Slashdot Mirror
US Presidential Debate #2 Tonight: Discuss Here
The second U.S. Presidential debate kicks off in about a half-hour (9PM ET, 6PM PT, 0100 UTC) from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. Incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney will take questions from an audience of allegedly undecided voters. A live stream of the event will be available from a number of sources (C-SPAN, CNN, ABC, and PBS), and it will be broadcast nationally on the major networks. The flash-less and television-less can use rtmpdump to catch the debate from C-SPAN. It won't preempt the more important telecasts, like playoff baseball. Candidates from smaller parties again went uninvited (e.g. Gary Johnson from the Libertarians, Jill Stein from the Greens, Virgil Goode from the Constitution Party, and Rocky Anderson from the Justice Party). In fact, Jill Stein was arrested for attempting to enter without credentials (her side of the story). Assuming she's out of jail by Thursday, she and Gary Johnson will be participating in an online debate hosted by IVN.us. While tonight's debate is in progress, Politifact will be fact-checking the candidates in real-time (while CNN has demonstrated their journalistic capabilities with a debate drinking game). Feel free to weigh in with your commentary on the debate below — it would be helpful to provide timestamps or other context when referring to particular statements. As before, we're posting this here in a vain attempt to keep the political discussion out of other story threads tonight. If either of the candidates spontaneously concedes the election or catches fire, we'll do our best to update you.
Posted this last debate but, still relevant. Logical Fallacy Bingo
The problem though, is Mitt Romney's "good-ole American capitalism" is part of why so many people are out of work right now. Bain Capital's entire business is buying up businesses, dismantling them, and selling them for parts to pay off debts incurred in said purchases. How is this good for the USA?
He may understand more about the economy, but I bet he's unwilling to fix it, because simply put, keeping it the way it is makes more money for big business.
You call what the Yankees are doing lately "playing"? That's generous.
A well run business employs as few people as possible
What power does the President have to actually enact any tax related policy they have on their platform? Surely for the most part they a legislative rather than executive issues?
The American system seems very weird. Well, on paper it seems reasonable but in practice it seems to operate in a way that ensures nothing 'difficult' gets done and that everybody has someone else to blame for the inaction.
Meanwhile.......
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
That is the question that the great majority of Americans need to be asking themselves
in the privacy of their own minds.
Most people get health insurance as part of a package of benefits from their employer.
If you lose the job, you lose the health insurance coverage.
Romney will let you die in the gutter. Obama is a genuinely decent man and he wants to make
sure that no one will suffer a lack of health care because of their personal circumstances.
If you think that you could never be "one of those people", you don't have much life experience,
because for most of us, the shit can hit the fan any time.
I've love to see someone challenge Romney on the concept of tax cuts for the rich leading to Job creation.
A great example was this banned TED talk released by venture capitalist Nick Hanauer where he put in really simple, easy-to-understand terms the concept that giving money back to middle class families means they will buy more stuff leading to more job creation than giving tax breaks to a millionaire. This comes from the first non-family investor in Amazon by the way.
Considering this is Romney's whole ideology, I'd love to see an audience member nail him and get an on-record comment on the subject.
so let's sick kids be locked out is OK with you?
As that is the Romney plan when he kills the pre-existing condition law.
Romney has been perfectly clear about how his tax plan works. You can read all of the details here: http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
Do they actually differ at all?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Both candidates have the same platform: make sure corporations continue to run the show, make sure the people being exploited continue to believe the system is working for them, and make sure the people being exploited are too distracted with minute details about issues that do not really affect them (gay marriage) to question policies that really do affect them (the war on drugs).
Don't listen to what the candidates major party say, it is just a side show. Look at what they actually did in the past, and look at what they don't say. Has Mitt Romney criticized Obama for failing to demand that the TSA actually follow the law (seriously, how much more effective of a criticism can one make than pointing out their opponent's failure to uphold the law while serving in the highest political office in the country)? The debates are a waste of your time, designed to reinforce the view the the Democrats are "liberals" and the Republicans are "conservative" (both parties, in fact, are fascist, hawkish, and pro-corporate).
Palm trees and 8
The ER has to stabilize you. If you're dieing quickly- a stab wound, a heart attack, a bullet wound- they'll patch you up. They don't have to try to give you chemo, give you follow-up care for infections to the wounds (unless thhe infections become life threatening), or give you a bypass to prevent the next heart attack. That's not health care.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
He's nothing but an opportunist. He's a prick
You don't say who "He" is, but since he's a politician I'm pretty sure you're right on both counts.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Romney mentioned no taxes to be paid for mutual funds and capital gains tax. Well guess what? Most middle class folks who have money invested in mutual funds and other investments have small actually irrelevant gains to pay taxes on
I'm already outraged at the current 15% rate. Why should people who get richer by sitting on a big pile of money all year pay a lower tax rate than some of us who work our butts off all year?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
A well run business employs as few people as possible
But a well run country employs as many of its citizens as possible.
what they lie about is what matters.
What they don't bother to talk about at all matters a lot more. Which candidate is brave enough to bring up the fact that America has more prisoners than China? Which candidate is brave enough to bring up the fact that the TSA is currently operating outside of the law? Which candidate is brave enough to bring up the fact that we are using drone strikes to kill American citizens without a trial?
See, there are some issues (some call them "the important issues") that neither major party candidate is even willing to mention. Which is why I do not vote for the major parties.
Palm trees and 8
Can somebody help me with this question I have had regarding the Romney Tax Plan?
From what I understand, Romney's tax plan is to drop everyone's marginal tax rate and then eliminate deductions, credits etc.
In his debate speech just now, he noted that the top 5% of people are still going to be paying 60% of the taxes.
If his plan is revenue neutral (meaning they still take in as much as they currently do) doesn't that mean, the lower 95% are still paying the same 40% of taxes that they are paying now? If so... how does that tax plan change anything? Whether you say it's through deductions or just a lower rate everyone is still paying the same amount of taxes no?
I suspect that the top 5% gather a lot more than 60% of the income.
Also, last I heard neither he nor his campaign have actually listed any deductions they would eliminate that would have more than the most trivial impact on revenues. Mostly they say they're *not* going to eliminate some particular deduction, when asked about it.
You know the drill -
Democrat: tax and spend
Republican: tax less, spend more, and also balance the budget
That kind of mathmagics is what got us into the hole we're in now.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Because they work in Congress?
I think at this point I would vote for any candidate who would just answer the questions that are being asked...or at least address them tengentially.
There also needs to be a buzzer or something to shut them up whenever they want to discuss their opponent's plans, i.e., put words in their opponent's mouth.
The best part about this shit is that Republicans apparently really believe that Bob Jobcreator will refuse to make $500,000 if he can't make $1,000,000. No, he'd rather do nothing at all and get $0 and let someone else who isn't allergic to paying taxes have the $500,000. Yessirree, welfare is so awesome Bob would rather live on foodstamps and sleep in the slums than work half a million dollars because he can't keep all of it.
It also assumes rich people will use the money they don't pay in taxes for something constructive, rather than sitting on it, gambling it on the stock market, or slipping it off to another country to avoid paying tax on it at all.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
$1k per month for health insurance? Jeezus, what kind of policy is that? I'm in my 40's and BCBS quoted me about $250 per month (actually slightly less) for a moderate ($2,500 deductible) policy with prescription coverage. I could cover that with unemployment insurance, and not even have to touch the $30k plus in my savings. Do you have an artificial heart or something?
Anthem Blue Cross health insurance for a 50 year old male:
$288/mo = $3500/year
$6000/year deductible
$3500 out of pocket maximum (after deductible)
As long as you don't need healthcare services, it's "only" $3500/year. But if you need to use your insurance, then you could be paying $9500 just to get to the deductible where insurance starts paying... then you could be paying up to $12,500 for the year.
This is a farce. 2 sides of the same exact coin are arguing about who is made of a purer metal. Give a fucking break, if you have half a brain cell for each 10 people, you still should be able to see through this charade.
Gary Johnson 2012.
Only an idiot would think that who you chose on election day doesn't matter. Neither side is "good", but that doesn't mean that they're equally bad.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Firstly, Hanauer doesn't claim that consumers create businesses. He rightly points out however that consumers actually need disposable income if they're going to contribute to growth by supporting new and existing businesses. If you continually tax the middle class to the nines while throwing billions at people who basically don't have anything to spend it on, that's just crazy.
The other thing you're also ignoring is the very fundamental point of Hanauer's talak where he says quite plainly that he is only person with the material needs of one person. A good capitalist is not reinvesting their wealth back into the prosperity of others. Basically the better a person can get away with not adding more staff and keeping/growing existing revenues then the better capitalist they are.
Quoth the great Perry Cox: "People are bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling".
The only democracy in the world where sociopaths have their own party is the United States. Even better, that party has groups within it that variously argue both Jesus and the Founding Fathers approved of sociopathic policies.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I guess you missed that part of the post you were replying to. Who you choose on election day does matter, which is why I vote third party.
