In the coming days thousands will be laid off....I wish U all well

In the coming days thousands will be laid off....I wish U all well

Really? Thousands?

Amusing how every time someone says this it always seems that I'm hiring.

Like right now filling another 20 jobs!

I opened 15 reqs today for DoD work

I think he's referring to Murray Coal, the company that just lost a massive lawsuit over a mine collapse (including killing an inspector).
Same clown who made people take an unpaid day off to attend a rally.

Amazing how some people run their businesses, and no wonder they fail. Of course he's blaming the layoffs on the election of Obama, which I'm sure they'll be lining up for illegal labor practices lawsuits over.

Actually Boeing announced lay offs, there were a number of large companies announced lay offs.

Mourning in America - Here's Those Layoffs We Voted For Last Night | FreedomWorks (http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/grusbf5/good-morning-america-heres-those-layoffs-you-voted)

Not saying others aren't hiring. These are what was reported due to the cause and affect because of The election and pending tax increases etc.

Not just the evil coal guy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually Boeing announced lay offs, there were a number of large companies announced lay offs.
Boeing as a company is doing quite well. They announced layoffs in the defense group as defense spending is slowing and they need to reduce costs to maintain a competitive posture.

This has nothing to do with Obama I'm sorry to say.

It's funny, juxtapose business as usual with a few gung ho execs who think they're Sean Hannity and suddenly the sky is falling.

I'd suggest getting your business info from a good site like seekingalpha.com rather than a partisan think tank.

-spence

Actually Boeing announced lay offs, there were a number of large companies announced lay offs.

Mourning in America - Here's Those Layoffs We Voted For Last Night | FreedomWorks (http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/grusbf5/good-morning-america-heres-those-layoffs-you-voted)

Not saying others aren't hiring. These are what was reported due to the cause and affect because of The election and pending tax increases etc.

Not just the evil coal guy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The problem with that list is the fact that planning layoffs on that scale don't happen overnight. There's more reasons to lay people off than just a tax or anything else of that matter.

Welch Allyn has been planning global restructing.
Welch Allyn Initiates Global Restructuring, Including Layoffs | Qmed (http://www.qmed.com/news/welch-allyn-initiates-global-restructuring-including-layoffs)
Most workers if "worth it" were probably offered move or be laid off.

Dana mentioned potentially laying people off, but nothing has happened (check the PR newswires, nothing to be found about layoffs).

Stryker layoffs have been going on long before Obamacare and moving the jobs offshore.

Boston Scientific is closing its Boston location and moving it to Marlboro and China, pretty well known.

etc. etc. etc.

Darden Restaraunts, mostly part time workers, already discussed. We'll skip the Olive Garden and Red Lobster serving trash on a plate discussion. :hihi:

Its easy to throw blame around when you don't bother to actually dig for relevant info.

Btw, MA legislature and coupe devall are offering tax breaks for companies that have x number of employees living in the state. I'm sure BS took that into consideration.

Didn't throw blame and I qualified the statement just posting info on who was laying off. The article stated it had to do with the election. I also said others may be hiring. I am certain the news source is right of center. If what they put out on MSNBC is taken for gospel why not this source somewhere in the middle is the whole truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's funny, juxtapose business as usual with a few gung ho execs who think they're Sean Hannity and suddenly the sky is falling.

-spence

It's funny...you seem to have a thing for Hannity, Rush etc....the only difference between them and you is the political/idealogical turf that you defend.....and, more people are willing to listen to them banter:uhuh::)

Didn't throw blame and I qualified the statement just posting info on who was laying off. The article stated it had to do with the election. I also said others may be hiring. I am certain the news source is right of center. If what they put out on MSNBC is taken for gospel why not this source somewhere in the middle is the whole truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there probably won't be any layoffs....Obama's got it all under control now :uhuh:

Didn't throw blame and I qualified the statement just posting info on who was laying off. The article stated it had to do with the election. I also said others may be hiring. I am certain the news source is right of center. If what they put out on MSNBC is taken for gospel why not this source somewhere in the middle is the whole truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was referring to the article laying blame, but you posted it.
And no news media outlet is to be trusted, read actual press releases from companies.

Not sure how you could label that site as "somewhere in the middle" considering everyone is either an ex political aid (R) or ex politician (R).

there probably won't be any layoffs....Obama's got it all under control now :uhuh:

Never doubted it for a minute
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny, just Thursday morning I was presenting to the CEO and executive staff of a precision manufacturing company about how the medical device tax would end up pushing cost pressure down the supply chain.

-spence

Lay offs will have a domino effect...not only big business...there will be carpenters..plumbers.. electricians...machinist..restaurant staff and others...U just may see unemployment up around 9% after years end

applebees has notified its workers that there will be no more 40 hr work week after the 1st of the year...will be under 30 hrs. to beat the healthcare bill...cheaper to pay the fine

maybe Spence should explain Obamanomics to Applebee's :)

Many retail stores do this already. It's no suprise that they would be kickin it down to under the minimum, I'm actually suprised they had 40 hour employees.

Many retail stores do this already. It's no suprise that they would be kickin it down to under the minimum, I'm actually suprised they had 40 hour employees.

X2 It would be odd if they were having their managers work under 40 hours? In general retail management is a bit ridiculous on the hours
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was talking with my neighbor earlier today.
He works for one of the biggest environmental clean up companies in the country.
They are laying off 20% before Jan (thousands getting laid off)
He rattled off a list of other big national companies he knows personally doing the same and others that will be cutting hours in half to avoid paying benefits.
Scott Brown stopped by my house today also.
He was in a rush but I had a quick conversation with him.
In his own words "We are screwed"
He said the real unemployment rate is 14% and we will see it in the 20s
By the way, Scott was going around with his truck collecting signs, I'll guarantee Granny Warren would never be see doing manual labor like removing campaign signs from peoples lawns !

shhhhh...noone is getting laid off.....that's a myth started by Hannity and Limbaugh the porn merchant.....

Brown has lot's of free time, he should have picked up both his and Warren's signs after losing to that ___....oooops...sorry...that's Senator ___ Liawatha....wait...that's all wrong and it will no doubt inflame Paul.....Senator Kennedy in drag? funny...does she drinK???....oh no, we've already got another new Kennedy who claims he understands the middle class better than the guy that he ran against who served(s) in the Marines and has actually spent some time in the middle class.....so confusing

"my peepaw had high cheekbones like all of the indians do" or whatever she said... makes me laugh everytime I hear the cut

I'd be really happy if the Raiders won a game or two more by the end of the season :)


I know a lot of people at all levels of the restaurant industry and the all work many more than 40 hours a week, actually that's true for most people that I know...

part time is the new full time under Obama...they did this in France to increase employment%..limited the number of hours that you could work, the rationalization was that if you limit the number of hours for a workers by law the businesses would have to hire more workers to fill those hours...BRILLIANT@!@!!

The 35-hour working week is a measure adopted first in France, in February 2000, under Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's Plural Left government; it was pushed by Minister of Labour Martine Aubry. The previous legal duration of the working week was 39 hours, which had been established by François Mitterrand, also a member of the Socialist Party. The 35-hour working week was already in the Socialist Party's 1981 electoral program, titled 110 Propositions for France.

Rationale: The main stated objectives of the law were twofold:

To reduce unemployment and yield a better division of labor, in a context where some people work long hours while some others are unemployed. A 10.2% decrease in the hours extracted from each worker would, theoretically, require firms to hire correspondingly more workers, a remedy for unemployment.

French unemployment hits 13-year high


PARIS | Thu Sep 6, 2012 3:15am EDT

PARIS (Reuters) - France's unemployment rate rose to its highest level in 13 years in the second quarter, official data showed on Thursday, in a setback to the Socialist government, which was elected on a pledge to bring down the jobless rate.

The rise in unemployment to 10.2 percent, measured according to the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) criteria, comes as the euro zone's second-largest economy has posted three consecutive quarters of zero growth.

Many economists predict unemployment, which stood at 10.0 percent in the first three months of the year, will continue to rise as companies seek to rebuild margins.

A number of French companies have recently announced plans to layoff workers, including retailer Carrefour (CARR.PA) and car maker Peugeot (PEUP.PA).

it's currently 10.8% and appears to be rising I'm thinking mandated 28 hours per week work weeks should provide plenty of hours for those unemployed to get employed with the freed up hours from the people that are currently hogging all of the hours and remedy the situation in no time.....:)

Scott indicated Kerry will be getting the nod for Hilary's old job since her being thrown under the bus.
Scott will be running for his seat.



shhhhh...noone is getting laid off.....that's a myth started by Hannity and Limbaugh the porn merchant.....

Brown has lot's of free time, he should have picked up both his and Warren's signs after losing to that ___....oooops...sorry...that's Senator ___ Liawatha....wait...that's all wrong and it will no doubt inflame Paul.....Senator Kennedy in drag? funny...does she drinK???....oh no, we've already got another new Kennedy who claims he understands the middle class better than the guy that he ran against who served(s) in the Marines and has actually spent some time in the middle class.....so confusing

"my peepaw had high cheekbones like all of the indians do" or whatever she said... makes me laugh everytime I hear the cut

I'd be really happy if the Raiders won a game or two more by the end of the season :)


I know a lot of people at all levels of the restaurant industry and the all work many more than 40 hours a week, actually that's true for most people that I know...

part time is the new full time under Obama...they did this in France to increase employment%..limited the number of hours that you could work, the rationalization was that if you limit the number of hours for a workers by law the businesses would have to hire more workers to fill those hours...BRILLIANT@!@!!

The 35-hour working week is a measure adopted first in France, in February 2000, under Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's Plural Left government; it was pushed by Minister of Labour Martine Aubry. The previous legal duration of the working week was 39 hours, which had been established by François Mitterrand, also a member of the Socialist Party. The 35-hour working week was already in the Socialist Party's 1981 electoral program, titled 110 Propositions for France.

Rationale: The main stated objectives of the law were twofold:

To reduce unemployment and yield a better division of labor, in a context where some people work long hours while some others are unemployed. A 10.2% decrease in the hours extracted from each worker would, theoretically, require firms to hire correspondingly more workers, a remedy for unemployment.

French unemployment hits 13-year high


PARIS | Thu Sep 6, 2012 3:15am EDT

PARIS (Reuters) - France's unemployment rate rose to its highest level in 13 years in the second quarter, official data showed on Thursday, in a setback to the Socialist government, which was elected on a pledge to bring down the jobless rate.

The rise in unemployment to 10.2 percent, measured according to the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) criteria, comes as the euro zone's second-largest economy has posted three consecutive quarters of zero growth.

Many economists predict unemployment, which stood at 10.0 percent in the first three months of the year, will continue to rise as companies seek to rebuild margins.

A number of French companies have recently announced plans to layoff workers, including retailer Carrefour (CARR.PA) and car maker Peugeot (PEUP.PA).

it's currently 10.8% and appears to be rising I'm thinking mandated 28 hours per week work weeks should provide plenty of hours for those unemployed to get employed with the freed up hours from the people that are currently hogging all of the hours and remedy the situation in no time.....:)

He said is was running for Horseface's seat in the special election?

So first Scott Brown gives people the signs and then wants them back, I would expect that of Warren but not Brown.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scott indicated Kerry will be getting the nod for Hilary's old job since her being thrown under the bus.
Scott will be running for his seat.

I have a better idea....you lost...get out....I'm so sick of these entrenched politicians( I know that his stay was brief)...but these guys get a taste and suddnely they have to go back to Washington asap, he spent a ton of other people's dough and lost, someone else's turn....beat it....RI has me completely jaundiced, the Repubs had really solid individuals running against Cicciline and Whitehouse and others, people with character and accomplishment and RI chose to send the lying weasles back to Washington....wasn't really close....so disappointing...Scott Brown will get crushed running against whoever they put up to replace Kerry, it's Mass., his win was a freak occurance.....does Kerry have any kids that can inherit the seat?

once Coupe Deval gets the nod for AG, someone has to fill that office. Maybe Brown should think about that

By the way, Scott was going around with his truck collecting signs, I'll guarantee Granny Warren would never be see doing manual labor like removing campaign signs from peoples lawns !

You mean doing the only job he can get in MA.

Keep drinking the Liberal Cool Aid a s s holes !

Keep it classy Ronnie!

Funny, just Thursday morning I was presenting to the CEO and executive staff of a precision manufacturing company about how the medical device tax would end up pushing cost pressure down the supply chain.

-spence

At least one of our customers have already come out in the press that they will not be openining any more facilities for the forseeable future as a result of the tax on med devices. Ultimately this will cause a loss of jobs as they improve effiency on the lines they make now and can make the same amount of product with less people. No expansion means flat labor force at best. I also forsee less med devices being needed as demand for procedures drops. (yes, in English that means as healtcare is RATIONED) This will push all the way though the supply chain in reduced demand for materials, tooling, shipping, energy, essentially no one is safe unless they are employed by government.

once Coupe Deval gets the nod for AG, someone has to fill that office. Maybe Brown should think about that

The flakey, speed demon Lt. Governor will.

That's all we need to have Canal Tim in the state house.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's all we need to have Canal Tim in the state house.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

100 mph into the parking lot

Scott Brown will get crushed running against whoever they put up to replace Kerry, it's Mass., his win was a freak occurance.....does Kerry have any kids that can inherit the seat?

Looking back historically, Massachusetts isn’t so liberal.
Since 1900 Massachusetts has elected 33 different Governors.
19 were Republican and 14 Democrats.
6 out of the last 10 Governors in Massachusetts have been Republican.
As for Senators, prior to Kerry and Kennedy (and it is going back a while), it was a majority of Republican Senators representing Massachusetts than Democratic.

