OCinBuffalo Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 well then businesses will have be assigned accountants who work for the government- either businesses are going to start behaving in an ethical and honest manner or there is going to be a huge reset which no one is going like- the bottom line is either capitalism is going to work for the masses as well as the elites or it's going bye bye and that won't make anybody happy. Hmm...the chances of that happening....vs....the chances of getting rid of all loopholes and lowering rates. I'll take "What is the second one, Alex." Understand, I have had plenty of experience with government regulators. Clients routinely send them our way, because then they have deniability if we screw up. But, we don't. I will never forget the regulator lady in Dallas who brusquely told me to free up the next 3 days for her and hung up on me. She lasted a half hour...and had no earthly idea WTF what we were telling her. It ended with 2 of my guys walking her to the elevator, being polite as possible, and on my orders they told her where she could go to get the education necessary to understand what we were doing. I felt sorry for her, so clueless that she actually thought she had something to be arrogant about. Mind you, I never knowingly contribute to any wrongdoing. Given this: do you really think that the government accountants you assign to my outfit won't quit after 2 weeks? Buddy, the hazing we would put upon them would be classic. We already haze the hell out of the accountants/clerks that work for us. What do you think we would do to the ones that don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 well then businesses will have be assigned accountants who work for the government- either businesses are going to start behaving in an ethical and honest manner or there is going to be a huge reset which no one is going like- the bottom line is either capitalism is going to work for the masses as well as the elites or it's going bye bye and that won't make anybody happy. ... Lenny can you please tell me about that farm again. The one with the unicorns farting rainbows all over the fields and chickens and rabbits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) You cannot say you want fiscal responsibility.... ....and also say you want no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI in this universe. They are diametrically opposing concepts. But, no cuts to anything is Nancy Pelosi/Dick Durbin's position currently. We would have to have $46 trillion in the bank right now, collecting interest, to meet the obligations Pelosi, etc. currently demand. W...T....F is "responsible" about that? This is not a "matter of perspective", opinion, or anything even approaching them. This is outright denial of reality. This is delusion. How the F is anyone supposed to compromise with delusional people? Where do we start exactly? Your side has no basis in reality...so how are we supposed to find the middle ground between here and fairyland? Do you have a map we can use? Umm actually I can say that. Thank you for telling me what I want though. I would say REFORM Medicare, Medicaid and SS. Which is different than taking an ax to them or providing some sort of voucher system. Yes, that 85 year old person is going to have a great & easy time getting insurance with a voucher. Before you say I know that only accounts to people currently 55 and under, those people will become 80 years old eventually. Since we're playing the game... how can you say that you want cuts in spending but do not want to cut down defense spending? How can you say you are interested in moving this economy forward yet, not close any tax loop holes. I won't even go into pulling back the unfunded Bush Tax Cuts... just simply close loop holes. When YOUR side says no to reform unless it's their way, won't discuss and leaves the table when closing tax loop holes or pulling back the Busk Tax Cuts... how is THAT considered reaching out a hand in getting a deal done. It's not. So please do not talk about compromise when your side will not give up thing that is sacred to them. Now that is BS. What you say if the Obama Administration came out and said that they wanted to create an infrastructure investment bank in order to create jobs? Yes or no? What would you say about that kind of spending? This ought to be fun. Edited August 11, 2011 by pBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) well then businesses will have be assigned accountants who work for the government- either businesses are going to start behaving in an ethical and honest manner or there is going to be a huge reset which no one is going like- the bottom line is either capitalism is going to work for the masses as well as the elites or it's going bye bye and that won't make anybody happy. the !@#$ are you talking about? I love the underlying assumption that businesses are evil and out to do no good. You prove daily that you're clueless. Edited August 11, 2011 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 well then businesses will have be assigned accountants who work for the government- either businesses are going to start behaving in an ethical and honest manner or there is going to be a huge reset which no one is going like- the bottom line is either capitalism is going to work for the masses as well as the elites or it's going bye bye and that won't make anybody happy. Out of curiosity, have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 the !@#$ are you talking about? I love the underlying assumption that businesses are evil and out to do no good. You prove daily that you're clueless. Cue his canned "Not businesses, only banks" response... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 the !@#$ are you talking about? I love the underlying assumption that businesses are evil and out to do no good. You prove daily that you're clueless. My reply was strictly for OC who argues you can't raise revenues with taxes ever because they will all be circumvented by means legal and illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 My reply was strictly for OC who argues you can't raise revenues with taxes ever because they will all be circumvented by means legal and illegal. No, his point was that raising taxes on businesses are self defeating, because of the large army that has been created over the last 100 years that was built precisely to find loopholes in tax laws. Why do we need a 2,000 page tax code, again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 No, his point was that raising taxes on businesses are self defeating, because of the large army that has been created over the last 100 years that was built precisely to find loopholes in tax laws. Why do we need a 2,000 page tax code, again? So when taxes were raised on businesses in the past it did nothing? Of course they will find loop holes... the funny thing is that even if they were lowered like the Ryan plan wants they would still find and use loop holes, paying an even lower rate. So if that's the case then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I just spent 3 posts talking about how to do something, but am trying to squash talking about it...at the same time. Y'know when I say you are delusional? The above suffices as an example. ... I never worked on the tax side. Hell, I never worked on the accounting side at all. You'd have to ask them. However, in a contest between Big 6(is it 3 or 4 now?) accountants and you? Um, they'd win, and they probably wouldn't even need to assign a manager to it, never mind a partner. I do have an easy way to circumvent it though: don't pay people as much in traditional payroll. Issue them stock and pay dividends-->capital gains. Pay people per diems for expenses. We are talking about people that make more than 100k, right? It's easy to "pay" them in expenses, while keeping their salary low, we already do that. Hell, most of the recruiters out there are constantly trying to get consultants/programmers to take their gigs by dangling large per diem checks, and paying us out of Texas, so that we get to keep more of our money...and that's just what the F already goes on. A while back I had a guy out of Columbus offer me 40k a year in salary, and 100k in per diem none of which is taxable. I told him he was going to get busted. He told me he already had 20 people working under those terms. So what the F do you want? No, his point was that raising taxes on businesses are self defeating, because of the large army that has been created over the last 100 years that was built precisely to find loopholes in tax laws. Why do we need a 2,000 page tax code, again? No the point was what I stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Pat Murray and Kerry both Named to the Super Debt Panel to reduce the National debt. Ok, Murray who is a super lefty and Kerry who just got done calling the S&P downgrade the Tea Party downgrade were both appointed by Harry Reid. Well, that was a big let down. I think we know how this is gonna end. We're talking two major parties and a panel made up of elected pols, and you are surprised by the selections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Umm actually I can say that. Thank you for telling me what I want though. Um, no you can't. You cannot say that you are not for immediate cuts, and call yourself a rational person. The two things are mutually exclusive. I don't care how we got here. We are here now, and we have to start climbing out of the hole immediately. IF that means I have to take your shovel away so be it. I would say REFORM Medicare, Medicaid and SS. Which is different than taking an ax to them or providing some sort of voucher system. Yes, that 85 year old person is going to have a great & easy time getting insurance with a voucher. Before you say I know that only accounts to people currently 55 and under, those people will become 80 years old eventually. Fine. You want to play word games, you go right ahead and call it "reform" instead of "cut". I don't care, as long as the results we need are achieved. We cannot live up to the promises you party has been making for the last 60 years. We never could have, as they were never realistic. Now its time to do what we can, and tell anybody who doesn't like it to F off. Since we're playing the game... This is not a f'ing game mother Fer. Pull your head out of your ass and realize that your attitude is the a major part of the problem. We need to be serious. If this is all a game to people like you, then you need to move aside, and let the adults deal with these problems. how can you say that you want cuts in spending but do not want to cut down defense spending? When and where did I ever say that? More evidence as to why "this is a game" for you. How can you say you are interested in moving this economy forward yet, not close any tax loop holes. When and where did I ever say that? More evidence as to why "this is a game" for you. I won't even go into pulling back the unfunded Bush Tax Cuts... just simply close loop holes. When YOUR side says no to reform unless it's their way, won't discuss and leaves the table when closing tax loop holes or pulling back the Busk Tax Cuts... how is THAT considered reaching out a hand in getting a deal done. It's not. So please do not talk about compromise when your side will not give up thing that is sacred to them. Now that is BS. Idiot. This is like saying "well, your side says the sun is going to come up tomorrow...and that's your way....so..." What need to be done needs to be done. This is not about somebody's f'ing "way". We are far past that, way far past that. There is no compromise with fairyland. I cannot meet you in the middle between here and a place that doesn't exist, other than in your delusions. Where the F are you going to get 49 trillion dollars from? Tell me, now, or STFU and go take your meds. What you say if the Obama Administration came out and said that they wanted to create an infrastructure investment bank in order to create jobs? Yes or no? What would you say about that kind of spending? This ought to be fun. I would say show me how it works. IF it actually conforms to the laws of economics, if it actually has a reasonable chance of ROI, if it has an easy exit strategy so we can shut it down if it gets out of hand, if it has the ability to actually do what it says, if there is no potential for it to compete with real banks, if there is no potential for it's scope to grow beyond it's intent.... then sure, I'd like to see it. Why wouldn't I? There's nothing wrong with doing things that get tangible results. The problem you have is: almost all of your ideas FAIL. And have FAILED for years. Yet, you keep demanding that we do your ideas, and call us racists, homophobes, sexists, etc. if we don't. F you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 11, 2011 Author Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) We're talking two major parties and a panel made up of elected pols, and you are surprised by the selections? No, I'm no surprised. But honestly, in regards to brainpower and business acumen, Toomey and Portman are a million times more qualified for this sort of discussion over any of the ones appointed by Reid. Having said that, Toomey is a hardcore low taxes believer, so he won't budge, so in my view he wouldn't be someone I would of selected, even though he is supremely qualified for this panel. However the left should be pleased with the Portman selection, he may be willing to go along with revenue increases. But holy crap, did you see who Pelosi Picked? Van Hollen Clyburn Becerra Do you really believe these three are gonna with any sort of Entitlment reforms? Edited August 11, 2011 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Um, no you can't. You cannot say that you are not for immediate cuts, and call yourself a rational person. The two things are mutually exclusive. I don't care how we got here. We are here now, and we have to start climbing out of the hole immediately. IF that means I have to take your shovel away so be it. Fine. You want to play word games, you go right ahead and call it "reform" instead of "cut". I don't care, as long as the results we need are achieved. We cannot live up to the promises you party has been making for the last 60 years. We never could have, as they were never realistic. Now its time to do what we can, and tell anybody who doesn't like it to F off. This is not a f'ing game mother Fer. Pull your head out of your ass and realize that your attitude is the a major part of the problem. We need to be serious. If this is all a game to people like you, then you need to move aside, and let the adults deal with these problems. When and where did I ever say that? More evidence as to why "this is a game" for you. When and where did I ever say that? More evidence as to why "this is a game" for you. Idiot. This is like saying "well, your side says the sun is going to come up tomorrow...and that's your way....so..." What need to be done needs to be done. This is not about somebody's f'ing "way". We are far past that, way far past that. There is no compromise with fairyland. I cannot meet you in the middle between here and a place that doesn't exist, other than in your delusions. Where the F are you going to get 49 trillion dollars from? Tell me, now, or STFU and go take your meds. I would say show me how it works. IF it actually conforms to the laws of economics, if it actually has a reasonable chance of ROI, if it has an easy exit strategy so we can shut it down if it gets out of hand, if it has the ability to actually do what it says, if there is no potential for it to compete with real banks, if there is no potential for it's scope to grow beyond it's intent.... then sure, I'd like to see it. Why wouldn't I? There's nothing wrong with doing things that get tangible results. The problem you have is: almost all of your ideas FAIL. And have FAILED for years. Yet, you keep demanding that we do your ideas, and call us racists, homophobes, sexists, etc. if we don't. F you. Again, I CAN say I am for immediate REFORM. Reform does mean making some cuts / sacrifices if you are willing to compromise. I would hope that any change be made with a scalpel not an ax. The rational person , smart person would take a deep look at the problem and figure out the best course of action. Not just simply say "CUT SPENDING!! NO MATTER WHAT!!" Living up the promises my party has making for the last 60 years. Ok, so the Democrats have had full control for the past 60 years? Or are you saying that the Republicans have never had a backbone to make changes they like when it comes to the entitlement programs? Going back to what I said earlier, reform IS necessary. No doubting that. The difference is in how it is done. You obviously can't understand that. My attitude is the problem? Seriously how stupid are you? I have been saying compromise and make logical cuts during the reform process. You and your ilk simply say it's my way or the highway and cut everything. Like a two-year-old wanting to take their ball home because they didn't like the game. Being a leader, being an adult is learning and knowing how to compromise, something clearly lacking with you. So would you be happy to see major cuts in defense spending? Maybe as much as a 1/3? Not sure how asking about Defense spending is game, republicans by in large do NOT want to cut defense spending. Not sure how closing tax loop holes is a game? Part of the problem we have here IS revenue. No doubting that fact. So are you for closing tax loop holes and if anything keeping corporate tax rates where they are now... NOT lowering them as the Ryan plan would like? In regards to the Bush Tax Cuts... we are NOT past that. I hope to god that you aren't that dumb to understand the affect they have had and continue to have on the economy. Maybe you are... not sure. Most economists have stated lately that some spending (I know, a curse word to you) is needed in order to get jobs created. Spending should be done on our infrastructure. Many have also stated that they would love to see a infrastructure bank that offers construction loans at 2%. Believing that this would help create jobs throughout the country. I tend to believe it. I do love your blind faith in your party and all of the successes they have had. HAHAHA!! Keep those blinders on buddy. Keep em' on. No, I'm no surprised. But honestly, in regards to brainpower and business acumen, Toomey and Portman are a million times more qualified for this sort of discussion over any of the ones appointed by Reid. Having said that, Toomey is a hardcore low taxes believer, so he won't budge, so in my view he wouldn't be someone I would of selected, even though he is supremely qualified for this panel. However the left should be pleased with the Portman selection, he may be willing to go along with revenue increases. But holy crap, did you see who Pelosi Picked? Van Hollen Clyburn Becerra Do you really believe these three are gonna with any sort of Entitlment reforms? How can you say that when the first three are on budget, finance and foreign relations committees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 No, I'm no surprised. But honestly, in regards to brainpower and business acumen, Toomey and Portman are a million times more qualified for this sort of discussion over any of the ones appointed by Reid. Having said that, Toomey is a hardcore low taxes believer, so he won't budge, so in my view he wouldn't be someone I would of selected, even though he is supremely qualified for this panel. However the left should be pleased with the Portman selection, he may be willing to go along with revenue increases. But holy crap, did you see who Pelosi Picked? Van Hollen Clyburn Becerra Do you really believe these three are gonna with any sort of Entitlment reforms? I don't know about Clyburn, but the other two choices look like Pelosi deciding she couldn't appoint herself, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 No, I'm no surprised. But honestly, in regards to brainpower and business acumen, Toomey and Portman are a million times more qualified for this sort of discussion over any of the ones appointed by Reid. Having said that, Toomey is a hardcore low taxes believer, so he won't budge, so in my view he wouldn't be someone I would of selected, even though he is supremely qualified for this panel. However the left should be pleased with the Portman selection, he may be willing to go along with revenue increases. But holy crap, did you see who Pelosi Picked? Van Hollen Clyburn Becerra Do you really believe these three are gonna with any sort of Entitlment reforms? anybody know the committee rules? greenspan implied it would only take a majority vote for changes. if so you'll only need one reasonable person on either side to complete a compromise...we can hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 11, 2011 Author Share Posted August 11, 2011 anybody know the committee rules? greenspan implied it would only take a majority vote for changes. if so you'll only need one reasonable person on either side to complete a compromise...we can hope. Portman and Upton would be the two most likely to go with compromise out of the entire group of 12. In regards to Baucus who I thought was a good selection, Simpson blasted him yesterday, saying that he was completely uninterested in compromise in earlier discussions. I don't know about Clyburn, but the other two choices look like Pelosi deciding she couldn't appoint herself, so... I don't want to make this a race issue, but in this circumstance you have to, if there is one thing that the CBC has been asking for vehemently from OBama, is to not cut any programs that benefit blacks, and since he is head of the CBC, which means he represents them and their wishes, there is no way I see him compromising. Of course we all know that Van Hollen is head of the house elections, so anything he does will be filled with talking points, and Becerra is the main player out of the Progressive caucus, do I need to go any further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 No, I'm no surprised. But honestly, in regards to brainpower and business acumen, Toomey and Portman are a million times more qualified for this sort of discussion over any of the ones appointed by Reid. Having said that, Toomey is a hardcore low taxes believer, so he won't budge, so in my view he wouldn't be someone I would of selected, even though he is supremely qualified for this panel. However the left should be pleased with the Portman selection, he may be willing to go along with revenue increases. But holy crap, did you see who Pelosi Picked? Van Hollen Clyburn Becerra Do you really believe these three are gonna with any sort of Entitlment reforms? There will be entitlement reform. This panel will be the scapegoat for the parties. Those affected most don't donate enough money nor do they vote in significant numbers to threaten the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Pat Murray and Kerry both Named to the Super Debt Panel to reduce the National debt. Ok, Murray who is a super lefty and Kerry who just got done calling the S&P downgrade the Tea Party downgrade were both appointed by Harry Reid. Well, that was a big let down. I think we know how this is gonna end. But it was a Tea Party down grade. How can you deny that? No, I'm no surprised. But honestly, in regards to brainpower and business acumen, Toomey and Portman are a million times more qualified for this sort of discussion over any of the ones appointed by Reid. Having said that, Toomey is a hardcore low taxes believer, so he won't budge, so in my view he wouldn't be someone I would of selected, even though he is supremely qualified for this panel. However the left should be pleased with the Portman selection, he may be willing to go along with revenue increases. But holy crap, did you see who Pelosi Picked? Van Hollen Clyburn Becerra Do you really believe these three are gonna with any sort of Entitlment reforms? Brain power of Toomey? He is a far right, dogmatic, idiolouge period. And he is one the reasons we were downgraded. Sounds like a real genius! Ya, you are so non-partisan! I mean, wow...pass the glue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 13, 2011 Author Share Posted August 13, 2011 But it was a Tea Party down grade. How can you deny that? Brain power of Toomey? He is a far right, dogmatic, idiolouge period. And he is one the reasons we were downgraded. Sounds like a real genius! Ya, you are so non-partisan! I mean, wow...pass the glue John Kerry "Tea Party downgrade" David Axelrod "Tea Party downgrade" Debbie Wasserman Schultz "Tea Party downgrade" Dave the Parrot "Tea Party downgrade" sqwaaaak Sqwaaaak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts