GOP 2016

Rand Paul announced he will be running for president, his speech was good and I liked his father but he is a politician and have to take what he says with a grain did salt.

Who should GOP candidate be?

Rubio

Not Christie.

not another bush, god help us, NOT ANOTHER BUSh!!!

There's not gonna be a GOP president because the population figures of the USA are artificially inflated and they simply don't have the numbers they need in the Republican party to take back the white house.

The only way they (Rs) can go national again, is to appeal to enough voters in the middle and the left, because many of the right wing states are actually empty of not only voters, but of people. That is just my opinion.

Since they have become so extreme lately, they can basically forget it. They've relegated themselves to gerrymandered Congressional districts and that's it.

My opinion is that this country needs a centrist Democrat that will be a tough enforcer of settled immigration law.

The problem, is that the Democrats actually are not the party of the working man. They are the party of the poor. The Republicans are the party of the well to do and rich ie the overtaxed. The middle class actually has no political party in this country (USA).

Because the national contest is between Democrat and Democrat, really the white house might be up for grabs to any Democrat that can tap into the overriding concern most people have at this moment, and that is illegal immigration.

Or Clinton. It's enough already with these so-called political dynasties and their sense of entitlement.

A qualified female President wouldn't bother me in the slightest, as long as she's an open-minded centrist. But not the Clinton pig.

She's too old, too entitled, and people are tired of looking at her tired old puss anyway (New York Magazine did a nice article about it this week, and that's a fairly liberal publication).

Agreed.

Pizza, I just can't put my finger on it. I do not like Hillary. I just don't. I can't shake the feeling that she wants to be president to get back at Bill Clinton. Can't shake it. I think she's a man hater too.

[quote=thedudeabides87]Rand Paul announced he will be running for president, his speach was good and I liked his father but he is a politician and have to take what he says with a grain did salt.

he won't get the nomination. But there will be some including the Democrates who will try to get him run as an independent because he will get more Republican votes away from the Republican nominee in the general election.

So they can get Hillary to win.

Bush has the money and he would be a good President. But they demonized his name so much I doubt if he ran. Rubio could be the Vice President for a lot of reasons. Him being a Latino would not hurt and being a senator in Florida would help the republicans.

Get this John McCain might run again. I might vote for him if he runs again.

I really think all you know about him is his last name my brother.

I really hate Internet jargon. But +1000 .

This is a woman who traded a loveless marriage of convenience for a Senate seat. And I'm sorry, but that speaks volumes about her character (even for a politician).

And they had the balls to call Obama a community organizer. What the Hell did she ever do prior to exploiting the whole "stand by her man" thing?

I loathe Giuliani for exploiting 9/11 the way he did, but that Senate election was a year before the Towers were hit, and Rudy was pretty damned popular at the time. And if it wasn't for the fact that he dropped out of the race because of his prostate cancer, I seriously doubt she would have won. Rick Lazio was overmatched simply by virtue of her last name. He didn't stand a chance.

Alfa the only real extremist are in the Democratic Party.

How many people in the Democratic Party want to follow the constitution? Compair that to people in the Republican Party.

What is Hillary Clinton's position, on anything? How is she different from presidents past? How can you announce you are running for president and no one knows where you stand on anything? She has no accomplishments that I know of. I live in NYC. When she became our Senator, I thought that was pretty silly. There were other people who worked their whole life to reach a point where they could run for the Senate, and in waltz's Hillary to become the new Senator. Then she left that job before the term was up to pursue self aggrandizement. She eventually landed a job as Sec. of State, but then she did the same. She left that job prematurely to pursue self aggrandizement. So the only thing she has shown us, consistently, is that she will not finish the job. Her as president? I don't think so.

I think you're right about Giuliani, Pizza. That was probably his race to lose. Right or wrong, his popularity gave him great political capital, once upon a time.

Obama was wet behind the ears also, but before being Senator, he was more than just First Lady. The guy has some impressive credentials under his belt from an academic standpoint, but not from a military standpoint, or even a private sector standpoint. But the credentials were there. Hillary has nothing but maybe a law degree from an Ivy league school, and probably not even much work history to boast of. She's not even a well credentialed person who is wet behind the ears and short on experience. She is a blank sheet of paper where a resume should have been. And sorry, but as a resident of New York State, I don't really count her jobs as Senator and Secretary of State as work experience because one, she never finished either job, and two, those jobs were handed to her. No way.

if a republican does win. i hope the flat tax will be pushed through then lay off most of the IRS people.

Redo Obama care give a ten thousand tax credit for American to buy their own health carry from anywhere in the country except empire blue cross & Blue shield because they are fucked up with no deductible and they will have to accept everyone.

Raise the retirement age to 68 who wants to retire before that.

New budget the same as it was before Obama came to power and get rid of overlapping things already covered in the budget.

Unemployment lasts for 8 month. Trade school they can attend.

Put in job training for people who don't want to go to college and learn a trade.

Build that wall between Mexico and here and put illegals in jails and in work programs while in jail. Then give them a pathway to citizen ship.

Foot I read your post, I just don't have much of a response because it's an extreme comment you made JK.

No but really, I think the Ds are too far left on immigration. The new health care law is pretty outrageous from the standpoint of someone who now has to pay for it, but like I said...the Democrats are the party of the poor, not really primarily the middle class. Additionally, most people would not repeal the new health care law, even though most people probably think it could be something better.

Totally agreed PB, but one additional item you may have left out...she's a carpet bagger who set up shop in NY to take advantage of an open Senate seat. Furthermore, this latest email scandle goes right to the heart of who the Clintons are (or think they are)....always above the law, and arrogant in the face of breaking it, with the aid of a complicit media all the while....as usual.

Democrates are the party of the poor because they want the poor to stay poor. They want the middle class to be poor/ middle class.

They don't want the middle class to big upper middle class.

They want older people like myself to be scared sheep afraid of everything. Afraid of losing social security.

The only reason they want Mexicans to flood I to this country is because they think they will vote democrates.

Rick Lazio never recovered from the leaking of this photo



His campaign had gotten a lot of mileage from criticizing Hillary for embracing Arafat's wife....so he kept hammering the point over and over and over.

When it made sense to do so....then (then)Clinton White House leaked the photo of him shaking hands with Yasser Arafat and Republicans in NY scrambled to distance themselves from him.

It was a wrap for him after that.

I don't think he will either, no libertarian leaning politician will ever get a main party endorsement. If he means what he says (a stretch) I think he would make a fine President.
In a perfect world Ron Paul would run again.

I can't see myself voting for McCain he says he is for a free America but wants to ban MMA in Arizona.

I actually would have voted for Clinton in 2008 but with everything that has happened since I won't vote for her

if a republican gets elected its gonna take a guy who is liberal socially no way around it... too hard to pull in younger votes in urban areas

Wrong, blacks and hispanics are typically religious and more socially conservative but extremely economically liberal.

