More Republican Party hilarity...

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

It's the "no matter what" that concerns me. There is no cash, there are only treasury IOU's, money owed to the SS system that was used elsewhere. When the time comes to pay those IOU's the funds will come from the sale of treasury notes, it goes straight to the deficit.

The fact that the U.S. government owes the SS trust fund is not the fault of the design or management of the Social Security system. The trust fund must be made whole. It did not cause the deficit. It's only crime was investing its funds in government bonds.

[guardian55]

It does not matter what party says what (All politicians LIE!!!) That is what they do. The part i don't understand is when are the American people going to wise up and say ENOUGH. You have the power to impeach,recall or otherwise remove the liers but you don't and that is why you get what you deserve because YOU (the you is everybody) condone it by letting it continue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

The fact that the U.S. government owes the SS trust fund is not the fault of the design or management of the Social Security system. The trust fund must be made whole. It did not cause the deficit. It's only crime was investing its funds in government bonds.

You are correct that it was not caused by the design or management of the SS system, it was caused by irresponsible fiscal policies in the legislative branch and endorsed by a ill advised executive branch.

The point that the trust fund must be made whole is not quite as simple as you seem to think. The moneys borrowed from the trust fund have been spent, seemingly without effecting the balance of the federal budget. To make the fund whole, the treasury must redeem the IOUs that it issued, this means that the treasury will need to borrow money to do it.

Now the impact of the raids on the trust fund will show up on the balance sheet as debt, some $3 trillion dollars will now show up as an increase in the deficit.

This is not likely to happen.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by tenguy

You are correct that it was not caused by the design or management of the SS system, it was caused by irresponsible fiscal policies in the legislative branch and endorsed by a ill advised executive branch.

The irresponsible fiscal policies were promoted by the Reagan campaign of 1980 which made the dishonest claim that tax cuts generated more tax revenue than tax increases, so that it was possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1983 "if not sooner," by only cutting "waste, fraud, abuse." When Reagan said "waste, fraud, and abuse," most whites heard, "welfare programs for black people."

At any rate, it was not possible. "Supply side economics" was a squalid scam that has distorted political discussions since then. The enduring legacy of Ronald Reagan is the delusion that the American people can have the government they want without paying for it. Reagan was called "the great communicator." Unfortunately, much of what he communicated consisted of delusions most Americans wanted to believe in.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

The irresponsible fiscal policies were promoted by the Reagan campaign of 1980 which made the dishonest claim that tax cuts generated more tax revenue than tax increases, so that it was possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1983 "if not sooner," by only cutting "waste, fraud, abuse." When Reagan said "waste, fraud, and abuse," most whites heard, "welfare programs for black people."

At any rate, it was not possible. "Supply side economics" was a squalid scam that has distorted political discussions since then. The enduring legacy of Ronald Reagan is the delusion that the American people can have the government they want without paying for it. Reagan was called "the great communicator." Unfortunately, much of what he communicated consisted of delusions most Americans wanted to believe in.

Relevance?

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

You are correct that it was not caused by the design or management of the SS system, it was caused by irresponsible fiscal policies in the legislative branch and endorsed by a ill advised executive branch.

The point that the trust fund must be made whole is not quite as simple as you seem to think. The moneys borrowed from the trust fund have been spent, seemingly without effecting the balance of the federal budget. To make the fund whole, the treasury must redeem the IOUs that it issued, this means that the treasury will need to borrow money to do it.

Now the impact of the raids on the trust fund will show up on the balance sheet as debt, some $3 trillion dollars will now show up as an increase in the deficit.

This is not likely to happen.

Perhaps not, but the answer is clearly not to use the deficit as an excuse to gut Social Security. To do that, they have to perpetuate the lie that Social Security "caused" the deficit.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Perhaps not, but the answer is clearly not to use the deficit as an excuse to gut Social Security. To do that, they have to perpetuate the lie that Social Security "caused" the deficit.

Rather, the title ought to read, How Four Presidents Stole the Social Security Trust Fund. Not our Presidents! Say it ain’t so, Joe! Sorry, it’s true. And how about this one: The Grinch signed the largest tax increase in modern U.S. history. Of course, not true either. Rather, Ronald Reagan signed the largest tax increase in modern U.S. history. Republicans hate that one for sure, but of course, it’s true. It was The 1983 Amendments and the Social Security Trust Fund that Reagan and Alan Greenspan conjured up that raised every worker’s payroll taxes for their entire work lifetime.

