Slow news day.....

The whole damn world's ecomony is falling apart and all day the news has been sitting outside a PLUMBER's house waiting to get a glimpse of him.

Poor guy makes about $35K a year and is "thinking" of maybe buying his boss's plumbing company at some future date maybe after he learns a lot more (he doesn't have a license yet, but he's working on learning enough to get one). Oh and he owes back taxes.

All that crap last night on the debate was just that - crap. Ya don't figure your damn income taxes on GROSS income - ya gotta a few dozen deductions before ya get thru. Ya pays taxes of PROFIT - DUH!!!

Lord I ran a "medium" size plumbing company for years that grossed a whole lot more than that and I can guarantee ya I wouldn't have shown a PROFIT of $250,000. We'd have had a nice trip to Europe to check out a plumbing fixture factory first (oops I think we did that).

I'm so tired of being fed all this crap on the news.... I really need to get back to Law and Order....  :)

Hugs BD

Hey Barb, I been meaning to ask you a question.  If Obama gets elected, which he probably will, what do you think will happen after the Bush tax cuts expire?  

Just ask Joe biden....LMAO!  ;D

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

Obama says 98% of 'small businesses' don't make over $250,000.  Those are the people who mow lawns or do side jobs.  These folks usually file as individuals

The most productive and sucessful small businesses often do make over $250,000.  A survey of small business showed that 70% made over that and employed over 10 people.  These are the ones creating jobs for our economy.  In fact, these businesses supplied 100% of the new jobs in America (the number of jobs they added to the economy minus the number of jobs lost in small business is 100% of the number of jobs added to the economy measured overall) in a recently measured year.

So, while you may not like the 'Joe' conversation, the point is Obama is going to tax the only engine of our economy that is actually working.  That oughta work out just swell.

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

LMAO, Jonny!  Great sign and great find.  Thanks.

As to small businesses, I've been working where I am for 18 years.  If two or three whole human beings comprise a "small business" then we qualify.  I can tell you that our sales, just a couple of us doing this, are in the $2 million range every year.  Our gross profit is around $500 thousand per year.   Our taxable income, after taking our legitimate  ::) deductions was less than $5,000.  Shhhhhh, don't tell anyone.

But does anyone  think we actually pay tax on that gross profit?  If so, wanna buy a bridge?????

Of course we write off expenses - any business that doesn't won't be in business for more than 15 minutes.  Joe the Plumber, apparently doesn't understand that, but then, he's only "thinking" about buying out the business.  SHEESH!  And he's not even licensed??? Puleeeze.

I'm absolutely tired and disgusted with the crap too, Barb.  Thank God the early voting polls opened today, and we've only god a couple of weeks left to be bombarded with garbage ads on TV, and even worse trash coming in the mail.

I'm sick of it. [smiley=hurl.gif]

Sandy

Just wanted to add that my question was legitimate and not slamming anyone.  I am very green when it comes to tax codes and all that jazz and am just concerned what will happen with Jesse's paycheck when that time comes.  We're trying very hard to get out of debt here!

Thanks!

Barb, most dont have the first damn clue between gross income and taxable income.  Nobody except for the right wing is talking about gross income.....I mean after all, we are talking about TAXES.

I think to have a job where you get a paycheck for $250k or higher means you are doing well and can afford an increase.
BUT
Small business owners know that you can be pennyless and show $250k in profit.  It's the damn tax code that makes everything messy.  Let's say Joe the plumber spends $75k on 2 new trucks for his business.  He can only write off about $12k of that in the first year.  Then lets say he spends $10k new laptops for his crew to have in their trucks, he can't write off that in one year either.  Then lets say throughout the year he pays off $25k in principle on his building loan, he can not write off any of that.  Then lets say he decided to increase his inventory by $50k because he thinks next year will be busy, he can not write off any of that $50k until he sells the product...............
When all is said and done, Joe has done all the things we want small business owners to do and doesnt have a damn dime in the bank because he reinvested it in his business....but he still gets a tax bill as if he made $250k.  

This is why I think Obama's plan lacks.  Maybe it's not a bad plan, but you would have to re-write the entire tax code for corporations first.  A W-2 paycheck for $250k is a whole different ball game than a K-1.  If you are going to use $250k as an arbitrary number, you have to level the playing field first.  

BarbaraD wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 5:41pm:

All that crap last night on the debate was just that - crap. Ya don't figure your damn income taxes on GROSS income - ya gotta a few dozen deductions before ya get thru. Ya pays taxes of PROFIT - DUH!!! Lord I ran a "medium" size plumbing company for years that grossed a whole lot more than that and I can guarantee ya I wouldn't have shown a PROFIT of $250,000. We'd have had a nice trip to Europe to check out a plumbing fixture factory first (oops I think we did that). I'm so tired of being fed all this crap on the news.... I really need to get back to Law and Order....  :) Hugs BD

You got that crap right. I too have heard the example of the poor small business that makes voer 250,000 a year but is pennyless. Taxes apply to profit. In fact, as a small business owner I could deduct any losses for seven years off future years taxes. If you don't make any money, you don't pay any taxes (mostly for what we are talking about).

This is not about the individuals who do it themselves... of course they don't clear 250K.  This is about the business that provided 100% percent of our job growth numbers.  Why is it hard to understand that?  The business that provide jobs are making a profit, that's why they can employ people.  

No matter how you slice it, he is talking about taxing THOSE businesses.  THOSE businesses will employ fewer people, period.  It has been proven over and over, taxing those businesses is stupid policy, it reduces revenues and stalls growth.

wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 8:48pm:

This is not about the individuals who do it themselves... of course they don't clear 250K.  This is about the business that provided 100% percent of our job growth numbers.  Why is it hard to understand that?  The business that provide jobs are making a profit, that's why they can employ people.   No matter how you slice it, he is talking about taxing THOSE businesses.  THOSE businesses will employ fewer people, period.  It has been proven over and over, taxing those businesses is stupid policy, it reduces revenues and stalls growth.

Forgive me if I'm  seeing this wrong, but please clarify for me, that the cost of payroll isn't deductable, and that net profits are above and beyind the costs of employing someone?  Especially a full time vs part time employee?

I don't know these things so I'd appreciate to be enlightened of the tax consequences of payrolls vs. net profits.

Thanks.

Around here, it's the Obama signs that have been burned or defaced. We are about a 50/50 area. Western NY, has a lot of Republicans.

Charlie

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

The complete works of George Orwell. Now I need to find the equivalent for Karl Marx so I can live in the United Ubama States of America.

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

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. "
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." 1984

3 things I saw int he debate I never want to see again:

1.  Someone referencing Joe the Plumber.
2.  McCains eyes blinking 40 times a minute while Obama speaks.
3.  Obama saying "This is probably the most important issue effecting our economy in the long term" about EVERY TOPIC.

Did anyone else notice that Obama said the same thing to every question:

   a.  Say it is most important thing to economy
   b. Tell people that 95% of them will be given money by you
   c. Then talk about spending money to fix every problem but never mention where this money is going to come from.
   d.  Suggest that McCain is Bush

While I know Obama is slick and smart, how does he win these debates by saying the same thing to every question?

Quote:

Now I need to find the equivalent for Karl Marx so I can live in the United Ubama States of America.

Nobody said you had to live here if you hate it so much.  Some of you people kill me. Right after 2001, we were the greatest. Patriotism was at an all time high. Everyone loved America. Now we hate it and all the ones that run it. We have been living way beyond our means for years and now it is time to pay the piper. I don't like it either but don't call my country United Ubama States of America.

PS   It does look like you may be able to call it United Obama States of America pretty soon though. ::)

We have problems but I would live no where else. >:(

Redd wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 8:56pm:

wrote on Oct 16th, 2008 at 8:48pm: This is not about the individuals who do it themselves... of course they don't clear 250K.  This is about the business that provided 100% percent of our job growth numbers.  Why is it hard to understand that?  The business that provide jobs are making a profit, that's why they can employ people.   No matter how you slice it, he is talking about taxing THOSE businesses.  THOSE businesses will employ fewer people, period.  It has been proven over and over, taxing those businesses is stupid policy, it reduces revenues and stalls growth. Forgive me if I'm  seeing this wrong, but please clarify for me, that the cost of payroll isn't deductable, and that net profits are above and beyind the costs of employing someone?  Especially a full time vs part time employee? I don't know these things so I'd appreciate to be enlightened of the tax consequences of payrolls vs. net profits. Thanks.

First of all, let's say that there are, in fact, small businesses that  clear $250,000... (let's stop trying to confuse the issue, there are businesses that make $250,000, it's that simple).  The point is, these are the businesses that represent almost 100% of our ability to grow jobs in the country.  Raising taxes on those 'rich' businesses is stupid,  We need to reduce their taxes so they have the cash to grow their business and employ more people.

In fact, any tax on any corporation is simply a cloaked tax on the customers and employees of that corporation, period.  There is no other way to pay those taxes than to add it to the cost of goods and services or to reduce compensation and benefits (or both).  If the ability to profit goes away, so does the reason to exist, and therefore the jobs go away too.

Obama's plan to tax the jobs engine of this economy is just stupid.  It sounds so nice, to 'spread the wealth', but the fact is it doesn't work.  It will make a bad situation worse.  McCain is not the Messiah, but his plan at least pays reverence to history.

I think you're really blowing this out of proportion, Fubar.  Obama's plan is actually quite similar to what Clinton did to pull us out of the slump we were in.  Clinton's was $140,000 and Obama's is $250,000.  

From the Tax Policy Center:
"few small business owners face the highest marginal income tax rates. Less than 9 percent of returns with small business income are in tax brackets
of 28 percent and above, less than 3 percent face rates of 33 percent and above, and only 1.3 percent are in the top bracket. Roughly 97 percent of small businesses would not be affected at all by increases in the top two
tax rates. More than two-thirds of all returns with small business income are in the 15 percent or lower tax bracket, and 88 percent face rates of 25 percent or
below."

I think I heard that the top bracket is currently 36% and would only go up to 39%, which would be Clinton-era tax rates.

Small business actually create 2/3 net new jobs.  While I see what you're saying, I highly doubt that increasing a business' tax rate by 3% is going to break them so much that they're going to fire their employees.  60% of small businesses employ 1 to 4 people.  When you employ a low amount of people like that, there tends to be more of a personal relationship with the employees and aren't quick to fire them.  Take into consideration if they fired them or laid them off they'd have a hike in their unemployment taxes.  Not to mention they'd be short a worker and in some businesses the workers are necessary to help the business profit.  

You mention corporations getting taxed and raising prices for consumers.  If we leave taxes as they are (a lot are paying 0% right now) or give more tax breaks to them, they're not going to lower their prices for the consumer.  The prices are going to stay the same so they can make more profit.  

I see a lot of people always attacking Obama, his supporters and his ideas.  While I may not like Obama or all of his ideas, not all of them are horrible.  Part of the problem is people label the candidates democrat or republican and don't look at the ideas with an open mind.  They just assume that since one's part of one party that he, along with all his ideas, is bad.  

And 40% of Obama's 95% of the people who get this tax break, don't even pay any taxes now.

It's not a tax break for them, it's carefully hidden welfare!

I came across this post by a person on a different website (that has to do with parenting) and wanted to post it, because I like to know the opinions of the situation by different people (especially business owners) and here's what she said:


Quote:

It takes a LOT of money to run even a SMALL Business. It is not difficult to go above and beyond and show a NET of $250,000 while still bringing in a middle class income (seriously). Especially if you have a building that is paid off. I'm having a hard time believing that it will only affect 2% of Small business.... but haven't done my research to disprove that. $250,000 is chump change in just about any business. Let's face it, even in the midwest where we are, to run a "small plumbing company"...the buildings are typically MORE then $250,000 and commercial loans are shorter and therefore paid off sooner and therefore losing deductions on that sooner. Ugh, rambling a bit here... sorry, just took some medications for my Crohn's! Just to lay it out for those inquiring about my personal status...Obama's plan WILL cause an increase in my family business. It's set up as a Corporation with 3 owners who own 33 shares each and 1 share remains unsold. I'm not an owner, but hope to be in the next 10-15 years, if not sooner. Regardless, I understand the risk Obama would attempt to take and affect small business. The issue is that it inevitably gets passed onto the middle class and the end-consumer. Doing what he will will force small business owners to do the trickle down effect in a NEGATIVE way, but you can't blame them. We are already starting to "lean" up the company and prepare for a difficult winter. If BO gets into office, we're even more worried about how the economy might head and the extra taxes that will force higher prices and less jobs. It's real stuff and I'm living in it. And, no, my parents DO NOT and have NEVER brought home more then $250,000, sheesh, I don't think they've ever brought home more then $150,000...EVER..and they've been in business for 26 years. Yet, THEY are the ones that will be penalized for BO tax laws...and they will have to decide the future of the "middle class" and they will be the ones who pass on the higher prices....inevitably affecting the middle class. Maybe I'm not clear on my thinking, but quite honestly, this is how I understand things and it's not pretty.... In all honesty, I just can't wait for the election to GET OVER WITH because it is SEVERELY affecting the economy. The election, IMO, is increasing focus and anxiety on the economy and forcing people to STOP spending and in addition the banks are continuing to freeze money. When they request that you have nearly 40% down to build a SPEC home (a home that you build and someone basically comes and buys it off the market - brand new, versus building to suit), that is INSANE. It used to be a standard 10-15%. People have stopped building homes because of the freeze on loans. Like one of our reps explained... "The pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other. You used to only have to be able to spell "mortgage" to get one, and now you have to place your firstborn on it." Regardless, the housing market drives the economy. I forget the exact estimates of the study, but it was a local one and basically nearly 50% of jobs were made of up of those that attributed to the housing market. That's a very real and scary statistic! Can you believe THAT many jobs? If the housing market flops completely, then those jobs are at risk....add in the BO tax plan on small business (and in housing, it's SO incredibly easy to go over the $250,000 and not have a dime in the bank), as well as the prices will soar. Sorry! I went off on a tangent a bit. But BO's plan will inevitably slow the economy and cause the housing market to crash even more.... it's just the reality I'm living in... and it frightens me terribly, as it should!

I thought it interesting what she said about the housing market.  My husband does building on the side, but there are other people in his family who do it full time.  It is EASY to net $250,000 doing it and there are a ton of people employed in construction, so I can see her side of it. :-/

Here's the tax bracket:

Married, filing jointly with taxable income of:  
Single filers with taxable income of:  
Tax Rate

$0 - $16,050
$0 - $8,025
10%

$16,050.01 - $65,100
$8,025.01 - $32,550
15%

$65,100.01 - $131,450
$32,550.01 - $78,850
25%

$131,450.01 - $200,300
$78,850.01 - $164,550
28%

$200,300.01 - $357,700
$164,550.01 - $357,700
33%

More than $357,700
More than $357,700
35%

My husband falls in the 25% bracket (he is NOT a business owner), but because he took on a roofing job over the summer to help pay hospital bills from Ava's birth, it'll jump to the 28%.  

Come on guys - I didn't say that Obama's tax plan was the end all be all... I just said it has some merit and I don't see it in McCain's plan.

A good accountant can FIND loopholes in the tax code (if he/she looks) to benefit any business and help them pay LESS taxes regardless of how big or small they are.

Most small businesses (at least what "I" consider "SMALL" businesses - and maybe my idea of small and Obama and McCain's idea of small is different -- I'm talking about the businesses with 2-8 employees - that's what small means to me) are NOT going to show a profit of $250,000.

Yes payroll is a deduction as well as employee benefits (inluding the SS and SUTA and FUTA the employer pays as well as med insurance if the employer can afford that). Incorporation is another loophole that has benefits for some compaines - there's just all kinds of things you can take there if you know where to look.

If you want to look at give-aways look at the Earned Income Credit. That's been the biggest FRAUD perpretrated on the tax system since the beginning of it. After years the IRS finally started checking to SS numbers and do a little checking, but not much. People are still working that one Big Time. I don't even remember who had that brilliant idea, but it's cost the TAXPAYERS BILLIONS of dollars. And no one would even THINK of cutting that out. We just keep expanding it. (That's a soap box issue with me).

My personal opinion is that the tax code needs to be thrown out and rewritten to make sense, clear up the gray areas and take POWER away from the IRS.

Hugs BD

Joe isn't a plumber to begin with.  He's not even a journeyman or apprentice.  Buying a business?  What for?  He can't work at it.  He might want to pay his backtaxes before he tries to buy a business.

Barb for President!! [smiley=grin2.gif] ;)

As I understand it, the top bracket for the Obama plan will start around $250,000 net income, and it will go back to the incremental rate it was at before the Bush plan went into effect.  Someone who makes their 249,999th dollar of the year will pay 36% on that dollar, while the 250,000th dollar and above will be taxed at 39%.  

On the other end of the scale, the rates will stay the same or fall.  

Here's an interesting visual of the changes:

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

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

I'm not a Letterman watcher unless he has someone interesting like McCain as a guest. I guess you know McCain was a no-show on his show a couple weeks ago and Letterman went nuts for several days. Anyway McCain was invited back and I'm surprised he didn't hit Letterman. Letterman torn into him good, especially about Palin. It was painful. While I agree with him on Palin and most of his politics, it was something better left to a debate. Of course moderators are forbidden to ask real questions.

I doubt McCain will return in his lifetime. I suppose this thing is on Youtube or whatever its called.

OUCH

Charlie

Hey Charlie, did you watch the Alfred E. Smith Charity event last night?  Too funny!

Saw it.  Nice to see the candidates being regular people.

That Al Smith thing was the funniest thing I've seen since this political season started. Now if they'd just campaign like that.... I woke up this morning still laughing at BOTH of them. Think I'd vote for both of them if they'd be like that all the time.... :)

Hugs BD

Audre wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 2:56am:

I think you're really blowing this out of proportion, Fubar.

That's me, chicken little.


Audre wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 2:56am:

From the Tax Policy Center: "few small business owners face the highest marginal income tax rates. Less than 9 percent of returns with small business income are in tax brackets of 28 percent and above, less than 3 percent face rates of 33 percent and above, and only 1.3 percent are in the top bracket. Roughly 97 percent of small businesses would not be affected at all by increases in the top two tax rates. More than two-thirds of all returns with small business income are in the 15 percent or lower tax bracket, and 88 percent face rates of 25 percent or below."

Once again... this is NOT about the 97% who wouldn't be affected.  It's about the 100% who will be affected.  100% of the businesses that do have their taxes raised will pass on 100% of that cost to 100% of us in the form of higher prices or lower wages and benefits.  It cannot be any other way.  This is the simple truth.


Audre wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 2:56am:

Small business actually create 2/3 net new jobs.

The ones who will get higher taxes are the ones who are creating (not in theory, in truth) ALL of our new net jobs.  It's a fact.


Audre wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 2:56am:

I highly doubt that increasing a business' tax rate by 3% is going to break them so much that they're going to fire their employees.

And there it is... the foundation of the push for socialism.  Idiocracy at it's finest.



Audre wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 2:56am:

You mention corporations getting taxed and raising prices for consumers.  If we leave taxes as they are (a lot are paying 0% right now) or give more tax breaks to them, they're not going to lower their prices for the consumer.  The prices are going to stay the same so they can make more profit.

That is just not true, and not supported by any facts.  The facts tell a different story.  Raise the taxes, reduce the revenue and jobs.  That's how it works.  You can't make it work any different by wishing it so, or hoping it so.  This is how it works.
 


Audre wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 2:56am:

I see a lot of people always attacking Obama, his supporters and his ideas.  While I may not like Obama or all of his ideas, not all of them are horrible.

All of his ideas are horrible.  That is an opinion.  His economic policy is horrible.  That's a fact.

I thought this was interesting.... We might want to throw out all the tax laws and start here.... (again)

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

Hugs BD

wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 12:18pm:

... And there it is... the foundation of the push for socialism.  Idiocracy at it's finest. ... All of his ideas are horrible.  That is an opinion.  His economic policy is horrible.  That's a fact.

Or it's Hyperbole and opinion.

Obama's plan reduces the total amount of taxes the government collects, McCain's reduces it a bit more.  If we didn't have a huge deficit and the economy was in great shape, McCain's plan might make sense.

Returning tax rates to more like they were like 10 years ago (or under President Eisenhower) is not socialism. It is simply reversing the Bush tax cuts, which moved a big slice of the tax burden off of the wealthy and on to working and middle class people and future generations.

Right Monty, Obama's plan reduces the amount the government collects... can I get some of what your smoking?

Oh wait, I forgot, Obama said HE'S going to pay for all the new programs.  How could I forget that?

The debt is a real concern with both candidates plans. There is no doubt that no matter who is elected, they are going to have to scale back either tax cuts and/or spending, or increase the debt.


Quote:

Both candidates have promised to balance their tax relief programs with budget cuts designed to trim soaring deficits. But the Tax Policy Center has warned that both plans -- coupled with the candidates' high-cost healthcare proposals -- would balloon the $9.6-trillion national debt. The center's analysis reported that McCain's tax proposals would add $5 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, while Obama's would add $3.6 trillion.

Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.

Such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare. In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits. The spending on these programs is then subtracted from the total tax burden, in order to make the claim that his tax plan is a net tax cut overall.

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

Jonny, it's OK, Obama said he already paid for all these programs.

Just like he's going to pay for all our new medical insurance by eliminating paperwork.  MAGIC!

More amazing than his magical programs is the level to which a large number of Americans are falling for this crap.  They think they're voting for taxes 'on the rich', like they are Robin Hood.  This plan will hurt those people the most.

It is foolish to think that taxes on business (any business) do not simply just cost us all more.  Tax on business is tax on us, period.  Tax the 'rich' and the poor will end up footing the bill or feeling the pain much more than the 'rich'.

It's all a little too much math for Joe Six-Pack.  Far easier to feel good about sticking it to da man.

wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 4:59pm:

Robin Hood.

It would have been great when Obama said "spread the wealth" if Joe yelled ............."Dont tax me, bro!"....LMAO  ;D

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

Quote:

That is just not true, and not supported by any facts.  The facts tell a different story.  Raise the taxes, reduce the revenue and jobs.  That's how it works.  You can't make it work any different by wishing it so, or hoping it so.  This is how it works.

Not quite so, Shawn.  How would you explain the 22 million jobs between 92 and 2000?  Taxes were higher back then and borrowing was much lower.
When Bush Jr cut the taxes, it took several years to get the same revenue back.  After taxes have been cut, job growth over the last 8 years has been downright shitty.
Back in the 90s, jobs were high, income per family was high, taxes were high and tax revenue was high.  According to you, this is an impossibility.....but it happened.

wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 1:42pm:

... can I get some of what your smoking?

I sent all mine to the Chicago Tribune - you know, that newspaper that has never endorsed a Democrat for President until this year.  The one that said they were impressed by Obama's centrism, while they are disappointed with McCain's campaign.  

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

That was after I sent some to conservative icon Christopher Buckley, who is also endorsing Obama. And some to all the other fine Republicans at START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE.  

Out of kindness, I was going to send some to the people at democratsformccain.com, but that site is run by a registered Republican, and doesn't seem to actually identify any Democrats who are for McCain!

From CNN

Quote:

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's health care plan, as outlined on his campaign Web site, says an Obama administration "will require that all children have health care coverage." The site refers to coverage for children as a "mandate." The plan says parents will be assisted in signing up their children for coverage either through private insurers, government programs such as Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) or unspecified "options established by the Obama plan." Beyond raising the possibility that parents may have to prove health care coverage before children can be enrolled in daycare or school, the Web site does not address fines or any other penalties for parents who do not obtain health care coverage for their children. Obama was quoted last year during the Democratic primary campaign as saying he would fine parents if they did not enroll their children. According to the Des Moines (Iowa) Register, Obama told reporters in November 2007: "If they don't have health care, we will work with the parents to make sure that it's provided, and it would be mandatory. Parents will not have an option. And I would fine parents if for some reason they refused." He did not specify the amount of any fine.

It will be interesting to see what they do when they force those who don't believe in medicine for religious reasons to sign their kids up in health care.

We're all coming under the protective umbrella of the government.  Why doesn't that give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

I give up.  

Huh?

LMMFAO!  ;D

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

B$, but what about the way the economy is right now?  Back in the 90's we weren't fighting 2 wars and we didn't know about the housing bubble that was building.  Would that have contributed to how the times were back then?

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 9:34am:

He might want to pay his backtaxes before he tries to buy a business.

Thats probably like Obama being called out to pay his hundreds of dollars worth of parking tickets that he got in Somerville, Mass when he was going to school here.......20years ago?

He only paid them because he was called on them when he started running.....Bet ya didnt hear that in the media, did ya? ::)

Joe aint running for president, is he?  ::)

Melissa wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 6:50pm:

B$, but what about the way the economy is right now?  Back in the 90's we weren't fighting 2 wars and we didn't know about the housing bubble that was building.  Would that have contributed to how the times were back then?

Well, the wars both have cost, what, 500bil?  Thats only about 10% of what we have borrowed in the last 8 years.
We most certainly did know of the housing bubble.  Personally, I thought the people who took 100% mortgages on McMansions on adjustable loans we going to learn a basic lesson.  Had I known the government was going to step in and forbid the bank to forclose on my home, I would have gotten a McMansion too.  But, I was thinking behind this veil of personal responsibility and got this house built in 1947 on a busy street.  
 
I do think that the banking regulation changes of the 90s led directly to this.  I made a shitload of money in the market in the 90s in regional banks as the regulations changed and allowed investment banks and commercial banks to merge.  There was a LOT of consolidation in banking in the 90s as large banks bought smaller banks.  
The reason why commercial (deposit) banks and investment banks were separated in the first place (Securities Act of 1929?) is because the banks invested or loaned out their money on deposit and then when people wanted their money, the banks folded.  This was a great contributor of the depression.  The banks had no money.
So in the 90s we changed the rules, and now we have the worst financial crises in 80 years or more.  

Of course, thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.
B$

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 7:24pm:

Melissa wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 6:50pm: B$, but what about the way the economy is right now?  Back in the 90's we weren't fighting 2 wars and we didn't know about the housing bubble that was building.  Would that have contributed to how the times were back then? I would have gotten a McMansion too.  But, I was thinking behind this veil of personal responsibility and got this house built in 1947 on a busy street.

Ditto.....1950 on a main road, I have always lived by how much I can afford and never more!

There are not many of us left, B$......most folks nowa days feel they are owed what they didnt work for!

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 7:24pm:

We most certainly did know of the housing bubble.

Sorry, I realized it after I posted that I worded it incorrectly.  Should have said "the public". :-/

Thanks for answering. :)

Oooooooooo, I gots another brain fart!

Now, wouldn't taxing the people who net $250,000 and up squelch peoples wanting to make that much money?  It's almost like being forced to stay in a certain income bracket.  Is that fair??

No Mel.   :o

No one is going to try to make less unless they are insane. I'd love to have to pay taxes on half a million a year.  8-)

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 8:49pm:

I'd love to have to pay taxes on half a million a year.  8-) Charlie

Under Obamas plan you would get a tax rebate even though you dont pay income tax, will you give it back or take it, Charlie?

Beats me. I'm far behing the curve here.

Charlie

I should have said "less likely too" rather than "forced".  Just wanted to amend that.

Ok, we need a laugh here.

I didnt see this live, but here it is....both sides.

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

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

Sorry, Charlie....upgrade your shit ;)

Melissa wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 8:31pm:

Oooooooooo, I gots another brain fart! Now, wouldn't taxing the people who net $250,000 and up squelch peoples wanting to make that much money?  It's almost like being forced to stay in a certain income bracket.  Is that fair??

Exactly Mel.  The problem with the "spread the wealth" mindset is that once it's spread there is no incentive to work hard and succeed.  Abraham Lincoln wrote that the Upper Class is necessary to give the working class something to aspire to.
This sliding tax scale does nothing but punish people for studying hard in school, working thier butts off and becoming successful.
I keep coming back to it, the top 5% of wage earners already pay 60% of the taxes collected!  Why?  Because, like Charlie says, they can afford it.  It's not fair & equal but that doesn't matter.  They've got it and I want it, but I'm not going to work like they did to get it.

Ok, here's another scenerio....

We've got a deadbeat out here who has not worked at anything all year, but comes to me and says he/she has a business. I file a tax return for this jerk (and yes, some I've actually turned in for fraud because I know they're lying). They claim two kids (according to tax laws NOW, they don't even have to be THEIR kids) and fall into the "right" category for the MAX amount of Earned Income Credit.

Not only does this pay SS on them, but they get a refund that real TAXPAYERS are paying for when they haven't done a damn thing to EARN it.

Oh and the ones I've turned in and others have turned in - what's been done by the FRAUD dept of the IRS -- to date - Not a DAMN thing!

Until we FIX the problems we have with the PRESENT tax laws we sure don't need any MORE screwing up what's already broken!!!

Hugs BD

Here's a fix, abolish the income tax, property tax, IRS and the federal reserve.

This is fun!  What else can we get rid of? :)

About half the "committees" in DC

This is fun .... I think we just cut the Federal budget in half :)