O/T: BLOG POST OF THE DAY

Han wrote:
>
> But I saw this:
> <<http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/has-obama-made-the-
> job-situation-worse/?hp>
>
> It says it is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.
>
> I agree that while this is indeed growth, it is too tepid.

Tepid? TEPID?

Job growth hasn't kept up with population increase in a very long time.

Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> I don't know what it's like in a lot of other places, but around
> here, NY state has successfully driven businesses out of the state
> for decades now, with our tax structure. Those jobs have been
> replaced with much lower paying, much lower in prestige and reward,
> in places like retail, service, etc.
>

Heh!

I read an opinion piece in the WSJ last year about a self-employed person
who left New York City for Florida and the move saved him over $13,000 in
taxes.

Per day.

Rush Limbaugh did the same thing - moved from New York to Florida. Glenn
Beck moved from New York to Dallas.

Probably quite a few more less well known souls have voted with their feet.

Heck, inasmuch as you don't have to be a resident of New York to hold
political office there (e.g., Senator Clinton), I wouldn't be surprised to
see Andrew Cuomo move to New Hampshire!

Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:4cffe$50339d3f [email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That is the question whether total amount or percentage is more
>>> important. IOW, is progressive taxation good or not? A question of
>>> ideology, perhaps?
>>
>> My personal opinion? I tend towards a flat tax.
>
> What's a flat tax in your opinion? Everyone should pay 9% here and 9%
> there? Without regard of minimum living costs?

Yes. Bear in mind - I am not an advocate of that strategy, but I lean that
way.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Han wrote:

>
> So the discussion then becomes: Is donating to charity (and other
> "loopholes") better than paying taxes? I would posit that at times
> it is better to do so, in order to stroke your ego and enahnce your
> goals, while at other times it may be better to let gvmnt build roads
> and bridges.

Ugh! You just opened up a new aspect of discussion. Do we really want to
go there?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

>
> Republican version:
>
> - How much do you make?
> - Do you make use of government services like secure borders, rule of
> law, ...? - Pay nothing anyhow
>

That's what's wrong with this - regardless off whether that is really the
republican version or not, the "Pay nothing anyhow" part is just bull.
Think... taxes...


> Democrat version:
>
> - How much do you make?
> - We'll take it all and decide what you can have back for things we
> think you deserve.

This is quite true.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

dadiOH wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 08/21/2012 07:49 AM, Han wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> Two for instances.
>>> Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
>>> limited to something like $6000/year in contributions. Not sure
>>> when the IRA system was started, but let's say for argument's sake
>>> 45 years ago. That would mean (if I am correct) that Romney's
>>> 45x$6000 or $270,000 had a phenomenal yield. But then, he could
>>> have transferred more than $6000/year?
>>
>> This is trivial to explain: He used a self-directed IRA - probably
>> set up by Bain - wherein his contributions were invested in Bain
>> deals. This is common among investment banks wherein the employees
>> want to share in the risk/reward. If the deals were successful (as
>> we know they were) there was probably huge returns associated with
>> these contributions,
>
> Bain is private but it must have investors. One wonders if those
> investors realized gains as large as Romney's.

What would it matter if they did or not? As long as they are comfortable
with their return, why should any other questions be raised?


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 08/20/2012 11:29 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Enjoy
>
> Lew
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the spectacle
> of a man who wants to be President of The United States, who wants
> us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American civic ideal,
> declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his taxes at a third
> of
> the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic benefit.
>
> Stunning.
>
>
>
>


Another Proof By Repeated Assertion from the left. Let's
see the evidence of this and further see any evidence of
illegality.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Han wrote:

>> Those bastards in D.C. need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.
>
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044332440457759544011685733
> 0.html?mod=hp_opinion>
>

Where is this link supposed to point to, that is relevant to any discussion
here?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Han wrote:

>
> That is the question whether total amount or percentage is more
> important. IOW, is progressive taxation good or not? A question of
> ideology, perhaps?

My personal opinion? I tend towards a flat tax.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 08/21/2012 09:02 AM, Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> We have to go by what is legal if we want to live in a system ruled
>>> by law. But there may be a difference between what is legal and what
>>> is right. As you know I am just a bit left of center ...
>>>
>>> Two for instances.
>>> Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
>>> limited to something like $6000/year in contributions. Not sure when
>>> the IRA system was started, but let's say for argument's sake 45
>>> years ago. That would mean (if I am correct) that Romney's 45x$6000
>>> or $270,000 had a phenomenal yield. But then, he could have
>>> transferred more than $6000/year?
>>>
>>> Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that
>>> money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?
>>>
>>> In other words, if this is legal, is it right?
>>
>> This was settled in the late 18th century by the Englishman Adam Smith
>> in his book "An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations." In that work, he
>> postulated the theory of "The Invisible Hand."
>>
>> You really should keep up.
>
> Sorry (contrite). Not familiar with the nitty gritty of invisible hands.
> Doesn't seem to answer my question. Hints?
>

cf "The Wealth Of Nations" by Adam Smith - considered the beginning of
modern economics. Everyone quotes him, very few people have actually
read him. I recommend this as a painless intro:

http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Books-Changed-World/dp/0871139499

Another VERY good intro:

http://www.knowledgeproducts.net/html/pol_files/political3.cfm

(Knowledge Products stuff is all really, really good.)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

On 08/21/2012 10:01 AM, Han wrote:
> So that's where you can get a 370 fold (37,000%) yield?

It's entirely possible, legal, and ethical.

>
>>> >>Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that
>>> >>money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?
>> >
>> >So what? It is HIS money and where he chooses to keep it is HIS
>> >business.
> Great job creators always look out for themselves first.

I'm not sure I know what that means. EVERYONE (who is sane) looks
out for themselves and the ones they love first. The virtue of
capitalism is that, in doing so, they incidentally create opportunity
for others.


>
>>> >>In other words, if this is legal, is it right?
>>> >>
>> >
>> >Nothing you've suggested even rises slightly to any level of being
>> >unethical.
> That's your opinion. I disagree.


Please cite a single demonstrable example of something being unethical.
You cannot. You may not *like* what he's done, but it's HIS money
and therefore, no one else's business.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 08/21/2012 12:20 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 9:02 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>>> Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that
>>>> money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?
>>> So what? It is HIS money and where he chooses to keep it is HIS
>>> business.
>> Agreed! I do get concerned when I see or hear people talking about the
>> money of others (usually those with more money...), and either saying or
>> suggesting that others should use that money for some pupose that they feel
>> is appropriate. Since when do any of us have that right? Han might have
>> his own thoughts on what is good for society, but so do a ton of other
>> people. So - how to decide how those with more money should use their
>> money? By whose definitions? Not to mention that such a thought all by
>> itself is really presumptuous. I guess we all do that, and I'm not calling
>> Han out on this, other than to note that we as people do those things. I
>> guess that's one of the benefits of forcing a compromise between two adverse
>> parties such as liberals and conservatives.
>>
> If someone other than Romney can ethically decide what Romney does with his money, that same someone can just as ethically decide what Tim can do with his money, no matter how much Tim might disagree.

