The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://front.moveon.org/the-elizabeth-warren-quote-every-american-needs-to-see/  http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/278106/elizabeth-warrens-quote-reihan-salam

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you!

But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.

But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

discuss

Good luck with this. Last spring when I posted pretty much the same thing in regards to Guido's "I did it myself" routine....no one agreed with me. I still like the idea  that with enough hard work, determination, education and common sense that anyone can succeed in business. As a realist however I know its just as much, or more, a function of good luck, good timing, community support, family influence, family money, where you're born, who raised you, where you're educated and who you know. Sometimes God given talent.

Probably because you, and many others, place too much emphasis on what society, family, etc has provided and not enough on an individual's will to succeed.

If our friend the successful factory owner pays more taxes than "the rest of us" and employs "the rest of us" and adheres to the same laws and regulations as "the rest of us," then why would we show such anger towards him for not paying even more?  

True, he is successful because we buy his products, and we do so because we value his products over the money that they cost.  In addition he provides jobs for us, and through the taxes he pays (far greater than the taxes we pay) he funds better schools for us to send our kids to and better road for us to drive on.  Remove him from the equation, and you reduce our quality of life.  Communities are successful because of men and women like our factory owner, not the other way around.

To turn the argument around and say that he somehow owes a debt to society beyond his taxes, and beyond the jobs and prosperity he provides for others is blatantly socialistic.  Mrs. Warren angrily implies that the success of one person detracts from the success of others and that is false.  She is an idiot of the highest magnitude.

On a more personal side, growing up my father always taught me that if you hang around successful people you will become successful, and your duty is to help others become successful, wealth has little to do with it.  I have found that to be very true.  I have also found that successful people enjoy nothing more than to help others achieve success.  They take great pride in increasing the success of everyone around them.  They enjoy wealth and the comfort and security that comes with it.  They care very little about power.

On the contrary, I have found that people who exhibit anger at the success of others enjoy nothing more than tearing down those around them.  They view successful people as obstacles and impediments.  They profess charity and aid to others, but only as a means to their own success, and only through the wallet or will of others.  They think wealth is power, but it's not the only power they covet. Their goal is power, it could be wealth, admiration, adoration, validation, worship, or publicity. They want to serve "causes" not goals, because causes provide the flavor of power that they desire without the risk of failure.

Oh, yeah, that "rugged individualism" concept. It worked fine in frontier times. Not so much now.

As a salesman on the road, I spent many years calling on businesses that were in various stages of doing very well, struggling and failing. I saw little difference in their will to succeed. In fact we used to laugh that there certainly was no correlation between knowing what you're doing and success in doing it.

That there ^ is some weird stuff.

Then your take-away wasn't very objective.  Of course there is a correlation.

Success in business is a combination of knowledge, motivation, attention to detail, attention to customer service, putting the right people in the right spots in your company, and sometimes just better survival instinct.  And a few more things I can't think of in a 30 second post ;)

Really? It is that simple?

If only I had played stickball with the royal family. I could have been somebody.

And your estimation of my take away is very subjective.

There can be a correlation and business college convinces a lot of people of that otherwise no one would attend. My road experience enlightened me that the most aggressive, the luckiest, the most dishonest, the most instinctual entrepreneur could overcome deficits in all the other criteria you listed and usually did. Its good to have those criteria in the long run for your personal self esteem and salvation but simply not necessary to succeed in business. Business is like nature; amoral, unforgiving of weakness and rewarding to  survivors.

Which reminds me, ever seen the movie/play "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying"? That and "Tin Men" are very instructional.

You forgot luck luck luck and luck.

Also:  luck. 

I actually found this to be a relatively succinct description of the modern GOP ethos.

. . . . as radical as it actually is.

If you didn't follow this link, you should. Salam makes a very interesting and well thought out "rebuttal" which I include a quote below. Dang, I wish more conservatives would think like he does.  But be sure to read the first remark after his essay which correctly points out that Salam (and Gaspar) have missed the point of the quote.

Salam, "I think it is very, very true that no one in this country, and indeed no one in any country, managed to become rich on her own. Some people become rich by virtue of being born into the right family, or by owning valuable real estate or some other legal entitlement, like a patent or copyright, protected by the state. And then there are people who, in various ways, become rich by serving other people, creating new and distinctive products and processes, etc."

I can't disagree with that quote though I would add my personal list of determinants.

If you don't get it, you don't get it. 

It's probably not your fault.

Would expect nothing less than your typical arrogance.  ;D

I'm guessing you didn't hit the other link...or didn't like what they said.

Hey Gasp, why don't you go and mock some more murder victims. That's more your moral speed than understanding this concept.

Which royal family?  Saudi?  I have dibs on the Brits to hang around with.

I think most of "our" differences revolve on how big that hunk should be.

Can't throw a shoe in here with out hitting an angry liberal.  :-\

And that is what Salem says too. In fact it's the one thing it seems most people agree on. How much should be put into the government "box" where the return may not be as good and how much goes into the owners 'box" where it may leverage more return. Rather than analyze and repair the machinery in the government box, deep conservatives just want to seal the box up. Then good luck with getting your goods to market on unfunded roads and falling bridges.

Because he doesn't pay more than the rest of us.  He pays LESS than the rest of us.

That's not true.  "Deep conservatives" want a fair tax system where people are taxed at a reasonable rate based on consumption and/or income.

It's the definition of what fair is that we disagree on.  

