Tag Archives: photos

Whose Tax Plan Is Best For Millionaires?

by BeatrisPerrett Posted on September 29, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

So here’s where we stand. Marco Rubio has a tax plan with a top rate of 35 percent that promises to boost our economic growth rate to 3.5 percent per year. Jeb Bush then came out with his plan, which has a top rate of 28 percent and a growth rate of 4 percent per year. Then Donald Trump announced his plan, which has a top rate of 25 percent and a growth rate of 6 percent per year.

Who’s next? Carly? I advise her to announce a plan that has a top rate of 20 percent and promises growth of 8 percent per year. Ridiculous? Sure, but who’s going to call her on it? I mean, what’s Bush going to do? Get into an argument about whose supply-side growth assumptions are the most out of touch with reality?

Besides, she has to compete with Ben Carson, who doesn’t have an official tax plan but has vaguely said he likes the idea of a flat 10 percent tax based on the Biblical practice of tithing—though he’s been a little wobbly on whether his tax rate would really be exactly 10 percent. I guess even God can be improved on.

In case you’re curious, here are the top tax rates on the rich from each of the leading candidates. The most dynamic defenders of free enterprise are at the top, while the losers are at the bottom:

Carson: 10-15 percent
Paul: 14.5 percent
Huckabee: ~17 percent (23 percent FairTax that eliminates the payroll tax)
Trump: 25 percent
Bush: 28 percent
Christie: 28 percent
Rubio: 35 percent
Fiorina: ?
Cruz: ?

Jump to original:  

Whose Tax Plan Is Best For Millionaires?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Whose Tax Plan Is Best For Millionaires?

VW Tries to Blame Engine Emissions Fraud on Low-Level "Engineers and Technicians"

by GiuseppBurgett Posted on September 26, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I guess it was just a few bad apples. That’s a relief:

Volkswagen has blamed its emissions scandal on a “small group” of people and has suspended a number of staff as Matthias Müller was unveiled as its new chief executive.

….Berthold Huber, the acting head of VW’s supervisory board, called the crisis a “moral and policy disaster”….“The test manipulations are a moral and political disaster for Volkswagen. The unlawful behaviour of engineers and technicians involved in engine development shocked Volkswagen just as much as it shocked the public.”

This is ridiculous. What incentive do low-level engineers and technicians have to do this on their own? Hell, they couldn’t even take on a project like this unless their managers OKed the time to do it, and their managers wouldn’t do it unless they were being pressed by higher-ups. Anybody who’s ever worked at a big corporation knows this perfectly well. And according to Bloomberg, that’s exactly what happened:

Volkswagen AG executives in Germany controlled the key aspects of emissions tests whose results the carmaker now admits were faked, according to three people familiar with the company’s U.S. operations.

….Their accounts show the chain of command and those involved in the deception stretched to Volkswagen headquarters…. Ulrich Hackenberg…. Wolfgang Hatz are among those who will leave the company in the wake of Winterkorn’s resignation two days ago, two people familiar with the matter said. The two previously ran units at the heart of the affair — Hackenberg, a Winterkorn confidant, was responsible for VW brand development from 2007 to 2013, while Hatz ran the group’s motor development from 2007 to 2011.

Will it go even higher? Stay tuned. However, I’ll call BS on UBS, which apparently thinks this scandal “could signal the eventual end of the combustion engine.” Please. There’s no difficulty “amassing accurate data” on engine emissions, as one of their analysts suggests. VW amassed very precise data. They just chose to hide it by means of a calculated, premeditated, multi-year fraud. Anyone who hasn’t done the same should be in fine shape.

View post: 

VW Tries to Blame Engine Emissions Fraud on Low-Level "Engineers and Technicians"

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on VW Tries to Blame Engine Emissions Fraud on Low-Level "Engineers and Technicians"

Gremlins

by EnriquetaObryan Posted on September 26, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last night the Mother Jones site suddenly went crazy—but only on Firefox on my tablet. Every other combination of site, browser, and platform works fine. This morning, AdBlock suddenly stopped working. Everywhere. Have gremlins invaded my house? I guess I’ll just wait a day or two and see if everything spontaneously fixes itself, as so often these things do.

UPDATE: Apparently AdBlock wiped out my filter subscriptions on every device. Why? Gremlins, perhaps. I added another one and now it works again. But I still have weirdo rendering on the MoJo site, on my tablet. Perhaps some strange difference between Firefox on Windows 7 (desktop) and Windows 8.1 (tablet)?

Originally from: 

Gremlins

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gremlins

Why Does Donald Trump Have Nothing Against Germany?

by ValentiCatalano Posted on September 15, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Which of these countries is not like the others?

  1. China
  2. Germany
  3. Japan
  4. Mexico

Answer: When Donald Trump goes on a tear about foreign countries that are stealing our jobs thanks to their “cunning” and “ruthless” leaders, he always talks about our horrible trade deficit. China: $300+ billion. Japan: $60+ billion. Mexico: $50+ billion.

Who doesn’t he mention? Germany, which is in second place at $80+ billion. Why is that? What is it that makes Germany not like those other countries?

And as long as we’re on the subject of Trump, I caught a bit of his speech in Dallas today and heard him bragging about the fact that every network was covering him. He explained it this way: “It’s a very simple formula in entertainment and television. If you get good ratings—and these aren’t good, these are monster—then you’re going to be on all the time even if you have nothing to say.” Credit where it’s due: Trump may not actually be much of a builder, but he sure does know his TV. And himself, apparently.

Also worth noting: Trump got plenty of cheers for all his usual shoutouts, but by far the biggest cheer came when he promised to toss out every illegal immigrant within his first 18 months. “We have to stop illegal immigration,” he said. “We have to do it.” That set the arena rocking for nearly a full minute, ending in a fervid chant of “USA! USA! USA!” Judging by this, immigration is still the single biggest key to his appeal.

Finally, on a more amusing note, Trump complained that because all his events are televised, he can’t just give the same speech over and over like other politicians. I wonder if he actually believes this? I haven’t heard anything new from Trump in months. Every speech he gives relies on all the same snippets. He changes the order depending on his mood, but it’s always the same stuff. He may be new to politics, but the idea of a standard stump speech is something he seems to have in his blood.

From:  

Why Does Donald Trump Have Nothing Against Germany?

Posted in Bragg, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Does Donald Trump Have Nothing Against Germany?

Democrats Are…Maybe…Possibly…Thinking About Fundraising the Way Republicans Do

by TracieSeymour Posted on September 14, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Nick Confessore has a fascinating story in the New York Times today. He reports that Democrats are planning to adopt the super PAC tactics of Republicans in order to compete more effectively. By itself, that’s no big surprise. But Democrats are asking the FEC for permission to do all this. What’s the point of that? Why not just go ahead and do it, the way Republicans have?

Lawyers are asking the F.E.C. to clarify how declared candidates, their campaign staff, and their volunteers can help court donors for independent super PACs — even whether a candidate could be the “special guest” at a super PAC “fund-raiser” with as few as two donors. The commission’s answer could have profound ramifications for the 2016 campaign, particularly for Democrats who, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, have been reluctant to engage too closely with super PAC fund-raising.

In seeking the commission’s approval for the tactics, Democrats contend that most of what they want permission to do — like having a candidate pretend to “test the waters” of a candidacy for months on end while raising money — appears to violate the law. But if federal regulators determine that such practices are legal, the lawyers wrote, Democratic candidates up and down the ballot are prepared to adopt these tactics in the coming months, a blunt admission that the party cannot compete effectively if it forgoes campaign and fund-raising tactics already widely used by Republicans.

So the apparent plan here isn’t so much to get permission for all these shady practices, but to prod the FEC into declaring them illegal. This would muck things up for Republicans, who currently rely on them.

Or, in the worst case, the FEC would approve them and Democrats could safely adopt them too. All of which raises the question: why are Republicans so cavalier about dodgy fundraising practices while Democrats are so hesitant to adopt them? In some case, like that of Bernie Sanders, it’s based on principle, but I imagine that he’s the exception rather than the rule. Are Democrats afraid the media will be tougher on them than on Republicans if they push the envelope of fundraising tactics? Possibly. Maybe “no controlling legal authority” still keeps them awake at night. Or are they just wimps?

I don’t know. But I confess I was unaware of just how widely Democrats had shied away from the wild West world of super PACs that Republicans have embraced so eagerly. One way or another, that can’t last too much longer.

Link: 

Democrats Are…Maybe…Possibly…Thinking About Fundraising the Way Republicans Do

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Democrats Are…Maybe…Possibly…Thinking About Fundraising the Way Republicans Do

Planned Parenthood: Exonerated, But Still a Target

by TamikaBardon Posted on September 14, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Steve Benen reports on the swan song of conservative plans to prove that Planned Parenthood broke the law:

There was just one nagging detail: Planned Parenthood never actually did anything illegal. It didn’t sell fetal tissue for a profit; it didn’t misuse public resources, and it didn’t violate any laws. The Republican plan was based on a foundation of quicksand.

But The Hill reported over the weekend that GOP House members are now shifting to their back-up plan: they no longer care whether Planned Parenthood did anything wrong.

In reality, there’s no shift here. Republicans have wanted to defund Planned Parenthood for a long time. The sting videos were just an excuse to mount another effort. Democrats do the same thing on gun control whenever there’s a high-profile shooting.

And there’s nothing really wrong with this. Politics is all about persuading the public to come around to your way of thinking, and one way to do that is to take advantage of events in the real world. Even if you fail, maybe you’ve moved public opinion a few points and you’ll do better next time. So far, both Planned Parenthood and gun rights have survived, and there’s not really much evidence that public opinion has shifted a lot on either one. But that doesn’t mean anyone is likely to stop trying.

View article: 

Planned Parenthood: Exonerated, But Still a Target

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Planned Parenthood: Exonerated, But Still a Target

Sigh. It Might Still Be Possible To Recover Hillary Clinton’s Deleted Personal Emails.

by MartaRosser Posted on September 12, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Today, the company that manages Hillary Clinton’s email server says that although her personal emails were deleted, the server was never “wiped.” Thus, it might still be possible to recover the deleted emails.

That’s it. That’s the news. But somehow the Washington Post managed to occupy three reporters and 1,500 words telling us this. You can skip most of it. Here’s the only part that matters:

On Saturday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairmen of the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, respectively, said they would push for the deleted e-mails to be reviewed if they can be recovered.

Gee, no kidding. I’m sure the nation’s security hinges on this. And if Hillary’s personal emails are successfully recovered, I’m equally sure that a few of the most embarrassing ones will somehow get leaked to friendly reporters.

Hillary Clinton is well aware of what happens when a Republican Congress starts investigating a prominent Democrat. That’s why she deleted her personal emails in the first place. The 2015 version of the GOP is apparently bent on proving that nothing has changed since the 90s.

Meanwhile, we will all ignore the fact that Jeb Bush did the exact same thing and nobody seems to care. Funny that.

Originally posted here:  

Sigh. It Might Still Be Possible To Recover Hillary Clinton’s Deleted Personal Emails.

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sigh. It Might Still Be Possible To Recover Hillary Clinton’s Deleted Personal Emails.

The iPad Pro Is Lacking One Thing If It Wants to Play in the Business World

by Pauline50G Posted on September 11, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Apple has been playing catch-up for a while now. The large-screen iPhone 6 was catching up with Samsung (and pretty much every other smartphone maker). The new Apple TV box is catching up with Roku, Chromecast, and others. The Apple watch is catching up with Android watches.1 And now, as Will Oremus points out, the iPad is catching up with Microsoft’s Surface Pro:

The iPad Pro’s screen measures 12.9 inches diagonally, making it far bigger than any tablet Apple has made before—but comparable in size as the 12-inch Microsoft Surface Pro 3. It features a split-screen mode for multitasking and is optimized for productivity apps like Microsoft Office. And its two most notable accessories are—what else?—a keyboard cover and a stylus.

Close, but no cigar! Everything Oremus says is true, but if you’re going after the business market I’d say that a high-quality docking station is probably the key accessory. Microsoft has a very nice one for the Surface Pro. Apple doesn’t.

Maybe it’s coming soon, but Apple didn’t want to delay the iPad Pro just for that. Or maybe Apple still doesn’t really get the business market.

But I’ll give Apple this: they sure do know how to make a lightweight device. I assume this is because their ARM processors are more power stingy than even the newest Intel processors, which allows Apple to use smaller batteries. But whatever it is, I’m jealous. It’s not like my Surface (non-Pro) is a brick or anything, but shaving another eight ounces off it would sure be nice.

But light or not, the lack of a docking station would prevent me from using the iPad pro as a serious business device. In most homes and offices, you’re going to want to connect a keyboard/mouse, network cable, a local printer, and maybe an external hard drive. Plus a bigger monitor if you decide to go that route. Someday all this stuff will be effortlessly wireless, but that day is not today. For now, the only way to make this work conveniently is with a docking station.

1None of this is to say that Apple can’t make good money playing catch-up. They can. And stealing features from the competition is practically the definition of the tech industry. Still, they’ve been going after low-hanging fruit for the past few years. I’m not seeing an awful lot of visionary thinking anymore.

See original article: 

The iPad Pro Is Lacking One Thing If It Wants to Play in the Business World

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The iPad Pro Is Lacking One Thing If It Wants to Play in the Business World

Eat Any Kind of Sugar You Want, Just Don’t Eat Too Much of It

by MichellDubay Posted on September 11, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From Susan Raatz, a research nutritionist at the USDA who recently conducted a test of cane sugar, honey, and high-fructose corn syrup:

The marketers “made a big mistake when they called it ‘high-fructose corn syrup,’” said Raatz.

Now, now. Let’s not blame the marketers. They had no hand in this debacle. And they did try to rename it “corn sugar” a few years ago, but the FDA turned them down.

Anyway, Raatz concluded that HFCS, honey, and cane sugar all had similar effects on the human body. This should not come as a big surprise, since all three are basically 50-50 mixes of fructose and glucose.

So why is HFCS high fructose? Because it has more fructose than ordinary corn syrup, not because it has more than most other sweeteners. But the damage has been done, and now concerned parents everywhere are making sure to feed their kids only cane sugar or honey, in the misguided belief that they’re somehow healthier and more natural.

Sorry. Sugar is sugar. Eat any kind you like. Just don’t eat too much of it.

Taken from – 

Eat Any Kind of Sugar You Want, Just Don’t Eat Too Much of It

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Eat Any Kind of Sugar You Want, Just Don’t Eat Too Much of It

Let’s Have More God Talk in This Campaign

by HalleyEgrseobisv Posted on September 11, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

“Liberal Jewish atheist” Paul Waldman thinks we should talk about God more:

The United States has far and away the highest levels of religiosity of any industrialized democracy, and all presidential candidates are expected, at least at some point, to be photographed going to church and testify to their deep and abiding faith in God. As long as that’s the case, we have not just a right but an obligation to ask them specific questions about what they believe and how it would affect their actions in office.

….But journalists are extremely squeamish about getting into those details, no doubt because they’re worried that it will come off sounding like criticism of the candidates’ beliefs instead of a worthwhile exploration of them….We spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to get inside the heads of those who would be president, but when the topic of religion comes up, we take a tentative step forward, then rush back lest we give offense.

This is quite a change from 1960, isn’t it?

In any case, I’ll toss out an alternative explanation: most mainstream reporters aren’t very religious themselves and don’t think they can keep up their end of an interview about faith. When the Rev. Jeremiah Wright says “God damn America,” that’s catnip for the press: it’s not really about religion, it’s about somebody saying something outrageous and then tallying up the responses. Easy peasy. But a serious discussion about the ins and outs of various faith traditions and how different candidates ended up where they did? It’s sort of like talking about the details of handgun design. There’s a serious chance of a liberal journalist embarrassing himself badly.

The reason I don’t think that mainstream journalists are genuinely worried about religious questions coming off as criticism is because plenty of journalists do ask questions about religious faith. And presidential candidates talk to them. The thing is, these are mostly journalists for religious publications, who have the background to talk about this stuff without sounding ignorant. Mainstream reporters are well aware of this, and well aware that most presidential candidates are happy to talk about it. They’re just uneasy about their ability to do the job right.

Visit site: 

Let’s Have More God Talk in This Campaign

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Let’s Have More God Talk in This Campaign