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: bentway who wrote (695790)	1/28/2013 7:05:31 AM
From: puborectalis	1 Recommendation Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1583403

Makers, Takers, FakersBy PAUL KRUGMAN Republicans have a problem. For years they could shout down any attempt to point out the extent to which their policies favored the elite over the poor and the middle class; all they had to do was yell “Class warfare!” and Democrats scurried away. In the 2012 election, however, that didn’t work: the picture of the G.O.P. as the party of sneering plutocrats stuck, even as Democrats became more openly populist than they have been in decades. As a result, prominent Republicans have begun acknowledging that their party needs to improve its image. But here’s the thing: Their proposals for a makeover all involve changing the sales pitch rather than the product. When it comes to substance, the G.O.P. is more committed than ever to policies that take from most Americans and give to a wealthy handful. Consider, as a case in point, how a widely reported recent speech by Bobby Jindal the governor of Louisiana, compares with his actual policies. Mr. Jindal posed the problem in a way that would, I believe, have been unthinkable for a leading Republican even a year ago. “We must not,” he declared, “be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive.” After a campaign in which Mitt Romney denounced any attempt to talk about class divisions as an “attack on success,” this represents a major rhetorical shift. But Mr. Jindal didn’t offer any suggestions about how Republicans might demonstrate that they aren’t just about letting the rich keep their toys, other than claiming even more loudly that their policies are good for everyone. Meanwhile, back in Louisiana Mr. Jindal is pushing a plan to eliminate the state’s income tax, which falls most heavily on the affluent, and make up for the lost revenue by raising sales taxes, which fall much more heavily on the poor and the middle class. The result would be big gains for the top 1 percent, substantial losses for the bottom 60 percent. Similar plans are being pushed by a number of other Republican governors as well. Like the new acknowledgment that the perception of being the party of the rich is a problem, this represents a departure for the G.O.P. — but in the opposite direction. In the past, Republicans would justify tax cuts for the rich either by claiming that they would pay for themselves or by claiming that they could make up for lost revenue by cutting wasteful spending. But what we’re seeing now is open, explicit reverse Robin Hoodism: taking from ordinary families and giving to the rich. That is, even as Republicans look for a way to sound more sympathetic and less extreme, their actual policies are taking another sharp right turn. Why is this happening? In particular, why is it happening now, just after an election in which the G.O.P. paid a price for its anti-populist stand? Well, I don’t have a full answer, but I think it’s important to understand the extent to which leading Republicans live in an intellectual bubble. They get their news from Fox and other captive media, they get their policy analysis from billionaire-financed right-wing think tanks, and they’re often blissfully unaware both of contrary evidence and of how their positions sound to outsiders. So when Mr. Romney made his infamous “47 percent” remarks, he wasn’t, in his own mind, saying anything outrageous or even controversial. He was just repeating a view that has become increasingly dominant inside the right-wing bubble, namely that a large and ever-growing proportion of Americans won’t take responsibility for their own lives and are mooching off the hard-working wealthy. Rising unemployment claims demonstrate laziness, not lack of jobs; rising disability claims represent malingering, not the real health problems of an aging work force. And given that worldview, Republicans see it as entirely appropriate to cut taxes on the rich while making everyone else pay more. Now, national politicians learned last year that this kind of talk plays badly with the public, so they’re trying to obscure their positions. Paul Ryan, for example, has lately made a transparently dishonest attempt to claim that when he spoke about “takers” living off the efforts of the “makers” — at one point he assigned 60 percent of Americans to the taker category — he wasn’t talking about people receiving Social Security and Medicare. (He was.) But in deep red states like Louisiana or Kansas, Republicans are much freer to act on their beliefs — which means moving strongly to comfort the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted. Which brings me back to Mr. Jindal, who declared in his speech that “we are a populist party.” No, you aren’t. You’re a party that holds a large proportion of Americans in contempt. And the public may have figured that out.

To: bentway who wrote (695790)	1/28/2013 11:36:29 AM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1583403

60 Minutes Viewers Blast Swoon Journalist Kroft Lovefest Interview of Obama and Hillary NewsBusters ^ \| January 28, 2013 \| P.J. Gladnick the best part of the interview was reading the viewer comments at the 60 Minutes website. The comments ranged from complete outrage to hilarious sarcasm, many of which you can see below. So what was the "controversial" Benghazi question that Kroft almost apologetically asked of Hillary deep into the interview? Here goes: Steve Kroft: You said during the hearings, I mean, you've accepted responsibility. You've accepted the very critical findings of Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering. As the New York Times put it, you accepted responsibility, but not blame. Do you feel guilty in any way, in-- at a personal level? Do you blame yourself that you didn't know or that you should have known? This was easily deflected by Hillary with a typical non-answer before the interview returned to full swoon with these types of questions and answers: Steve Kroft: How would you characterize your relationship right now? President Obama: I consider Hillary a strong friend. Secretary Clinton: I mean, very warm, close. I think there's a sense of understanding that, you know, sometimes doesn't even take words because we have similar views. We have similar experiences that I think provide a bond that may seem unlikely to some, but has been really at a core of our relationship over the last four years. If you watched this interview it was a half hour of powder puff wasted time that you will never get back. The fringe benefit, however, was the often hilarious viewer comments on the interview. Here are several examples: Steve Kroft surrenders his role as a journalist and has become a fawning paparazzi .. Next time, do not have a liberal interview two other liberals. It makes for boring TV. For example, before ever broaching Benghazi, they decided to get the more important stuff out of the way first, i.e. their feelings and Hilary's state of health. What an Obama and Clinton love fest. Thanks Steve for nothing.....What a let down. So many important things going on in this world, and this is what we got?????.. This was not an interview, it was an ad for the Hillary for President campaign. Tonight's show was DULL, now it seems the president can just call up and get a free political commercial. This is pathetic, why don't you just put them in the backseat of a 57' chevy and let them steam up the windows I had no idea that Steve Kroft is part of the obama administration. Who wrote these questions, axelrod? An oyster on a half-shell could have done better than Steve Kroft. Journalistic FAIL. The mainstream media has failed the American people. This interview was a love-fest. These were not softballs - these were marshmallows. Did Steve's arm get tired from all of the softballs he threw!!?? The mutual licking was so loud it could be heard around the world. In a word, discusting!!!!! Sounded like the interviews Putin gets in Russia. The upside of this interview for Steve Kroft is that it has positioned him as a strong contender for the highly competitive award of Swoon Journalist of the Year. Read more: newsbusters.org

To: bentway who wrote (695790)	1/28/2013 2:51:07 PM
From: Taro	Respond to of 1583403

Here is what comes from your Jesus next: President Barack Obama and the Democratic Senate are considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act is being hailed as a ... major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition. "Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing." In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons with No Ability (63 percent). Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance. Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability (POI) into middle-management positions, and give a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires. Finally, the Americans With No Abilities Act contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, "Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?" "As a non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Mich., due to her inability to remember righty tighty, lefty loosey. "This new law should be real good for people like me. I'll finally have job security." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel. Said Sen. Dick Durbin: "As a senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so."