Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #281   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default Political signs

Bob F wrote:
Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are
killing by our actions.
People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the
hundreds of thousands.


They'll get over it.


There's a wonder republican christian attitude.


As for creating more terrorists than we've killed, where are they?

Please let us know so we can go kill them.


They are the ones we killed. There were virtually no terrorists in
Iraq before we invaded.


Okay, but they didn't just miracle themselves there. They came from
somewhere! And wherever they came from now has fewer terrorists.

Now it could be they were responsible, respected citizens and the appearance
of American troops inspired them to take up arms. If so, then they had some
gene or indoctrination that overwhelmed their common sense. Whether nature
or nurture, we need to stamp that out too.

The goal here is to kill terrorists. It doesn't matter where they came from
or how they came to be terrorists. We must guarantee a future for them that
includes dead.


  #282   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default Correction: Political signs

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
I think we're seeing it already as the investor class computes the
future of a probable Obama administration.


Amazing. It is all because Obama is getting elected, not because of
the obcene rupublican policies and lack of regulation that collapsed
the economy? It is crazy the way republicans can blame anythig that
happens on the democrats. It seems like republicans can make no
mistakes at all. LOL!


Let's get up-to-date, Slick. It was the PRESENCE of regulations that
caused the current collapse. Specifically the Community Redevelopment
Act "enhancements" in 1995 that mandated banks provide low (or no)
interest loans to people who were simply unqualified.

The Republicans have tried, most recently in 2005, to impose
oversight on Mae and Mac but were rebuffed by the Democrats.
Actually, John McCain was a co-sponsor of the the '95 bill to
scrutinize both Mae & Mac.
To paraphrase Al Gore, "Everything that should not be regulated was,
and everything that was not regulated should have been."


The above post should have read: "John McCain was co-sponsor of the _2005_
bill to scrutinize both Mae & Mac."

We regret the error.


  #283   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default Correction: Political signs

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Let's get up-to-date, Slick. It was the PRESENCE of regulations that
caused the current collapse. Specifically the Community Redevelopment
Act "enhancements" in 1995 that mandated banks provide low (or no)
interest loans to people who were simply unqualified.


There is another on-going regulation that has played a BIG part in
most of the financial hoohas over the last 15 years or so. The Congress
passed a law that mandated salaries over $1 million could not be
deducted. In an attempt to "align the interests of top management with
those of the shareholders", compensation in the form of
"performance-based" and stock options was treated favorably for tax
purposes.
This had three results: It put a floor under the salaries of the
bigwigs of $1 million. (2). It resulted in total compensation being a
few orders of magnitude above what any board of directors would have had
the balls to give the dudes and dudettes in salary and (3). It actually
divorced the interests of the bigwigs and the stockholders by making
80-90% of their compensation dependent on ever-increasing metrics and
stock prices. I don't think it is just happenstance that every major
corporate scandal since then is to a great extent based on executive's
actions trying to boost stock price and "performance".
  #284   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default Correction: Political signs

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Let's get up-to-date, Slick. It was the PRESENCE of regulations that
caused the current collapse. Specifically the Community
Redevelopment Act "enhancements" in 1995 that mandated banks
provide low (or no) interest loans to people who were simply
unqualified.


There is another on-going regulation that has played a BIG part
in most of the financial hoohas over the last 15 years or so. The
Congress passed a law that mandated salaries over $1 million could
not be deducted. In an attempt to "align the interests of top
management with those of the shareholders", compensation in the form
of "performance-based" and stock options was treated favorably for tax
purposes.
This had three results: It put a floor under the salaries of the
bigwigs of $1 million. (2). It resulted in total compensation being a
few orders of magnitude above what any board of directors would have
had the balls to give the dudes and dudettes in salary and (3). It
actually divorced the interests of the bigwigs and the stockholders
by making 80-90% of their compensation dependent on ever-increasing
metrics and stock prices. I don't think it is just happenstance that
every major corporate scandal since then is to a great extent based
on executive's actions trying to boost stock price and "performance".


Yep. It's none of the government's concern (or almost anybody else's) what
the company shareholders want to pay their chief executive. Where the
government gets screwed, of course, is when the president of a (relatively)
small, closely held, corporation gets a huge compensation.

Suppose a company makes $10 million in profit and pays the entire sum to its
president as "salary." Presto, no corporate income tax! If, however, the
company paid the owner $1 million, the remaining $9 million would be subject
to corporate income tax of, say, 30%. The residual $5.4 million gets taxed
again as stock dividend.

This can be solved by simply not taxing corporations at all. Tax the profits
after they are distributed as dividends. Or, if they're going to tax
corporations, then dividends should be tax exempt since they were already
taxed. Let's do the Obama "fairness" thing - tax profits once.


  #285   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
N8N N8N is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,192
Default Political signs

On Oct 28, 10:18*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Bob F wrote:
I think we're seeing it already as the investor class computes the
future of a probable Obama administration.


Amazing. It is all because Obama is getting elected, not because of
the obcene rupublican policies and lack of regulation that collapsed
the economy? It is crazy the way republicans can blame anythig that
happens on the democrats. It seems like republicans can make no
mistakes at all. LOL!


Let's get up-to-date, Slick. It was the PRESENCE of regulations that caused
the current collapse. Specifically the Community Redevelopment Act
"enhancements" in 1995 that mandated banks provide low (or no) interest
loans to people who were simply unqualified.


This is true, to a point. The banks were scared of falling afoul of
that law, sure, but there were other things that should have been
regulated that weren't. The latter point you will hear emphasized by
Democrats; the point you made will be emphasized by Republicans.
Nobody wants to admit that they actually share the blame for the
current mess.


The Republicans have tried, most recently in 2005, to impose oversight on
Mae and Mac but were rebuffed by the Democrats. Actually, John McCain was a
co-sponsor of the the '95 bill to scrutinize both Mae & Mac.

To paraphrase Al Gore, "Everything that should not be regulated was, and
everything that was not regulated should have been."


Indeed.

nate


  #286   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default Correction: Political signs

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Suppose a company makes $10 million in profit and pays the entire sum to its
president as "salary." Presto, no corporate income tax! If, however, the
company paid the owner $1 million, the remaining $9 million would be subject
to corporate income tax of, say, 30%. The residual $5.4 million gets taxed
again as stock dividend.


Maybe, maybe not. Many, if not most, smaller companies like that
are Subchapter S companies which means they don't exist for tax purposes
and everything flows through to the shareholders personal taxes.


  #287   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 395
Default Correction: Political signs

"HeyBub" writes:

then dividends should be tax exempt since they were already
taxed. Let's do the Obama "fairness" thing - tax profits once.


Wow!

So any money that's previously been taxed should never be taxed
again. That's amazing!

Why don't you stick to home repair?
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
house signs, house signs, house signs - by timpson.co.uk stoppressnews UK diy 22 September 7th 06 10:17 PM
house signs, house signs, house signs - by timpson.co.uk stoppressnews Woodworking 2 August 28th 06 04:52 AM
house signs, house signs, house signs - by timpson.co.uk stoppressnews Home Ownership 0 August 26th 06 11:42 PM
house signs, house signs, house signs - by timpson.co.uk stoppressnews Home Repair 0 August 26th 06 11:32 PM
signs Ben UK diy 16 July 6th 04 11:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"