It cracks me up when the dems say they are the party of the middle class but it is clear that liberal policies only hurt the middle class. The ultimate goal of the left is to make more and more people dependent upon government.

It is clear that this president has hurt this country. The labor participation rate (the real unemployment rate) is at about 63%, which means 37% of people are not in the work force, not the bs 5.5% figure we get from our loving government.

I'll give you an example. The minimum wage. The libs are constantly harping on raising the minimum wage. They use leftist hyperbole that these big corporations need to pay. The reality is this, 60-70% of employees work for small business. Small businesses are far less able to handle the minimum wage rise because, as a small business, it significantly effects salary costs and thus the bottom line.


As far as big corporations go, ask yourself this, at what point is it cheaper for a big company to invest in other means and methods (more technologically efficient means) of providing goods and services to customers?

For most businesses, salary costs are the most significant expense. At some pint however, technology will change this reality. And if the left keeps up this crap, that reality will change at a much fast pace.

Neither could Bill. So he fingered the fat ugly intern instead.

I believe Rand Paul will be the nominee. He's not really an establishment guy and at the same time he's a healthy combination of idealism and pragmatism.

The GOP establishment guy is Jeb Bush, and I don't care for his views on immigration, education, and I don't trust him on the economy.

The guys I like (in no particular order) are Paul, Rubio, Cruz and Walker. I think any of them would be great. I watched Paul's announcement and was very impressed with what he said, but I wonder about the specifics on how he'd decrease spending while increasing our military. The two who would most seriously take on the national debt would be Paul and Walker, but I think our debt is so high right now that we can never get out of the hole that we're in, plus the unfunded mandates that add up to a debt of about $250 trillion, an unimaginable figure.

I also see that Rahm Emanuel won another term in Chicago. Meanwhile, Chicago gets junk bond status and it's has to start paying a billion dollars to fund state pension plans. Where is Chicago going to come up with that kind of money? How is the newly re-elected mayor going to deal with that mess?

Muahahahahaha!!!!!

Face it Hillary will be the next potus. Too many sheeples out there will vote for her. And that is so sad.

We have different opinions, so I'll address each point of yours, point by point.

It's not the Democrats that are trying to keep anyone poor or middle class to stop them from reaching upper class. The Democrats are the pro education party. They believe that education should be subsidized either partly or wholly by the government, for those who can't afford to pay. They feel it's the government's responsibility to edify its citizens because the governments money is really the people's money (taxes). Therefore taxes ought to be used to uplift the people. The Republicans seem to believe that if you can't afford to pay for an education, that you don't have any business trying to go to school to better yourself....but they will still punish you for remaining a member of the lower classes.

Social Security. The Democrats want to shore up the Social Security trust fund and leave it as is. It is the Republicans who want to get rid of that and instead have everyone invested in private retirement investment accounts. This of course floods Wall Street with more dumb money and it makes the Republicans and their friends even richer. It also endangers the security of our elders and makes them vulnerable to the fickle swings of the stock markets.

I could actually support the idea of private investment accounts instead of social security if we pass a law that says that after x number of years as a publicly traded company, a company MUST pay cash dividends to all shareholders. And not a paltry dividend either. More like in the range of + or - 10%. Stocks that pay dividends are far stronger of a foundation to rely on as a safety net than a security that pays little to no dividends. During stock market crashes and corrections, stocks that pay dividends display great buoyancy, for the simple fact that no one will sell you their shares for free. Dividend paying stocks are actually worth real money.

Mexico.

The Democrats might be in favor of illegal immigration more so because they are afraid of losing the future Hispanic vote to the Republican party. What they are not farsighted enough to see, is that if they keep enabling illegal immigration, eventually, the Hispanics in their districts will replace then with Hispanic Congressmen and Senators. So it's counter intuitive. You think you are saving your job, but you are losing it by engaging in nonsense that you think will keep you in Washington DC longer.

Yes, because education is proving itself to be a can't miss when it comes to finding a job.

As far as telling companies they have to pay a large dividend, are you fucking nuts? Do you have any conception of how finance works? Companies with smaller dividends are better performers than high paying dividend companies. Companies that pay high dividends are typically trying to attract investment for a reason, usually to make up for operating or performance based deficiencies. A good company doesnt need to pay a huge dividend. See CHKR. 12% annual yield, the stock is down about 80% in 5 years.

It's unfortunate that people like you, that have no conception of economics, finance, or accounting make up the majority of elected office.

Education is not a guarantee, but it increases a person's prospects, no matter what the gender, race, or social economic status.

I know more about the stock market than you think. That's why I highlighted the stipulation of "X number of years". In the beginning stages of a publicly traded company, money is needed for reinvestment to grow the business. What do older companies do with all that money? Outsized executive compensation, research and development, and mergers and acquisitions. The last one hurts investors almost as much as the first one on that list, because when the big companies gobble up the little ones, they deprive investors of the outsized massive gains a terrific small cap can offer.

Now there are plenty of good companies that don't need to pay a dividend to remain good stocks. But these stocks offer no shock absorber for the elder that depends on that for their financial security. Without a dividend to offer buoyancy, the stock can crash at any moment. That's what makes the Republican proposal for individual retirement accounts so irresponsible.

If you feel that companies ought not pay dividends of a certain size after x number of years, to retain membership in the stock market exchanges, then that just bolsters the case against Republican individual retirement accounts even further.

I said it as far back as eight years ago, and I'm reiterating it for the newer members. I'm clearly in the minority (even among her haters). But I guarantee that that woman will never be President.

She was a shoo-in for the nomination back on 2008, remember? And she got beat by an unknown with very little political experience (not that she had any of her own). And even though he won, the Obamas hate her today.

If Barack Obama makes one decent parting move as President, it should be to stand by his VP, no matter how many times Biden put his foot in his mouth. Why should he step aside for her? I said it earlier. Fuck these self-important, entitled, political dynasty families. If I never read the words Bush, Clinton or Kennedy again, it will be too soon.

As an aside, she'll be 70 years old shortly after the election. Do you remember how the Left attacked Reagan in 1980 (when he was 69), and Dole in '96 (when he was 73), for being so "old and out of touch"? Well, what makes her any different at 70?

What's good for the goose is good for the cuckolded ex-First Lady. The younger generation that put Barack Obama in the White House will never turn out in the same numbers to vote for that old hag.

I agree with you entirely, why do people forget the Hispanic vote? the Hispanic voting numbers have increased far more than any other voting bloc.

and millions reside in states with high electoral votes. texas, and California for two. they do not vote republican.

foots, hell, that's all anyone needs to know.

LOL Ouch!

And Pizza, and I'm in that minority with you. Democrats actually don't like Hillary very much, but she never got the memo. I'll tell you what she is really thinking...

She is thinking she can get by on the woman vote which is greater in numbers than the man vote.

That's what she thinks is really "up her sleeve".

Problem is, women don't like her much either.

Nail...on...the...head.

My wife and two adult daughters are all strong, educated women. And none of them can stand the sight of her.

