Wow, all good points. Is it actually achieving the desired result or is it just eliminating more candidates. I would love to get rid of about 80% of the current members in the house and senate too. Wonder if there is some way.... hmmm

It achieves results. I think it is a good thing for government officials to be up to date on their taxes, and it is a good thing for people who hope to eventually get those positions to have extra incentives to be squeaky clean. Those are good results in themselves.

From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, however, it probably does some harm. Someone can be extremely effective in a position, even if their past isn't pristine - sometimes in politics they can be more effective (not necessarily in tax issues, but in general). "Do as I say and not as I do" isn't an admirable position, but it's the rare parent who never has to take it.

I agree with your reference to parenting. Thats been a difficult one for me on several occasions (ok, more). I still think we need to hold our representatives to a higher standard though. Especially those doing the legislating. I'm still having issues with business or industries "donating" money to certain representatives, especially the representatives who are supposed to be overseeing those same businesses. It makes no logical sense.

Not a failed appointment ... yet. But certainly a rather interesting one in light of all the outrage.

uhhh, really? WTF?

I have to agree on both counts. The whole process of election/selection for public service has gotten intense. I mean we're told if the candidate/nominee forgot to feed their goldfish on a Thursday 30 years ago.

The problem is we might end up candidates/nominees that have been raised in a bubble, never made a mistake. How in hell can we relate to that kind of person? More importantly, how can they relate to us? How can they connect with the people they have to direct, motivate, or persuade, when the have no mutual life experiences?

That's a good point Bruce, but the tax issue is just ridiculous. It seems like almost everyone cheats on their taxes. And it's more infuriating when it's someone who has money and can afford to pay them.

How do you think they got so rich? :haha:

I doubt if any of these people "do" their own taxes. As Lookout well knows, the people that handle that stuff can stick it right up your kazoo.

I doubt we will have such a canidate. We will never be able to relate to them and for the fast majority we can't relate to them now. They have very few mutual life experience now so how is it different? The choosen ones are selected by other people to represent us, we get to choose from their limited choice. Hence we have consecutive election cycles where we are not choosing the best person just the best of the two or three very bad choices.

To some extent, thats what we have now - isn't it?

No, no, no. Obama is one of us. He organized communities. and smoked rock. and had to get normal loan approval for an appropriately priced house... just like all of us.

Smoked rock? Really?

You won't have any trouble posting a link to a credible source concerning the president smoking crack, I assume.

Obama wrote about it in his own memoirs, genius.

I guess that depends on what level of credibility you believe Obama to have, I suppose.

Your link says nothing of the kind.

Obama admits to having smoked the reefer back in his youth in his book. In fact, he admits to a little cocaine. Please point out where he talks about smoking crack, which is another order of magnitude as far as drugs go.

Please try to be a little more honest about this sort of thing.

TGRR,
Genius or something.

Naw. I think it has more to do with your credibility.

good come back.

Why would you question Lookout's credibility? :neutral::headshake

I'm sorry you're a liar.

Because I caught him in a lie.

Why else? (I mean, other than his rabid partisanship.)

would you point to some examples of my partisanship? no? ok, maybe just one example then? I'll wait.

maybe some examples of my lies then?

You got me. As far as I was concerned, cocaine and crack were in the same category. Obviously you stratify your street drugs more than I do.

Obviously. That's like saying "beer" vs "151 Rum".

How the hell do you survive to adulthood without having at least some knowledge of drugs (if not - preferably not - 1st hand experience)?

Oh, I'd say your slobbering insistence that the poor little rich boys get their "retention payments". Har har! Partisan "pre-rich", anyway.


Okay. Obama smoking crack.

Wow. That was easy.

Define please. I don't see any numbers attached to that.

Pre-rich: The attitude that, one day, you will be rich (by some mysterious means), so you don't want to fuck it up for when you join the club.

See also: Extreme self-delusion, delusions of grandeur, blatant Libertarian fantasizing.

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. In America it is delusional to believe that one might achieve a measure of wealth by working hard/smart, making good decisions, and trying to achieve financial independence? Do you really believe that?