Most conservatives think (I know I don't speak for everyone, but I doubt you will find disagreement) that the current tax system is a dysfunctional mess, and an impediment to economic growth.  Its logic is broken, and its bureaucracy dwarfs many other industries.

I would hope that non-conservatives would feel the same way.

Beyond band-aids, it is time to discard current tax policy.  

How?

Hmm. So in reality, you really are a hopey, changey kind of guy. I've never heard of any tax or any tax rate that someone thought was fair if they had to pay it.

Of course there is.  Taxation is necessary for funding government.

Taxes are fair when everyone pays their fair share based on income or consumption.  Taxes are not fair when a group is forced to pay more than their fair share because they are successful.  That is called a penalty.

One wonders if you've ever cut pie or cake for your children.

I do, but I treat tax payers as adults. ;)

The more you're around children, the more you understand adult behavior. Seriously, that is why teachers make such good salespeople. Besides their superior organzation skills they recognize behaviors and know the best way to deal with them.

There was one guy who admits he doesn't mind paying taxes and would even be willing to pay more of them if his wealthy friends would too. But you guys crucified Warren when he brought it up.

Tin Men was a great flick!

I don't agree that business has to be amoral, or unforgiving of weakness, unless you are saying on an etherial plane that it doesn't know morals.

Quite the contrary, one reason the company I work for has been here for 55 years is a high code of ethics and morals.  Certainly there are profiteers out there who have benefitted handsomely while putting thousands of others out of work.  That's not the norm in the business world though, IMO.

Weakness doesn't mean failure and it can be forgiven if management sees the weakness and corrects it, then all is forgiven and everyone chants in a group hug.

I would imagine he's paying a lot more in taxes than I am.  I'd assume he pays himself a salary which is taxed at a much higher rate.  I'm sure if the business is profitable, he pays himself and family members dividends which are certainly taxed, just like they are for any investor.  Aside from that, he's contributing 1/2 of his employees payroll tax, very likely contributing to some sort of retirement plan and insurance plan for his employees.  He's also providing the jobs that pay the other 1/2 of payroll tax as well as federal income tax those workers will pay on their wages and then the multiplicative effect of the other service jobs which are created to serve the varying needs of his employees throughout the community.

Now we are saying to the job creators: "Piss on you, you don't contribute enough!"

Yeah, now regale me with out trickle-down economics doesn't work and your usual RWRE BS.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15% of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7%.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4% of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9% in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3%.


With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46% of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.

From the USA Today.  Obviously a right-wing rag!

Links could do nothing but help your rep.

Using your numbers above: if you're a household (of 4) making $25k a year say, and your effective rate is 5.7%, you will pay $1425 in federal income tax.  Your yearly net income then is $23,575.00 and your monthly take home is $1,965 for your family of 4.  This does not include any other state or local taxes, or fees of any sort.  

In 2009, the poverty line in the US for a family of 4 was $22,050.00

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml

The only thing "more skin in the game" at that level would accomplish would be to chuck someone's family into poverty.   

That is a good attitude you have. I should not speak in so many generalities. Perhaps some day I'll work for a company worth complimenting. And yes, I mean that there are no real morals for companies. They don't understand what sexism, racism, exploitation means. They have to hire people to keep them in line with society's morals. Hence JC Penneys cancels an ad today with a girl in a bikini while porn is readily available and profitable on the internet. Go figure.

As far as weakness in business, I mean when a company is unable to capitalize on opportunities or mismanages its finances there is little forgiveness afforded them by the market place. Someone else will step up.

Thanks for keeping me straight.

What were you selling?  It might have made a difference in you perceptions.  I'm thinking of something like selling long johns in the South Pacific.

I guess you subscribe to the theory that no one is any better than anyone else in responding to a situation perhaps not of their own making.  It's always luck and nothing more.  Too bad.

I sold advertising in independent yellow page directories. I sold advertising in newspapers, magazines and direct mail including a large metro publication. It allowed me access to a wide variety of businessmen from lawyers and doctors to retail stores, plumbers and builders. I was pretty good at it. Intangible sales are certainly different than selling long johns.

One of my favorite accounts was a plumber who bought a dozen different listings each with its own phone number but different names. In that county, no matter what plumber you called, it was likely his company. He learned the trick from the telephone company yellow pages. Win/win for each of them. Not so good for other plumbers or consumers who didn't know! In his case it was lucky his yellow pages rep shared with him I guess.

Luck is important but only if you're prepared when it happens. Baseball players know that, lawyers know it and so do salesmen.

That is a very good point.  Nothing like walking into a place on a cold call right after the smile hit the fan and they need a solution right away.

Spot on. 

Red, I'm in sales, too, and have been doing it much of my adult life in one form or another.  One of the truest aphorisms I've ever heard was from a boss of mine who said "work breeds luck."  By which he meant:  you can improve the chances of good things happening to you, but you can never fully control the process.  You can make it mathematically and karmically more possible, and you can take advantage of opportunity when it occurs, but it still strikes a bit like lightning. 

Work is always going to be a huge part of success, but being in the right place at the right time is equally as important.   

I am not in direct sales like you and AquaMan, but as an engineer I have to sell my designs.  My customer is usually my supervisor or some higher-ups within the company but occasionally I deal with the "real" customer.  "Work breeds luck" sounds similar to (Arnold Palmer?) "the more I practice, the luckier I get" or something close to that.  Being in the right place at the right time is important,  I won't deny that.  In my career,  providing an economically viable, technically correct solution to a problem is more a function of my education, my experience, and attention to details than luck.  I can see how attempting to sell sun screen on a rainy day might have different results.  

Edit:  A truly "lucky" salesman might just happen to have a side line of rain hats.

"Where do they teach you people to talk like that? Some Panama City sailor wanna hump-hump bar?"

(http://www.zuguide.com/image/Jack-Nicholson-As-Good-as-It-Gets.2.jpg)


Ever dawn on you your boss was telling you to get back to work and if you were lucky you'd have a job tomorrow?  ;)

There's that "luck" thing again.

Naw he didn't have to imply it.  He pretty much told me that on a regular basis.  Of course this was during the High Recession period, and no one's job was safe.  

Don't play dense.  That has been gone through here over and over.  If you don't believe that, then check out what Warren Buffet says, since he is saying the same thing.

Yes, but what he says and what is actually true are two very different things.

Just keep telling yourself, over and over and over until you believe it that 15% of anything is always less than 28% of something else. 

Learn to ignore the numbers they are percentage of.  You will sleep better and feel invigorated.

[/channeling for the math challenged]

That's a side point with no relevance to what we are talking about.  What he does is follow the law as written.  What he SAYS is to change the law.

And as always, reiterated here even by Red, 15% is always less intrusive into the life of the person involved than 28%.  Come on - I know you don't like the idea that you have been deceived by the Murdochians for all these years, but deep down inside you know it's true!  I know it has been pissing me off for a LONG time!!

Actually, I'm not on your side here.  You want so much to believe what you do that you missed me being a smart a$$.  I will spell it out for you.

15% of $1,000,000 is $150,000
28% of $100,000 is $28,000

In my book, $150,000 is always more than $28,000.

Whether or not the guy making $1,000,000 will miss $150,000 as much as a guy making $100,000 will miss $28,000 is a different issue.


Edit: wrong number of Zeros.

The harder you work the luckier you get......

I worked really hard today and I got super lucky.

It's an amazing phenomena that I intend to patent.

My new secret to wealth.  Send me $5 and I'll tell you the secret.  People will literally write you checks.  Imagine that!

 

Nooner?

I know you aren't.  You are into absolutes when reality and fairness go to percentages.  A fair and realistic comparison is to use the relative percentages.  $28,000 would be a much heavier burden on me - and you for that matter, than $150,000 would be to the 1%er.  What is a grotesque mockery in the tax system in this country is that the richer you are, the less of the relative load you have to carry.  As an engineer, how can you possibly not get that??  (As real numbers, that means I get to keep $72k, while the 1%er gets to keep $1.35 million.  Yeah, he is gonna be burdened having to pay 28%, too - only about $1.22 million left!!  Que lastima!!)

But that's the way it has always gone back to feudal Europe and way before.  It has always been the poorest who carry the load, while the richest get their tribute from them for what is always a smaller relative contribution.

You also claim to have an engineering background.  How can you possibly not understand that $150,000 is more than $28,000?  My objection is to the common argument that you and others claim that the guy paying $28,000 is paying more than the guy paying $150,000.  NOT TRUE!  You are playing with semantics.  You must be a closet Liberal Arts person.  Flunk out of engineering the first time around?  Flunk elementary school math when they introduced the number line?

Fairness:  I agree the rich guys should be paying a percentage of their income in Federal Income Tax on the same order as the little guy.  I'm a flat tax guy with few or no deductions except one for the basic cost of living which the rich guy would also get.  Pick a number, $10,000?  The first $10,000 of anyone's income would not be taxed.  Above that, everyone pays the same percentage.  No deductions for life choices like having kids, a house in the Hamptons, a yacht, a bass boat, an account at the corner bar .....   One of my co-workers has a tax bill about 1/3 of mine because he has a stay-at-home wife, 2 kids and a big mortgage on his home.  Given comparable salaries, where is the fairness in that?  

Payroll tax (Social Security):  The fact that SS will be a larger portion of your and my retirement income than a rich guy makes it fair to me that it be a larger portion of my tax burden than to the rich guy.

That's where I stand.  You are free to disagree and not like it.

That's what I said - in absolute numbers, yeah, 150,000 is fairly close to 5.3571428 times as much as 28k.  And yet, the income being paid on is exactly 15.0 times as much.  And as for claiming the guy paying 28 is paying more - I never said he was paying more dollars (but you know that) - I said he is paying a disproportionate, unfairly larger percentage - and you know that is true also from your comment above that I highlighted in red.  What is most puzzling to me is how you cannot see this huge disconnect in reality that you have stated, but refuse to believe.  Amazing!

You pulling a "guido" on me here, personal aspersions??  Flunk out of school?  No.  But I was only able to manage about a 3.6 gpa through TU engineering grad school (EE, which everyone knows is harder than any of the other engineering curricula - well, anyone that knows anything about engineering anyway) - but my excuse for only that GPA is that I was working full time supporting a family (4 kids - teens - between two of us) while juggling all the kid related items, plus trying to keep some small semblance of a life.  Oh, well...life' a grumble sometimes.

And interestingly enough, at that time I was working for a local company, designed three patented pieces of equipment, ONE of which still adds revenues in the $3 to 5 million per year - depending on year (25 years at 3 million per year is about 75 million in revenue with 10% profit = 7.5 million).  And MY reward for that was getting fired (the euphemism is reduction in force).  They get over 10% profit per year (after taxes - NOT EBIT) on this and related products.  The other products went for a few years each, at the same good margins and then were replaced by new/updated. 


Actually haven't talked that much about SS yet.  Shall we?? 

Congress made a "fix" back in the eighties that was a quick fix to patch it for a while.  Which it did.  But at the time, and anytime since, they have the chance to fix it permanently.  One specific number I heard about maybe 10 or 12 years ago would be to raise the income cap from where it was (if memory serves, around 90k ??) to $128,000.  That would have completely and totally and permanently solved ALL the Social Security issues that have gotten worse every year.  The reason it would have fixed it is because it would have covered all the boomers - that's you and me - and then later, when we are all dead, the kids would likely to have gotten a tax reduction since there would be so many fewer left comparatively.

It was this year that started taking money out of the "trust fund"  (LOL!!) and by 2037, incoming will only cover 75% of outgoing.

Here is a list of a dozen, any ONE of which would fix the problems.  One of them is raising the income cap.  And yet, Congress is so hell bent on tearing this country apart, not even one is being done, or even realistically considerd!

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2010/05/18/12-ways-to-fix-social-security

Recognize any of the statements below?

September 29, 12:22 PM
"Because he doesn't pay more than the rest of us.  He pays LESS than the rest of us."

No mention or rates or fairness.  Just an absolute statement about paying less.  Please be more precise in the future.


October 2, 6:37 PM
"As an engineer, how can you possibly not get that?"
 
Sounds to me like you questioning my intelligence and qualifications as an engineer.  I'm not going to get into a credentials battle with you but I am confident in mine. 

I always thought Chemical Engineering was the most difficult.

Easy guys, let's not veer off into a "who has the bigger slide rule" contest.  ;)

Chemical is the toughest.

Well, I guess I kind of thought - just for a second though - that since I have been saying the same thing for what?  about a couple of years now, that everyone would understand the thought.  Ok, let me amend it so everyone can get it no matter how much of the Murdochian Kool-Aid they have taken.  It is, as I have stated innumerable times, it is a grotesque mockery of any standard of fairness or decency, and puts the lie to most of the virtues we have been taught our entire lives in this country, that someone who is among the richest in the country can get away with paying less that 16% of their income on average in taxes when the VAST majority of taxpayers (in number, not by income) are required to pay from 17 to 18 to 22 to 25 to 28% of their income in taxes.

Not questioning your intelligence at all.  It is your sanity that is apparently in doubt.  You said that the rich guys should pay "on the same order" as the little guy.  THAT is EXACTLY the point I have been trying to get across to you for all this time.  You obviously agree deep down inside, but The Script is so heavily embedded in the neurons that it just keeps coming out all wrong.  Kind of like someone who has been hypnotized and when hearing the key word, they do something that has been programmed in.  "Cluck like a chicken" is the political equivalent of all things Murdochian.

Precise enough?  Just like so many previous posts?

That'll teach you to think.  Say what you actually intend to and you won't have these problems.


My sanity is fine, thank you.  I sometimes wonder about yours.


We obviously disagree about the clarity of many of your previous posts.

You are pulling a Gaspar here - I do say what I intend.  You do understand what I am saying.  And trying to redirect and divert the direction - listen to some NPR sometime...get out of that Fox merry go round.

My sanity has ALWAYS been questionable!  Wouldn't have it any other way!

Everyone else on the planet understands.  Well, maybe not Gaspar (ok, I'll quit picking on him); but everyone else.  Let's take a survey; did anyone else out there NOT get what I was saying about the 1%ers??

Sorry, had to do it.

In my detail oriented mind, you are not always saying what you intend to say.  I could point to a Citabria and declare it to be a Piper Cub.  Most people say oh yeah, an airplane. 

I've occasionally tried listening to NPR.  Can't do it.  I do like the TU Classical music station.

Bill O'Reilly is usually OK.  Hannity is a bit too much.

Either I heard the same thing Red did or I apply it through the same filter.  Hate to say it but your predictable drivel about "Murdochian Kool-Aid" and incessant rambling on the "RWRE" marginalizes most of your posts for me.  It makes it sound like you are really dredging the MSNBC area of your brain.  Eliminate the cartoonish rants in your posts and I might tend to actually read more than a few words of your posts.  Honestly, if I see "Murdoch", "Rove", "Cheney", "Baby Bush", or "RWRE" in the first paragraph, I scroll on.

Can the wealthy afford to pay a few more points in taxes?  Sure.  Should they?  Maybe.  Should it be framed in such a way that the wealthy are always painted as the enemy?  Absolutely not.  Certainly there are wealthy people who have made millions and billions on the backs of others and who have benefitted from every single tax loophole imaginable to attain their wealth.  I'd argue there are far more wealthy individuals who have "given back" by providing great jobs and opportunities at wealth for others, and who have given generous portions of their wealth to worthwhile projects in their communities which reduce the need for tax-payer dollars for the arts, common spaces, and the overall cityscape.  

So go on about your rant on how the wealthiest aren't paying their "fair share".  What should be someone's "fair share" be?  Hell, even God knows a flat tax is the fairest way to do it.  At least according to Biblical principles dating to the Old Testament, 10 percent on everyone's productivity was considered equitable.  ;)

Sad.  Well, it can't be helped - if there was more fairness and balance in the political discourse, could dial it back a notch.  During the 70's, it was biased the other way quite a bit, so I went after the area where the problem was - at that time with Dummycrat efforts to compromise the Constitution.  Turns out, they were ineffective and amateurish compared to the most recent decades.  How about that - none of your favorite catch phrases!!

And your filter is the problem, as is his.  IF you have read those previous posts, you would know exactly what I put in "shorthand" in that one post - would have made the connection.  (Are you admitting that you don't read before responding?)  Also points to the societal tendency we have to go for the "sound bite" - if you had read the whole things....