Palm trees and 8
A well run business employs as few people as possible
But a well run country employs as many of its citizens as possible.
Errr....gov't jobs for all??? Hell no.
A well-run country maximizes incentive to provide sustained employment for as many of its citizens as is possible.
I never said the government needs to provide government jobs to citizens, but running a country is fundamentally different than running a company. When you need to cut costs in a company you can shed employees and trust that some other company or the government will take care of them. When you need to cut costs in a country, you can't simply shed citizens to save money - you're going to end up taking care of them one way or another. And sometimes cutting costs in obvious ways doesn't save any money at all. You can slash military spending by cutting expensive weapons programs and reducing troop levels, but then you have to find jobs for all of the ex-soldiers and ex-military contractors that are suddenly out of work.
Which evil wizard do you want to ravage the kingdom?
I want the one where the press reports which areas of the kingdom are being ravaged, not the invisible wizard that ravages without notice.
Just look at the moderation of this and other debates. The mainstream press is liberal almost to a (wo)man, and it has showed in the debates. The moderators are literally feeding the democrats talking points, while sneering at Republican candidates.
The press has ignored all kinds of major debacles from the Democratic administration that it is plain to see would have been pinned firmly, with a repeating nail gun, to the chest of a Republican president. From the invasion of Libya which really was war for oil (otherwise we'd be in Syria too since the same reasons we supposedly went into Libya apply only moreso), to sending guns to mexican drug lords (operation Gunwalker) to terrorist attack killing our ambassador in Libya, the press is trying to stay as quiet as possible instead of looking under rugs and in closets.
Look at how many reporters were way in out Alaska looking for anything on Palin, compare to zero interest in Biden and what he has been up to over the years.
The one way democracy really works is if you have a body of people watching over the politicians. That's not been happening for four years now and we are all the worse for it.
If you are undecided at all on any candidate for any office, just ask - which person will be under greater scrutiny if elected?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That is, Romney's tax plans..
http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
A smart non-partisan FBriend of mine wrote this
Business Doesn’t Create Jobs
The misconception everyone seems to have is that businesses create jobs. That’s true in the sense that business provides the mechanism for people to contribute to making goods and services. But businesses don’t create jobs.
A good businessperson tries to reduce costs and run as efficiently as possible. That’s why automation so revolutionized the world—we could do more work with far fewer people. That’s why businesses pursue productivity, so they can scale up their production faster than they need to scale up their headcount.
Any businessperson who is acting in the interest of the bottom line should be trying to slow job growth or actively shed jobs within their company.
Jobs are created when a business experiences so much demand that it has no choice except to hire more people to cope with the demand. The demand drives the business to create more jobs.
Someone with the business experience of presiding over a growing business does not know how to create jobs; they know how to create demand for their specific products and services. This is a great skill for growing an individual business.
Growing a business isn’t the same as growing an economy. As Apple grows demand for its products, it grows demand in no small part by taking business away from its competitors. Apple does well, but Microsoft does less well that it otherwise would. Getting one business to do better is not the same thing at all as growing an overall economy so everyone does better.
http://www.steverrobbins.com/blog/2012/10/business-finance-and-jobs/
Actually, a well-run country maintains some amount of unemployment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment
Palm trees and 8
Absolutely brilliant.
I suspect some of these (presumably) low-budget satires end up having more influence than most big-budget campaign ads.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Mitt Romney was the governor of my state. He fucked us over and then quit to run for the presidency in 2008 in an attempt to FUCK OVER the whole country.
Why did you (as a state) elect him?
It's a serious question - did he renege on his promises or has he screwed up the implementation of what you actually wanted him to do or what?
It's quite simple really. Excessive taxation stifles economic growth reducing revenue and by the way reducing opportunity for all citizens to participate in the economy (meaning have jobs).
The Laffer curve has two sides.
You gaffing as bad as Romney when he did missed the fact that Oboma did call it an act of terror the next day?
The argument is that the rich will leave the country if you raise taxes, and you lose even the taxes you are currently collecting. The middle class and the poor are less likely to do.
I, personally, dont subscribe to this idea. The rich have very few places in the developed world to move to. I would say it is a bluff. Even if they move, the void will pretty soon be filled up someone else who starts a company (or whatever the rich were doing here).
Not only that, the claim is laughable on its face: "I'd rather sit here and starve than do work if I have to give x% to the government" Go to anyone on the street and offer them $40 if they promise to give you $20 back. How many people do you think are going to turn it down because they don't get to keep the whole $40?
