Biggest Issue Facing the US Today?

[Carla_Danger]

Does this mean you support raising the min. wage?

Not very smart are you? Check my last point.

You're correct. I didn't read your entire post.

Roll back the min wage to what?

Zero would be an idea point.

LOL...I thought the goal was higher wages, not zero wages.

You think eliminating the min wage will mean people will work for nothing? What a sap!

Only if they're needing to eat.

 

[Carla_Danger]

And you have similar quotes by Josef to use as an example?

Most of the quotes by Obama could have been made by Goebbels. Just insert "Jew" anywhere you see "Christian" or "White."

I'm not talking about Obama. I knew you had nothing...just talking out your ass again.

 

[Iceweasel]

I agree it is the economy and the fact the government must subsidize the pay of workers because the corporations refuse to pay livable wages.

It's actualluy corporations subsidizing government by paying wages to people who otherwise would be unemployed. As usual you have it backwards.

That might almost be true if any corporations ever actually paid the corporate tax rate.

None do? The multi-nationals have offshore accounts but even Apple pays about 25% effective. If you are basing your assertion on averages, that doesn't mean "all".

 

[The Rabbi]

Not very smart are you? Check my last point.

You're correct. I didn't read your entire post.

Roll back the min wage to what?

Zero would be an idea point.

LOL...I thought the goal was higher wages, not zero wages.

You think eliminating the min wage will mean people will work for nothing? What a sap!

Only if they're needing to eat.

That was illogical, even for you.

 

[bgr39]

I agree it is the economy and the fact the government must subsidize the pay of workers because the corporations refuse to pay livable wages.

It's actualluy corporations subsidizing government by paying wages to people who otherwise would be unemployed. As usual you have it backwards.

LOL...I forgot its the CORPORATIONS paying foodstamps,TANF,medicaid! Damn I should have known.

Its a very simple concept really.

Should government or corporations be making sure workers have a wage high enough to take care of themselves? Republicans in their obviously ignorant wisdom are OK with the government using their taxes to make sure people are able to live and have food to eat. Its baffling at how ANYONE would rather have the government pay for this instead of making the corporations pay higher wages which they OBVIOUSLY can afford.

IF you have to live on Walmart's wages, it must be because you don't have any marketable skills.
Who's fault is it that you don't have any marketable skills?

 

[rdean]

Reagan was great.
Obama is more than naive, he's downright ignorant. Clueless.

Reagan was great only because of the "Reagan Legacy Project" started in the late 90's. His career was completely and falsely rewritten. Do you want examples? The number is legion.

Reagan was great long before the 90s.

Why?

 

[SwimExpert]

The terrible recovery has led to stagnant wages and lack of opportunity across the board.

No, that's been caused by individuals failing on their own accord.

So during periods of ecopnomic growth its caused by the same individuals succeeding?
I guess government policies have zero effect on the economy.
You are a complete dunce, a fraud, and a waste of DNA.

If you're not getting the pay that you want, that's your fault and nobody else's fault. Earn it, be worth it. Stop expecting people to just hand it over to you.

Confusing macro and micro. No surprise. Idiots like you just dont get it.
Tell me again how government polciies have zero effect on the economy. I love fairy tales.

That's right, because in Rabbi's world the microcosm of Rabbi and those who chooses are fully entitled to suckle at the government teat because they are too pathetic to take care of their own selves, but the macrocosm of the rest of the world should pay for it and get no benefits. Four legs good, two legs better!

 

[SwimExpert]

Share repurchase - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The topic gentlemen or ladies had to do with candy corn swooning over,the,Obama economy. I noted two ways the economy is artificially made to look good. One was a basic O interest rate which hurts middle income savers, kills them really, and the paper shuffling scam of stock buybacks which artificially make companies performance look better on a per share basis, avoids taxation, and hides monies which could be paid to employees, or as dividends, and often times enriches the top executives. My apologies for getting too far out in the weeds for some.

You said that companies were fudging earnings through buybacks. Maybe I'm not understanding you, but to me that reads something like this:

Last year's net profits = $X
This year's profits = $X * .2

...whereas ($X * .2) has been achieved by shelling out cash to buy back stock. That does not make much sense, as buybacks will require spending cash. Upon reading your above post, it now sounds more like what you mean is that dividend performance will be improved by reducing the number of outstanding shares, which is only logical. But I don't really see how that is "fudging" anything. It's just a (potentially) prudent business move if the circumstances indicate doing it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan was great.
Obama is more than naive, he's downright ignorant. Clueless.

Reagan was great only because of the "Reagan Legacy Project" started in the late 90's. His career was completely and falsely rewritten. Do you want examples? The number is legion.

Reagan was great long before the 90s.

Why?

He dropped the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, cured Carter's malaise and won the Cold War.

 

[rdean]

Reagan was great.
Obama is more than naive, he's downright ignorant. Clueless.

Reagan was great only because of the "Reagan Legacy Project" started in the late 90's. His career was completely and falsely rewritten. Do you want examples? The number is legion.

Reagan was great long before the 90s.

Why?

He dropped the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, cured Carter's malaise and won the Cold War.

He raised taxes 7 of his 8 years in office. I didn't know Carter was contagious. The Cold War policies were put in place decades before he even became president.

So I ask again. Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan was great.
Obama is more than naive, he's downright ignorant. Clueless.

Reagan was great only because of the "Reagan Legacy Project" started in the late 90's. His career was completely and falsely rewritten. Do you want examples? The number is legion.

Reagan was great long before the 90s.

Why?

He dropped the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, cured Carter's malaise and won the Cold War.

He raised taxes 7 of his 8 years in office. I didn't know Carter was contagious. The Cold War policies were put in place decades before he even became president.

So I ask again. Why?

The top rate was 70%, he dropped it to 28%. He indexed the brackets for inflation.
Yes, Carter was contagious.
The policies in place didn't work so well when Carter was president.

Yeah, because you're an idiot.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Another startling difference between Reagan and Obama and probably one of the biggest issues facing us today is that Reagan left office with a world much safer than when he came to office. Obama will leave office with a world much scarier, dangerous and unsettled than when he came in and a country in imminent danger. Obama has no gravitas, Reagan reeked it. Rudy is just saying what most Americans think. The unending worship of Obama by his acolytes is looking more and more like domestic abuse where victims keep coming back for more no matter how bad they are beat up, a never ending cycle of intellectual violence.

 

[candycorn]

The courts prosecute.... Congress cannot sentence you to stay after school. True story bro.

Congress doesn't hold hearings on your home world?

Sure they do....but the standard is convictions and jail time. The truth is--look up the word since you seem confused by it's meaning--that a lot of Reagan staffers spent time behind bars; only courts can sentence you to time behind bars under our constitution; you can look that up too since you seem unfamiliar with that document as well.

You can google 'smug asshole' and find most of your post here. Like I said, courts don't take on political issues until they have the green lights to do so. No court is going to look into the IRS crimes of targeting conservatives and conservative groups until congress puts their feet to the fire. I said as much earlier so get the shit out of your eyes and read if you are going to respond.

When has the court acted in a case regarding a political issue only after pressure from Congress?

I can recall numerous ones over the years. Have you been in a coma? You can start with Watergate and try to come up to speed.


Congressional Investigations Attorney Hearings Terry Eaton
The Purpose of a Congressional Subpoena
The purpose of a subpoena is to command a targeted person to testify or produce documents to the committee to further it’s investigation, or both. The congressional committee hearing itself is often partisan and political, with committee members sometimes asking pointed questions to advance a particular agenda. The key to responding to an investigation request is to fully understand the investigation scope long before the committee hearing. Often, committee staff and investigators will have performed many interviews and sought many specific documents before the actual hearing. All of these activities signal the direction of the likely committee members, particularly the likely direction of the leadership.

The party testifying at a congressional investigation hearing is expected to do so under oath and truthfully. However, unlike a trial, a party testifying cannot rely on a lawyer to speak for him. To navigate the legal risks involved in saying too much — which can subsequently turn into a criminal or civil lawsuit — a party has to decide whether to answer the committee’s questions or decline to say anything because a truthful answer may implicate the witness in criminal activity.

Again, one has nothing to do with the other. The courts are independent. Anyone who thinks differently has little understanding of the Constitution. As for the party in power getting their way in the courts, Scooter Libby may have a differing viewpoint to that. You can also ask the MacDougals about Bill Clinton's clout in court... Seriously, you haven't got a clue of what you're talking about.

As for Watergate, court proceedings actually occurred well before any congressional investigation was even considered.

