Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (105617)	5/28/2011 9:37:39 AM
From: locogringo	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224858

Indiana Speaker: Democrats’ Walkout Clinched Education Reform House Democrats in Indiana thought they were being clever by walking out on the legislative session in February, stealing a page out of the Wisconsin Democrats’ playbook. Instead of having a debate on the serious issues of education reform, they decided to skip town to Urbana, Illinois and enjoy a break. A break, by the way, that was completely paid for by labor unions. According to Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma, the stunt actually backfired. biggovernment.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (105617)	5/28/2011 9:41:48 AM
From: locogringo	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224858

Michelle Rhee Unplugged: School Voucher Opponent-Turned-Advocate Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of D.C. Public Schools and self-described “card-carrying, life-long Democrat,” said she was instinctively opposed to school vouchers because she was “on the side of the workers.” In her former line of thinking, teachers’ unions oppose vouchers and teachers’ unions support Democrats, so Democrats should oppose vouchers. Then she realized what vouchers were doing for the lives of those the teachers’ unions purport to care about. biggovernment.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (105617)	5/28/2011 9:59:24 AM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224858

Stockman The Super Krugman lol He is just another gilted "knowitall" who was dumped years ago. Kind of Carteresque eh? By Mickey Kaus Archive \| Email Mickey Kaus Get Mickey Kaus Feed Ads by Google6.5% CD Rate AlternativesAlternatives to Low Rate CDs Fixed Rates / Principal Protected www.SeemanHoltz.comDavid Stockman on the causes of rising economic inequality: [T]he share of wealth held by the top 1 percent of households has risen to 35 percent from 21 percent since 1979, while their share of income has more than doubled to around 20 percent. The culprit here was the combination of ultralow rates of interest at the Federal Reserve and ultralow rates of taxation on capital gains. The former destroyed the nation’s capital markets, fueling huge growth in household and business debt, serial asset bubbles and endless leveraged speculation in equities, commodities, currencies and other assets. At the same time, the nearly untaxed windfall gains accrued to pure financial speculators, not the backyard inventors envisioned by the Republican-inspired capital-gains tax revolution of 1978. Ads by GoogleCan this possibly be an accurate list of the causes of greater money inequality, even at the top? a) Trade and technology, both of which devalue unsklled labor, reward skills, and multiply the payoffs to successful entrepreneurs, had nothing to do with it? Remember that income inequality began growing at least a few years before the “capital gains-tax revolution of 1978.” b) Last time I checked–which admittedly was a long time ago–taxes couldn’t come close to explaining the entire inequality boom. Incomes at the top have been rapidly rising before taxes, remember. CEOs of old-style corporations as well as asset-trading I-bankers now routinely pull down multimillion dollar paychecks. Maybe, thanks to GOP tax cuts, they get to keep more of those checks and invest them (though Clinton raised their taxes, without stopping the boom at the top). In 1992, I crudely-but-cautiously estimated** that taxes didn’t come close to explaining even half the increase at the top. More recently, Timothy Noah estimated that taxes caused a mere 5% of the rise in inequality. Joseph Stiglitz, in a new article about the top 1%, lists taxes as only one factor in a long list–a list that itself is only “one big part” of the explanation for inequality. Even Paul Krugman has blamed economic policy, including taxes for having “reinforced, not countered, the movement toward greater inequality”–a movement implicitly caused by other factors; c) As for asset bubbles, don’t the rich get less rich when the bubbles burst? I suppose any kind of volatility makes those who guess right every time even richer. But how many of them are there? … P.S.: I’m not quite sure what role Stockman’s super-Krugmanesque view–that inequality is “policy-driven”–has in his argument for tough deficit-cutting. He seems to be saying there’s an underlying rationale for Obama’s emphasis on raising taxes for the top 2%, even though we actually need a much broader tax hike. But does Stockman believe that even if income inequality were driven entirely by, say, increasing returns to education, or to luck, that Obama wouldn’t propose taxing the rich to compensate, and that he’d have no justification for doing so? Maybe Stockman’s weird explanation of inequality doesn’t serve a purpose in his argument. Maybe it’s just what he actually believes. But it still seems weird. … _____ Read more: dailycaller.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (105617)	5/28/2011 10:09:14 AM
From: locogringo	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224858

