Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-28-2010, 11:52 AM   #1
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
Let me get this straight

Repubs want things "paid for". We get ready to pass a law that will pay for itself and suddenly.. bam.. stonewalling......
Second question, taxing hedge funds will hurt ME HOW???
QuoteQuote:
Brown already has wavered. The freshman senator has bristled at a proposed tax included by the House-Senate committee that would pay for the cost of the legislation, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated at nearly $20 billion over the next decade. The assessment would apply to financial firms with more than $50 billion in assets and hedge funds with more than $10 billion in assets.
......
Byrd's absence could be problematic for financial regulation bill
And taxing 50bil banks after they were responsible for billions lost should bother me why??
I'm sure my local credit union would be glad to pick up the lost customers...
I suppose Wall Street is already dancing on his grave.. sad.....
More............
QuoteQuote:
Scott Brown is trying to have it every which way. The Massachusetts Republican won a Senate special election earlier this year railing against "backroom deals" such as the Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase. Now he's got his very own Bay State Buy-Off, having secured key exemptions for banks and insurance companies in Massachusetts.

His backroom deal secure, Brown is now threatening to vote against the final Wall Street reform bill on the floor.
His spokesman said he may have a statement out later today, but until then, his Friday statement expressing skepticism stands.

Brown argues that fees and assessments that the bill requires banks to pay amount to a tax and that he has vowed never to vote for a tax increase. But without the fees, the bill would increase the deficit. "Here you have a person who ran on the teabag line -- the Tea Party line -- more than willing to increase the deficit and debt of the United States rather than paying for the bill," said a House Democratic aide involved in the crafting of the bill, noting that the bill's red ink was created because the GOP insisted on removing an ex-ante fund that it deemed a "permanent taxpayer bailout."

The fees Brown objects to would amount to three to four billion dollars a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office, far less than the annual bonus pools at the largest banks. The fees would be collected until the fund held roughly $20 billion. After 25 years, in a concession to Republicans, the fund would go toward reducing the deficit if it had not yet been used. "I've said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes," said Brown on Friday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/scott-brown-may-oppose-wa_n_627986.html


Last edited by jeffkrol; 06-28-2010 at 11:58 AM.
06-28-2010, 12:14 PM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North of Canada
Posts: 612
Jeff:

QuoteQuote:
Repubs want things "paid for". We get ready to pass a law that will pay for itself and suddenly.. bam.. stonewalling......
Please, don't misquote those on the right. We want things paid for responsibly not just by raising taxes so the fat cats in DC can continue the porkfest they have been on for decades.

Please, in future, don't undermine your credibility by posting things from Huffington. It is a blog for a start which means automatically that it's an opinion so quoting it as fact is a little silly.

As to "why this or that should bother you"... The sooner you realize that corporations don't pay taxes - you and I do, the sooner you'll understand why you should be bothered.
06-28-2010, 12:47 PM   #3
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GingeM Quote
Jeff:

Please, don't misquote those on the right. We want things paid for responsibly not just by raising taxes so the fat cats in DC can continue the porkfest they have been on for decades.

Please, in future, don't undermine your credibility by posting things from Huffington. It is a blog for a start which means automatically that it's an opinion so quoting it as fact is a little silly.

As to "why this or that should bother you"... The sooner you realize that corporations don't pay taxes - you and I do, the sooner you'll understand why you should be bothered.
So we should cut something to pay for regulations of something else.. seems @ss backwards to me...
You pay for roads/police ect using the "taxes" of license and registration.. I see no difference here.
Granted I do understand the "trickle down" theory of taxation but THAT is inevitable ANYWHERE.... there is the "shoplifting" tax, and the "white collar crime" tax, the "throw it in the garbage" tax as well as the "unsold mechandise" tax, the "boss needs a new boat" tax . ect.
Even though we are crossing threads her but while I have your attention.
QuoteQuote:
When Jerome York—whose boss, billionaire Kirk Kerkorian, owns 7.8% of General Motors—made his heavily-anticipated speech on Jan. 10 suggesting how GM could turn things around, he made a few unpopular suggestions. Among them: GM’s top five execs should take a pay cut. They collectively make $7 million. Cutting pay would send a signal to the union that everyone must pitch in to save GM, and that management isn’t too elitist to share the pain.

The idea isn’t going over well. Vice Chairman and CFO Frederick A. “Fritz” Henderson said GM execs have already lost their bonuses, which amounts to a pay cut since a big part of compensation comes from performance incentives. In Henderson’s eyes, GM has already made good on York’s recommendation. GM Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz told the Detroit News that he isn’t keen on the idea, either. His bonus has disappeared, cutting a big part of GM executive compensation. He says executive salaries are like professional athletes’ salaries. You must pay up for talent.

York’s response? He says rank-and-file factory hands don’t have a lot of sympathy for cuts in bonuses. GM must cut executive salaries to get the union workers and leaders to feel and “equity of sacrifice.” It looks like this will be akin to asking Congress to vote to cut their pay. When it comes to York’s prescription for GM, “there are definitely some disagreements,” says one GM exec. We may be headed for a standoff.
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/2006/01/gm_execs_no_pay_cuts_for_me.html
Talent my @ss..
Stats.......
http://www.companypay.com/executive/compensation/general-motors-corp.asp?yr=2008
http://www.companypay.com/
http://detnews.com/article/20100623/AUTO01/6230443/1148/rss25

Last edited by jeffkrol; 06-28-2010 at 12:59 PM.
06-28-2010, 12:50 PM   #4
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
So we should cut something to pay for regulations of something else.. seems @ss backwards to me...
You pay for roads/police ect using the "taxes" of license and registration.. I see no difference here.
Personally I don't see why we should worry about paying for it anyhow. I mean, really, what's the difference if we add a few more trillion to what's already not being paid for. Let's not forget the Obamarama has already spent more than all of his predecessors.


Combined.

06-28-2010, 12:53 PM   #5
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
Personally I don't see why we should worry about paying for it anyhow. I mean, really, what's the difference if we add a few more trillion to what's already not being paid for. Let's not forget the Obamarama has already spent more than all of his predecessors.


Combined.
NOW that is funny................. and sad all at the same time.. but honest.
06-28-2010, 01:03 PM   #6
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
NOW that is funny................. and sad all at the same time.. but honest.
I always speak the truth.
06-28-2010, 03:24 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North of Canada
Posts: 612
I think Graph quite eloquently closed this conversation.

06-28-2010, 05:05 PM   #8
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GingeM Quote
I think Graph quite eloquently closed this conversation.
Not really, seems that's how I feel about adding a few trillion for health care to the war deficit by Bush.


Last edited by jeffkrol; 06-29-2010 at 04:56 AM.
06-28-2010, 07:16 PM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North of Canada
Posts: 612
So... Jeff is all for throwing good money after bad.

Seems like, between Ira stating he is all for stuff he's incapable of understanding and you being prepared to throw other people's money away out of bloody mindedness, you libs are having a total meltdown. All we need is for Rupert to slide on in and tell us that he has some kind of surreptitious man crush on Dick Cheney and the left here will have completely imploded.
06-28-2010, 08:08 PM   #10
Veteran Member
gokenin's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: lowell,ma
Posts: 1,890
where has Rupert been by the way?
06-28-2010, 08:18 PM   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
shooz's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,433
He was kidnapped by left wing squirrels and is being held ramsom until they get their ACORN back!
LOL.........
06-29-2010, 05:54 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North of Canada
Posts: 612
Shooz:

QuoteQuote:
He was kidnapped by left wing squirrels and is being held ramsom until they get their ACORN back!
LOL.........
I applaud your demonstration of a sense of humour. I was beginning to think that where humour was concerned you were something of a desert...
06-29-2010, 05:57 AM   #13
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GingeM Quote
So... Jeff is all for throwing good money after bad.

Seems like, between Ira stating he is all for stuff he's incapable of understanding and you being prepared to throw other people's money away out of bloody mindedness, you libs are having a total meltdown. All we need is for Rupert to slide on in and tell us that he has some kind of surreptitious man crush on Dick Cheney and the left here will have completely imploded.
no I just watch history repeat itself.........with the help of conservatives...
QuoteQuote:
Economic policies

The 1920s was a decade of increased consumer spending and economic growth fed by supply side economic policy. The post war, post progressive era political environment saw three consecutive Republican administrations in the U.S. All three took the moderate position of forging a close relationship between those in government and big business. When President Warren Harding took office in 1921, the national economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of 20% and runaway inflation. Harding proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes, protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding didn't live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress. These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years.[3] One of the main initiatives of both the Harding and Coolidge administrations was the rolling back of income taxes on the wealthy which had been raised during World War I. It was believed that a heavy tax burden on the rich would slow the economy, and actually reduce tax revenues. This tax cut was achieved under President Calvin Coolidge's administration. Furthermore, Coolidge consistently blocked any attempts at government intrusion into private business. Harding and Coolidge's managerial approach sustained economic growth throughout most of the decade. However, the overconfidence of these years contributed to the speculative bubble that sparked the stock market crash and the Great Depression. The government's role as an arbiter rather than an active entity continued under President Herbert Hoover. Hoover worked to get businessmen to respond to the crisis by calling them into conferences and urging them to cooperate. Hoover's vigorous attempts to get business to end the depression failed.

When the income tax was established in 1913, the highest marginal tax rate was 7 percent; it was increased to 77 percent in 1916 to help finance World War I. The top rate was reduced to as low as 25 percent in 1925. The "normalcy" of the 1920s incorporated considerably higher levels of federal spending and taxes than the Progressive era before World War I. From 1929 to 1933, under President Hoover's administration, real per capita federal expenditures increased by 88 percent.
In 1920-1921 there was an acute recession, followed by the sustained recovery throughout the 1920s. The Federal Reserve expanded credit, by setting below market interest rates and low reserve requirements that favored big banks, and the money supply actually increased by about 60% during the time following the recession. By the latter part of the decade "buying on margin" entered the American vocabulary as more and more Americans over-extended themselves to speculate on the soaring stock market and expanding credit. Very few expected the crash that began in 1929, and none suspected it would be so drastic or so prolonged.
Roaring Twenties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
QuoteQuote:
In spite of the social, economic and technological advances, African Americans, recent immigrants and farmersóalong with a large part of the working class populationówere not much affected by this period. In fact, millions of people lived below the poverty line of US $2,000 per year per family.

The Great Depression demarcates the conceptualization of the Roaring Twenties from the 1930s. The hopefulness in the wake of World War I that had initiated the Roaring Twenties gave way to the debilitating economic hardship of the later era.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412113_top_federal_income.pdf
06-29-2010, 07:21 AM   #14
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
The problem with big chunks on all sides is the unwillingness to see that whatever needs to be done will cost money. Those of us who are/have been married understand what this means

Each party has its own sacred cows, and only sees problems with the other party's sacred cows.

Even when there's a general consensus and understanding that Something Must Be Done, there's the idea that let everyone else pay but me.

Oil eventually running out? Something Must Be Done, only don't let it cost me a penny, (or, don't let government spend a penny, or don't let a corporation have to spend an extra penny).

Health care costs running out of control, impacting the economy and the future pursuit of happiness for Americans? Something Must Be Done, only don't make anyone have to pay a penny...

Defecits and debt running out of control? Something Must Be Done, only don't make it cost me anything, and only cut programs that don't mean that much to me.

and on it goes. The 'Free Market' approach - let the markets decide - is a convenient way to push off any hard decisions... the 'market' will decide... which sooner or later will mean we do have to pay our pennies...

That the government must be involved to me is a given, as these sorts of things impact national security and our pursuit of happiness. A politician not willing to address - and come up with a reasonable proposal - long term trends is frankly not fit to govern. Passing the buck to our children and their children is selfish cowardice.
06-29-2010, 08:24 AM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
The problem with big chunks on all sides is the unwillingness to see that whatever needs to be done will cost money. Those of us who are/have been married understand what this means

Each party has its own sacred cows, and only sees problems with the other party's sacred cows.

Even when there's a general consensus and understanding that Something Must Be Done, there's the idea that let everyone else pay but me.

Oil eventually running out? Something Must Be Done, only don't let it cost me a penny, (or, don't let government spend a penny, or don't let a corporation have to spend an extra penny).

Health care costs running out of control, impacting the economy and the future pursuit of happiness for Americans? Something Must Be Done, only don't make anyone have to pay a penny...

Defecits and debt running out of control? Something Must Be Done, only don't make it cost me anything, and only cut programs that don't mean that much to me.

and on it goes. The 'Free Market' approach - let the markets decide - is a convenient way to push off any hard decisions... the 'market' will decide... which sooner or later will mean we do have to pay our pennies...

That the government must be involved to me is a given, as these sorts of things impact national security and our pursuit of happiness. A politician not willing to address - and come up with a reasonable proposal - long term trends is frankly not fit to govern. Passing the buck to our children and their children is selfish cowardice.
Eloquently said, Jussi. I would add to the healthcare debate that not only are we unwilling to pay, we are unwilling to cut. Talk about even the unspoken possibility that we might not pay for every procedure one might try on a 90 year old American, and you are proposing death panels. Talk about the possibility that every medical mistake would not just be compensated, but punished, and you are depriving the injured.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
banks, bill, billion, fees, friday, fund, increase, line, tax
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Straight conversion? scooop Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 07-23-2009 02:37 PM
600 ft. straight down heliphoto Post Your Photos! 17 04-21-2009 10:55 AM
Straight out of the developer! Jimfear Post Your Photos! 11 03-21-2009 09:44 AM
Straight from the camera rmtagg Post Your Photos! 5 05-21-2008 08:08 PM
Straight from the heart aabram Post Your Photos! 1 02-13-2007 01:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:07 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top