The reason that the economy ran so hot under high taxes (as high as 90%!) was because the people who wanted $40 didn't whine and sob and threaten to go Galt, they said "What do I have to do to get you to give me $80?"
:
I'll strive for brevity here and continue with the Grass,Zebra,Lion analogy: The big lie you're adhering to is that the grass is production, when in fact the grass is actually a combination of the zebra's hunger or demand (what it wants) and the zebra's fundamental ability to actually walk over to the grass (i.e. the consumer isn't so crippled with debt that it can't afford to actually buy what it wants).
I had in my head a quite long allegory about zebras and companies producing grass and then hoarding it or setting fire to it or hoarding it, but it's a waste of time continuing that line. I'll be blunt and very pragmatic in my final reply here: Entrepreneurship doesn't count for anything if your brilliant new idea doesn't have a block of consumers who have the disposable income. It doesn't matter how much someone wants something if they can't afford it.
The greatest intellectual dishonesty you can perpetuate is when you actually believe that you can keep actively sabotaging the prosperity of the largest block of your population that want to work and want to spend earned wealth within their own economy. Then funneling that wealth back to people more concerned with cutting costs by moving jobs overseas and topping up their offshore bank accounts is even more insane. It's that cut-and-dry.
Air support and soldiers on the ground advising rebel forces and helping to call in air strikes...
A military action by any other name is just as significant, and the fact remains that whatever term you use for what we did in Libya is not being done in Syria where the same reasoning applies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Are you sure? All references I can find has Obama saying something of the sorts that America won't back down from acts of terror but not Obama claiming is was a terrorist attack. The transcript has "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nationâ but this isn't obvious that it was about the killing of the Ambassador or the attack on the embassy.
OF course if you are drinking the cool-aid, I suppose you could claim that as calling it terrorism, but then the government went around apologizing for the first amendment and insisting is was over a infantile production of an inflammatory movie about an illiterate pedophile somehow shown as a bumbling idiot (a step up I think )
Upon some reflection after typing that, the two are not equally equal.. one of them is a psycho nutter, and he's not getting my vote.
But my initial Jack Johnson / John Jackson thought remains. It's just that one of them has a fatal flaw that the other doesn't have - or at least has been carefully hidden.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Sooooo... what explains the worse unemployment rates in much further-left Europe?
Austerity. Europe has actually been doing what the Republicans (Ryan in particular) have been wanting to do, and it's made things much worse for them.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
In America, one serious illness in the family will destroy your finances unless you're very rich or have good insurance. I can see why Romney could think of having enough money saved to get him through a rough patch but for most of us, a medical problem is a financial disaster of epic proportions without insurance. Besides, where is it written that young people who have never had time enough to save up for the cost of an expensive medical problem don't get sick?
They need a mechanism like a chess clock . When a candidate presses his button, his microphone turns off and his opponent's clock starts running. If a candidate runs out of time on his clock, then he can't talk for the rest of the debate.
-Dave
Third candidates will never work in the USA, unless the entire electoral system is completely overhauled, which is not likely to happen. The people in power like the system the way it is.
At some point Americans are going to have to face the fact that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Higher taxes, one way or another, are going to be required. Surely by now there is no one out there that seriously believes continually cutting taxes is somehow going to produce this well stream of economic productivity.
One of the chief reasons this is such an idiotic idea in the current climate is that a good amount of the economic uncertainty has little to do with the US domestic economy, and a good deal to do with the still present risk of some sort of a Eurozone meltdown. This is having widespread economic effects just about everywhere, and yet you will find almost no mention of it in the US. It's as if Americans somehow magically believe that the US has a only thin economic connection to the rest of the planet, that global economic troubles cannot be blamed for domestic fiscal problems, and instead it must be the fault of the guy in the White House, or Congress.
You cut taxes and government services radically, you will not produce some new economic glory, you will basically blow a hole in the bottom of the US economic situation. You will create a deep recession where the country is managing to almost tread water.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
One thing that is often cited, and does make sense, it that perhaps the social safety net is too safe. This becomes evident when someone says that starting a business is too risky. More risky than not having food on the table? I don't think so. Now, a bank may think it is too risky to lend capital to someone without experience, and that is true, but to someone who wants to open a firm? I don't think so. Less safety net, less subsidies to banks that make large loans superior to a highly diversified portfolio, a tax system that makes employment a better situation than just hiding your money. all these will create jobs.
