hippiechick
Did you ever grow anything in the garden of your mind?
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Apr 10, 2013 - 6:12am
kurtster wrote:
MSNBC Host: Your Kids Belong to the Collective
That's not what she said. What she said was that our children need the love of their community, that everyone is responsible. I think that she was directing this mostly to the African American neighborhoods, where gangs are killing children. These people are being encouraged to get involved in their hoods to stop the violence.
No one wants to take your kids or reinstitute communism.
Yea I saw that over at the other place. This kinda stuff makes me as wary of the Dems as I am of the Repubs. What we can only have a UN socialists world order or uncaring closet bigots? Isn't there another choice????
CNN still has a few good programs. I like Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz. I think it is a pretty objective and interesting discussion of how the media is doing in what they cover and how they cover it.
The Dow was 6500 when Bush left and its 13,000 now.
We were losing 700,000 jobs a month when Bush left and we have had 30 straight months of job gains of up to 200,000 a month.
Corporate profits are up 171% snce Bush left.
And you somehow think the economy is worse now than when Obama took over? HAHAHAHA Like I said in my original post-youre out of touch with reality dude.
1) You are using a snapshot rather than the cumulative GDP during his time. Also, you are ignoring the economic effects of 9/11 and Katrina. The circumstances for Clinton, Bush, & Obama are all drastically different circumstances. Despite that fact, we averaged decent growth during that period sufficient to keep unemployment historically low. 2) Liberals hate the stock market unless their guy's in the White House. What happened to "main street" and small business? Nearly everything they hammered Bush for (crony capitalism, drones, Gitmo, Wall street greed) they don't seem to have a problem with anymore. It's a miracle! 3) Again, you're snapshotting and using talking points. The thing that caused that jobs crisis in the first place was not Bush's policies (he tried to stop the banking crisis and was attacked as a alarmist). The policies that gave rise to the banking crisis were bi-partisan: a) the stupid push for universal home ownership (they are doing this again by the way) and b) the deregulation that passed under CLINTON gave rise to the mortgage derivatives. 4) "Corporate profits" is a measure of "big" business and not business in general. Since 75-80% of new jobs are provided by small and micro-businesses, the amount of money that AT&T, Google, IBM, & Microsoft make is almost irrelevant.
Lastly, the Obama administration declared us in a "recovery" in 2009. The GDP has never been over 2% and was NEGATIVE in the 4th Quarter of 2012. With recoveries like this, who needs recessions?
Yea they are horrible, all mainstream news media is horrible for one reason or the other. NPR, PBS and LinkTV are about the only news outlets I can even stomach.
By hiring long-time Obama spokesmen Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod, the cable news network clarifies its function
Last month, MSNBC's Al Sharpton conducted a spirited debate about whether Obama belongs on Mount Rushmore or instead deserves a separate monument to his greatness (just weeks before replacing frequent Obama critic Cenk Uygur as MSNBC host, Sharpton publicly vowed never to criticize Barack Obama under any circumstances: a vow he has faithfully maintained). Earlier that day on the same network, a solemn discussion was held, in response to complaints from MSNBC viewers, about whether it is permissible to ever allow Barack Obama's name to pass through one's lips without prefacing it with an honorific such as "President" or "the Honorable" or perhaps "His Excellency" (that really did happen).
(...)
Surveying this assembled data, one does not need to be a veteran cable news executive to see what MSNBC has been so sorely lacking: people who loyally defend President Obama. Thankfully, MSNBC is now boldly fixing that glaring problem; they began two weeks ago with this:
"Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has become a contributor for MSNBC. Rachel Maddow introduced Gibbs as a new member of her network's stable in the final minutes before President Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday night. . . . Gibbs was White House press secretary from 2009 to early 2011, when he left to become a senior campaign adviser for Obama's re-election."
I wonder: does someone who goes from being an Obama White House spokesman and Obama campaign official to being an MSNBC contributor even notice that they changed jobs?
hippiechick
Did you ever grow anything in the garden of your mind?
