production that will make the economy even worse and do nothing whatsoever for the environment.
I'm afraid I haven't been following this topic, but, based on the history of energy policy in this country, voting Republicans in will only make this situation much, much worse.
So, unfortunately, you, and millions of other American's, voted for the wrong party for all the wrong reasons. And the reason many Democrats, "have a problem with Obama," contrary to your view that he, "swung so far to the left," is that he swung too far to the right in accommodating Republican obstructionists. Also, I would point out that there is no such thing as a "fillerbuster-proof majority" in the House since there's no such thing as a filibuster there, and, due to various factors, they never really had such a majority in the Senate for any significant period of time.
The Bank bailout was a product of the Bush administration.
It was a product of Bush and Obama working together. They both agreed on it. And yes, Bush ran up huge deficits. So huge they're second only to the deficits Obama has run up.
And if you're unfamiliar with what's going on with global warming regulations, I'd suggest you become familiar with them. Learn the effects of high energy costs on the economy. Learn what Obama's plans for energy costs are. Learn what a CDM is. Learn exactly what Obama means when he says "green economy" and learn the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of green technologies. Learn the effects that switching to biofuels has on wild life.
Seriously, it's the most important issue of our time.
Anyway, I've heard the excuses coming for the left for their failures. So has everyone else in America. The public didn't buy it in 2010 and we're never going to buy it. Get out of the echo chamber and start reinventing yourselves. It needs to be done both for the good of the left and the good of the country, and there are lots of smart people on the left to do it.
Tax rates are but one variable that affect this enormous 14T economy. They have an enormous effect, but they are just one variable. This is why Obama, as far left as he is, wants tax cuts for the middle class. Or cash for clunkers (which did create a blip in sales, but benefits vs. cost were still low). Obama prefers govt. spending to tax cuts. Problem is, govt. can be incredibly inefficient and wasteful. How many $ millions / job did the typical 'stimulus' cost per program?
There are other variables. Clinton did hike taxes, retroactively, which was hard on tax preparers and tax payers (since planning was impossible). And times were generally great as we all remember the .com boom. You could throw a dart at a stock chart and make money. But then the .com bubble burst and we slid into a recession. Even Clinton's magic (with a republican congress), could not keep us from sliding into a recession after the bubble burst. Bubbles popping can be painful.
Bush, to try to get us out of a recession, lowered tax rates significantly. What happened to treasury revenues as the economy recovered and grew? That's right. They grew to record levels. I remember how the left was pounding the table that TR would plummet.
This economy goes in cycles and there are periods of unpredictability. Wars, hurricanes, .com innovations, and millions of other disruptions.
But tax rates are still a powerful tool and create incentive and disincentive, depending on how they are applied. Home buyer credits tend to increase demand for homes, all other things the same.
Econ 101, lower tax rates, all things the same, are stimulative to the economy. The reverse is true as well.
This has been one of the most small business hostile admins in history. You hear this nightly on the news. Until now. The repubs made huge gains and things should turn around.
For those that look at the Bush tax cuts, which are still in place, and ponder why we STILL slid into a recession. Understand that housing bubbles are a big thing when they burst. If you couple that with a financial system collapse, the effects are devastating and we've all felt the results.
It's better that Bush's tax rates are in place rather than Clinton's.
Think of a person's health as an analogy. It's better if you eat whole foods and take vitamins and exercise. It wouldn't make sense to say these aren't healthy just because you get sick from time to time.
Econ 101, lower tax rates, all things the same, are stimulative to the economy. The reverse is true as well.
And Econ 101 is the _only_ place it's true. It's not true in the real world, as you have clearly demonstrated. Clinton raised taxes and the economy went up and it went down. Bush lowered taxes and the economy went up and it went down.
Why? Because tax rates, high or low, are not the problem with the economy. That's not to say there aren't issues with taxes, but they're not at all the main driver.
And Econ 101 is the _only_ place it's true. It's not true in the real world, as you have clearly demonstrated. Clinton raised taxes and the economy went up and it went down. Bush lowered taxes and the economy went up and it went down.
Why? Because tax rates, high or low, are not the problem with the economy. That's not to say there aren't issues with taxes, but they're not at all the main driver.
Tax cuts are STIMULATIVE. No economist says 'tax rate of x will bring immediate and impressive growth.' Just that lower taxes are stimulative. No one has a crystal ball and knows the perfect set of tax rates at a given time.
But you sure don't see businesses lobbying congress for higher taxes, for instance. They want lower taxes. They want to grow and prosper.
Taxes are not the only issue. Govt. spending is out of control. Until we nail that down, there are no easy answers to get our economy healthy again. Raising taxes will likely harm our economy and not increase treasury revenue at this point.
Ideally, we should be aiming for small govt., low taxes, and a moderately growing economy. We need simpler taxes and should be thinking of ways to broaden the tax base as well.
Taxes are not the only issue. Govt. spending is out of control. Until we nail that down, there are no easy answers to get our economy healthy again.
And you cannot get deficits under control by lowering taxes. It doesn't work. It never has worked. It never will work.
The only argument the right has is that things would be even worse without the lowered tax rates. That argument is no more convincing than when the left uses it to say things would be even worse without the increased spending,
The country is not in an economic mess because of tax rates or stimulus spending. Their effects are so weak that it is not even clear what the sign of their effect is on the real economy, positive or negative.
The country is in a mess because of incompetent politicians on the left and right passing terrible economic regulations that have destroyed America's competitiveness and financial stability.
And you cannot get deficits under control by lowering taxes. It doesn't work. It never has worked. It never will work.
Bush, Reagan, Kennedy lowered taxes and the economy responded and TR increased. You are partially correct. You just need to substitute Treasury Revenue in place of 'taxes.'
It's a common mistake. You CAN lower tax rates and increase TR. Bush was the last president to do it. The WSJ even published an article on how no president in history ever sucked so much money out of the wealthy. The incentives to hide income and seek out risky, questionable tax avoidance strategies diminishes as tax rates are lowered. The converse is also true.
Taxes are not the only variable. On that we agree. We will need to attack entitlement spending to reign in govt. outflow. Without that, we are just nibbling at the edges.
It was a product of Bush and Obama working together. They both agreed on it. And yes, Bush ran up huge deficits. So huge they're second only to the deficits Obama has run up.
The bank bailout was a product of Bush and Bush alone, Obama had nothing to do with it.
Bush ran up deficits in a time of prosperity, when he should have been paying down debt. Obama has no choice but to run deficits to stimulate the economy, else we'd be in the midst of the 2nd Great Depression right now.
Quote:
And if you're unfamiliar with what's going on with global warming regulations, I'd suggest you become familiar with them. Learn the effects of high energy costs on the economy.
Oh, that energy policy. Well, I think you should consider that if global warming isn't dealt with, the costs will be even higher, for generations upon generations. Of course if you are a global warming denier, you won't care about that, but, then, you are simply ignoring the truth.
We will need to attack entitlement spending to reign in govt. outflow.
And the military. There's going to have to be sacrifices on both the left and right. And there needs to be decent consumer protection regs in place, not the junk that Obama's crew wrote.
And with that, I'm going to head off. Thanks all for the chat, but I really have work to do.
and the military. There's going to have to be sacrifices on both the left and right. And there needs to be decent consumer protection regs in place, not the junk that obama's crew wrote.
And with that, i'm going to head off. Thanks all for the chat, but i really have work to do.
During a speech Wednesday, U.S. President Barack Obama referred to Apple CEO Steve Jobs as an example of the "American dream" and one whose wealth should be celebrated.
Obama made the comments in response to a reporter's question, Cnet reports.
"What is...a fact is that people in the top 1 percent, people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent, or one-hundredth of 1 percent have a larger share of income and wealth than any time since the 1920s," said Obama. "Those are just facts. That's not a feeling on the part of Democrats. Those are facts."
"And something that's always been the greatest strength of America is a thriving, booming middle class, where everybody has got a shot at the American dream. And that should be our goal. That should be what we're focused on," the President continued. "How are we creating opportunity for everybody? So that we celebrate wealth. We celebrate somebody like a Steve Jobs, who has created two or three different revolutionary products. We expect that person to be rich, and that's a good thing. We want that incentive. That's part of the free market."
Obama met with Jobs in October to discuss "American competitiveness and education" with him. According to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, the President was "eager" to talk to Jobs.
