Printable View
[QUOTE=Member #2041;429495]Unfortunately, as long as there are enough wackos in the Congress who have taken Grover Norquist's pledge, to throw the USA into disarray, there is no way to be sure Obama will be able to get any of his policies implemented.[/QUOTE]OK, I understand your reason for declining, maybe we can do the bet in 2014 if Democrats get full control of government.
[QUOTE=Mountaineer;429490]That's pretty far out for a bet. Good luck collecting your winnings over 4 years later.[/QUOTE]Chances are I can collect quicker than that, with Democrats and Republicans running the show together, it should not be too long before we get ANOTHER S&P downgrade.
[b]TOP-10 "Only In America" Observations ~ by a Canadian:[/b]
1) Only in America, could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.
2) Only in America, could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black.
3) Only in America, could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4) Only in America, can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
5) Only in America, would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.
[b]6) Only in America, could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."[/b]
7) Only in America, could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
8) Only in America, could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
9) Only in America, could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.
[b]10) Only in America, could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.[/b]
[QUOTE=Jackson;429621][b]6) Only in America, could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."[/b][/QUOTE]Nonsense! Those criteria alone are not generally what is considered extreme. It's the balancing of budgets strictly by slashing spending, including popular government programs, without raising any revenue, that is considered extreme.
[QUOTE][b]10) Only in America, could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.[/b][/QUOTE]LOL, I love how those who sympathize with the "poor rich", who pay so much in taxes, always fail to mention how much income and wealth the "poor rich" have.
Only in America, could some people think it's fair for a wealthy investor like Romney to pay a 14% effective tax rate, while many others who actually work for a living, pay north of 25. Thank goodness those people are in the minority.
[QUOTE=Esten; 429625]Nonsense! Those criteria alone are not generally what is considered extreme. It's the balancing of budgets strictly by slashing spending, including popular government programs, without raising any revenue, that is considered extreme.
LOL, I love how those who sympathize with the "poor rich", who pay so much in taxes, always fail to mention how much income and wealth the "poor rich" have.
Only in America, could some people think it's fair for a wealthy investor like Romney to pay a 14% effective tax rate, while many others who actually work for a living, pay north of 25. Thank goodness those people are in the minority.[/QUOTE]You're taking a special case. The press wasn't giving Romney any credit for his charitable contributions and other itemized deductions when they came up with the 14% effective rate. That would have raised the rate a bit. Also the guy was in private equity. I've read, but haven't verified, that he was paying long term capital gains rates on his share of performance fees received from Bain funds. This is a tax loophole that Democrats and Republicans have kept in effect through the years.
Looking at the IRS tax statistics from 2009, the most recent year, those who made over $200,000 per year paid 50.2% of the income tax, received 25.8% of the income, and paid at a tax rate, as a % of taxable income, of 26.8%. They represented 3.7% of the 140 million tax individual tax returns filed. Based on what you read in the press they'd represent about 2% of taxpayers.
If you want to go up the income chain a little, those making over $500,000 paid 29.8% of the income tax, received 13.9% of the income, and paid at an average tax rate of 28.6%. They were 0.9% of tax returns filed.
The median tax rate for all 140 million returns was 10.0% and the average was 17.8%.
I believe that those making over $200,000 per year, who apparently the Democrats intend to depend on to balance a $1 trillion budget deficit, are already paying their fair share. They're paying 2.7 times more as a % of their income than the median.
Please remember that people are paying state income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes on top of their federal income tax.
You've got a point in your Romney example. Crony capitalism does contribute to inequality. While I believe raising tax rates on business and investment from current levels is stupid, eliminating the carried interest loophole, bailouts of shareholders and bondholders in financial institutions, payments to wealthy farmers, subsidies for renewable energy, etc, are good ideas. I'd argue though that some of the popular government programs you refer to must be slashed or properly funded. And the top 2% can't afford to pick up all the slack in medicare and pensions. You'll bankrupt them, especially if medical costs continue at 17% of GDP. If the middle class and upper middle class want to continue with their entitlements the way they're structured now, they'll have to pay for it. There's no other option, mathematically. We must get entitlements and government debt under control. Otherwise we'll end up like Greece someday, with no money to pay for education, help to the truly needy, etc. And rioting in the streets.