What money? I'm living in the age of Hoax And Shame...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 08/21/2012 01:40 PM, dadiOH wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 08/21/2012 07:49 AM, Han wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> Two for instances.
>>> Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
>>> limited to something like $6000/year in contributions. Not sure
>>> when the IRA system was started, but let's say for argument's sake
>>> 45 years ago. That would mean (if I am correct) that Romney's
>>> 45x$6000 or $270,000 had a phenomenal yield. But then, he could
>>> have transferred more than $6000/year?
>>
>> This is trivial to explain: He used a self-directed IRA - probably
>> set up by Bain - wherein his contributions were invested in Bain
>> deals. This is common among investment banks wherein the employees
>> want to share in the risk/reward. If the deals were successful (as
>> we know they were) there was probably huge returns associated with
>> these contributions,
>
> Bain is private but it must have investors. One wonders if those investors
> realized gains as large as Romney's.


Um ... you need to examine how Private Equity firms work. They take the
money in from very rich people that want above market return rates with
hopefully somewhat lower than market risk. They pool this money from many
sources - not just rich individuals, but also institutional investors and
even their own money - and create syndicates to invest the money across many
projects. They are WILDLY profitable when they are run properly because
very few companies of the expertise to do what they do. Investors would
not keep going back to people like Blackstone and Bain if they were bad
at what they do.

Why can't you do it? Because you (probably) don't have the $100M ante
to get into that scale of game. These guys are the F1 racing teams of
finance. It's interesting to me to listen to people complain about
them when they make money, but no sympathy is extended when they lose
their butts on a bad bet like the Facebook IPO (which was just stupid).

>
>> not to mention company matching funds.
>
> Matching funds (contributions?)? I don't seem to recall any venue for
> matching funds in an IRA.

IRAs do not, but 401Ks an similar instruments do. I have no idea of
the particulars of Romney's financial life - it is, as I said, none
of my business. But a company like Bain is certain to have people smart
enough to make use of every possible legal tax deferral mechanism. This
is important because HOW LONG you leave an investment to grow is often
far more important than how much you put in originally.

Again, I fail to understand this visceral hatred of wealth. That is precisely
what free markets create. They also create losers ... or did until Obama decided
to bail out the losers with your- and my money. And THAT's what should
be outraging people, not the fact that Romney made a lot of dough. Good for him.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 08/21/2012 09:07 AM, Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the spectacle
>>> of a man who wants to be President of The United States, who wants
>>> us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American civic ideal,
>>> declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his taxes at a
>>> third of
>>> the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic benefit.
>>>
>>
>> Certainly.
>>
>> That Romney paid a lesser rate implies that he took advantage of tax
>> breaks, deductions, etc., built into the tax code.
>>
>> Now these exemptions and so forth were placed in the tax code by our
>> betters to further various social goals such as contributions to
>> charity, home mortgage interest, and the like. To the degree that
>> Romney sought out and participated in those social goals, he should be
>> commended!
>>
>> Ross Perot, as an exemplar, paid NO taxes on his millions in income
>> because his income was solely in the form of tax-exempt mutual bonds.
>>
>> Because Romney evidently helped fund various social goals, cities are
>> improved, children don't go to bed hungry, the homeless find succor,
>> alcoholics have access to treatment programs, and, for all I know,
>> stray dogs and cats get three hots and a cot.
>
> Yes, and I take "advantage" of the breaks too, specifically the huge
> loophole that transfer of appreciated stock to charity offers (a total
> charitable deduction for FMV, without regard to basis or cap gains).
>
> Perhaps we should have an automatic sunset to those social goals.
> Equally to depletion allowances and subsidies to green technologies.
> (I have no idea what the law says on these at the moment, just that they
> have supporters and detractors on the left and the right).
>

How about no deductions for anyone for any reason period?

How about a flat tax at time of *consumption* with a "prebate" to make
sure the first $XX,XXX dollars are effectively untaxed so as to not put
an undue burden on the poor?

This is called the "Fair Tax" and it would work swimmingly. But the left,
especially, hates this. Why? There's getting the money and there's spending the
money. Getting it should be simple. The problem is that not everyone agrees
on how to spend it. So the left, especially, has used all manner of tax
monkeybusiness to change how we get it, who pays, and who does. The right,
seeing what was going on, joined the party. Fair Tax would make the getting
part of it simple. Then the only argument would be the spending part which is
FAR more evident and transparent to the taxpaying public.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 8/21/2012 6:49 AM, Han wrote:
> Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
> limited to something like $6000/year in contributions.

Wrong. Any IRA cap is only on tax-free contributions. You can put as
much over that into an IRA as you please, it's just that only the amount
up to the cap is untaxed.

On 8/21/2012 9:02 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>> Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that
>>> money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?
>> So what? It is HIS money and where he chooses to keep it is HIS
>> business.
> Agreed! I do get concerned when I see or hear people talking about the
> money of others (usually those with more money...), and either saying or
> suggesting that others should use that money for some pupose that they feel
> is appropriate. Since when do any of us have that right? Han might have
> his own thoughts on what is good for society, but so do a ton of other
> people. So - how to decide how those with more money should use their
> money? By whose definitions? Not to mention that such a thought all by
> itself is really presumptuous. I guess we all do that, and I'm not calling
> Han out on this, other than to note that we as people do those things. I
> guess that's one of the benefits of forcing a compromise between two adverse
> parties such as liberals and conservatives.
>
If someone other than Romney can ethically decide what Romney does with
his money, that same someone can just as ethically decide what Tim can
do with his money, no matter how much Tim might disagree.

On 8/21/2012 9:10 AM, Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>>> Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that
>>>> money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?
>>> So what? It is HIS money and where he chooses to keep it is HIS
>>> business.
>> Agreed! I do get concerned when I see or hear people talking about
>> the money of others (usually those with more money...), and either
>> saying or suggesting that others should use that money for some pupose
>> that they feel is appropriate. Since when do any of us have that
>> right? Han might have his own thoughts on what is good for society,
>> but so do a ton of other people. So - how to decide how those with
>> more money should use their money? By whose definitions? Not to
>> mention that such a thought all by itself is really presumptuous. I
>> guess we all do that, and I'm not calling Han out on this, other than
>> to note that we as people do those things. I guess that's one of the
>> benefits of forcing a compromise between two adverse parties such as
>> liberals and conservatives.
> I'm speaking on this because as I see it, Romney and his "friends" (ilk
> has a bad connotation, and I don't mean that) want to have taxes on their
> incomes reduced,


Who sez? Where's the hard evidence for this? All I've seen is that he
opposes tax increases. For ANYONE.


> while in effect increasing the burdens on middle and
> lower incomes.

Bullcrap. Romney wants to decrease federal spending. Which reduces the
tax burden on everyone.

> Moreover, the original intent of generating jobs

Which is done by the private sector, largely by small business, which
can best be done by reducing the burden the federal government puts on
them. Romney would reduce that burden, Obama would not.

> and lowering the deficit has disappeared.

Another bullcrap statement. It is Romney, not Obama, who is serious
about reducing the federal deficit.

> In effect, the hail Mary proposals

Romney's proposals are realistic and workable.

> that presume job creation and increased wealth for the many, would only
> happen under very optimistic conditions, far in the future, and after
> major job losses had been inflicted.

Now you're describing Obama's bullcrap "blame Bush for current economy"
excuses for his own dismal failures.

> That is why I question the ethics of off-shore moneys etc.

What's unethical about it?

> If the candidate appears (emphasis) this hypocritical,

You haven't described anything hypocritical about Romney.

> he eclipses any qualms about Obama.
Rational people should be much more concerned about what Romney and
Obama each propose to do with OUR money than about what Romney quite
lawfully does with his own money.

On 8/21/2012 9:48 AM, Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> I'm speaking on this because as I see it, Romney and his "friends"
>>> (ilk has a bad connotation, and I don't mean that) want to have taxes
>>> on their incomes reduced, while in effect increasing the burdens on
>>> middle and lower incomes.
>> So - you just made an accusation there Han. Let me paraphrase it as I
>> read it... I read that to say that rich folks want to reduce thier
>> tax burden and let others pick it up. It is the latter of that
>> paraphrase that I disagree with. Have you ever know a millionaire -
>> or a billionaire? Have you ever spoken with them? Do you have any
>> idea what people with that kind of money actually do contribute in
>> terms of real tax dollars, and in terms of charitable contributions?
>> I have. More than one, more than two and more than ten. Certainly -
>> their focus is different than that of you and I.
>> But - you sir do a great disservice to at least a very large
>> percentage of
>> the rich population with your (again...) unfounded beliefs. You might
>> be well served Han, as I suggested in a totally different thread, to
>> look out beyond your own unfounded thoughts, and check out that world
>> around you, that you speak about.
> That was indeed what I wanted to "say that rich folks want to reduce
> their tax burden and let others pick it up". I do the same when I donate
> 15K to charity and use the tax deduction. I am not averse to using the
> law to my advantage.
>
> So the discussion then becomes: Is donating to charity (and other
> "loopholes") better than paying taxes? I would posit that at times it is
> better to do so, in order to stroke your ego and enahnce your goals,
> while at other times it may be better to let gvmnt build roads and
> bridges.
>
Nobody has challenged the government's role in building roads and
bridges. Tell me, how much of the $3.8 trillion federal budget is spent
on roads and bridges?

"Just Wondering" wrote:

> Nobody has challenged the government's role in building roads and
> bridges. Tell me, how much of the $3.8 trillion federal budget is
> spent on roads and bridges?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope it's not too much.

After all, those unwed mothers need their welfare checks.

Lew

On 8/21/2012 12:18 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:29:41 -0600, Just Wondering
>> Rational people should be much more concerned about what Romney and
>> Obama each propose to do with OUR money than about what Romney quite
>> lawfully does with his own money.
> Maybe. But, how and what he does with his money is often a good
> indicator of what type of man he is. Ethics, integrity and even
> honesty all come into play and should come under close scrutiny when
> you're running for the office of the president of the United States.
>
All indication are that (1) he paid every penny in taxes that the law
requires, (3) he gave 15% of all he received to charitable
contributions, (3) he provided for his family, and (4) he gave a lot of
thought and effort to obtaining the greatest benefit he could from the
surplus remaining after (1), (2), and (3). And he did all of this
ethically and honestly. To the extent it has any bearing on the
question, it sounds like Romney is the kind of decision-maker we'd want
in our chief executive.

But the important question, again, is what Romney and Obama each propose
to do with OUR money.

On 8/21/2012 1:08 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 12:20 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/21/2012 9:02 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that
>>>>> money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?
>>>> So what? It is HIS money and where he chooses to keep it is HIS
>>>> business.
>>> Agreed! I do get concerned when I see or hear people talking about the
>>> money of others (usually those with more money...), and either
>>> saying or
>>> suggesting that others should use that money for some pupose that
>>> they feel
>>> is appropriate. Since when do any of us have that right? Han might
>>> have
>>> his own thoughts on what is good for society, but so do a ton of other
>>> people. So - how to decide how those with more money should use their
>>> money? By whose definitions? Not to mention that such a thought
>>> all by
>>> itself is really presumptuous. I guess we all do that, and I'm not
>>> calling
>>> Han out on this, other than to note that we as people do those
>>> things. I
>>> guess that's one of the benefits of forcing a compromise between two
>>> adverse
>>> parties such as liberals and conservatives.
>>>
>> If someone other than Romney can ethically decide what Romney does
>> with his money, that same someone can just as ethically decide what
>> Tim can do with his money, no matter how much Tim might disagree.
>
> What money? I'm living in the age of Hoax And Shame...
>

If so, you can thank BO for that. You are the one who inferred that
someone other than Romney can ethically decide what Romney does with his
money. Are you therefore on board with giving that some someone the
same decision making power over YOUR money?

On 08/21/2012 02:54 PM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:5033DAE5.5040404
> @tundraware.com:
>
>> On 08/21/2012 10:01 AM, Han wrote:
>>> So that's where you can get a 370 fold (37,000%) yield?
>>
>> It's entirely possible, legal, and ethical.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that
>>>>>>> money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So what? It is HIS money and where he chooses to keep it is HIS
>>>>> business.
>>> Great job creators always look out for themselves first.
>>
>> I'm not sure I know what that means. EVERYONE (who is sane) looks
>> out for themselves and the ones they love first. The virtue of
>> capitalism is that, in doing so, they incidentally create opportunity
>> for others.
>
> That's a feel good statement if I ever saw one. I hope it is a
> consideration for every capitalist, see whether what they do is creating
> opportunity for others. Have you asked Steve Gass what opportunities he
> is creating?
>
>>>>>>> In other words, if this is legal, is it right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing you've suggested even rises slightly to any level of being
>>>>> unethical.
>>> That's your opinion. I disagree.
>>
>>
>> Please cite a single demonstrable example of something being unethical.
>> You cannot. You may not *like* what he's done, but it's HIS money
>> and therefore, no one else's business.
>
> Didn't I say that I find it less than "right" that Mitt stores his money
> in offshore tax havens?
>

Just because you don't like something does not make it unethical.
For it to be unethical it would involve him using some form of fraud,
force, or threat. I see no evidence of any of the above.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 8/21/2012 1:20 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
> How about no deductions for anyone for any reason period?
>
> How about a flat tax at time of *consumption* with a "prebate" to make
> sure the first $XX,XXX dollars are effectively untaxed so as to not put
> an undue burden on the poor?
>
Uh, your "no deductions" plan starts off with a deduction. Your
"prebate" is a deduction.

Somebody wrote:

> It is Romney, not Obama, who is serious
> about reducing the federal deficit.
-------------------------------------------------
What a bunch of happy horse crap.

All Romney wants to do is reduce taxes on
high end incomes, above $250K, as well as
destroy Medicare and Social Security as
we know it, not reduce the federal deficit.

Republicans have been trying to get rid of
Medicare and Social Security as we know it
since their inception.

