kallend 1,672 #126 September 22, 2008 Quote>so McCain has a couple lobbiests on his staff In 1929 we had a bit of an economic downturn caused by speculation and greed, fueled by a lack of stock market regulation. (Sound familiar?) The federal government soon passed a long list of banking and investment regulations to prevent a recurrence. In 1999, Phil Gramm, a US GOP senator, spearheaded the effort to roll back many of those regulations. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was enacted to reduced government regulations that separated banking, insurance and brokerage activities and limited what they could do and how much risk they could take. Gramm was rewarded well, and received over a million dollars in contributions from the Securities and Investment industry. Since then he has been saying that all our economic problems are just in our imagination. In July 2008 he said "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession. . . We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness." Looking back, if there's one guy responsible for rolling back the regulations that could have prevented this, and who stuck his head in the sand when the shit hit the fan, it's Phil Gramm. Does that name sound familiar? Gramm was John McCain’s presidential campaign co-chair and senior economic advisor. McCain voted "YEA" on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. As did ALL the GOP senators. The Dems mostly voted "Nay". Proof!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #127 September 22, 2008 who was the president that signed it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #128 September 22, 2008 Since then he has been saying that all our economic problems are just in our imagination. In July 2008 he said "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession. . . We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness." what he said may be not popular but he is correct, the US has become a NATION OF WHINERS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #129 September 22, 2008 >what he said may be not popular but he is correct, the US has become a NATION >OF WHINERS So you think our economy is just fine, and people are just whining? The problems are all in our heads? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #130 September 22, 2008 >who was the president that signed it? Clinton signed Gramm's first deregulation bill; Bush signed the second (the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.) Its big contribution to this mess was to repeal restrictions on credit default swaps. These instruments led to the downfall of AIG. Like I said, trying to pin the blame solely on one party is a waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #131 September 22, 2008 Quote>what he said may be not popular but he is correct, the US has become a NATION >OF WHINERS So you think our economy is just fine, and people are just whining? The problems are all in our heads? the people that work hard and do things right have alot fewer problems than those that whine and say it's the presidents fault. like Katrina those are the biggest whiners of the decade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #132 September 22, 2008 >the people that work hard and do things right have alot fewer problems than those >that whine and say it's the presidents fault. Right now the GOP is whining and claiming that everything is the fault of Congress. If a democrat wins in November, they will whine as loudly as the democrats are whining about Bush now. Indeed, you can see them practicing right here on this forum. Nevertheless, I would not describe America as a nation of whiners. It is not defined by people who complain. It is defined by people like Max, who got his leg blown off in service to his country and whines not at all. It is defined by people like Irwin Jacobs, who ignored all the naysayers who claimed that digital cellphones would never work and just did it. It is defined by athletes like Lance Armstrong and Stephen Phelps, inventors like Burt Rutan and Dean Kamen, and scientists like Stephen Hawking and Robert Foward. The whiners post on internet forums and write letters. They'll always exist. But they are not what the US is all about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #133 September 23, 2008 Quote It is defined by athletes like Lance Armstrong and Stephen Phelps, inventors like Burt Rutan and Dean Kamen, and scientists like Stephen Hawking and Robert Foward. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #134 September 23, 2008 oops, my bad. I always think of him as from the US for some reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #135 September 23, 2008 SMALL business taxes is mainly what I see discussed there. If you assume that S-corps are the majority of small business, then yes, he won't affect small business taxes much - or so you would think. Unfortunately... QuoteAccording to the latest Internal Revenue Service data, $706 billion of pass-through business income was reported in 2006. Of this, two-thirds was earned in households making more than $250,000 -- households on which Obama has said he will raise taxes. If raising the tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income isn't a tax hike on small business, what is? The tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income would skyrocket under the Obama plan. The current tax rate on this income is 37.9 percent. The Obama plan, thanks to uncapping the Social Security tax base, would shoot this small-business rate all the way up to a Carter-level 54.9 percent. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #136 September 23, 2008 QuoteSMALL business taxes is mainly what I see discussed there. If you assume that S-corps are the majority of small business, then yes, he won't affect small business taxes much - or so you would think. Unfortunately... QuoteAccording to the latest Internal Revenue Service data, $706 billion of pass-through business income was reported in 2006. Of this, two-thirds was earned in households making more than $250,000 -- households on which Obama has said he will raise taxes. If raising the tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income isn't a tax hike on small business, what is? The tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income would skyrocket under the Obama plan. The current tax rate on this income is 37.9 percent. The Obama plan, thanks to uncapping the Social Security tax base, would shoot this small-business rate all the way up to a Carter-level 54.9 percent. Also according to the IRS: www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=158618,00.html Quote The largest component of the tax gap comes from unreported and underreported income. Non-filing and underpayment of tax comprise the rest of the tax gap. NRP data suggest that well over half ($109 billion) of the individual underreporting gap came from understated net business income — underreported receipts and overstated expenses. So those wonderful small business owners aren't paying what they owe anyway.