News of the Day

[Donnie D]

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace

If there was some sort of punishment system put in place for failing to do your job adequately(no I don't count elections as a punishment because incumbents generally win) then I would be fine with it. Politicians are the only career where you can promise one thing, do another, then do it all over again without fear of recourse.

If they get re-elected I guess that means that the voters agree with what they are doing - or to my point because of the poor pay, nobody better chooses to run against them.

[Donnie D]

Originally Posted by WaiverWire

And what are these great accomplishments??

More jobs were created in 2010 than during the entire 8 years of the Bush administration
Increased Infrastructure spending (not as much as I would have liked)
Ended the Iraq war
Returned the focus to Afghanistan where the real terror threat was
Supported the Arab Spring that resulted in regime change in Libya
Ended torture
Killed a number of Al Qaeda leaders
Increased funding for education (investing in our kids is a better investment then worrying about fat cat IRA deductions)
Restored FEMA's ability to respond in a disaster
GM - that's 1.4 million jobs

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

[RSchmitz]

Obama has disappointed me with his term, but I will likely be voting for him again since I think he would do a better job than Romney.

Originally Posted by Donnie D

Now that this was proven to be Republican bull crap,

What is your source, and I do no mean MSNBC as mine was from the GAO.

Just admit Donnie that you are part of the 42%

Originally Posted by Flycoon

Really? How does any "job creator" benefit on sales of their stock after the IPO?

Haven't the low tax structures of the past 11 years shown you beyond a shadow of a doubt that low tax rates DO NOT encourage hiring? On the contrary, it encourages hoarding.

So you are saying that when a stock is doing well that this does not benefit the company?

[Donnie D]

Originally Posted by WaiverWire

What is your source, and I do no mean MSNBC as mine was from the GAO.

Just admit Donnie that you are part of the 42%

I just did a search on 2013 Budget 401k changes. You get a list that all say the same thing.

But how about what the Heritage Foundation says about Obama's IRA plans:

While many aspects of the new fiscal year 2013 Obama budget are just plain wrong, there is one bright spot. The budget does recognize the need for more Americans to be able to save for retirement by including the Automatic IRA, which will give up to 80 million workers a simple and easy way to save for retirement. The proposal has support from publications as diverse as National Review and The New York Times, and it is part of Heritage’s Saving the American Dream plan.

In addition, the budget proposes to double the tax credit for employers that start new 401(k) plans from the current $500 for three years to $1,000 for three years. Both would enable Americans to better provide for their own retirement security rather than depending on government programs.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11417...t-changes.html

http://www.pionline.com/article/2012...YREG/120219950

These are just the top two.

Originally Posted by Donnie D

More jobs were created in 2010 than during the entire 8 years of the Bush administration
Increased Infrastructure spending (not as much as I would have liked)
Ended the Iraq war
Returned the focus to Afghanistan where the real terror threat was
Supported the Arab Spring that resulted in regime change in Libya
Ended torture
Killed a number of Al Qaeda leaders
Increased funding for education (investing in our kids is a better investment then worrying about fat cat IRA deductions)
Restored FEMA's ability to respond in a disaster
GM - that's 1.4 million jobs

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

Donnie, some of your figures are just plain wrong. I will start with GM. The figure 1.4 mil is for the whole auto industry, not GM.

FEMA is still a disaster. I have friends that work there and I turned a job down form there in December because they are still wasting our money. When I have time I will tell you what Obama has allowed there and it may shock you.

Can not comment on the education as I have not seen anything there.

When it comes to the Al Qaeda leaders, Osama, the war, and aid everyone helped in these matters. But Irag ended the war according to a security agreement between the United States and Iraq made in 2008 (under Bush) ,U.S. troops have legal immunity within the country only until Dec. 31, 2011. So, for U.S. troops to stay, they will need a formal request from the Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. But with lots of internal opposition to the U.S. troop presence and the Iraqi government's own slew of legislative tensions, the possibility of that request has been diminishing. Still, as he wrapped up his trip Tuesday, Mullen told reporters that he was "encouraged to learn last night that Iraqi leaders plan to meet to discuss the merits of such a request."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...sion-from-iraq

Now the job issue. You are reading to much from the left. Here is a link that is not bias. Talks about the Obama jobs programs and bailouts. You may be surprised.

http://www.propublica.org/article/wh...-creating-jobs

President Obama has promised to focus on jobs, so we decided to look at his actual record: What exactly has the Obama administration done to create jobs so far? Here's a look at Obama's jobs initiatives, the hits, the misses, and the ones we're still waiting for an answer on.

Overall, job creation has been relatively meager during the Obama administration, particularly compared to the massive job losses brought on by the recession. According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, even if job creation were happening at pre-recession levels, it would take us 11 years to get back to an unemployment rate of 5 percent.

I also assume that the Obama job creating would be higher than under Bush as Bush entered with a lower unemployment rate, and thus fewer jobs would be created. But please do not forget that Obama has created almost 200,000 new federal jobs since he took office.

Here is more on his jobs claim. Please note his claims are real, but half truths.

http://www.politifact.com/obamajobs/

Under Obama the U.S. economy remains about 5 million jobs in the hole from the 2007 peak. He has had a ruff time and was handed a terrible deck of cards. But the jobs that have been created do not pay the best salaries. In-fact the average household income has fallen during the time Obama has been in office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/us...t-falling.html

I believe that the reason for the slower job creation and the decline in income can be linked to the inability of Congress to work together. Those that can create jobs do not because of the unknowns that Congress has created in health care, taxes and a budget. Everything they do is short term. If I was in the business community I know that under those unknowns I would also be sitting back and hording as much as I could until the uncertainty stops.

President Obama can, as President demand that those from his party that are in congress to participate in the art of negotiations.

Today almost 40 bills have been sent to the Senate from the House. However Reid fails to bring any of these bills to the floor. Why? Why not bring them to the floor and amend them and sent them back to the House? Maybe then the 2 sides would sit down and compromise. Until then this nation will be a mess.

[BurnTHalO]

Originally Posted by WaiverWire

Today almost 40 bills have been sent to the Senate from the House. However Reid fails to bring any of these bills to the floor. Why? Why not bring them to the floor and amend them and sent them back to the House? Maybe then the 2 sides would sit down and compromise. Until then this nation will be a mess.

Wow you are blaming dems for no compromise? Tea Party guys RAN on no compromise, and Tea Party members threaten to vote out any republicans who do compromise, but it's the dems fault for not brining bills to the floor? 30 republicans voted against a bill that would make companies doing government contracts to allow rape victims to actually sue them because a dem came up with it. 30 republicans voted against rights for rape victims, and you are saying just bringing bills to the floor would promote compromise? What 40 bills were not brought to the floor? What was in them?

[Sotnos]

Originally Posted by Donnie D

Typical republican scare tactics.

That's all they've got. Unfortunately, it works most of the time.

"Almost everyone" is going to be impacted by this proposal? Only in Romney world where "almost everyone" makes more than $250,000 a year.

This reminds me of Joe Scarborough saying that $250k isn't all that much of an income. Just clueless, though at least at some point he did live like a normal person, unlike Romney.

Just because people don't fall all over themselves to kiss the feet of the rich & find them blameless in all things doesn't mean they're "hated", btw.

[Flycoon]

Originally Posted by WaiverWire

So you are saying that when a stock is doing well that this does not benefit the company?

Stock prices are a reflection of how the company is perceived as performing by traders. Say that you are starting a new corporation and have an IPO that sells 1000 shares at $10 per share. Your new venture gets $10,000 less any applicable fees/commissions. Two years later, your company develops a new highly desired product and it appears that it will be a financial bonanza to the company. Your shares (already sold at IPO) begin trading on the market at $100 per share. Those who purchased those shares in the IPO reap the benefits, not your company. Unless unissued shares are sold directly by a company, the daily trading puts no cash into the coffers of that company.