I'm glad you wrote bible with a lower case

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Very, very contradicting to me. Obama changing a lot of what he said lately and it gets worse. He wants us to vote early and take off from work Nov. 4th to help him win. Fox news also reports Obama and his campaign lays out plans to kill expectations after win because of concerns that many supporters are now harboring unrealistic hopes of what can be achieved. What the heck? Now he says, "it will be hard to achieve goals and will take time." He says one thing and then says another. I want to know where these unauthorized credit cards came from for his campaign. I want to see his birth certificate that he cannot cough up and there is a petition out and he is under investigation if he was truly born in the good ole USA. Call your State Department and they will tell you there is an investigation and they trying to get this resolved before Nov. 4th. So much uncertainty. Hope I do not offend anyone, but just like a bumper sticker I read

I'll keep my God, my freedom, my guns, and my money, you can keep THE CHANGE. VOTE FOR MCCAIN/PALIN.

Even he see the unfairness here. Some conservatives are fond of saying that Democrats want to tax the wealthy unfairly, but what I would like to see is the wealthy taxed equally. "Mr. Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent." Here is the entire article. It's a great read. Trust me.

Tom Bawden in New York

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (�26 billion), said: �The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you�re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.�

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.

They echo those made this month by Nicholas Ferguson, one of the leading figures in Britain�s private equity industry, when he criticised tax rates that left its multimillionaire venture capitalists �paying less tax than a cleaning lady�.

Last week senior members of the US Senate proposed to increase the rate of tax that private equity and hedge fund staff pay on their share of the profits, known as carried interest, from the 15 per cent capital gains rate to about 35 per cent.

Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, acknowledged in an interview yesterday that there were justified concerns about the huge profits generated by private equity firms and that he worried that income inequality was �poisoning democracy�. He also said that he would be voting for the Democrat candidate at the next election. Mr Blankfein is the highest-paid executive on Wall Street, earning $54 million last year.

Mr Buffett, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world�s most successful investor, said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: �I�m making $80 million a year � God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate.�

Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous.

He said: �You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?�

how do you know he's a pub? There are dems criticizing the stimulus. This man been in the road construction business for years. He knows what's needed and what has to be done. What he's saying is there was not enough money given for the road and bridge infrastructure.

IMHO, I don't think money for teachers should be part of this. Teachers in my area make around $50K a year and the administrators make over $100K. We are definitely not city and the average taxpayer here only earns $24K if they go out of the county for work. Otherwise, the average salary around here is $14K a year...yet our schools do not prepare the kids for college like they should. Too much emphasis is placed on sports and not on education. The teachers do not teach the important things. Most of them don't know how to count money without a calculator or cash register to tell them how much change they should give back. They don't know how to read or write (spell). I see it all the time.

I know teachers are the backbone of our society and future for our kids, but some don't belong in the world of teaching. They're in it for the money and benefits only.

I coudl go on and on with what is wrong with this package, and what they should do, but now I have to go and work for my slave wages.

It's not until someone thanked her for her service and asked what branch she was in that we found out that she was in a military FAMILY. Was that a lie? OF COURSE NOT AND DON'T ANYONE DARE SAY SHE LIED.

Another poster (maybe the same as the above) really displayed the extent of her intelligence when she responded to a poster by referring to their "vaucity." When asked what that meant, she responded by saying look it up. When a poster responded that she tried BUT IT ISN'T IN THE DICTIONARY, she replied that it's a "combination of 2 words" that can be found on blogs all over the net. (When asked WHICH 2 words, she couldn/didn't respond.)

Turns out, it was a typo and was supposed to read "vacuity." The irony was that she was trying to tell the original poster that they were stupid, but who REALLY looked stupid during all this???? Can she say it's a typo? NO. And as far as a "blog" term that doesn't exist, SHE DID NOT LIE, SO DON'T CALL HER A LIAR.

Best part is if a little HONESTY could be employed by these people, there wouldn't be an argument. It's absolutely honorable to be a member of a military family, and they, too make sacrifices and should be thanked for that. But it is NOT the same as saying "I spent 19 years in the military." I know people who actually DID spend 20 years in the military and retired at a very young age. Still, it is very honorable to be a member of a military family. At least in my eyes it is. Guess it wasn't in hers or she would have been honest about her role.

Also, instead of saying "I made a typo, and I meant to write vaucity," again, the invention of "facts" about a combination of two nonexitent words.

Another member of their gang... well, just go visit the Conservative board for yourself and read the entire thread about the activist judges/groups who are responsible for not letting the poster place a nativity scene in her own yard. She was questioned by someone, and it's not until the fourth post that she begins by saying, "I'll be up front with you." HOW NICE. It's quite comical. If you haven't read it, you should. Turns out it had nothing to do with "activist judges/groups" at all. BUT SHE DID NOT LIE!!!!!

When I come to these boards, I start out with the belief that everyone has credibility. It's only after they prove to me THEMSELVES that they don't, by their very OWN ACTIONS AND WORDS that they can't be believed, that I begin to form negative opinions.

What you wrote is a perfect example of someone whose credibility is definitely ... uh.... challenged. (trying to be kind)

And yes, LOL, I'd bet a psychiatrist could make a mint from some of these people.

And riled? Yeah, used to a little bit, but now I just find them more comical than anything. But I'll grow out of it like I did with the OTHER Curly, Larry and Moe.

in the article you posted, nor did I see the word *impeach* anywhere in the article.

I agree with your comments and with the article you referred to, and I understood the comments of LOL to mean that the article was responding to some sort of "talking points" and using the word impeach often, when in fact, it can't be found once in that article.

As far as impeaching Bush, I believe time will tell. I personally believe he's guilty of war crimes, and that his war will be judged to be illegal before the end of his "reign as King of the USA." (if we all manage to survive that long).

The mere fact that he led us into this war based on lies should be enough to impeach him.

If I offended you, then I truly apologize. I agree with you and I'm glad you posted this article. I surely wouldn't have referred you back to the very article you obviously read and posted and tell you to educate yourself, and in no way, shape or form do I believe you are ignorant; far from it.

If you posted the LOL statement below, then I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by it.

I made a mistake when posting my post, and instead of winding up under the intended post, it wound up under yours instead. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you.

I'm glad you wrote bible with a lower case

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary