Crazy? Maybe, Maybe Not
139 RepliesJump to last post
Many people helped me along the way. They did so out of goodness, not for a paycheck. I"m at a point in my career where I’m that person who can help. So i do help people who ask. Tough concept for you primo, isn’t it?
That isn't a tough concept at all. It's called charity and is a very good thing. What Obama is proposing is to take money from people who have earned without their permission (called robbery in other circumstances) for the sheer purpose of giving it literally in a cash form to people who for what ever reason, haven't earned the money because he somehow feels that they are more worthy of the money than the man or woman who worked for it. This is socialism, pure and simple. What next? Take your house because it is too big and somebody else might be more worthy of that space. Your car? Your savings? Your 401K....oh wait.....they are already proposing this. Anyone who votes for Obama is an idiot and anyone who is a financial advisor and does so is a double idiot.[quote=babbling looney]Many people helped me along the way. They did so out of goodness, not for a paycheck. I"m at a point in my career where I’m that person who can help. So i do help people who ask. Tough concept for you primo, isn’t it?
That isn't a tough concept at all. It's called charity and is a very good thing. What Obama is proposing is to take money from people who have earned without their permission (called robbery in other circumstances) for the sheer purpose of giving it literally in a cash form to people who for what ever reason, haven't earned the money because he somehow feels that they are more worthy of the money than the man or woman who worked for it. This is socialism, pure and simple. What next? Take your house because it is too big and somebody else might be more worthy of that space. Your car? Your savings? Your 401K....oh wait.....they are already proposing this. Anyone who votes for Obama is an idiot and anyone who is a financial advisor and does so is a double idiot.[/quote] Ignoring your butchering of the English language for a second, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this article on newsweek. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/27/barack-the-redistributor.aspx In particular: [quote]But characterizing Obama's plan to tax the nation's top earners at 39 percent instead of 36 percent as socialist is absurd. Dwight Eisenhower taxed top earners at 91 percent. Richard Nixon taxed them at more than 50 percent. Even Ronald Reagan didn't lower the top marginal rate to less than 50 percent until the last two years of his second term. Were these Republicans secret socialists, too? [/quote] and[quote]Deep down, I suspect McCain knows that Obama isn't really a socialist. Why? Because he once sounded a lot like his rival on taxes. During the 2000 campaign, for example, a young woman asked McCain why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” "Look, here's what I really believe," he added. "That when you are--when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." He soon backed up his words with action. After Bush was elected, McCain told Congress that he was disappointed by the president's plan to "cut the top tax rate of 39.6 percent to 36 percent." When it came time for a vote, the Arizonan stood on the Senate floor and announced that "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." Unless McCain was a socialist in 2000 and 2001, Obama isn't a socialist now.[/quote]
Would you also be kind enough to point out, with clear and concise evidence because surely your statements are not baseless and delusional rants, how you justify this: [quote=babbling looney]Take your house because it is too big and somebody else might be more worthy of that space. Your car? Your savings? Your 401K....oh wait.....they are already proposing this.[/quote] Thanks looney.Oh and I would also like to know how a $700b plan to “rescue” banks isn’t socialism (aside from the hope that profits could theoritically be made later on) and how an economic “stimulis plan” isn’t socialist either considering both were signed by the leader of the republican party and one was even pushed heavily and then denied by the GOP.
I would also like to know where the GOP got their $150,000 for Palin's clothesAnabuh-
Please don’t take this the wrong way, I am just curious as I think you said you were not born in the U.S.
Are you U.S. citizen? If so, How long from the time you arrived in the U.S. did it take you to become a U.S. citizen? Also, how many U.S. Presidential elections have you voted in. Have you ever voted in other countries? Which ones?
“We’re not just gonna concede to three big oil companies of this monopoly—Exxon, B.P., ConocoPhillips—and beg them to do this for Alaska,” Palin told me last month in Juneau. “We’re gonna say, ‘O.K., this is so economic that we don’t have to incentivize you to build this. In fact, this has got to be a mutually beneficial partnership here as we build it. We’re gonna lay out Alaska’s must-haves. Parameters are gonna be set, rules are gonna be laid out, a law will encompass what it is that Alaska needs to protect our sovereignty, to insure it’s jobs first for Alaskans, and in-state use of gas’ ”—her list went on. In the past, she said, “Alaska was conceding too much, and chipping away at our sovereignty. And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” And she said, “Our state constitution—it lays it out for me, how I’m to conduct business with resource development here as the state C.E.O. It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.”
Alaska is sometimes described as America’s socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources—an arrangement that allows permanent residents to collect a dividend on the state’s oil royalties. It has been Palin’s good fortune to govern the state at a time of record oil prices, which means record dividend checks: two thousand dollars for every Alaskan. And because high oil prices also mean staggering heating bills in such a cold place—and because it’s always good politics to give money to voters—Palin got the legislature this year to send an extra twelve hundred dollars to every Alaskan man, woman, and child.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/22/080922fa_fact_gourevitch?printable=trueThanks gvf. Things were tough when we had 39.6, yeah? Man the 90s, who would want to relive those days :’(
I find it very telling that you think my question was stupid and unrealistic when you support a candidate that is proposing this very thing in his tax plan. Taking money away from the successful to support the not so successful.Primo, you’re question was downright stupid and unrealistic to begin with. You took my response too literally and for face value and ignored my point. I wouldn’t be throwing big words like “slow” around.
[quote=anabuhabkuss][quote=babbling looney]Many people helped me along the way. They did so out of goodness, not for a paycheck. I"m at a point in my career where I’m that person who can help. So i do help people who ask. Tough concept for you primo, isn’t it?
That isn't a tough concept at all. It's called charity and is a very good thing. What Obama is proposing is to take money from people who have earned without their permission (called robbery in other circumstances) for the sheer purpose of giving it literally in a cash form to people who for what ever reason, haven't earned the money because he somehow feels that they are more worthy of the money than the man or woman who worked for it. This is socialism, pure and simple. What next? Take your house because it is too big and somebody else might be more worthy of that space. Your car? Your savings? Your 401K....oh wait.....they are already proposing this. Anyone who votes for Obama is an idiot and anyone who is a financial advisor and does so is a double idiot.[/quote] Ignoring your butchering of the English language for a second, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this article on newsweek. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/27/barack-the-redistributor.aspx In particular: [quote]But characterizing Obama's plan to tax the nation's top earners at 39 percent instead of 36 percent as socialist is absurd. Dwight Eisenhower taxed top earners at 91 percent. Richard Nixon taxed them at more than 50 percent. Even Ronald Reagan didn't lower the top marginal rate to less than 50 percent until the last two years of his second term.No but he did cut the top marginal rate by almost 30% 1 year in. Guess what, tax revenues went up!!!!. So he lower them again at the end of his term. 70% down to 28% Were these Republicans secret socialists, too? [/quote] and[quote]Deep down, I suspect McCain knows that Obama isn't really a socialist. Why? Because he once sounded a lot like his rival on taxes. During the 2000 campaign, for example, a young woman asked McCain why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” "Look, here's what I really believe," he added. "That when you are--when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." He soon backed up his words with action. After Bush was elected, McCain told Congress that he was disappointed by the president's plan to "cut the top tax rate of 39.6 percent to 36 percent." When it came time for a vote, the Arizonan stood on the Senate floor and announced that "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." Unless McCain was a socialist in 2000 and 2001, Obama isn't a socialist now.[/quote] Osama is being called a socialist because he said on camera "we need to spread the wealth around." That is a socialistic comment. Also, have you listened to his 2001 radio interview where he says the Warren court "WAS NOT RADICAL ENOUGH!!!" He then laid out a plan for reparation to minorities. He is not saying this now. Wonder why? May not be convenient until after he gets into office.
Would you also be kind enough to point out, with clear and concise evidence because surely your statements are not baseless and delusional rants, how you justify this: [quote=babbling looney]Take your house because it is too big and somebody else might be more worthy of that space. Your car? Your savings? Your 401K....oh wait.....they are already proposing this.[/quote]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html Thanks looney.[/quote]
Just listened to the Eaton Vance election conference call today, speaker was Stan Collender, Managing Director, Qorvis Communications, expert on
congressional budget processes and federal initiatives.
Main points:
Tax hikes aren’t coming before the economy comes back. Late 2009 is a real possibility. Probably won’t be above the previous 39.6%. Republicans won’t want to go higher, and if a democratic congress votes for a compromise, say 38%, the president won’t veto it for obvious reasons. A democratic president is in the same position; a likely compromise.
If not in 2009, by 2010 we’ll have some serious problems with our debt, and the fear of interest rates surging based on international demand drop for US Debt will likely force us into higher rates (remember when a lowly Korean official made the off-hand comment that they wanted to diversify their debt?). They have in the past, applied higher rates retroactively (changed the law in October of 2008, to apply since January, for example).
Also, look for a $100 billion cut in the federal budget, democrat or republican.
Look for increases in cap gains, and modification of the estate tax in 2009. They won’t let it go back to 0.
SS is expected to go boom in 2041, so no changes expected until 2040
Medicare goes bust in 2019, but very small chance of getting taken care of unless Obama can really reform the whole health care system, again, not likely.
Pelosi’s 401k proposed changes won’t happen - it just won’t. Repeat: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Before taxes get addressed, look out for a Sarbanes-Oxley like bill that will address financial services.
Look at what happened to tax rates leading up to the 90's. They went down? No way! This was positive? No way! The issue with your post is Clinton did not take office until 1993. The economic stampede was well underway. GDP per person was $12 in 1950, $37 in 2007 inflation adjusted. How could this be with the government lowering taxes on the rich. Might it be that the top earners spend the most money in our consumer driven economy? Or maybe the top earners invest that money into businesses, employing the middle class? Your statement about the 90's confirms what you are against. When congress passes a new tax law, be it a cut or raise, it takes time for the effect to be felt. Clinton enjoyed the success started by Reagan and was more than happy to take credit. I think the most important fact that is being missed is raises taxes on the top 5% of earners is that it is an indirect tax on the middle class. Businesses respond to higher taxes by raising prices or cutting expenses (jobs). Individuals have less free cash to spend, causing sales to drop, leading businesses to raise prices or cut expenses. Raising the top rate is simply a tax raise on the middle class they will thank you for.Thanks gvf. Things were tough when we had 39.6, yeah? Man the 90s, who would want to relive those days
Pelosi’s 401k proposed changes won’t happen - it just won’t. Repeat: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
It is scary enough that they are talking about it. If it were to ever get beyond the "what do you think of this idea" stage, the market's downturn would make 1929 feel like a warm fuzzy sweater.I find it very telling that you think my question was stupid and unrealistic when you support a candidate that is proposing this very thing in his tax plan. Taking money away from the successful to support the not so successful.[/quote] I never told you which candidate I was supporting did I? And since when does someone making less than $250,000 constitute "not so successful" may I ask? Define "successful". Would you categorize a $250k earner who hasn't a dime to their name net the two benz and 4000 sq ft home payments "fully" succesful vs the "not so successful"? How cool that we successful people all decided to waste our f'n time on registeredrep forums[quote=anabuhabkuss]Primo, you’re question was downright stupid and unrealistic to begin with. You took my response too literally and for face value and ignored my point. I wouldn’t be throwing big words like “slow” around.
Where are you coming up with this aside from just looking at a chart?Clinton enjoyed the success started by Reagan and was more than happy to take credit.
I find it very telling that you think my question was stupid and unrealistic when you support a candidate that is proposing this very thing in his tax plan. Taking money away from the successful to support the not so successful.[/quote] I never told you which candidate I was supporting did I?[/quote] Not to be rude, but you're a financial advisor. I'll put my faith in a candidate who has Colin Powell's (someone who has really challenged the GOP) ear rather than someone who doesn't (ie. You, GOP, girl working at the GAP, etc). Seemed obvious.[quote=Primo][quote=anabuhabkuss]Primo, you’re question was downright stupid and unrealistic to begin with. You took my response too literally and for face value and ignored my point. I wouldn’t be throwing big words like “slow” around.
Where are you coming up with this aside from just looking at a chart?[/quote] The same place as you when you commented about the 90's.[quote=primo]Clinton enjoyed the success started by Reagan and was more than happy to take credit.
Wasting time here with a bunch of baffoons voting for, who I believe, to be the right person to become the next president of the United States by distorting facts and choosing delusional reasons to justify their reason to do so.
Much like the old lady who said she was voting for McCain because Obama was Arab.A good part of that, yes, but not nearly all of it, IIRC,Indy - Your clients, are they giving that money to a church?
[quote=anabuhabkuss]
Wasting time here with a bunch of baffoons voting for, who I believe, to be the right person to become the next president of the United States by distorting facts and choosing delusional reasons to justify their reason to do so.
Much like the old lady who said she was voting for McCain because Obama was Arab. [/quote] Wow, a 180 degree turn.