Magox

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/04/carolla_rips_60_minutes_the_left_over_ridiculous_standard_on_torture.html Awesome stuff, basically eviscerates Lesie Stahls liberal view on waterboarding... Check the video out, it's priceless! For the life of me, I just don't see how anyone could have any sort of empathy for these scumbags that killed thousands of Americans and had plans for more.

Well considering whoever wins Ohio and Florida most likely will win the elections I'd say: If an incumbent is below 50% in polling, that is usually a sign of some vulnerability, when the incumbent is below 45% its a sign of real trouble. Those are just polling facts, so you can take how you wish. And for JA, I agree, the hard right makes it awfully tough to win elections, but the same can be said for the other side of the aisle. Thought you may find this interesting. The video is in this link of the interview http://thehill.com/video/campaign/225193-romney-spokesman-says-republican-criticism-of-gay-ex-staffer-disappointing I've always contended that Romney's "core" was much closer to the middle, and that he would be a much better general election candidate than a primary one. I'd say so far, his body of work, albeit a brief one has proven that to be the case so far. I assure you he will remain focused on the economy, which of course is Obamas weak spot. I'd also say, that hardly anyone thought the race would be this close after that embarrassing bruising charade of a primary. With all the money that is going to be hammering Obama over the next few months, along with his piss poor economic, debt and energy record/policies and Romneys reputation as a mr. "fix it" man, this is going to be one hell of a race.

Except that, that isnt the cause for the rapid precipitous decline in the labor partipation rate over the past few years.

You actually believe he has the capacity to understand what you just wrote? Good one. Rightooo, yet you still receive responses. Must be some sort of moth to lit wick sort of syndrome.

The best precursor we have is the latest CBO projections. Originally the bill was suppose to have cost a little over a trillion dollars between years 3 and 13. Now the newest projects are roughly about 40% higher than originally expected at 1.76 Trillion.

The sad part is that there is a statistically significant portion of the population who hold these ill-informed, factually incorrect views.

No problem. I'm here to help

I'll say this, the meat of the content of the article and study didn't reflect the perception of the title. Did you guys even read the whole thing?

Dude, you are coming off as an idiot. Just sayin'

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/27/justice-roberts-shines.html Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74559.html#ixzz1qYgywV61

I'm sorry, not buying it. There is a major flaw in your argument equating to how difficult it would be to defeat Harry Reid along with Pelosi and Boxer. California is an extremely blue state, Nevada is a very purple state. So the odds of Boxer getting defeated by a conservative is remote, and the odds of Pelosi losing to a conservative in the Sanfran district is impossible, I mean literally virtually impossible. However, the odds of Harry Reid losing in the purple state, with the astronomically high unfavorability ratings he had would of been extremely highly likely had Sue Lowden been the nominee. The main reason why he won is because he went up against a kook in Angle. Come on now, let's be real here, she's a kook, and you and I both know that. And if you don't recognize that, then that right there was your problem in not seeing it how it was. And in regards to not being a conservative, I consider myself to be fiscal hawk. So just because I don't toe the party line in some cases, doesn't mean that I'm not a fiscal conservative. Maybe you should try it sometime.

Sorry, just because you say it so, doesn't make it so. In order to make a credible case, rule 101, provide data to support your thesis. Yes, Reid has a phenomenal ground game and yes he has a great political machine, but that can take you only so far. Maybe 4-7%, all other variables being equal. Sue Lowden was crushing Reid in the polls by an average of 12-15%. Sue Lowden would of attracted all the same voters that Angle did, she would of won significantly more republicans who decided to vote for Reid, and she would of carried a whole hell of alot more independents than ANgle. What about all the Latinos that ANgle alienated? Remember her gaffes against the Latinos? You can not tell me with any sort of credibility that, that wouldn't of been the case. Now are you saying, that Sue Lowden wouldn't of won over more Repubs, Latinos and Independents than ANgle? Is that what you are telling me?

Well, you know, anyone who agrees with someone who believes that there should be a list made of Wall Street Wealthy people published, I mean an actual public published list, in order to publically coerce them, because you know they are rich, for the purpose of shaming them enough to distribute their wealth to the "people" is just batschitt crazy. So, I don't find it surprising that loons take anything Brzezinski says seriously. Just sayin'

No I'm not. I base what I say off of facts. Harry Reid was one of the most disliked candidates to have ever won re election. HIs unfavorability ratings were upside down by double digits, you know how often people get elected with double digit unfavorability ratings? ALmost never. Exit polls show that over 10% of Republicans that cast their votes, voted for Reid. Harry Reid was winning key endorsements from key statewide Republicans. Why? Because they thought that Sharon Angle belonged in the looney bin. Harry Reid won over 60% of the independent vote. THe other chick, Lowe I believe was her name, consistently was polling 10-15% better than ANgle in all the head to head matchups, the polls had her winning over 60% of the independent voters. I kept up with the race very closely, and the reason why ANgle didn't win is because she was perceived as a kook, and to be honest, she is a certified kook. So lets not pretend that Sharon Angle wasn't the problem, because she 100% was. You shouldn't get so easily offended, and yes, you were offended, when there are criticisms lobbed at conservatives, rightwingers and tea partiers. It's good to reflect and to actually look at things for what they really are. Gives a moment to pause and see things with more clarity. There are positive elements to the Tea party, and to be honest, without the tea party, there wouldn't of been this huge monumental wave that we saw in 2010. Net net, they were a positive. But since it was a new grassroots political movement, there were some missed opportunitie, Nevada being a HUGE one.

Thats what people dont understand. When you are governing a state like Mass. and the people overwhelmingly want a universal sort of health care system, then it is the duty of the elected official to represent the people of his state. People don't get that, they just somehow believe that conseratives can put in place a Jim Demint sort of candidate up in Mass or California and run the state as a bull **** litmus tested conservative up in these states. That's not how it works folks, if you are elected up in the North East and you aren't a congressman in rural bumfuk hickville, you have to have moderate positions. But nooooo, hard right wingers, want everyone to be a "true" conservative, no matter where they are. Got news for you morons, if you had it you're way, 60-70% of the elected officials in our country would be Democrats. Why? Because they wouldn't be able to win elections. Remember Joe Buck? How about Sharon Angle? Nevada could of put that other chick there, but nope, the tea partiers brought on Angle, and now we have Harry Reid sitting there for another 6 years. Yeah, Good Job!

Santorum is internally beginning to see the writing on the wall, you have Demint, Bush, Haley Barbor, Toomey and others sending clear signals that it's time to focus on Obama. Santorum doesn't want to accept it, but he is perilously close to irreparably damaging his future, whether its running for a 2016 or 2020 bid (even though he'd still be a second tier candidate) or if he wants a cushy job on Fox or whatever else he would choose to pursue. Romney bowed out gracefully in 2008 and as a result it helped secure his front runner status, Huckaby did as well, even though he continued his campaign, he kept it clean, didn't attack McCain, won a couple more southern states, and was rewarded with a serious hook up on Fox that helped lead to some "best seller" books. We'll see which route Santorum goes, the defiant "screw you" approach or if he takes a more measured yet humbling graceful exit. Wisconsin is the big one. He'll win Lousiana, and he'll stick through Wisconsin no matter what just to win his home state Pennsylavania. But after Wisconsin, we'll see if he continues with the attacks on Romney. That will tell the tale.

I said for everyone, did I not? You on the otherhand....

Old enough to know better about what? And where will I eventually get to go? If you could provide just a little texture Ok, for ***** and giggles, lets say we squeezed from the more plump turnip, and rates went back the Clinton era tax rates for the wealthy, what sort of impact would that have on the deficit? Obviously you know I know the answer, but I just want to hear it in your words.

"Would a higher top tax rate raise revenues?" With the data provided, the answer is inconclusive. You would need to add in a few more variables for there to be any sort of rational conclusion. The fact that you found this conclusion to be reasonable just displays either one of a couple things which would either be sheer ignorance or partisan hackery on your part. If you have a nation of 150 Million taxpayers, and you have three test cases of different top tax rates of: Example #1 Top tax rate of 1% Example #2 Top tax rate of 90% Example #3 Top tax rate of 30% you would find that the question you posed would give you a very confusing answer. All other variabes remaining the same Example #1 would have a buoyant economy, but there really wouldn't be that much in taxes collected simply because the rate is too low. Which in turn would mean we would have a government that would be virtually nonexistent with no military, safety nets, gov. programs etc. Example #2 would produce more taxes than example #1, but the tax rate would have such a stifling effect on the economy, that you would have permanent slow growth, high unemployment and virtually no innovation coming from the private sector. Not to mention tha the taxes collected wouldn't be all that high as well, due to the factors I just listed. Example #3 would produce more tax revenues then both example #1 and #2. It would promote a more pro-growth economy than example #2, would lead to lower unemployment, higher growth and innovation, along with more government services. So the question is what is the happy medium? This is the dilemma of he Laffer curve, where does it actually begin to bend. What people have to understand is what may be the more pro-growth and higher tax generating revenue top rate isn't a fixed, static rate. People say "look at the Clinton years, look at all the job creation during the ensuing period of after the tax hike, we should just go back to that tax rate". Again, this is either a dishonest partisan argument or one born out of ignorance. I always mention variables, because, well variables are important to consider. Clinton had the luxary of a once in a lifetime tech bubble boom. Another variable that people don't like to mention is that Clinton lowered capital gains from 28% to 20%. Considering that the economy was mainly thriving due to the internet bubble explosion, and that the Nasdaq went through the roof, a hefty portion of those tax revenues were not only fueled by capital gains taxes but by an economy that was powered by a bubbled stock market. During Clintons years, the economy could absorb a higher top tax rate. But in today's climate, I would say returning back to that rate wouldn't produce the results that progressives would hope for. The economy isn't in a fantasy land sort of bubble, it's not in a normal condition status either, hell, it's not even mediocre, the economy is lousy by just about every metric. Real unemployment is well above 8.3%, we have so many hopeless people who have given up looking for work that they aren't even counted in the unemployment rate. Labor participation rate is the lowest its been in almost 2 generations. Having said that, my belief is that in a normal economy, which we are very far away from achieving specially with our presidents economic policies, that the Bush tax cuts fall on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Sure, it promotes growth, but it also promotes higher deficits. The question is when do you go back to a higher rate? I would say now is out of the question. You know how you can tell that this was written by a partisan? It mentions that Romneys proposed plan cuts income rate on the wealthy from 35 to 28 percent. This leaves the impression that ROmney is soley looking to cut rates for the wealthy. There is no mention of his plan to cut rates for everyone else by 20%. There is no mention of his plan to slash capital gains taxes for anyone making under $200,000. Meaning that if you add in income and capital gains taxes together, that his plan is INDEED a progressive tax rate that is more favorable for the non wealthy. That's a fact! If you are going to be taken seriously here, then I would suggest that if you present facts, that you add proper context and texture. But this does lead me to a point, everyone keeps mentioning, that the Bush tax cuts added a trillion or Trillions to the national debt which is the reason why we should end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Well, to say that this comment is ignorant, doesn't do the word ignorant justice. Did you know that the Bush tax cuts was a tax break for everyone? DId you know that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy only make up 20% of the debt incurred? Meaning for every $5 added to the debt as a result of the Bush tax cuts, only $1 of that comes from the wealthy. My point is if you are serious about reducing the deficit now or sometime in the near future, then everyone has to pay their "fair share" .

Remember last years debt debacle? And how Obama and company said it was due to the intransigence of conservatives that a deal couldn't get done. WashingtonPost has a new story, which I give them kudos for, for actually doing what journalists should do, even when that means they have to write a piece that doesn't support the president. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-evolution-behind-the-failed-grand-bargain-on-the-debt/2012/03/15/gIQAHyyfJS_story_1.html I highly suggest for people to read it. Politico has a recap of it Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74163.html#ixzz1pWkFfLK9 In other words, what Obama wasn't willing to do.

Dude, you couldn't be further from the truth. If you are lets say around 60 years old, and lets say by the time you were 18 you began earning a wage. And lets say you had a parallel Universed Eric along side you and you both contributed equally to two seperate funds, one the current system and the other a fund indexed to the stock market, you would have ALOT more money in your S.S account than you currently have today. Just sayin'

After all this pandering and phony manufactured "war on women" obsessively pushed by the progressive, there is no evidence whatsoever that points to this strategy working. As a matter of fact, polls show that Obama has lost support with women over the past three weeks. That's not to say that this ridiculous "conservatives hate women" campaign is backfiring, because more than likey gasoline prices and the wars are probably the most attributable reason to his decline, but it also shows that after all this hoopla in the media, Democrats and the DNC isn't working as much as they would like to have you believe. Evidence is in the polling, and it' quite clear. Just look at what is happening in Massachusetts. Liberals are shocked that Scott Brown is waxing their progressive firebrand hero Elizabeth Brown. He wrote an OP-ED with a strong defense about religious liberty and he framed the fight in the actual manner, which was this has nothing to do with contraception but government overreach. Liberals were so sure that this would backfire on him. Not only did it not backfire, but he went from having a very small lead to virtually all polls showing he has a substantial lead and in some cases a double digit lead. In regards to VP selections, I really don't know enough about Martinez, so I can't really say, but what I do know is that she would have to be much more prepared than Palin was. In Rubio, you know what you are getting. He's the most gifted Conservative politician they have, along with Scott Brown. Rubio, the guy ran an amazing Senate campaign, appeals to independents because he strikes the right balance between holding conservative principles but not alienating those in the middle, has a great story that appeals to middle class folks, he's a conservative firebrand and of course he's a latino. He's the guy. In regards to Jindal. Great governor, filled with substance, but he just doesn't have national appeal. That's just my opinion.

Capitalism certainly isn't perfect, sometimes the goal of profit hurts the client. That is a reality and that is one of its major downfalls, but it's the most productive economic system that lifts people from the lower income levels to the middle class in the world that we have today, and there isn't a close second that compares. It's incentives vs. needs and dependency. Capitalism is an incentive based economic system, which of course leads to more competition through the private sector. competition generally leads to better products, services, innovation and lower prices. Socialism, tends to peoples needs administered through the government. The problem is if you have most of your "needs" such as healthcare, extended unemployment, welfare programs, housing, food etc. does this lead to more dependency from our population? And does this dependency promote more self-accountability and increased productive human activity? The answer is obvious. All one has to do is look at socialism throughout the world and the answer is right there. So to go back to the topic, Goldman Sachs like many other investment banks certainly cater to the stockholders more so than their clients. It is quite the conundrum they face, balancing profits and customer care. Through out time, competition will lead to better customer care, but it's the culture that has to change in order for this to happen. Having said that, lets be real here, customers of Goldman sachs, whether its companies looking to go public, or municipalities looking for funding for local public projects, investment advisory services or what have you, are generally very happy with Goldman's services. That's a fact. However, it's not so much their clients that usually get hurt from some of their actions, but it's usually those on the periphery related to Goldman sort of activities that sometimes get burnt. I would say that a solution is to have extremely tough legal penalties for those that commit churning sort of activities. The dilemma is how do you classify that? And that's something that regulators and policy makers will have to come up with. Also, there has to be more clawback policies. You can't have someone make a huge bonus based on one years results, to only have the decisions made from that huge bonus year end up causing loss in the future. Basically the client loses, but the Investment Bank employee walks off with a large compensation. So there has to be reforms made in this area as well. In short, it's not the perfect system, but companies like GOldman do much more good for our economy than some people give it credit for, but at the same time, we have to constantly be looking for ways to improve the system through logical reforms and regulations that won't inhibit growth.