Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Long- and short-term outlooks for America

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:12 am, Thu Nov 8, 2012.

Barack Obama won, and his prize is another four years as President of the United States of America. But who are the real winners from this contest? Well, that depends on whether or not your outlook is short or long.

If the outlook is short then the winners are public sector unions — I guess that includes GM — minorities and single women. And the losers? Well, in the short term there are no losers 'cause everyone gets to pull a ladle of lard from the gravy train. But then fast forward to the fall of 2014: The debt at nearly $20 trillion, 15-percent unemployment and a variety of urban settings that resemble St. Petersburg circa 1916.

The point is that when half of the people are clinging to a hope that can not be realized, then trouble is about to visit in a way that will make all of the little hearts shudder — that means you, Lupey.

Be strong, people; the end might be near but there's still time to get your own house in order.

Stan Taves

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

155 comments:

  • Bobcatbob Ingram posted at 10:24 am on Tue, Nov 13, 2012.

    99er Posts: 119

    Stan Taves, good writing. Personally I like writing in 'comments' because commenting forces me to think correctly with enough logical sequence to not seem confused despite being 66 and gettin Older !! ...and there is one thing I have learned most folks can agree with, namely, 'humans are NOT good at predicting the future.'
    But it should be easy enough for me to tell You How I hope it turns out, I'll be brave enough to tell You what I want if You will do the same. heres what I want.
    Sunday Nov,17 2012 .. Folks all over stop making the 'other guys' wrong and start improving America.
    Sunday Nov 17 2013 There is a general feeling that 'WE' have come through the worst and with careful scrutiny we can keep this Government in line.
    Sunday Nov 17 2014 Bribery is made illegal and all Government meetings, except security and criminal investigations,are broadcast, available to anyone...
    ....ahhh ..I gotta go, Fill in some more dates with what YOU want, the wife is saying breakfast is on the table...

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:28 am on Mon, Nov 12, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    John wrote:

    I think religious organization should be put on notice that their tax exempt status is in jeopardy if they engage in political actions.

    -I may not be totally opposed to this given Islam's existence relies heavily on it's politics.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 5:28 pm on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    So what? It is HIS MONEY, he can donate to any charity or organization he chooses.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 5:27 pm on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    I have it on good authority that Romney is going to fund a school to teach old people how to back up campers without crashing into pickup trucks. That a good charity, don'tcha think?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:46 pm on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    You do have a point?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:41 pm on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    With unions there is no separation of church and state issue. Unions are allowed to engage in politics by law as to level the playing field between employer and employee

     
  • stan taves posted at 12:34 pm on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    John, why do you think the employer "holds most of the cards"? I'll make this very simple for you: the employer knows what the hell to do with cards. You want to believe that the game is rigged, so you throw the few cards you have into a burning trash heap. C'mon man! you can do better than that.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 12:30 pm on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    A unfounded assumption, at best.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 12:21 pm on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    Something like the UNIONS that spend MILLIONS to promote politicians and ballot measures they want to empowered so they can reap the benefits?

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 12:19 pm on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    MALARKEY

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:15 pm on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    With religious organizations there is the separation of church and state issue. Labor unions are exempt because it is a way to level the playing field between employer and employee. Even then the employer holds most of the cards.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:50 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    John, Why should JUST religious organizations lose their exemptions? Shouldn't ANY not for profit lose their exemption status if engaged in political actions?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:29 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    I think religious organization should be put on notice that their tax exempt status is in jeopardy if they engage in political actions.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 11:18 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    John,

    Still waiting for your response to why the Mormon church should be denied a tax exempt status. And your confirmation why other religious and non-religious organizations shouldn't be denied this.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:10 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    no

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:03 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Darrell said:

    It has been very amusing and entertaining for me to read what liberals consider reality without responding. Try it, as it is better than the Stewart Show.

    You have trotted that Liberalism is a disease claptrap out a hundred times. Please continue not responding. That is the only way you can bring something meaningful into the conversation.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 10:27 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    While we're at it John, are you suggesting labor organizations or any of the other non-religious organizations below not be exempt from taxes too?


    Typically, a business is exempt from taxes because the mission of the business is to serve a purpose that is deemed to promote some sort of good. The most common form of tax-exempt organization is a business that meets the requirements under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code. Businesses that qualify for tax exemption status under this section of the IRC include religious, educational, and charitable organizations; civic leagues; labor organizations; and social and recreational clubs.

    Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-10/strategy/30078073_1_tax-exempt-status-federal-income-charitable-organizations#ixzz2BwK8hdMX

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:18 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    [sleeping]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:18 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    [sleeping]

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:55 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Stan,

    I hate to break it to you. But the likes of John would much rather take a pge from the Chinese playbook than the Mormon playboook.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:55 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Stan said:

    You libs believe that "savings" are the property of govt

    Not true, Stan

    Stan said:

    The Mormon church is immensely productive because they don't spend their energy on wasteful endeavours that yield nothing.

    Nothing wrong there but why should a business have a tax exempt status?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:52 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    John wrote:

    Hate to break it to you but we are not China and no one outside of your head is advocating we become like them

    -Hate to break it to you but I do not think we are China. But those who voted for Obama unknowingly elected someone who is an advocate of a larger central government with less power to the people. Perhaps in your eyes it is unlike China. However, it has elements of China.

     
  • stan taves posted at 9:34 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    Good Lord, there must be something very wrong, when the basics are so very lost... This is the deal, and nothing will ever be written that can effectively argue otherwise: If you produce more than you consume, then there will be savings as a result. You libs believe that "savings" are the property of govt -- and that's why you make "producers" sick to their stomachs. The Mormon church is immensely productive because they don't spend their energy on wasteful endeavours that yield nothing. Y'all need to take a page from the Mormon playbook.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:22 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Hate to break it to you but we are not China and no one outside of your head is advocating we become like them.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:11 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    John wrote:

    Yep, every time I see a statistic like that I think I went into the wrong business. I would go into the religion business except for the the sad fact I have a conscience.

    -I don't see any overwhelming statisitics showing incidents of the Mormon Church
    violating the civil rights of people. How's those centuries of expansion and contraction doing in China, John? You are aware that history will once again repeat itself in China? Socialism does indeed create espansions. And it also causes large contractions. The mere fact that China hasn't learned it's lesson and they should not be a template for success should be enough to sway you. Evidently not.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:04 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Actually most religions are a betrayal of the things Jesus taught

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:55 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    John wrote:

    What is intellectually dishonest is to tell people that most of the money you give almost any church goes to helping others

    -Chuckle,

    The government says it all the time. But you're ok with that. And then there's the ability of the government to creat money out of thin air.

