Conservative commentary: Tax that man behind the tree - again

Advertisement

— About a year ago in this space I noted the quote by the late Sen. Russell Long, of Louisiana, poking fun at tax reform policy, who said that the underlying philosophy was, "Don't tax me. Don't tax thee. Tax that man behind the tree!"

Well, that philosophy is back in full force with the Obama tax plan. Supporters cheer the assertion that 95 percent of taxpayers will get a tax cut, which is difficult to fathom since 40 percent of Americans pay no income tax already. Yes, only the evil richest 5 percent, making more than $250,000, will see a tax increase. They are the man behind the tree, or so the Obama theory goes.

And tax that man behind the tree he would. Not only would the Obama tax plan raise the highest marginal income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, but it also would impose Social Security taxes on income more than $250,000 and remove caps from the phase out of deductions and personal exemptions. Given this, the top marginal rate is really more than 55 percent. This is taxation at a punishing rate.

To restate the point from my prior commentary, all of us will be directly and adversely hit by the cost of increased taxation. The actual cost of taxation does not just fall on the person remitting the tax. When taxes on the grocery store are increased, the grocer passes this cost on in the form of increased food prices, lower wages, reduced employee benefits, and/or fewer employees or hours worked. All of this reduces the standard of living for everyone, rich and poor alike.

But it gets worse. Mr. Obama claims that his plan results in a lower level of taxation than under the Reagan administration. This is because he counts the "refundable tax credits" given to about half of Americans as tax reductions. These "refundable tax credits" are actually just the government writing checks to some folks. And, yes, this is no different than welfare. It is social spending and not any sort of tax decrease.

"Robin Hood" programs, whereby money is taken from some in the form of taxation for the benefit of others deemed more deserving, really do not work well. Increased taxation limits the opportunities of society as a whole and reduces the prosperity and options of every individual. A flourishing economy, by contrast, increases opportunity for all.

Here is the message to take home: Lower tax rates stimulate the creation of good jobs and real wealth - and even generate more dollars for the treasury. History has shown this to be true every time it is tried. As Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman, observed, "Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another. In fact, increased taxation makes for a smaller economic pie, while limited government and taxation makes for a larger pie.

The class envy promoted by Mr. Obama will have ill effects on all. It has been tried repeatedly and always has failed. We cannot tax our way to prosperity.

Those evil top 5 percent of income earners already pay more than half of the nation's total tax burden (56 percent of income taxes as of 2004), and a disproportionate portion of them are small business owners, which is to say, the segment of our society most responsible for increasing employment.

If Mr. Obama goes forward with his plan to "spread the wealth around," we will see rapidly there is a lot less to be spread.

Rick Akin is an Attorney practicing in Steamboat Springs and Austin, Texas, a former member of the Pilot and Today Editorial Board, and a Director of the Conservative Leadership Council of Northwest Colorado. His great-grandparents moved to Steamboat in 1926. He holds a BA from Oklahoma and a doctor

Comments

stillinsteamboat 5 years, 9 months ago

Let's give the other side a chance in the White House, it could never be as disastrous as the last 8 years.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Tucker, I will have to take a looney pill to go down your fairy tale path. It is so deep in here now I am pinching my nose.

0

Stan Zuber 5 years, 9 months ago

" The power to tax is the power to destroy"-John Marshall So the question is Who do We want to destroy?

You talk about the creation of good jobs and real wealth, when the fact is for the last thirty years or so we have lost steel mills, clothing factories, and factories that make parts for machinery and appliances etc. We import the majority of are goods, including food. What if the boats stop coming?

With all do respect could you talk more of the good jobs that would or could be created and elaborate on what you believe to be real wealth. An explaination of how Mr. McCain's tax policy would be fair and equal.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

To those of you who say we have had it so bad the last eight years and lets give the new guy a try, take a look at history, take a look at what we lived through in the Carter years. I was a small business owner in the 80's and 90's and taxes were and are the biggest burden on all sizes of companies. What we need in Washington is a White House and Congress that stops giving our money away under oddly named programs or repackaged as something other than welfare. Our economy is on thin ice now and we have leaders in Congress like Barney Frank(D) already planning the huge new spending that will be rubber stamped by Obama. Barney said we will find rich people to tax and don't focus on the deficit it will get bigger. A vote for that is a vote for the end of the prosperous USA as we have known it and don't be fooled we won't be returning to the Clinton economy, no, it will be more like Carter or worse. I am praying.

0

Murray Tucker 5 years, 9 months ago

Hell, don't tax either of us, tax our kids (who are playing hide and seek behind that tree)! W and his conservative?? friends like Rick don't understand the root of that word, conserve, and its many expansions, like conservation- or maybe that's what W meant when he added the adjective, "compassionate"???

I just don't see how anyone who considers the synonym for conservative, preservative, and its root, preserve, like preserve and protect, could continue to associate himself with the spend and spend Republicans. Soon there won't be any United States to preserve and protect.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Another thing, So called "rich people" like Barney Frank(D) or Charlie Rangel(D) who was caught hiding his earnings in South America and owes some $75,000 in back taxes always, as mentioned, find ways to protect their money from the tax man. It is a fact of life. The way to increase tax income by the FED's is to allow the creation of more business and that has NEVER in history happened when an administration has raised taxes NEVER. Do you spend more when you make less?NO. Why should the Government? It is our money they are borrowing from us and giving it to others.

0

Murray Tucker 5 years, 9 months ago

seeuski Keep playing hide and seek. You so ashamed you won't even disclose your name. You don't need a looney pill. You're already there.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Not ashamed to sound off when I read funny stuff no. My name is seeuski. Isn't that good enough? Or would you like to cause me financial harm like I have seen others attempt in these forums when they didn't like the messenger. Thanks but no thanks.

0

ybul 5 years, 9 months ago

The banter from both sides of the aisle gets old.

Taxes are bad, yes you are right. But then so is the government legislation that has given a tax deduction to debt on a home, encouraged savings in the stock or bond market (as opposed to paying off their homes, allowing others to play with other peoples money and when you do so you tend to make bad decisions).

Those that say the free market has failed and we need more rules to protect the individual. Yes, but the rules that will be enacted will not protect the individual. Right now we have the EPA which is supposed to protect the environment and yet it might do the opposite. If we simply placed a tax on emissions from a coal fired power plant, vehicles, etc. to internalize the cost of production we would not need government to step in to subsidize your renewable energy sources as they would be competitive if one factors in the harmful exhaust from a power plant, that is not accounted as a true cost of production.

Taxes from the emissions could be used to alleviate health care problems, many of which are caused by these emissions.

If it were not from distortions caused by government, monetary policy and others being able to pollute without recourse, we might have a free market, that does not require a Department of Agriculture to subsidize corporate farms, a department of energy as wind power would be much less expensive that coal (storage is on the way and if it existed in enough locations it would create a consistent base load).

Both parties seem to really have lost sight of what is important. The government employs such a large portion of the population that change will probably not come, even though that is the mantra of the day.

We do not need change, we simply need a return to the constitution, which made this country so great.

0

JLM 5 years, 9 months ago

Tax policy is the symptom while unrestrained spending to perpetuate political power is the real disease.

The Congress has evolved from a Constitutionally empowered law making body to a huge cornucopia bestowing its largesse on those who support the party in power and to influence voters who will preserve the power of their benefactors. In essence, votes are being purchased with tax dollars. The most obvious and consistent evidence is the unfettered use of "earmarks" to fund projects in the districts of elected officials.

This year's election provides transparent proof of the manipulation of tax policy to purchase votes in a ham handed and obvious manner.

A Congressman's real job meanwhile is to be re-elected and re-elected and re-elected; and, thereby to preserve the ability to purchase even more votes.

The current debate about tax policy is a bastardization of this unseemly situation as "tax policy" has now devolved into a direct subsidy to folks who pay no taxes at all. When effective tax rates are at "zero", you are no longer really engaged in a debate about tax policy --- now you are engaged in a debate about welfare.

The obvious objective of providing a subsidy to folks who pay no taxes at all is to purchase (well, at least rent) their allegiance on Election Day.

Tax policy should be an apolitical funding mechanism which is used to provide adequate funding for government programs not to "redistribute" wealth.

The redistribution of wealth from the productive members of society to unproductive members is the basic tenet of socialism. As Marx said --- "Socialism is the necessary stepping stone from capitalism to communism."

A capitalist society should be engaged in discussion about the creation of more wealth --- including for those who simply aspire to become successful and wealthy --- rather than the confiscation and redistribution of the limited supply of existing wealth.

It is the classic "give a man a fish" v "teach a man to fish" debate; and, its outcome is obvious.

0

ybul 5 years, 9 months ago

JLM,

 The symptom of the problem is a vast disparity in wealth.

 The solution being proposed by Obama and company, is to treat the symptom of the problem.  Tax the wealthiest and use the money to fund populist programs.  The Health Care crisis, another symptom of a broader problem.

  The cause of the wealth disparity comes from legislation which has created 401ks, encouraged people to buy homes that they might net be able to afford (via loan guarantees from fannie and freddie) with a mortgage interest deduction, and a PRIVATELY owned federal reserve which is not accountable that fuel speculative bubbles.   Which those who control the creation of money tend to profit more so than those who do not.

  You are missing the greater point that wealth disparity is the underlying problem and treating the symptom is much easier than digging into the problem and pulling up its roots.

  Just like in a garden if you do not get the root of the weed, the problem will simply come back (through tax loopholes, or money moving out of the US).
0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Wow, Wealth disparity control=communism. A Doctor will deserve to make a disparaging larger amount of money than a trash collector. A carpenter will make a lot more money than a homeless bum on the corner bumming change for booze. Utopia for the undeserving can't be snatched from the pockets of the hard working. Uugh.

0

JLM 5 years, 9 months ago

What a bunch of baloney!

"Wanting" to be wealthy and "working" to create wealth are two entirely different sets of decisions in a person's life. They literally define the American dream in its many variations.

In an extreme example, a Mexican immigrant swimming the Rio Grande is in search of his verision of the American dream though it may take the form of a life of manual labor or learning a construction skill. He seeks to better himself relative to the circumstances of his life if he chose to do nothing.

The "vast disparity of wealth" is really quite relative but it surely can be impacted more directly by making a plan, getting up early, working hard, staying late and working toward achieving that plan. A handout does not change nor influence the underlying behavior.

Exactly what "populist program" is funded by giving a slacker a check funded by a product taxpaying member of society? Does it not encourage more of the same type of behavior? A handout penalizes the productive and encourages the unproductive not to change their ways. Life is a graded exercise.

The mortgage crisis was created by the intervention of govenment in an otherwise market driven process. Banks did not lend to folks who could not meet the 5Cs --- "cash flow, collateral, capital, character and conditions" --- until Barney Frank and his crowd intervened in the free markets to create a political result.

Weath is created by folks who get off their butts and go to work. The myth of "wealth disparity" is simply the recognition that not everyone makes the varsity in life because not everybody is willing to work hard enough.

The Federal Reserve is a quasi-public entity (a la Freddie, Fannie) whose Board of Governors is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Your rant is sophmoric and inarticulate. The Fed is an extremely well regulated and organized entity which has evolved since the founding of its earliest version by Alexander Hamilton in 1791.

Your arguments are the simple restatement of the failed socialist philosophy.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

And the UN wants Obama. Great, all of our favorite friends,and what will Obama deliver? Our money, and our ally Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/25/AR2008102502011_pf.html

0

ybul 5 years, 9 months ago

The fed is a private company. See wikipedia, they have who the fed regulates but the fed does not have any oversight. When congress has sought oversight it was thwarted.

You speak of free markets, how is the federal reserve setting interest rates anything related to a free market.

You see the disparity in wealth is a real issue and if you are so blind to the fact then so be it. However, at some point when there is such a great disparity revolution usually occurs. Read an article about it (www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/23/...

You say I am restating a socialist philosophy, I think that you have the wool pulled so far over your eyes, that when one who agrees about free markets and yet disagrees with you, you label them as the enemy.

I prefer not to have the UN say you need a prescription for a vitamin, say that beef is bad, or anything else. It seems to me that would be a further removing of the political process away from the people.

0

stillinsteamboat 5 years, 9 months ago

seeuski, Joe the plumber is a moron!! Only John McCain and the Fox network find him to be a great genious. I saw his own Aunt interviewed, she said he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. No one in my house is begging for free cheese or free anything. As far as property taxes go just check the property taxes on the Marabou Ranch.......

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

It's not character assassination if the candidate is holding up Joe the Plumber (without the plumbing license, but with a lien for unpaid back taxes) as his poster boy. "Obama had tea with Ayers!" "McCain pals around with tax cheats!" Take your pick.

0

JLM 5 years, 9 months ago

"Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, it is a quasi-public (government entity with private components) banking system..." <<< from your beloved Wikipedia.

Can you read? Can you comprehend?

The Fed is not a private company.

The Fed sets the "Fed Funds Rate" --- which is the "target" rate at which the Fed member banks are prepared to lend funds to other member banks for overnite purposes. The setting of the Fed Funds Rate is a money supply mechanism which is used to expand or contract liquidity in the banking system. Truth be known the Fed Funds Rate is actually a range of rates as the FMOC is not allowed to set a specific rate.

It has absolutely nothing to do with setting the Prime Rate, commercial paper rates, Treasury rates, CD rates or mortgage rates. These rates are set either by competiton or auction.

I apologize for labelling you as an "enemy". I did not mean to do that. You are a wonderful chap and I respect your opinion greatly. Please accept my apology. I simply disagree with the ideas that you express.

There will always be a great disparity in levels of wealth. I know personally as I was dirt poor growing up. Happy as a lark, but dirt poor nonetheless. Only my own hard work was able to raise me from that lot in life and it was as easy as pie. If I can do it, then anybody can do it.

Socialism is real. It's not just an idea, it's like sunburn --- you can feel it and it has real consequences.

East Germany was ruled under socialist principles for decades after WWII and became a totally unproductive country. West Germany was ruled under capitalistic principles for the same time period and became the most vibrant economy in Europe. Same folks, same latitude, way different attitude. Socialism destroys the entrepreneurial zeal of the people.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Great, another left wing Liberal opinion.

Latest news, sport, business, comment and reviews from the Guardian, the world's leading liberal voice. Stance and editorial opinion The Guardian's offices in London The Guardian's offices in London

Editorial articles in The Guardian are generally to the left of the political spectrum. This is reflected in the paper's readership: a MORI poll taken between April and June 2000 showed that 80% of Guardian readers were Labour Party voters;[4] according to another MORI poll taken in 2004, 44% of Guardian readers were Labour voters and 37% Liberal Democrat voters.[5]

Founded by textile traders and merchants, The Guardian had a reputation as "an organ of the middle class",[6] or in the words of C.P. Scott's son Ted "a paper that will remain bourgeois to the last".[7] "I write for the Guardian," said Sir Max Hastings in 2005,[8] "because it is read by the new establishment", reflecting the paper's growing influence.

. I am sure they have endorsed Obama the wealth spreader.

0

stillinsteamboat 5 years, 9 months ago

Never been rich but I do know that we pay more in taxes than the millionaire next door.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

We who? Are you saying you are poor but pay more in taxes than millionaires? You have been sold on the free cheese that you will never see. Obama's promises to you will never come through you will see. You weren't working during Carter I am guessing so brace yourself for a long period of economic depression.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Just the property taxes alone from your millionaire next door may exceed your gross annual income.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

He believes governments will have to come up with an even bigger international rescue, and that the US is facing "multi-year economic stagnation".

This coming from Nouriel Roubini a leading economist.

Free cheese in good times, no paychecks and no tax breaks in bad times.

Obama wants to increase spending by a trillion dollars while he promises you all freebies.

McCain wants to freeze all but the most necessary spending in order to gain control and return to budget responsibility.

You make the call.

0

ybul 5 years, 9 months ago

JLM,

A government agency with private components, that has not been audited, sounds more like a private company, in control of the printing of money. Go ahead and believe that the federal reserve has no influence on interest rates. Right now they are working to keep capital markets functioning.

For as long as I can remember the NY branch of the federal reserve injects money into the market on a short term basis to influence interest rates.  The more money available to borrow the lower the interest rate.  Where did the money come from?

I agree on the socialism, unfortunately I worry about corporatism as much as socialism.

As far as the Guardian being a liberal rag, unfortunately all sources have a bias.  I suppose you like FOX.  The point was that wealth disparity is very high in the United States.  This can cause problems.
0

JLM 5 years, 9 months ago

Ybul ---

It is time for you to hang it up on the Fed rant. You are simply wrong. As much as I despise Wikipedia as a source of truth or fact, it is clear even by their simplistic writing that the Fed is not a private company.

The President nominates and the Senate confirms all Fed Governors.

The Fed's funding comes from the mandatory deposits of the member banks which are available to loan to other member banks and the deposits of the Treasury which are funded by ----- may we have a drum roll ----- the sale of Treasury securities.

There is no little man in the basement printing money at the Fed.

The Fed's FMOC sets the Fed funds target rate (actually a range of rates) and makes (injects) funds available which influences LIQUIDITY not interest rates.

Commenting on wealth disparity is like comparing the weather in International Falls and Key West --- there are big differences but there are supposed to be big differences. You want to gain some wealth --- go to work early, work hard, stay late and save.

Oh, yeah, one other thing --- vote for a guy who will let you keep more of what you earn and not simply redistribute your wealth to others who have not worked for it.

Socialism has only one real flaw --- it doesn't work.

0

Stan Zuber 5 years, 9 months ago

ybul,

Check out

http://www.justiceplus.org/bankers.htm

I believe it will support some of what you say.

You should also JLM

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

In Obama's own words and not because of Joe the Plumber. We are facing forced Socialism, or if you will, reparations under the possibility of his winning the White House.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

What is your point? That it is ok to have a character assassination against anyone who asks Obama a question? Does an average American, when Obama comes to their neighborhood, have to be vetted by an apposing campaign before they exercise their right to free speech? Obama's problem with Joe and why he is attacking him personally is he can't do what they have done to the reporter and News station in Orlando for asking Joe Biden real questions, fire him!. Do you think it is proper that Joe's personal records are being leaked by an Obama supporter from inside the Child Welfare Office in Toledo, OH to be used by, biting my tongue here, people like you as if his imperfections make Obama's own disclosure of his new wealth redistribution plans untrue? Shoot the messenger.

We now have an audio recording from a Chicago radio interview from 2001 where Obama again is exposing his Marxist ideas. This is the desire for reparations plane and simple as in his own words he is attaching his redistribution plans to the Civil Rights Movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

What is your beef with the Marabou Ranch? Is their taxes too high?

Again, thank g-d for FOX news or the empty suit would have a totally free ride.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Matthew, your credibility rating is dropping. Obama had a lot more than tea with Ayers, he wrote a forward for Ayers book in 1995, his campaign was rolled out from Ayers house in 1995. They have worked together on two boards, Annenberg and the Woods Foundation and Obama has excused away this relationship in exactly the same fashion he has excused away his many other devious relationships including Rev. Wright. Give me a break. Anyone that is honest with themselves can distinguish the difference between Joe's question and Obama's unprepared honest answer and how it is further confirmed in the 2001 Obama radio interview. We also know that a plumber in Ohio does not require a license when working for a licensed plumber as he does. His property tax lean was discovered while he was refinancing and is not uncommon when taxes are not escrowed in the monthly payment. Do you care that Charlie Rangel(D) has been caught hiding away his wealth in Mexico and is in debt to the IRS for about a reported $75,000? Doubtful, lets get good ole Joe cause he ain't supporting the anointed one. I think Joe has more credibility than Obama who has never provided his original birth certificate or his full Medical records, same with Biden.

You commented days ago that you are voting for a third party candidate, I doubt it.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

I already asked you (and you provided no answer, so you're own credibility is lacking, seeuski):

1) Was Ayers book (or Obama's forward- funny, I thought it was a "read this book" blurb and not a forward, and that it was 1997, not 1995. Sounds like fishy "vetting" of this "forward." LOL!) written about anything to do with terrorism? Did the book or Obama espouse terrorism? I thought it was a parenting book.

2) Were those boards about terrorism? (And why wasn't McCain on this board to keep a terrorist like Ayers in check? Good thing Obama was there to keep things from exploding. Nothing ever exploded at those meetings, right? Looks like Obama was protecting us all from Ayers!!!! Wooooo!!!)

3) When was the last time Ayers was arrested...for anything?

4) Did you forget that Annenberg was a Republican who set certain things in motion, like the group bearing his name? Must have been a terrorist sympathyzer to allow Ayers and Obama to sit on a board that bears his name.

5) What does Rangel have to do with Obama or McCain during this campaign? (And yes- it bothers me that he hides wealth overseas to avoid taxes)

6) How can a lien "just be found out?" When a lien is placed on your home for not paying something, you are mailed the info. Someone knew about the lien before "Joe the Plumber's Helper" came anywhere near Obama to ask a question on TV. And if he's intent on buying the business (you know that business- the one making under $100,000.00 per year that would provide him better tax relief under Obama compared to McCain) then he'll need a license. Plus- if he has a lien, he's not buying any business yet. (Again- Joe the Plumber's Helper has a way to go before being Joe the Business Owner)

You (and others) keep bringing Joe the Plumber back up and associating him with McCain. If that's the case, he should be under the same scrutiny that you give Ayers and Wright. All 3 mean the exact same thing to both candidates: bupkiss.

And not 1 single point you bring up means anything in the long run except to people who've already made up their mind to vote McCain anyway. If it did, Obama's numbers would be tanking instead of McCain's. That means people see thru this yellow journalism and see that McCain has no real plan for his presidency except to be a "maverick." Does that mean he'll just disobey his superiors (the voters) and end up crashing Air Force One?

0

knee_dropper 5 years, 9 months ago

What some of you call "socialism" is also called, helping out those at the bottom to lift the whole country up. The country is not going to become "socialist" under Obama; if want examples of socialism, look to the Scandinavian counties, and the rest of Europe to certain degrees, even Germany. The wealth disparity is real and it continues to grow, America's middle class is either getting squeezed into the working poor or a few manage to pop out into the upper class. To help people that are driven to succeed and better themselves Obama is proposing governmental service, not just the military, for people that cannot afford higher education. This will help to correct one of the sources of the wealth disparity and help to better the entire country. What Obama's tax proposal is going to do is raise taxes back to where they were under Clinton. I think the well-to-do up to the very rich did okay under him and won't be driven into poverty by Obama. What is McCain offering to people with the with, but not the capital to succeed besides the old "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" crap? What is McCain proposing to help people besides those that already doing well?

