Politics, Politics, Politics

[MacNfries]

Regarding corporations paying NO income taxes ... see attachments:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...porate-taxes-u-s-corporations-citizens-united
http://ivn.us/2012/04/11/over-two-t...ncome-tax-some-even-have-a-negative-tax-rate/
Mac

 

[TwoBiFour]

I do agree that loop holes need to be closed and there is no reason why the very wealthy should get special tax breaks, but how about this, did you know the some of the richest are all Democrats?.
http://newamericangazette.com/2011/01/top-20-richest-people-democrats/
And the majority of the rich in congress are Democrats.
http://news.yahoo.com/party-rich-congress-democrats-040228270--election.html

 

[MacNfries]

TwoBi ... please don't redirect. You called me out on my statement about "almost 70% of corporations don't pay income taxes" ... I simply responded with a few sources to support my statement, that's all. As to who the millionaires in congress are is irrelevant, isn't it, unless I had made a statement that more Republicans than Democrats in congress are millionaires. My point was that low/middle class taxpayers are being taxed more to make up for tax revenue not being obtained from other rightful sources. Why do you think the huge income gap exists or why the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer? Or why teachers, in our country, have not received justified pay raises in 5-6 years?

Any statements I make, I'm prepared to provide documentation if challenged ... that should be fair for anyone posting in this thread. We're not talking fantasies, or wishes, or opinions here ... we should be talking provable "facts". This is a serious thread that's well labeled for those NOT interested in discussing politics. I'm kind of disappointed, however, that Torpedo and falcondfw haven't joined this conversation, as it was partially they who this thread was started for in the first place.

Look folks, we all have different philosophies in things such as politics, and I'm not disagreeing in what a person should believe or not believe ... it is your RIGHT to believe what you like. However, my political grip has primarily been trifold:

• The current attacks on Voters Rights that is going on; black people should be furious and standing up to fight
• The existence of Citizens United that shifts the policies/focus of our nation away from the needs of its citizens
• The obstructionism to our President's attempts to resolve our nation's problems such as health care, gun control, education, energy, immigration, women's rights, infrastructure, national deficit, etc etc. with common sense legislation and fairness. Republicans have submitted no new legislation to any of these issues in 6 years; just obstructed what others, particularly the President, has submitted.

This is NOT about party. I have some grips with Democrats as well as with Republicans. I've written letters and e-mails to my state representatives twice this year, already ... voicing my concerns and opinion. How many of you can say the same thing? How many of you even know HOW to contact your state representatives, or WHO your representatives are? To obtain fair representation we MUST make our voices HEARD. Coincidently, I have written a suggestion to my state representative on how to resolve the solicitations to the people, like myself, who have their telephone numbers on DoNotCall. I got an e-mail back asking me to expand my thoughts to that, which I'm working on now. Now wouldn't that be a hoot if it was submitted and passed in Congress as the MacNfries Law? All you folks could say ... "hey, I knew that asshole before his law was adopted by Congress" ...

 

[Alanm]

See, Alanm, I don't think you're comprehending what I said regarding the effect on the economy by raising taxes vs lowering taxes. If the minimum wage, for example, was raise to that magical $10.10 an hour, more employees would come OFF various forms of welfare, would buy things (TVs, refrigerators, cars, ect) and the economy would be stimulated to produce more. There would NOT be an equivalent cost shift in merchandize, like your Happy Meal at McDonalds if McDonalds started paying a living wage. Your Happy Meal might go up, but not by $3-4 to offset the living wage increase.
A recent study of this was used on Walmart employees; increasing the employee's minimum wages to $10.10 would increase the cost of merchandize in Walmart a mere 3-4%. That study is easily found by searching Walmart-living wage increase. Remember, the more buying activity, the less impact on the income offset.
It's worth studying ... I swear it is!

I don't know if i would consider 10.10 an hour a living wage. Be tough to live on that but possible. I just dont see some small businesses being able to afford giving people a nearly 3 dollar raise. Plus their needs to be some incentive for people to better themselves and get out low paying jobs not just meander along scraping by on some low paying job.

 

[MacNfries]

I don't know if i would consider 10.10 an hour a living wage. Be tough to live on that but possible.

Absolutely, it isn't a "living wage"; that would be around $11.50, however, people who are working now for $7.50-$8.00 are often working 2 jobs or even more. Those hourly incomes don't generate but $15-16,000 a year, but then they work 2 jobs to make ends meet. Plus, if minimum wage was bumped to $10.10, some of those working 2 jobs would decide to only work one job, thus opening up a job to be filled by other unemployed ... lowering unemployment, and welfare dependency. The Walmart case is an excellent example of the dominos effect since they are such a national employer. Not everyone has the skills to start their own business or go to college.

In order to help the unprivileged, we have to be able to understand and sympathize with their situation. That's why emphasis on primary education and verbal skills are so important. Most people on welfare aren't there by choice, contrary to some that believe they're just lazy. Unfortunate life circumstances can easily move a person from the penthouse to the outhouse in a minute. I've known several business executives that lost their $100,000+ jobs and were too old or too untrained to find work that paid even close to comparable what they lost.

Maybe my mindset has been cultured by having been raised by parents of high, moral fiber, and the fact my ******* is a minister, and my mom a teacher. All I know is that I consider myself blessed to have and be what I am and desire to offer an occasional helping hand to others.

 

[Alanm]

I agree with you about education. But i also have friends who teach in inner city schools and the total lack of regard these ******* show for their future is mind boggling. So they screw off, drop out and then bitch when they have no options and they are working at mcdonalds, then want a raise to 10 or 11 bucks an hour.

I totally understand there are circumstances that require welfare but a lot of time you make your own future. There are plenty of examples of ******* coming from nothing and going on to great things.

 

[MacNfries]

Any of you guys and gals have thought for a minute that what it is interesting about (us) you in this forum is not really your (our) political views?

Tania, I can appreciate your "concern", but the purpose of the O-P setting up this thread, which is clearly labeled, was to remove politically laced comments/discussions from the other threads. You used the word respectfully ... wasn't that respectful of the O-P to do that? That way, in order to view this topic, you have to click on it; or, to avoid it ... not click on it.
A few members made political comments about Pres. Obama, and a discussion of political views/opinions started. Sort of like a hockey game ... you go to watch hockey, but then one member of a team throws a punch, the other team retaliates, and the next thing you know you have the whole team rushing the ice and fighting. One careless punch starts a hockey game fight ... one careless comment starts a political discussion. Just a chain reaction.

That said, let's use a few hypotheticals: Suppose that someone told you that you can not take birth control pills any more. That the only option for birth control was reliance on the rhythm method or abstinence, and that if you get pregnant, you have to bring the pregnancy to full term . Or, your 14 year old ******* is raped and impregnated, and the two of you wish to abort the pregnancy and are told no. Or, someone says pornography and adult websites can no longer be allowed on the internet. Or, you and I both apply for the same job, but because I am a man, the employer is paying me 30% more salary than he pays you, even though we're equally qualified for the job.

These are called rights, and believe it or not, they are just a few of the rights that are under political attack right now. This should interest you; you should have an opinion, and a say about them. But, you don't have to; you can choose to let others do the fighting to maintain your rights. If you lose your rights, however, you shouldn't complain at the ones that did the fighting for you. You should stand in front of the mirror to complain.

That's what THIS thread is all about. Is it appropriate for this website? Probably not, but the thread and topic are clearly labeled so you don't accidently wander into it. And if you mistakenly do, you can use your mouse and get out. Mac
The option is yours, and thank you for your comment. Mac

 

[MacNfries]

2.You are confusing "attacks" with trolling.

No entiendo el segundo comentario, lo siento! No entendiste mi post.

 

[Torpedo]

Well, falcond ... it appears all those tough talkers in that other thread decided not to take your invite and come over to your thread to state their cases ... wonder why?
And I notice Alanm hasn't received a response to his question as well.
It's easy to toss out all those opinions as "facts" until someone calls 'em out.
View attachment 417891 Think I'll step over here and chat with this lit'l lady. She's been winking & smiling at me. View attachment 417890
Mac

I haven’t forgotten about you Mac, and I am not concerned with debating our respective positions. I have found that it is often better to spend some time listening because most people seldom get to the core of an issue with there initial comments. I am a bit disappointed, I expected some original thought.

 

[Torpedo]

Reagan is credited with ending the cold war, bringing down the E-W German wall, and crashing the Soviet economy with the nuclear arms race. He chose to create a fictitious thing called "Star Wars" which our government spent billions on promoting but never really existed, physically. Reagan had a tremendous amount of charisma (remember he was an actor first). His domestic policies, however, tripled our national debt during his 2 terms with his implementation of Supply Side Economics (also called Trickle Down Eco., Voodoo Economics), encouraged vulture & crony capitalism, and drove a big wedge into the income equality of the rich vs poor. Of course Republicans will totally deny this, however, as their economic platform clearly relies on Reagan's "supply-side" theory that if you cut the taxes of the wealthy, jobs will be created for the poor ... that's been proven wrong by practically every economist, and our country's insistence to continue applying "supply-side" theory has created much of our existing national debt. Our government edges closer and closer to becoming an oligarchy than a democracy every day. Now, our Supreme Court judges have started choosing sides.

Our involvement in the Middle East accelerated with the World Trade Center attack, and Americans in general, have had a terrible attitude toward the Islamic world. It appears, to many of us, that peaceful Muslims are afraid to stand up and fight their own extremists, who cause most the havoc in the region. Here in the US many of us notice that Muslims are mostly silent as to what is going on overseas. We wonder why they don't "speak out" against the extremists, but they rarely do. Over 5,000 of our soldiers died (250,000 permanently wounded), trying to help stabilize Iraq & Afghanistan over the past 10+ years. For the most part we have seen these countries unappreciative and unwilling to fight for a stabilized government, themselves. We should have never entered the second Iraq war.

The war in Iraq was a fraudulent war; your own Tony Blair got suckered into the fray and paid heavily for it. Yes, it was over protecting the world oil supply and was caused by our VP Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld feeding intentionally, false information to our then-President Bush about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Many of us feel Chaney & Rumsfeld should have been imprisoned, but Bush made sure that didn't happen, and when our current President, Obama, took office, he elected not to pursue charging them. Rumsfeld, by the way, quietly resigned; Cheney, however, is a very powerful individual and still a pain in our current government's ass. He's trying to promote his own ******* into the political arena. She's about as informed as her *******. Cheney has never admitted making a political mistake ... never!

President Obama is focusing on domestic policies more than foreign policies because that's what he said he would do and it is what most the American people want done. The citizens of our country have had a belly full of war. If Republicans were in power, in Washington, we'd still be in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably in Iran and/or Syria. The Arab world has been fighting each other for centuries ... we should never gotten involved.

Question back to you ... please explain your last underlined comments "The world has some large issues to sort out including sharing the wealth and fairness for all. America is in a great position to help sort out some of these issues."
Thanks ... Mac View attachment 417200

You ridicule Reagan’s Star Wars but it did achieve it’s objective. Deceiving one’s adversary is hardly new to government. The D-Day invasion of Normandy succeeded because Hitler was waiting for Patton to make a landing with his forces at Pas de Calais. That Army consisted of manufactured radio traffic, and inflatable tanks, trucks and jeeps. During the first gulf war a ******* of 2,500 U.S. Marines successfully neutralized 25,000 of Saddam’s soldiers without firing a shot. The Iraqi’s waited for the Marines to land and they never did until the war was over.


You go on pretty good about supply side economics. It was hardly an original idea from Reagan, I believe the first one to try it was Hoover, it didn’t work well for him either. Personally I like the Quantitative Easing much better. The idea is you let the rich get richer and they will create jobs. Quantitative Easing has pushed the stock market well beyond where it should be. Ask ANYONE that invests heavily in stocks how they like quantitative easing and they will give you a thumbs up. When the easing ends the market will experience an adjustment, I suspect a large adjustment, but by then I will be into municipals. With “trickle down” tax rates can change and the effect is short lived. With quantitative easing I can keep my gains until I cash out, and that will be when I retire quite comfortably but at a lower income.


Quantitative Easing has created a bit of a problem for the Fed. Most people assume that the Fed just prints money to buy the debt to stimulate the economy and make people with stocks richer. But just printing money and dumping it into the economy can easily cause runaway inflation, this has been proven time and time again. If inflation takes off the government in a very serious bind, interest rates and inflation have to be kept low. So the government has to borrow. However borrowing can dry up the money supply and drive up interests. I have been surprised that they have been able to pull this off as long as they have.


Every since Ford the national debt has increased every year except for Clinton’s second term from 1997 through 2000 and Bushes first year in 2001. In real dollars the nation debt has increased more in Obama’s first 4 years than it did in Reagan’s 8 years. President Obama has the distinction of being the first president to have the National debt exceed the the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) On Dec 31, 2012 the GDP was slightly more than 15.8 Trillion Dollars our debt was slightly more than 16.4 Trillion dollars. When Reagan left office the GDP was just over 5.1 trillion and the national debt just under 2.7 trillion. That works out to a little more than 50% of GDP


One factor that doesn’t get talked about much is the interested on that debt as a percentage of the GDP. It generally has run 2.5% to around 4.8% it is currently at around 3%. The current prime rate is 3.25% and that has increased. If interest rates were to spike at around 20% like they did in the 1980’s the 3% of GDP could quite easily become 15% or more and that wouldn’t be sustainable. Yes I know the prime rate doesn’t directly effect the Government’s borrowing rate but it is generally a couple of points under prime


Some people seem to think foreign policy is supposed to be a popularity contest. Governments need to do what is in the best interests of their citizens.


The second gulf war is likely one of the more controversial military actions the United states has taken part in. Saddam Hussein was just as culpable as anybody for the war. He wanted everyone to think he has WMD when he didn't. Too many people on our side of the fence bought it. There was a good deal more involved than just our invasion of Iraq.


The official version of Islam in Saudi Arabia is Wahhabi, Wahhabi is also the official version of Islam practiced by a couple of the Emirates in the United Arab Emirates. More importantly many terrorist organizations subscribe to Wahhabi. The Saudi’s have by far the best understanding of the terrorist mindset. Plus they aren’t hindered by some of the legal protections that theoretically exist in the United States.


In the first gulf war Saddam Hussein pretty much had everyone in the Mideast scared senseless. He had invaded and occupied Kuwait. He also had the 6th largest army in the world. The majority of his heavy armor was Russian T-72's which at the time was considered the best main battle tank in the world. Nobody really wanted us there but their choice was a U.S. led coalition or Saddam. Saddam did not have a good retirement policy.


The second gulf war happened because Saddam had the wrong people convinced that he had WMD. Plus no one thought he was going to around. The common consensus was that within 3 or 4 years at the most there would be a coupe’ and he would be gone. He was a lot better survivor than anyone thought. Now bear in mind that the Saudi's despite being ultra conservative Wahhabi Muslims have survived by bargaining and negotiating with their friends and their enemies. A couple of days before the second war started the Saudi's informed the United States that they weren't going to allow the United States to use Saudi air bases or to over fly Saudi territory. The Saudi's assumed that without their bases and denying the use of their airspace they would stop any military action. Bush said he didn't care he didn't need their approval or their resources.


So we invaded but as is the case with many wars there is no exit strategy. One very positive thing that came out of it was the Saudi's and other in the region quickly figured out that cooperating with us is in their best interests. The Saudi's have provided a lot of useful intelligence I doubt we would have had otherwise.


There has always been a small percentage of Muslims that would like to see Islam the religion of the world. And they will do whatever it takes to achieve their goal. They firmly believe they are on a mission for Allah. If they acquire WMD they will use them. The only reliable way to deal with this type of religious fanatic is the ******* the fanatic. Not pleasant not fun but that is reality. The question people need to ask themselves is where to you want to fight them? I would prefer at a distance


Most people seem to have a favorite source for news, and many people consider sources they don't use as being inaccurate. Most commercial news sources in this country are biased in one way or another. I regularly watch the BBC and Kav Kaz. You might be surprised at the difference in view that takes place across the pond. Kav Kaz site is an Islamic site in English. Not much I agree with but it is important to understand people you may deal with. I also spend money for commercial intelligence reports. I pay them money only as long as they give me a edge. The issues with Putin, ISIS and our southern border have been known to me for some time. I am quite sure the US government has far better intelligence sources than I do, so I don't really understand why we are playing catch up


President Obama has concentrated on domestic issues because he has no knowledge of foreign policy. He doesn’t appear to have a lot of understanding of domestic policy either.

 

[Torpedo]

TwoBi, I agree with pretty much everything you say, for sure. Each party has its own "selfish" agenda and both have their positives and weaknesses. I, for one, have never voted a straight party ticket ... ever, and I'm sorry to say NOW that in 2000 I voted for that worthless JWB instead of going with John Cary, because I felt Cary the least qualified. Little did anyone know that we were electing Dick Cheney as President when we voted for Bush. I'm progressive by nature, however, and tend to look ahead rather than in the past; my tendency is to look for "better ways" to do anything. Just think this way ... if this nation had been Republican run in the '60s, for example, do you think the US would have even attempted to land a man on the moon, or even elevate its space program?

That said, my biggest issue with the Republican platform is their insistence that "trickle down" works. We have a 34 year history proving it doesn't work, and now several Republican governed states who followed the "trickle down" philosophy are in very hot water with their budgets ... I'll use as examples Kansas, New Jersey, and NC, but there are several others. All these states recently cut corporate & personal income taxes, and all now have $400+ million budget deficits and downgraded credit ratings. Kansas's governor has been so terrible that the "Bob Dole" republicans are supporting the Democrat candidate for governor in this year's upcoming election. Supply-Side hasn't worked, ever!

But what has really raised my fur the past 2 years is the Republican's tampering with the voting rights; North Carolina's voter law tampering has been so bad that its made national news and the state supreme court judges are now getting involved. The fact is the Republican party has submitted absolutely no new legislation to address major citizen's concerns in this country ... immigration, gun laws, health care, education, etc etc ... they've spent the last 6 years obstructing anything Obama wanted to do ... even on practical sense issues. As they said "our #1 goal is to make Obama a one-term president" ... period. They're the ones that signed an agreement with Grover Norquist that they would NOT raise taxes. That agreement pretty much resolved any possible chance that the two party system could negotiate revenue issues.

Now, what I've written HERE is all documented, TwoBi, it's called HISTORY. It happened, and its written down.

View attachment 418044 Mac

I have no doubt we would have went to the moon regardless of who was president. The Soviet Union beat us into space with Sputnik. Then Yury Gagarin’s 108 minute orbital flight and our first was a 15 minute sub orbital flight by Alan Shepherd. A great deal of national pride was at stake. When the Soviets figured out we were going to get to the moon first they started concentrating on long term earth orbital missions. The had and still do have a lot more knowledge of how extended space flight effects human physiology. In the long view I think they came out ahead


I believe Al Gore was the 2000 Democratic candidate with Joe Lieberman as his running mate. John Kerry with John Edwards were the Democratic candidates in 2004. I don’t know if he would have been better for than Bush, he damn sure would have been better than Obama. I have been impressed with Kerry a few times in recent months however I do question why he got involved in the Egyptian truce initiative.


The Democrats do love to go on about “trickle down” economics The idea is give tax breaks to the wealthy and they will take the money and create jobs. The current mantra is called Quantitative Easing and it follows a different philosophy, giving more money to the rich and they will create jobs. Yes that is a bit of sarcasm. Q.E has pushed the stock market way beyond where it should be. The number of IPO’s out there boggles my mind. With “trickle down I got to keep more of the money I had earned. With Q.E. I park my money in the market and it grows and grows and grows and I don’t pay any taxes until I start cashing out and at a rate a good deal lower than I would pay now.


Now the subject of voting. There are two different approaches to stuffing the ballots box. The Democrats seemed to have used the approach of voting early and voting often, The Republicans seem to prefer to just stuffing the ballot box. Personally I think the states should issue picture ID’s to all their citizens, it should not be done by the Federal government and that State issued ID would be required to vote. If that were the law I am sure there would be people willing to help people with transportation and if there was a financial hardships the ID would be provided free. All balloting would have to be done on a non alterable medium that would be retained until the results were certified and everyone agreed with the outcome. And last any immigrant that voted illegally would be barred from citizenship


Obama got what he deserved. He came into office prepared to be king but not president. He made no effort to work with anyone that didn’t completely agree with him. I notice his support in the Democratic party is thinning a bit

 

[Torpedo]

One problem I think most people are beginning to realise is that no country or system has the ideal solution. Democracy with a two party system results in half the country being un satisfied and stalemate, but proportional voting assemblies where every section has a voice, doesnt get results either as they dont have enough votes to push things through without completely watering the issue down. Dictatorships dont work either as they tend to ignore the people altogether, or certainly large chunks of their people. Dictatorships though, unfortunately, can be very efficient at getting things done- look at the great power dam projects in China.
In my mind there has to be an 'end vision' of how you want your country to look and how fairly you treat your people.
Personally I think UK welfare system has been far too generous and encouraged a laziness in our people which employers say is driving them to import more labour as they are more hardworking.
On the other hand I think the US style of welfare and food stamps and cutting off peoples water and power etc is far too harsh. No country with the riches of USA UK or others should see their own people starving and walking long distances to get water.
This shows a truly capitalist system can not work for all its people but also a 'socialist' type system doesnt work either.
There has to be an alternative where people are encouraged to stand on their own two feet but help is there for those that simply cant.
Finally there is one 'elephant in the room' for both USA and Euro countries, that is large scale immigration. Whether you think this is positive or negative it does have an effect on the cultural make up of a country. When USA was mainly white European then one culture dominated and the whole nation pulled together. It is now ethnically and culturally pulling itself apart, for good or bad depending on your point of view, likewise UK. Our politicians have admitted 'multiculturism' has failed.
Our countries peoples genetics are changing along with our economics. The 21st century is not going to be ours. What it will look like in the years to come and how we can all help change it for the better is the massive question.

Many years ago there was a TV series called Perry Mason. At the beginning the narrator made the comment something to the effect that Democracy was a bad form of government but to remember that all the others were much worse.


I think there is an obligation of government and citizens to help people in need. One of the problems in the U.K. and here is that help often becomes a way of life. One of the first things that should be addressed by a person getting public assistance is what needs to be done to get them off. There are some people that will never live independently but a lot of people were caught by circumstance. I was fortunate I was able to get a good education and a good career. Many of the people I grew up with started working at a very young age and never had or took the time to get educated. I would wager it would be far cheaper to support the person for a couple of year while they are acquiring a marketable skill that it would be to to support them at a poverty level the rest of their lives.


Cultures assimilate other cultures. Having multiple languages and cultures trying to exist side by side doesn’t work. There has to be one rule of law and one language. We speak English here (you might disagree) and we have laws. If you come here you need to get used to both. If it doesn’t work for someone they are free to leave.

 

[Torpedo]

Mac, your right and the same thing frustrates me as well. What I don't think you realize is that the Democratic party is just as much in favor of "big Business" as the Republicans. The only difference is Republicans call it "business growth" and Democrats call it "Government". Maybe as a small business owner my self I see the other side of the coin more clearly..?.?... I could go on and on about the things that the Democrats do that frustrate me also but that is just a road to the "blame Game", which I would like to avoid because it's pointless and counter intuitive.

What I would really like to talk about is what we can do as an individual, and as a whole to get things turned around. Other than just "vote republican" or "vote democrat". I'm on the conservative side of things yes, but I really wouldn't classify myself as a Republican. There are things the Democrats stand for that I do agree with like the environment, Human rights, and things like that. It pissed me off when R.Regan had the solar panels removed from the White House, but it pissed me off just as much when Obama gave 535 million to a solar company so they could close the doors the day after the election. Accountability, I think, would be huge step in solving some of our issues.

Maybe it's time for our "two party" system to go away, maybe we need 4 parties, bring back the Wig party maybe, who knows. So how do we maintain the Dictatorship to get things done, the Socialism to help those in need, and the Democracy to prosper?

60 % of the new jobs come from small business. By my reckoning in the last 30 years the Federal government has done nothing for small business except make things as complicated as they can. What we need is for the government to get out of the business world. At least the small business one.


We need a third party

 

[Torpedo]

See, Alanm, I don't think you're comprehending what I said regarding the effect on the economy by raising taxes vs lowering taxes. If the minimum wage, for example, was raise to that magical $10.10 an hour, more employees would come OFF various forms of welfare, would buy things (TVs, refrigerators, cars, ect) and the economy would be stimulated to produce more. There would NOT be an equivalent cost shift in merchandize, like your Happy Meal at McDonalds if McDonalds started paying a living wage. Your Happy Meal might go up, but not by $3-4 to offset the living wage increase.
A recent study of this was used on Walmart employees; increasing the employee's minimum wages to $10.10 would increase the cost of merchandize in Walmart a mere 3-4%. That study is easily found by searching Walmart-living wage increase. Remember, the more buying activity, the less impact on the income offset.
It's worth studying ... I swear it is!

All raising the minimum wage is just a band aid. If you want to people to have a living wage you need to get rid of unemployment. Right now the official unemployment rate is about 6.1% that’s about 9.6 million people, the actual number on unemployed is 18.6 million which works out to about 12% unemployment. If you aren’t drawing unemployment you aren’t counted as being unemployed. I find that concept a bit novel


In North Dakota had a June unemployment rate of 2.7% right now the lowest paying jobs are around $13.00 an hour simply supply and demand. In a well functioning economy minimum wage is irrelevant. The real level of unemployment is at least 12% and that is by the government’s own numbers. Instead of more rules, more programs government needs to get a lot less involved with micromanaging business and the economy, two things they know little about. Create incentives for businesses to create full time jobs. Current regulations especially the ACA make it a lot more profitable to hire part time employees. When you have more than one person in 10 without a job you can fill those jobs at low pay.

 

[Torpedo]

Reinventing the wheel seldom works well. Boeing aircraft company of long and good standing decided to reinvent how aircraft were manufactured. Now bear in mind they were and are quite good at building aircraft. They had this idea of globalizing the construction of aircraft. Components would be manufactured around the world and smoothly brought together at one of their assembly plants. The flagship aircraft for this revolutionary process was the Dreamliner. Currently several years behind schedule and then the problems with the lithium ion batteries that had them grounded for awhile. Reinventing the wheel didn't go well and seldom does.

In Boeing’s case they have a strong financial incentive to make things work. In Government no such incentive exists.

Now let's jump to ACA. First question is was any change necessary? We have a health care system that costs twice as much as any other one in the world yet we have life expectancy more in line with most third world countries. If I recall correctly we are tied with Yemen in the area of ******* mortality. So yes we did and still do need health care reform.

President Obama went about things in a very bad way. I have become convinced that securing a prominent place in history is much more important to him than the best interests of the citizens of the United States.

First of all the implementation of any majors changes whether by ACA or another program is an enormously complicated thing. With health care there is an enormous amount of fraud before ACA and nothing meaningful was done to address that. I have read so many different reports about how much fraud there is I have become convinced that no one really knows. There is huge amount of waste. The health care bill was clearly written by and for the medical and insurance communities. Anybody with even a basic understanding of the scope would know that a lot of bugs and problems are going to occur and it is going to take a lot of hard work and cooperation to get a program of this magnitude working. So what does President Obama do? He pushes the bill through Congress. I was astounded when Nancy Pelosi made the statement “We need to pass this bill to find out what is in it.” I was even more astounded when she stood by her statement. Here was the most expensive piece of legislation in the history of this nation and they didn't know what it said! And didn’t appear particularly interested in finding out and discussing it

The Democratic and Republican parties have been slowly drifting apart since the latter part of the 1970's. Conservative people tend to dislike change, and liberals tend to embrace it. Neither philosophy is entirely beneficial.

The other thing that comes into play is the nature of politicians. I read a few years back that sociopaths are generally serial killers, CEO's and politicians. Unfortunately I think the assessment is pretty accurate. The majority of politicians are pretty much concerned about themselves, their position, and their power. ACA got passed and President Obama hoisted both middle fingers at the opposition and in essence said “Suck it up, buttercup”. At this point if ACA turned out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread there is no way they are getting on board.



Unfortunately ACA has a number of serious flaws at least for the taxpayers of this country. First and foremost the website was broken from the start. When hacking a website the first thing the hacker needs is a way in. One way to do it is to break the system, the system was built broke and has been band aided together every since. A persons medical record are often worth more than their financial records. How many records have been stolen? No one is talking of course. In a recent test GAO found that 11 out of 12 fraudulent test submissions they made were approved. If GAO knows this so do the bad guys. There isn't anyway to know what has been stolen until they are used. A very real danger is that a persons medical records get used to file a fraudulent claim, then the record of those treatments becomes part of the that persons medical history. At a later date a doctor or other health care worker may be making decisions based on treatments and procedures that the person never had.

ACA is directly responsible for a good deal of the under employment in the United States. ACA doesn’t require an employer to furnish health coverage to employees working less than 30 hours. With the actual unemployment rate at 12% or higher there is a good deal of incentive to hire a lot of part time workers. Part timers are generally paid less and they get little or no benefits. Health care is a major expense and if a business can avoid the expense it makes them more competitive. Of course if you are a major Democratic contributor you got a waiver and don’t have to deal with that.

I think it going to be interesting to see what the new and improved insurance offers. I have what I am sure is a Cadillac policy. It will be interesting to see what people actually get for their premiums. For instance, I am developing cataracts and in the next year or two will need surgery. My insurance will pay for new lenses. If you are on the lower end all you get are a pair of cataract glasses, a huge difference in life quality. A lot of the lower end and possibly not so low end simply won't pay for things past a certain age. They say it in a nice way. “You are not a candidate for---.” But they will pay for birth control

 

[Torpedo]

Obama is a master of crony capitalism. We have all heard about the alleged use of the IRS to harass conservative groups. But it doesn’t stop there.

A good example is David Grain, the head of Grain Management, LLC, a private equity firm. According to the Federal Election Commission in 2008 he gave $60,000 to the Obama campaign and the DNC, in 2012 he gave $22,500. He is also credited with raising as much a $500,000 for the campaigns through his efforts

Mr. Grain’s business failed to qualify under existing rules as a small business for the upcoming FCC airwaves auction. However once they were behind closed doors a vote along party lines waived the rules for Mr. Grain. This means at the auction he gets preferential treatment and will likely get some , most or all the airwaves up for auction because he is designated as a struggling business. The real kicker is that the equity company isn’t in the telecommunications business. Anything he gets he will promptly flip for a huge profit

It used to be it you donated to a politician or a political party you might get appointed Ambassador to some country. Now that the government has its fingers in every aspect of business the payout is a lot better for political donation.

 

[Torpedo]

When Obama got the Democratic nomination I was a bit surprised. I like to keep up on things and I really didn't know much about him. I don't live terribly far from Chicago and I do have a number of friends and acquaintances there.


I found out that he wasn't particularly popular with the State legislatures Black Caucus. I was told by a couple of people they considered him lazy and very quick to to hang his name on someone else's work. One acquaintance referred to him as Narcissistic and a several other terms that I won't use here. I was aware of the situation with Alice Palmer and wrote a good deal of the criticism off to that.


For those not familiar, in 1996 Alice Palmer decided to attempt a run for the US congress, which would leave her state job up for grabs. She supported Barack Obama's run to be her replacement. However Alice Palmer's Congressional run faltered and she decided to seek re-election to her old job. Obama managed successfully to keep her name off the ballot and he won the election. A lot of people in Springfield weren't happy. If he hadn't blocked her being on the ballot I doubt that there would have been a problem. But a lot of people felt that he was biting the hand that had been extended in friendship.


I had some trouble initially finding out exactly what his job was at the University of Chicago. I initially thought he was a constitutional law professor there. I spent considerable time trying to find any of his published works. Tenured professors are generally expected to publish scholarly articles and bring prestige to the institution of higher learning that employs them. I found nothing. I learned later that he had been a Lecturer for about 4 years and later Senior Lecturer for about 8 years. Neither position is full time or tenured or on track to be either.


Most schools of higher learning have round table discussions about issues relevant to their particular discipline. The University of Chicago has these meeting and as far as I can determine Barack Obama never attended any of them. So here was a man that had worked part time at University for 12 years and no one appeared to have any idea where he stood on anything.


In the course of the election a few of things became clear. Barack Obama was a master of telling people what they wanted to here. He gave some brilliant speeches. Because he hadn't ever really achieved anything significant there wasn't anything to dislike about the man. All the other candidates on both sides of the fence has things in their past that could be disagreed with or debated, but not Barack Obama, the only thing he had to show was what he planned to do and that was carefully tailored to what he knew people wanted to hear. There was of course the accusations of his place of birth, ties with ACORN, questions of his religious affiliations but nothing of any real substance.


One of his statements in retrospect I found funny was that he said he understood the Constitution of the United States and his opponent didn't. Given his penchant for writing Executive Orders and bypassing congress when he doesn't get what he want I think that is funny. Funny but not the actions of a real leader.


Shortly before the election I was talking with a few friends and among them is a person I am not sure if is brilliant or maybe a touch crazy. He commented “Can't you tell when you are getting Roswelled” He uses the term when anything political or governmental throws out a bunch of crap so the truth can't be found. He has a pretty good explanation for the Roswell Incident so I tend to listen to him. He felt that most of the rumor and innuendo was coming from the Obama camp to muddy the waters. He always says that people ask the wrong questions. His theories had an interesting ring about what was hidden but they are unsubstantiated and I won't repeat them here. Disinformation has been a tool of politicians and governments from time immortal, no reason to suspect Barack Obama would be any different


One of the things that I found puzzling was a thesis that Michelle Obama wrote while at Princeton was suppressed until after the 2008 elections. After it was made available I read it and the only thing that could have even been mildly controversial was she wrote that a majority of the under graduates did not identify with the black community. There is a lot in the black community I don't identify with but I don't think it is bad. I was amazed at the length they were going to to paint only the precise picture that they wanted


Especially in his second term I came to understand his personality a lot better. I can't think of any president that has spent that much time and effort to manufacture and control the image he projects to the public.

 

[Torpedo]

Some people seem to think foreign policy is supposed to be a popularity contest. Governments need to do what is in the best interests of their citizens.


The second gulf war is likely one of the more controversial military actions the United states has taken part in. Saddam Hussein was just as culpable as anybody for the war. He wanted everyone to think he has WMD when he didn't. Too many people on our side of the fence bought it. There was a good deal more involved than just our invasion of Iraq.


The official version of Islam in Saudi Arabia is Wahhabi, Wahhabi is also the official version of Islam practiced by a couple of the Emirates in the United Arab Emirates. More importantly many terrorist organizations subscribe to Wahhabi.


In the first gulf war Saddam Hussein pretty much had everyone in the Mideast scared senseless. He had invaded and occupied Kuwait. He also had the 6th largest army in the world. The majority of his heavy armor were Russian T-72's which at the time was considered the best main battle tank in the world. Nobody really wanted us there but their choice was a U.S. led coalition or Saddam. Saddam did not have a good retirement policy.


The second gulf war happened because Saddam had the wrong people convinced that he had WMD. Now bear in mind that the Saudi's despite being ultra conservative Wahhabi Muslims have survived by bargaining and negotiating with their friends and their enemies. A couple of days before the second war started the Saudi's informed the United States that they weren't going to allow the United States to use Saudi air bases or to over fly Saudi territory. The Saudi's assumed that without their bases and denying the use of their airspace they would stop any military action. Bush said he didn't care he didn't need their approval or their resources.


So we invaded but as is the case with many wars there was no exit strategy. One very positive thing that came out of it was the Saudi's and other in the region quickly figured out that cooperating with us is in their best interests. The Saudi's have provided a lot of useful intelligence I doubt we would have had otherwise. This includes intelligence that helped us get Bin Laden


Most people seem to have a favorite source for news, and many people consider sources they don't use as being inaccurate. Most commercial news sources in this country are biased in one way or another. I regularly watch the BBC and Kav Kaz. You might be surprised at the difference in view that takes place across the pond. Kav Kaz site is an Islamic site in English. Not much I agree with but it is important to understand people you may deal with. I also spend money for commercial intelligence reports. I pay them money only as long as they give me a edge. The issues with Putin, ISIS and our southern border have been known to me for some time. I am quite sure the US government has far better intelligence sources than I do, so I don't really understand why we are playing catch up

 

[Torpedo]

Politics is often smoke and mirrors but governments do like their record keeping. If you care to dig the truth can be found WWW.BEA.gov is a good place to start



The numbers here is all substantiated

Median US income in 2014 $28,391 in 2000 it was $28, 535

You will notice that median income is actually down. Even more telling is home ownership is down

Debt per Citizen in 2014 $55,265 in 2008 it was $34,299

Debt per taxpayer in 2014 $151,340 in 2008 it was $96,472

The figures above are your share of the nation debt. This isn’t debt that individuals have accumulated.

Food Stamp recipients in 2014 currently are 45.9 million in 2008 it was 31.2 million

Receiving some type of government benefits in 2014 156.8 million That is more people than are in the workforce. Some working people are receiving some benefits because they are working only part time and/or in low paying jobs.

US Work ******* in 2014 is 146.3 million in 2008 it was 144. 5 million This isn’t really much of an increase because the general population increased about 14 million between 2008 and 2014. More telling is the increase in adults that should be in the work ******* and aren’t that number increased by about 12 million in the same time frame

Official unemployment in 2014 was 9.6 million in 2008 it was 9.6 million

Actual unemployment in 2014 was 18.6 million in 2008 it was 13.5 million.

There are a lot more people that have just given up looking for work. These are the figures that the government publishes. I have recently read some independent research that has put the number of actually unemployed at between 25 and 26 million. There isn’t any accurate tracking of people once they are no longer drawing unemployment. As far as the Federal government is concerned once you aren’t drawing unemployment you are no longer unemployed



The country is in worse shape now than when Obama took office. He divided the country with a defective health care bill and has done nothing to rebuild bridges with the legislative branch. ACA provides some very good financial incentives not to expand a businesses workforce. There is also big financial incentives to expand via part time employees versus full time employees

 

[Alanm]

TORPEDO, Iraq didnt posses wmd's? Really, what do you think he used on the Iranians and Kurds during the 80's and before and after the iran iraq war. Chemical weapons, thats what. I think those classify as a wmd.