allow two companies, One British another Dutch, to claim the oil reserves of Iraq. Neither the companies, nor the reserves are American.

I call Bullshit. I'd love to see some supporting evidence, and don't go all WillyWonka on us and simply quote the author of this rather suspect "novel". I'd like to see some kind of documentation showing where an American law somehow gives claim to two oil companiies, neither one American.

IMO the only thing this author "explodes" is common sense.

"when the higher tax rates were in place, we had an unemployment rate of ????
so now we're hurting for jobs....higher tax on rich will get us where??"

 We are looking for volunteers to spread the truth about  economic sensibilities and elect Herman Cain in 2012.



"Outspoken talk radio host Herman Cain is joining the Republican race for president.

The 65-year-old tea party darling knows how to wow a conservative gathering - and now he wants to take this grass-roots enthusiasm and turn a long-shot presidential campaign into a credible bid.

The former Godfather's Pizza CEO opposes abortion, supports a strong national defence and backs replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax - all views he has espoused for years on his radio show.
The Hermanator: Talk radio host and businessman Herman Cain is running for president despite never having held elected office

The Hermanator: Talk radio host and businessman Herman Cain is running for president despite never having held elected office

He will formally announce his candidacy at a rally in Atlanta today, having travelled the country for months, making his intentions abundantly clear.

Fellow Republican Jack Kemp has described Cain as having 'the voice of Othello, the looks of a football player, the English of Oxfordian quality and the courage of a lion.

But the married father-of-two, who has survived cancer, has never held elected office, having lost a three-way Republican U.S. Senate primary bid in Georgia in 2004 with a quarter of the vote.

His 'Hermanator' political action committee has taken in just over $16,000 so far this year.
Businessman: Cain left his management position at Burger King to take the helm of the Godfather's Pizza franchise

Businessman: Cain left his management position at Burger King to take the helm of the Godfather's Pizza franchise

However, his supporters say he taps into the tea party-fuelled desire for plain-speaking citizen candidates.

'I just love him,' gushed Laura Miller, a self-described 'Cainiac' from Jessup, Georgia. 'What he says makes so much sense.'

Born in Memphis, Tennessee, and raised in Atlanta, Cain attended the historically-black Morehouse College, earned a master's degree from Purdue University and worked as a mathematician for the Navy before beginning to scale the corporate ladder.

He worked at Coca-Cola, Pillsbury and Burger King before taking the helm of the failing Godfather's Pizza franchise, which he rescued by shuttering hundreds of restaurants.

He burst onto the political stage when he sparred with President Bill Clinton over the Democrat's health care reform plan at a 1994 town hall meeting.

'On behalf of all of those business owners that are in a situation similar to mine,' asked Cain, 'my question is, quite simply, if I'm forced to do this, what will I tell those people whose jobs I will have to eliminate?'

In 2006, Cain was treated with chemotherapy for liver and colon cancer. He has been cancer-free since 2007 and credits the nation's health care system with keeping him alive. He said it's one reason he's so passionately opposed to the federal health care law championed by President Barack Obama.

At a speech last week in Macon, Georgia, Cain gave a glimpse of the rationale for his candidacy, arguing that the American dream is under attack from runaway debt, a stagnant economy and a Democratic administration forcing a legislative agenda citizens don't want."



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389401/Herman-Cain-run-president.html#ixzz1N1qTlgk1




Herman Cain: "I'm not running for second"
Comments (0) "BookmarkShare PrintPrint
By: Philip Klein 05/21/11 1:11 PM
Senior editorial writer Follow Him @Philipaklein

"Former Godfather's pizza CEO Herman Cain, speaking to an enthusiastic crowd in Atlanta, made his presidential bid official this afternoon.

"I'm running for president of the United States, and I'm not running for second!" he shouted in a fiery speech, with the audience changing "HER-MAN!, HER-MAN!, HER-MAN!"

Cain is largely seen as somebody who is more likely running for a Fox News gig than for the presidency, and while I agree that he's unlikely to win the nomination, there's always the possibility that in the current environment an engaging anti-establishment voice could make some waves.

His speech tapped into the sentiment shared by many Americans right now that the nation is in decline, and that President Obama's policies are making things far worse. Conservatives may find his blunt talk refreshing.

"One trillion dollars of spending to stimulate the economy," Cain told the audience, "and it didn't stimulate diddly."

He vowed that as president he'd put the country back on track. "Number two is not in America's DNA," he said.

He ended his speech with a nod to the civil rights era as he imagined the day after the November 2012 election."

"When we wake up, and they declare the presidential results, and Herman Cain is in the White House, we'll all be able to say: 'Free at last! Free at last!," a grinning Cain shouted at the audience, both hands raised like a preacher, "Thank God almighty this nation is free at last again!"


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/herman-cain-im-not-running-second#ixzz1N1tzJv2j

I fully expect all the righies to get their undies in a bunch on this and "blame the messenger," i.e. me or the group that did this analysis.  But they are considered non partisan.  Be that as it may, the only real questions are:

1) Are these numbers accurate?
2) If so, what does that tell us and what should we do?

And, please, don't tell me that taxing those who make more than $250K will spin us into a recession.  First of all, the higher, pre-Bush rates were in place during one of the highest growth periods our economy ever had.  Second, if you want to set the upper rate so it falls only on those making more than $300K (or whatever), that's fine.

when the higher tax rates were in place, we had an unemployment rate of ????
so now we're hurting for jobs....higher tax on rich will get us where??

Will have no noticeable effect on unemployment.  No one has ever demonstrated that trickle down ever really trickles down to anybody.  But it will have an impact on the deficit.  Personally, I'd like to see a complete re-structuring of the tax code but I doubt it will ever happen.

The Bush tax cuts allowed the rich to simply pocket earnings - under Eisenhower (perhaps the last real Republican president) anything over today's equivalent of around $3M was taxed at 91%. The choice was to pay the tax or re-invest in businesses which resulted in job growth.

It's fairly simple, really - and the numbers don't lie.

The more reports I see like this, the more I tend to believe that our current economic problems were created purposefully.
Why did we cut the tax rate when we still had a nation dept?  I could have seen it if we were paid off, but we were not.
Why didn't we report the cost of the wars initially towards the dept, instead of waiting for Obama to show it?
30 years of people promoting trickle down economics, while the majority of the countries income has stayed stagnant or dropped (and there by lowering tax receipts).

Were we bankrupted on purpose to push a social agenda?
Give us no choice but to eliminate social security and medicare?
Destroy our public school systems?

at the LOWER END % wise. Since this is the truth, why aren't we talking about recouping the revenue from everyone? Is it because of political expediency? Hmmmm.

Why is that revenue collected by government, then dispersed thru a government agency (while trimming a little off the top for themselves) is more effective economic stimulant than $$ just left in private hands and spent or invested as the maker of that money deems appropriate? Is government smarter than it's citizens?

In a localized economy I agree with you, so basically at the state level small business end of things.

On the national stage though, the system doesn't work.  Too much money goes out of the country, invested in places like Brazil and China.
Allot more of it is not invested at all, just banked as inheritance.
Trickle down economics does not work in a global economy.  Too much trickles out or is pooled up, hence the massive wealth disparity we have now.

The Bush tax cuts that you are referring too by the way left most of the burden on the average middle class person.  While the lower rate, income up to about $10k was dropped from 15% to 10%, income from $10k to $30k was left at 15%.  There was not much of a tax break for the middle class.  Since their wadges have been flat for so long, (in the $30k range) this burden has increased.  Combine that with health costs and madly fluctuating energy costs, you get a crushed middle class.

The burden of the country rising expenses can not be left on people who's income is stagnant (please don't quote recent tax numbers that reflect temporary breaks as part of the stimulus, the numbers are temporary and should not be calculated into a long term plan).

"In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.

At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq’s civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country’s vast oil reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the “War on Terror” to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts.... New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters -- to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don’t succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets. "

And what did the democrats call it when they 'starved' the war in Vietnam of federal funding? By that time, it was not a program the democrats, and even a few republicans agreed with. We did not lose the war, we lost the checkbook.

Just read in today's Courier-Post Sunday paper that NJ state revenues have increased unexpectedly by $900 million. The state tax office says this is mainly due to increased income by the wealthy from investments/capital gains/income increases. Gov Christie says it is a result of his financial policies. Who knows for sure. One thing is for sure....the democrat controlled state legislature already has their eyes on ways to SPEND the $900 million....and they don't include paying down any state debt.

or do you see no difference between oil contracts and "laying claim to Iraq's oil fields"?

Since when is buying, at full market value nonetheless analogous to "laying claim" to which implies stealing, or at the very least falsely appropriating.

This whole thread seems more attributable to Willy than to you, and is quite frankly beneath you.

I won't even bother addressing the rest of the post as the part I did address borders on being an outright lie, and for all pratical purposes it is a lie, much like the crap that Willy spews.

I can see your point about money being invested overseas. That actually has a negative effect on job creaton here. However capital accumulated, held in cash or T-bills has a beneficial effect on balance sheets and allow for greater lending and lower interest rates. Sounds like we need to examine what expenses we exempt and which ones we dont.

Not sure what exactly it is you didn't want me to quote so rest assured I won't quote it.

interpretation of that order - there is no "lifetime exemption" for Iraqi oil under EO 13303.

    Like all national emergency EOs, it terminates automatically unless the President extends the termination date by declaring the emergency still exists. Mr. Obama has in fact extended the date but has stated in the FEd REgister that he will evaluate whether the immunity afforded by this Order should extend past June 30, 2011.

     As to the scope of the immunity, the guy quoted in your article is way, way off. Look up the phrase "esjudem generis"
and then think about what the words "other judicial process" means in light of the specific terms that precede it.

    No, the oil companies cannot murder locals and then claim immunity. I'm afraid GaGambler is mostly right on this one.

Since debt is the difference between what we take in and what we spend,

Why cant we spend less?

Have we spent less on ANYTHING?

That's what households have to do. If I make less, I have to spend less or live off of credit.

Since we're in a recession, what is Obama spending less on?

Besides stationary?

In other words killing the Federal government and the programs they disagee with by starving them of funding.  What's happening right now is a national debt so huge even Democrats have agreed to cut social programs.  So a true conspiracy theorist could argue that the Republicans created the debt as an excuse to force the cuts.  Even for me that's a bit of a stretch.  I really doubt, for example, they went to war in Iraq to generate debt.  But I guess it was a nice secondary result.

Please show me the figures proving the "lower end" benefitted more "% wise" from the Bush tax cuts?  Every analysis I've seen says wealth has become much more concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.

Try calling

Credit Card companies, utility companies, mortgage companies and tell them, your income went down so you to cut your expenses and you are going to cut their payments accordingly and see where you get.

The whole affair taking highly complex economy, budgets, etc., and comparing it with a checking account and arguing on the basis of it beyond stupid.

In business 101 class, you ask how do you make a profit and the unanimous answer always is you have to charge more than it costs you. Try running a business lt and see what happens. It is fine if you are running Lemonade stand.

Now you might want to address the rest of the points you conveniently ignored. Or maybe not, that would be uncomfortable as they are all taken directly from Milton Friedman's playbook. It's not like they were trying to hide it or anything.

From 2003:

since they are the ones serious about doing something about it...

Good to have you aboard!!!

you were unable to read to the end of it.  You know, the part where I rather obviously suggested a tax increase for the rich.  I don't think the Tea Party is in favor of that.  But never mind, you were able to make another short and non-responsive quip about a serious request for reactions.  Just what we expect from you.
Waiting now for your usual flaming non-responsive response.  Thanks for nothing.

I imagine you may have served in that war and, if so, thanks for your service.  But your very brief summary re why that war was lost is a serious oversiimplification.  Perhaps a lack of funding had an impact (I honestly don't recall that part of it).  What I do recall is that the rules of engagement were nonsensical and much of the war was fought with one hand tied behind our back.  Other issues might include that our military doctrine, based on fighting a land  war in Europe, adapted poorly to jungle warfare, and that our Vietnamese allies, whose soldiers on occasion fought bravely, were corrupt.  I don't mean to re-fight the whole thing.  Just suggesting that laying it off on a lack of funding oversimplifies things to a serious degree.

First of all, you're right that all of it should go to pay down debt.  I also heard NY City also benefitted in the same way.  It's a result of increased tax receipts from Wall St. executives, many of whom live in NJ.  So keep in mind that it's really an example of how states can benefit when the wealthy pay a fair share of their income.

First of all, I believe the Democratic spending you're referring too is to not lay off  teachers and massively increase class size in NJ public schools.

Second of all, do you honestly believe that most of the truly wealthy people in NJ, make their income in NJ?
Look into it, see if the gov of NJ polices relay resulted in those increases, if not give him the credit he deserves....  
the credit you give to a bullshit artist

why am I not suprised you were not quick enough to pick it up...

GEZ !!!!!

Well excuse me for hoping for an actual response instead of a snide one-liner.  I guess that's what happens when you have no response to the facts of an original post.  So then you doubled down on "sarcasm."  A sign you have no information and just don't want to be confused by the facts.  So there we have it:  another useless "contribution" from the Board's angry fool.

I did, (2 tours), and thank you. You are also spot on concerning the ROE's. To be blunt, they were a crock of fucking bullshit. Originated in DC by politicians that were clueless about what was happening, as they were being bullshit by the MSM, and many Generals in Saigon that wanted to make a good presentation. Body counts? Another load of bogus bullshit. Because of them, many good men came to a shameful end. e.g., the recon flights would photo a SAM site being built, but we could not bomb it until it was completed, (might kill some Russian technicians), and they actually launched a SAM on our aircraft. We could not attack ships of any origin unloading munitions, (SAMs), in Haiphong harbor because it might upset the Soviets/Chinese. Heaven forbid we kill a few fucking commies. If we had been left alone to our own devices, we could have been in and out in 12-18 months, just after we made a mud puddle out of Hanoi. Am I bitter, you bet your ass I am.

This website will tell you all you ever wanted to know about the Vietnam War.

http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Thomas.Pilsch/Vietnam.html

If you would, scroll down to, "The Great Debate on Vietnam", click on "Myths & Realities in the Vietnam Debate", Robert F. Turner. The paragraphs on "Lessons for the Future" are an interesting read.


-- Modified on 5/22/2011 7:03:44 PM

Steve, I take it you're not a big fan of Gov Christie, lol.

The dems have not come out and publically stated what their intentions are for spending the $900 million. I'm positive however, that the public worker unions will receive their 'fair' share of the monies. Incidentally, the school district where we live had no lay-offs of either, teachers, police, or municipal workers. In fact, the school increased their staffing levels, but those were administrative positions, not teachers. My son's 3rd class has 12 students enrolled. Not exactly what I would call overcrowded.

Next time your credit card bills, utilities, mortgage, clothing, food, energy, etc start to get out of hand, try going to your employer and tell him he HAS TO give you a raise.

I've run businesses for more than 30 years. All along government has passed mandates that COST ME money but never (do you know what that word means?), NEVER mandated my customers give me more more.

If you knew a fucking thing about the real world you'd know how fucking stupid you sound.

I've seen several of your other posts so I put the likelihood of that at about 0. So we'll just have to suffer through you or ignore you. I'm liking the ignore option more and more every day.

aren't these the Obama rates?

Why does Obama want to destroy our economy?

when you ppost something that truly warrants debate and is not just left wing dribble...

Why do I sense A LOT of sarcastic remarks in your future

"A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Viet Nam" by Neil Sheehan.  It's the story of one man's commitment and ultimate disillusionment with the war.  He was ultimately killed there, as were a couple of my friends.

Surely you don't dispute that the Bush Administration, in the aftermath of 'shock and awe', reserved and exercised the right to grant contracts to anybody they felt like and refused them to those they didn't, ie anybody who didn't join in the fight. That is, in fact, "laying claim to Iraq's oil fields" and everything else in the country.

I don't claim that Shell, BP et al got rich off Iraqi oil directly - the Bush admin was too fucking stupid to realize that getting oil out of a country filled with insurgents wanting to blow up anything in sight was hardly going to be cheap or easy. They really thought the populace would just roll over.

The oil companies didn't do the stealing directly - the pols they bought did it for them, and their profits increased massively over the last 10 years in part because some of the largest oil fields in the world were taken off the market. Not to mention that getting oil out of the ground in Iraq costs about 1/10 as much as getting it out of Saudi fields - if you take away the fighting. As an oil man you know that to be true.

Iraq was the grand experiment for the supply siders - they had a whole country to play with and they turned it over to the Friedman fanatics. Look how well it worked.

Frankly, your response is knee-jerk and unreasoned and quite beneath you.