\snooze alarm
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
I would only watch the debates if they gave all the “candidates” basic weapons like claw hammers and chainsaws, and made them fight to the death.
Just when I thought this president couldn’t get more disgusting.
“President Obama launched his campaign in 2007 promising a change in the way business is done in Washington, D.C., but today a report from the Center for Public Integrity says that when it comes to major campaign donors scoring plum administration positions, it’s business as usual.
The report says that 184 out of 556 2008 Obama campaign “bundlers,” donors who agreed to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a campaign — or their spouses — joined the administration in some role.
But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly “80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took ‘key administration posts,’ as defined by the White House,” the report said.”
The White House, up for sale.
The most corrupt and dictatorial administration in history.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/report-obama-administration-rewards-big-donors-jobs/story?id=13849435
#44
No sitting President is *easy* to beat. However just as 2008 was the Democrat’s election to lose, 2012 is the Republican’s to lose. IMO, the only way the Repubs can lose in 2012 is if some catastrophe “conveniently” hits near election time or if the Repubs run a worse monkey than Obama (e.g. Palin).
Thomas, I’m not a big fan of Obama but he reminds me of Clinton. Much tougher to beat than you might expect.
The same fools that voted in Bush (twice) are not allowed to whine and bellyache. It will take a decade to undo your damage. STFU and get out of the way as we clean up the fucking shitpile you left after a decade of GOP in the executive office.
You should figure out what to tell your spawn when they ask why you voted for a regime that squandered a surplus, waged two wars, paid for them with a tax cut for wealthy and installed a Supreme Court for the benefit of corporations.
Ok thread given the topic.
Its been said, repeat: what this “realy” shows is how far right/damaged a Republican candidate has to go to get the nomination and in effect be unable to win a general election.
Thats was impossible to deny with McCain in 2008, and is very much in evidence now.
Yep–the downside of the two party system as it has matured over time. Campaigns being influenced by MONEY (ie–Corps) more than ideas or populism.
You read in books about societies failing and you ask yourself “Couldn’t they see/avoid what they were doing?”—and the answer, as it is with us, is yes then no.
Tiny silver fish
Facing Upstream, Going Downstream
In clear swift water.
Yea, verily.
#19–Derek==well done. I thought “Gee, an intelligent critique of Dumbo hypocrisy.” Lets parse:
1–Bush got Congress approval over the war in the middle east, and they wanted to crucify him. /// The crucifiction (sadly there was none) came after the war was won and no WMD were found revealing, for those that need a pole axe to the forehead, that it was all a lie.
Obama gets no congress approval for Libya, and they defend him. /// As do the Pukes in Congress. Sloppy use of unidentified promouns–the mark of spin.
They attack Bush over the patriot act, yet they defend Obama for supporting it further. // Agreed.
They attack Bush over Guantanamo, yet they give Obama a pass for keeping it going. /// Agreed.
Dems are just as bad as repubs. /// No, just nearly as bad. And only nearly as bad on these issues and a few others==not on every issue. There are similarities AND DIFFERENCES.
Both care more about their politic than they care about the country. /// Yeah, thats why its called Politics. Pretty “obvious.”
If you want to be taken seriously, have at least a little tiny bit of consistency. /// Now if you don’t care about being taken sriously, and only want to win elections, you do what “works” and in USA in our current system and laws, the crap we see today is what is deemed to “work.” Your undiscriminating analysis here is more FUD and more part of the problem rather than the cure.
Gee, on close inspection, not as good as I thought following the first read. Funny how often that happens.
#41–foobar==you say:
Ah_yea, bobbo’s view of me is that I think Obama is doing a crappy job and I’m a repuke conservative. /// Can you pull up the issue/thread/posting where that occurred? I don’t recall it and don’t as I sit here now have a set conclusion about you. Perhaps you were evidencing that on a particular issue, maybe not. None of us “knows” who anyone else here “is” but we all do post at particular times in particular ways. Obama IS doing a crappy job on certain/even most? issues. Think that alone does not make anyone a conservative, much less a Puke.
You guys are just brothers with a different mother. /// As are we all.
This is too much fun. I’ll stop now. 😉
A few small thoughts. If nobody in his own party will vote for his budget it is time to get a new President without regard for which party he belongs to.
Various Presidents have used force on other nations without consulting Congress or getting approval but there is a time limit of 90 days and that is almost up.
I did not approve of the war with Iraqi. I didn’t believe the reports of weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately Congress did. I don’t approve of the Patriot Act but Congress keeps renewing it. I consider the department of Homeland Security to be a waste of money but Congress is spending billions on it. If Congress kisses the dirt and signs off on it we are most often stuck with it.
Obama is claiming because he doesn’t have American boots on the ground he can do as he pleases but nothing says that and I suspect we do have agents on the ground. Presidents lie about things like that. This time Congress hasn’t signed off on it.
deowll–I actually doubt many congress creeps actually believed Bush prior to Iraq Invasion, and I doubt Bush believed they did either. It was all a cover story==told by Bush to get permission to persue his own nefarious goals and “believed” by congress so they didn’t have to appear anti-war.
And its all the same now with Libya. The voters may or may not be “actually” pro or anti war but they LOVE to beat up on politicians who vote anti-war====THEY AIN’T PATRIOTIC.
War = Patriotism = STFU. A nice little dogma equation handing over too much power to our leaders.
Imagine congress members having to “sue” the President because Congress as a whole refused to act as this minority wishes? The courts have wisely refused to interfere in every case I can think of. “Let them stew in their own offal. Good riddance.” and right they are.
Balanced Budget or the Draft will be the only thing stopping Washington from paying off their Military Industrial backers.
Ain’t democracy a bitch?
So what, are they just supposed to tell John King ‘Eh, fuck you and your questions, here’s what I’m gonna talk about…’ King should never be allowed to do another debate ever. One of the worse moderators I’ve ever seen. Bunch of stupid questions will get a lot of responses that no one cares about!!
#19, Derek
Bush got Congress approval over the war in the middle east, and they wanted to crucify him. Obama gets no congress approval for Libya, and they defend him.
Bush lied and people died. Cheney still holds that there were WMDs in Iraq. It was only after no WMDs were found that Bush changed the reason to “regime change”.
Second, the Congressional Resolution mandated that the UN was to approve. The UN didn’t approve. Obama has intervened in Libya with UN approval.
These are very important differences.
They attack Bush over the patriot act, yet they defend Obama for supporting it further.
The most odious portions of the Patriot Act have been removed. To many (myself included) there is more than should have been removed. Parts of it I do agree with, such as sharing of information between agencies.
They attack Bush over Guantanamo, yet they give Obama a pass for keeping it going.
Bush opened Gitmo and sent many innocent people there. They were held incommunicado for years. Most were released after being tortured without even “I’m sorry”. Bush did everything he could to deny trials and even lawyers.
Obama tried to close the camp but has been stymied by Congress. (and no thumbs up to the Democrats that voted to keep it open) Trials have been hampered by court rulings and Congress. Don’t blame this on Obama.
Dems are just as bad as repubs. Both care more about their politic than they care about the country.
While there is some truth to that, I’ll still take the Democrat version over the tea bagger influenced Republican version. We need to raise taxes to finance this country.
I’m just wondering if Hillary will make her move now and unload that Obama’s autobiography was written by terrorist Bill Ayers. Perhaps she will decide it is too tough for her to win now and will sit it out.
MikeN,
Too bad you can’t argue against Obama’s policies intelligently, you have to go ad-hominem. But that’s par your your ilk.
Mr. Fusion,
We need to raise taxes to finance this country.
Let’s look at the numbers:
Federal Revenue: $2.1T
Budget : $3.8T
Deficit (1 yr) : $1.7T
Removing ALL tax breaks/credits from everybody in the country brings in $1T. Unfortunately, we can’t do that. It would the affect the poor, too.
The top 5% of wage earners in the US (>$150,000) paid 58.72% of all income tax collected by the federal government (2008 numbers).
Income tax amounts to ~45% of all revenue. Assuming the effective tax rate remained relatively unchanged for the last three years, that means they paid 2.1 x 0.45 x 0.5872 = $0.55T.
1.7 / 0.55 = 3.1.
To compensate for deficit, you would have to raise the taxes on the top 5% by 310%, making the “effective” tax rate 62%. That is 3x the effective tax rate from the 1950s.
What would that do someone making $150,000? That would reduce the take home pay to $57,000, less than someone making $75,000. That’s not very fair.
So, let’s assume we raise taxes on everybody equally — sharing the pain.
Income Tax Received:
2.1 x 0.45 = $0.945T
Percentage of income tax increase required to pay for the deficit.
1.7 / 0.945 = 180%.
Note this is the “effective” tax rate increase, not the marginal.
Note — this will only pay the budget this year. With inflation and the lack of salary adjustments, we will have a deficit next year as well.
And it does not bring down the current debt.
Are you suggesting we raise the taxes that much?
#63 TeaDud
Shes a lunatic who says stupid things.
When she flies, she always pays the extra fee.
#64–Voice of Reason?===I hope so because your math sure seems “selective” and my gut says “wrong.” No reasonable/viable/proposed/possible tax program would result in someone with gross income of $150K taking home less than someone with a gross income of $75K. That is simply retarded and shows the extent to which you have to cherry pick to even make the argument.
That being said, what your numbers taken as true tells me is that increasing taxes on the rich is totally doable. We just need to cut spending, modify benefit programs, provide single payer health care, install death panels, and tax the rich in order to avoid the ravages of a dog eat dog world of fascist Darwinian economics. aka: Good Deal!
The path looks pretty clear.
#62, yep still in denial.
The evidence is overwhelming, as catalogued by Jack Cashill.
The number of coincidences in comparing Bill Ayers’ book to allegedly Obama’s book reveals the facts. They both choose the same phrase from Sandburg’s poem and make the same error in that phrase. Then you have the same choice of obscure names, with the same misspelling Denmark Vesey vs Denmark Vecsey, Frantz Fanon vs Franz Fanon, Sharpesville vs Sharpeville South Africa.
Christopher Anderson even confirmed it in his own favorable biography. It appears he was unaware of the controversy as he was writing the book, and is now not answering questions about it.
Attention moderator – or whoever can post stories.
While all this back and forth is nice to read, someone needs to post this breaking news.
Vivek Kundra is leaving Obama’s team.
http://politico.com/news/stories/0611/57115.html
While some might say he wants to get of Obama’s ship before it completely sinks, I would like to think John C. Dvorak’s investigative piece on his phony background should get part of the credit.
#66
Bobbo,
take home pay from $150,000
I guess you didn’t read my entire post. I stated that it wasn’t fair.
As for the rest of your post, show us your numbers, then. You seem pretty good at slinging crap; sling some solutions instead.
#71–Reason==we BOTH said it was “unfair”–YOU because in your analysis the $150K earner would take home less pay than the $75K earner. I further noted that such an outcome would not be “reasonable/viable/proposed/possible” thereby strongly indicating your analysis is nothing but manipulated BS.
The “implication” of your post is that raising taxes will not solve our deficit problem. Just to avoid more BS from you: Implication means you did not expressly state it. But just like any dedicated PUKE, you only address half the issue as if the other half of the issue did not exist. Its a lie.
Balanced budgets are a matter of math. Anybody that “wants” to do it can. My broad outline of the solution was given.
So, no good at math, logic, or reading.
Well done for a Puke. Heads and shoulders above Alfie, but that is a low bar.
#73, Nice try at a solution but it ranks down there with Dallas’s. Try again, please.
#74–Whisper of Reason Lost: you are starting to make me think you don’t understand what a solution is?
Are you that blind to cutting expenditures, modifying entitlements, and raising taxes?
And if you don’t like that for its lack of greater detail, can you at least admit it is MILES AND MILES ABOVE no solution at all as you again defectively attempt to imply you gave?
IE–saying imposing an imbecilic punishing tax schedule won’t solve the problem? You do understand that suggestions THAT DON’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM are not a solution?
Heh, heh. HEY!!! Roll with it and have some fun.
#74
And the “Promote tax cuts no matter what and pay lip service to spending cuts but only when it can be used as an ideological club” solution?
Hows that been working out?
Make informed/necessary/smart spending reforms. Pay the bills.
Revenue and Spending. Address both parts of the problem.
#76,
Bobbo/tcc3,
Those are all noble words but I’ve yet to see some numbers; cutting expenditures, modifying entitlements, and raising taxes, Revenue and Spending. Address both parts of the problem.
These are just buzz words used by democrat and republicans to sound like they know what they are talking about. Give us something we can discuss, man!
How and what would you change?
Taxed Enough Already Dude said “Weiner pulled out…”
It took you three weeks to finally come up with a Weiner joke?
#77–Hoarse Whisper of Lost Sanity==so you want a detailed 1-4-10 year budget? How detailed? Every expenditure over 1 Million, 10?–100? a Billion?
Before I start on that exercise, will you agree that a balanced budget is required and possible for any government to do?
And #2–will you agree as USA is already at the bottom of the chart in what tax burden is put on a countries citizenry/corps compared to other First World Countrys, that raising taxes accompanied by severe spending cuts, is logical and common sense?
Next debate they should just mention that Obamacare adds a 3.8% tax on home sales and other unearned income. I’m sure that might change some minds of people looking to sell that $300000 home and now have to pay 11,400 for the privilege.
Voice of reason,
I was set to write a very long reply. I noticed however that tcc3 has already done an excellent job.
To add;
Universal healthcare for ALL Americans would seriously reduce costs. 18% of our GDP currently goes to healthcare. That is at least 50% more than the next most expensive country.
Reducing the profit taking portions of the healthcare industry reduces costs for all businesses. Insurance premiums are a tax even if they don’t go to the government. The high costs of healthcare premiums is a disincentive for businesses.
…
Raise taxes. I would go back to the Reagan years but would settle for 1993. For years the right wingers have told us how reducing taxes will stimulate economy. Well, with all those tax cuts our economy has tanked and employment gone way up. There comes a time when if you find the hole is too deep, QUIT DIGGING. Tax cuts didn’t work, it is time to resort back to when tax rates did work.
…
Increase tariffs on all imports from countries that do not allow free collective bargaining, fair wages, and health and safety protections consistent with United Nations standards.
…
Tax bonuses above $500,000 at 67%. Tax all corporations that give bonuses above $500,000 at the same rate in excess of regular taxes.
…
Tax all corporations that hold onto profits, at a significant rate to encourage payouts to stockholders.
Credit companies that create new jobs, invest in their communities, and give back to society.