[QUOTE=Esten;429625]Only in America, could some people think it's fair for a wealthy investor like Romney to pay a 14% effective tax rate, while many others who actually work for a living, pay north of 25.[/QUOTE]Your talking percentages specifically to obfuscate the facts.
Let's talk numbers.
Last year Romney wrote a check to the IRS for $1.9 million.
How big was the check you wrote?
[QUOTE=Esten;429625]Thank goodness those people are in the minority.[/QUOTE]Congratulations. With a liberal government permanently in place in DC, that miniority of successful individuals will inevitably get even smaller.
Thanks,
Jackson
Tiny - I'm fine cutting spending, if need be even some of the big government programs, as along as there is also a corresponding significant revenue increase.
I say let's go back to the Clinton-era tax rates for everyone. First the top brackets, then maybe in a couple years the other brackets. I suspect this is Obama's plan and the "fiscal cliff" agreement will involve only a 2 year extension for the other brackets.
BTW, I bet that Top 10 list wasn't written by a Canadian. It sounds too plugged into American politics, especially the right wing view. What Canadian follows the tax history of Geithner and Rangel? The giveaway is when it says "responsible for our tax code". And look at point #8, it's dumb downed to make the oil companies look innocent and have us forget about oil speculators. This is just more right wing propaganda, and the author put "by a Canadian" in the title to try to give it some independent credibility. There is no end to what these guys will come up with to influence opinion. Based on the election results, most people see this kind of crap for what it is.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 429662]Your talking percentages specifically to obfuscate the facts.
Let's talk numbers.
Last year Romney wrote a check to the IRS for $1. 9 million.
How big was the check you wrote?[/QUOTE]LOL!
You're pulling my leg Jackson, I know it...
[QUOTE=Jackson;429360]I disagree with everything you've written, but there's no reason to argue because the country has passed the tipping point and there's nothing I can do about it.[/QUOTE]I agree with your analysis, but I hope the Journal is right on this one:
[QUOTE=WSJ]"These columns have viewed this election as more consequential than others for a single reason—ObamaCare. Tax rates do economic damage when they rise, but they can be cut again. Regulations can be adapted to or phased out. Spending can be cut. But the Affordable Care Act will spread like termites in the national economy and public fisc. Mr. Obama will no doubt use his second term to consolidate this liberal entitlement dream, with its ultimate goal of single-payer health care.
Some of our conservative friends will argue that Mr. Obama's victory thus represents a decline in national virtue and a tipping point in favor of the "takers" over the makers. They will say the middle class chose Mr. Obama's government blandishments over Mr. Romney's opportunity society. We don't think such a narrow victory of an incumbent President who continues to be personally admired justifies such a conclusion.
Perhaps this fear will be realized over time, but such a fate continues to be in our hands. There are few permanent victories or defeats in American politics, and Tuesday wasn't one of them. The battle for liberty begins anew this morning."[/QUOTE][url]Http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578102971575770036.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Chicago Guy; 429721]I agree with your analysis, but I hope the Journal is right on this one:
[url]Http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578102971575770036.html[/url][/QUOTE]You can never win a game if you continue to be in the wrong formation, jump off-side, fumble the ball, throw interceptions, run wrong routes, punts blocked, kick shanked, or worse, run the wrong way towards your own goal after being getting hit in the head. Keep firing the coaches, it won't do any good. Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, etc, all had to spend a long time in the wilderness before reaching the top of the mountain again.
So because of ObamaCare, Papa John's CEO, John Schnatter (a big GOP donor) threatened to raise per pizza. 11-14 cents. That's peanuts. I drop more than that the in taxi seats all the time.
