New CH.com Forum
http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
Daily Chat >> General Posts >> Well, I watched the first debate...
http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1222484136

Message started by George_J on Sep 26th, 2008 at 10:55pm

Title: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by George_J on Sep 26th, 2008 at 10:55pm
...and whether or not I agree with one or the other candidate on any specific issue, I have to say that (purely from the standpoint of a debate) I saw no clear "winner" tonight.  No "knockout punches" delivered.

YMMV.

In any case, it was a pleasure watching two such articulate and thoughtful men.  

Best,

George  

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Sep 26th, 2008 at 11:12pm
DANG!!

Both were there?  I thought McCain said he was too busy to be there.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Brew on Sep 26th, 2008 at 11:17pm
I watched the Brewers beat the Cubs.

I think the Cubs were too busy to be there.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by [johnny] on Sep 26th, 2008 at 11:19pm

George wrote on Sep 26th, 2008 at 10:55pm:
...and whether or not I agree with one or the other candidate on any specific issue, I have to say that (purely from the standpoint of a debate) I saw no clear "winner" tonight.  No "knockout punches" delivered.

YMMV.

In any case, it was a pleasure watching two such articulate and thoughtful men.  

Best,

George  


i agree. i strongly believe the debate needed a third wheel. something fresh.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 26th, 2008 at 11:19pm
I agree, but those who have already decided are going to be even more fired up, I'll bet.

Hearing Obama constantly talk about how he's going to tax the top 5% of earners *really* pisses me off.  Why?  I'm in the top five percent.  That doesn't mean I live like it though, because my cost of living is also in the top 1%, making my lifestyle no better than all those poor souls in the lower 95%.  That bullshit tax plan doesn't do anything but shift more tax burden to my shoulders, when I don't have any more disposable income than those 'poor' folks.  It's not my fault the jobs I am good at are all in a highly taxed and expensive region of the country.  No, according to Obama I can afford to give up more of my hard earned pay (as hard as any other poor person's job, just different).  That so pisses me off that I'm about to have a heart attack.  The fact is, this kind of bullshit class warfare always works for the liberals.  Arghhhhhhhhh.   >:(

Obama is a socialist, through and through.  I will vote for freedom, not Marxism.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by [johnny] on Sep 26th, 2008 at 11:30pm

wrote on Sep 26th, 2008 at 11:19pm:
I agree, but those who have already decided are going to be even more fired up, I'll bet.

Hearing Obama constantly talk about how he's going to tax the top 5% of earners *really* pisses me off.  Why?  I'm in the top five percent.  That doesn't mean I live like it though, because my cost of living is also in the top 1%, making my lifestyle no better than all those poor souls in the lower 95%.  That bullshit tax plan doesn't do anything but shift more tax burden to my shoulders, when I don't have any more disposable income than those 'poor' folks.  It's not my fault the jobs I am good at are all in a highly taxed and expensive region of the country.  No, according to Obama I can afford to give up more of my hard earned pay (as hard as any other poor person's job, just different).  That so pisses me off that I'm about to have a heart attack.  The fact is, this kind of bullshit class warfare always works for the liberals.  Arghhhhhhhhh.   >:(

Obama is a socialist, through and through.  I will vote for freedom, not Marxism.


jesse ventura proposes a flat tax. your not taxed on what you earn rather your taxed on what you spend.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Brew on Sep 26th, 2008 at 11:33pm

wrote on Sep 26th, 2008 at 11:19pm:
Hearing Obama constantly talk about how he's going to tax the top 5% of earners *really* pisses me off.  Why?  I'm in the top five percent.  That doesn't mean I live like it though, because my cost of living is also in the top 1%, making my lifestyle no better than all those poor souls in the lower 95%.  That bullshit tax plan doesn't do anything but shift more tax burden to my shoulders, when I don't have any more disposable income than those 'poor' folks.  It's not my fault the jobs I am good at are all in a highly taxed and expensive region of the country.  No, according to Obama I can afford to give up more of my hard earned pay (as hard as any other poor person's job, just different).  That so pisses me off that I'm about to have a heart attack.  The fact is, this kind of bullshit class warfare always works for the liberals.  Arghhhhhhhhh.   >:(

Obama is a socialist, through and through.  I will vote for freedom, not Marxism.

That's why I have a clear conscience having watched baseball.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:49am
I am a gluten for punishment, I watched it a second time.

I think McCain actually did better.  Obama seemed to be on the defensive a lot, and McCain sure came across stronger on foreign knowledge.  In general, I felt like every time I heard Obama, I was listening to the same old duck and spin politician dance as always.  McCain sounded like he had real credibility and a record to prove it.

I absolutely LOVE how Obama says "and I've paid for every one of them" about his new spending plans.  Oh yes, Obama the One is going to pay for us to have Universal Health Care, and endless supplies of bennies for the poorest 95% of Americans.  How can you NOT love this guy?

But I am biased.  I'm right, but I admit I'm biased.  Is this really what the Democrats want in office?  God help us.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by [johnny] on Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:58am
isn't that pretty much what they always offer? ::)

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Charlie on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:02am
These guys dodged the economic questions when asked how the economy would affect their proposals........McCain too. They are stuck over this because after all the big stuff like defense, SS, Medicare and mainline expenses, they have very little left to deal with. Maybe a couple percentage points, no more. They don't want to disappoint.

It was a debate when there will be no big sound bite. It was pretty civil which must make cable news channels cringe. Minds were not changed here.

Charlie

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by [johnny] on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:12am

Charlie wrote on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:02am:

It was a debate when there will be no big sound bite. It was pretty civil which must make cable news channels cringe. Minds were not changed here.

Charlie


lol. in the last debate the hot issue was gay marriage. this time they don't have to create issues to quarrel over.  both opponents were scratching their heads at best. im not impressed with either candidate.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:16am

Charlie wrote on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:02am:
They are stuck over this because after all the big stuff like defense, SS, Medicare and mainline expenses, they have very little left to deal with. Maybe a couple percentage points, no more.
Charlie


Thats not really true, Charlie.  SS and Medicare have their own revenue and they do not (yet) take from the general fund.  They have a LOT to play with......trillions of dollars a year.  

With all this bail out crap last week, I think the national debt is now up to 10Trillion dollars.  Thats 400Billion a year in interest at just 4%.
>:(


Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Guiseppi on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:34am
With all this bail out crap last week, I think the national debt is now up to 10Trillion dollars.  Thats 400Billion a year in interest at just 4%.

Don't EVER print sh%$ like that again on this board. >:( I sleep much better at night when it's just imaginary trillions of dollars owed........400 Billion a year in interest.......that'll keep my eyes open into the wee hours of the morning... :-/

Guiseppi....who hates this new math!

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by superhawk2300 on Sep 27th, 2008 at 8:23am
Taxes are supposed to be representitive of what they are for, at least that was the idea in the begining.

Taxation Without Representation went way beyond being able to vote for who was going to tax you.

This whole idea of an income tax is basically illegal. So is the idea of dumping all our tax money into a giant pot and then spending it where ever the governemnet wants.

Taxes are supposed to be collected from the services they suppport adn pay for the services they support. Then the people who use the most services, usually the "rich" ones, pay the most taxes. But since they use the most services it works out.

I know that today doing this 100% of the time does not work, but there could be an effort to attempt try to do it.

What Oboma is saying he will do is not communist, or socialist, it is republicism actually.

In social governments they tax a flat tax, period. Everyone pays something like 60% of their income in tax and no taxes are charged elsewhere. Since everyone pays the same tax rate, big business can't get kick backs and tax incentives. "Flat tax" is more social than what is supposed to be happening here and for the reason I just mentioned it will never fly, unless of course that is a fair idea for people only, not businesses, which sounds right from a republican plan.

BTW most social countries residnts pay about 60% tax, which is more or less what we pay in America. A for it they get a free education and free health care.

And if no one has noticed, China has no fear their economy is going to collapse. Lots of people need those sweatshop Nike's.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Melissa on Sep 27th, 2008 at 8:59am
:-X :-X :-X

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by CH-HELL on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:00am
I watched the whole thing and nothing moved me one way or the other, still undesided with 38 day to go.  I may just write my name on the ballot.    Phil

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Brew on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:04am
The Brewers now have a one-game lead in the NL wild card race. Their magic number is two. Any combination of Brewers wins and Mets losses totalling two and they're in the playoffs for the first time in 26 years.

That's my new math and I'm sticking to it.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by superhawk2300 on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:17am
I guess my point was this: What is the difference between the US government and the socialist governments if the US needs to take 700 Billion dollars from its taxpayers and rdestribute it to big businesses that pay their CEO 13 millions of dollars for work a fw months to save it's economy?

Why is it that everyone's money being given to failed business is thought of as capitolist, but everyone's money given to failed people is socialist?

Isn't the bailout "socialist"?

I am careful with labels, as they usually are meant to be put in place to make people feel better, and there are lots of ways to "skin a cat".

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Brew on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:20am

superhawk2300 wrote on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:17am:
I guess my point was this: What is the difference between the US government and the socialist governments if the US needs to take 700 Billion dollars from its taxpayers and rdestribute it to big businesses that pay their CEO 13 millions of dollars for work a fw months to save it's economy?

Why is it that everyone's money being given to failed business is thought of as capitolist, but everyone's money given to failed people is socialist?

Isn't the bailout "socialist"?

There is no difference. We have become the United States of France.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by superhawk2300 on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:31am
Except that the French get free eduactions, free health care, and 3 months of vacation every year.

We spend the same amount in taxes as they do and look what we get for our money - primetime coverage of a "muslim" and a man that looks like a albino turkey, fighting for a job no one in their right mind would want, that is occupied by a man who looks like, and has the intelligence of a money.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Brew on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:38am
Economics 101 - Nothing is free, my friend.

Except the 5,000 seats Eric Gagne purchased and gave to the fans of Milwaukee the other night. ;)


Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by superhawk2300 on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:44am
Correct!

Both countries citizens pay the same amount annually for taxes on average.

They just choose to pay for eduacation, heathcare and other things common citizens find likeable, instead of paying for other stuff, like wars to find weapons of mass distruction that do not exist and being the worlds policeman.

Well, and there is this.......

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by deltadarlin on Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:02pm
want socialized govt?  Read this first

THE SAD ROAD TO SOCIALISM
What happens When Private Property is No Longer a Right
by John Loeffler
Contributor, Steel on Steel Radio Program
Co-host, Financial Sense Newshour
July 18, 2008

“But if the government undertakes to control and to raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if .... ‘The state considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people’ -- and if the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that after every government failure -- which, alas! is more than probable -- there will be an equally inevitable revolution?”

-Frederic Bastiat, “The Law,” June,  1850

It’s been more than 150 years since Frederic Bastiat wrote his treatise, The Law, a small work, challenging the ravages of failing socialism thrust upon France as a result of the French revolution.

In that unique pamphlet, Bastiat points out that when the law of any country supports the moral belief systems of a people, defends the rights of said people and their property, the law is perceived as being moral; a defense against evil and those who flaunt it as being immoral.  Payment of taxes and civic obligations are perceived as a virtue and those who flout this as criminals.

However, when the law becomes a source of plunder or pits itself in opposition to the morals of the people, the people perceive the law to be immoral and widely despise it.  Indeed, in those times, flouting the law is extolled as virtue.

Another book by contemporary author Hernando Desoto, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, points out much the same thing, that the security of ownership of private property guaranteed by law for the lower and middle classes has been the essential ingredient resulting in the prosperity enjoyed by many western countries.  Without this security, where the state becomes an impediment to commerce or property ownership, the people are forced to operate their economies outside of law, which is once again perceived as evil, rather than a force for good.

In essence, when a government goes from being a protector of private property to a plunderer of it, it places itself on a course of chaos, economic ruin and its own ultimate self-destruction.

The Three Steps of Socialism

Socialism is the mechanism which transforms government from its noble role as a protector into a predator and, since the citizens of our fine country seem determined to plow through socialism to its bitter end, we should examine the territory through which these three sad steps lead.  The core result of socialism is the destruction of private property and wealth.

The events described in this piece are a composite of the ravages of socialism experienced in other countries.  While each country does experience all the events portrayed, all socialist countries follow the same miserable path.   The U.S. doesn’t have to go down this path, but it seems determines to do so.

We’re Off to See the Wizard

One of the great dangers of any government by the people is that sooner or later their politicians discover they can vote largess from the public trust.  Their first experiment at this bold new adventure invariably revolves around social programs enacted in the name of morality and the public good or even solving some current crisis.  Who could oppose that?  “After all,” it will be argued, “don’t you care about people, or the welfare of the country, or the environment?”

The lure of this argument has been absolutely irresistible from the Roman Empire to the French and Bolshevik revolutions to Socialist Parties (D) and (R) in the USA today.

Step One - The Moral Argument: A Promise of Something for Nothing

The moral argument that we can finally solve poverty, pain, sickness, and hunger with “free” money seems just to good to be true.  It usually is but it sells to the public.  To fund these allegedly moral programs, the assets of the gentle citizens must be quietly taxed in the name of the public good.

Only a few wise and isolated voices warn that this baby dragon they have just hatched will grow up to be a fire-breathing monster.  But not to fear, the wise voices are generally shouted down by the gentle politicians, who fiercely demonize protestors as selfish “whabbledygots” blocking the road to the perfect society.  After all, how could something so noble do anything bad to the country?

At first the rich are the only ones asked to pay more of their “fair share.”  In the U.S. income tax originally only affected upper-bracket individuals.  In this early stage, few complain and everyone seems happy, except for those nagging voices still warning of dire consequences ahead;  the ones the gentle legislators wish would just shut up.  Other than that they have little to fear because the gentle legislators appear to be heroes placing our feet firmly on the road to utopia.  Soon they promise all the have-nots will have and those who do have, will have just a little less. After all, as we said, it’s just their “fair share.”

Ah but time rumbles onward, and the number of people dependent upon these programs swells along with the number of “free” government programs.  Free things do sell, and that’s what politicians want to do: sell their programs.

As the programs swell, they become unwieldy, requiring large bloated bureaucracies to administer them to ward off the inevitable fraud and corruption, consuming an ever greater part of the tax booty and servicing less to the originally intended recipients.  In order to control the chaos of a large group of people cueing up to get something for nothing, large volumes of laws and regulations have to be written to control who gets what and where and when and who the givers and who the takers are.  Now, the bureaucrats who administer these programs are also dependent on them for their livelihoods.  This entrenches the program and assures its progression to Stage Two.

The Magic Dragon Isn’t Cute Anymore

Somewhere along the line, the gentle legislators discover that their baby dragon has grown and it’s snarling at them a lot.  It wants much food.  They’re not controlling it; it’s controlling them.  However, in order to retain their prestigious position, ever-increasing sources must be found to feed their growing rapacious raptor.

The food source (tax burden) shifts rapidly downward into the middle class, as the gentle politicians coo that only the rich are being soaked.  Concomitant with the increase of taxation, the miracle of hidden taxation through monetary inflation is discovered as central banks print more and more money to allow the good times to continue over and above what direct taxation will allow.

This process of monetary inflation results in debasement of the currency, causing the citizens to work harder and harder and run faster and faster to keep up with the loss of their currency’s value and the concomitant rise of prices.  It’s slow at first but accelerates along an insidious exponential path.  Ultimately it destroys everything the middle class works for.

Additional reptilian food sources called “revenue streams” are created.  More fees, fines, “mitigation payments” and permits are required to do almost anything, driving the cost of doing everything upwards.  Coupled with this is a bewildering array of regulation and laws making the business of life more and more difficult to accomplish.  Big businesses can absorb this but the middle class ultimately buckles under the strain.   The dragon is never satisfied.

Stage 2: Silent War Between Government and Its Citizens

At some point, the unwashed masses suspect their politicians aren’t really gentle any more much less benevolent.  This is where a silent war between government and people erupts.  It’s a blurry transition through never-never land when the politicians still claim to be gentle but the people sense that they have gone from being protectors of the public good and private property to a plunderers of it; from morality to immorality.  

The “Bastiat” transition doesn’t take place all at once but, one by one, members of the working class realize they’re toiling like mad and getting no where.  What they do make is confiscated in taxes or destroyed in inflation.  They have little left over and their life’s savings are being destroyed while the politicians tell them all is just fine, creating cognitive dissonance between the hardship workers experience and the good times the politicians promise.

But those friends of the dragon on the dole still insist the dragon’s intentions are moral, even if its methods are not.  As tax rates push ever higher into confiscatory ranges, self-preservation kicks in and the people take defensive action against what they no longer perceive as moral duty but legally-sanctioned plunder.   They do this at the same time they pretend the gentle politicians are correct even though they know better.

The rich catch on and move their assets offshore and sometimes themselves out of the reach of the dragon; they expatriate.  They have the means to structure their finances in such as way as preserve wealth.  Besides, the politicians are frequently among this class so they aren’t about to let the dragon loose on themselves.

Unfortunately, the middle class doesn’t have this option, so it fights the dragon by engaging in evasive maneuvers.  Citizens cheat on taxes, and seek to conceal taxable assets.  Whenever possible transactions are shielded from the ever-prying eyes of the hungry dragon.

As the ravages of taxation and inflation eat out the middle class’s substance, a vibrant underground economy springs up, utilizing barter, cash, foreign currencies, precious metals or other means to conceal taxable activity.  Regulatory laws are flouted as people try to “see what they can get away with.”   Often times this underground economy has an organized crime component vis a vis the former Soviet Union.

The second half of Stage Two of the war kicks into gear as the dragon responds to the rising opposition and imposes a growing panoply of laws and regulations with increasing fines, penalties and prison sentences.  To block the rampant flouting of law, the dragon wants to monitor everything the citizens do in order to assure that plunder shall be paid, all in the name of the rule of law, public order and morality.  Civil rights break down, all in the name of morality and public security.

Every once in a while the beleaguered middle class pleads with the gentle politicians to fix the problem, unaware that it was the gentle politicians, who created it all in the first place.  But politicians are more than happy to be seen as dragon slayers, and create a series of scapegoats for the problem, transferring blame for the mess and enacting a new series of programs to supposedly fix the problem.  In reality, they just delay the pain, put the dragon on steroids and making the problem far worse.

The war is not without casualties.  As it becomes ever more difficult for small businesses to function in the poisoned atmosphere of taxes, fees, fines, regulations and prosecutions, more of the middle class throws up its hands and goes elsewhere or becomes part of the the dependent poor.  Small business goes out of business or operates illegally.  As inflation devours life savings, people are wiped out.  Retirees have a difficult time getting on as their lifetime achievements are destroyed.  Most of the middle class slides inexorably down the slope into poverty.

There is a moral consequence as scandals erupt in the politico and monied classes.  Disrespect of law is common.  In the free-for-all, everyone is in it for himself and no one can afford to obey the law.  Jails swell with those unfortunate enough to get caught.  As more complex laws are steadily passed, finally all citizens become law-breakers.

This enables the dragon to seek pretexts for seizing the assets of citizens.   Businesses are nationalized.  Wage and price controls are instituted.  Property ownership is forcibly transferred from those who oppose the dragon to those who support it.  Retirement plans are brought under the “protection” of government and their owners left with government-issued IOUs.  Assets are seized on the mere allegation of criminal activity.  Indeed, law enforcement agencies encourage their members to plunder.  They even make arrangements with organized crime at times.  The list of plunder-and-defend possibilities is astounding.

In an effort to stem the hemorrhage, the middle class starts throwing out the rascal politicians, only to elect another group of rascals.  This has little effect, since the dragon is now a self-existing monster that doesn’t require gentle politicians.  By this stage it’s clear:  Small and middle class businesses, ranchers and farmers all know who the enemy is:  the dragon.  There is no illusion that the politicians are gentle or acting in their best interests.

As the security of property ownership declines, investments flee and the economic environment becomes unstable, no one wants to invest where earnings will be heavily taxed, or even the possibility of direct confiscation on the allegation of having violated a plethora of unknowable, unobservable laws.  Doing business is just too dangerous.

As doing business becomes dangerous, investments die, jobs go out of existence, increasing the pain of the working lower and middle classes.  Small business is always the primary creator of employment and it is the most abused.  In the end, the rich are never soaked, the middle class is destroyed and the poor discover that there is no free lunch.

Stage Three:  Dies Irae: A Day of Wrath and Mourning

Ultimately the dragon cannot keep its promises.  This last stage is where events turn nasty and chaotic.  It is a dangerous time.   It is a time no country should ever wish to reach.

Politicians are perceived as ravenous wolves.  Blame and finger-pointing frenzies among politicians erupt to deflect responsibility for the chaos they have caused as they attempt to hold onto their privileged status.

Faith in government dissolves along with faith in the currency.  Widespread flouting of law is common and tax payments quit.  If it gets bad enough, crime flourishes, both organized and random. The domestic economy collapses into a depression and the currency just collapses.

By this time there are several violently outraged groups of people:  the first group consists of those who have been dependent on the dragon for their free programs, and once the dragon reneges on its promises to provide these, they are outraged at the violation of their imagined rights to a free lunch.  This group can include pensioners who paid the dragon money but discover the dragon spent it all before they retired.

The second group is the middle class, who have been beaten to death to feed the dragon and his cronies.  They have lost all their livelihood and property.  This is the point where many revolutions occur.  Sometimes the revolutions are non-bloody and occur only at the voting booths; sometimes they are bloody and violent.  It is a dangerous time because the chaos caused by the breakdown of economic and political order coupled with the collapse of morality often requires brute force to restore order, and brute force is the fertile ground for dictators and the destruction of rights.

One of the great ironies of history is that those who started the mess and benefitted greatly from it are rarely ever called to pay for the crimes and carnage they caused.  

Finally the dragon dies.

Conclusion

No country trapped in socialism goes through all the events described above, which is a composite of past histories.  It can turn itself at any time providing it is prepared to discipline itself the undergo the pain required to get off the public dole, much like coming off an addiction.  Few societies ever want to face that, so they condemn themselves to all three stages.  And the longer they wait to enact the necessary changes, the worse the pain becomes.

From currency, to energy to property rights, issues today are clouded with so much static and partisan bickering that the average person has little real comprehension of what is happening.  Frequently Democrats and Republicans blame each other when often they’re both responsible and fiddle while Rome burns.

America is truly at an economic and moral crossroad, having already started into Stage Two of the sad road to socialism.   Whether or not we plow through all three stages remains to be seen.  It takes great moral courage to prevent this but politicians tend to be neither moral or courageous.

Thus it is up to what actions are moral, legal and necessary to see us, our families and friends safely through the tempest.  But as a ray of hope, it is here where Americans in times past have always shown themselves most noble.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:48pm
We are well on our way, deltadarlin

Here's the really sad part...  we've been on this road for a long time. The ones who want socialism have made sure that our populace does not get a proper education, and they stoke the fires of class warfare while at the same time making sure there *are* classes to make war with each other.  Then, they get to swoop in and 'fix' the problem with their socially justified programs.

Look at the banking mess... the same damn people who set it up to fail are now going to 'fix' it by taking it over completely.  Bravo, well played sir.  Oh no, you can't just make loans to people who can pay you back... you have to make loans to people who could never afford to pay you (it's the law).  So they fail.  Then the a-holes who made them make bad loans get to take them over.  

Imagine if they started out by proposing a government takeover of banks when everything was healthy.  There would have been laughter, maybe riots.  But now, we are begging government to step in and 'save' us.  THEY MADE THE PROBLEM FOLKS!  For fucks sake, how stupid can we be?  That train has left the station, and we are all going for a bumpy ride.

Then, Obama steps in and says "There, there, poor countrymen, we will tax all those evil top 5%'ers and give you free health care, free school money, free food and housing, well take care of everything (but only for 95% of you)."

You know what a small business income is?  Look at it this way... if I have a coffee shop (I did) or a bar (I did), my daily income (gross) would have to be lower than $685.  That is the magical $250,000/year limit that Obama says makes me rich and a prime target for taxation to support all the wonderful programs he wants to give all of you po folk.  In a small business, that is peanuts... you have to pay your lease, business insurance, employees, workers comp, cost of good sold, and a thousand other expenses out of that money.  It is not a survivable amount of income for *most* small businesses.

What engine do you think drives this economy?  SMALL BUSINESS.  Obama will tax them to hell.

But, the po folk (bottom 95%) are a large group, and my guess is they do not understand or care that this kind of econimic policy is death.  They want their freebies, so they'll vote (in a very shortsighted, politically correct way) their pocketbooks.



Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Kimmie on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:02pm
Did anyone count how many times Obama said McCain was right??  ;D

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Jonny on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:11pm
Did you know that Obama has a braclet?......What a putz.....LMAO!  ;D

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:22pm
Obama said McCain was right NINE times.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE


Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by FramCire on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:40pm

wrote on Sep 26th, 2008 at 11:19pm:
I agree, but those who have already decided are going to be even more fired up, I'll bet.

Hearing Obama constantly talk about how he's going to tax the top 5% of earners *really* pisses me off.  Why?  I'm in the top five percent.  That doesn't mean I live like it though, because my cost of living is also in the top 1%, making my lifestyle no better than all those poor souls in the lower 95%.  That bullshit tax plan doesn't do anything but shift more tax burden to my shoulders, when I don't have any more disposable income than those 'poor' folks.  It's not my fault the jobs I am good at are all in a highly taxed and expensive region of the country.  No, according to Obama I can afford to give up more of my hard earned pay (as hard as any other poor person's job, just different).  That so pisses me off that I'm about to have a heart attack.  The fact is, this kind of bullshit class warfare always works for the liberals.  Arghhhhhhhhh.   >:(

Obama is a socialist, through and through.  I will vote for freedom, not Marxism.



No offense, but I highly doubt you have less than $0 (which is the disposable income of the lower %10 of the country).  Now, I understand making a lot more money yet having a ton more in bills to pay but that comment seems rather absurd.  The top %15 of the country makes over 100K while the bottom 20% makes under 25K.  If you are making top %5 money and dont have any disposable income..... that is scary.  

Now, with that said. I expect my personal taxes will go up under an Obama administration and i couldn't care less.  If I seriously am upset about paying more taxes, I probably should vote Democrat since Bush has forced the issue.  

Ok, with that said, I didn't see the debate but a good friend and big Mccain supporter told me he thought they both came off poorly and made me glad I missed it.  Here in Missouri, we vote for Governor and Lt governor separately.  if we did that for pres and VP, Id probably vote McCain/Biden since Obama and Palin both are way too green for my taste.

I hope the next debates are as cordial as this one but maybe with more substance.  maybe sometime we will get a decent candidate for Pres who isnt 800 or 18 years old.


Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 27th, 2008 at 2:03pm
Framcire,

People who live in places like Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco have to earn that kind of money just to pay rent.  Our cost of living is a lot higher than in, say, Toledo.  When Obama talks about raising taxes on the top 5%, he doesn't talk about the fact that we have HIGHER BASIC living expenses for the SAME things other people get for a lot less money.  So, I may make more money, but I HAVE to spend more money to live where I can have a job.  It's pretty simple... and you are a perfect example of how this kind of FALSE argument works with, gee, 95% of the people who will never understand economics.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 27th, 2008 at 2:09pm
I suppose I could just be a good comrade, and take a low paying job outside of my field and move to Alabama.  Only BAD people want to live where the good jobs are.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Jonny on Sep 27th, 2008 at 2:11pm
New McCain/Obama movie trailer....LOL  :D

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Callico on Sep 27th, 2008 at 3:01pm
FramCire,

I appreciate your post, but I'm afraid I have to agree with Fubar on this.  I have pulled boats in and out of Tracker Marine there in Bolivar, and you live in a great town.  The people are very friendly, the atmosphere is pleasant, and I could realy enjoy living there.  However, your cost of living in Bolivar is proportionally much less than it is in LA or San Diego, Chicago or New York, or many of our other metropolitan areas.  Your fuel prices are MUCH lower than in CA.  Your property taxes are miniscule by comparison.  Your taxes are significantly lower.  Your property values are absurd by comparison.  

When I moved from SC to IL 18 yrs ago I doubled my income, but after six months living up here I calculated that I had actually had a 25% cut in disposable income.  that was without increasing my lifestyle.  In fact I moved from an almost new ranch house with land to a hundred year old two story with less sq footage and less than half the land.  The difference from the Chicago are where I live to LA or San Diego is even greater than from SC to IL.

Unfortunately, I don't fit into the upper 5% of the income.  In fact, I have gotten the earned income credit on my taxes for the last several years, but I recognize the impact a tax increase would have on our economy.  The purpose of the tax increases proposed by Obama is not to increase funds to the Federal Government.  Every time taxes have been decreased in the last 50 yrs it has resulted in a net GAIN in income to the US Treasury, and each increase has had a net loss.  Check it out.

Jerry

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Jonny on Sep 27th, 2008 at 5:12pm
Flip or Flop?

You be the judge!  ;)

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Charlie on Sep 27th, 2008 at 7:17pm
I can't remember who said it but it wasn't so long ago...It may have been Churchill...that any government that works is a good government...........now now, that takes into account all the really horrible experiences throughout history counted as ones that don't work. They never do.

Ours is a mess but it does now and then. I like this place.

