 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Thanks Sawzaw!
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Jul 12 - 11:23 PM Thanks for putting me onto the Republican Columnist calling himself the WaPo "Fact Checker" I posted as "Kessler must go" on this article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Jul 12 - 11:31 PM You have to look at "All comments" I posted at 11:08 tonight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Jul 12 - 11:41 PM Wooo Hoooo A thread just for me! Now please tell me how many jobs need to be created every month to break even. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Jul 12 - 11:53 PM I can do better than that. How about a Nobel prize winner in Economics analyzing the alternative! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Jul 12 - 12:01 AM Just saw Krugman the other night on MSNBC and he was on Maher's show a few weeks back. SawzShit is at it again........with another copy and paste.............. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Jul 12 - 12:03 AM Op-Ed Contributor From NYT How Pensions Violate Free Speech By BENJAMIN I. SACHS Published: July 12, 2012 A CENTRAL principle of American political life is that everyone gets to choose which candidates to support. The idea that the government could force us to support those we oppose is anathema. But this unacceptable state of affairs is one of the unintended consequences of the Supreme Court's decision in the 2010 Citizens United case. That's because the vast majority of people who work in the public sector — state, local and federal employees — are required to make contributions to a pension plan. Nearly all states make participation in a pension plan mandatory and a "condition of employment" for public employees. To get and keep your job with the government, you have to give some of your paycheck to the pension plan. Public pensions, moreover, are so-called defined benefit plans, which means that employees don't have a say in how their mandatory contributions are invested. The employees cannot request, for example, that their money be used only to buy government bonds or that it be invested only in certain mutual funds or only in select corporations. Instead, the employees' money is invested according to whatever decisions the pension plan's trustee makes. And, not surprisingly, pension plans invest heavily in corporate securities: in 2008, public pensions held about $1.15 trillion in corporate stock. Here's the problem. In its Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court held that companies have a First Amendment right to make electoral expenditures with general corporate treasuries. And they've done so, with relish, pouring millions into the political system. What Citizens United failed to account for, however, is that a significant portion of the money that corporations are spending on politics is financed by equity capital provided by public pension funds — capital contributions that the government requires public employees to finance with their paychecks. This consequence of Citizens United is perverse: requiring public employees to finance corporate electoral spending amounts to compelled political speech and association, something the First Amendment flatly forbids. Contrast this situation with how the court treats political spending by unions. In many states, public employees are required to pay dues to a labor union. If the public employees union were to spend any of the money raised through dues on politics, the court has ruled, the dues requirement would amount to forced political speech and association. To prevent this First Amendment violation, the court has held that no union may use an employee's dues for political purposes if the employee objects. The same should be true for pension funds and corporate politics. In a world where corporations can use their general treasuries for political spending, no government should be allowed to require employees to finance the purchase of corporate securities through a pension plan, unless the government provides those employees with a meaningful way to object to financing corporate politics. The good news is that the rules governing union dues and political spending provide a road map for restructuring public pensions in order to bring them back into conformity with the First Amendment. Here's one way it could work: Pension plans would determine the number of employees that object to financing corporate political spending. They would then negotiate "opt out" rights with the corporations in which they invest. These corporations would calculate the percentage of their annual expenditures that go to politics and promise to return to the pension plan an amount equal to the objecting employee's pro rata share of the corporation's political budget. Whatever the route to reform, however, public pension plans need to ensure that employees are not compelled to finance corporate political speech. Until they do, these pension funds will be vulnerable to the challenge that they are violating the First Amendment. Benjamin I. Sachs is a professor at Harvard Law School. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Jul 12 - 12:52 AM I see Jack is a cut'n'paster so he must be Jackshit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 Jul 12 - 01:56 AM Who cares if he cut' and pastes??....at least a c/p has the source and the unedited, un-spun text, as it was originally posted. I think you're just nit-picking and anything you can pull out of your hat, to NOT taking in another side...so you're trying to 'shoot the messenger'..instead of addressing the topic...which is ,BTW, a standard 'so-called liberal' tactic. For instance..here's one, that not a lot of 'so-called liberals' are NOT addressing....Gov. Scott Walker, (who I have no feelings about one way or another), a Republican, who, trying to save the state money, did what he did, to get the unions, to back off, because their wage demands, and pension demands was too expensive and he, (allegedly) was trying to balance the budget..blah blah blah... and the 'left' had a shit fit, beyond belief..but he did it Democratically and the measures were voted on(Democrats walked out, if anyone remembers the history, not too long ago)...and the 'left' still hates this guy. Now, in Scranton, Pa. a Democrat Mayor, just indiscriminately, cuts the fire, police and other public sector employees wages to minimum, to save money.....and not a fucking peep from the same, 'so-called liberal' hypocrites who were bitching about Scott Walker!!!! ...and because I call that to your attention...I'M THE BAD GUY!!! ...Then you wonder, with a bunch of fingers up your noses, why some of my posts are sarcastic....it's because of some of your double standards are just too fucking asinine to take the poster seriously, ESPECIALLY when they take themselves as some 'pinnacle of authority of the absurd'!!! ...and STILL, you won't THINK or CONSIDER that you've been manipulated by massive mind control to think and assimilate the way you do!!! However, Regards Anyway!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 Jul 12 - 02:28 AM Oh, and by the way, Thank you, Sawzaw, for posting your 'cut and pastes'!!..Though they might not be the best of news, they have pointed out things that INFORMED Americans should be aware of!!!..Whether they like them or agree with them or not!!!! ....Often the back up what I've been trying to tell our distinguished bevy of political know-it-alls!..also referred to as 'Know-all-ogists'!! Wait till they finally find out that the difference between Romney and Obama is ONLY skin color!...and who cares??..They both suck! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Stringsinger Date: 13 Jul 12 - 03:38 PM "Now please tell me how many jobs need to be created every month to break even." Answer, none. "Break even" is a Republican talking point which has no bearing on the economic situation today. If the rich would pay their fair share of taxes and Americans who are sometimes generous by nature would pay into pension funds and monies for public works, teachers, cops, firemen and other useful jobs unlike the financial gamblers that live off the backs of American workers, "break even" would even be on the radar. Thanks for nothing, Sawzaw! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 12 - 03:54 PM The break even job number is smoke... The reality is that Bush and Co. lost 8,000,000 jobs from 2006 to 2008 and turned a country over to Obama that was still very sick... 4,500.000 jobs have been created under Obama and if the Repubs would quit sandbagging on his "Jobs Proposal" then that would add another 1,000,000 over 12 months... Thems is reality... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Jul 12 - 04:30 PM The "break even number" applies to the housing bubble economy. For the US to have a healthy economy we need to make more things here. President Obama is working for that, but it cannot happen quickly. The question is, if Romney gets in will he go down the W route and try to create another bubble? Increasing tax breaks to the rich won't help. The savviest of the 1% is "offshoring" their dough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Jul 12 - 10:02 PM David Brooks of the New York Times on PBS: The rule of thumb had been 150,000 jobs a month is sort of the break-even point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 12 - 10:08 PM David Brooks is a Republican... But, never mind that... If the republicans would pass pass Obama's jobs program than 1,000,000 jobs would be created and that would also mean... ...1,000,000 fewer unemployment checks getting mailed out and 1,000,000 more tax payers... Interest rates for the paying for these jobs is 1%... This is a no brainer... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 Jul 12 - 11:45 PM Bobert: "This is a no brainer.." We know, we've heard your explanations... Now try it again, but this time try using a brain... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Jul 12 - 01:43 AM A break even point for what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Jul 12 - 05:37 PM ""...and STILL, you won't THINK or CONSIDER that you've been manipulated by massive mind control to think and assimilate the way you do!!!"" And you, of course, with your unique superbrain, are the only one smart enough not to be taken in? How do you manage to get that enormous head through doorways? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Jul 12 - 09:30 PM Easy....I try to stay out of rooms built for people with small brains! I'd rather invite them into bigger rooms....but they really should leave their small-mindedness behind!..Oh, and EVERYONE is welcome!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Jul 12 - 09:56 AM No thanks. Their ain't a room big enough for your ego and anybody else. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Jul 12 - 01:30 PM Don't confuse 'ego' with 'super-ego' nor for confidence in the truth. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Jul 12 - 06:25 PM I'm not the one with delusions of superiority over everybody else and so much confidence in his/her "truth" that he/she daren't join up, preferring the protection of anonymity. No mate, you're way too big headed for my taste. Peddle your wares to somebody who takes people like you at face value, for example Joe Sixpack! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Jul 12 - 02:34 AM "Stupid is as stupid does"--Forrest Gump |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Aug 12 - 06:37 PM Bobert Fact: "The break even job number is smoke" Stringsinger: "Break even" is a Republican talking point which has no bearing on the economic situation today. President Obama: "we've got to produce 150,000 jobs every month just to keep pace." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: GUEST,999 Date: 10 Aug 12 - 07:28 PM AT LAST a thread to which I am able to contribute intelligently--almost split the old infinitive there. Thank you. 1) The job number IS smoke, because no one knows how many people are in the USA. 2) 'Stringsinger: "Break even" is a Republican talking point which has no bearing on the economic situation today.' Couldn't have said it better, so I won't try. 3) 'President Obama: "we've got to produce 150,000 jobs every month just to keep pace."' He's right. How people became stupid enough to think an elected person could create jobs is way beyond me. That's a function of industry/capitalism. Piss off the world and they don't buy your products. That ain't rocket science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Bobert Date: 10 Aug 12 - 08:16 PM Yeah, brucie... What we have are variables that we don't know... What can be determined and determined quite accurately is the number of jobs created by the stimulus... The stimulus, contrary to right winged blogs, pulled the US economy from the brink of collapse... It was Keynesian economics working... The righties hate things that work... It worked and guess what??? Give up??? Less 5than half went into shovel ready projects... The other half went into tax cuts that the average American doesn't even know he got... Because the Repubs won't let him know... Gee... What it Obama could get his jobs bill thru Congress??? haha, that will never happen... It would have every contractor in America back to work and the ripple effect would create 1,000,000 jobs and bring the unemployment rate to down to the 7% to 7.2% range... But that won't happen because the Repubs hate American workers... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: GUEST,999 Date: 10 Aug 12 - 09:07 PM "Willie Sutton aced it in one." I understand that's the new Republican motto. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Aug 12 - 11:13 PM What worked? Unemployment increased. Obama hates jobs and loves food stamps. More people went on disability than got jobs with the Obama recovery. What happened to the Keystone pipeline? Obama said no to those Jobs. 288 jobs created in Nevada with $1.3 billion of your tax money. How about Solyndra? $535 million in taxpayer money Pfft. Just like smoke from Bobert's bong. Jobs 0 So what? And don't forget: Green Energy companies receiving DOE loan guarantees but are now bankrupt: Abound Solar Ener1 Energy Conversion Devices Mountain Plaza, Inc. Olsen's Crop Service Olsens Mills Acquisition Co. Range Fuels Evergreen Solar, Inc. Raser Technologies Spectrawatt Beacon Power Thompson River Power LLC Heckuva job there Barry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Bobert Date: 11 Aug 12 - 07:21 AM More selective right winged bullshit... Take Solyndra... Under whose administration did the loan discussion originate, Sawz... A. Bush B. Obama Pick one What was the $$$ used for??? A. Employing 288 people B. Building an entire plant that employed thousands Pick one Was the loan collateralized??? A. Yes B. No Pick one If so, who owns the collateral??? A. The US taxpayers B. No one Pick one Is Sawz just a purveyor of right wing bullshit??? A. Yes B. Yes Pick one B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: GUEST,nobody in particular Date: 11 Aug 12 - 02:33 PM Stop! You are ALL right! and everybody is really working! and the economy is everything it was promised to be! and everybody should be happy! and it's nobody's fault that you believe lies! You are supposed to!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Bobert Date: 11 Aug 12 - 03:31 PM Hmmmmmm??? That last post reminded me of someone we all know very well??? B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: GUEST,nobody in particular Date: 11 Aug 12 - 04:23 PM Maybe you are remembering your own common sense! Political campaigns are designed to make you emotional, and numb in the brain, as in stupid and forgetful. How's this one doing? Other than that, I don't know who. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Bobert Date: 11 Aug 12 - 04:42 PM My, my, my... You sound a whole lot like GfinS to me... What, the drugs the doc has you on made you forget yer name??? I know why yer hiding behind that "nobody in particular" handle... It's cause you don't want me naggin' ya' about the cigarettes... Just quit 'um and quit with that nobody business... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: GUEST,nobody in particular Date: 11 Aug 12 - 04:52 PM I'll look GfinS up. He's in Mudcat Forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Bobert Date: 11 Aug 12 - 07:07 PM Come on, Michael... We know it's you... Geeze, Lousie... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Ebbie Date: 11 Aug 12 - 08:23 PM I did notice when - and why - gfs disappeared earlier. *g* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: GUEST,nobody in particular Date: 11 Aug 12 - 10:49 PM I don't know why you are saying that, you are nonsensical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Ebbie Date: 11 Aug 12 - 11:57 PM naaaah naaaah naaaah naaaah naaaaah :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Thanks Sawzaw! From: Don Firth Date: 12 Aug 12 - 12:07 AM Oh, yeah! It's back! Don Firth |
