ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
How can anyone watch the profane games that are played with money on Wall Street and defend this system? The world economy is in ruins. Everywhere you look you see the disasters the money scammers have wrought with their bundled games that produce nothing other than fake schemes to reshuffle the deck and take some obscene profit off the ensuing confusions and lies that for some strange damned reason we are told is not illegal. How many more "Wolves of Wall Street" do we need to suffer before we collectively say this shit is not right?

Past the time to string these thieves up by the neck in droves. Millions of lives and the very fabric of the world economy has been devastated. The confidence the world has in us, the dollar, our political system, our country as a whole.... has been shattered.

And yet people somehow conclude too much Government regulation is the problem? It just boggles the mind at the utter complete stupidity that is beyond reasoning to out there. I want to live away from these people. I no longer can stand to be exposed to such abhorrent utter idiocy. If you think too much Government regulation is what has caused basically the world economy to collapse then you are a goddamned idiot. Period.

Too much government intervention helped cause it. No system will be without greed. In the financial collapse, alot of institutions bundled bad debt and sold it to other institutions, who then sought insurance on their investment.

Nothing inherently wrong with that. Buyer beware, especially considering it was all professional investors who bought them.

They took a stupid risk. They lost. In a free market-game over. Yet thanks to government intervention, they were bailed out. There were no consequences. And it was done with tax payer money.

So thanks to government intervention, there will be more stupid institutional risks because there really isn't a risk. The only outcomes are reward and taxpayer bailout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warrior-cat
F m
Yeah, so working stiffs that live paycheck to paycheck would pay taxes on 100% of their earnings while folks that earn 6-7-8 figures might only do so on 10% of their earnings.
And lol on only a 10% rate... there are states that have sales taxes nearly that high. TN's sales tax is 9.45%, AR 9.26%, LA, AL, OK all have sales taxes > 8.75%.

Tennessee has no income tax, and it makes a helluva difference on paychecks.

I work for a company that is in TN and KY, we can transfer to other plants when jobs open.
You can forget anyone from TN transferring here simply because they lose too much money on state income tax.
 
An average working stiff makes 30K and pays 6K in income taxe then spend most if not all of his money and pays another 6% sales tax on goods which is anoth $1,440.

So they spend ~25% of their check on taxes. Now let's take that same stiff that spent 24K on good already. He still spends 24K and $2,400 goes into taxes and he still has the 6K in income tax left.

You may not be good at math so i figured I'd spell it out for you. Seems logical here, and what it does is get more of that cash business taxes and creates more revenue.

I may be off on the percent but in KY 6% to 10% is a good jump. Maybe 12% or 15% nationwide. Not sure on that as I don't have access to all the numbers.
 
Too much government intervention helped cause it. No system will be without greed. In the financial collapse, alot of institutions bundled bad debt and sold it to other institutions, who then sought insurance on their investment.

Nothing inherently wrong with that. Buyer beware, especially considering it was all professional investors who bought them.

They took a stupid risk. They lost. In a free market-game over. Yet thanks to government intervention, they were bailed out. There were no consequences. And it was done with tax payer money.

So thanks to government intervention, there will be more stupid institutional risks because there really isn't a risk. The only outcomes are reward and taxpayer bailout.
Government intervention in the form of bailouts, the nanny state, is definitely one of the biggest problems with current system. It allows financial institutions to take enormous risks, make enormous profits, and have the security of knowing they will be bailed out. We agree here. Taking tax payer dollars to bailout Goldman Sachs is something I have strongly opposed and been very vocal about on here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity
If a competitor is willing to give them more...fine. They can go to their competitor. Costco has done very well limiting its executive compensation. Their CEO was paid $650K last year and their COO made $325K. At the same time WalMart was paying their CEO a total package of almost $19 million. Go check out the stock performance of the two.

Costco's CEO made just over $6.3 million in total compensation. The $650,000 figure you quote (it was actually $699,800) is just his base salary. So comparing Costco CEO's base salary to Walmart's total package is an apples and oranges comparison.

http://www1.salary.com/W-Craig-Jelinek-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-COSTCO-WHOLESALE-CORP.html
 
Last edited:
Never understood how people live in California. Beautiful place, but a small house costs a fortune. I know the money people say you shouldn't spend more than, what, 28% of total income on a home (all in). In the run up to the crash, I'd routinely read about people spending 60% or even 70% of their money on housing. Factoring in taxes, that doesn't leave much for everything else. Putting that aside, a simple search shows you just how much a house costs there - don't understand it. $500,000 will get a near mansion in metro Louisville. My guess is that's a shack in most of CA......
 
Lollllll NC did their own thing on trans bathrooms, said you go where your genitals go, and FEDS holding them hostage for BILLIONS in *education* funding. Even gave them a 5pm deadline.

If that ain't hilarious to you, please don't vote. You don't get it.
 
So, with disgruntled voters on both sides of the Dem/Repub aisle...who gains the most out of a strong third party candidate?
 
My point still stands. This system is built to work hard and eventually get ahead. No one goes from poor to rich overnight without some life changing invention or lottery type circumstance.

My parents were poor and worked hard. Now in their 60's they have a little bit. I'm better off but not rich by any means, and assume when I'm in my 60s I'll be better off than them. Hopefully that goes for my children too but we will see.
I was lucky enough to grow up with both parents in the home. My Dad worked hard but made very little. Mom stayed at home and took care of us. Dad got sick and decided he could not work anymore. Mom did not work because it would effect the food stamps and gov assistance. I did not like it then and I do not like it now. I felt they abused the system and I told myself long ago I would not fall into that trap as well.

I was ashamed when we went to the grocery store and Mom pulled out the food stamps. I was ashamed when I was in the school lunch line and said "Free" at the pay counter. I was ashamed when I could not get that new pair of Jordan's and got a cheap pair of some brand I cannot even remember and felt lucky when I got a new pair every other year. Point being I loved my parents, but I was ashamed of how they gave up and became dependent on the government.

It saddens me how so many people now have no shame or personal pride in doing better. Yes, there are always circumstances that folks have (get sick, etc). I get that. I am talking more on a broad scale where there are so many folks who have no care in the world to live off assistance now.

I made the choice not to live that way. I put myself through college. I took the risks of moving away from home and working my way up in the real world. I had help along the way like anyone else, but I took the steps needed to become successful and comfortable in life. Point being, anyone can become successful in life. You just have to want it. Problem is so many people are being raised with the mindset of giving up before even trying and so many have no real positive influences in their life. My parents were never very involved when it came to my education, etc. but they were at least there to support me and showed how proud they were of my success. I worked hard for my own success, but it was nice to be reaffirmed by someone that loved me that they were proud of me. So many kids grow up without any sense of family structure and/or have no real positive influences in their lives. Amongst all of the issues this country has right now, I think that is one of if not the biggest issue this country faces right now.
 
Anybody know why/how some schools (not in destitute areas by any means) can afford to give free breakfast/lunch to *all* students? This started in my district a few+ years ago. They can't afford to pay teachers, but yet they can afford to give away good to students who are more than capable, and willing, to pay the 1.25, or whatever, price tag. I've talked to teacher hens and they are clueless. Anybody tell me how/why this happened? And what the angle is? Just seems like more government parenting that is not needed....

I'm asking because I think I read a headline taking about ending this head-scratching practice.
 
An average working stiff makes 30K and pays 6K in income taxe then spend most if not all of his money and pays another 6% sales tax on goods which is anoth $1,440.

So they spend ~25% of their check on taxes. Now let's take that same stiff that spent 24K on good already. He still spends 24K and $2,400 goes into taxes and he still has the 6K in income tax left.

You may not be good at math so i figured I'd spell it out for you. Seems logical here, and what it does is get more of that cash business taxes and creates more revenue.

I may be off on the percent but in KY 6% to 10% is a good jump. Maybe 12% or 15% nationwide. Not sure on that as I don't have access to all the numbers.
BS. If you are single and have an adjusted gross income of $30K...which really means you made about $45K your tax liability is $4043. The "average stiff" that is making $30K after taking his standard deduction and personal exemption will pay < $2000.
If either of those folks are married, they are getting an earned income credit and most likely have a negative tax rate. Remember? They are part of that half of all Americans that don't pay any income taxes.

The issue with consumption taxes is that those with the lowest incomes end up paying the highest percentage of their income in taxes because they spend their entire income. So using your numbers...someone with $50K in income that spends $50K paid 10% ($5000) in taxes whereas Dr. Bones who had $400K in income, spent $200K paid only 5% ($20,000) of his income in taxes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: From-the-stands
Anybody know why/how some schools (not in destitute areas by any means) can afford to give free breakfast/lunch to *all* students? This started in my district a few+ years ago. They can't afford to pay teachers, but yet they can afford to give away good to students who are more than capable, and willing, to pay the 1.25, or whatever, price tag. I've talked to teacher hens and they are clueless. Anybody tell me how/why this happened? And what the angle is? Just seems like more government parenting that is not needed....

I'm asking because I think I read a headline taking about ending this head-scratching practice.
Without knowing the exact school district it is hard to say for sure but in general, school free/reduced lunch programs are all paid with federal monies whereas teacher salaries and other school expenses are paid by the tax payer in the school district/state money. State money is used to supplement poorer districts.
It is possible that if a high enough percentage of the kids qualified for free lunch that the cost of administrating the program for the rest would be higher than the cost to go ahead and pay for those other kids.
 
So, with disgruntled voters on both sides of the Dem/Repub aisle...who gains the most out of a strong third party candidate?
The easy answer is...depends on the candidate. Is he left or right of HRC/DJT?
Anyone from the center/right --> right will kill Trump, likewise anyone from the center/left --> left would bury HRC. Throw Michael Bloomberg out there and whodaphuckwouldknow!
Was watching some of the talking head Sunday morning shows yesterday and forgot who it was but they said that they wouldn't be surprised if Trump doesn't end up running to the left of HRC on several issues.
 
Agree. It's very hard to leave your home and family. It then becomes a matter of choice and not a systematic problem.

Yes, it is difficult to leave family, friends (often, a girlfriend) and the culture you were raised in (to go to Ohio, Indiana, Michigan where the jobs were). I did it back in 1961 after high school. I had no car or money for bus fare so I hitchhiked 400 miles to get there. That was when people would actually pick up hitchhikers. The difference for me was that I had a destination and a relative (a friend would work also) living there willing to take me in until I could get on my feet. I look back and thank God for my good fortune.This is key for just about anyone wanting to escape. The vast majority are not in that advantageous situation. And, unlike back then, there are few destinations left where a decent-paying job awaits for someone with only a high school education. Thus most are pretty much stranded in poverty-stricken places, waiting in vain for help to come to them.
 
Any flat tax effects low income more than high incomes, percentage wise.

It's impossible/very hard to factor in the difference in consumption. That's the offset. High incomes would/should purchase many more goods, creating a much higher tax liability. But very difficult to prove that, even though just common sense would dictate it
 
Then Dr. Bones buys a luxury vehicle and boat for the extra 200k, and all things are right in the world - 10% each.

It's easy to make pretend people and their pretend spending work to make a point.
 
Never understood how people live in California. Beautiful place, but a small house costs a fortune. I know the money people say you shouldn't spend more than, what, 28% of total income on a home (all in). In the run up to the crash, I'd routinely read about people spending 60% or even 70% of their money on housing. Factoring in taxes, that doesn't leave much for everything else. Putting that aside, a simple search shows you just how much a house costs there - don't understand it. $500,000 will get a near mansion in metro Louisville. My guess is that's a shack in most of CA......
Wages are higher in CA. I pointed out the other day that the median income in CA is over $60K at the same time that it is $42K in KY. If you are paying $1000/mo more in CA for housing... At today's interest rates $1000 is $200K of purchasing power. As always, it depends on where you live. The median home price in the Sacramento and Riverside areas are < $300K, San Diego it's $550K. In Lexington, Louisville and the NKY area the median prices are around $150K.
From 1960 - 2010 the population of CA rose from 15 million to 37 million...KY went from 3 million to 4 million. People figure it out.
 
Any flat tax effects low income more than high incomes, percentage wise.

It's impossible/very hard to factor in the difference in consumption. That's the offset. High incomes would/should purchase many more goods, creating a much higher tax liability. But very difficult to prove that, even though just common sense would dictate it
Would/should? Perhaps they do but the worst case for them is to pay the same rate as the low income person. If I earn 10x your wages and spend 5 times your wages I purchased many more goods...just not all that I could have purchased.

Anyway, tax avoidance in the consumption tax world is to not buy things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity
So, with disgruntled voters on both sides of the Dem/Repub aisle...who gains the most out of a strong third party candidate?
There are more registered Democrats than Republicans so it would reason 3rd party candidates help the GOP more. If you clicked on the Gary Johnson link I provided this morning and listened to his interview you would have heard him cite a Monmouth poll that shows he takes more votes away from Hillary than Trump.
 
There are more registered Democrats than Republicans so it would reason 3rd party candidates help the GOP more. If you clicked on the Gary Johnson link I provided this morning and listened to his interview you would have heard him cite a Monmouth poll that shows he takes more votes away from Hillary than Trump.
Johnson was on one of the talking head shows I saw yesterday. They put up a poll showing him at 11% nationally which isn't bad at this point. I honestly would like to see some big money get behind Johnson and allow him to rise to the point he can be on the stage for the debates and run a real campaign. Given the high negatives and discontent in both parties over the presumptive candidates, Johnson would be a real wildcard hitting both HRC and DJT from both the left and right at the same time. At this point I'm 95% sure he is who I will be voting for and seeing that this is a red state, that hurts DJT more...here.
If for nothing else than being able to say "I remember that" it would be very interesting if Johnson gained enough support to win a couple of states that prevented an Electoral College win for anyone and the election went to the House.
 
  • Like
Reactions: From-the-stands
(CNN) Donald Trump declared Monday the U.S. never has to default on debt "because you print the money," while trying to clarify his strategy for managing the national debt.

Trump insisted that he never said the U.S. should default or attempt to renegotiate with creditors, as had been reported.

"People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt, and I mean, these people are crazy. This is the United States government," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?"
 
Who was it that wanted to print the $1T coin back in 2011? Something about wanting the debt ceiling raised, but congress wouldn't allow it....

[eyeroll]
 
That's what I'm saying. Vote me, mashburned. WTF money is? All about that gold n honey, yadig?
 
Never understood how people live in California. Beautiful place, but a small house costs a fortune. I know the money people say you shouldn't spend more than, what, 28% of total income on a home (all in). In the run up to the crash, I'd routinely read about people spending 60% or even 70% of their money on housing. Factoring in taxes, that doesn't leave much for everything else. Putting that aside, a simple search shows you just how much a house costs there - don't understand it. $500,000 will get a near mansion in metro Louisville. My guess is that's a shack in most of CA......

I lived in Bakersfield. My rather ordinary house there rose in value during the bubble to $275K. The crash came and its value tumbled to about $90K.
I fixed it up some and finally got $115K for it and considered myself lucky.

Fortunately I moved to AZ where the housing market had also crashed and was able to buy a larger new house for just a little more than the $115K I got for my CA house.

I loved living in CA (25 years) but it transitioned into a virtual third-world country over the years and was unaffordable in places you would want to live. Nice weather, scenery and plenty to do were its charms. I go back there a couple of times a year for those thing but always say as I'm leaving that I'm glad I don't live there anymore.
 
Trump has opened a major can of whoop a$$ on the Republican Party. He has basically told all of the old school Republicans either get on board or kiss my a$$. Many of the old school republicans have jumped onto the Trump train including McConnell and McCain who I think realized Trump can't be stopped. Now Ryan is trying to play political games with Trump and he too will find out he is calling the bluff of the wrong person.

Trump is f'ing crazy. He is taking no prisoners.
 
Trump's ego is just massive. One of his biggest problems is church going voters, many of whom are very serious about sitting this one out.
 
I don't think Trump needs the Bible Beaters, this segment is very over rated. Trump is going to get a lot of the Democrats and Independent votes. Just in PA he got over 60,000 people that changed their registration status to vote for him. My sense is the more Hillary tries to tear into Trump the more popular Trump will become. Take all logic and throw it out the window for this election, Trump is rewriting the rules of politics.
 
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/church-lady-cold-open/3032276
I don't think Trump needs the Bible Beaters, this segment is very over rated. Trump is going to get a lot of the Democrats and Independent votes. Just in PA he got over 60,000 people that changed their registration status to vote for him. My sense is the more Hillary tries to tear into Trump the more popular Trump will become. Take all logic and throw it out the window for this election, Trump is rewriting the rules of politics.
Not sure that I agree that he is rewriting the rules...it's just a different set of rules apply to him.

All I know is that at least for the next 6 months SNL is must watch tv.

Church Lady

Weekend Update
 
I don't think Trump needs the Bible Beaters, this segment is very over rated. Trump is going to get a lot of the Democrats and Independent votes. Just in PA he got over 60,000 people that changed their registration status to vote for him. My sense is the more Hillary tries to tear into Trump the more popular Trump will become. Take all logic and throw it out the window for this election, Trump is rewriting the rules of politics.

He's going to get his ass kicked in November.

map2016-Artboard_1.png
 
Trump's ego is just massive. One of his biggest problems is church going voters, many of whom are very serious about sitting this one out.

People will come out to vote against hillary. This election will basically be votes against hillary versus votes against trump.


He probably will get his ass kicked. But there's no way WI and MI are "likely d". At best they're toss ups for Hillary. Same with MN and PA. Bernie gave her tons of trouble in those states. Trump will definitely hang nafta around her neck and it won't turn out well for her in those states.

NV is definitely in play too. NY and FL aren't nearly as safe as this graphic suggests. Trump has massive ties to all 3 states.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT