O/T: BLOG POST OF THE DAY

Page 3 of 10  
On 8/21/2012 12:18 PM, Dave wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

Here's one citation. A Google search will give you many more. http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm
Here's part of what it says. Note especially the reduction or elimination of taxation on investment income, estates, corporate and alternative minimum tax. Not to mention permanently extending previous tax cuts, said cuts benefiting the richer folks among us.
"In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010's health reform legislation." _______________________

If you think that - decrease government spending - is ever going to happen - consistently - you live in a different plane of consciousness than I.
Here is a chart showing "tax freedom day". Note especially the "Deficit-Inclusive Tax Freedom Day". See a pattern? You might want to look up historical tax rates too.
Year Tax Freedom Day Deficit-Inclusive Tax Freedom Day 1900 1/22 1/22 1901 1/21 1/20 1902 1/21 1/20 1903 1/20 1/19 1904 1/21 1/22 1905 1/20 1/21 1906 1/19 1/19 1907 1/19 1/18 1908 1/21 1/22 1909 1/19 1/20 1910 1/19 1/19 1911 1/20 1/20 1912 1/19 1/19 1913 1/19 1/19 1914 1/23 1/23 1915 1/25 1/26 1916 1/24 1/24 1917 1/24 1/29 1918 2/8 3/27 1919 2/7 4/11 1920 2/13 2/12 1921 2/22 2/20 1922 2/11 2/7 1923 2/4 2/1 1924 2/7 2/3 1925 2/4 2/1 1926 2/6 2/2 1927 2/8 2/4 1928 2/9 2/5 1929 2/8 2/5 1930 2/12 2/11 1931 2/15 2/26 1932 2/25 3/6 1933 3/6 3/13 1934 3/1 3/15 1935 2/27 3/10 1936 2/27 3/15 1937 3/4 3/3 1938 3/6 3/12 1939 3/4 3/13 1940 3/7 3/8 1941 3/16 3/9 1942 3/18 4/9 1943 4/5 5/3 1944 3/29 5/17 1945 3/30 5/21 1946 3/30 4/8 1947 4/1 3/24 1948 3/27 3/21 1949 3/22 3/30 1950 3/31 3/24 1951 4/7 3/26 1952 4/7 4/3 1953 4/6 4/4 1954 4/1 4/3 1955 4/4 3/29 1956 4/7 3/31 1957 4/7 4/4 1958 4/5 4/9 1959 4/8 4/6 1960 4/12 4/6 1961 4/11 4/9 1962 4/12 4/10 1963 4/13 4/10 1964 4/9 4/8 1965 4/8 4/6 1966 4/11 4/10 1967 4/12 4/17 1968 4/18 4/19 1969 4/23 4/19 1970 4/19 4/25 1971 4/16 4/26 1972 4/20 4/28 1973 4/20 4/24 1974 4/23 4/27 1975 4/17 5/4 1976 4/19 5/1 1977 4/20 4/29 1978 4/20 4/25 1979 4/20 4/22 1980 4/21 4/29 1981 4/24 5/1 1982 4/21 5/9 ________________________

Oh, government can create jobs. Lots of them. Consider the redundant bureaucracy. Consider public works. ____________________

Neither of them are going to do much about the deficit. Nor will anyone else. What *will* happen is that the dollar - which is now worth a dime - will become worth a penny or less and the deficit/debt will then be manageable. _____________________

Depends on where they are. Banks in Canada are "offshore". Romney's are in offshore tax havens. The main reasons to have money in them are..
1. A deep distrust of our banks, particularly their solvency.
2. To defer taxes or even to create corporations under a nominee and avoid taxes.
--

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

I admit to picking and choosing. The independent agencies looking at the candidates plans say that Romney's is far worse in reducing the deficit than Obama's.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're simply nuts! Obama's doesn't even *have* a plan, except to borrow another $15T (more like $25) over the next decade.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's only if you listen to Obama's spin numbers.
Deficit or debt? The deficit is Washington's daily overspending. IOW: pork.
Those bastards in D.C. need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.
-- And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. -- Anaοs Nin
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044332440457759544011685733 0.html?mod=hp_opinion>
My wife made me ditch her books :(
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Somebody wrote:

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
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You're a liar, but everyone seems to know that already.

"As we know it", sure.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(viewable only by wsj online subscribers)
This isn't quite true. Snipping off and disbanding an agency would remove the deficit immediately, but nobody in D.C. talks of necessary things like this. The burden would then be only on the snipped middle income workers, not the class as a whole. This is bad for them, good for the country.

Condolences. She was an interesting writer.
-- I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues. --Duke Ellington
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/21/2012 10:10 AM, Han wrote:

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 snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Totally agree with this part of your statements.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your boy Obama is doing such a great job of that!
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Growing WILL need stimulus and taxation ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/22/2012 11:12 AM, Han wrote:

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.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/22/2012 12:07 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

This isn't quite right. That's how much incremental *debt* he incurred. Not all of that is self-stimulation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bull
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/has-obama-made-the - job-situation-worse/?hp>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/22/2012 02:01 PM, Han wrote:

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

Tim, I have no easy way to check those interesting graphs, showing consistently more job gains under democratic than republican presidents. I just know from the job reports that we are a long way off from making a real dent in unemployment. I retired, but my job has not been filled (grant problems in the lab, so a in effect a reduction in federal expenditures, although I fear that the slack I provied has been taken up). I am happy that the stock market is up as much as it is, also because my retirement income partly depends on that. OTOH, that rise has not provided jobs, and I can't understand why not. Productivity has gone up, I think in part because people work harder and longer for the same wages and salaries.
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?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/22/2012 04:24 PM, Han wrote:

Get rid of Obama and elect a pro-growth/pro-business President.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% 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.