Political Update

[jocoshock]

Big government is only big when the money is not going into the hands of the party you support. When it's going into your pockets (Republican or Democrat) then hey! Your're not not making the rules, your're just playing by them.

This talk of Reverend Wright is a sham. I am sure many of you feel the way you fee because of who you are and it doesn't fit your view of the world. The fact is that many conservative, evangelical ministers have said things just as outrageous (and they are on YouTube also).

Please provide a link to an evangelical preacher saying anything even approaching what Rev. Wright said. "G** Damn America."

Republican were defeated in 2006 at least in part b/c they did become that party of big government. The Repulicans are the party of big government and the Democrats are the party of bigger government.

However, many Republican/conservative/free market folks are very consistent on fiscal issues, which is why many stayed home and didn't vote for the big-govt conservatives. So your statement that "big government" is defined when your party is out of power simply isn't true.

Just look at the rhetoric of Obama/Clinton and many Demcrat party leaders. They want to raise taxs which will make govt bigger.

James Hagee:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WvbvMZTkAOQ

Rod Parsley:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IMaaDbGgsKA

The Clinton Chronicles:
Originally marketed and sold by Jerry Falwell to his parishoners for the low, low price of $19.95 or $24.95, or whatever....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EJpRnvSGr7k

One may or may not find these posts offensive, depending on your point of view. Personally, I find them as offensive as someone saying GD America, because I don't take Reverend Wright anymore or less offensive than people who continually preach this type of hatred. I don't know that James Hagee or Rod Parsley preach this kind of filth (in my opinion) any more or less frequently than Wright did with the two or three selected sermons that he has been pillaried for.

It's been years since I watched the Clinton chronicles on CBN. Imagine, watching a video accusing the President of the United States of dealing drugs and being involved in murder. Which commandment is it that says thou shall not bear false witness???

It's possible that all of these ministers have made 90 plus percent of their sermons about traditional Christian values in a non-offenisve tone. Whether they all are righteous men or absolute scum, I don't know, but I don't hold any of the candidates in judgement over the words of these "men of God". They have enough stuff of their own for me to judge them on...

Finally, here is an article from cnn.com that puts this in a bit of perspective, although I know there are folks that insist that there is no comparison... Everyone has a right to their own opinion...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/roland.martin/index.html?iref=newssearch

Conservative talker Sean Hannity -- who incidentally many have accused of associations with white supremacist Hal Turner, which he denies -- was foaming at the mouth. He called Wright a racist and an anti-Semite, and then said we all should assume Obama is also a racist and an anti-Semite.

Talk about a stretch.

edit: http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ixZJBEYvxg&feature=related

[WuDrWu]

If anyone is interested - here is what I think caused the current mortgage crisis (or made an ordinary market correction far more serious):

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4/b4056080.htm

Please don't take this personally but OMG......


So the mortgage crisis has been caused by a law that makes it more difficult to walk away from your financial responsibilities that in all likelyhood you were 90% + the cause of or at least made the cost of doing so increase from $700 - $1500????


This goes back to my discussion on personal responsibility.


Of all the people in default on their mortgages (and we are talking less than 1.5% of all mortgages) how many serverly overbought out of greed? How many have been living in the house for MONTHS without paying any of their mortgage? It takes months to eventually be evicted....many live rent free during this period. What happens to at least some of that money? Hmmmm..........

How many bought a house, watched the value skyrocket, then refinanced and took the cash out (a horrible decision) spent all that money and then found they couldn't pay the new mortgage?

Now, of the people in trouble, what percentage really did everything possible to try and fix the problem? Did they try to refinance and talk to the mortgage company or did they just not answer the phone and ignore the warnings? How many tried to downsize...sell the car (1 or both) get a 2nd job..change jobs....lower other expenses?

Do you think I am crazy to think the vast majority, realizing they are in trouble, give up, stop paying the mortgage and spend the extra money instead of trying to make their future better?

The banks are not without fault and they absolutely need to be held accountable and there should not be any bailout.

Also, the sickening ability for banks to change rates based on credit scores and insurance companies that base rates on zip codes and credit references have to be stopped.

There was a time a family member saw his HO insurance TRIPLE because he was late on some credit card payments (never more than 30 days) and he had ZERO claims in over 10 years. That borderlines on criminal.

There are many problems, but the fact that it is not easier to walk away from your own obligations is not one of them.

[WuDrWu]

Might as well throw some fuel on the fire! Heres some from that liberal pub the Wall Street Journal. :D

Please read all 3 pages!

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10385678/1/no-wonder-business-is-backing-dems.html

You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Abbie Hoffman


8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :goshocks:

11,


They are right that the Republican leadership IS in disarray. The party leadership has been awful and the last election was a perfect example. The Dems targeted vulnerable, mostly low key districts and made the most of their chances. It was well organized and even better in execution.


I take issue with the comment on the tax cuts causing the deficits. The taxes went down and, as usual, the total revenues went UP. The problem is that nobody in Washington has an ounce of courage to stop spending. And for once in our history the Republicans were just as, if not more, responsible for the spending spree. It has been disgusting.

However, that being said, entitlements still make up the biggest chunk of the federal budget and until that is addressed, and it will be a death nail politically for whomever brings it up (another reason we need term limits) , our financial problems are not going to be solved.

Spending is always good, until you are forced to pay for it. As long as someone else is paying, everyone wants their slice.

[WuDrWu]

Democrats don't believe in making life hard on people who are working hard to achieve success in life, either through excessive taxes or anything else. I'm sorry, but the Republican party is not the party of working people. You can never convince me of that. This is the party that ships your job overseas, gives the ultra-rich huge tax cuts, never raises the minimum wage, and opposes the right of workers to organize.

Given enough time and the proper forum, I could cite much evidence of how Republican policies benefit the rich more than the middle and lower classes, but this isn't the proper forum for that.

WSF,

By definition, the rich are already in a good position and are going to benefit from most policy. The "rich", however you want to define it, pay the lions share of the taxes already. If you don't pay taxes, it's kind of hard to get a tax cut.


A person that makes 30k maybe pays a couple thousand in FIT. A person making 200k is going to pay around 60k. And your point is cutting that to, say, 55k is an atrocity?


Here's a story. A young lady worked for me many years ago. She was a single mother (not of her own choosing) of 1 but the 2nd child was a mistake of her own doing. She was not all that sharp but she worked hard and as an employer I tried to help whenever possible. At the end of the I offered to personally help her with her taxes so she wouldn't have to pay someone to get her whatever refund she had coming to her. When I finished I told her she only had a $30 refund coming to her. She went nuts...I tried to explain that she claimed 4 dependants on her W-4 and only had $30 withheld throughout the year. You can't get a refund on something you never paid into.....

Well, of course, I was wrong. I learned about the earned income tax credit. Which of course has nothing to do with a tax credit...it's wellfare.

She ended up getting nearly 2k "back".....again I use that term loosely.


We have created a welfare state and, personally, I don't see a way out of it any time in the near future.

Do you really think this is unfair?

[Ixiah]

If anyone is interested - here is what I think caused the current mortgage crisis (or made an ordinary market correction far more serious):

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4/b4056080.htm

Please don't take this personally but OMG......

So the mortgage crisis has been caused by a law that makes it more difficult to walk away from your financial responsibilities that in all likelyhood you were 90% + the cause of or at least made the cost of doing so increase from $700 - $1500????

Psst ... per Harvard most bankruptcies are due to medical reasons. Also, a large chunk of those had health insurance! Ah yes - you were responsible for your failure - how dare you be born human! :shock:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

Really though - my sister actually went through this when she had to have surgery in LA. The small insurance company through her husband's employer folded and left them with about $100,000 in medical bills.

Btw - I hope your not taking this to serious. We are hitting on some divisive topics. I just enjoy a good debate. Also I can only take so much reading of bankruptcy law in prep for the CPA exam :D !

[jocoshock]

Democrats don't believe in making life hard on people who are working hard to achieve success in life, either through excessive taxes or anything else. I'm sorry, but the Republican party is not the party of working people. You can never convince me of that. This is the party that ships your job overseas, gives the ultra-rich huge tax cuts, never raises the minimum wage, and opposes the right of workers to organize.

Given enough time and the proper forum, I could cite much evidence of how Republican policies benefit the rich more than the middle and lower classes, but this isn't the proper forum for that.

WSF,

By definition, the rich are already in a good position and are going to benefit from most policy. The "rich", however you want to define it, pay the lions share of the taxes already. If you don't pay taxes, it's kind of hard to get a tax cut.


A person that makes 30k maybe pays a couple thousand in FIT. A person making 200k is going to pay around 60k. And your point is cutting that to, say, 55k is an atrocity?


Here's a story. A young lady worked for me many years ago. She was a single mother (not of her own choosing) of 1 but the 2nd child was a mistake of her own doing. She was not all that sharp but she worked hard and as an employer I tried to help whenever possible. At the end of the I offered to personally help her with her taxes so she wouldn't have to pay someone to get her whatever refund she had coming to her. When I finished I told her she only had a $30 refund coming to her. She went nuts...I tried to explain that she claimed 4 dependants on her W-4 and only had $30 withheld throughout the year. You can't get a refund on something you never paid into.....

Well, of course, I was wrong. I learned about the earned income tax credit. Which of course has nothing to do with a tax credit...it's wellfare.

She ended up getting nearly 2k "back".....again I use that term loosely.


We have created a welfare state and, personally, I don't see a way out of it any time in the near future.

Do you really think this is unfair?

I made about $160,000 back in 2002, and didn't pay anything close to $30k, let alone $60k. Warren Buffett has a $1 million challenge out to any CEO in America that can prove he pays a higher tax rate than his secretary. So far no takers.

[WuDrWu]

I made about $160,000 back in 2002, and didn't pay anything close to $30k, let alone $60k. Warren Buffett has a $1 million challenge out to any CEO in America that can prove he pays a higher tax rate than his secretary. So far no takers.

You know better accountants than people I know. I know a person last year that made around 285k and paid around 54k in federal income tax so I'll admit my original figure was a bit high.

Still, I am not sure I get your point. In 2002 did you send in an extra tax because you were undertaxed in your opinion?

I take it you believe that your tax rate needs to be much much higher correct?

[WuDrWu]

Psst ... per Harvard most bankruptcies are due to medical reasons. Also, a large chunk of those had health insurance! Ah yes - you were responsible for your failure - how dare you be born human! :shock:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

Really though - my sister actually went through this when she had to have surgery in LA. The small insurance company through her husband's employer folded and left them with about $100,000 in medical bills.

Btw - I hope your not taking this to serious. We are hitting on some divisive topics. I just enjoy a good debate. Also I can only take so much reading of bankruptcy law in prep for the CPA exam :D !

Ixiah, I do take this serious because I believe we all need to do more to better our country, but in no way do I take it personally. I enjoy a good debate as well and frankly would like to be more informed. That's why I think it's important to discuss these matters, as we are here. :good:


Now, is the problem the bankruptcy laws or medical bills? ;-)

You'll get no arguement from me that we have serious problems in health care and decisions are going to be tough to come by. But that report was from 2001 and really has little to nothing to do with the current housing problems. I think we might be talking about 2 completely separate but equally troubling issues.

Frankly, I don't put a whole lot of stock of anything coming out of Harvard.


:D

[jocoshock]

I made about $160,000 back in 2002, and didn't pay anything close to $30k, let alone $60k. Warren Buffett has a $1 million challenge out to any CEO in America that can prove he pays a higher tax rate than his secretary. So far no takers.

You know better accountants than people I know. I know a person last year that made around 285k and paid around 54k in federal income tax so I'll admit my original figure was a bit high.

Still, I am not sure I get your point. In 2002 did you send in an extra tax because you were undertaxed in your opinion?

I take it you believe that your tax rate needs to be much much higher correct?

I was just reporting my experience as a point of reference. Like anyone I else, I pay what I owe, but I don't have a problem paying more if I make more. Didn't have an accountant finding loopholes or anything.

I think Warren Buffett is trying to make the point that the more you make, the more opportunities you have to lower your tax burden, and for a guy who makes a mountain of money, I think he feels that high income earners are not being ripped off by the government. That's all.

My father was a social worker whose job it was to determine eligiibility and he recognized the insanity of some of the rules as much as anyone when it comes to social welfare. The rules that used to require people to divest themselves of any car that was too new or not have any money to qualify for services, kept people on welfare longer than they needed to be.

He almost quit one time when a wealthy person (oil money) in Western Kansas divorced his wife, gave her a pittance of a settlement then told her to go get welfare if it wan't enough, so she did. My father was incredulous and did not believe that he could do that, but was promptly told by his superiors he could, so he had to give the woman her payments. He did not begrudge helping the woman, but he did begrudge a system that allowed a wealthy person to dump his wife on the system.

I'm not posting my replies to bag on anyone, Republican or Democrat. I simply have been on both sides of the social and economic fence throughout my life and have seen there are no absolutes. I have been blue collar and white collar, union member and manager. I have worked for regulated monopolies that adhered to affirmative action and pre-IPO start-ups. I also know hatred can be in-your face like Rev. Wright, or quiet and subtle. I have family (in-laws) that are of a different racial background and know that white people certainly do not own the franchise on bigotry.

There's good and bad all around. Our country will better off when we can elect people who are not obligated by their party to demonize the opposition and take the best ideas from both sides of the aisle to solve the real problems our country has.

:goshocks:

[kcshocker11]

I worked for a company called Oppenheimer Industries(not Opp Mutual Funds) all through the eighties . We were the worlds largest tax shelter organization started by Brig General Harold L Oppenheimer. Out of the 3600 riches people in the US we had approx 1000 as clients. These clients included most movie stars, politicans, big name Doctors and Lawyers and believe it or not EF Hutton the man. I was client services manager, my job was to administer and write new tax shelters and limited partnerships. I can tell you for a fact most of our clients paid $0 fed tax. We used to say that paying taxes were only for those who couldnt afford not to and those that were to stupid. It was our company(we never lost a tax case) and others like us, that forced the tax laws to change creating the AMT

Though the tax laws are different now, I believe it is still possible for anyone to pay a minimum tax. I dont keep up with the laws(as much) anymore but I'm sure with a little research I could keep someones tax liability to a fairly low % of their income.

I am not critizing nor defending those who use the laws to their advantage, only pointing out when you set up a tax system that is so complex, loopholes will be found by those who are of a mind to find them and the wealthy are more likely to take advantage of that expertise.

I saw the interview with Warren Buffet, and have great admiration for him. I think he is totally correct with his assessment of the tax situation as it stands. If you think your Fed tax/state is to high I suggest you research the tax laws and take advantage of areas that will allow you to cut your tax to a minimum ( dont forget Alternative Min Tax).

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A963948260 8) 8) 8)

[ABC]

Buffet is a good businessman and a bad economist. He is welcome to write the Federal govt as big of a check as he would like.

Is he part of the "guilty rich"? I don't know. It is interesting that there is some correlation to the richer you get the more willing you are to pay higher taxes (because you have it)

Regardless, higher tax burden hurts the economy and probably hurts those at the lower end the worst.

How about some facts, instead of anecdotes?

Did you ever think about what would happen if the top 1 percent of the taxpayers suddenly decided to go "on strike" and refuse to produce all that income?

The IRS just released the numbers for 2005, and they show the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid almost 40 percent of the nation's total income tax bill, and that the top 5 percent paid 60 percent of the taxes.

The top 1% had 21% of the total adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 39% of the total income tax.

The top 5% had 36% of the total agi and paid 60% of total taxes

The top 50% had 87% of the total AGI and paid 97% of total taxes.

The bottom 50% had 12% of AGI and paid 3% of our total tax burden.

In 1981, before the Reagan tax cuts, the top 1 percent only paid about 18 percent of the income tax. But after the Reagan tax cuts, the rich paid almost 28 percent of the income taxes by 1988. Total income tax receipts rose from $282 billion in 1981 to $413 billion by 1988, and that paid by the top 1 percent more than doubled from $50 billion in 1981 to $114 billion in 1988.

[kcshocker11]

Buffet is a good businessman and a bad economist. He is welcome to write the Federal govt as big of a check as he would like.

Is he part of the "guilty rich"? I don't know. It is interesting that there is some correlation to the richer you get the more willing you are to pay higher taxes (because you have it)

Regardless, higher tax burden hurts the economy and probably hurts those at the lower end the worst.

How about some facts, instead of anecdotes?

Did you ever think about what would happen if the top 1 percent of the taxpayers suddenly decided to go "on strike" and refuse to produce all that income?

The IRS just released the numbers for 2005, and they show the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid almost 40 percent of the nation's total income tax bill, and that the top 5 percent paid 60 percent of the taxes.

The top 1% had 21% of the total adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 39% of the total income tax.

The top 5% had 36% of the total agi and paid 60% of total taxes

The top 50% had 87% of the total AGI and paid 97% of total taxes.

