RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,535
As you with GW Bush.....come on man
False equivalency much?
"But MOM! The other side does it toooooooooooooooooooooooooo...."
(I know, you gotta stick up for your "bro")
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As you with GW Bush.....come on man
False equivalency much?
"But MOM! The other side does it toooooooooooooooooooooooooo...."
(I know, you gotta stick up for your "bro")
so true, just look at all this vacation talk. all the pro obama regime people come back with that. no one can defend the obama as its a fuck up. so they look to place blame else where or "but the Bush did it"
False equivalency much?
"But MOM! The other side does it toooooooooooooooooooooooooo...."
(I know, you gotta stick up for your "bro")
False equivalency much?
"But MOM! The other side does it toooooooooooooooooooooooooo...."
(I know, you gotta stick up for your "bro")
Hey, U_D, we see you lurking...
How 'bout that futures market?
__________________
Sideshow Barry Barker 2012 Says: "It's NOT the economy, Stupid!" It's the Birthers! The Tea Party! SARAH PALIN!
Bush!
BAD LUCK!!
RACISM!!!
ATMs, KIOSKs & CORPORATE JETS!!!
TSUNAMIS, TORNADOS, & the ARAB SPRING!!!
EARTHQUAKES & HURRICANES!!!!!
EUROPE's €PIIGS!!!!!!!!
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg
”’Shovel-ready’ was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” (Laughter)
Good call bro.
Dow +68.99, +0.63%
NASDAQ +27.10, +1.10%
![]()
I hear our Fed is going to put some more of our money in Europe to back them up...again.
and so is europe, the rollarcoster continues.......![]()
I hear our Fed is going to put some more of our money in Europe to back them up...again.
EditorsMr. Obama and his favorite campaign underwriter, billionaire investor Warren Buffett, have tried to bring in a bumper crop of political hay out of the fact that Mr. Buffett alleges that he pays taxes at a lower effective rate than does his secretary. There’s rather less to that than meets the eye: Mr. Buffett, the third-wealthiest man currently walking the earth, pays himself a salary of only $100,000 a year, and says his secretary earns around $60,000. (If his secretary has a spouse similarly employed, the couple may very well earn a combined salary higher than Mr. Buffett’s, as indeed do any number of police detectives and high-school principals.) Mr. Buffett pays no taxes on dividends accruing to the many shares of stock he holds in his company, Berkshire Hathaway, simply because the firm does not pay a dividend, while most of his personal wealth has been put into a trust. Each of those facts — the relatively low salary, the lack of dividend payments on Berkshire Hathaway shares, the trust — is part of a calculated strategy to avoid paying taxes. While we do begrudge Mr. Buffett his ridiculous moral posturing, we do not begrudge him the benefit of such allowances as the tax code affords: Mr. Buffett, after all, did not write the tax laws. And he shouldn’t start writing them now.
Very wealthy people such a Mr. Buffett tend to earn their money in one of three ways: as investors, as entrepreneurs, or as executives in large enterprises. In each case, salary is a relatively small part of total compensation: Rather than getting a regular paycheck, investors, entrepreneurs, and top executives most often are rewarded with an ownership stake in their firms. As they work to increase the value of the business, they enrich themselves as well. This is a desirable arrangement to the extent that it aligns the financial interests of a company’s management with those of its shareholders. Because Congress has for decades sought to increase the incentives for Americans to invest — investment being where new businesses, products, and jobs come from — we tax long-term capital gains at a lower rate than we tax regular income such as salaries and cash bonuses. This reflects both the fact that investors are risking their capital and the fact that much of the money that flows into such investments already has been taxed once — as household income in the case of Americans investing for their retirements, or as business income in the case of large and small firms expanding their operations and product lines with new investments.
President Obama proposes to stop taxing investment income at lower rates than salaries and other cash income, and to raise tax rates generally on American families earning $250,000 or more. His approach is a deeply foolish one. For one thing, it probably would not raise the revenue he claims it would. Consider the example of Mr. Buffett, who already has shown himself shrewd when it comes to minimizing his taxes. If he has made a $1 million investment that increases in value to $2 million, he does not need to realize his capital gain on the investment: If he simply holds the investment, he has a $2 million asset. If he realizes the capital gain, he has a good deal less than that: $2 million minus the tax of 30-odd percent President Obama contemplates imposing. A man with many millions or billions of dollars in wealth need realize relatively few capital investments: He can sit on that money for a very long time, and so can his children and grandchildren. Just as Mr. Buffett pays himself only $100,000 a year, a man with a $10 million portfolio can easily realize only $249,999.99 in annual capital gains over several years, rather than cashing in the whole thing at once, to avoid the punitive taxes the president desires. Neither President Obama nor any act of Congress can force an investor to realize a capital gain at any given time.
Worse, this tax hike would immediately devalue the investments of millions of American households, and would make investing in American firms, which already labor under the developed world’s second-highest corporate-tax rate, even less attractive. It would do so precisely at the time when we should be encouraging investment, which is the only real source of reliable long-term job growth. Meanwhile, tax breaks for those who invest in government — in the form of tax-free municipal bonds, a favorite of risk-averse millionaires — remain unchallenged by Democrats.
While we believe that a tax increase is bad medicine for a country on the cusp of a double-dip recession and suffering from the weakest growth and worst job market in modern history, practically all parties — Republicans and Democrats, supply-side conservatives and their tormenters at the Brookings Institution — agree that a deep and fundamental reorganization of the U.S. tax code is highly desirable, and there are several excellent proposals for doing so. President Obama’s preference for simply jacking up tax rates on families earning $250,000 and more is crude and childish in comparison with the proposals of thoughtful Democrats, to say nothing of those offered by more sensible conservatives.
It seems like ages ago that the charming young presidential candidate, suffering because of his association with the racist crackpot in whose church he worshiped for decades, responded with incredible chutzpah, delivering a sermon on racism to the American electorate. Now, after having forced through trillions upon trillions of dollars in new spending on failed stimulus programs, a gigantic new health-care entitlement, and ineffective tax-break measures for favored political constituencies, the president has the gall to denounce the “profligate spending in Washington.” Never mind that he’s been signing the bills. Even the hated “Bush tax cuts” — the tax rates that have been the law of the land for a decade, since Obama was an obscure state legislator — were extended by Obama’s own hand. It is not as though he didn’t have the authority to veto them if he thought them bad policy; it was only the courage he lacked. To that deficit add one of wisdom, or even elementary economic literacy, and an annual U.S. budget deficit continuing to top the $1 trillion mark for the foreseeable future — such is the lesson of Monday’s speech and the proposal proceeding from it. We did not have high hopes for mercury14 as an economic thinker, but he continues to underperform our lowest expectations.


Hillary Clinton admits that the CFR runs the Government:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyVZjNYK1Ok
Not then.....who rules the CFR?
The Code of Federal Regulations? If that's what you are talking about, you're an idiot. I don't think a series of books can run the government. They lack opposible thumbs.
Im STILL waiting for "you" to show me SAFE bonds that yield 6-8%![]()
me too
I shorted it
before and AFTER the reverse split![]()