Death & Taxes

  • Posted: 19 July 2012 02:05 PM #286

    mstrmac - 19 July 2012 05:35 AM

    Here’s a little non fiction for ya
    Clinton signed the bill repealing Glass Seagall
    Clinton cut intel funding. Clinton’s CIA and director Tenet found no massive WMD in 2005. Two years after super majorities voted for war and massive war spending for both afghan and Iraq. .
    Bush inherited recession form Clinton and military cutbacks.
    Bush cut taxes to stimulate economy under massive spending requirements.
    The CRA started under carter and propagated thru 3 decades broght on the housing bubble. And in combo the financial crises which happened under bushes watch.
    It fathoms me how anyone can blame any one group for the current situation.
    Posted from iPhone.

    Wikipedia:

    Many commentators have stated that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?s repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass-Steagall Act was an important cause of the late-2000s financial crisis.[7][8][9] Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors’ money that was held in affiliated commercial banks.

    Phil Gramm - Republican, TX
    Jim Leach - Republican, IA
    Tom Bliley - Republican, VA

    So much for non-fiction.  There are statements that can be made that are true, but are misleading.  This is what conservative talk radio thrives on.  If that’s the source of one’s reality it can be greatly distorted.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 19 July 2012 02:39 PM #287

    Zeke - 19 July 2012 05:05 PM
    mstrmac - 19 July 2012 05:35 AM

    Here’s a little non fiction for ya
    Clinton signed the bill repealing Glass Seagall
    Clinton cut intel funding. Clinton’s CIA and director Tenet found no massive WMD in 2005. Two years after super majorities voted for war and massive war spending for both afghan and Iraq. .
    Bush inherited recession form Clinton and military cutbacks.
    Bush cut taxes to stimulate economy under massive spending requirements.
    The CRA started under carter and propagated thru 3 decades broght on the housing bubble. And in combo the financial crises which happened under bushes watch.
    It fathoms me how anyone can blame any one group for the current situation.
    Posted from iPhone.

    Wikipedia:

    Many commentators have stated that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?s repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass-Steagall Act was an important cause of the late-2000s financial crisis.[7][8][9] Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors’ money that was held in affiliated commercial banks.

    Phil Gramm - Republican, TX
    Jim Leach - Republican, IA
    Tom Bliley - Republican, VA

    So much for non-fiction.  There are statements that can be made that are true, but are misleading.  This is what conservative talk rad
    io thrives on.  If that’s the source of one’s reality it can be greatly distorted.

     

    “Many commentators” and “Some critics” does not qualify Wikipedia or you as a well versed and studied source. Cannot be stated as fiction or non fiction.  Clinton signed the bill sponsored by republicans.
    In the House of Representatives, the final vote to adopt Financial Services Modernization Act (aka Gramm-Leach-Bliley) was taken on Nov. 4, 1999.

    Code:
            YEAS   NAYS   PRES   NV
    REPUBLICAN   207   5       10
    DEMOCRATIC   155   51       5
    INDEPENDENT       1      
    TOTALS         362   57       15
    As we can see, the bill received a great deal of support from both sides of the aisle. This was very clearly not a vote along partisan lines. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi voted for the bill, as did a number of Democratic Party notables.

    The full roll-call vote record is here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml

    You have just opined and agree with me that Bush alone had no real hand in the banking derivative abuse financial crises that led to the 2008 collapse. Both parties had their hands in the muck for failure of oversight during the Bush years. It is fact that the Bush administration did shout concern to congressional oversight committees to no avail and the Fannie and Freddie fiasco also.
    In conclusion. Zeke you have always been very articulate in your posts here. But this is getting out of hand and i suspect many of the liberal posters here have been getting their political news snippets from NBC CBS ABC MsNBC, Blogs and the like. More fodder for argument lol

    [ Edited: 19 July 2012 02:41 PM by mstrmac ]      
  • Posted: 19 July 2012 04:01 PM #288

    firestorm - 19 July 2012 02:55 PM

    For those who want more information about this debate, here is the Heritage Foundation’s statement and Rick Unger responding to it:

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/setting-obamas-great-fiscal-restraint-record-straight/

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/2/

    I think Unger is dead right and Heritage is trying to slime out of the truth.  But if someone wants to believe that Obama is the biggest spender since Satan, I’m sure there are many other right-wing internet sites that will confirm these erroneous beliefs.

    Snicker, Snicker We can do this all day & night and not change a mind.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577450910257188398.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart

    http://www.openmarket.org/2012/05/25/no-obama-is-not-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower/

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/14/obama-reframing-speech-boils-down-to-reagans-1982-argument/


    http://www.chrisroubis.com/2012/05/ceis-hans-bader-dissects-rex-nuttings-fatally-flawed-analysis-of-obama-spending/

    From Hans Bader
    “You may wonder why I am even citing the blogger Rick Ungar, who is not an economist, but rather a left-wing lawyer who wants more government control of the health care system. Ungar is a blogger at Forbes who gets his traffic there partly due to the man-bites-dog-quality of the ?conservative? Forbes seemingly endorsing all sorts of left-wing talking points and legends promoted on Ungar?s blog. (Forbes? publisher, unlike many of its staff, is conservative.) For example, this link describes Ungar?s blog post as an assertion by Forbes itself that Obama is ?the smallest government spender since Eisenhower.? The fact that Ungar?s blog is on the web site of the supposedly conservative Forbes Magazine enables liberals like Roger Ebert to say that ?even Forbes, of all places? agrees with whatever is the factually-baseless liberal taking-point of the day, by linking to Ungar?s blog on the site. Everything Ungar says in favor of big government, or against free market-oriented economic policies, is treated by those who agree with him as a confession or admission by a conservative magazine that markets don?t work, or that the conservative reformers that Ungar criticizes must be extremists to be criticized even at Forbes.

    Ungar?s most famous blog post was a self-contradictory, assume-your-own-conclusion blog post in which he claimed it was a ?lie? for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to say he wanted state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to ?contribute more? to their pension and health insurance plans, because, Ungar claimed, these workers already paid 100 percent of such costs. Of course, as both the conservative National Review and the liberal Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (which endorsed Obama and opposed Governor Walker?s collective bargaining reforms) noted, state workers did not pay 100 percent of their pension and health costs.  So Ungar was completely wrong on the facts.”

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 19 July 2012 04:25 PM #289

    Platon - 19 July 2012 07:01 PM
    firestorm - 19 July 2012 02:55 PM

    For those who want more information about this debate, here is the Heritage Foundation’s statement and Rick Unger responding to it:

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/setting-obamas-great-fiscal-restraint-record-straight/

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/2/

    I think Unger is dead right and Heritage is trying to slime out of the truth.  But if someone wants to believe that Obama is the biggest spender since Satan, I’m sure there are many other right-wing internet sites that will confirm these erroneous beliefs.

    Snicker, Snicker We can do this all day & night and not change a mind.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577450910257188398.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart

    http://www.openmarket.org/2012/05/25/no-obama-is-not-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower/

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/14/obama-reframing-speech-boils-down-to-reagans-1982-argument/


    http://www.chrisroubis.com/2012/05/ceis-hans-bader-dissects-rex-nuttings-fatally-flawed-analysis-of-obama-spending/

    From Hans Bader
    “You may wonder why I am even citing the blogger Rick Ungar, who is not an economist, but rather a left-wing lawyer who wants more government control of the health care system. Ungar is a blogger at Forbes who gets his traffic there partly due to the man-bites-dog-quality of the ?conservative? Forbes seemingly endorsing all sorts of left-wing talking points and legends promoted on Ungar?s blog. (Forbes? publisher, unlike many of its staff, is conservative.) For example, this link describes Ungar?s blog post as an assertion by Forbes itself that Obama is ?the smallest government spender since Eisenhower.? The fact that Ungar?s blog is on the web site of the supposedly conservative Forbes Magazine enables liberals like Roger Ebert to say that ?even Forbes, of all places? agrees with whatever is the factually-baseless liberal taking-point of the day, by linking to Ungar?s blog on the site. Everything Ungar says in favor of big government, or against free market-oriented economic policies, is treated by those who agree with him as a confession or admission by a conservative magazine that markets don?t work, or that the conservative reformers that Ungar criticizes must be extremists to be criticized even at Forbes.

    Ungar?s most famous blog post was a self-contradictory, assume-your-own-conclusion blog post in which he claimed it was a ?lie? for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to say he wanted state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to ?contribute more? to their pension and health insurance plans, because, Ungar claimed, these workers already paid 100 percent of such costs. Of course, as both the conservative National Review and the liberal Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (which endorsed Obama and opposed Governor Walker?s collective bargaining reforms) noted, state workers did not pay 100 percent of their pension and health costs.  So Ungar was completely wrong on the facts.”

    Well, your sentence “Snicker, Snicker We can do this all day & night and not change a mind.” was correct, even if everything else was a political diatribe.  So, yes, I agree with you and am snickering away.

    BTW, I have read the Wall Street Journal for 32 years, but I studiously avoid the caveman gruntings known as the editorial page, except when I want to confirm the irresponsibility of the extremist right-wing positions that brought us deregulation, resulting in near-collapse, and two idiotic Republican wars (don’t give me the bipartisan support argument ... the buck stops at “the decider” and liar-in-chief, who controlled the argument”).

         
  • Posted: 19 July 2012 05:39 PM #290

    mstrmac - 19 July 2012 05:39 PM

    You have just opined and agree with me that Bush alone had no real hand in the banking derivative abuse financial crises that led to the 2008 collapse. Both parties had their hands in the muck for failure of oversight during the Bush years. It is fact that the Bush administration did shout concern to congressional oversight committees to no avail and the Fannie and Freddie fiasco also.
    In conclusion. Zeke you have always been very articulate in your posts here. But this is getting out of hand and i suspect many of the liberal posters here have been getting their political news snippets from NBC CBS ABC MsNBC, Blogs and the like. More fodder for argument lol

    I don’t know that what I said constitutes agreement with your statement of the situation above.  My points were aimed at two things:

    1.  Our government processes and decision making have been taken over by corporate interests that bribe and cajole politicians of both parties to act or refrain from acting in ways that promote profitability over the well-being of our society and its individual members.  It is Conservative wishful thinking to contend that if only Obama were removed and a Conservative Republican substituted then everything would rosey.  Neither party acts in the interests of common Americans anymore.  Corporate money is in control.

    2. The Conservative voice has somehow made it legitimate not to care about people who are suffering and dying for lack of gainful employment, health care, and mental health programs.  It is the victim’s fault.  It’s not even acceptable to call them victims anymore.  What else would you call a Vietnam Vet who because of his experiences while serving his country now has incapacitating mental issues and nowhere to go to get help?  We did it to him.  We (Exxon, Haliburton, etc. shareholders) benefitted from his sacrifice and now we can’t stand to sit next to him on the subway.  We begrudge him what little he gets in support from the government because “those are our tax dollars, the lazy bum.”

    I’m perfectly willing to spread the blame all around, among all political stripes and economic interests.  Everyone has a part in what’s gone on, from the investment bankers to the irresponsible homeowner who spends all of the equity in his property on vacations and motor homes. But I can’t remain silent while partisan cheerleaders on the Right (and Left) tell bald faced lies, make up “news” out of thin air (FOX & CBS), and spin every negative detail to blame someone else.

    I have my own quarrels with Liberals and Democrats, but that does not mean I give Conservatives and Republicans a pass.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 19 July 2012 11:20 PM #291

    Zeke - 19 July 2012 08:39 PM
    mstrmac - 19 July 2012 05:39 PM

    You have just opined and agree with me that Bush alone had no real hand in the banking derivative abuse financial crises that led to the 2008 collapse. Both parties had their hands in the muck for failure of oversight during the Bush years. It is fact that the Bush administration did shout concern to congressional oversight committees to no avail and the Fannie and Freddie fiasco also.
    In conclusion. Zeke you have always been very articulate in your posts here. But this is getting out of hand and i suspect many of the liberal posters here have been getting their political news snippets from NBC CBS ABC MsNBC, Blogs and the like. More fodder for argument lol

    I don’t know that what I said constitutes agreement with your statement of the situation above.  My points were aimed at two things:

    1.  Our government processes and decision making have been taken over by corporate interests that bribe and cajole politicians of both parties to act or refrain from acting in ways that promote profitability over the well-being of our society and its individual members.  It is Conservative wishful thinking to contend that if only Obama were removed and a Conservative Republican substituted then everything would rosey.  Neither party acts in the interests of common Americans anymore.  Corporate money is in control.

    2. The Conservative voice has somehow made it legitimate not to care about people who are suffering and dying for lack of gainful employment, health care, and mental health programs.  It is the victim’s fault.  It’s not even acceptable to call them victims anymore.  What else would you call a Vietnam Vet who because of his experiences while serving his country now has incapacitating mental issues and nowhere to go to get help?  We did it to him.  We (Exxon, Haliburton, etc. shareholders) benefitted from his sacrifice and now we can’t stand to sit next to him on the subway.  We begrudge him what little he gets in support from the government because “those are our tax dollars, the lazy bum.”

    I’m perfectly willing to spread the blame all around, among all political stripes and economic interests.  Everyone has a part in what’s gone on, from the investment bankers to the irresponsible homeowner who spends all of the equity in his property on vacations and motor homes. But I can’t remain silent while partisan cheerleaders on the Right (and Left) tell bald faced lies, make up “news” out of thin air (FOX & CBS), and spin every negative detail to blame someone else.

    I have my own quarrels with Liberals and Democrats, but that does not mean I give Conservatives and Republicans a pass.

    Fine let it be but I disagree with the uncaring conservative though. Welfare rolls were slashed after Clinton and Congress reformed welfare during the 90’s for example. Recently there are attempts to make it easier to get welfare. Wont we ever learn that handouts by the federal Govt. only get people addicted to it. Conservatives tend to work through Charities, state/local and improve the job creation experience while liberals pile on more federal assistance and make it harder for creation of jobs. Which makes more sense?

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 14 August 2012 01:16 PM #292

    From the intraday:

    Elmar - 14 August 2012 02:41 PM

    ...
    Here in Germany we have a flat 25% tax for all capital gains and this is collected by the banks each time when you are selling with a gain….

    Elmar - 14 August 2012 03:32 PM
    Apple II+ - 14 August 2012 03:11 PM
    rutgersguy92 - 14 August 2012 02:58 PM

    It’s a question of paying now or paying later, Elmar. What’s nice about that system is that what you see in your account is yours to keep. 

    In the US, we have to make quarterly tax payments to keep up with our stock earnings, so it’s up to the tax payer to stay on top of things (or else pay a penalty).  I like your system better.

    There are advantages to the U.S. system. The federal underpayment of estimated tax penalty is small enough at today’s interest rates that it sometimes is worth re-investing the gains for a time. It’s like a cheap loan.

    For example, if you take a gain in early January, the tax is not actually due for 15 months. In the U.S. an investor may choose to redeploy the funds for a year. The tax must be paid, so this potentially means liquidating investments at lows. It’s risky, but it’s up to the investor to manage their own risk.

    I have no reason to complain, my income tax rate would be 42%!

    Many years ago there would have been no tax at all for gains realized after 12 months. But now there are no exceptions any more, the 25% apply to any capital gains (interests, dividends, ...).
    Acually I do prefer simple taxation rules without the possibility (or need) to manipulate.

    I’m with you on simple rules. Unfortunately we don’t get the tax code that we want. We get what the messy political process produces. The real manipulation is done by the legislators that write the tax code.

    Signature

    The only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. — Steve Jobs