That 1983 payroll tax hike has generated approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue which is supposed to be in the trust fund cookie jar for use in paying for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. But the trust fund is empty! Someone raided the cookie jar! It contains no real assets. As a result, the government will soon be unable to pay full benefits without a tax increase.


Who stole the cookies? Right, not the Grinch. The culprits are: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton and George W. Bush.


Greenspan and Reagan had conspired to hike Social Security payments, justifying it with the promise of building up a Social Security nest egg for subsequent decades, then Reagan began to use that nest egg on current government spending. The next three presidents followed this theivery.


I think back on those dimwit Tea Party dolts with their anti-Obama signs screaming about taxation as if Obama was the root of all tax evil. It was especially idiotic in that most of them were retirees who depended upon Social Security for their daily bread and butter. A little learning is most dangerous.

http://manwiththemuckrake.wordpress....ty-trust-fund/

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Perhaps not, but the answer is clearly not to use the deficit as an excuse to gut Social Security. To do that, they have to perpetuate the lie that Social Security "caused" the deficit.

Ah, so that was your angle, I don't recall making that accusation.

As of today the SS fiscal condition is not contributing to the deficit, any impact on the deficit will come from the treasury needing to pay the IOUs to the SS trust fund. That day is coming sooner than was expected, when this happens, the deficit will indeed be affected.

Interesting tidbit, starting on 1/1/11, 10,000 people per day are reaching 65 years of age, this will continue for 19 years. The obligation of SS is roughly $42,000 per year to each, actuary charts project an average of 20 years life for each of them, making SS trust fund growth rate, by the 75 year rule, at $4.2 billion dollars a day, for 19 years.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Ah, so that was your angle, I don't recall making that accusation.

As of today the SS fiscal condition is not contributing to the deficit, any impact on the deficit will come from the treasury needing to pay the IOUs to the SS trust fund. That day is coming sooner than was expected, when this happens, the deficit will indeed be affected.

Interesting tidbit, starting on 1/1/11, 10,000 people per day are reaching 65 years of age, this will continue for 19 years. The obligation of SS is roughly $42,000 per year to each, actuary charts project an average of 20 years life for each of them, making SS trust fund growth rate, by the 75 year rule, at $4.2 billion dollars a day, for 19 years.

What's your source for that $42,000/year figure? The last I checked, SS recipients received an average of about $1,150 a month, or less than $14,000/year.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

What's your source for that $42,000/year figure? The last I checked, SS recipients received an average of about $1,150 a month, or less than $14,000/year.

Sorry, I transposed the numbers, $24,000 /year is the high average for someone retiring at 66 in 2011, averaged over the expected benefit period..

[stumbler]

Matt Taibbi: The Crying Shame of John Boehner

He's a lazy, double-talking shill for corporate interests. So how's he going to fare with the Tea Party?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ehner-20110105

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Sorry, I transposed the numbers, $24,000 /year is the high average for someone retiring at 66 in 2011, averaged over the expected benefit period..

In that case, your calculation is completely wrong, even with your correction.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

In that case, your calculation is completely wrong, even with your correction.

You are correct.

[ace's n 8's]

Overview of The Spending Reduction Act of 2011






-FY 2011 CR Amendment: Replace the spending levels in the FY 2011 continuing resolution (CR) with non-defense, non-homeland security, non-veterans spending at FY 2008 levels. The legislation will further prohibit any FY 2011 funding from being used to carry out any provision of the Democrat government takeover of health care, or to defend the health care law against any lawsuit challenging any provision of the act. $80 billion savings.

-Discretionary Spending Limit, FY 2012-2021: Eliminate automatic increases for inflation from CBO baseline projections for future discretionary appropriations. Further, impose discretionary spending limits through 2021 at 2006 levels on the non-defense portion of the discretionary budget. $2.29 trillion savings over ten years.

-Federal Workforce Reforms: Eliminate automatic pay increases for civilian federal workers for five years. Additionally, cut the civilian workforce by a total of 15 percent through attrition. Allow the hiring of only one new worker for every two workers who leave federal employment until the reduction target has been met. (Savings included in above discretionary savings figure).

- "Stimulus" Repeal: Eliminate all remaining "stimulus" funding. $45 billion total savings.
- Eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $30 billion total savings.

- Repeal the Medicaid FMAP increase in the "State Bailout" (Senate amendments to S. 1586). $16.1 billion total savings.
-More than 100 specific program eliminations and spending reductions listed below: $330 billion savings over ten years (included in above discretionary savings figure).

Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms: - Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...#ixzz1BcgH5ccR

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Overview of The Spending Reduction Act of 2011






-FY 2011 CR Amendment: Replace the spending levels in the FY 2011 continuing resolution (CR) with non-defense, non-homeland security, non-veterans spending at FY 2008 levels. The legislation will further prohibit any FY 2011 funding from being used to carry out any provision of the Democrat government takeover of health care, or to defend the health care law against any lawsuit challenging any provision of the act. $80 billion savings.

-Discretionary Spending Limit, FY 2012-2021: Eliminate automatic increases for inflation from CBO baseline projections for future discretionary appropriations. Further, impose discretionary spending limits through 2021 at 2006 levels on the non-defense portion of the discretionary budget. $2.29 trillion savings over ten years.

-Federal Workforce Reforms: Eliminate automatic pay increases for civilian federal workers for five years. Additionally, cut the civilian workforce by a total of 15 percent through attrition. Allow the hiring of only one new worker for every two workers who leave federal employment until the reduction target has been met. (Savings included in above discretionary savings figure).

- "Stimulus" Repeal: Eliminate all remaining "stimulus" funding. $45 billion total savings.
- Eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $30 billion total savings.

- Repeal the Medicaid FMAP increase in the "State Bailout" (Senate amendments to S. 1586). $16.1 billion total savings.
-More than 100 specific program eliminations and spending reductions listed below: $330 billion savings over ten years (included in above discretionary savings figure).

Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms: - Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...#ixzz1BcgH5ccR

Corporate contributions have surged for new Republican leaders in House

The new Republican leaders in the House have received millions of dollars in contributions from banks, health insurers and other major business interests, which are pressing for broad reversals of Democratic policies that affect corporations, according to disclosure records and interviews.

Much of that money flowed to the GOP chairmen overseeing banking, energy and other key committees - leaders who will play a central role in setting the House agenda over the next two years.



The impetus behind such largess is simple: Many companies and industry groups hope House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) and other Republicans will succeed in rolling back Democratic policies they find objectionable, including environmental and Wall Street regulations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Corporate contributions have surged for new Republican leaders in House





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

So do you think that the folks with money are stupid? The guys that they had bought and paid for, are losing clout. Now they are attempting to buy the new guys, let's wait and see how this pans out for them.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Corporate contributions have surged for new Republican leaders in House





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

So,,,what's the problem?

[stumbler]

Alright, the GOP nearly swept the House of Representatives in the last election and now that they are in power what problem can we expect them to tackle after passing their symbolic health care reform repeal? Will if be the deficit they were all screaming about? How about the economy and jobs? Those are a couple of really serious problems we are facing. Or what about the fact we're still fighting terrorists on two fronts, and appear to be having an increase in domestic terrorist attacks. Those are also very troubling problems demanding our immediate attention.

So which one of those pressing problems with the new GOP/TeaParty congress tackle next. You probably guessed it; none of the above.

No, instead of trying to actually solve problems the GOP will go onto trying to further restrict abortion in the US or make it illegal entirely if possible. Oh, yeah, nothing like staying stuck 40 years in the past to move the nation forward.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-pn-...,2249973.story

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Alright, the GOP nearly swept the House of Representatives in the last election and now that they are in power what problem can we expect them to tackle after passing their symbolic health care reform repeal? Will if be the deficit they were all screaming about? How about the economy and jobs? Those are a couple of really serious problems we are facing. Or what about the fact we're still fighting terrorists on two fronts, and appear to be having an increase in domestic terrorist attacks. Those are also very troubling problems demanding our immediate attention.

So which one of those pressing problems with the new GOP/TeaParty congress tackle next. You probably guessed it; none of the above.

No, instead of trying to actually solve problems the GOP will go onto trying to further restrict abortion in the US or make it illegal entirely if possible. Oh, yeah, nothing like staying stuck 40 years in the past to move the nation forward.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-pn-...,2249973.story

And you are surprised by this?

Most every candidate made it a part of their campaign, they actually are trying to keep their promises, even if YOU disagree with them.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Alright, the GOP nearly swept the House of Representatives in the last election and now that they are in power what problem can we expect them to tackle after passing their symbolic health care reform repeal? Will if be the deficit they were all screaming about? How about the economy and jobs? Those are a couple of really serious problems we are facing. Or what about the fact we're still fighting terrorists on two fronts, and appear to be having an increase in domestic terrorist attacks. Those are also very troubling problems demanding our immediate attention.

So which one of those pressing problems with the new GOP/TeaParty congress tackle next. You probably guessed it; none of the above.

No, instead of trying to actually solve problems the GOP will go onto trying to further restrict abortion in the US or make it illegal entirely if possible. Oh, yeah, nothing like staying stuck 40 years in the past to move the nation forward.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-pn-...,2249973.story

A republican house is your only problem here, nothing more than that. We had these problems for over 2 years now,,,,,WHAT DID THE DEMOCRATS DO,,, when they had a ''super majority''. Nothing, they did nothing, unemployment went higher, our national debt got higher and a polarized nation. The GOP will address the debt with some cuts and will influence business to create jobs and goods with incentives.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

A republican house is your only problem here, nothing more than that. We had these problems for over 2 years now,,,,,WHAT DID THE DEMOCRATS DO,,, when they had a ''super majority''. Nothing, they did nothing, unemployment went higher, our national debt got higher and a polarized nation. The GOP will address the debt with some cuts and will influence business to create jobs and goods with incentives.

Statements like this always amuse me. The Republican party has steadfastly opposed and obstructed just about everything Obama and the Democratic majority tried to do...and now you want to turn around and accuse the Democrats of accomplishing nothing.

But if you want to claim that, don't you also have to say that Republicans had several years in which they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Will you take responsibility for everything they did or did not do? What was their record on job creation?

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Statements like this always amuse me. The Republican party has steadfastly opposed and obstructed just about everything Obama and the Democratic majority tried to do...and now you want to turn around and accuse the Democrats of accomplishing nothing.

But if you want to claim that, don't you also have to say that Republicans had several years in which they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Will you take responsibility for everything they did or did not do? What was their record on job creation?

Give them a little time and republicans will be tripping over their feet and stepping on their tongues....

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Statements like this always amuse me. The Republican party has steadfastly opposed and obstructed just about everything Obama and the Democratic majority tried to do...and now you want to turn around and accuse the Democrats of accomplishing nothing.

But if you want to claim that, don't you also have to say that Republicans had several years in which they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Will you take responsibility for everything they did or did not do? What was their record on job creation?

Originally Posted by RandyKnight

Give them a little time and republicans will be tripping over their feet and stepping on their tongues....

Only time will tell the accomplishments of 112th, history is the past, 2012 will be the telling point.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=Kimiko;3732616]

Statements like this always amuse me. The Republican party has steadfastly opposed and obstructed just about everything Obama and the Democratic majority tried to do...and now you want to turn around and accuse the Democrats of accomplishing nothing.

I'm not claiming that they did not accomplish anything. They accomplished alot, $5 trillion in additional debt sines '06, a housing crisis that still has not been fixed and several more regulations and bureaucracies.

But if you want to claim that, don't you also have to say that Republicans had several years in which they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Will you take responsibility for everything they did or did not do? What was their record on job creation?

I never claimed to be happy about what they did in the past.. I'm defiantly ecstatic about their intentions today.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

A republican house is your only problem here, nothing more than that. We had these problems for over 2 years now,,,,,WHAT DID THE DEMOCRATS DO,,, when they had a ''super majority''. Nothing, they did nothing, unemployment went higher, our national debt got higher and a polarized nation. The GOP will address the debt with some cuts and will influence business to create jobs and goods with incentives.

