Sue Lowden is running to unseat Senator Harry Reid.

 
Follow this link to the item on Harry Reid’s web site..

Be forewarned, the above video has some naughty words in it.

I first saw the above video on truthdig.org – February 8, 2014 – Link disabled, received a warning about the previous link

Follow this link to the article in the New York Times by David Leonhardt.

The actual headline is Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer.  The official headline is misleading when compared to the sentence that I chose from the article as my headline.

The article also states that higher-income people are understating their income

The article provides a more even handed analysis of who is paying taxes and why than you are likely to get from the sound bites you hear on the radio or TV. I think my choice of emphasis in the headline makes it even more even-handed.

Oh, I should point out that some of the 10% who pay no net federal taxes are not among the poor.  I may not be in the 10% when you include all kinds of federal taxes, but I have not paid any net income taxes in two years. What George Bush has done for the economy has given me enough realized investment losses to offset any income taxes I might owe.

I saw the following H. L. Mencken quote posted on a comment board:

We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart

And the men are good looking and all the children are above average.  No, that last part is Garrison Keillor.

Follow this link to the fact checking item on politifact.com.

The conclusion of the article is:

So, to say that the fund “is available for virtually any purpose that the Treasury Secretary sees fit,” is more than a stretch.  We find Shelby’s claim to be False.

I credit RayS  for linking to this article on his Facebook page.

Follow this link to the commentary in the New York Times by Roger Lowenstein.

Sort of playing devil’s advocate against his own thesis about standardizing derivatives trades, Lowenstein writes:

Wall Street might have legal grounds to fight this – after all, a derivative is a contract between private parties.

Can we think of any other contracts that are between private parties, but are illegal?

Gambling outside the banking industry, prostitution, selling recreational drugs, destruction of wetlands, building unsafe buildings, selling unsafe foods,  …

When a transaction is deemed to be harmful to society, we don’t seem to have any problem justifying its regulation.  That is of course, unless you are rich enough or can wield sufficient political power.

So the real question is, Can Wall Street wield enough bribery and political power to avoid having their harmful practices curtailed? Put this way, perhaps even Tea Party fans could understand the stakes.

Conservatives seem to think,  government can interfere with my sex life but they better keep their hands off my money. The liberals, on the other hand, seem to think sure, go ahead and put controls on my money, but leave my sex life alone.

Follow this link to the AFL/CIO site that makes this claim about Rush.

As the the main stream media is wont to do, all I am saying is that some people say that Rush Limbaugh is a liar. I didn’t say that he was a liar (well at least not in this post).

Follow this link to the story in the Worcester T & G Concert will observe music director’s 25 years of service.

For any of you Digital Equipment Corporation veterans, you might remember working with Will Sherwood.

We had a great time attending the concert and getting to speak to Will if only briefly. Other than exchanging email, we had not seen each other since the 1980s.

There is nothing to do with politics in this post or the accompanying article.  I just wanted to preserve this link and memory.

Follow this link to the story that is posted on Politico.com.

How ironic, that in the post Gates Says U.S. Lacks Policy to Curb Iran’s Nuclear Drive, I wrote:

At least this administration is a little more subtle about it.  It doesn’t challenge anybody to “bring it on.”

In this case, it think it is about time for the President and the Democrats to take on a more forceful attitude.  They have learned the lesson that negotiating with Republicans at this stage of the proceedings only tends to weaken the bill.  It doesn’t bring any votes from the Republicans, and it doesn’t stop them from lying about what is in the bill.

All the serious ideas from the Republicans have probably already been raised.  Those with merit have been included.  The rest is just political gamesmanship.

I also like the idea that the administration has challenged the media to do their job It is time to stop pretending that one cannot tell who is being honest and who is saying one thing while being paid to do another.

Follow this link to the New York Times article published April 17, 2010.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability, according to government officials familiar with the document.

Has warned some months ago, I might add, just in case you thought this was a recent story.

In other words, in a carefully leaked story, the administration let Iran know that it was fully prepared to take military action.

In an interview on Friday, General Jones declined to speak about the memorandum. But he said: “On Iran, we are doing what we said we were going to do. The fact that we don’t announce publicly our entire strategy for the world to see doesn’t mean we don’t have a strategy that anticipates the full range of contingencies — we do.”

We all know that this is the way strategy should be discussed.  You leave it vague enough that the enemy does not know what you are planning, but you make sure they know you are planning something.  At least this administration is a little more subtle about it.  It doesn’t challenge anybody to bring it on.