LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

[Geezer]

Big Al mind meld with Al Jazeera
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/ ... urrent-tv/
I was never a Beck fan but Gore's admitting that his network is in the same belief group as Al Jazeera is rather disgusting. Al Jazeera's view mimics Goebbels.

[Geezer]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/ ... -register/
Our anti gun lobby

[Geezer]

http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/01/georg ... stitution/
The lefty view for scrapping the constitution.
This from a so called law professor

[BigMcK]

The only way to cut taxes to those who don't pay any income taxes is to reduce another deduction, in this case it was FICA.

And is anyone else sickened that these clowns in Congress are going to keep the same "leaders" in place? All of them should be tossed from any podium and no longer be given a forum to speak since they have been completely ineffectual at their jobs.

Wait, you don't feel you owe them a sign of gratitude for 'working' New Years Eve on how to bend the people over, er... pass along a tax increase that hurts more than it will ever help?

And is anyone else sickened that these clowns in Congress are going to keep the same "leaders" in place? Yes. Very much so.

[mac5155]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/02/liberal-ex-columnist-death-threats-published-in-des-moines-register/
Our anti gun lobby

I got about halfway through that and closed it out.

[tifosi77]

Eh, I think compared to most media outlets in the world today, The Economist ranks near the top in terms of quality.

That cover is a dud, though.

Wow, I actually thought it was a spoof. Didn't know until just a minute that it's for real.

That's......... lame.

Frankly, I'd rather put that 6.2% into my 401k, have my employer match it, and let me be my own savings account.

Well who wouldn't? If I revealed what I've paid (+employers match) since 1965 I'd be living large under that scenario. But social security is also a transfer payment. The lower end of income workers get a bigger payoff than middle class folks. I'm actually okay with that since the main goal of social security was to keep elderly people out of abject poverty after working all their lives. The only thing I obect to is the hypocritical opposition to raising the eligibility age by the Democrat imbeciles led by Pelosi,Reid and spendaholic Barry who'd rather bankrupt the country to buy free lunch votes.
This is a painless easy fix. The Dems would rather bone the populace to win elections.And the lemmings lap it up.

It's all fun and games until the average 401(k) lost nearly $4 for every $10 invested over a 12-month period three years ago. Never mind the exceptionally low interest rates out there today..... great for buying a house or a car, crap for long-term investment.

Granted, the folks who are still at least 15-20 years away from retirement have plenty of time to recover. But the folks who are within a few years of wanting to call it day are, frankly, screwed.

Big Al mind meld with Al Jazeera
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/ ... urrent-tv/
I was never a Beck fan but Gore's admitting that his network is in the same belief group as Al Jazeera is rather disgusting. Al Jazeera's view mimics Goebbels.

The characterization of al Jazeera..... "anti-American terror mouthpiece"....... That's not propaganda or anything.

Al Jazeera is one of the better news organizations in the world, and the fact that they are able to do some of the reporting they do given the restrictions on their operations (like having their NYSE credentials pulled for - *gasp!* - making the war in Iraq seem less-than-rosy) is impressive.

[Geezer]

Eh, I think compared to most media outlets in the world today, The Economist ranks near the top in terms of quality.

That cover is a dud, though.

Wow, I actually thought it was a spoof. Didn't know until just a minute that it's for real.

That's......... lame.

Frankly, I'd rather put that 6.2% into my 401k, have my employer match it, and let me be my own savings account.

Well who wouldn't? If I revealed what I've paid (+employers match) since 1965 I'd be living large under that scenario. But social security is also a transfer payment. The lower end of income workers get a bigger payoff than middle class folks. I'm actually okay with that since the main goal of social security was to keep elderly people out of abject poverty after working all their lives. The only thing I obect to is the hypocritical opposition to raising the eligibility age by the Democrat imbeciles led by Pelosi,Reid and spendaholic Barry who'd rather bankrupt the country to buy free lunch votes.
This is a painless easy fix. The Dems would rather bone the populace to win elections.And the lemmings lap it up.

It's all fun and games until the average 401(k) lost nearly $4 for every $10 invested over a 12-month period three years ago. Never mind the exceptionally low interest rates out there today..... great for buying a house or a car, crap for long-term investment.

Granted, the folks who are still at least 15-20 years away from retirement have plenty of time to recover. But the folks who are within a few years of wanting to call it day are, frankly, screwed.

Big Al mind meld with Al Jazeera
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/ ... urrent-tv/
I was never a Beck fan but Gore's admitting that his network is in the same belief group as Al Jazeera is rather disgusting. Al Jazeera's view mimics Goebbels.

The characterization of al Jazeera..... "anti-American terror mouthpiece"....... That's not propaganda or anything.

Al Jazeera is one of the better news organizations in the world, and the fact that they are able to do some of the reporting they do given the restrictions on their operations (like having their NYSE credentials pulled for - *gasp!* - making the war in Iraq seem less-than-rosy) is impressive.

Glenn Beck is a real piece of work. That being said he's 10 times more believable than AQ;s spokesmen Al ExterminateJewsjazeera

[Geezer]

It's all fun and games until the average 401(k) lost nearly $4 for every $10 invested over a 12-month period three years ago. Never mind the exceptionally low interest rates out there today..... great for buying a house or a car, crap for long-term investment.

Granted, the folks who are still at least 15-20 years away from retirement have plenty of time to recover. But the folks who are within a few years of wanting to call it day are, frankly, screwed.

Geezer wrote:I'm going to get a helluva lot better return on my money from my 401 k bucks than from SS. If I live to my Grandma's age ; 2 weeks short of 100, I 'll come ahead of social security. I don't care if I come out ahead. I care about the the regressives:AKA liberals, total screwing my kids ans grandkids. Like I've repeatedly stated,those who like the liberal financial disaster of the Democrat nirvana of California will love the Greeking of America under the spend-our-way-to-prosperity under the drunken-sailor-in-chief.

[shafnutz05]

This is an outstanding breakdown of violent crime/murder rate data, and how it breaks down on multiple levels. It makes the bluster and fear-mongering from people like Piers Morgan look all the more ridiculous, and how he and politicians use "gun control" as a distraction from the real issues. I highly recommend it, it is worth the six and a half minute watch:

[BigMcK]

It's all fun and games until the average 401(k) lost nearly $4 for every $10 invested over a 12-month period three years ago. Never mind the exceptionally low interest rates out there today..... great for buying a house or a car, crap for long-term investment.

Granted, the folks who are still at least 15-20 years away from retirement have plenty of time to recover. But the folks who are within a few years of wanting to call it day are, frankly, screwed.

Geezer wrote:I'm going to get a helluva lot better return on my money from my 401 k bucks than from SS. If I live to my Grandma's age ; 2 weeks short of 100, I 'll come ahead of social security. I don't care if I come out ahead. I care about the the regressives:AKA liberals, total screwing my kids ans grandkids. Like I've repeatedly stated,those who like the liberal financial disaster of the Democrat nirvana of California will love the Greeking of America under the spend-our-way-to-prosperity under the drunken-sailor-in-chief.

If the government can force the average American to pay more in taxes which lowers non-essential discretionary income, do the resulting reductions in ones ability to contribute to a 401(k) help or hurt the government?

[KennyTheKangaroo]

It's all fun and games until the average 401(k) lost nearly $4 for every $10 invested over a 12-month period three years ago. Never mind the exceptionally low interest rates out there today..... great for buying a house or a car, crap for long-term investment.

Granted, the folks who are still at least 15-20 years away from retirement have plenty of time to recover. But the folks who are within a few years of wanting to call it day are, frankly, screwed.

Not to nitpick, but the market has more or less recovered from the recession. the S&P 500 all time high is 1,565 back in october 2007. its recent low was in march 2009 at 666. today it closed at 1,459. thats still a 6% drop from the all time high, but quite frankly everyone seems to be that things are a lot worse off than that.

Obviously there are people out there who had high concentrations in financial stocks have probably not recovered, and that is a shame. But by and large if you continued to make 401(k) contributions throughout 2009-2012 recovery, you probably came out ahead.

[Alejandro Rojas]

[mac5155]

It's all fun and games until the average 401(k) lost nearly $4 for every $10 invested over a 12-month period three years ago. Never mind the exceptionally low interest rates out there today..... great for buying a house or a car, crap for long-term investment.

Granted, the folks who are still at least 15-20 years away from retirement have plenty of time to recover. But the folks who are within a few years of wanting to call it day are, frankly, screwed.

Not to nitpick, but the market has more or less recovered from the recession. the S&P 500 all time high is 1,565 back in october 2007. its recent low was in march 2009 at 666. today it closed at 1,459. thats still a 6% drop from the all time high, but quite frankly everyone seems to be that things are a lot worse off than that.

Obviously there are people out there who had high concentrations in financial stocks have probably not recovered, and that is a shame. But by and large if you continued to make 401(k) contributions throughout 2009-2012 recovery, you probably came out ahead.

Its too depressing to follow mine day to day, but I should be getting a statement here soon, so time will tell

[columbia]

The Secret iPad List to Bring Down Boehener

When the failed House Republican revolution came, it came by iPad. Now that House Speaker John Boehner has survived the rebellion, all of D.C. now knows which conservative House members were conspiring to mount a challenge, thanks to a list that one of the coup's leaders brandished on the House floor during the vote.

A Politico photographer captured Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Iowa (pictured above), who Boehner had removed from a committee for refusing to cooperate, tapping his iPad during the roll call, checking off a list of names of other Congressmen he thought might join him in voting against Boehner. The list was titled, appropriately, "You would be fired if this goes out," Politico's Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan report.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... ner/60592/

[ExPatriatePen]

The Secret iPad List to Bring Down Boehener

When the failed House Republican revolution came, it came by iPad. Now that House Speaker John Boehner has survived the rebellion, all of D.C. now knows which conservative House members were conspiring to mount a challenge, thanks to a list that one of the coup's leaders brandished on the House floor during the vote.

A Politico photographer captured Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Iowa (pictured above), who Boehner had removed from a committee for refusing to cooperate, tapping his iPad during the roll call, checking off a list of names of other Congressmen he thought might join him in voting against Boehner. The list was titled, appropriately, "You would be fired if this goes out," Politico's Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan report.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... ner/60592/

"It’s not clear that any of the Republicans on Huelskamp’s list knew they were on it, or even knew of the list’s existence,"

So the question is, so what? Did anyone really expect a unanimous "vote of confidence" considering Boeheners power play moves in the last few months? Of course feelings were hurt, of course those on the losing end would mount a challenge.

sorry Columbia, but I call a non-story here.

[Tico Rick]

A crappy outcome for Sen. Crapo:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16349121-sen-crapo-pleads-guilty-to-dwi-loses-license-for-year?lite

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

1. 401k issue. While it does suck to lose money, most of the time, over time your 401k will survive and you will make that money back and finish ahead. and that is without even counting the tax breaks you receive that most people don't pay attention to since they are directly on your w2 and not a refund check. downturns not all is lost as you at some points you are also gobbling up some cheaper stocks/funds. Over time your 401k should be fine.

2. Taxes Increase. Just got my first paycheck today. We get paid every two weeks, but not that matters, 2% is 2%. I am out about $150 per month plus my 2% of my bonus. You can bet there will cutbacks out of my life. No way around it. Right now I want to keep saving the same so I will see some changes.

How this overall effects the economy I have no idea, but its losing $150 per month of my money.

[KennyTheKangaroo]

or you could look at it this way: for the past few years, you received a free $150 a month for the past two years because of the tax break. the government gave you a bonus for the past two years. the rate is going back to 6.2%, which is what it was for a very long time.

[ExPatriatePen]

or you could look at it this way: for the past few years, you received a free $150 a month for the past two years because of the tax break. the government gave you a bonus for the past two years. the rate is going back to 6.2%, which is what it was for a very long time.

From the standpoint of the effect on the economy, the only thing that matters is that Joe Sixpack has less money to spend.

The why's and where's and justifications don't matter (I actually agree with suspending the payroll tax holiday - surprise) all that matters is that every dollar sent to Washington is one less dollar spent by the consumer.

Hopefully this economy is strong enough to take the punch and continue forward.

[King Sid the Great 87]

or you could look at it this way: for the past few years, you received a free $150 a month for the past two years because of the tax break. the government gave you a bonus for the past two years. the rate is going back to 6.2%, which is what it was for a very long time.

From the standpoint of the effect on the economy, the only thing that matters is that Joe Sixpack has less money to spend.

The why's and where's and justifications don't matter (I actually agree with suspending the payroll tax holiday - surprise) all that matters is that every dollar sent to Washington is one less dollar spent by the consumer.

Hopefully this economy is strong enough to take the punch and continue forward.

The big picture here is: how pathetic has GDP really been the last two years after subtracting the artificial bump from the payroll holiday? I've seen GDP predicted to be anywhere from 0.5-0.9% less without the payroll holiday stimulus. That's a 25-45% reduction of a 2% GDP. Everyone should keep that in mind the next time the administration is touting growth of the economy.

[columbia]

The Secret iPad List to Bring Down Boehener

When the failed House Republican revolution came, it came by iPad. Now that House Speaker John Boehner has survived the rebellion, all of D.C. now knows which conservative House members were conspiring to mount a challenge, thanks to a list that one of the coup's leaders brandished on the House floor during the vote.

A Politico photographer captured Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Iowa (pictured above), who Boehner had removed from a committee for refusing to cooperate, tapping his iPad during the roll call, checking off a list of names of other Congressmen he thought might join him in voting against Boehner. The list was titled, appropriately, "You would be fired if this goes out," Politico's Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan report.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... ner/60592/

"It’s not clear that any of the Republicans on Huelskamp’s list knew they were on it, or even knew of the list’s existence,"

So the question is, so what? Did anyone really expect a unanimous "vote of confidence" considering Boeheners power play moves in the last few months? Of course feelings were hurt, of course those on the losing end would mount a challenge.

sorry Columbia, but I call a non-story here.

It's certainly amusing.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

or you could look at it this way: for the past few years, you received a free $150 a month for the past two years because of the tax break. the government gave you a bonus for the past two years. the rate is going back to 6.2%, which is what it was for a very long time.

To be clear I wasn't complaining, I was more saying that in regards to the effect on the economy.

In theory the government is like a business. Cutting or raising taxes doesn't mean cutting or raising revenues. Sort of like advertising expenses, does cutting taxes raise revenues or effect the balance sheet positively?

Did those breaks, which have been going for quite a long time now so peope are used to them, help the economy by people spending the money, creating commerce and jobs or whatever? Or did those cuts not help and the government lost money?

[DelPen]

Economists from both sides of the tax argument will throw a stufy in your face that 100% supports their position. In the past when taxes have been cut rather dramatixally under Bush, Reagan and Kennedy the economy improved and tax revenues increased as well. Then Clilnton raises taxes and the same thing happened but some could argue it was from the dotcom boom.

Ultimately I'd prefer the size of federal government pared back extensively then I can have these tax debetaes in my local government so they control how my money is spent.

[ExPatriatePen]

Economists from both sides of the tax argument will throw a stufy in your face that 100% supports their position. In the past when taxes have been cut rather dramatixally under Bush, Reagan and Kennedy the economy improved and tax revenues increased as well. Then Clilnton raises taxes and the same thing happened but some could argue it was from the dotcom boom.

Ultimately I'd prefer the size of federal government pared back extensively then I can have these tax debetaes in my local government so they control how my money is spent.

Delpen, while I agree with you, it's important to note that you can't look at the effect of tax increases / tax cuts in a vaccum.

It's extremely important to consider the starting point as well as the amount of the increase / decrease.

In an economy that's booming (your Dot Com example for instance) the effect of a change in tax rates is different than it would be in the middle of a recession.

That's one of the main frustrations I have with Keynesians like Krugman.

[ulf]

or you could look at it this way: for the past few years, you received a free $150 a month for the past two years because of the tax break. the government gave you a bonus for the past two years. the rate is going back to 6.2%, which is what it was for a very long time.

Ah yes, thank you government!