drsmooth wrote:Fox:
No stand down order or military missteps in Benghazi attack, GOP-controlled intel panel finds

Everyone else (example):
Enough with the ridiculous Benghazi hearings already, you cretins

SK790 wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Fox:
No stand down order or military missteps in Benghazi attack, GOP-controlled intel panel finds

Everyone else (example):
Enough with the ridiculous Benghazi hearings already, you cretins

the best part is that the House Select Committee is doing an 8th ( ) investigation on it.

pacino wrote:that's such a misunderstanding of how the economy and 'transfer payments' work i don't even

Senior defense officials confirmed to NBC News Monday that Hagel was forced to resign.

The officials say the White House has lost confidence in Hagel to carry out his role at the Pentagon. According to one senior official, “He wasn’t up to the job.”

Luzinski's Gut wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/hagel-said-to-be-stepping-down-as-defense-chief-under-pressure.html

My pure speculation:

Hagel was brought in to reduce budgets and the size of the military. The threats that have emerged over the last 12 months have likely put a stop to this - Ebola, Ukraine, ISIL - and my guess is the POTUS doesn't feel like he is capable of leadership with these new threats. I also suspect we're going to see larger military budgets now that the Republicans control Congress, and I fear that we're going to ratchet up the nonsense in Iraq and Syria.

dajafi wrote:

Luzinski's Gut wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/hagel-said-to-be-stepping-down-as-defense-chief-under-pressure.html

My pure speculation:

Hagel was brought in to reduce budgets and the size of the military. The threats that have emerged over the last 12 months have likely put a stop to this - Ebola, Ukraine, ISIL - and my guess is the POTUS doesn't feel like he is capable of leadership with these new threats. I also suspect we're going to see larger military budgets now that the Republicans control Congress, and I fear that we're going to ratchet up the nonsense in Iraq and Syria.

Nothing says strength and resolve against disease and some fanatics like spending billions on weapons programs to keep the Soviets from overrunning West Germany, amirite?

(And yeah, I know ISIL is in some ways more like a state than al Qaeda. Even so, I suspect our current military is sufficient to defeat them.)

Nothing makes me angrier than how we allocate for "defense" compared to how we allocate for everything else. Stupidity and waste become virtues.

Note: rant not directed at LG, or even at the armed services (well, maybe a little, but I'm hating the game and other players much more).

drsmooth wrote:
the slope of this chart over the same period indicts whatever stupifyingly idiotic "point" you may be trying to make

Mr. Obama often claims that the rich don’t pay their “fair share,” yet the most affluent one-fifth of taxpayers on average supplied 68.7% of federal revenue for 2011. As for the top 1%, they funded 24% of everything the government does in 2011.

The middle quintile—the narrowest definition of the middle class—were households with market income between $49,800 and $83,300 on average. In 2011, they paid about $7,400 in taxes and received $16,500 in transfers, for an average after-tax income of $59,000.

That implies an effective tax rate of minus-13.7%. The comparable rates for the lowest and second-lowest quintiles were minus-35% and minus-27.6%, respectively. Only the fourth quintile (0.7%) and the highest quintile (18.9%) are net tax contributors.

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:
the slope of this chart over the same period indicts whatever stupifyingly idiotic "point" you may be trying to make

Perhaps you should explain what you think a rising stock market means.

TomatoPie wrote:That implies an effective tax rate of minus-13.7%. The comparable rates for the lowest and second-lowest quintiles were minus-35% and minus-27.6%, respectively. Only the fourth quintile (0.7%) and the highest quintile (18.9%) are net tax contributors.

Ed Rogers expressing concern for the middle class is like Bill Cosby expressing concern about sexual harassment.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:
the slope of this chart over the same period indicts whatever stupifyingly idiotic "point" you may be trying to make

Perhaps you should explain what you think a rising stock market means.

in the context of your handwringing over "skyrocketing" spending on food for the hungry, etc, the chart stands in for the growth of wealth - at a rate & magnitude that dwarfs your social programs' hillocks.

Sure, shareholders aren't exclusively American. But they're extensively American. And increasingly mostly your 'makers'.

TomatoPie wrote:
Growth in wealth - that's a good thing, right?