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 (130390)	4/18/2012 8:53:20 AM
From: Sedohr Nod	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

And a doubling of the capital gains tax if he gets his way....there is no way in hell this guy is going to get reelected.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (130390)	4/18/2012 9:18:21 AM
From: Follies	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

<<a doubling of gas prices>> and a doubling of the stock market.. If the prices of everything doubles then we are just back to where we started. Except of course for cap gains. But tthat's only 15%, except if iI pay less in taxes than my secretary, then it goes to 35%. tThat's the ticket, double the price of everything and then the government gets 35% of it.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (130390)	4/18/2012 9:32:47 AM
From: tonto	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

An appeals court upheld a requirement in a 2004 Arizona law that voters show identification before they can cast ballots, saying that there wasn't evidence that the mandate disparately affected Latinos as the challengers had alleged. A 12-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling Tuesday that there was evidence Arizona has racially polarized voting and a history of discrimination against Latinos, but concluded that no proof was offered to show that the ID requirement gave Latinos fewer opportunities to vote. The court, however, found that the federal National Voter Registration Act trumps another section of the Arizona law that requires people to prove their citizenship in order to vote. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn't require them to show proof as Arizona's law does. "Today's ruling vindicates all the U.S. citizens who were improperly rejected for voter registration in Arizona," Nina Perales, a lawyer for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund who argued against the law in court, said in a written statement. "Arizona may no longer flaunt federal law in voter registration, particularly in a manner that discriminates against newly naturalized citizens." The ruling on the requirement for proof of citizenship doesn't affect voter registrations in Arizona that involve either the state's own form or the state's online system to register when renewing a driver's license. Most people use those methods and the state form is what county officials give people to use to register, said Matt Roberts, a spokesman for Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett. However, the ruling may make the federal mail-in card more popular because it's more convenient than mailing in a state form with a photocopy of proof of citizenship, Perales said. Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, whose office defended the law in court, said he expects that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the question of whether Arizona can require people to prove citizenship as a condition of voter registration. "The people of Arizona have a right to request that people registering to vote show some evidence they are citizens and we fully expect the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold that," Horne said. In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, a law that denied some government benefits to illegal immigrants and required Arizonans to show identification before voting. The case before the appeals court challenged the law's voting provision and not the benefit denial provisions. Critics say the law's voter identification requirement is an inconvenience and a barrier for minority voters, while supporters said the requirement serves as a safeguard for the election system by preventing non-citizens from casting ballots. The ruling Tuesday upholds an October 2010 ruling by a smaller panel of the appeals court. The decision by the larger panel of the court said Arizona's requirement that voters show IDs before casting a ballot wasn't a poll tax and doesn't violate equal protection rights within the Constitution. Opponents of the law argued that at least 30,000 potential voters have been excluded from voting in Arizona because they failed to provide other documents required by the state, even though there was no evidence they weren't eligible to vote. Lawyers for the state defended the voting rules by saying it wasn't unreasonable for the state to seek more documentation and that some non-citizens have been tricked into signing postcards by voter registration organizations that have sent people door to door. They also said the proof of citizenship requirement was not burdensome because the vast majority of prospective voters only have to provide a number from a driver's license, tribal identification card or certificate of naturalization, not produce an actual document. The U.S. Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case urging the 9th Circuit to overturn the state law, saying the law is invalid because it conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act. Read more: foxnews.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (130390)	4/18/2012 12:24:38 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

Economy slowing down? posted at 11:01 am on April 18, 2012 by Ed Morrissey The Obama administration got caught flat-footed a couple of weeks ago by an anemic job-creation report for March from the Department of Labor, and it looks as if that was no fluke. Two more economic indicators over the last 24 hours show at least a slowdown in the US economy — and potentially bad news for Barack Obama’s prospects in the next election. Manufacturing output dropped for the first time in four months, as Reuters reported last night: Manufacturing output slipped for the first time in four months, dropping 0.2 percent, the U.S. Federal Reserve said on Tuesday. The decline dragged on overall industrial production which was unchanged and fell short of analysts’ expectations. “It looks pretty bad on the face of it,” said Tom Porcelli, an economist at RBC Capital Markets in New York. Surging exports and efforts by companies to restock their shelves have made economic growth look more solid in recent weeks. The factory data did little to change that view, but economists said it suggested the recovery lost a little steam at the close of the first quarter, in part due to headwinds from Europe’s debt crisis, which is weighing on global growth. On top of that, residential housing starts plummeted 5.8% in March, although permits jumped by over 7%. Most of the decline came in multi-unit housing. Permits, however, sharply declined for private single-unit housing: Privately-owned housing starts in March were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 654,000. This is 5.8 percent (±15.6%)* below the revised February estimate of 694,000, but is 10.3 percent (±14.6%)* above the March 2011 rate of 593,000. Single-family housing starts in March were at a rate of 462,000; this is 0.2 percent (±12.6%)* below the revised February figure of 463,000. The March rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 178,000. … Privately-owned housing units authorized by building permits in March were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 747,000. This is 4.5 percent (±1.1%) above the revised February rate of 715,000 and is 30.1 percent (±1.6%) above the March 2011 estimate of 574,000. Single-family authorizations in March were at a rate of 462,000; this is 3.5 percent (±1.1%) below the revised February figure of 479,000. Authorizations of units in buildings with five units or more were at a rate of 262,000 in March. The best that analysts could offer as positive spin was that the housing market is still trying to find a bottom, after predicting a slight increase to 705,000: Some analysts speculated that a mild winter in the U.S. led homebuilders to start new projects ahead of schedule, and that March’s decline amounted to a payback. “Weather was so mild earlier in the year we might have pulled some of the starts forward,” said Mark Foster, who helps manage $500 million at Kirr Marbach & Co. in Columbus, Ind. “But the trend looks good, it feels like the housing market is trying to form a bottom.” However, the demand for purchases appears to have tailed off again. The Mortgage Bankers Association reports that purchase applications for mortgages dropped by over 11% last week, even though long-term rates declined. That did spur a spike in applications, but for refinancing rather than new buyers: The Mortgage Bankers Association said its seasonally adjusted index of mortgage application activity, which includes both refinancing and home purchase demand, rose 6.9 percent in the week ended April 13. The MBA’s seasonally adjusted index of refinancing applications surged 13.5 percent, but the gauge of loan requests for home purchases dropped 11.2 percent. It was the second week in a row purchases have declined. … The refinance share of total mortgage activity climbed to 75.2 percent of applications from 70.5 percent the week before. There isn’t too much mystery about this. Manufacturing slowdowns mean fewer new hires; fewer new hires means lower demand for home purchases, which leads to fewer housing starts, and all of that gets reflected in the mortgage application statistics. On top of that, the recent settlement on foreclosures will put more competitive pressure on new housing, as some potential buyers will aim for bargains in foreclosures and short sales rather than pay a premium for new housing. Obama really needed to show some significant growth this spring. So far, it looks like the stagnation of the past two springs may be returning a third time.