     
  • Andy Crowder posted at 8:46 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Andy Crowder Posts: 245

    And the church reaps all of that profit tax free. What a racket. Yay for Je$u$.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:42 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Andy,

    I doubt you or Businessweek can confirm those Mormon charities only give 1 percent to improve the quality of life for those people in need of assistance.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:36 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Yep, every time I see a statistic like that I think I went into the wrong business. I would go into the religion business except for the the sad fact I have a conscience.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 8:09 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1372

    Mental illness can prevent a person from thinking rationally or critically, and makes them either uncontrollably paranoid, or delusional, it might be impossible to change their belief in a conspiracy theory,

    Those who continue to believe in debunked conspiracy theories because they are bigots, and any conspiracies that involves people of certain races, or religions, or ethnic groups that they don't like. They must be true, because their bigoted minds won't allow them to think rationally about people who are different from them

     
  • Andy Crowder posted at 8:08 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Andy Crowder Posts: 245

    According to BusinessWeek, 99% of the money tithed to the Mormon Church goes toward making the church richer and spending on their political agenda. The church is a giant investment business, owning everything from malls to cattle ranches. Less than one percent of tithes go to help the poor. In comparison, about 29% of a Methodist's tithe is used for charitable purposes.
    http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/62364-how-the-mormons-make-money

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:00 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    This is such a silly argument. The economy in a way is like owning a truck. It produces X amount of income. Of that income Y amount has to be spent on maintenance. In an economy the maintenance fee comes in the form of taxes You are saying that because someone works hard to take a bigger share of the income they should pay less taxes in percentage than those who work less hard. I know this insanity has been drilled into the heads of the bubble people since Ronald Reagan by the conservative media but is still is insane.

    PS This does not even consider the Paris Hiltons or the Romney children or Romney himself who inherited great wealth.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:46 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    What is intellectually dishonest is to tell people that most of the money you give almost any church goes to helping others. Sure they do some charity work but it is not their main function.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:43 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    I have a problem with both. They both spent large sums of money especially the Mormon church in the prop 8 battle. The percentage these "Churches" spend on their political agenda is outrageous. It would be interesting to find out how much of their take actually goes to helping those in need. Probably not that much.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:04 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-rich-be-required-to-pay-higher-taxes-in-the-us


    Most of the arguments in the other column are from those who have no concept of what it takes to get to the top 1%.

    To the person who wants "shared sacrifice", where were you when I was sacrificing during 14 post-high school years of training making squat and working 100-hour weeks? The rest of my friends were majoring in business, going to football and baseball games, partying, traveling, you name it. At that time, I sacrificed basically my 3rd decade of life going to college and med school...where was the shared sacrifice then? Sorry...just yours truly. That is one problem with many of the arguments from the other side...they all assume that the "rich" we're either just created by chance (and they were lucky or "fortunate" as Obama likes to say)...or they all make 50 million bucks a year on wall street. The reality is that (1) most or all WORKED AND SACRIFICED for their wealth and (2) most people we are talking about fall into the 250k -- 500k group. You bust up taxes on them by 15% and that significantly hampers their plans for retirement, college, you name it. The $50 mil crowd won't feel it a bit, but the guy making 275k sure will. I'm not saying that it is OK to take the $50 mil guy's money, either. He was smart or talented enough to earn it--it doesn't mean that he did it on the backs of poor people (another assumption of the left). Finally, if you want to know how it feels to be in this upper bracket and have everyone want your money, imagine if our congress passed a law that said every American was compelled to send 15% of their income to Somalia to assist with rebuilding that country, ravaged by famine...the per capita income there is so low, even those in he US making 12k yearly would be considered wealthy in the average Somali's eyes. If you would protest, who needs it more? Who could live without it? Who has more than they need? I could point to the $50 mil guy and say "yeah but he is REALLY rich" just like a 12k guy could point to a 50k guy and say in the Somali argument "yeah, but he is really rich" ...rich is in te eye of the beholder.

    Posted By: Money123

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 6:50 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    John wrote:

    He did not give money to charities. He gave it tot he Mormon church.

    -Statements like this are so intellectually dishonest. Of course John can assure us there are no charity affiliates within the Mormon Church.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 6:40 am on Sun, Nov 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Hmm,

    The Mormon Church in turn distributes the money to it charity affiliates. I'm rather bothered that people like Doug and John have a problem with this. If Romney was a Catholic and he gave a lot of his money to the Catholic Church to distribute to it's charity affiliates I doubt there would be such an uproar from them.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 10:04 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    advocate Posts: 500

    Mr. Joe, those "charities" were the Mormon Church and its affiliates.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:03 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    He did not give money to charities. He gave it tot he Mormon church. As usual you miss the point. He is paying less in taxes percentage wise than anyone in the middle class. It takes money to keep up the infrastructure that allows money to be made. Men like Mitt Romney are the real moochers. They take a lot and give back little.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:54 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    The biggest expense in owning a truck is fuel costs. I drove for a company before I bought that pete and going to California to Boston and back cost over $2000. The pete I bought had a cat 3406 in it which was way more efficient that the silver 92's I had been driving. When the fuel prices went down the cost going to Boston and back was about $1100. Over a period of time I have owned and operated a number of trucks and I always mad money. I paid the bills and I did not sit on my rear end in an Air Force government job getting my paycheck sent to me by the taxes paid by people like me. However I did do my time in the military the same time as your heroes Romney and Bush. While your hero Romney was hiding out in France and your hero Bush was using political pull to get out of going to Vietnam suckers like me and John Kerry were serving our country there and leaving some of our blood on the ground.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:35 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    If you excluded money give to churches I would be willing to bet the red states would not be more generous.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:34 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    86% of one million dollars is $860,000. I am not a Republican. I know it is beyond you but not all people are that selfish and greedy that they think a worker at McDonalds should pay more than I do in percentage terms if I made one million dollars a year. I make considerably less than that and there is not a day that goes by that I do not have a feeling o gratitude for the good life that I have.

    PS Before some idiot says why don't I voluntarily pay more in taxes let me say I gave 30% of my income away last year and not to a church but to people who were in trouble or needed money for school.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:26 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    There are many wealthy people who believe as I do. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are two examples.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:23 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    You can be sure he will amend his return and will get it down to 9%. The point is that the super wealthy such as Mitt Romney pay less than a minimum wage worker at McDonalds when you consider all the taxes both pay in percentage terms. The McDonalds worker pays 15% in payroll taxes and because he or she has no disposable income he or she pays sales, gas, fees etc also. We all make money because there is an infrastructure or environment that take taxes to maintain. The super wealthy do not pay their fair share in the maintenance fees for that infrastructure.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 5:20 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    Brian, I wonder what Mr. Lucas would say if someone told him that only the fuel he put in his truck was all the expense he encountered compared to all the other truckers that had to pay for fuel, tires, maintenance, insurance, etc. Would make it look like Mr. Lucas got off pretty cheap, eh? Same scenario as the liberals tried to pass off against Romney. Pure MALARKEY.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 5:09 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826


    Ms. Bobin wrote:

    Just look at Willard Mitt Romney, who manipulated his 2011 tax return by NOT deducting his full charitable contributions and defering them to following years.

    He was able to INCREASE his tax rate to 14%. If he had deducted his full contributions, which actually amount to the 10% he is REQUIRED to contribute in tithes to his "church," his tax rate would have been 9% which would have been totally unacceptable given the issues people are already having with his low, low tax rate.

    -It seems to me Romney is a bad person in Ms. Bobin's eyes either way. According to her, had he shown he only payed 9% she would not have commended him for all his charitable contributions that lowereed his tax rate. Instead, according to her, he showed he payed 14% which in reality reveals he still made a lot of charitable contributions. That still doesn't satisfy Ms. Bobin. Perhaps we should put Ms. Bobin in charge of his finances and advise him he should not look for tax deductions or better yet, have Ms. Bobin's CPA tell her he doesn't think she should take advantage of the tax deductions she qualifies for and see how long she keeps him for a CPA.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:49 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    The point is, the majority of the people here griping about how the rich have more deductions act as if they became rich they wouldn't have any problem not having those deductions. Crapola at it's finest!!!!!!!!!!!![lol]

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:45 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826


    Mr Lucas wrote:

    Bingo. thank you for showing that average people pay more in total taxes percentage wise. Of course that is the whole point. thx Joe

    -Chuckle,

    But 14 percent of a millions dollars is a 140K. Is John Lucas saying he wouldn't have any gripes if he did not have any deductions to reduce his income taxe payed if he made a million dollars?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:40 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826


    http://www.ethicsdaily.com/republican-states-give-more-to-charity-than-democratic-states-cms-19923

    Republican States Give More to Charity than Democratic State


    The study found that middle-class Americans (households with earned income between $50,000 and $75,000) were more generous than households that earned $100,000 or more. (PhotoBucket)

    Red states – Republican-voting states – are more generous than blue states – Democratic-voting states.
    Based on a study of the 2008 data from the Internal Revenue Service of taxpayers, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported, "The eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity went for John McCain in 2008. The seven-lowest ranking states supported Barack Obama."

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 4:32 pm on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Ms. Bobin Wrote:

    I find this to be the silliest comment - it turns up all the time and, if true, and I don't believe for one minute that Mr. Docktor had any such conversation,

    Chuckle,

    Call me at the Clock Doctor in Scottsdale, AZ some time. You can find the number on the net and I will put you in touch with the retired executive of John Hancock Investments. Not that you're willing to learn anything. but it's worth a try.[beam]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:58 am on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Campaign contributions are public record. [sleeping]

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 5:25 am on Sat, Nov 10, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    Interesting, when facts are brought up that show Democrats were responsible for a bad economy, John counters with "Economies go up and down."
    But when it happens on Republican watch, it is always the Republicans fault.
    Liberals, always blaming someone else for their woes. Gimme my free stuff.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 6:25 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1372

    John: He wouldn't and here's why:
    "Mental illness can prevent a person from thinking rationally or critically, and makes them either uncontrollably paranoid, or delusional, it might be impossible to change their belief in a conspiracy theory,

    Those who continue to believe in debunked conspiracy theories because they are bigots, and any conspiracies that involves people of certain races, or religions, or ethnic groups that they don't like. They must be true, because their bigoted minds won't allow them to think rationally about people who are different from them."

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 6:24 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    There goes John again. Making up scenarios in an attempt to make his case. Typical liberal mindset.

     
  • stan taves posted at 6:16 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    Don't be silly, Wally; Karl would be fortunate to get some of this.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:06 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1115

    That's rich.

    Stan's channeling Karl Rove this evening...

    [lol]

     
  • stan taves posted at 5:49 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    What? It's this simple: If you earn, then you ought to be able to keep. The left believes that the "keepers" don't play "fair"; that they manipulate the playing field to favor their own. Stop already! there is nothing, for anyone, without the keepers. They keep us from the "creepers" for heavens sake. Believe it -- when have I ever been wrong?

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 5:38 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1115

    "Can't blame Darrell"

    [thumbup]

     
  • stan taves posted at 5:36 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    You can't be serious. you're just trying to make controversy were none should exist.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 4:50 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    Got news for ya Bobbin, the housing market is still in the toilet under Obama.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:22 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1115

    "The only saving grace at this point is that at least the House of Representatives didn't fall into the hands of the left."

    Hang tight, Jerry.

    That's coming too!


    [beam][beam]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 2:33 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    BTW. I bought a 1980 Peterbuilt and was running all over this country. What really helped the economy was when the price of oil went from $32 to $10 and settled at about $15. What amazes me are bubble people like you Jerome who will not own up to the fact that Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt. If you count inflation he put as much on the tab as George W. He borrowed money every year and invested it in his very wealthy friends in the form of tax cuts. Imagine if he would have invested it in the infrastructure. Oh I forgot he is a Conservative Republican. the only real reason to borrow money is to fill the pockets of the very wealthy

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:16 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Just what does "Mr. Baxter" think is the definition of "effective tax rate."

     
  • John Lucas posted at 2:14 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Economies go up and down. That was not the first recession after WW II. Reagan changed how we dealt with them. We borrowed money(Reagan and the Bushes had deficits EVERY YEAR and shoved it to the rich) and never (exceot for Clinton) made any effort to pay down the deficit. If we had just done a stimulus and when the economy came out of the slump started paying down the debt we would have been fine. We did not. We set about on the fairy dust nonsense called supply side economics and here we are. Thank you Ronald Reagan. George W Bush was the most incompetent President we ever had but Ronald Reagan did the harm in the long run with his stupid, morally, and fiscally bankrupt ideas. You may not agree but it does not make it any less true.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:14 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Why would Mr. Baxter name a company after a fictional character?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 2:04 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    He obviously does but not at the percentage that a McDonalds minimum wage earner does. They are not apples and oranges. Taxes pay for government. As you have proven people like Mitt pay less as a percentage. They are the true moochers in our society

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:57 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    I can't take credit for that counter, BrainDead Biden gets the credit, I only quoted him.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:40 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    Just quoting YOUR Vice President, BrainDead Biden.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:39 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    Wow, the power if your argument is extraordinary.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:39 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    Just how do you know that Romney doesn't pay any other taxes? If you added in all the other taxes most people pay, his TOTAL tax percentage would be more along the lines of 45-50%. LIBERALS love to compare apples to oranges and make up lies about the difference.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:30 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    I am happy Obama won. Now I can get $500 Million to finance my solar company, JoeLyndra. Or maybe I will simply build electric cars, JoeVolt sounds like it could get a billion or so.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:23 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Wow, the power of your argument is very powerful.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:22 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    interesting counter argument.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:22 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Bingo. thank you for showing that average people pay more in total taxes percentage wise. Of course that is the whole point. thx Joe

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:14 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2350

    The “‘prosperity’ we knew before the Gipper?" Are you kidding?!? We were “enjoying” double-digit inflation/interest rates and deep into a time of "malaise" according to the feeble Jimmy Carter himself.

    It was BECAUSE of Reagan and his conservative policies that things straightened out. Obviously you’re either too young to have enjoyed those years or too old now to remember them. Let’s at least set the record straight here. For Reagan’s second term election, take a look at how many state’s electoral votes went “red” and how many state went “blue.” (Grammatical error intentional.)

    I served in the Air Force under both Carter and Reagan and almost immediately after the latter took office the attitude toward our CINC improved beyond belief. It was indeed the best of times.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:05 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    You have a problem with retired Air Force people? Which branch of the military did you serve in Mr. Chang?

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:03 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    MALARKEY

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:02 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    Romney only paid 14.2% Federal Income tax and they said everyone else pays 30+%.
    What the LIBERALS omitted about this lie is that they were comparing Romney income TAXES only to total witholdings from others. In actuality, most people pay between 7-8% FEDERAL INCOME tax not 38% as the LIBERALS would have you believe. They siimply tossed in State Income tax, FICA, Unemployment taxes and any other localized taxes to make up that figure that looks like almost 3 times what Romney paid. Gullible liberal voters swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Idiots.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 12:53 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    MALARKEY

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:22 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I am taking a guess and thinking that you mean the obstructionism that the TEA Party members of the Congress have been taking part in during the past 2 years.

    The "our way or the highway" crowd, including Mitch McConnell in the Senate who has once again declared that he will IN NO WAY cooperate with President Obama.

    It is so sad when adults who are elected to represent the citizens of this country resort to playground games.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:09 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Kinderman - you are just being very silly with your comment below. So, you attribute President Obama's re-election to all of the name-calling and sarcasm produced from the right? (And no, I am not dense - you are referring to the left, because the "right" could not possibly be capable of name-calling!).

    Perhaps you are correct, because when people get tired of being told they have "Turrets (sic) Syndrome" by those on the right who only parrot the talking points of their "Party," and FOX News and Rush Limbaugh - they can only fight back with one weapon - their votes.

    As for "faux Republicans who will attempt to do the right thing," your statement only proves that YOU personnaly agree with those who only wish to obstruct any progress that may have had the possibility of getting this country back on its feet, as has happened during the past 4 years.

    Who are the "Patriots" here? The TEA Party - who seem to think they have co-opted that noun so that only they represent what is right? Or the people who are willing to compromise like adults in order to get the job done.

    And to accuse "faux Republicans" of being willing to "take a bribe here or there or some other type of chicanery to entice them?"

    You should be ashamed. Every citizen should be encouraging our Congress to get the work done. But no, people like Mr. Kinderman want to continue the obstruction. They want the system to fail, and the people of the US to not progress - all to prove that President Obama is, according to Mr. Kinderman, the "worst president in the history of this country."

    What a patriot!

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:53 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Actually, Mr. Taves, the 80's under Reagan were miserable, for me personally, the 90's were a decade of hope, the 00's really were a downhill slide.

    Before becoming a consultant, I was layed off from my last salaried job in 2007 when the housing industry started to slide into the toilet - before Obama, while the economy was in free-fall and before anyone with unrealistic stars in their eyes over George Walker Bush realized the h...ll we were about to enter - andI got hired back by the same company, that got creative and diversified and benefited from Obama policies under the green initiatives, under the Obama presidency. They went from 400 employees down to 150 in 2007-2008 - and are now back to almost 400.

    Two of the poor souls who sit near me, who actually have their jobs due to Obama's policies, sit and moan and groan all day about how bad Obama is - but they would never admit they owe their jobs to Obama's policies.

    So don't sit there and mock what you perceive as my inability to understand "how leftist policies ultimately suppress growth." Sorry you are "getting tired." Because the last 4 years have been "workin for me" and about 250 others who would be unemployed or underemployed.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:40 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    It is ironic that the bubble people whose heroes are Rush, Hannity, Newt are talking about civility. However you are right about there is no common ground of ideas. Republicans and bubble people are for shoveling as much of the national wealth to the top 1/10 of 1% in the form of tax cuts. They think it is ok that a Mitt Romney pays less percentage wise it all forms of taxes than a minimum wage worker at McDonalds. Having the super wealthy pay their fair share of taxes is not negotiable. This election is just the start. The Ronald Reagan agenda is on the ropes and we will get back to governing our country rationally and we can go back to the prosperity we knew before the Gipper and his insane ideas infected our body politic.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:10 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    The mess we are in now are directly traceable to the election of Ronald Reagan and the policies and ideas he brought forward.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:06 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2350

    Ms. Parigoris - it seems like "The personal barbs, the name calling, the sarcasm" have actually gotten Barack Obama re-elected to the presidency. So whatever works, huh?

    There is no common ground, Ms. Parigoris. Republicans/Conservatives are on one side - Democrats/Liberals (Progressives) are on the other. The only saving grace at this point is that at least the House of Representatives didn't fall into the hands of the left. But sadly there will be some faux Republicans who will attempt to "do the right thing" by crossing the aisle at the worst of times. Oh, it might take a bribe here or there or some other type of chicanery to entice them - but it will happen. It's just a question of when and for what.

     
  • stan taves posted at 10:43 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    Joanne, your desire to ignore the reality of how leftist policies ultimately suppress growth is getting very tired indeed. Going "forward" there will be more debt, more inflation and more pain and suffering for those who can least afford it. Don't believe it? that would be just one more error added to a long history errors -- so how's that workin' for ya?

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 9:31 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    Has it ever occurred to any of you to try to find some common ground and work together for the good of our country? The personal barbs, the name calling, the sarcasm..Is it getting anyone anywhere?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:21 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Taves wrote: "Yo Jo, you (sic) propensity for absurdity has no limits -- which makes you kind-a (sic) special."

    And Mr. Taves ability for self-aggrandizing makes him "kind-a special."

    Looking forward to your next "fabulous" letter, Mr. Taves. You do add so little to intelligent discussion about our economy, but it is at least entertaining to read your efforts.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:03 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Paglia wrote: "Years back when wife and I sold our house the capital gains tax was low enough that we were about to immediately buy a new house in the Lodi area. If it were any higher we would have had to wait (yes that story is the reality of the policy)."

    First I have to comment about how insulting it is when people use the terms, "wife and I," OR "the wife." When did it become unacceptable to say, "my wife and I," or "my wife?"

    You really must be joking about your house sale example! Either that, or you don't do your own tax return or your accountant was telling you a lie.

    A married couple has a $500,000 EXEMPTION for the gain on the sale of a primary residence - has been that way for at least a decade.

    That means that if you bought your house for $200,000 and later sold it for $700,000, you would not have to pay any capital gains tax at all. This part of the tax code was changed to include the dollar amount of capital gains from the former rule which stated that if you invested your capital gains on the sale of your house within a year of the sale in another residence, no capital gains tax was due.

    Now, if you are suggesting that your home was purchased at a very low price and was sold for a million dollars, then I could believe your story. Or perhaps you owned your home for under the required length of time to take advantage of the exemption rule.

    Otherwise, it just does not make sense at all.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:57 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    thx for laying out some facts Joanne. I do get tired of this anecdotal nonsense.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:43 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I find this to be the silliest comment - it turns up all the time and, if true, and I don't believe for one minute that Mr. Docktor had any such conversation, is no more than a veiled threat that many wealthy Republicans make all the time - they will be "SO SAD" that they will not be able to make the charitable contributions they wanted to make due to higher taxes.

    Any "charitable contributions" made are offset by lower tax rates.

    Just look at Willard Mitt Romney, who manipulated his 2011 tax return by NOT deducting his full charitable contributions and defering them to following years.

    He was able to INCREASE his tax rate to 14%. If he had deducted his full contributions, which actually amount to the 10% he is REQUIRED to contribute in tithes to his "church," his tax rate would have been 9% which would have been totally unacceptable given the issues people are already having with his low, low tax rate.

    As for Mr. Paglia's comments about the "capital gains" rate being the same for everyone - yes, that is true. It just so happens that Willard Mitt Romney's income comes SOLELY from capital gains. He HAS NO EARNED INCOME which would be taxed at a different rate.

    Also, next time you decide to tell a "personal story" about some poor relative that would rather collect welfare than work, you might want to check to see if there is such a thing as "general welfare."

    There isn't. You might be aware of the 1996 welfare reform that Bill Clinton signed that became an issue in this election when Willard Mitt Romney tried to sell the lie that President Obama was cutting the work requirement for that assistance.

    TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families provides no more than 60 months of assistance - not a lifetime's worth, and individuals are required to work and/or get job training.

    Your non-existent relative has given you the wrong impression and perhaps you owe her an apology for trashing her in this forum.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:15 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    BS

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:36 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    I spoke to a customer who is a retired vice president from a large investment firm. He is a very wealthy moderate Republican and says his lifestyle will not change if he has to pay higher taxes. However, he worries the extra money he won't be able to give to the many charities he is involved with will suffer. The point he was trying to make is, the wealthy in this country give a lot of money away. And that 1 percent gives away far more money than the Liberal establishment wants to acknowledge. The primary reason is because Republicans in that 1 percent give away far more money than Democrats.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:55 am on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    I wonder if Mr. Liebich realizes that how much better the conversation would be without his inane comments.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:07 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Reasonable as to tax rates. I believe in the free market system with the Keynesian idea. In good times the government should get out of the way and let the private sector roar. At those times the government should be focusing on getting its financial house in order and paying off its debt. On the downside economic times there are two things to consider, One is to borrow money to make some sort of investment in the infrastructure of the country to keep demand up while the economy recovers. This project must be something that needs to be done and something the private sector cannot or will not do. This is what we used to do before Ronald Reagan and it worked for decades.

    I am sorry for some of my words. I sometimes get out of line a little bit

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 8:04 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    I thought you were for HELPING middle lower income earners and small busines?

    http://www.backtaxeshelp.com/tax-blog/filing-taxes/capital-gains-rates.html

    Capital Gains and the associated tax rate may be used by the wealthy, but they are crutial for those that are small business owners. Years back when wife and I sold our house the capital gains tax was low enough that we were about to immediately buy a new house in the Lodi area. If it were any higher we would have had to wait (yes that story is the reality of the policy).

    What I would be more upset about is the Estate tax program. This needs to be taxed at the income rates of the deceased individual on a federal level. Many states don't charge an estate tax. I am against this, I believe there should be a taxed rate associated.

     
  • stan taves posted at 7:45 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    you're not the only one, John

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:06 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Why should capital gains be taxed less than earned income? It is just another tax break for the wealthy.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 7:04 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    I have no problem with a higher tax rate for those earning over 1 million dollars. Investment income should be taxed from the current 14% to 20, 25, 30 and 35 percents at every 5 million dollar mark (5 million, 20 million, and so on) up to 50%.

    Earned income for those making over $500K should be about 40%, over a million 45% and over 20million 50%.

    But with the higher taxes the government HAS to shrink. Otherwise we are dumping more cash into a broken system. Personally I would start with looking at the income and payment program of the federally elected officials.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:04 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    I wonder if Mr. Lucas realizes that the evil 1% were also President Obama's top campaign contributors. [sleeping]

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 6:58 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    "You are not the enemy but your simplistic, childlike stupid ideas are."

    Interesting, so paying off individual debt and increasing cash flow is a childlike, stupid idea? Tell me something, what do you think will happen when, instead of 2% of the country living debt free, 25% is? How much MORE spending, how many more jobs will be created, how much FASTER will the economy recover when individual debt is significantly reduced and cash flow spending is the norm?

    You are so upset with the top 1% and all their money, this is the PERFECT solution for both our sides. Those making money of of other people money are cut off from their funds. Instead that money is staying in local communities creating jobs, industry and security.

    Here is our great divide: I believe the economy needs to be driven by society making it stronger, NOT the government, you seem to want the government to fix the problem. When the middle class was strong there was very little debt and borrowing, cash flow as the norm. When that changed our economy went bad, the more individual debt we have the worse the economy gets. When individual debt is fixed, through education and awareness, then the economy WILL get stronger. But NEITHER republicans nor Democrats hear from their leadership that paying off the INDIVIDUAL debt is important. Instead we hear to let the government fix the problem for them.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 6:48 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    No, the INTENT is in the policies. And the Liberals have very goods intentions. But the reality is in the PEOPLE. People are not policies, they are stories.

    And maybe that is the problem, maybe some liberals are so consumed with the good intentions of a policy that SHOULD be a benifit to society, they are blind to the reality that there are real people using and abusing the policies. Welfare IS a good idea, generational welfare is an buse of that program.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 6:43 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    I don't know why you call Romney 'My boy" I have said REPEATEDLY that I dislike BOTH parties. I am just as critical of the republicans as I am of the Liberals.

    You are misrepresenting facts in a deliberate attempt to sway an arguement. The 14%, as you well know is based on INVESTMENT income, it is the same rate anyone will pay on investments. Any income Romney would pay from a salary would be taxed at a higher rate, and you know that.

    I would also like to point out anytime someone makes fun of Obama's name they are called racist. Why is it ok to make fun of Romeny's name but not Obama's?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:22 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    The very rich have never paid an effective rate above 38%. Your boy Mittens put his highest paying years out there and he was paying 14%. You ever think it is time for you to get your eyes open and see what is really happening? You pay much more in percentage than they do and if they get in power you will pay more especially in the form of fees.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:18 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1115

    Stan, are you retired Air Force too??


    [huh]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:14 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    How about who cares?

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:13 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1115

    "I know history is not your thing but you might give it a try"

    Bada Bing Bada Boom

    [smile]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:13 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    I wish you would say it less

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:11 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Stop with these stories about a person I know. Policies are what mater. I can give stories but the reality is in the policy.

     
  • stan taves posted at 6:05 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    I have said it time and again: those who produce will either call the shots, or get "shot" by a totalitarian regime that thinks it can survive without producers. Just remember: this is the USA ,and no one is ready to just stand by and let a bunch of power hungry maniacs walk away with the farm. Figure it out people.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:05 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    78% of the national debt before Obama was put there by Reagan and the Bushes. They shoved tax cuts through which were really vehicles to send money to the top 1/10 of 1% of the plutocrat class in this country who run the Republican Party. They deliberately added to the national debt. Mr Cheney said "deficits do not matter". Every year the so called financial conservative Republicans were in office they did their very best to undermine the financial stability of this country.
    Keynesian economics says when the economy takes dive you borrow money to keep the wheels from coming off and when the economy is doing well you pay the money back. They borrowed money in good times and bad. Only Bill Clinton did not. The only time you idiots scream about the debt is when a Democrat is in charge trying to get the economy to recover from a disaster that your idiotic ideas and financial mismanagement has caused. This is the difference between what happened before Reagan and after. The modern day so called Conservative Republican is not conservative but a dreamer who believes in the fairy dust of supply side economics. It does not work and never will and those that run the Republican party know it. They just want to pay no taxes in the short term. You are not the enemy but your simplistic, childlike stupid ideas are.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 5:47 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    Why don;t all you good libs tell the rest of us how much is too much money. At what point shoud 50, 75, 90% of a persons EARNED income be stripped away from them and given to those who rather watch tv than get a job?

    I have no issues with helping those that need help. But I do have issues with helping people who don't want to work because the government will support them. And I know they are out there. I have one in my family ( I no longer talk with her). Stated point blank there is no reason for her to get a job cause the government will giver her everything she needs.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 5:42 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    Joanne Bobin posted at 11:28 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.
    Posts: 2565" I'm just flabergasted that the Lodi News Sentinel allows such blatently racist and bigoted LTE's to be printed in their newspaper."


    Yet she REPEATEDLY has attacked my faith and religion. I guess just HER prejudices are justifiable to state in public forums. She has repeatedly tried to shame me with my faith, repeatedly uses my faith in an attack against me. So much so it makes me wonder what HER church is teaching her, certainly seems to be limited Biblical priciples.

    And for the record what I am proposing IS very Biblical and taught by the Catholic Church as well as many others. To owe no money to others and keep your house in order IS biblical. People can not tithe (to support social outreaches) if everything they make goes to pay debt. I recognize that it is not always possible to NOT have debt. But when it is incurred it should be aggressively paid off.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 5:28 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    John Stated: Liberal economic policy was simple.

    1.Progressive taxation
    2. Fair labor laws
    3. Good financial regulation
    4. Keynesian economics

    Yup, you are right. The policy WAS simple. Unfortunately the policy has become to be everything for everybody. IF we still lived in the 30-70's then the liberal policies may still be working. But we are 40 years past that. We now have generational welfare recipients and liberal policies provide NO motivation to get off government assistance. We have MILLIONS of people here ILLEGALLY and use limited government funds while the liberal policies support them. And we have a crushing debt that, despite the claims, NIETHER party's leader care about paying down cause it would cost them their power base.

    When we built the big powerful middle class John is so proud of more than 40 years ago, the left AND right were much more moderate. But SINCE then they have become two waring factions where "hate" is a better description of their attitudes that "cooperative" (like it was in the 30-70's). Look at the disgust John and his like minded liberals show anyone with a conservative bend. We are called their "enemy".

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 5:12 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1115

    "Our ambition has suffered already"

    Ted, speak for yourself.

    Your really melancholy today and making me feel bad.

    I know all about farming life.

    I decided, as a teen, that I didn't want to follow my father into his chosen vocation.

    Fortunately for me, it was the right choice.

    If you could go back in time...

    What would you do differently??

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:59 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Bubble people are so into projection

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:57 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Another mindless meandering rant. If you want to engage in debate you have to be a little more specific and to the point. We had enough speeches in the election.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:54 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    The reality is that the very rich in the 50's paid an effective rate of about 38% and now are paying an effective of less than half that and are paying less in total taxes as a percentage of their income than a person working at McDonalds.

     
  • stan taves posted at 4:52 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    How about a preview of my next fabulous letter? this will give you lefties a little more time to respond with something worthy of intelligible debate. The fact is that you can't tell people that their "way" is unsustainable, if they're not sure what unsustainable actually means. I've explained how the road forward for libs is to short, and that a u-turn is in everyone's best interest. But hey! it doesn't matter when your are addicted to that which is promised for another day; it only matters that tomorrow comes. Yes, tomorrow will come, and she'll be your friend for some days further -- but can't you almost count them?

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:37 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1115

    "Marcus Tullius Cicero"

    Bad analogy, Kim.

    If this was ancient Rome...

    And if you were a citizen fomenting dissent (complaining about taxes and Ceasar)...

    Eventually, you would be appear before the Emperor himself...

    In fact, at the coliseum...

    You'd have a date with some very hungry lions!

    [wink]

     
  • stan taves posted at 4:31 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    Yo Jo, you propensity for absurdity has no limits -- which makes you kind-a special.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:28 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Liberal economic policy was simple.

    1.Progressive taxation
    2. Fair labor laws
    3. Good financial regulation
    4. Keynesian economics

    It created the greatest middle class the world has ever seen, more rich people than ever before and lifted more people out of poverty than ever before.

    Then came Ronald Reagan the conservative media and the rise of the bubble people. It has been downhill ever since. That is the history.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:20 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    You might try studying the politics and policies from the 30's to the 70's when we built the biggest middle class in the world and Liberal economic policies ruled. I know history is not your thing but you might give it a try

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 4:16 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Well, we are talking about the first candidate in American history to be endorsed by the Communist Party USA... [whistling]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:14 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    What you are describing is exactly how this that run the Republican party feel about and do to bubble people like you

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:12 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Joe, all good talking points. Very good reasons for Mitt Romney to pay lies in percentage terms in taxes that a worker at McDonalds. They love bubble people like you Joe and you do not cost them anything but the chump change of supporting conservative media.

     
  • Ted Lauchland posted at 4:09 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Ted Lauchland Posts: 254

    The system of Free Enterprise, Capitalism and Serf and Serfdom is destined to fail then? Our checks and balances are supposed to help prevent that. Just happens to be leaning one way at the moment. The opportunity to better oneself in regards to income has always been there. My concern is that that will be taken away to only replace it with government. It reaks of communism which itself eliminates ambition and self respect.

    Is it wrong to want to make more money to support your family? - No

    Your points continue to acuse the successful of malpractice. I'm sure some are questionable.
    Why do you want to squelch your own potential by punishing the potential of others?
    Business minds are different only in that thoughts tend to be broader than others and they know how to multiply their efforts .

