In-A-Gadda-Levitre

An oversimplified version is any money you make as profit from selling an investment, like a home, stocks, etc. If you sell a house, and the value has gone up since you bought it, you have to pay a capital gains tax on the difference.

CNN mentioned in the clip that the results were from the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan think tank. A quick cruise to their site and here's the analysis. They break everything down into 5 quintiles of income, but I couldn't see where they assigned an income range to the quintiles. If anyone sees or knows this, it's good info. Looks like they tried to adjust for the capital gains bumps as well. Most of what you'll want to know is starts on the bottom of pg 33 (34 in the pdf) where they compare the two. This seems really unbiased at first glance. Maybe others will see it differently.

I wanna know who throws a nicer interception?

Bluefire is right (wow, am I really saying this???), the cell carriers subsidize the phone cost from the manufacturer because they can count on at least two years of service revenue or a big termination fee. The fact that some people buy and sell (mostly used) phones on eBay is noise, although maybe more phones might end up there if lots of people switch plans on a regular basis. The vast majority get their phones from the provider, probably more than 1000:1 Churn is a killer for service industries like cell phones, so it's hard to say what they will do to retain customers, but continuing to subsidize the phones is a huge liability. I'm guessing monthly costs will go down somewhat, or adding services like free web access with basic voice, but the cost of phones will go up.

Let's see, increasing the supply of oil won't bring down the cost of gas much, but refining more gasoline will? Wow, interesting economic theory. You should teach this stuff, you're that good!

Either you're playing devil's advocate again or you've had too many Labatts. What you don't seem to understand is that OPEC sells every single barrel they produce. They don't need the US in any way shape or form, because China, India, and other developing countries will pick up the slack. There is one thing they care about the USA... they don't want our economy (or the global economy for that matter) to go into the toilet, even if they are making money hand over foot, because it hurts them longer term as a result of the ripple effect to other countries, value of the dollar, all that. We can argue back and forth about whether the oil companies are screwing us over; if they are just in an advantageous position because the cost of oil has shot up to record levels; or are they simply returning good shareholder value. But make no mistake, their record high prices are crippling the world economy and creating riots in some places. Costs for millions of things are going way up, because they are petroleum based (like any plastic for example) or transportation costs have skyrocketed. Oil isn't propping up the economy, it's strangling it. There is some good news on the horizon... Saudi Arabia has called an important meeting of suppliers and consumers, because they realize it's a huge problem even if it isn't their fault. And they are increasing production, not because the demand is too high given the supply, but they know they have to do something because it's that serious.

you're right, a senior or exec vp for NBC News, his other title was Washington Bureau Chief

ya, Fox News actually apologized without giving up the name of producer that did that

AT LEAST $400 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR DIFFERENCE, but so what Do you ever even consider another opinion besides your own? sad...

Brokaw on TR Buffalo and Bills mentioned multiple times

Agreed, but McCain intends to stay in Iraq, good/bad/indifferent, and that's what? almost $200B per year and wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and add additional tax cuts to the tune of $200-$400B per year according to his own economists, and promises to pay for it by eliminating earmarks. And Obama, good/bad/indifferent, wants to end the war, bringing that deficit way down in 24 months or so, and cancel the Bush tax cuts, while funding a middle class tax cut, adding government controlled healthcare, etc. He says he can pay for it by increasing taxes on the richest Americans and the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. I don't have an unbiased cost estimate for Obama's plan, but it seems on the surface to be closer to a balanced budget than McCain's.

wrong, Saddam was never tied to AQ except when the neocons wanted justification after 9/11 to invade Iraq and AQ was never in Iraq until we invaded them.

ya but... The bottom line is that if there's peace, there's no reason to have American soldiers guard oil, so it gets back to us attempting to play peacemaker in a region where it's proven never to last.

These wackos have been blowing themselves and their neighbors up for what seems like a billion years. Do you really think the US can and should be the guardians of peace? How come China and others don't think it's necessary for them to even help maintain peace in the region? They are just as dependent on the oil as we are, at least on the surface, and nobody is invading Saudi Arabia or the other Middle East oil producers. The domino theory just doesn't seem to have an end game in this part of the world.

ok, so the score is 5 (or so) McCain flip flops to Obama's 1

well dude, about 800 web pages explicitly state that he lives in Iran and I doubt if anyone can say for sure that Sadr gets a '2' for Iranian Support and The Iraqi government gets a '5' (or any kind of scale). The facts are that our military says he's heavily supported ideologically and militarily by Iran and specifically mentions the Quds Force as being a strong backer.

Of the prospect of war in Iraq, you said, "I believe that success will be fairly easy –" John McCain., September 24, 2002. "I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time –" John McCain, September 29, 2002. Asked, about a long-term commitment in Iraq, "are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades?" "No," he answered. "I don’t think decades, but I think years. A little straight talk, I think years. And I hope that we can gradually reduce that presence – " John McCain, March 18, 2004. "I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff." "…I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence. And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be – " John McCain, January 31, 2005. "Make it a hundred! We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine by me … – " John McCain, January 3, 2008. "By January, 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won – " John McCain, May 15, 2008. "If it’s now working, Senator," said Matt Lauer, "do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?" "No," answered McCain. "But that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. - "John McCain, June 11, 2008. So, we have navigated from a fairly easy victory; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; which would not require our troops stay for decades but years; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, for a 100 years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is not too important.

lol, you said with respect to warfare, he's the Washington Generals. That infers he's a joke to Iraqi stability and he has very little influence over what happens there. The fact is he's a huge threat. Nobody said we couldn't deal with him and statements that his power has been reduced or that every time he fights, he gets his ass kicked... are very subjective and seems to contradict General Petraeus. The man lives in Iran and his militia is backed by the Quds Force! That alone should cause us to take him seriously. Sure, lots of countries have threats to stability, but when the General says militias like Sadr's are one of the greatest long term threats to Iraq, that's some heavy shyt. It doesn't mean we can't note important achievements or admit improvement in some areas. I like Crocker's and Petraeus's description of improved conditions in Iraq: it's fragile and reversible

you can write him off if you chose, but General Petraeus thinks he's a bit more influential

you've got some good points, but there hasn't been many IPOs lately, as in close to zilch. He makes money, and there's no reason why not to...

Ok, sounds like we're not all that much different in opinions here. When I said talking points, I meant Fox News and Senator McConnell slamming Obama misquoting him about high gas prices, nothing more...

You are correct in that the most recent polls show Americans strongly in favor of drilling in ANWR and offshore, but that has NEVER been the case until recently, actually quite the opposite. So to say democrats blocked oil development without mentioning that the American people told them that's what they wanted, is being disingenuous. Yeah, I know, they're just dumb lemmings that are spoon fed liberal hogwash. But either you have to accept all of the polls or none, not just the most recent 1s. I totally agree that if we conserve more, invest in alternative fuels and increase domestic supplies, the better off we'll be. ...And you're really getting a lot of mileage off Obama's gasoline price statement. The question to Obama was whether Congress was actually working to keep prices from falling. Here's the actual quote: “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now,” It's pretty clear what he meant was the huge impact caused by high prices is made even worse when they climb so quickly. Yeah, he's comfortable with high gas prices and it's good for American families. Right But nice job on the talking points...

sorry to keep beating on you, but you're off by a few years. According to the DOE there's approximately 20,972,000,000 barrels of known crude reserves in the US. The DOE also says we use about 20,698,000 barrels a day, so that's roughly 7,554,770,000 barrels per year or 3 years supply. That might not count the newer discoveries, since they update it every year in December for the previous year, but unless next year's forecast is off the charts, we cannot sustain ourselves with domestic oil very long. That is not to say we shouldn't drill for new supplies... And although he never answers a direct question, which leads me to believe he's bullshyting, OPEC's Secretary General Abdullah al-Badri says there's plenty of supply and the current price has nothing to do with supply and demand, that it's all about speculators. So, the concept of OPEC being afraid of US being energy independent is probably a pipe dream, because they will sell every single barrel they produce even if it never goes to us.

I'm not for or against drilling in ANWR, but you're way off on the impact. US Dept of Energy said in May this year that the effect of ANWR on oil prices would be minor (roughly $.75 a barrel) and would take 10 years for its oil to reach the market. This is estimated impact on overall oil prices, regardless of what it costs to drill and refine it. That doesn't mean we should or shouldn't drill in ANWR, but the impact is small and it will take a long time to actually see the results.

There's lots of discussion about whether McCain is the same as Bush on important issues or not. In June 2005 on Meet the Press, he says far from being at odds with the White House, he had "been totally in agreement and support of President Bush" on "the transcendent issues." Full Transcript Are people expected to think that in 3 years, he has totally shifted his opinions on Bush's policies, the most important issues of our day? Or did he just say this for Tim Russert and it's totally untrue?