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

The world according to Matthew. Please spare me your opinions on property liens, I have been involved in lending for 12 years and liens show up unexpectedly on real estate quite often, That is why there are provisions in title insurance policies. 1. Anything written by Ayers is about radicalization of the young people and not your usual parenting. I have read some excerpts and it has nothing to do with education but anarchy 101.The book pertained to, as has been reported, the justice system and young black people. 2.The boards were about funding radicalized education systems and a lot of funds went to Rev. Wright and groups like ACORN. 3. Ayers was arrested and charged for his crimes but a Liberal Judge threw out the evidence because of phone tapping that may not have had the proper warrants otherwise he would still be making license plates. 4. Annenberg has been dead since 2002 and what he knew about this particular foundation can only be speculation. But knowing how Obama and Ayers operate their slimey lives whomever controls the funding at Annenberg has probably been shnoockered into believing they were funding poor inner city kids with a middle class education. 5.Rangel is the poster child for how to avoid taxes and gaming the system. His fellow Dem, Barney Frank, just last week said "we will find rich people to tax" he needs just to look in the mirror the hypocrite. The reason also is you are spewing the left wing talking points in claiming Joe dodged taxes when that lien has been paid and the comparison to a tax dodging Congressmen exemplifies the ruse in the get Joe campaign. 6.We (property owners) get a tax bill in the mail yes, and it is not uncommon for people to miss the due date or in more extreme cases low income people like Joe may be late. These things happen. Tax bills are not mailed monthly. I guess Joe the plumber will have to check in with you before he does anything in life as you are the maven and the answer man.

I do agree with you that this back and forth will not change either of our minds. I was content to never post here again once the registration requirements were in place for a couple of reasons one being it is such a waist of time but I got increasingly more agitated with the one sided spin I was reading of late and was compelled to counter it. This will all be over in a week one way or another and then a calming silence will again occur and you guys can have at it.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Knee-dropper, I am not condemning your position regarding aid to those in need, I think you mean well, I just believe you and others that want to see this new era of welfare are being misguided.
This country is full of the most generous people in the world and there are programs in every community whether faith based or other that tend to the needs of the less fortunate. Higher taxes is dangerous especially in hard economic times and do long term damage to the economy causing the opposite effect you hope for. More tax volume is collected by the Government when taxes are lower due to a stimulation of consumerism and business. Stagnation will dramatically cut those things and then what? Stormtroopers showing up at so called rich peoples doorsteps demanding their long term hard earned 401k money? Obama is going to put as many as 3 Judges on the Supreme Court, his most recent discussions involving legislating the spreading of wealth scares heck out me. Making it a Constitutional law that higher income people must comply with giving their money to more and more undeserving people is not Amercan and unconstitutional. But we will get what the masses vote for and we will see what happens.

0

stillinsteamboat 5 years, 9 months ago

I think the fact that life long Republicans are jumping ship in record numbers says it all. I heard today, when this election is over some republicans want to clean house and take the party back from the clutches of Dr. Dobson and his radical right wing.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Vote McCain if you got a brain. Vote Obama if you still live with momma.

LOL.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Matthew, I have found a timeline for you on Bill Ayers historical record of anarchy.

http://theindependentview.com/?p=127

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

Wow! Nothing in that link tied Obama to Ayers, though. Are you sure it's..."wright?" LOL!

And you're numbered answers are all purely opinion that you believe is fact. You're not doing so well here.

And for liens...I used to send them out when working the AP/AR for a prior job. There's no way Joe the Plumber's Helper didn't know he didn't have a lien, unless he can't read or doesn't go thru his mail. Why he couldn't pay it doesn't make a difference unless there's a dispute...which nobody seems to be talking about.

And you're rhyme just further shows that you have nothing better to stand on.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

What? You worked AP/AR WOW another amazing qualification for you to sit in judgment of little ole Joe the Plumber.

Matthew, I think your acting career went to your head. Time to hop off the stage and stop declaring yourself THE winner. I will do it for you, you have won in proving that you are very narrow minded.

Another Obama lie when he said" Ayers did despicable stuff 40 years ago when I was 8 years old" the timeline shows crimes associated to Ayers as late as 1981 when Obama was 20.

The anointed one is a liar flat out.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Obama at the Primary debate:

GEORGE: And I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, general theme of patriotism, in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers. He was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He's never apologized for that.

And, in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you are "friendly."

Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Matthew said: "Wow! Nothing in that link tied Obama to Ayers, though. Are you sure it's:"wright?" LOL!"

I guess I will let Obama's own words answer that one for you.

Now go ahead with your bad self.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

And notice that Obama does not argue against the notion of having kicked off his political campaign from Ayers house.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

If you have an argument in fact on this I need to hear it my man.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

An Obama share-the-wealth experiment

Today, on my way to lunch, I passed a homeless guy sitting on the sidewalk, holding a sign that read, "Vote for Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

The waiter in the restaurant was wearing an "Obama '08" campaign button. "Yet another Obama supporter," I thought. "I guess I'm outnumbered!

After I finished eating and the bill came, I decided not to tip the server. I explained to him that I was exploring Obama's "redistribution of wealth" concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need - the homeless guy outside. The waiter angrily stormed away.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $5, and told him to thank the waiter inside for his support of Obama's principles. The homeless guy was pleased.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he hadn't earned, but the waiter was most definitely angry that I gave away the money he felt he had earned - even though the end recipient was more in need of the cash.

Perhaps this "redistribution of wealth" thing is easier to swallow in concept than in practical application.

If you vote for Obama, are you sure you'll always be on the receiving end of his scheme?

0

knee_dropper 5 years, 9 months ago

How do you think all of Enron's employees felt about losing all the money in the 401k's while the corporate executives gave themselves multi-million dollar bonuses? Wall Street bankers still living high on the hog after receiving hundreds of billions in taxpayer money? The wealth has been steadily redistributed into a small segment of society's pockets while the majority of America has been taking it in a$$. In the most prosperous nation on Earth, is it too much to ask for everyone to have at least basic access to health care, not have to work multiple jobs to pay the bills and feed the kids, or the ability to obtain a higher education and better this country. Taking money from everyone in society and redistributing to best serve the needs of the country is not unconstitutional. If we give the people at the bottom of the ladder a hand up, it will benefit all of us in the long run. Vote for McCain if you're better off than you were eight years ago, or you can vote for a change in policies that have allowed the rich to get richer and the rest of us to figure it out. BTW, I wouldn't make a habit of screwing your server out of money he/she did earn if you plan on eating out that often; it's bad karma and you gotta remember, he/she is handling your food out of your sight.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

HA, Got ya. That little anecdote was from a writer I found online and thought it was an interesting illustration.

Yea I was better off until the Mortgage meltdown brought us into a recession. I witnessed this redistribution thing under Carter. It didn't work. Unemployment was huge and there were Americans hurting in every segment of society. I want to see what you all have to say in a year under this Obama guy.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

Seeuski- have it your way. If being with Ayers, Wright and actually telling you his plans is enough to vote for McCain because "he's got character," more power to you. Obviously, a majority of voters are already disagreeing with you, if early "exit polls" are anything to go off of.

I guess I'll have to not vote for McCain because he once had ties to Keating, even if there was nothing on his part that he did wrong. The Tax Policy Center agrees with pretty much everyone that Obama will do better on taxes than McCain, as long as BOTH candidates reduce spending.

It's not about winning...it's about actually having the sense to sort thru nonsense like Keating or Ayers and actually listening to the plans laid out by the candidates. If Ayers and Wright make you feel better, goodie for you. It means nothing to any non-far-rightists.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Are you saying now that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are going to cut spending? Have you been paying attention to there strong armer Barney Frank? We are going to spend 300 billion more on top of Obama's new 1 trillion of spending and don't worry about the deficit it will grow. He said it, period. How can you continue to defend the opposite? I just can't believe what you write here there just is no basis in fact for it. I am sure you will ignore the new audio of Obama in 2001 discussing his ideas on wealth redistribution as it doesn't square with what you are presenting.

I wish there were some middle ground for us somewhere in this argument, I just haven't found it. The election is one week away so go ahead and join Obama in his construction of the party stage. I am hoping for the biggest upset in campaign history. I am hoping enough Americans will want to avoid the catastrophe that an Obama Administration would bring.

Oh, and one more thing, If Obama wins watch what happens to old Joe Biden. Used and forgotten.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Thanks windle.

Duh.

The poor don't pay taxes. The plan is to take more money from those that they already take the most from and give it to whom they want to. Your free cheese is a mirage. It has never worked anywhere in history. Sweet dreams.

And the deregulation of Fannie/Freddie that added millions of bad loans into the system and caused the economic meltdown was the Democrats doing.

More Boat Less Obama.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

If you need c-span video of the Congressional hearings dealing with the subject as proof let me know.

0

JLM 5 years, 9 months ago

Windle, babe, you're rambling. Get a grip, pal.

The poor don't pay any taxes cause they're poor; but, just wait that socialist is going to "give" all of them a tax "credit" which is just a payment for being, well..............poor.

Of course, all of the dopey people who vote for BO actually think that there is going to be any money left after the bailout is paid for! LOL

Just like Bill Clinton was going to give everybody a tax cut which turned into a tax increase. Oh, yeah, remember how great universal care was going to be when that genius Hillary was in charge of it. No? Nobody else does either, cause it was all just a great big head fake. LOL --- a new sucker is born every minute.

I am not a fan of "deregulation"; and, in fact, I am a ardent fan of sensible regulation. I would fire Chris Cox at the SEC and ban naked short selling and short selling, in general.

I am also not a fan of free market intervention by the likes of Barney Frank. There is some delicious irony that more poor people have been created by Barney the Frank trying to rig the system in their favor than any mechanism in the last 20 years. With friends like that, nobody needs enemies, eh?

I am also opposed to greed in any form. I kinda favor hard work. I would never have bailed out Wall Street but then I would never have allowed them to leverage their capital 40:1 --- again like Barney Frank and his ilk. All those WS SOBs should be frog marched to jail.

What idiots would give more money to someone whose greatest demonstrated skill is the ability to lose huge gobs of money --- well, that would be Speaker Pelosi, right?

I am not even semi-smart but I am pretty damn lucky. Give me lucky over smart any day. The earlier I get up, the luckier I get. A spot of hard work is not bad either. Try it, it won't kill you --- likely won't even raise a bruise.

Or you can feel sorry for yourself and believe in the BO Tooth Fairy, either way only YOU control your fate.

0

JLM 5 years, 9 months ago

A man who doesn't believe in luck has no poetry in his soul. And has no connection to the angels who guide our lives if we let them.

My life has been spared on several occasions on no greater basis than simple luck. I have always wondered -- to what purpose?

I am a firm believer that luck can be manufactured by a bit of hard work but I have never been afraid to confront a risk with adequate preparation and a quick prayer for luck. Faint heart never won fair maiden.

As to McCain and the 'Cuda --- I'm feeling luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucky, Winnie! Yeah!

I have always been luckiest when I am awake and others are sleeping.

0

ybul 5 years, 9 months ago

JLM says--The Fed's FMOC sets the Fed funds target rate (actually a range of rates) and makes (injects) funds available which influences liquidity not interest rates.--

Basic economics states that if you raise the supply of something, money available to be lent out then the marginal interest rate will fall. The opposite will happen if when the fed contracts the avail supply of money, rates will rise.

Heck, drop the bank mantra now and lets move on to a subject that you would agree on socialized medicine. The proposed universal health care does not address the root problems in many cases, it simply treats the symptomatic problems when they arise.

Looking back in time scurvy was thought to be genetic, as dad was a sailor went to sea and died from a severe case of scurvy, and then son went to sea and died of the same. This is a nutritional problem not being addressed at the root level. Our foods have declined in nutritional value by 50% in the last 50 years in many cases as conventional production methods have sterilized and strip mined our soils.

In addition you have toxins which have created health issues. One good example is diesel exhaust, where early exposure leads to higher rates of asthma. Those health costs born by society at large were created by the emissions of a few. I do not propose tightening regulations on the emissions, however, I believe that they should be taxed and the funds used to defer the associated rise in health care costs. Internalizing a cost that was externalized.

I believe both sides are wrong in their finger pointing, and believe we need to pull out the root of the problem not just give the weed a hair cut.

Also, I do not aspire for more, and am working to providing jobs for others so they can pull themselves up.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

Seeuski said: "We are going to spend 300 billion more on top of Obama's new 1 trillion of spending and don't worry about the deficit it will grow. He said it, period. How can you continue to defend the opposite?"

So- show me where McCain won't spend any money and I'll cal you and McCain liars to your faces. The only difference is McCain isn't telling anyone about the spending that will come regardless of who is president. Obama, at least, intends to have a way to pay for it. You can't say Tax Cuts have kept the National Debt down- that hasn't worked. (Insert "But we're at war" here- NewsFlash- we didn't need the Iraq war yet; just Afghanistan)

And if you're praying for the biggest upset...you just might get it. Just not the way you think.

0

ybul 5 years, 9 months ago

JLM,

  In the above thread you stated "The Fed's FMOC sets the Fed funds target rate (actually a range of rates) and makes (injects) funds available which influences liquidity not interest rates."

   I believe it is you that has no understanding of this.  I have a degree in economics and understand it very well.  The laws of supply and demand are what influence their target rates.  They inject money (liquidity into the market by making it available to lend), which influences the basic Demand Supply curve that you should have learned in econ 101.

  One of the Feds primary concerns is to control inflation (inflation: the rise in prices based on a rise in monetary or credit supplies), however, they are the leading culprit in its creation.  Ben Bernake stated in July that Inflation is actually a tax.  This tax adversely effects the poor and middle class, while benefitting the wealthy.  Listen to his testimony (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4yBrx...) it is in the last 20 seconds of the video.

Also, I am voting for a third party as I do not like either candidate.

0

Stan Zuber 5 years, 9 months ago

JLM,

Since you appear to know quite abit on how the Federal Reserve works and how it works with our money system, I had some questions for you, or anyone that might know.

When the Federal Reserve annouces it is going to raise or lower interest rates, does that mean, that is the rate the Federal Reserve loans money to there member banks?

Do the member banks eventually pay that money back at that interest rate?

We are told that it costs 'x' amount dollars a day or month to support our military actions, and the tab keeps building. But it takes an act of Congress to bail out our problems at home. Do we have two sources of money? Did WE have an open line of credit for the military?

Money or the lack of it, is a pretty big issue. No matter how much one might have or not. It controls and affects our lives including our health. Creating stress, the paying of taxes, interest rates, insurance of all types, paying for government programs that we argue about, stock market, it's affect on the world economy, etc..

Just trying to get a better understanding.

0

JLM 5 years, 9 months ago

Ybul ---

Lighten up on the Fed stuff, you obviously don't understand a thing about it.

The Fed SETS the target rate and then opens the tap. The rate is SET. It does not float with demand for funds.

The Fed controls liquidity by either injecting funds (making them available) or by reducing funds; but, the rate has already been set. There is no "marginal" rate since both the first and last dollar are lent at the SAME rate.

Sheesh!

But, hey, I still dig you very much. And, have a nice damn day!

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

Oh, yeah seeuski- Joe the Plumber's Helper is now "Officially" open for vetting. Seems he is now on McCain's campaign trail. His articulation when making comments to the press makes Palin and Biden look better, though! LOL!

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/joe-plumber-backs-claim-obama-bring-death-israel/

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Yea Matthew, Joe the the plumber not only is a great American he has captured my heart with his concern for Israel and as you should recall that several days ago I expressed my worry about Obama and his connections to the PLO and others. Go ahead and spew, it will only add fuel to the fire. Why is the LA Times withholding the video of Obama at the going away dinner for Rashid Khalidi (the PLO spokesman)that the Times reported on and said was attended by none other than your bud Bill Ayers, Tony Rezco and the rest of the Israel hating crowd. You bet, I am very worried for the future of Israel and I truly believe Obama lied about his support for the Jewish state at the APAC dinner months ago. The older Gentleman that remarked that "Obama being president would be the death of Israel" is exactly how I feel but, Israel is not going to sit around for this and will prepare for the assault that has been threatened by Iran. I lost most of my relatives in the Holocaust and I guarantee you we will not go down without a fight this time. Obama is no friend of the Jewish state of Israel, PERIOD. Just ask Wright, Farrakhan, Ayers, Flehger, Khalidi and the rest of his congregation. We can recover from 4 years of socialism but we will all lose if the false prophet takes over.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Will someone please vet Obama, he may be our next President.

We would be in the complete dark without FOX news.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Oh, and the latest Gallop poll is 2%. Thanks Joe the plumber and Rashid PLO Khalidi.

Keep building the golden victory pulpit.

0

oldskoolstmbt 5 years, 9 months ago

seeu...do you just PUKE words to puke?...you cling to fox like palin clings to "well, you know i'm not going to answer that question.."carefull, your mentality is starting to shine through! and just a question, is jlm and seeu the McSame person?

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

oldskoolstmbt=koolaide abuser Just got back from the indoctrination tour did ya?

Peace to all except all that disagree. Your mantra.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

And a Pew poll has it at 12% for Obama's lead, Fox's website (get this!) has Obama up by 7pts. LOL! And Joe the Plumber's Helper basically fumbled for an answer on Israel; he had to make sure he was saying the right answer....So THAT'S why you like him! He fumbles answers just like McCain and Palin! Birds of a feather, them are!

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

"Oh, what is that tingling down my leg?" Chris Mathews MSNBC.

LA Times wont show newsworthy video of Obama in 2003 dinner for the PLO bro Kahlidi.

CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, and 99% of all media in the tank for Obama.

Give me a break oldskool.

0

oldskoolstmbt 5 years, 9 months ago

seeu...yet again you have everybody figured out. (even tho you don't know the first thing about me) "peace to all except all that disagree" ...just like a republican...MY bible, MY gun, MY, my my...what a shame

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Matthew, Do you support Israels right to exist?

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Yea I got the Obamonites figured out. You swear you are peaceful but the truth is proven otherwise. Lets hang a mockup of Sarah Palin, that is peaceful. Where is the NAACP now?

0

oldskoolstmbt 5 years, 9 months ago

i just call them as i have seen/heard them (palin)...it's amazing that 42,000 people could come together over the weekend (in a space that held 12,000) and the only trace of violence around were 3 mccain supporters throwing bottles and screaming slanderous remarks..some democrats/some republican, alike are the peace keepers...i knew you would get your PANTIES IN A WRINKLE over the facts,...peace to EVERYONE, not just those who think mcsame:)

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

I support everyone's right to exist. Why would you even narrow it down to one country? Mighty small way to think.

0

oldskoolstmbt 5 years, 9 months ago

you know what u want to know...typical seeu and you wouldn't really be asking for a break now would you?

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

LOL! How did I not answer the question you asked? You asked if I supported Israels right to exist. I went one better by including everyone's right to exist. Don't tell me Israel isn't part of "everyeone." I happen to know for a fact it is. Says so at this link:

www.israel.is.part.of.everyone.com

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

47% of likely TV viewers will watch Obama Tomorrow night in his 1/2 hour (illegally funded with foriegn campaign donations) infomercial.

52% won't because that is the true number of McCain voters that will put him in the White House on Tuesday.

To the 47% enjoy the koolaid show.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Rashid Khalidi is a member of the PLO (WAFA) since the 70's and a long time friend of Barack Hussein Obama.The LA Times has a video of the two together with William Ayers at a dinner function send off for Khalidi in 2003 in which anti Israeli venom was spewed by many as reported, in May by the LA Times, which has endorsed Barrack Hussein Obama.

I have a basis for my concerns and your response Matthew, to the question of Israel's right to exist, confirms to me that there is much indifference about that from you and others in this country and around the world. Israel has prepared itself for this scenario and will do what is necessary to protect the 6 million Jews living there. I believe the policies of an Obama administration towards Israel will be much different from anything this Country has ever proffered in the past regardless of the lies he said at the APAC speech. The very next day after he told APAC that Jerusalem would remain whole and under Israeli governance he told the Palestinians the complete opposite. This pattern of saying whatever he needs to when speaking to different groups is quite telling.

For me, NO OBAMA, we don't need all of these controversies in the White House, period.

Wright,Khalidi,Farrakhan,Fleigher,Said,Ayers,Rezko etc.etc.etc.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Gaza strip influencing the presidential elections in the USA.

Palestinian Ibrahim Abu Jayab, 24, is seen next to his computer, in his family house in Nusayrat refugee camp, central Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008. A young Palestinian in a Gaza refugee camp is doing his part to get out the vote for Barack Obama. With a little help from the Internet, 24-year-old Ibrahim Abu Jayab is cold calling random American families from his parent's home imploring them to vote Obama. (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

What the heck is going on?

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations Contributions Reviewed After Deposits

By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A02

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.

In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

"They have opened the floodgates to all this money coming in," said Sean Cairncross, chief counsel to the Republican National Committee. "I think they've made the determination that whatever money they have to refund on the back end doesn't outweigh the benefit of taking all this money upfront."..........

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

Actually, you were the one who questioned Israel's right to exist just by way of asking the question. Methinks you may not be so sure about Israel??

And can you provide records to show that young Palestinian is on the DNC payroll? As long as he obeys phone laws and protocol, can't anyone just cold-call people for whatever reason? (Yes- you can actually cold-call anyone you want for any reason as long as you respect them if they say to not call back.)

And, can you provide any records that show McCain might be "paying off" Joe the Plumber's Helper's tax lien in order for him to stump for McCain?

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

Oh- and for any fund raising issues...you should take that up with McCain. He's the one who co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold debacle which made it even easier for fund raising shenanigans to happen.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Obama late as usual, maybe just a little to late to be the President.

No Matthew, I will provide you with squat.

Maybe you should call your friends at the LA Times and get that video of Obama and Kahlidi released.

0

JLM 5 years, 9 months ago

ybul ---

Let's stop talking about the Fed. You, sir, have no clue what you are talking about. You may want to consider a tuition refund.

Just go to the Fed website and read the material. It is all clear and understandable.

I find folks who have to tell each other they have a "degree" in something to be insufferable bores but just for the record in addition to being an AKC Registered Airedale, I have enough undergrad and grad degrees to run out of fingers on one hand not including the American Kennel Club.

In spite of all of this education, the damn Fed website is abundantly clear and understandable and answers all of your questions.

Give it a freakin' rest.

0

JLM 5 years, 9 months ago

Stosh ---

Take a look at the Fed website. It is outstanding. Even today when I see something in the WSJ and have a question, I look it up on the Fed website.

It has several PDF documents which are better than any college textbook on the subject. I think the Fed's role in American business and banking is quite interesting. It is important to understand this stuff to understand how the Fed and the Treasury work together, in particular, on this bailout stuff. It is fascinating to see how well it is all organized.

The Pentagon's budget is one of several separate appropriations bills which are proposed by the administration (and routinely rejected by the Congress who then writes their own) and passed by the Congress and then signed by the President. The appropriations process is totally out of control as nobody can really analyze something this financially complex in a short period of time.

The Congressional and Pentagon staffs do most of the actual work.

Instead of creating separate capital and operating budgets (as a business would do), the Pentagon engages in "incremental" budgeting rather than "zero based" budgeting. They take last year's budget and add stuff on the margin. This is how "earmarks" creep into all appropriations.

The actual Pentagon budget is about 5' tall. The big numbers are new weapon system development, weapons and personnell. And, of course, the wars. Those bombs are expensive. The Pentagon budget has intense competiton among the services for funds --- Army v Marines v Navy v Air Force v Coast Guard, etc. Want to start a real war suggest the Marines, Navy and Air Force use the same fighter aircraft or the same uniforms for the services.

The war is funded primarily by a series of "supplemental" budgets which are passed from time to time as the war blows through whatever its allocation was to the original budget. This is like college students asking their parents for more money because they are broke. These supplementals give rise to mischief as this is what the candidates are always talking about "funding the troops".

These supplementals are presented, debated, amended and voted on in several different versions. That is why the baloney about who voted to "fund the troops" is so much nonsense as only the final vote is important. And, yes, Obama did vote against the funding on the final vote. And, yes, McCain did vote against the funding on one of the preliminary votes.

Do we have a credit card? You bet, it's you and me.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

"No Matthew, I will provide you with squat."

I guess the LA Times is saying the same thing to you! LOL! Maybe charges should be brought up on Bush, since he looked into Putin's soul and eyes and said he was "trustworthy." Now, Putin is PM for the reestablished Evil Empire! cues Death Star theme...DA-DA-da-DA, duh-DA-duH, duh-DA-duh

What? No comeback on the campaign finance reform issue?? I guess that means McCain showed poor judgement- not a good qualification for president, eh? Next, we'll be hearing about Joe the Plumber's Helper being one of McCain's "maverick" Cabinet.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

I don't really care what the details of the McCain Fiengold campaign bill was, or as you seem to feel, John McCain did something wrong by working on it with a member of the other party. What is your beef with it since you brought it up? You always answer questions with left field questions of no importance or without any facts.

It is time to go about the day so have a happy DA-DA-da-DA, duh-DA-duH, duh-DA-duh damn day yourself.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

No- YOU brought up campaign financing, saying Obama is illegally raising money, yet providing no reason for ignoring that McCain is responsible for allowing this type of fund raising in the private sector to go mostly unpunished, along with the deep pockets for 527's. It points to the fact that McCain helped make something worse that he tried to fix. Nice to try, but sucks to get it that wrong or just leave it alone because it became law...that even Bush had reservations about signing.

You should start re-reading posts before accusing people of saying something when you put that particular something in a question or statement to begin with. LOL!

0

JLM 5 years, 9 months ago

Actually McCain - Feingold, if one is in favor of campaign finance restrictions of any kind, was just a good first step. It was all that could get done at that instant in time. It is a credit to McCain that he stuck his neck out to author and propose the bill. It is a true example of bi-partisanship.

The Obama campaign, after having promised to seek Federal funding, reneged on its promise. I think most politicians would have given the huge success Obama had enjoyed in primary fundraising. It's still a bad mark against the fella but it is certainly understood why he did it. He is a slave to nothing if not expediency.

The issue with fundraising documentation, even under McCain-Feingold, is WHEN a campaign exercises any reasonable due diligence as to the identification and eligibility of donors. Is it done AFTER the cash is deposited and used or BEFORE the check is cashed?

Obviously, Obama has elected to cash the check first and worry about its eligibility after the election. That is but another reflection of his character. I call it the ACORN approach.

McCain did a good job on this bill and should be given credit. Russ Feingold is a pretty tough fella to cooperate with and this was a pretty damn good first step.

Next they need to get 527s and unions under control.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

Whether or not Obama took public or private funding is not illegal whatsoever; it's a choice. And isn't the public financing...socialist? It's supposed to "spread the wealth evenly" between the candidates for campaign. Ah- the joys of "grey areas" that affect the fragile sensibilities of people who pigeon-hole themselves into party-line voting. LOL!! 1st McCain crosses into the grey by voting for the socialistic bailout bill with lots of pork ("I'll make'em famous!!) and now disparages others for not taking the "spread the wealth" campaign funding.

So- if it helps, if Obama wins, he can then be impeached for campaign finance fraud if facts prevail...which JLM agrees is actually acceptable in this fashion according to...McCain and his bill with Feingold. Hopefully, this will go better than trying to impeach Clinton for gettin' some.

Thanks for the help, JLM!!

0

Kevin Chapman 5 years, 9 months ago

Seeuski, I know the feeling in your stomach, i had it in 2004. That churning painful feeling of "holy sh*t how can over half of my countrymen be so stupid". Well buddy there is nothing you can do about it. As some of my republican friends said back then "deal with it". We will all just have to see how it turns out. Not to mention, i comfortably predict it will be nowhere as close as the election in 2004 was. So maybe you will be saying MORE than half my countrymen. The beauty of american politics is that there ARE term limits and we CAN change our minds if our given party begins to fail us, and this is echoed throughout the republican party and they way some of them have supported Obama. Colin Powell for instance.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

And another note on Khalidi: Start disparaging McCain! Seems under McCain's leadership, the International Republican Institute has donated a little under $1 million dollars in the past to...The Center for Palestine Research and Studies.

Guess who helped found that organization?? Rashid Khalidi!!!

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081029/McCain.Palin.Khalidi/

Ruh-ro, Shaggy!!!

0

JLM 5 years, 9 months ago

Like any other criminal act, the issue of intent is important. I don't think that Obama intends to engage in campaign funding fraud. He doesn't need the money. LOL

Don't get me wrong, he is a naif, a fakir, a poseur and a corrupt ONE. But no, this is not his crime of choice.

Plus, remember he is likely to have an impeachment proof majority.

Other than Obama being a liar --- saying he would use public financing --- I have no argument with his campaign practices. He is a Prince.

Campaign finance is a silly, silly business.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Matthew, Truth is an important virtue so I have copied and pasted the info on the nature of what, why and how the IRI was involved with several other orginizations with aiding in the Palestinian elections. Nice try though, big difference from Obama's personal relationship with Ayers and Khalidi and sitting through a dinner while Israel is bashed for existing.

IRI Statement Regarding Work with Palestinians

For Immediate Release October 29, 2008

Washington, DC "Questions have arisen regarding the International Republican Institute's (IRI) work with Palestinians in the 1990s.

"In the 1990s, IRI gave grants to the Center for Palestinian Research and Studies (CPRS) for polling in the West Bank/Gaza. The polls measured support for the peace process, for various Palestinian political groups, and for efforts to enhance governance in the West Bank/Gaza. At that time no other organization could credibly conduct polling in the West Bank/Gaza.

"We understand that Rashid Khalidi was one of the many founders of CPRS, and we understand that he was for some (unclear) amount of time a board member. IRI did not in the 1990s conduct background checks of grantees' founders or board members. IRI did on a number of occasions vet CPRS as an organization, including, as was our custom, with the Israeli government, and we were given no cause for concern.

"We do not recall any contact between Mr. Khalidi and IRI, and there is no evidence that Mr. Khalidi benefitted in any way from IRI's grants.

"Other organizations that reportedly gave funding to CPRS include the National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Center for International Private Enterprise, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the Japanese Embassy, and Germany's Friedrich Naumann Stiftung.

"IRI's relationship with CPRS ended in 2000, and we understand that it no longer exists."