No Ace everyone of those problems have existed for about 10 years now and while the democrats managed to at least stop the recession and get health care reform passed the Republicans first caused the problems (Remember the GOP controlled both houses of congress and the presidency for six of Bush's eight years and all those problems did was get worse until it finally collapsed our economy and kicked of a global recession.

And incidentally the same thing happened under Ronald Reagan and the GOP "revolution." The tax payers ended up having to bail them out and the country went into recession.

But I bet you guys are getting ready to try and use the insanity defense to excuse Reagan's performance.

How close did Lesley Stahl come to reporting Reagan had Alzheimer's while in office? Very close.

But during his second term, Reagan did show worrisome signs of diminished mental capacity, according to Lesley Stahl. In the book she published in 2000, Reporting Live, Stahl recounts a disturbing encounter she had with Reagan in the summer of 1986. Stahl was finishing up a stint as CBS News' White House correspondent, and she was awarded the customary farewell audience with the president. As she, her husband, and her eight-year-old daughter were about to enter the Oval Office, Reagan's press secretary, Larry Speakes, told Stahl, "No questions at all, about anything." Stahl was angered by this, but she soon saw why Speakes had issued this instruction. When she and her family entered the office, the 75-year-old Reagan was standing by a Remington sculpture of a rearing horse, and Stahl immediately began to fret:

Reagan was as shriveled as a kumquat. He was so frail, his skin so paper-thin. I could almost see the sunlight through the back of his withered neck…His eyes were coated. Larry introduced us, but he had to shout. Had Reagan turned off his hearing aid?


…Reagan didn't seem to know who I was. He gave me a distant look with those milky eyes and shook my hand weakly. Oh, my, he's gonzo, I thought. I have to go out on the lawn tonight and tell my countrymen that the president of the United States is a doddering space cadet. My heart began to hammer with the import...I was aware of the delicacy with which I would have to write my script. But I was quite sure of my diagnosis.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...d-lesley-stahl

[RandyKnight]

They pretty much shut Regan up after the speech were he ad-lived.."I remember when I was flying a bomber over Europe in WWII and "..

Well he was in the USO and flew the bomber in a movie......

[stumbler]

Government Report finds Bush Administration violated Hatch Act

WASHINGTON — The White House Office of Political Affairs during the George W. Bush administration violated the law by giving briefings to political employees, concludes a government report issued Monday.


The report says the electoral success of the Republican Party and possible strategies for achieving it often were on the agenda at some 75 political briefings at 20 federal agencies from 2001 to 2007. Prohibited political activities were prevalent in the months running up to the 2006 midterm elections, according to the report.


The Office of Special Counsel concluded that such briefings should take place away from the federal workplace during nonbusiness hours and that attendance should be completely optional.


Those who gave the briefings said they were intended to boost morale among political appointees and provide an overview of the "political landscape."


However, witness testimony, e-mail messages and PowerPoint slides used at some of the briefings indicate that the meetings were more overtly political.


"Because most of the briefings took place during normal business hours and in government buildings, many of the briefings implicated the Hatch Act's prohibition against engaging in political activity while on duty or in a federal workplace," the report found.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_813455.html

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by RandyKnight

They pretty much shut Regan up after the speech were he ad-lived.."I remember when I was flying a bomber over Europe in WWII and "..

Well he was in the USO and flew the bomber in a movie......

You are so right. They could not afford to let President Reagan step up to a microphone with out a very well rehearsed script. And they strictly limited any questions.

That frustrated the Washington Press corp so bad some reporters, especially Sam Donelson, started hollering questions at Reagan when he was walking from the White House to his helicopter.

And Donelson was a genius at hollering questions that were so damaging they were all but rhetorical.

The Reaganites couldn't put up with that so from then on the helicopter was always left running so the noise drowned out the questions from the press.

That's the lengths they went to to keep Reagan's mental state shielded from the press and public.

[RandyKnight]

Well the Republicans are at it again.....in just a short period of time since their elections to gain control of congress gas has gone up about 40 cents a gallon.....we saw what gas prices did when Bush was Pres. 1.25 to as high as 4 bucks...

Hang on to your hats cause the Republicans will run gas prices to the roof...keep the poor man down is their motto...!

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by RandyKnight

Well the Republicans are at it again.....in just a short period of time since their elections to gain control of congress gas has gone up about 40 cents a gallon.....we saw what gas prices did when Bush was Pres. 1.25 to as high as 4 bucks...

Hang on to your hats cause the Republicans will run gas prices to the roof...keep the poor man down is their motto...!

Who controls the gasoline prices? Who controls the Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, EPA, etc?

Look to the White House, you did when Bush was President, why not now?

[tenguy]

[QUOTE=stumbler;3739690]

You are so right. They could not afford to let President Reagan step up to a microphone with out a very well rehearsed script. And they strictly limited any questions.

That frustrated the Washington Press corp so bad some reporters, especially Sam Donelson, started hollering questions at Reagan when he was walking from the White House to his helicopter.

You apparently know little about the effects of Alzheimers induced dementia. You can rehearse with a sufferer for months and they will likely forget what was in the speech. You can fake having the symptoms, but you can not fake that you do not have them. Their are many people who suffer from confusion when facing multiple choices, that is not exclusive to dementia.

And Donelson was a genius at hollering questions that were so damaging they were all but rhetorical.

The Reaganites couldn't put up with that so from then on the helicopter was always left running so the noise drowned out the questions from the press.


That's the lengths they went to to keep Reagan's mental state shielded from the press and public.

Sounds like an idea that the current occupant of the White House should adapt.

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Who controls the gasoline prices? Who controls the Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, EPA, etc?

Look to the White House, you did when Bush was President, why not now?

Obama has tilted to the Republicans.....

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by RandyKnight

Well the Republicans are at it again.....in just a short period of time since their elections to gain control of congress gas has gone up about 40 cents a gallon.....we saw what gas prices did when Bush was Pres. 1.25 to as high as 4 bucks...

Hang on to your hats cause the Republicans will run gas prices to the roof...keep the poor man down is their motto...!

Check the percentage increases in the price of gas while keeping in mind demand has increased only .07%. And you know its all simple manipulation of an essential commodity by the world oil monopoly.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by RandyKnight

Obama has tilted to the Republicans.....

Ah, so it has nothing to do with the Democrats who dominate the richest members of Congress?

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Check the percentage increases in the price of gas while keeping in mind demand has increased only .07%. And you know its all simple manipulation of an essential commodity by the world oil monopoly.

Here we go again, Mister Economist shows his lack of knowledge in market dynamics.

The price of petroleum fuels and crude is tied directly to the future supply and demand of the commodity. The price of crude on the commodities market is set by what entities are willing to pay for it, pure and simple. The demand is global, not local or regional.

As the price rises the demand begins to falter, if demand drops enough and for a long enough period, the price will drop according.

[stumbler]

I first mentioned the story of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas apparently evading income taxes by not claiming his wife's income.

But considering Judge Thomas' explanation for the lapse of not claiming his wife's income for some 13 years needs to be here on the thread about Republican Hilarity.

Here's why Judge Thomas failed to claim his wife's income;

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has amended 13 years’ worth of disclosure reports to include details of wife Virginia Thomas’s sources of income, documents released on Monday show.


The documents indicate that Thomas’s wife, who goes by Ginni, had worked for Hillsdale College in Michigan, the Heritage Foundation and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, among other entities.


Like all federal judges, Thomas must file annual disclosure reports on his personal finances, but he had omitted details of his wife’s earnings in what he wrote was a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” He also had checked a box marking no spousal income.

Here's what Common Cause has to say about that:

“Justice Thomas sits on the highest court of the land, is called upon daily to understand and interpret the most complicated legal issues of our day and makes decisions that affect millions,” said Common Cause President Bob Edgar. “It is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form. We find his excuse is implausible.”
We also continue to be puzzled by omission of Liberty Central as Virginia Thomas’s most recent employer.

http://dailykos.com/

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I first mentioned the story of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas apparently evading income taxes by not claiming his wife's income.

But considering Judge Thomas' explanation for the lapse of not claiming his wife's income for some 13 years needs to be here on the thread about Republican Hilarity.

Here's why Judge Thomas failed to claim his wife's income;

Here's what Common Cause has to say about thathttp://dailykos.com/

[/INDENT]

Simple answer all you got to do is study DLs Bell Curve..........

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I first mentioned the story of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas apparently evading income taxes by not claiming his wife's income.

Once again you get the facts confused. Clarence Thomas is not accused of evading income taxes. He is accused of not declaring his wife's on the required disclosure statement. His income tax returns were how they found the error.

Wife’s Political Income
Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Chalking up the problem to a misunderstanding, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged on Monday that he failed to disclose his wife’s income from a conservative think tank for five years, putting him in violation of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act.

Virginia Thomas, a conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003-2007, according to the liberal advocacy group, Common Cause, which uncovered the information from the think tank’s IRS records. But her husband did not note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, declaring instead that she had no “noninvestment income.”

Justice Thomas said his wife’s earnings were “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

He also filed amended disclosures listing his wife’s employment with the Heritage Foundation, as well with Hillsdale College in Michigan, for whom she ran a constitutional law center in Washington.

-Noel Brinkerhoff

[incognitoenfuego]

[QUOTE=tenguy;3670690]Angrily?

The Democrats are elitist

im sorry. do you have any proof whatsoever that this is true? or are you just repeating something that glenn beck told you? because the democrats are certainly no more elitist than the republicans, who just recently decided that they would not pass ANY legislation through the house until they got the tax cuts on the wealthiest two percent.

[Ed Itor]

The Democrats ARE Elitist, that's why all the nut jobs are in the Republican Party/its off-shoot The Tea Party.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Once again you get the facts confused. Clarence Thomas is not accused of evading income taxes. He is accused of not declaring his wife's on the required disclosure statement. His income tax returns were how they found the error.

Too bad you're not some one I have the slightest shred of respect for. If you were I'd be forced to publicly admit my error and stand corrected.

Maybe someone else will point it out.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by incognitoenfuego

The Democrats are elitist

im sorry. do you have any proof whatsoever that this is true? or are you just repeating something that glenn beck told you? because the democrats are certainly no more elitist than the republicans, who just recently decided that they would not pass ANY legislation through the house until they got the tax cuts on the wealthiest two percent.

They got the Bush tax cuts extensions for ALL AMERICANS. I wish they would of let them expire,that way they could have gotten a better deal on Jan. 6 and made them retroactive.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Too bad you're not some one I have the slightest shred of respect for. If you were I'd be forced to publicly admit my error and stand corrected.

Maybe someone else will point it out.

Too bad you are such a bad judge of character, perhaps that is why you seem to have none.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Once again you get the facts confused. Clarence Thomas is not accused of evading income taxes. He is accused of not declaring his wife's on the required disclosure statement. His income tax returns were how they found the error.

I'd say it's more than an accusation at this point. Thomas admitted the "error". Of course, he said he misunderstood the instructions. They specifically ask that you report your spouses sources of income, but that was evidently too complicated for a Supreme Court justice.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

I'd say it's more than an accusation at this point. Thomas admitted the "error". Of course, he said he misunderstood the instructions. They specifically ask that you report your spouses sources of income, but that was evidently too complicated for a Supreme Court justice.

He stands accused of violating an ethics rule, that Judges must disclose their spouses employer.

From ABC News, this quote:

"It has come to my attention that information regarding my spouse's employment required in Part III B of my financial disclosure report was inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions," Thomas wrote in a letter to the committee that handles the reports.
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires all federal judges to disclose their spouse's employer. They are not required to list the total income.

So at this point, according to the ABC article, it appears that the accusation is really that he did not disclose her employment at "Liberty Central, a conservative political education group she co-founded in January 2009 in part to energize Tea Party activists".

No IRS laws are alleged to have been broken, so I guess we'll need to allow whomever is responsible to review such matters, the time to decide if he is guilty or a crime or not.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

He stands accused of violating an ethics rule, that Judges must disclose their spouses employer.

From ABC News, this quote:

So at this point, according to the ABC article, it appears that the accusation is really that he did not disclose her employment at "Liberty Central, a conservative political education group she co-founded in January 2009 in part to energize Tea Party activists".

No IRS laws are alleged to have been broken, so I guess we'll need to allow whomever is responsible to review such matters, the time to decide if he is guilty or a crime or not.

He admitted the error. Do you honestly find it believable that his failure to disclose her major source of income, which, by the way, is completely inappropriate, was "inadvertant"?

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

He admitted the error. Do you honestly find it believable that his failure to disclose her major source of income, which, by the way, is completely inappropriate, was "inadvertant"?

Yes and no, I find that his explanation has merit, I also think he was poorly advised not to declare it.

Right now I think that the story needs to be investigated by those who are charged with that task. We may learn more as time passes.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

I'd say it's more than an accusation at this point. Thomas admitted the "error". Of course, he said he misunderstood the instructions. They specifically ask that you report your spouses sources of income, but that was evidently too complicated for a Supreme Court justice.

And of course it couldn't have anything to do with a sitting supreme court justice with a wife who apparently makes a pretty good living working for Republicans and Republican/Conservative propaganda machines like the Heritage Foundation.

Plus did you note that they are still digging for a disclosure for one more employer? I'm betting that's going to be a big one if they've filed for release of it and Thomas has not provided it yet.

[stumbler]

But here's some more Republican hilarity and another perfect example of the lie and hypocrisy conservatism is as it is preached and practiced in this nation.

Why did we have an illegal immigration problem culminating in the 1980's? Well because lots of illegal aliens came here for jobs and people and businesses would employ them. But we were supposed to have cured that with the amnesty act in 1985. The illegal aliens that were here were granted amnesty but from then on not no illegal aliens not no how.

So what happened. Well once the economy started moving again a cheap and exploitable illegal workforce was a very handy thing. It was good for profits and profits are good for the economy. So good in fact that illegal immigration is supposed to be ............. well you know illegal ...... against the law. Yet every major detergent company, food company, over the counter medication company and everyone else in business started printing labels in both English and Spanish and about every business that answered a phone was saying press two for Spanish.

Is that what you all call securing our borders because anyone more than 30 years old watched it happen just like I did.

And why were they coming here all this time?: In fact ever since we stole the whole southwest and made our own borders?

FOR JOBS

Ok here's our lying phony conservatives tackling the problem of illegal immigration again. They are calling for more workplace raids. More deportations even though deportations are at record rates. More get tough on those illegal immigrants.

I dare you to show me where the Republicans are saying they are going to go after the people and business who give them

JOBS

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,578382.story

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

But here's some more Republican hilarity and another perfect example of the lie and hypocrisy conservatism is as it is preached and practiced in this nation.

Why did we have an illegal immigration problem culminating in the 1980's? Well because lots of illegal aliens came here for jobs and people and businesses would employ them. But we were supposed to have cured that with the amnesty act in 1985. The illegal aliens that were here were granted amnesty but from then on not no illegal aliens not no how.

So what happened. Well once the economy started moving again a cheap and exploitable illegal workforce was a very handy thing. It was good for profits and profits are good for the economy. So good in fact that illegal immigration is supposed to be ............. well you know illegal ...... against the law. Yet every major detergent company, food company, over the counter medication company and everyone else in business started printing labels in both English and Spanish and about every business that answered a phone was saying press two for Spanish.

Is that what you all call securing our borders because anyone more than 30 years old watched it happen just like I did.

And why were they coming here all this time?: In fact ever since we stole the whole southwest and made our own borders?

FOR JOBS

Ok here's our lying phony conservatives tackling the problem of illegal immigration again. They are calling for more workplace raids. More deportations even though deportations are at record rates. More get tough on those illegal immigrants.

I dare you to show me where the Republicans are saying they are going to go after the people and business who give them

JOBS

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,578382.story

Large-scale workplace arrests of illegal workers were hallmarks of the George W. Bush administration's approach in its final years. But two years ago Obama decided to shift enforcement efforts to focus on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.

Arrests from worksite raids for immigration-related offenses, such as using a forged driver's license or a fake Social Security number, have dropped by 70% since the end of the Bush administration, when a series of large raids of factories and meatpacking plants received national media attention.

Because Democrats hold a Senate majority and Obama has veto power, the GOP cannot force a change in the enforcement policy.

Obama's plan really worked well.

It's early yet and I believe the right will go after illegal immigrants. Arizona wants to, but Holder stopped that in it's tracks. So I'll return that same question back at you, what are the democrats going to do?