grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 15, 2012 9:11:18 GMT -5
Democratic Plan for tax code streamlining and simplification.
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Apr 15, 2012 10:22:36 GMT -5
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that when they see an inequity in the tax system, The Dems try to correctit and The Republicans try to protect it ( while complaining about a Democrat) Charlie Thanks Charlie. With the weather we're having, I needed something to laugh at.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 15, 2012 11:30:07 GMT -5
Jake, every executive pays less taxes than their secretaries... and instead of being happy about it, some Executives have a conscience and are trying to do something about changing that. They know it's wrong.
What I don't get is why you don't see that it's wrong. Should someone making more than you get to pay less for utilities than you? Should they pay less for food than you?
What's fair about paying LESS because you make MORE?
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Apr 15, 2012 11:36:48 GMT -5
Helen, when have I ever said it was right ? Please point out any post I've made, saying it was right.
Oh, and by the way, I'm Don. My dog is Jake.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 15, 2012 12:10:51 GMT -5
I knew that Don, I guess when I respond quick, I just pull the name off of the title. Sorry about that:). Well it's not right, that's why the Dems are trying to take the babystep of making the rich pay a minimum 30%.
Secretaries can't FIND enough deductions to crawl lower in taxes to pay, they don't get the super rich loopholes. How do you equalize that? Cut taxes more... from where?
Again, only thing left to cut is Social Security and Medicare... and here we go round to my first post about politics on this forum. Taxes have to go up on the rich... the people paying NOT ONE PENNY in taxes, or LESS taxes than their Secretaries, because they have bribed politicians to vote them loopholes regular Americans do not get. Those Executives who benefit from that know it is WRONG and are fighting to change it. If we all agree it's WRONG, what are you arguing for then? You will vote Democrat this year.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 15, 2012 12:27:24 GMT -5
There is a lot that can be cut before endangering Social Security and Medicare. Seems to me it would make sense to eliminate porky ear-marks, waste, fraud and silly grants. Government should show some accountability and a change in direction before reaching even deeper into the pockets of those who fuel our economy. Coburn releases list of most wasteful government spending A few lowlights: • $75,000 to promote awareness about the role Michigan plays in producing Christmas trees & poinsettias. • $15.3 million for one of the infamous Bridges to Nowhere in Alaska. • $113,227 for video game preservation center in New York. • $550,000 for a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. • $48,700 for 2nd annual Hawaii Chocolate Festival, to promote Hawaii's chocolate industry. • $350,000 to support an International Art Exhibition in Venice, Italy. • $10 million for a remake of "Sesame Street" for Pakistan. • $35 million allocated for political party conventions in 2012. • $765,828 to subsidize "pancakes for yuppies" in the nation's capital. • $764,825 to study how college students use mobile devices for social networking. Full list here www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 15, 2012 13:04:35 GMT -5
I agree that those should be eliminated, Gray. No argument. Here's the bigger problem, I bolded the parts of the exerpt you should come up with a response for please: www.tnr.com/article/politics/80222/tom-coburn-adds-to-government-wasteOutright fraud. The “Wastebook” notes that scam artists have swindled Medicare, yet ranks this outrage on par with the $30,000 spent on a new Hawaiian cookbook. But the two aren't comparable at all—by some estimates, Medicare and Medicaid lose $60 billion each year from fraud. And some of the stories are horrific: NPR reported that some clinics in Florida were billing Medicare for expensive HIV/AIDS drugs and then injecting patients with saline solution. (The Medicare fraud industry has become so lucrative that many of Miami's drug traffickers are switching careers.)
A big reason fraud is so rampant, however, is that the government spends too little on enforcement: The FBI can’t keep up with increasingly clever cons. Democrats tried to tackle this in the stimulus bill, providing $200 million to attack scams and billions more to computerize medical records (which will likely help investigators catch dubious billing practices). But conservatives savaged the stimulus, and they’re obviously not proposing an increase in spending to crack down on Medicare hucksters.
What’s more, Coburn overlooks an even bigger fraud problem: tax evasion. A 2008 report from the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations found that the United States loses a whopping $100 billion each year from offshore tax havens—orders of magnitude larger than all those gold-plated toilets combined. And yet, this gets no mention at all. (Coburn is, however, alarmed by the $112 million in bogus tax refunds that prisoners received last year.) So the Republicans SABOTAGED the efforts to increase enforcement to check for FRAUD, and the Republicans OVERLOOK 100 billion dollars in Offshore tax havens. So which party is more concerned about FINDING and FIXING the FRAUD? The people who want to COMPLAIN, but WILL NOT FUND FINDING AND ENFORCING, or those who want to FIX the fraud but CANNOT get the help with enforcement?
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Apr 15, 2012 16:02:36 GMT -5
"Voting any party other than the Federalist or Democratic Republicans is throwing away your vote" I wonder if anyone said that in 1816. Are they around anymore? Are there still Whigs? National Union? The above parties all have elected presidents, and there are many more who have elected Representatives and Senators. For whatever reason they have all become nothing but a bit of history. For our nation to survive the malignant cancer known as the 2-party system must be removed. As long as the majority allows the media to brainwash us into believing they are the only choice we continue in the wrong direction. While I believe Obama as a chief executive is taking us there faster than Romney would, I also think that a Romney Presidency will lead to an overwhelming majority of the most liberal Democrats ever in both houses of congress. Obama, on the other hand, will cause the exact opposite reaction, with a legislative branch that might just begin to legislate common sense for a change. In a nutshell, out of the two turds we are offerred the smelliest POS may be the best $#!+ for us over the long haul. But I don't vote for turds. I'm not brainwashed. Maybe a little opinionated, at least my wife thinks so. ;D Lee
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 15, 2012 16:21:07 GMT -5
Lee, you NAILED it. If we get a Republican Congress THIS YEAR, for the next 8, odds are VERY good we are going to have the most liberal gov't the USA has ever seen as a reaction. I'd rather have Obama now, then 4 years from now be guaranteed another Moderate Republican for the next 8. THAT is balance.
But again... Romney has some BIG BUSINESS going full steam with everything they got to put him there NOW. We are but one voice each. The frustration just eats me up, which is why I wail about it here so much.
I further agree with you that a 3rd party would be nice... but no 3rd party can come up with the kind of money the current 2 sides can command... so you have people who are anywhere between the extremes sneaking in to run in whichever party will take them (Ron Paul for example).
The thing is... as I read the notes, we are ALL pretty much in agreement about how things should be, just not who will get us there. That's the incredible irony.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 15, 2012 16:57:10 GMT -5
Helen to your query earlier, I cannot disagree with you or defend anyone refusing to fund enforcement. Whatever it takes we have to trim the dead wood.
Lee, great historical points you made. So, if I get your drift, you think it is good to vote third party because if it throws the vote to favor Obama, you can live with that for the reasons you outlined above.
I surmise that you do not feel the potential extremism we are likely to see in Obama's second term is as detrimental as Romney and a Dem congress? And who is to say the Republican's can't take it all? Could happen.
Though most here assume I am a stanch Rep, I switched to Ind. 4 years ago. Trouble is, though I am a bit of a 'black helicopter' believer I am not quite comfy with all of Ron Paul's views, some I see are downright dangerous. And he was the best choice for the non-of-the-above crowd.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 15, 2012 20:13:54 GMT -5
Ron Paul sounds great until he hits the part about NO military. Then he lost me.
Given our history in 200 years, can this nation have NO military? Because Canada sure isn't going to defend us if we get attacked. Or you think Isreal will? They'd have their hands full trying to survive.
When he gets to that point, I completely lose interest.
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Apr 15, 2012 20:39:24 GMT -5
No gray, you don't get my drift. I want to see the best man elected, not the kinda sorta ok, slightly less disasterous to the country, piece of crap candidate. The progression of Republican candidates lately has been like a movie title. Dumb, Dumber and Dumberer. The Republicans can take it all, simply because Obama is basically a chi-town mobster. But they can't keep it all for long once the American public discovers that Mittens is an empty suit. I prefer a backlash on Obama to one on the Republican party, not because the Reps are not pretty much totally corrupt just like the dems, but because thinking American people connect the GOP to solid constitutional principles, so when they are shown to be fools the knee-jerk reaction is to run to those who would destoy the constitution. Another huge benefit is if a majority from both houses can put an end to the unconstitutional wielding of legislative power that recent presidents are guilty of. The Czars, presidential edicts and whatnot need to end. I vote third party because we need change. To Dems or Repubs change means a different flavor of the same old $#!+. It's not about black whirley birds or conspiracies, it's just that when the garment becomes so soiled and stained that it can never be made clean again it's time for a new one.
Lee
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Apr 15, 2012 21:28:27 GMT -5
Helen, I guess I don't understand what you mean by moderate. The recurring problem with "Moderates" is they don't seem to find it a problem when fudamental human liberties are infringed upon. Moderates will smile and nod to those who interpret the constitution as intended, while working with those who feel it must be re-interpreted. Moderates will bristle with anger at an attack on our nation from without, all the while taking away our freedoms under the guise of protecting us from the boogey man or from our own choices
I'm not so sure we agree on the method or the end Definitely not the person Obama will not take US anywhere Obama is strictly the vehicle for the success of OBAMA The world that is important to him ends at the tip of his own nose. He must be defeated, not in the polls, but in the congress. A huge majority to completely SHUT HIM DOWN is what we need
Lee
It just occurred to me that Obama and Romney are actually very similar. Both are managers Obama is an extremely poor manager Romney a fair to middlin manager Problem is, we don't need a manager, we need a leader.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 15, 2012 22:19:43 GMT -5
Well Lee, that's not what a Moderate is in my opinion. The Constitution is what all our rights are based on, and I don't want it infringed on at all. I do not know what you mean by 'taking away our freedoms'. Which freedoms are you referring to that a Moderate (either Reagan or Obama) have taken away from us or are attempting to take away, specifically?
If you are referring to ObamaCare, what's happening right now is what should happen. The Supreme Court is the arbiter of the Constitution. Those 9 lazy overpaid people need to do SOMETHING at least once a term to show they deserve to earn a paycheck. They will decide whether the law is constitutional or not, and I am perfectly happy with the conclusion they come out with either way.
Is mandated health insurance absurd? No more than mandated car insurance. People say you don't have to own a car, but in the vast majority of the country, no car, no job, no access to food, no access to medical care. Yet they can mandate car insurance. What I'd RATHER see is the public option, and it would put all these silly debates to rest, WHILE reducing everyone's prices for Insurance... because no matter how healthy you are, at some point you will need medical care, and someone else shouldn't have to pay for it because you don't feel like paying for your own insurance before you need it. Everyone needs at least some medical care.
I don't LOVE Obama. I will defend Obama because the other option, Romney, is APPALLING, and I WANT everyone to vote for Obama. I have repeatedly stated that there are things I do not like about Obama... but when you have 2 choices, you don't pick the worst one, which is Romney. Picking no one means by default, you may be picking Romney. That is not acceptable.
However, I am not in agreement with you that Obama is a dictator or wants to limit our freedoms. He's too wishy washy and pandering to ever be tyrant material. He can't reinterpret the Constitution, our checks and balances would prevent it, as it is right now with the ObamaCare in the Supreme Court. Everything's working as planned, according to the Constitution. Where's the objection?
You may not agree with Obama, but there IS no other candidate but Romney. Are you saying that that con artist that escaped jail because of easing of laws (possibly just for him) should be President? No matter how bad Obama is, he has no history of criminal behavior, regardless of the idiocy surrounding his background. The world ending at the tip of his nose... on what basis do you make that statement? I must not be reading what you are reading, so I'll wait for enlightenment there.
What we NEED is to get RID of the Republican Congress, who has so far cost the US our AAA rating, cannot agree to allocate funds to enforce the elimination of 'waste' they continually carp about, and who protect Big Business at the expense of the backbone of this nation, small business. Who perpetuate the inequity of the tax system, which has only existed since Bush took office. They need to go.
Romney is no manager at all, he's a corporate raider. His idea of management is to take loans out in his prey's name, pocket the money, and let his prey sink into bankruptcy. Then he was elected to the Governor of Massachusetts, where he did almost the same thing, borrowed money, dropped them to #47 in employment, and then created 100K minimum wage jobs, losing who knows how many middle class jobs, enriching himself further in the process.
Whatever rotten thing to be said about Obama, and there are rotten things that can be said about Obama, he's not as low as that. When your choice is between ugly and uglier, ugly starts looking pretty good.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 16, 2012 9:10:39 GMT -5
Obama & CO . . . ugly? The terms I would use are incompetent, lazy and deceptive. Report: Democrat-controlled Senate laziest in 20 years washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/04/report-democrat-controlled-senate-laziest-20-years/493996For those who need proof that the Senate was a do-nothing chamber in 2011 beyond the constant partisan bickering and failure to pass a federal budget, there is now hard evidence that it was among the laziest in 20 years. In her latest report, Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson revealed a slew of data that put the first session of the 112th Senate at the bottom of Senates since 1992 in legislative productivity, an especially damning finding considering that it wasn’t an election year when congressional action is usually lower. For example, while the Democratically-controlled Senate was in session for 170 days, it spent an average of just 6.5 hours in session on those days, the second lowest since 1992. Only 2008 logged a lower average of 5.4 hours a day, and that’s when action was put off because several senators were running for president, among them Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. On the passage of public laws, arguably its most important job, the Senate notched just 90, the second lowest in 20 years, and it passed a total of 402 measures, also the second lowest. And as the president has been complaining about, the chamber confirmed a 20-year low of 19,815 judicial and other nominations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And Obama's Poster Boy Warren Buffett? The one who has stepped up in heroic fashion to lead the way by begging that his and other rich people's taxes be raised? Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520But it turns out that Buffett’s own company, Berkshire Hathaway, has had every opportunity to pay more taxes over the last decade. Instead, it’s been mired in a protracted legal battle with the Internal Revenue Service over a bill that one analyst estimates may total $1 billion. Yes, that’s right: while Warren Buffett complains that the rich aren’t paying their fair share his own company has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid paying a larger share. “Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his 'mega-rich friends' should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?” the Post opined. “Likely answer: He cares more about shilling for President Obama -- who’s practically made socking “millionaires and billionaires” his re-election theme song -- than about kicking in more himself.”
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 16, 2012 11:05:44 GMT -5
You obviously don't know who Warren Buffett is. He is the best investor in US history... the posterboy for Capitalism, and a living legend in the investment world. Years ago, people used to pay I think it was $50,000 to take him to lunch. LOL! He was and is the Picasso (who got $5,000 for signing a napkin at dinner!), or the Salvadore Dali of investments. He's considered a genius, and investors big and small still fawn over his every word. He owns the majority share of Berkshire, but you seem to have confused it with a small business. LOL! ONE SHARE of Berkshire stock is $119,114, as of this minute, it went up $780 today. To put in perspective how big Berkshire is... here's their Income Statement, their market cap is 200 BILLION DOLLARS: finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BRK-A+Income+Statement&annualLets see... they have the SAME Market Cap as Chevron, I believe that's #2 in Big Oil (Exxon is bigger), but lets compare Income Statements: finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=CVX+Income+Statement&annualOh look, Berkshire's gross income is $111 billion for this year, Chevron's only $82 billion. That said, do you think Berkshire is the local pizza store? To command a gross profit 20% higher than Chevron Corporations (and I think higher than Exxon's this year, but haven't looked), you think they have one accountant who tells Warren Buffett personally what their taxes are? Or maybe you think he sits in a cubicle and does the taxes alongside his wife? Berkshire probably did OWE taxes, and dodged em like everyone else tried to. What's that got to do with Warren Buffett? Compared to Berkshire, Mitt Romney's Baines Capital is a peanut... but do you think that Mitt sits in a cubicle and did taxes for it with Anne? LOL! Maybe you should google who Warren Buffett is:).
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 16, 2012 11:07:16 GMT -5
As for lazy Senate, I'll take that over destructive House any day.
We have a pretty crappy Senate too, and now that I think about it, you are right, they are kinda lazy and worthless. Yuck. Wish there was an option to throw the lot out and start over, but that would really be worse... an ENTIRE Congress worth of freshmen is complete gridlock.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 16, 2012 11:30:52 GMT -5
Meh, was going to edit the first note, it sounds snotty, and I didn't mean that tone. Was just taken aback by that.
Warren Buffett is like Thomas Edison on Wall Street, with the most uncanny knack for making money. He missed the big Tech bubble in 1999, and started falling from grace because of it... but on hindsight, he was right again, that tech bubble cleaned out a lot of people, complete with jumping out windows. Since then, Berkshire has PLOWED through every fund to make everyone gape in awe again at him.
To put this in perspective, BRK.A (his closed fund) was as low as $44,000 in 2000... and today is $119,000 a share. To put in perspective how badass this is, the S&P500 in 2000 was at 1450, and today is 1368.... he DOUBLED his money, while most funds are scrambling back to even in that time frame.
It used to be that every single word out of Buffett's mouth was considered gold and insider info, even tho he had no insider info. He'd like something, and it would MOVE that stock. This is far less so today, but Warren Buffett is THE TOP of the Investment chain, not somewhere in the middle like Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney's dream in life is to someday be Warren Buffett. Heck, EVERY SINGLE investor's dream is to someday be Warren Buffett, from the CEO of Bank of America to the little stock trader at Merrill Lynch. Everyone wants to be Warren Buffett. That's why his taking on a political role is so meaningful, and so many people want to shoot him down, because words out of that man MOVES money things, and everyone knows it.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 16, 2012 11:47:26 GMT -5
Berkshire probably did OWE taxes, and dodged em like everyone else tried to. What's that got to do with Warren Buffett? I am quite aware of who Buffett is. What is relevant to this discussion is that he is a Democrat stumping for Obama, while being a major hypocrite. So, your defense of his tax evasion on a grand scale is that this is a huge corporation? The Buffet tax is for wage earners over a Million, so Warren has cred because his tax evasion is a corporation that he has complete say over? If anything, the big corps should pony up before the individual wage earners, no? That says a lot about selective judgmentalism. What does he have to do with Berkshire?, Are you serious?
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 16, 2012 12:02:42 GMT -5
I do not defend Berkshire.
I think the fitting punishment is to do the usual IRS 1/2% for every month the balance is owed from day 1, and that will bring in many free billions to the Treasury for Berkshire's sloppy oversight. Berkshire owing the IRS money is all good from where I sit:).
Taxes are for accountants Gray. At his level, I do not think he spends even a minute thinking about it. Of course I'm serious. His accounting Dept is probably undergoing a purge right now, those who screwed up are going to be fired, and the company will pay lots and lots of money. Better even than matching donations to the treasury. It helps the deficit. What's the problem?
|
|