Obama Nominates Former MBTA Head Beverly Scott To NTSB

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

No, if they could have found a Farsi Speaking Latino Gender Curious Pacific Islander Female, she would have gotten the job instead.

With Scott's resume? Yes, absolutely.

Government is no longer about finding the right person to do the job semi-efficiently - regardless of gender / ethnicity - and to make proper decisions and help people - regardless of gender / ethnicity. There are plenty of women and men of many races more capable to put in these positions, but they are not bureaucratic political HACKS of the party in power.

I think this is a product of influence. Those with the money don't want free thinking people in politics as they're harder to control.

Government's job is now to spread diversity and happy feeling. Sadly that is not what happens these days. The adults have left the room and they people that couldn't make it academia are now running the ship and can't navigate. We are arguably at the greatest national apathy in 40 years and we get HACKS.

I assume this was a reference to the neocons?

Obama was not qualified to be POTUS and six plus into his eight years in office he has proven that time and time again.

I think he's been as or more qualified than many Presidents. He's also surrounded himself with some very experienced people. Given what he inherited I don't think anyone would have done exceptionally well.

Funny, I remember after 9/11 remarking how lucky we were that Bush had the foreign policy dream team, and look how that worked out.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think he's been as or more qualified than many Presidents.

that was hilaroius

He's also surrounded himself with some very experienced people.

I know, right?...Al Sharpton has an impressive resume...

Given what he inherited I don't think anyone would have done exceptionally well. still beating that tired drum

Funny, I remember after 9/11 remarking how lucky we were that Bush had the foreign policy dream team, and look how that worked out. Given what they inherited I don't think anyone would have done exceptionally well.

the fortunate thing is that there IS another election and we can't do much worse than what we've been treated to for the last couple...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

With Scott's resume? Yes, absolutely.


I think this is a product of influence. Those with the money don't want free thinking people in politics as they're harder to control.


I assume this was a reference to the neocons?


I think he's been as or more qualified than many Presidents. He's also surrounded himself with some very experienced people. Given what he inherited I don't think anyone would have done exceptionally well.

Funny, I remember after 9/11 remarking how lucky we were that Bush had the foreign policy dream team, and look how that worked out.

I keep telling you, we need to demand better from both parties. Neither party does what is needed, one just strips our national security away in favor of hugs.

[Nebe]

And the other strips our kids future away to keep the rich rich.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

And the other strips our kids future away to keep the rich rich.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How so?

And by the way, they are both doing it as the nation spends a TRILLION dollars more per year than it takes in. That will strip your kid and my kids future faster than any rich rich.

[Nebe]

One way is by tax cuts to the rich, incredibly lax corporate tax rules and putting the heft of taxes on the middle class. Isn't that the GOP's mandate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by Nebe

And the other strips our kids future away to keep the rich rich.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kind of odd that Ted Cruz just led the charge on not funding the import/export bank(evil corporate welfare) . Those most highly opposed were the left. Why is it Bilary has accepted more donations from Big business and Wall Street than any other candidate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Simple. She's a republican.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Simple. She's a republican.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe Cruz is a democrat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

the fortunate thing is that there IS another election and we can't do much worse than what we've been treated to for the last couple...

Define "Much".....

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

Maybe Cruz is a democrat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cruz sponsored a bill to put our national parks and public lands for sale. not sure that was a democrat style move.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Cruz sponsored a bill to put our national parks and public lands for sale. not sure that was a democrat style move.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure that's a republican move either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

One way is by tax cuts to the rich, incredibly lax corporate tax rules and putting the heft of taxes on the middle class. Isn't that the GOP's mandate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are three resolutions to not having enough money: spend less, generate more in productions, or shake the people down for more.

So the rich, per capita, pay the highest amount of federal income taxes is not enough?


I fully agree that corporations have too many loopholes so while the US corporate taxes are high - many companies go out of their way to bury it - there does need to be a balance

Originally Posted by Nebe

Simple. She's a republican.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, like many Ds (and some Rs) she is a Statist (anti-individual), with a heavy dose of Socialist, wrapped in a massive cocoon of Opportunist

[Nebe]

That's a move of a complete sell out who's hand is in the pockets of the Koch Brothers who gave him a ton of money to get elected. That move cemented the fact that I will never stand behind him unless he's on the edge of a dock.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I fully agree that corporations have too many loopholes so while the US corporate taxes are high - many companies go out of their way to bury it - there does need to be a balance

While we have, without question, the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all countries, and while it is true that some corporations pay a far less effective rate than the statutory rate. The average effective (actual) corporate tax rate in the U.S. is similar to the combined average rate of the other OECD countries.

Of course, several countries have lower, even much lower statutory rates than the average effective rate in the U.S., making them tax havens as well as an attraction to lure corporations to move there.

But rather than the reality of what companies pay in the U.S. on average, what is focused on is those giant corporations who pay less or zero rates. That is a result, in large part, to the cronyism paid with donations to both parties. It also means that many companies pay more, far more, even the full statutory rate, to create the average effective rate.

[Nebe]

All that is moot when a corporation dumps all of its profits in a country like Luxembourg (Walmart) or Ireland (Apple), thus lying zero taxes on gains taken in the U.S.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by Nebe

That's a move of a complete sell out who's hand is in the pockets of the Koch Brothers who gave him a ton of money to get elected. That move cemented the fact that I will never stand behind him unless he's on the edge of a dock.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NEBE.....liberals mention the Koch Brothers.......liberals never mention....who's hands R in the pockets of Geroge Soros.....explain please.....

[nightfighter]

Another Dem who throws his money around is Tom Steyer. This Californian had his people out doing his lobbying to swing the local Senate election on the day the Marathon bombers had the state in lockdown. Knew him. Just have differences with his political views and how he pays to promote his views. There are others, so stop with the Koch card.

Eben, I had so much hope for you seeing your early posts in this thread too....

[Nebe]

Haha! Hey, I can't stand either sides!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

All that is moot when a corporation dumps all of its profits in a country like Luxembourg (Walmart) or Ireland (Apple), thus lying zero taxes on gains taken in the U.S.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not moot. That the average effective corporate tax rate in the U.S is similar to the average rate of the other OECD countries makes the point that the U.S. fiscal problem is not corporate tax rates, statutory or effective, but the government's spending more than it takes in. The corporations are successful because they have a positive cash flow, the U.S. government fails because it has a negative cash flow. And lf you think that our government's cash flow would become positive if the corporations all paid the statutory rate, or closer to it, you're not paying attention, or reading too many socialist leaning periodicals.

It has become axiomatic that the Federal government will always spend more than it gets. Raising greater revenue simply translates into greater spending, not a balancing of the books. That is the problem with progressive, or socialist governments, as Margaret Thatcher pointed out. And the cascade of social problems from that fiscal irresponsibility metastasizes into the overall cancer of oppressive, dictatorial government. A government which will always blame its problems on the productive elements of its society for not "paying their fair share."

Corporations, businesses small or large, individuals, will always pay as little in taxes as they are legally allowed. And will certainly seek creative ways to pay less taxes. As they all should. It is the duty of government to fiscally stay within the bounds of its mission statement, not to constantly expand, by mere whim, its mission beyond the framework on which it is built. Any expansion should require the consent of the citizens (legal), not by executive orders, congressional whim, or judicial activists.

On what basis should we be forced to pay for profligate government and the "programs" of the spendthrifts that run it?

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by Nebe

That's a move of a complete sell out who's hand is in the pockets of the Koch Brothers who gave him a ton of money to get elected. That move cemented the fact that I will never stand behind him unless he's on the edge of a dock.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

UR Funny. I'll bet the real reason we aren't building the Keystone Pipeline has more to do with Warren Buffet (Democrat Supporter)owning the rail companies than it has to do with global warming....

Want to see who the top donors are and who they give to?

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Looks to me like the#48 Koch Brothers aren't so bad after all..