Jobs recently made Forbes magazine's annual list of the wealthiest Americans, climbing one spot to 42nd place. As of September, when Forbes calculated its results, Jobs' estimated net worth was $6.1 billion, up from $5.1 billion in 2009.
Most of Jobs' wealth comes from shares of Walt Disney Co. that he received when the media conglomerate acquired Pixar in 2006. Disney shares recently hit a 52 week high of $38.
Shares of Apple have also climbed as of late, passing the $300 mark in October. The Cupertino, Calif., company made news this year when it passed up Microsoft in terms of market capitalization to become the world's largest technology company. In September, Apple overtook PetroChina Co. to become the world's second largest company by market value.
What revolutionary technologies has Steve created? At Apple Woz and others designed and created, and others, at Apple today I can virtually guarantee that somebody else is doing most of it. I don't know what he did at Next or Pixar, I don't know if he even came up with the cute cube case instead of the human head case. Even many Apple products and technologies bear striking resemblances to designs I did years before them, and I'm not the only one. They keep releasing them before I can get to it, really irritating. I can virtually map out various things Apple will do in the future, because I have already been there (in design terms).
Steve has been important because he has had an eye for style, the market, and probably flamboyance, which really helped pull Apple ahead and give it direction. I don't know if he has much of an mind for finances or practicals. Just look at his net worth they quoted above compared to how much Apple is worth, and they reckon he gets most of it from Disney?
He is a important figurehead, and a leader, and obviously with an eye for decision making. But, if he didn't hire the best people around him to do the work, and come up with things, where would he be. I would like an answer from Steve himself, here? I don't mind being wrong in this, maybe it is not as we are led to believe or it seems?
Mr President, don't forget the little people as well.
I haven't even made it half-way through this lol-rific thread yet and I had to stop and post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
PERSPECTIVE!????
Let's go back to your little example there. [34k/yr]
As one who started on $43k/yr with no savings while supporting my wife who was in college full-time, here is how you survive on not much money: consume less. We lived in an extraordinarily mediocre apartment, ate out less than once per week, gave up phone service, used blankets instead of more heat, used windows instead of AC, I got a side job for more income... We tackled our debt, she eventually graduated and got a job herself, we worked extremely hard to get promoted and now we are very nearly a 100k/yr household. We purchased a very affordable house so we could build equity, we still eat out rarely, and we are just a couple months away from paying off our debts, save for student loans and our mortgage. I still work a second job so that every once in a while we can enjoy a special evening out together.
I'm not sticking up for Steve Jobs or the wealthy here, but the system's not rigged -- well -- it's not so far rigged that one can't work one's way through things given the proper discipline... but "discipline" is the key. If I didn't have the discipline I do, I'm not sure where we would be...
I would consider myself an "Edulibertarian." I support a strong public education system, and little else as far as social programs go... A public education system is absolutely critical in ensuring that every individual at the very least has access to the tools needed to succeed. It should include classes in finance, credit, saving for retirement, how insurance works, resume-writing and job-interviewing, etc. Our current education system is so dramatically flawed it needs to be utterly destroyed and re-conceived from the ground-up. It needs to be a lot more flexible for different learning styles and paces - in fact, as far away from the year-long "grade system" as possible - and teacher compensation needs to be much more results-oriented.
If government provides the tools and you fail to use them, there's not much sorrow I can have for you... but right now Gov't doesn't provide the tools, yet Republicans expect the child of an impoverished parent in a crap school system to out-perform a trust-fund baby who was shoed into the best private schools, and Liberals want to force every child into the same crap school system... No one wants to address the real problem: THE CRAP SCHOOL SYSTEM!!!
I know Libertarians don't tend to give a crap about education, but in so many other ways, I align with them. I voted Bob Barr in '08 and I would consider voting for Ron Paul in '12, should it come to be...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Specifically, the wealthy have access to government resources the rest of us do not have. For example, did you read the list of wealthy Americans who borrowed zero percent tarp money from the government? Michael Dell and McDonald's was on the list. Can you go borrow government money for free? No.
So wait, are you blaming the wealthy for this? It's GOVERNMENT that offered the 0% loans... Who are you mad at here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Further, the super wealthy use their wealth to undermine the strength of our country. For example, so called Free Trade Agreements. In the height of the economic boom where more people were becoming millionaires then any other time in our history, the rich lobbied to do away with import taxes so they could pocket more profit at the expense of our Country's over all well being.
Again, this is the fault of government for caving to lobbyists, special interest, big-money, etc. Your beef should be with corrupt government, not with the wealthy!
I like Palin's handling of oil drilling in Alaska because I consider it to be good policy, not because she is a Republican or that the policy was Socialist.
We should be mindful of our capitals. Palin's oil drilling plan was lower-case 's' socialist.
Or one might see it as a Geolibertarian view, which those who are not familiar with the many brands of libertarianism, often think of as "Socialist." In reality, it's just "socialist."
I am not a "Libertarian," but I am a libertarian. The difference is subtle.
Comments
The reason Republicans made gains is a) a relentless propaganda machine, led and paid for by Rupert Murdoch and a number of other wealthy Americans like the Koch brothers and b) because Democrats ended up with too few votes in the Senate to actually accomplish anything, and Republicans were more interested in regaining power than in putting the country on a solid footing.
Well, I voted for Obama in 2008. In 2010 I voted straight Republican down the line. And I can tell you it wasn't because of Murdoch or because the Democrats didn't pass enough legislation.
It's because Obama, who ran as a moderate, swung so far to the left that even many Democrats couldn't support him. That's _why_ he couldn't get the votes he needed to pass his agenda despite the Democrats having fillerbuster-proof majorities in both houses of Congress.
He pushes _terrible_ legislation.
★ Bailouts to banks with no requirements that banks use the money to make loans.
★ Skyrocketing budget deficits.
★ Health care that forces people to buy insurance when they don't want it (which he ran _against_ as a candidate), does nothing to control costs, and is probably unconstitutional.
★ EPA regulations on energy production that will make the economy even worse and do nothing whatsoever for the environment.
George Bush and the Republicans got us in this mess, that's true. But Obama is a one-man economic wrecking crew.
Well, I voted for Obama in 2008. In 2010 I voted straight Republican down the line. And I can tell you it wasn't because of Murdoch or because the Democrats didn't pass enough legislation.
It's because Obama, who ran as a moderate, swung so far to the left that even many Democrats couldn't support him. That's _why_ he couldn't get the votes he needed to pass his agenda despite the Democrats having fillerbuster-proof majorities in both houses of Congress.
He pushes _terrible_ legislation.
★ Bailouts to banks with no requirements that banks use the money to make loans.
★ Skyrocketing budget deficits.
★ Health care that forces people to buy insurance when they don't want it (which he ran _against_ as a candidate), does nothing to control costs, and is probably unconstitutional.
★ EPA regulations on energy production that will make the economy even worse and do nothing whatsoever for the environment.
George Bush and the Republicans got us in this mess, that's true. But Obama is a one-man economic wrecking crew.
There are a few errors in your reasoning...
★ Bailouts to banks with no requirements that banks use the money to make loans.
The Bank bailout was a product of the Bush administration.
★ Skyrocketing budget deficits.
Also a product of the Bush administration.
★ Health care that forces people to buy insurance when they don't want it (which he ran _against_ as a candidate), does nothing to control costs, and is probably unconstitutional.
The health care bill that was passed, although I don't believe it is unconstitutional, is in the form it is because that's the only form in which Republicans would allow it through the Senate. I agree we'd have been much better off with single payer national health insurance, but we have what we have because Republicans cared more about not having truly effective health care reform than they did about what's good for the country.
★ EPA regulations on energy production that will make the economy even worse and do nothing whatsoever for the environment.
I'm afraid I haven't been following this topic, but, based on the history of energy policy in this country, voting Republicans in will only make this situation much, much worse.
So, unfortunately, you, and millions of other American's, voted for the wrong party for all the wrong reasons. And the reason many Democrats, "have a problem with Obama," contrary to your view that he, "swung so far to the left," is that he swung too far to the right in accommodating Republican obstructionists. Also, I would point out that there is no such thing as a "fillerbuster-proof majority" in the House since there's no such thing as a filibuster there, and, due to various factors, they never really had such a majority in the Senate for any significant period of time.
There are a few errors in your reasoning...
The Bank bailout was a product of the Bush administration.
It was a product of Bush and Obama working together. They both agreed on it. And yes, Bush ran up huge deficits. So huge they're second only to the deficits Obama has run up.
And if you're unfamiliar with what's going on with global warming regulations, I'd suggest you become familiar with them. Learn the effects of high energy costs on the economy. Learn what Obama's plans for energy costs are. Learn what a CDM is. Learn exactly what Obama means when he says "green economy" and learn the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of green technologies. Learn the effects that switching to biofuels has on wild life.
Seriously, it's the most important issue of our time.
Anyway, I've heard the excuses coming for the left for their failures. So has everyone else in America. The public didn't buy it in 2010 and we're never going to buy it. Get out of the echo chamber and start reinventing yourselves. It needs to be done both for the good of the left and the good of the country, and there are lots of smart people on the left to do it.
There are other variables. Clinton did hike taxes, retroactively, which was hard on tax preparers and tax payers (since planning was impossible). And times were generally great as we all remember the .com boom. You could throw a dart at a stock chart and make money. But then the .com bubble burst and we slid into a recession. Even Clinton's magic (with a republican congress), could not keep us from sliding into a recession after the bubble burst. Bubbles popping can be painful.
Bush, to try to get us out of a recession, lowered tax rates significantly. What happened to treasury revenues as the economy recovered and grew? That's right. They grew to record levels. I remember how the left was pounding the table that TR would plummet.
This economy goes in cycles and there are periods of unpredictability. Wars, hurricanes, .com innovations, and millions of other disruptions.
But tax rates are still a powerful tool and create incentive and disincentive, depending on how they are applied. Home buyer credits tend to increase demand for homes, all other things the same.
Econ 101, lower tax rates, all things the same, are stimulative to the economy. The reverse is true as well.
This has been one of the most small business hostile admins in history. You hear this nightly on the news. Until now. The repubs made huge gains and things should turn around.
For those that look at the Bush tax cuts, which are still in place, and ponder why we STILL slid into a recession. Understand that housing bubbles are a big thing when they burst. If you couple that with a financial system collapse, the effects are devastating and we've all felt the results.
It's better that Bush's tax rates are in place rather than Clinton's.
Think of a person's health as an analogy. It's better if you eat whole foods and take vitamins and exercise. It wouldn't make sense to say these aren't healthy just because you get sick from time to time.
Econ 101, lower tax rates, all things the same, are stimulative to the economy. The reverse is true as well.
And Econ 101 is the _only_ place it's true. It's not true in the real world, as you have clearly demonstrated. Clinton raised taxes and the economy went up and it went down. Bush lowered taxes and the economy went up and it went down.
Why? Because tax rates, high or low, are not the problem with the economy. That's not to say there aren't issues with taxes, but they're not at all the main driver.
And Econ 101 is the _only_ place it's true. It's not true in the real world, as you have clearly demonstrated. Clinton raised taxes and the economy went up and it went down. Bush lowered taxes and the economy went up and it went down.
Why? Because tax rates, high or low, are not the problem with the economy. That's not to say there aren't issues with taxes, but they're not at all the main driver.
Tax cuts are STIMULATIVE. No economist says 'tax rate of x will bring immediate and impressive growth.' Just that lower taxes are stimulative. No one has a crystal ball and knows the perfect set of tax rates at a given time.
But you sure don't see businesses lobbying congress for higher taxes, for instance. They want lower taxes. They want to grow and prosper.
Taxes are not the only issue. Govt. spending is out of control. Until we nail that down, there are no easy answers to get our economy healthy again. Raising taxes will likely harm our economy and not increase treasury revenue at this point.
Ideally, we should be aiming for small govt., low taxes, and a moderately growing economy. We need simpler taxes and should be thinking of ways to broaden the tax base as well.
Lots of good ideas out there.
Taxes are not the only issue. Govt. spending is out of control. Until we nail that down, there are no easy answers to get our economy healthy again.
And you cannot get deficits under control by lowering taxes. It doesn't work. It never has worked. It never will work.
The only argument the right has is that things would be even worse without the lowered tax rates. That argument is no more convincing than when the left uses it to say things would be even worse without the increased spending,
The country is not in an economic mess because of tax rates or stimulus spending. Their effects are so weak that it is not even clear what the sign of their effect is on the real economy, positive or negative.
The country is in a mess because of incompetent politicians on the left and right passing terrible economic regulations that have destroyed America's competitiveness and financial stability.
And you cannot get deficits under control by lowering taxes. It doesn't work. It never has worked. It never will work.
Bush, Reagan, Kennedy lowered taxes and the economy responded and TR increased. You are partially correct. You just need to substitute Treasury Revenue in place of 'taxes.'
It's a common mistake. You CAN lower tax rates and increase TR. Bush was the last president to do it. The WSJ even published an article on how no president in history ever sucked so much money out of the wealthy. The incentives to hide income and seek out risky, questionable tax avoidance strategies diminishes as tax rates are lowered. The converse is also true.
Taxes are not the only variable. On that we agree. We will need to attack entitlement spending to reign in govt. outflow. Without that, we are just nibbling at the edges.
It was a product of Bush and Obama working together. They both agreed on it. And yes, Bush ran up huge deficits. So huge they're second only to the deficits Obama has run up.
The bank bailout was a product of Bush and Bush alone, Obama had nothing to do with it.
Bush ran up deficits in a time of prosperity, when he should have been paying down debt. Obama has no choice but to run deficits to stimulate the economy, else we'd be in the midst of the 2nd Great Depression right now.
And if you're unfamiliar with what's going on with global warming regulations, I'd suggest you become familiar with them. Learn the effects of high energy costs on the economy.
Oh, that energy policy. Well, I think you should consider that if global warming isn't dealt with, the costs will be even higher, for generations upon generations. Of course if you are a global warming denier, you won't care about that, but, then, you are simply ignoring the truth.
We will need to attack entitlement spending to reign in govt. outflow.
And the military. There's going to have to be sacrifices on both the left and right. And there needs to be decent consumer protection regs in place, not the junk that Obama's crew wrote.
And with that, I'm going to head off. Thanks all for the chat, but I really have work to do.
Merry Christmas everyone.
and the military. There's going to have to be sacrifices on both the left and right. And there needs to be decent consumer protection regs in place, not the junk that obama's crew wrote.
And with that, i'm going to head off. Thanks all for the chat, but i really have work to do.
Merry christmas everyone.
merr chrimmus!
Obama likes Apple? Apple now officially doomed.
read closely... he likes Steve Jobs..... lol....
Obama is doomed?
During a speech Wednesday, U.S. President Barack Obama referred to Apple CEO Steve Jobs as an example of the "American dream" and one whose wealth should be celebrated.
Obama made the comments in response to a reporter's question, Cnet reports.
"What is...a fact is that people in the top 1 percent, people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent, or one-hundredth of 1 percent have a larger share of income and wealth than any time since the 1920s," said Obama. "Those are just facts. That's not a feeling on the part of Democrats. Those are facts."
"And something that's always been the greatest strength of America is a thriving, booming middle class, where everybody has got a shot at the American dream. And that should be our goal. That should be what we're focused on," the President continued. "How are we creating opportunity for everybody? So that we celebrate wealth. We celebrate somebody like a Steve Jobs, who has created two or three different revolutionary products. We expect that person to be rich, and that's a good thing. We want that incentive. That's part of the free market."
Obama met with Jobs in October to discuss "American competitiveness and education" with him. According to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, the President was "eager" to talk to Jobs.
Jobs recently made Forbes magazine's annual list of the wealthiest Americans, climbing one spot to 42nd place. As of September, when Forbes calculated its results, Jobs' estimated net worth was $6.1 billion, up from $5.1 billion in 2009.
Most of Jobs' wealth comes from shares of Walt Disney Co. that he received when the media conglomerate acquired Pixar in 2006. Disney shares recently hit a 52 week high of $38.
Shares of Apple have also climbed as of late, passing the $300 mark in October. The Cupertino, Calif., company made news this year when it passed up Microsoft in terms of market capitalization to become the world's largest technology company. In September, Apple overtook PetroChina Co. to become the world's second largest company by market value.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
What revolutionary technologies has Steve created? At Apple Woz and others designed and created, and others, at Apple today I can virtually guarantee that somebody else is doing most of it. I don't know what he did at Next or Pixar, I don't know if he even came up with the cute cube case instead of the human head case. Even many Apple products and technologies bear striking resemblances to designs I did years before them, and I'm not the only one. They keep releasing them before I can get to it, really irritating. I can virtually map out various things Apple will do in the future, because I have already been there (in design terms).
