SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | President Barack Obama


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: mel221 who wrote (110047)2/23/2012 12:37:58 AM
From: Land Shark
   of 147927
 
Deniers love to cite this BS that the current warming is just a "natural cycle". The current warming has nothing to do with the 18k years of warming you're refering to. What's the natural forcing behind the 18k years of warming? Orbital change? Solar output changing? I challeng you to name it. Otherwise it's pure denier BS.

Top climate scientists have all the evidence they need to UNEQUIVOCALLY state that the past 100 years warming is driven by accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Anyone who says otherwise is living in LALA land along with that serial con-artist "Lord" Moncton.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Land Shark who wrote (110048)2/23/2012 12:49:26 AM
From: mel221
   of 147927
 
>> What's the natural forcing behind the 18k years of warming? Orbital change? Solar output changing? I challeng you to name it.

Yes to all of your suggestions.

But I don't know. All of science does not know. That's why I ask. But we do know Global ice ages exist. They warm until they cool. And that cycle does not involve humans or CO2.

Also, what caused the little ice age to begin? What caused it to end? We know it happened. That's why we gave it a name.

But the real issue is what to do. Since we are past the tipping point, there is nothing we can do.

I proudly accept that you think I am in LALA land. But what is your proposal for cooling the planet to a temperature of your choosing?

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


To: Land Shark who wrote (110048)2/23/2012 12:57:11 AM
From: John Vosilla
   of 147927
 
If this keeps up palm trees in NYC will be common in our lifetimes. Most anywhere near the gulf coast of Atlantic Ocean seems to have moved up a zone in these revised maps.


http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/Maps.aspx

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


To: koan who wrote (110043)2/23/2012 12:59:52 AM
From: John Vosilla
   of 147927
 
You do realize the extremists on both sides are not helping to lower oil prices?

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


From: tejek2/23/2012 1:08:59 AM
   of 147927
 
CBO: Stimulus continues to deliver

The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that President Obama's 2009 stimulus package continues to have a significant effect. The bill raised fourth quarter 2011 gross domestic product by as much as 1.5 percent, it states, and lowered the unemployment rate by as much as 1.1 percentage points


read more................

thehill.com

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


To: manalagi who wrote (109981)2/23/2012 1:11:41 AM
From: John Vosilla
   of 147927
 
Reagan era was not the best of time. Clinton era was.


It certainly was second best to me really tarnished by the S&L fiasco and deficits relative to the Clinton years. Sad that too many folks are so ideological they can't accept both periods were the best of times for the job creation, economic growth, wealth creation and NO WARS.

I guess under Bush Jr. the crowning achievements were booming Apple, Amazon and granite counter tops in every home in what turned out to be the lost decade. How Carter can even be compared since he only served one term and inherited a total mess unlike Bush of very high interest rates, inflation and unemployment along with lack of trust in our leaders post Nixon is mind boggling. I wasn't around during Eisenhower but that would have to be the other period that seems to compare to Reagan or Clinton in the modern era.

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


To: mindmeld who wrote (110042)2/23/2012 2:23:56 AM
From: tejek
   of 147927
 

Obama plan cuts corporate tax rate

By Steve Benen
-
Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:35 PM EST

At first blush, headlines such as "Obama Unveils Plan to Cut Corporate Tax Rate" seem out of place. Isn't it more likely that Republicans would push for a corporate tax cut? With all of President Obama's recent economic populism, does this signal a move to the right?

Not really, no. In fact, Obama has been calling for a cut in the corporate tax rate for a long while, and it need not be considered a conservative move.


Getty Images


Geithner unveiled the administration's tax-reform blueprint at a briefing today.

President Obama asked Congress on Wednesday to scrub the corporate tax code of dozens of loopholes and subsidies to reduce the top rate to 28 percent, from 35 percent, while giving preferences to manufacturers that would set their maximum effective rate at 25 percent.

Mr. Obama's proposal, outlined by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner at a midday briefing, also would establish a minimum tax on multinational corporations' foreign earnings -- a feature that Republicans immediately denounced.

The problem is with the dramatic flaws in the status quo. On paper, the corporate tax rate is 35%, but thanks to a series of loopholes and tax giveaways, plenty of corporations pay a rate much lower than that (and some end up paying nothing at all).

The resulting structure is a mess -- we have high rates, but collect less revenue because the code is filled with enough holes to resemble Swiss cheese. When Obama talks about lowering corporate tax rates from 35% to 28%, he's also talking about getting some corporations to start paying the taxes they're avoiding now.

It seems hard to believe, but the data is unambiguous: we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but the actual income tax paid by corporations "is one of the lowest in the world."

David Leonhardt had a good piece on this a year ago, noting not only the loophole-ridden status quo, but also the fact that the system isn't actually generating the revenue for the treasury it's supposed to. Among Leonhardt's findings: about a fourth of the companies included in the S&P 500 pay a total corporate tax rate of less than 20%. "Over the last five years," he reported, "Boeing paid a total tax rate of just 4.5 percent, according to Capital IQ. Southwest Airlines paid 6.3 percent. And the list goes on: Yahoo paid 7 percent; Prudential Financial, 7.6 percent; General Electric, 14.3 percent."

The politics of this is trickier than it should be. The White House and congressional Republicans agree that reform is worthwhile, but those loopholes that lower corporate tax burdens are tough to eliminate for obvious reasons -- powerful businesses are paying a small fraction of what they're supposed to pay, and they're going to hire a legion of lobbyists to keep those loopholes in place. It's one of the reasons today's announcement from the administration is interesting, but not expected to make much of a difference of on Capitol Hill.

Still, it's a debate worth having. The new administration plan closes a series of loopholes, ends unnecessary tax giveaways (including breaks for the oil industry), and eliminates the "carried interest" policy that allows folks like Mitt Romney to pay a lower rate than the middle class.

It's not perfect -- like Robert McIntyre, I'd prefer a tax-reform plan that actually raises new revenues -- but if this is an opening bid from the White House in anticipation of a larger debate over tax reform, it's not a bad place to start the conversation.


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


To: mindmeld who wrote (110039)2/23/2012 2:36:42 AM
From: tejek
   of 147927
 
Read what I posted earlier to you..............Obama is offering a reduction in the tax rate in order to try to close the loopholes which made the 35% tax rate a complete joke. You are making things far worse than they are.........and in the process hurting your credibility.

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


To: mindmeld who wrote (110032)2/23/2012 2:37:24 AM
From: tejek
   of 147927
 
Yes, I see cracks in the sky..........the end is near.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: mindmeld who wrote (110031)2/23/2012 4:01:47 AM
From: Road Walker
   of 147927
 
Right now, the risks are very high that we're due for a correction and a recession.

We're always "due" for a stock market correction. And there is always risk of a recession. But it's best not to just camp out on one side of the pessimism/optimism spectrum. Instead the intelligent thing to do is observe and react without preconception.

Share Recommend | 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.