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: combjelly who wrote (678086)	10/9/2012 3:57:48 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572507

Obama Thought He had WON the Debate…Until Aides Told Him He had Lost! by Bryan Preston Bio After Obama’s reaction to last week’s debacle in Denver, David Axelrod must have asked himself if The Won hadn’t taken a few too many drags on the choom. President Barack Obama did not take his debate preparation seriously, ignored the advice of senior aides and walked off the stage in Denver believing he had got the better of Mitt Romney, according to a Democrat close to the Obama campaign. The Democrat said that Obama’s inner circle was dismayed at the ‘disaster’ that the first presidential debate had turned out to be and believed that the central problem was that the President was so disdainful of Romney that he didn’t believe he needed to engage with him. [iframe style="border: 0pt none ;" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="google_ads_iframe_/1011927/PJM_300_by_250_middle_0" id="google_ads_iframe_/1011927/PJM_300_by_250_middle_0" frameborder="0" height="250" scrolling="no" width="300"][/iframe] ‘President Obama made it clear he wanted to be doing anything else – anything – but debate prep,’ the Democrat said. ‘He kept breaking off whenever he got the opportunity and never really focused on the event. Plus, he came armed with lousy ideas backed up by zero facts. ‘He went into the debate armed with a number of one-liners to throw at Romney, including at least two about Romney not caring about 47 per cent of the country. But he decided not to use them.’ The Democrat, who is aligned with the Obama campaign and has been an unofficial adviser on occasions, said that David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, was stunned that the President left the stage feeling that he had won the debate. Wow. h/t Dan Riehl

To: combjelly who wrote (678086)	10/9/2012 4:12:24 PM
From: PROLIFE	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572507

You sure are whoring for Caesarobama. He promised to close GITMO first thing....didn't happen....another lie. the man cannot keep from lying, so what does he do? He puts out lying ads about Gov. Romney. you know it, the whole damned world knows it, so why are you whoring for a liar?

To: combjelly who wrote (678086)	10/9/2012 4:26:47 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572507

PICKET: New book shows U.S. top earners pay larger share of taxes than any other industrialized nation The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore has just come out with a new book titled Who's the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America and he reveals some interesting information about how much the top ten percent of income earners in the United States pay in federal income taxes as opposed to any other industrialized nation in the world. According to Moore, these earners pay almost half (45 percent) of the country's total taxes. This conclusion flies in the face of the liberal concept that top earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes. Moore explains: "The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent)." Moore also delves into what the "47 percent" of America actually pays and receives from the federal government and that the perception that the middle class is shrinking is a myth. In fact, the actual trend has been an upward mobility and a better standard of living for the middle class and lower income earners in the last 25 years. The Heritage Foundation has been arguing these facts for years. Consider what happened each time the U.S. reduced the tax rate significantly: 1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, yet the rich (in those days, those earning $50,000 and up) went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than 78 percent in 1928. 1960s: President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. In the ensuing three years, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise by 57 percent, and their share of the tax burden climbed from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent. 1980s: The Reagan years saw the top rate fall from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988. What happened to the rich? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to over 57 percent in 1988. Additionally, more tax revenue went back to the federal government each time the taxes were lowered. So does it really make sense to strip the upper income earners of their keep? Liberals have yet to answer how that ever improves the lives' of the middle class or lower income earners in the long run Read more: PICKET: New book shows U.S. top earners pay larger share of taxes than any other industrialized nation - Washington Times washingtontimes.com Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter