Obama Bidden

[jensieblue]

Listening to Obama's announcement of VP and Joe Bidden's speech following the announcement. I hope you have heard it. I can't remember when I have felt so positive about the future for America. I thought they both sounded great and can't wait to get this show on the road.

[hnooe]

Me too Jensie, but we must remain "positive" as voter and let the Parties go their own negative ways if they must, and apparently that is the only way to win an election anymore.

:lolabove:

[30A Skunkape]

Me too Jensie, but we must remain "positive" as voter and let the Parties go their own negative ways if they must, and apparently that is the only way to win an election anymore.

:lolabove:

tried and true

[fisher]

Listening to Obama's announcement of VP and Joe Bidden's speech following the announcement. I hope you have heard it. I can't remember when I have felt so positive about the future for America. I thought they both sounded great and can't wait to get this show on the road.

Wow, wasn't it just dandy.:D:D

Just love to hear them talk about taxing all those darn rich folks. Won't that be great. Let's nail all those rich folks. Take their money and redistribute it to the less fortunate. Great idea. Woo hoo.

What do you think will happen to beloved SoWal when all those rich folks start getting taxed even more heavily than they already are? What do you think drives the market in SoWal and all along the panhandle--rich and nearly rich tourists and second home owners. Are these rich folks going to be buying more SoWal property when their taxes go even higher? Don't think so. You think the market stinks now--just wait to see what happens if the Dems get 100% control of things. Marginal tax rates up, cap gains rates up, etc. Less money in the pockets of all those rich folks will shrink the potential pool of buyers for all these million dollar plus homes. And all of those rich folks that spend so much money vacationing down at the beach, won't be as much of that going on either as the rich folks see a good chunk of that discretionary income disappear. And the nearly rich, when their taxes go up, they won't have the cash necessary to make the mortgage payments on their current beach homes. More foreclosures. Yep, taxing the rich is a great idea. Can't wait. It will be party time for sure. :blink::yikes:


Yep, what a great speech and what a pair those two will make.

As for me, I hope for a totally divided government. Republican white house and dem senate and house or dem white house and republican legislature. Makes both sides think harder about cooperation and will likely result in more middle of the road answers. I don't like what we got with 100% dems in the past and don't like what we got with 100% repubs in the past--they get fat, lazy and the power goes to their heads. I like stalemate-stalemate requires some cooperation.

[Margarita]

Great post Fisher!!! As an owner of a business that employs and provides a living for 25 people I can also tell you that Obama's tax plan will have a serious impact on my employees (the middle class that Obama is supposedly going to help). Some of my employees will lose their jobs and I won't be creating new ones. It is people like me who create jobs, grow businesses and buy a second home in Sowal that Obama wants to stick it to. This class warfare strategy of Obama's to overly tax the rich and redistribute to the middle class is a recipe for economic disaster.

[DIXI]

The tax the rich tired plans is just that redistribution of the wealth. Not to worry, the decisions of this past weekend by "O", have save our country from these follies for another 4-8 years.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9Bx0L3n3uAo/SLCubVGtKWI/AAAAAAAAC0E/8SE2Pg2WFCY/s320/obamabiden.jpg

[Smiling JOe]

I'm still wondering why that choice. Joe has already stated that Obama wasn't ready to be President, and Joe has been in Office since he was 29. Talk about a "change (of gov't) you can believe in." I guess I'm missing the trees and the forest.

[rapunzel]

My, how some people took a positive thread and took it ugly and negative. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

This thread was about a speech, and if any of you talking point regurgitating, already made up your mind, knee-jerk Republicans had listened to the speech you'd know Obama is actually going to lower taxes for the vast majority of Americans -- it is part of his plan to strengthen the middle class. His fiscally responsible economic plan will also strengthen the dollar, which will completely offset the very small 3% increase for those who make more than $250,000 per year after deductions -- just as the strong dollar and strong economy offset the fiscally responsible tax structure under Clinton.

Twenty years ago, the tax and spend label may have been valid. Democrats have been the fiscally responsible party since 1992 -- while the Republicans have become the party of borrow and spend. John 'Charge It!' McCain.

John McCain will continue Bush's failed economic policies. He will continue to place a disproportionate amount of the tax burden on the middle class, allowing the middle class to fall more and more behind until their standard of living is as low as the 'middle class' in India and China. He will continue to borrow and spend, further weakening the dollar and resulting in inflation and retirement accounts that don't begin to allow baby boomers to retire in security. He will be the president of the very wealthy -- the people who aren't as effected by the weak dollar because they have globally diversified portfolios.

Smiling Joe -- Did you know that Joe Biden was elected to the Senate as a young father of three, but before he was sworn in he lost his wife and daughter in a car accident. He was sworn in at the hospital, because he could not leave his two sons, who were also injured. Because of that accident, he never moved to Washington. He as taken the Amtrak home every night for 35 years so he could raise his family in their home. He's one of the good guys, he didn't sell out.

You can't have experience and change -- so you strike a balance. Joe Biden is a great choice.

[Miss Kitty]

So, is America ready for that 3% tax raise to be missing in charitable donations? What will happen to the Red Cross, United Way, etc? :idontno: What about that 3% being invested in the stock market or savngs for retirement? Is there not enough tax $$ coming in already that Mr. O or Mr. McC and Congress could and should just watch how they spend?

IMO, Mr. Obama was between a rock and a hard place on his VP choice. How much input does his party have on his choice (and Mr. McCain's?)? I have always enjoyed listening to Joe B. However, I don't like him when he sits on a panel questioning a Republican. IMHO, he is always grandstanding and loses the forest for the trees. But, I guess they all do in some manner. That, as SJ would say, is politricks. The spinning is making my head feel like Linda Blair's.

[Margarita]

From a tax policy perspective, the approaches of the two candidates are vastly different. Senator Obama emphasizes who gets what, and Senator McCain focuses on economic growth and broadly reshaping how the tax system affects household and business decisions. To put it differently, one focuses on redistribution and the other focuses on improving economic incentives. Also, focusing on who gets what is, by its very nature, more near-term, while promoting economic growth is more long-term.

One cannot get a good picture of what the candidates are trying to achieve by considering only the individual tax or the business tax provisions. One needs to apply a more holistic approach and consider the full set of proposals. Senator Obama provides tax relief directly to individuals, without major changes in how the tax system interacts with or affects individual and business decision making. Senator McCain provides broad tax relief and channels most of it to businesses, with the notion that the best way to help workers is to encourage investment and ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the global marketplace. The policies present very different choices: redistribution versus economic growth, and short run versus long term.

For more objective, non-partison spin on taxes go here - http://www.taxfoundation.org/about/

[Smiling JOe]

Punzy, Yes, I knew that was the case. It has absolutely nothing to do with my statement. Biden is a career politician. Obama is preaching change in gov't. His campaign against McCain doesn't overlook the fact that McCain has been in office for a long time. Now, he is bringing on a VP running mate who doesn't represent change at all. He represents the status quo. Living outside the city of DC, doesn't erase the fact that Joe is a career Washington politician.

My statement isn't ugly. Ugly is only in the eye of the observer. Outside the fact that Biden is a career politician, I haven't said anything about his poliTRICKS nor him as a person. My mom loves the guy and she thought he would have been nominated as the DNC choice of candidate for Pres. What I AM saying is that Biden sounds contrary to Obama's platform of change, and therefore seems like an odd choice, but hey, it's poliTRICKS. Obama needs someone with experience on the ticket to counteract the continuous charges from the Republicans that Obama has no experience. Now, his ticket is half-filled with experience.

Just my own observations. No, it didn't come from Sean Hannity, Rush, or whomever else may talk about it this afternoon.

[goodwitch58]

SJ, he needs someone on the ticket who can help effect the change he wants to bring about...change requires vision and strategy. Obama has the vision, and Biden can implement the strategy.

It would be difficult to find the way through all the DC stuff without someone who could get in the room; or even take the back channel approach.

Here is part of the way I made my decision: we know what we will get with McCain and the Republicans...do we really want to continue down that trail?

Even if we are not sure exactly what Obama and Biden will bring...surely, it is time to try something different from what we have had. Our world has changed; it is time the leadership in this country recognized that and set a course for a different outcome.

(and, I am not just talking about change from Bush and Co.)

[Smiling JOe]

goodwitch, I hear you, but that sounds too much like when the Dems wanted to control the Congress, they were elected to change the status quo, but they continued to vote for funding of the war, along with plenty of other stuff. The only thing which may have changed is which friends of politicians got the gov't money. Maybe Obama won't be like the other Washington politicians, and he can bring about good change, that has yet to be determined.

[rapunzel]

From a tax policy perspective, the approaches of the two candidates are vastly different. Senator Obama emphasizes who gets what, and Senator McCain focuses on economic growth and broadly reshaping how the tax system affects household and business decisions. To put it differently, one focuses on redistribution and the other focuses on improving economic incentives. Also, focusing on who gets what is, by its very nature, more near-term, while promoting economic growth is more long-term.

One cannot get a good picture of what the candidates are trying to achieve by considering only the individual tax or the business tax provisions. One needs to apply a more holistic approach and consider the full set of proposals. Senator Obama provides tax relief directly to individuals, without major changes in how the tax system interacts with or affects individual and business decision making. Senator McCain provides broad tax relief and channels most of it to businesses, with the notion that the best way to help workers is to encourage investment and ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the global marketplace. The policies present very different choices: redistribution versus economic growth, and short run versus long term.

For more objective, non-partison spin on taxes go here - http://www.taxfoundation.org/about/

You're fundamentally right -- the choice is a clear one. Four more years of the same economic policies we've followed for the last catastrophic eight years, or a change to a more fiscally responsible path? Do we keep buying this load of crap about how trickle down economics strengthens the economy and expect to get a magically different result this time? Has McCain talked about one idea to cut spending? Tax revenues that are too low (or a tax structure that places a disproportionate part of the tax burden on working and middle class and takes away the incentive to work) + no change in spending = a weak dollar. A weak dollar is a hidden tax that benefits no one, except the global investor and foreign countries.

A strong middle class and class mobility are the cornerstones of the American way. The trickle down economic theory has a negative impact on both.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Punzy, Yes, I knew that was the case. It has absolutely nothing to do with my statement. Biden is a career politician. Obama is preaching change in gov't. His campaign against McCain doesn't overlook the fact that McCain has been in office for a long time. Now, he is bringing on a VP running mate who doesn't represent change at all. He represents the status quo. Living outside the city of DC, doesn't erase the fact that Joe is a career Washington politician.

My statement isn't ugly. Ugly is only in the eye of the observer. Outside the fact that Biden is a career politician, I haven't said anything about his poliTRICKS nor him as a person. My mom loves the guy and she thought he would have been nominated as the DNC choice of candidate for Pres. What I AM saying is that Biden sounds contrary to Obama's platform of change, and therefore seems like an odd choice, but hey, it's poliTRICKS. Obama needs someone with experience on the ticket to counteract the continuous charges from the Republicans that Obama has no experience. Now, his ticket is half-filled with experience.

Just my own observations. No, it didn't come from Sean Hannity, Rush, or whomever else may talk about it this afternoon.

I didn't mean to imply you were being mean. I meant what I said -- I'm surprised that you don't watch the conventions. You've complained that Obama lacks specifics, but I think you have that impression because the media doesn't talk about policy specifics -- they gear coverage and commentary to the sixth grade level. The only way you get this information is to get primary source information and filter it through your own media savvy bs detector. Michelle Obama was talking about her husband's character last night...and character does matter.

[Geo]

So, is America ready for that 3% tax raise to be missing in charitable donations? What will happen to the Red Cross, United Way, etc? :idontno: What about that 3% being invested in the stock market or savngs for retirement? Is there not enough tax $$ coming in already that Mr. O or Mr. McC and Congress could and should just watch how they spend?



I hear this all the time from Republicans. I hear it all the time from the rich, from business owners. I just don't get the simplified cause and effect mentality...

Sometimes when I hear it, it strikes me as spiteful or like a threat-

"Mr. Obama, when you raise my taxes 3% I will be left with no other choice but to get rid of many of my employees. And I won't continue to give to charity. So go ahead and raise my taxes and see what happens to these other people less fortunate than me, I dare you. You don't want to do this to them."

:blink:

If my taxes went up 3% as a result of a administration/policy change or because I made more money and entered a higher tax bracket (or for whatever reason 3% evaporated)-

I wouldn't automatically start thinking about offsetting the "loss" by getting rid of my hired help (assuming they were good people doing good work). My generosity wouldn't evaporate...

Instead I would adapt and look for more constructive ways to drive revenue and margin to get the 3% back and then some. Or I would do nothing about it at all and just make a little less money. I'm rich and can take the hit...

:idontno:

[Smiling JOe]

I didn't mean to imply you were being mean. I meant what I said -- I'm surprised that you don't watch the conventions. You've complained that Obama lacks specifics, but I think you have that impression because the media doesn't talk about policy specifics -- they gear coverage and commentary to the sixth grade level. The only way you get this information is to get primary source information and filter it through your own media savvy bs detector. Michelle Obama was talking about her husband's character last night...and character does matter.
Thanks for the clarification. Noting your statements regarding the Press coverage of the candidates, I still don't know why you think I will learn more about the real stuff by watch something like the DNC. I did watch Jessie Jackson Jr and most of Jim Leach's speeches last night from the DNC. I was just not getting any information. It was all talk from people who like Obama. Sure, you can learn that people like Obama from listening to people who like Obama, but you don't learn the guts of his politics from doing so. The three major networks cover up the less popular speakers such as Jessie Jackson Jr and Republican Jim Leach, probably for fear of what they may say, or whom they may offend, politically. Those networks would rather have commentary on what is about to happen, rather than what IS happening. They will have from now until November to talk about it. It is merely the Press chattering.

[Geo]

Thanks for the clarification. Noting your statements regarding the Press coverage of the candidates, I still don't know why you think I will learn more about the real stuff by watch something like the DNC. I did watch Jessie Jackson Jr and most of Jim Leach's speeches last night from the DNC. I was just not getting any information. It was all talk from people who like Obama. Sure, you can learn that people like Obama from listening to people who like Obama, but you don't learn the guts of his politics from doing so. The three major networks cover up the less popular speakers such as Jessie Jackson Jr and Republican Jim Leach, probably for fear of what they may say, or whom they may offend, politically. Those networks would rather have commentary on what is about to happen, rather than what IS happening. They will have from now until November to talk about it. It is merely the Press chattering.


Hi SJ,

I was annoyed that every single network that covered the DNC last night had their commentators speaking during and over the speeches. I channel surfed and couldn't find even one outlet that would let me watch and listen and judge the unfiltered event for itself. I can't remember ever seeing anything like this...

Anywho, I respect your existing knowledge and even moreso your ongoing quest to learn more. I say this about you in general- not just politics...

I agree with you that as far as the candidates' policies (present and past) are concerned that there was not a lot to be gained by watching last night. Perhaps the same will be true about the RNC...

:idontno:

But what about watching for the purpose of discovering who inspires you? Who do you believe in? Who seems "in the moment"? etc etc

I got a lot out of last night and it had little to do with what I thought i was looking for...

[rapunzel]

Thanks for the clarification. Noting your statements regarding the Press coverage of the candidates, I still don't know why you think I will learn more about the real stuff by watch something like the DNC. I did watch Jessie Jackson Jr and most of Jim Leach's speeches last night from the DNC. I was just not getting any information. It was all talk from people who like Obama. Sure, you can learn that people like Obama from listening to people who like Obama, but you don't learn the guts of his politics from doing so. The three major networks cover up the less popular speakers such as Jessie Jackson Jr and Republican Jim Leach, probably for fear of what they may say, or whom they may offend, politically. Those networks would rather have commentary on what is about to happen, rather than what IS happening. They will have from now until November to talk about it. It is merely the Press chattering.

I guess, fundamentally, I think we are a lot alike. I prefer to get my news unfiltered by other people and form my own impressions. In historiography, we considered primary source material the only true source -- anything else has been filtered through someone else's world view and often spun to fit his or her pre-developed narrative, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I refer to perceive things using my own filter. You seem to be the same way. I was just surprised you weren't watching, that's all.

I thought last night that she seemed a little nervous, and it took her a little while to find her rhythm, but that she was fundamentally authentic and relatable. I thought that naughty little Sasha was the cutest thing, and gave a unscripted glimpse of a strong family and a good dad.

If I had made my decision from listening to either of my three main media sources, I'd think either she pandered to the talking point that she wasn't patriotic, or that the heavens opened up and deposited her there on the stage as the all American perfect woman, complete with golden halo, and she delivered the greatest speech ever. The clips were even cut to reinforce those points of view and allow me to feel I had a good sense of what happened.

[scooterbug44]

None of the announcers/color commentary folks said anything worthwhile. In fact, they hit a new low in inane comments.

I was amazed last night when one of their little Factoids (my favorite part actually) was that there were 4,000 delegates and 15,000 media at the convention! :blink:

[Miss Kitty]

I hear this all the time from Republicans. I hear it all the time from the rich, from business owners. I just don't get the simplified cause and effect mentality...

Sometimes when I hear it, it strikes me as spiteful or like a threat-

"Mr. Obama, when you raise my taxes 3% I will be left with no other choice but to get rid of many of my employees. And I won't continue to give to charity. So go ahead and raise my taxes and see what happens to these other people less fortunate than me, I dare you. You don't want to do this to them."

:blink:

If my taxes went up 3% as a result of a administration/policy change or because I made more money and entered a higher tax bracket (or for whatever reason 3% evaporated)-

I wouldn't automatically start thinking about offsetting the "loss" by getting rid of my hired help (assuming they were good people doing good work). My generosity wouldn't evaporate...

Instead I would adapt and look for more constructive ways to drive revenue and margin to get the 3% back and then some. Or I would do nothing about it at all and just make a little less money. I'm rich and can take the hit...

:idontno:

I welcome your reply, but because you do not know me or my husband, what we earn, what we pay in taxes or what we give to charity, I will excuse a bit of how you came across. I will tell you that we are considered "rich" with money, but what makes us richer is what we give away. I will go to my grave arguing that what this "rich" family pays in taxes and what percentage of it is wasted would make your head spin. When I hear the rich doesn't pay it's fair share, it makes me see red. Concerning SS, we will NEVER see what we have paid in...which may be the fair thing. :idontno: I am lucky enough to have a husband that has done his best to secure our future and retirement. I have more learning to do.

[BeachSiO2]

I was amazed last night when one of their little Factoids (my favorite part actually) was that there were 4,000 delegates and 15,000 media at the convention! :blink:

Don't forget the lobbyists :biggrin:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5648474&page=1

Note, I do not think this will be any different in Minneapolis.

[Smiling JOe]

Geo, I don't look to politicians for inspiration, though I am inspired by some of our Founding Fathers of this Country. I find inspiration in many things and people. Inspiration is all around us. Look into the eyes of a child for inspiration.

punzy, I would agree fully, with your statement above.

The bobble heads would have us think that Michelle Obama is unpatriotic. Hell, I love this land, but this gov't scares me sometimes, so if one is deemed unpatriotic b/c he or she doesn't like what our gov't is doing, call me unpatriotic, too. I heard Michelle once say that she is a bossy. (my word, not hers) That could be good or bad depending on if she is with you or agin you. After all, she is trained at Harvard, in law, like Bill O'reily. I wouldn't expect a quiet person to be able to get a degree in Law from Harvard.

I really haven't heard her speak, but I could only guess that she is very intelligent. Smart people don't tend to marry dumb people, and dumb people don't tend to graduate from Harvard. My guess is that the Press, and the campaign, doesn't want her to appear as anything more than a pretty lady who can speak well, and who looks like a good mother. My guess comes from a couple of clips I heard today, playing Stevie Wonder's song as the story of the DNC, "Isn't She Lovely." I also base that on people's posts on here today, about her being pretty with the golden halo, the cute kids, and such. I could be totally wrong with that, but it's just a guess. They don't want her to look like she pulls Obama's strings, because that would open another can of unknown worms.

I have too much respect for Michelle and the kids to watch the slant of the Press, and the hoopla of the Convention. In the movie I did watch last night, "John Lenon vs the US Gov't," they showed a clip, which is very relevant to the highlights and slants of the Press. John and Yoko invited the Press for an interview. They were under a white sheet, which they referred to as being in the bag, for the entire interview, with the idea of it being "complete communication." It made perfect sense to me, but the Press was confused and kept asking questions like, "what are you wearing?" "is it really you?" "will you sing us something?" etc.

John recognized that his music, his looks, etc were vales covering up what he was saying about poliTRICKS, the War in Vietnam, the unjust FBI killings of political activists, PEACE, etc. So, his attempt at complete communication made a huge statement, but the Press was just confused, because they only know how to communicate things which they hear or see. They don't know how to remove those vales. Instead, they know who to lay on more vales. It was so ironic that John and Yoko had to hide behind a vale, in order to try and remove the other vales which had been placed on them.

As an fyi to all, the PBS channel did broadcast some commentary as usual, but they aired all of the speeches. CSPAN, which I don't receive, also typically does a great job of broadcasting it in its entirety.

I believe Hillary is on stage tonight, so I will probably chime into that trainwreck. Probably much more exciting and humorous than anything else on TV.

[Margarita]

I welcome your reply, but because you do not know me or my husband, what we earn, what we pay in taxes or what we give to charity, I will excuse a bit of how you came across. I will tell you that we are considered "rich" with money, but what makes us richer is what we give away. I will go to my grave arguing that what this "rich" family pays in taxes and what percentage of it is wasted would make your head spin. When I hear the rich doesn't pay it's fair share, it makes me see red. Concerning SS, we will NEVER see what we have paid in...which may be the fair thing. :idontno: I am lucky enough to have a husband that has done his best to secure our future and retirement. I have more learning to do.

Thank you for your post. I feel exactly the same way. My husband and I are also considered "rich". When we got married 28 years ago we both had minimum wage jobs and actually had to borrow money to pay our federal and state income taxes in that first year. Even though both of our familes are also considered "rich" we were not given any handouts. We worked hard and sacrificed alot to start a small business that has been very successful. Because of this success we are able to provide jobs so that others can support their families and we have been quite charitable in our giving. I couldn't agree more when you say that what makes us rich is not what we have but what we have given away. Politicians who declare that they are going to take from the rich and redistribute to the struggling middle class fail to realize that many of us who got to be rich were the struggling middle class at one time. 28 years ago we never considered that our path to prosperity meant peanalizing the wealthy. I firmly believe that the single best way to increase middle-class income is to reduce the success penalty on those in possession of the greatest amount of capital. That is the rich.

[goodwitch58]

goodwitch, I hear you, but that sounds too much like when the Dems wanted to control the Congress, they were elected to change the status quo, but they continued to vote for funding of the war, along with plenty of other stuff. The only thing which may have changed is which friends of politicians got the gov't money. Maybe Obama won't be like the other Washington politicians, and he can bring about good change, that has yet to be determined.

I am just as frustrated with Congress; I think the difference is Obama has a vision for change--the Congress was just going about DC politics as usual...maybe I am wrong, but I certainly hope not!

[Smiling JOe]

"vision for change" is too general for me to buy into. The few specific changes which I've heard, I disagree with, philosophically.

[Geo]

I welcome your reply, but because you do not know me or my husband, what we earn, what we pay in taxes or what we give to charity, I will excuse a bit of how you came across. I will tell you that we are considered "rich" with money, but what makes us richer is what we give away. I will go to my grave arguing that what this "rich" family pays in taxes and what percentage of it is wasted would make your head spin. When I hear the rich doesn't pay it's fair share, it makes me see red. Concerning SS, we will NEVER see what we have paid in...which may be the fair thing. :idontno: I am lucky enough to have a husband that has done his best to secure our future and retirement. I have more learning to do.

MK,

My post isn't directed at you personally and I made no assumptions about you and yours. Not sure why you said you will "excuse how [i] came across" as if I said something offensive that needs to be excused...

Take it or leave it- I meant what I said...

I don't understand the certain correlation expressed often between-

"Obama raises my taxes and I will lay people off and stop giving to charity."

If one's business has an off season (down 3%) due to nontax related factors-
would the knee jerk reaction be to let good people go and cease to give to worthy causes?

I would think not...

Pls consider what I am saying without feeling like I am slighting you...

g

[Geo]

Thank you for your post. I feel exactly the same way. My husband and I are also considered "rich". When we got married 28 years ago we both had minimum wage jobs and actually had to borrow money to pay our federal and state income taxes in that first year. Even though both of our familes are also considered "rich" we were not given any handouts. We worked hard and sacrificed alot to start a small business that has been very successful. Because of this success we are able to provide jobs so that others can support their families and we have been quite charitable in our giving. I couldn't agree more when you say that what makes us rich is not what we have but what we have given away. Politicians who declare that they are going to take from the rich and redistribute to the struggling middle class fail to realize that many of us who got to be rich were the struggling middle class at one time. 28 years ago we never considered that our path to prosperity meant peanalizing the wealthy. I firmly believe that the single best way to increase middle-class income is to reduce the success penalty on those in possession of the greatest amount of capital. That is the rich.

I love these stories. Hard work, good decisons, "can do" attitude and you make it in this country. You're rich...

Compared to many I am rich too although I don't believe that label fits- yet...

:)

When I earn more and move into the next tax bracket or when there is a restructuring of those brackets I do not feel like I am being penalized for my hard work. I do not feel like the fruits of my success are being "redistributed".

I just wish more who really think it would say-

"I am voting Republican for a really simple reason- money. I vote Obama and I have less. I vote Mccain and I have more"...

[Miss Kitty]

I hear this all the time from Republicans. I hear it all the time from the rich, from business owners. I just don't get the simplified cause and effect mentality...

Sometimes when I hear it, it strikes me as spiteful or like a threat-

"Mr. Obama, when you raise my taxes 3% I will be left with no other choice but to get rid of many of my employees. And I won't continue to give to charity. So go ahead and raise my taxes and see what happens to these other people less fortunate than me, I dare you. You don't want to do this to them."

:blink:

If my taxes went up 3% as a result of a administration/policy change or because I made more money and entered a higher tax bracket (or for whatever reason 3% evaporated)-

I wouldn't automatically start thinking about offsetting the "loss" by getting rid of my hired help (assuming they were good people doing good work). My generosity wouldn't evaporate...

Instead I would adapt and look for more constructive ways to drive revenue and margin to get the 3% back and then some. Or I would do nothing about it at all and just make a little less money. I'm rich and can take the hit...

:idontno:

I welcome your reply, but because you do not know me or my husband, what we earn, what we pay in taxes or what we give to charity, I will excuse a bit of how you came across. I will tell you that we are considered "rich" with money, but what makes us richer is what we give away. I will go to my grave arguing that what this "rich" family pays in taxes and what percentage of it is wasted would make your head spin. When I hear the rich doesn't pay it's fair share, it makes me see red. Concerning SS, we will NEVER see what we have paid in...which may be the fair thing. :idontno: I am lucky enough to have a husband that has done his best to secure our future and retirement. I have more learning to do.

MK,

My post isn't directed at you personally and I made no assumptions about you and yours. Not sure why you said you will "excuse how [i] came across" as if I said something offensive that needs to be excused...

Take it or leave it- I meant what I said...

I don't understand the certain correlation expressed often between-

"Obama raises my taxes and I will lay people off and stop giving to charity."

If one's business has an off season (down 3%) due to nontax related factors-
would the knee jerk reaction be to let good people go and cease to give to worthy causes?

I would think not...

Pls consider what I am saying without feeling like I am slighting you...

g

Funny how two people can read things two different ways! ;-) You quoted my post and I read your reply. You can jump to conclusions and "label" me any which way you care to. This great country is full of stories...I will not completely bore you with mine. Just as I carefully watch every dime that leaves my wallet, I am only asking that my gov't, of the people and for the people, does the same. I posed a hypothetical with the 3% tax raise and what it might do to charitable giving. The "rich" have to be mindful of their dollars as well. Maybe the answer is for the gov't to require us to make a 3% charitable donation to the charity of our choosing instead of sending it to Washington! :wave:

There is a lot of tax talk today! Doesn't it always hit a nerve?

[TooFarTampa]

CSPAN, which I don't receive, also typically does a great job of broadcasting it in its entirety.


CSPAN was the first station I found with convention coverage. (Remote is probably under the couch again.) That's how I watched it, and is probably why I am not that cranky today. :lol:

Some of the speech givers were absolutely terrible, and not worthy of network television. But I am glad to hear that I was saved from a bunch of ridiculous off-the-cuff "analysis."

[Margarita]

I love these stories. Hard work, good decisons, "can do" attitude and you make it in this country. You're rich...

Compared to many I am rich too although I don't believe that label fits- yet...

:)

When I earn more and move into the next tax bracket or when there is a restructuring of those brackets I do not feel like I am being penalized for my hard work. I do not feel like the fruits of my success are being "redistributed".

I just wish more who really think it would say-

"I am voting Republican for a really simple reason- money. I vote Obama and I have less. I vote Mccain and I have more"...

I am going to vote Democrat because I believe that:

1. Business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

2. The government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

[Smiling JOe]

I turned on the TV for about five minutes this evening -- PBS, which was broadcasting the coverage. I had to turn it off, but not before flipping through the other networks, none of which were broadcasting from the DNC yet. This was around 730pm. They were showing game shows and crap.

I love to watch the strategy and puppet pulling going on, and the opponents reactions to this and that. The candidates get lost in the shuffle, which is ashamed, because I think that many people, including myself, would be very interested in removing the vales and seeing the real candidates. PoliTRICKS efs it all up, people's morals and values.

[kingfishn]

don't know if y'all have been watching the convention....(nice sked after Olympics...Ping Pong)....anyway...who(m)ever was speaking (gonna be the catch phrase said)..."Not Four more years, four more months)....now...I have been drinking a little, and I did make a Cee (plus) in Civics...and it IS August 26th...soooo...wouldn't four more months be the Day after
Christmas?....even a lame duck has until Jan 20th following the Nov erect...uh...election
right?

Question is..."Four more months?"...

Thanks, Love Ya, bye
NK

[kingfishn]

or...is that when Electoral 'College' meets?....
mehopes they (the powers that be) are smarter than me (I)...

and, of course, have more morals...

NK

[greenroomsurfer]

No more J&B for you!!!!!!! :floor::biggrin::wub::wub::wub:

[kingfishn]

I would let the moose loose....but, you've seen it...
Hang Loose, Buddy,

Nk

(Coastie Bastid)

[Smiling JOe]

Everyone knows that the Patio Daddy-Os are smarter than your average Donkey and Elephant, and morals -- don't even get me started.

[Geo]

I am going to vote Democrat because I believe that:

1. Business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

2. The government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.


Ha. Funny. Juvenille but cute...

What are you trying to accomplish with the sarcasm? I am sorry you are frustrated with taxes and spending. I am too. But I know of no one who votes democratic and who believes what you typed above...

Anywho, you have inspired me to start a new thread. I will get it out there later today if no one beats me to it. It will be a fill-in-the-blank along the lines of:

I am going to vote [democrat or republican] in November because I believe that:

1.
2.
3.

I am anxious to see what people on both sides have to say...

I stand by what I said before that I wish anyone who believes it would just say-

"I am voting Republican for a really simple reason- money. I vote Obama and I have less. I vote Mccain and I have more"...

:wave:

[full time]

Ha. Funny. Juvenille but cute...

What are you trying to accomplish with the sarcasm? I am sorry you are frustrated with taxes and spending. I am too. But I know of no one who votes democratic and who believes what you typed above...

Anywho, you have inspired me to start a new thread. I will get it out there later today if no one beats me to it. It will be a fill-in-the-blank along the lines of:

I am going to vote [democrat or republican] in November because I believe that:

1.
2.
3.

I am anxious to see what people on both sides have to say...

I stand by what I said before that I wish anyone who believes it would just say-

"I am voting Republican for a really simple reason- money. I vote Obama and I have less. I vote Mccain and I have more"...

:wave:

Let me take a stab at this. I am voting democrat because I believe that:

-we can save the planet;
-provide free health care to all; and
-be nicer to foreign governments and other elements that wish us ill.

[Mango]

Oh, I didn't realize it was story time in the Sowal nursery. Let me go get my finger puppets.

[Geo]

Let me take a stab at this. I am voting democrat because I believe that:

-we can save the planet;
-provide free health care to all; and
-be nicer to foreign governments and other elements that wish us ill.


Pretty lame.

I have a request. If you don't care to respond in my new thread with what you are voting and why then pls don't bother posting. Yes, I know it is a free country with free speech and no one can stop you from being rude...

But I really want to see what people have to say who care to share.

Thanks...

[full time]

See if this helps-I'm voting republican because I believe that:
-we should melt the polar ice caps;
-occupy foreign countries; and
-refuse medical attention to the elderly and infirm.

Feel better?

[scooterbug44]

Gotta love that ignore feature! :roll:

[JoshMclean]

See if this helps-I'm voting republican because I believe that:
-we should melt the polar ice caps;
-occupy foreign countries; and
-refuse medical attention to the elderly and infirm.

Feel better?

Can we get rich in the process?

[Geo]

See if this helps-I'm voting republican because I believe that:
-we should melt the polar ice caps;
-occupy foreign countries; and
-refuse medical attention to the elderly and infirm.

Feel better?

I can't help but wonder.

If you used your real name and picture on SoWal so that you were no longer anonymous, would you still be so obnoxius and disingenuous in your postings?

My name is George and I live in SRB. My picture is my avatar. Why not introduce yourself sometime if/when you see me around...

Perhaps then you would be more willing to disagree like an adult...

[Cheering472]

Great post Fisher!!! As an owner of a business that employs and provides a living for 25 people I can also tell you that Obama's tax plan will have a serious impact on my employees (the middle class that Obama is supposedly going to help). Some of my employees will lose their jobs and I won't be creating new ones. It is people like me who create jobs, grow businesses and buy a second home in Sowal that Obama wants to stick it to. This class warfare strategy of Obama's to overly tax the rich and redistribute to the middle class is a recipe for economic disaster.

We have a small business (approx 28 people). "We" means my partners and myself, I'm single. While I don't look forward to the tax cut expiring and rates going back to what they previously were I don't anticipate we will lay off our employees because of it. We did fine under the previous administration before the tax cuts so we should be able to absorb this should it expire.

We think very highly of our employees and laying them off would only happen after we (the Partners) adjusted our incomes. These people are like family to us and we would never ask them to take this hit for our personal income taxes. Our senior Partner would never let that happen as these people are very instumental in our success.

[full time]

I can't help but wonder.

If you used your real name and picture on SoWal so that you were no longer anonymous, would you still be so obnoxius and disingenuous in your postings?

My name is George and I live in SRB. My picture is my avatar. Why not introduce yourself sometime if/when you see me around...

Perhaps then you would be more willing to disagree like an adult...

They were jokes meant to poke fun at both sides. Sorry it didn't go over so well. I wish to remain anonymous because you seem upset, and I do not wish to be sucker punched while enjoying a cold beer this weekend. I'll refrain from further participation in your poll.

[Smiling JOe]

Only the 3% tax increase is mentioned, but isn't it true that many small businesses will eat some of the costs, when cost of inventory and labor increases? If the businesses are eating it all the way around, that which looks like 3% may be more like 15% when all is factored in.

I heard something yesterday out of Barack's mouth, about him wanting to bring businesses to the US, pointing fingers at McCain, saying that he wants to move them overseas. Barack is even willing to give them incentives, he says, to come here. That is the part which doesn't make sense to me. He is going to give businesses tax incentives to locate here, but he simultaneously, he is for taxing businesses, owners and management even more than the gov't is doing today. How is that incentive? Sounds like the talk of a real politician. Maybe Barack isn't as green (new) as people think.

I've heard the adjective, "fair," also used to describe Sen Obama, at this DNC. Philosophically, that doesn't add up in my book, either. The man has repeatedly stated that he is for "leveling the playing field," ie- taxing the wealthy more, and redistributing it to the middle and lower class. How the hell is that "fair." If someone were to approach you on the street with a gun and tell you to give them your money, so they can give it to a broke guy down the street, is that fair? Essentially, that is exactly what the gov't is doing with their demand of taxes. Don't pay them and you will be getting free sex, free meals, and free lodging, paid for by the wealthy.

[Santiago]

Only the 3% tax increase is mentioned, but isn't it true that many small businesses will eat some of the costs, when cost of inventory and labor increases? If the businesses are eating it all the way around, that which looks like 3% may be more like 15% when all is factored in.

I heard something yesterday out of Barack's mouth, about him wanting to bring businesses to the US, pointing fingers at McCain, saying that he wants to move them overseas. Barack is even willing to give them incentives, he says, to come here. That is the part which doesn't make sense to me. He is going to give businesses tax incentives to locate here, but he simultaneously, he is for taxing businesses, owners and management even more than the gov't is doing today. How is that incentive? Sounds like the talk of a real politician. Maybe Barack isn't as green (new) as people think.

I've heard the adjective, "fair," also used to describe Sen Obama, at this DNC. Philosophically, that doesn't add up in my book, either. The man has repeatedly stated that he is for "leveling the playing field," ie- taxing the wealthy more, and redistributing it to the middle and lower class. How the hell is that "fair." If someone were to approach you on the street with a gun and tell you to give them your money, so they can give it to a broke guy down the street, is that fair? Essentially, that is exactly what the gov't is doing with their demand of taxes. Don't pay them and you will be getting free sex, free meals, and free lodging, paid for by the wealthy.

Socialism-Taking Smiling Joe's(the wealthy) money and redistributing it to Santiago(the poor)

[DolphinDude]

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."
Karl Rove - aka "Bush's Brain"

[Smiling JOe]

Socialism-Taking Smiling Joe's(the wealthy) money and redistributing it to Santiago(the poor)

"You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip." I am wealthy in many ways, but not financially.

[MissCritter]

They were jokes meant to poke fun at both sides. Sorry it didn't go over so well. I wish to remain anonymous because you seem upset, and I do not wish to be sucker punched while enjoying a cold beer this weekend. I'll refrain from further participation in your poll.


FT, those little smiley faces go a long way toward setting the tone of a post, since we don't enjoy the nuance of spoken language here. :biggrin:

Signed,
Also Loves Satire

[Rita]

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."
Karl Rove - aka "Bush's Brain"

.
:shock:.....Tell me you're kidding and that this isn't a true quote - even coming from Rove it's hard to believe ....




.

[Miss Kitty]

FT, those little smiley faces go a long way toward setting the tone of a post, since we don't enjoy the nuance of spoken language here. :biggrin:

Signed,
Also Loves Satire

Amen. Even John R can't argue with that.

Your pal,

Miss Kitty :wave:

[TooFarTampa]

.
:shock:.....Tell me you're kidding and that this isn't a true quote - even coming from Rove it's hard to believe ....




.

He did indeed. Check out this link:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_bush_on_voting_republican.htm

[Geo]

They were jokes meant to poke fun at both sides. Sorry it didn't go over so well. I wish to remain anonymous because you seem upset, and I do not wish to be sucker punched while enjoying a cold beer this weekend. I'll refrain from further participation in your poll.

FullTime,

Thx for sharing your intentions. I must have misunderstood. Agree with folks on the smileys going a long way.

So I shared your reply above with my wife and she got a kick out of it. She said I should tell you not to worry and that her husband has been ticking people off on SoWal.com for over a year and a half with little to no anonymity and he still hasn't been slugged (yet)...

:lol::clap:

If you see me, say hi. I'll buy you a beer and promise not to resort to any physical violence...

:cool:

[full time]

FullTime,

Thx for sharing your intentions. I must have misunderstood. Agree with folks on the smileys going a long way.

So I shared your reply above with my wife and she got a kick out of it. She said I should tell you not to worry and that her husband has been ticking people off on SoWal.com for over a year and a half with little to no anonymity and he still hasn't been slugged (yet)...

:lol::clap:

If you see me, say hi. I'll buy you a beer and promise not to resort to any physical violence...

:cool:

It wouldn't really be that funny if I had to post a face advising the reader to laugh. So superficial.

[fisher]

My, how some people took a positive thread and took it ugly and negative. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

This thread was about a speech, and if any of you talking point regurgitating, already made up your mind, knee-jerk Republicans had listened to the speech you'd know Obama is actually going to lower taxes for the vast majority of Americans -- it is part of his plan to strengthen the middle class. His fiscally responsible economic plan will also strengthen the dollar, which will completely offset the very small 3% increase for those who make more than $250,000 per year after deductions -- just as the strong dollar and strong economy offset the fiscally responsible tax structure under Clinton.

e.

I believe the Big O is actually talking about lifting the FICA tax cap which means all those folks making over about $100k per year will see their marginal tax rate above $100k in income go up by 6.2% plus any increase in the income tax rates. Plus the employers will pay an additional 6.2% on the wages over $100k---OUCH! This could hit the "rich" by 10% or more and nip all corporations--big AND SMALL. If you don't think that will put the hurt on the economy, you need to put on your thinking cap again.

For a very successful, self employed person making $500k annually, they would currently pay about $170k or so in FICA, Medicare and Federal Income Taxes (plus 0% to 10% in state and local taxes). Under the O plan, they would pay roughly $55k in additional taxes.

[TooFarTampa]

I believe the Big O is actually talking about lifting the FICA tax cap which means all those folks making over about $100k per year will see their marginal tax rate above $100k in income go up by 6.2% plus any increase in the income tax rates. Plus the employers will pay an additional 6.2% on the wages over $100k---OUCH! This could hit the "rich" by 10% or more and nip all corporations--big AND SMALL. If you don't think that will put the hurt on the economy, you need to put on your thinking cap again.

For a very successful, self employed person making $500k annually, they would currently pay about $170k or so in FICA, Medicare and Federal Income Taxes (plus 0% to 10% in state and local taxes). Under the O plan, they would pay roughly $55k in additional taxes.

Actually, he is talking about raising the payroll tax cap -- but only for those who make $250K and above. I also believe he has clarified that it would be a smaller percentage, somewhere between 2 and 4 percent. That income between $102,500 (adjusted upward annually) and $250,000 (adjusted upward annually???) would not be subject to an additional payroll tax.

[fisher]

We have a small business (approx 28 people). "We" means my partners and myself, I'm single. While I don't look forward to the tax cut expiring and rates going back to what they previously were I don't anticipate we will lay off our employees because of it. We did fine under the previous administration before the tax cuts so we should be able to absorb this should it expire.

We think very highly of our employees and laying them off would only happen after we (the Partners) adjusted our incomes. These people are like family to us and we would never ask them to take this hit for our personal income taxes. Our senior Partner would never let that happen as these people are very instumental in our success.

Good for you. You run a good old fashioned business that looks out for its employees. I applaud you. However, you are in a very small minority. Companies, especially public companies, will be lying people off as profits sour. They won't absorb the tax hikes like you. They have shareholders to please.

[Cheering472]

Good for you. You run a good old fashioned business that looks out for its employees. I applaud you. However, you are in a very small minority. Companies, especially public companies, will be lying people off as profits sour. They won't absorb the tax hikes like you. They have shareholders to please.

I agree that large public companies will do differently than our small privately owned business. Shareholders want results. We consider ourselves progressive rather than old fashioned. All employees here have an opportunity to excel and the possibility of becoming partners themselves someday, so we are not neccessarily old fashioned. Old fashioned thinking would mean the owners would keep the company and all it's profits for themselves. We are small, we are independant and we reward exemplary work.

But more importantly, the post you were responding to was directed to someone who stated her small privately owned business would have to lay people off when Obama lets the tax cuts expire and she has to pay more income taxes. My point was why would that automatically be the answer if you don't have shareholders to please. We will work through it, as with the original poster, the only shareholder that we have to please is ourselves.

[Geo]

I agree that large public companies will do differently than our small privately owned business. Shareholders want results. We consider ourselves progressive rather than old fashioned. All employees here have an opportunity to excel and the possibility of becoming partners themselves someday, so we are not neccessarily old fashioned. Old fashioned thinking would mean the owners would keep the company and all it's profits for themselves. We are small, we are independant and we reward exemplary work.

But more importantly, the post you were responding to was directed to someone who stated her small privately owned business would have to lay people off when Obama lets the tax cuts expire and she has to pay more income taxes. My point was why would that automatically be the answer if you don't have shareholders to please. We will work through it, as with the original poster, the only shareholder that we have to please is ourselves.


Thanks so much. Until you chimed in I felt like I was the only one who thought it made sense that there need not be cause and effect between an increase in taxes and laying peoiple off and ceasing to give to charity...

[Cheering472]

Thanks so much. Until you chimed in I felt like I was the only one who thought it made sense that there need not be cause and effect between an increase in taxes and laying peoiple off and ceasing to give to charity...

Well we are privately owned so we get to make our own call on this issue. It still may be a deciding factor for others. I like to think a lot of people would rather give up an extra vacation house than see even one family hurt because they lost their job and health insurance.

For me it's better this way, my luck I'd develop ugly skin from over exposure to the beautiful Sowal sun. This way I get to stay here and work more. It's hard to get sunburn from these lights in my office.

I best get back to it, stupid deadline...:wave:

[Smiling JOe]

Increasing taxes on corporations via payroll taxes or whatever, will simply be passed along to the consumers, so it is basically a tax on the people -- really a double tax, because as the prices go up, so does the sales tax being paid.

[fisher]

Actually, he is talking about raising the payroll tax cap -- but only for those who make $250K and above. I also believe he has clarified that it would be a smaller percentage, somewhere between 2 and 4 percent. That income between $102,500 (adjusted upward annually) and $250,000 (adjusted upward annually???) would not be subject to an additional payroll tax.

Okay. That simply means that the person making the $500k would pay an additional $25k plus or minus in income taxes on marginal earnings and 4% FICA on earnings over $250k for a total decrease in take home pay of about 7% to 8%. Still hurts BAD!

In addition, let's say that taxes on the rich do go up. Shouldn't we use the new revenues to pay down our national debt rather than redistributing it to the "less fortunate" or establishing new ways for the government to spend our money???

[TooFarTampa]

Okay. That simply means that the person making the $500k would pay an additional $25k plus or minus in income taxes on marginal earnings and 4% FICA on earnings over $250k for a total decrease in take home pay of about 7% to 8%. Still hurts BAD!

At that level, I disagree that it hurts bad. Is it unfair? Quite possibly, especially if said taxpayer does not benefit later from the higher SS withdrawals when it comes time to retire.

One other thing to note about SS, a super power couple each making $249K a year would not be subject to additional payroll tax.

In addition, let's say that taxes on the rich do go up. Shouldn't we use the new revenues to pay down our national debt rather than redistributing it to the "less fortunate" or establishing new ways for the government to spend our money???

If you are talking about income taxes, of course! SS is a separate system -- we must do what we must do in the most fair and reasonable way possible to make it work. But when it comes to income taxes, we have to keep spending in check. Every single person I know -- from the wealthy to the very much struggling -- is all about cost-benefit analysis. Americans are making an effort to look to the future and spend their money wisely. The government must follow suit.

One way to accomplish spending cuts is to ease our way out of Iraq as quickly and skillfully as possible, not just to trim the military budget, but to make sure we have resources available to focus elsewhere. Let us not forget that it took the current administration a very long time -- what, seven years? -- to find a spending bill it didn't like.

[Miss Kitty]

Thanks so much. Until you chimed in I felt like I was the only one who thought it made sense that there need not be cause and effect between an increase in taxes and laying peoiple off and ceasing to give to charity...

:roll:...tap tap tap

[rapunzel]

Increasing taxes on corporations via payroll taxes or whatever, will simply be passed along to the consumers, so it is basically a tax on the people -- really a double tax, because as the prices go up, so does the sales tax being paid.

I just can't agree with you here. Corporations have the same rights as individuals under the law, they use our streets and infrastructure, our schools educate their workers.

The double tax argument doesn't work. Prices are set by the market and demand, corporations would have to remain competitive. Further, the taxes are based on a percentage of profit -- after costs and salaries have been paid. They would only impact the investors' returns, not the price individuals pay for goods or services.

How to earn $3.5 trillion and pay zero taxes
By David R. Francis

The April 2 release of a General Accounting Office report on corporate taxes could hardly have been better timed to get press attention. Just as millions of Americans were filling out their federal 2003 tax forms to beat the April 15 deadline, the GAO study indicated that most corporations owed no taxes from 1996 to 2000, a boom period for corporate profits.

Those untaxed corporations earned $3.5 trillion of revenues.

Any individual who paid taxes provides more money to run the government than these untaxed firms, says Barry Piatt, spokesman for Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) of North Dakota, who, with Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan requested the study months ago. Next time Congress considers taxation, Senator Dorgan will be hammering at the legal "massive tax avoidance" by companies, promises Mr. Piatt.

For years, companies and their representatives, such as the National Association of Manufacturers, have complained that businesses are overtaxed. The latest studies of corporate taxation suggest that, in general, this is not true. "The usual arguments may be baloney," says Piatt.

The GAO study found that 71 percent of foreign-controlled corporations operating in the United States paid no taxes in those five years; nor did 61 percent of US-controlled companies.

The basic corporate tax rate stands officially at 35 percent. In reality, it's far below that for most companies. And the importance of corporate tax revenues for Uncle Sam has shrunk. That's shown by the numbers.

Corporate taxes have fallen from 5 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's output of goods and services, in 1946 to 1.4 percent now.

As a percentage of all federal tax revenues, corporate tax payments have declined from 23 percent in 1960 to 13 percent in 1980 and 8 percent today.

Using data from the financial statements of publicly traded companies, the average effective tax rate was 12 percent in 2002, down from 15 percent in 1999, and 18 percent in 1995, according to a study by John Graham, a finance professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business.http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0419/p16s03-cogn.html

[Geo]

:roll:...tap tap tap

Sorry Kitty. No slight intended. I honestly did not fully understand your stance...

G