Steve has been important because he has had an eye for style, the market, and probably flamboyance, which really helped pull Apple ahead and give it direction. I don't know if he has much of an mind for finances or practicals. Just look at his net worth they quoted above compared to how much Apple is worth, and they reckon he gets most of it from Disney?
He is a important figurehead, and a leader, and obviously with an eye for decision making. But, if he didn't hire the best people around him to do the work, and come up with things, where would he be. I would like an answer from Steve himself, here? I don't mind being wrong in this, maybe it is not as we are led to believe or it seems?
Mr President, don't forget the little people as well.
Let's go back to your little example there. [34k/yr]
As one who started on $43k/yr with no savings while supporting my wife who was in college full-time, here is how you survive on not much money: consume less. We lived in an extraordinarily mediocre apartment, ate out less than once per week, gave up phone service, used blankets instead of more heat, used windows instead of AC, I got a side job for more income... We tackled our debt, she eventually graduated and got a job herself, we worked extremely hard to get promoted and now we are very nearly a 100k/yr household. We purchased a very affordable house so we could build equity, we still eat out rarely, and we are just a couple months away from paying off our debts, save for student loans and our mortgage. I still work a second job so that every once in a while we can enjoy a special evening out together.
I'm not sticking up for Steve Jobs or the wealthy here, but the system's not rigged -- well -- it's not so far rigged that one can't work one's way through things given the proper discipline... but "discipline" is the key. If I didn't have the discipline I do, I'm not sure where we would be...
I would consider myself an "Edulibertarian." I support a strong public education system, and little else as far as social programs go... A public education system is absolutely critical in ensuring that every individual at the very least has access to the tools needed to succeed. It should include classes in finance, credit, saving for retirement, how insurance works, resume-writing and job-interviewing, etc. Our current education system is so dramatically flawed it needs to be utterly destroyed and re-conceived from the ground-up. It needs to be a lot more flexible for different learning styles and paces - in fact, as far away from the year-long "grade system" as possible - and teacher compensation needs to be much more results-oriented.
If government provides the tools and you fail to use them, there's not much sorrow I can have for you... but right now Gov't doesn't provide the tools, yet Republicans expect the child of an impoverished parent in a crap school system to out-perform a trust-fund baby who was shoed into the best private schools, and Liberals want to force every child into the same crap school system... No one wants to address the real problem: THE CRAP SCHOOL SYSTEM!!!
I know Libertarians don't tend to give a crap about education, but in so many other ways, I align with them. I voted Bob Barr in '08 and I would consider voting for Ron Paul in '12, should it come to be...
Specifically, the wealthy have access to government resources the rest of us do not have. For example, did you read the list of wealthy Americans who borrowed zero percent tarp money from the government? Michael Dell and McDonald's was on the list. Can you go borrow government money for free? No.
So wait, are you blaming the wealthy for this? It's GOVERNMENT that offered the 0% loans... Who are you mad at here?
Further, the super wealthy use their wealth to undermine the strength of our country. For example, so called Free Trade Agreements. In the height of the economic boom where more people were becoming millionaires then any other time in our history, the rich lobbied to do away with import taxes so they could pocket more profit at the expense of our Country's over all well being.
Again, this is the fault of government for caving to lobbyists, special interest, big-money, etc. Your beef should be with corrupt government, not with the wealthy!
-Clive
I like Palin's handling of oil drilling in Alaska because I consider it to be good policy, not because she is a Republican or that the policy was Socialist.
We should be mindful of our capitals. Palin's oil drilling plan was lower-case 's' socialist.
Or one might see it as a Geolibertarian view, which those who are not familiar with the many brands of libertarianism, often think of as "Socialist." In reality, it's just "socialist."
I am not a "Libertarian," but I am a libertarian. The difference is subtle.
-Clive
Obama likes Apple? Apple now officially doomed.
Obama has a ZUNE fer crissakes. That should tell you something about his judgment