Definition of 'rich' changing... already

[Fosco33]

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'. :roll:

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obamas_ever_changing_definitio.html

[retailguy]

Who defines 'rich'?

The chosen one does.


Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary?

Because the chosen one said you are rich.


Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living?

Why should there be? Just move to a lower cost area, then you'll be "richer".


Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

Because the chosen one said it will be, and we DARE NOT question him.



Apparently average people are now 'rich'. :roll:

You aren't "average". Those government survey's are wrong. They'll be republished shortly. You are rich.


When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich.

You don't need those things to be rich. You just need a job. Do you know how many people out there can't get a good job. I know this because right now, there is no bus that picks me up at my couch, and no one is advertising for those $100K jobs on my TV.

Pretty soon, they'll know I can work from home, in front of my TV, and I'll be RICH. The chosen one has promised. All the jobs are coming back from India, my friend! We're going to make BIG MONEY telemarketing from home!!!


Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

You are not to speak to the chosen one. Joe Wurlizbacher made the mistake of speaking to the chosen one without being spoken to.... Don't be like Joe.... You must first see his "appointment scheduler". Mr. Rezko should be out of jail soon, and will then promptly book your appointment.

[ThunderDan]

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'. :roll:

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obamas_ever_changing_definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

[LL2]

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'. :roll:

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obamas_ever_changing_definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

But even doing that wouldn't get you to an extra $10,000.

[SkinBasket]

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

Yes, Fosco. You are confused. You're just imagining all your money being taken from you. But believe me, I'm just as confused and mixed up as you are.

[ThunderDan]

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'. :roll:

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obamas_ever_changing_definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

But even doing that wouldn't get you to an extra $10,000.

You would pay them off a lot quicker than taking a "pay" cut.

[HowardRoark]

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'. :roll:

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obamas_ever_changing_definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

What about the fact that when rates are lowered (Capital gains, income) revenues increase? Does that matter?

[mraynrand]

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'. :roll:

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obamas_ever_changing_definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

What about the fact that when rates are lowered (Capital gains, income) revenues increase? Does that matter?

No, because even if revenues increase, it is not 'fair' - so said the Messiah to Charlie Gibson. And it's not patriotic.

[Fosco33]

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'. :roll:

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obamas_ever_changing_definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

I consider that my company has to pay for 'benefits' that I'll never receive a tax on my income. In other words, they would pay me a higher salary if they didn't have to pay the other half (all things considered, market conditions, cost of goods remain unchanged).

I'll tell you another thing - when both those programs fail (Medicare likely in the next 15 years; social security by 2040) people are going to be irrate (everyone 20-64 who has been paying their whole lives). I'd like an alternative.

I made a joke - but afterwards thought 'why not'.
Should America just call 'bankruptcy' with other countries (mainly China)? Say, something to the effect of 'too bad, so sad'.

What would they do - not sell us more poorly tested, 3rd rate crap? Darn.

[HowardRoark]

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'. :roll:

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obamas_ever_changing_definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

What about the fact that when rates are lowered (Capital gains, income) revenues increase? Does that matter?

No, because even if revenues increase, it is not 'fair' - so said the Messiah to Charlie Gibson. And it's not patriotic.

His intellectual dishonesty has been noted.

[HowardRoark]

I made a joke - but afterwards thought 'why not'.
Should America just call 'bankruptcy' with other countries (mainly China)? Say, something to the effect of 'too bad, so sad'.

What would they do - not sell us more poorly tested, 3rd rate crap? Darn.

As soon as we balance our budget, this might be a viable option. As long as we deficit spend though, the symbiotic relationship has to continue. Although now people might re-think buying all that shit (because they don't have any money).

[retailguy]

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

Dan, with all due respect, I think you're the one that has things "mixed up".




First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Ok, Fosco has already explained why he thinks what he thinks, and I agree with that line of thinking. Though employees never see the money, it IS part of their compensation. It is reasonable to assume that if there were no employer SSI taxes that money could, and would be used to attract better employees, or used for raises or other benefits.

That aside, Dan, I must say that you are a PERFECT chosen one voter if you think that a business owner filing a schedule "C" gets a tax deduction. They don't.

Let me explain this - You do have a front page deduction from your adjusted gross income for half the amount of the 15.3% self employment tax that a sole proprietor is responsible for. The 15% quoted figure is ACCURATE. The "psuedo deduction" that you're talking about Dan, reduces your AGI (adjusted gross income). The reason for this, is if they didn't do it that way, then the business owner would pay federal income taxes on the amount of social security taxes. THAT'S IT. That's the only function.

If you call that a "deduction", well then Dan, I don't know how to help you. All this line does is "equalize" the sole proprietor books with every other incorporated, partnership and LLC business out there. Business can deduct payroll taxes. Sole Proprietors can't and this is the tax "workaround" for that.

Oh, and the vast employees don't get this deduction. You, Dan, pay federal income taxes on the taxes you pay to both your state government and the federal government....



Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

Or, $150k if you believe Biden, or $120k if you believe Bill Richardson. The number keeps creeping downward. It'll be at about $30k before we are finished just like it was with our good buddy Bill Clinton. Just wait, Dan. I shall remind you of this conversation in 2010 after the Bush tax cuts expire and your taxes GO UP. Yes, Dan, they will go UP. The chosen one won't have to do anything except let the law expire.



The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

So, in that massive federal budget there just isn't room for any reduced spending? No where? Really? Dan, you really are the perfect Obama voter. George Bush spent money like a drunken fool. Obama will be worse.



If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

Your analogy is not likely to ever happen. People are largely paid what they are worth. Someone who is "worth" $75k can't find a job at $85K. They HAVE TO CUT EXPENSES. So does the government.

Every single time that taxes have been increased government tax revenues have DECLINED. Every time. It will happen that way this time too. Just watch. While you're watching, you've got time for those classes. Then when it happens, you'll understand WHY.

[wist43]

Who defines 'rich'?

Why is 'rich' defined by gross salary? Is there no reprieve if you live in a state that has higher income tax, sales tax, property tax, and generally a high cost of living? Why 'redistribute' my money if there's not much to take?

In SoCal, the average cost of living is about twice that of WI... meaning those of you in America's Dairyland making $125K and those making $250K in CA are in the same boat after all is said and done.

But Obama will not care that I'm in the range that will be targeted next - and live in a one bedroom apt with a 10yr old car, a disappearing 401(k) and 15% of my wages going to Medicare/Social Security which will also disappear and now a daughter to worry about.

If things continue to change (first it was $250+, now $200+, etc), and next I'll be considered 'rich' I'm gonna laugh my fucking ass off. My after tax, adjusted cost of living wage would be considered very average in WI.

Apparently average people are now 'rich'. :roll:

When I have enough to buy a home (and a 2nd home), multiple new cars, fantastic vacations, wardrobes, butlers and the rest - then call me rich. Until then, call it what it is and tell us what your plans are Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/obamas_ever_changing_definitio.html

Fosco-

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

Raising taxes is never a zero sum game... raising taxes kills job creation, causes people to pull back on their spending, etc...

Reagan lowered taxes and revenues went up...

You're in Madison though... never met anyone from Madison who could do math. 800 square miles surrounded by reality. Go ahead, vote for Obama... the economy will tank ala Jimmy Carter. It's just math, economic math, but still math nonetheless.

Sounds like you live a little too close to campus there :roll:

[ThunderDan]

I think you have this entirely mixed up.

Dan, with all due respect, I think you're the one that has things "mixed up".




First off you only pay 7.65% on social security taxes not 15% even if you were self-employeed and had to pay both halfs you get a deduction on your tax return.

Ok, Fosco has already explained why he thinks what he thinks, and I agree with that line of thinking. Though employees never see the money, it IS part of their compensation. It is reasonable to assume that if there were no employer SSI taxes that money could, and would be used to attract better employees, or used for raises or other benefits.

That aside, Dan, I must say that you are a PERFECT chosen one voter if you think that a business owner filing a schedule "C" gets a tax deduction. They don't.

Let me explain this - You do have a front page deduction from your adjusted gross income for half the amount of the 15.3% self employment tax that a sole proprietor is responsible for. The 15% quoted figure is ACCURATE. The "psuedo deduction" that you're talking about Dan, reduces your AGI (adjusted gross income). The reason for this, is if they didn't do it that way, then the business owner would pay federal income taxes on the amount of social security taxes. THAT'S IT. That's the only function.

If you call that a "deduction", well then Dan, I don't know how to help you. All this line does is "equalize" the sole proprietor books with every other incorporated, partnership and LLC business out there. Business can deduct payroll taxes. Sole Proprietors can't and this is the tax "workaround" for that.

Oh, and the vast employees don't get this deduction. You, Dan, pay federal income taxes on the taxes you pay to both your state government and the federal government....



Right now rich is determined by the tax brackets which were set by the Republican legislature, Obama is saying is is going to promote legislation to change the brackets and increase the tax on anyone making over $250,000 or $200,000.

Or, $150k if you believe Biden, or $120k if you believe Bill Richardson. The number keeps creeping downward. It'll be at about $30k before we are finished just like it was with our good buddy Bill Clinton. Just wait, Dan. I shall remind you of this conversation in 2010 after the Bush tax cuts expire and your taxes GO UP. Yes, Dan, they will go UP. The chosen one won't have to do anything except let the law expire.



The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

So, in that massive federal budget there just isn't room for any reduced spending? No where? Really? Dan, you really are the perfect Obama voter. George Bush spent money like a drunken fool. Obama will be worse.



If you owed $10,000 in credit card debt you wouldn't argue that going from a $75,000 a year job to a $65,000 a year job helps you pay off your debt. You would try to find a job that paid $85,000.

Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

Your analogy is not likely to ever happen. People are largely paid what they are worth. Someone who is "worth" $75k can't find a job at $85K. They HAVE TO CUT EXPENSES. So does the government.

Every single time that taxes have been increased government tax revenues have DECLINED. Every time. It will happen that way this time too. Just watch. While you're watching, you've got time for those classes. Then when it happens, you'll understand WHY.

Retailguy-

Let me explain this to you. I am a CPA. I think I know a little bit more than you about tax law.

The self-employment tax is calculated on page 2 of the tax return and is added after regular taxes have been calulated. Half of this number is than moved to the front page of the tax return.

If I made $100,000 from my business and had to pay $15,000 in self-employment tax I only have to pay income tax on $100,000 minus $7,500 or $92,500. So I am not paying 15.3% as self eployment tax. You are probably going to get a $1,800 income tax break. So you are really only paying 13.2% which is lower than the 15.3% you would pay between employee and employer as a business owner paying W-2 wages. So saying the self-employeed employee is paying twice what a normal person pays isn't a fair or correct statement.

The issue isn't how much is collected but what's done with it. The employee and employer funds are supposed to be used to calculate your retirement beneift paid out over your life expectance. Unfortunately we are in a pay it ahead world with social security and with the baby boomers the system may go broke. This is a huge concern and worries me that neither canidate has really addressed this issue.

I am not sure what you mean by "You, Dan, pay federal income taxes on the taxes you pay to both your state government and the federal government" I deduct any and all taxes I pay to the state of Wisconsin on my tax return, income and real estate, :oops:

I guess we will find out where the Obama tax rate brackets will be if he becomes President. I haven't heard one specific from McCain on his tax policy. I suupose I could be more active and go to John McCain's website to see what he says but I haven't. Yes I know the Bush tax law expires in 2010 and taxes would go back to the pre-enacted rates. Can you tell what the capital gains rate will go back to? Will there be more than one capital gains rate? How about the treatment of qualified dividends from corporations?

I believe about 95% of the federal budget goes to the military and social security. Obviously there is waste in government and money can be found. But it will be tiny compared to the overall picture of our deficit. If you can find a way to not spend us out of the deficit I am willing to listen to your plan.

To your last point, people are rarely paid what they are worth. Equal positions in corporations usually pay equal or close to equal amounts. Yet there is always an employee or two that outshines the rest. A majority of workers salaries are determined prior to the current year. Rarely does the great producers get paid for their actual work. It's usually the employee who is willing to turn the spotlight on themselves that gets promoted or bigger raises.

Tax revenues increased with Bill Clinton's tax increase. As measured by constant dollar revenue growth tax collection has increase every year since 1992 except for the contraction in 2001, 2002 and 2003 due in part to 9/11.

As for your horrible comments regarding that I am stupid and uninformed this is exactly what the problem is in the USA today. Without ever meeting me or asking me what I do or believe in you were willing to make disparaging remarks based on my support of the Democtratic canidate. No matter who wins in November, they are going to have to lead the whole country and this dividiing and labeling as unworthy makes me sick.

[Fosco33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Defense - 20%
SS - 21%
Care/Caid - 21%
Other/interest/mandatory - 38%

[HowardRoark]

I guess we will find out where the Obama tax rate brackets will be if he becomes President. I haven't heard one specific from McCain on his tax policy. I suupose I could be more active and go to John McCain's website to see what he says but I haven't. Yes I know the Bush tax law expires in 2010 and taxes would go back to the pre-enacted rates. Can you tell what the capital gains rate will go back to? Will there be more than one capital gains rate? How about the treatment of qualified dividends from corporations?

McCain has said that he would make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He also wants to lower capital gains taxes. I ams ure he would leave taxation of qualified dividends alone.

Now, I need to get a Grain Belt and sit back and watch the "Battle of the CPAs".

[Tyrone Bigguns]

RG,

You just got taken to school. Not only did ThunderDan answer your post, he did so eloquently and without derision.

You might learn a thing or two from him.

[LL2]

RG,

You just got taken to school. Not only did ThunderDan answer your post, he did so eloquently and without derision.

You might learn a thing or two from him.

So, we have a CPA and a guy owning a successful tax business in a debate. That should be some good reading.

[ThunderDan]

RG,

You just got taken to school. Not only did ThunderDan answer your post, he did so eloquently and without derision.

You might learn a thing or two from him.

So, we have a CPA and a guy owning a successful tax business in a debate. That should be some good reading.

Maybe this CPA is an owner/partner in his CPA firm.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

RG,

You just got taken to school. Not only did ThunderDan answer your post, he did so eloquently and without derision.

You might learn a thing or two from him.

So, we have a CPA and a guy owning a successful tax business in a debate. That should be some good reading.

Better than most of your posts. :lol:

[Fosco33]

RG,

You just got taken to school. Not only did ThunderDan answer your post, he did so eloquently and without derision.

You might learn a thing or two from him.

So, we have a CPA and a guy owning a successful tax business in a debate. That should be some good reading.

Maybe this CPA is an owner/partner in his CPA firm.

I need a new CPA 8-)

I work in multiple states and was 'compensatory' because I travelled to one city for more than a year (meaning all my travel expenses are 'income')... And I got married and had a baby plus I'm transferring my 401(k)...

Gonna be an ugly year.

[Freak Out]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31taxes.html?adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1225493287-Eb2GTJYpl7iONxQpFGhoIA

I'm sure info like this is in the RR somewhere but figured I would throw it out anyway. There are loads of "non-partisan" looks at both tax plans and this is as good as any. Of course any plan would have to be approved by congress.

For Incomes Below $100,000, a Better Tax Break in Obama’s Plan
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Independent analyses of the presidential candidates’ tax proposals show that those who make less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes raised under Senator Barack Obama’s plans. Further, Mr. Obama would generally cut taxes more than Senator John McCain would for households with incomes less than $100,000 a year.

Mr. McCain would cut taxes generally on par with Mr. Obama for those making $100,000 to $250,000 a year, the analyses found, but those making $250,000 a year and above would typically pay less in taxes under Mr. McCain.

The analyses were conducted independently by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, and Deloitte, the accounting giant, at the request of The New York Times.

Mr. McCain has been sounding the traditional Republican tax-cutting theme, trying to convince voters that Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, wants to increase taxes and spread the wealth like a socialist.

Helped by the emergence of Joe the Plumber and using Mr. Obama’s own words, Mr. McCain has insisted that Mr. Obama’s tax policies would hurt small businesses and upwardly mobile individuals, while providing welfare for low-income Americans.

Mr. Obama has been fighting those accusations in stump speeches and commercials, in recent days asking members of his audience to raise their hands if they made less than $250,000 a year. Fewer than 3 percent of households make more than $250,000.

But the tax proposals are complicated, and tax bills are affected by personal variables. Analysts at the Tax Policy Center and Deloitte tried to explain the ramifications of the candidates’ plans by applying their tax policies to various situations.

Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center, said the analysis found that: “On the average, people with income below $100,000 would get more from Obama than from McCain. From $100,000 to $250,000, they’d be fairly even under Obama and McCain. For those over $250,000, Obama increases taxes.”

Mr. McCain’s plan includes extending President Bush’s income-tax cuts and doubling exemptions for dependent children to $7,000 by 2016. He would also give a refundable tax credit to households that buy health insurance and would impose taxes on employer-provided coverage.

Mr. Obama opposes extending President Bush’s tax cuts. Instead, he proposes various tax breaks, including a $500 tax credit for each person in a household who works, a larger child care tax credit, a $4,000 tax credit each year for the first two years of college, and eliminating all income taxes for those over 65 with income less than $50,000 a year.

To reduce the deficit and inequality, he would raise the tax rate for single households with incomes of $200,000 or more and for families with incomes over $250,000. He would also raise taxes on capital gains and dividends.

The median household income nationwide is $50,233, according to the Census Bureau. The Tax Policy Center found that, for married couples with incomes of $50,000, two children and both parents working, income taxes would be cut by $284 more under Mr. Obama’s plan — by $1,005, compared with $721 under Mr. McCain’s plan.

Deloitte also examined such a couple and found similar benefits; a $700 cut under Mr. McCain’s plan and $1,000 under Mr. Obama’s.

For married couples with incomes of $500,000 with two children and both parents working, the Tax Policy Center found that Mr. Obama would raise income taxes by $3,363, from $110,955 now, while Mr. McCain’s plans would leave taxes unchanged. Deloitte found that a $500,000-a-year couple would pay $3,100 more under Mr. Obama, with no change under Mr. McCain.

Clint Stretch, Deloitte’s managing principal of tax policy, said most families would benefit under Mr. McCain’s plan because of an increased exemption for each child. That, he said, would reduce taxes for low-income families by about $230 per child and for high-income families by about $800.

To help low-income families in particular, Mr. Obama would give a “Making Work Pay Credit” equal to 6.2 percent of a worker’s first $8,100 in wages. That would yield a tax credit of $500 for a single person, and $1,000 for a couple in which both adults work. As a result, a low-income couple now paying no income taxes might receive a $1,000 refund.

But Mr. McCain has told audiences that Mr. Obama’s “plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don’t pay taxes. That’s not a tax cut, that’s welfare.”

Mr. Obama responded last week in Kansas City, Mo.: “McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people welfare.”

Mr. Obama wants to eliminate income taxes for people over age 65 who earn less than $50,000 a year. So under his plan, a single person that age with income of $50,000 would experience a $2,339 tax cut, according to the Tax Policy Center. Under Mr. McCain’s plans, that person’s taxes would remain unchanged.

“What Obama’s doing,” said Mr. Stretch of Deloitte, “is he’s taking more money from people like me, and spending it on exemptions for the elderly and on tax credits for education.”

But Mr. Stretch added, “When Obama says he cuts taxes for every working family under $150,000, I’d say that’s true.”

A single head of household with one child and $15,000 in income now receives a tax refund of $3,859, largely because of the earned income tax credit, according to the Tax Policy Center. That refund would increase by $500 under Mr. Obama’s plan. Under Mr. McCain’s plan there would be no change for that taxpayer.

According to Deloitte’s calculations, a single taxpayer who earns $35,000 a year and has no children would get a $500 tax cut under Mr. Obama’s plan — to $3,000 a year from the current $3,500. Mr. McCain would leave that person’s taxes unchanged.

Mr. McCain also proposes giving many households a $5,000 tax credit when they buy family health insurance, which costs $12,000 nationwide on average. But households would for the first time have to pay taxes on employer-provided insurance.

[retailguy]

Let me explain this to you. I am a CPA. I think I know a little bit more than you about tax law.

Dan, I am also a CPA and have been for many years. Until 2 years ago, I owned a small tax firm which I sold when my wife and I moved to the midwest so she could attend law school. I know a fair amount about taxes myself...



The self-employment tax is calculated on page 2 of the tax return and is added after regular taxes have been calulated. Half of this number is than moved to the front page of the tax return.

Self Employment taxes are calculated on Federal Schedule SE, not on page 2. They are listed on Page 2 of the 1040 on line 58, but are not figured there.

Assuming that the taxpayer in question files the short form of schedule SE, then the amount that transfers to the front page does so from Line 6 of the SE, which is calculated from line 5 of the SE. The amount transferred to line 27 of the front page of the 1040 is calculated at 50% of line 5.

Assuming that the taxpayer in question earns $97,500 or less, the amount is calculated as follows: Earnings * .9235 (line 3) * 15.3%. I would assume that this is the "maximum $7500" that you were referring to. Again, this is a very paltry deduction, that I didn't figure worth mentioning.

OK, then the 50% that is transferred to line 27. That amount reduces Adjusted Gross Income by 50% of the self employment taxes and is designed, as I said before, to prevent this taxpayer from paying Federal Withholding Taxes on monies they paid in self employment taxes.

Since a sole proprietor pays taxes on a 1040 he has no facility to deduct those taxes as "payroll" taxes, hence line 27. This is the method that "reduces" the income from the taxpayers business to allow for the standard business deduction for the employer portion of the payroll tax.




If I made $100,000 from my business and had to pay $15,000 in self-employment tax I only have to pay income tax on $100,000 minus $7,500 or $92,500. So I am not paying 15.3% as self eployment tax. You are probably going to get a $1,800 income tax break. So you are really only paying 13.2% which is lower than the 15.3% you would pay between employee and employer as a business owner paying W-2 wages. So saying the self-employeed employee is paying twice what a normal person pays isn't a fair or correct statement.

Dan, your point ignores that any corporation is allowed a "tax deduction" for the employer portion of payroll taxes, so that would reduce the "effective" percentage of taxes paid by the corporation.

The fact is, EVERY american worker pays 7.65% of the 1st 97,500 of income, and, that every business pays 7.65% of each employees wages. Schedule SE compensates for sole proprietor earnings to 'equalize' this (net of the 7500 you discussed).

So, truthfully, when you figure the nominal deduction that the corporation gets for payroll taxes off their effective rate, these amounts for all practical purposes equalize. I suppose if you want to argue .5% here and there depending on the profitability of the business, fine, but largely a self employed person pays nearly the same amount as the employee and their employer.



The issue isn't how much is collected but what's done with it. The employee and employer funds are supposed to be used to calculate your retirement beneift paid out over your life expectance. Unfortunately we are in a pay it ahead world with social security and with the baby boomers the system may go broke. This is a huge concern and worries me that neither canidate has really addressed this issue.

I actually find common ground with you here. Neither party has addressed this, and Fosco dealt with it as he should have. He probably won't see social security or medicare, and neither will I. I have no idea how old you are, but if you're under 45 you won't likely see it either.

This is a flaw in BOTH parties, if you vote on this issue alone, you'd have to vote NEITHER.



I am not sure what you mean by "You, Dan, pay federal income taxes on the taxes you pay to both your state government and the federal government" I deduct any and all taxes I pay to the state of Wisconsin on my tax return, income and real estate, :oops:

What I meant was, you pay taxes on a paycheck based on gross income, not net income. You are not allowed a deduction, other than Schedule A (not all taxpayers), or the equivalent Wisconsin deduction. It's been over 20 years since I left Wisconsin, so forgive me, but I don't know where that deduction resides any longer on the specific Wisconsin tax form.

Point was, and is, you are paying federal income tax on the earnings that you send in as social security tax.



I guess we will find out where the Obama tax rate brackets will be if he becomes President. I haven't heard one specific from McCain on his tax policy. I suupose I could be more active and go to John McCain's website to see what he says but I haven't. Yes I know the Bush tax law expires in 2010 and taxes would go back to the pre-enacted rates. Can you tell what the capital gains rate will go back to? Will there be more than one capital gains rate? How about the treatment of qualified dividends from corporations?

Can I tell? No, I can't but it is more than reasonable to assume that capital gains rates will be increasing. I believe the only "specific" I have heard from Obama is 25%. That would be more than the stair stepped 8% to 15% as it stands right now. I have seen ZERO proposals that suggest that Obama will LOWER rates.

It is too soon to say what will happen with qualified dividends, but, realistically, those would be more likely to affect those in society that Obama considers "wealthy" so I would suspect this will in fact change, and not for the better.

Yes, I expect more than one capital gains rate. Too soon again, to talk specifics, but so much of his "tax plan" concentrates around income that I would expect rates to increase based on certain "ceilings". In short, the more you make the more you pay.



I believe about 95% of the federal budget goes to the military and social security. Obviously there is waste in government and money can be found. But it will be tiny compared to the overall picture of our deficit. If you can find a way to not spend us out of the deficit I am willing to listen to your plan.

I think (I have not researched) that other things are included in that 95% figure, but yes, I agree that much of the federal budget is defined as "non discretionary". Do that mean it's really "non-discretionary". Probably not.

It is seemingly pointless for you or I to create a plan. I've run a business for the better part of 20 years and I can balance ANY budget. That being said, I can assure you that you wouldn't like my budget any more than I'd like yours. I'd have more military spending than you would, and you'd have more social program spending than I would.

But your basic point - yep, it's going to be tough to cut spending and pay off the deficit. But, raising taxes wont' work. It sounds good, but it won't work. Revenues' will decline. the only way out is to tighten the belt and spend less.



To your last point, people are rarely paid what they are worth. Equal positions in corporations usually pay equal or close to equal amounts. Yet there is always an employee or two that outshines the rest. A majority of workers salaries are determined prior to the current year. Rarely does the great producers get paid for their actual work. It's usually the employee who is willing to turn the spotlight on themselves that gets promoted or bigger raises.

I disagree with this. For simple economic reasons. If someone can make more money, they leave and accept that job. Most can't and don't. Since they can't, because they already have the "best" job available in the marketplace, the only other option to your original point is to reduce spending, adopt a budget and pay off the credit card.

The "great producers" have the ability to leave and get better jobs. And they do. Average term of employment is now less than 3 years in our society. Those that can move for more money do. Those that can't stay until they get laid off.

None of this suggests that workers are underpaid.



Tax revenues increased with Bill Clinton's tax increase. As measured by constant dollar revenue growth tax collection has increase every year since 1992 except for the contraction in 2001, 2002 and 2003 due in part to 9/11.

Real dollar increase perhaps. But when viewed with economic growth, this analysis does not reflect the impact those taxes being removed from the economy have had. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree, but in these economic times, ANY tax increase is stupid. There is never a good time in my world to increase taxes, but today, is the worst of the worst.



As for your horrible comments regarding that I am stupid and uninformed this is exactly what the problem is in the USA today. Without ever meeting me or asking me what I do or believe in you were willing to make disparaging remarks based on my support of the Democtratic canidate. No matter who wins in November, they are going to have to lead the whole country and this dividiing and labeling as unworthy makes me sick.

My horrible comments? Have you watched the "politics of destruction" on the Democrat side? I'm so tired of being called a "greedy evil bastard" I can't begin to tell you.

You can interpret your above comments two ways, but what I hear is "How dare you criticize me". Yeah ok.

I couldn't disagree with your political choice more than I do. Obama is BAD for this country. But you've done a fair amount of criticizing here yourself. I haven't met you, and yes I'm disappointed in your support for the democratic side of the fence. Hopefully you're true to your beliefs and are ready to open your wallet, because Obama is coming for it.

You obviously do not agree with the economic theories that I believe. I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that you were not familiar with them, now, I know that you are but reject them.

I believe the future will prove me right and so do you. We shall see. And finally, I apologize for offending you.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

RG,

Now i realize that you aren't just dishonest, but tone deaf.


Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

If you can't follow where you insulted him...then, really, there is little hope for you.

[Partial]

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

I'm sorry, but this is retarded. Did Fos cause the debt? No. Did Fos do anything wrong? No.

Maybe the assholes that live 100% on the governments dime should get off their ass, contribute their fair share of tax dollars, instead of living off the working man. Then, Fos wouldn't have to give all his money away to support the bums.

That is the logical way of fixing the situation. Alas, nothing about being liberal or a democrat is logical.

[MJZiggy]

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

I'm sorry, but this is retarded. Did Fos cause the debt? No. Did Fos do anything wrong? No.

Maybe the assholes that live 100% on the governments dime should get off their ass, contribute their fair share of tax dollars, instead of living off the working man. Then, Fos wouldn't have to give all his money away to support the bums.

That is the logical way of fixing the situation. Alas, nothing about being liberal or a democrat is logical.

Fos didn't cause the debt. Who did? Who borrowed the money and who spent it? On what? Bums getting jobs and making 15K a year is not going to solve the tax burden. If we want to solve the tax burden, the first thing we have to do is stop borrowing money from China. You can't pay down debt while you're still borrowing.

[Partial]

RG,

Now i realize that you aren't just dishonest, but tone deaf.


Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

If you can't follow where you insulted him...then, really, there is little hope for you.

How is that insulting? He's trying to help the guy. You're an idiot. And RG just served for liberal dumbass homeboy Thunder Danny.

[Partial]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Defense - 20%
SS - 21%
Care/Caid - 21%
Other/interest/mandatory - 38%

Served.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

RG,

Now i realize that you aren't just dishonest, but tone deaf.


Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

If you can't follow where you insulted him...then, really, there is little hope for you.

How is that insulting? He's trying to help the guy. You're an idiot. And RG just served for liberal dumbass homeboy Thunder Danny.

Trying to help a business owner and CPA? Insulting him before he even knows his background?

You are such a dumbass.

[Partial]

The USA is $10 trillion in debt. So we either have to cut sprending or increase revenues. Between social security and defense there isn't really a lot to cut out of the federal government that will make any dent in the debt. So we need to increase the revenue generated not decrease it.

I'm sorry, but this is retarded. Did Fos cause the debt? No. Did Fos do anything wrong? No.

Maybe the assholes that live 100% on the governments dime should get off their ass, contribute their fair share of tax dollars, instead of living off the working man. Then, Fos wouldn't have to give all his money away to support the bums.

That is the logical way of fixing the situation. Alas, nothing about being liberal or a democrat is logical.

Fos didn't cause the debt. Who did? Who borrowed the money and who spent it? On what? Bums getting jobs and making 15K a year is not going to solve the tax burden. If we want to solve the tax burden, the first thing we have to do is stop borrowing money from China. You can't pay down debt while you're still borrowing.

Why don't they start their own business and make 100k? This is capitalism. Money is there to be made. It's not my fault lazy bums are unwilling to go out and make something of themselves. If somebody is content earning 15k, then they should be content living a shitty life. Not my problem, its theres, and I shouldn't be punished for their lazy, poor decision.

[Freak Out]

Why don't they start their own business and make 100k? This is capitalism. Money is there to be made.

Shazaam! It's that easy folks!

All kidding aside Dan...it's not an easy thing to do. Should we bankroll lazy fucks who have no motivation to work even though they are able? No....but I believe to be a great nation we have to educate our citizens and give them the best chance to make it and contribute...all people will have tough times in there lives but if they refuse to get with it you have to cut the cord at some point.

[MJZiggy]

Partial, you are aware that not every homeless person has the tools to run a $100k business or the venture capital to start, and not every business succeeds because someone decides to start it. Another thing to consider is that our economy is dependent upon a subclass. Your life would not be a whole lot of wonderful if no one was willing to work a $15k job. Even if they did, they're still not going to solve the debt, especially considering that the government is borrowing at a whole lot more than the taxes on $15k a year.

Bums off the street are also oftentimes veterans who have served this country in times of war coming home with physical and emotional scars. Remember that while you call them lazy asses. They've made more sacrifice for this country than you ever could.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty will not be happy till the "lazy fucks" working for MickeyD's are making 10 an hour and Big Macs are 10 bucks.

[Partial]

Well Zig, thats why some people achieve great things and some don't. It's all a matter of drive. You have got to be kidding me if you don't think everyone is great at something. Perhaps you're just cynical and doubt your fellow brothers abilities in a non-liberal way, but I believe anyone can do anything if they're driven.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Some people are great at serving fries.

[MJZiggy]

Well Zig, thats why some people achieve great things and some don't. It's all a matter of drive. You have got to be kidding me if you don't think everyone is great at something. Perhaps you're just cynical and doubt your fellow brothers abilities in a non-liberal way, but I believe anyone can do anything if they're driven.

Did you just call me a conservative? See, Skin? I do believe anyone could do anything--with the proper tools. I think Freak Out is right, that we need to educate our citizens.

By the way, I agree with the rest of his post too, you give people an education and you give them a safety net. But it's just that-a safety net. Welfare was never intended to be permanent.

[Freak Out]

Ty will not be happy till the "lazy fucks" working for MickeyD's are making 10 an hour and Big Macs are 10 bucks.

That's why we have schools....even for adults who fail the first time around. we just have to fund them and I have no problem doing it. We need plumbers and carpenters just as much as we need lawyers and programmers.

[Partial]

Ty will not be happy till the "lazy fucks" working for MickeyD's are making 10 an hour and Big Macs are 10 bucks.

Who said anything about mDs? Only you did. Are you telling me some homeless bum can't dedicate himself to education at a public library and learn the necessary skills to interview well and gain a 50k job, and with hard work and dedication be making 100k in a few years when he takes the skills he learned and the money he saved, to go and invest in himself as a small business?

[MJZiggy]

According the the SBA 50% of all small businesses fail. According to the SBA, not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur.

http://www.sba.gov/smallbusinessplanner/plan/getready/SERV_SBPLANNER_ISENTFORU.html

Further, given your prejudices, are you going to hire and pay a bum $50k with a library education and no experience?

[Freak Out]

According the the SBA 50% of all small businesses fail. According to the SBA, not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur.

http://www.sba.gov/smallbusinessplanner/plan/getready/SERV_SBPLANNER_ISENTFORU.html

Further, given your prejudices, are you going to hire and pay a bum $50k with a library education and no experience?

Who needs book lernin!

[bobblehead]

RG,

You just got taken to school. Not only did ThunderDan answer your post, he did so eloquently and without derision.

You might learn a thing or two from him.

NOt really, dan went from claiming (made it sound like) the SS tax was 7.6% and ended up MUCH closer to RG's number (ended over 13%).

I wouldn't call that getting schooled. He also made many other points that weren't really the way he made it sound.

[bobblehead]

RG,

Now i realize that you aren't just dishonest, but tone deaf.


Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

If you can't follow where you insulted him...then, really, there is little hope for you.

How is that insulting? He's trying to help the guy. You're an idiot. And RG just served for liberal dumbass homeboy Thunder Danny.

Trying to help a business owner and CPA? Insulting him before he even knows his background?

You are such a dumbass.

I question the truth of the business owner....I have a hard time believing many business owners (who aren't bleeding off the gov't) could support obama....really hard.

[bobblehead]

According the the SBA 50% of all small businesses fail. According to the SBA, not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur.

http://www.sba.gov/smallbusinessplanner/plan/getready/SERV_SBPLANNER_ISENTFORU.html

Further, given your prejudices, are you going to hire and pay a bum $50k with a library education and no experience?

which is precisely why we have to tax the shit out of those that succeed. If we don't, er wait....maybe we should let the ones who try and succeed keep more of what they make so more people will be incetivized to try....and succeed. Cuz every one that succeeds makes my life a little bit easier....thats the way it works.

[Partial]

RG,

Now i realize that you aren't just dishonest, but tone deaf.


Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

If you can't follow where you insulted him...then, really, there is little hope for you.

How is that insulting? He's trying to help the guy. You're an idiot. And RG just served for liberal dumbass homeboy Thunder Danny.

Trying to help a business owner and CPA? Insulting him before he even knows his background?

You are such a dumbass.

I question the truth of the business owner....I have a hard time believing many business owners (who aren't bleeding off the gov't) could support obama....really hard.

Agreed. My dad knows many, and I've met many myself. NONE are democrats as far as I can tell from discussion business and politics with them.

[Partial]

More would succeed if it wasn't so GD expensive. Plan on giving 50% of what you earn back to big brother easily if you're a small business.

[wist43]

RG,

Now i realize that you aren't just dishonest, but tone deaf.


Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

If you can't follow where you insulted him...then, really, there is little hope for you.

How is that insulting? He's trying to help the guy. You're an idiot. And RG just served for liberal dumbass homeboy Thunder Danny.

Trying to help a business owner and CPA? Insulting him before he even knows his background?

You are such a dumbass.

I question the truth of the business owner....I have a hard time believing many business owners (who aren't bleeding off the gov't) could support obama....really hard.

Agreed. My dad knows many, and I've met many myself. NONE are democrats as far as I can tell from discussion business and politics with them.

You know, I'm not a Republican, but for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would be a democrat... they stand for no good thing.

To me America is about freedom. The Democratic Party is about control - the very antithesis of what America is supposed to be about. They (leftists in general) survive, and even thrive, b/c they've infested our school systems, and long ago targetted and taken over the media and academia. Unfortunately, most people are weak minded sheep and are unable to see thru the brainwashing.

I want to live my life and be left alone. Free from government interference. I don't want to control other people. I don't want to tell them how to spend their money, or how much they should earn - yet, the majority of Americans don't see it that way, and certainly no democrat sees it that way.

They want to take my money from me and give it to someone who THEY FEEL needs it more. That's thievery, and as such, disgusting. I don't care if they couch it in Robin Hoodesque Socialist rhetoric - it's thievery, plain and simple.

Before you ever get to the theoretical arguments against every vile thing the democrats stand for "redistribution of wealth" is simply the mob bullying those who are paying the freight.

Every "democracy" in history has died the same way. Read the Federalist Papers, our founders outlined the history of mobacracy pretty clearly - the democrats are dragging us over that same cliff.

It's digusting and sad.

[retailguy]

More would succeed if it wasn't so GD expensive. Plan on giving 50% of what you earn back to big brother easily if you're a small business.

P,

Part of the problem is education. We don't "teach" people to be entrepenurial. If we did, the success rates would be higher. You learn as you go, mostly.

Even my business education and my MBA didn't really prepare me for running a business. Running a business, especially a new one is hard.

We cannot expect everyone to go out and run a business and make 100K a year. As freak out said, that's not easy. With the right education, and determination, most could succeed.

The problem is, that MOST don't want to. They want to come home and lose themselves in front of the big screen TV. That's fine, except for the part about wondering why they get left behind. Turn off the damn TV, read a non fiction book, and develop the drive to overachieve.... Then, it is less likely you'll get left behind.

[mraynrand]

The problem is, that MOST don't want to. They want to come home and lose themselves in front of the big screen TV. That's fine, except for the part about wondering why they get left behind. Turn off the damn TV, read a non fiction book, and develop the drive to overachieve.... Then, it is less likely you'll get left behind.

I took your advice and somehow, it didn't seem to help.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZTDGHM81L._SL500_.jpg

[wist43]

More would succeed if it wasn't so GD expensive. Plan on giving 50% of what you earn back to big brother easily if you're a small business.

P,

Part of the problem is education. We don't "teach" people to be entrepenurial. If we did, the success rates would be higher. You learn as you go, mostly.

Even my business education and my MBA didn't really prepare me for running a business. Running a business, especially a new one is hard.

We cannot expect everyone to go out and run a business and make 100K a year. As freak out said, that's not easy. With the right education, and determination, most could succeed.

The problem is, that MOST don't want to. They want to come home and lose themselves in front of the big screen TV. That's fine, except for the part about wondering why they get left behind. Turn off the damn TV, read a non fiction book, and develop the drive to overachieve.... Then, it is less likely you'll get left behind.

Amen.

[falco]

thank god everything is so black and white

[Tyrone Bigguns]

RG,

You just got taken to school. Not only did ThunderDan answer your post, he did so eloquently and without derision.

You might learn a thing or two from him.

NOt really, dan went from claiming (made it sound like) the SS tax was 7.6% and ended up MUCH closer to RG's number (ended over 13%).

I wouldn't call that getting schooled. He also made many other points that weren't really the way he made it sound.

Schooled in the way to respond. No need to insult.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

RG,

Now i realize that you aren't just dishonest, but tone deaf.


Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

If you can't follow where you insulted him...then, really, there is little hope for you.

How is that insulting? He's trying to help the guy. You're an idiot. And RG just served for liberal dumbass homeboy Thunder Danny.

Trying to help a business owner and CPA? Insulting him before he even knows his background?

You are such a dumbass.

I question the truth of the business owner....I have a hard time believing many business owners (who aren't bleeding off the gov't) could support obama....really hard.

Of course you do. All the dems who support Obama are just poor, uneducated fools, lawyers, or finance guys. :oops:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

RG,

Now i realize that you aren't just dishonest, but tone deaf.


Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

If you can't follow where you insulted him...then, really, there is little hope for you.

How is that insulting? He's trying to help the guy. You're an idiot. And RG just served for liberal dumbass homeboy Thunder Danny.

Trying to help a business owner and CPA? Insulting him before he even knows his background?

You are such a dumbass.

I question the truth of the business owner....I have a hard time believing many business owners (who aren't bleeding off the gov't) could support obama....really hard.

Agreed. My dad knows many, and I've met many myself. NONE are democrats as far as I can tell from discussion business and politics with them.

You know, I'm not a Republican, but for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would be a democrat... they stand for no good thing.

To me America is about freedom. The Democratic Party is about control - the very antithesis of what America is supposed to be about. They (leftists in general) survive, and even thrive, b/c they've infested our school systems, and long ago targetted and taken over the media and academia. Unfortunately, most people are weak minded sheep and are unable to see thru the brainwashing.

I want to live my life and be left alone. Free from government interference. I don't want to control other people. I don't want to tell them how to spend their money, or how much they should earn - yet, the majority of Americans don't see it that way, and certainly no democrat sees it that way.



Except when the Repubs are messing with our personal lives..then it is ok. :oops:

[mraynrand]

Of course you do. All the dems who support Obama are just poor, uneducated fools, lawyers, or finance guys. :oops:

Sounds about right. You just forgot teachers/professors.

[mraynrand]

Except when the Repubs are messing with our personal lives..then it is ok. :oops:

Wist doesn't like repubs either. You do seem to enjoy painting with a big brush. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You can't follow a simple argument. He presented Dems as interfering with his life. I simple noted that he forgot Repubs.

Buhbye.

[mraynrand]

You can't follow a simple argument. He presented Dems as interfering with his life. I simple noted that he forgot Repubs.

Buhbye.

He didn't forget them, he just didn't mention them. I'll let him speak for himself, but my position is that repubs are intrusive, but nowhere near as bad as dems.


:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

[gex]

All I can tell from this thread is:

Retail = greedy evil bastard

:lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

[HowardRoark]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

[Fosco33]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

[falco]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[MJZiggy]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

I may be a Libertarian. It would be nice to see them get enough power to actually have a shot at the bigger elections. If they even have a presidential candidate, I don't know who it is.

[Fosco33]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

I may be a Libertarian. It would be nice to see them get enough power to actually have a shot at the bigger elections. If they even have a presidential candidate, I don't know who it is.

Mr. Bob Barr... but he's not much of a figure that can bring the party into light. I was hoping Ron Paul would stay true and not sell out to the Republicans. Either way, my vote in CA would not have been for Obama and knowing that McCain taking CA would be impossible, I'm voting for 'none of the above' and Barr.

Democrats and Republicans (and the right/left media) won't allow the threat of a many party nation (even 'barring' them from public debates). People say, 'the 2 party system works'.... well if this is 'working' then I really have little faith in the populace wanting more options.

[HowardRoark]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

I may be a Libertarian. It would be nice to see them get enough power to actually have a shot at the bigger elections. If they even have a presidential candidate, I don't know who it is.

Ziggy, the fact that you "may" be a Libertarian....PLEASE do not vote for Obama. Stay home! Do anything, but Obama is the antithesis of a Libertarian.

BTW, have you seen the movie The Savages?

http://www.foxnews.com/images/364479/0_61_041008_hc_barr_320.gif

[ThunderDan]

Retailguy-

First the social security limit on wages in 2008 is $102,000.

Now let's look at a couple of examples. Let's use 2007 tax rates because I'm not at my office.

Example 1.
Single individual making $45,000 a year all W-2 wages. Just graduated from school and was lucky enough to get a full academic ride to UW-Madison. He lives in an apartment and doesn't itemize because he doesn't qualify.

He pays $3,440 in payroll taxes and has an AGI (adjust gross income) of $45,000. His taxable income is $36,250 so he pays $5,490 in income tax. He is in the 25% tax bracket. In total he pays $8,930 in taxes. His effective tax rate is 19.8%.

Example 2.
Family of 4. This guys a little older. He is the owner of his own business. Let's make it an S-Corporation so he does have to worry about double taxation. His company makes $200,000 a year in profit. He takes $100,000 on his W-2 and take $100,000 in S-corp earnings on his K-1. Lets make this simple. He doesn't have any investment accounts which would actual lower his effective tax rate. He only has his 401(k) thru the company. His gross income is $200,000.

He pays $7,650 in payroll taxes and his AGI is $185,000. What??? I thought his income was $200,000. He maximizes his 401(k) contribution to $15,000 from his W-2 wages; I'm goning to ignore the $5,000 his company pays for the employer portion of the 401(k) that because he is the owner he no longer has to pay tax on. He get's limited because of his $100,000s in wages. Most clients me maximize their W-2 wages to allow a $29,000 employer match.

But wait, his taxable income isn't $185,000. He owns a house. A nice house. He pays $18,000 a year in mortgage interest and $9,000 a year in property taxes. He has 7% withheld in state withholdings of $7,000. He and his brothers bought a cabin up north and pays $3,000 a year in mortgage interest and $1,000 in real estate taxes. He also gives $1,000 to his church because he is doing well. He only gets to itemize $38,100 because of income limitations. His taxable income is $133,300. He pays $26,320 in income tax. He is in the 28% tax bracket. In total he pays $33,970. His effective tax rate is 16.9%.

Hold on how can that be!!! :shock:

The man making $45,000 is paying 19.8% and The man making $200,000 is paying 16.9%

That's a regressive tax system. The wealthier man is paying almost 3% less in effective tax rate.

Now lets talk about the points I ignored.
1. Man 2 could be effected by the alternative minimum tax. But because I'm not at the office I can't tell you for sure. Or at least I don't wont to spend the time to calculate that.
2. Man 2 also got $5,000 in employer match put into his 401(k). Since he is the owner he effectively is not paying any income or social secuirty tax on an additional $5,000.
3. He owns the building his S-Corporation works out of in an LLC. So the $60,000 per year in rent he is paying is going back into his own pocket. I'm assuming between taxes, interest expense, depreciation and other expenses it nets to zero. Usually its a loss but it would then be limited by passive activity rules anyway. So that's another $60,000 he effectively isn't paying tax on.
4. He takes clients out to dinners and golfing. They are his friends because he is a very successful business owner. He spends $15,000 a year in meals and entertainment. You only get to deduct 50% so he is really not paying tax on another $7,500.

So in total he is not paying taxes on another $72,500 in "phantom income". Benefits he enjoys and gets to deduct on his S-corporation tax return.

I'm his CPA so I am looking out for his best interest. He tells me he is going to retire in a couple of years and wants to move to FL. I tell he great. I'm glad you told me this far in advance.

You see he bought his building for $400,000 20 years ago and it's now worth $850,000. If he sold the building he would have to pay 25% on his previous depreciation expense taken and 15% on top of the recapture. So let's say that works out to $75,000 for recapture and $67,500 on the gain. He would have to pay $142,500 in taxes in selling his building.

Instead, I have him do a like-kind exchange for investment property in FL. His gain is differed into his new building. This means that the $142,500 in taxes doesn't have to paid until he sells the FL piece of property he just bought.

Now we wait two years. We convert the investment property to his personal home and after living there for 2 years the $67,500 in taxes gets wiped away. He never has to pay it. It get's better. He passes away and he gets to step-up the value of his home to its fair market value. Now he doesn't even have to pay the tax of $75,000. I just saved my client $142,500.

So, once again don't believe everything you hear at face value. A lot of the campaign "talk" isn't the actual truth just like the effective tax rate in the USA. Of coursee we can pick different examples and come out all over the map but flat out saying people who make more money pay more in federal taxes isn't honest.

[SkinBasket]

Wow. That's a bunch of bullshit.

[wist43]

RG,

Now i realize that you aren't just dishonest, but tone deaf.


Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

If you can't follow where you insulted him...then, really, there is little hope for you.

How is that insulting? He's trying to help the guy. You're an idiot. And RG just served for liberal dumbass homeboy Thunder Danny.

Trying to help a business owner and CPA? Insulting him before he even knows his background?

You are such a dumbass.

I question the truth of the business owner....I have a hard time believing many business owners (who aren't bleeding off the gov't) could support obama....really hard.

Agreed. My dad knows many, and I've met many myself. NONE are democrats as far as I can tell from discussion business and politics with them.

You know, I'm not a Republican, but for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would be a democrat... they stand for no good thing.

To me America is about freedom. The Democratic Party is about control - the very antithesis of what America is supposed to be about. They (leftists in general) survive, and even thrive, b/c they've infested our school systems, and long ago targetted and taken over the media and academia. Unfortunately, most people are weak minded sheep and are unable to see thru the brainwashing.

I want to live my life and be left alone. Free from government interference. I don't want to control other people. I don't want to tell them how to spend their money, or how much they should earn - yet, the majority of Americans don't see it that way, and certainly no democrat sees it that way.



Except when the Repubs are messing with our personal lives..then it is ok. :oops:

I don't want anybody messing with my life, or with yours, be they Republican or Democrat; either by personal means or by use of the government - which is far worse, and far more dangerous.

As I said, I am not a member of the Republican Party. I am much more of a Libertarian, which given todays definitions is much more in line with what our founding fathers would consider themselves.

Fosco33 wrote, and i agree, so I thought I'd just copy and paste it:


I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

-------------------------------------------------

The limits Fosco33 would be referring to, would be limits upon government, which are republican principles. Our founders talk a great deal about the virtues of republican principles, and castigate democratic principles.

Democracies are very, very dangerous, and always end in tyranny. It may take several decades, or even a couple of centuries to play out, but democracies always devolve into mobacracies.

As for the Libertarian Party... I've met both Bob Barr and Ron Paul on several occassions. Both outstanding men, I especially have a liking for Dr. Paul. Truly a great statesman.

However, the threat posed by Obama, and the mob behind him, should be enough to terrify any person with even the most limited understanding of how societies die; i.e. democracy, mobocracy, anarchy, tyranny.

For that reason, I will hold my breath, close my eyes, and pull the lever for McCain. I feel terrible doing it; but, as I said, I'm just being pragmatic and trying to buy time. I see no stopping the mob in the long run.

[Partial]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

I may be a Libertarian. It would be nice to see them get enough power to actually have a shot at the bigger elections. If they even have a presidential candidate, I don't know who it is.

It should have been Ron Paul. Bob Barr is running as a libertarian I believe

[Partial]

Wow. That's a bunch of bullshit.

I completely agree.

[Partial]

More would succeed if it wasn't so GD expensive. Plan on giving 50% of what you earn back to big brother easily if you're a small business.

P,

Part of the problem is education. We don't "teach" people to be entrepenurial. If we did, the success rates would be higher. You learn as you go, mostly.

Even my business education and my MBA didn't really prepare me for running a business. Running a business, especially a new one is hard.

We cannot expect everyone to go out and run a business and make 100K a year. As freak out said, that's not easy. With the right education, and determination, most could succeed.

The problem is, that MOST don't want to. They want to come home and lose themselves in front of the big screen TV. That's fine, except for the part about wondering why they get left behind. Turn off the damn TV, read a non fiction book, and develop the drive to overachieve.... Then, it is less likely you'll get left behind.

I'm not saying its easy. Nothing in this life worth having is easy. Nobody makes the big bucks at an "easy" job, otherwise somebody could be doing it for 25k.

I agree with you completely. Lack of motivation. Some people don't know what hard work is. Then, they assume that everyone works as little as they do. Thus, they think its unfair that a small business owner is bringing home the big bucks. Little do they know that that person works twice as many hours...

[wist43]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

I may be a Libertarian. It would be nice to see them get enough power to actually have a shot at the bigger elections. If they even have a presidential candidate, I don't know who it is.

Ziggy, the fact that you "may" be a Libertarian....PLEASE do not vote for Obama. Stay home! Do anything, but Obama is the antithesis of a Libertarian.

BTW, have you seen the movie The Savages?

http://www.foxnews.com/images/364479/0_61_041008_hc_barr_320.gif

I agree with HR... MJ you seem far too intelligent, well informed, and grounded to be falling for Obama's populist nonsense.

[SkinBasket]

Wow. That's a bunch of bullshit.

I completely agree.

It's hard to buy these skewed numbers as the real world average (where of course all 45k earners pay their full lot in taxes with no exemptions and the 200k earner finds every loophole in the tax code) when our family has already paid more in fed+ss+medicare taxes than Mr. 45k makes in a year. We've still got Nov and Dec to go.

And this is before Obamasuckarama lifts the SS limits...

Yipee! I must be rich!

[ThunderDan]

Wow. That's a bunch of bullshit.

I completely agree.

It's hard to buy these skewed numbers as the real world average (where of course all 45k earners pay their full lot in taxes with no exemptions and the 200k earner finds every loophole in the tax code) when our family has already paid more in fed+ss+medicare taxes than Mr. 45k makes in a year. We've still got Nov and Dec to go.

And this is before Obamasuckarama lifts the SS limits...

Yipee! I must be rich!

I never said these were real world averages. But these are very "real" numbers for my clients. And if you have already paid in over $45,000 in federal, social security and medicare taxes by the end of October you make more than 95% of all Americans. Congratulations. And I mean that very sincerely.

I love working with business owners and other professionals because they are usually very interesting, fun loving people who are active in their communities.

[Partial]

Wow. That's a bunch of bullshit.

I completely agree.

It's hard to buy these skewed numbers as the real world average (where of course all 45k earners pay their full lot in taxes with no exemptions and the 200k earner finds every loophole in the tax code) when our family has already paid more in fed+ss+medicare taxes than Mr. 45k makes in a year. We've still got Nov and Dec to go.

And this is before Obamasuckarama lifts the SS limits...

Yipee! I must be rich!

I never said these were real world averages. But these are very "real" numbers for my clients. And if you have already paid in over $45,000 in federal, social security and medicare taxes by the end of October you make more than 95% of all Americans. Congratulations. And I mean that very sincerely.

I love working with business owners and other professionals because they are usually very interesting, fun loving people who are active in their communities.

One situation does not represent the typical state of affairs. Maybe the 45k earner should be a little smarter is my advice. If he can make it through madison as you claim, than he is likely smart enough to figure out how to maximize the system in his favor.

I can think of a few ways that he'd be paying close to ZERO in taxes.

[mraynrand]

Thunder Dan:

You did the same thing Obama does: you put payroll taxes in with income taxes. Why? Although it is a fraudulent, destructive ponzi scheme, SS is still a pension fund of sorts. So the effective income tax rate is around 10%, far lower than the 'rich' guy.

Also, even if you write off that 60K rent on the business, you still have to pay that 60K. You can't just sneeze at these money outlays. Finally, I bet that 'rich' guy has to pay the AMT and I bet it's a lot more.

[bobblehead]

RG,

You just got taken to school. Not only did ThunderDan answer your post, he did so eloquently and without derision.

You might learn a thing or two from him.

NOt really, dan went from claiming (made it sound like) the SS tax was 7.6% and ended up MUCH closer to RG's number (ended over 13%).

I wouldn't call that getting schooled. He also made many other points that weren't really the way he made it sound.

Schooled in the way to respond. No need to insult.

Fair enough...RG was a bit nastier than dan (at least it read that way)

[bobblehead]

RG,

Now i realize that you aren't just dishonest, but tone deaf.


Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

If you can't follow where you insulted him...then, really, there is little hope for you.

How is that insulting? He's trying to help the guy. You're an idiot. And RG just served for liberal dumbass homeboy Thunder Danny.

Trying to help a business owner and CPA? Insulting him before he even knows his background?

You are such a dumbass.

I question the truth of the business owner....I have a hard time believing many business owners (who aren't bleeding off the gov't) could support obama....really hard.

Of course you do. All the dems who support Obama are just poor, uneducated fools, lawyers, or finance guys. :oops:

See, we do agree on something political :shock:

[bobblehead]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

It certainly can...it just doesn't. I don't care what people do..have 10 babies, whatever. But the minute you engage in harmful behavior and expect me to FUND that behavior or bail you out of the consequences I am a hardcore conservative. Gays getting married...no problem here. Trying to make a church marry 2 gays....more of a problem. Forcing a doctor to perform an abortion that s/he doesn't want to....big problem. Getting an abortion in the first 11 weeks, not a problem. Getting a partial birth abortion 8 months and 2weeks into a pregnancy....murder.

[bobblehead]

And if you have already paid in over $45,000 in federal, social security and medicare taxes by the end of October you make more than 95% of all Americans. Congratulations. And I mean that very sincerely.



Don't you mean "congratulations, now I'm going to vote for Obama so I can gets me somma your loot"??

If you and RG have proven ONE thing it is that our tax structure is a fucking mess and we need a REAL change candidate who will implement a flat tax with ONE DEDUCTION based on #of dependents.

Remember...Marx...progressive taxation. We KNOW where the idea came from.

[retailguy]

And if you have already paid in over $45,000 in federal, social security and medicare taxes by the end of October you make more than 95% of all Americans. Congratulations. And I mean that very sincerely.



Don't you mean "congratulations, now I'm going to vote for Obama so I can gets me somma your loot"??

If you and RG have proven ONE thing it is that our tax structure is a fucking mess and we need a REAL change candidate who will implement a flat tax with ONE DEDUCTION based on #of dependents.

Remember...Marx...progressive taxation. We KNOW where the idea came from.

Bobblehead, the tax code is a mess, but it isn't likely to change for the better anytime soon. Flat/fair tax proposals will likely never become reality, and, in the "politics of class envy", it is likely to get worse, much worse before it gets better.

We used to have a highest effective rate of 70% before Reagan. We could approach those rates again before we get meaningful change.

[retailguy]

Retailguy-

First the social security limit on wages in 2008 is $102,000.

Now let's look at a couple of examples. Let's use 2007 tax rates because I'm not at my office. <snip>



Dan, yes, I am aware of the 2008 limit. I passed it many months ago. Working again on a W-2 is new for me, and I don't like it. I have always believed that it is the "least" tax advantageous way to earn an income, but it is what it is.

I was using the 2007 point of view because it is well defined and won't change. Apologies for confusing you.

I snipped your examples for two reasons, 1st, they aren't really representative of what we were discussing. We were discussing the social security taxes between a self employed individual and a w-2 individual. You were advocating a "discount" to the self employed taxpayer and I wasn't.

2nd, I think comparing a young kid 1 year out of college to a business person who has been doing this for years and is likely 20 years older misrepresents the point you're trying to make.

Mingling types of taxes also don't do you any favors (my viewpoint). Social security is a very different type of tax than federal income taxes. Someone mentioned it is partially a "savings plan". While in theory this is true, it is really just another tax.

Since it isn't just you and I reading this, lets review for everyone what a "regressive" tax is.


Regressive tax. In an absolute sense, this is a tax in which the rate falls as the taxable base increases, as with early Social Security. In a relative sense, it is a rise in total taxes paid as a percentage of one's income, as with most property and sales taxes.

http://www.utoledo.edu/as/pspa/faculty/LINDEEN/GLOS3260.HTM

I used this definition because I liked it, and it specifically mentioned Social Security. To adopt this viewpoint you'd have to "ignore" the savings plan aspect though (which isn't hard to do).

So, since social security has an "upper limit", not for medicare, but for social security itself, YES, those who exceed the limit pay a lower effective rate.

So, you want to call social security regressive, fine. But you really can't call the federal income tax regressive, and taking a taxpayer who has not maximized his limited options against a taxpayer who has strategically planned his tax position, is not only unfair, but it distorts your point. Also, taking advantage of legal tax planning options to reduce your tax doesn't make the tax itself regressive, as those "options" are available to all taxpayers. Whether or not you can utilize those options is not relevant in my opinion. Again, working on a w-2 gives you a limited set of options for tax planning.

In all fairness, this kid is ONE YEAR out of college. He's enjoying the fact that he's making money for the 1st time in his life. Hopefully when he got his tax bill, it was followed with a question of "How can I make this lower in the future?" If it wasn't, hopefully you explained that! This kid does have options to lower his federal income tax bill. Social security? Not so much.

Give me a few hours and I'll give you an example of social security and self employed.... Right now, I want to watch the game.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I'll just keep repeating that every time someone wants:

a) do drugs
b) buy alcohol on sunday
c) get an abortion in peace
d) not have the gov't worried/making laws about sexual practices
e) get married

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

[HowardRoark]

I'll just keep repeating that every time someone wants:

a) do drugs
b) buy alcohol on sunday
c) get an abortion in peace
d) not have the gov't worried/making laws about sexual practices
e) get married

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

Not my point. Each one on your list could be individually debated. "C" is a little benaeath your pay grade isn't it?

My point is that all of the social issues (not your lame little list), require money to fund them. This money comes from taxes (unless you are Tex), so you can't have one without the other.

Oh, and I don't think the government really cares too much about you....yet.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'll just keep repeating that every time someone wants:

a) do drugs
b) buy alcohol on sunday
c) get an abortion in peace
d) not have the gov't worried/making laws about sexual practices
e) get married

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

Not my point. Each one on your list could be individually debated. "C" is a little benaeath your pay grade isn't it?

My point is that all of the social issues (not your lame little list), require money to fund them. This money comes from taxes (unless you are Tex), so you can't have one without the other.

Oh, and I don't think the government really cares too much about you....yet.

I would hope that "c" would involve my input. I guess i have to spell out everything for you. Sigh.

Debated: How so? Should i not be free to do each one? Of course you dont' agree...because NOW you want to get involved in my life. Because YOUR morality/values tell you that it is ok.

You are a follower of Jesus and your religion has made it a point of FUCKING bothering others..you call it converting or bringing us to the lord. For the rest of us...we call it being a nuisance. There are many religions that don't proslytize.

You take that value and put it into the gov't where it certainly doesn't belong.

My lame list are things that are important to many. I guess your civil liberties don't matter.

You value certain "freedoms" more than others. Some of us don't value your freedoms the same way.

[HowardRoark]

I'll just keep repeating that every time someone wants:

a) do drugs
b) buy alcohol on sunday
c) get an abortion in peace
d) not have the gov't worried/making laws about sexual practices
e) get married

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

Not my point. Each one on your list could be individually debated. "C" is a little benaeath your pay grade isn't it?

My point is that all of the social issues (not your lame little list), require money to fund them. This money comes from taxes (unless you are Tex), so you can't have one without the other.

Oh, and I don't think the government really cares too much about you....yet.

I would hope that "c" would involve my input. I guess i have to spell out everything for you. Sigh.

Debated: How so? Should i not be free to do each one? Of course you dont' agree...because NOW you want to get involved in my life. Because YOUR morality/values tell you that it is ok.

You are a follower of Jesus and your religion has made it a point of FUCKING bothering others..you call it converting or bringing us to the lord. For the rest of us...we call it being a nuisance. There are many religions that don't proslytize.

You take that value and put it into the gov't where it certainly doesn't belong.

My lame list are things that are important to many. I guess your civil liberties don't matter.

You value certain "freedoms" more than others. Some of us don't value your freedoms the same way.

Sorry, I meant "B".

As far as the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never tried to convert you or ram anything down your throat. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn what you do.

As far as abortion, you are intellectually incapable of having that debate, so just stop while you are behind. How many times have you been asked where morals come from? Are there universal truths? The “values” question. You don't have answers.

Abortion is NOT a religious issue. It's a science issue. Keep worshipping your sky god Obama.

While I'm on the subject, what do you think about Peter Singer's ideas on the subject. At least he is honest.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'll just keep repeating that every time someone wants:

a) do drugs
b) buy alcohol on sunday
c) get an abortion in peace
d) not have the gov't worried/making laws about sexual practices
e) get married

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

Not my point. Each one on your list could be individually debated. "C" is a little benaeath your pay grade isn't it?

My point is that all of the social issues (not your lame little list), require money to fund them. This money comes from taxes (unless you are Tex), so you can't have one without the other.

Oh, and I don't think the government really cares too much about you....yet.

I would hope that "c" would involve my input. I guess i have to spell out everything for you. Sigh.

Debated: How so? Should i not be free to do each one? Of course you dont' agree...because NOW you want to get involved in my life. Because YOUR morality/values tell you that it is ok.

You are a follower of Jesus and your religion has made it a point of FUCKING bothering others..you call it converting or bringing us to the lord. For the rest of us...we call it being a nuisance. There are many religions that don't proslytize.

You take that value and put it into the gov't where it certainly doesn't belong.

My lame list are things that are important to many. I guess your civil liberties don't matter.

You value certain "freedoms" more than others. Some of us don't value your freedoms the same way.

Sorry, I meant "B".

As far as the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never tried to convert you or ram anything down your throat. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn what you do.

As far as abortion, you are intellectually incapable of having that debate, so just stop while you are behind. How many times have you been asked where morals come from? Are there universal truths? The “values” question. You don't have answers.

While I'm on the subject, what do you think about Peter Singer's ideas on the subject. At least he is honest.

How is B any different? Should i not be allowed to purchase alcohol on sunday? Why should it be at a different time than the rest of the week. And, yes, it did affect me..and businesses when i lived in the south (if you think i'm going to sunday brunch at 10 without a bloody mary you are crazy).

Proslytizing: Who said you? I was talking in general. But, if you don't think your posts are designed to influence or convert to your positions..then who is intellectually dishonest.

When someone talks about freedome FROM religion..they are talking MAINLY about christianity.

Abortion: incapable. LOL. Values..you and rand are so blindingly simplistic that you can't even conceive that i choose not to answer your questions not because i dont' have answers, but because it a)isn't worth my time b) IS A PRIVATE ISSUE. I fondly recall a time when people didn't pry into another's religion and values and it wasn't necessary to talk about your relationship with jesus in order to run for office.

You are the one..since your position comes strictly from a religious viewpoint. Certainly not scientific. The real point is that why is the gov't getting involved. At no point are any of our candidates saying anything better than it should be a state's right issue. At no point is any candidate saying it is morally wrong. So, you and the rest of your brethren would be wise to drop the whole morality issue. Stop subjecting us to your morality.

We are past that now. Abortion is legal. But, that doesn't stop your friends from bombing clinics, killing doctors, intimidating women and generally acting immoral (by your standards). I, don't have to worry about morality...i just have to follow the law. Since i agree with it..why would i spend any time worrying about it, debating it, etc. The law says it is legal. I shouldn't nor should anyone have to deal with conservatives prying into our lives.

And, i have been relentless honest about abortion. I have given my stance. Which if you had read..you would find that i agree with parts of singer. Course, i still believe that examing when something becomes human is valid.

And, you would have read that i would never have a child at a catholic hospital..pretty much aligning with the utilitarian viewpoint.

[HowardRoark]

How is B any different? Should i not be allowed to purchase alcohol on sunday? Why should it be at a different time than the rest of the week. And, yes, it did affect me..and businesses when i lived in the south (if you think i'm going to sunday brunch at 10 without a bloody mary you are crazy).

Proslytizing: Who said you? I was talking in general. But, if you don't think your posts are designed to influence or convert to your positions..then who is intellectually dishonest.

When someone talks about freedome FROM religion..they are talking MAINLY about christianity.

Abortion: incapable. LOL. Values..you and rand are so blindingly simplistic that you can't even conceive that i choose not to answer your questions not because i dont' have answers, but because it a)isn't worth my time b) IS A PRIVATE ISSUE. I fondly recall a time when people didn't pry into another's religion and values and it wasn't necessary to talk about your relationship with jesus in order to run for office.

You are the one..since your position comes strictly from a religious viewpoint. Certainly not scientific. The real point is that why is the gov't getting involved. At no point are any of our candidates saying anything better than it should be a state's right issue. At no point is any candidate saying it is morally wrong. So, you and the rest of your brethren would be wise to drop the whole morality issue. Stop subjecting us to your morality.

We are past that now. Abortion is legal. But, that doesn't stop your friends from bombing clinics, killing doctors, intimidating women and generally acting immoral (by your standards). I, don't have to worry about morality...i just have to follow the law. Since i agree with it..why would i spend any time worrying about it, debating it, etc. The law says it is legal. I shouldn't nor should anyone have to deal with conservatives prying into our lives.

And, i have been relentless honest about abortion. I have given my stance. Which if you had read..you would find that i agree with parts of singer. Course, i still believe that examing when something becomes human is valid.

And, you would have read that i would never have a child at a catholic hospital..pretty much aligning with the utilitarian viewpoint.

I agree with you on the alcohol on Sunday thing. Get your state law changed. It can’t be that difficult. That’s not a very tough subject.

As for as my proselytizing; of course I am trying to make the best case for my side of the debate. It would seem rather pointless to do otherwise. I have never tried to sway anybody on religion however. And where does this “freedom FROM religion” come from; another new Bill of Rights?

So these questions on morals and values just aren’t worth old Ty’s time. Where exactly is that bar set for issues that are worth your time. And secondarily, since when did I bring up religion? I brought up Universal Truths and morals. Quit bringing up religion.

I do not think abortion is a religious issue. It is a science issue, you are the one who keeps bringing up Jesus AND pushing YOUR morality of the pro-abortion agenda on me. Remember Ty, no morality is a morality. And no Ty, my friends do not blow anyone or anything up. That’s Ayers.

The law of the land is that drugs are illegal, why do you bring that one up? It’s the law of the land, no need to debate it. Your intellectual dishonesty has been noted.

[mraynrand]

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

The govt. won't look into your records unless you ask Obama an uncomfortable question. Since that won't ever happen, you will be OK.

And you should just rely on the collective opinion of British scientists for your moral guidance on abortion.

[bobblehead]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I'll just keep repeating that every time someone wants:

a) do drugs
b) buy alcohol on sunday
c) get an abortion in peace
d) not have the gov't worried/making laws about sexual practices
e) get married

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

1) pay for your rehabilitation
2) that is local ordinances and is not political party dependent
3) some people just think that is murder 3b) Don't ask me to pay for it or force a doctor to perform the "procedure"
4) you mean like gay marriage?? I agree the gov't should stay out of it.
5) marriage is an outdated concept...it should be performed by the churches only.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

How is B any different? Should i not be allowed to purchase alcohol on sunday? Why should it be at a different time than the rest of the week. And, yes, it did affect me..and businesses when i lived in the south (if you think i'm going to sunday brunch at 10 without a bloody mary you are crazy).

Proslytizing: Who said you? I was talking in general. But, if you don't think your posts are designed to influence or convert to your positions..then who is intellectually dishonest.

When someone talks about freedome FROM religion..they are talking MAINLY about christianity.

Abortion: incapable. LOL. Values..you and rand are so blindingly simplistic that you can't even conceive that i choose not to answer your questions not because i dont' have answers, but because it a)isn't worth my time b) IS A PRIVATE ISSUE. I fondly recall a time when people didn't pry into another's religion and values and it wasn't necessary to talk about your relationsh with jesus in order to run for office.

You are the one..since your position comes strictly from a religious viewpoint. Certainly not scientific. The real point is that why is the gov't getting involved. At no point are any of our candidates saying anything better than it should be a state's right issue. At no point is any candidate saying it is morally wrong. So, you and the rest of your brethren would be wise to drop the whole morality issue. Stop subjecting us to your morality.

We are past that now. Abortion is legal. But, that doesn't stop your friends from bombing clinics, killing doctors, intimidating women and generally acting immoral (by your standards). I, don't have to worry about morality...i just have to follow the law. Since i agree with it..why would i spend any time worrying about it, debating it, etc. The law says it is legal. I shouldn't nor should anyone have to deal with conservatives prying into our lives.

And, i have been relentless honest about abortion. I have given my stance. Which if you had read..you would find that i agree with parts of singer. Course, i still believe that examing when something becomes human is valid.

And, you would have read that i would never have a child at a catholic hospital..pretty much aligning with the utilitarian viewpoint.

I agree with you on the alcohol on Sunday thing. Get your state law changed. It can’t be that difficult. That’s not a very tough subject.

As for as my proselytizing; of course I am trying to make the best case for my side of the debate. It would seem rather pointless to do otherwise. I have never tried to sway anybody on religion however. And where does this “freedom FROM religion” come from; another new Bill of Rights?

So these questions on morals and values just aren’t worth old Ty’s time. Where exactly is that bar set for issues that are worth your time. And secondarily, since when did I bring up religion? I brought up Universal Truths and morals. Quit bringing up religion.

I do not think abortion is a religious issue. It is a science issue, you are the one who keeps bringing up Jesus AND pushing YOUR morality of the pro-abortion agenda on me. Remember Ty, no morality is a morality. And no Ty, my friends do not blow anyone or anything up. That’s Ayers.

The law of the land is that drugs are illegal, why do you bring that one up? It’s the law of the land, no need to debate it. Your intellectual dishonesty has been noted.

State law: Obviously you've never lived in the south. Your statement is so ludicrous that i almost hurt myself falling of my chair laughing.

Proslytizing: Again, what part of i'm not talking specifically about you..about conservatives and christians. You are part of that group.

Time: Nice of you to ignore part B. Pretty much SOP for you. As to what is worth my time..again, that is my issue. I dont' have to explain or justify anything to you. If i choose to discuss it i will..if not..oh well.

Universal Truths: Really? LOL. And, for you to tell me that your truths and morality dont' come from your religion/culture is laughable.

Abortion: I bring up jesus? Nope. You've got it wrong. Please review my stance. What i did do is give several defintions of life..including scientific and religious.

Friends: No one is accusing you of direct friendship. However the conservative movement is quite vocal and certainly hasn't discouraged the type of illegal acts that have been perpetrated.

But, I notice that you can't refute intimidation.

Law of the land: Of course it is the law of the land. But, why is it so? If you think it isn't based on conservative and religious values then you are crazy.

More importanly, the issue was personal freedoms and how conservatives encroach upon them. Nice bob and weave.

Conservatives intrude upon or personal lives. Simple as that.

[HowardRoark]

Universal Truths: Really? LOL. And, for you to tell me that your truths and morality dont' come from your religion/culture is laughable.
There are no truths. Don't put words in my mouth.


Law of the land: Of course it is the law of the land. But, why is it so? If you think it isn't based on conservative and religious values then you are crazy.
And your laws come from your morality.

Liberals intrude upon or personal lives. Simple as that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Universal Truths: Really? LOL. And, for you to tell me that your truths and morality dont' come from your religion/culture is laughable.
There are no truths. Don't put words in my mouth.


Law of the land: Of course it is the law of the land. But, why is it so? If you think it isn't based on conservative and religious values then you are crazy.
And your laws come from your morality.

Liberals intrude upon or personal lives. Simple as that.

Truths? Then why did you just say that is what you talk about (universal truths)? I think you are in the full throes of ODS. :lol:

What laws do i have?

If the framers wanted us to live free..i certainly don't see anything about when to drink, why we shouldn't do drugs, etc.

And, just like that, you can't deny that conservatives intrude in our lives.

[HowardRoark]

Truths? Then why did you just say that is what you talk about (universal truths)? I think you are in the full throes of ODS. :lol:

What laws do i have?

If the framers wanted us to live free..i certainly don't see anything about when to drink, why we shouldn't do drugs, etc.

And, just like that, you can't deny that conservatives intrude in our lives.

I asked you whether or not there are universal truths. I never mentioned whether or not I think there are truths. It is obvious there are universal truths. Even you, with your dogmatic ways, know this. You just can’t admit it because it does not fit your worldview. You have mentioned that morals do not come from universal truths; rather, they come from values…..which in turn come from family, tradition, etc. A while ago I posed the question to you whether it is moral for a PLO terrorist to go blow up Jews. I never heard back from you.

Roe v. Wade is currently the law of the land in our country. I consider that law to be based on the moralities of people such as you. As much as you like to fool yourself into believing that you are some kind of Renaissance man free of morality, your no morals are a morality.