Our Sec of State tells graduates to prepare for a "borderless world".
At least they're being honest about it now. #sacrcasm
Our Sec of State tells graduates to prepare for a "borderless world".
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.
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%.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Obviously Sanders should run as an independent. After all, he is an independent and he is winning 40% of a party's primary he doesn't even belong to.So, with disgruntled voters on both sides of the Dem/Repub aisle...who gains the most out of a strong third party candidate?
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.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.
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.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.
The easy answer is...depends on the candidate. Is he left or right of HRC/DJT?So, with disgruntled voters on both sides of the Dem/Repub aisle...who gains the most out of a strong third party candidate?
Agree. It's very hard to leave your home and family. It then becomes a matter of choice and not a systematic problem.
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.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......
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.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
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.So, with disgruntled voters on both sides of the Dem/Repub aisle...who gains the most out of a strong third party candidate?
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.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.
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......
Is there a conservative facebook alternative like a Conservapedia? It's too bad Liberals seem to invent all the transformative media/communications/information companieshttp://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-...-conser-1775461006?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000015
Surprised This even came up on social media, given the heading and all...
http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-...-conser-1775461006?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000015
Surprised This even came up on social media, given the heading and all...
Given all of the conservative crap...liberal crap too...in my timeline, I find this story very hard to believe.http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-...-conser-1775461006?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000015
Surprised This even came up on social media, given the heading and all...
Can't argue with that aspect of Trumpism.Take all logic and throw it out the window
Not sure that I agree that he is rewriting the rules...it's just a different set of rules apply to him.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.
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.
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.