Interesting to see that more Republican Governors have held office in MA than Democratic (here is a list)

Winthrop M. Crane January 4, 1900 – January 8, 1903 Republican
John L. Bates January 8, 1903 – January 5, 1905 Republican
William Lewis Douglas January 5, 1905 – January 4, 1906 Democratic
Curtis Guild, Jr. January 4, 1906 – January 7, 1909 Republican
Ebenezer Draper January 7, 1909 – January 5, 1911 Republican
Eugene Foss January 5, 1911 – January 8, 1914 Democratic
David I. Walsh January 8, 1914 – January 6, 1916 Democratic
Samuel W. McCall January 6, 1916 – January 2, 1919 Republican
Calvin Coolidge January 2, 1919 – January 6, 1921 Republican
Channing H. Cox January 6, 1921 – January 8, 1925 Republican
Alvan T. Fuller January 8, 1925 – January 3, 1929 Republican
Frank G. Allen January 3, 1929 – January 8, 1931 Republican
Joseph B. Ely January 8, 1931 – January 3, 1935 Democratic
James Michael Curley January 3, 1935 – January 7, 1937 Democratic
Charles F. Hurley January 7, 1937 – January 5, 1939 Democratic
Leverett Saltonstall January 5, 1939 – January 3, 1945 Republican
Maurice J. Tobin January 3, 1945 – January 2, 1947 Democratic
Robert F. Bradford January 2, 1947 – January 6, 1949 Republican
Paul A. Dever January 6, 1949 – January 8, 1953 Democratic
Christian Herter January 8, 1953 – January 3, 1957 Republican
Foster Furcolo January 3, 1957 – January 5, 1961 Democratic
John A. Volpe January 5, 1961 – January 3, 1963 Republican
Endicott Peabody January 3, 1963 – January 7, 1965 Democratic
John A. Volpe January 7, 1965 – January 22, 1969 Republican
Francis W. Sargent January 22, 1969 – January 2, 1975 Republican
Michael Dukakis January 2, 1975 – January 4, 1979 Democratic
Edward J. King January 4, 1979 – January 6, 1983 Democratic
Michael Dukakis January 6, 1983 – January 3, 1991 Democratic
William Weld January 3, 1991 – July 29, 1997 Republican
Paul Cellucci July 29, 1997 – April 10, 2001 Republican
Jane Swift April 10, 2001 – January 2, 2003 Republican
Mitt Romney January 2, 2003 – January 4, 2007 Republican
Deval Patrick January 4, 2007 – Present Democratic

[QUOTE=Piscator;969053]Looking back historically, Massachusetts isn’t so liberal.
Since 1900 Massachusetts has elected 33 different Governors.
19 were Republican and 14 Democrats.
6 out of the last 10 Governors in Massachusetts have been Republican.
As for Senators, prior to Kerry and Kennedy (and it is going back a while), it was a majority of Republican Senators representing Massachusetts than Democratic. QUOTE


so you're saying he's got a shot? "historically speaking"

Massachusetts

Senators

Sen. John Kerry [D]
Sen. Scott Brown [R].....eeeeeeerrrrr...Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D)

Representatives

1st District
Rep. John Olver [D]
2nd District
Rep. Richard Neal [D]
3rd District
Rep. James “Jim” McGovern [D]
4th District
Rep. Barney Frank [D]..... Some Kennedy (D)
5th District Rep.
Niki Tsongas [D]
6th District
Rep. John Tierney [D]
7th District
Rep. Edward “Ed” Markey [D]
8th District
Rep. Michael Capuano [D]
9th District
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D]
10th District
Rep. William Keating [D]

Map DataMap data ©2012 Google - Terms of UseMap DataMap

At least one of our customers have already come out in the press that they will not be openining any more facilities for the forseeable future as a result of the tax on med devices. Ultimately this will cause a loss of jobs as they improve effiency on the lines they make now and can make the same amount of product with less people. No expansion means flat labor force at best. I also forsee less med devices being needed as demand for procedures drops. (yes, in English that means as healtcare is RATIONED) This will push all the way though the supply chain in reduced demand for materials, tooling, shipping, energy, essentially no one is safe unless they are employed by government.

Improved worker productivity is a fact of life, if your business isn't looking to get more from existing investments they won't be alive for long.

With the disproportionate amount of health care that seniors consume the need for medical devices would logically rise in conjunction with retiring baby boomers. The amount of innovation driven demand suggests increased R&D to take advantage of this demographic shift which is supported by industry observations.

I would agree that increased regulatory pressure will stress the supply chain as OEM's have been quick to push liabilities downstream, but this also brings opportunity for innovation which has tangental benefits to other supporting industries. Many precision manufacturing companies are doing quite well I might add.

If the med device tax is implemented suddenly I could it see it causing lost some job loss for companies who aren't managing their cash flow well. Longer term though I think there will be tremendous opportunities for those positioned to efficiently capture share in expanding markets...especially internationally.

-spence

[QUOTE=Piscator;969053]Looking back historically, Massachusetts isn’t so liberal.
Since 1900 Massachusetts has elected 33 different Governors.
19 were Republican and 14 Democrats.
6 out of the last 10 Governors in Massachusetts have been Republican.
As for Senators, prior to Kerry and Kennedy (and it is going back a while), it was a majority of Republican Senators representing Massachusetts than Democratic. QUOTE


so you're saying he's got a shot? "historically speaking"

Massachusetts

Senators

Sen. John Kerry [D]
Sen. Scott Brown [R].....eeeeeeerrrrr...Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D)

Representatives

1st District
Rep. John Olver [D]
2nd District
Rep. Richard Neal [D]
3rd District
Rep. James “Jim” McGovern [D]
4th District
Rep. Barney Frank [D]..... Some Kennedy (D)
5th District Rep.
Niki Tsongas [D]
6th District
Rep. John Tierney [D]
7th District
Rep. Edward “Ed” Markey [D]
8th District
Rep. Michael Capuano [D]
9th District
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D]
10th District
Rep. William Keating [D]

Map DataMap data ©2012 Google - Terms of UseMap DataMap

Yes, I'd say he has a shot. Massachusetts is a wierd place when it comes to Politics
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

kerry's would be up for re-election in 2014, I'm not sure anyone would want to serve as an interim senator twice

Improved worker productivity is a fact of life, if your business isn't looking to get more from existing investments they won't be alive for long.

With the disproportionate amount of health care that seniors consume the need for medical devices would logically rise in conjunction with retiring baby boomers. The amount of innovation driven demand suggests increased R&D to take advantage of this demographic shift which is supported by industry observations.

I would agree that increased regulatory pressure will stress the supply chain as OEM's have been quick to push liabilities downstream, but this also brings opportunity for innovation which has tangental benefits to other supporting industries. Many precision manufacturing companies are doing quite well I might add.

If the med device tax is implemented suddenly I could it see it causing lost some job loss for companies who aren't managing their cash flow well. Longer term though I think there will be tremendous opportunities for those positioned to efficiently capture share in expanding markets...especially internationally.

-spence

Spence..have you ever actually owned or run a business?...because I read this from you which is little more than hypothetical musing, waxing poetic about how government intrusion and taxation will actually benefit a company and what might occur due to this or that to justify a tax that, from what I read, people that are actually running these businesses affected insist it will have a serious negative effect....as pointed out....sounds like the same crap that we heard about Solyndra and the like.....they were going to capture share in expanding markets too, need would logically rise and on and on...and the government was giving them a ton of dough and they weren't being burdened with a large excise tax....




"Even if the tax cannot be totally undone, it's hoped within the industry that some of its most onerous provisions could be changed. One goal, for example, is to exempt start-ups from the tax for a certain period of time.

That said, some of the staunchest opponents of the tax remain hopeful that it will be repealed, citing support from Democrats in the House and the Senate. Even liberal U.S. Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), mindful of medical device employment in Massachusetts, is opposed to the tax. Senior Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has also expressed concern about the tax. Even if the Senate can muster enough votes to support a House-initiated repeal, it's doubtful that Congress could overcome a presidential veto.

Widespread cutbacks have already begun at some major medical device makers. Some are citing the new excise tax as the cause. Others are citing slowing demand coupled with growing pressures to reduce costs of medical devices. It will be interesting to see if jobs are reinstated if the device tax is fundamentally revised."

.............

this is an arbitrary tax that was dreamed up by the authors of Obamacare to try to help fund it because they felt the manufacturers were an easy target ...and you strain to explain that the companies being whacked by the tax will probably benefit .....unbelieveable

[QUOTE=scottw;969059]

Yes, I'd say he has a shot. Massachusetts is a wierd place when it comes to Politics
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

recent historical trends do not bode well :)

Looking back historically, Massachusetts isn’t so liberal.
Since 1900 Massachusetts has elected 33 different Governors.
19 were Republican and 14 Democrats.
6 out of the last 10 Governors in Massachusetts have been Republican.
As for Senators, prior to Kerry and Kennedy (and it is going back a while), it was a majority of Republican Senators representing Massachusetts than Democratic.

Interesting to see that more Republican Governors have held office in MA than Democratic (here is a list)

Winthrop M. Crane January 4, 1900 – January 8, 1903 Republican
John L. Bates January 8, 1903 – January 5, 1905 Republican
William Lewis Douglas January 5, 1905 – January 4, 1906 Democratic
Curtis Guild, Jr. January 4, 1906 – January 7, 1909 Republican
Ebenezer Draper January 7, 1909 – January 5, 1911 Republican
Eugene Foss January 5, 1911 – January 8, 1914 Democratic
David I. Walsh January 8, 1914 – January 6, 1916 Democratic
Samuel W. McCall January 6, 1916 – January 2, 1919 Republican
Calvin Coolidge January 2, 1919 – January 6, 1921 Republican
Channing H. Cox January 6, 1921 – January 8, 1925 Republican
Alvan T. Fuller January 8, 1925 – January 3, 1929 Republican
Frank G. Allen January 3, 1929 – January 8, 1931 Republican
Joseph B. Ely January 8, 1931 – January 3, 1935 Democratic
James Michael Curley January 3, 1935 – January 7, 1937 Democratic
Charles F. Hurley January 7, 1937 – January 5, 1939 Democratic
Leverett Saltonstall January 5, 1939 – January 3, 1945 Republican
Maurice J. Tobin January 3, 1945 – January 2, 1947 Democratic
Robert F. Bradford January 2, 1947 – January 6, 1949 Republican
Paul A. Dever January 6, 1949 – January 8, 1953 Democratic
Christian Herter January 8, 1953 – January 3, 1957 Republican
Foster Furcolo January 3, 1957 – January 5, 1961 Democratic
John A. Volpe January 5, 1961 – January 3, 1963 Republican
Endicott Peabody January 3, 1963 – January 7, 1965 Democratic
John A. Volpe January 7, 1965 – January 22, 1969 Republican
Francis W. Sargent January 22, 1969 – January 2, 1975 Republican
Michael Dukakis January 2, 1975 – January 4, 1979 Democratic
Edward J. King January 4, 1979 – January 6, 1983 Democratic
Michael Dukakis January 6, 1983 – January 3, 1991 Democratic
William Weld January 3, 1991 – July 29, 1997 Republican
Paul Cellucci July 29, 1997 – April 10, 2001 Republican
Jane Swift April 10, 2001 – January 2, 2003 Republican
Mitt Romney January 2, 2003 – January 4, 2007 Republican
Deval Patrick January 4, 2007 – Present Democratic

They put Tierney back in office Who has definitely had some sort of a role in an illegal gambling ring. I don't care who you are, your wife has an additional $240,000 hanging around you know about it.

Then there is the woman from Athol who got voted back into the house even though she accused her competitor of selling cocaine,fraudulently.

Not to mention Liawatha. Putting that woman in the Senate is purely moronic. She is a proven liar And definitely difficult to stomach.

Aside from that, How many Massachusetts speakers in a row now Have wound up in prison? Common thread They all have D'
S next to their name.

The best one nation wide by far However Is Jesse Jackson Junior Getting elected into office After it was proven he tried to buy Barack Obama's seat in the Senate from Rod Blagojevich
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The best one nation wide by far However Is Jesse Jackson Junior Getting elected into office After it was proven he tried to buy Barack Obama's seat in the Senate from Rod Blagojevich
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and wasn't he re-elected while in drug rehab?


here is how the republican party needs to moderate in order to re-establish itself given the climate and trends of the electorate in the next go around...

abortion.....free, government provided and paid for abortions for anyone desiring one...in addition....the government will pay a $10,000 bonus per abortion(the average cost of one year in a public school) simply calculating the enormous amount of money that Julia's Life will cost the government and taxpayers it makes more sense to reward the person aborting the non-person for making such a wise but probably difficult "choice"

gay marriage....there will be no gender designations for marriage nor any limits going forward, you may marry whomever you wish, however many of whatever you wish and claim whatever you wish as a spouse, that spouse(s) and any offspring created, adopted or otherwise will be entitled to all of the possibilities of the entitlement state...there will be no limits(see France)

edumacation....all education in America will be free, all colleges and universities will provide free education(have you seen the endowments???) to whoever wants education and enrollment will be determined by lottery...there will be no advantages to any individual requesting entry into any institution, all applicants, legal or illegal, will go into a hat and names will be drawn until the seats are filled...all student loans will be forgiven and none will be required going foreward

incomes....all payrolls will be sent directly to the federal government where it will be determined and redistributed evenly based on the individual and whatever you've decided constitutes your family, this will truly be "from each according to their ability to each according to their need"...noone will have an income advantage over another...the government will also place in a "lock box" the amounts calculated to get you through your retirement years which will begin for everyone regardless at age 55....maximum number of hours that any American may work during one 7 day period is 30....you will no longer have any worries over income tax, retirement saving and the like

euthanasia...at whatever point the government decides that you are using more than your share of allotted medical resources as you age you will be required to take a happy ending pill, your family will recieve a bonus caluclated from the tremendous amount of money saved by the government thanks to your early exit...this will be considered the highest form of partiotism..:uhuh: if you refuse, you will be determined to be mentally incompetent and the government will appoint someone to make the decision for you this one will probably be popular until it's your turn

immigration anyone caught entering the country, legally or illegally will immediately be photographed, given a drivers license, EBT card, registered for every available government service and registerd to vote.....no need to bother with the whole becoming a citizen part anymore...it's passe'

marajuana and other fromerly illegal drugs....these will all be covered and provided for under Obamacare for free

here is how the republican party needs to moderate in order to re-establish itself given the climate and trends of the electorate in the next go around...

So basically you want them to lie just like the last go around?
You sure like losing.

So basically you want them to lie just like the last go around?
You sure like losing.

Wrong lying works great look at Obama for example we are all his mushrooms. He feeds us horse crap and keeps us in the dark and people eat it up.

How many 08 promises did he live up to? Maybe 1 passing healthcare reform. But that promise is moot because along with it comes taxes on those that make under 250k and he never put the debates on C Span. Two promise broken while fulfilling another.
Yep the conservatives are lying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DIVORCE AGREEMENT


THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.


Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.



Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.



Here is a our separation agreement:


--Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.



--We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.


--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.


--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.


--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.



--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.


--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.


--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.


--We'll keep Bill O?Reilly, and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .


--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.


--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.


--We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.


--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.


--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.


--You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.


--We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
--We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."


--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World".


--We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.



--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.


Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.



Sincerely,


John J. Wall


Law Student and an American


P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & ( Hanoi ) Jane Fonda with you.



P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.


Forward This Every Time You Get It ! Let's Keep This Going, Maybe Some Of It Will Start Sinking In!!

So basically you want them to lie just like the last go around?
You sure like losing.

when you are competing in the arena of Bread and Circus...I think that is the point...noone seems to mind lies and false promises if they are made by talented liars and cult personalities....the next 2 and 4 years will be spent expanding and reinforcing the welfare state and entitlement mentality....republicans will always be portrayed as those who will take away the goodies if elected...it's a no win...as in Eurpoe we will end up with parties at election time arguing over who is better equipped to manage the collapsing welfare state, the only way to win at this point, is to simply promise more...it's not the parties, it's not the system...it's the people:)

DIVORCE AGREEMENT


THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.


Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.



Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.



Here is a our separation agreement:


--Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.



--We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.


--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.


--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.


--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.



--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.


--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.


--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.


--We'll keep Bill O?Reilly, and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .


--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.


--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.


--We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.


--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.


--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.


--You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.


--We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
--We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."


--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World".


--We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.



--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.


Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.



Sincerely,


John J. Wall


Law Student and an American


P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & ( Hanoi ) Jane Fonda with you.



P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.


Forward This Every Time You Get It ! Let's Keep This Going, Maybe Some Of It Will Start Sinking In!!

This student is well beyond his years in wisdom and his Professors could
learn from him. :hihi:

when you are competing in the arena of Bread and Circus...I think that is the point...noone seems to mind lies and false promises if they are made by talented liars and cult personalities....the next 2 and 4 years will be spent expanding and reinforcing the welfare state and entitlement mentality....republicans will always be portrayed as those who will take away the goodies if elected...it's a no win...as in Eurpoe we will end up with parties at election time arguing over who is better equipped to manage the collapsing welfare state, the only way to win at this point, is to simply promise more...it's not the parties, it's not the system...it's the people:)

Exactly. It is that Spencist trajectory/vector thing in which we are trapped. I might go a little easier on the people, though. Most are, always have been, and will always be, followers. Most are beneficiaries of or prey to systems of government created by leaders or masterminds. And most are informed by the education and media created by those leaders and delivered through those systems. That is the reason why most systems eventually fail. Most rigidly manage top down in a world of never ending change. There will always be social and natural wars for which they have no micromanaged answer. And the more they micromanage, the more rigid, intractable, they become-- and the less they can successfully respond to evolutionary forces. Socialist systems are symbiotic relationships between top-down powerful, to all powerful, central managers and their dependent "people."

Market systems create a "spontaneous order" among "the people." And the markets and people agree to various limited regulations (government) to make the spontaneous system more orderly.

Most people in either type of system "follow" the order created by leaders. The difference lying in how governance and direction is dispersed. Either a top-down one-directional (collectivist) administration or a bottom-up multi-directional (individualistic) system of self-governance.

The Democrat Party has transformed a once dispersed bottom-up market driven system to a top-down central one which depends on the socialistic means to power and its mainainance that you describe. It exists by distributing "needs" and maintains that existence by promising more in the following elections. It has essentially co-opted the public and higher educational systems and most of the major media which all inform the people. In that it has not figured a way to create the wealth that it distributes, it still relies on a market to do so. But it must control the market to the extent that it distributes the created wealth. The more it distributes, the more the market shrinks. And the greater the amount of centrally distributed wealth that is required, either the more the market must shrink or the more the government must borrow or inflate. And the more it gets in debt, the more onerous is its requirement to distribute. It is as much a slave to the "people" as the people are to it. This "mega trend" process is irreversible, no do-over as Spence would say, if this top-down system of government is to survive.

It doesn't have to survive. And it won't. What eventually takes its place is a question we might ponder. Or not. It will eventually happen either way. But we might make the eventual change less destructive if we do think about it, rationally and with respect to past experience. My personal suggestion, no surprise, would be to reinstitute governance on the lines of The Constitution. It is a framework for a fluid system that is open to necessary and evolutionary change but still maintains the dispersed power to create that change and maintain optimal individual freedom and "unalienable rights."

It is telling that those who argue with this and with well thought out and lengthy posts such as yours, respond with quips and one-liners which usually are shallow or make little sense. Or intentionally try to ridicule or provoke rather than discuss.

Raider Ronnie,

It must suck to hate your country so much that you'd want to break it in 2. I wonder how the red states will pay their bills w/o the blue states to subsidize them.

[QUOTE=PaulS;969237]Raider Ronnie,

It must suck to hate your country so much that you'd want to break it in 2. I wonder how the red states will pay their bills w/o the blue states to subsidize them.

QUOTE]

Paul, the red states own most of the oil, natural gas, and farmland. They also own 90% of the trade with south america and most of the industry in the US. They'd do just fine. perhaps blue states could add a tarrif on hollywood exports?

The subsidies you reference dont come from blue states, they come from all states and its not just blue paying into the pot. If we didnt have all these federal programs and taxes, maybe there wouldnt be a need for subsidies?

Hey Paul
I've got family that have fought and died in every war this country has fought going back to ww2 and up to this current war we been fighting.
You call Obama's Chicago mafia style of running this country patriotic with soldiers votes not being counted , this cover up in Bengazi 1st throwing Hillary under the bus now this general sex scandal who just do happens to have damaging testimony soon coming !








Raider Ronnie,

It must suck to hate your country so much that you'd want to break it in 2. I wonder how the red states will pay their bills w/o the blue states to subsidize them.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Red states get more back from the fed. then they put in, Blue states get back less. Isn't there a petition being circulated to allow Texas to cede from the US?

As I said, it must suck to hate your country so much that you would actually consider ceding. 65,000 Texans have already signed - (great Americans!!). Perry has even voiced similiar thoughts in the past.

[QUOTE=PaulS;969237]Raider Ronnie,

It must suck to hate your country so much that you'd want to break it in 2. I wonder how the red states will pay their bills w/o the blue states to subsidize them.

QUOTE]

Paul, the red states own most of the oil, natural gas, and farmland. They also own 90% of the trade with south america and most of the industry in the US.

I guess Paul missed that part of the trade about who would get who. I think he also missed that the separation was not about hate but mutual disagreement--an amicable "divorce." Maybe he was just projecting his own emotion.

The subsidies you reference dont come from blue states, they come from all states and its not just blue paying into the pot. If we didnt have all these federal programs and taxes, maybe there wouldnt be a need for subsidies?

Good point. And subsidies not only create their own need, they are a method of controlling. They are not entirely about nice-nice.

I didn't miss anything. Sounds like conjecture on your part.

Red states get more back from the fed. then they put in, Blue states get back less.

Apparently, red states being the greedy bastids they are have suckered the blue states into this arrangement. Gosh, those red-necks aren't as dumb as we thought. Play the beligerent, backward, child who fails so that the well meaning, productive, and generous step brothers and sisters take pity and "subsidize" him. You'd think it would be the blue states who would want to secede from this arrangement. But they so love the country that they would rather suffer the financial imposition, besides, they prefer that socialist trajectory--to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.

Isn't there a petition being circulated to allow Texas to cede from the US?

As I said, it must suck to hate your country so much that you would actually consider ceding. 65,000 Texans have already signed - (great Americans!!). Perry has even voiced similiar thoughts in the past.

Wouldn't that be a good riddance for the blue states? Get those Texas leaches off the welfare rolls? But the blues wouldn't let that happen. Probly send in the troops like the strong parents they are and hush-hush the spoiled little munchkins who don't really know what's good for them. Mommy and daddy and nanny know what's good, and how to take care of even the wayward children.

I love this country but question it's leadership and the people who try to take out more than they put in............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't miss anything. Sounds like conjecture on your part.

Yes, it is conjecture on my part, I don't pretend to know what is precisely on your mind. That's why I said that I GUESS you missed the part about who would get what (which would reasonbly allow the red states to do without subsidies), and the part that went "Our two ideological sides of America cannot ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconciliable differences and go our own way."

I didn't see any "hate" there and "conjectured" that maybe you missed that part. Apparently, I was wrong. You missed nothing and came to the conclusion that it was about hate. I apologize for my misconception.

Paul, its simple. I dont have unconditional love for this country. If the things I love go away, then why bother?
You're red vs blue is so misinformed. its about income tax - fed revenue generated. not revenue generated in Blue vs red, Most blue states make $$ of work/labor done in red states. to the original email. imagine if we did split blue to red? Blue states would be out of energy and food in a week if red states didnt trade with you.

Still sounds like hate to me, no matter how it was written. I love my country and would not want anyone leaving just b/c they have different politics. Apparently, ronnie and john Wall feel differently.

?
You're red vs blue is so misinformed. its about income tax.

I know what it is - it is tax revenue vs. gov. expenditures.

Still sounds like hate to me, no matter how it was written. I love my country and would not want anyone leaving just b/c they have different politics. Apparently, ronnie and john Wall feel differently.

so lets look at this.

PaulS starts his own company. He is sucessful has annual revenues of 1-2M, he employs 10 people. has 2 wonderful kids, buys a big house, buys a lake house, buys a few boats. he works hard and rewards himself. He pays his share of taxes his whole life.
PaulS at 70 yrs old passes away, shortly after his beautiful wife also passes.
His children are 35 and 40 yrs old, they are on their own, own careers, own families. They inherit their parents estate valued at 5 million.
In comes the US government - 55% or 2,750,000 is ours - you have 9 months to pay us. Knock, knock - its the state - you owe us 10% estate tax - you have 9 months to pay.
Assets are sold, the lake house, the boats, the cars, etc. legal fees to dispose of the estate stack up. Pauls childnre watch their parents lives be sold off in chunks, everythign they dreamed sold to pay Uncle Sam. - In the end the grand life savings of PaulS equates to about 1.5M to his family, his grandkids, his relatives, charities. The government seized all his other assets.
What a great country!
Thats not politics Paul, this is reality. That is robbery. I wont stand for it.

Nice story but trusts and life insur. would have taken care of much of the tax issue. Highlights the issue of estate planning (of which I'm certainly not an expert).

However, while you say you won't stand for it, your not leaving the country or I can't recall and doubt you advocating ceding from it. You might complain and try to do something about it - which is your right and prob. your responsibility in a democracy.

Nice story but trusts and life insur. would have taken care of much of the tax issue. Highlights the issue of estate planning (of which I'm certainly not an expert).

However, while you say you won't stand for it, your not leaving the country or I can't recall and doubt you advocating ceding from it. You might complain and try to do something about it - which is your right and prob. your responsibility in a democracy.

BullShat - I know this stuff - estate planning wont protect against that. Dont you think the government would take care of that?

My responsibility Paul? Im outnumbered! I CANT change that! thats what this thread is all about!
Did you notice you didnt even argue whether its right or wrong? You dont care if the governent ROBS people of their life.

BullShat - I know this stuff - estate planning wont protect against that. Dont you think the government would take care of that?

My responsibility Paul? Im outnumbered! I CANT change that! thats what this thread is all about!
Did you notice you didnt even argue whether its right or wrong? You dont care if the governent ROBS people of their life.

Estate planning could have certainly taken care of much of the burden. That is what life insur. is for.

I don't think it is robbery - you do. We live in a democracy. If the majority don't think it is robbery, it will stay the way.

Keep it Civil gentlemen

Estate planning could have certainly taken care of much of the burden. That is what life insur. is for.

I don't think it is robbery - you do. We live in a democracy. If the majority don't think it is robbery, it will stay the way.

life insurance? So PaulS in that story should have had life insurance to offset the government stealing his $? WTF!

an oh, by the way -


Section 2042 of the Internal Revenue Code states that the value of life insurance proceeds insuring your life are included in your gross estate if the proceeds are payable: (1) to your estate, either directly or indirectly; or (2) to named beneficiaries, if you possessed any incidents of ownership (we'll discuss this more below) in the policy at the time of your death

You dont think its robbery the government seizes 55% of your assets when you die? Wow! What an incentive to work hard and provide for your family.

the majority paul dont give a F becuase they wont make that mych money and could care less if the f the rich. thats EXACLTY whats happening now with your O buddy - you know, the millionaires who make 250K a year! THOSE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO GET OUT OF THE TAX BURDEN THE REST OF THE COUNRTY IMPOSES ON THEM!!

if the majority are not being robbed, why should they care?

You dont think its robbery the government seizes 55% of your assets when you die?

Oh, Its Robbery....55% is rediculous

Oh, Its Robbery....55% is rediculous

thats just fed, does not include state
but hey, its only the top 1%, who cares!

thats just fed, does not include state
but hey, its only the top 1%, who cares!

Unfortunately it is in fact everybody. The top 1% generally Have tax shelters and living trusts etc. set up to avoid these estate taxes. The actual estate owner technically does not own the estate. In general all of the physical holdings are part of a corporate trust. Therefore the only thing subject to estate taxes are liquid assets.

The top 1% pay the bare minimum of taxes to avoid government Inquiry. Obama and his cronies know this. Making promises of increasing taxes on the top 1% earners is simply pandering to people who Do not understand and will never have to understand. People are within the top 1% in earnings in the country for a reason. They know how to make money and they know how to keep it. Their annual income reported is just the tip of the iceberg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unfortunately it is in fact everybody. The top 1% generally Have tax shelters and living trusts etc. set up to avoid these estate taxes. The actual estate owner technically does not own the estate. In general all of the physical holdings are part of a corporate trust. Therefore the only thing subject to estate taxes are liquid assets.

The top 1% pay the bare minimum of taxes to avoid government Inquiry. Obama and his cronies know this. Making promises of increasing taxes on the top 1% earners is simply pandering to people who Do not understand and will never have to understand. People are within the top 1% in earnings in the country for a reason. They know how to make money and they know how to keep it. Their annual income reported is just the tip of the iceberg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i think you're way off
The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes! Thats a real number.

but hey, its only the top 1%, who cares!

Well, if you put it that way......

Red states get more back from the fed. then they put in, Blue states get back less.


This has been brought up a few times before as if it means something. Perhaps it does. Supposedly, by those who bring it up, it means something like the red states are s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g off of the blue states and need the Fed to redistribute the "more back" or they would not be able to survive. Ergo, they should quit complaining about state's rights and government redistribution and individual freedom and all that nonsense. It even implies more, that those in the red states are not as competent as those in the blue, that they are somehow backward and a drag on the country. It even implies that red states are the welfare queens that so many of their people rail against.

But that is, in my opion, a shallow, narrow, one-sided, false interpretation of the meaning. The "more back" is not some blank check. It is not a gift. Nor would the states collapse without it. On the whole, the states would do well enough if they could reverse the rates of taxation so that they could collect the federal rates and the fed was limited to the average state rates. Even more so if they didn't have to spend much of the "more back" as well as their own to fulfill central government mandates. If it were up to them to decide social policies as was intended, they could fit those policies to their fiscal realities and to their social values. And they would have to be more responsible to their citizens desires than a far-off and irresponsible government with pockets that exceeds it's income.

And most of that "more back" is given to individuals not to the states. The money may be spent by those individuals in the state or in other states or countries. More and more is spent on internet purchases. And money such as social security and medicare and welfare receipts are given to some who reside in states other than in which they earned those receipts. And that "more back" is a way to create dependency on the central government, especially for things that should be decided at state levels. It is as much coersion as it is beneficence.

The "more back" is a red herring that draws attention away from the direction of our system of government.

i think you're way off
The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes! Thats a real number.

Agree however When compared to their actual wealth...... They make on average hundred and 25 times more money than we do the middle class. That is strictly taxable income. Other holdings which are not necessarily taxable. Add to their net worth. Is kind of what I was getting at.

Those holdings if the property of a trust. Are only taxed it turned into cash (Simply stated I realize) Or income is gained from them. In individual could own $100 million worth of property Through a trust. Then consider themselves an employee of the trust Getting an income from management fees etc. The property is rented at say $45 million a year. Your management employment fees somewhere in the neighborhood of $12.5 million a year. Taxes and insurance 25 million a year. Expenses etc. right down the line. The truck showed a profit of two $3 million a year. You take home for your management fees etc.$1 million a year. Your vehicle is taken care of by the trust. Your life insurance is guaranteed by the trust. There is 1 million ways to get paid without actually taking a check.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i think you're way off
The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes! Thats a real number.

That's true and makes one scratch their head when the Dems say they won't budge on resolving the so-called fiscal cliff unless the rich pay their "fair" share.

But I think there is something to what Jackbass is saying. Unless there is a way to remove the loopholes that are beneficial to the rich, raising the tax rate on their income will have no effect. 100% of the zero that is paid on loophole hidden income is still zero. The compromise the Repubs are proposing--keeping the rates the same but closing loopholes--makes more sense if the goal is raising government revenue. Lowering the upper rates with removal of loopholes would make even more sense. It would encourage the rich to pay the lower rates and would not have a negative effect on business.

I don't know if you guys have noticed but it's not the 1% any more..it's the 2% now...:uhuh:

Insight News

Demonstrators want to end Bush tax cuts for richest 2%, to protect working families
Monday, 12 November

A group of over forty Minnesotans representing the Americans for Tax Fairness coalition, and including representatives of SEIU, TakeAction Minnesota, Minnesotans for a Fair Economy, ISAIAH and CTUL, demonstrated in downtown Minneapolis this morning calling for an end to the Bush Tax Cuts and tax breaks for big corporations. The demonstration coincided with the first week of the congressional lame-duck session where a budget showdown looms.

Cliff Martin, a first-time voter and high school senior from Northfield, told the crowd that the time is now to make sure people are protected, not wealthy CEOs and corporations. "On Tuesday, I voted for a fair economy," he shouted. "It's time the richest who've benefitted the most over the past decade start paying their fair share." Martin supports a corporate tax reform plan that raises substantial revenue from those who have extracted billions from the American economy.

Those rallying marched on Nicollet Mall and through the skyway system, urging Congress to end tax cuts for the richest 2%, those that make more than $250,000 per year. To chants of "They never pay the taxes they owe. The money always goes to the CEO!" marchers headed into U.S. Bancorp's downtown headquarters, then over to Verizon and into Macy's department store.

Estate planning could have certainly taken care of much of the burden. That is what life insur. is for.

I don't think it is robbery - you do. We live in a democracy. If the majority don't think it is robbery, it will stay the way.

if it doesn't belong to you and you take it or you empower someone else to take it against the will of the owner...it's robbery...you just have ways to justify it in your head and you don't care because it doesn't belong to you :uhuh:

life insurance? So PaulS in that story should have had life insurance to offset the government stealing his $? WTF!Yes, that is good estate planning. As I said, I'm not an estate planner so I can't give you specifics but see below.

an oh, by the way -


Section 2042 of the Internal Revenue Code states that the value of life insurance proceeds insuring your life are included in your gross estate if the proceeds are payable: (1) to your estate, either directly or indirectly; or (2) to named beneficiaries, if you possessed any incidents of ownership (we'll discuss this more below) in the policy at the time of your death

You dont think its robbery the government seizes 55% of your assets when you die? Wow! What an incentive to work hard and provide for your family.

the majority paul dont give a F becuase they wont make that mych money and could care less if the f the rich. thats EXACLTY whats happening now with your O buddy - you know, the millionaires who make 250K a year! THOSE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO GET OUT OF THE TAX BURDEN THE REST OF THE COUNRTY IMPOSES ON THEM!!

if the majority are not being robbed, why should they care?

I think the exemption this year is $5,000,000 so I think there is $0 tax in your example above. Also, the death benefit is not taxable to the beneficiary. The ownership that they are talking about in your example above is the ownership of the policy. So if the estate owns the policy, the estate will have to pay tax on the cash value of the policy. If the beneficiary (in this case the 2 kids) owns the policy, they don't have to pay taxes on the cash value when Paul dies. And if I'm correct on the exemption, the ins. will only increase the benefits to the heirs.

if it doesn't belong to you and you take it or you empower someone else to take it against the will of the owner...it's robbery...you just have ways to justify it in your head and you don't care because it doesn't belong to you :uhuh:

Why wouldn't I care - we're talking about taxes. I have to pay taxes like everyone else.

We live in a democracy. If the majority don't think it is robbery, it will stay the way.

Just because the majority doesn't consider it robbery, doesn't mean it's not robbery. A majority doesn't, in and of itself, imply righteousness. I point you to days when the majority thought slavery was OK, or when a majority thought the Holocaust was OK.

If you take a poll of 6 robbers and 4 victims, and ask them if robbery should be OK, what result would you expectf?

Obama, and the media, have successfully fooled a majprity of voters that our economic problems are, in some meaningful way, due to the fcat that wealthy don't "pay their fair share".

Fine. I hope the GOP rolls over and lets this Mao-ist run wild with his lefty agenda. That way, when the inevitable collapse happens, no one will be able to claim that it wasn't caused by liberalism.

Pure, unchecked liberalism has worked so well in CT, why wouldn't we want to extrapolate that mess to the whole country? CT's economy is an absolute, unmitigated disaster. And it doesn't get any more purely liberal than here in my state, has been that way for a generation. No one sees a connection between those 2 things. Unbelievable.

I heard a woman on the radio this week. She was a liberal. She used to live in New York, but she couldn't afford the taxes and cost of living, so she moved to Florida, which has lower taxes and a much lower cost of living. She doesn't like how conservative Florida is, so she suppports liberalism in Florida. Liberalism forced her to move across the country, and now she wants to infest Florida with the same disease, and she sees nothing ironic or stupid with that.

You can't cure stupid.

I heard a woman on the radio this week. She was a liberal. She used to live in New York, but she couldn't afford the taxes and cost of living, so she moved to Florida, which has lower taxes and a much lower cost of living. She doesn't like how conservative Florida is, so she suppports liberalism in Florida. Liberalism forced her to move across the country, and now she wants to infest Florida with the same disease, and she sees nothing ironic or stupid with that.

You can't cure stupid.

Where in NY did she live? What did she do for a job? Did she move to Florida because of a job offer? Family?

Your stories are about as valid as the National Inquirer.

Where in NY did she live? What did she do for a job? Did she move to Florida because of a job offer? Family?

Your stories are about as valid as the National Inquirer.

"Did she move to Florida because of a job offer? Family? "

Did you read my post? I specifically said that she moved to FL because the cost of living was too high in New York.

Sorry if I was going too fast for you.

You can't cure stupid.

Racial slurs yelled at Ole Miss Obama protest - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57547014/racial-slurs-yelled-at-ole-miss-obama-protest/)

I don't think it is robbery - you do. We live in a democracy. If the majority don't think it is robbery, it will stay the way.

actually we don't...we don't decide tax policy and most other issues by majority vote, the "majority" decides the election of representatives and local issues...we elect representatives who hash those other things out, supposedly in our interest...maybe you missed that part of civics class....if we decided tax policy etc. on a vote by vote basis and everyone actually voted and Americans actually paid their taxes directly rather than having them deducted or disguised in fees and the like I imagine things would be quite different...

you support taxes specifically targeting the incomes and property of others in order to increase funding for a government that is not only bloated and inefficient and operating well beyond what it was ever intended to but cannot seem to pass a budget and apparently has no intention of curbing growth and scope of it's already indebted programs....you don't care becasue in this case it likely doesn't affect you...it won't solve any problems but apparently makes you feel better


as for the majority deciding what is robbery and what isn't and majority rule....can we look at these exit polls: :)

National exit polls conducted on election day found 26 percent of voters wanted the law(Obamacare) expanded, 18 percent want it left as-is, 27 percent wanted to repeal some of the law and 25 percent wanted to repeal all of it.

Ah, the racist is back- what took you so long.



can't help yourself, can you? :confused:

Ah, the racist is back- what took you so long.

Racial slurs yelled at Ole Miss Obama protest - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57547014/racial-slurs-yelled-at-ole-miss-obama-protest/)

Paul, for what purpose did you post that link? I was not there, if that's what you were implying. And if your point is to show that there are racists out there, I have never heard anyone deny that. But you are correct, there are racists out there.

Paul, can I ask you an honest question? Can you show me some numbers to support Obama's claim that raising taxes on the wealthy will put a meaningful dent in our debt?

My opinion (and I have shown numbers to support this), is that any revenue generated by tax hikes is utterly meaningless in the face of our debt. I can provide those again if you'd like.

I keep hearing about the importance of "the wealthy paying their fair share". I just want to know what value that adds. I'm a numbers guy, and I am rational, and persuadable.

can't help yourself, can you? :confused:

Just using his convoluted thought process to show him how stupid many of his posts are.

Paul
Are you a black man ?





Ah, the racist is back- what took you so long.

Racial slurs yelled at Ole Miss Obama protest - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57547014/racial-slurs-yelled-at-ole-miss-obama-protest/)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul
Are you a black man ?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

every time I see that Raider Ronnie has posted I start hearing Warren Zevon's "Excitable Boy" in my head...:rotf2: he cracks me up

dude...what's up with the defense :confused:

can't help yourself, can you? :confused:

No, he can't. He has learned that when someone uses facts to back him into an intellectual corner from which there is no escape, his last play is the race card. As you know, it's a common tactic, and it always indicates defeat and humiliation on the part of the accuser.

I say Obama is wrong-headed when he claims that tax hikes of $90 billion a year are the way to manage debt of $60 trillion, including SS and Medicare shortfalls. I say $90 billion a year is utterly meaningless when compared to $60 trillion in debt. And to Paul, that makes me a racist.

Makes sense.

Unlike Obama and PaulS, I have an understanding of third grade arithmetic. In Paul's mind, that makes me a racist.

Paul
Are you a black man ?






Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, why?

No, he can't. He has learned that when someone uses facts to back him into an intellectual corner from which there is no escape, his last play is the race card. As you know, it's a common tactic, and it always indicates defeat and humiliation on the part of the accuser.

I say Obama is wrong-headed when he claims that tax hikes of $90 billion a year are the way to manage debt of $60 trillion, including SS and Medicare shortfalls. I say $90 billion a year is utterly meaningless when compared to $60 trillion in debt. And to Paul, that makes me a racist.

Makes sense.

An understanding of 3rd grade arithmetic makes me a racist. Check.

No, whenever you see something you don't like in what you assume is a liberal, you start attributing that behavior to all liberals. In fact, John has had to ask you to stop doing that many times - sort of like how you try to teach a 7 year old. So it is the same thing - there were a bunch of cons. in Miss. who were yelling racists things about the elect. Your a cons. therefore, your a racist. See how I've used your convoluted thought process to label you a racist?

This is done.....


Embargo ON