O/T: BLOG POST OF THE DAY

Page 2 of 10  


I have a Dutch euro accoun too. Properly mentioned on the relevant documents etc. Comes in handy when I need euros. No need for foreign exchange fees from the credit cards.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:05:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

Are you alleging criminal activity in their financial dealings?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:06:01 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

Except that you didn't change the subject. You simply added GWB's name to the criminal activity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:33:15 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

But there was no subject break, as such you were equating the two.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

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.
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."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:00:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk

It's also possible for people to put their shares of their companies into the IRA, which may be true in this case.

All businesspeople who do well take care of themselves first. If they're not solvent, they lose the business and their employees lose their jobs. I hope Han tells us what he meant by that.

I'd like to see that, too. IAC, I won't be voting for the Romneycritter.
-- And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. -- Anas Nin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

True. But only an amount with a value equal to or less than the maximum allowable IRA contribution.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Tell that to the guy who wrote the wiki on it. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_retirement_account
Large balances
While the average and median IRA individual balance in 2008 were approximately $70,000 and $20,000, higher balances are not rare. 6.3% of individuals had total balances of $250,000 or more (about 12.5 times the median),[17] and in rare cases, individuals own IRAs with very substantial balances, in some cases $100 million or above (about 5,000 times the median individual balance).[18] This typically occurs when founders of companies place shares in their own company in an IRA, and the share value subsequently rises substantially.[18]
-- And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. -- Anas Nin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

That doesn't change what I said. Those founder's shares value had to be no more than the maximum allowable IRA contribution when they were placed in the IRA. There is no limit on how much the items in an IRA can grow *after* they are in the IRA; in fact, that is the whole idea.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 lowering the deficit has disappeared. In effect, the hail Mary proposals 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. That is why I question the ethics of off-shore moneys etc. If the candidate (is this the best the Republicans could come up with?) appears (emphasis) this hypocritical, he eclipses any qualms about Obama. IMO, of course. I do want to stay respectful of others' opinions!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/21/2012 9:48 AM, Han wrote:

bridges. Tell me, how much of the $3.8 trillion federal budget is spent on roads and bridges?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Just Wondering" wrote:

Hope it's not too much.
After all, those unwed mothers need their welfare checks.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If the unwed mothers are your concern Leon, do something about them. I am NOT accusing you of being the cause of unwed mothers, but would like your support in providing any potential unwed mothers with birth control or abortion facilities, to be used as they see fit. No coercion, no withholding.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We are not discussing the need to build bridges. What we do want though, is a fair contribution towards paying for them. Under present laws, that is not possible.
I don't blame anyone that avoids taxes when following the tax code. I'd take every possible advantage. Don't throw darts at the tax payer, toss those darts at the people that passed our inane tax laws.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/21/2012 9:10 AM, Han wrote:

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

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

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.

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

Romney's proposals are realistic and workable.

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

What's unethical about it?

You haven't described anything hypocritical about Romney.

Obama each propose to do with OUR money than about what Romney quite lawfully does with his own money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:29:41 -0600, Just Wondering

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.
At least that's the type of leader I'd want for my country. Maybe others prefer a different type of leader and that's their choice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/21/12 1:18 PM, Dave wrote:

Couldn't agree more. Those who usually bark the loudest taking money earned by some and giving it to others, often give very little of their own money away to charity. The current president has given virtually nothing to charity and only started to increase his giving when he came under public scrutiny.
Financial records of republican politicians, who are evil and hate the poor, consistently show charitable giving many, many times greater than their counterparts.

Again, couldn't agree more.
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.