Lew

On 08/22/2012 02:01 PM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 08/22/2012 12:07 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> On 08/22/2012 11:12 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21 Aug 2012 20:02:01 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When rates go
>>>>>>> back up, the Federal government is going to be underwater
>>>>>>> servicing the debt that Obama (and Bush) created. We cannot tax
>>>>>>> our way out of Obamanomics. We have to *grow* our way out
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Totally agree with this part of your statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your boy Obama is doing such a great job of that!
>>>>
>>>> Growing WILL need stimulus and taxation ...
>>>
>>> We already have.Bush's TARP was about $1T. Obama added almost
>>> another $5T in self-stimulation. Neither worked. They simply gave
>>> the very people that failed to behave responsibly a get out of jail
>>> free card. Among these include the bankers, the people that bought
>>> homes as items of speculation, and people living far beyond their
>>> means.
>>>
>>> How much more shall we spend before folks on your side of the
>>> political divide finally admit it does not work?
>>>
>>> BTW, what neither your side nor most so-called conservatives get it
>>> that what Obama did was NOT Keynesian. It was far worse. A Keynes
>>> stimulus would have gone directly into the economy in the form of
>>> jobs for the masses. Obama self-stimulation was designed to
>>> benefit his favored oligarchs and low rent voter base but it produces
>>> no jobs of any note outside the wretched public sector. Now Keynes
>>> was wrong on many levels, but Obama's actions are pure political
>>> megalomania trying to get people to like him.
>>
>>
>>> Obama added almost another > $5T in self-stimulation.
>>
>> This isn't quite right. That's how much incremental *debt* he
>> incurred. Not all of that is self-stimulation.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk
>>
>
> <http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/has-obama-made-the-
> job-situation-worse/?hp>
>

Han, I didn't way he made the job situation worse as such. I said
his self-stimulation plan didn't work ... because we still have
a U6 at, what, nearly 15%?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

On 8/22/2012 10:35 AM, Han wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 21 Aug 2012 12:49:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Two for instances.
>>> Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
>>> limited to something like $6000/year in contributions. Not sure when
>>> the IRA system was started, but let's say for argument's sake 45 years
>>> ago. That would mean (if I am correct) that Romney's 45x$6000 or
>>> $270,000 had a phenomenal yield. But then, he could have transferred
>>> more than $6000/year?
>>>
>>> Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that
>>> money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?
>>>
>>> In other words, if this is legal, is it right?
>> Why not? If it is legal, it was deemed right by the lawmakers. If
>> Romney or others want to give money away, fine, but that should be
>> their decision, not mine and yours.
>>
>> Wish I could remember the details of a 60 Minutes piece asking about
>> some corporations with operations off shore. They would bring them
>> back of the tax rate was lower. We accept nothing over a lower
>> percentage of billions.
>>
>> Our tax code is terrible and should be tossed out. The code should be
>> re-written and no more than three pages long. Problem is, that would
>> put many accountants and lawyers out of work.
> So sad, so true ...
>
By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
lawyers, they'll always find work to do.

On 08/23/2012 01:50 PM, Han wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2
> @usenet-news.net:
>
>> By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
>> lawyers, they'll always find work to do.
>
> Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
> accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed law. Then
> somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they violate the
> spirit of the law. I thought that something like that may (have) exist
> (ed).
>

Yes, it's called "The Constitution Of The United States Of America"
in which the Federal government is granted a very narrow, specific,
and limited set of things it is allowed to do. They are called
"Enumerated Powers" and the Doctrine Of Enumerated Powers was
repeatedly affirmed and confirmed as intention by James Madsion,
that document's author. Sadly, today's whiny and entitled
public want the Feds to be their Daddy (the Republicans) and/or
their Mommy (the Democrats) and no end of mischief has transpired thereby.


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

On 08/23/2012 02:54 PM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 08/23/2012 01:50 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:
>>>
>>>> By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
>>>> lawyers, they'll always find work to do.
>>>
>>> Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
>>> accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed law.
>>> Then somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they
>>> violate the spirit of the law. I thought that something like that
>>> may (have) exist (ed).
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it's called "The Constitution Of The United States Of America"
>> in which the Federal government is granted a very narrow, specific,
>> and limited set of things it is allowed to do. They are called
>> "Enumerated Powers" and the Doctrine Of Enumerated Powers was
>> repeatedly affirmed and confirmed as intention by James Madsion,
>> that document's author. Sadly, today's whiny and entitled
>> public want the Feds to be their Daddy (the Republicans) and/or
>> their Mommy (the Democrats) and no end of mischief has transpired
>> thereby.
>
> I'm going to a set of continuing ed lectures on the Constitution this
> fall. I may adopt at times your stance to see whether I can rattle the
> speaker esq.
>
>

Listen to the Cronkite set on the Constitution from Knowledge Products.
Then listen to the set on the Federalist Papers. At that point, you'll
understand the Constitution better than 90% of lawyers, 99% of the general
population, and 99.999999999999999% of politicians....

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 08/23/2012 08:22 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes. Personally, I favor a per-capita tax. That is one AMOUNT, not a
>>> single percentage. Like a movie ticket or a can of jalapeno-flavored
>>> chicken nuggets. One money for all. [Currently, that would be about
>>> $15,000 per person per year]
>>
>> So how do you deal with people whose income is $14,000 per year?
>
> I haven't worked out all the details, but as I've said before such an
> individual could contribute a kidney. I call that my "Federal Withdrawal
> Plan."
>
>

I see, so you're a fan of the Dead Kennedy's tune, "Kill The Poor".
How very uncivil of you.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 8/23/2012 1:29 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/23/2012 01:50 PM, Han wrote:
>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2
>> @usenet-news.net:
>>
>>> By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
>>> lawyers, they'll always find work to do.
>>
>> Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
>> accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed
>> law. Then
>> somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they
>> violate the
>> spirit of the law. I thought that something like that may (have) exist
>> (ed).
>>
>
> Yes, it's called "The Constitution Of The United States Of America"
> in which the Federal government is granted a very narrow, specific,
> and limited set of things it is allowed to do. They are called
> "Enumerated Powers" and the Doctrine Of Enumerated Powers was
> repeatedly affirmed and confirmed as intention by James Madsion,
> that document's author. Sadly, today's whiny and entitled
> public want the Feds to be their Daddy (the Republicans) and/or
> their Mommy (the Democrats) and no end of mischief has transpired
> thereby.
>
>
You can thank Franklin Roosevelt and his "New Deal" and
then-unprecedented court-packing expansion of the Commerce Clause for that.

On 8/23/2012 4:23 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/23/2012 05:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/23/2012 1:29 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> On 08/23/2012 01:50 PM, Han wrote:
>>>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2
>>>> @usenet-news.net:
>>>>
>>>>> By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
>>>>> lawyers, they'll always find work to do.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
>>>> accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed
>>>> law. Then
>>>> somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they
>>>> violate the
>>>> spirit of the law. I thought that something like that may (have)
>>>> exist
>>>> (ed).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it's called "The Constitution Of The United States Of America"
>>> in which the Federal government is granted a very narrow, specific,
>>> and limited set of things it is allowed to do. They are called
>>> "Enumerated Powers" and the Doctrine Of Enumerated Powers was
>>> repeatedly affirmed and confirmed as intention by James Madsion,
>>> that document's author. Sadly, today's whiny and entitled
>>> public want the Feds to be their Daddy (the Republicans) and/or
>>> their Mommy (the Democrats) and no end of mischief has transpired
>>> thereby.
>>>
>>>
>> You can thank Franklin Roosevelt and his "New Deal" and
>> then-unprecedented court-packing expansion of the Commerce Clause for
>> that.
>
>
> That's part of it, but the Right has been just as guilty of these kinds
> of excesses. It has been the Right that has insisted we stick our nose
> into the business of other nations even though we have no national
> interest
> at stake.


Who got the USA into the Korean war? "Give 'm Hell" Harry Truman. And
it was Republican President Eisenhower who got us out. Are you too
young to remember how the USA got big-time into the Vietnam conflict?
It was Kennedy who first sent combat troops there. It was Johnson who
got us into a full-scale war there. And it was Nixon, a Republican, who
got us out. Carter stuck the US military nose into El Salvador. Under
Clinton, a USA-led NATO force engaged in military strikes in
Yugoslavia. Clinton also stuck the US military nose into Serbia,
Afghanistan and Sudan, and.forced a regime change in Haiti. When did
Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton join the Republican
party? Face it, your assertion that "It has been the Right that has
insisted we stick our nose into the business of other nations" is just
divisive partisan drivel.


> It is the Right that has decided to be everyone's Daddy and tell them
> what they can drink/smoke/snort and in what manner they may have sex
> and whether
> their romantic arrangements will be recognized by law.

Actually, your next statement is more nearly correct, although it's the
Left more than the right that wants "Big Brother" type control over us.

> The fact is that neither side wants freedom, it wants the power to
> push and shove and tell everyone
> else what to do. Sadly, the people would rather be coddled by
> imaginary government goodness than be free citizens...
>

On 8/23/2012 10:07 PM, Larry W wrote:
> I beleive you have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican president
> who lowered the deficit during his term. Since then, 3 Democratic
> presidents have done so, though: Johnson, Carter, & Clinton.
>
>
And here all along I thought it was Congress who set the federal budget.

On 08/24/2012 03:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/23/2012 4:23 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 08/23/2012 05:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2012 1:29 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> On 08/23/2012 01:50 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2
>>>>> @usenet-news.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
>>>>>> lawyers, they'll always find work to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
>>>>> accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed law. Then
>>>>> somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they violate the
>>>>> spirit of the law. I thought that something like that may (have) exist
>>>>> (ed).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's called "The Constitution Of The United States Of America"
>>>> in which the Federal government is granted a very narrow, specific,
>>>> and limited set of things it is allowed to do. They are called
>>>> "Enumerated Powers" and the Doctrine Of Enumerated Powers was
>>>> repeatedly affirmed and confirmed as intention by James Madsion,
>>>> that document's author. Sadly, today's whiny and entitled
>>>> public want the Feds to be their Daddy (the Republicans) and/or
>>>> their Mommy (the Democrats) and no end of mischief has transpired thereby.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You can thank Franklin Roosevelt and his "New Deal" and then-unprecedented court-packing expansion of the Commerce Clause for that.
>>
>>
>> That's part of it, but the Right has been just as guilty of these kinds
>> of excesses. It has been the Right that has insisted we stick our nose
>> into the business of other nations even though we have no national interest
>> at stake.
>
>
> Who got the USA into the Korean war? "Give 'm Hell" Harry Truman. And it was Republican President Eisenhower who got us out. Are you too young to remember how the USA got big-time into the Vietnam conflict? It was Kennedy who first sent combat troops there. It was Johnson who got us into a full-scale war there. And it was Nixon, a Republican, who got us out. Carter stuck the US military nose into El Salvador. Under Clinton, a USA-led NATO force engaged in military strikes in Yugoslavia. Clinton also stuck the US military nose into Serbia, Afghanistan and Sudan, and.forced a regime change in Haiti. When did Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton join the Republican party? Face it, your assertion that "It has been the Right that has insisted we stick our nose into the business of other nations" is just divisive partisan drivel.

I was not just referring wars. I was referring to invasive foreign
policy wherein we stick our noses somewhere (Iran, Iraq, Israel, Korea,
etc.) and then later have to pay for our sins (hostages in Iran, a war
in Kuwait, and another war in Iraq).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 8/24/2012 8:24 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 08/24/2012 03:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/23/2012 4:23 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> On 08/23/2012 05:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2012 1:29 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>> On 08/23/2012 01:50 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2
>>>>>> @usenet-news.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
>>>>>>> lawyers, they'll always find work to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
>>>>>> accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed
>>>>>> law. Then
>>>>>> somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they
>>>>>> violate the
>>>>>> spirit of the law. I thought that something like that may (have)
>>>>>> exist
>>>>>> (ed).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it's called "The Constitution Of The United States Of America"
>>>>> in which the Federal government is granted a very narrow, specific,
>>>>> and limited set of things it is allowed to do. They are called
>>>>> "Enumerated Powers" and the Doctrine Of Enumerated Powers was
>>>>> repeatedly affirmed and confirmed as intention by James Madsion,
>>>>> that document's author. Sadly, today's whiny and entitled
>>>>> public want the Feds to be their Daddy (the Republicans) and/or
>>>>> their Mommy (the Democrats) and no end of mischief has transpired
>>>>> thereby.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You can thank Franklin Roosevelt and his "New Deal" and
>>>> then-unprecedented court-packing expansion of the Commerce Clause
>>>> for that.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's part of it, but the Right has been just as guilty of these kinds
>>> of excesses. It has been the Right that has insisted we stick our nose
>>> into the business of other nations even though we have no national
>>> interest
>>> at stake.
>>
>>
>> Who got the USA into the Korean war? "Give 'm Hell" Harry Truman.
>> And it was Republican President Eisenhower who got us out. Are you
>> too young to remember how the USA got big-time into the Vietnam
>> conflict? It was Kennedy who first sent combat troops there. It was
>> Johnson who got us into a full-scale war there. And it was Nixon, a
>> Republican, who got us out. Carter stuck the US military nose into
>> El Salvador. Under Clinton, a USA-led NATO force engaged in
>> military strikes in Yugoslavia. Clinton also stuck the US military
>> nose into Serbia, Afghanistan and Sudan, and.forced a regime change
>> in Haiti. When did Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton join
>> the Republican party? Face it, your assertion that "It has been
>> the Right that has insisted we stick our nose into the business of
>> other nations" is just divisive partisan drivel.
>
> I was not just referring wars. I was referring to invasive foreign
> policy wherein we stick our noses somewhere (Iran, Iraq, Israel, Korea,
> etc.) and then later have to pay for our sins (hostages in Iran, a
> war in Kuwait, and another war in Iraq).
>

Wars are the quintessential "sticking your nose into another's
business." My point is that trying to pin that label on the Right and
not the Left simply ignores history.

On 8/24/2012 12:33 PM, Han wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/23/2012 10:07 PM, Larry W wrote:
>>> I beleive you have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican
>>> president who lowered the deficit during his term. Since then, 3
>>> Democratic presidents have done so, though: Johnson, Carter, &
>>> Clinton.
>>>
>>>
>> And here all along I thought it was Congress who set the federal
>> budget.
> Your asking for a constitutional form of government - like ENgland, where
> the power resides in a prime minister who basically serves at the pleasure
> of the House, with just a powerless titular head - Queen of England or
> Holland, President of France or Italy.
>
I'm not asking for anything. I'll put it more bluntly. Whether there
is a deficit depends on what the budget is. The President does not set
the budget. Congress, originating in the House of Representatives, sets
the budget. If you like the budget, thank Congress, not the President.
If you don't like the budget, blame Congress, not the President.

On 8/24/2012 12:49 PM, Han wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:5037374a$0$5297
> [email protected]:
>
>> Are you too
>> young to remember how the USA got big-time into the Vietnam conflict?
>> It was Kennedy who first sent combat troops there. It was Johnson who
>> got us into a full-scale war there.
> Another disaster that was engineered by the powers in charge (Johnson),
> just like Bush's Iraq wars. From Wikipedia on the Gulf of Tonkin
> resolution: The house was unanimous in favor, and "It was opposed in the
> Senate only by Senators Wayne Morse (D-OR) and Ernest Gruening (D-AK).
> Senator Gruening objected to "sending our American boys into combat in a
> war in which we have no business, which is not our war, into which we
> have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily being escalated"." And
> indeed, it was Nixon (tricky Dick) who got us out, and who got us
> friendly with the Chinese. Two things for which I will always admire
> him. Now the other stuff ...
>
My point is that Democrats are just as guilty as Republican are at
sticking the collective U.S. nose into other nation's affairs, and that
to single Repubs alone out for that sort of behavior ignores history.

On 8/24/2012 4:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> My point is that Democrats are just as guilty as Republican are at
>> sticking the collective U.S. nose into other nation's affairs, and
>> that to single Repubs alone out for that sort of behavior ignores
>> history.
> We do it because we're here. Just us. No one else, lad. Now face the front
> and mark your target as he comes.
>
>
I personally don't have a problem with the idea in general. I was
responding to someone who does have a problem with it, and tried to
stick it to Republicans alone. Sometimes, though, we as a nation should
be just a little more circumspect where we go poking our collective nose.

HeyBub wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation. Further,
>>> there is no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore account. The US
>>> is one of only two countries that tax foreign earnings (the other
>>> is the Philippines). What the Caymens, Bahamas, etc., offer is bank
>>> "secrecy." Now one CAN use the secrecy to hide dodgy transactions,
>>> but Romney is a Republican. Republicans just don't do that sort of
>>> thing.
>>
>> Sorry - as much of a Democrat, or a liberal as I am not - I just
>> cannot bring myself to accept such a broad brush statement.
>> Republicans have been and can be as guilty of any sort of sin as
>> anyone else.
>
> Your claim, that Republicans can be rascally in their financial
> dealings, is certainly true.
>
> There was an instance back in 1922 called the "Teapot Dome Scandal"
> during the administration of Warren G. Harding which we Republicans
> like to forget.

As well - GW didn't do a lot to endear me...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 08/21/2012 02:25 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
<SNIP>

>> What money? I'm living in the age of Hoax And Shame...
>>
>
> If so, you can thank BO for that. You are the one who inferred that someone other than Romney can ethically decide what Romney does with his money. Are you therefore on board with giving that some someone the same decision making power over YOUR money?


Um, I was agreeing with you ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Han wrote:
>
> We have to go by what is legal if we want to live in a system ruled by
> law. But there may be a difference between what is legal and what is
> right. As you know I am just a bit left of center ...
>
> Two for instances.
> Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
> limited to something like $6000/year in contributions. Not sure when
> the IRA system was started, but let's say for argument's sake 45
> years ago. That would mean (if I am correct) that Romney's 45x$6000
> or $270,000 had a phenomenal yield. But then, he could have
> transferred more than $6000/year?
>
> Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that
> money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?
>
> In other words, if this is legal, is it right?

This was settled in the late 18th century by the Englishman Adam Smith in
his book "An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations." In that work, he
postulated the theory of "The Invisible Hand."

You really should keep up.

Han wrote:

>
> I'm speaking on this because as I see it, Romney and his "friends"
> (ilk has a bad connotation, and I don't mean that) want to have taxes
> on their incomes reduced, while in effect increasing the burdens on
> middle and lower incomes.

So - you just made an accusation there Han. Let me paraphrase it as I read
it... I read that to say that rich folks want to reduce thier tax burden
and let others pick it up. It is the latter of that paraphrase that I
disagree with. Have you ever know a millionaire - or a billionaire? Have
you ever spoken with them? Do you have any idea what people with that kind
of money actually do contribute in terms of real tax dollars, and in terms
of charitable contributions? I have. More than one, more than two and more
than ten. Certainly - their focus is different than that of you and I.
But - you sir do a great disservice to at least a very large percentage of
the rich population with your (again...) unfounded beliefs. You might be
well served Han, as I suggested in a totally different thread, to look out
beyond your own unfounded thoughts, and check out that world around you,
that you speak about.



--

-Mike-
[email protected]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:05:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation. Further,
>>>>> there is no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore account. The US
>>>>> is one of only two countries that tax foreign earnings (the other
>>>>> is the Philippines). What the Caymens, Bahamas, etc., offer is
>>>>> bank "secrecy." Now one CAN use the secrecy to hide dodgy
>>>>> transactions, but Romney is a Republican. Republicans just don't
>>>>> do that sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry - as much of a Democrat, or a liberal as I am not - I just
>>>> cannot bring myself to accept such a broad brush statement.
>>>> Republicans have been and can be as guilty of any sort of sin as
>>>> anyone else.
>>>
>>> Your claim, that Republicans can be rascally in their financial
>>> dealings, is certainly true.
>>>
>>> There was an instance back in 1922 called the "Teapot Dome Scandal"
>>> during the administration of Warren G. Harding which we Republicans
>>> like to forget.
>>
>> As well - GW didn't do a lot to endear me...
>
> Are you alleging criminal activity in their financial dealings?

Nope - not at all. In fact, I was generalizing in a way that was outside of
the "financial dealings" that HeyBub laid down in his prior reply. So - in
that sense, I did (with my reply) extend this beyond what had previously
been stated.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

HeyBub wrote:

>
> But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation. Further,
> there is no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore account. The US is
> one of only two countries that tax foreign earnings (the other is the
> Philippines). What the Caymens, Bahamas, etc., offer is bank
> "secrecy." Now one CAN use the secrecy to hide dodgy transactions,
> but Romney is a Republican. Republicans just don't do that sort of
> thing.

Sorry - as much of a Democrat, or a liberal as I am not - I just cannot
bring myself to accept such a broad brush statement. Republicans have been
and can be as guilty of any sort of sin as anyone else.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

HeyBub wrote:

>
> "Opponents point to Rochester billionaire B. Thomas Golisano, a
> philanthropist and minor party candidate for governor, who moved to
> Florida to avoid paying $13,000 a day more in New York taxes."
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-10-17/new-york-millionaire-tax/50804592/1
>
> "Last week I spent 90 minutes doing a couple of simple things --
> registering to vote, changing my driver's license, filling out a
> domicile certificate and signing a homestead certificate -- in
> Florida. Combined with spending 184 days a year outside New York,
> these simple procedures will save me over $5 million in New York
> taxes annually.
> "By moving to Florida, I can spend that $5 million on worthy causes,
> like better hospitals, improving education or the Clinton Global
> Initiative. Or maybe I'll continue to invest it in fighting the
> status quo in Albany. One thing's certain: That money won't continue
> to fund Albany's bloated bureaucracy, corrupt politicians and regular
> special-interest handouts."