Again, this presupposes that hispanics are social liberals. Are you kidding me? California voters (alot of hispanics) passed a traditional marriage amendment. Yes, California!

As far as Texas, take a look at the hispanic vote in the 2014 gubernatorial election. Governor Abbot, who has a Hispanic wife, received 44% of the hispanic vote.

Unpopular, polarizing and an attitude of entitlement. In my opinion, perfectly describes Hillary. At times, she is her own worst enemy. Her past dictates a cloud of doubt with everything she is involved with... justified or not. I think she has more of an uphill battle than she realizes.

Any one with the grades can go to any college they can get in now. Between school grants and other things that the government already gives you you can go..

You just might have to pay some of it in low interest loans after you graduate and find a job. That is a fact even the poor can go.

Don't raise the retirement age SS will collapse.

Half the people in this country do not pay any taxes.

Yeah the less people know the better right?

Exactly, anyone can go to college, all you need is loans. And as far as the grades, i slightly disagree. Because thanks to programs like affirmative action, even kids with bad grades can get in.

And what about the Cubans, the MOST conservative Latino group?

They're overwhelmingly Catholic, anti-abortion, and with the possibility of easier immigration being thrown into the mix, Florida could easily become a Red State again (they're calling it purple now, whatever the Hell that means).

The Florida Cubans only started voting Democrat to begin with because they want to be able to come here legally. Do you really think that once they're here that they'll owe any allegiance to the Democrats? Please. They'll revert right back to their Conservative Catholic beliefs. And why shouldn't they? They're decent, God fearing people. They're a lot like Italians in many ways.

But it's not even Binnie's fault (and I mean that, Binnie). He lives in a bubble. These are the actual numbers from Idaho's 2010 census:

89.1% of the population was White American
0.6% Black or African American
1.4% American Indian and Alaska Native
1.2% Asian American
0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
2.5% of two or more races
5.1% other

So no offense, Binnie. But you telling New Yorkers, Californians and Floridians about Latinos, is like me telling you about bass fishing or spending the day at Walmart.

joey diaz says...

Agree. Very well said. Why can't our elected officials speak so plainly.

We need a common scence Party.

I wasn't talking about Idaho, I meant nationwide. by the way Idaho is now 92% white. minorities don't like Idaho.

And I'll bet the 92% just love minorities. Call it a hunch.

now... pb. Idahoans are Christians, and we love everybody, all people are god's children.

shame on you for thinking that. we are perfect people up here in the mountains. I can see a deer in the road as I type.

can you see a deer?? http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/images/moods/default/happy.gif

How's Idaho? How are the gun laws? Thinking about where to go when i retire.

gun laws are federal in buying one, but, here in Idaho concealed carry permits can be easy to get if you don't have a felony. everybody loves Idaho when they see it.

mild winter this year,three days of snow only, amost 70 degrees today.

What else is Idaho famous for besides Potatoe's?

i hope you guys are right regarding young voters in urban areas ... my intuition is that whites 18-35 in major urban areas are socially liberal but would be receptive to balanced budget arguments

You didn't say whites. What is the youth's obsession with gay marriage and abortion? Such wedge issues, only meant to distract from the fact that 37% of people are out of the work force. What good is a gay wedding if you can't afford to buy the couple a present?

PB, I hope to high heavens you are correct.

you are right, I didn't mention whites... regardless in my experience wedge issues like gay marriage are much more popular issues to talk about than budget issues etc... IMO people 18-35 are for the most part stupid or oblivious to rising national debt, rising interest rates, unemployment etc. it's unfortunate but i believe it to be true you say obama gives everyone free healthcare and eliminates student loan debts and he becomes a saint

basically what im saying is for a republican to appeal to young voters you need a guy who doesnt give a shit about social issues and talks about how much of a fuck up obama is regarding national debt, unemployment and foreign relations etc.. its too easy for the media to spin a republican as anti gay rights or anti women or whatever... IMO that turns the majority of young people off...

It pisses me off that my generation (im 26) will not have medicare or social security or maybe even jobs in the future because democrats leverage bullshit wedge issues for their awful financial policies that bankrupt everything....

Really? They are oblivious to the fact they aren't working?

As far as the youth vote. I think you will be surprised by Rand Paul's appeal to the youth voter. As for me, I will vote for anyone without a D after their name. I have a son in his teens who I fear may have a very hard time in this country. I don't view him being on ebt for life as a "success".

we will have to agree to disagree, I hope that you are right...

milionaires, they all come here, a lot per capita here, they like all white people. not many states have 92% white American.

I was in Spokane Wa for a few months in 2011, a lot of wheat fields once you leave the city I only traveled west though. Many wheat fields when you travel east over to Idaho?

yes, and many forests, no traffic, peaceful.

Checkers

Idaho isn't even in the top ten.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101338309

And why would anyone want to live where 92% of the people are the same race? I can see if you're from there. But why go there on purpose? Seems counter intuitive if you want to be cultured and well rounded with a broad range of knowledge. That usually comes from travel, reading, and being around different types of people.

For retirement? Cost of living bra.

yes, you are right. however race relations are severly strained in some parts of the country, too bad everyone can't get along, but they can't.

that doesn't mean all white people are good, they are no different than any other race, good, and bad.

but, ive been here for 46 years, came from so. calif in 1968. have never been back to so. cal. never missed it.

You're right I didn't think of that. Retirement. Good one.

Where in So. Cal. did you live?

I was born in long beach, grew up in Buena park, graduated 1960 Buena park high school,

lived in Torrance, ca. in 66 67 worked in the shipyards during the Vietnam war, tough years, violence everywhere in the 60s,

glad I left so. cal. like I say, been up here 46 years, there is a lake right in my town , in the center of the city.

but, brother is it conservative politically here.

Another Bush and another Clinton? Thomas Jefferson would be terrified. A hereditary monarchy was exactly what he was afraid of.

I like Rand a lot. I think his economic policy is crazy but his foreign and criminal policy is interesting. He worked with Cory Booker on criminal justice reform, which is notable because it was probably the only bipartisan project in years.

I went for my master's degree at Cal State Long Beach and live near Huntington Beach, about ten miles from Long Beach and Buena Park. Surprised that you would leave a Democrat bastion like California to Republican Idaho. I know that Cal was more conservative when you left, but today the state can't move far enough to the Left. When you were here Sam Yorty was the Los Angeles mayor and was a Democrat, then it went to Bradley and went even more to the Left.

yes, im familiar with cal-state long beach, great school, and Huntington beach ive always loved since I was a kid in the fifties.


when I was a teen I was always at Huntington or balboa beach. a lot of people dont't know how great California was in the fifties before all the liberals, but, where I grew up in orange county the john birch society ruled the county, and, I hated them.

now, I refer to so.cal as the peoples republic of California.but I will never deny how the liberals killed California, be interesting to know just how really severe the states water problem is.

I think FOX news has been very fair in their reporting of this incident. So has the Police department who had him charged with murder and fired him. Facts are pretty straight forward. He will be convicted and do a lot of time. At this point nothing points toward race, but I am sure sharpton will become involved and fan the flames. Life in a South Carolina prison will not be fun for him

yes, and all he had to do was think before he shot. but, I guess that's too much to ask of many police these days. its truly sad.

@Binnie - The drought is very severe, but Gov. Jerry Brown is more interested in his multi-billion dollar boondoggle high speed train to nowhere than using some of that money to go toward desalinization plants. As for OC, the demographics have really changed. It's about 40% non-Latino white, about 35% Latino, and I'd say about 20% Asian/Pacific Islander, leaving a small amount of blacks/African Americans and Native Americans.

That's a rich area and very conservative.

OC isn't as conservative as it used to be, not by a long shot. Certain parts are rich, like Newport Beach and Yorba Linda, Anaheim Hills, Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel and Laguna Beach range from middle class to upper, but on the other hand Santa Ana and much of Anaheim are poor and are majority Hispanic. UC Irvine, the large University of California campus, is so far to the Left that it recently voted to remove the American flag from its lobby because it was a symbol of oppression. Others overruled the decision, but it might not last.

When you hear that, you have to wonder what the fuck moderate democrats are thinking. Guys who have made a buck in their day in the private sector.

the American flag a smybol of oppression? how riduclous. if this country wasn't free, how could those who want to remove it get here in the first place, what nerve!!

reminds me of people who write about how bad it is here in the U.S. but, they come here to write and take the money.

if they don't like it here why don't they leave and never come back.

There are a number of Board members whose posts are responsible by any measure. One measure is accuracy; others, not so much. Regarding a couple of posts above:

Members of the The University of California at Irvine student government voted to ban all flags from the lobby of its student government office on the campus. The student government executive council countered that vote by vetoing it as the student government charter states that the executive council can do. Thus, the removal of all flags from the student government office lobby never took place.

He said it was overruled. Where is the accuracy issue? Did you not read his post? See below:



What was incorrect? And why are you defending that action?

I think a lot of the instigators are leftist white guys from the 60s.

We would all be better off without them.

Who is instigating the occupy Wall Street guys. Again leftists white guys from the sixties.

I seen it myself in person. I could not believe how these young kids we used by those jerkoffs. They were like sheep being led.

Back to the original subject matter (GOP) I would love to see a debate between hilery and Carly Fiorino

Are you asking me if I defend the removal of the flag or olivant? If it was me, I wasn't defending the removal, just that the overruling may not last because so many of the students there are Far-Left hate-America types. There are a lot of radicalized Muslim students there who are not only pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, but anti-Jewish and anti-American. Left-wing students sympathize with them as victims of the oppressive Zionists and Americans.

Olivant.

As per federal guidelines, which have the force of law but do not have penalties stipulated, the US flag is not illegal anywhere within the territories of the United States. I'm gonna check out your story on the UC Irvine issue.

Raising a foreign flag in the United States by itself, or at equal mast to the US flag is actually illegal. You can only raise a foreign flag in the USA if Old Glory is displayed above it. The exception is the United Nations Building in NYC where all flags are displayed at equal mast with the blessing of the text of flag law. That's the extent of my familiarity with US flag code, right or wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/uc-irvine-ban-flag_n_6821316.html
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015...rican-flag-ban/
http://www.asuci.uci.edu/flag/
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ban-654059-students-flag.html
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/flag-653323-students-ban.html

LOL well thank you Faithful. I did look up the story, and boy was it an infuriating read. They tried to make it like they were banning all flags, so as not to appear biased, but we know the US flag was the real target.

any way , now that Hillary came out and wants the presidency, I don't feel the excitement for her in the democrat party, that was felt in years past.

can she win? the nomination maybe, but, can she beat the republican nominee? im not as sure of that as I once was.

What they want is the women's vote. The democrates think women will vote for her just because she is a women.

Democrates will vote for her even if she is a lesbian. Especially if she is a lesbian.

it might not be enough to carry her over though. I really think the country has had it with the Clintons and the bushes.

we must have someone else that can have a good run, don't we?

The Clinton Pig will never be President. Mark it down. Pizzaboy: April 13, 2015. And I said as much back in 2008, but you'd have to do a lot of searching to find those posts. But they're still here if you look hard enough for them.

de Blasio (who I hate, but now have at least this reason to admire for three minutes) already backstabbed her (it's on the cover of both NY tabloids today). The Obamas hate her and will follow suit.

Why should Biden step aside for her? I think he's an idiot, but he's a two-term lame duck Vice President. Why should he step aside for her if he wants it?

Clinton, Kennedy, Bush, Taft, Harrison, Adams, Roosevelt, Rockefeller, and on and on and on. This is America. There's no such thing as a royal family here. That Kennedy Camelot bullshit always drove me up a fucking wall. Why did we break away from England in the first place if we're just going to keep putting the same families back in office?

I've grown far too cynical to post in these political threads lately. But for clarity's sake, I was a moderate Democrat for over thirty years. But I never in my life pulled the lever just because there was a (D) next to a candidate's name. Today I'm an Independent and a very jaded one at that.

Fuck Hillary Clinton. I'd vote for a qualified moderate female candidate in a heartbeat. But I'd rather give myself an appendectomy with a rusty surgical tool in India than utter the words President Clinton ever again.

But back to the original point. Pizzaboy: April 13, 2015. That woman will never be President. And I hope the pain of another grueling two-year long campaign and eventual heartbreaking loss ages her another twenty years. She already looks like steamed shit on a plate.

well, pizza, no one can say you don't speak your mind [which is a good thing] and I really, really think you are calling it right. and the date is marked down.

Do you mind givin us your pick? Who do you think is going to win? Who do you want to win?

What is the best pick out of this mutt liter?

In this day and age? It could be anyone from an Incumbent who got caught getting blown by a fat homely intern, to a community organizer from Chicago, by way of Hawaii and Kenya. Oh, wait....


A moderate, which is too tough to call right now. But if any of the tired old Democrats ever DID get the nomination, I'd hope for something like a Christie-Rubio ticket on the Republican side. That's a nice combination of youth and experience. And with the easing of Cuban-American relations (which I gleefully said was long overdue but would blow up in the Far Left's face), they'd run away with Florida, which would be huge.

But Christie will have to learn to keep his temper in check. It won't fly down south where they like the politicians to be Southern Gentlemen.

I can see not wanting another Clinton. At least Bill went with the pool numbers. Hillary would never do that. She would be just like Obama.

Cory booker worked a lot with republicans. He even praise mitt Romney. Until the democrates told him not to say anything that would help Romney even if it was the truth. Then like a real man of principle he stopped and became just another sheep to be lead by his handlers.

I like Elizabeth Warren, but I don't know enough about her yet.

If she runs for President and is ambushed by illegal alien advocates and dodges them, she's got my vote.

The next President needs to be pro middle class.

That means enforce the immigration laws, and resist H1B Visa incursion into all industries traditionally American.

Some might think that the President needs to be an Economics major to solve our financial problems, but that is not true. If you solve the immigration problems, you already solved the financial. This is because the amount of people we have out of work roughly equal the number of people with no business here occupying a job in an American company.

Pizzaboy, This^^^ made me smile Thanks!!

You only smiled? I was crackin up.

Yeah, I really don't see nor want Hillary as our President. But, am worried if the younger generation of women will vote for her because of gender.

By the way PB, with the family dynasties I have no problem if a fifth cousin or grandson of a previous President wants to be President himself if there are decades in between.

Has there even been a thought about disquieting family members of a previous President from running?

Spot-on, Sonny Boy. Outta the mouths of babes. See my rants about American political dynasties (or call a spade a spade and call them Royal Families). Nothing in American politics drives me more insane.

Out of all of them that have declared or will likely declare, the only one (that I'm aware of) who will do what you are calling for on immigration laws is Ted Cruz. Elizabeth Warren would probably liberalize immigration laws even more than Obama's done. She's a dyed in the wool hardcore far-left progressive. She's on record as being a strong supporter of the Dream Act.

Well no I had cracked up as well. Pizza, you're awesome!

You too, Mama. And you're missed around here. A lot!

Thanks for your reply boss. While I certianly like Christie, I don't think he has a shot. The repubs tried a moderate with Romney and it didnt work. Rubio on the other hand, while being a moderate, is also hispanic.

How can a 70 year old grifter relate to the middle class better than a cuban american whose father was a dish washer?

I agree. Rubio is a huge plus for the Republicans. I don't care what anyone says. They win Florida by daylight with him on the ticket.

Thanks PB You made my day. Love & hugs

Yeah but you still need ohio. If the repubs don't get ohio and get florida, they need a bunch of smaller wins like colorado, new mexico, and iowa.

Of course. The next President may very well be someone who 75 percent of the American public is completely unfamiliar with. Just like Obama was completely unknown by 75 percent of the American public in April of 2007.

Also Jimmy Carter.

And in a remarkable coincidence, they've been about equally effective as Presidents.

That's an old trick out of the Democratic playbook....run an unknown candidate (ie. Carter, Clinton, Obama) and have the media run interference and surprise you have a new president!..it works for them. However, this election is a little different for them...their selection is extremely limited..its either Hitlary or the communistic (I'm a millionaire, but I decry wealth for you) Elizabeth Warren. On the other hand, the Republicans have been known to let opportunity pass them by before...its Tweedle Dee vs Tweedle Dumb.

...and so it begins...

In a long thread discussion with F1...we talked about "Joe the Plumber" and the "Obama is an Arab-woman".Both appeared to be plants.

well here is another seemingly planted person and story....and it seems to be being done to help Hillary



Can't make this stuff up

Na, its not done to stop hillary. It's just a women expressing her opinion. If the republican establishment was anti women, it woulden't have allowed mccain to choose palin.

I woulden't be suprised if this whole thing was made up by the Dems as a ploy. The Dems are really worried about Rubio, who can much more relate to the middle class than Hillary.

@IF

We agree . I said that she was a plant and that the story and its coverage is being done to HELP Hillary.

My bad boss. Doing a little multi tasking and watched the vid and had to double up on my blood pressure meds. #angrywhiteman

There was a time when I would have backed McCain. When he put the nation's well-being at risk by potentially placing that grinning bubblehead a heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world, I lost all respect for him.

Too bad people don't feel the same way about Obama who put the mentally retarded serial groper in the VP spot.

Say what you want about him on a personal level, at the end of the day it's all about policy, and he's consistently come out for what he believes in against Obama's interests - been frozen out of the "inner circle" as a consequence, and refused to toe the line when he doesn't believe in something.

Here's my scorecard.

Hilary Clinton

PROS

-Tough negotiator?
-Umm....
-Still thinking....

CONS
-We do not live in a fucking dynasty
-The hair
-Might be a robot
-Probably a wallstreet stooge
-Not at all a liberal in foreign policy
-Establishment stooge
-What exactly will she actually change?

Definitely do not want to vote for her. Since no one else from the Democratic party has the balls to step up, I've been looking at GOP candidates and the only one who remotely resembles my views is Rand Paul. On one hand, his economic policies are just as extreme as his father's. But...two of his policies definitely appeal. Opposition to mass incarceration and an unwieldy drug war. Like I said in another thread he already made progress with Corey Booker to reduce terms for nonviolent offenders. There's no reason pot usage or even dealing should land someone behind bars without the possibility of parole. And I like his foreign policy. It's been a long time since we had someone cautious of the ramifications of war, especially economically for our own country. I liked Jefferson's foreign policy. Even Reagan believed in peace by strength.

He supports a market-based solution for climate change...so he has at least recognized climate change. The difference between him and Ron was dogmatic in his views. Rand will change when he needs to get ahead. And although he's a longshot, that's why he can lead in the polls. And maybe one day take the whitehouse.

No interest in Jeb Bush for the same reason as Hilary. In fact their views are hard to tell apart.

I'll preface this by reiterating that I was a moderate Democrat for thirty years before the party went completely off its nut. The party that my Italian immigrant grandparents embraced as their Savior is dead and gone.

Re the tired old line about Republicans hating women. It reminds me of the Far Left that's forever jumping on the Catholic Church for its treatment of women. Like Mary---A WOMAN---isn't the most important figure in our faith, save for The Holy Trinity .

It's smoke and mirrors, and bullshit on top of bullshit. In other words, it's politics as usual.

See, I just don't know where you get this from. The democratic party in America is centre-left compared to ANY comparable western government. There are very few democrats in America that propose raising taxes and social spending to the point of left-wing parties in Australia or Europe. Liberalism in Scandinavia would be called socialist or even communist by most American standards. But in the EU its standard fare. The GOP on the other hand is further right than any its contemporaries in the rest of the world. For example, in Britain UKIP is considered far right extremist because they want to slow down and halt immigration...whereas in the GOP thats very run of the mill even for moderates.

If the international stuff is putting you to sleep, let me put it this way: a few years ago Romney proposed a plan similar to Obamacare, 10 years ago Bush supported immigration reform, 30 years ago Reagan supported the Brady Bill, and all the way back in the 60's Nixon formed the EPA. Very few Republicans will take similar stances in this day and age.

The only change in the democratic party is its now more bought-and-paid-for than ever. And lets be honest, they all are.

If my rough around the edges vocabulary is putting YOU to sleep. let me put it this way: Bullshit. The Ellis Island Democrats (1880-1920) resembled Eisenhower Republicans far more than post-Kennedy Democrats.

And I never said that the Far Right wasn't completely off its rocker. They're fucking crazy, too. I wouldn't vote for a Bible-thumping lunatic on the Right any faster than I'd vote for a tree hugging Lefty who wants to shut down every construction site from coast to coast.

But you know how much I like you, and I value your opinion and friendship here. I think you're a great kid. So let's just agree to disagree.

To be completely fair, you know I've only SEEN the last 20 years or so you might be right.

I agree not to BS over politics although its fun to get your goat, though. Who you thinking of voting for PB? By the way I'm sorry about all your recent headaches. I wish your dad the best. And Lieber the worst.

More bought and paid for than the republicans.

The democrats are anti gun, pro amnesty, and pro raising taxes buddy. You are sleeping if you think it is any other way. Just look at the gun laws of states that have been run by Dems for years. While your at it, looks at the tax and regulatory structure.

The only thing AND I MEAN THE ONLY THING that keeps democrats in check is the system of checks and balances. And in large part because republican congress keeps them in check.


And fuck other countries. If i wanted to live in Australia or Britain I would move.

I am waiting for John McCain to run again.

I keep getting emails for donations from Republicans got one from Marco Rubio today.

My son wanted to movie to Austrailia actual the place just south the Sicily of Australia. The place named after that rat with the pitbull teeth Tasmania.

Just because he fell in love with a girl from their that he met in college.

They allow no guns there. That place is full of more things that can kill you then any other place in the world.

Look at some of the cities that have been run by Democrats forever and see how they have done- Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, Los Angeles, all in trouble.

Way too soon to say. I'm praying for a moderate ticket that's fair on social issues, yet not willing to give away the store on fiscal issues.


Thanks, Pal. It means a lot. He's in a private room at a very good hospital in Manhattan. We already know that he's being released before the weekend. He's a tough old bugger, so we're very hopeful.


Thanks again, but life's too short. Look at all the crap floating around these sites lately. Everyone beefing with everyone. We all need to behave more civilly, myself included. When I have things on my mind, I can be as nasty as anyone else. And I'm wrong when I do that.

That said, I'll still continue to rebut things about the Bronx and the surrounding areas that I know for a fact are contrary to the truth. But all of that is for the OC section and the other boards. I'll be spending a lot more time in General Discussion here now anyway.

Gun laws and high taxes aren't corporate special interests because they don't help businesses profit. However there are a good deal of democrat campaign contributions come from rich individuals who believe personally in gun control and regulation, and that does have a tendency to swing an election. But the bigger picture is it's pretty messed up that ANY group of special interests can fund a Congressman's career. Like I said Hilary is a great example, she regularly schmoozes with Wall Street to cover her ass when election day is coming, or probably just to buy her and Bill something nice. It's fucked up there isn't more ethical oversight, that you can donate between 1 and a billion dollars, and senators stay in for life.

Good idea. If you wait a few more years you can send a write-in vote after he's laid to rest at Arlington National.

You see, as a middle class taxpayer, I have my own special interests.

First, keep my taxes reasonable. I am not against paying taxes, but I don't like the idea of being milked by the government.

Second, don't tread on my gun rights. I don't live in a ritzy neighborhood with gates and armed security. I don't have that luxury. Home invasions happen in my neighborhood. I don't like the idea of some rich liberal asshole who woulden't know a poor neighborhood if it fell on his head trying to disarm law abiding citizens.

Third, and most importantly, secure the border and reduce legal immigration. As much as the rich libs like to pretend that their precious white collar jobs will never be affected by immigration, that coulden't be father from the truth. Ever heard of h1-b visas?

Now, as I take a look at the issues most important to me, it's not a difficult choice. It's anybody but Hillary for me.

Really good post man. I didn't mean to ignore the interests we all have...I guess my point was, PEOPLE's interests rarely get heard these days. With a 12% Congress approval rating I don't think anyone feels "heard" by their gov't nowadays. The days of town hall meetings where the pols actually listen is dead and gone. The only way to get Congress to listen to the rights you give a shit about is make an organized concerted effort. It shouldn't have to be that way!

What you said about gun rights really resonated with me...my neighborhood is not the ritz by any thing but the sketchiest thing I have to worry about is girl scouts trying to sell me shortbread. I think as long as it's a pain for known felons to get their hands on em with no loopholes we can all be happy.

Tax the shit that makes SENSE. Tax inheritance (again goes back to the idea of American ideals - our leaders should rise because of merit, not birth), tax high income wealth that's stagnant and not being put back in to the economy, tax multinational corps. That's more than enough to cover all our needs and even give back to the middle class if you're in to that. And dems and repubs both make sure the wealth in the end comes out of your and mine pocket. It doesn't make any sense to ask for 25% of a schoolteacher's pay check when they're criminally underpaid. That's what being liberal means ^ fuck the dems and Hilary "I'm so broke" Clinton can only pretend to understand.

Pizzaboy, Best wishes for a speedy recovery for your father. That is always a tough situation to deal with.

Like Michael Corleone said "When I'm dead I'll be really smart."

And please accept my best wishes for your father as well. I'll keep good thoughts by quietly muttering in his honor "Mandlebaum, Mandlebaum..."

if I am correct. then Walmart, and many other global corporations send their money to overseas concerns so they won't be taxed.

im thinking of the cayman islands, where many large corps, have set up accounts to avoid taxes.

can anyone explain to me why this is not illegal? I haven't heard of any politician in Washington explain this situation.

Pizza hope everything is ok with your dad. Hey take comfort in knowing that you actually had a good one. I can't say that.
---
You know this is not a political site, but most people on here at least know something that is going on here and in the world.

But most18 yr olds actually know very little. So they can be led to me that is not good.

Ask a tax attorney. Yet the same people who complain would buy from Walmart to say a few pennies.

I agree about the corporations. Many big corporations get away with not paying taxes or paying very little. I am not a tax guy, but my understanding was that the US has a global tax system, so all big corporations should be paying taxes.

I don't like the idea of a big corporations skating taxes, the problem is that the whole anti corporate philosophy is all encompassing. Meaning, it effects small business.

When liberals say, raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour, they are trying to say "fuck these big corporations, they can afford to be milked". The problem is that policy will have a big effect on small business, as small business employs well over half of workers in this country.

And say you write in an exemption on the minimum wage law for small businesses, tell me that wont have a severe adverse impact on small business. I'm sure the employees of small business will have no problem with being paid a lower minimum wage than the employees of large corporations. (:

So basically, as far as the anti corporate sentiment goes, our hands are pretty well tied.

And that in a nutshell, this is one of my problems with reactionary,emotional, liberal philosophy and legislation.

Instead of yelling "raise the minimum wage, fuck the big corporations", lets take a second to consider the consequences any legislation will have on the larger business landscape.

Loopholes are written into tax codes, and businesses smartly exploit every existing one.

Dangerous question, Binnie.

There are polarizing figures in the media that keep us distracted and finger pointing and name calling while these types of questions don't get addressed.

Such as?

I know exactly what you are talking about, if the minimum wage is raised to 15.00 an hour, every eating facility will raise their rates off the board.

the cost will be passed on to the consumer in every way. all the fast food franchises will almost double their prices overnight, and everyone else will follow. it would to my mind be a disaster.

in the case of what Binnie was talking about, the loopholes in Subpart F of the IRS tax code

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-061-007.html

There used to be a lot of loopholes in the tax code, but Obama largely got rid of them unless they participate in one of his green energy projects.

