The Right Whine

[NJ Stinks]

Having reviewed the incessant wailing by our conservative brethren here, let's summarize the perceived injustices:

1. The mainstream media isn't buying what we are selling.

2. The majority of Americans are too dumb to understand what we are selling.

3. Tom, being a "real" American, is convinced he is being screwed day in and day out by liberals. (Unfortunately, Tom can't convey his contempt for liberals in a satisfactory manner. So he repeats himself ad nauseam.)

4. Wlliard Romney is not a horse a conservative would put on a Superfecta ticket. But you're stuck with him on top and this makes you even more grumpy.

5. Obama is 4/9 to be re-elected in November. Romney is 7/4. The bookies are begging people to bet on Mack's Lock of the Year. :(


By all means feel free to add to this list. :cool:


Link: http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/415683/US-Election-2012---Winning-Party.html

[Tom]

Having reviewed the incessant wailing by our conservative brethren here, let's summarize the perceived injustices:

1. The mainstream media isn't buying what we are selling.
No, we complain that the msm is biased and fails to do its job and fairly report both sides.

2. The majority of Americans are too dumb to understand what we are selling.
No, roughly half of AMericans (democrats) are too stupid to understand what is going on and blindly support the dems because they talk a good game.
3. Tom, being a "real" American, is convinced he is being screwed day in and day out by liberals. (Unfortunately, Tom can't convey his contempt for liberals in a satisfactory manner. So he repeats himself ad nauseam.)
No, the country is being screwed day in day out. And I cannot convey my contempt for libs because I signed the TOS to post here. I would be using far more hyphenated word if not for TOS? Besides, as I stated clearly right after the election from Hell that I would be posting from now on by adhering to the standards set by the lefties on this board during the Bush presidency. I believe I have not been able to sink as low as a good number of those post, agins, TOS and I just cannot, try as I might, sink as low as some of the libs here did.

4. Wlliard Romney is not a horse a conservative would put on a Superfecta ticket. But you're stuck with him on top and this makes you even more grumpy.
Yes, we are forced to settle for the lesser of two evils, but the other evil is far worse than 10 Mitt's on their worst day.

5. Obama is 4/9 to be re-elected in November. Romney is 7/4. The bookies are begging people to bet on Mack's Lock of the Year. :(
This is all nonsense......a waste of time looking at. I cannot comment on your e version of masterbation. But feel free to have a whack t it yourself.

By all means feel free to add to this list. :cool:


Link: http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/415683/US-Election-2012---Winning-Party.html

Oh the fruit hangs so low some days.....

[Wagergirl]

Oh the fruit hangs so low some days.....

that you can pick it one handed??

[FantasticDan]

Oh the fruit hangs so low some days.....Tom must've visited his urologist recently..

[Native Texan III]

Tom must've visited his urologist recently..

No one takes the piss out of Tom. Or do they ? :confused:

[Wagergirl]

ew ew ew ew ew.. I just got the image from yesterday out of my mind.. YUUUUUUUCCCCKKK> :D

[elysiantraveller]

Having reviewed the incessant wailing by our conservative brethren here, let's summarize the perceived injustices:

1. The mainstream media isn't buying what we are selling.

2. The majority of Americans are too dumb to understand what we are selling.

3. Tom, being a "real" American, is convinced he is being screwed day in and day out by liberals. (Unfortunately, Tom can't convey his contempt for liberals in a satisfactory manner. So he repeats himself ad nauseam.)

4. Wlliard Romney is not a horse a conservative would put on a Superfecta ticket. But you're stuck with him on top and this makes you even more grumpy.

5. Obama is 4/9 to be re-elected in November. Romney is 7/4. The bookies are begging people to bet on Mack's Lock of the Year. :(

1: The MSM did just call a mass-murderer "far-right." I don't know if the complaint is always justified but at least today it is. :cool:

2: Americans are dumb...

3: Tom is only one vote.... thank god....

4: Nope. Romney was my second choice out of the field so I'm happy. But of course no one likes him... to the tune of $100 Million... :rolleyes:

5: And a lot of money comes in closer to post time... this is one of the dumber points I have heard anyone make.

[bigmack]

Having reviewed the incessant wailing by our liberal brethren here, let's summarize the perceived injustices.
Let's see if I can succinctly illustrate the mantra of NJ & Co.

We need more unions and rich bastards don't pay enough taxes.

Other than that, they have nothing. Squat. Diddley. Bupkis.

[NJ Stinks]

5: And a lot of money comes in closer to post time... this is one of the dumber points I have heard anyone make.

The Point is that conservatives are looking at 4/9 or 1/2 every day. This makes righties whiney.

Trust me, Ely! :lol:

[fast4522]

Some here refuse to acknowledge that this country is split on everything, approximately half do not agree on this level of spending period. For some perverse reason some of you folks feel that you are entitled to win the argument of liberalism is right and just, even if it implodes everything and makes each and every one of us slaves to service the national debt. I got news for you enlightened bent liberals, when the Presidency goes conservative we are taking YOU out to service the debt. Count on a economic recovery paid for on your backs. Good luck to you in November, good luck to us all in November.

[NJ Stinks]

Let's see if I can succinctly illustrate the mantra of NJ & Co.

We need more unions and rich bastards don't pay enough taxes.

Other than that, they have nothing. Squat. Diddley. Bupkis.

The mantra of NJ and Co. is 4/9 for a reason.

[NJ Stinks]

Some here refuse to acknowledge that this country is split on everything, approximately half do not agree on this level of spending period. For some perverse reason some of you folks feel that you are entitled to win the argument of liberalism is right and just, even if it implodes everything and makes each and every one of us slaves to service the national debt. I got news for you enlightened bent liberals, when the Presidency goes conservative we are taking YOU out to service the debt. Count on a economic recovery paid for on your backs. Good luck to you in November, good luck to us all in November.

THe Right Whine - Exhibit A above.

And Fast, if the country was truly split, Obama wouldn't be 4/9.

[elysiantraveller]

THe Right Whine - Exhibit A above.

And Fast, if the country was truly split, Obama wouldn't be 4/9.

This going back to the odds thing is particularly hilarious on a horse racing board. I know three months isn't the same as 25MTP but....

:bang:

[bigmack]

This going back to the odds thing is particularly hilarious on a horse racing board. I know three months isn't the same as 25MTP but....
circa 1980... Gallup had a poll showing Carter up by six among likely voters in a poll conducted Oct. 24 to 27.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/UnitedStatespresidentialelection1980-Wikipediathefreeencyclopedia.png
Final results, R2 by over 10.

[NJ Stinks]

circa 1980... Gallup had a poll showing Carter up by six among likely voters in a poll conducted Oct. 24 to 27.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/UnitedStatespresidentialelection1980-Wikipediathefreeencyclopedia.png
Final results, R2 by over 10.

Any other Fractured Fairy Tales for your friends, Bullwinkle? ;)

[Ocala Mike]

circa 1980... Gallup had a poll showing Carter up by six among likely voters in a poll conducted Oct. 24 to 27.



The consensus of ALL polls at that time was that the race was a statistical dead heat. Then, on 10/28, Reagan buried Carter in a debate in Cleveland ("There you go again" and "Are you better off than you were four years ago").

There were also rumors of an "October Surprise" involving release of the hostages by Iran that never materialized.

Bottom line: let's see how the debates go and see if Barry is the beneficiary of an "October Surprise" of his own.

[bigmack]

Any other Fractured Fairy Tales for your friends, Bullwinkle?
How with any level of consciousness you're able to determine this country would be well served by 4 more years of this incompetent fool is beyond me.

Oh, I forgot. Numskulls like you blindly vote D because you've been programmed with hatred for the other side by the likes of Maddow & Klein.

[mostpost]

Let's see if I can succinctly illustrate the mantra of NJ & Co.

We need more unions and rich bastards don't pay enough taxes.

Other than that, they have nothing. Squat. Diddley. Bupkis.
Not even close. We do need more and stronger unions. And we do think the rich need to pay more taxes, just as they did in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Which was the era of greatest prosperity in our history. But we make no distinction as to whether or not they are born out of wedlock.

[lsbets]

Not even close. We do need more and stronger unions. And we do think the rich need to pay more taxes, just as they did in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Which was the era of greatest prosperity in out history. But we make no distinction as to whether or not they are born out of wedlock.

Amazing that after it was proven to you over and over again that you are wrong, you still keep it going with your fantasy that higher tax rates equal more taxes paid and that tax rates had anything to do with our economic growth after WWII.

I'll give you credit for one thing. You are stubborn. No matter how wrong you are, no matter how disconnected from reality your assertions are, you keep going with them.

That's not an admirable quality for someone who wants to be taken seriously.

[NJ Stinks]

How with any level of consciousness you're able to determine this country would be well served by 4 more years of this incompetent fool is beyond me.

Oh, I forgot. Numskulls like you blindly vote D because you've been programmed with hatred for the other side by the likes of Maddow & Klein.

The Right Whine - Exhibit B above.


Hey Mack, is Dick Morris really a news contributor? :lol:

[bigmack]

Not even close. We do need more and stronger unions. And we do think the rich need to pay more taxes, just as they did in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Which was the era of greatest prosperity in our history. But we make no distinction as to whether or not they are born out of wedlock.
HOW many times does it need to be drilled into that think cranium of yours that NO ONE paid those rates you see in charts of the high tax rates of yesteryear. Why do you just keep spouting crap that's not even remotely relevant? (See earlier post...Maddow/Klein/Press...)

RE: Unions

Remind me again the number of union households that voted AGAINST the recall of Walker. Oh yeah, 63%! :lol: Wrap your head around that.

Why is Kasich doing well in the polls in heavily unionized OH? Because unemployment is coming down.

If you stepped out of your normal media outlets for 'news' your brain would thank you.

[bigmack]

NJ & PostToasites

By the bye, since you twos are in this room as we shpeak, what say ya's on Harry Reidoids despicable comments?

How low can you go? And to a fellow Morm! Blowing TJDave's theorem out the H20. AND he brought in his DAD!

How much lower does it go than what Harry just did?

Do both of you, here and now, say what he just did is most deplorable?

[NJ Stinks]

NJ & PostToasites

By the bye, since you twos are in this room as we shpeak, what say ya's on Harry Reidoids despicable comments?

How low can you go? And to a fellow Morm! Blowing TJDave's theorem out the H20. AND he brought in his DAD!

How much lower does it go than what Harry just did?

Do both of you, here and now, say what he just did is most deplorable?

No. Deplorable is reserved for things like Swift Boating.

The way I see it Harry is never gonna run again and just got re-elected. So he figures why not have fun with whatever Romney is hiding in those tax returns.

Ayway, if I thought Republicans were interested in bi-partisanship, I'd be pissed at Reid. Oviously, I'm not pissed.

[dartman51]

The Point is that conservatives are looking at 4/9 or 1/2 every day. This makes righties whiney.

Trust me, Ely! :lol:

NJ, being a horse player, YOU should know that the M/L is wrong a lot more often than it is right. Besides, I see NO value in that bet. At 4/9 or 1/2, you can't make any real money, but go ahead and load up on that one. Just don't come back here looking for a hand out, after the race is over, and Guido comes for his money. ;) :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

HOW many times does it need to be drilled into that think cranium of yours that NO ONE paid those rates you see in charts of the high tax rates of yesteryear. Why do you just keep spouting crap that's not even remotely relevant? (See earlier post...Maddow/Klein/Press...)

RE: Unions

Remind me again the number of union households that voted AGAINST the recall of Walker. Oh yeah, 63%! :lol: Wrap your head around that.

Why is Kasich doing well in the polls in heavily unionized OH? Because unemployment is coming down.

If you stepped out of your normal media outlets for 'news' your brain would thank you.
You have the Walker thing backwards. 63% voted against Walker. But why did even 37% vote for him? The reason I heard most often is that they felt recall should only be used in cases of malfeasance in office. They felt that the time to kick Walker out of office because they disagreed with his policies will be in the next Gubernatorial election. I admit I never thought of it in those terms but I kind of agree with them.

As for your assertion that no one paid the high rates of the fifties and sixties, you may be somewhat correct. On the other hand it is obvious that no one pays the low rates of today.

[lsbets]

As for your assertion that no one paid the high rates of the fifties and sixties, you may be somewhat correct. On the other hand it is obvious that no one pays the low rates of today.

You are a complete dolt. You were shown that people essentially pay the same percentage under today's rates as under the higher rates you long for.

[badcompany]

You are a complete dolt. You were shown that people essentially pay the same percentage under today's rates as under the higher rates you long for.

Mostie and Stinks can long for the days of strong private sector unions and punishing tax rates, but it will never happen again for one reason: Globalization.

Companies have too many options for unions to acheive their monopoly labor prices and for local governments to get their shake down tax rates.

As an aside, ever notice how "Progressives" are always trying to take us back in time?

[badcompany]

NJ, being a horse player, YOU should know that the M/L is wrong a lot more often than it is right. Besides, I see NO value in that bet. At 4/9 or 1/2, you can't make any real money, but go ahead and load up on that one. Just don't come back here looking for a hand out, after the race is over, and Guido comes for his money. ;) :ThmbUp:

I remember days before the Bush/Kerry election, Zogby, the "genius" of polling, saying the race was trending for Kerry.

[bigmack]

Ayway, if I thought Republicans were interested in bi-partisanship, I'd be pissed at Reid. Oviously, I'm not pissed.
Sorry to hear you're as hopped-up on ideologue garbage as Boxcar and some of the ultra-rights here. Figured with your affinity for all things European you'd have enough sense to recognize truly shameful actions when you saw them.

At least I can say I think with my own head. With regret, you remain a drone like so many who spout partyline rubbish.

I see Mosty can't even address the issue. :ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

Sorry to hear you're as hopped-up on ideologue garbage as Boxcar and some of the ultra-rights here. Figured with your affinity for all things European you'd have enough sense to recognize truly shameful actions when you saw them.

At least I can say I think with my own head. With regret, you remain a drone like so many who spout partyline rubbish.

I see Mosty can't even address the issue. :ThmbUp:

I'm shocked! Shocked I say!

I had no idea you would be disappointed with my rather succinct response. :D

[TJDave]

Do you, here and now, say what he just did is most deplorable?

Absolutely. I think it's also disgusting, unconscionable, the lowest of the low, mean, nasty...and ugly, too. It makes me so f**king mad I can't see straight.

I know your question wasn't directed at me personally but I just had to get it out of my system.

[NJ Stinks]

Absolutely. I think it's also disgusting, unconscionable, the lowest of the low, mean, nasty...and ugly, too. It makes me so f**king mad I can't see straight.

I know your question wasn't directed at me personally but I just had to get it out of my system.

OK, Dave. Now that you feel better, was it worse than the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry?

[mostpost]

You are a complete dolt. You were shown that people essentially pay the same percentage under today's rates as under the higher rates you long for.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf
This is a study that compares effective tax rates for various economic groups over a period from 1960 to 2004 .

Income Groups
Average federal tax rates (percent)
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004
Full population 21.4 23.3 26.6 25.8 27.4 23.4
P20–40 13.9 18.5 16.3 16.2 13.1 9.4
P40–60 15.9 20.2 21.4 21.0 20.0 16.1
P60–80 16.7 20.7 24.5 24.3 23.9 20.5
P80–90 17.4 20.5 26.7 26.2 26.4 22.7
P90–95 18.7 21.4 27.9 27.9 28.7 24.9
P95–99 23.5 25.6 31.0 28.6 31.1 27.2
P99–99.5 34.0 36.1 37.6 31.5 35.7 31.3
P99.5–99.9 41.4 44.6 43.0 33.0 38.4 33.0
P99.9–99.99 55.3 59.1 51.0 34.3 40.2 34.1
P99.99–100 71.4 74.6 59.3 35.4 40.8 34.7

For those in the group highlighted in Navy Blue (Those in the top 99 to 99.5%)
the effective rate decreased by 8% (2.7/34)
Those in the Green group paid taxes at a 20.3% lower rate.
For slate gray the difference was 38.3% lower
and the top .01% paid at a 51% lower rate.

By contrast taxes for the entire population went up 9%

[mostpost]

Sorry to hear you're as hopped-up on ideologue garbage as Boxcar and some of the ultra-rights here. Figured with your affinity for all things European you'd have enough sense to recognize truly shameful actions when you saw them.

At least I can say I think with my own head. With regret, you remain a drone like so many who spout partyline rubbish.

I see Mosty can't even address the issue. :ThmbUp:
I'm going to bed, but the short answer is NO.
No Reid's actions are not deplorable or whatever horrible thing you think.

[TJDave]

OK, Dave. Now that you feel better, was it worse than the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry?

Was what worse?

[lsbets]

By contrast taxes for the entire population went up 9%

My guess is you will never comprehend while this statement makes you look foolish if you are trying to rebut where I said essentially the same. You are incapable of understanding the data in that chart. It proves my point.

[bigmack]

Guy not only brings in total BS about his taxes, uses an unnamed source. Brings in up on the Senate floor. And invokes his dad and said he should feel shame. What's left, Yo'r Momma?

Hard to believe neither or you two feel any shame in that game 'tall.

Swiftboat? Are you for real with that being your grand comeback?

[lsbets]

I'm going to bed, but the short answer is NO.
No Reid's actions are not deplorable or whatever horrible thing you think.

Of course you think what Reid said in relation to Romney's Dad was fine. You're the guy who has never had kids and feels its okay to tell others how to raise and care for their children. Any sane person who values family and has a sense of decency, sees how deplorable Reid's behavior has been. But to expect sanity or decency from you is setting the bar a bit too high.

[fast4522]

THe Right Whine - Exhibit A above.

And Fast, if the country was truly split, Obama wouldn't be 4/9.

Hey stinks, if Obozo gets beat its because you were ingesting good shit right? :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost

By contrast taxes for the entire population went up 9%


Except for the 47% who don't pay them.

[Tom]

Speaking of whine, it has been almost 4 full years – when does the LEFT stopping whining about what they inherited from Bush – when in fact, it was no surprise, and he actively sought out the challenge, and even said he did not deserve a second term if he couldn’t fix things in four years?

When does the senate stop whinning about bills sent fro the House and actully do its job and vote on them? If they are bad as the lying POS Reid says they are, they should have no problem voting them down, or is it they are AFRAID to take a stand and vote down bills that the American people support?

When does the left stop whinning about rich people paying more taxes and get to the busniness of reforming the entire tax code? they have been talking about it for years, but so far 0 action has beent taken. It has been shown that taxing the top 1% 100% wouldn ot be enough money, so other measures are needed as well. What are those other measures? What is the plan? btw, where is the budget…..been a long time with no action here.


When the does the president stop whining about Romney’s tax returns, when he has met the requirements with what he has released so far? When does the president address the real issue of this campaign – 40 months of 8+ unemployment with no end in sight, and a spiralling deficit to record highs with no attempts to cut spending?

I am confused a bit here….is the left more a whiner or more a joke?

[ArlJim78]

yeah nothing to whine about, just the justice department being used to go after political opponents, a rogue president writing illegal and unwise executive orders to favor politcal supporters, a treasury secretary who lied about his involvment in cutting off the pensions of the non union Delphi workers while preserving the union pensions, arming Mexican drug cartels then lying about it, an enabling and cheerleading antique media, the list goes on and on. the lies and scandals and abuse of power is unlike anything in our history. not to mention what is coming interms of new taxes and the destruction of our healthcare system.

I hope all of you blind Obama loyalists realize that you're supporting a totalitarian lawless regime hellbent on waging war on the American system that has worked so well. I know that doesn't bother you but you should know.

yeah good times, good times.

[NJ Stinks]

Some mighty fine whine indeed.

Let's just stick with one aspect for the moment - the lost tax revenue from the Bush tax cuts on the top 5% alone. Conservatives/Repubs claim it doesn't matter - it's only 8 days of government funding a year.

Really? Here's a paste from a 2011 article:
____________________________

Calculating the cost of the Bush tax cuts

Posted by Suzy Khimm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/suzy-khimm/2011/07/28/gIQAsXtSfI_page.html)at 05:35 PM ET, 10/14/2011TheWashingtonPost

How much tax revenue has the United States lost due to the Bush tax cuts — and how much have top earners benefited? Working with Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning advocacy group for progressive taxation, the National Priorities Project has created an online, running calculator that captures this mounting number each second. The group casts the figure as a “cost” in terms of lost government revenue, though it’s also the amount of money these individual taxpayers have saved.

According to Eric Toder, co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the figures “seem to be in the right ballpark,” in line with TPC’s own estimate of how much the top 1 percent and 5 percent of U.S. households benefitted from the Bush tax cuts. Here’s a screenshot from Friday afternoon, but go to the Web site (http://costoftaxcuts.com/) directly to get a better (and more current) picture.

[Hit link below to see how much the top 1% and next 4% 5% saved in taxes because of the Bush tax cuts and how much revenue the U.S. Treasury lost as of October 14, 2011.]



:http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/bushtaxcuts.jpg?uuid=yTYpnvaqEeCcJkOtdSHgLw
(Source: National Priorities Project)


Guess what? It's not peanuts.:rolleyes: In fact, it's almost 7% of the entire U.S. debt.

Let's put it another way for our right-leaning friends. The Bush tax cuts are in the end a Trillion Dollar Bailout (and counting) for the Top 5% in this country. Thank God Republicans are always there to help the oppressed!


Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/calculating-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/10/14/gIQADB7dkL_blog.html

[badcompany]

The "Soak the Rich" mantra from the Left is nothing new. It's a way to rationalize the miserable failures of their Socialist ideology.

You're seeing it in Europe, right now. Germany is being pressed to bail out the bankrupt Southern European countries. Of course, this won't be enough and when the Germans are tapped out, the whole thing will collapse.

[mostpost]

My guess is you will never comprehend while this statement makes you look foolish if you are trying to rebut where I said essentially the same. You are incapable of understanding the data in that chart. It proves my point.
I understand the data in the chart quite well. You are the one who does not understand the data and does not understand the point I am making. Your original statement in #26 was, "people essentially pay the same percentage under today's rates as under the higher rates you long for."

The issue is not what people in general pay. It is what the top tier pays. The chart clearly shows that they pay much less while the middle class pays more.
My original statement, which I stand by, was that we did very well economically when the top tax rate was 70, 77, and even 91%. Your argument that people essentially are paying the same is not germane, because those specific people who were paying the 91% are not. Here again are the last four lines of the table.

P99–99.5 34.0 36.1 37.6 31.5 35.7 31.3
P99.5–99.9 41.4 44.6 43.0 33.0 38.4 33.0
P99.9–99.99 55.3 59.1 51.0 34.3 40.2 34.1
P99.99–100 71.4 74.6 59.3 35.4 40.8 34.7
Perhaps you can convince me that 31.3 is the same as 34; that 33 is the same as 41.4; that 34.1 is the same as 55.3 or, most amazingly, that 34.7 equals 71.4. Somehow I doubt that will be the case. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

If what you posted is true, NJ, why is the senate so scared to bring up the countless bills sent to it by the House and vote NO on them?


and after you shotgun about the right whine, why do you know try to limit the discussion after you have been challenged on it? Do you and Dingy Harry share the same small set of balls? :lol:

[lsbets]

My original statement, which I stand by, was that we did very well economically when the top tax rate was 70, 77, and even 91%.

You live in a fantasy world. You were shown all of the factors that caused the post War boom, yet you continue to believe we boomed because of high tax rates.

Give it up. You are shown the truth and facts yet ignore them in the favor of a twisted ideology that can only be embraced by one who has never had to produce anything in his life and has subsisted off the efforts of others.

You don't understand the data in the chart. All you understand is that you feel entitled to the efforts of the labor of those who took more risk than you, worked harder than you, and achieved more than you. You are entitled to none of that.

There is no real point in rehashing this with you again. You don't get it. Your resentment towards those who have had more success than you clouds any ability you might have to see the truth. I've done enough trying to educate you, you are a hopeless wretch happily bound by the chains of ignorance.

[lsbets]

The "Soak the Rich" mantra from the Left is nothing new. It's a way to rationalize the miserable failures of their Socialist ideology.



Do you notice who it comes from the most on here? Career government workers, who produced nothing, and whose livelihood depended on the continued growth of government and the confiscation of wealth from the producers. The less economic liberty, the more they gain.

[mostpost]

Of course you think what Reid said in relation to Romney's Dad was fine. You're the guy who has never had kids and feels its okay to tell others how to raise and care for their children. Any sane person who values family and has a sense of decency, sees how deplorable Reid's behavior has been. But to expect sanity or decency from you is setting the bar a bit too high.

I was more referring to Reid's using an unnamed source to claim Romney paid no taxes at all in some years. (Which I definitely believe.) But actually I tend to agree with Reid.

You were not even alive when George Romney ran for President in 1964, but his philosophies were nothing like his son's. His presidential bid failed because he spoke the truth. I was not a supporter but I was an admirer. Back in those days you could admire someone you disagreed with.

I never had kids, but I was one. I lived in a family and still am part of one. I know that a parent can love their child and still be disappointed in them. Even ashamed of them. If Mitt Romney is now acting in way that George Romney would disapprove of then it is entirely possible that George could now feel shame.

You should read "Bush On The Couch" for an example of distant, disapproving parents and their effect on a child.

[mostpost]

Some mighty fine whine indeed.

Let's just stick with one aspect for the moment - the lost tax revenue from the Bush tax cuts on the top 5% alone. Conservatives/Repubs claim it doesn't matter - it's only 8 days of government funding a year.

Really? Here's a paste from a 2011 article:
____________________________

Calculating the cost of the Bush tax cuts

Posted by Suzy Khimm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/suzy-khimm/2011/07/28/gIQAsXtSfI_page.html)at 05:35 PM ET, 10/14/2011TheWashingtonPost

How much tax revenue has the United States lost due to the Bush tax cuts — and how much have top earners benefited? Working with Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning advocacy group for progressive taxation, the National Priorities Project has created an online, running calculator that captures this mounting number each second. The group casts the figure as a “cost” in terms of lost government revenue, though it’s also the amount of money these individual taxpayers have saved.

According to Eric Toder, co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the figures “seem to be in the right ballpark,” in line with TPC’s own estimate of how much the top 1 percent and 5 percent of U.S. households benefitted from the Bush tax cuts. Here’s a screenshot from Friday afternoon, but go to the Web site (http://costoftaxcuts.com/) directly to get a better (and more current) picture.

[Hit link below to see how much the top 1% and next 4% 5% saved in taxes because of the Bush tax cuts and how much revenue the U.S. Treasury lost as of October 14, 2011.]



:http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/bushtaxcuts.jpg?uuid=yTYpnvaqEeCcJkOtdSHgLw
(Source: National Priorities Project)


Guess what? It's not peanuts.:rolleyes: In fact, it's almost 7% of the entire U.S. debt.

Let's put it another way for our right-leaning friends. The Bush tax cuts are in the end a Trillion Dollar Bailout (and counting) for the Top 5% in this country. Thank God Republicans are always there to help the oppressed!


Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/calculating-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/10/14/gIQADB7dkL_blog.html

Looking at the live numbers, they appear to be increasing at the rate of more than $1,000 a minute. At an average of $110B a year the Bush taxes cuts accounted for between 26% and 70% of the annual deficits during his term. Thank God the economy boomed for all eight years. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Good work on this stuff, but I hope you don't think you are going to convert the Neanderthals. ;)

[lsbets]

I was more referring to Reid's using an unnamed source to claim Romney paid no taxes at all in some years. (Which I definitely believe.) But actually I tend to agree with Reid.

You were not even alive when George Romney ran for President in 1964, but his philosophies were nothing like his son's. His presidential bid failed because he spoke the truth. I was not a supporter but I was an admirer. Back in those days you could admire someone you disagreed with.

I never had kids, but I was one. I lived in a family and still am part of one. I know that a parent can love their child and still be disappointed in them. Even ashamed of them. If Mitt Romney is now acting in way that George Romney would disapprove of then it is entirely possible that George could now feel shame.

You should read "Bush On The Couch" for an example of distant, disapproving parents and their effect on a child.

You really do have no sense of decency. You should look in the mirror and be ashamed of the miserable shadow of a man that you see. :ThmbDown:

[badcompany]

I was more referring to Reid's using an unnamed source to claim Romney paid no taxes at all in some years. (Which I definitely believe.) But actually I tend to agree with Reid.



If it is true, I'll bet one of those years was 2008 in which Romney probably lost tens of millions of dollars. Would you want him to pay taxes during such a year?

Like most non-business people you don't seem to grasp the idea that businesses can lose money and investments can lose value. Running a business is a bit different then going to a job, getting a check, and going home.

A better gauge would be how much Romney paid in taxes over the course of his working lifetime.

[Tom]

I was more referring to Reid's using an unnamed source to claim Romney paid no taxes at all in some years. (Which I definitely believe.) But actually I tend to agree with Reid.

The head of the Senate of the United states of America uses UNNAMED sources to attack a man and you agree with it?

The challenge here is on Dingy Harry to PROVE his unfounded allegations, not on Romney to prove them wrong.

What I said an unnamed person who was on your mail route knew you stole magazines and SS checks? Would it be your responsibility to disprove it or mine to prove it?

[TJDave]

The challenge here is on Dingy Harry to PROVE his unfounded allegations, not on Romney to prove them wrong.


The challenge is for Romney to be elected president.

And... how would you know that his allegations were unfounded? ;)

[Tom]

The challenge is for Romney to be elected president.

And... how would you know that his allegations were unfounded? ;)

Because he will not reveal his source.
That is unfounded. Right now, it is hearsay at best, a lie most likely.
This is NOT new for the dems - they did this exact same thing back in the 90's.

Lying is a dem tradition.

Reveal the source, then Romney can defend himself against the attacker.

If you look at every election BOama has won, you will see his MO - attack the oppenent persoanlly and leak sealed documents. NEVER on issues, always on persona attacks and sus;icions leaks that he is never responsible for. Frankly, you have to be pretty dense to buy any of Obama's schtick.

[dartman51]

I was more referring to Reid's using an unnamed source to claim Romney paid no taxes at all in some years. (Which I definitely believe.) But actually I tend to agree with Reid.

You were not even alive when George Romney ran for President in 1964, but his philosophies were nothing like his son's. His presidential bid failed because he spoke the truth. I was not a supporter but I was an admirer. Back in those days you could admire someone you disagreed with.

I never had kids, but I was one. I lived in a family and still am part of one. I know that a parent can love their child and still be disappointed in them. Even ashamed of them. If Mitt Romney is now acting in way that George Romney would disapprove of then it is entirely possible that George could now feel shame.

You should read "Bush On The Couch" for an example of distant, disapproving parents and their effect on a child.

Why do you believe that?? Just curious. Is it because Harry said it, or because Mitt hasn't turned over more tax returns?

[mostpost]

You live in a fantasy world. You were shown all of the factors that caused the post War boom, yet you continue to believe we boomed because of high tax rates.

Being that I am so dumb, let me see if I can remember the factors that "really" led to the post war boom. (According to you.)
1. Nobody paid the 91% rate. They paid the same as they do now with a 35% rate.
False. (mostly) They paid 70% then they pay 34% now. The important thing is the reason they paid 70% instead of 91%; because the incentives back then were to cut your taxes and tax rate by reinvesting in your company and paying your workers. Now the incentives are to move your company to Mexico.

2. The economy boomed because the troops returned from overseas and got married and started families and bought homes etc.
Which is true, but ignores the fact that they were able to do these things because the GI Bill provided education and financing and opportunities. And the tax code provided good jobs at good pay and benefits. It also ignores the fact that the prosperity continued long after the end of WWII. GDP grew at an annual rate of 4.42% in the sixties and 3.69% in the seventies, The best non war decades in our history.

3. We were the lone wolf; the only running economy; we had no competition.
Maybe in th earliest years, but by 1952 the Western European countries and Japan had better economies than they did pre-war. And they just continued to improve after that. Not only that, but their tax rates were as high or higher than ours. Again I say the boom continued long after the post war era.

The tax policy was only a part of the reasons for the boom, but it was an important part.

[mostpost]

Give it up. You are shown the truth and facts yet ignore them in the favor of a twisted ideology that can only be embraced by one who has never had to produce anything in his life and has subsisted off the efforts of others.
This from a guy who just spent a month playing poker in Las Vegas. But I'm sure you will be able to explain just how that is productive work.

Of course you are also ignoring that I worked in the private sector for twenty years before joining USPS. Since I was a worker and not a part of management and not an investor, that obviously does not count.

Even the idea that a postman, or a teacher, or a sewer worker, or a policeman or a fireman or anyone working in a civic position is not a contributor is unbelievably offensive.

[badcompany]

Do you notice who it comes from the most on here? Career government workers, who produced nothing, and whose livelihood depended on the continued growth of government and the confiscation of wealth from the producers. The less economic liberty, the more they gain.

Yes, and they always manage to find some cherry picked stat which bolsters their absurd argument that higher taxes leads to economic growth.

Ironically, here in NY, there's a state sponsored TV ad campaign, narrated by Robert Deniro, which says that the "New" New York is a more business friendly place.

So, using Mostie logic, that means New York will be RAISING tax rates to attract business.:lol:

[Tom]

Wow.
Do you really believe that crap? :lol:
Who do you think provides the incentive to outsource?
Rhetorical question - it is the GOVERNMENT, through taxes, regulations, and uncertainty.

I am going to watch all the TV coverage of the Martian rover, mostie, so please wave if you see it drive by.

[badcompany]

Wow.
Do you really believe that crap? :lol:


Apparently, the Spanish Government does, as well. To deal with their fiscal problems, rather than dramatically reduciing the size and scope of government, they raised taxes.

Not surprisingly, the results have been disasterous.

[mostpost]

There is no real point in rehashing this with you again. You don't get it. Your resentment towards those who have had more success than you clouds any ability you might have to see the truth. I've done enough trying to educate you, you are a hopeless wretch happily bound by the chains of ignorance.
Ignorant, moronic, stupid. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. NO IDEA WHAT THE TRUTH IS. NO IDEA OF WHAT I RESENT. Nothing by the way. I did fine in my life. I do not in the least care what you did. I do care if people take advantage of their power to prevent the less fortunate from succeeding and that is exactly what is happening now.

All these fat cats did not become rich by being smarter or working harder, they did it by cheating and gaming the system.
Under our current system hard working people don't become rich, they make other people rich.

[mostpost]

You really do have no sense of decency. You should look in the mirror and be ashamed of the miserable shadow of a man that you see. :ThmbDown:

You have an irrational anger on this subject, makes one wonder the source. Actually it doesn't.

[Tom]

All these fat cats did not become rich by being smarter or working harder, they did it by cheating and gaming the system.
Under our current system hard working people don't become rich, they make other people rich.

What a jealous little shallow creature you are.
And how wrong you are.

[mostpost]

Why do you believe that?? Just curious. A. Is it because Harry said it, or because B. Mitt hasn't turned over more tax returns?
Option B.

[mostpost]

If it is true, I'll bet one of those years was 2008 in which Romney probably lost tens of millions of dollars. Would you want him to pay taxes during such a year?
One should not have to pay taxes on money lost. I don't think Reid was referring to such years.

Like most non-business people you don't seem to grasp the idea that businesses can lose money and investments can lose value. Running a business is a bit different then going to a job, getting a check, and going home.

A better gauge would be how much Romney paid in taxes over the course of his working lifetime.
OK let's use that guage. Now all we need are Mitt's tax returns. OOPS!!! PROBLEM!!!

[mostpost]

What a jealous little shallow creature you are.
And how wrong you are.
What a foolish creature you are. They're pimping you too and you are blind to it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...prevent the less fortunate from succeeding ...

:rolleyes:

Less fortunate... lovely expression that covers almost everyone that describes themselves... I would like to hear how these "less fortunate" are prevented from whatever it is you vaguely allude to.

[NJ Stinks]

and after you shotgun about the right whine, why do you know try to limit the discussion after you have been challenged on it? Do you and Dingy Harry share the same small set of balls? :lol:

I'm not trying to limit the discussion. Somebody said all Mostpost and I care about are taxes and unions. So I talked about the obscenely unpatriotic Bush tax cuts the rich have benefitted from for almost ten years.

You know - the ones that supposedly don't amount to a hill of beans. :rolleyes:

Republicans say cut back on entitlements but keep the Bush tax cuts. Talk about a set of balls....

[fast4522]

I was more referring to Reid's using an unnamed source to claim Romney paid no taxes at all in some years. (Which I definitely believe.) But actually I tend to agree with Reid.

You were not even alive when George Romney ran for President in 1964, but his philosophies were nothing like his son's. His presidential bid failed because he spoke the truth. I was not a supporter but I was an admirer. Back in those days you could admire someone you disagreed with.

I never had kids, but I was one. I lived in a family and still am part of one. I know that a parent can love their child and still be disappointed in them. Even ashamed of them. If Mitt Romney is now acting in way that George Romney would disapprove of then it is entirely possible that George could now feel shame.

You should read "Bush On The Couch" for an example of distant, disapproving parents and their effect on a child.

What a loon like yourself believes is neither here nor there, on the other hand if the IRS thought Dingy Reid was credible and he's not, then Mitt Romney would have a problem but the IRS is not in the news. Lost taxes due to the Bush tax cuts, how does it feel to want boy.

[mostpost]

:rolleyes:

Less fortunate... lovely expression that covers almost everyone that describes themselves... I would like to hear how these "less fortunate" are prevented from whatever it is you vaguely allude to.
When I say "less fortunate" I refer to those who have considerably less than me and little chance of closing the gap. I am not one of the less fortunate, but I do have empathy for those who are. Something I can not say for some here who appear to have empathy for nothing except their wallets.

As to how they are preventing from improving their lot. It used to be that a person with one job could provide for his family and have a little left over to enjoy life. I grew up in the forties and fifties. My mother worked only rarely. My father was a salesman and he was very good at it. He worked for Singer Sewing machine company and he was their turn around guy. Whenever a store fell on hard times the company would put him in charge and in a few months that store would be one of the top producing stores in the area.

We lived in one of the nicer suburbs of Chicago, attended parochial schools, took annual vacations to Florida and saved enough for my parents retirement. My father even saved enough money that he was able to buy a small grocery store as I was finishing high school. Due to circumstances involving road construction and the loss of our parking area the business was not a success.
But my father was able to return to Singer and help put me through college. Something he would not have been able to do in the present economy.

[mostpost]

What a loon like yourself believes is neither here nor there, on the other hand if the IRS thought Dingy Reid was credible and he's not, then Mitt Romney would have a problem but the IRS is not in the news. Lost taxes due to the Bush tax cuts, how does it feel to want boy.
Proud to be a loon in your eyes. :kiss:

[Mike at A+]

Those who are "less fortunate" are usually less fortunate for a reason. Some were truly dealt a bad hand which they had nothing to do with. Others (the majority in my opinion) made their own bed. Whether it was misbehaving in school, getting caught with illegal weapons or drugs, getting arrested for criminal activity, doing time for convictions or just plain laziness, there is usually a plausible reason for one's misfortunes. I don't mind giving a hand to those who fell upon hard times through no fault of their own. I DO mind lumping them all together into one big group based on financial status. Some people rightly deserve their "less fortunate" status.

[wisconsin]

All these fat cats did not become rich by being smarter or working harder, they did it by cheating and gaming the system.
Under our current system hard working people don't become rich, they make other people rich.


Wow. All I can say is wow.

You are making a naive blanket statement about anyone who has made it big. So many companies began as a one man show. Hard workling people can become rich, if they choose to take the risks that go along with it.

If you choose to wallow in a job with no future, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Nobody owes you success and nobody owes you a living.

Work is a privilege, not a right.

[badcompany]

Wow. All I can say is wow.

You are making a naive blanket statement about anyone who has made it big. So many companies began as a one man show. Hard workling people can become rich, if they choose to take the risks that go along with it.

If you choose to wallow in a job with no future, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Nobody owes you success and nobody owes you a living.

Work is a privilege, not a right.

What his ideology won't allow him to admit is that much of the system gaming is a result of an oversized government which creates money making opportunities for businessmen to cut deals with Politicians and bureaucrats as opposed to serving the consumer.

His answer is to give Pols and Crats even more money and power.

[mostpost]

Wow. All I can say is wow.

You are making a naive blanket statement about anyone who has made it big. So many companies began as a one man show. Hard workling people can become rich, if they choose to take the risks that go along with it.

If you choose to wallow in a job with no future, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Nobody owes you success and nobody owes you a living.

Work is a privilege, not a right.
You're right I should not have made a blanket statement like that. Sometimes I get overzealous. So I will say this. Some successful people got that way by cheating and breaking the law. This would include many in the financial sector. There is ample proof that many of the financial companies created instruments that they knew were flawed and then sold them to their customers while collecting insurance on the failures. Or the banks and mortgage companies that misrepresented the possibilities of a borrower being able to pay off their mortgages so those banks could sell derivatives based on the mortgages.

Then there are companies like WalMart which opens stores and undercuts the competition until they have a monopoly. Companies like this also achieve success by underpaying their employees and not providing benefits. They use the power they have gained through thirty plus years of anti-labor government to force unfavorable contracts on workers. They use business friendly regulators to ignore legitimate regulations.

Not that all companies do this, nor do all executives act illegally or immorally.
But the bigger the company the more likely that they will bend or break the rules. The more likely they will be indifferent to the welfare of their employees.

[reckless]

All these fat cats did not become rich by being smarter or working harder, they did it by cheating and gaming the system.

I could agree that fat cats do get there by "cheating and gaming the system" as our friend mostpost suggests. Here are just two examples supporting his angst:

Barry Obama-Soetoro, by his own admission, spent his high school years smoking dope, abusing women and just hanging out. Yet, somehow he got into Harvard, where he regularly did cocaine, again by his own admission, and never writing a coherent sentence despite being editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was such a genius of a student, we are told, that all his academic records are forever sealed.

Soetoro then snagged a job as a street hustler, where he became a protege of a terrorist, William Ayres. He also was a 'business partner' of Anthony Rezko who sold the Soetoro's a million dollar house in a fancy part of town for a small fraction of that price.

Fat Cat Barry learned early on about 'gaming the system', don't you agree? Barry Soetoro is a millionaire right now despite never earning a penny more than the gov.'t allotted pay scale. Hmmm, they know all the tricks these cheating fat cats, huh mostpost?

I could go on and on but I'll stop there.

Next up on the short list of fat cats who got there by cheating the system: Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who is running for the US Senate in Massachusetts.

Warren lied when she claimed to have Cherokee Indian blood in her veins. All her life she took this low road, a path well-traveled by Democrats and assorted left wingers, by gaming the system with her claim of American Indian minority status. Being a woman, and especially one deemed a 'minority', gains so many advantages it's too numerous to mention them all.

So, here are just a few.

Never forget that Liz Warren always checked that box each and every time she applied for a cushy, high-paying job; she did check 'yes' when she applied to Harvard, and yes, 'yes' again when she originally applied to law school; checked 'Yes, I Am' even when she applied for a home mortgage or other bank loans.

This phony took a prominent seat at that plush liberal banquet on every turn, regularly denying a more well-deserving person. But, like most liberal fat cats, Warren thinks the regular folks, known as the great unwashed to her and her cronies, are nothing more than little dolts.

You see, Warren claimed her Cherokee lineage was based on the fact that her grandmother had 'high cheek bones'. I kid you not.

[elysiantraveller]

You're right I should not have made a blanket statement like that. Sometimes I get overzealous. So I will say this. Some successful people got that way by cheating and breaking the law. This would include many in the financial sector. There is ample proof that many of the financial companies created instruments that they knew were flawed and then sold them to their customers while collecting insurance on the failures. Or the banks and mortgage companies that misrepresented the possibilities of a borrower being able to pay off their mortgages so those banks could sell derivatives based on the mortgages.

Then there are companies like WalMart which opens stores and undercuts the competition until they have a monopoly. Companies like this also achieve success by underpaying their employees and not providing benefits. They use the power they have gained through thirty plus years of anti-labor government to force unfavorable contracts on workers. They use business friendly regulators to ignore legitimate regulations.

Not that all companies do this, nor do all executives act illegally or immorally.
But the bigger the company the more likely that they will bend or break the rules. The more likely they will be indifferent to the welfare of their employees.

:lol:

Paragraph 1....

I feel you vastly overestimate the presence of "evil" bankers. Allow me to refresh your memory...

In 2010 $10B worth of mortgages originated through false data on applications.

10 billion... :eek:

In 2010 there was $1.572 Trillion in mortgage origination so by YOUR OWN DATA 00.6% of mortgages were fudged...

Paragraph 2....

Do you even have a point here? People buy stuff from walmart and they have absolutely no problem getting employees... I don't get it.

Do me a favor. Go into your local Wal-Mart and start telling the employees how sorry you feel for them... let me know how that goes.

Paragraph 3....

But you are okay with taxing those smaller employers right? Those small business owners? Tell me how much should a small business owner make? I keep using an example of an employer that I know of. They pay $.35 of every dollar to the Feds. They also leveraged their assets to the tune of 7 figures to keep their company afloat in 2008. How much should that "evil" business owner have to pay... in your estimation?

[Tom]

Sad how far some people will go to justify their own failure.
The top 20% pay 67% of the bills and some here have the balls to whine about it.

I guess this thread went exactly where it should have. Thanks NJ, for showing us, eventually, where the Whine Cellar is.:lol:

[wisconsin]

Mosty, I am sure you shop or have shopped at Jewel. Well, sir, Jewel was a one store grocer that grew into a large chain. The same chain that helped to knock out corner stores like you dad's. And I'm quite sure you have shopped Sears or defunct Ward's or Wieboldt's.

My point is, you continue to rail Walmart for reasons unfounded. The Main St shopping train already left the station by the time Walmart came to town. All they did was help run Zayre and Turn-Style into the ground, who ran little stores away when they appeared.

Do you play the horses at home? Arguably, that hurts tracks, does it not?

Every single chain from Walgreen's to Woolworth to Culver's began with ONE store. Kohl's was a spin-off from Senator Herb Kohl's family's grocery store chain in Milwaukee. Yes, a liberal. Of course, he must have cheated when he took over and later sold his holdings for mega-millions, and he certainly must be cheating with the Milwaukee Bucks franchise he owns.

I hope you only buy gas from a no-name place like Gas 4 Less, while you are at it, because the big oil companies ran those guys off the corner, too.

People simply want to pay less and have convenience, period.

[Tom]

Effective Jan 1, 2013, aspirin will be taxed under Obama Care (The Affordable
Care Act). The explanation was that they are white and work.

No other reason was given.

[newtothegame]

Option B.
So by Romney not releasing his tax returns, you believe he has cheated on them.
What does that say about the current POTUS who has not released any of his collegiate records??? That he also has something to hide...right???? I mean that's your reasoning....
:bang:

[NJ Stinks]

Sad how far some people will go to justify their own failure.
The top 20% pay 67% of the bills and some here have the balls to whine about it.



Do you understand the saying "You can't get blood out of a rock"? The paragraph above says no.

Put another way, in your world everybody should pay the same amount in property taxes no matter how much one's home is worth. And those that can't afford to pay their share are failures.

[newtothegame]

Do you understand the saying "You can't get blood out of a rock"? The paragraph above says no.

Put another way, in your world everybody should pay the same amount in property taxes no matter how much one's home is worth. And those that can't afford to pay their share are failures.
Maybe we should be cultivating less ROCKS here in the U.S with those entitlement programs!!!

[mostpost]

Mosty, I am sure you shop or have shopped at Jewel. Well, sir, Jewel was a one store grocer that grew into a large chain. The same chain that helped to knock out corner stores like you dad's. And I'm quite sure you have shopped Sears or defunct Ward's or Wieboldt's.

My point is, you continue to rail Walmart for reasons unfounded. The Main St shopping train already left the station by the time Walmart came to town. All they did was help run Zayre and Turn-Style into the ground, who ran little stores away when they appeared.

Do you play the horses at home? Arguably, that hurts tracks, does it not?

Every single chain from Walgreen's to Woolworth to Culver's began with ONE store. Kohl's was a spin-off from Senator Herb Kohl's family's grocery store chain in Milwaukee. Yes, a liberal. Of course, he must have cheated when he took over and later sold his holdings for mega-millions, and he certainly must be cheating with the Milwaukee Bucks franchise he owns.

I hope you only buy gas from a no-name place like Gas 4 Less, while you are at it, because the big oil companies ran those guys off the corner, too.

People simply want to pay less and have convenience, period.

I usually shop at an independent in town, but I don't have a problem with Jewel. I will shop there if they have something I want and my local store doesn't carry it. I don't object to the Jewel competing with Riverside Foods. In fact RF does quite well. I shop at Kohls and Target and Home Depot. Are there still Woolworths around?

Those chains compete with the smaller independent retailer. WalMart destroys them. Deliberately and as a matter of policy. Jewel will price items lower than Riverside Foods, but they won't price them so as to lose money. WalMart lowers prices to force the competition out of business even if it means they lose money. WalMart has been cited many times for violating overtime and minimum wage laws. I do not shop at Wal Mart. I don't care how much money I might save or how convenient it might be.

[lsbets]

Do you understand the saying "You can't get blood out of a rock"? The paragraph above says no.

Put another way, in your world everybody should pay the same amount in property taxes no matter how much one's home is worth. And those that can't afford to pay their share are failures.

No, everybody should pay the same percentage no matter what their home is worth. That is fair. And that is how it should be with income taxes. Same percentage for everyone. Everyone pays their "fair share".

[lsbets]

I usually shop at an independent in town, but I don't have a problem with Jewel. I will shop there if they have something I want and my local store doesn't carry it. I don't object to the Jewel competing with Riverside Foods. In fact RF does quite well. I shop at Kohls and Target and Home Depot. Are there still Woolworths around?

Those chains compete with the smaller independent retailer. WalMart destroys them. Deliberately and as a matter of policy. Jewel will price items lower than Riverside Foods, but they won't price them so as to lose money. WalMart lowers prices to force the competition out of business even if it means they lose money. WalMart has been cited many times for violating overtime and minimum wage laws. I do not shop at Wal Mart. I don't care how much money I might save or how convenient it might be.

You're an idiot. Target doesn't give a rat's ass about the local retailer. They compete with Walmart, not the local guy. They price things very close to where Walmart prices things. They have created an image of themselves as an upscale discount chain. And also as a nicer version of Walmart so the dolts who think Walmart is evil will have a place to go.

Home Depot has crushed the local hardware stores. In most areas they don't exist anymore. But you haven't been programmed to hate them, so you will happily shop there.

Do you buy anything online? With all your talk, you better not.

You are clueless.

[newtothegame]

You're an idiot. Target doesn't give a rat's ass about the local retailer. They compete with Walmart, not the local guy. They price things very close to where Walmart prices things. They have created an image of themselves as an upscale discount chain. And also as a nicer version of Walmart so the dolts who think Walmart is evil will have a place to go.

Home Depot has crushed the local hardware stores. In most areas they don't exist anymore. But you haven't been programmed to hate them, so you will happily shop there.

Do you buy anything online? With all your talk, you better not.

You are clueless.
LS, I was going to say almost the same thing as I am a manager for Home Depot. Home Depot does not give a ratt's ass about the local hardware (except for why is he still in business). trust me when I tell you there is no such thing as "co-existence". But, mosty doesn't understand business so he will never get that concept. If you have direct competition mosty, that means less money you have as a business owner.
Target, LOW prices to compete with Wal-mart (which screws the little guy). Yes mosty...Target screws those little guys too.....
I wonder what Mosty would say if he knew target has their new employees watch ANTI union videos before going onto the sales floor??? lmao What a schmuck! :lol:

[lsbets]

LS, I was going to say almost the same thing as I am a manager for Home Depot. Home Depot does not give a ratt's ass about the local hardware (except for why is he still in business). trust me when I tell you there is no such thing as "co-existence". But, mosty doesn't understand business so he will never get that concept. If you have direct competition mosty, that means less money you have as a business owner.
Target, LOW prices to compete with Wal-mart (which screws the little guy). Yes mosty...Target screws those little guys too.....
I wonder what Mosty would say if he knew target has their new employees watch ANTI union videos before going onto the sales floor??? lmao What a schmuck! :lol:

Heh. Pretty cool. Let me pass along my observation of HD and why I don't go there, and maybe mosty willl learn that the local guy who does his homework and finds a niche can not only compete, but win (I know, winning is a foreign concept to guys like mosty).

I walk into HD and I'm lost. By the time I find the aisle I need to get to, I can't find anyone there to help me. If I don't know the right term for what I need, even the best description won't get me what I'm looking for. Yes, I am one of those guys who goes in need "a thingy about this long that connects to that other thing here".

When I go to the local Ace Hardware (they are locally owned franchises mosty), someone meets me at the door, asks what I need, and tells me what aisle to go to. Then they call for someone to meet me there and help me get what I need. Everytime. I never have to ask. They crush, and I mean crush, Home Depot and Lowes on service. I don't mind paying a little more for great service. But, too many local businesses think they don't have to do anything special and can charge higher prices. Guess what? I am not going to spend $50 more for a TV from some local place that is going to ignore me just like Walmart will. I'll save the $50 bucks and go to Walmart. But if that same store was $50 higher and treated me like the most important person in the world when I went there, I would gladly pay more.

Local businesses can and do compete with the Walmarts and Home Depots of the world everyday. The smart ones, who work harder, succeed. And work harder does not mean just during business hours. It means the guy who stays up at night researching ways to get better, trying to find the niche that will bring people in the door. The guy who never stops thinking of what he needs to do to succeed. The ones who think they are entitled to success fail. The ones who buy into Obama's you didn't build that crap, fail, get government jobs, and call for higher taxes on the people who are smarter than them and worked harder than them.

[mostpost]

I could agree that fat cats do get there by "cheating and gaming the system" as our friend mostpost suggests. Here are just two examples supporting his angst:

Barry Obama-Soetoro, by his own admission, spent his high school years smoking dope, abusing women and just hanging out. Yet, somehow he got into Harvard, where he regularly did cocaine, again by his own admission, and never writing a coherent sentence despite being editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was such a genius of a student, we are told, that all his academic records are forever sealed.
How pathetic that your knowledge of the world comes from phony e-mails.
Obama did smoke some dope and did drink a bit in High School, but he did well enough to get into college and later into Columbia. You do not get into Columbia with poor grades, no matter your color or race. You also do not get into Harvard Law School if you have bad grades at Columbia. You don't even graduate from Columbia.
There is no place where Obama admits to doing cocaine regularly while at Harvard. His rare (maybe once or twice) use of cocaine occurred much earlier.
He was enough of a "genius of a student" that he was named editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude. That's Latin and translates to "Obama is a hell of a lot smarter than Reckless"
I almost forgot (Can't keep your idiocy straight.) What you call his years of abusing women in High School refers to a single incident that occurred when he was ten-ten is not high school. He pushed a girl on the playground and immediately felt remorse.

Soetoro then snagged a job as a street hustler, where he became a protege of a terrorist, William Ayres. He also was a 'business partner' of Anthony Rezko who sold the Soetoro's a million dollar house in a fancy part of town for a small fraction of that price.
I know you are sitting there in your mother's basement thinking how clever you are for calling Obama Soetoro and how it will upset me. My only thought is it makes you seem like a moron. Also making you sound like a moron is calling him a protege of Bill Ayers. One, when they met Ayers had long since disavowed his weatherman past. Two, Ayers and Obama along with a lot of other people were serving on a committee to improve Chicago's Public Schools not building molotov cocktails.


Fat Cat Barry learned early on about 'gaming the system', don't you agree? Barry Soetoro is a millionaire right now despite never earning a penny more than the gov.'t allotted pay scale. Hmmm, they know all the tricks these cheating fat cats, huh mostpost?

I could go on and on but I'll stop there.

Next up on the short list of fat cats who got there by cheating the system: Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who is running for the US Senate in Massachusetts.

Warren lied when she claimed to have Cherokee Indian blood in her veins. All her life she took this low road, a path well-traveled by Democrats and assorted left wingers, by gaming the system with her claim of American Indian minority status. Being a woman, and especially one deemed a 'minority', gains so many advantages it's too numerous to mention them all.

So, here are just a few.

Never forget that Liz Warren always checked that box each and every time she applied for a cushy, high-paying job; she did check 'yes' when she applied to Harvard, and yes, 'yes' again when she originally applied to law school; checked 'Yes, I Am' even when she applied for a home mortgage or other bank loans.

This phony took a prominent seat at that plush liberal banquet on every turn, regularly denying a more well-deserving person. But, like most liberal fat cats, Warren thinks the regular folks, known as the great unwashed to her and her cronies, are nothing more than little dolts.

You see, Warren claimed her Cherokee lineage was based on the fact that her grandmother had 'high cheek bones'. I kid you not.

This is shocking. Everyone knows how valuable being 1/32 Native American can be to one's career. :rolleyes: That is undoubtedly what got her into George Washington University at the age of 16-that's sixteen-the same age you were in fourth grade. There is no question that the University of Houston gave her a degree in audiology and speech pathology only because 3% of her blood was Cherokee. What a pathetic joke.

[newtothegame]

Heh. Pretty cool. Let me pass along my observation of HD and why I don't go there, and maybe mosty willl learn that the local guy who does his homework and finds a niche can not only compete, but win (I know, winning is a foreign concept to guys like mosty).

I walk into HD and I'm lost. By the time I find the aisle I need to get to, I can't find anyone there to help me. If I don't know the right term for what I need, even the best description won't get me what I'm looking for. Yes, I am one of those guys who goes in need "a thingy about this long that connects to that other thing here".

When I go to the local Ace Hardware (they are locally owned franchises mosty), someone meets me at the door, asks what I need, and tells me what aisle to go to. Then they call for someone to meet me there and help me get what I need. Everytime. I never have to ask. They crush, and I mean crush, Home Depot and Lowes on service. I don't mind paying a little more for great service. But, too many local businesses think they don't have to do anything special and can charge higher prices. Guess what? I am not going to spend $50 more for a TV from some local place that is going to ignore me just like Walmart will. I'll save the $50 bucks and go to Walmart. But if that same store was $50 higher and treated me like the most important person in the world when I went there, I would gladly pay more.

Local businesses can and do compete with the Walmarts and Home Depots of the world everyday. The smart ones, who work harder, succeed. The ones who think they are entitled to success fail.
lol. LS, listen I have no problem with what you are saying about Depot. I will tell you it's TRUE!! That's why, for the most part, ACE has frustrated us in many a market. But, being with depot for over twenty years, Depot knew and still knows this is a problem.
Little story, there was a time, several years back, where Depot tried a thing called "Arthur's Army". (Named after Arthur Blank founder). These associates (army) were to work mon-fri 8-5. The concept was these would be the most knowledgable employees and would also be the face of the company everyday. So, when you came in, you would see the same person and build a rapport. Problem was as more and more people's life styles changed (working sometimes two jobs with longer hours) it was hard to cover the hour demands. Not too mention (and I know mosty will hate this), those associates were paid a premium for their knowledge. We couldnt hire everyone at those premium wages and remain competitive as we were in a fight with Lowes.
Needless to say, ultimately the program went away because of lawsuits and complaints of scheduling being unfair. Our own associates were complaining about Arthur's Army having better schedules....lol. So, it went by the way side.
Man I miss those days!!!
Because of what you mentioned though, Ace will be around for a while to come. But, I will tell you it's only a matter of time. It's the older generation that loves ACE because of the bonds and rapport built. As that generation moves on, ACE will struggle as their pricing is substantially higher basket for basket. Ace is no longer the powerhouse they once was and they will continue to decline. I do not say this in joy as I too shop ACE for emergency items (like a broken pipe). They are closer to my home and sometimes I just need it now without having to drive an extra twenty minutes.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Don't kid yourself, we'all be buying from 廉价粪这里！

[lsbets]

As the older generation moves on, all of the box stores will suffer. I buy most things online. I hate going to the store. I get the same customer service online - none - that I get in most stores. So unless its an emergency I don't go to the store.

The same goes for restaurants with me. I don't want to go to some mid priced chain and get food that is of marginal quality. When I go out to eat, I want a great meal and great service. I know I'm going to have to pay for it, but I don't mind. I'd much rather take my wife out one time a month and spend 300 bucks on dinner than go out once a week and spend 50.

[delayjf]

Calculating the cost of the Bush tax cuts

Posted by Suzy Khimmat 05:35 PM ET, 10/14/2011TheWashingtonPost

How much tax revenue has the United States lost due to the Bush tax cuts — and how much have top earners benefited? Working with Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning advocacy group for progressive taxation, the National Priorities Project has created an online, running calculator that captures this mounting number each second. The group casts the figure as a “cost” in terms of lost government revenue, though it’s also the amount of money these individual taxpayers have saved.

According to Eric Toder, co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the figures “seem to be in the right ballpark,” in line with TPC’s own estimate of how much the top 1 percent and 5 percent of U.S. households benefitted from the Bush tax cuts. Here’s a screenshot from Friday afternoon, but go to the Web site directly to get a better (and more current) picture.

[Hit link below to see how much the top 1% and next 4% 5% saved in taxes because of the Bush tax cuts and how much revenue the U.S. Treasury lost as of October 14, 2011.]



:http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/im...qEeCcJkOtdSHgLw
(Source: National Priorities Project)


Guess what? It's not peanuts. In fact, it's almost 7% of the entire U.S. debt.

Let's put it another way for our right-leaning friends. The Bush tax cuts are in the end a Trillion Dollar Bailout (and counting) for the Top 5% in this country. Thank God Republicans are always there to help the oppressed!


Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...B7dkL_blog.html

This report is idiotic, Bush's tax cuts fueled us out of a recession and lead to the RECORD tax revenues. Now the authors want to swoop in on the positive effects the lower tax rates had on he economy, then with hind-sight apply a higher tax rate to the revenue that Bush's tax cuts produced and then claim victory. Again, idiotic.

I've asked before, but got no response, can you site an example where tax increases during a recession turned the economy around?

[wisconsin]

I usually shop at an independent in town, but I don't have a problem with Jewel. I will shop there if they have something I want and my local store doesn't carry it. I don't object to the Jewel competing with Riverside Foods. In fact RF does quite well. I shop at Kohls and Target and Home Depot. Are there still Woolworths around?

Those chains compete with the smaller independent retailer. WalMart destroys them. Deliberately and as a matter of policy. Jewel will price items lower than Riverside Foods, but they won't price them so as to lose money. WalMart lowers prices to force the competition out of business even if it means they lose money. WalMart has been cited many times for violating overtime and minimum wage laws. I do not shop at Wal Mart. I don't care how much money I might save or how convenient it might be.


You are mistaken if you think Jewel does not ever lose money. I was in the business for 3 years as a manager, and loss leaders are what get people through the door.

Those chains you still shop at have put the little guy away as well. Like I said, before Walmart, you shopped Zayre or Turn-Style or Kmart. Do you buy shoes from the independent shoe store and clothes from a local men's store? If not, why? And, again, where do you buy gas? If you shop at a mall, you have hurt the small retailer on Main Street. Big retail is everywhere.

[badcompany]

You're an idiot. Target doesn't give a rat's ass about the local retailer. They compete with Walmart, not the local guy. They price things very close to where Walmart prices things. They have created an image of themselves as an upscale discount chain. And also as a nicer version of Walmart so the dolts who think Walmart is evil will have a place to go.

Home Depot has crushed the local hardware stores. In most areas they don't exist anymore. But you haven't been programmed to hate them, so you will happily shop there.

Do you buy anything online? With all your talk, you better not.

You are clueless.

The difference is that Walmart competes against Unionized Supermarket chains. That's why left hates Walmart. The Left doesn't give a rat's ass about Mom & Pops.

The criticisms from the left is that Walmart pays low wages, has no Unions or health benefits. How many Mom & Pops aren't also guilty of those charges?

Only in the Economic bizarro world of the left can a company be villified for charging prices that are too LOW.

[Tom]

The criticisms from the left is that Walmart pays low wages, has no Unions or health benefits. How many Mom & Pops aren't also guilty of those charges?

Well, now they have to buy their own, according the Big Jer-koffa.
The left wanted mandatory HC, now they have it.
So now they can't whine about Wally Mart anymore.

BYTW, anytime a union boy picks up a sign and shuts down his boss, he is impacting the little guy, but mostie could give a crap about that, as long as he gets his. That is what union boys are all about - getting their own and screw everyone else.

Look that up in your Union-Reality, Reality-Union Dictionary.

[mostpost]

This report is idiotic, Bush's tax cuts fueled us out of a recession and lead to the RECORD tax revenues. Now the authors want to swoop in on the positive effects the lower tax rates had on he economy, then with hind-sight apply a higher tax rate to the revenue that Bush's tax cuts produced and then claim victory. Again, idiotic.

I've asked before, but got no response, can you site an example where tax increases during a recession turned the economy around?
Let' start in the 20's. In 1924 the top rate was 46% on $500,000.
In 1925 it dropped to 25% on $100,000.
Despite that a mild recession took place from Oct. 26 to Nov. 27.
The 25% rate remained in effect until 1932.


In August of 1929 the Great Depression began.
In 1932 the tax rate increased to 56% on $100,000 and 63% on $1,000,000
In the face of this tax increase the Great Depression officially ended in March of 1933. Plays havoc with your theory, doesn't it?
Rates went up again in 1935 to 63% on $100,000 and 77% on $1,000,000.
There was a recession from May 1937 to June of 1938, mostly caused by trying to balance the budget. That ended without lowering taxes, and a long period of prosperity ensued. And yes I know WWII was a big part of that.


Recessions occurred:
From Feb to Oct. 1945
From Nov 1948 to Oct 1949
From July 1953 to May 1954
From Aug 1957 to Apr 1958
From Apr 1960 to Feb 1961
All of which we survived without lowering taxes.


In 1964 the top rate dropped to 77% on $200,000 and in 1965 it dropped to 70% on $100,000
Recessions then occurred:
From Dec 1969 to Nov 1970
From Nov 1973 to Mar 1975
Again we came out of those recessions without a decrease in tax rates.



There was a short, mild recession in early 1980, followed by a longer much more severe recesion from July 1981 to July 1982.
A large tax reduction to 50% on $42,000 occurred in 1982. This coincided with the end of the recession. Whether there was cause and effect is up to debate.


Two more tax cuts occurred in the 80's. 38.5% in 1987 and 28% in 1988.
Despite this another recession took place from July 1990 to Mar 1991.
A tax increase to 31% took place in 1991, about the time the recession ended.
Taxes went up in the 90's. In 1993 they increased to 39.6%
Despite this the economy boomed.

The next recession took place from Mar 2001 to Nov 2001.
Taxes were cut to 39.1% in 2001; to 38.6% in 2002 and to 35% in 2003.
You want to give credit to those cuts for ending the recession in spite of the fact that the recession was over before two of them even took place. Whatever. ;)

Finally we have the Great Recession which occurred while taxes were low and regulations were lax.

To summarize: In most cases we went into and out of recessions while tax rates were high and remained high. We went into the Great Depression when taxes were low and came out of it after taxes had been raised to very high levels. There is only one case (1982) when lowering tax rates coincided with the end of a recession.

Here is where I found the tax rates:
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal%26adjusted--20110909.swf

Here is where i got the list of recessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

[fast4522]

What exactly nobody ever mentions is the fact immigration into the United States prior to LBJ's Presidential term ended was very low in comparison to today's levels. Less fortunate people depended more on the church than the state in days gone by. My definition of loon is more in line with whack job than graceful bird. I have nothing personal against the industrialist who puts people to work and feel they deserve better than the Bush tax cuts, let the people who want to pay more in taxes do so of their own free will as provided by the tax code.

[Lefty]

Whew, just saw this thread and read it all. Sure a lot of whining going on alright,

The rich all cheat and game the system.
They won't pay their fair share of taxes.
Romney won't release his tax returns
Walmart hurts the little guy.
Bush tax cuts hurt us
Wah, wah, wah...

[Steve 'StatMan']

I get so pissed when I hear Obama's lie about how extending the tax cuts to the supposed rich will make middle class Americans pay more taxes. THE IS A $!^ TRILLION DEFICIT! NO ONE IS PAYING TAXES TO COVER THAT. It isn't faling on the middle class if no one is paying for it. Inste onad, we keep borrowing through bonds, and with QE 1 & QE 2 (and more nad more talk of QE 3), we're using bonds to pay for the bonds, our money is actually worth less and less. That will effect anyone with money equally in dollar terms, although those who can't afford to get less or their money least will suffer the most if this isn't taken care of.

[delayjf]

Let' start in the 20's. In 1924 the top rate was 46% on $500,000.
In 1925 it dropped to 25% on $100,000.
Despite that a mild recession took place from Oct. 26 to Nov. 27.
The 25% rate remained in effect until 1932.
What you are leaving out is the depression of 1920-21 which was brought on in part due to an increase in tax rates from 7% up to 73% under Woodrow Wilson. When Wilson left office unemployment was at 9% and the GDP had declined 6.3% from 1919-1921. As you point out, Harding and Coolidge lowered the Tax rate down to 25% by 1926. During this period of tax rate reductions (1921-1929) the GDP grew 27%.

In August of 1929 the Great Depression began.
In 1932 the tax rate increased to 56% on $100,000 and 63% on $1,000,000
In the face of this tax increase the Great Depression officially ended in March of 1933. Plays havoc with your theory, doesn't it?
Hardly – the depression didn’t end in 1933, it bottomed out in 1933. Help no doubt by the tax increases in 1932. Look how long the Depression of 1929 lasted compared to the depression of 1920 - When Harding reduced taxes and Federal Spending.

Rates went up again in 1935 to 63% on $100,000 and 77% on $1,000,000.
There was a recession from May 1937 to June of 1938, mostly caused by trying to balance the budget. That ended without lowering taxes, and a long period of prosperity ensued. And yes I know WWII was a big part of that.
Another example of tax hikes preceding a recession. The economy was digging its way out of its hole and got railroaded – once again an economic decline coinciding with increasing tax rates.

Recessions occurred:
From Feb to Oct. 1945
From Nov 1948 to Oct 1949
From July 1953 to May 1954
From Aug 1957 to Apr 1958
From Apr 1960 to Feb 1961
All of which we survived without lowering taxes.

Obviously, there are other factors that can influence the economy other than tax rates. Individuals and businesses are forced to play with the hands they are dealt. Obviously commerce does not grind to a stop due to high tax rates.

In 1964 the top rate dropped to 77% on $200,000 and in 1965 it dropped to 70% on $100,000
Recessions then occurred:
From Dec 1969 to Nov 1970
From Nov 1973 to Mar 1975
Again we came out of those recessions without a decrease in tax rates.
70% on 100,000 is still pretty steep.

There was a short, mild recession in early 1980, followed by a longer much more severe recesion from July 1981 to July 1982.
A large tax reduction to 50% on $42,000 occurred in 1982. This coincided with the end of the recession. Whether there was cause and effect is up to debate.
No debate, you just don’t want to admit it.

Two more tax cuts occurred in the 80's. 38.5% in 1987 and 28% in 1988.
Despite this another recession took place from July 1990 to Mar 1991.
A tax increase to 31% took place in 1991, about the time the recession ended.
Bush raised taxes in FY 1990 – which preceding the recession of 1991

Taxes went up in the 90's. In 1993 they increased to 39.6%
The economy was already out of the recession by the time Clintons tax increases took effect.
And despite the Tax rate increase in 92, tax revenues did not significantly increase. It was not until Clinton lowered the capital gains tax in 97 that the economy kicked into high gear leading to higher tax revenues.

The next recession took place from Mar 2001 to Nov 2001.
Taxes were cut to 39.1% in 2001; to 38.6% in 2002 and to 35% in 2003.
You want to give credit to those cuts for ending the recession in spite of the fact that the recession was over before two of them even took place. Whatever.
According to your source - Wiki, the recession of didn’t end until 2003. (see below)
“The early 2000s recession was a decline in economic activity which occurred mainly in developed countries. The recession affected the European Union mostly during 2000 and 2001 and the United States mostly in 2002 and 2003.”
So yes, I do credit give Bush’s tax cuts credit in helping to end the recession and produce record tax revenues.

One of the things you’ve mentioned before that I would like to address is the theory that tax increases stimulate the economy by motivating companies to hire more workers to lower their tax burden. Seriously, do you have any example of Corporations doing that? Can you show any economic period were a tax hike lead to a reduction in unemployment?

The high tax rates your quote are income tax rates - not corporate tax rates, which are historically lower than the top income tax rates.

But more importantly I can think of a myriad of things that a corporation or any Business owner could invest in that would not only reduce their tax burden, but also directly benefit the corporation / business owner. For example, a corporation could purchase new equipment; a sole proprietor could purchase a new company car. Upgrade office computers, furniture, and location; install a 60 inch LED in his reception room, (which could easily find its way into one’s home.) Increase the company’s 401k contribution for those employees.
Adding employees when production does not warrant the additions gets expensive and increase ones risk and liability. If the profits of one year do not materialize the next year, you can adjust your expenditures a lot easier than if you have to lay off employees you didn’t need in the first place.

[Tom]

Nice, Jeff. :ThmbUp:
The truth is always appreciated.

[fast4522]

Here is a question for our distinguished panel:

Is it true that the "The Glass-Steagall Act", fueled our economy big time, the biggest effect until President Clinton signed legislation ending it. And if that legislation were left in place we would not have fallen into this shithole we are in now. Did repealing the Glass-Steagall Act setup a perfect storm for Barney Frank to mismanage for leverage?

[Tom]

Also, let's all not forget who signed NAFTA into law......and ever since then, we have associated Bill Clinton with TWO giant sucking sounds!

Much of our current situation was delivered on a silver platter by DEMOCRATS.