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

steamboatnucs, It depends on what your priorities were and are and what you understand and accept as reality. My guess is we are on opposite sides of the coin. The polls are tightening so there is still hope that Americans will think twice before voting for a Democrat rubber stamp to uncontrolled new spending as promised by Pelosi, Reid, Obama and Frank. Not to mention the warning from Biden about a weird response from Obama when we are challenged in the first 6 months or the continual lowering of the tax break income level from 250k and now at the 150k level. Just hold on though there are 6 days left to get that level down to the 42k mark that Obama has voted tax increases on recently.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

Sorry, but that sounds like Far-Rightist Propaganda. If Khalidi is as bad as it sounds, anything he is attached to must be putrid, right? Just like an endorsement of a "radical" parenting book; just like the board Ayers and Obama were on together. Nope- McCain is still guilty of helping fund a PLO spokesperson's interests.

"IRI's relationship with CPRS ended in 2000, and we understand that it no longer exists."

Kinda like how Ayers and Khalidi (who even admits that Obama and his views are different) aren't seen campaigning nor advising Obama on policy.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Well then Matty, you should have comforted yourself sufficiently enough to cast your vote for the teflon pres.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Don't get too tingly while watching the Obama koolaid show tonight.

0

Matthew Stoddard 5 years, 9 months ago

I see: it's okay to say McCain's giving money to a critic of Israel's pet project when it you, but to go to a party for that same person...Heaven Forbid!

And to show you still just don't read, I've stated in many posts that I'm voting for a 3rd Party candidate. I'm just playing "maverick" by trying to keep my own party from making asses of themselves for another 4yrs.

BTW- how did you did financially while Clinton was president, when tax rates were higher?

0

stillinsteamboat 5 years, 9 months ago

seeuski, I think most people, Republicans and Dems are disgusted by the obsession with negativity that seems to be poisoning your party..

It's sad, why the hatred??

0

playa46 5 years, 9 months ago

Everyone is very shaky and scared about who trusts who in the Middle East. We're all scared of terrorists and fear another 9/11. Reps. and Dems. all call each other on who they support in the Middle East, giving these people titles that just but fear in people, to make it look like John McCain or Barrack Obama agree with a terrorist supporter.

Haven't we already "beaten" the terrorists during Mission Accomplished many years back. Why are we still fearing another terrorist attack.

This seems like a new dawn of McCarthyism.

0

Duke_bets 5 years, 9 months ago

seeuski - Responding with comments such as idiot and tool really prove that you blatantly lied about your occupation. And, you obviously didn't understand what I meant by 1st lien actually being 2nd or 3rd's.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

I give up , you guys have got it all figured out. Thanks for the debate it was fun. Skiing was better today then arguing here. Yipee.

0

Duke_bets 5 years, 9 months ago

seeuski - Just thought I would mention that provisions and requirements are reflected on title commitments, not on title policies. The title policies are issued once those requirements are met.

How many bad loans have you written in the last 12 years? How many deals in your portfolio are truly 2nd or 3rd liens that you have mistaken for 1st liens?

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Duke, Thanks Duky boy for your personal attack. This idiotic post (the only one on this string) of yours is EXACTLY why I choose to remain anonymous on this site.

I know a little bit so why don't you show us your genius about the mortgage industry?

Is your 1st lien a 2nd or a 3rd? What a tool!

But it was nice to hear from you.

0

ybul 5 years, 9 months ago

JLM-

I am sorry that you are so bitter.... However, the fed funds rate is typically announced after it is achieved though intervention at the fed.

Here is How open market operations are conducted in the USA

In the U.S., the Federal Reserve (Fed) most commonly uses overnight repurchase agreements (repos) to temporarily create money, or reverse repos to temporarily destroy money, which offset temporary changes in the level of bank reserves.[2] The Fed also makes outright purchases and sales of securities through the System Open Market Account (SOMA) with its manager over the Trading Desk at the New York Reserve Bank. The trade of securities in the SOMA changes the balance of bank reserves, which also affects short term interest rates.

They do not set interest rates and that is what they are. They create or remove money from the system which effects that Demand-Supply curve.

You are the one who does not understand the Federal Reserve.

0

Duke_bets 5 years, 9 months ago

seeuski - I don't believe it was a personal attack. I asked 2 questions and informed you on the difference between title commitments and title policies. You didn't even reply to what I said, but attacked me personally.

I replied to your posts because your supporting arguments had obvious errors in them, which any person who has dealt with real estate could easily pick out. In other words, I believe your blowing smoke about your occupation, which truly voids all of your posts.

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Duky, Come on Duky, give us all some of your knowledge about the mortgage business since you are calling me a liar.

How about an easy one. What are servicing lenders? or What is a light prepayment penalty? or What are the benefits of LPMI over PMI?

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Which title Co. you work for Duky? I'll come by and say hello. Heck, You may have done the title work on a few of my transactions. Try to keep it civil and I won't call your posts idiotic like the 1st one was.

0

JLM 5 years, 9 months ago

ybul ---

You are only confusing yourself at this stage. Please stop writing before you do permanent personal damage. Please.

The Fed sets the Fed Funds Rate --- a range of rates. Stop right there, declare victory and go home.

Have a great weekend and don't do any more thinking or you will develop a brain malady.

JLM

0

seeuski 5 years, 9 months ago

Happy Halloween to all of my headless friends.

0

ybul 5 years, 9 months ago

You should stop writing as I did not write I cut and pasted, I was trying to find the feds interventions into the financial markets for you going back years. However, as I appear to not have as much free time as you, I could only come up with the, yes sometimes wrong, wiki information.

The info states what you claim is wrong, in that they inject/remove money to effect the interest rate. They have to intervene in order to do so as a lower rate will increase demand, which is the desire of a lower interest rate. So without actually increasing money available to be borrowed, a lowering of the rate would do almost nothing.

0

ybul 5 years, 9 months ago

Also, if you can not reply without sound reasoning, and simply stating that the other is ignorant, confusing themselves, etc., then there is no need to respond.

0

JLM 5 years, 8 months ago

ybul ---

Please, please, please go to the Fed's website and print out their PDFs which describe the functions of the Fed. You are confusing Fed Funds Rate with other interest rates. The Fed Funds Rate is set by the FOMC for an extended period of time and THEN the Fed decides how much funding to make available --- "injecting" v "contracting".

The Fed may decide to increase the money supply, stabilize the money supply or to contract the money supply all without changing the then current Fed Funds Rate. This is why there is not the typical connection between supply and demand at a given level of pricing. This is the essence of the Fed, they influence markets rather than markets influencing the Fed. They are the Nation's Central Bank not an auction house.

You are confusing market set rates --- which may be related to FFR --- with the Fed Funds Rate. They are simply two different concepts though they both use the word "rate". Your sense of how market interest rates are set is on target but that is not the way the Fed Funds Rate is determined.

Now, give it a rest and move on.

0

playa46 5 years, 8 months ago

Okay, lets stop trying to call the other an idiot please...There, friends again?

0

ybul 5 years, 8 months ago

JLM - Whichever way you look at it, it is a distortion to the free market. These distortions have created bubble after bubble in an effort to keep the economy going.

Their efforts in the short term may be of benefit to you, however, in the long run, they have compounded the need for a recession (to allow poor decisions to be purged from the system).

The original point was, that both the dems and repubs look at the symptom of the problem or what is on the surface of a problem and deal with that, without trying to address the root problem.

i.e. health care - poor diet, stress, and/or toxins.
i.e. Unemployment insurance - we charge employers a tax for those they employ, and yet technology makes employees obsolete, as does outsourcing. (does a computer, tractor, china or india pay any unemployment taxes for laid off us workers?)

Others statements about free markets causing the problem, caused me to point out that the markets are not free. They are distorted, and manipulated, in order to keep the economy going. The distortions to keep the markets going caused much of the mess we see today. The dems push for more regulation will not solve the problem, but it might make them feel good.

0

freerider 5 years, 8 months ago

FORTUNATELY THIS GUY'S OPINION JUST LIKE RUSH LIMBAUGH'S DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING ANYMORE ...

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.