State of the Union

[bigmack]

Is this some sort of a joke?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1_24_12_11_57_54.jpg

What a complete buffoon this incompetent fool is.

[Greyfox]

My guess is that he will blame Bush tonight and the Republicans for opposing taxes on the rich along with the grid-lock in Washington.

[lsbets]

I wonder if he'll mention how much money Buffet is going to make now that Keystone has been killed by Obama?

[bigmack]

2012 and we live among people so completely misguided they want to compare earned income tax rates with those of LONG TERM capital gains.

Buffett is the new PT Barnum.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/CapitalgainstaxintheUnitedStates-Wikipediathefreeencyclopedia-1.png

[badcompany]

So, why not lower the secretary's taxes? That will help her more than raising Buffet's taxes will hurt him?

Funny how these arguments always arrive at the conclusion that more money should be sucked out of the private sector and into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.

[BlueShoe]

You fellas can tell me what the Comrade President says tonight, will not be watching or listening. His speeches have been on ignore mode since he took office, not changing now, even though this will be his last SOTU.

[Tom]

State of the Union....

It sucks.
He did it.
No idea how to fix it.

Good night.

[Ocala Mike]

Buffett's secretary? Guess the statue of Joe Paterno can't leave State College.


Ocala Mike

[NJ Stinks]

Personally, I find it disgusting that Romney and his ilk pay at a 15% tax rate.

The day the Bush tax cuts are tossed in the dumper will be a great day for America.

[bigmack]

Personally, I find it disgusting that Romney and his ilk pay at a 15% tax rate.
(Watch this)
What year would you like to revisit to find an 'equitable' long term capital gains rate for a guy like you that LOVES every higher-end tax he's ever met?

Are you sure you didn't get a commission workin' at IRS?

[Track Collector]

The day the Bush tax cuts are tossed in the dumper will be a great day for America.

California must look pretty attractive to you about now. :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

(Watch this)
What year would you like to revisit to find an 'equitable' long term capital gains rate for a guy like you that LOVES every higher-end tax he's ever met?

Are you sure you didn't get a commission workin' at IRS?

Let's go back to 1993 through 1996.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

Yeah, I'm sure.

[NJ Stinks]

California must look pretty attractive to you about now. :rolleyes:

That state is not big enough for me and BigMack. :eek:

[JBmadera]

Given what these self serving clowns do with OUR money I think it is complete NONSENSE to discuss raising taxes.

Our Gov't (at almost all levels) seems to exist just to serve itself.

Case in point: near where I live they just scrapped a redevelopment district. In 10 years they did NOTHING. All of the tax money went to pay the staff and develop plans that were never executed. Very sad.

[bigmack]

Let's go back to 1993 through 1996.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

In the 1993 budget bill, the capital gains preference was greatly expanded to provide what amounts to a 30% capital gains exclusion for top-bracket taxpayers (the difference between the new 39.6% top regular tax rate and the continuing 28% maximum capital gains rate). The 1993 act provided an additional 50% capital gains exclusion for profits from certain "risky" investments that are considered likely to fail.

[NJ Stinks]

Anybody watching Special report With Bret Baier right now?

So far one Republican after another has done nothing but crucify Obama's State of the Union address tonight which - of course - has not been made yet.

Un-American is key word they must have been told to use.:rolleyes:

[TJDave]

They should bring back GW's buddy Hamid Karzai. I hear he's doing pretty good. Maybe he could float Warren's secretary a loan. :rolleyes:

[newtothegame]

Anybody watching Special report With Bret Baier right now?

So far one Republican after another has done nothing but crucify Obama's State of the Union address tonight which - of course - has not been made yet.

Un-American is key word they must have been told to use.:rolleyes:
Awww c'mon now NJ, it's no different then every turn Obama blaming Bush or the repugs..right? :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

Awww c'mon now NJ, it's no different then every turn Obama blaming Bush or the repugs..right? :lol:

I hope Obama does not bring up Bush tonight. Seriously.

[bigmack]

I still have goosebumps from last years SotU.

- Pledge to provide 80 percent of Americans with high-speed rail access :D
- Pledge to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 :D
- A challenge to pursue innovation in "our generations' Sputnik moment.

The President announced that he would be taking a trip to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador in the spring, to sign trade deals, which will help create tens of thousands of new jobs. WHERE ARE THEY?

He got one thing right: A proposal to lower the corporate tax rate. :jump: :jump:

Talk about a deer caught in headlights.

[newtothegame]

I hope Obama does not bring up Bush tonight. Seriously.
I agree...for once, I would like to see this administration take responsibility for what's happening.
And just so you know I am being fair, the blame game all around needs to stop.....They need to work out their differences, find compromise and get us in the right direction. It's no longer time to play around and wussy foot. This economy is in serious trouble in my opinion.

[badcompany]

Anybody watching Special report With Bret Baier right now?

So far one Republican after another has done nothing but crucify Obama's State of the Union address tonight which - of course - has not been made yet.

Un-American is key word they must have been told to use.:rolleyes:

I'm hoping he says something like this, but I'm not too confident:

xvz8tg4MVpA

[Robert Goren]

If I was a republican I would want anybody to bring up Bush either. After his failed ecomonic policies are the same ones that they are pushing now. After all a -6.2% GDP is not something they want people to remember.

[newtothegame]

If I was a republican I would want anybody to bring up Bush either. After his failed ecomonic policies are the same ones that they are pushing now. After all a -6.2% GDP is not something they want people to remember.
Nice to see you admitting this administration is a failure finally!!!! :bang:

[bigmack]

If I was a republican I would want anybody to bring up Bush either.
It's tough to figure you, given your abysmal typing skills or is it a bad case of dysgraphia, but I believe NJStinkoid just said he doesn't want to hear about Bushie.

You don't think NJ is an R, do ya?

[boxcar]

You fellas can tell me what the Comrade President says tonight, will not be watching or listening. His speeches have been on ignore mode since he took office, not changing now, even though this will be his last SOTU.

You won't be missing a thing. It'll be the ol' conquer and divide class warfare strategy whereby he'll proclaim himself to be the champion of the "middle class" -- instead of proclaiming himself to be the president of all the people.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Anybody watching Special report With Bret Baier right now?

So far one Republican after another has done nothing but crucify Obama's State of the Union address tonight which - of course - has not been made yet.

Un-American is key word they must have been told to use.:rolleyes:

Too bad they didn't use "Marxist" or "communist". That would have nailed it down more specifically as to what kind of un-American he is.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I hope Obama does not bring up Bush tonight. Seriously.

It won't matter. This hypocrite will preach to us out of one side of his mouth about our duty in participating in "shared responsibility" while out of the other side denying any responsibility for the mess this country is in.

Boxcar

[cj's dad]

Good evening:

I am a miserable failure. I have bankrupted the nation. I apologize. I will not seek nor will I accept the nomination for the Presidency for the term beginning in 2013.

Thank you for your support in this matter. The only thing that I ask is that I can continue to play golf whenever and where ever I choose and that my big a-s wife can eat whatever she likes while telling the public to eat in a healthy manner.

Oh, and one last item, I will continue to murder innocent civilians in drone attacks, much like GWB, but unlike him I am doing so in the best interests of national security.

AMF losers !!

[bigmack]

When BO talked about the Hoover Dam and the GG Bridge, I wept.

Just like I do when 'Butch' Maddow talks about it in her promo for her own shoe. ONLY on MSNBC.

Touching stuff. :(

Won't you help The Feds with money to make another Hover Dam?

[HUSKER55]

CJ,

WHY SEND IN A PILOT WHEN A DRONE WILL DO THE SAME JOB?

YOU ACT LIKE IT IS OK TO KILL OUR SOLDIERS BUT NOT OK TO STRIKE BACK? THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT INNOCENT!

DID ANYONE OF THEM CARE ABOUT THE INNOCENT ON 911? WHICH ONE MADE ANY ATTEMPT AT A PUBLIC APOLOGY?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CIVILIZED WAR. (OR POLICE ACTION)

[lsbets]

Anyone else notice that Boehner has been spending so much time tanning he had the same skin color as Obama?

I'm being serious. I kept laughing.

[Tom]

Personally, I find it disgusting that Romney and his ilk pay at a 15% tax rate.

You do realize that the 15% is the second time he is paying tax, right?
He already paid tax on the money he invested when he earned it as income, now he is paying taxes on the capital gains from the investments.
You also realize that without people investing money, like Romney has, there would be NO GROWTH at all, right?

The bottom line, is the more people paying 15% on their capital gains the better off we are economically. that 15% is the GROWTH we need. Up the tax on capital gains and you kill that growth. Or drive it elsewhere.

[Tom]

It is blatantly obvious that Obama has no clue at all what is going on and no plan to fix anything.

That was the most ignorant SOTU ever telepromtped!

[bigmack]

Anyone else notice that Boehner has been spending so much time tanning he had the same skin color as Obama?
I'm being serious. I kept laughing.
I don't know about skin colah, but he had a look like he just wrapped-up a bender and needed to have a little "hair of the dog."

'Cocktails & a smoke' are a world not unfamiliar to LeSpeak'r.

It is blatantly obvious that Obama has no clue at all what is going on and no plan to fix anything.

That was the most ignorant SOTU ever telepromtped!
Without question, the most dispirited address I've heard.

[newtothegame]

You do realize that the 15% is the second time he is paying tax, right?
He already paid tax on the money he invested when he earned it as income, now he is paying taxes on the capital gains from the investments.
You also realize that without people investing money, like Romney has, there would be NO GROWTH at all, right?

The bottom line, is the more people paying 15% on their capital gains the better off we are economically. that 15% is the GROWTH we need. Up the tax on capital gains and you kill that growth. Or drive it elsewhere.

Yeah Tom, I agree. They (libs) put the emphasis on the 15% versus what it actually means. they never talk about how that same money was already previously taxed when it was earned income. Next, they never talk about it's the LAW! Dems pay the exact same thing on their incomes.
Then, you notice what else is earily absent? Do they even remotely discuss how much Romney contributes to charity?
It's almost laughable when compared to Obama, Biden COMBINED!
I think I heard last year Biden gave 365 DOLLARS to charity!!! hell I gave more then that!! lol
And yet, that's supposed to be the party for the people? No thanks, I will stay right where I am at!!

[Tom]

Good point.
Romney - $7 million to charity....is Buffet going to put his money where his mouth is and match that? :lol:

Funny how that stuff gets ignored by the left.

Thing about it it, that 7 mil is like 20 mil, when you figure out how much of it would have actually gone to help people if it was filtered through congress via taxes.

[PaceAdvantage]

A lot of that money went to the Mormon church. I am curious what percentage of income Mormons of great wealth are expected to give to their church...

[Tom]

I believe it is 10%...heard that somewhere.

[elysiantraveller]

A lot of that money went to the Mormon church. I am curious what percentage of income Mormons of great wealth are expected to give to their church...

10% just like most other faiths, Christian, Islam, Judaism etc. Still was a total of like 3 million to other organizations. Guy walks the the walk.

[bigmack]

10% just like most other faiths, Christian, Islam, Judaism etc. Still was a total of like 3 million to other organizations. Guy walks the the walk.
Most others don't 'tithe' like Mor's.

[elysiantraveller]

Most others don't 'tithe' like Mor's.

Contribution may be more emphasized but 10% is a pretty constant across the faiths. Muslims are pretty aggressive with the zakat as well.

[NJ Stinks]

You do realize that the 15% is the second time he is paying tax, right?
He already paid tax on the money he invested when he earned it as income, now he is paying taxes on the capital gains from the investments.
You also realize that without people investing money, like Romney has, there would be NO GROWTH at all, right?



From a Washington Post article:
___________________________
The returns confirm, however, that Romney continues to benefit from his association with Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he founded in 1984 and left in 1999. His earnings through Bain have drawn controversy because they are treated as capital gains rather than wages and thus benefit from being taxed at the lower rate of 15 percent.

Critics say such income, known as “carried interest,” should not be counted as investment earnings because private-equity partners are mostly relying on the money of others rather than their own. The returns show that Romney earned more than $13 million in “carried interest” over the past two years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-returns/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story_1.html

_________________________________________

What exactly is “carried interest”?

Check out the video at the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgV3qvsXuIA

[elysiantraveller]

From a Washington Post article:
___________________________
The returns confirm, however, that Romney continues to benefit from his association with Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he founded in 1984 and left in 1999. His earnings through Bain have drawn controversy because they are treated as capital gains rather than wages and thus benefit from being taxed at the lower rate of 15 percent.

Critics say such income, known as “carried interest,” should not be counted as investment earnings because private-equity partners are mostly relying on the money of others rather than their own. The returns show that Romney earned more than $13 million in “carried interest” over the past two years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-returns/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story_1.html

_________________________________________

What exactly is “carried interest”?

Check out the video at the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgV3qvsXuIA

This is really splitting hairs isn't it?

[NJ Stinks]

This is really splitting hairs isn't it?

Why? Tom said Romney is making money on his investments so it should be taxed as a capital gain. If Romney did not invest his own money, that argument is invalid.

[bigmack]

Contribution may be more emphasized but 10% is a pretty constant across the faiths. Muslims are pretty aggressive with the zakat as well.
I did not know that. You're one of the few that I actually learn something from around here.

- You'll find NJ links predominately from WashPost or NYTimes. He knows they lack honesty, but he's OK with that.

[Ocala Mike]

I don't understand what the big deal is about paying taxes "a second time" on money that was already taxed as income.

Don't us "poor folks" do that every time we purchase something and pay a sales tax, albeit usually to a state or local government?

Also, I can think of a race track analogy, where "churning" allows one to maybe walk into the joint with $20, catch something early, and make $300 or $400 in bets with the winnings, each bet being "taxed" by the takeout. Big investors, like small bettors, just "churn" their money, so why not tax it over and over again?


Ocala Mike

[boxcar]

10% just like most other faiths, Christian, Islam, Judaism etc. Still was a total of like 3 million to other organizations. Guy walks the the walk.

However, under the New Covenant economy, there is no stipulated percentage for Christians.

Boxcar
P.S. Please pass that on to Mack for me, will ya? :D

[bigmack]

P.S. Please pass that on to Mack for me, will ya? :D
I'm fully aware, Wisenheimer.

DO be careful about a Mormon parti pris from your camp.

[elysiantraveller]

However, under the New Covenant economy, there is no stipulated percentage for Christians.

Boxcar
P.S. Please pass that on to Mack for me, will ya? :D

I'm just going with whats traditionally been expected. The Mormon faith is less than 200 hundred years old. Traditionally is somewhat relative when you've only been around that long. :)

[Robert Goren]

I think most churches will tell you that tithing is being done fewer and fewer people each year.

[NJ Stinks]

I did not know that. You're one of the few that I actually learn something from around here.







- You'll find NJ links predominately from WashPost or NYTimes. He knows they lack honesty, but he's OK with that.















If you have a problem with the Washington Post, that's your problem. I'm not sure there is a better paper in the country. I should add that although I do believe the NY Times is outstanding too, I admit I rarely read the NY Times because of the cost of the paper and the limited access at their website nowadays.

[newtothegame]

I don't understand what the big deal is about paying taxes "a second time" on money that was already taxed as income.

Don't us "poor folks" do that every time we purchase something and pay a sales tax, albeit usually to a state or local government?

Also, I can think of a race track analogy, where "churning" allows one to maybe walk into the joint with $20, catch something early, and make $300 or $400 in bets with the winnings, each bet being "taxed" by the takeout. Big investors, like small bettors, just "churn" their money, so why not tax it over and over again?


Ocala Mike
But, using your analogy, wouldnt Romney being paying a THIRD time?
I mean he still has to buy food and other sales tax items too...right?
So tax on original earned 1
tax on profits from earned invested 2
taxed on purchases 3
right???
Us "poor" folk just miss the middle "investment capital gains tax"......
As to your churning analogy, it's almost right except what if Romney bets too...(I mean he did toss out the 10 large bet to newt) lol....he would again being paying tax more times then us.

[bigmack]

If you have a problem with the Washington Post, that's your problem. I'm not sure there is a better paper in the country.
The Coronado Eagle has more integrity and it's 98% real estate ads.

Here are 110 cases of misreporting by the WarshingtonPost:
http://www.eyeonthepost.org/110examples.html

If you want more, I have tons of it.

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpctnhugmT1qe0eclo1_r4_500.gif

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'm impressed you folks tuned in for the big speech. It's kinda hard to get all revved up to find out what kind of delirious bullshit el presidente is going to hurl around the planet trying to get re-elected time and again since it's usually summed up with a Twain quote. Take your pick, most apply. I thought it might be worth watching to lodge an official critique but then I realized my justification for not watching could double as that official critique.

The great, inspirational, orator-deluxe has evolved into such a counterfeit bore that I actually opted for a Storage Wars repeat. Yyyyyeeeeeeup.

[bigmack]

The great, inspirational, orator-deluxe has evolved into such a counterfeit bore that I actually opted for a Storage Wars repeat. Yyyyyeeeeeeup.
An impostor is what he is. All bluster.

YoYo. Storage Wars is a show about scumbag creeps who garbage-pick to make money off the misfortune of others.

"Ding. Great idea for a show!" "Bring me a Kardashian"

[johnhannibalsmith]

...scumbag creeps who garbage-pick to make money off the misfortune of others.

...

Was this a line from the unifying Dear Leader's speech about the awful one percenters and Wall Street fat cats?

[lamboguy]

i just got done watching the replay of this speech. the only thing i learned after watching it was the reason why the natural gas market and solar stocks came off the bottom this week. someone had to know that he was going to reverse his position on natural gas and knew he was going to pump solar.

then he went into being a hypocrite about insider trading and how he wanted to bring people to justice that commit insider trading.

other than that he had a very long speech that of course sounded great, but a lot of the things that he said have no chance of ever happening, which he probably knows ahead of time.

the speech was more of a campaign speech than an address about the state of the country.

all in all he is proving why he will be a very tough candidate to knock off once november rolls around. he is holding to many aces right now.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... he is proving why he will be a very tough candidate to knock off once november rolls around. he is holding to many aces right now.

I'm thinking the better way to look it is that he's holding a deuce of hearts amongst a deck with 51 jokers.

[newtothegame]

I'm thinking the better way to look it is that he's holding a deuce of hearts amongst a deck with 51 jokers.
And attempting his best "im holding four aces" bluff!!!

[NJ Stinks]

other than that he had a very long speech that of course sounded great, but a lot of the things that he said have no chance of ever happening, which he probably knows ahead of time.

the speech was more of a campaign speech than an address about the state of the country.

all in all he is proving why he will be a very tough candidate to knock off once november rolls around. he is holding to many aces right now.

I agree with all of the above. I just wish the campaign wasn't so damn long.

[mostpost]

It's tough to figure you, given your abysmal typing skills or is it a bad case of dysgraphia, but I believe NJStinkoid just said he doesn't want to hear about Bushie.

You don't think NJ is an R, do ya?

That is also what RG said, except he left out the "not" before want.
I seem to remember him saying he has some kind of disfunction in regards to perceiving what is on the printed page. Maybe dysgraphia, I don't know.

[mostpost]

You do realize that the 15% is the second time he is paying tax, right?
He already paid tax on the money he invested when he earned it as income, now he is paying taxes on the capital gains from the investments.
You also realize that without people investing money, like Romney has, there would be NO GROWTH at all, right?

The bottom line, is the more people paying 15% on their capital gains the better off we are economically. that 15% is the GROWTH we need. Up the tax on capital gains and you kill that growth. Or drive it elsewhere.

I must be dumb. I thought capital gains tax was paid on capital GAINS
But you tell me it is paid on the money the investor earned before he made his investments. Well that is sure not.....You know, let me go look that up again.


OK here is what I found at wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax
A capital gains tax (CGT) is a tax on capital gains, the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was purchased at a lower price.

But, of course we all know that wikipedia is a biased, liberal source, so let's see what Investopedia says.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital_gains_tax.asp#axzz1kS1QlP4S
A type of tax levied on capital gains incurred by individuals and corporations. Capital gains are the profits that an investor realizes when he or she sells the capital asset for a price that is higher than the purchase price.

Capital gains taxes are only triggered when an asset is realized, not while it is held by an investor. An investor can own shares that appreciate every year, but the investor does not incur a capital gains tax on the shares until they are sold.

OMG!!! The liberals have taken control of everything. :eek: This can not be right. They are saying that the capital gains tax is a tax on new income, not a double tax on old. Oh!!! I do not want to repeat what they said about anyone who thinks it is a double tax.

[bigmack]

Mosty - You really ought not enter into areas you're underqualified to pass.

The former Bain Capital CEO and Massachusetts governor caused a brouhaha last week when he estimated the tax rate on his investment income at 15%. "How unfair!" pundits exclaimed, noting that the top marginal rate for wage income is more than 30%.

The tax rate on investors is unfair, but for the opposite reason. Our tax code layers taxation of dividends and capital gains on top of a top corporate tax rate of 35%—which even President Obama acknowledges is one of the highest in the world.

This is ironically the embodiment of the "corporate personhood" legal doctrine otherwise so decried by the left. The law taxes corporations as if they were separate beings from the shareholders who own them and then levies a separate tax on shareholder payouts and gains. This double taxation brings the effective tax rate on investment income to as much as 44.75%.

In other words, after the combined top tax rates hit $100 of corporate income, $55.25 remains for the investor. And this figure doesn't even include various state and local taxes, or the death tax. Moreover, like the rest of us, Mr. Romney paid income taxes before investing, except on pretax contributions such as an IRA or 401(k).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577178831519223426.html

[newtothegame]

Mosty - You really ought not enter into areas you're underqualified to pass.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577178831519223426.html

lol...amazingly Mack, I think Mosty agrees with you...look what he posted about himself..."I must be dumb."....:lol:

[bigmack]

lol...amazingly Mack, I think Mosty agrees with you...look what he posted about himself..."I must be dumb."....
He be crawlin' around Wiki & Wacky Pedia's to try and figure out somethin' as plain as the 'anomoly' in my sock. Pant leg, whatevah... :rolleyes: ('Shout out' to Rand P)


Let's see:

How does one get money to invest? You EARN it, the old fashioned way. And you're taxed on that money earned.

Let's say a FedEx chick stuffs $100/mo. in her mattress for a couple years. She paid tax on that $2400 already, RIGHT? Come on, mosty, RIGHT?

Now, she wants to invest that money. So the money goes into some entity gaining by her investment. With me so far?

She yanks rewards out short term and she is taxed something like another 28%. Long term, 15%. (Funny, Mosty, Big Ed & Co., never mention long/short term)

We'a talkin' the same language here or what we got here is'a comunication problem?

[newtothegame]

Instead of you guys (NJ, Mosty, Goren) fussin bout how Romney doesnt pay enough....here's an Idea, Go after the ones paying NOTHING!!!!!

Hundreds of Capitol Hill Staffers Didn't Pay Taxes in 2010



Internal Revenue Service data show that 3 percent of Senate staffers and more than 4 percent of House staffers owed taxes in 2010, adding up to about $10.6 million in unpaid taxes. More than 98,000 civilian federal employees were delinquent on their taxes in 2010, adding up to more than $1 billion in taxes owed, according to the IRS.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/24/hundreds-capitol-hill-staffers-didnt-pay-taxes-in-2010/#ixzz1kSXURhPg

[bigmack]

I was moved, MOVED, I tell ya, about this passage froma de speech:

One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates - a man who was George Bush's defense secretary; and Hillary Clinton, a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn't deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job - the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other - because you can't charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there's someone behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I'm reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team.

See how you can use a milytary operation for political gain? (Somebody get Olbermann on the phone) AND tonight's speech WAS NOT political or "campaigny."

It was just BO remindin' us about an operation that had no political direction, while he uses said story for political gain in a State of the Union address.

Talk has been about as cheap as it gets with this Chicago bag o' wind.

[Robert Goren]

Instead of you guys (NJ, Mosty, Goren) fussin bout how Romney doesnt pay enough....here's an Idea, Go after the ones paying NOTHING!!!!!

Hundreds of Capitol Hill Staffers Didn't Pay Taxes in 2010



Internal Revenue Service data show that 3 percent of Senate staffers and more than 4 percent of House staffers owed taxes in 2010, adding up to about $10.6 million in unpaid taxes. More than 98,000 civilian federal employees were delinquent on their taxes in 2010, adding up to more than $1 billion in taxes owed, according to the IRS.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/24/hundreds-capitol-hill-staffers-didnt-pay-taxes-in-2010/#ixzz1kSXURhPg




So why is it so shocking to you that people who work for pond scum turn out to be pond scum themselves?

[newtothegame]

So why is it so shocking to you that people who work for pond scum turn out to be pond scum themselves?
Where did I say I was shocked???
What I asked was instead of going after people like Romney, WHO ARE PAYING THEIR TAXES, why aren't you libs harping about the ones paying NO taxes?
But I understand, it doesn't fit the agenda of class warfare! :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

then he went into being a hypocrite about insider trading and how he wanted to bring people to justice that commit insider trading.Since Congress is apparently allowed to trade on inside information, was everyone in the room squirming in their seats as he spoke?

His first act should be to lobby to make insider trading by members of Congress as illegal as it is for others.

[lamboguy]

Since Congress is apparently allowed to trade on inside information, was everyone in the room squirming in their seats as he spoke?

His first act should be to lobby to make insider trading by members of Congress as illegal as it is for others.for sure that would be a good start!

i would love to know who were the first people to trade the natural gas market long the last few days. and then someone bought into solar energy which i think is a joke.

the uranium market had been off the bottom last week too after the fiasco that took place in japan last year. that market looks like it has some legs underneath it, i am going to need some time on the natural gas market though because there is so much of the stuff that they can easily get at.

[Robert Goren]

:7: He be crawlin' around Wiki & Wacky Pedia's to try and figure out somethin' as plain as the 'anomoly' in my sock. Pant leg, whatevah... :rolleyes: ('Shout out' to Rand P)


Let's see:

How does one get money to invest? You EARN it, the old fashioned way. And you're taxed on that money earned.

Let's say a FedEx chick stuffs $100/mo. in her mattress for a couple years. She paid tax on that $2400 already, RIGHT? Come on, mosty, RIGHT?

Now, she wants to invest that money. So the money goes into some entity gaining by her investment. With me so far?

She yanks rewards out short term and she is taxed something like another 28%. Long term, 15%. (Funny, Mosty, Big Ed & Co., never mention long/short term)

We'a talkin' the same language here or what we got here is'a comunication problem? In Romney's case, he really did get his money the old fashion way. He inherited it.

[elysiantraveller]

:7: In Romney's case, he really did get his money the old fashion way. He inherited it.

No... he did not...

Bain History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital)

Mitt Romney and his partners amassed $37 Million to begin the venture. It now has operating assets of $66 Billion dollars.

I know modern day American success stories undermine the interpretation of the "evil rich" but facts are facts...

Started with $37 Million.... Turned in to... $66,000 Million.

To put that in perspective if you did the same thing back in 1984 but started with $5,000 from your parents you would have....

$8,918,918.92

[boxcar]

I'm just going with whats traditionally been expected. The Mormon faith is less than 200 hundred years old. Traditionally is somewhat relative when you've only been around that long. :)

And I'm just going by what the NT says, which has been around for nearly 2,000 years. You go by tradition. I go by scripture.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

i just got done watching the replay of this speech. the only thing i learned after watching it was the reason why the natural gas market and solar stocks came off the bottom this week. someone had to know that he was going to reverse his position on natural gas and knew he was going to pump solar.

then he went into being a hypocrite about insider trading and how he wanted to bring people to justice that commit insider trading.

other than that he had a very long speech that of course sounded great, but a lot of the things that he said have no chance of ever happening, which he probably knows ahead of time.

the speech was more of a campaign speech than an address about the state of the country.

all in all he is proving why he will be a very tough candidate to knock off once november rolls around. he is holding to many aces right now.

And the biggest ace he's holding is that the Party of Stupid is running against him. I just heard Ann Coulter say a little while ago (although I haven't checked it out yet) that Republicans have beat an incumbent president only twice in American history. Utterly amazing if true. But if it is true, it goes to show that Stupid really is in the political genes. :D

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Mosty - You really ought not enter into areas you're underqualified to pass.

Quote:
The former Bain Capital CEO and Massachusetts governor caused a brouhaha last week when he estimated the tax rate on his investment income at 15%. "How unfair!" pundits exclaimed, noting that the top marginal rate for wage income is more than 30%.

The tax rate on investors is unfair, but for the opposite reason. Our tax code layers taxation of dividends and capital gains on top of a top corporate tax rate of 35%—which even President Obama acknowledges is one of the highest in the world.

This is ironically the embodiment of the "corporate personhood" legal doctrine otherwise so decried by the left. The law taxes corporations as if they were separate beings from the shareholders who own them and then levies a separate tax on shareholder payouts and gains. This double taxation brings the effective tax rate on investment income to as much as 44.75%.

In other words, after the combined top tax rates hit $100 of corporate income, $55.25 remains for the investor. And this figure doesn't even include various state and local taxes, or the death tax. Moreover, like the rest of us, Mr. Romney paid income taxes before investing, except on pretax contributions such as an IRA or 401(k).


Corporations are separate beings from the shareholders who own them. The shareholders are not responsible for illegal acts of the corporation, unless the particular share holder has initiated those acts. The corporation pays taxes at a lower rate than the shareholder would otherwise pay.

The corporation pays taxes on money it makes not on the contribution of the share holder. The shareholder pays taxes on dividends (money earned) not on money invested.

Let's say I earn $100,000 in a year. Ignoring all deductions and exemptions, I pay 35% taxes on that or $35,000 leaving me with $65,000. Since I have saved enough over the past several years to live comfortably, I decide to invest that $65,000 in green energy stocks. After ten years I sell those stocks for $75,000, a capital gain of $10,000. The tax ix 15% or $1500.

So, on $110,000 in income ($100,000 from working plus $10,000 from investing). I pay $36,500 in taxes ($35,000 from working Plus $1500 from investing. $36,500 is 33.18% of $110,000 not 44.75% as stated above. Furthermore, that 33.18% includes all income, not just investment income.

[JBmadera]

[QUOTE=mostpost].


The corporation pays taxes on money it makes not on the contribution of the share holder. The shareholder pays taxes on dividends (money earned) not on money invested.


Not exactly true. Shareholders also pay taxes on invested capital when they sell. And if they are very short term holders the tax rate is the ordinary income tax rate.

Can we get back to the real issue: WHY pay a single cent in additional taxes until all levels of gov't are "right sized" and not sized and funded just to perpetuate their own existence. What the hell ever happened to "public service"?

[NJ Stinks]

__________________________________

Quote:
The former Bain Capital CEO and Massachusetts governor caused a brouhaha last week when he estimated the tax rate on his investment income at 15%. "How unfair!" pundits exclaimed, noting that the top marginal rate for wage income is more than 30%.

The tax rate on investors is unfair, but for the opposite reason. Our tax code layers taxation of dividends and capital gains on top of a top corporate tax rate of 35%—which even President Obama acknowledges is one of the highest in the world.

This is ironically the embodiment of the "corporate personhood" legal doctrine otherwise so decried by the left. The law taxes corporations as if they were separate beings from the shareholders who own them and then levies a separate tax on shareholder payouts and gains. This double taxation brings the effective tax rate on investment income to as much as 44.75%.

In other words, after the combined top tax rates hit $100 of corporate income, $55.25 remains for the investor. And this figure doesn't even include various state and local taxes, or the death tax. Moreover, like the rest of us, Mr. Romney paid income taxes before investing, except on pretax contributions such as an IRA or 401(k).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...1519223426.html
_________________________________________________

What a load of crap this is. The Wall Street Journal should know better and I'm sure they do. The fact is that the vast majority of corporations rarely have any taxable income after all deductions and credits are taken. Or put another way, 35% of nothing is still nothing. :rolleyes:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=263&Topic2id=70

Furthermore, taxes have never been lower and the country has never been more in debt. I realize it's difficult for many here to connect the dots.....

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

[mostpost]

Good point.
Romney - $7 million to charity....is Buffet going to put his money where his mouth is and match that? :lol:

Funny how that stuff gets ignored by the left.

Thing about it it, that 7 mil is like 20 mil, when you figure out how much of it would have actually gone to help people if it was filtered through congress via taxes.
How does $37 Billion-that's with a B to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation in 2006 sound to you? How does a pledge to contribute 99% of his fortune to charity during his lifetime or at his death sound. $7 million is less than 1% of Romney's fortune. 1% vs 99%.

[NJ Stinks]

How does $37 Billion-that's with a B to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation in 2006 sound to you? How does a pledge to contribute 99% of his fortune to charity during his lifetime or at his death sound. $7 million is less than 1% of Romney's fortune. 1% vs 99%.

It looks like another long day for the Washington Generals! :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

__________________________________
...
Furthermore, taxes have never been lower and the country has never been more in debt. I realize it's difficult for many here to connect the dots.....



How does our current spending rate historically while you are learning us all? As a follow-up, where does that dot fit in with the rest of your picture?

[lamboguy]

i don't know if the speech has anthing to do with it, or the florida poll that came out today that has Romney leading in that state, but gold is breaking out to the upside today.

[NJ Stinks]

How does our current spending rate historically while you are learning us all? As a follow-up, where does that dot fit in with the rest of your picture?

It's all a part of the picture. (But don't quote me on that! :) )

[HUSKER55]

boys and girls, I do not think this thing is anywhere close to over. the USA owes too much to way too many people.

China is owed a lot of money which puts them in a position of "influence" at bare minimum.

nope! the fat lady is not singing!

[bigmack]

The fact is that the vast majority of corporations rarely have any taxable income after all deductions and credits are taken. Or put another way, 35% of nothing is still nothing.
Facts? Vast majority? How do you come up with your material - Cocktail napkins?

Here's a fact:

The report by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which examined 280 US firms, found 78 of them paid no federal income tax in at least one of the last three years.

78 of 280 is 28%. You consider 28% a vast majority :confused:
------------------

Now you've seen facts I've found. Let's see yours.

[NJ Stinks]

Facts? Vast majority? How do you come up with your material - Cocktail napkins?

Here's a fact:



78 of 280 is 28%. You consider 28% a vast majority :confused:
------------------

Now you've seen facts I've found. Let's see yours.

Show me your link. I want to see how much the other 72% paid.

[boxcar]

Boys and Girls, if you want the truth of it corporations don't pay taxes. The corporations' customers do because the corporations build their estimated tax liability into the cost of the goods or services that they're selling.

Continue on, please... :)

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Show me your link. I want to see how much the other 72% paid.
LATimes and a report by two left-leaning advocacy and research groups. Right up your alley.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/04/business/la-fi-corporate-income-taxes-20111104

[NJ Stinks]

LATimes and a report by two left-leaning advocacy and research groups. Right up your alley.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/04/business/la-fi-corporate-income-taxes-20111104

From the article:

The study was culled from Fortune 500 firms that had been profitable for each of the last three years. Report authors said their findings were not meant to be "anti-business."

They concluded that only a quarter of the companies it surveyed forked over close to 35% of their U.S. profits, while another quarter of the 280 firms paid less than 10%.

The report also found that 78 companies paid nothing — or had a negative tax rate — for at least one year because of nearly $223 billion in tax breaks, 17% of which went to the financial services industry. Thirty companies went tax-free for all three years, researchers found.
________________________________________

So the study was limited to only Fortune 500 companies "that had been profitable".

I'm not sure that paying an average 18.5% by the most successful corps in the country helps disprove anything I said.

Another paste from the article:

Left-leaning advocacy and research groups Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy examined 280 companies and concluded that they paid an average rate of 18.5% from 2008 through 2010 — about half the official rate.

[bigmack]

The fact is that the vast majority of corporations rarely have any taxable income after all deductions and credits are taken. Or put another way, 35% of nothing is still nothing.
Show your linkie to back up your 'facts' with figures of vast majorities.

Try and make the link normal. Not Abby.

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfd7l3wndq1qe0eclo1_r3_500.gif

[NJ Stinks]

Show your linkie to back up your 'facts' with figures of vast majorities.

Try and make the link normal. Not Abby.

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfd7l3wndq1qe0eclo1_r3_500.gif

No link to present - it was a personal observation. :cool:

[boxcar]

From the article:

The study was culled from Fortune 500 firms that had been profitable for each of the last three years. Report authors said their findings were not meant to be "anti-business."

They concluded that only a quarter of the companies it surveyed forked over close to 35% of their U.S. profits, while another quarter of the 280 firms paid less than 10%.

The report also found that 78 companies paid nothing — or had a negative tax rate — for at least one year because of nearly $223 billion in tax breaks, 17% of which went to the financial services industry. Thirty companies went tax-free for all three years, researchers found.
________________________________________

So the study was limited to only Fortune 500 companies "that had been profitable".

I'm not sure that paying an average 18.5% by the most successful corps in the country helps disprove anything I said.

Another paste from the article:

Left-leaning advocacy and research groups Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy examined 280 companies and concluded that they paid an average rate of 18.5% from 2008 through 2010 — about half the official rate.

Hey, Noooo Joisssyy -- Maybe the reason Big Corps ain't payin' their fair share is because of all the tax credits Big Gov offers them. Have you considered that? Are you suggesting Big Corps should turn down the money? :lol:

Boxcar

[bigmack]

No link to present - it was a personal observation. :cool:
Back to the little leagues for you. You're dealing with a semi-demi-professional here. :kiss:

[NJ Stinks]

Back to the little leagues for you. You're dealing with a semi-demi-professional here. :kiss:

I was almost great when I was in the Little League! :cool:

[Mike at A+]

Well, the verdict is in and by all indications, Ozero's SOTU speech was one of the worst in recent times. Divisive rhetoric, class warfare, recycled slogans and according to the Associated Press, it fails miserably in a fact check. Can people be that clueless and uneducated to still support this lowlife punk?

[boxcar]

Well, the verdict is in and by all indications, Ozero's SOTU speech was one of the worst in recent times. Divisive rhetoric, class warfare, recycled slogans and according to the Associated Press, it fails miserably in a fact check. Can people be that clueless and uneducated to still support this lowlife punk?

He pontificated so high and mighty and self-righteously about the national doubt before he became president and about how unpatriotic and morally wrong it was for us to burden our children and their children with it. Did I miss the part in his state of the onion address where he talked about the national debt? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

i don't know if the speech has anthing to do with it, or the florida poll that came out today that has Romney leading in that state, but gold is breaking out to the upside today. Federal Reserve policy statement today....

[lamboguy]

Federal Reserve policy statement today....maybe you are right on this one, gold usually doesn't move up that much in 1 day without a few good catalyst.

plenty of overhead resistance though now on the gold. i suspect it won't make it back to the old high until after the election. after the election you should get some major upward movement.

[elysiantraveller]

Federal Reserve policy statement today....

Whats amazing about the SOTU though is he does nothing to address the deficit and the high inflation and interest rates we have around the corner.

For a guy who wants to erase the income disparity one would think he has to know those things, when they hit, will only increase it....

SMH.

[Mike at A+]

maybe you are right on this one, gold usually doesn't move up that much in 1 day without a few good catalyst.

plenty of overhead resistance though now on the gold. i suspect it won't make it back to the old high until after the election. after the election you should get some major upward movement.
This question is for our resident Goldfinger (aka lamboguy). I own several shares of Oppenheimer Gold and Special Minerals Fund. Usually the NAV gets updated around 6PM Eastern time. Today, as of now (8:43 PM) they are still showing yesterday's NAV. Any idea why?

[lamboguy]

all i got for OPGSX wasyesterday's close of 36.02. i checked other gold funds and they have updated.

i looked at some of the holdings in the fund, and it looks like they found a few trainwrecks, like KGC, AEM, IAG. i also notice that they don't have any south african's either.

anyway some of those stocks were up 10% today, and i really expect some major follow through this week in those issues. they are much better plays than the actual metal in my opinion.

i don't have an answer to your question though.

[lamboguy]

Whats amazing about the SOTU though is he does nothing to address the deficit and the high inflation and interest rates we have around the corner.

For a guy who wants to erase the income disparity one would think he has to know those things, when they hit, will only increase it....

SMH.i think they announced in the federal reserve meeting that they are going to extend low shorterm interest rates into 2014.

maybe in 6 months can extend it into 2015, they say good things come in three's

[Mike at A+]

all i got for OPGSX wasyesterday's close of 36.02. i checked other gold funds and they have updated.

i looked at some of the holdings in the fund, and it looks like they found a few trainwrecks, like KGC, AEM, IAG. i also notice that they don't have any south african's either.

anyway some of those stocks were up 10% today, and i really expect some major follow through this week in those issues. they are much better plays than the actual metal in my opinion.

i don't have an answer to your question though.
Actually I got it on their phone line. It was up BIG today, $2.16/share or about 6% which is a nice bump. Enough for me to buy a new car in cash (not a Benz or a Lexus though). The upside on gold looks great according to what I'm hearing on the business shows. I've given up Fox News for Fox Business Channel. The babes are just as hot (love Gerri Willis) and there's less talk about politics.

[bigmack]

That poor, poor woman having to live on $200K+/yr.

Warren Buffet’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. She was the President’s chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system – a little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss.
Bosanek’s prominent role in Obama’s “fairness” campaign piqued my curiosity, and I imagine the curiosity of others. How much does her boss pay this downtrodden woman? So far, no one has volunteered this information.

We can get an approximate answer by consulting IRS data on tax rates by adjusted gross income, which would approximate her salary, assuming she does not have significant dividend, interest or capital-gains income (like her boss). I assume Buffet keeps her too busy for her to hold a second job. I also do not know if she is married and filing jointly. If so, it is deceptive for Obama to use her as an example. The higher rate may be due to her husband’s income. So I assume the tax rate Obama refers to is from her own earnings.

Insofar as Buffet (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.

The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffet’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffet must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.

As fond as the news media is of this tale, how is it NONE have axed what her actual salary is?

[woodtoo]

Can people be that clueless and uneducated to still support this lowlife punk?[/QUOTE]

:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

[cj's dad]

i don't know if the speech has anthing to do with it, or the florida poll that came out today that has Romney leading in that state, but gold is breaking out to the upside today.

You are obsessed !!

[boxcar]

You are obsessed !!

Probably possessed -- by the Love of Money Demon. :D

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Ain't that a kick in the pants? ALL this time, not one person axed the celery of Buffies secretary. Parade her out there like part of the middle-class. Turns out she rolling around in C-Notes every night, with some strange slippers on and what not. Can't even imagine the debauchery. :rolleyes:

[badcompany]

__________________________________


Furthermore, taxes have never been lower and the country has never been more in debt. I realize it's difficult for many here to connect the dots.....

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

Taxes have never been lower? Did the Federal Gov't take in 2.1 trillion 100 years ago, 50? 25? Since tax REVENUE is at record levels, couldn't we connect those dots a different way, one that makes more sense, "The more they get, the more they spend"?

Let me guess, you're talking about taxes as a percent of gdp, a common liberal talking. It speak volumes that libs think the goverment should grow at the same rate as the economy.

[Tom]

If we really want to cooperate across lines, we need to cut spending and address taxation.

The tax laws need to be overhauled - everyone agrees, but no one has done a thing about it. When does this project get underway?

We need to stop talking about the 15 - people making $364,000 are not the problem. If you want to talk about the top 0.1%, we can find some common ground. Why should there be a cap on SS withholding? If someone makes $10 million making a movie, or playing basketball, shouldn't they kick in the same percentage as a bag bog at Piggly Wiggly?

Someone posted about too much health care coverage - I agree - why shouldn't I have insurance for the big stuff and take care of the everyday stuff myself? And why can't we pass laws to help lower health care costs and ease up on regulations that drive up the costs?

I was not looking for any signs of leadership at the SOTU and I did not hear any. I saw Obama kicking off his 6th consecutive year of campaigning.

[JBmadera]

I was not looking for any signs of leadership at the SOTU and I did not hear any. I saw Obama kicking off his 6th consecutive year of campaigning.

Exactly, he's really challenging Carter as the most ineffective, arrogant president of all time.....so when in doubt campaign! :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

[LottaKash]

Exactly, he's really challenging Carter as the most ineffective, arrogant president of all time.....so when in doubt campaign! :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Challenging no, he's got "peanut-jimmy" beat by a mile....

All I got from his so called SOTU speech was sheer campaign BS....And, all I heard was I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, so many times, it made me want to puke.....

His condescending tone, seemed to be pointing to maybe a 7th grader, at least from what I perceived,....But, I guess that is who his "core" audience is, the "real thinkers", who will get him re-elected again....

I got nothing but twisted lies and facts from this guy....

We are lost as a nation, when a man such as this, can be let loose for a second go at it....

And to think that all we have left to counter this guy, are other guys whose lifelong sole purposes in life, are to get elected then re-elected to something, forever....They too, will say anything to that end...

What a mess we are in....God help us "PLEASE"....

best,

[mostpost]

Taxes have never been lower? Did the Federal Gov't take in 2.1 trillion 100 years ago, 50? 25? Since tax REVENUE is at record levels, couldn't we connect those dots a different way, one that makes more sense, "The more they get, the more they spend"?

Let me guess, you're talking about taxes as a percent of gdp, a common liberal talking. It speak volumes that libs think the goverment should grow at the same rate as the economy.

Did we have 313M people 100 years ago? We had 92M. NJ was talking about tax rates, I'm sure, although we did have a 28% rate briefly.

As far as taxes as a percent of GDP, it makes sense that tax collections mirror GDP. Is it not a conservative dogma that more business means higher tax collections. You can not compare taxes from different eras directly. Populations are different. Life styles are different. Only by using GDP and evaluating revenue as a percentage of GDP can we get an accurate comparison.

It speaks volumes the cons think it ok to compare two things using two different scales.

[Tom]

Try tax dollars/capita. See what that looks like.
I would do it, but I don't really care. I am comfortable we don't need to raise taxes. :D

It's the spending, Stupid!

[Robert Goren]

Challenging no, he's got "peanut-jimmy" beat by a mile....

All I got from his so called SOTU speech was sheer campaign BS....And, all I heard was I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, so many times, it made me want to puke.....

His condescending tone, seemed to be pointing to maybe a 7th grader, at least from what I perceived,....But, I guess that is who his "core" audience is, the "real thinkers", who will get him re-elected again....

I got nothing but twisted lies and facts from this guy....

We are lost as a nation, when a man such as this, can be let loose for a second go at it....

And to think that all we have left to counter this guy, are other guys whose lifelong sole purposes in life, are to get elected then re-elected to something, forever....They too, will say anything to that end...

What a mess we are in....God help us "PLEASE"....

best,Maybe you take strong look at what kind of mess we were in during the last half of 2008 and compare it to now. After eight years of the policies that republicans want to return, we had a loss of 6.2% in GDP in last quarter of 2008 and there was a loss of jobs in the last months of 2008. We had growth of over 3% in GDP and growth in jobs every month for over two years. Why would you want to go back to a shrinking GDP and having a net loss in jobs every month? Please the country from returning to dismal numbers.

[boxcar]

Try tax dollars/capita. See what that looks like.
I would do it, but I don't really care. I am comfortable we don't need to raise taxes. :D

It's the spending, Stupid!

Raising taxes is definitely not the answer. Rush just reviewed a 2009 IRS report that stated only 8,274 filers had income of 10 Mil or more. The total income of all these millionaires would run the government for 18 days. :lol:

So, it looks like Big Gov is going to have to tax an awful, awful lot of Little People just to run the government for another 18 days. In other words, the 99% would have to get it socked to 'em big time. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

should readMaybe you take strong look at what kind of mess we were in during the last half of 2008 and compare it to now. After eight years of the policies that republicans want to return, we had a loss of 6.2% in GDP in last quarter of 2008 and there was a loss of jobs in the last months of 2008. We had growth of over 3% in GDP and growth in jobs every month for over two years. Why would you want to go back to a shrinking GDP and having a net loss in jobs every month? Please save the country from returning to those dismal numbers.

[Robert Goren]

Raising taxes is definitely not the answer. Rush just reviewed a 2009 IRS report that stated only 8,274 filers had income of 10 Mil or more. The total income of all these millionaires would run the government for 18 days. :lol:

So, it looks like Big Gov is going to have to tax an awful, awful lot of Little People just to run the government for another 18 days. In other words, the 99% would have to get it socked to 'em big time. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar Is there some part of the Bible that I haven't read that say you can take it with you when you die?:lol: Do you really think Romney and company can thread a camel through the eye of a needle? Maybe the Mormons have some super secret invention that can shrink camels. :lol: :lol:

[bigmack]

Should have known.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/AsObamademandsrichAmericanspaymoreintaxestheIRSrev eals36ObamaaidesarefarbehindintheirtaxesbyAndrewMa lcolm-Investorscom.png

[lamboguy]

You are obsessed !!actually i am becoming obsessed with murmuration these days.

there are some great shots of those starlings and their formations if you would like to check them out.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vhE8ScWe7w

[boxcar]

actually i am becoming obsessed with murmuration these days.

there are some great shots of those starlings and their formations if you would like to check them out.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vhE8ScWe7w

What has always amazed me about these formations is the lack of collisions with these birds flying so close to one another. I keep looking for one to take the dive to the earth, but have never seen it. Amazing!

Boxcar

[badcompany]

Did we have 313M people 100 years ago? We had 92M. NJ was talking about tax rates, I'm sure, although we did have a 28% rate briefly.

As far as taxes as a percent of GDP, it makes sense that tax collections mirror GDP. Is it not a conservative dogma that more business means higher tax collections. You can not compare taxes from different eras directly. Populations are different. Life styles are different. Only by using GDP and evaluating revenue as a percentage of GDP can we get an accurate comparison.

It speaks volumes the cons think it ok to compare two things using two different scales.

Take it up with NJStinks. He was the one who said taxes have never been lower.

[badcompany]

Raising taxes is definitely not the answer. Rush just reviewed a 2009 IRS report that stated only 8,274 filers had income of 10 Mil or more. The total income of all these millionaires would run the government for 18 days. :lol:

So, it looks like Big Gov is going to have to tax an awful, awful lot of Little People just to run the government for another 18 days. In other words, the 99% would have to get it socked to 'em big time. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

It's as though Obama and Co. think no one can do simple math. They have trillion dollar deficits, as far as the eye can see, on a 2.1 trillion dollar budget; yet, somehow the problem is that 1% of the population isn't paying its "fair share.":liar:

[lamboguy]

What has always amazed me about these formations is the lack of collisions with these birds flying so close to one another. I keep looking for one to take the dive to the earth, but have never seen it. Amazing!

Boxcari honestly have no explanation for it other than there must be some spiritual force that gets them to do this.

as you can understand, some things in life are not completely black or white.

[bigmack]

It's as though Obama and Co. think no one can do simple math. They have trillion dollar deficits, as far as the eye can see, on a 2.1 trillion dollar budget; yet, somehow the problem is that 1% of the population isn't paying its "fair share.":liar:
Smoke & mirrors, while NJ, Mosty, Goren lap it up like kittens to milk. 'Cept kittens have independence of thought. Those drones are positively vacuous.

http://www.raising-happy-kittens.com/images/kittens_drinking_milk.jpg

[LottaKash]

Is there some part of the Bible that I haven't read that say you can take it with you when you die?:lol: Do you really think Romney and company can thread a camel through the eye of a needle? Maybe the Mormons have some super secret invention that can shrink camels. :lol: :lol:

Just for the sake of clarification, as so many people don't realize what is meant by that....a camel through the eye of the needle...

In ancient Jerusalem, as in most other ancient cities as well, the "main gates" were closed to any further traffic during the nite....It was a security measure....As a consequence, there was a much smaller gate that was kicked into service for any nite arrivals.....This gate was dubbed "the eye of the needle", and this gate was so small that in order for a "camel" to pass through it, it would have to be brought to it's knees, and had to crawl through it to enter the city....This was done to prevent a person or a group of persons on camelback from storming thru the gate...It had to be done slow and delibertate...

So, when Jesus made this statement, what he meant was, that it is much harder to get to heaven than just running through a gate, as one must (just as the camel had to) go slow and go (live) more deliberately, and on one's knees, so to speak...It takes extra effort to please God, is all...


best,

[boxcar]

Is there some part of the Bible that I haven't read that say you can take it with you when you die?:lol: Do you really think Romney and company can thread a camel through the eye of a needle? Maybe the Mormons have some super secret invention that can shrink camels. :lol: :lol:

Lotta Kash gave an excellent interpretation of that Hebrew (or possibly Arabic) idiom that Christ employed.

Secondly, I do really think that the bible does exhort, condone, encourage, support and praise the whole of idea of families leaving an inheritance to their posterity. In fact, in the Law of Moses, it is commanded!

One of the most amazing passages in all the bible respecting inheritances is this one:

Num 27:6-11
6 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 7 "The daughters of Zelophehad are right in their statements. You shall surely give them a hereditary possession among their father's brothers, and you shall transfer the inheritance of their father to them. 8 Further, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. 9 'And if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 'And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father's brothers. 11 'And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his nearest relative in his own family, and he shall possess it; and it shall be a statutory ordinance to the sons of Israel, just as the Lord commanded Moses.'"
NASB

What makes this such a remarkable passage is the Levitical Priesthood because the priests relied solely on the tithes of the people to live. In fact, the Levites weren't given any land! They possessed nothing! The contributions of the people, as commanded in the Law, were the Levites only source of income. So, one would think that if someone died and had absolutely no immediate family with whom to leave his worldly possessions that the inheritance would automatically default to the "state", i.e. the Priesthood. Isn't that what happens in the modern world today?

And even before the Law during the day of Job, there was no one in the East more wealthy than he was. And to whom did he leave his wealth?

Job 42:15-16
15 And in all the land no women were found so fair as Job's daughters; and their father gave them inheritance among their brothers.
NASB

The subject of "inheritance" is a huge theme in the bible, not only in dealing with material goods but more importantly with respect to believers' inheritance from their Heavenly Father.

Boxcar

[HUSKER55]

THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE COME TO RELIE ON GOVERNMENT DOING MORE AND MORE AND PEOPLE DOING LESS AND LESS. THROW IN SOME FUZZY MATH AND OUT RIGHT CROOKS AND GUESS WHAT?

OUR DEFECEIT.

[NJ Stinks]

Smoke & mirrors, while NJ, Mosty, Goren lap it up like kittens to milk. 'Cept kittens have independence of thought. Those drones are positively vacuous.

http://www.raising-happy-kittens.com/images/kittens_drinking_milk.jpg

Hey, that's me on the Left! :lol:

[boxcar]

Hey, that's me on the Left! :lol:

What an insult to the feline species. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[Tom]

Turns out Buffet's secretary is either in the top 1% or 2%.
And she's not a secretary, she's his personal assistant.
And her income and Warren's are no the same type of income.


The lies come so easy, and the lemmings swallow so fast.
If I were a lib here, I would be embarrassed to be such a pigeon.:lol::lol:

[lamboguy]

i just got done watching the replay of this speech. the only thing i learned after watching it was the reason why the natural gas market and solar stocks came off the bottom this week. someone had to know that he was going to reverse his position on natural gas and knew he was going to pump solar.

then he went into being a hypocrite about insider trading and how he wanted to bring people to justice that commit insider trading.

other than that he had a very long speech that of course sounded great, but a lot of the things that he said have no chance of ever happening, which he probably knows ahead of time.

the speech was more of a campaign speech than an address about the state of the country.

all in all he is proving why he will be a very tough candidate to knock off once november rolls around. he is holding to many aces right now.i just found my answer http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/26/soros-may-benefit-from-white-houses-natural-gas-proposal/

[badcompany]

Turns out Buffet's secretary is either in the top 1% or 2%.
And she's not a secretary, she's his personal assistant.
And her income and Warren's are no the same type of income.


The lies come so easy, and the lemmings swallow so fast.
If I were a lib here, I would be embarrassed to be such a pigeon.:lol::lol:

Trotting this broad out as an example of a 99%er had to be the dumbest move ever, as she obviously has advantages, being Buffett's assistant, that the average Joe/Jane doesn't.

I'm shocked that a Magna Cum Lauder like Obama could do something so stupid.:lol:

[Robert Goren]

Lotta Kash gave an excellent interpretation of that Hebrew (or possibly Arabic) idiom that Christ employed.

Secondly, I do really think that the bible does exhort, condone, encourage, support and praise the whole of idea of families leaving an inheritance to their posterity. In fact, in the Law of Moses, it is commanded!

One of the most amazing passages in all the bible respecting inheritances is this one:

Num 27:6-11
6 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 7 "The daughters of Zelophehad are right in their statements. You shall surely give them a hereditary possession among their father's brothers, and you shall transfer the inheritance of their father to them. 8 Further, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. 9 'And if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 'And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father's brothers. 11 'And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his nearest relative in his own family, and he shall possess it; and it shall be a statutory ordinance to the sons of Israel, just as the Lord commanded Moses.'"
NASB

What makes this such a remarkable passage is the Levitical Priesthood because the priests relied solely on the tithes of the people to live. In fact, the Levites weren't given any land! They possessed nothing! The contributions of the people, as commanded in the Law, were the Levites only source of income. So, one would think that if someone died and had absolutely no immediate family with whom to leave his worldly possessions that the inheritance would automatically default to the "state", i.e. the Priesthood. Isn't that what happens in the modern world today?

And even before the Law during the day of Job, there was no one in the East more wealthy than he was. And to whom did he leave his wealth?

Job 42:15-16
15 And in all the land no women were found so fair as Job's daughters; and their father gave them inheritance among their brothers.
NASB

The subject of "inheritance" is a huge theme in the bible, not only in dealing with material goods but more importantly with respect to believers' inheritance from their Heavenly Father.

BoxcarSo what did Christ say was the only way a rich man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

[boxcar]

So what did Christ say was the only way a rich man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Well, it wasn't by giving all his money to Caesar. That's for darn sure! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[Overlay]

So what did Christ say was the only way a rich man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, because a rich person is tempted to forget about God, and to place his trust (including for his eternal destiny) in his possessions, as if they had merit in God's eyes. That was why Jesus told the rich young man who said that he had kept all the commandments that, if he wanted to be perfect, he needed to sell his possessions, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Jesus. Jesus knew that, despite the young man's external obedience, his wealth was keeping him from a proper spiritual relationship with God. It is not wealth itself that the Bible condemns, but the effect that wealth can have upon a person's relationship with God. When Jesus told the apostles for emphasis how difficult it was for those who were rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the apostles asked (from their normal human perspective), "Who then can be saved?", to which Jesus replied, "With men, it is impossible, but, with God, all things are possible."

[boxcar]

Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, because a rich person is tempted to forget about God, and to place his trust (including for his eternal destiny) in his possessions, as if they had merit in God's eyes. That was why Jesus told the rich young man who said that he had kept all the commandments that, if he wanted to be perfect, he needed to sell his possessions, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Jesus. Jesus knew that, despite the young man's external obedience, his wealth was keeping him from a proper spiritual relationship with God. It is not wealth itself that the Bible condemns, but the effect that wealth can have upon a person's relationship with God. When Jesus told the apostles for emphasis how difficult it was for those who were rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the apostles asked (from their normal human perspective), "Who then can be saved?", to which Jesus replied, "With men, it is impossible, but, with God, all things are possible."

Well stated!

It's impossible for men to change their own hearts. We are what we are. We can no more change what we are than a leopard can change its spots. A leopard is what it is by its nature, and so a leopard it must remain. Yet, God can change people's hearts and minds. That's what the new birth is all about -- the birth within the New Covenant that was actually promised in the OT.

Boxcar

[hcap]

"Poor in spirit" is the key.

A man can be wealthy with worldly goods and also be poor in spirit. The "wealth" of an abundant ego that blocks and takes credit for things it doesn't own, makes it difficult to pass through the spiritual gate.

In Aramaic,"ányâ" is poor. In Hebrew, "anî", bent down, afflicted, miserable, poor. Meek is a synonym from the same root, 'ánwan (Hebrew 'ánaw), bending oneself down, humble, gentle.

Beggars before God can only ask if they are not full of themselves (it). And yes, worldly wealth can be a huge distraction. Particularly if it also leads to power and control over others.

[boxcar]

"Poor in spirit" is the key.

A man can be wealthy with worldly goods and also be poor in spirit. The "wealth" of an abundant ego that blocks and takes credit for things it doesn't own, makes it difficult to pass through the spiritual gate.

In Aramaic,"ányâ" is poor. In Hebrew, "anî", bent down, afflicted, miserable, poor. Meek is a synonym from the same root, 'ánwan (Hebrew 'ánaw), bending oneself down, humble, gentle.

Beggars before God can only ask if they are not full of themselves (it). And yes, worldly wealth can be a huge distraction. Particularly if it also leads to power and control over others.

Hey, 'cap, you know that was one of your finest posts ever. You actually showed some genuine insight. Seriously. I applaud you.

Now, do you agree that many politicians are wealthy -- perhaps even most of them?

Also, being in a place of power where one is in a position to offer favors, perhaps to the highest bidder, would not even the pursuit of wealth by people who not particularly wealthy, also be a "huge distraction"?

Also, since money can be a "huge distraction", cannot power also be a huge distraction? If people can abuse their wealth by not heeding the Word of God, cannot they also abuse their power?

Boxcar

[hcap]

Yes on all points.

But then the question becomes how does one "empty" the container.


A Zen story.....

A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."

[boxcar]

Yes on all points.

But then the question becomes how does one "empty" the container.


A Zen story.....

A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."

Actually, it's the wrong question. The biblical question is: How does one become filled with the Holy Spirit -- the Third Person of the Godhead? In fact, emptying oneself is not the answer at all. Hear Jesus' words:

Matt 12:43-45
43 "Now when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places, seeking rest, and does not find it. 44 "Then it says, 'I will return to my house from which I came'; and when it comes, it finds it unoccupied, swept, and put in order. 45 "Then it goes, and takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. That is the way it will also be with this evil generation."
NASB

Jesus cast out numerous evil spirits during his ministry. If the recipients of his grace failed to believe in him, the "house" that he cleaned, and swept and put in order will become filled/occupied again -- but this time with more evil than previously.

This is why everywhere in the NT, believers are commanded to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Nowhere is it commanded that believers should "empty their cups" or empty themselves. While we are exhorted to die to ourselves and to be crucified with Christ, that "dying" alone isn't enough. We, then, must live unto God in the Spirit because we have been raised up (spiritually) with Him.

But since most people in the world don't follow Zen or Christianity, your answer is also a non-answer. You have answered correctly my question, however, "Yes on all points". Therefore, my question to you now becomes: Why are you so quick to condemn specific groups of people in our society because of sins you perceive in them, yet give a pass to those who are in power when they are in your favorite political party?

I, on the other hand, am quick to point out the sins of all, regardless of their station in life, their party affiliation, their race, their religion or any other standing in society. For example, would you care to rattle off the names of all the politicians who you perceive are "poor in spirit"? Who truly have a servant's attitude? Frankly, I cannot think of one who I would classify as such. Most politicians project a very poor moral image of themselves -- people who are generally dishonest, liars, untrustworthy, conceited, egotistical, envious, selfish, and lustful for power and money. Yet, so many people seem to overlook all these negative character traits and pretend they don't exist with politicians in their own political party. We are told to trust our politicians because they really have our best interests at heart. But do you truly believe that? I don't. Which is why I loathe the idea of a big, powerful, central, controlling government that exists only for the purpose of controlling (enslaving) me. The bigger government becomes, the smaller (less significant) Individuals become. We shrink in inverse proportion to the government.

Boxcar

[hcap]

We can take this over to the "Religious" thread.

I said "how do we empty the container"

Actually, it's the wrong question. The biblical question is: How does one become filled with the Holy Spirit
I have said on numerous occasions that the journey to God (using the western Judeo-Christian terminology) is a journey inwards.
This is not a anti-God philosophy, or anti-Christian . Rather it simply is a valid means of "witnessing" the inner contradictions that prevent what you would call the Holy Spirit from arriving in due time.

True humility requires sacrifice of the ego (little self). The Catholic reference, to be a "Beggar before God" means one must recognize how small we really are how little of our lives is devoted to the higher We spend most of our waking moments glorifying our limited mind and thinking we already know.

So your parable of cleaning "house" is the emptying process. Does God help those that help themselves? In this case yes. Cleaning house is just preparing the way and making room. But it is not easy. Mostly because after sweeping and making a honest job of cleaning, lo and behold we stop "witnessing" and manage to take credit for such a swell job we did. Cue the next seven demons just waiting.

To try to be empty is to kick out the psychological spiritual demons for an extended amount of time. Before they pop back in.

Other references to preparing the way are

1-Become as children
2-Be like lilies in the field
3-Prepare good ground for planting the seed of the kingdom of heaven.

(I suspect the story of John the Baptist is another)

The problem is we don't usually make the effort.
We are perpetually waiting for it to just happen.

Spiritual laziness captured by Michelangelo

http://www.canvasreplicas.com/images/Creation%20Michelangelo.jpg

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/37/3722/2BTAF00Z/posters/michelangelo-buonarroti-the-creation-of-adam.jpg

[Robert Goren]

Well, it wasn't by giving all his money to Caesar. That's for darn sure! :lol: :lol: :lol:

BoxcarYou this was coming.
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him." Mark 12:17
There isn't anybody marvelling at Romney rendering either his giving to God or Caesar unless it they are marveling about how little of his riches he rendered to either.:lol: :lol: :lol:
I know Christian conservatives are always rationalising ways to be rich and Christian, But that is all it is, rationalising. The Bible is about as specific as it gets on this matter as it is on anything. When the words comes out of the mouth of Christ, it trumps any rationalising of Old Testament verses. So don't even bother dragging them out.

[HUSKER55]

bible also says we are not to judge others. "Rendering unto ceaser what is ceaser's" means obey they laws we have made for ourselves as well as the laws of god.


why is it we are fixated on money? money by itself and the acquisition of it through hard work is not evil.

a man earns a billion dollars and puts it in the bank, which pays him interest. Then they loan the money out to work for others so they can increase their talents. 100% of his wealth is at work, is it not?

[Robert Goren]

bible also says we are not to judge others. "Rendering unto ceaser what is ceaser's" means obey they laws we have made for ourselves as well as the laws of god.


why is it we are fixated on money? money by itself and the acquisition of it through hard work is not evil.

a man earns a billion dollars and puts it in the bank, which pays him interest. Then they loan the money out to work for others so they can increase their talents. 100% of his wealth is at work, is it not? I hope that explanation works for you when you meet your Maker.

[boxcar]

You this was coming.
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him." Mark 12:17

And what is this supposed to prove exactly? Did Jesus tell the rich man to give all his money to Caesar or to voluntarily give it to the poor?

In the context of the passage you quoted, Jesus is simply teaching we are obligated to obey civil authorities, which is the exact same thing Paul taught, as well. And paying taxes is one of those civil obligations.

But in the immediate context of this passage, the hypocritical Pharisees were testing Jesus, trying to trap him, because they professed to be under the kingship or divine authority of their covenant-making God (being a theocratic state), so why should they pay taxes to another authority? This was the trap they were setting for Jesus. They figured that if Jesus answered that they are obligated to pay taxes to Caesar that this would constitute a denial of the nation's covenant relationship with God, in which case they would accuse Jesus of blasphemy. On the other hand, if Jesus told them that they were not obligated to pay taxes to Rome, they would accuse Him of sedition, in which case they would take him immediately before Pontius Pilate to stand trial.

Bottom line: Your text proves nothing. And in fact, has nothing at all to do with Jesus' encounter with the self-righteous rich man.

There isn't anybody marvelling at Romney rendering either his giving to God or Caesar unless it they are marveling about how little of his riches he rendered to either.:lol: :lol: :lol:
I know Christian conservatives are always rationalising ways to be rich and Christian, But that is all it is, rationalising. The Bible is about as specific as it gets on this matter as it is on anything. When the words comes out of the mouth of Christ, it trumps any rationalising of Old Testament verses. So don't even bother dragging them out.

Yeah...well, find me that 11th commandment that says, Thou shalt be poor! :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

bible also says we are not to judge others.

Actually, it doesn't say that. I don't have time to get into it now, but you might want to dig more deeply into what Jesus taught and keep it in its context.

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Yeah...well, find me that 11th commandment that says, Thou shalt be poor! :lol: :lol:

BoxcarIt is not a commandment, but it does comes from the mouth of Christ. Luke 18:18-22

18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”


19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.”

21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Sounds pretty straight forward to me, but I am sure that you will find a way to rationalise it. You always do when the Bible doesn't fit your political doctrine.

[boxcar]

It is not a commandment, but it does comes from the mouth of Christ. Luke 18:18-22

18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”


19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.”

21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Sounds pretty straight forward to me, but I am sure that you will find a way to rationalise it. You always do when the Bible doesn't fit your political doctrine.

You've got it half right. It is very straightforward. However, you are the one rationalizing.

Questions:

1. Did Jesus tell the rich man that owning so much wealth was sinful?

2. Did Jesus condemn wealth?

3. Did Jesus rebuke the rich man because it was unfair for him to own so much wealth?

4. Did Jesus, who was the King of the Jews, command the rich man to turn his money over to Him, i.e. the "state"?

5. Did Jesus command the rich man to turn all his money over to the tax collector the next time he saw him so that he could in turn give it to Caesar?

6. As the King of the Jews, did Jesus tell the rich man that if he didn't voluntarily sell his possessions and give them to the poor that He would issue a royal edict to force him to do so?

7. Or did Jesus simply tell the rich man to sell all his worldly possessions because the man had a serious spiritual problem? And that his core problem was that he trusted in his wealth to get him through life instead of trusting in God? That he essentially worshiped his wealth and made it his god and, therefore, this self-righteous man was also an idolater on top of everything else?

Now, which one of us was rationalizing, again?

Boxcar