POLITICAL THREAD

[P19978]

And tons of wealthy Britons are tax exiles.

Lowering corporate and personal taxes could also be balanced by spending cuts. Not sure why you left that one off, fuzz arnold

Additionally, many wealthy folk from the socialist countries in Europe become tax exiles or just move their $$ to offshore accts... essentially doing the same thing that Allergan/Pfizer etc are accused of...

Who would have thought socialists would practice tax avoidance? Doesnt getting all the "free stuff" make it "fair"?

Socialists...lol

 

[bigblueinsanity]

If you TRULY believe in income redistribution, there's no law preventing you from just donating all your excess money. You can always do your share to level the playing field.

The Bevin vs. Beshear feud gets uglier as the Governor accuses the prior administration of wrongdoing. I am sure that Beshear, Jr. will strike back with a suit in the near future.

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...hical-lapses-beshear-administration/83227646/

Oh don't worry, Beshear Sr already has a scathing retort in a statement released literally at the same time one of his cabinet was pleading guilty to bribery in federal court. Mustve been hard to write that with a straight face.

 

[Willy4UK]

If you TRULY believe in income redistribution, there's no law preventing you from just donating all your excess money. You can always do your share to level the playing field.

Didn't he start up a thread about his "friend" trying to save money on insurance for a $8K bicycle?

 

[P19978]

Didn't he start up a thread about his "friend" trying to save money on insurance for a $8K bicycle?

Because libs/socialists/Dems would NEVER practice tax avoidance...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/23/john-kerry-saves-500000-b_n_656985.html

 

[Willy4UK]

Because libs/socialists/Dems would NEVER practice tax avoidance...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/23/john-kerry-saves-500000-b_n_656985.html

Or consuming too much energy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Didn't he start up a thread about his "friend" trying to save money on insurance for a $8K bicycle?

Dont remember it, but wouldnt surprise me.

Because libs/socialists/Dems would NEVER practice tax avoidance...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/23/john-kerry-saves-500000-b_n_656985.html

Or consuming too much energy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888

Theyre always full of GREEEAAAT ideas.....for everyone else to follow. Just not them.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

Wow. Next she will be saying something like this..
Hillary - "I don't smoke. But if I did I would definitely smoke Kools."

 

[From-the-stands]

Wow. Next she will be saying something like this..
Hillary - "I don't smoke. But if I did I would definitely smoke Kools."

View embedded media

Made me laugh

 

[fuzz77]

Has nothing to do with reducing subsidies and everything to do with skyrocketing administrative salaries. The same salaries that universities refuse to cut even today.

Of course private sector will take all the money it can get, as it should. The problem with medicare/medicaid is the immense amount of fraud and government waste that forces the program to continually cut reimbursement rates. Cut the waste and fraud, and the reimbursements go up.

Yes the government has a pension guarantee fund that guarantees a portion of certain pensions, which usually ends up being a joke. The real problem is with the bankruptcy laws which allow giant companies to dump their pension obligations on the government. Tighter bankruptcy laws wouldve negated alot of government money spent.

Either way, with the shift to 401(k)s and other employee funded plans, that entity SHOULD be extinct soon. But.....have you ever known a government program to just shut down once its outlived its usefulness?

Administrative salaries are a gnat's ass in the scope of total cost for higher education. And given the scope of responsibility, and size of budgets they manage...they are still low compared to the private sector. Eli Capilouto earns $500K + $125K in other benefits. UK has 9 VPs with an avg salary of $336K. 24 directors at an avg salary of $158K. So if we add all those up we are a little short of $8 million/year... UK has a $3.4 Billion budget making those salaries a whopping 0.23% of the budget.

 

[fuzz77]

Didn't he start up a thread about his "friend" trying to save money on insurance for a $8K bicycle?

Willy, you and your friends have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[MegaBlue05]

The Bevin vs. Beshear feud gets uglier as the Governor accuses the prior administration of wrongdoing. I am sure that Beshear, Jr. will strike back with a suit in the near future.

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...hical-lapses-beshear-administration/83227646/

Mack Blevins is such a juvenile. BCG has thicker skin than him.

Lil Monty Burns is also a bitch who has a job likely because of daddy's homeboys greasing some palms last November.

