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: tejek who wrote (673944)	9/17/2012 1:10:44 AM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583681

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President Leads, Obama Follows by Ben Shapiro 16 Sep 2012 breitbart.com Today, UN Ambassador Susan Rice explained to Jake Tapper of ABC News that America wasn’t “impotent” in the Middle East. What was her proof? Let's look at what's happened. It's quite the opposite of being impotent. We have worked with the governments in Egypt. President Obama picked up the phone and talked to President Morsi in Egypt. And as soon as he did that, the security provided to our personnel in our embassies dramatically increased. Tapper rightly pointed out that for two days, Egyptian President Morsi, an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-American Muslim Brotherhood leader, said nothing. But Rice continued: President Morsi has been out repeatedly and said that he condemns this violence. He's called off -- and his people have called off any further demonstrations and have made very clear that this has to stop. If this is demonstration of American influence and power in the Middle East, we’re in serious trouble. Far from Morsi taking American cues this week, President Obama took Morsi’s cues. Morsi was the tip of the spear during the Arab Spring; now he’s dictating the politics of the Islamist Uprising. This week, he told Obama to jump; Obama asked how high. It began with the attacks on the Cairo embassy themselves. The Cairo embassy tweeted before the attacks, upon hearing rumors that they were coming, that they condemned “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” After the attacks commenced, the embassy tweeted, “This morning’s condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands.” For two days after this, President Morsi said nothing. President Obama did nothing about it. Meanwhile, it was revealed that while President Obama would not meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the end of this month in New York, he would be getting together with the tight-lipped Islamist fanatic Egyptian president. When Morsi finally did speak, he informed President Obama that while he condemned the assaults on the US embassy and would up security, he wanted President Obama to “to put an end to such behavior.” He was referring, of course, to the infamous YouTube video “Innocence of Muslims,” which supposedly spurred the riots – although it is now clear that the videos had virtually nothing to do with the riots, or the attack on our consulate in Libya that ended with the murder of our ambassador. This was Morsi saying jump. And President Obama predictably asked how high. First, he tried to tell YouTube and Google to remove the video from the internet. Then, when YouTube and Google refused, the filmmaker behind “Innocence of Muslims” found himself being questioned by federal probation officers. We still live in a First Amendment country. But you wouldn’t know it to hear Obama and his spokespeople, particularly from the State Department, talk. Today, Rice termed “Innocence of Muslims” a “heinous,” “offensive,” “reprehensible,” “disgusting” piece of work that hadn’t been endorsed by the US government. As for the attacks on our embassies? Well, she just said there was “no excuse” for them. From her language, it’s clear that Rice was more upset about the YouTube video than she was about the attacks. Why? Because the Obama administration must remain focused on the video. The moment they acknowledge that Americans have First Amendment rights, and that the video and its content are utterly irrelevant, they have to face the sad truth that it isn’t a video that caused all of this – believe it or not, YouTube and anti-Islam sentiment existed before last Tuesday – but the Obama administration’s gutless and spineless foreign policy. While Obama keeps trotting out spokespeople to claim that the American hand remains at the steering wheel in the Middle East, it’s clear that we don’t. We’ve handed over the wheel to Muslim Brotherhood radicals like Muhammed Morsi. And now we’re taking cues from them.

To: tejek who wrote (673944)	9/17/2012 1:12:31 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583681

>> The bill was passed in 1997 and went into effect in 1998. >> The economy was in a sustained expansion by 1997 and the capital gains tax cut had a minimal impact on the GDP. I'm going to try to give you the overview, in 4th grade terms. The deficit for 1995 was above $200 Billion -- huge figures for that time. In early '95, the CBO and the WH OMB independently projected $200 Billion deficits from then on. This was two years after Clinton's tax hike. Obviously, the tax increase didn't help ANYTHING. In '95 we got a Republican Congress and they took control. If you look at the Clinton budgets from '95 through '99, from before the election, you would see a projected $1 Trillion in deficits. Clinton, in a panic, hired Dick Morris who came up with the idea of "triangulation", and by implementing Republican inspired programs like welfare reform, combined with the peace dividend, the budget was brought under control. Yes, the economy was starting to boil in the mid-90s, largely because of these measures (growth was @ 4% when Clinton took office, and the projections were for 2.5% growth after the tax increases). Finally, the cap gain rate cuts caused a huge surge in revenue and THAT is what got us nearly to a balanced budget. "When Clinton took office he did all the wrong things. He raised taxes sharply, hiking the top bracket from 35% to 39.6% and raised taxes on gasoline. The result was that the economy, which had been recovering, staggered. GDP growth dropped to 0.7% in Clinton’s first quarter (down from 4.3% in Bush’s last quarter) and stayed around 2% for the rest of 1993. Personal income rose 6.3% in 1992 under Bush but slowed to 4.1% under Clinton in 1993." -- Morris You also may want to check out the 2nd paragraph in Martin Feldstein's article from 1995 (or maybe even read the entire article): marshallinside.usc.edu The point is that Clinton owes his success to (a) Republican Congress, (b) Peace Dividend, and (c) Capital Gain rate cuts. These three things account for ALL the deficit reduction in Clinton's two terms. All of it.