hmmmmmm.... i wonder what these folks think about that?
Posted by buckstalker on :
Romney is a two-faced, lying hypocrite yet the majority is still voting for him....
Just proves that we live in a country full of fools...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
How many times should the government tax long term capital gains? That is not his employment income being taxed at 15%.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: How many times should the government tax long term capital gains? That is not his employment income being taxed at 15%.
this wouldn't be an issue as far as i am concerned if we weren't one whole year of GDP into debt cash.
i'm sick of hearing them call this "class warfare".
it's a simple proposition. pay off the debt. if you are a laborer assembling cars (for instance) you are paying more tax than the people you work FOR.
I know how the rich (supposedly) pay all the taxes when you only count income taxes, but the Govt doesn't run on only Income taxes. Gasoline and social security taxes are taken from every single person.
IF the Buffets and Romneys of the world are so important that we should tax them at alower rate? Then how come this Nation did so much better when we taxed them at a higher rate? it's a fantasy, that's what the "low tax" people are peddling. We were much more productive when we taxed the wealthy at a higher rate. thats the facts.
Posted by glassman on :
Mitt Romney said 25 percent- that's about right in wartime. after we pay off this war debt, it could be as low 17.5% and we could still live the American Dream....
At the Fox News Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C. Monday night the five remaining candidates were queried about what they believed the highest possible federal income tax rate should be.
While the rest of the field offered substantive percentages, Texas Rep. Ron Paul set himself apart by saying that Americans’ income tax rate should be zero percent. (RELATED: Full coverage of Ron Paul’s campaign)
“We should have the lowest tax that we’ve ever had, and up until 1913 it was zero percent,” Paul said. “What’s so bad about that?”
By contrast Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the highest rate should be 20 percent, Gingrich said the highest rate should be 15 percent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said 25 percent and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said it should be 28 percent.
Every penny of income tax collected goes straight to the federal reserve which is nothing more than a printing press for congress.
As long as the current system is in place, congress has the ability to borrow and spend against our hard earned money on war, special interests or anything else they please...
As long as this system is in place, our national debt will NEVER go down.
Posted by glassman on :
the Founders set up a tax collection system based on import duties (tarrifs) and revenue taxes.
in 1800, custom (import) duties comprised about 84% of government receipts..... federal revenue collections (as opposed to tariffs on imports) were mostly from taxes on alcohol. In 1900 over 60% of internal revenue collections came from alcohol excise taxes with another 20% from tobacco excise taxes. Prohibition couldn't be established AND run the govt to enforce it.......
basically Paul is trying to establish the fact surrouding the Founders to keep the rest of these guys honest. We could probably operate decently on 10% of GDP provided we returned many Federal services back to the States. But we alos have to remeber that a major part of the reason the Feds became so strong is that differnt States had very differnt ideas about civil rights, and Prohibition and contorl of alcohol and drugs...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Well, I am sick of seeing these leftists on MSNBC going around saying "oh look how rich white man mitt romney only pays 15% in taxes"
Of course, the drones go ..yeah yeah he is Republican and is only paying 15%!
Here is a scenario:
Say I make $400,000 in 2011 I get taxed at 35%! 35% of that is stripped from me and gone into DC where it is spent on pork or whatever. Of course, 35% is not enough to take for those who are greedy in government.
So I get taxed $140,000 right off the top. I take $200,000 and invest it into something. I get taxed AGAIN over a year later at 15% (which I think its changing).
So I end up giving 50% ....FIFTY to the government. Yet to liberals, that is not enough. These people are just sick.
So Romney gets taxed twice and people are complaining because they dont understand how capital gains and investing work. They arent complaining because there is a problem, they are just complaining because he is a Republican.
Mitt Romney at least pays his taxes unlike many in the Obama administration.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Well, I am sick of seeing these leftists on MSNBC going around saying "oh look how rich white man mitt romney only pays 15% in taxes"
Of course, the drones go ..yeah yeah he is Republican and is only paying 15%!
Here is a scenario:
Say I make $400,000 in 2011 I get taxed at 35%! 35% of that is stripped from me and gone into DC where it is spent on pork or whatever. Of course, 35% is not enough to take for those who are greedy in government.
So I get taxed $140,000 right off the top. I take $200,000 and invest it into something. I get taxed AGAIN over a year later at 15% (which I think its changing).
So I end up giving 50% ....FIFTY to the government. Yet to liberals, that is not enough. These people are just sick.
So Romney gets taxed twice and people are complaining because they dont understand how capital gains and investing work. They arent complaining because there is a problem, they are just complaining because he is a Republican.
Mitt Romney at least pays his taxes unlike many in the Obama administration.
Wow...you really are stupid! Let's eliminate Income Tax, Capital Gain Tax, and Sales Tax to boot. So then we have no Federal or State governments. What's next Einstein? You always shoot your mouth off with little regard to reality. It doesn't matter if your GOP or DEM...the government needs money to operate. And the pork you refer to, that is also part of the military ya frickin crybaby. Get a clue and quit whining. You are such a waste.
Posted by glassman on :
pagan is right cash, you ONLY get taxed on PROFITS, so your math is just wrong.... there is nothing wrong with taxing capital gains at the same rate as regular income.m In fact it's never hurt US in the past... we collapsed when they lowered it.
i for one like the Coast Guard, and i also like the notion that all that all salmon and tuna won't be hauled in with gigantic trawl nets, so that i can go catch at least JUST one for myself and my descendants will be able to also...
there's lots of crap to strip out of the Govt, but lets do it correctly....
Posted by glassman on :
So Romney gets taxed twice and people are complaining because they dont understand how capital gains and investing work. They arent complaining because there is a problem, they are just complaining because he is a Republican.
you have obviously never filed a tax return other than a 1040EZ in yourlife.
Posted by glassman on :
cash you SHOULD know this:
First-In, First-Out Method of Identification Even if the shareholder cannot specific particular shares to sell, the actual cost basis method can still be used. You keep track of your cost basis for every lot of shares you buy. When calculating your gain, you assume that the first shares sold are the first shares you bought.
Average Cost Basis, Single Category Method You calculate your average cost basis based on the price paid for each share you bought, including any reinvested dividends and reinvested capital gains. The average cost basis is the total purchase price of all shares divided by the number of shares owned. When you sale some shares, it is assumed the shares are sold on a first-in, first-out basis. Your capital gain is calculated using the holding period of the oldest shares being sold, even if you are selling a mixture of long-term and short-term shares.
Average Cost Basis, Double Category Method You calculate your average cost basis based on the price paid for each lot of shares you bought, including any reinvested dividends and reinvested capital gains. However, you must separate your shares into long-term and short-term investments, and then calculate average cost basis for each category of shares. The average cost basis is the total purchase price of all shares of the same category divided by the number of shares owned in that category. When you sale some shares, it is assumed the shares are sold on a first-in, first-out basis.
Reinvested Dividends and Capital Gains Distributions Many investors re-invest dividends and capital gains distributions received from their mutual funds. Each reinvestment is both a cash distribution and an additional fund purchase. The dividends and capital gains distributions are included taxable income. The additional shares purchased in the reinvestment have their own cost basis (the purchase price of the shares) and their own holding period.
Planning Ahead for 2013 The special tax rates on long-term gains and qualified dividends will expire on December 31, 2012. Starting 2013, the tax rate on long-term gains will be 20% (or 10% if a taxpayer is in the fifteen percent tax bracket). Also starting in 2013, the distinction between ordinary and qualified dividends will disappear, and all dividends will be subject to the ordinary tax rates.
Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax.
ther eis nothing wrong with paying the lowest amount of taxes that you are legally liable for.
FACT: Congress adn the WH have, for decades now made exotic tax laws to benefit themselves and their lobbyist friends...
Posted by glassman on :
if we were to go to a zero percent income tax? we'd have consumption taxes out the kazoo...
10$ a gallon gas? yup... stock trading tax? yup... 15% federal sales tax on food? yup.... cars? homes? yup and yup
Posted by buckstalker on :
Hmmm...I think I am already paying most of those federal taxes anyway Glass
Gas tax? yup Alcohol & tobacco tax? yup Stock trading tax? yup 15% inflation tax on food and clothing? yup & yup Health care tax? yup Social security tax? yup Utilities tax? yup Communications tax? yup Entertainment tax? yup Cars? Homes? can't afford them because of so many other taxes...
I pay taxes if I:
make money spend money save money inherit money give money away buy food kill my own food buy clothing make my own clothing smoke drink own a home rent a home heat my home educate my children use electricity drive a car rent a car fly on a plane ride on a bus or train talk on the phone watch TV surf the internet
and...I am even expected to pay taxes if I DIE
Whenever the federal government gets involved in any facet of our lives, two things ALWAYS happen...
the cost goes up the quality goes down
IMO...Government SPENDING and the violation of our personal liberties are the two biggest problems in this country today...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was to not care about taxes. Sure, I want to pay the lowest amount I can but I do not let it affect the strategies I use to invest my capital.
I may pay more because of it but I also make more because of it, and making money is what it is all about.
Posted by glassman on :
you are pretty much right buck. i tend to think of the quality as a wash for a number of reasons, mostly cuz the govt doesn't always bother to to do it's job. but htey are involved in everything and they don't need to be.
Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was to not care about taxes. Sure, I want to pay the lowest amount I can but I do not let it affect the strategies I use to invest my capital.
I may pay more because of it but I also make more because of it, and making money is what it is all about.
NOT CARE about taxes??? you need to get a new mentor BF
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
So buck do you stand by the tax hikes in Obamacare?
Employer mandate tax, surtax on investment incomes, increased medicare payroll tax, HSA withdrawal tax increase, taxing tanning salons, and many many more other tax increases.
Posted by buckstalker on :
No
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
The more I pay the more it means I made.
Simple as that.
Do I care if that money I am supplying the government is used wisely? Yes, I do.
This is why I support education initiatives. Without my broad-based education I could not be making the returns I am making.
It is why I support health initiatives including Obamacare. A healthy society has time and focus. An unhealthy society has pain and is so busy taking care of essentials, there is no room for growth.
If I reach my max tax rate that means I have also reached a greater revenue yield than the majority of our population which in turn earns the most of any population on earth. This is something for me to be proud of, not resort to trickery to avoid.
Oh, and Buck, the particular mentor I was referring to with that statement was Gerald Leob. Chapter 50: Don't let tax questions cloud Investment decisions. The Battle for Investment Survival by Gerald Leob
I have extrapolated it beyond the market but I believe it holds true to every circumstance.
Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt
Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: The more I pay the more it means I made.
Simple as that.
Do I care if that money I am supplying the government is used wisely? Yes, I do.
This is why I support education initiatives. Without my broad-based education I could not be making the returns I am making.
It is why I support health initiatives including Obamacare. A healthy society has time and focus. An unhealthy society has pain and is so busy taking care of essentials, there is no room for growth.
If I reach my max tax rate that means I have also reached a greater revenue yield than the majority of our population which in turn earns the most of any population on earth. This is something for me to be proud of, not resort to trickery to avoid.
Oh, and Buck, the particular mentor I was referring to with that statement was Gerald Leob. Chapter 50: Don't let tax questions cloud Investment decisions. The Battle for Investment Survival by Gerald Leob
I have extrapolated it beyond the market but I believe it holds true to every circumstance.
Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt
No...Look at your "bottom line", the more you pay the less you have made...Here's the math
If I buy a widget for $10.00 and sell it for $100.00, I made $90.00 If I buy a widget for $10.00 pay another $10.00 in tax and sell it for $100.00, I made $80.00
Problem #1 The money that you are supplying to the government ISN"T be used wisely, quite the contrary.
Problem #2 Not all Americans have the "broad-based education" that you were lucky enough to receive and taxes are nothing more than a "burden" to these people...they don't make enough to live, let alone invest.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Buck, what is your income tax rate?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Unfortunately Buck, your 'no tax' argument has no grounding in current reality. We cannot stop paying taxes until at the least our debt we have incurred is paid off or we would destroy the worlds economy along with our own.
Then we would have to figure a different vehicle for maintaining and upgrading our current infrastructure, paying the military, and whatever other government services our elected representatives decide are imperative to Americans quality of life (sound familiar?). What you would be left with would be years of preparation, transition, and uncertainty leading to....another version of what we have right now. Pity.
The money I am supplying is not always being used the way I want it. I did not want Iraq. But I elected my representatives because our nation is too big for each taxpayer to have a fully informed vote on every issue. I respect that the person who represents me made a choice no matter if I voted for them or a majority of my neighbors did.
Perhaps in time the quicker communication of the internet will allow a chance to change the political process. Representation not based on geographical area but on ideology. Or perhaps the opportunity to have non-binding public voting on bills prior to house and senate votes. For now though we have the system we have and it is fueled by federal taxes.
As to your second problem? I agree wholeheartedly. We must embrace and champion education. From pre-K to affordable college it must be done. Things change too quickly in our world now to allow a skills gap between public education and labor market requirements to continue to exist. That will take considerable funding, cooperation and corroboration between public education and private businesses, and probably a re-institution of some form of apprentice program. All in my opinion of course.
Too get back to the main topic: I do think cap gains should be raised to mirror national average income tax rate with a further 5% added for men like me who are short term speculators and a further 5% added for short positions.
My main problem with Mitt (other than ideology)is that he consistently attempts to pretend he is something other than he is. I would be much more comfortable with him if he had admitted from the beginning that he is a career politician and that he grew up in privilege. He is not an average joe and never has been, but he consistently attempts to play one on TV. I don't like that.
Posted by glassman on :
Too get back to the main topic: I do think cap gains should be raised to mirror national average income tax rate with a further 5% added for men like me who are short term speculators and a further 5% added for short positions.
this is going to make alot of traders howl.
in my opinion we need to implement 1 cent tax on each stock or contract traded. For penny stocks it can be 1%, whichever is less.
I know that makes it seem like i am penalising all of us who trade, but it would actually help most of us little guys and hurt the computer traders. People need to realise that computerised trading is just "painting the charts". One cent might not be enough but i beleive it would based on what i have been able to learn about it.
We must pay our debts NOW. 30% of GDP should be our maximum amount of debt carried and that should be in wartime. In peacetime 20% of GDP is all we should carry. The govt does waste moeny, but trying to compare Govt to business is stupid too, cuz less then half of all businesses survive.
The Govt has to not just survive, but succeed every day.
I and most people realise the govt no longer represents "the people" -that's why the term "class warfare" is becoming so "popular". The Govt has lost it's way and can be regained. But it won't be regained unless people start making decisions based on facts and not the slop they are feeding us on TV these days.
Anybody notice that GM made it back to number one yesterday? The GOP isn't going to do very well trying to beat up on Obama for that either Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Unfortunately Buck, your 'no tax' argument has no grounding in current reality.
Says who? Are you an economist? In the first place I never stated NO taxes...I said no income taxes. They are a burden on the working class, have no constitutional basis and have become a lavish slush fund for congress to do with whatever they please...
For the first time in our lives, we have a candidate running for president that is telling us that congressional spending is out of control...and HE IS A CONGRESSMAN...Why wouldn't I believe him. He also maintains that we can run the government just fine WITHOUT income taxes...He's an economist, so why shouldn't I believe him on that too.
As far as Romney portraying himself as an average joe... that is just about as deceitful as Obama portraying himself as one. I'm surprised that you like Obama so much...as there is very little difference between him and good ole Mitt...
Posted by glassman on :
the original constitution did not allow for income taxes, but the 16th Amendment in 1913 changed that... They were wroking on Prohibition and need to get that in place first:
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Posted by buckstalker on :
That's right Glass...from what I've read, a very small group of congressmen snuck it through on Christmas eve of 1913
Posted by glassman on :
it was ratified by the States tho buck...
it was originally designed to limit the power of the wealthy and it was actually popular. People voted for it, alot of them...
the Federal Reserve was also created in 1913.
in 1907 we had stock market "panic" that was similar to what we have just gone thru. We've been doing this for a long time. The Fed was supposed to stop these cycles, but it didn't. It has made them more bearable by the general popluace tho...
It's the nature of Capitalism. boom and bust...
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by buckstalker: That's right Glass...from what I've read, a very small group of congressmen snuck it through on Christmas eve of 1913
Gotta question Buck. If we eliminate income tax....what effect would that have on government? Not arguing....just curious of your thoughts.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
If you want to go from an income tax to a consumption tax or some other tax that's all well and good. Capital Gains isn't an income tax though I agree it should be treated as such if we do have an income tax. I won't fight different taxation scenario's. I am open to that.
No matter what scenario we adapt though it will not ultimately change how much is needed to support our current national lifestyle.
Nobody is gonna disagree that we need to spend less. But as we have seen they will disagree vociferously on what we spend less on. The ultimate irony of all this bitterness is that it doesn't even get to the core of things. Cutting future spending does not pay old bills. And saying getting rid of waste will help is like drinking coffee out of a cup with a hole in the bottom. For every innovative idea you have in how to do it you will never be able to plug the hole and have a usable cup at the same time.
And finally, no matter what taxation scenario you come up with, the more you make-the more you will pay in taxes. Which is, in reverse, the exact same thing I said yesterday.
The more I pay it means the more I made.
Simple as that.
If I reach my max tax rate that means I have also reached a greater revenue yield than the majority of our population which in turn earns the most of any population on earth. This is something for me to be proud of, not resort to trickery to avoid.
Posted by glassman on :
i don't think it's fair to characterise Romney's lower tax rate as "trickery". The laws are on the books, and i get what you are saying Big, you don't set up your investments based on tax loopholes. BUT limited partnerships and certain corporations have special tax provisions because they were added tot he code to benefit them specifically.
Taxes have been collected one way or another since time began. I would rather pay taxes to have cops than i would to have mafioso style "protection".
It is perfectly legit to pay the least amount you are legally liable for, the question is why do we let the govt pick the winners and losers in the Tax game? But then question it when it comes to subsidies?
Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by Pagan:
quote:Originally posted by buckstalker: That's right Glass...from what I've read, a very small group of congressmen snuck it through on Christmas eve of 1913
Gotta question Buck. If we eliminate income tax....what effect would that have on government? Not arguing....just curious of your thoughts.
Well for starters we could close a majority of the foreign military bases that we have overseas...there are currently over 900 military bases (that we are aware of) spread across the globe. (we still have 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea alone) That alone would save us tens of billions of dollars a year (estimates are 12 to 15 billion dollars a year savings if we closed just 200 to 300 bases)
Here is an interesting story by Readers Digest back in 2008 on wasteful spending by the government...
They estimate that the U.S. Federal government wastes approximately 1 trillion dollars per year...about the same amount that they collect annually in personal income tax...
if we eliminated personal income tax, the only effect that it would have on government would be that they would have to discontinue WASTEFUL SPENDING
Posted by glassman on :
interesting article you linked there:
here's teh opener:
Almost a decade ago, the federal government dropped $100 million for an Earth-monitoring satellite that never made it into space. Today it sits in a closet in Maryland.
i dug into the story.... turns out the satellite was to observe global warming and the GOP dumped it.
Climate observer mothballed By Erin Chapman April 7, 2011
The world’s most advanced climate observer has been on ice for almost a decade. In a feature for Popular Science‘s April 2011 issue, writer Bill Donahue tracks down the earth-monitoring satellite DSCVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory) that was supposed to be launched back in 2001. He finds the $100 million device stowed in a Maryland warehouse — a probable victim of politics and inter-agency bureaucracy.
DSCVR isn’t the only climate satellite with problems: Donahue’s piece refers to the “delayed” Glory project but doesn’t mention that it actually crashed in a failed launch attempt last month. And in 2009, the OCO (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite similarly succumbed to mechanical defects and was lost before reaching orbit.
A new climate research satellite — the OCO-2 — is slated for launch early in 2013, but given current budget negotiations and a push from House Republicans to slash federally-funded climate change research, OCO-2 may find itself relegated to another government warehouse.
seeems some people are afraid the proof might be too much to deal with Posted by glassman on :
BTW buck, i agree wholeheartedly that the govt wastes at least 1 of every 2 dollars...
i am currently aware of severe waste going on and i am not sure how to go about "fixing" it..... they don't like whistleblowers.
Posted by buckstalker on :
Well Glass...according to the article I posted the govt. wastes every single dollar collected in personal income tax...I want that to stop!
and...no they don't like whistleblowers but if these scum continue to go unchallenged nothing will change...I'm not sure who's up to what there, but I would do anything I could to stop the abuse...
Posted by raybond on :
Of course Rommney pays very little in taxes look where he parks his money,in the cayman islands,.
Its legal to do it so all the criminals,tax evaders,and free loading scum do it. And Rommney is right there with them. Like my hard working dad alway said {if you don't want fleas don't lay down with dogs}.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
OK. Here is how I think Obama stacks up against the article that you linked buck.
Taxes: Obama stepped up pressure on employers of illegal immigrants, cracked down on offshore bank accounts to the point where even the Swiss named names, and is calling for removing tax breaks to oil companies.
Medicare: A good portion of Obamacare deals directly with reducing costs and using those savings to provide better benefits. More can be done but Obama was the one who stood up to it first.
DOD: military spending cuts has been on Obama's desk since day one. He is being modest in his requests when some want $700 Billion or more but it is definitely an Obama agenda item.
Farm subsidies: I haven't heard much from Obama on this and I would really like to. If we refocused this program onto small family farms again it would be so beneficial for rural communities. Making a 40 acre farm a viable entity again would be a beneficial culture shift. Obama loses on this one.
#5 Capital Waste: Ok There are some stupid projects out there. I don't think there is a good way to remove this subject line though. How do you prevent projects from not living up to their expectations? More oversight? That costs money...right?
#6 disability and food stamps: By their own number the fraudulent activity on disability roughly accounts at 1% of total funds defrauded. Target Corp would give their right arm to have a number like that. 1% is a very tame number. The food stamps are a problem, which is why they are moving to cards where they can...but...they are food stamps. Is defrauding the gov in order to buy food really a top priority?
Pork spending: this is one where Obama has failed. I will admit that straight out. He hasn't been bad but hes not lived up to his rhetoric on this issue.
Corp Welfare: Here also Obama has failed. I do not count what he gave to car makers and such during the height of the crisis but in order to back away from the precipice he has been all to willing to offer subsidies for certain types of projects. I don't mind some of them (solar/wind) but that doesn't change the fact that he cannot claim himself a reducer.
Redundant programs: Obama has asked congress multiple time to let him merge redundant programs. the latest was just 6 days ago. Congress is sidestepping this issue along with the rest of their responsibilities.
Interest on the debt: That's a big deal. The only way to get rid of that one is to pay it off. The only way to pay it off is to raise revenue collections. You ready to do that? I am.
Posted by buckstalker on :
Doesn't look like he stacks up very good BF...
Here's the biggest problem I have with this whole income tax thing...
The Whitehouse and Congress takes our hard earned money, spends it wildly and wastefully, and gives us no choice in how or what it is spent on? That's a piss poor business model right from the get go don'tcha think?
Both parties are owned by "big business" and both parties are doing the same exact thing...Taking care of "big business".
They are spending our money foolishly and frivolously, and spending twice as much as they can afford year after year...
You yourself just made my case...Out of the 10 categories you list, Obama has done nothing in 7 out of the 10 categories, very little in 2, and made the last 1 a hell of a lot worse.
1. Stepped up pressure, cracked down and called for things to be different, when in fact they are not different 2. Obamacare - I have yet to see a hint of any type of reduced costs in anything that has to do with healthcare 3. Cutting military spending has been on his agenda for damn near 4 years and he has done nothing in that area 4. Nothing 5. Nothing 6. Nothing 7. Nothing 8. Nothing 9. Has asked for but achieved nothing 10.Nothing but increase the debt and the interest on the debt.
Is he the lesser of two evils?...don't care! I'm sick and tired of evil running this country...
Congress should not have the right to take our money and spend it wastefully and foolishly...PERIOD, and I guarantee you that a hell of a lot of that money is going straight to their "corporate handlers"
And lastly NO...I am not ready pay off the debt that THEY have incurred...let them get it from their cronies, corporations and special interest groups they've been coddling up to for too many years...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
How would you have them give you a choice on how it is spent buck? Seriously. What format off feedback would satisfy you? If an alternative was presented that made sense I would seriously look at it. All this "go back to gold", "shutter the fed", "all control to the states", etc. is just wishful thinking. The sacrifices needed to institute such changes would be catastrophic in proportion.
As to the list (which was printed before Obama took office), I think your case is shallow.
The first three items on the list where Obama's moves have been most prevalent make up more than half of all identified wasteful spending according to this group.
1) You are intentionally not looking at the successes this admin has had on tax dodging and illegal employment compared to previous admins. There is still a problem but you can't say gains aren't being made.
2) I am related to cancer patients who are already saving thousands per year due to changes (especially the doughnut-hole). As to system cost reductions if you don't believe the CBO then you wont believe anything until after the fact. That's nine years from now. We will have to pick the point back up then. Until then I can only point to this.
3) I'd say finishing one war, killing our most hated enemy, and winding down another is doing something on cutting military spending. You can blame him for not doing more sooner if you want but the facts are Congress gave the DOD 16 Billion MORE than Obama asked for in 2010(his first budget request). Obama and Gates asked for more in 2011 but at the same time cut previously planned spending by 330 Billion that year and in 2012 asked for a real cut of 15 Billion (congress cut deeper to 43). Looking forward to 2013 Obama is asking for near 100 Billion in reductions and is planning further cuts of at least 40 Billion in war spending alone for 2014.
4) Nothing. Lets remember that this is a $20 Billion dollar program. I would like it to get attention but even eliminating it completely would be small potatoes and would seriously hurt many farmers.
5) Nothing. A 30 Billion dollar estimation that I have previously said I don't know how anyone can control. Hindsight is 20/20.
6) $1 Billion in estimated disability fraud. $1 Billion if food stamp fraud. Not hardly worth discussing until other issues are put to bed.
7)I will put this $20 Billion on Obama's tab though you and I both know he isn't alone here.
8) Another $50 Billion on the Obama tab for corporate welfare. Change this agenda item and you change Washington. I look forward to that day and am not holding my breath...even if Paul were elected I would not.
9) $30 Billion congress won't let him tackle.
10) "The fact of the matter is," Obama replied, "is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion -- $1.3 trillion. So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade." This statement has been fact-checked. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/29/barack-obama/obam a-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/
You don't want congress to spend your money and you don't want to pay off the debt they incurred. Ok. There is some truth there. Congress can't be fully trusted and have misspent money. So...who you gonna give your money to that can be fully trusted and won't misspend your money? The Church? Army? Google? Yourself?
And if we aren't gonna pay off the debt, who's gonna do it? You think the corps are gonna volunteer? Someone somewhere sometime has to stand up and shoulder the burden. I shouldn't have to tell people on this site the consequences of compounding and how it relates to debt.
Posted by glassman on :
And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade."
"Obama's spending" has not been all that bad considering that the Fed had to secretly prop up the banking system with around 7 trillion in loans before TARP was even issued. I don't know what Obama could have done to cut spending signifcantly and keep US out of a Major Depression. He did keep US out of a Depression. I don't think most Americans really understand what happened. The banks (all of them) were creating money out of thin air and loaning it out. They took out insurance policies on those questionable loans in the form of CDS'es. The system failed completely. We went Bankrupt. We still are bankrupt. Obama has been blamed for alot fo things that the Bush and Clinton and Delay and Newt and Pelosi did.
That said, i still think he could have drawn a line in the sand a few times when he didn't. I think a Gingrich Presidency would all lines drawn in the sand and a complete failure, even if he had the GOP running the House and the Senate. The guy has too much ME in him.
I think Ron Paul wold be reasonable at the end of the day, but he would make sure that the things that need to be said are said.
I understand that Greece failed to get the private financing they were trying to get last Friday and we could see real problems in Europe now. The SC primary dominated the news cycle over the weekend, and it seems to have gone unnoticed by most.....
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
People have been led to believe that the real problem with our nations financial problems is successful people not paying more tax money.
I read somewhere (I havent confirmed the info on my own yet) that if you took the 400 richest Americans and took ALL Their wealth it would only run the government for 1 or two months. If that is the case it would seem our government truly is out of control on waste, pork, etc.
Ron Paul was right, we built a 1 billion dollar embassy in Baghdad which is larger than the vatican...what sense does that make.
Posted by glassman on :
People have been led to believe that the real problem with our nations financial problems is successful people not paying more tax money.
uh cash, it's not just the wealthy.
very few people were against the war in Iraq after 9-11, and nobody was against invading Afghanistan. Cutting taxes was just another big lie.
the 1 billion dollar embassy was Bush's way of telling the Iraqi people we were there to be their overlords, and whne the American people voted the Democrats into office on platform of leaving Iraq? Half the insurgents backed off, and we bought the other half off....
The Fed lent 7 trillion in emergency loans before TARP was implemented. that's half our GDP, and it also happens to be about how much the DOW lost dropping from 14,000 to 7,000
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
No one wants to do to the upper class what Putin did to the owner of Yukos Oil. Liquidating others wealth solves nothing, it is just another extension of the blame game.
Funds must be raised however. We cannot get rid of decades of debt by cutting outlays by 10% and we will only get there if our politicians start working together. There are no funds to be raised in the low income class. Middle class has be slowly deflated of funds for the last quarter century. Upper class is where the growth is and that growth is where we can afford to tax. When the economy gets better and the middle class starts becoming upwardly mobile again I will say the same thing for the middle class if we still have deficits.