Unfortunately what we have are huge loans made to children of the already successful, small tax rate for those who do not real work, and those that do open their own firms, that do provide services, are taxed so high they can barely make a middle class living.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
He didn't even finish the term he was elected to.
Im not sure if you are lying due to lack of scruples, or are ignorant. According to wikipedia (and, im sure, public record),
Romney filed to register a presidential campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission on his penultimate day in office as governor.[225] His term ended January 4, 2007. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Tenure.2C_2003.E2.80.9307 , last line before the next section)
Heres the real irony / hypocrisy: Barack Obama really DIDNT finish out his term due to the presidential election. He was elected in 2005, and resigned in 2008-- only halfway thru his term. Normally, this really isnt a big deal, and noone I know (even republicans) made a stink about that because its not unusual for presidential candidates.
But I point it out because of the hilarity and hypocrisy-- you accuse Romney of something that not he, but Obama did. Its actually kind of like how Obama blamed bush for "unauthorized wars" (despite them being authorized), and then launched an unauthorized military action of his own.
Then the 2000s should have been a huge boom with GWB's tax cuts. Oh, wait, it wasn't. Part of the reason the economy boomed under Clinton was caused by the tax increases first by Bush Sr and Clinton. This reduced the deficit and helped make cheap credit available for the economy to boom. Most of today's deficit can be blamed on GWB's tax cuts, two wars (one by choice) and the financial collapse of 2008 due in large part to poor financial oversight and deregulation.
Trickle down has been proven not to work. You lower the taxes at the people at the top and they don't start spending more money, they horde it. I think the problem is a lot of the huge financial gains made by the financial sector often don't trickle down to everyone else in a consumer driven economy. If you give money to the people at the bottom they spend everything they have. The expanded unemployment insurance probably helped more than any other form of stimulus since it immediately was pumped right back into the economy. The more money that is made to the bottom and the middle class, the better the economy will do. Most of the time giving more money to those at the top does not result in them hiring more people or buying more stuff.
The CBO released a chart that shows the deficit in detail. More and more of it is due to GWB's tax cuts. If it were not for those we would be in much better shape today.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Trickle down has been proven not to work.
I never understood how it was supposed to work in the first place. A company doesn't create jobs because it has money left over, it creates jobs when there is more demand for a product than it can satisfy with the current workforce. If you want jobs to be created, you should give money to the people most eager to spend it, which is the people who have the least amount of money.
Tax Code is Government inefficiency at its best (or worst). Cutting rate and loopholes is good for the economy, because we (collectively) will spend less trying to avoid taxes, and just pay up (hopefully). Streamlining government is not something government wants to do. The bureaucracy resists. Just try to fire 10% of the government ... it cannot be done, yet this would be the best thing we could do.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Uh, why do you think that's a lie? Because the top 5% really only pay 58% of the tax load? I guess that's kind of inaccurate, but could be considered a rounding error. Look it up here or any number of places where data is to be found.
Look this stuff up before you start calling people liars.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I suspect that the top 5% gather a lot more than 60% of the income.
They don't. They make ~35% of the income.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I can't explain how he got elected. Despite being a fairly liberal state, we do tend to choose Republican governors. He screwed us with Romneycare, increased fees and taxes, and he cut the hell out of the state college system's budget. He made the state books look better by burying the towns and cities. i.e. typical creative CEO accounting methods.
I am from the Netherlands, but I have had a great interest in US politics for a while now.
1. It is funny to watch, especially through Jon Stewart and Colbert's glasses
2. I am aghast with all the hypocrisy
3. Since the US has a big impact on the world (thanks for that banking crisis btw), it is also important to know what kind of political and financial ripples come over from across the pond.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
The way I understood "trickle down" was that rich people would have so much money that they would buy all sorts of items that would, in turn, create jobs to produce such items, lifting up the lower classes. I'm not saying I understood it correctly, because it sure looks like, "Let's give money to rich people."
Almost. The idea is that investors will have more money to invest in expanding existing business or creating new ones. This makes a certain amount of sense with a 50's style isolated industrial economy. If you wanted to make your money work for you, you pretty much had to invest in activities that created jobs in the US.
Unfortunately, it doesn't really work today. Globalization and various rent seeking oportunities ensure that, most of the time, it is more profitable to invest in ways that don't create American jobs. Opening a new factory is great but it doesn't help workers in the US much if that factory is in China. Investing in elaborate schemes to harvest money from regular investers in the stock market doesn't really help anyone.
Depressingly, "trickle up" doesn't work all that well either. If people spend their surplus buying foreign made goods, benefit to the overall economy is quite limited.
Well, an economist who write a very clear column for ignorant laymen like me in a magazine I read shot down the 'trickle down' theory thusly: when the rich get money, they put it in bank accounts in Switzerland or use it to purchase expensive art (=exchange of bragging rights, exempt of taxes). Hardly any of it goes back into the economy. When the poor get money, they use it to fix their car or repay their debts. If what you want is to have money recirculate in the economy, the 2nd choice is the clear winner.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Greek debt: Bailout concessions not nearly Spartan enough
Under the bailout, Greeks must now work until they are 67 years old. Up until now, they have been able to retire with pensions at -- take a guess -- 65? Nope. 62? Lower. 57? Keep going! 53? Bingo!
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The same way people get broke, by spending more than they are taking in? China and India got broke the same way the USA got broke, crazy defense spending, I don't know about the others.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Moreso, if in a company a branch doesn't get profitable, you try to sell it to someone who might get it running or close it down. But the U.S. can't just go and sell California (back to Mexico?) or close down Connecticut.
Arguably the lack of a social safety net discourages risk taking entrepreneurs. For example, many people considering startups don't do so because it's impossible for startups and other small businesses to provide healthcare on good terms, so healthcare benefits (a major concern and cost for employees) tend to drive people towards large companies and away from small companies. When people can buy healthcare through exchanges that issue is taken off the table, so they are more free to move between companies, boosting the ability of small companies to hire.
I agree with the rest - tax structures that encourage money to be invested in the economy instead of hidden away would be a HUGE plus.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
The same way he's trying to get elected now. He ran on his having "saved" the Olympics and saying that he was a successful businessman, and pretty much said whatever he thought voters wanted to hear, and had so much more cash than his opponent that he could drown out the fact checkers and buy the election. So he claimed to be a life-long, committed believer in gay rights and pro-choice, socially liberal and fiscally conservative, which is a combination that's pretty popular in Massachusetts. While Massachusetts is perceived as wildly liberal, like any state there are people across the political spectrum (e.g. Boston is largely liberal, the suburbs more conservative), and there's a tradition of individuals reaching across the aisle to get things done, so there have been a number of Republican Governors who worked out pretty well, so his campaign was pretty plausible.
Of course, after one term Romney was widely considered a failure, and it was obvious that he'd run on a pack of lies, and treated the Governorship not as a real responsibility but as a stepping stone to the Presidency, the result was that he was unpopular to the point where he didn't even try to run for re-election.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I was going to predict that in this slashdot discussion, roman_mir would recite his religious mantras using multiple accounts while ignoring the reality of the situation entirely. Looks like I win.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
There's a more fundamental reason why giving a tax break to a rich person doesn't result in money entering the economy in the way it does if you give the money to poor people:
- If I earn $250k a year and have say $400k in the bank, then an additional say $30k from a tax break makes no material difference to my life. I could *already afford everything I needed*
- If I earn $25k a year and have say $4k in the bank, then an additional say $3k from a tax break makes a huge material difference to my life. I can now afford things I really need -- more food, better housing, more clothes, etc etc.
Well, the context is there in plain english. Perhaps you can point out where I'm wrong.
You're not wrong. The proof is that several 0 administration figures (Carney etc.) refused to state it was an act of terrorism for around two weeks after that, instead claiming that it was a "spontaneous act" that arose from a "demonstration" outside the embassy over an "anti-Muslim movie".
Sadly for 0 and his cohorts, the actual facts have emerged, which do not involve any of the original scapegoats. Instead, it's clear that the administration dropped the ball and failed to recognize the threat from al Qaida on the 9/11 anniversary, leading to the murder of several people including the ambassador. That will not help on election day!
As is often the case, it's not so much the original act that gets you in trouble, it's the coverup. If it had been GWB in power, the press would have been all over it. With 0, not so much...but the truth is slowly coming out.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The story of a misogynist looking for a token woman.... Sad.
On the other hand, the reponse on tumblr made it all worthwhile:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc0o62KulO1rj8amio1_1280.jpg
And yes, I know the Mormons haven't preached polygamy for a very long time, but it's still funny.
Obama and Romney are both corporate party scumbags, but Obama hasn't declared war with Iran which is a good job because if USA (and it's pet UK) went to war with Iran the global economy would be double fucked (oil price explosion), Romney is a sociopathic nutjob and I wouldn't put it past him to go to war with Iran, something Obama hasn't done and I don't think he will do.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.