This was pretty well publicized in upstate NY at the time. Golisano has
done well for himself and is a very successful businessman. Interestingly,
there was very little to no backlash for his move and his statements - from
either side. He has donated millions and millions of dollars over the years
to philantropic interests. I won't say that he is revered - I don't believe
he is, but there is no denying the things he has done with his money, to
benefit the population. The biggest backlash I have ever heard were a few
comments about his name being attached to the children's "wing" of Upstate
Medical Center in Syracuse. Wing - hell, it's almost a whole freakin'
hospital by itself. For me - let him put his name on it! He funded the
damned thing. A little legacy is not a bad thing in a guy's life.

Over the years I have golfed with, done business with, respected, and been
frustrated by Tom Golisano. He can really piss you off at times. But -
he's nobody's fool, and he made quite a statement with his "move" to
Florida.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

>>
>> Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that
>> money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?
>
> So what? It is HIS money and where he chooses to keep it is HIS
> business.

Agreed! I do get concerned when I see or hear people talking about the
money of others (usually those with more money...), and either saying or
suggesting that others should use that money for some pupose that they feel
is appropriate. Since when do any of us have that right? Han might have
his own thoughts on what is good for society, but so do a ton of other
people. So - how to decide how those with more money should use their
money? By whose definitions? Not to mention that such a thought all by
itself is really presumptuous. I guess we all do that, and I'm not calling
Han out on this, other than to note that we as people do those things. I
guess that's one of the benefits of forcing a compromise between two adverse
parties such as liberals and conservatives.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 08/21/2012 10:10 AM, Han wrote:
> I'm speaking on this because as I see it, Romney and his "friends" (ilk
> has a bad connotation, and I don't mean that) want to have taxes on their
> incomes reduced, while in effect increasing the burdens on middle and
> lower incomes. Moreover, the original intent of generating jobs and

A left wing talking point that borders on a lie. Try this instead:

- EVERYONE wants to minimize their tax burden.

- What is increasing taxes on the middle class is not the lack of what the
rich contribute but the *profligate spending of a government out of control*.

If you think the rich don't pay enough, here's the math:

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Now go do a teensy amount of homework. Pretend that Obama (PBUH) gets
what he wants and additional taxes are levied on the rich. Assume Obama
(PBUH) gets everything he's asking for. Total up the imaginary increase
in revenue and see how long it would run the government. HINT: Last I checked
less than half a year and that's at TODAY's interest rates. When rates go
back up, the Federal government is going to be underwater servicing the debt
that Obama (and Bush) created. We cannot tax our way out of Obamanomics.
We have to *grow* our way out and that cannot happen as long as he remains
in office.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

HeyBub wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>
>>> Yep, I can understand how you might feel that way. Twenty-eight
>>> consecutive quarters of economic growth, unemployment below 5%, DJIA
>>> above 12,000, inflation almost non-existant. The entire economy was
>>> swell up through 2007.
>>> Then the Democrats took over Congress...
>>
>>
>> Well - the Clinton fans could probably have a field day with that,
>> but what I was making reference to was GW's involvlement in the
>> middle east. It started with his dad, and he took it all to a new
>> level - a total waste in every respect. That's my thoughts on it and
>> I'm not going to spend any more time explaining my thoughts.
>
> Times were pretty good under the Clinton administration too. But of
> course he had a Republican congress...
>
> And you don't have to explain - I completely understand.
>

BTW - the reason I don't want to spend any time explaining my thoughts is
simply that this would certainly be one of those topics that spirals into
forever, if allowed to take off.

> As for "waste," I consider killing a HUGE number of, um, "them" and
> blowing up a lot of shit, hardly a waste! To use the jargon of the
> modern progressive, it was an "investment."

Well - to be sure... blowing up a lot of shit is (as you say...) hardly a
waste. It might even be considered to be a good use of one's time!

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the spectacle
> of a man who wants to be President of The United States, who wants
> us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American civic ideal,
> declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his taxes at a third
> of
> the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic benefit.
>

Certainly.

That Romney paid a lesser rate implies that he took advantage of tax breaks,
deductions, etc., built into the tax code.

Now these exemptions and so forth were placed in the tax code by our betters
to further various social goals such as contributions to charity, home
mortgage interest, and the like. To the degree that Romney sought out and
participated in those social goals, he should be commended!

Ross Perot, as an exemplar, paid NO taxes on his millions in income because
his income was solely in the form of tax-exempt mutual bonds.

Because Romney evidently helped fund various social goals, cities are
improved, children don't go to bed hungry, the homeless find succor,
alcoholics have access to treatment programs, and, for all I know, stray
dogs and cats get three hots and a cot.

Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>> Your claim, that Republicans can be rascally in their financial
>> dealings, is certainly true.
>>
>> There was an instance back in 1922 called the "Teapot Dome Scandal"
>> during the administration of Warren G. Harding which we Republicans
>> like to forget.
>
> As well - GW didn't do a lot to endear me...

Yep, I can understand how you might feel that way. Twenty-eight consecutive
quarters of economic growth, unemployment below 5%, DJIA above 12,000,
inflation almost non-existant. The entire economy was swell up through 2007.

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Yes. Personally, I favor a per-capita tax. That is one AMOUNT, not a
>> single percentage. Like a movie ticket or a can of jalapeno-flavored
>> chicken nuggets. One money for all. [Currently, that would be about
>> $15,000 per person per year]
>
> So how do you deal with people whose income is $14,000 per year?

I haven't worked out all the details, but as I've said before such an
individual could contribute a kidney. I call that my "Federal Withdrawal
Plan."

Mike Marlow wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>>
>> But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation. Further,
>> there is no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore account. The US is
>> one of only two countries that tax foreign earnings (the other is the
>> Philippines). What the Caymens, Bahamas, etc., offer is bank
>> "secrecy." Now one CAN use the secrecy to hide dodgy transactions,
>> but Romney is a Republican. Republicans just don't do that sort of
>> thing.
>
> Sorry - as much of a Democrat, or a liberal as I am not - I just
> cannot bring myself to accept such a broad brush statement. Republicans
> have been and can be as guilty of any sort of sin as
> anyone else.

Your claim, that Republicans can be rascally in their financial dealings, is
certainly true.

There was an instance back in 1922 called the "Teapot Dome Scandal" during
the administration of Warren G. Harding which we Republicans like to forget.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Han wrote:
> > "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:4cffe$50339d3f [email protected]:
> >
> >> Han wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> That is the question whether total amount or percentage is more
> >>> important. IOW, is progressive taxation good or not? A question of
> >>> ideology, perhaps?
> >>
> >> My personal opinion? I tend towards a flat tax.
> >
> > What's a flat tax in your opinion? Everyone should pay 9% here and 9%
> > there? Without regard of minimum living costs?
>
> Yes. Personally, I favor a per-capita tax. That is one AMOUNT, not a single
> percentage. Like a movie ticket or a can of jalapeno-flavored chicken
> nuggets. One money for all. [Currently, that would be about $15,000 per
> person per year]

So how do you deal with people whose income is $14,000 per year?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes. Personally, I favor a per-capita tax. That is one AMOUNT, not a
> >> single percentage. Like a movie ticket or a can of jalapeno-flavored
> >> chicken nuggets. One money for all. [Currently, that would be about
> >> $15,000 per person per year]
> >
> > So how do you deal with people whose income is $14,000 per year?
>
> I haven't worked out all the details, but as I've said before such an
> individual could contribute a kidney. I call that my "Federal Withdrawal
> Plan."

