|
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
"BAR" wrote in message ... Roy Blankenship wrote: "BAR" wrote in message . .. Roy Blankenship wrote: "BAR" wrote in message . .. Roy Blankenship wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namely Socialism. All his speeches, writings and comments drip of the signals. If he is elected and the Dems truly get control of the Congress, we are in for some major "Changes". Eisboch I hope so. Anything would be better than the bull**** we have seen for the last 8 years that, evidently, dumbasses like you have supported. In case you have been blindered by the propaganda, Bush has made every effort to make our republic into a dictatorship. Try your fear tactics somewhere else. I guess personal responsibility and self sufficiency is lost on a majority of the US population. Soft and lazy and always with your hand out for another crumb from the government. I totally disagree. If you looked at the real numbers spent on social welfare, it amounts to 3 B2 bombers. a href="http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/72/How-Much-Does-Nation-Spend-on-Wel fare.html"How Much Does the Nation Spend on Welfare? - Public Aid, State Expenditures For Social Welfare, Private Welfare Expenditures, Welfare-reform Legislation/a You only believe what you wrote because people with hate agendas are trying to point the finger at someone so you have a place to focus your anger instead of realizing the government is the one ripping YOU off. How much of your tax money goes to feeding kids every month? What would you think? 50 cents? A dollar? And you think that is an issue? Our "great" country has been brought to its knees by whom? Poor people? Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has a surplus of cash, yet we are still footing the bill for this "war". I would rather that my money only go to constitutionally mandated expenditures. Thankfully, selfish pricks like you are a minority in this country. Get over yourself. You are free to give your money to any one or any organization you choose. Why won't you extend me the same courtesy? You have it. Don't put words in my mouth. I am just so tired of self-absorbed assholes like you who had their personalities beaten out of them as children. That whole, "I have mine, **** everyone else" attitude is old. What happened to you? What was taken from you as a child that you are so paranoid now? |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Sep 14, 2:56 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: Actually a lot of our problems are because Chairman Greenspan of the Fed screwed the pooch. Maybe 20 years ago, he was good but the last 10 or so of his reign was a disaster. Lets the Dot.bomb debacle get going, and then in the final year of Clinton's term to stop an economic complete meltdown from the dot.bomb disaster, freed up way too much easy money, with few controls giving us the subprime mortgage disaster. Did not matter who was POTUS with the Fed's money actions, we were going to be Boom and Bust. While at the same time, Congress, Dem and Repub controlled have overspent. Baseline budgeting with a built in 13% growth factor is criminal. If you cut a budget 8% the program still gets 5% more money. You budget like that in your life? Only thing that gave the Clinton years a semi balanced budget, was a huge influx of money from the taxes on options. The Fed's could not raise spending fast enough to use it all. Calif, raised spending as fast as it came in and set it so the spending was required at that level. I.D. Ten error. (ID 10 T) The next President we elect should be for cutting excess spending, and cutting size of government. And Obama is for making the the Government even more of a caretaker of the people. Socialism by definition. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Calif Bill wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Sep 14, 2:56 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: Actually a lot of our problems are because Chairman Greenspan of the Fed screwed the pooch. Maybe 20 years ago, he was good but the last 10 or so of his reign was a disaster. Lets the Dot.bomb debacle get going, and then in the final year of Clinton's term to stop an economic complete meltdown from the dot.bomb disaster, freed up way too much easy money, with few controls giving us the subprime mortgage disaster. Did not matter who was POTUS with the Fed's money actions, we were going to be Boom and Bust. While at the same time, Congress, Dem and Repub controlled have overspent. Baseline budgeting with a built in 13% growth factor is criminal. If you cut a budget 8% the program still gets 5% more money. You budget like that in your life? Only thing that gave the Clinton years a semi balanced budget, was a huge influx of money from the taxes on options. The Fed's could not raise spending fast enough to use it all. Calif, raised spending as fast as it came in and set it so the spending was required at that level. I.D. Ten error. (ID 10 T) The next President we elect should be for cutting excess spending, and cutting size of government. And Obama is for making the the Government even more of a caretaker of the people. Socialism by definition. Actually, it isn't. But you wouldn't know that. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Roy Blankenship wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message ... Roy Blankenship wrote: "BAR" wrote in message . .. Roy Blankenship wrote: "BAR" wrote in message . .. Roy Blankenship wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namely Socialism. All his speeches, writings and comments drip of the signals. If he is elected and the Dems truly get control of the Congress, we are in for some major "Changes". Eisboch I hope so. Anything would be better than the bull**** we have seen for the last 8 years that, evidently, dumbasses like you have supported. In case you have been blindered by the propaganda, Bush has made every effort to make our republic into a dictatorship. Try your fear tactics somewhere else. I guess personal responsibility and self sufficiency is lost on a majority of the US population. Soft and lazy and always with your hand out for another crumb from the government. I totally disagree. If you looked at the real numbers spent on social welfare, it amounts to 3 B2 bombers. a href="http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/72/How-Much-Does-Nation-Spend-on-Wel fare.html"How Much Does the Nation Spend on Welfare? - Public Aid, State Expenditures For Social Welfare, Private Welfare Expenditures, Welfare-reform Legislation/a You only believe what you wrote because people with hate agendas are trying to point the finger at someone so you have a place to focus your anger instead of realizing the government is the one ripping YOU off. How much of your tax money goes to feeding kids every month? What would you think? 50 cents? A dollar? And you think that is an issue? Our "great" country has been brought to its knees by whom? Poor people? Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has a surplus of cash, yet we are still footing the bill for this "war". I would rather that my money only go to constitutionally mandated expenditures. Thankfully, selfish pricks like you are a minority in this country. Get over yourself. You are free to give your money to any one or any organization you choose. Why won't you extend me the same courtesy? You have it. Don't put words in my mouth. I am just so tired of self-absorbed assholes like you who had their personalities beaten out of them as children. That whole, "I have mine, **** everyone else" attitude is old. What happened to you? What was taken from you as a child that you are so paranoid now? Who ****ed in your cornflakes this morning. You need to get off your ass and help yourself and stop relying upon everyone else to do everything for you. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Sep 14, 4:57*pm, "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of
Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. " wrote: wf3h wrote: then, pray tell, why are virtually no students admitted to ivy league schools from working class families? what do you do with places like findlay, ohio, or pittsburgh that are wiped out by corporate abandoment? I hate to tell you, but Ivy League schools are FULL of middle class families. really? care to prove it? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/op...e%20University In 2004, Lawrence Summers, then Harvard’s president, pointed out that three-fourths of the students at selective colleges come from the top income quartile and only 9 percent from the bottom two quartiles combined. *My father, definitely working class went to Yale, myself and my son are definitely middle class graduated from Columbia. *Since the 60's, Ivy League schools don't discriminate due to income, except, of course, that's not what the evidence shows. your elevated and holy opinion notwithstanding. you seem to agree with mccain that $5M is middle class and the economic demographics of an Ivy League school represent the economic demographics of America. *Ivy League schools will actually give working and poor students academic considerations they don't give to middle class and above students to make sure they do have a balanced class. Sure there are many wealthy at the schools, but the middle class, working class and below are the majority of those attending Ivy League today. * *Starting 2 years after my son started school, all admitting freshman whose family income was below $75,000 got a 100% scholarship. 20 years ago when I took my niece on a tour of princeton, the guide said that only 3% of students came from working class families. seems lawrence summers agrees. you, of course, with your mcbush view of the world, parrot the rush limbaugh/fox news view of the world Your understanding of Ivy League schools is a complete as your understanding of world economics. golly. you're right. all i have are the facts you have truthiness. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Sep 14, 7:11*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
*The next President we elect should be for cutting excess spending, and cutting size of government. *And Obama is for making the the Government even more of a caretaker of the people. *Socialism by definition. says the ardent socialist....who says screw the middle class, it's the RICH who deserve to be taken care of by the govt. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Sep 14, 6:12*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:16:40 -0700, wf3h wrote: On Sep 14, 12:03*am, Curly Surmudgeon wrote: Precisely, everyone should pay an equal tax. 'equal' does not necessarily mean 'fair'. you were right the 1st time: everyone should *pay a fair tax *Any disparity, any exclusion, deduction, exemption, credit, or dependency allowance creates special interests and an inequity. that's true. and we, as a society, have decided that things like raising kinds, health insurance, having a viable middle class, are values that we want to promote via having them as special interests. and that is fair. Via legalized theft. *Do not expect the victim to remain passively silent. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Roy Blankenship" wrote in message m... "BAR" wrote in message . .. Roy Blankenship wrote: "BAR" wrote in message . .. Roy Blankenship wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namely Socialism. All his speeches, writings and comments drip of the signals. If he is elected and the Dems truly get control of the Congress, we are in for some major "Changes". Eisboch I hope so. Anything would be better than the bull**** we have seen for the last 8 years that, evidently, dumbasses like you have supported. In case you have been blindered by the propaganda, Bush has made every effort to make our republic into a dictatorship. Try your fear tactics somewhere else. I guess personal responsibility and self sufficiency is lost on a majority of the US population. Soft and lazy and always with your hand out for another crumb from the government. I totally disagree. If you looked at the real numbers spent on social welfare, it amounts to 3 B2 bombers. a href="http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/72/How-Much-Does-Nation-Spend-on-Wel fare.html"How Much Does the Nation Spend on Welfare? - Public Aid, State Expenditures For Social Welfare, Private Welfare Expenditures, Welfare-reform Legislation/a You only believe what you wrote because people with hate agendas are trying to point the finger at someone so you have a place to focus your anger instead of realizing the government is the one ripping YOU off. How much of your tax money goes to feeding kids every month? What would you think? 50 cents? A dollar? And you think that is an issue? Our "great" country has been brought to its knees by whom? Poor people? Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has a surplus of cash, yet we are still footing the bill for this "war". I would rather that my money only go to constitutionally mandated expenditures. Thankfully, selfish pricks like you are a minority in this country. Get over yourself. He can't. Ask Bertie (BAR) how much money he makes. He'll boast & brag about that at the drop of a hat. Wow. Thank you for that... I manufacture a product and have a lot of known clients. One guy was testing my product and his tech called me and said he wanted it but was only willing to pay XXX dollars for it. I said, "I have a problem with people who have $100 million dollars and want to grind the little guy. Bring it back". How much is enough? What happens to people that their egos are never satiated? More! More! More! |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Peter Skelton wrote:
:On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:15:13 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :Peter Skelton wrote: : ::On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:55:18 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: :: ::Peter Skelton wrote: :: :::On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:00:23 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: ::: :::Taxes based on income should be flat. They distort the economy the :::least that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels. ::: ::: :::That, of course, is a religious statement, devoid of proof and :::unprovable. ::: :: ::No, Peter, that is a basic fact, as you would know if you knew ::anything at all about Economics. :: ::Another religious statement, followed by a flat lie. If you have ::a proof, show it. :: : :No 'religious' statement and no lie. : :Where and when did you get your degree in economics, Peter? : :So now you're attempting to appeal to expertisde gained in your :time in the seminary? Religious statement followed by lie, as I :said. : First time I ever heard anyone call CU Boulder a "seminary". So far the only lies here seem to have Peter tracks on them. : :One can find economists who agree with Fred on this, and others :who don't. It is trivial to prove that, in a very low income :society, a flat tax doesn't work. It's also not hard to prove :that, in a very high income society, it's the best. As there is :no proven definition for high or low income in the context of :these theories, and no way to prove such a definition belief in :their application to the US is religious, not scientific. : Peter, as usual, is confused. He appears to be trapped in normative economics, which is not what is being discussed. The statement was that a flat tax is LESS DISTORTIVE of the economy, leading to generally more optimal economic market choices. This is regardless of income of the society. Certainly lower taxes (of any kind) are less distortive than higher taxes, but that's rather irrelevant to the discussion. This is not opinion and you're not going to find any competent economists who disagree with it. Note that the statement being made is not the same as saying it is 'best'. That is a normative judgment. It is also, apparently, how, in his ignorance of the subject, Peter is interpreting the actual statement being made. -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
"BAR" wrote in message . .. Roy Blankenship wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... Roy Blankenship wrote: "BAR" wrote in message . .. Roy Blankenship wrote: "BAR" wrote in message . .. Roy Blankenship wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namely Socialism. All his speeches, writings and comments drip of the signals. If he is elected and the Dems truly get control of the Congress, we are in for some major "Changes". Eisboch I hope so. Anything would be better than the bull**** we have seen for the last 8 years that, evidently, dumbasses like you have supported. In case you have been blindered by the propaganda, Bush has made every effort to make our republic into a dictatorship. Try your fear tactics somewhere else. I guess personal responsibility and self sufficiency is lost on a majority of the US population. Soft and lazy and always with your hand out for another crumb from the government. I totally disagree. If you looked at the real numbers spent on social welfare, it amounts to 3 B2 bombers. a href="http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/72/How-Much-Does-Nation-Spend-on-Wel fare.html"How Much Does the Nation Spend on Welfare? - Public Aid, State Expenditures For Social Welfare, Private Welfare Expenditures, Welfare-reform Legislation/a You only believe what you wrote because people with hate agendas are trying to point the finger at someone so you have a place to focus your anger instead of realizing the government is the one ripping YOU off. How much of your tax money goes to feeding kids every month? What would you think? 50 cents? A dollar? And you think that is an issue? Our "great" country has been brought to its knees by whom? Poor people? Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has a surplus of cash, yet we are still footing the bill for this "war". I would rather that my money only go to constitutionally mandated expenditures. Thankfully, selfish pricks like you are a minority in this country. Get over yourself. You are free to give your money to any one or any organization you choose. Why won't you extend me the same courtesy? You have it. Don't put words in my mouth. I am just so tired of self-absorbed assholes like you who had their personalities beaten out of them as children. That whole, "I have mine, **** everyone else" attitude is old. What happened to you? What was taken from you as a child that you are so paranoid now? Who ****ed in your cornflakes this morning. You need to get off your ass and help yourself and stop relying upon everyone else to do everything for you. What a predictable answer. I have my own company, jerkoff, I work 7 days week and have for years because I LOVE IT. Sometimes it gets tiresome being the last word, but the prospect of having to tolerate someone like you as a boss keeps me at it. What a buffoon. Wrong on every count. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Peter Skelton wrote:
:On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:17:45 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :Peter Skelton wrote: : ::On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:02:22 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: :: ::"Eisboch" wrote: :: ::: :::"wf3h" wrote in message news:28a17e74-ce4b-455d-b265- ::: :::the BIG difference is that NONE of my income is from capital gains!! :::how much of middle class income do you think comes from capital gains? ::: :: ::Start taxing capital gains at an even more confiscatory level and see ::just what happens to "much of middle class" retirement. :: ::: :::that's EXACTLY why the rich set up this system...so they wouldnt have :::to pay taxes, knowing full well that most of THEIR income is from :::capital gains, while middle class income comes from actually WORKING :::for a living ::: :: ::Yes, the wealthy never do anything, do they? Makes you wonder how ::they got and stayed wealthy... :: ::: :::--------------------------------- ::: :::It's amazing to me to witness the different views of capital gains and :::capital gains taxes. ::: :::Some see it your way. Others see the reduction of the capital gains :::penalty (taxes) as a means to encourage investment into the general economy :::which, turns out, promotes growth, employment and new opportunities. ::: :::The fact that you have never figured out how to take advantage of it doesn't :::mean it's bad for all. ::: :: ::In point of fact, capital gains is a PUNITIVE tax. The rich didn't ::put it in place. Morons like Eisboch did. :: ::Bull**** Fred. :: : :Bull**** yourself, Peter. : :: ::Capital gains are income, :: : :Which has already been taxed once before it gets treated as capital :gains. : : :No Fred. The entity being taxed is the one having the income, it :has not yet been taxed. : No Peter. Apparently everyone but you understands that the dollars originally invested HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED. Apparently everyone but you understands that the dollars with which a company pays dividends HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED AS CORPORATE INCOME. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_taxation : : :: ::you are a believer in ::flat tax aren't you? :: : :Define what YOU mean by 'flat tax' and perhaps we could see. : : :You brought up the term, if you have some special meaning, you :define it. : You asked the question. You will presumably go off on some tirade over the answer (no doubt based on your own insane definition of 'flat tax'), so you define your terms. : : :But you're too busy being insulting and squealing to hold a real :conversation with... : :: ::Flat tax is an especially odious form of voodoo economics. :: : :Thus speaks ignorance... : :So you've never studied economics? : Of course I have, but I have never studied voodoo. I'll leave that to ranters like you. -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
"Roy Blankenship" wrote:
: :"BAR" wrote in message ... : : I would rather that my money only go to constitutionally mandated : expenditures. : :Thankfully, selfish pricks like you are a minority in this country. Get over :yourself. : So how much do you pay in income taxes, Mr Blankenship? Unfortunately there are a lot of greedy pricks like you around and I'd rather not support them. -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Fred J. McCall wrote:
No Peter. Apparently everyone but you understands that the dollars originally invested HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED. Apparently everyone but you understands that the dollars with which a company pays dividends HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED AS CORPORATE INCOME. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_taxation So what? It is an excise tax on the corporate form of governance. Totally voluntary in return for the colossal economic advantages of a corporation. Free country If you don't want to pay it, don't be a corporation Vince |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
"hk" wrote in message . .. Calif Bill wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namely Socialism. All his speeches, writings and comments drip of the signals. If he is elected and the Dems truly get control of the Congress, we are in for some major "Changes". Eisboch Damn! did it again. I sure wish the "a" hole that started this cross posting .... hadn't. Eisboch But is at least more interesting than the Cut and Paste the "a" hole that started this cross posting posts. Yugo, Zell. Talking about holes. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Sep 14, 7:11 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: The next President we elect should be for cutting excess spending, and cutting size of government. And Obama is for making the the Government even more of a caretaker of the people. Socialism by definition. says the ardent socialist....who says screw the middle class, it's the RICH who deserve to be taken care of by the govt. You want yourself taken care of by the government. What boat do you want them to buy you and supply fuel for? |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Sep 14, 9:49*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Sep 14, 7:11 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: * The next President we elect should be for cutting excess spending, and cutting size of government. And Obama is for making the the Government even more of a caretaker of the people. Socialism by definition. says the ardent socialist....who says screw the middle class, it's the RICH who deserve to be taken care of by the govt. You want yourself taken care of by the government. *What boat do you want them to buy you and supply fuel for? if i'm a member of the GOP, they can buy me the queen mary. only the best for the rich, at govt. expense!! |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Sep 14, 9:49 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Sep 14, 7:11 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: The next President we elect should be for cutting excess spending, and cutting size of government. And Obama is for making the the Government even more of a caretaker of the people. Socialism by definition. says the ardent socialist....who says screw the middle class, it's the RICH who deserve to be taken care of by the govt. You want yourself taken care of by the government. What boat do you want them to buy you and supply fuel for? if i'm a member of the GOP, they can buy me the queen mary. only the best for the rich, at govt. expense!! We say get a job and buy it yourself. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Sep 14, 11:43*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Sep 14, 9:49 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message .... On Sep 14, 7:11 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: The next President we elect should be for cutting excess spending, and cutting size of government. And Obama is for making the the Government even more of a caretaker of the people. Socialism by definition. says the ardent socialist....who says screw the middle class, it's the RICH who deserve to be taken care of by the govt. You want yourself taken care of by the government. What boat do you want them to buy you and supply fuel for? if i'm a member of the GOP, they can buy me the queen mary. only the best for the rich, at govt. expense!! We say get a job and buy it yourself.- why? if i'm a rich hezbollah (AKA the GOP) member, the govt will buy it for me. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:04:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote: Peter Skelton wrote: :On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:15:13 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :Peter Skelton wrote: : ::On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:55:18 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: :: ::Peter Skelton wrote: :: :::On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:00:23 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: ::: :::Taxes based on income should be flat. They distort the economy the :::least that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels. ::: ::: :::That, of course, is a religious statement, devoid of proof and :::unprovable. ::: :: ::No, Peter, that is a basic fact, as you would know if you knew ::anything at all about Economics. :: ::Another religious statement, followed by a flat lie. If you have ::a proof, show it. :: : :No 'religious' statement and no lie. : :Where and when did you get your degree in economics, Peter? : :So now you're attempting to appeal to expertisde gained in your :time in the seminary? Religious statement followed by lie, as I :said. : First time I ever heard anyone call CU Boulder a "seminary". So far the only lies here seem to have Peter tracks on them. Humour ddead and still pretending he didn't lie. : :One can find economists who agree with Fred on this, and others :who don't. It is trivial to prove that, in a very low income :society, a flat tax doesn't work. It's also not hard to prove :that, in a very high income society, it's the best. As there is :no proven definition for high or low income in the context of :these theories, and no way to prove such a definition belief in :their application to the US is religious, not scientific. : Peter, as usual, is confused. He appears to be trapped in normative economics, which is not what is being discussed. The statement was that a flat tax is LESS DISTORTIVE of the economy, leading to generally more optimal economic market choices. This is regardless of income of the society. Certainly lower taxes (of any kind) are less distortive than higher taxes, but that's rather irrelevant to the discussion. Absolute bull**** Fred. The claim being made is "Taxes based on income should be flat." You're simply lying, again. Your supportive statement "They distort the economy the least that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels." is true under some conditions which I bothered to spell out (and you agree with) but it is not the claim. Learn to tell the truth. At low incomes a flat tax large enough to support the state collapses the economy (and kills people and might spark revolt). That is, in the opinion of the sane, distortion. I mentioned nothing about level of taxation, why did you introduce this irrelevance? This is not opinion and you're not going to find any competent economists who disagree with it. Note that the statement being made is not the same as saying it is 'best'. That is a normative judgment. It is also, apparently, how, in his ignorance of the subject, Peter is interpreting the actual statement being made. It is purely opinion Fred, economics is still largely art. There is no shortage of economists who are well aware of the facts and say so. If you read (you can read, but seldom bother), you'll find that "flat tax" articles very often argue from the pov that a simple system is better than a complex one and a flat tax is simple. The examples trotted out are not from states that had undergone significant political change recently, and whose tax systems were disfunctional before. Flat tax is another of the ideas that sweeps economic thought periodically. It's not the first I've lived through and it won't be the last. Peter Skelton |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Peter Skelton wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:04:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: Peter Skelton wrote: :On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:15:13 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :Peter Skelton wrote: : ::On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:55:18 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: :: ::Peter Skelton wrote: :: :::On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:00:23 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: ::: :::Taxes based on income should be flat. They distort the economy the :::least that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels. ::: ::: :::That, of course, is a religious statement, devoid of proof and :::unprovable. ::: :: ::No, Peter, that is a basic fact, as you would know if you knew ::anything at all about Economics. :: ::Another religious statement, followed by a flat lie. If you have ::a proof, show it. :: : :No 'religious' statement and no lie. : :Where and when did you get your degree in economics, Peter? : :So now you're attempting to appeal to expertisde gained in your :time in the seminary? Religious statement followed by lie, as I :said. : First time I ever heard anyone call CU Boulder a "seminary". So far the only lies here seem to have Peter tracks on them. Humour ddead and still pretending he didn't lie. : :One can find economists who agree with Fred on this, and others :who don't. It is trivial to prove that, in a very low income :society, a flat tax doesn't work. It's also not hard to prove :that, in a very high income society, it's the best. As there is :no proven definition for high or low income in the context of :these theories, and no way to prove such a definition belief in :their application to the US is religious, not scientific. : Peter, as usual, is confused. He appears to be trapped in normative economics, which is not what is being discussed. The statement was that a flat tax is LESS DISTORTIVE of the economy, leading to generally more optimal economic market choices. This is regardless of income of the society. Certainly lower taxes (of any kind) are less distortive than higher taxes, but that's rather irrelevant to the discussion. Absolute bull**** Fred. The claim being made is "Taxes based on income should be flat." You're simply lying, again. Your supportive statement "They distort the economy the least that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels." is true under some conditions which I bothered to spell out (and you agree with) but it is not the claim. Learn to tell the truth. At low incomes a flat tax large enough to support the state collapses the economy (and kills people and might spark revolt). That is, in the opinion of the sane, distortion. I mentioned nothing about level of taxation, why did you introduce this irrelevance? This is not opinion and you're not going to find any competent economists who disagree with it. Note that the statement being made is not the same as saying it is 'best'. That is a normative judgment. It is also, apparently, how, in his ignorance of the subject, Peter is interpreting the actual statement being made. It is purely opinion Fred, economics is still largely art. There is no shortage of economists who are well aware of the facts and say so. If you read (you can read, but seldom bother), you'll find that "flat tax" articles very often argue from the pov that a simple system is better than a complex one and a flat tax is simple. The examples trotted out are not from states that had undergone significant political change recently, and whose tax systems were disfunctional before. Flat tax is another of the ideas that sweeps economic thought periodically. It's not the first I've lived through and it won't be the last. Should sales taxes be progressive? |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:11:22 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote: Peter Skelton wrote: :On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:17:45 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :Peter Skelton wrote: : ::On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:02:22 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: :: ::"Eisboch" wrote: :: ::: :::"wf3h" wrote in message news:28a17e74-ce4b-455d-b265- ::: :::the BIG difference is that NONE of my income is from capital gains!! :::how much of middle class income do you think comes from capital gains? ::: :: ::Start taxing capital gains at an even more confiscatory level and see ::just what happens to "much of middle class" retirement. :: ::: :::that's EXACTLY why the rich set up this system...so they wouldnt have :::to pay taxes, knowing full well that most of THEIR income is from :::capital gains, while middle class income comes from actually WORKING :::for a living ::: :: ::Yes, the wealthy never do anything, do they? Makes you wonder how ::they got and stayed wealthy... :: ::: :::--------------------------------- ::: :::It's amazing to me to witness the different views of capital gains and :::capital gains taxes. ::: :::Some see it your way. Others see the reduction of the capital gains :::penalty (taxes) as a means to encourage investment into the general economy :::which, turns out, promotes growth, employment and new opportunities. ::: :::The fact that you have never figured out how to take advantage of it doesn't :::mean it's bad for all. ::: :: ::In point of fact, capital gains is a PUNITIVE tax. The rich didn't ::put it in place. Morons like Eisboch did. :: ::Bull**** Fred. :: : :Bull**** yourself, Peter. : :: ::Capital gains are income, :: : :Which has already been taxed once before it gets treated as capital :gains. : : :No Fred. The entity being taxed is the one having the income, it :has not yet been taxed. : No Peter. Apparently everyone but you understands that the dollars originally invested HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED. Apparently everyone but you understands that the dollars with which a company pays dividends HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED AS CORPORATE INCOME. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_taxation OFCS Fred, everybody knows that. Why does the fact that something has been taxed exempt it from further taxation? It is pretty bloody easy to structure corporate families to avoid shareholder taxes in the sort of bull**** utopia you're proposing. If it could workm there might be justification for trying it out. Unfortunately the whole thing collapses very fast because of things like rental, employee ownership and the like. Economists generally know this. They also know that regulations to control it would quickly approach our current mess in comlexity. There are moral problems too. Does great granddad's intelligent speculation in the property market in 1935-9 justify living tax-free in seven decades later? : : :: ::you are a believer in ::flat tax aren't you? :: : :Define what YOU mean by 'flat tax' and perhaps we could see. : : :You brought up the term, if you have some special meaning, you :define it. : You asked the question. You will presumably go off on some tirade over the answer (no doubt based on your own insane definition of 'flat tax'), so you define your terms. : : :But you're too busy being insulting and squealing to hold a real :conversation with... : :: ::Flat tax is an especially odious form of voodoo economics. :: : :Thus speaks ignorance... : :So you've never studied economics? : Of course I have, but I have never studied voodoo. I'll leave that to ranters like you. You seem to regard the current flavour of voodoo as the true religion. Peter Skelton |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
BAR wrote:
Flat tax is another of the ideas that sweeps economic thought periodically. It's not the first I've lived through and it won't be the last. Should sales taxes be progressive? Since flat general sales taxes are regressive its hard to do but not impossible. You have to find those items that are essentially self limiting by income and exempt them. Usual suggestions are food , clothing under certain limits etc. putting sales tax on private school tuition, Brokerage services, legal services and other untaxed consumption by the wealthy can also be used. Vince |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Vince wrote:
BAR wrote: Flat tax is another of the ideas that sweeps economic thought periodically. It's not the first I've lived through and it won't be the last. Should sales taxes be progressive? Since flat general sales taxes are regressive its hard to do but not impossible. You have to find those items that are essentially self limiting by income and exempt them. Usual suggestions are food , clothing under certain limits etc. putting sales tax on private school tuition, Brokerage services, legal services and other untaxed consumption by the wealthy can also be used. Vince That's very appealing, but if it is to be applied on private school tuition, it should be on the tuition rich folks pay for their kids, not the low-end tuition the schools middle class and poorer kids attend. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namely Socialism. You obviously have no idea what socialism is. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Lamont Cranston wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namely Socialism. You obviously have no idea what socialism is. No, he doesn't. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:49:42 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Sep 14, 7:11 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: The next President we elect should be for cutting excess spending, and cutting size of government. And Obama is for making the the Government even more of a caretaker of the people. Socialism by definition. says the ardent socialist....who says screw the middle class, it's the RICH who deserve to be taken care of by the govt. You want yourself taken care of by the government. What boat do you want them to buy you and supply fuel for? It would almost have to be a 36 foot Zimmerman like lobster boat. Casady |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
"BAR" wrote in message . .. Peter Skelton wrote: On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:04:40 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: Peter Skelton wrote: :On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:15:13 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :Peter Skelton wrote: : ::On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:55:18 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: :: ::Peter Skelton wrote: :: :::On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:00:23 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: ::: :::Taxes based on income should be flat. They distort the economy the :::least that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels. ::: ::: :::That, of course, is a religious statement, devoid of proof and :::unprovable. ::: :: ::No, Peter, that is a basic fact, as you would know if you knew ::anything at all about Economics. :: ::Another religious statement, followed by a flat lie. If you have ::a proof, show it. :: : :No 'religious' statement and no lie. : :Where and when did you get your degree in economics, Peter? : :So now you're attempting to appeal to expertisde gained in your :time in the seminary? Religious statement followed by lie, as I :said. : First time I ever heard anyone call CU Boulder a "seminary". So far the only lies here seem to have Peter tracks on them. Humour ddead and still pretending he didn't lie. : :One can find economists who agree with Fred on this, and others :who don't. It is trivial to prove that, in a very low income :society, a flat tax doesn't work. It's also not hard to prove :that, in a very high income society, it's the best. As there is :no proven definition for high or low income in the context of :these theories, and no way to prove such a definition belief in :their application to the US is religious, not scientific. : Peter, as usual, is confused. He appears to be trapped in normative economics, which is not what is being discussed. The statement was that a flat tax is LESS DISTORTIVE of the economy, leading to generally more optimal economic market choices. This is regardless of income of the society. Certainly lower taxes (of any kind) are less distortive than higher taxes, but that's rather irrelevant to the discussion. Absolute bull**** Fred. The claim being made is "Taxes based on income should be flat." You're simply lying, again. Your supportive statement "They distort the economy the least that way and allow it to function closer to its optimum levels." is true under some conditions which I bothered to spell out (and you agree with) but it is not the claim. Learn to