When I think of a Ron Paul presidency Glass, the images that pop into my mind are the Ventura governorship here in Minnesota. Lots of youth support, counter (political establishment) culture messaging, not afraid to say what he thought. He did a few good things up here in his first year or two. Lots of fights but he did do a few good things. After that, the political establishment and the media that he rallied against stopped working with him. He became an impotent player who was worked around. Even his supporters were glad to see him out of office by the end.
Posted by glassman on :
Ventura was pro westler. As a real wrestler in HS there's nothing i loathe more than the actors they claim are wrestling. Ron Paul is an OB MD he's delivered 4000 or so babies. I think he's more grounded in realtiy than anybody else in national politics. I realise he presents his views in rather extreme terms, BUT! our country is in extreme trouble and nobody is looking at the real problems squarely. Even Obama has not dealt with the issue of too big to fail, not at all.
We could tip right back over any day. Iran firing a few missiles would push oil to 200$ or more. We have 4 million barrels per day excess oil capacity and we are paying 100$ per barrel. Know why? We are seeing commodity bubble form. When this one busts? We are going to have real social and economic problems. The gold standard does deal directly with all of speculation problems. The fact is? we allow banks to lend themselves money that doesn't exist, and then we cover their bad bets to boot. They cannot lose.
They literally expect US to do waht they say, adn then they do whatever they want to do.
Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: How would you have them give you a choice on how it is spent buck? Seriously.
You don't want congress to spend your money and you don't want to pay off the debt they incurred. Ok. There is some truth there. Congress can't be fully trusted and have misspent money. So...who you gonna give your money to that can be fully trusted and won't misspend your money? The Church? Army? Google? Yourself?
And if we aren't gonna pay off the debt, who's gonna do it?
Here are the answers to your questions BF...
#1 & #2 I would have them give me a CHOICE on how my money is spent by simply stopping the practice of forcibly taking my money. Let me "CHOOSE" who I give my money to, and decide what "programs" I "choose" to support.
#3 Personally I think the debt is too large to ever pay off anyway. Also, I am 100% certain that if we keep electing the "establishment" republican and democratic candidates, that our debt will never be paid down and will only continue to grow. In answer to your question...If "they" really want to pay off the debt then get it from the "special interest groups", "big business" and the "too big to fail" banks that they have been coddling for far too long...
Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: We cannot get rid of decades of debt by cutting outlays by 10% and we will only get there if our politicians start working together.
When I think of a Ron Paul presidency Glass, the images that pop into my mind are the Ventura governorship here in Minnesota. Lots of youth support, counter (political establishment) culture messaging, not afraid to say what he thought.
We will only get there if our politicians start working together??? Are you serious???
You evidently still believe in the illusion that there is still a true two party system. Trust me our politicians are working very well together. They just aren't working for us!!!
When I think of a Ron Paul presidency the images that pop into my head are:
A president that is honest, possesses a great deal of integrity and doesn't pander for votes. A president that served 12 terms as a congressman, has seen first hand what is going on in Washington, and will tell you just how corrupt it really is. I see a president that can't be bought by "big business" or owned by "special interests" and a man that truly wants to represent "the people" and to protect their liberties. I see a president that would be "cautious" before going to war and a president that would wait for a declaration from congress before doing so. I see a president that believes in restoring "sound money" and a "balanced budget". And lastly, I see a president that I can "TRUST" to do what he says he will do...
Posted by rounder1 on :
quote:Originally posted by buckstalker:
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: We cannot get rid of decades of debt by cutting outlays by 10% and we will only get there if our politicians start working together.
When I think of a Ron Paul presidency Glass, the images that pop into my mind are the Ventura governorship here in Minnesota. Lots of youth support, counter (political establishment) culture messaging, not afraid to say what he thought.
We will only get there if our politicians start working together??? Are you serious???
You evidently still believe in the illusion that there is still a true two party system. Trust me our politicians are working very well together. They just aren't working for us!!!
When I think of a Ron Paul presidency the images that pop into my head are:
A president that is honest, possesses a great deal of integrity and doesn't pander for votes. A president that served 12 terms as a congressman, has seen first hand what is going on in Washington, and will tell you just how corrupt it really is. I see a president that can't be bought by "big business" or owned by "special interests" and a man that truly wants to represent "the people" and to protect their liberties. I see a president that would be "cautious" before going to war and a president that would wait for a declaration from congress before doing so. I see a president that believes in restoring "sound money" and a "balanced budget". And lastly, I see a president that I can "TRUST" to do what he says he will do...
I agree, Buck. Paul has many positions that I like but his greatest attribute right now is that he does appear to be trustworthy or at least earnest. That alone would be enough for me right now. I would consider myself to be average intelligence and the political game has gotten so effed up that I can not keep up with all the bullchit. I think that has to say something about the overall state of the republic..... when the average person can no longer discern Chit from Shinola when it comes their government something is imminent.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Gentlemen,
I hate to rain on another mans "hope and change" but apparently you are only seeing what you want to see. The man did spend 12 years in congress. In that time he has one enacted bill to his credit. I am sorry gentlemen but the system already lets him talk and then works around him.
What is worse is that Gingrich has already chosen him as his Vice President. You could see it clearly in the debates last night and you could see that Ron Paul is considering. You think Obama betrayed his supporters, wait til Gingrich lip services to get Paul's voter block and then lets em both rot in a corner once elected.
As to your answers buck: I want to see if I can get this straight. You want congress to create a budget and then 'they' notify 'you' and you go onto some website and decide which items you are going to put a little cash toward and how much you are gonna put in? Put me down for $1 dollar for roads. My wife forgot about it so that's a 0 for her. She says she'll put a few bucks in next year. I'll wait to supply more capital until they prove to me that our infrastructure is really as bad as they say it is. You think we got deficits now? Come on, be serious.
The Debt may be too large to ever fully pay down, in fact, there may be some merit for not fully paying it down. I have seen some arguments that suggest that. However, when we have had huge deficits before (after WWI and after WWII, see the trend? War equals deficits.) We have been able to work off those deficits using our current system of government.
And rounder, it isn't that the average person cannot discern Chit from Shinola...they don't want to. It's easier to parrot and feel self-righteous then to bother making sure you know what you are talking about.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Gentlemen,
I hate to rain on another mans "hope and change" but apparently you are only seeing what you want to see. The man did spend 12 years in congress. In that time he has one enacted bill to his credit. I am sorry gentlemen but the system already lets him talk and then works around him.
What is worse is that Gingrich has already chosen him as his Vice President. You could see it clearly in the debates last night and you could see that Ron Paul is considering. You think Obama betrayed his supporters, wait til Gingrich lip services to get Paul's voter block and then lets em both rot in a corner once elected.
As to your answers buck: I want to see if I can get this straight. You want congress to create a budget and then 'they' notify 'you' and you go onto some website and decide which items you are going to put a little cash toward and how much you are gonna put in? Put me down for $1 dollar for roads. My wife forgot about it so that's a 0 for her. She says she'll put a few bucks in next year. I'll wait to supply more capital until they prove to me that our infrastructure is really as bad as they say it is. You think we got deficits now? Come on, be serious.
The Debt may be too large to ever fully pay down, in fact, there may be some merit for not fully paying it down. I have seen some arguments that suggest that. However, when we have had huge deficits before (after WWI and after WWII, see the trend? War equals deficits.) We have been able to work off those deficits using our current system of government.
And rounder, it isn't that the average person cannot discern Chit from Shinola...they don't want to. It's easier to parrot and feel self-righteous then to bother making sure you know what you are talking about.
wow, BF, in general i expect better posts from you.
first off, paul as president cannot be shunted off. Voting for him is protest vote.
Second, Newt is trying to steal Pauls supporters but Newt is one of the main players in the problem.
Newt is a panderer, always has been. I don't thnk Paul wil be willing to lend him any credibilty and if he did? I won't vote for Newt cuz he's on the ticket. I don't think any of Pauls other supporters would eeither.
Hope and change? are you actually making fun of it? Change is coming whether we like it or not; Our economy died. Dead, finit.
Lastly, as to our Debt. it would be OK, if and only if we had not given China free access to our markets and then not required the same of them. Even Wall st cannot win China over to them. The Chinese do not have debt, they have surplus. The best reason to bail out GM was to keep them from becoming Chinese General Motors.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Time will tell Glass and I am sorry if you think me overly cynical on this issue.
In the best case scenario I see Paul trading his voter base for second slot on the ticket. I don't see him living up to the pedestal created for him by his supporters. He will take second slot in exchange for promises regarding monetary policy changes and tell his people it is better to be part of the process even if he isn't in full control then to allow Obama to continue his agenda.
And a vote for Paul is a vote in "hope" of "change". I think it is fair to point out that what 15-20% of the conservative voter base is reaching for is the exact same message that they have ridiculed for the past three years.
As to the debt, you know I don't disagree with paying off the debt. I do disagree that we must have a full economic and political shift in order to do it. It can be done without moving to the gold standard (which would greatly disturb our economy) and without forcing a move from a two party system when a third party is not yet ready to galvanize into a significant form. There are plenty of third party options out there on both sides of the aisle. There is a reason why they have no limelight, and that decision rests in the hands of the public.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Romney gives a lot more money to charity than Biden and Obama combined so make sense of that.
Romney gave an estimated 4 million to charity in 2011. What a big bad guy.
Posted by glassman on :
He's a Mormon cash, i'm not Mormon, but i was one of the hundred thousand or so people allowed in the Bethesda Mormon Temple in the early 70's after it was built and before it was sanctified. The way they explained it to me; As a Mormon in Good Standing, you are expected to give 10 percent minimum to your Church, i do not call that Charitable Donation. If you had seen the inside of that Church you would have a cow.... They then proceeded to tear out all the carpets and repaint the whole thing after they let us infidels view it
I won't hold being a Mormon against him, but i won't give him "credit" for tithing his Church either
Posted by glassman on :
I see Paul trading his voter base for second slot on the ticket.
i would be surprised, but i can tell you that alot of the people that follow him would be angry. Newt is the last person i would vote for. He left Congress in disgrace, and the cannibals he refered to when he resigned were his own party, not the Dems.
Posted by glassman on :
actaully there is one way Newt could get my vote. but we don't allow porn here at allstocks
seriously? if Newt came out and said he would get rid of: the FDA, The DEA, The DOE and DOHS i might consdier voting for him. The problem i have with him saying he would do it is that i wouldn't beleive him anyway...
Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: I see Paul trading his voter base for second slot on the ticket.
i would be surprised, but i can tell you that alot of the people that follow him would be angry. Newt is the last person i would vote for. He left Congress in disgrace, and the cannibals he refered to when he resigned were his own party, not the Dems.
Paul would lose my vote if he "coddled" up to good ole Newt and I personally don't believe he will...
Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Time will tell Glass and I am sorry if you think me overly cynical on this issue.
In the best case scenario I see Paul trading his voter base for second slot on the ticket. I don't see him living up to the pedestal created for him by his supporters. He will take second slot in exchange for promises regarding monetary policy changes and tell his people it is better to be part of the process even if he isn't in full control then to allow Obama to continue his agenda.
And a vote for Paul is a vote in "hope" of "change". I think it is fair to point out that what 15-20% of the conservative voter base is reaching for is the exact same message that they have ridiculed for the past three years.
As to the debt, you know I don't disagree with paying off the debt. I do disagree that we must have a full economic and political shift in order to do it. It can be done without moving to the gold standard (which would greatly disturb our economy) and without forcing a move from a two party system when a third party is not yet ready to galvanize into a significant form. There are plenty of third party options out there on both sides of the aisle. There is a reason why they have no limelight, and that decision rests in the hands of the public.
And a vote for Obama was and will be again a vote in "hope" of "change"...I believe Paul, I don't believe Obama
Posted by glassman on :
Posted by buckstalker on :
Pretty much sums it up Glass...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I will back off of candidates themselves for now. As to the departments you would like to close...
I can see getting rid of the FDA as long as there is some sort of peer review or something that removes unnecessarily harmful medical drugs.
I am all for removal of the DEA though my cop friends will not thank me for making their jobs more difficult.
DOE...really? I know they don't have a good track record on loans but you want to close the entire program? That surprises me some. Not a lot, but some. Care to give specific reasons why you want to close the department of energy? Or are you referring to the department of education?
Again I have friends that would be very upset to hear me say this but I would agree that homeland security projects could be scaled back and the department folded into...NSA? I think that would make the most sense.
Posted by glassman on :
Dept of energy has never done a damn thing to help get us off oil.
Solyndra had nothing to do with why we should get rid of them. We wasted much more money on corn ethanol than we have on solar cells and solyndra.
Do you know that DOE is into Genomics? Oh yeah, they sequence anything that might present an alternative energy source, even bugs....
It's not that i want to get rid of that research either, it's just that DOE is really a back-door slush fund for cronies. Put that money intot eh national science foundation or DARPA if you want good research.
Posted by glassman on :
DOHS is the single largest Govt spending project ever. It IS BIG BROTHER.
The FBI, Immigration, and NSA were fine. They simply needed to be shaken up, not replaced.
go look, they are a totally redundant agency, there is not one job they were assigned that someone else wasn't already doing.
FDA and DEA? there is no place in the constitution where the US govt derives a right to tell me what i can and cannot eat. period.
they can make sure that products are labeled properly. thats how our drug laws started. But they do not have the right to ban any drug or food or drink.
The FDA has been going back and canceling generic drugs that wer grandathered in at the behest of drug makers who come up with new more expensive drugs to replace them. The FDA is in big pharma's pocket. Have you noticed how many drug co's are losing major lawsuits in the last decade? They are MAKING POISON to replace generic drugs that are cheap and work. Take away their regulatory abiltiy- make them into an R&D branch under Bureau of Standards so that no-one can lie about what is in their products they are selling. Thats what teh FDA was originally designed to be.
To qualify for the FDA? All they have to prove is that the drug works better than a placebo, not that it is safe.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I know right now with elections coming this tax issue is big.
There are more important things in this economy to tackle immediately.
We have discussed many of these over the years.
One of the major ones is jobs.
How do we get our people back to work especially since we are suffering from a 25-30% jobless rate.
Another issue that has not been discussed much is how we get people back into houses that banks sit on and play games with.
It's not like a qualified person can go in and buy these homes that start at a certain price.
The banks are playing games with these houses and several people i know have givin up wasting there time trying to purchase one from a bank.
There seems to be a lot of insiders getting these properties and a ton more properties just sit while many people struggle to stay housed.
These issues to me are the most important although other ones are intertied some.
-
Posted by glassman on :
i want to repeat that i don't disrespect Mitt Romney himself or even as a candidate for paying lower tax rates than i do. what has me angry is lawmakers have screwed up our system so bad and then they blame each other. Well both sides of blame game are correct.
here's a perfect example. This article is from a local MS business journal:
Cutting Subsidies Federal spending cuts should cut the bad while leaving the good
By Becky Gillette Photography by Jay Adkins
"Simply cutting the good with the bad will leave the Delta and its people even further behind," Delta Regional Authority Federal Co-Chairman Chris Masingill says. Congress is contemplating deep cuts in federal programs such as Medicare, agriculture subsidies, programs for flood control, and Pell Grants for college. If adopted, those cuts could have a particularly devastating impact in the Mississippi Delta—traditionally one of the most impoverished areas of the country.
Delta Regional Authority Federal Co-Chairman Chris Masingill says while government should be more efficient and responsible, it is still important to invest in public infrastructure and workforce development.
"Simply cutting the good with the bad will leave the Delta and its people even further behind," Masingill says. "We cannot let that happen. We must continue to work to drive smart public and private investment into our communities, helping grow our economy and create good-paying jobs."
Mississippi receives a net benefit from federal spending, with the state receiving two to three times as much in federal funding as it pays in.
"The IRS collects $3,721 per capita in Mississippi in individual and corporate income tax, which makes the state number 49th among states in the amount collected," says Dr. Marianne Hill, senior economist for the Institutions of Higher Learning. "Federal expenditures are $10,481 per capita, making the state rank number seventh in the amount of federal spending received."
if you look around the US? you will find that RED states over and over are very similar to MS. Yes we are one of the worst, but when you get into Blue states? you get a reversal. The creepiest part of it is that living here? I don't see much good being done. I just drove 250 miles across the state and saw poverty for most of the drive. That's because the state is now mostly owned by Syngenta, Bayer Crops, Monsanto, you get the picture? They'll own more as these subsides are cut too, even tho commodity prices are skyrocketing.
Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I know right now with elections coming this tax issue is big.
There are more important things in this economy to tackle immediately.
We have discussed many of these over the years.
One of the major ones is jobs.
How do we get our people back to work especially since we are suffering from a 25-30% jobless rate.
Another issue that has not been discussed much is how we get people back into houses that banks sit on and play games with.
It's not like a qualified person can go in and buy these homes that start at a certain price.
The banks are playing games with these houses and several people i know have givin up wasting there time trying to purchase one from a bank.
There seems to be a lot of insiders getting these properties and a ton more properties just sit while many people struggle to stay housed.
These issues to me are the most important although other ones are intertied some.
-
We get manufacturing jobs back by hitting Chinese imports with 100% tariffs until they stop manipulating their currency...
As far as the housing issue goes...I've said it right from the get go that the "housing bubble" was by design, and was nothing more than a planned "land grab" for the rich...
Posted by glassman on :
nothing more than a planned "land grab" for the rich..
it was so obvious what was goingon, we debated it right here as they were doing it. Housing prices were averaging 235,000 and average household income was only 40-45 thousand.
$48 thousand dollars a year means you have 4000 per month before taxes and FICA are withdrawn. That menas that you SHOULD qualify fora monthly payment of 1200. At 6% interest (lower than it actually was) is 700$ per 100,000 plus mortgage insurance plus homeowners insurance....
so basically with 1200 dollars/month the average person could not qualify for the average home. not even close..... 200,000 would have been a 2000/ month payment and the mortgage brokers were qualifying people that were committing 50 and 60% of their gross montly income to housing payment. That should have been illegal. In fact, i beleive it may have been, but not in every state...
Posted by IMAKEMONEY on :
GLASS WHATS YOUR TAKE ON MMJ?
Posted by glassman on :
i assume you mean medical marijuana? it should be legal for doctors to prescribe it if they wants to. That's between you and your doctor right?
Posted by glassman on :
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Yes,
I received that link through facebook recently myself.
This was my response.
"Totally. As a small mitigation (not to lessen the seriousness but to stave off some of the panic) lets also point out that over 65% of this debt is owed to ourselves. Only about 32-33% of the national debt is owned by foreign investors (China holding the largest piece by far.)"
Posted by glassman on :
also? if you look at it like mortgage instead of credit card? it ain't that bad...
so, which is it? and remember that the mortgage rule is 1/3 of income devoted to payments... also? who is the mortgage holder? mostly US, but not completely. If China were to stop buying notes tomorrow? We'd be in trouble. Bad trouble.
i've defended mos tof Obamas actions to date, as sane policy. However, he is cutting taxes too, and that's notthe right answer.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Hadn't thought about it like that but yes, it could be a mortgage. In fact, when you think of what we are paying for when we accrue statistically relevant portions of our debt (war, economic depressions, major infrastructure initiatives) it acts very much like second mortgage.
The main problems are that we have opened up a relevant percentage to outside parties and that we are not making monthly payments to principle.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
I know this is mixing apples and oranges but I feel compelled to also point out that for 2011 the United States poverty level was set at a yearly income of $22,350 for a family of four.
Posted by glassman on :
exactly. that is why Ron Paul is promoting "isolationist ideas". We are financing the security of the world pretty much by ourselves.
the mortgage question begs on big answer tho. We all look to pay off our mortgage someday. Otherwise we are just renters with maintenance responsibility.
I'm beginning to feel like that.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
I know this is mixing apples and oranges but I feel compelled to also point out that for 2011 the United States poverty level was set at a yearly income of $22,350 for a family of four.
great point. consider too that the last time Cap Gains taxes were this low was the Great depression..
I don't WANT to pay more taxes, i just know i (and the reso of US) must.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
U.S. charges oldest Swiss bank in tax fraud case
Posted by rounder1 on :
i've defended mos tof Obamas actions to date, as sane policy. However, he is cutting taxes too, and that's notthe right answer. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Okay Glass, I am not baiting you on this. I am legitimately curious and you are good at "splaining" chit and much more diligent in your research than I. Obama is cutting taxes?
I have heard in several places about the Fed mortgage buyouts. Supposedly the fed bought up something to the tune of 7 Trillion in bad/troubled mortgages.
Here is where I get really confused (and p-i-s-s-e-d). THAT IS A TAX.... the worst type of tax because it is done in a manner that leaves 95% of Americans not realizing that they just suffered one of the worst "one time" tax hikes in history. Rather than saying:
"okay guys, we are in trouble. I need all you patriotic americans to surrender 20 -25% of you wealth to the government.... just mail us the check and we will get this chit back together."
They EFFING stole it by having the Fed buy it with fiat money.....7 Trillion (or thereabouts).....almost half of our deficit.....diminished the savings and purchasing power of every single person in this country. When the government takes your money that is a TAX. The fact that they are sneaky as hell and creative does not diminish the effect on the individual nor does it change the beneficiary to the individual hardship. It is a d@#n tax.
But here is the thing.... the "Fed" is supposedly not a government agency. There is no accounting for an organization like the fed in our constitutional system of checks and balances. They are a unchecked. Their only allegiance is to their own financial interests. If we can agree that the actions that they took are in fact a "de facto" tax..... How the Fcuk can that happen? There is only one body that has the authority to do that..... and it ain't them.
Sorry, if I seemed accusatory toward you...didn't mean to be. Please point out to me if you know things that I stated to be in error..... I would probably feel better knowing that I was wrong.
I am interested in hearing your (or any of y'alls) take on it. I probably won't respond to any replies before monday as I will be out of town..... headed to Thomasville GA to see some friends. On a side note, it is a cool little town. Google "Thomasville, GA, The Big Oak"..... The tree is impressive..... I think that it is supposed to be the largest of its type East of the Mississippi.
Posted by glassman on :
Obama is cutting taxes?
yes indeed. he's cut taxes considerably. if you collect a paycheck? he cut your taxes.
the stimulus bill was about half tax cuts...
Posted by glassman on :
They EFFING stole it by having the Fed buy it with fiat money.....7 Trillion (or thereabouts).....almost half of our deficit.....
hmmmm.... who is 'they"? the Fed is not a Govt entity. furthermore? that 7 trillion number *just happens* to be the amount of money "lost" (LOL) when the DJIA wet form 14000 to 7000- ya think maybe that Fed money was replaced? i do... short sales recoup the "losses"
Sorry, if I seemed accusatory toward you...didn't mean to be. Please point out to me if you know things that I stated to be in error..... I would probably feel better knowing that I was wrong.
dude, don't apologise to me. bring it. i respect that stuff, and so should you, this what is supposed to happen in Democratic Republic. Heck, i've been a Republican all my life, and i still beleive in Republican form of govt (as in the masses rarely want what's best for them) but i cannot support the GOP anymore cuz they have no ehtics.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Obama is cutting taxes?
yes indeed. he's cut taxes considerably. if you collect a paycheck? he cut your taxes.
the stimulus bill was about half tax cuts...
Good God glassman. Why would you say that!!! Don't you know Obama is raising taxes on everything? WTH is wrong with you?!?!?! I'm sure CCM will be along shortly to totally refute what you said with some intelligent reparte! Oops...wait...probably not.
Posted by glassman on :
partisanship is like sibling rivalry, theoretically it improves the breed, especially of an apex predator. but the dishonesty we have been seeing is just plain disgusting huh Pagan?
Posted by Pagan on :
Yes it is glass....but you have to make sacrifices in a Democratic regime. Many don't realize that. Hence our problem.
Posted by glassman on :
another point about the bold faced lies:
i just heard Fox news try to pin the highprice of Oil on Obama due to "regualtory issues"-
i challenge anyone to find me his regulations that have caused oil to prices to be up.
they don't exist. the reason oil prices are high is because the commodity markets are unregulated and the traders have been putting all their money into them.
we are in a commodity bubble right now. there is a 4MBPD *glut* of oil in the world market right now, and the price is still too high. The bubble was stimulated byt eh Arab spring movement, but it is still a bubble and has nothign to do with Obama's regulatory policy.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
The Washington Post and ABC News are out with a new poll today showing that Americans recognize that our tax code is broken and want to fix it by making the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share: •72 percent favor raising taxes on millionaires, including 59 percent who strongly favor doing so — this includes a majority of Republicans. •68 percent believe that our tax code is rigged for the benefit of the wealthy, including 56 percent who strongly believe that to be the case. •66 percent believe that Mitt Romney is NOT paying his fair share in taxes and in a head-to-head comparison on the issue of taxes, President Obama was favored over Romney 52 percent to 42 percent. Additionally, Americans trust President Obama over Romney to “protect the middle class” by an overwhelming 55 percent to 37 percent margin.
IN TWO SENTENCES: It’s time to create an economy — and a tax code — that work for everyone, not just the privileged few. We can start by ending the unfair tax loopholes for millionaires like Mitt Romney that even Ronald Reagan called “crazy.”
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
So here is the situaiton, you all get your wish and federal income tax rates are high, 45-50% just to make you that much more happy. Years from now the country is still TRILLIONS in debt, and we keep borrowing from the Chinese. Whos fault is it then? The Tea Party?
Did you see what the CEO of Facebook is going to be paying in taxes? 35% fed, 10% California, add the rest in and you are well over 50% of your income that you made is gone. Paying high taxes is a great way to feed the machine in DC more money. They get it and blow it, and yet people want us to pay MORE taxes when it just gets wasted? Good grief!
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: another point about the bold faced lies:
i just heard Fox news try to pin the highprice of Oil on Obama due to "regualtory issues"-
i challenge anyone to find me his regulations that have caused oil to prices to be up.
they don't exist. the reason oil prices are high is because the commodity markets are unregulated and the traders have been putting all their money into them.
we are in a commodity bubble right now. there is a 4MBPD *glut* of oil in the world market right now, and the price is still too high. The bubble was stimulated byt eh Arab spring movement, but it is still a bubble and has nothign to do with Obama's regulatory policy.
Obama promised regulation, and true wall st reform, and once he got in office he just listened to what the Goldman crew says and viola. There really hasnt been any financial reform like he championed he would do.
Posted by glassman on :
Obama promised regulation, and true wall st reform, and once he got in office he just listened to what the Goldman crew says and viola. There really hasnt been any financial reform like he championed he would do.
cash, you ever hear of Dodd-Frank?
Obama's financial reform: Winners and losers After weeks in limbo, the Dodd-Frank Bill has finally passed Congress. Who stands to benefit from the banking reforms — and who will lose out?
posted on July 19, 2010, at 12:55 PM
It's taken many weeks of setbacks and stalled negotiations, but the Democrats' long-promised financial reform bill has finally been approved by the Senate and will be signed into law on Wednesday. The Dodd-Frank Act promises to put new controls on the banking industry and protect consumers. Amongst its initiatives are a Consumer Protection Financial Bureau that would oversee lenders of private loans such as mortgages and credit cards and a clampdown on derivatives trading by Wall Street banks. Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: So here is the situaiton, you all get your wish and federal income tax rates are high, 45-50% just to make you that much more happy. Years from now the country is still TRILLIONS in debt, and we keep borrowing from the Chinese. Whos fault is it then? The Tea Party?
Did you see what the CEO of Facebook is going to be paying in taxes? 35% fed, 10% California, add the rest in and you are well over 50% of your income that you made is gone. Paying high taxes is a great way to feed the machine in DC more money. They get it and blow it, and yet people want us to pay MORE taxes when it just gets wasted? Good grief!
the money is already spent cash. it's not about "wishing", and as much as you hate to hear it, the legislation spending most of the money was passed before Obama got itno office. Gotta pay the bill now.
Posted by glassman on :
cutting taxes did not work.
the Bush stimulus checks (one wth Delay and one with Pelosi)were borrowed from China and all they did was make the crash worse when it did happen.
we entered a world war and cut taxes? stooopid.
Posted by glassman on :
Santorum won all three primaries yesterday.
what a joke. the GOP's aren't even bothering to turn out for the primaries. Obama will prolly coast to second term
Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Santorum won all three primaries yesterday.
what a joke. the GOP's aren't even bothering to turn out for the primaries. Obama will prolly coast to second term
Yuuuuup....
I have never voted for a democrat in my life but this year that will change if my choices are Romney, Santorum or Gingrich
Don't care for Obama but he will get my vote as a protest against the fools in the GOP
That said...still voting for Ron Paul in the primary
Posted by buckstalker on :
Here is the actual delegate count as it stands today:
Not what you see on CNN, is it? In Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, and Maine, delegates are unbound all the way through the national convention, and the votes reported are just straw votes--and often, the numbers of delegates reported by news organizations are simply made up!
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Good point buck. The stations report based on current vote totals but because those delegates are unbound they are just as easily swayed by the future political fortunes of the candidates as the voters in states that have not had a primary or caucus yet.
Honestly I like the structure of it. If an early front runner should have something inexcusable come out 3/4ths through the campaign those unbound delegates provide a check against being forced to field a bad candidate.
It is a good system of combining the popular vote, insider approval (super-delegates), and leaving out a trump card in case of deception and/or massive failure, to my mind.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
If Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination I sure hope he picks a good VP.
Posted by raybond on :
The only thing Romney can pick is his ass
Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Good point buck. The stations report based on current vote totals but because those delegates are unbound they are just as easily swayed by the future political fortunes of the candidates as the voters in states that have not had a primary or caucus yet.
The "news" stations report false delegate totals based on what they are told to report by their handlers (elitists, big business, big banks, etc.) and those false reports are clear evidence of who the handlers "want" their nominee to be...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