How Unions are Discouraging Companies to Set-up Business in America? The NLRB and the unions do not think on a long-term basis. The impact of the IAM-Boeing case is huge. If a company cannot choose where to locate its production in the US, the question will be raised whether to locate it abroad. Boeing could have chosen to locate the second production line in Mexico but they picked up South Carolina, creating 1,000 jobs by the way. In the SEIU-Sodexo case, the union has been going after the company to become the representative union of its 120,000 employees (which means collecting the 120,000 annual memberships). To do so, the union has tried to tarnish the company reputation, to make it lose contracts and put it under increasing pressure. What they do not tell is that when a client decides to terminate its contract with Sodexo, employees’ contracts are also terminated or they are put under a probationary period as this is going to be the case for all non-managerial employees of Sodexo at the Western Washington University in the coming weeks. In the end, the SEIU is weakening American workers, putting them at risk of losing their jobs. biggovernment.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (105617)	5/28/2011 10:13:35 AM
From: Sedohr Nod	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224858

Which part of “austerity and sacrifice” are you willing to sign up for?....Taxing the other guy does not count.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (105617)	5/28/2011 10:23:27 AM
From: chartseer	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224858

Isn't he saying the Repulsives became just like the Dumasrats? Therefore they destroyed the economy by becoming big spenders just like the Dumasrats. "Cut the spending!" Drill! Drill! Drill! citizen chartseer

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (105617)	5/28/2011 10:31:13 AM
From: locogringo	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224858

Void of judge's ruling on unions sought (the political hack) Madison - The state Department of Justice asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to immediately vacate a judge's decision that voided a plan by Gov. Scott Walker to greatly limit collective bargaining for public workers. In its filing, the department said Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi made so many errors in a ruling Thursday that the Supreme Court should throw out her decision even before it hears oral arguments in the case June 6. "These errors amount to a fundamental denial of due process and reveal the extent to which the circuit court was willing to exceed its jurisdiction in order to invalidate a politically controversial act of the Legislature," wrote Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John. jsonline.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (105617)	5/28/2011 10:42:27 AM
From: TideGlider	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224858

You probably don't know that it is a very old story. First written in 1985. Although cherry picked remarks by your hero newspaper appear a conviction of Reagan, the true excoriation by by Stockman was of the Republicans in congress who failed to curtail spending. This of course had much to do with both parties in the House and the Senate. Read Stockman's book.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (105617)	5/28/2011 3:20:12 PM
From: lorne	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224858

kenny..soros, samantha powers and hussein obama and of course yourself must be so proud that things are working out exactly as planned? After fall of Mubarak, group announces intent to form Nazi party Staff Wed, 25/05/2011 almasryalyoum.com A group of Egyptians have announced their intent to establish a Nazi party with "a contemporary frame of reference," an independent Egyptian news website said on Wednesday. Al-Badeel, a leftist news portal, quoted founding member Emad Abdel Sattar as saying the party would bring together prominent figures from the Egyptian society. The party’s founding deputy is a former military official. The party believes in vesting all powers in the president after selecting him or her carefully, Abdel Sattar said, adding that preparations are underway to choose the most competent person to represent the party. The Nazi party operated secretly under former President Hosni Mubarak, whose regime prevented party leaders from carrying out their activities freely. Although Al-Masry Al-Youm could not verify the news reported by Al-Badeel, two Facebook pages have appeared recently under the title of "the Egyptian Nazi Party". The two pages attracted around 70 followers, who mostly posted questions about the party's ideas and policies and requested details on how to join. Abdel Sattar told Al-Badeel that members are increasing at an unexpected rate, and several people came to ask about the nature of the party and its plans. The party has a one-year plan to develop Egypt, unlike the "marginalized liberal parties, which are like dead bodies,” he said. A source from the proposed party told Al-Badeel the idea to start it came after some fundamentalist religious waves emerged, which, according to the source, created a state of chaos and led to the burning of churches, the destruction of shrines and assaults on unarmed civilians. The founders want to avoid media attention until they are fully ready, the source said.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (105617)	5/28/2011 5:35:27 PM
From: lorne	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224858