tell the truth. At low incomes a flat tax large enough to support the state collapses the economy (and kills people and might spark revolt). That is, in the opinion of the sane, distortion. I mentioned nothing about level of taxation, why did you introduce this irrelevance? This is not opinion and you're not going to find any competent economists who disagree with it. Note that the statement being made is not the same as saying it is 'best'. That is a normative judgment. It is also, apparently, how, in his ignorance of the subject, Peter is interpreting the actual statement being made. It is purely opinion Fred, economics is still largely art. There is no shortage of economists who are well aware of the facts and say so. If you read (you can read, but seldom bother), you'll find that "flat tax" articles very often argue from the pov that a simple system is better than a complex one and a flat tax is simple. The examples trotted out are not from states that had undergone significant political change recently, and whose tax systems were disfunctional before. Flat tax is another of the ideas that sweeps economic thought periodically. It's not the first I've lived through and it won't be the last. Should sales taxes be progressive? Flat tax will never be. Taxation is one of the greatest controls politicians have over the people. So they can bless one section and screw another depending on their opinions and donors opinions. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:49:42 -0700, "Calif Bill" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Sep 14, 7:11 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote: The next President we elect should be for cutting excess spending, and cutting size of government. And Obama is for making the the Government even more of a caretaker of the people. Socialism by definition. says the ardent socialist....who says screw the middle class, it's the RICH who deserve to be taken care of by the govt. You want yourself taken care of by the government. What boat do you want them to buy you and supply fuel for? It would almost have to be a 36 foot Zimmerman like lobster boat. Casady Well, the hulls of those boats were quite interesting to me, but not the superstructure or interiors. I'll leave you and the rest of the droolers with that little puzzle. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:04:18 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote: On Sep 14, 8:53*am, "Eisboch" wrote: "wf3h" wrote in message news:28a17e74-ce4b-455d-b265- the BIG difference is that NONE of my income is from capital gains!! how much of middle class income do you think comes from capital gains? that's EXACTLY why the rich set up this system...so they wouldnt have to pay taxes, knowing full well that most of THEIR income is from capital gains, while middle class income comes from actually WORKING for a living --------------------------------- It's amazing to me to witness the different views of capital gains and capital gains taxes. Some see it your way. * Others see the reduction of the capital gains penalty (taxes) as a means to encourage investment into the general economy which, turns out, promotes growth, employment and new opportunities. and others see that an honest day's work for an honest day's pay is an honorable thing...except for the 'capital gains' class of folks who, in their elitist mindset, sneer at honest labor and don't think the middle class deserves even to be PAID for their work The fact that you have never figured out how to take advantage of it doesn't mean it's bad for all. the fact you think the middle class is a bunch of morons speaks for itself. I think he sees you stupid, ****ing,whining liberals as a bunch of morons, and with good reason. I'm retired from the Army, not a general either. Is that middle class enough for you? Yes, I declare capital gains, or losses, every year. You and your buddies sound like complete fools! -- John H. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Sep 14, 4:03*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... *As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. *Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namelySocialism. All his speeches, writings and comments drip of the signals. *If he is elected and the Dems truly get control of the Congress, we are in for some major "Changes". Eisboch Today on CNBC Mark Haines, "Everybody's for a free market economy until starts to work against them, then they turn socialist" |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Sep 14, 4:03 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namelySocialism. All his speeches, writings and comments drip of the signals. If he is elected and the Dems truly get control of the Congress, we are in for some major "Changes". Eisboch Today on CNBC Mark Haines, "Everybody's for a free market economy until starts to work against them, then they turn socialist" I just *love* the latest rounds of taxpayer-supported bailouts of private corporations. AIG should have been allowed to fall. It's legitimate insurance business would have been sold off to other insurers, and along with that business would have gone many of its employees in the legitimate insurance business. It's b.s. insurance business deserves to die. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Sep 17, 9:05*am, Actual Boater wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: On Sep 14, 4:03 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... *As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. *Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namelySocialism. All his speeches, writings and comments drip of the signals. *If he is elected and the Dems truly get control of the Congress, we are in for some major "Changes". Eisboch Today on CNBC Mark Haines, "Everybody's for a free market economy until starts to work against them, then they turn socialist" I just *love* the latest rounds of taxpayer-supported bailouts of private corporations. AIG should have been allowed to fall. It's legitimate insurance business would have been sold off to other insurers, and along with that business would have gone many of its employees in the legitimate insurance business. It's b.s. insurance business deserves to die. You may miss the point. AIG's business is international, like that London firm with the consumer loan rate fixing capability, it sets loan standards and backs loans everywhere. Fed Takes Control of AIG With $85 Billion Bailout (Update3) By Hugh Son and Erik Holm Enlarge Image/Details Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government took control of American International Group Inc. in an $85 billion bailout to prevent the bankruptcy of the nation's biggest insurer and the worst financial collapse in history. The Federal Reserve will provide a two-year loan, take 79.9 percent of the New York-based company's stock and replace its management because ``a disorderly failure of AIG could add to already significant levels of financial market fragility,'' according to a statement by the central bank late yesterday. AIG unraveled as the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression led to more than $18 billion of losses in the past year. A meltdown could have cost the financial industry $180 billion, according to RBC Capital Markets, because AIG provided insurance on more than $441 billion of fixed-income investments held by the world's biggest institutions, including $57.8 billion in securities tied to subprime mortgages. ``Nobody really knows what it would have meant if they would have been allowed to fail, but there was an enormous amount of systemic risk,'' said David Havens, a credit analyst at UBS AG in Stamford, Connecticut. ``It's an enormous relief.'' The government is lending AIG the money at 8.5 percentage points above the three-month London interbank offered rate, or a current rate of about 11.5 percent. The agreement will give the company, which sells insurance in more than 130 countries, time to sell assets ``on an orderly basis,'' AIG said in a statement. Chief Executive Officer Robert Willumstad, 63, will be replaced by former Allstate Corp. CEO Edward Liddy, 62, according to a person familiar with the plans, who declined to be identified because the change hadn't been formally announced. HBOS Merger Talks Financial shares swung in European trading. U.K. mortgage lender HBOS Plc fell more than 50 percent before rebounding when two people with knowledge of the matter said the bank is in merger talks with Lloyds TSB Group Plc. Yields on 10-year notes were little changed at 3.43 percent, after earlier rising as much as 14 basis points. AIG dropped 42 percent to $2.16 at 8:34 a.m. in early trading in New York, after falling 80 percent in the past week on concern the company would go bankrupt. The seizure in credit markets and more than $500 billion of losses related to subprime mortgages forced the government to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which control about half of America's $12 trillion in home loans, and drove Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. out of business. ``I am floored,'' said former Treasury counsel Peter Wallison in an interview. ``No one could have possibly imagined this a few months ago. I can't imagine why the Fed would do this unless they were sure AIG's failure posed systemic risk.'' Credit Downgrades The survival of the 89-year-old insurer fell into doubt when Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service cut its credit ratings on Sept. 15. The reductions threatened to force AIG to post more than $13 billion in collateral when the company was already short on cash. AIG couldn't raise money by selling shares after the stock plunged to less than $4 a share from $70.11 in October of last year. ``There could be a greater need for capital'' beyond the $85 billion, New York Insurance Superintendent Eric Dinallo told CNBC today, adding that the loan will give AIG time to sell units. The loan will ``be sufficient to handle AIG's collateral needs'' and allow the insurer to refinance debt as it comes due, said Wachovia Corp. analyst John Hall in a note today. The Fed's loan doesn't require asset sales or the company's liquidation, though these are the most likely ways AIG will repay the Fed, central bank staff officials told reporters on condition of anonymity. `Punitive' Interest Rates The ``punitive'' interest rate on the loan ``makes it extremely clear that this is not a subsidy extended to keep the company afloat but rather a stranglehold that makes AIG unviable while ensuring that its obligations will be met,'' said Marco Annunziata, an analyst at UniCredit SpA, in a note to clients. ``This is to all extents and purposes a controlled bankruptcy.'' The Fed doesn't have an expectation of whether AIG will be smaller, nonexistent or similar to its current form at the end of the loan's term, the staffers said. The Fed or Treasury will end up holding the AIG stake, the staffers said. The Fed bailed out AIG while refusing aid to Lehman, which collapsed earlier this week, because financial markets were more prepared for a Lehman failure, a Fed staff official said. Unit Sales The Fed stepped in after JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which were brought in to help assess AIG, failed to come up with a solution, according to a person familiar with the talks. Liddy is currently on the board of Goldman, the company Henry Paulson ran as CEO before becoming the U.S. Treasury secretary in 2006. Willumstad, the former Citigroup Inc. president who left the bank in 2005 to seek a CEO position, was named to AIG's top post in June. His predecessor, Martin Sullivan, was chief for three years until being ousted after two record quarterly net losses. Maurice ``Hank'' Greenberg reigned at AIG for almost four decades until he was forced to retire in 2005 amid regulatory probes. Greenberg, who remains one of the company's biggest stakeholders, said the company needed a bridge loan instead of a plan that put the company under government control. An investor group led by Greenberg said in a federal filing hours before the rescue was announced it might want to buy the company or some units or make loans to AIG. Hank Greenberg ``Why would you want to wipe out shareholders when you just need a bridge loan?'' Greenberg, 83, said in an interview before the announcement. ``It doesn't make any sense.'' Greenberg declined to comment after the Fed announcement, spokesman Glen Rochkind said. Businesses that may be sold include American General Finance Corp., the division that makes home and auto loans, said Citigroup analyst Joshua Shanker. The unit generated $2.89 billion in revenue last year, about 2.6 percent of AIG's total. Other candidates include AIG's U.S. variable-annuity business, and a 59 percent stake in reinsurer Transatlantic Holdings Inc., he said. Asset manager AIG Investments, with 5.1 percent of AIG's revenue, could also be sold, said Gary Ransom of Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller. American General Finance's price could be more than $6 billion if the unit sold for twice its book value. AIG Investments could fetch more than $3 billion if it sold for 2.5 percent of clients' assets under management. The Transatlantic stake is worth about $2.3 billion, based on yesterday's share price. The variable annuity results aren't broken out, making an estimate difficult, said Shanker. AIG acquired the business a decade ago when it bought SunAmerica for $19.7 billion in stock. Aircraft Leasing AIG's aircraft-leasing unit International Lease Finance Corp. may be bought by investors led by the unit's founder, Steven Udvar-Hazy, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing unnamed people. Udvar-Hazy has been in discussions with potential investors since Sept. 14, the Journal said. AIG may also find buyers for life insurance outside the U.S. where competitors including Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., MetLife Inc., Prudential Financial Inc., and Canada's Manulife Financial Corp. have been adding customers. ``In developing insurance markets around the world, the growth rates are, on average, twice what the growth rates in the U.S. are,'' MetLife Chief Financial Officer William Wheeler said Sept. 10. ``When properties come up for sale around the world, it's very competitive.'' Car Insurance Auto insurers are also consolidating, making AIG's car unit a takeover candidate. Liberty Mutual Group Inc. agreed in April to buy Safeco Corp. for $6.2 billion, the U.S. industry's biggest transaction since 2004. AIG rejected a bid for a joint investment by Allianz SE and J.C. Flowers & Co. on Sept. 14, said two people with knowledge of the offer. Allianz, Europe's biggest insurer, and Flowers, the New York-based private equity firm run by J. Christopher Flowers, proposed the cash infusion to help AIG fend off a liquidity crunch, the people said. Sabia Schwarzer, an Allianz spokeswoman, declined to comment. Flowers and Nicholas Ashooh, an AIG spokesman, didn't return calls seeking comment. To contact the reporters on this story: Hugh Son in New York at ; Erik Holm in New York at eholm2@ |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:05 am, Actual Boater wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On Sep 14, 4:03 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namelySocialism. All his speeches, writings and comments drip of the signals. If he is elected and the Dems truly get control of the Congress, we are in for some major "Changes". Eisboch Today on CNBC Mark Haines, "Everybody's for a free market economy until starts to work against them, then they turn socialist" I just *love* the latest rounds of taxpayer-supported bailouts of private corporations. AIG should have been allowed to fall. It's legitimate insurance business would have been sold off to other insurers, and along with that business would have gone many of its employees in the legitimate insurance business. It's b.s. insurance business deserves to die. You may miss the point. AIG's business is international, like that London firm with the consumer loan rate fixing capability, it sets loan standards and backs loans everywhere. Fed Takes Control of AIG With $85 Billion Bailout (Update3) By Hugh Son and Erik Holm Enlarge Image/Details Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government took control of American International Group Inc. in an $85 billion bailout to prevent the bankruptcy of the nation's biggest insurer and the worst financial collapse in history. I didn't miss the point. I'm very familiar with AIG and with what happens when an insurer falls on tough times. Some years ago, I had a three-year contract with a private sector insurer/investment company that had had a minor bout (relatively speaking) of "corporate greed," and as a result its shareholders bit it on the ass, real hard. It's insurance business was downrated for a while, and AIG was brought in as a partner for certain insurance lines in order to be able to offer an "A" rating to certain customers. The client downsized substantially, sold off certain business lines, and got tougher and smarter. It's profitable again. This was done without a penny of taxpayer money. AIG should have been allowed to fail. Its insurance customers would have been ok because their business would have gone elsewhere. Its other businesses could have been sold off. It ****es me off mightily when my tax dollars are used to reward Wall Street criminals. Corporate welfare - socialism for the rich. Foch the rich. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
"Actual Boater" wrote in message . .. I just *love* the latest rounds of taxpayer-supported bailouts of private corporations. AIG should have been allowed to fall. It's legitimate insurance business would have been sold off to other insurers, and along with that business would have gone many of its employees in the legitimate insurance business. It's b.s. insurance business deserves to die. Of course you think this. If any business *should* be bailed out, it is AIG. It's demise would have catastrophic effects on the US economy as well as many other economies world-wide with people rich and poor at risk of being wiped out financially. But, *that's* what you want, don't you? The demise of the US as we know it. BTW .... the Fed will end up *making* money on the deal. Back to the bin with you. Eisboch |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:05:45 -0400, Actual Boater wrote:
I just *love* the latest rounds of taxpayer-supported bailouts of private corporations. So far, U.S. rescue efforts to stabilize the financial system and housing market amount to about $900 billion. If this continues, pretty soon we'll be talking some real money. ;-( |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
|
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:31:42 -0400, Eisboch wrote:
If any business *should* be bailed out, it is AIG. It's demise would have catastrophic effects on the US economy as well as many other economies world-wide with people rich and poor at risk of being wiped out financially. Maybe we just need more deregulation. I agree that this bailout had to be done, but it does rot my socks that a bunch of greedy *******s can skate with their millions after damn near bringing this country to it's knees. Something that still might occur. This problem should never have happened. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
|
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
On Sep 17, 9:31*am, Actual Boater wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: On Sep 17, 9:05 am, Actual Boater wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On Sep 14, 4:03 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... *As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. *Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namelySocialism. All his speeches, writings and comments drip of the signals. *If he is elected and the Dems truly get control of the Congress, we are in for some major "Changes". Eisboch Today on CNBC Mark Haines, "Everybody's for a free market economy until starts to work against them, then they turn socialist" I just *love* the latest rounds of taxpayer-supported bailouts of private corporations. AIG should have been allowed to fall. It's legitimate insurance business would have been sold off to other insurers, and along with that business would have gone many of its employees in the legitimate insurance business. It's b.s. insurance business deserves to die. You may miss the point. AIG's business is international, like that London firm with the consumer loan rate fixing capability, it sets loan standards and backs loans everywhere. Fed Takes Control of AIG With $85 Billion Bailout (Update3) By Hugh Son and Erik Holm Enlarge Image/Details Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government took control of American International Group Inc. in an $85 billion bailout to prevent the bankruptcy of the nation's biggest insurer and the worst financial collapse in history. I didn't miss the point. I'm very familiar with AIG and with what happens when an insurer falls on tough times. Some years ago, I had a three-year contract with a private sector insurer/investment company that had had a minor bout (relatively speaking) of "corporate greed," and as a result its shareholders bit it on the ass, real hard. It's insurance business was downrated for a while, and AIG was brought in as a partner for certain insurance lines in order to be able to offer an "A" rating to certain customers. The client downsized substantially, sold off certain business lines, and got tougher and smarter. It's profitable again. This was done without a penny of taxpayer money. AIG should have been allowed to fail. Its insurance customers would have been ok because their business would have gone elsewhere. Its other businesses could have been sold off. It ****es me off mightily when my tax dollars are used to reward Wall Street criminals. Corporate welfare - socialism for the rich. Foch the rich. Still say you miss the point. When a U.S. company causes pain and anguish to many foreign companies, at a time when the U.S. government is in bad light with those foreign companies governments, any solution that will save face is acceptable. What would be the effect of each of AIG's assets selling at yard sale prices on U.S. "face" and conceived ability to do business without digging into the Uncle's pockets, which are none too full at the moment. |
McCain Lies His Way Thru Interview
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:31 am, Actual Boater wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On Sep 17, 9:05 am, Actual Boater wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On Sep 14, 4:03 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... As to Obama saying he is going to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Impossible. Only 45% pay income tax in the first place. You just said a mouthful. He's really describing another form of government, namelySocialism. All his speeches, writings and comments drip of the signals. If he is elected and the Dems truly get control of the Congress, we are in for some major "Changes". Eisboch Today on CNBC Mark Haines, "Everybody's for a free market economy until starts to work against them, then they turn socialist" I just *love* the latest rounds of taxpayer-supported bailouts of private corporations. AIG should have been allowed to fall. It's legitimate insurance business would have been sold off to other insurers, and along with that business would have gone many of its employees in the legitimate insurance business. It's b.s. insurance business deserves to die. You may miss the point. AIG's business is international, like that London firm with the consumer loan rate fixing capability, it sets loan standards and backs loans everywhere. Fed Takes Control of AIG With $85 Billion Bailout (Update3) By Hugh Son and Erik Holm Enlarge Image/Details Sept. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government took control of American International Group Inc. in an $85 billion bailout to prevent the bankruptcy of the nation's biggest insurer and the worst financial collapse in history. I didn't miss the point. I'm very familiar with AIG and with what happens when an insurer falls on tough times. Some years ago, I had a three-year contract with a private sector insurer/investment company that had had a minor bout (relatively speaking) of "corporate greed," and as a result its shareholders bit it on the ass, real hard. It's insurance business was downrated for a while, and AIG was brought in as a partner for certain insurance lines in order to be able to offer an "A" rating to certain customers. The client downsized substantially, sold off certain business lines, and got tougher and smarter. It's profitable again. This was done without a penny of taxpayer money. AIG should have been allowed to fail. Its insurance customers would have been ok because their business would have gone elsewhere. Its other businesses could have been sold off. It ****es me off mightily when my tax dollars are used to reward Wall Street criminals. Corporate welfare - socialism for the rich. Foch the rich. Still say you miss the point. When a U.S. company causes pain and anguish to many foreign companies, at a time when the U.S. government is in bad light with those foreign companies governments, any solution that will save face is acceptable. What would be the effect of each of AIG's assets selling at yard sale prices on U.S. "face" and conceived ability to do business without digging into the Uncle's pockets, which are none too full at the moment. AFter eight years of the Bush administration, we don't have any face left. It's been squandered. I'd feel a bit better about this if the AIG shareholders and managers, all of them, were dumped out into the cold. AIG's customers are another matter. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com