PDA

View Full Version : Bravo! Our Economic Problems Are Over!



Gayle in MD
10-27-2009, 09:59 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

<span style="color: #000066">It's about time! Although this isn't going to solve everything, or pay for all of Bush's massive debt, debts for nothing, BTW, alteast it will be a huge help, once all the stolen tax dollars are found.

In the past, particularly during Republican Administrations, the IRS, focused on the Middle Class, acording to my studies. Now, we will finally be fishing in the pool chock full of good catches!

Bravo! </span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> By MARTIN VAUGHAN
WASHINGTON -- A new Internal Revenue Service enforcement unit targeting the very wealthy will help the tax agency decode partnerships, offshore trusts and other complex techniques used to hide income, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said Monday.

Dubbed the Global High Wealth Industry group, the unit will launch "a small number" of audits of individuals with assets or income in the tens of millions of dollars, Mr. Shulman told an accountants' trade group. An IRS official said the group would begin work on these initial audits in the next month.

The high-wealth group, housed in the IRS's large- and medium-sized business division, marks a sharpening of the IRS approach to auditing the very wealthy. Its creation is a response to the complex web of entities and transactions many high-net-worth individuals use to manage their financial affairs.

"You cannot assess compliance among the nation's wealthiest individuals by looking only at their 1040s [tax returns]," Mr. Shulman said. "Our goal is to better understand the entire economic picture of the enterprise controlled by the wealthy individual and to assess the tax compliance of that overall enterprise."

Wealth advisers questioned how much the new IRS approach adds, since in some cases, even under the old structure, an audit of a high-net-worth person may have looked across multiple income sources and asset classes.

However, "audits can sometimes be quite insular and silo-like," said Ronald Aucutt, a partner at the law firm of McGuire Woods. In particular, gift-tax audits and income-tax audits are usually not coordinated, he said.

The reorganization is part of a multifront IRS effort to crack down on tax evasion by wealthy Americans. The agency is now sifting through the results of a partial amnesty program that netted 7,500 disclosures by Americans who held offshore accounts.

</div></div>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125659261162008901.html

Chopstick
10-27-2009, 10:09 AM
Good. They can start with the billionaire family of John and Teresa Kerry. They pay less than half the income tax I pay.

pooltchr
10-27-2009, 10:13 AM
Just the title of this thread makes me realise that the poster has completely lost touch with reality.

Steve

LWW
10-27-2009, 10:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good. They can start with the billionaire family of John and Teresa Kerry. They pay less than half the income tax I pay.

</div></div>

And the Heinz profit margin over twice the obscene profit margins of health insurance companies!

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>I DEMAND A PUBLIC OPTION FOR CATSUP, KETCHUP, MUSTARD, RELISH, AND STEAK SAUCE!</span>

I am sick and tired of having to pay for condiments while Heinz demands that I buy more as soon as the jar is empty ... or <span style='font-size: 17pt'>I CAN JUST STARVE!</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>CHOICE AND COMPETITION ... THAT'S THE ANSWER!!!</span>

OH ... and raise the taxes on Gayle, wolfie, and hondo a sufficient amount to supply <span style='font-size: 17pt'>ME </span>with all the condiments I could ever want.

Sometimes the best way to understand how foolish these ideas are is to apply them to a different part of life.

LWW

LWW
10-27-2009, 10:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just the title of this thread makes me realise that the poster has completely lost touch with reality.

Steve </div></div>

Man. you are slow.

I knew that before I ever registered.

LWW

Gayle in MD
10-27-2009, 10:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good. They can start with the billionaire family of John and Teresa Kerry. They pay less than half the income tax I pay.

</div></div>

Really? I don't suppose you have any proof of that?

I didn't think you did.



I'll be waiting for your proof.

G.

eg8r
10-27-2009, 11:32 AM
This is all great, but don't you think there is an easier way? How about the IRS spend a little time looking at their tax structures and loop holes and fixing those first? Fair Tax is the best way to go at this point.

eg8r

sack316
10-27-2009, 12:17 PM
Paid an effective income tax rate of 12%, according to the 2003 income tax filings (the last released filing). In defense, though, this is mostly due to the majority of her income coming through municipal bonds.

Sack

Gayle in MD
10-27-2009, 12:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paid an effective income tax rate of 12%, according to the 2003 income tax filings (the last released filing). In defense, though, this is mostly due to the majority of her income coming through municipal bonds.

Sack </div></div>

That is why we need tax reforms. Currently, our tax structure favors the wealthy. I've been saying that for years. They are able to take advantage of deferred taxes in far greater ways than those who are not wealthy, and hence, do not pay nearly their fair share.


A dollar today, is worth more than a dollar years up the road.


Where is your link, BTW?

G.

LWW
10-27-2009, 03:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paid an effective income tax rate of 12%, according to the 2003 income tax filings (the last released filing). In defense, though, this is mostly due to the majority of her income coming through municipal bonds.

Sack </div></div>

That is why we need tax reforms. Currently, our tax structure favors the wealthy. I've been saying that for years. They are able to take advantage of deferred taxes in far greater ways than those who are not wealthy, and hence, do not pay nearly their fair share.


A dollar today, is worth more than a dollar years up the road.


Where is your link, BTW?

G. </div></div>

Soooo ... you are against people investing in cities?

Here's a clue ... the reason these type funds are tax exempt is that they pay a pitiful return.

In the end, it's more or less of a wash.

LWW

sack316
10-27-2009, 04:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Where is your link, BTW?

G. </div></div>

it was this previously: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/101504_thk_tax_filing.pdf

but it has since been removed from that site, I believe.

Also from Free Lunch 1.0, by Mao Tun Baghatur, 2005 (page 15)... and numerous other sites.

Sack

Gayle in MD
10-27-2009, 05:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Where is your link, BTW?

G. </div></div>

it was this previously: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/101504_thk_tax_filing.pdf

but it has since been removed from that site, I believe.

Also from Free Lunch 1.0, by Mao Tun Baghatur, 2005 (page 15)... and numerous other sites.

Sack

</div></div>

No link, huh? Gotcha.

sack316
10-27-2009, 05:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No link, huh? Gotcha. </div></div>

I referenced a book. John Kerry's own website once even had it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sourc...&tab=iw&start=0 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.johnkerry.com%2Fpdf%2F101504_th k_tax_filing.pdf&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw&start=0)

There's a couple of links that once referenced the exact PDF file from Kerry's website.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/politi...AmzQ&oref=login (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/politics/campaign/16teresa.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1211642330-hYctnwI+0k55VjaGcPAmzQ&oref=login)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The two-page document, posted at johnkerry.com, showed total income of $5,073,554 last year. Her primary source of income was the tax-exempt bonds, investments that generally produce a lower interest rate, but those in the highest tax brackets can often pocket more cash if they choose municipals.

Ms. Heinz Kerry paid a federal tax of $628,401</div></div>

(if you would like me to show my work:
628,401 divided by 5,073,554 equals 12.3%)


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/10/teresa_heinz_ke.html

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/an_amt_trap.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Heinz

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Teresa_Heinz_Kerry_-_Wealth/id/5510577

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10892

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1629

http://profiles.incredible-people.com/teresa-heinz-kerry/

All better? Or would you like more references to facts and numbers that have never been in dispute since they were released 5 years ago?

Sack

pooltchr
10-27-2009, 07:20 PM
I will go ahead and save her the trouble....

You're correct Sack. I was wrong! My apologies for questioning your facts. I should have known you knew what you were talking about.
G


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Steve

sack316
10-27-2009, 11:12 PM
Sad thing is, this was a thing where nothing was in dispute. Surely I'm not the only one that remembers all of this coming out in 2004? And then again last year in discussions on Cindy McCain it was revived due to the similarities of their respective situations and making public their personal finances.

And better yet, it even backs up her oft repeated point about wealthy and paying their share of taxes (which she actually acknowledged in her first response and did a nice job of pointing out). My guess is the realization set in that it is someone associated with the left, and suddenly a needless request for links and evidence were required(?) OR that it was me posting something, hence the needless request.

Sack

Deeman3
10-28-2009, 07:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My guess is the realization set in that it is someone associated with the left, and suddenly a needless request for links and evidence were required(?) OR that it was me posting something, hence the needless request.

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">This surprises you? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Remember, it is perfectly acceptable for almost the entire Obama cabinet and many of the Democratic leadership to have avoided, forgotten or miscalculated their taxes. Why would calling out Kerry not be the same? </span>

Chopstick
10-28-2009, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good. They can start with the billionaire family of John and Teresa Kerry. They pay less than half the income tax I pay.

</div></div>

Really? I don't suppose you have any proof of that?

I didn't think you did.



I'll be waiting for your proof.

G. </div></div>

It is a matter of public record. She had to submit her tax forms when JK ran for president. Look it up. It was all over every news channel even MSNBC.

United Press International
10-18-2004
Heinz Kerry taxed at 12.4 percent for 2003

WASHINGTON, Oct 18, 2004
(United Press International via COMTEX) --

Teresa Heinz Kerry paid taxes in 2003 at an overall U.S. federal tax rate of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>12.4 percent</span> on an income of $5.07 million, the Wall Street Journal said Monday.

Heinz Kerry, wife of Democrat presidential nominee John F. Kerry, showed $2.78 million of her 2003 income came in the form of tax exempt interest attributed to "state, municipal and public entity bonds,"


<span style="color: #3333FF">That is why the whole tax the rich argument is just ignorant. The rich have the same rights to own these tax exempt financial instruments as anyone else. If they were not tax exempt, then nobody would buy them and that road, bridge, school, hospital, water treatment plant, etc. would not get built. It has already been to the supreme court more than once, so forget about changing the law.

Even if you took 100% of everything rich people earned it would only amount to a fraction of the federal budget for one year. Then who are you going to tax next year. The only answer is to stop spending money that we do not have. The only reasonable number for US Government debt is ZERO.

We didn't have problems like this before credit cards came out. The whole credit card mentality has ruined this country. We are running around like a kid who loaded up five cards looking to tap mom, dad, or whoever just to extend the float for another month so the party can go on. Well, the bill always comes due as a bunch of irresponsible former home owners are finding out.

Did you hear Geithner? He has decided that the repaid tarp funds would be better invested in other areas rather than paying back the tax payers. So, the guy can't figure out turbo tax but he knows what to do with 800 billion of our money.
</span>

eg8r
10-28-2009, 08:04 AM
Sack why even bother. Nutjob from Md would not know research if her life depended on it.

eg8r

LWW
10-28-2009, 08:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No link, huh? Gotcha. </div></div>

I referenced a book. John Kerry's own website once even had it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sourc...&tab=iw&start=0 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.johnkerry.com%2Fpdf%2F101504_th k_tax_filing.pdf&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw&start=0)

There's a couple of links that once referenced the exact PDF file from Kerry's website.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/politi...AmzQ&oref=login (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/politics/campaign/16teresa.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1211642330-hYctnwI+0k55VjaGcPAmzQ&oref=login)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The two-page document, posted at johnkerry.com, showed total income of $5,073,554 last year. Her primary source of income was the tax-exempt bonds, investments that generally produce a lower interest rate, but those in the highest tax brackets can often pocket more cash if they choose municipals.

Ms. Heinz Kerry paid a federal tax of $628,401</div></div>

(if you would like me to show my work:
628,401 divided by 5,073,554 equals 12.3%)


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/10/teresa_heinz_ke.html

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/an_amt_trap.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Heinz

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Teresa_Heinz_Kerry_-_Wealth/id/5510577

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10892

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1629

http://profiles.incredible-people.com/teresa-heinz-kerry/

All better? Or would you like more references to facts and numbers that have never been in dispute since they were released 5 years ago?

Sack

</div></div>

Don't you know that the New York Times is a mouthpiece of the right wing nutjob republican party?

You obviously can't find it at a reputable site like the DailyKos or or PuffingtonHost.

LWW

sack316
10-28-2009, 01:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Don't you know that the New York Times is a mouthpiece of the right wing nutjob republican party?

You obviously can't find it at a reputable site like the DailyKos or or PuffingtonHost.

LWW </div></div>

lol, I actually did try, though, believe it or not! What's interesting is that I did get to the NYT link from those areas. Went to Huffpo looking (since I know that's an acceptable source /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif ). They had a short blurb about Cindy McCain, and linked an article to DailyKos. In the longer Kos article, they linked to another site as a reference to something else in there. From that third site, I eventually got to the NYT article.

Got lazy on the rest of the links, and just let google do my work from there.

Sack

llotter
10-28-2009, 03:37 PM
Yes, the pickins are pretty slim when it comes to finding anything positive to say about The Moron. Collecting more money from the private sector for the bureaucracy doesn't qualify as as something that rates a 'Bravo', does it?

Gayle in MD
10-29-2009, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sad thing is, this was a thing where nothing was in dispute. Surely I'm not the only one that remembers all of this coming out in 2004? And then again last year in discussions on Cindy McCain it was revived due to the similarities of their respective situations and making public their personal finances.

And better yet, it even backs up her oft repeated point about wealthy and paying their share of taxes (which she actually acknowledged in her first response and did a nice job of pointing out). My guess is the realization set in that it is someone associated with the left, and suddenly a needless request for links and evidence were required(?) OR that it was me posting something, hence the needless request.

Sack </div></div>


Sack,
FYI, when someone says the tax code should be changed to that the wealthy cannot use loop holes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, or by hiding the money off shore, it means EVERYBODY.

FYI, when it comes to people who are filthy rich, the only other issue which should be considered is how much they give to charity.

FYI, asking for a link isn't necessarily an attack.

FYI, for over ten years I have stated, over and over again, that all should be held to account, AND, have written posts condemning BOTH Repubs and Dems, for breaking the law, unlike many on here from the right, who still try to deny Bush's library of lies about his massive law breaking.

