Obama Administration

[RetiredDude]

Originally Posted by Monitor

If I were talking to you Dude I would have started my post with Hey Stupid but it's interesting to know that you were there and/or lost someone in the towers. Could you explain how you apparently 'give a rats ass'? Where do you get them? Why do you think it would be a good thing to give one to someone? What would they do with it? What do you do with the rest of the rat? I will admit that I do indeed have nothing to do with a rat’s ass but I guess I'm glad someone does since that does fit in with what I know about you.

I told you up front, way back, that I lost a family member in those towers. Pat attention!

[Monitor]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

I told you up front, way back, that I lost a family member in those towers. Pat attention!

Well Dude, the VAST MAJORITY of what you post is pure BS so why in the world should I ‘pat’ attention to it? Even if you actually did lose a family member there I don’t think you should have any more to say about what is built two blocks away than any person who lives there.

And you never answered any of my rat’s ass questions.

[RetiredDude]

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=2298

Where and when is this crap going to cease? This looks like political pay back to me.

[RetiredDude]

monitor, now I KNOW you're a complete ass. What a comment to make. Unbelievable!

[aofive]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

Where and when is this crap going to cease?

Exactly the question some people ask themselves when they realize that you still have not admitted that 38.8% of something is not a "vast majority".

[Monitor]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

monitor, now I KNOW you're a complete ass. What a comment to make. Unbelievable!

You do seem to have an ass fixation Dude. Rats asses, people as asses, I can hardly wait to see what’s next with you.

[AAK]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

A sign of insanity is to keep repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

I keep asking AAK for his reason for no jobs with no response. So I assume he does not have one. Anyone else care to venture a reason?

I'm no expert in economics but I can offer some opinions.
1) We are dealing with the dislocations caused by the emergence for the first time in history of a true world-wide economy. On top of that, the world is currently in a recession.

2) Another related thing is this: yes, the USA has an unemployment rate of around 10%, but there's a lot to be learned from digging deeper into that statistic. For one thing, as was reported on one of the Sunday news shows, while our overall unemployment rate is around 10%, the rate for college grads is a bit over 4% and the rate for graduate degree holders is a bit lower than that. If the overall rate is around 10% and the rate for the subgroups of college grads is a lot lower, then it stands to reason that the rate for non-college/non-vocational school folks is a lot higher. So the real victims when it comes to unemployment in the USA are folks who lack high job skills, and the demand for such workers isn't in the USA anymore, it's in China, Malaysia, etc.

3) A third reason is uncertainty: companies are not willing to staff up until they know if efforts to rebuild the economy are going to take root, and efforts to rebuild the economy aren't going to take root until employers start to staff up. A real Catch 22 here.

4) Contrary to what some folks believe, the president's desk in the oval office does not have a "Jobs" button he can press and instantly create jobs.

~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry for the delay in responding. But now that I have responded, maybe you could respond to the repeated requests for you either to explain how 38% of something is a vast majority or to retract the statement.

[23cal]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

Not only are you dense, you don't even recognize sarcasm when you see it. Like I said. anything to pick a fight.

I repeat: "I expect this to get consigned to the usual place for everything you lack the integrity to admit along with "majority" and "Liar"."

[Monitor]

I’m not sure if Red has weighed in on this topic but it does look like the vast majority of the regular posters in this thread do not understand math any better than I do if that’s what it would take to think the charts Dude pointed to showed that a vast majority does not need to be over 50%. I guess it also means I’m not the only one not open to new concepts that redefine terms to match goofy statements.

[23cal]

The Democratic National Committee called into question Fox News' objectivity Tuesday after it was reported that the cable network's parent company – News Corporation – recently donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

"'Fair and Balanced' has been rendered utterly meaningless," Hari Sevugan, the DNC's national press secretary, said in a statement. "Any pretense that may have existed about the ties between Fox News and the Republican Party has been ripped violently away.

"No Republican who appears on Fox can be seen as answering to an independent press and all should appear with a disclaimer for who they truly are – the favored candidate of the corporate-friendly network. No Fox News political coverage can be seen as impartial and all of it should have a disclaimer for what it truly is – partisan propaganda." CNN

[isitayuh]

"A review of the News Corporation IRS filings by CNN shows that a subsidiary of the company called News America Inc. made additional donations to both Democrats and Republicans in the 2010 election cycle, including $50,000 to the Democratic Attorneys General Association and $65,000 to the Republican State Leadership Committee."

"Data collected by CQ Moneyline shows that News Corporation, through its political action committee, has contributed over $105,500 to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election cycle, while donating $74,700 to Republicans during the same time period. News Corporation's PAC has also donated $7,500 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $14,500 to GOP-related PACs. News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdoch, has also given a total of $45,000 to other Democratic and Republican committees. On the Democratic side, that includes $30,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $15,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. As for Republicans, News Corporation donated $30,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee."

"General Electric, which owns NBC, has also made substantial political contributions in the 2010 election cycle. For example, GE donated $688,900 to Democrats through its PAC this election cycle compared to $410,100 to Republicans. The company has also given $75,500 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $74,500 to Republican-affiliated leadership PACs.

Meanwhile, GE has donated $237,000 to the Democratic Governors Association and $205,000 to the Republican Governors Association.

Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, has given $60,000 to the Democratic Governors Association in the 2010 election cycle, according to CQ Moneyline. Meanwhile, Time Warner Cable, a former subsidiary of Time Warner, donated $50,000 to the RGA this election cycle.

But it doesn't end there. Time Warner's PAC has given $70,500 to Democratic candidates in the 2010 election cycle compared with $41,500 to Republicans. Time Warner also donated $5,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The political action committee for Viacom, the parent company of CBS, has contributed $108,700 to Democratic candidates this election cycle and $64,000 to Republicans, according to CQ Moneyline. The PAC has also contributed $22,000 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $21,500 Republican-affiliated leadership PACs. Viacom also donated $4,000 to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party last April.

And Disney, the parent company of ABC, has given $110,500 to Democratic candidates and $95,000 to Republicans through its PAC. It has also donated $16,000 to Democratic-affiliated leadership PACs and $20,000 to Republican-affiliated committees. Disney has also given $11,000 to Democratic Party PACs and $20,000 to Republican Party PACs."

[isitayuh]

Looks like most news corporations seem to favor Democrats. Heck, News Corporation has donated more to Democrats than Republicans in the 2010 election cycle.

[RetiredDude]

Originally Posted by monitor

well dude, the vast majority of what you post is pure bs so why in the world should i ‘pat’ attention to it? Even if you actually did lose a family member there i don’t think you should have any more to say about what is built two blocks away than any person who lives there.

And you never answered any of my rat’s ass questions.

you owe me an apology for that insensitive and insulting remark.
Until that happens, you are persona non gratia! (yeah, go look it up)

[RetiredDude]

Originally Posted by AAK

I'm no expert in economics but I can offer some opinions.
1) We are dealing with the dislocations caused by the emergence for the first time in history of a true world-wide economy. On top of that, the world is currently in a recession.

2) Another related thing is this: yes, the USA has an unemployment rate of around 10%, but there's a lot to be learned from digging deeper into that statistic. For one thing, as was reported on one of the Sunday news shows, while our overall unemployment rate is around 10%, the rate for college grads is a bit over 4% and the rate for graduate degree holders is a bit lower than that. If the overall rate is around 10% and the rate for the subgroups of college grads is a lot lower, then it stands to reason that the rate for non-college/non-vocational school folks is a lot higher. So the real victims when it comes to unemployment in the USA are folks who lack high job skills, and the demand for such workers isn't in the USA anymore, it's in China, Malaysia, etc.

3) A third reason is uncertainty: companies are not willing to staff up until they know if efforts to rebuild the economy are going to take root, and efforts to rebuild the economy aren't going to take root until employers start to staff up. A real Catch 22 here.

4) Contrary to what some folks believe, the president's desk in the oval office does not have a "Jobs" button he can press and instantly create jobs.

~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry for the delay in responding. But now that I have responded, maybe you could respond to the repeated requests for you either to explain how 38% of something is a vast majority or to retract the statement.

So we agree that it's uncertainty. We disagree on the reason.
Obama campaigned on the economy and it's his policies or non policies that ultimately determine how the economy does. As an ex-entrepreneur who has had to meet payroll, I told you why we are not hiring. You can choose to believe it or not.

I showed, and explained, the "vast majority" calculations in detail some time ago. Perhaps you just missed the post.

I will not be monitoring this forum for a while. I'm flying to Europe on a consulting job. I'm leaving tomorrow and don't know when I'll be back.

[Monitor]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

you owe me an apology for that insensitive and insulting remark.
Until that happens, you are persona non gratia! (yeah, go look it up)

Now that's funny. That's truly funny. You think I owe you an apology for being insulting. That’s really truly funny.

[AAK]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

So we agree that it's uncertainty. We disagree on the reason.
Obama campaigned on the economy and it's his policies or non policies that ultimately determine how the economy does. As an ex-entrepreneur who has had to meet payroll, I told you why we are not hiring. You can choose to believe it or not.

I showed, and explained, the "vast majority" calculations in detail some time ago. Perhaps you just missed the post.

I will not be monitoring this forum for a while. I'm flying to Europe on a consulting job. I'm leaving tomorrow and don't know when I'll be back.

No, I didn't miss your "explanation", (your term, not mine) about your vast majority calculations, I just found it to be absurd.

We are now emerging from the largest recession since the great depression of the 1930s; that's point one. Economists are nearly universal in saying that when we emerge from a recession, job creation is one of the last things to happen; that's point two. Neither of these points, especially the second one, can get much traction in our microwave popcorn instant gratification culture.

Have fun in Europe. While you're there, try out on your clients your "explanation" about what a vast majority is . I'm sure they'll like it as much as the posters here do.

[Monitor]

A European consulting job? Yeah right, I can just imagine someone actually paying duffis Dude to explain to them how a vast majority doesn’t need to be over 50%. That’s almost as funny as him thinking I should apologize to him.

I did look up persona non gratia and found that it simply means an unwelcome person and ‘is a legal term used in diplomacy that indicates a proscription against a person entering the country’. Apparently this half-wit thinks him declaring me unwelcome is some form of punishment and puts me in jeopardy of being deported?