Should they pay more??   Maybe??    Really?????   Are you serious??  You actually think it is ok for us to pay a much larger percentage than the richest amongst us??  Wow.   OK, if they should get away with heavily discounted rates, why shouldn't we get them too??  Because we are not rich??


You say there are wealthy people that have made the money on the back of others - close...you almost got it!  ALL wealthy people have made the money on the back of others.  NONE of them have done it as "rugged individualists", toiling away all by themselves.  You show you have the knowledge deep down inside there, but then it gets weird when it comes out in type.  "Maybe" they should pay at least the same???

I think 10% is a good number - it should never cost more than that to society to survive, endure and even thrive.  But then we wouldn't able to indulge in these little episodes of imperialistic voyeurism we are so fond of!!  And if we don't pay the 20% +/-, then rich ones could not be enjoying their breaks.

Still waiting to hear from anyone who may have read one of my posts... did my "shorthand" in that one post confuse everyone or anyone??

You may call it "shorthand".  I call it sloppy use of the language.   It's either that or an intentional attempt to redirect or divert the real issue to a talking point.

Thank you!  I actually read your post word-for-word.  ;)

I have a great job due to someone who is wealthier than myself and I'm able to sell large capital equipment every day because of business owners who have spare capital to re-invest in their business.  The owner of my company could probably afford to retire, sell off the company, and move some place where wealth isn't looked at with derision at any time leaving 12 other people without jobs.  The owner has no legal obligation to continue to reinvest in the business, but reinvest they do.

For some reason, you seem to believe that being able to retain wealth is un-holy.  I see it as an opportunity for someone to reinvest in the economy.  Is everyone doing that right now?  No.  There are some people who are very risk averse who are holding on to money due to economic uncertainty and they don't want to invest in a business which will have unknown compliance and tax costs in the coming years due to ever-changing tax codes and this whole healthcare deal.  Proposing penalizing them for holding onto wealth during uncertain economic times while government continues to metastasize and increase spending is not sound economic policy.

Also consider that even at your higher percentage rate of tax, you get a higher percentage of direct credits and deductions on your income than the vaunted Mr. Buffett does which reduces your tax rate.  I've done the math, with all the deductions, less payroll taxes, my federal tax rate is less of a percentage than Buffett pays.  If Mr. Buffett and other billionaires wish to pay more, they certainly can.  There is nothing stopping them from doing it now.

It's enlightened self interest.  As long as they stay in business, invest at appropriate levels for their business, they continue to be successful.  Sounds like your boss has read some Peter Drucker in the past.  If so, he understands what should be the relationship between society, the individual, and the corporation.

Nothing unholy about any of that at all.  A sentiment - not exact words - that I have expressed repeatedly.  What IS unholy is that those richest 1% get to pay much smaller percentages than the other 99%.  And as I have also expressed repeatedly, I am working hard to achieve similar status, so I too, can get by on only 15%.  (That is one of my ideas of heaven on earth - never have to worry about getting money together to pay a bill again - just write the check...)

You are saying you get by at less than 15%??  (Buffets rate.)  That implies a very low return to you for your effort.


And your boss got wealthy by the combined efforts of 12 people - not on his own.  I hope for your sake he appreciates and rewards that.  Sounds like he does.

How many wealth envy threads are there in this forum? For the umteenth time, the rich played no part in their achievements. They didn't take chances, they didn't innovate, and they didn't make good decisions. They were just lucky and those not-so-rich were unlucky. There, Conan. Quit complaining and be thankful that you were lucky enough to be among the whopping 50% that pay federal income tax.

Checking the past three years, my net Federal income tax after all child tax credits, tuition credits, deductions, etc. was 7%, 11%, & 13%.  Last year was a brutal year, the national recession caught up with us and I took about a 1/3 hit on my income.  That does NOT include social security tax, medicare tax, or state taxes.  Buffett, et al all pay the same rate on Social Security tax as the rest of us do up to the required income limit.

IOW- average working people with kids in the middle class are not paying a higher tax rate than those who are paying a 15% rate on dividends.  Mr. Buffett is welcome at any time to pay himself a much higher salary instead of paying himself in dividends if he thinks it's so repugnant to be paying such a low tax rate.  But does he?  No.  That's why I say he's being disingenuous when he declares all the wealthy should be paying a higher tax rate.

Naturally, we all play a part in the success of the company, but if my boss had less capital to reinvest in more inventory for me to sell, I wouldn't make as much, my boss wouldn't, and we might have to do with a few less people in the office and shop.

Don't read them.

Condolences!  Truly!

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt!

Hated every minute of it.

Fortunately, I've got a tendency to over-hoard in great years to account for the next year turning out to being leaner than expected.  Wasn't too much a disruption.  Several years of that might have hurt.  At least my boss considers me essential to the operation regardless of what the overall economic conditions are.  Not everyone is that fortunate.

Oh Snap.


[Emphasis added]. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/oct/6/naked-scott-brown-or-naked-elizabeth-warren/

(http://www.charlierose.com/images_toplevel/content/10/1089/segment_10895_460x345.jpg)

(http://impulsemotions.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/clapping-hands.gif)

Couldn't agree more.

^ giddy up, Buster. I know, you need a progressive poster child to beat on....preferably female and/or a minority.

But it is ok for Brown to commit immoral acts, huh?  He does fit in well in the overall program.

What did he do that was immoral? Believe me, I am no Scott Brown fan--other than he took the swimmer's place in the Senate.

Warren threw the first punch, and Brown countered. Is that a problem to you?

He's a Republicontin.

No, actually, I am talking about his nude photos.

Who knew you were such the prude?  :P

At least our female moonbats are a lot easier on the eyes.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Christine_ODonnell.jpg)

(http://o.aolcdn.com/os/autos/photos/people/20110818_michelle-bachmann_612mz.jpg)

(http://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/wp-content/uploads/sarah-palin-stalker.jpg)

Doesn't matter what they look like.  They do enough crazy crap you'll gnaw your arm off.

I've told you before that I ain't as liberal as you seem to think.

Don't really care all that much if he want to be an exhibitionist, but if it ain't nekked women, it ain't worth looking at.  And it is hypocritical, prurient, and disingenuous for him to be all "Mr. Morals" if that is what he is gonna do. 

I don't recall him being a Bible-thumping moralist.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.  Membership in the Republican party does not equate automatically to someone being a  Christian fundie or an RWRE as you prefer to call them

That was this dude.

(http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2004/04/gallery/scandals/jhahn.jpg) or (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/jimmys2.jpg) or (http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSasuwBWRGR9EKCTylIOSYhEZ8_oNBvdBC-wqnAAyjAkJcthpWsWOh8lis) or (http://stuffwhitetrashpeoplelike.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/haggard.jpg) 

and so on

He is.  Granted, it is at a lower level than some.  He was raised Methodist (as I was), which we always kidded were just back-sliding Baptists...

He does express a desire to have prayer in school and teaching creationism in school (which he backpedals from at times).

RWRE is Right Wing Reactionary Extremist rather than Religious Extremist.  They have hijacked at least one major religion, but aren't really religious, despite what they say.

How was it no one figured out Haggard was a tweaker until after the whole gay prostitute scandal?  Looks like he was on a pretty good spin in that pic.

I guess I didn't know this bozo Warren was from Oklahoma, who is now in some sort of an "I'm a Native American" mess.

And I am still grateful she kept her clothes on...

State Hall of Famer!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nSGuwU3HSjw[/youtube]


I love it when Guido's fear wagon get talking points from Karl Rove.

My dad went to school with Haggard at ORU.  When I appraoched my dad about the scandal to see what he thought, my dad said "We all knew Ted was gay.  It was no secret."  He also said that Kathy Lee Gifford was too stuck up for anyone to talk to her.  And that her first husband was also a fan of the gay sex.

Yeah...a woman with a brain...that's gotta really grate on Karl Rove big time.

1/32 Indian ain't enough for you?  That's enough to get a card if she were living here.  If the tribe would accept her, then who is Scott Brown to say otherwise?

It chaps me that it just takes 1/512 to be considered a Cherokee.  No wonder their roster is so big.

I'm at the very least 1/16, as I found out after high school that my great-great grandmother was full blood Cherokee Indian.  Not sure about my Mother's side of the family.

And I don't even have a roll card.

Part of the reason we have so many blue-eyed, blond Cherokees here.  I could get a card (lot more than 1/512!) but will not bother with it now.  Kids have theirs, so they have a safety net if they need it in future.

Do you not see what the controversy really is all about? Ward Churchill redux.

LOL!  That's good...

You have the occasional like-hearted funny moment!  And we all love you for it!



(And John McCain is a Revolutionary Communist!)

On the subject of funny...


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-scarborough-and-mika-brzezinski-have-tense-hilarious-argument-over-new-elizabeth-warren-ad/

Her new indian name is Spreading Bull.

(http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Screen-Shot-2012-05-03-at-12.36.59-PM.png)

(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/warren-tonto.jpg)

Okay. Now the Warren campaign has reached dooshbag status:


http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/mass-dems-file-ethics-complaint-against-brown-122935.html

Here's the gawd-awful video that merits an ethics complaint. Yes, I said "ethics complaint" from of all people "Sacaja-whiner"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVIAG7M8e5Q&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

New photos from her time at Rutgers.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7230/7221234052_a3122260a6.jpg)

Whomever was our state embarrassment standard-bearer last month has nothing on this buffoon. Did she really steal someone else's recipes to prove her Native American bona fides?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/18/too-good-to-check-did-elizabeth-warren-plagiarize-her-recipes-in-pow-wow-chow/

EDITED:

In the interest of fairness, there is now a question as to who possibly plagiarized from who.

EDITED AGAIN:  Apparently there are two plagiarism articles at issue. I can't keep up...going for some pow wow chow and firewater..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnNyUm53Hlc&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

Hey, it's the new way.  You can be Native American, Kenyan, Nigerian, Inuit or none of the above if you choose.  Whatever it takes to give you the push that you think you need.  It doesn't really matter, if you go back far enough we all have the same common ancestors.  Most agree that the earliest fossil record of man exists in Northern Africa, so I guess that makes us all African-Americans.

Kind of like that Yahoo top executive who claimed to have a Computer Science degree but really didn't. I've told you before, Gas, and it has nothing to do with a pessismistic state of mind, it just is what it is. America is proud of its liars, cheats, chiselers and thieves. Especially if they are the right color, politics, wealth and appearance. We glorify them, make movies about them and generally brag about how clever they are. Would your resume pass scrutiny?

If it weren't for atty's general we'd make them royalty.

Don't forget gangsters and other famous outlaws.

This whole thing is unfortunate. We need someone with Warren's dedication to going after the banks to help balance out all the spooners.

And lawyers....hahaha. Who said that!!!

That's what the U.S. Attorney's office should be doing. That's also what the plaintiff's bar should be doing.

Warren now is the first woman to breast feed while taking the bar exam.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/30/warren_i_was_the_first_nursing_mother_to_take_a_bar_exam_in_nj.html

Wow! That was posted to her Wikipedia page the moment the article hit RCP. 

Of course Gueid, you must realize that it is not uncommon for Native American women to nurse while performing their various labors around the campfire.

Someone clue me in.  After how many ever pages of this, who is she and why is she relevant in the national dialogue?

Seems like I’m the only one missing the joke here.

No, you get the joke because she is it. She's also running for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat--not the one belonging to the Mass. people, but to the swimmer.

HERE! MORE FODDER FOR YOU MISOGYNISTS!


"Whether it is "clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety, public education, public transportation, public housing, public health, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security - they don't believe in a public role, and they're sincere in their beliefs," she said. "And they act upon them. And it's not good for children and other living things."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/29/MNRQ1OP4JL.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1wMyYe3Bi

In didn't know Pelosi was from Oklahoma, claimed to be Cherokee, and to be the first breast feeding person to take the bar exam. To be fair, though, Pelosi does have her head squarely up her @ss just like Warren.

There is more to the story. . .
Apparently she was breast-feeding the homeless while taking her bar exam.  Quite a spectacle.

You two are so predictable and easy to lure... little fish.

Ahhh, but did the homeless have high cheekbones?

Google around and read some about her.  It is (as it always is) a much more detailed and nuanced story than you can get here from us.  We deal in sound bytes and short shots for the most part.  Long involved explanations give a good case of "TEGO" to the denizens of the forum.

Polls show Walker may be in trouble. Perhaps a few more choice posts on this fine thread can switch the momentum back in Walker's favor. Don't give up now, you've done such a good job at dredging up smile the electorate in Massachusetts doesn't care about.

Also, it's a bit amusing to read derisive posts about Warren claiming she is part Cherokee when we live in the land of the part Cherokee. Seems like everybody I talk to is part Cherokee. I'm pretty sure a few folks on this forum have previously claimed to be part Cherokee, even.

Didn't claim it until I was 19, when I found out my great-great grandmother was full blood Cherokee.  Pictures I saw of her lend me to that belief.

Do I feel entitled to a Cherokee Roll Card?  Nah.  She never registered because they lived in Kentucky, so she was one of the remaining Alabama Cherokees.  I was told I could get one.  But I see people who are completely blonde-haired and blue-eyed claim the 1/512 fraction needed to claim it and feel like..."why?"  I have at least 1/16.  I'll be proud to have that much and not worry about my place on the Dawes.

I know I have.  And my kids even have their cards!

Run Away! Run Away!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z10qDag_Q_0[/youtube]

Here is something the citizens of Mass understand:


(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/542401_426610580703543_1887750686_n.jpg)

Are you 1Cowboy? Or do you all get your material from the same source?
Massachusetts 'blood' tiff no big deal in Oklahoma

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=213&articleid=20120610_213_G6_CUTLIN457588
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=213&articleid=20120610_213_G6_CUTLIN457588

I wish I could find a framed poster of that.

They are available. They are right next to these posters:

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQGGozwNrO9J8ypll7OyCKl_VBfidigz4QN14ta_QZFXkOze3_lVg)

(https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0zmYF2ICN0ZBB_W9tBD_uaHPVdbkL2eV0a3Ol7X845k-NzEQpoA)

If you want me to get graphic on these, I surely can. So next time you and aox want to talk about liberal accomplishments, trying thinking of the glorious abortion rights liberals are responsible for. As for O'Donnell, I'll leave you with this genius in action (the last bit, but the whole thing is funny):

http://thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=11634

 Just more proof that you exaggerate and lie and that you hate women's freedom to choose.This is not just your country.
Why don't you leave the country if you don't like the rules and you dislike the team that runs the executive branch? Sure, go ahead and show more graphic representations of what you see as truth. I constantly study new science which deals with much more hideous graphics...like MSC research on regrowing an ulcerated foot victimized by diabetes.... many more examples. Try me?

You're so hopeless for such a well educated man. I hope I never get to meet you. You should too.  The last time someone waved that crap at me was a moron standing on a street corner with a graphic sign showing a fetus.  He yelled at me through my open car window. I rolled down the window to see what he was yelling. When I politely refused his propagandist leaflets he made note of our car seat in the back and sneered, "Oh, I see you have yours."

Roe vs Wade was a decision made during a Republican administration by judges appointed during the previous two decades by judges that were Liberals and conservatives. It was based on law, not politics or religion. But you know all that, you just want to be like that creep on the corner.

Don't bother posting links for me. I seldom open them.

Roe v. Wade was partially a conservative opinion? Got it.

Funny how government control of the individual is conservative when it's agreeable to you and liberal when it's not.

Just go away turd.

Funny how all these years, no matter how conservative they load the Court, Roe stands. Its as if, you know, it makes sense or something.

Or its as if, you know, something about stare decisis, um you know.

Nobody ever seems to talk about abortions until six months before a presidential election. Then suddenly it is all some people want to talk about.

Some people just don't pay attention until six months before a presidential election.

Wow.

You want to see how hypocrisy works? Nowhere on this post, this thread, or the thread about "Tell Us Why Romney Would Be a Great President", is there any mention of abortion, partial birth abortion or any effort to sensationalize using graphics.

Nonetheless, Guido turns them both into discussions of his obsessions, abortion and his hate for Liberals. Then he wants to talk issues.

He seldom answers direct questions, preferring to use such tactics as, "yeah, but Obama hates babies", types of bs. Yet reasonable people get angry at TTC and want him gone. Where is your outrage at this overprivileged, sanctimonious, sick hateful mind?

guido's logic:

"When a republican can't explain why they are supportive of a republican, they revert back and say it is because of republican views on abortion, even if the republican they support used to be for allowing abortions."

7 to 2 decision.

Justice White was appointed by Kennedy and Justice Powell appointed by Nixon.  Go figure....

Talk about a role reversal.  Or maybe they were just looking at law and the Constitution versus the rhetoric and dogma that surrounds the topic today.  And didn't you have to study all this in law school??  That would seem to be one of the significant point cases they would want a lawyer to be familiar with??

And Stewart was appointed by Eisenhower.  Info on the rest is out there for those interested - this is small sample.  Shows that the world was a very different place than today.

Oh, look everyone. He knows the words every first year business law and poli sci student learned. Except he can't quite figure out context.

Yes....thanks to the GOP we've regressed just according to their plan. America needs to wake up.

Um, duh, that's why I used it. Because it is such a simple damned concept.

(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/30/Point_over_your_head.jpg)

Keep it up and I will have to recommend the training wheels again for you in this forum. bwahahahaha.

You ain't fooling anyone Geebers. A 7-2 decision made by an assortment of judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents over three decades doesn't get overturned easily. In fact it doesn't even get assailed. Your point was that Liberals favor abortions and were responsible for their legality neither of which is true. In any case you certainly don't bother to explain how they are to blame. Blurting out stare decisis like it meant something in this context doesn't help your case.

This isn't even in keeping with this thread, which of course is in keeping with your style.

I am not going to waste my time debating you over court composition or how the court reaches decisions. Indeed, Reagan appointed Souter and O'Conner (Google Gonzalez v. Carhart), not exactly two flaming conservatives out to end abortion.  And again, duh, my whole point is that overturning a decision is a very difficult proposition--which is why it hasn't been overturned. Roe seems to be being systematically dismantled (see Carhart), though, and my hope is that it will die from the proverbial death of a thousand cuts rather than outright overturned.

As for the point, yours was to paint only liberals as responsible for the voting rights/civil rights acts of the 1960s. Of course, there were no conservatives that participated in those decisions  ::)--not to mention no discussion about that flaming conservative FDR who rounded up and imprisoned all those Japanese people in WWII. Also, what about those southern democrats like Al Gore's daddy and the Kleagle who filibustered parts of those huge LIBERAL-only accomplishments that went overlooked by O'Donnell and you.

As for abortion, tell me how many conservatives favor abortion or Roe v. Wade and who they are, because I can put out a mega-list of liberals who do. And it's kinda late to be b!tching about thread drift, since you joined in @ssclowns post about liberals and civil rights in a thread about Fauxcahontas.

You make two errors. First, all Democrats are not liberal. Second, you assume that all or almost all of those who identify as conservative are all pro lifers. Neither of which is actually true.

You know, I have no interest in wasting any more time on you either. Suffice it to say, you're just a dick. Not a hard one,  but a small, shriveled, largely unused dick.

I'm so mad. I could just change my handle.....Bwahahaha.

You are quite mad. But you have no guts. You snipe away anonymously and with impunity. People think because you're a lawyer that you're also smart. But smart people don't behave like you. They don't show pictures of pregnant women smoking and drinking beer to imply that only stupid trailer trash girls get abortions. They realize that abortions occur through all demographics from the coach who impregnated a private school student and had to pay for one to the assault victim who doesn't even know the father. To you they are all the same. Just liberal Democrats.

Hey, quick question. What if Himmler, Hitler and Goebbels gang raped your wife? Your view change any?

How could you have considered moving out of the country to avoid military??  You weren't in danger of mandatory service...so the comment is irrelevant.

I am going to delete that post. Too inflammatory and not helpful.

This thread has gone bad.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8-_TvbNL8PFwS1PRn-an4Ae_cdFk13HCrhS6Sj6I5ecTt5XO85A)

You can only remove your own posts.   ;D

Go to the thread rather than the latest posts and one of the options on your posts will be to remove a post.

I just found it and removed that post as a test.  One of those "duh" moments...the button is right next to the modify button, which I use from time to time.

Oh sh!t .... you're not going to yank another one of my......threads ???? Are you?  I can't help it if Guido, Gaspar, and Conan are dicks nerds.

I always suspected RM and Admin were secretly conspiring....


Keep this thread alive!

Long live thread!!

We have a whole committee conspiring against you. Admin is chair and I am vice chair. The other three dozen people are just sub-committee chairs.

Can I join?  Or am I being conspired against, too?

Reid: No votes so Brown can debate Warren

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/09/reid-no-votes-so-brown-can-debate-warren-136170.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/09/reid-no-votes-so-brown-can-debate-warren-136170.html)

You have to admire
Warren for using Inhofe as a tool for
her election by threatening
his place in the Senate
would lead to his power in
environmental legislation .

Strange after all the school and sports team mascots stories that these folks didn't think this would be called out.

Scott Brown Staffers Do ‘Tomahawk Chop’ at Rally

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/scott-brown-staffers-do-tomahawk-chop-at-rally/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/scott-brown-staffers-do-tomahawk-chop-at-rally/)

Racist pigs just handed Warren a victory.

RIP Little Red...

LOL..!!!

Doing the nitrous boogie again tonight, huh?

Losing track of time...or maybe 2012 is current to you...??