I don't know if anyone here actually runs a business, but for many businesses the profit margin is slim. Often the first year of any new business operates at a loss, and owners often forgo paying themselves a salary so their employees actually earn more than they do. If a business is successful and it expands, it may open itself up to investors and has to have a board. The investors have to get a return on their investment so the company will continue to stay alive and so the investors don't pull out. In the meantime the company still has to be profitable or else it will go under. Fees, regulations and taxes are all costs that take away profit. When government increases the cost, then it has to make cuts somewhere, and one way to do this is by farming out its customer service and other departments overseas. While doing this may cost some American jobs, it saves other jobs that would happen if the company failed.

There are news channels that do discuss this, such as CNBC and Fox Business. CNN also has business segments that discuss this.

And there are Left-wing Democrats who want to ban corporations from outsourcing, but what they don't tell you is that the federal government outsources too. The Pentagon, for instance, does it. What the left-wing Democrats don't realize is that an outright ban would probably put a lot of those corporations out of business, or they would move overseas and we would get no tax revenue from them at all. It makes much more sense to operate through incentives rather than punishment.

Are you a cpa or a lawyer?



Yup. gotta consider the long term impact of decisions.

I woulden't mind an outright ban on outsourcing. I am sick of talking to someone from India everytime I have a problem with At&t.

I'd say both US parties have consistently shifted to the right and the democrats are definitely centre right and are probably further to the right than most European conservative parties and the Australian liberals (conservatives), at least on many issues. The Dems used to be more or less equal to Canadian conservatives although since they merged with the canadian alliance to become the new tories they've gone batshit crazy and are now something like a Canadian Likud cum rogue petro-state.

Also, even the most right wing party in Europe, Australia or canada supports stronger healthcare than anything Obamacare managed to achieve and which by US standards was revolutionary and got him more accusations of "socialism". even the most right wing party in Europe and Australia and Canada supports paid maternity leave of at least 3 months, something the US still doesn't have and is the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't have it. Even Stephen Harper didn't dare touch universal healthcare, paid maternity leave or gay marriage. And no US democrat supports having a social welfare system that would be anything near what Europe, Australia or Canada have, even when these countries have right wing parties in power. and the level of encroachment religion has over US politics would be regarded as backwards and unacceptable by even the most right wing party in europe, except maybe in italy and spain where they have a lot of catholic fascists.

@IF

I'm neither a CPA nor an attorney.


@F1

I watch c-span and try to read direct sources as much as possible. Nature of the news media ,even business programs and channels,is to place some sort of spin on the coverage of existing laws or possible changes to them.
I don't necessarily disagree with your post and certainly businesses anchor society ,etc, but hasn't the argument you're presenting been used by so called "pro business" proponents for decades now.That Tax breaks, tax loopholes, subsidies, tariffs on foreign made products, bailouts are "really" benefiting the American public in the "long term".

There's also provisions of the Internal Revenue Code meant to counteract the so called loopholes. For instance, there is section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code: "The Credit For Increasing Research Activities." This is a credit meant to incentivise domestic research and development activities. It acts as a tax credit for corporations hiring employees domestically who are performing R&D activity. It basically allows companies to use as a credit the salaries paid to domestic employees performing research and development activities. And the credit can't be claimed if the company is outsourcing. Meaning, they have to hire domestically.

Just showing the flip side. Its rarely as a black and white as many like to think.

Fair and valid point.I'm just saying that powerful interests use their lobbying and influence to get benefits,provisions,loopholes that benefit them. All perfectly legal. I just don't always buy the propaganda that it all benefits the American worker in the long run.

I think slowly but surely American workers are starting to question some of these actions.I mean in some sectors American workers are being outsourced by "foreign workers" who are actually brought HERE to do the work...and all sorts of chicanery . It's about the bottom line, always has been, always will be.."Trickle down economics" or whatever term big business is calling it these days is pretty much a smokescreen.

I think your talking about H1B visas. That's an immigraiton issue, not a tax issue. Alot of skilled workers from India who are trained engineers get paid about 30k a year to work at company's like qualcomm in the United States.

As far as that goes, H1B expansion is strongly supported by the Democratic party. And that's not even touching on executive amnesty. Obama is no friend to the american worker sir.

no, Obama is not a friend of the American worker. he is portrayed as such by the mainstream media, but, he is pro wall street all the way.

and some of his biggest fund raisers were held by his wall street criminal friends. he is a farce.

They all are

Way to whittle down my entire post to the point about H1 workers.

bingo

Millions of dollars are spent to convince us otherwise, though.

You dedicated your entire second paragraph to this. Immigration law trumps tax law. If H1B visas didn't exist, Corporations could not hire cheap skilled foreign workers.

As far as lobbying, yeah, absolutely. There are lobbyists for everything. There is the gun lobby, the immigration lobby, the union lobby, the wall street lobby. And yes, its all legal.I don't like it either. But without it, legislation would not get passed.

For example, I am a gun owner and supporter. Now, do I like the NRA? No. Do I agree with everything they stand for? No, but I am a member because I know that without the NRA pro gun legislation would not get passed and anti gun legislation would not get blocked.

@IF,

I was calling BS on the Big Business talking point that some of their actions benefit or are meant to benefit American workers in the "long run". It's a smokescreen. There are highly skilled and English speaking workers across the globe that American companies can pay much less to and when given the loopholes to do it via outsourcing or other methods, of course they will do it.It benefits the bottom line.
Just don't insult people's intelligence by peeing on our legs and then tell us it's raining.

Can't say I disagree with this sentiment. But like I have repeatedly stated, there are no quick fixes. This is a complex issue. If the democrats came up with some moderate legislation that could fix the problem with outsourcing, I'd be all ears.



41(d) QUALIFIED RESEARCH DEFINED.--

41(d)(4) ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH CREDIT NOT ALLOWED.--The term “qualified research”
shall not include any of the following:

41(d)(4)(F) FOREIGN RESEARCH.--Any research conducted outside the United States, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States

From what I understand, the corporations domicile themselves overseas. So the money they park in tax havens...is not American money to begin with. You think your dealing with "US Corporations", but they are not that. If it was a corporation domiciled in the United States, then parking money in a haven would be a different story.

What no one has mentioned [or is rarely mentioned], is what country these mega corporations are domiciled in, since they are no longer "American Companies".

GetNets was correct in his linking the Subpart F codes. Those codes concern the advantages a corporation has when it is classified as "Foreign Based". So that's the loophole and its a difficult one to close because it makes perfect sense.