[RetiredDude]

Originally Posted by AAK

No, I didn't miss your "explanation", (your term, not mine) about your vast majority calculations, I just found it to be absurd.

We are now emerging from the largest recession since the great depression of the 1930s; that's point one. Economists are nearly universal in saying that when we emerge from a recession, job creation is one of the last things to happen; that's point two. Neither of these points, especially the second one, can get much traction in our microwave popcorn instant gratification culture.

Have fun in Europe. While you're there, try out on your clients your "explanation" about what a vast majority is . I'm sure they'll like it as much as the posters here do.

So what you find absurd is the top 1% group paying 40%+ ,and the 2 thru 5% group, which is the next closest group, paying 20%+, is not a vast majority. I say paying twice the next closest group IS paying the vast majority.
In any event, that’s all you get for an explanation, and yes, I did run it by some of my colleagues and they agree with me. Of course they’re biased because they’re IN that 1% group. LOL

If you want to believe what some academics say about unemployment over someone who hired and fired in his career, so be it. That’s your prerogative.
If I paid an employee $45,000 per year, it actually cost me around $63,000 when I factor in the cost of benefits, UI, FICA, and Government regulations. I’m saying that hiring won’t get robust until this Administration removes the surprise factor from taxes, benefits, and regulations.

[aofive]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

So what you find absurd is the top 1% group paying 40%+ ,and the 2 thru 5% group, which is the next closest group, paying 20%+, is not a vast majority. I say paying twice the next closest group IS paying the vast majority.
In any event, that’s all you get for an explanation, and yes, I did run it by some of my colleagues and they agree with me. Of course they’re biased because they’re IN that 1% group. LOL

Well then, your colleagues are as goofy as you are. Your explanation above only proves that the top 1% pay a "vast majority" of what those two groups pay, not all taxpayers, which is what your original statement said. You originally said,

"the top 1% of earners pay the vast majority of taxes in this country"

Note that your statement included ALL taxpayers not just the top 1% compared to the top 5% of earners. Also, when you first made the claim it was that the top 1% paid 38.8% of the taxes. Now it has gone up to 40%.

Either way, I will ask you again. How can 40% of 100% be called a "vast majority"?

[Monitor]

So Aofive, you think that even though 40 is the majority of 60 that does not mean it's the vast majority of 100? You don't get to be a duffis Dude colleague.

[AAK]

Originally Posted by RetiredDude

... If you want to believe what some academics say about unemployment over someone who hired and fired in his career, so be it. That’s your prerogative.

If I paid an employee $45,000 per year, it actually cost me around $63,000 when I factor in the cost of benefits, UI, FICA, and Government regulations. I’m saying that hiring won’t get robust until this Administration removes the surprise factor from taxes, benefits, and regulations.

1) It sounds like you just found out there are costs in addition to salary that employers must pay. Sorry to break the news to you, but (a) there are; and (b) the Dodgers don't play in Brooklyn anymore. If you want $63,000 of productivity from an employee, you better be prepared to pay $63,000 in salary and benefits for it. If you don't get that level of productivity, then you made a bad hire; if you do get it, you're getting exactly what you paid for, so what's the problem? And what "surprise factors" are you even talking about?

2) When I said economists are nearly universal in saying that when we emerge from a recession, job creation is one of the last things to happen, I wasn't talking about economic theory by "some academics": I was talking about verifiable facts economists have documented after thoroughly researching actual recession cycles over many years in many countries. So yes, I'll exercise my prerogative to take their collective findings over your anecdotal information.

3) By the way, what makes you think I didn't hire and fire in my career? I was in HR staffing and compensation for over 32 years.

[23cal]

On the mosque issue, it seems there are a lot of people out there who don't understand the difference between al-Qaida (the people who flew planes into buildings) and Islam (the religion for which the mosque is to be built).

[Monitor]

Originally Posted by 23cal

On the mosque issue, it seems there are a lot of people out there who don't understand the difference between al-Qaida (the people who flew planes into buildings) and Islam (the religion for which the mosque is to be built).

But you have to admit that building a mosque there is really really bad PR.

[AAK]

Question for Obama friends and foes alike: Back in January, 2009, in what condition did you realistically expect our economy would in today no matter who had been elected president?

[Monitor]

I must admit that in January of 2009 the condition of the economy a year and a half or two years later never crossed my mind. I will further admit that the condition of the economy a year and a half or two years from now is not something I spend any time thinking about. I have a Doris Day que sara sara approach to life.

[23cal]

Originally Posted by Monitor

But you have to admit that building a mosque there is really really bad PR.

It is. But, it shouldn't be. The right wing propaganda machine has created an issue to stir up the base.

[23cal]

Originally Posted by AAK

Question for Obama friends and foes alike: Back in January, 2009, in what condition did you realistically expect our economy would in today no matter who had been elected president?

I didn't have expectations for it today, but I was very concerned at that time that we were irreversibly headed into a Great Depression. Consequently, I am comparatively well pleased with where we are.

[isitayuh]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...101668063.html

Gee, who can we trust in media?