Watergate Brief Timeline Of Events

 

[Iceweasel]

Again, one has nothing to do with the other. The courts are independent. Anyone who thinks differently has little understanding of the Constitution. As for the party in power getting their way in the courts, Scooter Libby may have a differing viewpoint to that. You can also ask the MacDougals about Bill Clinton's clout in court... Seriously, you haven't got a clue of what you're talking about.

As for Watergate, court proceedings actually occurred well before any congressional investigation was even considered.

Watergate Brief Timeline Of Events

Ah, more good stuff from the forum Cornhole. I didn't say a political party controlled the courts, where the **** did you get that? Yeah, the burglars were arrested but it grew into much more than a simple B&E.

Watergate The Scandal That Brought Down Richard Nixon
THE INVESTIGATIONS
Initial investigations of Watergate were heavily influenced by the media, particularly the work of two reporters from the Washington Post, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, along with their mysterious informant, Deep Throat.

Political investigations began in February 1973 when the Senate established a Committee to investigate the Watergate scandal. The public hearings of the Committee were sensational, including the evidence of John Dean, Nixon’s former White House Counsel. The Committee also uncovered the existence of the secret White House tape recordings, sparking a major political and legal battle between the Congress and the President.

In 1974, the House of Representatives authorised the Judiciary Committee to consider impeachment proceedings against Nixon. The work of this Committee was again the spotlight a quarter of a century later when Bill Clinton was impeached. MORE

 

[The Rabbi]

The terrible recovery has led to stagnant wages and lack of opportunity across the board.

No, that's been caused by individuals failing on their own accord.

So during periods of ecopnomic growth its caused by the same individuals succeeding?
I guess government policies have zero effect on the economy.
You are a complete dunce, a fraud, and a waste of DNA.

If you're not getting the pay that you want, that's your fault and nobody else's fault. Earn it, be worth it. Stop expecting people to just hand it over to you.

Confusing macro and micro. No surprise. Idiots like you just dont get it.
Tell me again how government polciies have zero effect on the economy. I love fairy tales.

That's right, because in Rabbi's world the microcosm of Rabbi and those who chooses are fully entitled to suckle at the government teat because they are too pathetic to take care of their own selves, but the macrocosm of the rest of the world should pay for it and get no benefits. Four legs good, two legs better!

You've veered into incoherence. If you were ever coherent to begin with.
You're dismissed.

 

[The Rabbi]

Share repurchase - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The topic gentlemen or ladies had to do with candy corn swooning over,the,Obama economy. I noted two ways the economy is artificially made to look good. One was a basic O interest rate which hurts middle income savers, kills them really, and the paper shuffling scam of stock buybacks which artificially make companies performance look better on a per share basis, avoids taxation, and hides monies which could be paid to employees, or as dividends, and often times enriches the top executives. My apologies for getting too far out in the weeds for some.

You said that companies were fudging earnings through buybacks. Maybe I'm not understanding you, but to me that reads something like this:

Last year's net profits = $X
This year's profits = $X * .2

...whereas ($X * .2) has been achieved by shelling out cash to buy back stock. That does not make much sense, as buybacks will require spending cash. Upon reading your above post, it now sounds more like what you mean is that dividend performance will be improved by reducing the number of outstanding shares, which is only logical. But I don't really see how that is "fudging" anything. It's just a (potentially) prudent business move if the circumstances indicate doing it.

Even when it's explained to you you remained seriously ignorant. Have you finished high school?

 

[SwimExpert]

No, that's been caused by individuals failing on their own accord.

So during periods of ecopnomic growth its caused by the same individuals succeeding?
I guess government policies have zero effect on the economy.
You are a complete dunce, a fraud, and a waste of DNA.

If you're not getting the pay that you want, that's your fault and nobody else's fault. Earn it, be worth it. Stop expecting people to just hand it over to you.

Confusing macro and micro. No surprise. Idiots like you just dont get it.
Tell me again how government polciies have zero effect on the economy. I love fairy tales.

That's right, because in Rabbi's world the microcosm of Rabbi and those who chooses are fully entitled to suckle at the government teat because they are too pathetic to take care of their own selves, but the macrocosm of the rest of the world should pay for it and get no benefits. Four legs good, two legs better!

You've veered into incoherence. If you were ever coherent to begin with.
You're dismissed.

Even when it's explained to you you remained seriously ignorant. Have you had your diaper changed yet?