When I have made mistakes, I have admitted them, unlike many righties on here.

Here are just a few:

The lies about death panels.

The lies about Obama's birth place.

Lies that he is involved with terrorists.

Lies about he speech to our school kids.

Too many to count. All posts by certain, so called experts, with "Common Sense" LMAO~!

The Acusationa against Nancy Pelosi, when she stated that the CIA mislead her, and others, in the past, which has since been proven to have been an accurate statement.

Cheney and Libby working in concert to out a covert CIA agent, and then lying about it.

The well known lies that were told to all of us, and the administration's actions to skew intelligence, and pressure Intelligence agencies to come up with fake information, outdated information, all of which they used to send our youth to war, on lies, and then blaming the very people who were resigning left and right over their actions.

Bush's refusal to answer questions about his cocaine use. His lies about his DWI arrests. His lies in the SOTU Address about Yellow Cake and Saddam.

I have also given praise to some Republicans whom I admire for stating the truth, when it was unpopular to do so.

So you can give it up on trying to put me in the same category as you and the rest of the righties on here who refuse to acknowledge proven facts.

I asked for a link. Big damn deal. You pick apart my posts regularly. Dish it out, but can't take it?

G.

Gayle in MD
10-29-2009, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My guess is the realization set in that it is someone associated with the left, and suddenly a needless request for links and evidence were required(?) OR that it was me posting something, hence the needless request.

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">This surprises you? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Remember, it is perfectly acceptable for almost the entire Obama cabinet and many of the Democratic leadership to have avoided, forgotten or miscalculated their taxes. Why would calling out Kerry not be the same? </span> </div></div>

[color:#000066]Just one little thing, none of them are currently serving in the cabinet. AND, had we scrutinized and nit picked every one of Bush's cabinet people, we would have found the same thing. As has been acknowedged by many in the IRS, anyone can be found guilty of failing to pay all of their taxes, if the IRS digs around enough, they can always find things.

I do know someting about that, since my grand father, who was Chairman of the Republican Committee, BTW, was also the deputy director of the Internal Revenue Service, and two of my uncles worked for the IRS.

Also, it wasn't "Many" in the Democratic Leadership, it was ONE, so far, and he is being investigated.

Just keep on with your partisan rants, while accusiing others of partisanship, Deeman. I haven't noticed any gay bashing coming from you and dirested toward your "Shcistian, Family Values, Republican closeted gays. What's up with that?
Gross partisanship, after all the Barney Bashing?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif
G.

Gayle in MD
10-29-2009, 09:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good. They can start with the billionaire family of John and Teresa Kerry. They pay less than half the income tax I pay.

</div></div>

Really? I don't suppose you have any proof of that?

I didn't think you did.



I'll be waiting for your proof.

G. </div></div>

It is a matter of public record. She had to submit her tax forms when JK ran for president. Look it up. It was all over every news channel even MSNBC.

United Press International
10-18-2004
Heinz Kerry taxed at 12.4 percent for 2003

WASHINGTON, Oct 18, 2004
(United Press International via COMTEX) --

Teresa Heinz Kerry paid taxes in 2003 at an overall U.S. federal tax rate of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>12.4 percent</span> on an income of $5.07 million, the Wall Street Journal said Monday.

Heinz Kerry, wife of Democrat presidential nominee John F. Kerry, showed $2.78 million of her 2003 income came in the form of tax exempt interest attributed to "state, municipal and public entity bonds,"


<span style="color: #3333FF">That is why the whole tax the rich argument is just ignorant. The rich have the same rights to own these tax exempt financial instruments as anyone else. If they were not tax exempt, then nobody would buy them and that road, bridge, school, hospital, water treatment plant, etc. would not get built. It has already been to the supreme court more than once, so forget about changing the law.

Even if you took 100% of everything rich people earned it would only amount to a fraction of the federal budget for one year. Then who are you going to tax next year. The only answer is to stop spending money that we do not have. The only reasonable number for US Government debt is ZERO.

We didn't have problems like this before credit cards came out. The whole credit card mentality has ruined this country. We are running around like a kid who loaded up five cards looking to tap mom, dad, or whoever just to extend the float for another month so the party can go on. Well, the bill always comes due as a bunch of irresponsible former home owners are finding out.

Did you hear Geithner? He has decided that the repaid tarp funds would be better invested in other areas rather than paying back the tax payers. So, the guy can't figure out turbo tax but he knows what to do with 800 billion of our money.
</span>






</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">I agree with your statements about credit cards. I never use them myself. Cash for everything.

However, when you consider the information I posted some time back, about 2/3 of the corporations avoiding paying any taxes. at all, along with the estimate some time back that eight trillion dollars (some estimates were higher) is hidden in off shore accounts, I don't agree with the rest of your post.

There are too many loopholes available mostly to the wealthy....

G. </span>

Deeman3
10-29-2009, 09:17 AM
I beg to differ, I have bashed the bathroom footsie guy to no end. What other gays are you talking about? Besides your post on your feeling that one of the Fox anchors was gay, I don't know of the rash of other Republicans who are perverted child molesters. If you will identify them, I'll be more than happy to bash them as I would be as happy as Barney Frank at an all boy's school, to say bad things about them.

In truth, if you had proof on these large numbers I may simply have missed them if they were in the middle of a 30 paragraph post. I skip those lengthy posts by both side here.

Sweet deal loans to congressmen, the tax "oversights" of the Obama team members up to and inculding the top tax guy, them practically having to cart off the entire Democratic New Jersey deligation, money stuffed into freezers and you say they have less issues than the Bush Administration? That is funny. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

pooltchr
10-29-2009, 09:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> my grand father was also the deputy director of the Internal Revenue Service, and two of my uncles worked for the IRS.

G. </div></div>

The truth comes out! She comes from a long line of "Revenuers"!

Some of our friends in the mountains have a unique way of handling them!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Steve

LWW
10-29-2009, 09:21 AM
These Gayle rants crack me up.

LWW

Gayle in MD
10-29-2009, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I beg to differ, I have bashed the bathroom footsie guy to no end. What other gays are you talking about? Besides your post on your feeling that one of the Fox anchors was gay, I don't know of the rash of other Republicans who are perverted child molesters. If you will identify them, I'll be more than happy to bash them as I would be as happy as Barney Frank at an all boy's school, to say bad things about them.

In truth, if you had proof on these large numbers I may simply have missed them if they were in the middle of a 30 paragraph post. I skip those lengthy posts by both side here.

Sweet deal loans to congressmen, the tax "oversights" of the Obama team members up to and inculding the top tax guy, them practically having to cart off the entire Democratic New Jersey deligation, money stuffed into freezers and you say they have less issues than the Bush Administration? That is funny. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">Actually, it's sad that you could have witnessed all of the law breaking and lies of the Bush Administration, which led to our country being bogged down in their results to this day, and all the lives lost because of it, and still make the above statement.

As for your other snipes, I posted the link to the site which gave quite a large number of outed Republican Gays, Melman, Christ, including a link showing Linsey GraHAM, skipping the out right question, ARE YOU GAY, and couldn't even say, I AM A HETEROSEXUAL. I'd say that's proof enough on him.

There is a whole list at that link. A documentary, entitled, "Outrage" showing right now on HBO, outing both past and current Republicans who are in the closet, including those who left office just in advance of being outed, because they knew it was coming out.

Not that you, someone who has bashed Barney non stop on here for years, would have any interest at all checking out your own party, the "Christian, Famlily Values Party" to see how many of them are hypocrites, incluidng the deputy governor of South Carolina, and numberous aids to Republicans on the hill.

Also, I hope you're not trying to draw a connection between gays and child molesters, since the fact is that heterosexual men are far more likely to be chld molestors than gay men, unless of course, they're priests, who need to select kids that they can intimidate. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
10-29-2009, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
There are too many loopholes available mostly to the wealthy....

G. [/color] </div></div>

So is the answer to punish the rich by taxing them more, or to fix the laws? Seems to me that the rich are taking advantage of the way the tax laws are written, a right that EVERYONE in this country has. Do you deduct the mortgage interest on your house when you do your taxes? That's a loophole. Do you invest in a 401K? That's a loophole. Do you take a deduction for the state income tax you paid when you do your federal taxes? That's a loophole.

If you do any of the above, then by your own standards, you aren't paying your fair share.

It's so funny how you want to attack others for things that you take advantage of yourself.

If someone really wanted to fix the economy, they could ignore healthcare, stimulus bills, and just about everything else, and just fix the tax code. As it is right now, nobody knows what all the laws are. I believe simplifying the tax laws (Fair Tax) could eliminate tons of paperwork, and probably just about eliminate an entire government boondoggle we call the IRS.

Obama wants to "fix" everything in the private sector, when all he really needs to do is "fix" the government!

