Love for Mccain

[PedroSteckecilo]

sequio:

I know enough to know that we do it differently than you guys do in the states, here we won't let just anyone open up a Savings and Loan.

As well I feel secure enough with Canadian banking since we've lost only a few small regional banks over the 150 years of our nations history, hell we didn't even lose any major banks during the great depression (The Canadian Big 5, BMO, RBC, TD, SIBC and SB, where most Canadian's do their banking).

I really don't know jack about Canada's banking system and regulations. I was trying to see if there's anything in specific that made them significantly different from other banks in the world.

Similarly, I'm not utterly familiar with America's system...

In order to promote understanding I ask the following question

Do you guys require a Banking Charter from the Government? Ours do, hence no Canadian Bank operates without government approval. There's basically no such thing as 100% Private Sector Banking up here.

 

[sequio]

Republicans encourage racism so increase there chances of winning, just not outright.

I....don't know how to reply without being mean. I'm sure everyone else understand what I'm trying to say there.

Thing is, they do. I mean, remember the Willie Horton ads? How was that not about race?

And really, picking Palin I think was in part a wink and a nod to many white people who feel like minorities aren't being as responsible with family planning as they are, and that's why the demographics of America are changing because white people are putting off having families and thus winding up with smaller ones or none at all.

I mean, the 'values' candidate picked a running mate with a pregnant underage daughter--that would have been unthinkable when the 'values' voters looked on pregnancy out of wedlock as something despicable--remember Dan Quale criticizing the TV character Murphy Brown? But the 'values' voters are a little more...pragmatic these days I think, and I feel like part of the reason Palin was picked is because she represents this fecund white woman in a time when 'values' voters are kinda concerned about what the next generation of Americans is going to look like, color-wise.

I thought picking Palin was a wink/nod at feminists rather than minorities. Because I'm a minority and I really dont listen to what Palin says; she seems like a floozy.

My main problem with Raynor's comment was that he's directly implicating a party for the actions of someone associated with that party. That's like muslims attacked U.S. therefore all muslims are terrorists. Or I see 3 children chew gum therefore all kids all the time somehow somewhere chew gum. Or what about Reverand Wright's comments? Or Jesse Jackson's comments about Obama? Did the Replicans set Jesse up too? It just doesn't add up.

 

[James Raynor]

Republicans encourage racism so increase there chances of winning, just not outright.

I....don't know how to reply without being mean. I'm sure everyone else understand what I'm trying to say there.

Thing is, they do. I mean, remember the Willie Horton ads? How was that not about race?

And really, picking Palin I think was in part a wink and a nod to many white people who feel like minorities aren't being as responsible with family planning as they are, and that's why the demographics of America are changing because white people are putting off having families and thus winding up with smaller ones or none at all.

I mean, the 'values' candidate picked a running mate with a pregnant underage daughter--that would have been unthinkable when the 'values' voters looked on pregnancy out of wedlock as something despicable--remember Dan Quale criticizing the TV character Murphy Brown? But the 'values' voters are a little more...pragmatic these days I think, and I feel like part of the reason Palin was picked is because she represents this fecund white woman in a time when 'values' voters are kinda concerned about what the next generation of Americans is going to look like, color-wise.

I thought picking Palin was a wink/nod at feminists rather than minorities. Because I'm a minority and I really dont listen to what Palin says; she seems like a floozy.

My main problem with Raynor's comment was that he's directly implicating a party for the actions of someone associated with that party. That's like muslims attacked U.S. therefore all muslims are terrorists. Or I see 3 children chew gum therefore all kids all the time somehow somewhere chew gum. Or what about Reverand Wright's comments? Or Jesse Jackson's comments about Obama? Did the Replicans set Jesse up too? It just doesn't add up.

That was a generalistic statement, I didn't intend offense.

 

[sequio]

sequio:

I know enough to know that we do it differently than you guys do in the states, here we won't let just anyone open up a Savings and Loan.

As well I feel secure enough with Canadian banking since we've lost only a few small regional banks over the 150 years of our nations history, hell we didn't even lose any major banks during the great depression (The Canadian Big 5, BMO, RBC, TD, SIBC and SB, where most Canadian's do their banking).

I really don't know jack about Canada's banking system and regulations. I was trying to see if there's anything in specific that made them significantly different from other banks in the world.

Similarly, I'm not utterly familiar with America's system...

In order to promote understanding I ask the following question

Do you guys require a Banking Charter from the Government? Ours do, hence no Canadian Bank operates without government approval. There's basically no such thing as 100% Private Sector Banking up here.

The banks both state and national require a charter, but it gets fluffy. Like for the Federal Reserve, the government has to borrow money from them, but the government can lend money to state banks. So the government borrows money from itself including interest with it's own approval. I know state banks are privatized with shareholders, but ultimately they aren't since the interest and lending practices are regulated by the Federal Reserve.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

sequio

From what I can tell, Canada has 5 big banks and very few smaller ones.

But apparently, according to the World Economic Forum... We have the 2nd Safest and Most Stable Banking System in the world, bested only by Swizterland.

 

[James Raynor]

I thought picking Palin was a wink/nod at feminists rather than minorities. Because I'm a minority and I really dont listen to what Palin says; she seems like a floozy.

Actually, I was saying it was a wink/not at whites who are somewhat racist. And I'd say it was more a wink/nod at women who hate feminism--even though they don't really know what it is--who nevertheless are not doormats. To most feminists I would think, she's kinda a slap in the face: the message she sends is that you can get to the White House if you're a former beauty queen and you're folksy and not too sophisticated and you're really just an accessory on the arm of the male President. I mean, she comes across more like McCain's secretary than his second-in-command. I think she's a step backwards for women--a woman finally got to an Executive office not because of her talent but because of her looks and her family and her lack of education.

My main problem with Raynor's comment was that he's directly implicating a party for the actions of someone associated with that party. That's like muslims attacked U.S. therefore all muslims are terrorists.

I think it's more like saying all Muslims who preach the U.S. is the Great Satan and should be destroyed are terrorists. I think Raynor's point was that they know some of their supporters racists, and violent ones at that. And the Republicans have been choosing to attack Obama in ways that they know those people will misinterpret as a call to violent, racist action.

"DON'T VOTE FOR THE ******" on some signs (not official signs, but ones made by supporters) I personally think is racism.

 

[Riicek]

Riieckk- and you do realise that people who own businesses can basically write off every car, house, computer, dog, can of beans and strip-joint excursion they purchase to tax. And that since the poor outnumber the rich, they will always contribute more of the National Income.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23408.html

The top 1% of wage earners paid over 12 times more in income taxes (after credits) than the bottom 50%. If you honestly believe the wealthy are simply "writing off" everything and not paying taxes, you're really fooling yourself.

Also- if you'vegot so many poor people that you can't tax them, then you need a different economy.

Not sure what you're trying to say. The reason the very poor don't pay taxes is to give them a chance to get out of the hole they are in... It's not that we *can't* tax them, it's that we don't because (theoretically) we're trying to help them keep the little money they have. And the amount of poor people has nothing to do with that whatsoever.

Also- the suicide rate is higher in America than it is in Scandanvia. Get over it.

Um....what does this have to do with my post at all? But, just for shits and giggles, source?

Also, in the future please quote me if you're responding directly to me. It'll help me see your post in a more timely manner. Thanks.

 

[James Raynor]

Riieckk- and you do realise that people who own businesses can basically write off every car, house, computer, dog, can of beans and strip-joint excursion they purchase to tax. And that since the poor outnumber the rich, they will always contribute more of the National Income.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23408.html

The top 1% of wage earners paid over 12 times more in income taxes (after credits) than the bottom 50%. If you honestly believe the wealthy are simply "writing off" everything and not paying taxes, you're really fooling yourself.

Also- if you'vegot so many poor people that you can't tax them, then you need a different economy.

Not sure what you're trying to say. The reason the very poor don't pay taxes is to give them a chance to get out of the hole they are in... It's not that we *can't* tax them, it's that we don't because (theoretically) we're trying to help them keep the little money they have. And the amount of poor people has nothing to do with that whatsoever.

Also- the suicide rate is higher in America than it is in Scandanvia. Get over it.

Um....what does this have to do with my post at all? But, just for shits and giggles, source?

Also, in the future please quote me if you're responding directly to me. It'll help me see your post in a more timely manner. Thanks.

That's cumulatively, but not each individual person is saying 12 times more.

 

[ffxfriek]

Riieckk- and you do realise that people who own businesses can basically write off every car, house, computer, dog, can of beans and strip-joint excursion they purchase to tax. And that since the poor outnumber the rich, they will always contribute more of the National Income.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23408.html

The top 1% of wage earners paid over 12 times more in income taxes (after credits) than the bottom 50%. If you honestly believe the wealthy are simply "writing off" everything and not paying taxes, you're really fooling yourself.

Yeah, but unless the business is an S-Corp maybe, why would the money a business owner makes off a business be considered wages? Income tax is not a tax on all income, it's a tax on earned income, isn't it? And money you make from a business would be dividend income or capital gains or something like that, wouldn't it?

The reality is, few people get into rich earning income. Most people get rich by owning investments. And when you own something, there are a lot of ways to get around taxes, like matching losses to gains as long as you don't run afoul of the wash sale rules.

You've confusing the top 1% wealthiest individuals with the top 1% of wage earners--they're not necessarily the same group.

In fact, Warren Buffet is taxed at a lower percentage than his receptionist--according to Warren Buffet himself!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html?hpid=sec-politics

My guess is because she makes good money--$164,551 to $357,700, but most of it as earned income. However, Warren Buffet doesn't have a "wage"; he makes all his money by way of being a buisnessman, a TRUE business man, and not an employee of anyone, including his own businesses. So he's probably in a lower income tax bracket than his own receptionist!

I'm not knocking Warren Buffet at all--I mean, he himself realizes what a strange situation this is. What I'm knocking is the ignorance Conservatives and Republicans keep the American public in regarding how taxes really work just to keep us thinking that raising taxes necessarily has anything to do with Joe the Plumber.

not only republicans and conservatives....its also liberals and democrats as well

 

[ffxfriek]

not only republicans and conservatives....its also liberals and democrats as well

No, not really. Liberals are generally ignorant of facts like this, and Democrats, well, they *try* to communicate this, but they regularly charter the S.S. Failboat when they do, like Al Gore going on and on about a friggin' "lockbox". On the other hand Republicans have the golden touch for connecting with people, like making Joe the Plumber a major issue in this campaign.

just like al gore and his "global warming" even though the frost came a 3 days early and there was snow in NC, and pennsylvania.

 

[Sethran]

The problem with Obama's plan is he wants to double taxes for people over 250k a year. Trust me folks, 250k a year isn't a whole lot -- That's right in the middle of middle class -- and those people can't afford double the taxes.

Umm, no. Hell no.

Median income for an American family is a lot closer to $50k/yr. than $250k/yr.

I live in one of the highest-income counties of the US, an area stuffed with well-educated workers and random millionaires, and median household income is around $90k-100k/yr.

In many areas of America, $250k will buy you a nice house -- no mortgage, just instant house.

Also, Obama's definitely not doubling income taxes -- how did you come up with that number? Now, the wealthy are also affected by other taxes, such as inheritance tax or capital gains tax, and I expect both of those to rise, but those are also taxes on money that, by definition, isn't the direct result of labor.

-- Alex

Well, let's see... Obama said "My plan is to double taxes on companies making over $250,000 a year"

That's pretty much where I got my number.

As to your statement-- You're actually wrong. The average personal income bubble is around $50-100k a year, yes. However, I said company.

Small business owners, which are in the center of middle class, make around and above $250,000 annually. That's their business, they don't take all of that home. However, their business taxes would be doubled which would bankrupt the lot of the. You see, small business are still companies in the eyes of the government, and while most of that annual income goes towards the company's bills [Electricity, rent if applicable, tools, labor.] they still make that much on average.

Now, a little secondary outcome of doubling those taxes: The people that are in the lower middle and lower financial classes would then lose their jobs in the small business, and the average annual income would drop to around $0. Mechanic shops nation wide, small town car dealerships, corner gas stations that don't belong to franchises, dozens of small business would vanish off the face of the earth with their taxes doubled as Obama has clearly stated his intent.

Please don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, my very middle class family which relies on my father's auto repair shop's income will be bankrupt should Obama's tax plan go through. My family's life, and the lives of millions like us, hang in the balance with this election. If you think I wouldn't know what I'm talking about you're seriously mistaken.

See, what you don't understand is that annual earnings are a lot more than what you bring home. Annual earnings includes everything with which you, using my father for example, pay to buy parts, pay to buy tools, pay rent for your building, pay electricity and phone bills, pay the people working for you whose welfare is based on your business' success by the by, and then go home and pay those same bills for your own house plus extra.

Out of the 260k-270k annual that my father's shop brings in, my father actaully gets about 30, 40, maybe 50k of that annually. But his taxes will still be raised.

 

[Jaythulhu]

Has anyone else noticed that McCain's cranky face looks a lot like the Warhammer Giant's?

 

[Alex_P]

As to your statement-- You're actually wrong. The average personal income bubble is around $50-100k a year, yes. However, I said company.

No, according to the Census Bureau, median household income in 2007 was $50k. Note that that is household income -- a whole family. (And median is really much more useful than average here. I hope I don't have to explain why.)

A small-business owner who keeps $250,000 a year is loaded. There's just no other way to describe that person. Someone who just has $250,000 pass through their company is another matter. But that person doesn't fall into the highest tax bracket, however, because all that money is not reported as personal income.

-- Alex