The root of the problem is currency. To be more precise, the US dollar is too strong. Factories are being built in countries where the currency value makes it cheaper to do so. Labor is being recruited in countries where the compensation is denominated in the local currency. Americans on the mainland are being left high and dry because they cost too much to hire, and it costs too much to manufacture here. The answer is to gradually devalue the dollar. I don't think the Federal Reserve or Federal government is willing to do that, so people can be expected to start abandoning the United States enmasse....in search of employment, if you can imagine such a thing. On closer inspection, the devaluation of the US currency might already be a [top] secret policy of the Federal Reserve and Federal government because the currency is already deflating [over time].

Knowing "US Corporations", I would imagine that a lot of their foreign holdings in their tax sheltered havens are denominated (or will be denominated) in some stronger currency chosen to remain stronger in relation to the rest of the world's currencies, whereas the US Dollar is planned out to become a commoners medium of exchange.

To say that "the root of the problem is currency" is a little myopic. Trying to strengthen your economy by devaluing the dollar is like saying I'm going to my company bigger by laying off employees. Devaluation is much different than inflation/deflation.

Currency is stronger here, but the good news it's getting less strong all the time.

The dollars is devaluating especially because the fed is doing that it is printing a trillion extra a year with nothing to back it up.

Almost forgot we are spending a crazy amount of U.S. Dollars to prop up the euro to keep if from collapsing.

Russia stopped using the U.S. Dollar.

We are going to be in serious trouble economically.

No democrate wants to fix it for them the future is now.

I am not even sure the republicans want to fix it either

90% of mcdonald's are owned by private franchises. These individuals are not corporate big wigs. These are small business owners.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/17/news/companies/mcdonalds-franchise-unhappy/index.html?iid=HP_LN

Many franchise owners blamed changes that McDonald's (MCD) is making under newly-appointed CEO Steve Easterbrook.
Easterbrook recently announced plans to raise wages for employees at McDonald's company-owned stores.
Franchise owners were particularly upset with the wage hike. Even though it only applies to workers at company-owned restaurants, franchisees worry that they will be pressured to raise wages too.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/gallery

im a little confused. when 4 0f the richest americans are waltons,and with none being worth less than 35 billion.

and yet they say they are not am American company,and the corporation wealth is overseas. isn't this awake up call to change the tax system. are they or are they not robber barons. who through the 4th branch of government [lobbyists] make their own laws. below gates are the richest 15

Yes they may be fucked up.

But this government see's people who make 380 thousand in the dreaded 1 percent.

Right. I need to be careful with terminology. Deflation does not = devaluation. It's conceivable to have devaluation of the dollar, and an inflation in the nominal value of goods and services. The trick, of course, is to devalue the dollar while also guarding against inflation. Not easy. But that's why those people have PHds in economics and that's why we pay them to run the currency.

Anyone whose been following business news for the last few decades is well aware that not only has the dollar been gently falling, but the Fed is forever vigilant against the boogeyman of inflation. There could be many reasons for that. One reason could be to keep Social Security payouts in check, which are tied to inflation. Inflation alone could crash the Social Security safety net. Another reason could be what we are discussing here...to devalue the US dollar in order to spark long term economic activity on the mainland, but do so without prices running amok.

The good news is that a lot [if not most] of the value of a dollar is set through the so called open market operations of the fed. In short, they set the price of a dollar via bond sales. So the Federal Reserve has many tricks up their sleeve. They have many tools a their disposal.

The corporations are the arms and legs of US.Gov. They have to do what the big boss tells them. The government watches and listens to you, through the corporations. The governments military armorers, are the corporations. They make all of the governments weaponry. The corporations are running much of the research and development for the government, and much of it is very advanced top secret science that I think even they do not understand. That is why R&D is not outsourced or insourced with H1B Visas. They won't give out the cutting edge of technology to a foreigner, only your job. So the corporations behavior is molded by the social engineering of old Uncle Sam. What social engineering you might ask? It is called using the system of taxes and regulations (aka Good Cop Bad Cop) to coerce the corporations (his Angels) into doing what he wants them to do. He wants them to keep research and development American only? Tax credits to the one who keeps Visas out of R&D. He wants to brain drain other countries of talent so that America maintains technological primacy? Loopholes and tax advantages to the ones who build factories overseas and bring in Visas for labor.

Yup. They can't get the real money so they settle on people earning high incomes who aren't wealthy. And the middle class ends up being collateral damage.

well said.

Spot-on. But I think Foot's giving them too much credit with the 380k. The people who are being duped by that line of bullshit think that a hundred grand a year is a lot of money. Now these are obviously lower income people, and I feel bad for them. But the people I have the problem with are the trust fund assholes selling them that line of bullshit.

The average kid protesting at Zuccotti Park a few years ago was about 22 years old, Whiter than Wonder Bread, and here on Mommy and Daddy's nickel (and obviously NOT native New Yorkers). Half of them lived locally (be it in Battery Park City, SoHo or The Village), in neighborhoods that were, believe it or not, not only affordable, but blue collar not all that long ago (if you're from out of town, just think of the old Little Italy).

And yet, it's COMPLETELY lost on these kids that they're driving the poor people---who they were supposed to be supporting with their mock outrage---right out of this city by living here on their parents' money, and driving the rents higher than anywhere else in the world.

I make my living in New York City real estate today. And if I'm saying it, you can bet your bippy that it's true. These Lily-White, out-of-town hipsters, need to go back to where they came from. It's all smoke and mirrors. That asshole de Blasio goes on and on about "A Tale of Two Cities." But he's in just as deep with the real estate lobby as Bloomberg was.

Hundred grand is great if your single but if you got a couple kids its not that big. Between food and clothes, tuition, college planning, and the mortgage, a hundred k a year and your living paycheck to paycheck.

Now, throw in a couple college tuitions, your practically a layoff from the welfare line

Yes, I obviously meant if you're raising a family. Because what you say is right on the money. It doesn't go very far.

I know what you meant boss. I was just jabbin you because I know you are no stranger to college tuition.

You have 2 parents working one makes 100 thousand the other makes 70 thousand your considered rich?

That's because you have a Democratic Party that is committed to a Marxist taxation system while you have modern day Russia using Steve Forbes' flat tax. When you punish the people who work and drive your economy, your economy will always be doomed to stagnation. Remember this...no poor man ever signed your paycheck....if you want everyone to be equal, you will have everyone equally POOR.

That's Goddamned right!!

It's never about spreading out the wealth with these Lefties, it's about spreading out the poverty.

I got mine, let them get theirs. I REALLY don't give a shit anymore.

True true. It's not about getting the rich with the left wingers, its about attacking anyone who has achieved success. Fuck them. "You didn't earn that"- Barack Obama.

Couldn't have said it better myself, spoken like a true libertarian

PB you've gone all Fox news on us! Did that asshole Giuliani get to you?

Nah, I'm just tired of it all. They're all liars, and they're all laughing it up at the voters' expense.

I used to firmly believe that those who didn't vote had no right to complain. But now I'm starting to believe that George Carlin was right all along (for those of you who are too young, just Google Carlin's bit about politics and voters).

But you and I are still pals, DT. Next time I'm on the Gulf Coast, rib eyes and martinis at Bern's?