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #137 September 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteSMALL business taxes is mainly what I see discussed there. If you assume that S-corps are the majority of small business, then yes, he won't affect small business taxes much - or so you would think. Unfortunately... QuoteAccording to the latest Internal Revenue Service data, $706 billion of pass-through business income was reported in 2006. Of this, two-thirds was earned in households making more than $250,000 -- households on which Obama has said he will raise taxes. If raising the tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income isn't a tax hike on small business, what is? The tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income would skyrocket under the Obama plan. The current tax rate on this income is 37.9 percent. The Obama plan, thanks to uncapping the Social Security tax base, would shoot this small-business rate all the way up to a Carter-level 54.9 percent. Also according to the IRS: www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=158618,00.html Quote The largest component of the tax gap comes from unreported and underreported income. Non-filing and underpayment of tax comprise the rest of the tax gap. NRP data suggest that well over half ($109 billion) of the individual underreporting gap came from understated net business income — underreported receipts and overstated expenses. So those wonderful small business owners aren't paying what they owe anyway. So, Obama's plan is to tax the small business owners MORE. Sweet. Tax small businesses more, force them out of the business and put them and their employees on the dole and voting Dem for their bread and circuses - brilliant. Too bad about that lost revenue...but hey, new voters!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #138 September 24, 2008 QuoteClinton signed Gramm's first deregulation bill; Bush signed the second (the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.) Its big contribution to this mess was to repeal restrictions on credit default swaps. These instruments led to the downfall of AIG. Um, the CFMA was signed into law by President Clinton, December 21, 2000.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #139 September 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteSMALL business taxes is mainly what I see discussed there. If you assume that S-corps are the majority of small business, then yes, he won't affect small business taxes much - or so you would think. Unfortunately... QuoteAccording to the latest Internal Revenue Service data, $706 billion of pass-through business income was reported in 2006. Of this, two-thirds was earned in households making more than $250,000 -- households on which Obama has said he will raise taxes. If raising the tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income isn't a tax hike on small business, what is? The tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income would skyrocket under the Obama plan. The current tax rate on this income is 37.9 percent. The Obama plan, thanks to uncapping the Social Security tax base, would shoot this small-business rate all the way up to a Carter-level 54.9 percent. Also according to the IRS: www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=158618,00.html Quote The largest component of the tax gap comes from unreported and underreported income. Non-filing and underpayment of tax comprise the rest of the tax gap. NRP data suggest that well over half ($109 billion) of the individual underreporting gap came from understated net business income — underreported receipts and overstated expenses. So those wonderful small business owners aren't paying what they owe anyway. So, Obama's plan is to tax the small business owners MORE. Sweet. Tax small businesses more, force them out of the business and put them and their employees on the dole and voting Dem for their bread and circuses - brilliant. Too bad about that lost revenue...but hey, new voters!! How will it force them out of business if they don't pay what they owe anyway? I find it hard to have any sympathy for those who are, according to the IRS, the nation's worst tax cheats.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #140 September 24, 2008 Quote SMALL business taxes is mainly what I see discussed there. If you assume that S-corps are the majority of small business, then yes, he won't affect small business taxes much - or so you would think. Unfortunately... Quote According to the latest Internal Revenue Service data, $706 billion of pass-through business income was reported in 2006. Of this, two-thirds was earned in households making more than $250,000 -- households on which Obama has said he will raise taxes. If raising the tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income isn't a tax hike on small business, what is? The tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income would skyrocket under the Obama plan. The current tax rate on this income is 37.9 percent. The Obama plan, thanks to uncapping the Social Security tax base, would shoot this small-business rate all the way up to a Carter-level 54.9 percent. So, you're saying that eliminating capital gains taxes on small businesses is a tax increase? A fifty percent tax credit on employer paid health care insurance premiums is a tax increase? Taxes for those making over $200,000/$250,000 (single/family) increasing only to levels below what was paid during the 1990's is equivalent to increasing the "rate all the way up to a Carter-level 54.9 percent?" Okay, sure. Forgive me for relying on traditional logic and mathematics. In his letter to the editor, Ryan Ellis uses faulty logic and misinformation. For example, he says, "According to the latest Internal Revenue Service data, $706 billion of pass-through business income was reported in 2006. Of this, two-thirds was earned in households making more than $250,000." He then goes on to say, "If raising the tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income isn't a tax hike on small business …" and "The tax rate on two-thirds of small-business income would skyrocket …". He implies that two thirds of the $706 billion (~ $471 billion) represents two thirds of small business income. It doesn't. It represents two-thirds of small business income that is reported as pass through business income. Mr. Ellis also claims that the current tax rate for the pass through business income is 37.9%. That is untrue. The current individual marginal tax rates for those making over $250K are 33% and 35%. Of course, one would not expect factual, unbiased analysis of a tax plan proposed by the Democrat's presidential nominee from the Director of Americans for Tax Reform, an organization closely allied with the Republican Party.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
