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 : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: joseffy who wrote (124)	11/13/2012 2:35:17 PM
From: Carolyn	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

When you look at the entire picture, it is so obvious. But the unions, druggies, welfare types don't care.

To: joseffy who wrote (124)	11/14/2012 11:02:03 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 16547

Obama Dodges Question At Fiscal Press Conference The Deficit: It was the most important question of Wednesday's press conference on the fiscal cliff: How will you control spending? And the president refused to even answer. He still doesn't get it. needs tag 'That's a great question," Obama said, "but it would be a horrible precedent for me to answer your question just because you yelled it out." And with that, he left the room. Obama spent most of the event vowing to hike taxes on the "top 2%" of income earners, as well as on capital gains and dividends — which sent stocks tumbling an additional 128 points. This appears to be the cornerstone of his deficit-reduction plan. The president is convinced raising taxes on the most successful members of society will raise some $1 trillion in revenues and help close gaping holes in his budget. Meanwhile, he completely ignores the other side of the ledger — government spending — which is the main source of his record deficits. Obama has boosted government spending from its postwar average of about 20% of GDP to an estimated 24.3% of GDP this year — with little decline expected in years to come. He dodges because he wants to spend even more. He actually admitted he intends to take money he collects from the rich and "invest" in things like "research," which he insists is "key" to growing the economy. Ponder that: Obama actually believes government can do a better job of investing than the wealthy. Did he learn nothing from the bath he forced taxpayers to take on his boondoggle $500 million Solyndra investment? Obama remains unconvinced low tax rates raise revenues. He thinks they "cost" the Treasury — "we can't afford them" — and he refused to entertain any deficit-reduction plan that uses "dynamic scoring," a kind of budget analysis that basically takes into account the real-world behavioral effects that changes in taxes and spending have on individuals and businesses. Yet his predecessors, including Presidents Kennedy and Clinton, understood the dynamic effect tax cuts have on the economy and the tax base. It's not a hard concept to understand for any sentient human whose faculty of reason is not rewired by Marxism. It goes like this: Reducing tax rates on the creators of wealth creates more wealth — and more revenues. If you let successful people keep more of their money, they tend to put that money to more productive use than the government. And that translates into more jobs and more people working and paying taxes. Which means more money for the Treasury. The historic record is clear. In 1997, Clinton agreed to chop the capital-gains rate to 20% from 28%. The S&P 500 soared 78% and government revenues exploded nearly 60%, producing — in conjunction with GOP spending controls — a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000. In 1964, after Kennedy slashed the top marginal income-tax rate to 70% from 91%, the economy boomed, individual income tax revenues nearly doubled, and the deficit shrank to $1 billion from $7 billion. By 1968, however, the deficit ballooned back to $25 billion as President Johnson's spending on the War on Poverty outstripped revenue growth. Obama also blew up the deficit, yet he never cut income tax rates. He blew it by spending too much. For every $7 in revenues Obama collected, he spent nearly $11. And if he succeeds in raising taxes on the rich, he'll blow that money, too. It won't go to reducing the deficit. It'll go to new green pork. And welfare. And ObamaCare. At a moment that demands thoughtful action and compromise to solve our crushing debt crisis, the nation is trapped in a fiscal debate premised on discredited claims and revised history. Obama's mulish tax-and-spend stance threatens to destabilize the market, already down 5% since his election, and tip the economy into another recession.

To: joseffy who wrote (124)	11/14/2012 11:02:47 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

Fatal Distraction: Focus On Benghazi, Not Broadwell Petraeus Scandal: Four Americans have been killed under still-unexplained circumstances, yet the obsession is with a general's mistress and not with the truth of why these men were left to die in Libya. How ironic that the FBI agents who descended on the home of Paula Broadwell to gather information on the mistress of now-former CIA Director David Petraeus probably did a better job than the FBI agents who gave a cursory look at our burned-out consulate in Benghazi, leaving behind classified documents strewn on the floor and even our ambassador's diary to be picked up by CNN. A press that ignored the administration's incompetence and swallowed its lies whole now salivates over every episode of what some have dubbed "The Real Housewives of West Point." Protect the president, but slime the military as a commune of lechers. Senate Intelligence Committee head Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is insisting that her committee hear directly from Petraeus about his October trip to Libya to personally inquire about the Sept. 11 terror attack on the Benghazi consulate. The general reportedly will cooperate. What did the nation's chief spy find out? What's in his report? Did it have anything to do with the curious timing of his "resignation," just after the election and just before he was to testify to Congress? Will it blow the administration's narrative out of the water? Who gave the order for forces to "stand down" and not go to the rescue of the consulate compound or the safe house? A week before Petraeus' resignation, the CIA issued a flat denial that any order to stand down ever came from anyone in the agency. Why wasn't a rescue attempt mounted when AC-130 gunships and Apache attack helicopters could have arrived in time? Why, two days after officials from the National Counterterrorism Center gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said Benghazi was likely a terrorist attack and that there were several al-Qaida training camps just outside Benghazi, did Petraeus tell lawmakers exactly the opposite, following the administration line that the attack was more consistent with a flash mob infuriated by an obscure Internet video? And as long as we must mention Ms. Broadwell, can anyone explain the speech she made at the University of Denver on Oct. 26 in which she revealed the news that the CIA had been holding two terrorist prisoners at the consulate and the attack was an attempt by terrorists to rescue them? Was this made up to hype her biography of Petraeus, ironically titled "All In," gleaned from his computer, or was it indiscreet pillow talk? The press showed little interest in Benghazi when it could have been an Obama campaign show-stopper. But sex sells, particularly generals engaged in unauthorized maneuvers. Would anyone have cared if it wasn't one general's presumed mistress sending harassing emails to another general's alleged mistress? The Obama administration, which successfully kicked the Benghazi can past the election, is probably delighted the focus is on what happened in Petraeus' bedroom rather than in the White House Situation Room on Sept. 11, 2012. But Benghazigate is a far graver matter than the military version of "bimbo eruptions," and the country deserves answers.