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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (657612)	6/4/2012 4:16:50 AM
From: puborectalis	Respond to of 1575985

We already have tremendous inequality in our country: The richest 1 percent of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute. But we do still have a measure of equality before the law — equality in our basic dignity — and that should be priceless. “Market fundamentalism,” to use the term popularized by George Soros, is gaining ground. It’s related to the glorification of wealth over the last couple of decades, to the celebration of opulence, and to the emergence of a new aristocracy. Market fundamentalists assume a measure of social Darwinism and accept that laissez-faire is always optimal. That’s the dogma that helped lead to bank deregulation and the current economic mess. And anyone who honestly believes that low taxes and unfettered free markets are always best should consider moving to Pakistan’s tribal areas. They are a triumph of limited government, negligible taxes, no “burdensome regulation” and free markets for everything from drugs to AK-47s. If you’re infatuated with unfettered free markets, just visit Waziristan. n.Kristoff

To: i-node who wrote (657612)	6/4/2012 5:32:51 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575985

Obama-Backed UNESCO Bashing Israel Again The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) this week hosted meetings on the status of Palestine, again drawing attention to its position on an issue that forced the United States to cut off funding for the agency. At the three days of meetings in Paris, which began Wednesday, speakers charged Israel with “systematic terrorism,” “throttling the people” of Gaza, pursuing “criminal” policies and a “policy of racist violence.” They also accused Israel of “operating a torture machine” and spreading propaganda to downplay the Palestinians’ plight, CNS News reported. Last November, the U.S. government cut funding to UNESCO after it became the first U.N. agency to grant full membership to “Palestine.” A U.S. law enacted in 1990 bars funding to “the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.” Prior to the cutoff, the organization received 22 percent of its operating budget from the U.S. — around $80 million a year. The Obama administration wants to restore the funding and is looking for support in Congress for a waiver that would make that possible. But Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Wednesday: “UNESCO is once again directly engaged in promoting Israel-bashing, this time by hosting and participating in this anti-Israel U.N. confab. “This reminds us that UNESCO’s admission of ‘Palestine’ was not a fluke, and that UNESCO is reverting to anti-Israel bias and is unworthy of U.S. funding.” UNESCO’s deputy director-general, Getachew Engida, spoke at the agency’s gathering on Wednesday and called the meeting “a watershed moment,” noting that “seven months ago, Palestine became the 195th member of UNESCO.” Engida was followed by Palestinian Authority women’s affairs minister Rabiha Diab, who hailed the role of Palestinian women in “all forms of the struggle” against Israel. Palestinian women living in Jerusalem, she said, were “the subject of a policy of systematic terrorism that is aimed at complicating their lives and weakening them.” U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, an Obama appointee, said in March that UNESCO was “essentially an anti-extremist organization” involved in “essential work, from girls’ education to tsunami warning, that serves U.S. interests,” adding that “it’s not in our interests for these critical programs to go without 22 percent of funding.” But Rep. Ros-Lehtinen said: “Rather than trying to defend the indefensible, the Obama administration must stop spinning for UNESCO, condemn that body’s anti-Israel behavior, and withdraw its request for Congress to amend U.S. law to restore funding to UNESCO.”

To: i-node who wrote (657612)	6/4/2012 11:39:47 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575985

Most startups fail, Dave. That's the way it is.

To: i-node who wrote (657612)	6/4/2012 11:44:18 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575985

If Obama Wins, Romney's Tax Bill Could Jump $5M BUT A ROMNEY WIN WOULD SAVE OBAMA $90K By the Associated Press newser.com Posted Jun 4, 2012 8:25 AM CDT (AP) – A fun bit of election math from two non-profit research groups: What will the effect be on rich guys Mitt Romney and Barack Obama's tax bills if the other wins? If Romney wins and enacts his own proposal, he'll pay half what he would under Obama's tax plan—saving almost $5 million a year. Obama, not so loaded as Romney but still well-off, would no longer be in the White House, but he'd be $90,000 richer. Both men would be dinged in 2013 under Obama's proposal. Here's the breakdown, based on Obama's 2011 tax return and Romney's 2010 return: Romney: Assuming inflation-adjusted earnings of $23 million, he'd pay an effective rate of 34% under the Obama plan. That drops to 13% under Romney's own tax proposal, even lower than the 15% he estimated for 2011. The difference between the two candidates' plans: paying the taxman $7.8 million vs. $3 million. Obama: Like others who are taxed at earned income instead of investment rates, Obama's bill wouldn't swing as dramatically under the differing plans. He reported paying an effective tax rate of almost 21% on about $790,000 in income in 2011. Under his own plan, that would climb to 28%. Under Romney's plan, it drops to 18%. The difference: $248,000 vs. $158,000.