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Jan 28, 2013 - 7:22am
I can't believe that msnbc is already obsessing about 2016! Four years of this will be really obnoxious. Oh well, I guess it's a slow news time.
Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Jan 22, 2013 - 9:10pm
islander wrote:
That's such a cop out. We exist along a continuum here. I'd say we do lean leftward generally, but that is largely because of social issues and the fairly large (compared the the general population) number of out of the closet libertarians on hand.
If you have a point, make it. It will be heard by many. And even if the crowd is raving liberals (hi moonbats), aren't those the ones you are trying to sway, or at least get to hear your side of the argument? Preaching to the choir may be self reassuring, but it's not terribly effective for much else. And somehow I doubt you are really a choirboy.
Nice try, ace. If you think Obama has not worsened our fiscal posture, keep that thought alive... Nice talking to ya...I learned long ago in RP: libs rule. So, enjoy...
That's such a cop out. We exist along a continuum here. I'd say we do lean leftward generally, but that is largely because of social issues and the fairly large (compared the the general population) number of out of the closet libertarians on hand.
If you have a point, make it. It will be heard by many. And even if the crowd is raving liberals (hi moonbats), aren't those the ones you are trying to sway, or at least get to hear your side of the argument? Preaching to the choir may be self reassuring, but it's not terribly effective for much else. And somehow I doubt you are really a choirboy.
hippiechick
Did you ever grow anything in the garden of your mind?
Location: topsy turvy land Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Jan 22, 2013 - 5:53am
musik_knut wrote:
Nice try, ace. If you think Obama has not worsened our fiscal posture, keep that thought alive... Nice talking to ya...I learned long ago in RP: libs rule. So, enjoy...
Actually, during the election cycle this place leaned strongly to the right. It just so happened that you ran into ErikX, who came back here apparently to annoy you.
I have said this before and I will say it again, the Republicans have not been right about anything since Reagan got elected. And not only have they been wrong, but they are also liars, including their trickle down theory and WMDs. And not only are they wrong and liars, but now they are also crazy and fanatical.
Thank goodness the people of this country have started to wake up to this, and reelected Obama, instead of the man who didn't want to be president.
Location: I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816
Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 9:37pm
musik_knut wrote:
Nice try, ace. If you think Obama has not worsened our fiscal posture, keep that thought alive... Nice talking to ya...I learned long ago in RP: libs rule. So, enjoy...
When Bush left the GDP was -9% and it is now +2%.
The Dow was 6500 when Bush left and its 13,000 now.
We were losing 700,000 jobs a month when Bush left and we have had 30 straight months of job gains of up to 200,000 a month.
Corporate profits are up 171% snce Bush left.
And you somehow think the economy is worse now than when Obama took over? HAHAHAHA Like I said in my original post-youre out of touch with reality dude.
Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 9:30pm
ErikX wrote:
Your 1sr statement was; "Odd, but when cleaning up a mess, one generally does not greatly exacerbate it. As for Bush, I was one of his critics, notably on spending and Iraq."
Which implies that the general economy is WORSE now than it was when Bush left. I think I cleared that up pretty well...Sport.
Nice try, ace. If you think Obama has not worsened our fiscal posture, keep that thought alive... Nice talking to ya...I learned long ago in RP: libs rule. So, enjoy...
Location: I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816
Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 9:24pm
musik_knut wrote:
Apples and oranges. It should seem intuitive that when I SAY PEOPLE ARE HURTING, I am talking Main Street, not Wall Street, which by the way, has made my portfolio look pretty darn good. If you wish to engage this know-nothing Republican, have at it. But by your first post to mine, you're not ready. Let me know when you're up to speed there sport.
Your 1sr statement was; "Odd, but when cleaning up a mess, one generally does not greatly exacerbate it. As for Bush, I was one of his critics, notably on spending and Iraq."
Which implies that the general economy is far WORSE now than it was when Bush left. I think I cleared that up pretty well...Sport.
Location: Third Stone From The Sun Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 8:55pm
ErikX wrote:
Interesting how detached from reality you are: Like all Republicans.
Stocks soar 85% in Obama's first term
Source: USA Today
Stocks soar 85% in Obama's first term 11:29 AM, January 19, 2013 USA Today
NEW YORK — Despite critics that brand him as anti-business and anti-Wall Street, President Obama's first term in the White House has been bullish for stocks.
The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index has risen 85% since Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, says S&P Capital IQ. That stellar return tops first-term gains of Obama's past four predecessors: George. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
Using the Dow Jones industrial average, Obama ranks third in first-term stock performance of all presidents; Franklin D. Roosevelt is No. 1, says Bespoke Investment Group.
On March 3, 2009, six days before the end of the worst bear market since the Great Depression, Obama urged skittish investors to buy beaten-down U.S. stocks. At a time when fear was high and it seemed like stocks would never stop falling, he said valuations "are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it."
Business executives like to portray the Obama administration as the “most anti-business” in history, creating an “increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.” However, the data tells a far different story. According toa Bloomberg News analysis, corporate profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, the most in the post-war era:
"U.S. corporations’ after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, more than under any president since World War II, and are now at their highest level relative to the size of the economy since the government began keeping records in 1947, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Profits are more than twice as high as their peak during President Ronald Reagan’s administration and more than 50 percent greater than during the late-1990s Internet boom, measured by the size of the economy."
Average annual corporate profit growth under Obama is the highest since 1900, whereas profit growth declined during both Bush presidencies. As a share of the economy, corporate profits have never been higher.
Apples and oranges. It should seem intuitive that when I SAY PEOPLE ARE HURTING, I am talking Main Street, not Wall Street, which by the way, has made my portfolio look pretty darn good. If you wish to engage this know-nothing Republican, have at it. But by your first post to mine, you're not ready. Let me know when you're up to speed there sport.
Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 8:49pm
ErikX wrote:
I did address it. If the GDP remained at -9% like Bush's final months, even the rich would lose income. The reason their income has tripled since 1980 while everybody else's is stagnant is because of Reaganomic massive tax cuts for the rich. They are taxed so low that they are inspired to keep more of the corporate profit for themselves rather than sharing it with their employees. We need to restore the pre-Reagan top marginal tax rates of 70% to more equitably share the wealth and profit of our corporations. But that will never happen because of the Republicans. The richest Americans still pay only a top rate of 20% which is below the average American worker. That's why the 171% increase in corporate profits is all going to the top 1%.
Corporate profits generally go to shareholders, not employees. It is the duty of a corporation's officers to maximize the return to stockholders, first and foremost. And they have. If you want more than a wage, buy the company stock and share in the profits that way. Invest in your company and become part of 'them'.
I am accepting your points without citing so please accept my points in the same way.
On your point about tax rates, I heard this recently that regardless of the actual tax rates in place at any given time since the 50's, the actual percentage of overall income taxes actually paid by the top 10% has been virtually unchanged since the entire time. Loopholes, deductions, accounting practices have changed but they have basically always paid the same % after all the bookkeeping changes. And they pay the majority of the income taxes collected. In fact their current overall share has actually increased somewhat under the present 'low' rates.
Location: I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816
Posted:
Jan 21, 2013 - 8:16pm
kurtster wrote:
Everything but a comment on my graph and its meaning.
So be it.
I did address it. If the GDP remained at -9% like Bush's final months, even the rich would lose income. The reason their income has tripled since 1980 while everybody else's is stagnant is because of Reaganomic massive tax cuts for the rich. They are taxed so low that they are inspired to keep more of the corporate profit for themselves rather than sharing it with their employees. We need to restore the pre-Reagan top marginal tax rates of 70% to more equitably share the wealth and profit of our corporations. But that will never happen because of the Republicans. The richest Americans still pay only a top rate of 20% which is below the average American worker. That's why the 171% increase in corporate profits is all going to the top 1%.