You need to either use smiley faces or get some help.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

>
> I was not just referring wars. I was referring to invasive foreign
> policy wherein we stick our noses somewhere (Iran, Iraq, Israel,
> Korea, etc.) and then later have to pay for our sins (hostages in
> Iran, a war in Kuwait, and another war in Iraq).
>

Somebody has to be the world's policeman. For over a hundred years it was
the British. Now us.

If not us, then there are two choices:

* International anarchy, the likes of which is exemplified by Sudanese
pirates, or
* Some other country takes on the job.

If the latter, who would you prefer? China? Russia? Iran? Guatamala?

On 8/20/2012 11:29 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Enjoy
>
> Lew
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the spectacle
> of a man who wants to be President of The United States, who wants
> us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American civic ideal,
> declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his taxes at a third
> of
> the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic benefit.
>
> Stunning.
>
>
>
>
Finally people are seeing the real Obama.

Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:4cffe$50339d3f [email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That is the question whether total amount or percentage is more
>>> important. IOW, is progressive taxation good or not? A question of
>>> ideology, perhaps?
>>
>> My personal opinion? I tend towards a flat tax.
>
> What's a flat tax in your opinion? Everyone should pay 9% here and 9%
> there? Without regard of minimum living costs?

Yes. Personally, I favor a per-capita tax. That is one AMOUNT, not a single
percentage. Like a movie ticket or a can of jalapeno-flavored chicken
nuggets. One money for all. [Currently, that would be about $15,000 per
person per year]

Han wrote:
>
> In many ways we are much better off now than we realize, and those
> graphs show it. I wish I knew how to translate it into more jobs.
> Serious suggestions?

A good part of it is uncertainty.

Estimates are that business in the US are sitting on over $1 trillion in
cash but are reluctant to invest it due to uncertainty.

Uncertainty in imminent tax policies, energy development, health care costs,
and more.

Another $1 trillion in corporate assets are reported parked in off-shore
accounts due to unfavorable tax regulations. With a modest change in the tax
law, these profits could easily be repatriated to the US.

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 08/20/2012 11:29 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Enjoy
>>
>> Lew
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------ Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the
>> spectacle of a man who wants to be President of The United States,
>> who wants us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American
>> civic ideal, declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his
>> taxes at a third of
>> the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic benefit.
>>
>> Stunning.
>
> Another Proof By Repeated Assertion from the left. Let's
> see the evidence of this and further see any evidence of
> illegality.

We have to go by what is legal if we want to live in a system ruled by
law. But there may be a difference between what is legal and what is
right. As you know I am just a bit left of center ...

Two for instances.
Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
limited to something like $6000/year in contributions. Not sure when the
IRA system was started, but let's say for argument's sake 45 years ago.
That would mean (if I am correct) that Romney's 45x$6000 or $270,000 had
a phenomenal yield. But then, he could have transferred more than
$6000/year?

Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that money
could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?

In other words, if this is legal, is it right?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>>
>> We have to go by what is legal if we want to live in a system ruled
>> by law. But there may be a difference between what is legal and what
>> is right. As you know I am just a bit left of center ...
>>
>> Two for instances.
>> Romney has amassed over 100 million in an IRA. Supposedly IRAs are
>> limited to something like $6000/year in contributions. Not sure when
>> the IRA system was started, but let's say for argument's sake 45
>> years ago. That would mean (if I am correct) that Romney's 45x$6000
>> or $270,000 had a phenomenal yield. But then, he could have
>> transferred more than $6000/year?
>>
>> Romney has large amounts of capital off-shore. Theoretically that
>> money could be in use to support the US economy. Is it?
>>
>> In other words, if this is legal, is it right?
>
> This was settled in the late 18th century by the Englishman Adam Smith
> in his book "An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations." In that work, he
> postulated the theory of "The Invisible Hand."
>
> You really should keep up.

Sorry (contrite). Not familiar with the nitty gritty of invisible hands.
Doesn't seem to answer my question. Hints?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the spectacle
>> of a man who wants to be President of The United States, who wants
>> us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American civic ideal,
>> declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his taxes at a
>> third of
>> the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic benefit.
>>
>
> Certainly.
>
> That Romney paid a lesser rate implies that he took advantage of tax
> breaks, deductions, etc., built into the tax code.
>
> Now these exemptions and so forth were placed in the tax code by our
> betters to further various social goals such as contributions to
> charity, home mortgage interest, and the like. To the degree that
> Romney sought out and participated in those social goals, he should be
> commended!
>
> Ross Perot, as an exemplar, paid NO taxes on his millions in income
> because his income was solely in the form of tax-exempt mutual bonds.
>
> Because Romney evidently helped fund various social goals, cities are
> improved, children don't go to bed hungry, the homeless find succor,
> alcoholics have access to treatment programs, and, for all I know,
> stray dogs and cats get three hots and a cot.

Yes, and I take "advantage" of the breaks too, specifically the huge
loophole that transfer of appreciated stock to charity offers (a total
charitable deduction for FMV, without regard to basis or cap gains).

Perhaps we should have an automatic sunset to those social goals.
Equally to depletion allowances and subsidies to green technologies.
(I have no idea what the law says on these at the moment, just that they
have supporters and detractors on the left and the right).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> HeyBub wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the spectacle
>>> of a man who wants to be President of The United States, who wants
>>> us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American civic ideal,
>>> declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his taxes at a
>>> third of
>>> the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic benefit.
>>>
>>
>> Certainly.
>>
>> That Romney paid a lesser rate implies that he took advantage of tax
>> breaks, deductions, etc., built into the tax code.
>>
>> Now these exemptions and so forth were placed in the tax code by our
>> betters to further various social goals such as contributions to
>> charity, home mortgage interest, and the like. To the degree that
>> Romney sought out and participated in those social goals, he should
>> be commended!
>> Ross Perot, as an exemplar, paid NO taxes on his millions in income
>> because his income was solely in the form of tax-exempt mutual bonds.
>>
>> Because Romney evidently helped fund various social goals, cities are
>> improved, children don't go to bed hungry, the homeless find succor,
>> alcoholics have access to treatment programs, and, for all I know,
>> stray dogs and cats get three hots and a cot.
>
> Don't bother HeyBub. This has always been a sore spot for people.
> It's usually middle class people who pay a greater percentage of their
> income in taxes, because they either don't qualify for the breaks, or
> do not put the effort into getting those breaks. I don't believe it's
> because they feel they should pay all of those taxes for some
> altruistic reason. Net - it comes down to a certain level of jealousy
> for those who do know how to, and do take advantage of those breaks.
> Not totally logical IMHO. What those people don't look at is the
> actual dollar amounts. Sure, the percentage is lower if you know how
> to take advantage of the breaks, but the dollars are a lot higher. In
> the end - there is a big difference between the thousands of dollars
> that most folks pay, and the millions of dollars that those nasty rich
> folks pay.

That is the question whether total amount or percentage is more
important. IOW, is progressive taxation good or not? A question of
ideology, perhaps?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid