Unfortunately, I take no solace from the even worse statistics for a Native people living in another first world country. Australia or US it still sucks.

I didn't mean to imply that you held all the attitudes I mentioned in my post. I was thinking of the attitudes of people in general. Kudos to your classroom aide. I see Navajos here doing the same thing. For example, there's a Navajo woman where I work who comes in and puts in long hours at minimum wage for the sake of her kids too. The human spirit is amazing. If given even the smallest amount of incentive/assistance people will often fight like tigers to better themselves.

My feelings about Newt are not derived from "party bias." His solutions do not go to the root of the problem which as Bruce said is education, education, education. There's nothing like it. Education empowers people. It opens up entire new worlds of possibility. It allows people to move out of poverty. An educated work force will make the US more competitive globally. Providing an equal and quality education for all our children should be one of this country's highest priorities. What good is a jobs program for disadvantaged youth if they are not even literate or lack the ability to obtain so much as a GED? Once the government prop is gone, what jobs will these kids be able to obtain, role models or not?

And finally, I very much dislike Newt's hypocrisy. At this point there is no way that the Republican party will pass a spending bill for ANY social program. Talk is cheap and Newt is full of hot air.

If there are tasks that could be done by these youngsters as part of an unwaged programme, then they could also be done through waged employment.

Ineresting turn of phrase, there. There's no disincentive to work in other jobs (though kids should be at school), but maybe it's good to keep them away from a job where Children who work in agriculture suffer more than 23,000 injuries and 300 fatalities on American farms every year.

ETA: It also free up farm jobs for adults.

we told the kid twice to keep his hands out of the thresher

My cousin died working on a farm. The tractor he was driving flipped over on him. He was probably about 14. He was my age, and we shared the same first name.

I was always a little freaked out after that whenever I drove a tractor on a hill, which fortunately wasn't that often.

d'oh

*shrug*
It was a long time ago.

Farming is, I believe, the most dangerous job. We had a thread about this a while ago. Maybe it's fisherman.

or logging.

Who? Stumpy?:bolt:

ETA: And when a kid does get maimed, there's a faction out there that won't want to help him survive.

Perhaps its a functional idea if done in a format within the school, like a work study or Vo-tech. They could work at several different types of jobs for a semester each.
Something that gives them some real world experience and a start a possibly networking within a field of which they have some interest... jus thinkin.

Christian Science Monitor
Peter Grier
1/18/12

Will Jon Stewart go to jail for running Stephen Colbert's super PAC?

LOL Thanks, Lamplighter. I loved that. I adore Jon Stewart. I don't have cable, so I watch his shows on Hulu (or whatever that site is). Great stuff!

The Republicans are so conditioned to dirty tricks on the Democrates,
they can't help themselves, and so are now doing it to themselves.

TV talking heads are saying that the "official count" of votes in the Iowa
caucuses was not correct, that Santorum actually won Iowa by 34 votes.

It seems that the "official count" comes from the tally of votes filed on "Form E"
submitted by each of the Iowa precincts, and the forms from 8 precincts are "missing"

Now, did Santorum win or not ? Is the cat in the box alive or dead ?

Put them side by side, give a blind man a gun, point him towards Biff and Snotorum and let him start shooting: whoever is left standing wins the right to get his ass beat by Obama in November.

A Certified count? I don't know enough about the rules for the R caucus but I think it's all a bit pretentious since there are no delegates at the Republican nominating convention at stake. It really is what some called, "a beauty contest". Now it looks like some folks think Santorum prettier than Romney.

AND IN OTHER NEWS

Now, Perry has suspended his campaign and has endorsed Gingrich.

Santorum, Gingrich, Romney and Paul. And only Paul and Romney on the ballot in VA. So interesting, so scary.

Ugh, I think they both look like Ken dolls, and I don't mean that in a nice way...they really both look plastic. Like plastic and rubber and painted on hair, and smarm. A lot of smarm.

Lets all join the Conspiritorial Party:

Newt Gingrich's 2nd wife gives ABC interview to be aired tonight, saying Newt wanted an "open marriage".

Rove:
"That will be the news headline tomorrow... head it off NOW !
"Call RNC in DesMoines and change Romney WIN to Santorum WIN
"Call Iowa precincts to shut down FAX machines and shred copies of Form E
"Call Perry and tell him to suspend campaign
"Call Santorum and tell him about Romney's off-shore $ assets
"Call Paul and tell him we'll make after Florida

Carl sits back and lights his cigar and thinks: "Anyone but Mitt"

Karl

ftfy

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
By Nina Mandell
January 19 2012


Stephen Colbert, Herman Cain set rally in South Carolina
to build excitement for 'non-candidacies'

Oh no! Mitt is a Mexican. ;)

Ha! The kinda-Mexican Mormon vs the kinda-Kenyan not-Muslim. Who'd a thunk it?

And then we have Mr. Open Marriage, Free Love Newt. The Republican contenders become more bizarre by the day. Is it pollitics or is it soap opera? Only Steve Colbert knows. :rolleyes:

The Occupy Birther movement coming to an embassy near you.

Funny. The republicans have initiatives in many states to increase the ID required to vote, to reduce voter fraud, they say. I doesn't matter what kind of ID you have if your votes will be lost anyway. It's incredibly inept of them. The Democrats are much more ept.

Santorum, by a frothy mix of lube and fecal matter.

And no genitals.

We'll never really know who won. Too many votes were literally lost.

Yes. It's true. These men have no dicks.



Well that's what I heard.

"If I didn't have no bulge, I wouldn't be modelin' no underwear, and I DAMN sure wouldn't be SMILIN'"

--Eddie Murphy

Well thank goodness you Americans run the main election better than these silly republicans run their primaries. :right:

You think so? How quickly the 2000 presidential election fades from memory.

you see the :right: ? That denotes his sarcasm.

That reminds me...

Does it seem a bit ironic that the US Supreme Court appointed GWB as President in 2000,
but yesterday that Court told a lower Federal Court it had overstepped it's authority
by re-drawing the Republican's precinct map in Texas to make the boundaries more fair to minorities ?

You have to live in Texas for a while to enjoy it's crazy politics.

No, even when you've lived here for 30+ years, the crazy politics are still not enjoyable.

But I see Rick Perry has finally come home. You're welcome.

:D

Oh the humanity ! It could have been so easy. It could have ended in SC !
... but too many people just sat on their butts under the palmettos. :eyebrow:

A video clip of Colbert's announcement is embedded in the link below

MSNBC
1/23/12

Colbert suspends Cain campaign, but Stewart keeps the Super PAC
Attachment 36941

I haven't been following this Colbert Super PAC thing that closely. How much money is there in this Super PAC, and where did it come from? Did viewers send money in? If they did, can Colbert and Stewart keep it for themselves now?

Colbert started the "SuperPac" on his show, and later transferred ownership to Stewart.

For the rest, the comic genius of Colbert is that he is whatever we each imagine him to be.

Yeah, all that is in the news, but what they don't talk about is where the money came from and how much there is.

That assumes:
... the $ is real.
... there is a positive balance in the SuperPac
... Stewart will transfer ownership back to the candidate
... Colbert is the candidate
... Cain does not have a good lawyer

But it's too good a story line to let it die now.

In the real world, candidates can "suspend" their campaigns,
raise more $, and personally keep whatever is left over, or donate to others.

ETA: IRW too, the SuperPacs are not required to name contributors or amounts.
The TV talking heads are saying/hoping Colbert is really just exposing the realities of SuperPacs

Super PACs are required to disclose their donors, just like traditional PACs.
another sticky wicket ...

Romney's tax records made the news today in the UK.

Am I missing something here?
How is it possible for someone to earn $21 MILLION and only pay $3 million in tax?

7%?

7% if you're on minimum wage feels like an awful lot.
7% of millions is small change. It's money you cannot possibly spend OR EARN rationally.
Especially when you have the money to manage your money.

It seems I know very little about America.
And almost nothing about American politics.
Because I find that appalling.

Me too. And some conservatives will say he pays too much.

Ummm, I'm totally confused...
Classic, further down in your link is this:

FEC 2007... GWB and Supreme Court collaborate and strike again. :3_eyes:

Therein lies the problem with the way it was written - the "sticky wicket"
Loopholes are intentionally there. Politics as usual.

Is it his fault? I dunno. I think it clearly shows that changes are needed in the tax laws for those with incomes that high.

It also shows how divergent the "1%" category really is. Those making far less ($1,000,000) certainly do not play by the same rules as those who make multi-millions or even billions.

It's not just the amount of income.
It's the basic premise of the Republican party and current candidates.

They tell the public there is a difference between income earned from hourly wages or salaries,
and income earned from "investments" such as "cutting coupons" from bonds, dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.

It is all income in the form of US dollars, and there should be
no difference in taxes that is depending on the source of the income.
That is different than a progressive income tax where higher rates apply to those who have higher incomes.

All of the current Republican candidates advocate 0% taxes on "capital gains",
and several of them want to have a "tax holiday" for bringing $ from off-shore accounts.

Home owners who sell their real estate for more than they paid must currently pay the "capital gains tax"
But if the they lose $ on the transaction, they can not deduct the loss... as can a business or "investor"

There is a difference between the two. Wasn't the Cap gains rate initially established to incent people into saving more?
Has it gotten out of hand? Absolutely.
Does something need to change? Definitely.
Romney is a perfect example of that.
Interesting how when you compare Romney's #'s to Obama's #'s, the REAL difference is from where the income is derived.
Heck, I've been saying this for over a year.

Please note.

Your numbers are on target but your arithmetic is wrong. 21/3=7. True. But 7 is not 7 percent. If you turn it around... 3/21, you get .14 ish. 14 PERCENT.

Carry on.

The money came from viewers and fans who donated through the website. Generally speaking his audience is young, moderate-to-liberal (not as liberal as Daily Show demographics,) and wants to see the system change, which is indirectly what he promises by mocking it. I'm not sure exactly how much money he has, but if I had to guess I'd say several hundred thousand, maybe over a million. He generally logs over a million viewers each night, and early on he was running the names of everyone who had donated at the bottom of the screen, and the ticker just kept going with no repeats for the whole show for weeks on end. And yes, legally Colbert could keep it all for himself, just like the owner of any SuperPAC could (and they do--Sarah Palin kept asking for money in emails to donors even after she officially ended her campaign. It was just money for her, no other purpose for it.) His whole point with this thing is to demonstrate all the ways in which the system is severely broken, not even by pushing them to their logical conclusions but by using them in the same way everyone else does every day.

The whole "Jon Stewart is not coordinating with Colbert" thing is real--John Huntsman's own father runs one of the SuperPACs that is running ads for John Huntsman, but they're "not coordinating" wink-wink-nudge-nudge. He has also been using funds to get an item on the ballot in South Carolina--just a non-binding referendum allowing voters to declare whether "corporations are people" or "only people are people," but all along the way everyone he's been working with to make it happen has made it clear that that's how anyone gets anything on the ballot, you buy it. It was awhile back so I forget the specifics, but Karl Rove was petitioning to alter the SuperPAC rules even more, such that even outright coordination wouldn't be considered coordination, so Colbert and never-had-a-chance-candidate Buddy Roehmer used Colbert's SuperPAC funds to make this ad against it. It ran in major network ad spots.

Anyway, that's the deal with the SuperPAC. He's going to keep using the money to shed light on the system until the money runs out. But my understanding is that so far, people have liked what he's done and the donations are still coming in.

Seriously?

No, I fully believe the lower cap on capital gains was established because the people who earn capital gains wanted to pay less in taxes and had the political mojo to make that happen.

When you save your money, you know, like "regular" people do, in a savings account or some such, the interest you earn is regular income. not Capital gains. You have to be much more bux up to get capital gains.

Or, do some other thing with your money, like, buy stock low, sell stock high, that profit is capital gains. But you're not doing that with your "savings".

Where have you been the last decade? Numbers were being posted even back when George Jr declared "Mission Accomplished".

2) When the rich get richer, massive recessions and job losses result. This problem only occurred twice in American history. Just before 1929. And again in the 2000s. Obvious is what followed both times.

3) The rich get government welfare - both wealthy individuals and corporations. Myth purveyors have a majority of Americans believing their taxes went down. Nonsense. Even Reagan raised taxes. But popular myths say otherwise. Spin is easy when numbers are ignored.

4) George Jr said the rich create jobs. A myth called trickle down economics - or better called voodoo economics. At what point does that 'rich create jobs' lie become obvious?

5) Cited almost a decade ago is what Warren Buffet said back when Ted Koppel was still doing Nightline. Buffet - America's second richest man - loudly complained that he pays less taxes. That morning, that many years ago, it was posted here.

The richest (individuals and corporations) pay lowest tax rates because that was the political agenda. A majority were also told Saddam had WMDs. By ignoring numbers that said otherwise, subjective claims are sufficient to manipulate reality. Richest Americans get tax breaks. Numbers for the last decade have always said so.

American politics is easily grasped when facts must include numbers. When facts without numbers are best called lies. Most still believe Reagan reduced taxes when numbers say Reagan increased taxes. Why do so many believe Reagan cut taxes? Same reason why a Tea Party agenda is obviously bogus. Too many eyes glaze over when numbers arrive. So many all but want to believe lies. You don't have a Fox News, et al to inspire so many with subjective claims (lies) and hate.

BTW, many if not most American have been told they are some of the world's highest taxed people. You see those numbers. Americans are some of the least taxed people. But that would not inspired lies and hate on Fox News. So numbers are not provided.

Yes

Believe what you will.

Thank you! That was a very interesting read. I figured it was viewers, but never saw that reported anywhere. I love those guys.

There were four men who were friends since they were in diapers. They had all just recently retired, and were all single. They decided to jointly buy a house, and live together.
Tom had been a very successful teacher. He was divorced in his late fifties, and his wife took the bulk of his wealth. His total post-retirement income was $22,000 per year.
Dick had been a very successful mid-level executive in a retail company. He had never been married, and got cancer in his fifties, and was terminated from his job. In his second career, he was as a very successful cashier at the local grocery store. His total post-retirement income was $12,000 per year.
Harry’s wife died in her thirties, leaving Harry to raise his three children by himself. To meet the needs of his children, he worked several low paying part time jobs, which provided him with no benefits, and he was very successful at those jobs. His total post-retirement income was $6,000 per year.
Mitt’s father had been a governor. Mitt was able to attend some of the best schools in the country, not only for his undergraduate education, but for two post graduate degrees. His daddy’s support, wealth and influence helped Mitt get a high paying job, and he was very successful. Mitt’s wife died just recently. His total post-retirement income was $20,000,000 per year.
After a year of living together, the house needed a new roof, which was going to cost $8,000. Tom dug into his savings and was able to contribute $2,000 toward the replacement. Dick didn’t have any savings, but did not dine out for a month, and cancelled his cable and cell phone, and was able to contribute $1000. Harry did not have any savings, and did not have cable, a cell phone, smoke cigarettes, or spend money on anything but absolute necessities. He could only come up with $200 to contribute. Mitt felt that the roof cost $8,000 and there were 4 of them, so he was willing to contribute $2,000 – his fair share, and was unwilling to reconsider. Mitt continued to enjoy his lavish lifestyle.
The friends weren’t able to have the roof replaced for $5,200, so the roof continued to decay. Several months later, in the middle of the night, the roof collapsed, killing them all.

so... what's capital gains got to do with savings? Can you please connect those two dots for me?

Put on your tin foil hats and dig out your old decoder rings. Newt plans to have a permanent US base on the moon by his second term in office. When I first saw this story aired on MSNBC, I thought they were making it up. They weren’t.

I can't wait. :rolleyes:

Here is Gingrich's plan, which Romney has apparently mocked. I like the idea only if we pay for it. Remember one thing Reagan did right, he was optimistic whenever the cameras were on. Democrats need to be careful about all their gloom and doom scenarios, people don't want to vote for that and don't want water cooler talk to be dominated by it.

Sucks to be the Republican response to the SOTU, then.

SOTU is a very limited audience.

NEW YORK—The interest among television viewers in President Barack Obama's annual State of the Union addresses is dwindling.

The Nielsen measurement company said Wednesday an estimated 37.8 million people watched Obama's speech the night before on one of the 14 networks airing it. Obama's audience for the speech has dropped each year, from a high of 52.4 million in 2009.

Obama narrowly missed President George W. Bush's least-watched State of the Union. Bush's last one was seen by 37.5 million people in 2008.

Obama is good at optimism. Unfortunately, a lot of editorial writers on the left are like Krugman very negative. They give the impression that they don't believe in human progress which is pretty much an un-American outlook. Not that the GOP is doing any better this time around.

The difference for some is between what is said and what actually takes place.
Not just him, but virtually all of them.