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 (687006)	12/3/2012 1:34:35 PM
From: puborectalis	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584250

The next couple of years "seem likely to be one long Republican tantrum," Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, wrote on his New York Times blog on Sunday. "This is going to be nightmarish." Krugman referred specifically to House Speaker John Boehner's remarks to Fox News Sunday that "Congress is never going to give up this power" of forcing budget cuts every time the government needs to raise the debt ceiling. "I've made it clear to the president, that every time we get to the debt limit, we need to cut some reforms that are greater than the increase in the debt limit," Boehner said. The government faces a perfect storm of sorts. The Obama administration and Congress are negotiating a deal to avert the fiscal cliff, a set of tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled for Jan. 1. Congressional Republicans plan to use the debt ceiling, which the government is scheduled to hit around February, as leverage to get what they want: spending cuts and an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts. Obama's opening offer to Republicans would effectively eliminate the requirement for Congress to raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling fight last summer damaged the economy. Job growth stalled, and the unemployment rate rose. The government had to borrow at higher interest rates, costing taxpayers $18.9 billion over 10 years.

To: tejek who wrote (687006)	12/3/2012 1:44:11 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1584250

Spew out the lefty Jew Hate, rejekt.

To: tejek who wrote (687006)	12/3/2012 1:45:13 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1584250

Crispian Balmer defines the word "bias" r-mew.blogspot.com Thomson Reuters maintains a corporate governance charter called the Trust Principles. Amongst other commitments to high ideals and lofty ethical values, the Trust Principles affirm: That the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Thomson Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved. It's Reuters systematic failure to uphold its commitment to freedom from bias that we often focus on at RMEW. And here's a prime illustration... In an op-ed on the Shalit deal, misleadingly labeled as "Analysis" so Reuters can syndicate the de facto opinion piece to hundreds of other media outlets, Jerusalem Bureau Chief Crispian Balmer asserts: The Palestinian Territories are split geographically and ideologically, with Gaza run by Hamas and the occupied West Bank run by President Mahmoud Abbas, who wants peace with Israel. On what does Balmer base his claim that Abbas wants peace with Israel? On the specious argument that, "Abbas has led Palestinian negotiating efforts for years". To that we say, so what? Abbas has frequently boasted that in his "negotiating efforts", he has made no concessions to the Israelis, and never will. Is that evidence of someone who "wants peace with Israel"? No. On the other hand, *Balmer relies on anonymous "critics" (a violation of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism)* to claim: His [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] many critics allege he has no intention of ever concluding a broad treaty, despite his often-repeated calls for talks. So notwithstanding the fact that Abbas has refused to compromise in peace talks with Israel and is currently refusing even to negotiate, Balmer endorses him, unequivocally, as a man who wants peace. At the same time, Netanyahu, who has already made unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians and repeatedly calls for peace talks, is cynically cast by Balmer as someone who does not want peace. A perfectly logical argument -- coming from a partisan masquerading as an independent journalist.