I know a lot of women who think exactly like these two.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28594[/ATTACH]
I wonder how many of the people bitching about Obamacare actually have looked at what it says and does. I mean looked at independently. Because I have. I am not going to say I have read the whole bill but I have read most of the more salient parts. It isn't really very radical at all. I look at it as an investment in infrastructure. Your true low lifes won't have their shit together to buy insurance regardless. It is mostly going to help the working poor. It is socialism for sure, and wealth redistribution to a moderate extent. Mechanically what it does is create a constantly increasing marginal tax bracket instead of the 'cliff effect' we see now.
If you go to business school, you learn, or should learn, that having a product with inelastic demand is less risky than having one with elastic demand. These small businesses that are whining and bitching are going to learn this lesson again. Those with relatively inelastic demand will pass most of any cost increase on to consumers in the form of higher prices. That will lead to some inflation but the current environment can withstand some inflation. Those with relatively elastic demand will yield some profit to be redistributed. Hopefully they priced the risk of elasticity into the rate of return they demanded on their capital. If they did not, then fuck them.
[QUOTE=Dickhead; 429792]I wonder how many of the people bitching about Obamacare actually have looked at what it says and does. I mean looked at independently. Because I have. I am not going to say I have read the whole bill but I have read most of the more salient parts. It isn't really very radical at all. I look at it as an investment in infrastructure. Your true low lifes won't have their shit together to buy insurance regardless. It is mostly going to help the working poor. It is socialism for sure, and wealth redistribution to a moderate extent. Mechanically what it does is create a constantly increasing marginal tax bracket instead of the 'cliff effect' we see now.
If you go to business school, you learn, or should learn, that having a product with inelastic demand is less risky than having one with elastic demand. These small businesses that are whining and bitching are going to learn this lesson again. Those with relatively inelastic demand will pass most of any cost increase on to consumers in the form of higher prices. That will lead to some inflation but the current environment can withstand some inflation. Those with relatively elastic demand will yield some profit to be redistributed. Hopefully they priced the risk of elasticity into the rate of return they demanded on their capital. If they did not, then fuck them.[/QUOTE]
Most likely the most idiotic post you have ever made Dick. Go back to academia! You are so totally out of touch and it totally cracks me up. It is so apparent that you have never made a payroll in your life. Your investment comments made it clear to me long ago you just might be fool, this comment has removed all doubt. Give me a break! Stop pontificating on stuff you have no idea about. Book knowledge on its own is no replacement for real life experience. You and yours just crack me up! Crawl back into the university library and stop commenting on the real world dude. Sorry to burst your bubble but this comment shows nothing but pure ignorance. Nothing more. The US voting crowd asked for this, now just wait and see what they get. Be careful what you ask for professor, you just might get it. IALOTFLMAO. See ya. Toymann.
P. Damn, you are one dumb son of a be*tch!
pps. let me give you a snapshot on the post Abomacare landscape..... decreased providers, slower and decreased care, more expensive healthcare costs (especially for non-government insurers), welcome to socialist medicine in a hybrid system. Something you never factored into your ivory tower model dude. In canada, like almost all socialist countries with government healthcare almost ALL those with a job pay taxes. Not just 50% of the population. If ya flip burgers in canada guess what? Ya pay taxes. There are no deductions in socialist countries professor thus most everyone has some skin in the game. Love your analysis but damn, are you out to lunch!
The downgrading was because of the GOP.
Boehner said we must not let it go any higher, but he agreed that it was OK when a White Man was President.
The GOP is about to let our countries rating go lower, because of their Racist policies.
[url]http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/07/07/bush-raised-debt-ceiling-five-times/[/url]
[QUOTE=Silver Star; 429407]WT Congratulations on your win, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular vote totals for President.
I'm Libertarian and I'm stuck with Obama's economic BUBBLE that is going to pop faster than we think, did you see Treasury Sec Geithner wants to get rid of the debt ceiling completely so they can borrow forever? I'd like to make an even money bet with you during that during the current administration (thru the end of term in 2017) that S&P will lower the USA's credit rating (again) , if so I win. If S&P increases the rating back to AAA, I lose. If the rating stays the same as now at AA+ it is a tie. I won't include Fitch or Moody's since they haven't downgraded yet, that would be like taking candy from a baby, it's just a question of when not if on those 2. WT69, do you think the USA's credit rating will get better in the coming years, or maybe you just don't think deficits matter anyway. We sure got a lotta red ink in the last 4 years. Would like your thoughts on deficit spending and balancing the budget. I have a feeling your solution (if any) is tax the rich and not cut any spending) [/QUOTE]
Need I say More?
[QUOTE=Jackson; 429785]I know a lot of women who think exactly like these two.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28594[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;429803]Need I say More?[/QUOTE]They voted for Obama, so of course there's nothing more to be said.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 429796]The downgrading was because of the GOP.
Boehner said we must not let it go any higher, but he agreed that it was OK when a White Man was President.
The GOP is about to let our countries rating go lower, because of their Racist policies. [/url][/QUOTE]You have the part about the credit rating exactly backwards.
The US Credit rating is specific to the risk of US Treasury securities. That is the likelihood of a US default on it's obligations (interest and principal) as they relate to treasury securities. How could increasing deficit spending make the US less likely to default on its obligations?
Think about it this way:
- a guy makes $100k / year.
- His effective tax rate is 20, so he has $80K in disposable spending.
- he has a $5k / mo mortgage ($500k balance)
- he pays $1k / mo in car payments ($50k balance)
- he pays $1k / mo to service his credit cards ($50k balance)
- his monthly bills run $2k / mo.
Net of taxes, he brings in $80k. His annual expenses are $108K and he owes $600k.
You are the loan officer at the bank. If this guy is granted more debt, do you think that he will be more likely or less likely to default?
Now, what nobody seems to bother to say is that the US Govt can't default on its treasury securities. End of story. If the US didn't have the money necessary to meet its obligations, it would print more. Further, there is no shortage of funds within the federal government. The 'one' payment that they absolutely must make is on the federal debt. If there wasn't enough cash lying around, they would have to not pay other obligations (entitlements, etc.) in favor of servicing the debt (that is the law). If the president, regardless of skin color, failed to service the debt, it would be an impeachable offense. The fact that this president lied to the American people about a potential default, for political gain, is one of the more despicable things I have seen, and I have seen quite a lot.
How could refusing to increase the debt limit harm the US credit rating? It couldn't. The US credit rating was lowered strictly because of the fact that the US was/is not behaving in a fiscally responsible manner: was / is running huge annual deficits (more than $1T each of the last four years) ; the legislature has not passed a budget in three years and the national debt is growing at an exorbitant rate (increasing 50% every 3-4 years). The GOP's contribution to that problem is its legacy of bending over and spending, just like their liberal counterparts.
There is a black guy in the WH who called the prior white president unpatriotic for increasing the national debt. Now that same black guy says it is imperative for the good of the nation for him to cripple the country with debt (pretty twisted logic). In your way of thinking, he too is a racist (actually, I agree completely with you on this one, he is a racist).
If there aren't real spending cuts, I say, let's go over the economic cliff. The house controls the purse strings. They should just pass the spending provisions that they want and send it to the senate. If they (senate and president) don't like it, f*ck 'them.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;429812]If there aren't real spending cuts, I say, let's go over the economic cliff. The house controls the purse strings. They should just pass the spending provisions that they want and send it to the senate. If they (senate and president) don't like it, f*ck 'them.[/QUOTE]Since when did the US become a country of those that don't pay and those that think others need to pay! All Americans are supposed to be created equal. That said, lets all go over the falls together. It s absolutely preferable to giving the government MORE money to just piss away. Even Esten should be happy about going over the cliff. It works for moderate liberals as just look At all the cuts to defense plus the revenue generated would be substantial. Woo hoo, paddle as fast as you can, the falls are just around the next bend in the river. My dos centavos! Toymann
[QUOTE=Toymann;429814]Since when did the US become a country of those that don't pay and those that think others need to pay! All Americans are supposed to be created equal.[/QUOTE]That's our progressive tax system we've had for a long time. I wonder when Republicans are going to make up their mind. On one hand, they bitterly oppose any increase in federal taxes, including for those who pay no tax. On the other hand, they bitterly complain about the people who pay no tax.
[QUOTE]Even Esten should be happy about going over the cliff. It works for moderate liberals as just look At all the cuts to defense plus the revenue generated would be substantial.[/QUOTE]I'd be fine going over the cliff, but it won't happen all at once. Republicans will cave to extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the lower brackets only. If they don't, the blame will be entirely on them. This is very predictable. Republicans don't have much leverage on this point. They are trapped with the expiration.
PS. Why the childish, name-calling rants against other posters? Bad form, Toymann...
[QUOTE=Esten;429817]PS. Why the childish, name-calling rants against other posters? Bad form, Toymann.[/QUOTE]Dude, this is the political thread. It's totally tradition here to rant and rave and call each other names. It's all in fun, don't ya know. Would you prefer some lame politically correct debate on this thread. How boring. Wt69 calls all republicans baby killing Neanderthals after his morning breakfast meeting with Nancy. Dickhead loves to pontificate like like he s some sort of academic arbitrator who is just so much smarter than the unwashed masses. I suppose that we should just all discuss like a boxing match regulated by queensbury rules. No low blows, biting, kicking, etc. Is this really what you want? How boring. That said, who am to howl at the moon. I will treat all posts going forward like a high school debate forum. Won't that be entertaining! It's all in fun and I suggest you look in the mirror my friend. At one time or another virtually every poster on this thread, including you, have shown "bad form", to put it in your terms. Just my dos centavos. Toymann
No... we don't want just boring, polite discussion! I'm just suggesting, when it comes to other posters on the board, maybe there's a balance somewhere...
Anyways, I have some reviews to post.
It seems Boehner and Obama had a bit of a love fest today and at least the stock market was optimistic about a compromise. A few weeks ago I said I thought the marginal tax rates above 15% would end up somewhere between the current rates and the previous rates and Boehner seemed to be saying the same thing. I think it also might happen that another bracket may emerge around $500, 000 and they will let that go to 39. 6. Then the Dems seemed to be willing to deal on Medicare or Medicaid or both. I think raising Medicare eligibility to 67 to conform to OASDI would be logical and tolerable, and could be phased in over say 5 years. That should be a pretty significant number, cut-wise. Medicaid I know less about but it seems like it would be hard to contract that after it was just expanded to 133% of the federal poverty level. Surprisingly, no one seems to be talking about capital gains tax rates and that makes me think they are going to let those revert to the former levels, which are still preferential. Everybody should keep in mind that dividends revert to being taxed at ordinary income rates next year absent any agreement to the contrary. You don't want to let taxes dictate your investment strategy, in general, BUT you might want to adopt a policy of, whatever stock you are planning on selling anyway, sell it a few days before the ex-dividend date.
I must admit I don't want to take Silver Star's bet about the downgrade. It could happen. If the debt gets downgraded a notch, interest rates will rise, but that will be a partial cure for the deficit in the short run. I don't think the chance of a downgrade is 50% so I should in theory take his bet, but I only bet on sure things. You have to look at how worldwide investors ran to US treasuries in 2008 and 2009 even though a lot of the problems originated in the US. It is a 'lesser of the evils' type of thinking, so I think a one notch downgrade and commensurate interest rate rise is not the end of the world. I mean, if you think about it, fuck it. We should just issue a shit load of junk bonds right now to fund the next say 100 years and then we screw people who haven't even been born yet.
This week I was looking at excess reserves in the banking system. Normally these would be zero, hence the term 'excess' but they are huge right now. Down just a bit from their peak but if and when an agreement, any remotely reasonable agreement, is reached, I think investment and growth will pick up pretty rapidly. The lenders are hunkered down in the face of the uncertainty and that's a big reason why the stimulative monetary policy of the past few years hasn't taken effect.
Yet.
Where does it say they voted for Obama?
Funny, Romney got 47% of the Vote. How's that for Irony.
[QUOTE=Jackson;429804]They voted for Obama, so of course there's nothing more to be said.[/QUOTE]
The first thing they should cut is the subsidies to the Tobacco Industries.
I know it isn't much S46, 000, 000, but it will help.
Because tobacco kills 1200 people a day.
Being a US investor looking to place funds right now, seems a lot like mongering at Ness. A lot of relatively unattractive competing opportunities.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;429833]The first thing they should cut is the subsidies to the Tobacco Industries. I know it isn't much S46, 000, 000, but it will help. Because tobacco kills 1200 people a day.[/QUOTE]It is $191 million, not $46 million:
[url]http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=tobacco[/url]
Corn subsidies were $4. 6 [B]billion[/B] In 2011 (same source) and much of that corn goes to ethanol and should be replaced with HEMP. 40% of all tobacco subsidies go to a single state, if you can believe that, which is why the whole concept of the senate is fucked.
It would lead to a Financial Disaster.
[url]http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/141093-boehner-failure-to-raise-debt-ceiling-would-mean-financial-disaster[/url]
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 429812]You have the part about the credit rating exactly backwards.
The US Credit rating is specific to the risk of US Treasury securities. That is the likelihood of a US default on it's obligations (interest and principal) as they relate to treasury securities. How could increasing deficit spending make the US less likely to default on its obligations?
Think about it this way:
- a guy makes $100k / year.
- His effective tax rate is 20, so he has $80K in disposable spending.
- he has a $5k / mo mortgage ($500k balance)
- he pays $1k / mo in car payments ($50k balance)
- he pays $1k / mo to service his credit cards ($50k balance)
- his monthly bills run $2k / mo.
Net of taxes, he brings in $80k. His annual expenses are $108K and he owes $600k.
You are the loan officer at the bank. If this guy is granted more debt, do you think that he will be more likely or less likely to default?
Now, what nobody seems to bother to say is that the US Govt can't default on its treasury securities. End of story. If the US didn't have the money necessary to meet its obligations, it would print more. Further, there is no shortage of funds within the federal government. The 'one' payment that they absolutely must make is on the federal debt. If there wasn't enough cash lying around, they would have to not pay other obligations (entitlements, etc.) in favor of servicing the debt (that is the law). If the president, regardless of skin color, failed to service the debt, it would be an impeachable offense. The fact that this president lied to the American people about a potential default, for political gain, is one of the more despicable things I have seen, and I have seen quite a lot.
How could refusing to increase the debt limit harm the US credit rating? It couldn't. The US credit rating was lowered strictly because of the fact that the US was / is not behaving in a fiscally responsible manner: was / is running huge annual deficits (more than $1T each of the last four years) ; the legislature has not passed a budget in three years and the national debt is growing at an exorbitant rate (increasing 50% every 3-4 years). The GOP's contribution to that problem is its legacy of bending over and spending, just like their liberal counterparts.
There is a black guy in the WH who called the prior white president unpatriotic for increasing the national debt. Now that same black guy says it is imperative for the good of the nation for him to cripple the country with debt (pretty twisted logic). In your way of thinking, he too is a racist (actually, I agree completely with you on this one, he is a racist).
If there aren't real spending cuts, I say, let's go over the economic cliff. The house controls the purse strings. They should just pass the spending provisions that they want and send it to the senate. If they (senate and president) don't like it, f*ck 'them.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Esten;429817]PS. Why the childish, name-calling rants against other posters? Bad form, Toymann.[/QUOTE]I agree.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 429853]I agree.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]No need for piling on dude. I already indicated that I would ease up. Based on your post and the new politically correct world you want on this thread. You'll have no need to worry about anymore political posts from me. Enjoy El Jeffe. Toymann.
Ps. Nice to see you sticking up for dickhead. His sensitivity on the board is well known. Good to see you two have kissed and made up. His post regarding his academic analysis of obomocare deserved a betch slap. But, I get it. Enjoy the new gentile political thread. You asked for it, you got it. Toymann out.
[QUOTE=Toymann;429819]I will treat all posts going forward like a high school debate forum.[/QUOTE]Thought I made made myself clear. Guess not. Monger on dudes. Toymann
[QUOTE=Toymann;429858]You'll have no need to worry about anymore political posts from me.[/QUOTE]Toymann, why don't you stay around and tone it down. I appreciate your perspective. Every time I saw Thomas Peterffy's political advertisement on television this fall I thought about Toymann. You've lived in a socialist country, and accomplished much in another society where there has been economic liberty, at least up until now.
You're the best cage fighter in this thread. Member #2041 is second best. I agree with you on most issues and almost always your posts are entertaining to me. But I'm not sure the low blows, biting and kicking, as you put it, are healthy. My favorite nonsexual fantasy used to be making obscene gestures and yelling obscenities at Nancy Pelosi in a public forum. That has been replaced. Now it's defecating on Member #2041. I expect some on the left may have similar thoughts about Toymann. You've got a talent for biting sarcasm but I think would be better served if you harnessed it a bit. Make the posts more about the issues instead of about personalities. And again, I at least appreciate the substance of your posts, and would miss them.
Just kidding 2041, if you're still reading this thread.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 429877]Toymann, why don't you stay around and tone it down. I appreciate your perspective. Every time I saw Thomas Peterffy's political advertisement on television this fall I thought about Toymann. You've lived in a socialist country, and accomplished much in another society where there has been economic liberty, at least up until now.
You're the best cage fighter in this thread. Member #2041 is second best. I agree with you on most issues and almost always your posts are entertaining to me. But I'm not sure the low blows, biting and kicking, as you put it, are healthy. My favorite nonsexual fantasy used to be making obscene gestures and yelling obscenities at Nancy Pelosi in a public forum. That has been replaced. Now it's defecating on Member #2041. I expect some on the left may have similar thoughts about Toymann. You've got a talent for biting sarcasm but I think would be better served if you harnessed it a bit. Make the posts more about the issues instead of about personalities. And again, I at least appreciate the substance of your posts, and would miss them.
Just kidding 2041, if you're still reading this thread.[/QUOTE]I was. But now I'm out of here. I'll have nightmares for a while after reading this post
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 429877]Toymann, why don't you stay around and tone it down. I appreciate your perspective. Every time I saw Thomas Peterffy's political advertisement on television this fall I thought about Toymann. You've lived in a socialist country, and accomplished much in another society where there has been economic liberty, at least up until now.
You're the best cage fighter in this thread. Member #2041 is second best. I agree with you on most issues and almost always your posts are entertaining to me. But I'm not sure the low blows, biting and kicking, as you put it, are healthy. My favorite nonsexual fantasy used to be making obscene gestures and yelling obscenities at Nancy Pelosi in a public forum. That has been replaced. Now it's defecating on Member #2041. I expect some on the left may have similar thoughts about Toymann. You've got a talent for biting sarcasm but I think would be better served if you harnessed it a bit. Make the posts more about the issues instead of about personalities. And again, I at least appreciate the substance of your posts, and would miss them.
Just kidding 2041, if you're still reading this thread.[/QUOTE]My tantrum is now over! El Jeffe pisses me off some times with his selective rules enforcement. I still won't post too much on this thread as we are years away from the next election. You will find my prediction on healthcare in the new America will sadly come true in spades! Monger on TinyDude. Toymann
Romney said "When I'm elected, I will put Americans back to work."
And 51% of the Americans said,"Fuck that!"
Some things are starting to appear more likely than others. Raising the Medicare age to 67 is going to happen. There is a tweak to the CPI formula for Social Security and tax bracket adjustments that is reasonable and moderate and gradual. That will happen too. Next will be face saving measures that allow taxes to go up for the rich without explicitly raising brackets. The likelihood of a limitation on the mortgage interest deduction is increasing and this surprises me. Then there is raising the OASDI payroll tax ceiling, or even eliminating it, which if they eliminate it, would cost Alex Rodriguez something like $780, 000 a year. In turn Obama said something like the top rate has to go up next year but maybe could be reduced down the road. What I said earlier about compromising on the tax rate appears less likely as now they seem to be in loophole-closing mode. I think Obama should offer to eliminate at least one entire agency. Let Boehner submit three and Obama can pick one. Maybe repeat that again in two years. Also Obama does not seem to be talking about taxing capital gains the same as ordinary income and seems content to let the former 10% and 20% come back. Earlier he was making noise about 10% and 25.
What a story. Mitch "My Number One Goal Is To Defeat Obama" McConnell made a motion for a vote on legislation that would let the president extend the country's borrowing limit on his own. In fact this was McConnell's own idea in last year's debt ceiling standoff. I guess he wanted to show that even Democrats would not support such a bill. But Reid said it might be a good idea, and proposed a straight up or down vote. McConnell then said no.
[QUOTE]"This may be a moment in Senate history when a senator made a proposal and, when given an opportunity for a vote on that proposal, filibustered his own proposal," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). "I think we have reached a new spot in the history of the Senate we've never seen before."[/QUOTE]Debt Ceiling Bluff Called By Harry Reid, Leaving Mitch McConnell To Filibuster Himself
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/debt-ceiling-mitch-mcconnell_n_2251515.html[/url]
When will the Republicans learn?
Some of you hate Unions, but what the Republican Congress is doing is the same as the Unions.
They Want More Money for their People.
Photos from Old Ale House in Chicago.
Now that the GOP is reluctantly waving the white flag in regard to taxes of the rich, the end is in sight to a constructive compromise in regard to spending & reducing the deficit. The effort to make Obama a failure and limit him to one term ended one of the most destructive and unproductive 4 years in American history. Now, the GOP face losing the House in 2014 if they allow America to fall off the cliff. Yet, millions remain stubborn and angry and hoping that their version of America can come back from the dead in 2016. Yes, anything can happen.
Just like Facism is making a comeback in Greece, with nationalist groups marching & making Nazi salutes and beating up any foreigners that are of a different color. Now, for sure, anything can happen.
When I was a kid, my friends and I would play cops & robbers, or act out a battlefield scene with homemade weapons. Killing was fun. You could say that was 3rd world, and over here, we are 1st world and we don't have to pretend. And so mental illness is trotted out to be the villain. Like the plea of insanity for any henious crime. What is the plea, NRA? Not guilty, judge. Yes, we cannot allow legislation to come between us and our profits. Ever faithful, they trot the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms. Samuel Jackson said it best,"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". Perhaps, it is true, that you feel more American if you have a gun in your waistband. I think thay should make all naturalized citizens do that when they are sworn in, so as to have that "feeling". Myself, my dick, small as it is, would shrink even more with a gun in my waistband.
But optimism runs in my blood, so I see changes & progress in many areas in the next 4 years. Things can only get better politically as the GOP do damage control and try to regroup and rearm. Sombreros and burros in the GOP, what is the world coming to? So as usual, a body massage will take care of whatever problem.
[quote]The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance.
Cicero, 55 BC[/quote]So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,067 years.
[QUOTE=Jackson;430486]So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,067 years.[/QUOTE]Countries, societies, teams, individuals have always shown a capacity for self destruction. It is nature's way of redistributing the wealth.
But now, it seems that America is coming to terms with it's addiction. We have to abandon building the Tower of Babel and check in for rehabilitation. We could have started down this road 2 or 3 years ago, but you know, somebody did not want to play ball. But now, there is hope and that is a good feeling. But everybody has to pitch in.
With the SS costs of living cuts down the road, I am going to have to abandon my penis enlargement surgery and also my dream of buying a harem. The name of the game now is sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. I have done my part.