The bottom 50% had 12% of AGI and paid 3% of our total tax burden.

In 1981, before the Reagan tax cuts, the top 1 percent only paid about 18 percent of the income tax. But after the Reagan tax cuts, the rich paid almost 28 percent of the income taxes by 1988. Total income tax receipts rose from $282 billion in 1981 to $413 billion by 1988, and that paid by the top 1 percent more than doubled from $50 billion in 1981 to $114 billion in 1988.

Never addressed these issues nor did I try or want to! I only stated part of my personal experiences after almost 30 years of tax work.

Will address one issue though, if any group decides it doesnt want to meet the consumer needs, I would find it hard to believes others wont step up to the plate. so I would never spend anytime worrying whether so and so decided to produce or not. :D 8) 8)

[ShockRef]

If anyone is interested - here is what I think caused the current mortgage crisis (or made an ordinary market correction far more serious):

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4/b4056080.htm

Ignorance is no defense. That is all. 8)

[Ixiah]

Ixiah, I do take this serious because I believe we all need to do more to better our country, but in no way do I take it personally. I enjoy a good debate as well and frankly would like to be more informed. That's why I think it's important to discuss these matters, as we are here. :good:

Now, is the problem the bankruptcy laws or medical bills? ;-)

You'll get no arguement from me that we have serious problems in health care and decisions are going to be tough to come by. But that report was from 2001 and really has little to nothing to do with the current housing problems. I think we might be talking about 2 completely separate but equally troubling issues.

Frankly, I don't put a whole lot of stock of anything coming out of Harvard.

My point is that the underlying causes of bankruptcy will rarely change. Most often it it illness, injuries, business failure, or loss of a job. In fact here is a more recent article.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005781.php

there's considerable evidence that this has been driven largely by people who faced ruin due to huge unforeseen medical expenses. In fact, if you crunch the numbers in this report, it appears that about two-thirds of the extra million bankruptcies may have been caused by medical emergencies.

The bill does nothing to address this. Since medical emergencies certainly aren't an abuse of the system, wouldn't any honest bill aimed at abuse pay special attention to the recent and growing epidemic of families that declare bankruptcy due to medical emergencies?

The old law of chapter 7 many here are probably familiar with. Essentially the debts are gone (with some exceptions) and you get to keep food, some clothing, a homestead exemption (only a secured creditor has rights to the property), tools of trade, etc.

Under the new law there is a two step process:

1. It is determined first to see if they are essentially 'well off' which is anyone above the median in the state in question. So in Kansas that would be a mighty $38,594 for an individual or 52,989 for a couple.

2. Anyone who is well off then has there monthly income multiplied by 60 (less certain expenses) and if it is over $10,000 then you can't file chapter 7 and can only file chapter 13.

Now how many homeowners make under the median in our state? Not many I can assure you. So the vast majority are forced into chapter 13. Now what is chapter 13? Its not really bankruptcy at all but rather a finance plan over 3-5 years.

Guess I've made my point even if no one agrees with it. The credit card companies lobbied to get the law changed so they can make more $ (despite have record profits). The new law takes away the 'release valve' the ordinary middle class person used to have. They can't get rid of their unsecured debt anymore but most houses are under loans which are 'non recourse' which essentially means they can't sell the house and then come after you any difference. For many its the only solution.

Btw - I find it ironic that after all the patriotism and 'support the troops' the Republicans were putting out that even an amemdment by Dick Durbin on the 05 bankruptcy bill exempting our soldiers was shot down by them.

Oh, and just when you thought taxes could not get more complicated ....

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/19/business/norris20.php

they are patenting tax savings methods!!


Edit: Kind of ironic but today a recent article from the New Yorker magazine seems to share my opinion

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/04/07/080407ta_talk_surowiecki

[rjl]

Please provide a link to an evangelical preacher saying anything even approaching what Rev. Wright said. "G** Damn America."

Ok.

How about something along the lines of, and I'm paraphrasing here, "God sent Hitler to hunt the Jews and put the fear of God back into their Godless souls".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErC1IJeHnyc

Coincidentally, he's supporting John McCain. He's appeared in public with him.

And in response to this, McCain is still "glad to have his endorsement".

How many of you who disparaged Obama based on what his pastor said will now do the same for McCain?