What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[busybody..]

Opps

WHITE

guy

calls

NIGGER

a

DUMMY

NIGGERPOONZANDI scream,

DO YOU KNOW WHO IMMELT IS? A REPOH STOOGE!

White House Jobs Czar And GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt: “Personally, I Think Tax Cuts Will Create Jobs”…




Which is the complete opposite of Obama’s failed Keynesian policies of massive government spending to spur jobs growth.

Via Washington Examiner:


Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric and President Obama’s “jobs czar,” criticized the current American tax system while apparently opposing President Obama’s call for tax increases to pay for jobs spending.

According to a preview of his interview with “60 Minutes” on CBS, airing this Sunday, Immelt recommended a tax code like that found in some European countries


I think we should have basically the same tax policy that Germany, Japan, the UK — everybody else has, which is a tax rate in the mid-20s and no loopholes. Zero,” he tells Stahl. “The U.S. has the most antiquated tax system. And that means some people are going to pay more taxes, and some people are going to pay less,” Immelt says. . . .

Immelt added, “Personally, I think [lowering taxes] will create jobs.” That remark would seem to put him at odds — at least in principle — with the White House. Jay Carney, Obama’s Press Secretary, defends Obama’s proposed tax increases as a way to pay for layoff-preventing jobs spending.

 

[koalabear]

Good news, the market is stable today.

 

[busybody..]

So is Francisco Franco

 

[unregistered]

 

[JohnnySavage]

If you enlarge the picture, every single flag in the picture on the left has been defaced. That's a violation of federal law and unamerican.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

If you enlarge the picture, every single flag in the picture on the left has been defaced. That's a violation of federal law and unamerican.

Wrong again. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johnson was represented by attorneys David D. Cole and William Kunstler.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[JohnnySavage]

Wrong again. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johnson was represented by attorneys David D. Cole and William Kunstler.

That's why I said "Federal" law. Dummy.


United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1 — The Flag

 

[JohnnySavage]

§8. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning

 

[koalabear]

That's why I said "Federal" law. Dummy.


United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1 — The Flag

§8. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning

Flag Protection Act (1989-1990):
In 1989, the U.S. Congress protested the Johnson decision by passing the Flag Protection Act, a federal version of the already-struck state flag desecration statutes. Thousands burned flags in protest of the new law, and when two protesters were arrested, the Supreme Court affirmed its previous ruling and struck down the federal statute.

 

[koalabear]

Flag Desecration Amendment (1990, 1995, 1997, 1999-2000, 2001, 2003, 2005-2006):
Congress has made seven attempts to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court by passing a constitutional amendment making an exception to the First Amendment in order to allow the government to ban flag desecration. In 1990, when the amendment was first brought up, it failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority in the House. After the Republican congressional takeover of 1994, it has consistently passed the House but failed in the Senate.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

You left out some items.

§8. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning

§ 8. — Respect for flag.
Share |

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002]

 

[koalabear]

There's also a difference in the use of words like "should never" and "shall never" as well.

Bottom line is Johnny didn't find any desecration anyway.

Sometimes a chihuahua just has to yip, it's their nature.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I don't feel like verifying what you said, so I'll concede that it's just dokey to scrawl political protest messages all over the flag. It's just a piece of cloth to some people.

 

[koalabear]

I don't feel like verifying what you said, so I'll concede that it's just dokey to scrawl political protest messages all over the flag. It's just a piece of cloth to some people.

Show a pic of the "scrawl" from the pic posted.

 

[koalabear]

you mean flags like this chihuahua

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-PY203_1003oc_G_20111003104700.jpg​

http://por-img.cimcontent.net/api/assets/bin-201110/7e51-APTOPIX-Wall-Street-Protest-Austin.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/03/article-2044267-0E2F7A8100000578-146_964x631.jpg​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Getting bad for Obama...

AP pulled its fact-checkers off Sarah Palin...

... 'bout time too, Todd was getting pissed.

WASHINGTON – In President Barack Obama's sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington.

When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.

When the president says Republicans haven't explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail.

And when he calls on Congress to "pass this bill now," he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities. Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.

...

He is waging a campaign, one in which nuance and context and competing responses don't always fit in if they don't help make the case.

For example, when Obama says his jobs plan is made up of ideas that have historically had bipartisan support, he stops the point there. Not mentioned is that Republicans have never embraced the tax increases that he is proposing to cover the cost of his plan.

Likewise, from city to city, Obama is demanding that Congress act (he means Republicans) while it has been clear for weeks that the GOP will not support all of his bill, to say the least. Individual elements of it may well pass, such as Obama's proposal to extend and expand a payroll tax cut. But Republicans strongly oppose the president's proposed new spending and his plan to raise taxes on millionaires to pay for the package.

The fight over the legislative proposal has become something much bigger: a critical test of the president's powers of persuading the public heading into the 2012 presidential campaign, and of Republicans' ability to deny him a win and reap victory for themselves.

"He knows it's not going to pass. He's betting that voters won't pick up on it, or even if they do they will blame Congress and he can run against the `do-nothing Congress,'" said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California's School of Policy, Planning and Development.

John Sides, political science professor at George Washington University, said Obama's approach on the jobs bill is "more about campaigning than governing."

"He's mostly just going around talking about this and drawing contrasts with what the Republicans want and what he wants and not really trying to work these legislative levers he might be able to use to get this passed," Sides said. "That just suggests to me that he is ready to use a failed jobs bill as a campaign message against the Republicans."

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111010/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_s_sales_pitch

And yet he's more focused on this, more serious about this, and losing more sleep over our jobs that at any other point in his life...

Yeah...

All he cares about is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA's job!

 

[koalabear]

The market is stable at the present time.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Candidates for president generally blare recorded rock or country hits before their campaign rallies. At President Obama's appearances, expect a different form of music: whistling in the dark.

Amid grim economic news, Democrats contemplating his re-election bid find two reasons for hope. One is the multitude of weaknesses among the Republican presidential candidates, who might not be able to sell beer on a troop ship.

The other is that bad economic conditions need not be fatal—as demonstrated by Ronald Reagan, who presided over a serious recession in his first term only to win 49 out of 50 states in 1984. With more than a year to go, the economy has plenty of time to rebound, lifting Obama to victory.

There are only two flaws in this logic. The first is that Obama's economy makes Reagan's look like the end of the rainbow. The second is that it shows no signs of getting appreciably better.

At first glance, Obama's plight may not look so terrible. The unemployment rate in September was 9.1 percent, compared to 9.2 percent in September 1983. But those figures are snapshots that conceal the overall direction of the economy. At this point, Reagan's economy was roaring back to life. Obama's is curled up in the fetal position, whimpering.

In the first quarter of 1983, real gross domestic product grew at a pace of 5.1 percent, rising to 9.3 percent in the second quarter. In the first quarter of 2011, by contrast, the growth rate was 0.4 percent, and in the second, it was 1.3 percent.

The economy has been stuck in neutral not just this year but for a long time. Under Reagan, total output soon regained its pre-recession level. But as of the second quarter of this year, the U.S. economy was still producing less than it was before this latest recession hit in 2007.

That's why it feels as though the recession never ended. In a sense, it is still going on.

This bleak reality shows up in a dearth of jobs that the official unemployment rate doesn't fully capture because it omits people who have given up looking for work. The number of people employed in the United States dropped by 2 million in the Reagan recession. In the Bush-Obama downturn, the number plunged by 8.6 million. Today, it's 7 million below the previous peak.

A lot of Americans no longer show up in the jobless statistics because they have lost all hope. In normal recessions, the proportion of people in the labor force falls a bit and then bounces back. In this one, it went down and stayed down.

Before the contraction hit, 66.4 percent of all adults had jobs or were looking for them. Today, the figure is 64.2 percent. That may not sound like a big change, but there has been no comparable decline anytime in the past 60 years. It's a symptom of endless stagnation and profound despair.

Nor can we expect an early turnaround. Last month, the International Monetary Fund cut its forecast for GDP growth in the United States. This year, it expects the economy to expand by a puny 1.5 percent, and next year by 1.8 percent. In 1984, it grew by 7.2 percent.

Another big difference is that the Reagan recession was seen as painful but necessary—the price of halting the double-digit inflation that ripped through the economy under President Jimmy Carter. And it succeeded. But under this president, inflation has gone up. Under Obama, it's been all pain and no gain.

Steve Chapman
Reason.com

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Algore Akbar!
By JED BABBIN on 10.10.11 @ 6:08AM

The cultist EU is about to impose cap-and-trade on U.S. airlines. Our president will approve, instead of declaring Europe a no fly zone.

Every Europe-bound U.S. airliner is about to be hijacked. No, not by box cutter-wielding Saudis or squads of Nigerian explosive underwear bombers. This attack is mounted by a bunch of euro-grifters who are about to impose the European Union's "cap and trade" global warming tax on every flight landing in the EU.

You might think that the fact of the euro's downward spiral might focus the EU bureaucracy on saving their own phony baloney jobs before the euro's dissolution. But you'd be wrong, because the global warming crowd is just as much of a cult as the Islamofascisti who try to blow up their shoes and underwear to kill their fellow air passengers. They are just as fanatic, too. They probably mumble "Algore Akbar!" under their breath while smiling politely at our objections.

As the Financial Times has reported many times over the past few months, the EUnuchs "cap and trade" scheme is the largest such in the world and although aviation accounts for only 2-3% of the global carbon dioxide emissions every year, the EU will impose its costs and burdens on every aircraft flying into or out of Europe beginning in January.

Consider, please, the brazenness of the Euro "Algore Akbar" cultists. Even if we accepted the nonsensical theory of man-made global warming, the imposition of the EU cap and trade scheme on U.S. airlines would be impermissible. Perhaps they can impose another tax -- call it what you will, but this is all the cap and trade scheme is -- if they craft it within proper limitations. But limitations are not for the Algore Akbar! cult.

The way the EU plan will be imposed on U.S. airlines will be to grant them "permits" to emit carbon dioxide and such under certain limits each year. Those limits will, of course, be much lower than the estimated emissions to force the airlines to buy more "allocations" from the EU and create a "market" in which to buy and sell them. Of course, that market will be European and subject to European regulations and corruption. (Think about auctioning guns in a Mexican border town or the insurance "cooperatives" set up under Obamacare.)

And even that is not the worst of it. The emissions included in the amount regulated, taxed, and traded will not just be those flowing from engine exhausts in European skies. The regulated/taxed/traded emissions of, for example, a Los Angeles to London flight will be the entire amount from takeoff to landing despite the inconvenient truth that about 99% of the flight occurs over U.S. territory and the Atlantic.

And that's the point. With a brazenness that would make Lady Gaga or even Harry Reid blush, the EU is imposing its power and its ability to tax on actions that occur entirely within the United States and over the free oceans of the world.

This is, to state the obvious, an invasion of U.S. sovereignty and a limitation of our freedom of navigation in the air and at sea. In better times -- say, for example, the two previous centuries -- any nation or group of nations that tried to impose a tax on American shipping sailing U.S. waters or on the high seas would have bestirred a rather different reaction than the non-response from Team Obama. Wars have been fought -- justly -- over less than this.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/10/algore-akbar

They want to take us down with them!
__________________
A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States...,
John P. Holdren
White House Office of Science and Technology Director

 

[JohnnySavage]

No market updates today?


(I think Johnny said last week, to watch this week when the market manipulators "buy low sell high")

((people could do a lot worse than listen to ole Johnny))

(((course you might as well just give your money to Vegas, unless you are sitting at the table when the decisions are made as to which direction to move the market)))

 

[unregistered]