I thought we were broke as state, yet we apparently have resources to: Sue abortion clinics, consider wasting a bunch of paper on printing two marriage licenses so Jebus and 3/120 country clerks won't cry (glad they compromised on that one); sue the governor over budget cuts; investigate the former governor likely as payback for the former governor's kid suing the current governor.

F em all. Nothing but a bunch of good ole boy BS on both sides of the aisle.

 

[ram1955]

Lowering corporate rates would have to be balanced by either raising other rates or new taxes.
.

Granted, I'm not nearly as smart as fuzz and most other people on this board, but I simply can't understand this way of thinking. In my very elementary way of thinking, I'd say if you were to lower a tax rate in any area, that simply means you have to cut overall expenditures.

 

[thabigbluenation]

^that is the problem, the dems can't cut expenditures. cutting taxes from those that work could mean less revenue for the dems to have to give out the free stuff to those that make up the majority of their voting block.

though they don't get why it could help balance the revenue problem, meaning that lowering corporate taxes could be an incentive to actually keep jobs here or creating more jobs here. which would in turn raise your revenue stream because more jobs mean more people paying income taxes. its a win/win. or targeted tax breaks for corporations that bring the jobs back, or increase their work force here. i mean hell, a large company is already paying taxes just in wages alone. i get paid a healthy wage, along with the thousands of other employees that work for this company. out of those wages comes all the local, state and federal taxes. then, all the money i spend from the wages i am generously paid comes the sales taxes on everything i buy. the taxes the company pays are just another expense in their books. those expenses get passed on to the customer buying the products they provide. and/or get figured into how much they can pay their employees. create incentives for companies to keep jobs here, to hire more workers in this country and to quit outsourcing them. already having to pay the largest tax percentages in the world is not an incentive to keep more jobs here, it is just more motivation to find ways to cut cost in other areas.

 

[fuzz77]

^that is the problem, the dems can't cut expenditures. cutting taxes from those that work could mean less revenue for the dems to have to give out the free stuff to those that make up the majority of their voting block.

though they don't get why it could help balance the revenue problem, meaning that lowering corporate taxes could be an incentive to actually keep jobs here or creating more jobs here. which would in turn raise your revenue stream because more jobs mean more people paying income taxes. its a win/win. or targeted tax breaks for corporations that bring the jobs back, or increase their work force here. i mean hell, a large company is already paying taxes just in wages alone. i get paid a healthy wage, along with the thousands of other employees that work for this company. out of those wages comes all the local, state and federal taxes. then, all the money i spend from the wages i am generously paid comes the sales taxes on everything i buy. the taxes the company pays are just another expense in their books. those expenses get passed on to the customer buying the products they provide. and/or get figured into how much they can pay their employees. create incentives for companies to keep jobs here, to hire more workers in this country and to quit outsourcing them. already having to pay the largest tax percentages in the world is not an incentive to keep more jobs here, it is just more motivation to find ways to cut cost in other areas.

Who was the last President to preside over a balanced budget? Was he a Republican or Democrat?
BTW...who is responsible for the budget? Is it the POTUS or congress? Who controls congress?
Trying to blame spending on Democrats is simply being ignorant of the facts.

 

[Willy4UK]

Willy, you and your friends have a reading comprehension problem.

Do you not advocate for transgender teachers who watch their students pee on voyeurism websites?
Just answer the question, Fuzz.

 

[thabigbluenation]

Who was the last President to preside over a balanced budget? Was he a Republican or Democrat?
BTW...who is responsible for the budget? Is it the POTUS or congress? Who controls congress?
Trying to blame spending on Democrats is simply being ignorant of the facts.

oh fuzz. so you have a problem with reducing tax burdens on actual working citizens and companies providing jobs for those who actually want to work? and the clinton surplus is a huge myth. yea, he raised taxes on everything and gutted the military. had a dot com bubble taking place still years before the baby boomers began retiring so we had more being paid into social security than taking out, which he was able to borrow from to pad his budget stats intragovernmental holdings still skyrocketed during this time. the national debt never decreased during his tenure. but anyway. i was just trying to speak reasonably about tax burdens and what could be done to give companies incentives to provide jobs here rather than outsourcing. you claiming facts of anything is comical.

 

[fuzz77]

Granted, I'm not nearly as smart as fuzz and most other people on this board, but I simply can't understand this way of thinking. In my very elementary way of thinking, I'd say if you were to lower a tax rate in any area, that simply means you have to cut overall expenditures.

Well, seeing that we currently are running a deficit, beyond that deficit is a large debt. Even thinking about cutting revenues without first getting agreements to cut spending is kind of dumb. The problem with that is most government spending is directly responsible for thousands upon thousands of private sector jobs. Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Oshkosh, Raytheon, United Technologies are all multi-billion $$ companies highly dependent upon government spending...there are many, many more. You cut spending you put thousands of workers on the streets. Congress doesn't want to cut spending because all of those companies are responsible for jobs in their districts.

 

[fuzz77]

oh fuzz. so you have a problem with reducing tax burdens on actual working citizens and companies providing jobs for those who actually want to work? and the clinton surplus is a huge myth. yea, he raised taxes on everything and gutted the military. had a dot com bubble taking place still years before the baby boomers began retiring so we had more being paid into social security than taking out, which he was able to borrow from to pad his budget stats intragovernmental holdings still skyrocketed during this time. the national debt never decreased during his tenure. but anyway. i was just trying to speak reasonably about tax burdens and what could be done to give companies incentives to provide jobs here rather than outsourcing. you claiming facts of anything is comical.

Sure looks like the debt declined there a bit in that 1998-2000 timeframe. Oh, and who was the POTUS there in 1982 when that debt started to spike upwards???

 

[thabigbluenation]

the deficit only declined on paper with nice creative accounting because of the borrowing from social security and not taking into account government holdings or interest on the debt. a lot of number fudging to make the numbers look good. and clinton cut govt spending, gutting the military. and i am not disagreeing with you on reagan's spiking the deficit, though we had a little thing called the cold war going on. bush jr was awful, and obama has been awful. i am not advocating for one side or the other. they are all crooks. but one side doesn't make it secret they want to tax the crap out of the people who actually pay into the system and grow the size of the govt ten fold with more and more social programs. which i am against.

 

[warrior-cat]

Fuzz has already been on record for taking most of what the rich don't need and give it to the government to spread around. There is no doubt he would do that to most others as well. Problem is, people like him want to determine what you don't need.

 

[qwesley]

Congress doesn't want to cut spending because all of those companies are responsible for jobs in their districts.

When Obama demanded the tax increases of 2012 Boehner asked for a match for every dollar in cuts and he said no. You and deeefense defended. BTW those taxes on the rich have not narrowed the income gap. And when the $90b of sequestration cuts went into effect, it was Lew and Obama who screamed that if they were not rescinded all hell would break loose.

And so it was Clinton that created the inception/boom of personal computing, mobile phones, e-commerce, internet, fiber networking, etc? I guess Bush created the boom of Apple and Google in the 2000s.

 

[fuzz77]

Fuzz has already been on record for taking most of what the rich don't need and give it to the government to spread around. There is no doubt he would do that to most others as well. Problem is, people like him want to determine what you don't need.

No, the record shows that Fuzz has advocated that the rich decide where their wealth is distributed upon their death. Which is something they do now. The change I advocated limited how much could go to any one individual.

 

[JHB4UK]

Anybody with thoughts on the false-flag (er, fag?) Whole Foods gay cake controversy down in Austin Tejas? What a nice guy that "minister" is.

 

[Mashburned]

Lol the beshear stuff is hilarious. It's like something out of the onion. Herald leader having a field day.

Also, UK Provost shuffles staff to accommodate budget. Cuts to student affairs, admissions, and counseling. Ultimate results mean fewer administrators and more front line student support.

Lol that's crazy, right? Logic and reasoning?

I'm just tickled to death to hear somebody talk about NOT spending money and actually making moves to benefit the kids.

 

[P19978]

And so it was Clinton that created the inception/boom of personal computing, mobile phones, e-commerce, internet, fiber networking, etc? I guess Bush created the boom of Apple and Google in the 2000s.

This is just silly: everyone knows that Al Gore created all of this by inventing the internet... just ask him.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Anybody with thoughts on the false-flag (er, fag?) Whole Foods gay cake controversy down in Austin Tejas? What a nice guy that "minister" is.

Sounds like it's made up since Whole Foods is suing for fraud. The evidence looks bad for the pastor. If so, what a crock. http://austin.eater.com/2016/4/19/11458692/whole-foods-homophobic-cake

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Administrative salaries are a gnat's ass in the scope of total cost for higher education. And given the scope of responsibility, and size of budgets they manage...they are still low compared to the private sector. Eli Capilouto earns $500K + $125K in other benefits. UK has 9 VPs with an avg salary of $336K. 24 directors at an avg salary of $158K. So if we add all those up we are a little short of $8 million/year... UK has a $3.4 Billion budget making those salaries a whopping 0.23% of the budget.

Those are just the top. You left out the rest. Pay isn't necessarily the big issue. It's pay relative to market price and job duties. I'm almost certain any private ceo could go in and cut tons of administrators and Noone could tell any difference.

Plus, if they're having budgetary problems, they should act just like any other business - cut costs.

Mack Blevins is such a juvenile. BCG has thicker skin than him.

Lil Monty Burns is also a bitch who has a job likely because of daddy's homeboys greasing some palms last November.

I thought we were broke as state, yet we apparently have resources to: Sue abortion clinics, consider wasting a bunch of paper on printing two marriage licenses so Jebus and 3/120 country clerks won't cry (glad they compromised on that one); sue the governor over budget cuts; investigate the former governor likely as payback for the former governor's kid suing the current governor.

F em all. Nothing but a bunch of good ole boy BS on both sides of the aisle.

I see where you're coming from but the abortion issue is strictly speaking an actual violation.

The marriage certificate issue was resolved and is now just one I think.

The corruption investigation is real and needed. A member of the cabinet plead guilty to corruption yesterday and is cooperacting. So there will be more. Maybe many more. It needs investigated and prosecuted. Plus it's the feds doing the heavy lifting, not the state.

So you're right - it's good Ole boy politics alright. Except it's all coming from Beshear Jr.

 

[From-the-stands]

This is just silly: everyone knows that Al Gore created all of this by inventing the internet... just ask him.

That chestnut never gets old.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

You and deeefense

Would still bet money they're the same poster

 

[jamo0001]

Anybody with thoughts on the false-flag (er, fag?) Whole Foods gay cake controversy down in Austin Tejas? What a nice guy that "minister" is.

never trust a clergyman, IMO

 

[kghighroller]

Harriet Tubman on the $20. Replacing Andrew Jackson. Was a good run Andrew.

 

[WettCat]

Why don't we just go ahead and put Malcolm X on the $50, Kaitlyn Jenner on the $50, Barney Frank on the $5, Jane Fonda on the $10.....

 

[Big_Blue79]

Harriet Tubman on the $20. Replacing Andrew Jackson. Was a good run Andrew.

And a good walk for the Cherokee.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Why don't we just go ahead and put Malcolm X on the $50, Kaitlyn Jenner on the $50, Barney Frank on the $5, Jane Fonda on the $10.....

Yes, that is exactly the same thing as putting Harriet Tubman on the $20.

 

[WettCat]

It was a joke Big Blue. But expect the politically correct crowd to continue to try and erase virtually anything in history that doesn't agree with their agenda. Just a matter of time before ole George won't be smiling back at us on the $1.

An old college friend is one of the direct descendants of John Buchanan and there was...and still is...a call to have his statue removed from one of the Kentucky monuments. Yes he served in the Civil War as did millions of others, but his lifetime achievements were not based on the Civil War but on a long list of other accomplishments. Still doesn't keep the PC crowd from ranting and screaming.

 

[DSmith21]

I vote for someone in the sex/stripper trade for the $1. Jenna Jameson maybe.

 

[TransyCat09]

Harriet Tubman on the $20. Replacing Andrew Jackson. Was a good run Andrew.

Good. Jackson was awful

Put Jefferson on the $5 and Frederick Douglass on the $50 and call it a day

 

[Mashburned]

Who was the last President to preside over a balanced budget? Was he a Republican or Democrat?
BTW...who is responsible for the budget? Is it the POTUS or congress? Who controls congress?
Trying to blame spending on Democrats is simply being ignorant of the facts.

It's our culture.

Teach the children.

 

[Big_Blue79]

I vote for someone is the sex/stripper trade for the $1. Jenna Jameson maybe.

And maybe Pablo Escobar on the $100?

 

[Bill Cosby]

obama on the IOU lolol