I like that definition of a pure socialist country as one where everyone gets fed....the same thing over and over, clothed...but has only one coat. It fails because it runs counter to human nature.

The debate didn't look much like one. It was too civil and the reason it was so is that without their handlers, these are decent guys.

Charlie

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by FramCire on Sep 27th, 2008 at 8:20pm

wrote on Sep 27th, 2008 at 2:03pm:
Framcire,

People who live in places like Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco have to earn that kind of money just to pay rent.  Our cost of living is a lot higher than in, say, Toledo.  When Obama talks about raising taxes on the top 5%, he doesn't talk about the fact that we have HIGHER BASIC living expenses for the SAME things other people get for a lot less money.  So, I may make more money, but I HAVE to spend more money to live where I can have a job.  It's pretty simple... and you are a perfect example of how this kind of FALSE argument works with, gee, 95% of the people who will never understand economics.


Fubar,

Please don't insult my intelligence.  I fully understand economics beyond this.  It is you, like most politicians, who didn't pay any attention to my main point.  The bottom 20% has NO DISPOSABLE INCOME.  Unless you seriously want us to believe that you have $0, then you made a false statement.  that was my point.

I fully understand cost of living.  My wife and I moved from the Boston area to here in part because of cost of living.  I have lived in 3 different states, a small rural town, a large town, and a city in my life.  So, besides being a few ECO courses short of a minor, I have life experience as well.  So if you care to discuss this topic, stay on point and don't insult me.

Now, could you please address the fact that the bottom 20% have a much lower standard of living than you do.  If you are top 5% in income and have the same lifestyle, it is you who doesn't understand economics or need a new accountant.  

By the way, I was not saying I agree with Obama's point, but your exaggeration about your lifestyle being the same as the other %95 is absurd.

Calico:  I have only lived in Bolivar for 8 years.  I fully understand the difference in cost of living and I love what I have here in this small town.  However, I was not arguing that the upper 5% MAY NOT have a higher cost of living... I was disagreeing that fubar's lifestyle is the same as the 95% below him.  

With that said, it is interesting to me how many people resort to insulting people's intelligence instead of discussing a topic nicely.  

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:01pm
Framcire,

Where did I say I had the same disposable income as the BOTTOM 20%?  I said 95%... Talk about spin.  You pulled the 20% out of thin air.

This is not about a policy that addresses the bottom 20%.  This is about Obama saying he is going to give 95% of America a tax cut.  I said, my disposable income is no higher than that 95%, I did not compare myself to the bottom 20%.

Once AGAIN... people like me are made out to be heartless, greedy rich bastards because we make more money, but my point is we have the same lifestyle as everybody else. His tax code makes no allowance for that.  You can pull out the bottom 20% if you want, but the fact is the bottom 20% pay almost NOTHING in taxes anyway.  What is your point?

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:06pm
And please, don't give me any shit about paying my fair share.  I have literally paid about 90% taxes since 1999 because of a bullshit tax code that counts income from options as ordinary income taxable at the normal rate, but does not offset that income with losses from the same stock, which count as a capital loss.  I paid well in excess of $3,000,000 in taxes and brought home less than $200,000 in that time.  So tell me how god damn fair this tax code is.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:13pm
Oh yeah, the good news I can 'write off' $3,000 of my losses each year until I'm about 3 million years old.

My point was, there are [plenty of people in that bottom 95% (the poor folks, according to Obama) that probably have it much better than I do just because they made better choices about what kind of work to get into and where to live.  Why the hell should I be arbitrarily penalized on one factor (my income) without any regard to my cost of living which is much, much higher than other places?

You say you understand economics... do you?



Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by superhawk2300 on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:38pm
This is why taxes should be based on wealth, not income.


When I feel the poor, sick, and the hungry children they call me a saint.

When I ask why the poor, sick, and the hungry childrem have no food, they call me a communist.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by FramCire on Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:07pm

wrote on Sep 27th, 2008 at 9:13pm:
Oh yeah, the good news I can 'write off' $3,000 of my losses each year until I'm about 3 million years old.

My point was, there are [plenty of people in that bottom 95% (the poor folks, according to Obama) that probably have it much better than I do just because they made better choices about what kind of work to get into and where to live.  Why the hell should I be arbitrarily penalized on one factor (my income) without any regard to my cost of living which is much, much higher than other places?

You say you understand economics... do you?



Outside of your last line where you inexplicably question me again for NO REASOn, this makes more sense.  Had you just said that you feel that taxing you more without taking your cost of living into consideration makes no sense... I would have agreed with you.  

You kept saying that your lifestyle was THE SAME AS the bottom 95%.   Disposable income, quality of life, personal safety...... are all areas that your income affords you a much better lifestyle than a large percentage of Americans.  this is why I took exception to your comment.  I never called you greedy.  I don't like Obama's tax plan any more than you do, but your comment made you look out of touch with the reality that the lower %20 (which is part of the 95% you put yourself in the same boat as) lives with.  I am int he top 20% in household income as well (not top 5) but both my wife and I work with a lot of people who are in the bottom 20% and trust me your lifestyle is nothing like theirs.

With that said, the more people look at Obama, the more they will realize that his economic plan makes no sense.  Yes, Bush has done a horrible job and McCain is not strong on the economy, but I can't feel good about Obama either.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:52pm
We are *all* in the same boat. If Obama's magical tax plan, the one where he's paid for all of his proposals comes to pass, those bottom 20% will be the ones hurt the most.  When small business can't even survive, and THEN you raise their taxes even more, jobs disappear because employers can't afford to pay them.  That's why I asked if you understood economics... sorry.  This whole idea that bigger government is the solution to ANYTHING is just laughable.

What is infuriating is the underhanded, sneaky, class warfare BS that a large portion of the country falls for to pass more and more of these tax & spend, socialist, government-is-the-answer-to-everything plans.

The fact is, class warfare has always worked and will always work.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Redd on Sep 27th, 2008 at 11:22pm
Just a bit of 'income" information. and who these elite work with/for.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE

My problem with this is that for some CEO's the % amount of their bonus increases over time equal the the amount that the price of their shares of stock fall over the same amount of time.  Craig Dubow CEO/Pres. of the company I worked for has more than doubled his income from 2007 to 2008 projections, while the stockprice tanked from near 70 a share 5 years ago when he took the position to less than 20 a share today.

his 2007 salary was 2 mil, with a 1.75 mil bonus.  He's now due an 8 Mil salery while the company is tanking and laying off or fireing over 2000 people in less than 3 months because they aren't turning a profit?  With raises like this its....

Simply astounding. ::)

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by BarbaraD on Sep 28th, 2008 at 9:56am
I'm gonna jump into this frey (might be sorry), but as an accountant who's been looking for "loopholes" in the tax code for more years than I can count.... the whole damn tax code needs to be REWRITTEN in my opinion.

Right now it "favors" the rich and the poor. The middle income is just screwed. Small businesses don't get the same deductions as large corporations. There are so many "gray" areas in the tax code you can drive a bull dozier thru it and most of your IRS agents (the nice ones on the other end of the 800 numbers) don't have a damn clue what they mean.

I get really upset when my clients have to pay more than their "fair" share of taxes and spend a "lot" of time looking for the "gray" areas and the loopholes in the code. And I'm damn good at finding them. And Fubar, if you're paying that much in taxes, I'd suggest that you find an accountant that will work for YOU to find some of those loopholes.

As far as the debate went -- I don't think either party won. McCain didn't make eye contact - to me that was a downer - reminded me of Nixon (not my favorite person). They neither one had a solution to Wall Street. Obama came out ok on Foreign policy. But neither said anything they haven't said before, so it was a toss up.

And no, I don't understand economics real well. When I took it in college we called it the "Exact Science of Assumption". So with that in mind, assumming we bail out Wall Street tomorrow, we'll be 700 Billion in debt and our taxes will go up to pay for it. The CEO's will still get a "reasonable" exit package (what's reasonable?) and we'll still be holding the bag.

Oh well, think I'll start planting my winter garden so I'll be able to eat this winter.... looks like belts are gonna get tighter for all of us...

Hugs BD

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 28th, 2008 at 11:00am

wrote on Sep 27th, 2008 at 10:52pm:
We are *all* in the same boat.


And this, it appears, is Obama's trump card in these times.  




Quote:
class warfare


For those who feel there has been a distinctive class separation that is trying to maintain the status quo with a lessening of the middle, interpreting Obama's message with a lens of community rather than with a lens of class may appeal more to many.  A greater sense of equality to be balanced against the seemingly present class differences on voting day, and who will be in the majority?  
 In effect, support for Obama with this political consensus, perhaps holding legitimacy for many with recent economic inequalities all over the news, doesn't always equate with support for his policies.  But the means seems less important than the depiction created, with a bit of socialistic blending, "first to politics, then the features" has captured a good piece of young.


Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Jonny on Sep 28th, 2008 at 2:26pm
Shes hot even in corn....LOL  ;D

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Jonny on Sep 28th, 2008 at 2:55pm

wrote on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:11pm:
Did you know that Obama has a braclet?......What a putz.....LMAO!  ;D


Soldier's Family Told Obama Not to Wear Son's Bracelet

Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.

Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail.

Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.

But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son's sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte. This begins at about 10 minutes into the radio program.

How fucking pathetic is that?

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by Brew on Sep 28th, 2008 at 7:58pm

wrote on Sep 28th, 2008 at 2:55pm:

wrote on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:11pm:
Did you know that Obama has a braclet?......What a putz.....LMAO!  ;D


Soldier's Family Told Obama Not to Wear Son's Bracelet

Barack Obama played the "me too" game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.

Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show "Route 51" asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama's positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son's name on the campaign trail.

Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.

But, he also said that his ex-wife has refused further interviews on the matter and that she wanted Obama to stop wearing the reminder of her son's sacrifice that he keeps turning into a campaign soundbyte. This begins at about 10 minutes into the radio program.

How fucking pathetic is that?

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE

Who knows what to believe?

Soldier's Mother 'Ecstatic' About Obama's Bracelet

MILWAUKEE -- The mother of a Wisconsin soldier who died in Iraq says she was "ecstatic" during Friday's debate when Sen. Barack Obama mentioned the bracelet she gave him in honor of her son.

Tracy Jopek, of Merrill, told the Associated Press on Sunday she was honored that he remembered Sgt. Ryan David Jopek, who was killed in 2006 by a roadside bomb.

She criticized Internet reports that suggested Obama exploited her son for political purposes. She acknowledges e-mailing the campaign in February asking that Obama not mention her son in speeches or debates.

But she said Obama's mention on Friday was appropriate because he was responding after Sen. John McCain said a soldier's mother gave him a bracelet.

Jopek said Obama's comment rightfully suggested there's more than one viewpoint on the war.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or RegisterEND PRINTPAGE

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by FramCire on Sep 28th, 2008 at 8:52pm

wrote on Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:11pm:
Did you know that Obama has a braclet?......What a putz.....LMAO!  ;D


WSOP?

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 28th, 2008 at 10:22pm
If you want to see tax returns, if it's that important to you, show me yours and I'll show you mine.  In reality, I made a little more than $11 Million if you count 1998 through today.  All of that was counted as 'ordinary income because I was (as a Director of the company) buying my shares at a low set price (the strike price was set on the day I was grated the various sets of stock options).  When I bought the shares, I was not allowed to sell them because I was locked out of selling due to being materially involved with all of the acquisitions the company was making.  So, all this income was from NQ options which is taxable just like wages.  Problem came when the value plummeted while I was locked out of selling.  Instead of holding the stock, I ended up owing the broker money, and not having anything when the final tax bill came in, which was an extra $672 thousand.  I lost everything I owned, including my house, my business, my cars... everything.  You can believe what you want, I'm just telling you almost every penny I have made since 2001 has gone directly to the IRS.  When you pile on our IVF expenses on top of that, I do not have any extra pennies.  I don't really care if you believe it, but don't call me a liar.  I've explained this here on the board many times.

-Shawn

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 28th, 2008 at 10:27pm

wrote on Sep 28th, 2008 at 9:54pm:
WOW you cant belive anything when the media puts a spin on.    
Fubar Get a grip on yourself,  if you expect us to belive that you made 3mil and only taken home 200k your crazy.  Even if you received a lum sum of three mil you still wouldn't be taxed $2,800,000.00 some one else already said it but you need a different accountant, my geuss is your in the bottom 15% of the population because if you  where in the top five you would realise how much of an a$$ you sound like.                      CH-HELL [smiley=finger.gif] [smiley=guyflash.gif] [smiley=headbanger.gif]


I haven't gone out of my way to insult anybody.  That was pretty insulting.  I'll resist telling you where to stuff your attitude.  Your ignorance about my situation is making YOU look like as A$$.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by CH-HELL on Sep 28th, 2008 at 10:27pm
I dont know the whole story I am going to delete my post and stay out of it.    Phil :-X

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by CH-HELL on Sep 28th, 2008 at 10:48pm
I tried to delete it but hey you where to quick to come at me thats all right I can take it.  I was only going with the info you provided in this post and as far as seeing showing me your tax returns no thanks it really doesn't matter to me if your living in a box and typing from a stolen lap top or your in your lake house and having your butler type for you.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 29th, 2008 at 1:47am
Seriously man, would you not react at being called a liar?

Look, I've been pretty open about what happened to me. I blame myself for not realizing what was happening at the time.  I was too busy dealing with a number of things to really understand what the perils were, and I got bit, big time.

I have plenty (several million) reasons to be unhappy with the tax code, and both of the parties being irresponsible with our taxes.  Just as with CH, you'd have to walk in my shoes to understand the magnitude.  I've said many times, I thank God for all things, even losing everything, because it taught me lessons I could not buy.

My 'excitement' over this kind of debate might be a little more understandable, no?



Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by CH-HELL on Sep 29th, 2008 at 7:14am
Being called a liar is the worst for me and that is why I tried to retract my post, I dont know the whole story so I appoligise for that and the more I think about it I do understand your frustrated.  CH-HELL is my evil twin  Phil

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by FramCire on Sep 29th, 2008 at 12:11pm

wrote on Sep 29th, 2008 at 1:47am:
Seriously man, would you not react at being called a liar?

Look, I've been pretty open about what happened to me. I blame myself for not realizing what was happening at the time.  I was too busy dealing with a number of things to really understand what the perils were, and I got bit, big time.

I have plenty (several million) reasons to be unhappy with the tax code, and both of the parties being irresponsible with our taxes.  Just as with CH, you'd have to walk in my shoes to understand the magnitude.  I've said many times, I thank God for all things, even losing everything, because it taught me lessons I could not buy.

My 'excitement' over this kind of debate might be a little more understandable, no?


Very much so.  However, you can also see where most people would have a very hard time understanding your situation without knowing all the facts.  With me, i would have understood if you explained it this way right away vs. attacking my intelligence.  I too find the tax code to be woefully annoying.  Many years ago I worked as an umpire for a softball league just a few games and because of the way the MA tax code was written, I actually LOST money because of it.  I was paid in cash and I didnt have to report it, but of course I did and lost money.

Yes, this is a MUCH MUCH smaller scale, but I could go on and on with other issues I have with the code that have cost me a ton more but who here would care?

I think we just run Jonny/Charlie as a ticket and sit back as they fix our country.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by fubar on Sep 29th, 2008 at 12:31pm
That's the beauty of forums... it's very hard for each and every post to stand on its own.  Most require context which is 100% available to the writer, but often not conveyed nealy well enough to the reader.

I didn't mean to insult your intelligence at all.  Having a debate about economics is what I thought we were doing.  My position is that the Obama tax plan would hurt the economy, and that saying it's OK to tax the upper 5% to fix it all is just plain wrong.  You can't possibly tax the top 5% without hurting the bottom 20%.  Who do you think pays the bottom 20%?  The idea that our government is going to 'right the wrongs' by forcing the top 5% to give more to the bottom 20% is complete hogwash, inanely stupid economic policy.

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by deltadarlin on Sep 29th, 2008 at 7:58pm
As Ten Years After sang

"Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more"

Title: Re: Well, I watched the first debate...
Post by jimmers on Sep 29th, 2008 at 8:13pm

wrote on Sep 28th, 2008 at 10:22pm:
If you want to see tax returns, if it's that important to you, show me yours and I'll show you mine.  In reality, I made a little more than $11 Million if you count 1998 through today.  All of that was counted as 'ordinary income because I was (as a Director of the company) buying my shares at a low set price (the strike price was set on the day I was grated the various sets of stock options).  When I bought the shares, I was not allowed to sell them because I was locked out of selling due to being materially involved with all of the acquisitions the company was making.  So, all this income was from NQ options which is taxable just like wages.  Problem came when the value plummeted while I was locked out of selling.  Instead of holding the stock, I ended up owing the broker money, and not having anything when the final tax bill came in, which was an extra $672 thousand.  I lost everything I owned, including my house, my business, my cars... everything.  You can believe what you want, I'm just telling you almost every penny I have made since 2001 has gone directly to the IRS.  When you pile on our IVF expenses on top of that, I do not have any extra pennies.  I don't really care if you believe it, but don't call me a liar.  I've explained this here on the board many times.

-Shawn

Shawn,

Do you think this may have been a bad choice on your part? An almost to good to be true scenario?

I mean, If you weren't allowed to sell the (Set price discounted stock no matter what the price, high or low) because you were intimately involved with company acquisitions and such, where was your potential gain in this whole scenario? Retirement? Corporate takeover?

I think the only ones who could get a tax break when the price plummeted on this whole deal were the corporate officers, and they knew it.

Just asking,

Jimmers

New CH.com Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.4!
YaBB © 2000-2009. All Rights Reserved.