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: zax who wrote (821558)	12/9/2014 2:14:34 AM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By locogringo one_less Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584008

>> You posted a Bush press release. Don't lie now that you have been busted. I never lie. Without regard for the source of the material can you point to ONE SINGLE WORD of that post that is inaccurate? If you cannot then you should STFU. If you can, then you should explain precisely what you take issue with. Here is the problem: You come here an act like the rest of the liberals. And these people are all certifiable idiots. Intelligent people, when challenging a remark, do so with facts. If you can't do that much then you will be treated with the disgust as tejek, Bentway, Koan and the rest. That's you're call.

To: zax who wrote (821558)	12/9/2014 6:49:15 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Respond to of 1584008

Must See Video: ABC Reporter Retires, Tells Of Obama Cursing Out White House Press Corps 8 hideout

To: zax who wrote (821558)	12/9/2014 7:22:26 AM
From: jlallen	2 Recommendations Recommended By Bill locogringo Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584008

He posted FACTS....inconvenient facts for morons who drink the demolib Koolaid like yourself....

To: zax who wrote (821558)	12/9/2014 10:22:38 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1584008

Obama Extends NSA Spying Powers Yet AgainNine Months Later, Promises of Reform Still Unmet by Jason Ditz, December 08, 2014 Print This \| Share This Back in March, Attorney General Eric Holder was promising that the Justice Department was on track to reform the NSA surveillance powers by the deadline of March 28, less than two weeks later. It didn’t happen. A 90-day extension came and went, and then another 90-day extension was tacked on to that, pushing the deadline for the reform of the mass surveillance to December 5. This time, when the deadline rolled around there was so little expectation of actual reform that its approach was barely even covered. Even the administration seemingly gave it a miss over the weekend Unsurprisingly, it was extended yet again with no real hint of reforms coming. Other than a brief, failed attempt to pass a toothless version of a reform bill in the Senate, the notion that NSA mass surveillance is ever going to get altered in a meaningful way is looking more dubious all the time. The statement expressed support for working with the new, more pro-surveillance Congress on “reforms,” which will be even weaker than the last failed bill. Though there are still some in Congress pushing against the wholesale data mining to the American public, for now it seems that extending the deadline indefinitely is simply the new normal.

To: zax who wrote (821558)	12/9/2014 10:25:31 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1584008

Wall Street’s Democrats by Robert Reich 'The reason Democrats have pulled their punches with the financial sector for years is because it’s hard to punch the hand that feeds you.' (Photo: shutterstock) In Washington’s coming budget battles, sacred cows like the tax deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable donations are likely to be on the table along with potential cuts to Social Security and Medicare. But no one on Capitol Hill believes Wall Street’s beloved carried-interest tax loophole will be touched. Don’t blame the newly elected Republican Congress. Democrats didn’t repeal the loophole when they ran both houses of Congress from January 2009 to January 2011. And the reason they didn’t has a direct bearing on the future of the party. First, let me explain why this loophole is the most flagrant of all giveaways to the super-rich. Carried interest allows hedge-fund and private-equity managers, as well as many venture capitalists and partners in real estate investment trusts, to treat their take of the profits as capital gains — taxed at maximum rate of 23.8 percent instead of the 39.6 percent maximum applied to ordinary income. It’s a pure scam. They get the tax break even though they invest other peoples’ money rather than risk their own. The loophole has no economic justification. As one private-equity manager told me recently, “I can’t defend it. No one can.” It’s worth about $11 billion a year — more than enough to extend unemployment benefits to every one of America’s nearly 3 million long-term unemployed. The hedge-fund, private-equity, and other fund managers who receive this $11 billion are some of the richest people in America. Forbes lists 46 billionaires who have derived most of their wealth from managing hedge funds. Mitt Romney used the carried-interest loophole to help limit his effective tax rate in 2011 to 13.9 percent. So why didn’t Democrats close it when they ran Congress? Actually, in 2010 House Democrats finally squeaked through a tax plan that did close the carried-interest loophole, but the Democratically-controlled Senate wouldn’t go along. Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of those who argued against closing it, said the U.S. “shouldn’t do anything” to “make it easier for capital and ideas to flow to London or anywhere else.” As if Wall Street needed an $11 billion annual bribe to stay put. To find the real reason Democrats didn’t close the loophole, follow the money. Wall Street is one of the Democratic party’s biggest contributors. The Street donated $49.1 million to Democrats in 2010, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. Hedge-fund managers alone accounted for $5.88 million of the total. Schumer and a few other influential Democrats were among the industry’s major beneficiaries. Wall Street has continued to be generous to Democrats (as well as to Republicans). The Democrats’ unwillingness to close the carried-interest loophole when they could also goes some way to explaining why, almost six years after Wall Street’s near meltdown, the Obama administration has done so little to rein in the Street. Wall Street’s biggest banks are far bigger now than they were then, yet they still have no a credible plan for winding down their operations if they get into trouble. The Dodd-Frank Act, designed to prevent another Wall Street failure, has been watered down so much it’s slush. There’s been no move to resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act separating investment banking from commercial banking. Not a not a single Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for his involvement in the frauds that caused the mess. Wall Street was the fourth-largest contributor to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, and is already gearing up for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 run. Hedge-fund and private-equity managers are donating generously to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC dedicated to getting her elected. The hedge fund Renaissance Technologies has contributed $4 million to date. D.E. Shaw, another fund, has donated over $1 million. Khosla Ventures and Soros Fund Management have donated $1 million each. Many Wall Street financiers have donated $25,000 (intended to be the maximum contribution) to the Ready for Hillary superPAC. Robert Wolf, the former president of UBS’ investment bank who now has his own advisory boutique, told “Politico” that six in ten Wall Street types are Democrats, and that “when and if she decides to run, [Hillary Clinton is] going to have an incredible support foundation from Wall Street.” Just because a candidate takes Wall Street money doesn’t mean he or she is beholden to the Street. But the reason Democrats have pulled their punches with the financial sector for years is because it’s hard to punch the hand that feeds you. This must stop. America can’t tackle widening inequality without confronting the power and privilege lying behind it. If the Democratic party doesn’t lead the charge, who will?