KUHNER: Obama’s assault on conservative speech Michael Savage is no threat to the peace By Jeffrey T. Kuhner -The Washington Times Thursday, May 26, 2011 washingtontimes.com The party president is at it again. In Ireland, he belted back some Guinness. In Britain, he savored $1,000 wine and toasted the queen. In Poland, he is sure to feast on pirogi and vodka. Yet President Obama’s European trip is more than a waste of taxpayer dollars on celebrity diplomacy. It is a cultural watershed - a key moment when the leader of the free world stood by and did nothing while the free-speech rights of an American citizen were violated by the very government he was praising. Mr. Obama’s slogan should be: “Give me fine French Burgundy, or give me death!” An attorney for the British government reaffirmed that the ban on popular talk-radio host Michael Savage will remain in place. Britain’s previous Labor government put the fiery conservative on a national enemies list along with Hamas terrorists, neo-Nazis and Russian skinheads - vicious men who have committed murder or other serious criminal acts. Mr. Savage is banned from entering Britain. High-ranking correspondence shows that he was chosen for one reason: to provide “balance” against the high number of Muslim extremists. Mr. Savage has been falsely painted as an Islamophobic bigot who risks inciting violence and “intercommunal” tension. For Britain’s powerful Muslim lobby, he has become public enemy No. 1. London has put a giant target on his back. Being officially compared with terrorist butchers and Russian gangsters has exposed the talk-show host to the possibility of retaliation - especially by some crazed Islamist. There is not a scintilla of evidence, however, that Mr. Savage has called for or sparked criminal behavior - let alone violence and bloodshed. Britain’s political class is deliberately trying to destroy his good name and reputation. The hope that the Conservative government of Prime Minister David Cameron would repeal the outrageous ban vanished during Mr. Obama’s visit. British government spokesman Michael Atkins wrote to Mr. Savage’s attorney, “Your client has not provided any evidence to show that he did not commit the unacceptable behaviour” that caused the “decision to exclude him, nor has your client provided any acceptable evidence to show his repudiation of those unacceptable behaviours.” The ban inverts the basic principle of Anglo-American jurisprudence: the presumption of innocence. Mr. Savage is presumed guilty until proved innocent. Moreover, it represents a chilling assault on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It is a naked attempt to delegitimize and criminalize conservative ideas. Even leftists such as Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University, have condemned the ban for imposing limits on free expression. Mr. Savage is the victim of a political and judicial witch hunt. His real sin is not anything he has done; rather, it is what he stands for. Mr. Savage opposes statism, unlimited immigration and Muslim fundamentalism. He defends America’s national sovereignty and distinct cultural identity. In short, he is a nationalist who champions blood-and-soil conservatism. There is no place for him in multicultural Britain - and, increasingly, in post-Christian America. His show, “The Savage Nation,” is one of the last bastions of traditionalist nationalism. Unlike most other conservatives, Mr. Savage has no use for the “new world order” - economic globalization, free trade, rampant materialism, secularism and military interventionism. The ban is more than simply the persecution of an innocent man. It signifies the triumph of a creeping soft totalitarianism. There is an unholy alliance between the hard left and Islamic fascism. Media Matters, a group funded by socialist billionaire George Soros, spearheaded the drive to get Mr. Savage on the blacklist. Mr. Soros is using his millions to stifle conservative voices. Like all Leninists, he believes in using state power to eradicate opposing points of view. Mr. Soros is a transnational progressive. He believes in one-world government marked by high taxes, lavish social programs, abortion on demand, euthanasia, the legalization of drugs and the appeasement of Islamic terrorism. He shares with Islamists one overriding impulse: the hatred of America. The political gods demand that Mr. Savage be sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism. By persecuting Mr. Savage, the British government has turned him into a martyr. He has become a dissident of the European Union regime. Mr. Cameron is a phony conservative - a Red Tory. Whether it is the environment, gay marriage, abortion, Islam, taxes or now Mr. Savage, he is a liberal masquerading as a Thatcherite. Instead of demanding that Britain rescind its ban, Mr. Obama stood silent. He is only too happy to support this assault on free speech. It is part of a larger pattern against his critics. The president has demonized Fox News as illegitimate, urged his minority supporters to “punish” their Republican “enemies,” excluded skeptical journalists from press gaggles and demanded the passage of the Fairness Doctrine - which would muzzle much of conservative talk radio. He also wants the government to monitor and have emergency powers over the Internet. The Savage case gave Mr. Obama a golden opportunity to position himself as a centrist heading into the 2012 election. Had he come out against the ban, he would have shocked his political opponents and cast himself as a paladin of free expression. Rather, he did what most leftists do: kowtow to Mr. Soros, the sugar daddy of the Democratic Party. Like Mr. Soros, Mr. Obama cannot resist the Leninist temptation. Power trumps decency. Today, it is Mr. Savage. Tomorrow, it may be you.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (105617)	5/28/2011 5:55:39 PM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224858

Stockman's criticism of all politicians is valid.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (105617)	5/29/2011 9:06:07 AM
From: locogringo	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224858

Pro-Obama media always shocked by bad economic news Unexpectedly! After all, Obama can't keep blaming the economic doldrums on George W. Bush forever. Mainstream media may finally be catching up. "The latest economic numbers have not been good," David Leonhardt wrote in the May 26 New York Times. "Another report showed that economic growth at the start of the year was no faster than the Commerce Department initially reported -- 'a real surprise,' said Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics." Which raises some questions. As Instapundit reader Gordon Stewart, quoted by Reynolds on May 17, put it, "How many times in a row can something happen unexpectedly before the experts start to, you know, expect it? washingtonexaminer.com