    Robin Hood will continue to exist however and when my crop is ready to be picked it has been known to disappear misteriously in the middle of the night. My efforts for a year - gone - by an individual who thinks it's easier to reap than sow. Suppose that is why we have law enforcement.

    When you start thinking long term let me know. If you consider this to be a rant then so be it. The tax man commeth and the tax man taketh away. There are parts of government that are indeed necessary and should be supported by taxes but when roughly half of the population depends on it to survive the incentives to do better individually have been derailed. Our ambition has suffered already.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 4:08 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    The comments made by a TEA Party individual in this forum just proves that they have absolutely NOTHING to say that is intelligent or worth hearing.

    Learn your lesson. The TEA Party is over, Ms. Parigoris. You are DONE. You are nothing.

    Stop deceiving the taxpayers with your "tax exempt" organization that is ANYTHING but non-partisan.

    HA!

     
  • stan taves posted at 3:24 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Stan Taves Posts: 313

    Back it up, Jo Bob. You are always too quick to cry racism -- or is it scream?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 2:53 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    or "bubble people" [lol]

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 2:14 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    And all that isn't to say the Conservative leaders are much better. They leave those who are motivated by profits to help those who work for them. Where the Liberals need victims to stay in power, the Conservatives need people to feel like overlords (or at least want to feel like overlords) to stay in power. The overlord is that person who feels like they have absolute power and nothing they do is wrong. These are the people who fudge tax returns so they can save an additional couple hundred when they make millions. The Overlord looks for government subsidies and then hands out big bonuses to their fellow overlords. They are the business owners who see their profit like Golum saw the One Ring, as their precious with others trying to take it away.

    Unfortunately there is leader in this country that is willing to step outside their party to make this country better, they only want to stay in power by appealing to the ones that got them there. And that is the truth as to why the middle class is disappearing; One side needs them to feel disgruntled so they vote for revenge, the other side sees them as trying to take the overlords profits.

    When historians look back on the collapse of the economic power of the USA they will blame BOTH side equally.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 2:03 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    Don't read it. Simple fix.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 2:02 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    If the total money the "1%'ers" earned was confiscated by the Federal Government it wouldn't make a dent in our debt. Stupid people think that if we tax them another 10% or so, all of our financial ills will magically disappear. Idiots.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 2:01 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    Let me post a rebuttal to John's "look how evil people with money are" list:

    (Data is a few years old but still pretty close to now in percentages) CBO calculates that the top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes, including:

    38.8 percent of federal individual income taxes
    4.0 percent of federal social insurance taxes (Social Security and Medicare)
    58.6 percent of corporate income taxes (indirectly, through stock ownership)
    5.5 percent of federal excise taxes (on such things as gasoline, tobacco, alcoholic beverages and telephones.)

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/top-1-what-they-make-and-pay/

    And as a continuation:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/fact-check-the-richtheir-secretaries-and-taxes/

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:56 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1845

    More 1%er's donated to Obama and the democrats than conservatives and Romney. Obama wants everyone to hate successful people but he has no problem taking money their money to support his campaign. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Just wait until all the moochers & takers find out that Obama will now kick them to the curb because he doesn't need them any longer. Liberal stooges are going get double crossed by Obama. He is a user and no longer needs anyone because he doesn't have to campaign anymore and doesn't much give a rat who supports him and who doesn't.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 1:51 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    John, you refered to me as the "enemy" so I have no reason what so ever to believe you read anything I write with intent to understand, only with the intent to attack. As you prove over and over.

    I can support my statement with the very simple observation: NOWHERE in the liberal economic plan does it address individual debt as a problem. It only identifies people with TOO much wealth as a problem. Obama said to go out and vote for "revenge". The only people who need revenge are victims. A similar sentiment was stated by his staff later as well. John proves my point over and over again by describing conservatives as being "Duped", as victims of talk show rehtoric (hate to break it to you but I have listened to any radio talk shows since Pres. Clinton, don't even watch FOX news, CNN is news of choice for me).

    John calls Conservatives "Bubble" people becasue he thinks we live in our own little bubble, but he can't see out of his own bubble. Reminds me of that saying, those in Glass houses shouldn't throw bricks.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:49 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Great comments, Mr. Lucas. For a Libertarian, I am shocked that Mr. Paglia is repeating the right-wing talking points of the past 2 days.

    He is obviously very confused politically.

    No one disputes the need to pay down the debt. Conservatives, liberals and whoever else.

    What conservatives like Mr. Paglia are confused about iare the purposely obfuscated intentions of liberals. No, we do not need to BUY people, we do not NEED to get poor people hooked on the "public teet."

    Liberals are concerned about social issues. Conservatives are NOT.

    Because he is a Roman Catholic, I am truly shocked that Mr. Paglia does not cling to the issues of social justice that the church espouses. What? The church does not cling to issues of social justice? No way!

    The nuns who deal wtih these issues on a daily basis are being ostracized by MEN who dominate the Roman Catholic church. I can see why the poor are being viewed as "problems" by those like Mr. Paglia who agree with the hierarchy and sit in the pews weeks after week, listening to the empty talk -

    As long as they don't have to TOUCH the unwashed.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:39 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Kevin said:

    The more people that they can keep suffering, the more likely their Liberal political leaders will stay in power.

    This is a typical despicable bubble person comment and a frequent Rush or Hannitty statement. I was making an effort to try to understand what you were getting at but when I read this I knew it was a waste of time

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 12:08 pm on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    John, IF you read with any intent to understand what I wrote this morning you would have seen what I was advocating was keeping our money for ourselves and NOT sending it to the top 1% wealth owners. By paying off debt and spending with discipline then WE (collective) keep OUR money. The banks, their owners and all those that make a profit off of people spending more than they have would be cut-off from their cash-cows, US.

    Debt is the opposite of wealth. The reason the bottom 90% of Americans have so LITTLE wealth is they have huge debt. People continually tell the lie that debt is a good thing. Debt is a very real and dangerous problem in this country. Why do most marriages end because of money? Not because the government isn't giving them enough, but because there isn't enough to pay for the bills. The BEST and only way to pay the bills is to have high cash flow. You can not have cash flow when you have debt.

    IF the Liberal left truly wanted to HELP the middle and lower class then they would be screaming for my "zealously aggressive" debt pay offs. Only through eliminating debt can wealth be built. So IF the liberals on this board really want to help people build wealth they should be fully supporting my debt pay off concept.

    But they are not. Instead they attack me. So ask yourselves, why would the liberals here WANT people suffering under crushing debt? The answer is simple. The more people that they can keep suffering, the more likely their Liberal political leaders will stay in power.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:38 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    yep. pretty amazing

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:31 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I think the ONLY fact that Mr. Taves has established with his "letter" is that he is a fan of FOX News and Rush Limbaugh and is able to parrot their talking points.

    Let's see some original thinking, Mr. Taves, instead of Rushbo's bigoted opinions.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:28 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I'm just flabergasted that the Lodi News Sentinel allows such blatently racist and bigoted LTE's to be printed in their newspaper.

    Do you, LNS, have ANY editorial shame when it comes to letters such as Mr. Taves'?

    I'd really like to know what the thinking of the management of this paper is - who oversees these letters before they are printed?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:31 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    You have said a lot of things in your rant but you did not address the central issue of our time. The issue of income inequality and how we got here.

    Some facts:
    1. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth
    2. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income:
    3. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds:
    4. The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt:
    5. The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s.

    If you are making $50,000 today and were getting what you would have made as a share of the national income in 1970 you would be making $90,000 today

    We are witnessing the destruction of the middle class in America right before our eyes.
    How did that happen? The top 1/10 of 1% hired a B movie actor named Ronald Reagan and created a conservative media to con the American people. Their two main beliefs have attained quasi religious status
    1. The rich should less in percentage taxes than someone working a minimum wage job or even better yet should pay no taxes at all
    2. Unions, minimum wage laws or anything that benefits working people is bad for working people

    Mitt Romney paid 14% in income taxes, a minimum wage worker pays 15% in payroll taxes and as he or she spends the rest of their income it is taxed heavily. Mr. Romney has a very high disposable income and pays much less in percentage in other taxes.

    The two high points in income inequality in the last 100 years occurred in 1929 and 2007. Think about it

    Right now the conservative media, conservative politicians and bubble people are fighting a death match over raising the top 1% marginal rate 3.9%. The reality is that we should be doing away with the capital gains tax and treating it as ordinary income.

    The more successful the Republican party and those who really run it with their allies the bubble people are in this battle, the quicker the middle class will die. This is what history teaches us

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:01 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Thank-you for proving my point. [lol]

     
  • Ted Lauchland posted at 9:44 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Ted Lauchland Posts: 254

    Mr. Lucas - you may add my name to that list.

    Until you have been in business yourself for awhile and I really do not know if you have or not you may not understand the broader picture of it all. We can be in business many different ways. Working on commission which no one likes working for someone else because you feel your time is worth something no matter what. Well you are always working on commission if you are in business for yourself. When you produce you reap the benefit if the market buys it. Competition increases efficiency and puts a TV in every home. Do you notice the first couple years a product comes out it is expensive and then with competition the prices go down. Gas prices play with that all the time and monopolies are fought and brought on the carpet by law.
    If you don't like the "Boss" idea then you have the opportunity to go into business for yourself and create the competition that reduce prices and unfortunately pushes efficiencies to other companies- Workers are a major cost of producing anything unless it goes to more efficient automation. Henry Ford was a major factor in WWII.
    If money is a factor in opening up your own business you can create a co-op with other people and have a personal investment in the venture - Working for yourself. That road can be trecherous though as Guild Wineries and/or the Bank of Lodi both eventually found out.
    The look of the Democratic legislature in California right now is at a very high risk of a "Taxation without representation"viewpoint if Republicans will not be heard. Pelosy should have been kicked for that stance on the Federal side. I do not send my representatives to Congress to not be considered.
    Now - do you want to take the risk and go into business yourself and face the will of the people that will always outnumber the businessmen out there under the simple idea of he has more money than I and I want it. I assume you don't because you would already be one if you did and be struggling to survive.
    I don't even want to talk about what it is to be a farmer and the purpose of the farm bills. California farmers do not reap that benefit and choose to stand on their own because of milder climates.
    So add me to your list. You will soon be a businessman whether you like it or not just to survive in this state and then maybe Sacramento will listen.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:38 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:58 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Barack Obama told an audience of his supporters, “you know I tell the truth.”

    Below are ten flagrant examples where Obama has not told the truth and in fact has lied to cover up his own administration’s failings, or as a deliberate act of deception.

    The "bubble people" are those like yourself who are incapable of digesting the lies.

    htttp://www.infowars.com/obama-you-know-i-tell-the-truth/

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:34 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Kim, Brian, Kevin. Steve
    Your efforts on behalf of the top 1/10 of 1% in terms of wealth and income is deeply appreciated by them. They just spent a billion or so trying to convince those not in the bubble where you live and it was a waste of money on their part. Their creation of a conservative media however has worked brilliantly. We see every day in the talking points repeated by the bubble people right here in these pages. There is a genius in this creation of the bubble people. However Abraham Lincoln said it best:

    You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

    The election was an example of how you cannot fool all the people all the time.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:14 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    posted at 9:18 pm on Sun, Sep 30, 2012.

    "Two words Mr. Heuer." "Cognitive Dissonance."

    "Simply Google "voter fraud at ballot box" and READ." "You are living in denial."

    "P.S. Rep. Tom Feeney (Fmr. Speaker of The House in Florida) employed this man from Oviedo, FL to rig elections and flip them 51% to 49%."

    http://youtu.be/t4aKOhbbK9E

    "and remember this video when they tell you Obama won by 2%"
    [sleeping]

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 8:05 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    "Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.'"

    – Marcus Tullius Cicero

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 8:04 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    Reid is already talking about raising the debt ceiling.. ‎'Need' now means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means wanting to keep your own. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges the transfer.'" - John Stossel

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:53 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2826

    Good points Stan.

    It is human nature to take the least path of resistance. But if we are improve on ourselves we must work hard. Unfortunately, Obama has made it so easy to just stick out your hand and he will fill it with goodies what incentive is there to earn your own keep anymore? Of course I have always relied on myself to get through life. Unlike the many who prefer the gravy train. Romney has some great ideas. Unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears for so many. I guess that gravy train is much more appealing than putting your nose to the grindstone.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 7:10 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1991

    It is very simple: If you are afraid of the way the economics of this country are going then be zealously aggressive in paying off your own debt. Owe nobody anything and when banks fail, your house won't be foreclosed on. DON'T buy the new car, buy that used one that does what you need. End any dependence on credit cards.

    It is uncofortable but long term you will be better off.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:22 am on Thu, Nov 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Americans who understand what the comment, " that means you, Lupey" is all about won the election. Those in the conservative bubble such as Mr Taves lost.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 10 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Jesus should be what makes chur…

Sorry to the very sincere people who came to answer question about the baptist church. I would be the very offend by the mr Cooper if I wa…

More...

Posted 10 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Evolutionism is a hypothesis, n…

I agree with you this time mr Ed.

More...

Posted 10 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Responding to comments about de…

This letter sound like the Mitchell Otto is not very bright person who call for the public view of the execution that most of civilized wor…

More...

Posted 12 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Evolutionism is a hypothesis, n…

Walters I believe that Mr Fields letter was not put into the religious section because he was responding to letters previously posted in th…

More...

Posted 12 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: We don’t need to reinvent Jesus

Kevin thanks for the response One of my favorite shows is "Through the Wormhole" with M. Freeman and I think I saw this show. But…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists