President Obama's Job Creation Initiative Framework Speeches

[AquaMan]

Its not like I have time or spare grey matter either.

[nathanm]

Oh, and that's the other thing, as long as Apple has competition from buggy MicroCrap, it keeps driving more people toward their product.  I've been on the Mac platform six months now and not one security issue. 

You just haven't been paying attention. Most recently, they still haven't revoked trust in Safari for the CA that has been giving the Iranians fake certificates for several sites (including Google) over the past few months. This allows the Iranians to run man-in-the-middle attacks against people using Gmail. (so far, the evidence is they've only been doing it to their own people)

[Gaspar]

You just haven't been paying attention. Most recently, they still haven't revoked trust in Safari for the CA that has been giving the Iranians fake certificates for several sites (including Google) over the past few months. This allows the Iranians to run man-in-the-middle attacks against people using Gmail. (so far, the evidence is they've only been doing it to their own people)

[Gaspar]

I thought "man in the middle" was illegal under Shira law?

[nathanm]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219669/Mac_OS_X_can_t_properly_revoke_dodgy_digital_certificates

That's pretty important functionality which they've left broken for a while now. DigiNotar issued over 200 fraudulent certificates for over 20 domains, and then covered it up until Google noticed the fakes in the wild. That's exactly the opposite of what a trustworthy CA would do, yet Apple refuses to remove their root certificate for some reason.

Also, I don't like Apple's refusal to discuss security issues much. They act like Microsoft (and Cisco, and Sun, and most other companies) did before they finally saw the light a few years back. The only difference is that their OS is somewhat more secure from the outset thanks to its BSD origins and there are many fewer people trying to attack their platform.

[Conan71]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219669/Mac_OS_X_can_t_properly_revoke_dodgy_digital_certificates

That's pretty important functionality which they've left broken for a while now. DigiNotar issued over 200 fraudulent certificates for over 20 domains, and then covered it up until Google noticed the fakes in the wild. That's exactly the opposite of what a trustworthy CA would do, yet Apple refuses to remove their root certificate for some reason.

Also, I don't like Apple's refusal to discuss security issues much. They act like Microsoft (and Cisco, and Sun, and most other companies) did before they finally saw the light a few years back. The only difference is that their OS is somewhat more secure from the outset thanks to its BSD origins and there are many fewer people trying to attack their platform.

That's too deep geek for me.  I don't have a clue what you are talking about other than your apparent incessant need to say something contrary to my POV any chance you get 

[Gaspar]

That's too deep geek for me.  I don't have a clue what you are talking about other than your apparent incessant need to say something contrary to my POV any chance you get 

I know what he's talking about, I'm just impressed that he would take so much time and energy to find something so obscure just to show disagreement with you. 

Security vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer have caused TENS OF MILLIONS of MIM and spoof attacks on MILLIONS of Americans.  They are the window to thousands of attacks every day.

Nate could just save some time by responding to people with "Nah-Uh!"

[nathanm]

That's too deep geek for me.  I don't have a clue what you are talking about other than your apparent incessant need to say something contrary to my POV any chance you get 

Actually, I prefer when we agree.  

Suffice it to say that if Apple is slow about removing trust from certificates that are known to have issued forged certificates that it opens you up to nefarious activity because your browser will tell you you're securely communicating with (for example) Chase Bank's website when in fact you're actually talking to some Nigerian scammer who is logging your password, account numbers, and whatever else and forwarding your traffic on to Chase. (and vice versa)

Gaspar, I know about things like this because it's my business.

[Gaspar]

Actually, I prefer when we agree.  

Suffice it to say that if Apple is slow about removing trust from certificates that are known to have issued forged certificates that it opens you up to nefarious activity because your browser will tell you you're securely communicating with (for example) Chase Bank's website when in fact you're actually talking to some Nigerian scammer who is logging your password, account numbers, and whatever else and forwarding your traffic on to Chase. (and vice versa)

Gaspar, I know about things like this because it's my business.

I know 

[nathanm]

I know 

You may have noticed that my sense of humor is dry. Much like the weather recently, drought might be a better word.

[Townsend]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44488639

President Obama is proposing to end several tax provisions—including tax breaks for those earning more than $200,000 and the carried-interest tax break for hedge funds—in order to pay for his $447 billion job-creation package, the White House said Monday 



The tax breaks to be ended, including those for oil and gas companies, will total $467 billion, White House Budget Director Jack Lew told reporters.

He said the extra $20 billion in cuts were intended to "build in a cushion" to make sure the plan is paid for without adding to deficits, as Obama has promised.

"In order to invest in jobs and growth, we're going to have to pay for it," Lew told reporters as Obama prepared to submit his jobs program to Congress on Monday.

Lew said the "tax provisions" that Obama was proposing included:

A limit on itemized deductions and certain exemptions on individuals who earn over $200,000 and families who earn over $250,000, which would raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years.
A proposal to treat carried interest earned by investment fund managers as ordinary income rather than taxing it at capital gains rates, which would raise $18 billion.
Eliminating certain oil and gas industry tax breaks that would raise $40 billion.
A change in corporate jet depreciation rules that would raise $3 billion.

...

[Teatownclown]

Rethuglicans could care less about the unemployed. Looks like Obummer has his easel and paints out all ready to paint them into a corner...


http://www.thewashingtoncurrent.com/2011/09/dems-put-muscle-behind-obama-jobs-act.html

"The DNC campaign is designed to put pressure on recalcitrant Republicans."

[Gaspar]

The only impact-full tax change in the president's bill is the same one he has proposed since 2008, and re-enforces the very fear that has continued to stagnate the economy.  Everything else in the bill now lives in the shadow of this single provision.

A limit on itemized deductions and certain exemptions on individuals who earn over $200,000 and families who earn over $250,000, which would raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years.

Aside from Obamacare this is the continuous push that has caused much of the economic uncertainty surrounding his presidency. It affects every small business that is registered as an LLC (most of them).  If passed, it will increase the prices on every good and service we use. If your employer can no longer itemize her expenses, she will pay significantly more in taxes every year.  

For the past 3 years the fear of this has caused businesses to suspend hiring.  If it becomes reality, there will only be two ways to compensate for it.  Reduce workforce (if possible) or increase prices.

I suppose we knew there would be a bomb attached to this bill.  The president knows that no one with a single ounce of economic sense would pass this.  It is now obvious that the entire renewed jobs initiative was simply to increase the divide and focus the spotlight of inaction on the Republicans and create new hobgoblins to blame.

Too sad.  Last week it sounded like he was ready to focus on the economy, but alas; it was simply another misguided wealth redistribution attempt.

Back to class warfare yesterday:

"We have to make sure that this is being paid for by folks who are not paying their fair share now.  Making sure that the wealthiest, most fortunate step up to the plate.  That's how we are going to get this done."

[Cats Cats Cats]

But is cutting taxes for those that create jobs.

[Conan71]

"We have to make sure that this is being paid for by folks who are not paying their fair share now.  Making sure that the wealthiest, most fortunate step up to the plate.  That's how we are going to get this done."

Why does he think he needs to keep framing this as class warfare?  Oh I forget, he's not leading, he's campaigning.

He might get a better buy in if he'd quit saying things like "...folks who are not paying their fair share..."

Why does he deliberately want to piss off the upper crust?  He's already got most of the lower income voters locked in since the stats show they tend to favor Democrat POTUS candidates.