Steve

eg8r
10-29-2009, 10:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree with your statements about credit cards. I never use them myself. Cash for everything.</div></div>Wow, cash for the house and the boat. Not bad.

eg8r

eg8r
10-29-2009, 10:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gaylio who never admitted to a mistake in her life</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I have made mistakes, I have admitted them, unlike many righties on here.</div></div>Now that is funny, I don't care who you are. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I asked for a link. Big damn deal. You pick apart my posts regularly. Dish it out, but can't take it?
</div></div>If someone was to ask you for a link you would call them a nitpicker.

eg8r

Chopstick
10-29-2009, 11:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style="color: #000066">I agree with your statements about credit cards. I never use them myself. Cash for everything.

<span style="color: #000099">I'm the same way. I don't even have a credit card. I think the government and everyone would be better off if they were the same way. Credit has it's place but it is almost never used correctly.</span>

However, when you consider the information I posted some time back, about 2/3 of the corporations avoiding paying any taxes. at all, along with the estimate some time back that eight trillion dollars (some estimates were higher) is hidden in off shore accounts, I don't agree with the rest of your post.

There are too many loopholes available mostly to the wealthy....

<span style="color: #000099">I cannot speak about corporate taxation outside of the investment vehicles that are available to them and individuals. There are some differences in the taxable status of preferred stock but other than that from an investment income stand point corporations have the same general taxable status as individuals. These should not be considered loopholes per se as they are an integral part of the instrument and they are available to anyone.

However, I will give an example, that supports both our points. Consider the Ginnie Mae bond. Anyone can buy one. Income from them is tax exempt but the par value is $25,000 each. Who's gonna buy a sack full of those? If you think that's bad, check out the Berkshire Hathaway level A preferred. Last time I looked it was about $89k and change per share. A corporation will get a 30% tax deferment on dividend income from those.

The point is that until you start subtracting civil rights from rich people you will never be able to stop them from placing their money into investments that will minimize their taxable status. It has already been tried.

A comment was made in a class I was recently. Margret Thatcher almost bankrupted Rolls Royce when she changed the taxable status of corporate executives. What the corporations were doing was in lieu of taxable income the corporations were giving their executives Rolls Royces to drive around. The tax code was changed so that direct income was better and they stopped buying them cars. There is always going to be a way around it and that's never going to change.

There are better alternatives such as, abolish income taxes completely. Tax consumption. Who consumes more? You don't want to pay consumption and usage tax? Use less. That leaves more for everyone else. Everyone wins. One massive government bureaucracy is gone along with it's associated costs and a whole bunch of lawyers are out of work. What's wrong with that?

</span>


G. </span> </div></div>

sack316
10-29-2009, 11:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Sack,
FYI, when someone says the tax code should be changed to that the wealthy cannot use loop holes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, or by hiding the money off shore, it means EVERYBODY.</div></div>

Yes, I would hope and assume so.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI, when it comes to people who are filthy rich, the only other issue which should be considered is how much they give to charity.</div></div>

I hate that I have to agree with that, but I do. Unfortunate we must encourage charity to get it. In a perfect world charity would be just that, charity... rather than a write off and image enhancer for many /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI, asking for a link isn't necessarily an attack.</div></div>

No... but asking for one, then being given a reference and the original source, and responding with a smart-ass "no link, huh? Gotcha" probably is an attack.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI, for over ten years I have stated, over and over again, that all should be held to account, AND, have written posts condemning BOTH Repubs and Dems, for breaking the law, unlike many on here from the right, who still try to deny Bush's library of lies about his massive law breaking.</div></div>

I've seen plenty of condemnation of republicans, and yes a few of dems from you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I have made mistakes, I have admitted them, unlike many righties on here.</div></div>

Now this I would like to see a link to! Aside from the time you heard a figure wrong from the news and misquoted some profits from an insurance company, I'm just not recalling too much of this!

Sack

Gayle in MD
10-29-2009, 11:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Sack,
FYI, when someone says the tax code should be changed to that the wealthy cannot use loop holes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, or by hiding the money off shore, it means EVERYBODY.</div></div>

Yes, I would hope and assume so.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI, when it comes to people who are filthy rich, the only other issue which should be considered is how much they give to charity.</div></div>

I hate that I have to agree with that, but I do. Unfortunate we must encourage charity to get it. In a perfect world charity would be just that, charity... rather than a write off and image enhancer for many /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI, asking for a link isn't necessarily an attack.</div></div>

No... but asking for one, then being given a reference and the original source, and responding with a smart-ass "no link, huh? Gotcha" probably is an attack.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI, for over ten years I have stated, over and over again, that all should be held to account, AND, have written posts condemning BOTH Repubs and Dems, for breaking the law, unlike many on here from the right, who still try to deny Bush's library of lies about his massive law breaking.</div></div>

I've seen plenty of condemnation of republicans, and yes a few of dems from you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I have made mistakes, I have admitted them, unlike many righties on here.</div></div>

Now this I would like to see a link to! Aside from the time you heard a figure wrong from the news and misquoted some profits from an insurance company, I'm just not recalling too much of this!

Sack </div></div>

Really? I'm surprised to hear that from you. I recall one time it was because I posted something about the RNC's use of the N word, with a small n...that you pointed out had been just satire. I admitted that I had made a mistke, however, I don't admit to mistakes when people on here jump onto one of my posts and think that because they deny the truth, or cherry pick my posts, avoiding the parts they choose to avoid, that I am going to buy into some sort of twisted logic they havve proven me wrong.

The link you provided the first time, didn't work, BTW.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

sack316
10-29-2009, 12:08 PM
Ah, good call. There's example #2 /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

And yes, I even stated that I believed the file had been removed from Kerry's website that I used. I suppose I should have specified that, though removed, the Kerry website was the original source of the income tax document referenced everywhere else.

Sack

Deeman3
10-29-2009, 12:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD
Also, I hope you're not trying to draw a connection between gays and child molesters, since the fact is that heterosexual men are far more likely to be chld molestors than gay men, unless of course, they're priests, who need to select kids that they can intimidate. [/color</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Where would you get the silly idea that most child molesters are heterosexuals? Even the most noted and depraved cases in history are those involving gay and bi-sexuals, like Gacy, Dahlmer and many more. I know the gay and petophyle community do not want this highlighted but you don't need to carry this water for them. Taking priests, your example, it is clear the many more boys are molested by priests and pastors than those that involve girls. Even the ones that look, on the surface, like straight male homocides, Richard Speck, involves a bi-man who was just a pervert who hated women more than he liked men.

While far too many men molest young girls, the vast numbers of cases involve gays or bisexuals who have perverted view of children and act on it time after time. I have never said all gays do this but the percentage looks pretty high especially if they are, as they say, only 10% of the population.

I have taped the show you mention and will watch it to see the proof that they have on the Republicans. I would say that L. Graham just not answering a question about his sexuality is not proof. If there is better proof than that, I'll comment on it.I am always wary of those making documentaries who have a solid agenda.

If he is gay, he should be escorted out of office with Barney on his arm. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

Gayle in MD
10-29-2009, 02:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD
Also, I hope you're not trying to draw a connection between gays and child molesters, since the fact is that heterosexual men are far more likely to be chld molestors than gay men, unless of course, they're priests, who need to select kids that they can intimidate. [/color</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Where would you get the silly idea that most child molesters are heterosexuals? Even the most noted and depraved cases in history are those involving gay and bi-sexuals, like Gacy, Dahlmer and many more. I know the gay and petophyle community do not want this highlighted but you don't need to carry this water for them. Taking priests, your example, it is clear the many more boys are molested by priests and pastors than those that involve girls. Even the ones that look, on the surface, like straight male homocides, Richard Speck, involves a bi-man who was just a pervert who hated women more than he liked men.

While far too many men molest young girls, the vast numbers of cases involve gays or bisexuals who have perverted view of children and act on it time after time. I have never said all gays do this but the percentage looks pretty high especially if they are, as they say, only 10% of the population.

I have taped the show you mention and will watch it to see the proof that they have on the Republicans. I would say that L. Graham just not answering a question about his sexuality is not proof. If there is better proof than that, I'll comment on it.I am always wary of those making documentaries who have a solid agenda.

If he is gay, he should be escorted out of office with Barney on his arm. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span> </div></div>

Deeman,
You are quite wrong about the child molestors. By far, most of them are heterosexual. Also, most rape, in general, is committed by heterosexual men, and in fact, most murders, are commited by white, heterosexual men.

As for your position on Graham, what does it take in response to the question, ARE YOU GAY, to simply say, NO, I am heterosexual.
He didn't answer the question...changed the subject entirely, and was visibly shaken.

Split hairs if you like, Graham is gay, as is Chralie Christ, Ken Melman, and a slew of others, AND most child molestors, are by far, heterosexual.


http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
G.

Gayle in MD
10-29-2009, 02:11 PM
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=psychology+toda...p=1256846729806 (http://www.ask.com/bar?q=psychology+today+magazine&page=1&qsrc=2352&dm=all&ab=0&title=Psychology+Today%3A+Health%2C+Help%2C+Happin ess+%2B+Find+a+Therapist&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.com%2F&sg=Nr3T8HHKu1QjH0YPPqJA2symlys9hEsycE9vTNHOVNQ%3D&tsp=1256846729806)


G.

Deeman3
10-29-2009, 03:44 PM
That link does not give data supporting your claim that most child sexual asual is by Heterosexuals.

As for your contention that most murders are committed by white males, even despite the fact that they are a much smaller portion of the poplulation, the largest number of homocides are commited by blacks and hispanics.

You can check by the ferderal prison population records as they are separated by convictions and violent crimes. Now, if you say more white males get away with murder because of the courts or other factors, perhaps a few but not in the numbers we see.

In our state, for instance, they must not broadcast the murders when done by whites as we see at least a 7 - 1 rate here with about an even split in population. I wish this were not true so that we may have made some progress over the last half century but it is happening every day, here and even in Maryland, dear Maryland. Check with your Baltimore PD...

Gayle in MD
10-31-2009, 09:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style="color: #000066">I agree with your statements about credit cards. I never use them myself. Cash for everything.

<span style="color: #000099">I'm the same way. I don't even have a credit card. I think the government and everyone would be better off if they were the same way. Credit has it's place but it is almost never used correctly.</span>

However, when you consider the information I posted some time back, about 2/3 of the corporations avoiding paying any taxes. at all, along with the estimate some time back that eight trillion dollars (some estimates were higher) is hidden in off shore accounts, I don't agree with the rest of your post.

There are too many loopholes available mostly to the wealthy....

<span style="color: #000099">I cannot speak about corporate taxation outside of the investment vehicles that are available to them and individuals. There are some differences in the taxable status of preferred stock but other than that from an investment income stand point corporations have the same general taxable status as individuals. These should not be considered loopholes per se as they are an integral part of the instrument and they are available to anyone.

However, I will give an example, that supports both our points. Consider the Ginnie Mae bond. Anyone can buy one. Income from them is tax exempt but the par value is $25,000 each. Who's gonna buy a sack full of those? If you think that's bad, check out the Berkshire Hathaway level A preferred. Last time I looked it was about $89k and change per share. A corporation will get a 30% tax deferment on dividend income from those.

The point is that until you start subtracting civil rights from rich people you will never be able to stop them from placing their money into investments that will minimize their taxable status. It has already been tried.

A comment was made in a class I was recently. Margret Thatcher almost bankrupted Rolls Royce when she changed the taxable status of corporate executives. What the corporations were doing was in lieu of taxable income the corporations were giving their executives Rolls Royces to drive around. The tax code was changed so that direct income was better and they stopped buying them cars. There is always going to be a way around it and that's never going to change.

There are better alternatives such as, abolish income taxes completely. Tax consumption. Who consumes more? You don't want to pay consumption and usage tax? Use less. That leaves more for everyone else. Everyone wins. One massive government bureaucracy is gone along with it's associated costs and a whole bunch of lawyers are out of work. What's wrong with that?

</span>


G. </span> </div></div> </div></div>


<span style="color: #CC0000">Chop,
who do you think robbed everyone through corruptoin on Wall Street? The Middle Class? Who started a war for oil, on lies? The Middle Class? Who takes money from K.Street, and corrupt corporations who poison our water, air and food? The Middle Class?

Who hides their profits in off shore accounts?

Who said, "Only the little people pay income taxes."

Who took a multi million dollar golden parachute from Halliburton, then swiftly began building a false case for war in Iraq, on lies? Tell me, do you think Bush/Cheney, and their ties to Saudi Arabia, and their ties to oil, had anything to do with their lies to build a case for war with Iraq?

Did the filthy rich on Wall STreet, steal from investors?

G.</span>

Gayle in MD
10-31-2009, 10:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That link does not give data supporting your claim that most child sexual asual is by Heterosexuals.

As for your contention that most murders are committed by white males, even despite the fact that they are a much smaller portion of the poplulation, the largest number of homocides are commited by blacks and hispanics.

You can check by the ferderal prison population records as they are separated by convictions and violent crimes. Now, if you say more white males get away with murder because of the courts or other factors, perhaps a few but not in the numbers we see.

In our state, for instance, they must not broadcast the murders when done by whites as we see at least a 7 - 1 rate here with about an even split in population. I wish this were not true so that we may have made some progress over the last half century but it is happening every day, here and even in Maryland, dear Maryland. Check with your Baltimore PD... </div></div>

First of all the link does prove you wrong, but like a typical rightie, you won't admit to it. There is no evidence that homosexuals commit more child rape, than heterosexuals. How many fathers, molest their daughters/

Don't choose one area from my state, to use as an example. Most of Baltimore is not only safe, but up-scale. Just because there is one part of the city that is bad, doesn't make the whole city bad, nor the whole state.

Also, you can't judge the country by your state.

We have a high black population in the suberbs of Washington D.C., and they are well educated, upwardly mobile, and living in mansions. We aren't the south.

G.

pooltchr
10-31-2009, 03:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We aren't the south.

G. </div></div>

Thank God for small favors!

Steve