SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | View from the Center and Left


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Cogito who wrote (186972)4/12/2012 10:24:04 PM
From: bentway
of 264853
 
Yes, the LDS Church seems very much in tune with Mitt's and modern America's values, where the buck is God. Not a lot of attractions for the 99% in the mall, other than the food court, but it has a Nordstrom's, a Cartier's and a Rolex place.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: freelyhovering who wrote (186983)4/12/2012 10:24:12 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water
of 264853
 
That would make a great ad on TV. McCarthy on one side of the split screen and West on the other.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (186992)4/12/2012 10:54:05 PM
From: epicure
of 264853
 
Not me

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


From: bentway4/12/2012 11:16:21 PM
of 264853
 
Smile: People Are Quitting Their Jobs

IT'S A SIGN OF ECONOMIC CONFIDENCE

By Matt Cantor, Newser Staff
siliconinvestor.com
Posted Apr 12, 2012 5:00 PM CDT

(NEWSER) – February saw 2 million Americans quit their jobs—the most since November of 2008. And that's a very good sign for the rest of us, the Wall Street Journal notes. Quitting points to confidence in the economy, analysts say: If people don't think they'll be hired elsewhere, they tend to stick to their jobs. More than 3 million people quit their jobs per month before the recession; the figure fell to a record low 1.6 million in September 2009.

Quitting also helps keep the economy "churning," experts say. "For workers who are unemployed, if there’s less churning of jobs, it’s harder to get on the merry-go-round," explains one economist. Indeed, economists recently found that reduced churn—rather than low job-creation—was to blame for 80% of the recession's hiring plunge. Of course, churn only helps if employers seek to fill the newly open positions, a process that's occurring rather slowly, writes Ben Casselman.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Sam who wrote (186980)4/12/2012 11:19:23 PM
From: bentway
of 264853
 
As long as it went up in the air before it crashed into the sea, it's fine. That's all the people will see or know.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: neolib who wrote (186982)4/12/2012 11:20:52 PM
From: bentway
of 264853
 
I'd like to see Ann getting out of one Cadillac, while the other rises on the car elevator, for her pleasure!

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Dale Baker who wrote (186964)4/13/2012 12:10:19 AM
From: HankGoldman
of 264853
 
By the time we got the election, it didn't really matter how one voted, now did it?

The All American Dumbing Down Movement that started in the 1970s has made being ignorant, superstitious, and parochial a sign of virtue in large parts of American society. We have two generations of these halfwits wasting oxygen now, they deserve the worst from government they can possibly get.

The 1970s was a great time for nonsense of all sorts, there was a sense that any belief that felt good was OK no matter whether it was utter crap or not. There are hundreds of example from that period, Erhard Seminars Training and the Children of God come to mind.

In the 80s the full blown retreat into primitive superstition was well under way, it's not surprising that the goofiest and most brain damaged of the Republican presidential hopefuls all came of age in this decade.

The odor of the evil imperialist vampires around The Project et al. was overwhelming in the 90s. That was the time to unleash legions of lone murderous psychopaths against them, now it's just more difficult and costly to do. The only problem with the idea is that it's easier to get it rolling than it is to stop it once you have it started.

The passing of the baby boomers could help a bit by relieving us of so many people who are preoccupied with wealth and little else, but I doubt it will happen soon enough.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


From: Sam4/13/2012 12:12:31 AM
of 264853
 
A note on housing affordability around the world.


Mumbai Is the World’s Least Affordable Home Market
By Pooja Thakur and Ailing Tan - Apr 10, 2012 6:00 PM ET

The average Indian would need to work for three centuries to pay for a luxury home in Mumbai, making that city the least affordable in the world for locals, according to an analysis of real estate and wages.

The CHART OF THE DAY shows a 100-square-meter luxury residence in Mumbai costs about $1.14 million, or 308 times the average annual income in India, based on calculations from a housing index compiled using 63 markets by Knight Frank LLP and income estimates of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency for purchasing-power parity in 2011. Shanghai buyers would need 233 times the per-capita income in China and Moscow inhabitants 144 times Russian earnings. Singapore and New York homebuyers would need 43 years and 48 years, respectively, for equivalent residences using national income averages, the data show.

more at bloomberg.com

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: JohnM who wrote (186986)4/13/2012 12:23:57 AM
From: Sam
of 264853
 
I haven't seen any of these ads, but then I don't watch much TV. But Bloomberg says that Romney's groups that he of course can't control have already started running negative ads about Obama, and Obama's team hasn't replied yet--because they don't have the money to do so. When it comes to SuperPac money, Romney's backers are way way more willing and able to spend than Obama's. We will see over the next couple of months if they can do to Obama what they did to each of Romney's challengers. We know that they have no compunction about lying, in fact they take pride in it, they told us so several months ago when they ran a ridiculous ad taking Obama's words completely out of context. And we know that Larry "Willie Horton" McCarthy will say anything, no matter how irrelevant or misleading or downright false, to bring Obama down. After all, its just a game and all's fair in political gamesmanship.


Democrats Stay Silent as Republicans Run Obama Attack Ads
By Heidi Przybyla - Apr 11, 2012 8:00 PM ET

bloomberg.com


Republican-aligned groups are hitting President Barack Obama with almost $2 million in attack ads and the response so far has been silence.

The reason: Democratic groups formed to counter those charges don’t have the money to do it.

“To most donors, threat of attacks on the president has been only theoretical,” said Bill Burton, a co-founder and spokesman for Priorities USA Action, a so-called super political action committee created to defend the president’s re-election campaign. “This last week it became very real.” The inaction is unsettling Democratic activists who saw their party’s 2004 nominee, John Kerry, hobbled by a March ad campaign aired by former President George W. Bush’s re-election team the moment it became clear the Massachusetts senator would become his general election challenger.

“The campaign is entering a different phase,” said Steve Elmendorf, Kerry’s former deputy campaign manager. “What we learned is ‘define your opponent before he has a chance to define himself.’”

It’s a missed opportunity for Democrats to define Romney -- and protect Obama -- as the contest becomes a two-man race. Romney’s strongest primary challenger, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, ended his campaign on April 10. On the same day, the Republican-founded Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit group created with the guidance of Karl Rove, Bush’s former top political strategist, began a $1.7 million ad campaign criticizing the president’s energy policies.

‘Race is On’

“You start when they start,” said Joe Trippi, who served as campaign manager to former Vermont Governor Howard Dean’s 2004 Democratic primary bid. “The race is on and it’s hopefully equal resources,” said Trippi. “You want to have a spending advantage or at least parity.”

The president holds a financial advantage over Romney, ending the month of February with 12 times the cash on hand as Romney, $85 million to Romney’s $7.3 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based group that tracks election spending.

Yet the hardest-hitting television ads will be crafted by outside groups run by advisers closely aligned with the campaigns. In this sphere, Obama and his allies are behind.

Crossroads, which has two arms, plans to spend $250 million to influence the presidential and congressional races, it announced last year. One entity, American Crossroads, has raised $27 million, according to Federal Election Commission disclosure reports. The other, Crossroads GPS, takes unlimited donations and doesn’t reveal its contributors.

Super-PAC Donations

Romney has another friendly super-PAC, Restore Our Future, which was founded by his former aides. It raised nearly $43 million by the end of February, and spent $40 million on ads, 91 percent of which were attacks on Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich during the primary contests.

In contrast, Priorities USA set a goal of raising $100 million to defend the president during the general election. According to FEC reports, Priorities USA Action has raised just $6.5 million. When combined with Priorities USA, a partner group that doesn’t disclose donors, the total contributed to the effort was about $10 million by the end of February, according to Burton.

Despite concerns among some Democrats, the Obama campaign isn’t expediting its timeline for a full-fledged ad war in response to Romney allies pushing up their previously planned May start, said Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the campaign.

Expected Attack

“We had always prepared for special interests to spend a half billion dollars in an attempt to defeat the president,” he said. “We’re asking our supporters to invest now to allow us to build the largest grassroots campaign in history.”

On April 2, the Obama campaign released its first round of ads targeting Romney, tying the former Bain Capital LLC private equity executive to oil companies and painting him as hostile to the president’s efforts to produce more renewable energy and raise auto mileage standards.

The buy in such swing states as Colorado and Ohio was a response to a $3.6 million ad campaign funded by the U.S. oil industry -- and is valued at about $400,000 less than what Crossroads is spending on its first strike against Obama. Democrats also released a two-minute Internet video calling Romney a “severely conservative nominee.”

Obama has benefited from a Republican primary process that has featured multimillion-dollar ad campaigns aimed at tarnishing Romney’s image. “When your opponents are beating each other up, don’t get in the way,” said Trippi.

Santorum Attacks Ads The Santorum-aligned Red, White and Blue Fund, a super-PAC formed by his supporters, ran 9,374 negative ads on Romney during the campaign, according to New York-based Kantar Media’s CMAG, which tracks advertising. As of April 11, it had spent $687,307 in spots targeting Romney, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The president now is in a position similar to that of Bush in 2004. He’s an incumbent whose approval ratings are split, with 48 percent approving of his job performance and 47 percent disapproving of it, making him vulnerable to a challenger who will use the next few weeks to introduce himself to the broader American electorate.

“In a lot of elections, the campaign advertising doesn’t matter,” said Ken Goldstein, president of CMAG. “When you’re in field goal distance, it matters.”

It was during this period that the Bush campaign unloaded a “very aggressive” advertising effort, said Mark McKinnon, one of Bush’s longtime ad consultants. “The Obama campaign is at a disadvantage by letting Romney and the Republican Party gather strength,” said Terry Nelson, political director of the Bush 2004 campaign.

In 2008, Republican presidential candidate John McCain, the Arizona senator, stepped back for a couple of months after his primary essentially ended to raise money and regroup before engaging Obama in the general election, Nelson said. “That’s not going to be the case this time,” he added.

-- Editors: Jeanne Cummings, Michael Shepard

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Sam who wrote (187001)4/13/2012 12:36:11 AM
From: Sam
of 264853
 
This is odd. Ryan is saying that tax breaks for the wealthy should be reduced, according to this Bloomberg article. But in his earlier plan he was supporting cuts to programs for the poor and middle class in order to allow a lower rate for the wealthy. And of course his Grand Plan calls for $4.6 trillion of cuts in order to finance those lower rates--cuts that he declines to identify, lol. Something is screwy in Ryanville, IMO. I think he may well be in the running for VP--that would certainly please the libertarian Randy (as in Ayn) part of the RW base.


Tax Breaks for Wealthy Should Be Cut, Paul Ryan Says
By Brian Faler - Apr 11, 2012 12:01 AM ET
bloomberg.com

U.S. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said tax breaks for the wealthy should be reduced as part of an overhaul of the nation’s tax code.

“We should ask: Who should get them?” Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg View in New York. “We should circumscribe these tax benefits to middle-income and low-income people, and not to higher-income people.”


Ryan, 42, declined to identify which benefits ought to be cut to finance his proposed tax overhaul. Last month, the House approved his budget that calls for consolidating the current six individual tax brackets into two, with rates set at 25 percent and 10 percent. The top rate now is 35 percent. His plan would make cuts in food stamps, Medicaid (USBOMDCA), Pell college tuition grants and other programs for the poor.

Ryan’s plan calls for financing the reductions by cutting individual tax preferences, without identifying which ones. Ryan has said the House’s tax-writing Ways and Means Committee will sort that out later. It would need to come up with about $4.6 trillion in revenue over the next decade to pay for the lower tax rates, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

Ryan also said he has a “hard time” believing lawmakers will reach a so-called grand bargain to cut the deficit in a post-election session of Congress.

Stronger Hand The election winners will probably believe they would have a stronger hand in negotiations when the new Congress takes office in January, he said. Lawmakers shouldn’t try to address those issues after the election anyway, Ryan said, because it would mean passing major legislation with relatively little scrutiny.

“I’m not a big believer in trying to cut backroom deals and then bringing them down from on high and showing them to the country,” he said. Lawmakers should be “having hearings, having debates, in open, in public -- passing legislation through the front door versus cutting a deal in the back.”

Congress will probably pass short-term legislation allowing lawmakers to postpone decisions until 2013 on issues such as whether to continue expiring Bush-era tax breaks, he said.

Ryan said lawmakers will examine which tax breaks are worth keeping and who should benefit from them.

He said his plan leaves room for some breaks “and if we believe that there are good tax expenditures, that they are good for the economy and the country, let’s limit them to middle- income earners and lower.”

Wisconsin Recall Vote He also predicted that a June recall election targeting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a Republican, will provide a major political boost to the party that wins.

“It’s the second-most important election this year, next to the presidential election,” Ryan said. “It’s a momentum- maker for either side -- it’s high risk, high reward for either side.”

Ryan, who has endorsed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, declined to say whether he wants to be his running mate.

“I don’t spend my time thinking about that stuff, worrying about it, because it’s somebody else’s decision a long time from now and I, quite frankly, feel like I can make a big difference where I am,” the congressman said.

Romney is “a lot more warm and attractive in person than what you can see on TV,” said Ryan. He’s also “very earnest” and “kind of a throwback to the Fifties,” the congressman said.

Ryan defended his budget’s call for steep cuts in many federal programs for the poor.

“We need to think about what works and what doesn’t,” he said. “We need to focus our poverty-eradication policies on treating root causes instead of subsidizing them.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Faler in Washington at 1919 or bfaler@bloomberg.net



Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.