FTR, I'm definitely not a big L libertarian but I do believe the government should have as little to do with my everyday life as possible. I do believe I should be able to keep the fruits of my labor. I do believe in personal responsibility. I hardly think those things make me delusional.

You seem to think you're going to be rich one day.

You won't.

Also, "personal responsibility" as enshrined by "getting bonuses for failing".

Crack is much more addictive than powder cocaine. It is supposed to be more pure, almost completely pure, because the impurities are cooked out, but I think it has other impurities cut into it before it's cooked that make it a lot more toxic. After all, dealers want to make as much money as possible. This is one reason why I think drugs should be legalized and controlled, so people actually know what they're getting.

True. The days of the independent drug dealer you knew by name are long gone, now. Now it's more like going to WalMart. You think you're getting quality stuff, but it's all full of lead and melamine.

My net worth has never really been a source of concern for me. I've been extremely poor and I've been affluent enough to travel the world as I wished. Money comes and goes. I truly don't know if I'll ever be rich as I define rich, but then again I don't really care. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I have the ability to become obscenely wealthy. I own my company in an industry where 7-8 figure incomes are not impossible and solid 6 figures are the norm. I choose to work less than many of my peers because my priorities are different. Because of this they make more money than I do, but that is because of my choice noone else's.

I feel sympathy for people who don't believe they have the ability to do anything they want in life. I am living proof that you can. The only thing in life that I know I can't achieve is a successful political career, but again that is because of some choices I have made. ;)

Rich is a state of mind. When you are there you will know it.

Some very rich people I know have little money.

Really?

They seem like totally different categories to me. For a start I've happily indulged in the one but wouldn't touch the other with a ten foot barge pole.

I have to say as well, TGRR, much as I disagree with LO on pretty much everything regarding money, for a finance guy he isn't grabby. I've never got the impression he's on a mad crusade for riches, in any way whatsoever. He does his job and (from what I can gather) does it very well, ethically, and to the advantage of his customers.

I was not aware that the actual penalties were any different for crack versus powder.
Is that the case?

Out of curiosity from those in the know... whats the difference between freebasing and crack?

The penalties are very different. You can make a strong case that it is racial discrimination in action, if you're the type of person who's looking for a racist behind every woodpile. Of course, an equally strong case can be made that while crack is a derivative of cocaine it is apparently far more addictive, hooks you more quickly and deeply, has insanely wide variations in chemistry, and is more often associated with crimes of theft and assault than ordinary cocaine. I have a little personal experience with the subject. For the record I know more middle class white people who've been addicted to crack than have been addicted to cocaine.

Yea there has been a long hue and cry about the issue in the penalty phase of the court system. Poor black dude in the inner city gets long penalties while the rich white guy with a private lawyer gets 18months. There has been a lot of race baiting over the issue.

There have already been changes in sentencing differences and early releases as a result.
Link

I think it was a long overdue change that was needed.

More whites use crack then blacks but a higher percentage of blacks use crack than whites. Whites dominate in cocaine use.

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/Nhsda/2k3t...6.htm#tab1.38b

In 2002 and 2003 based on their statistics.
They sound pretty legit.

Well, that's just it--I wouldn't touch either of them with a ten foot barge pole. :)

huh? How can more whites use crack, but a higher % of blacks use it? That doesn't make sense to me. Are you just saying that as a whole, the black population uses it more? How can more whites use it than blacks then? I'm confused. (this kind of math was always hard for me)

Never used crack, never wanted to. Did use cocaine quite a bit. That's the reason I got sober back in 1989. I was on my way to an early destruction.

There are more white people then black people.

Lets say we have 100 white people and 10 black people.

If 20 white people use crack and 5 black people use crack, we can say that more white people use crack then black people.

But, we can also so that the percentage of blacks using crack (50%) is higher then the percentage of whites using crack (20%).

ah, I thought it was something like that.

Cheese Itz - Do any of these people actually pay their taxes?

Sebelius admits errors, pays $7,000 in back taxes
Was she gonna hire someone if she didn't get appointed?

No big deal, but still - shes a Governor and he is a Judge. WTF?

Dude. You don't feel even the least bit hypocritical? You directly suggested to me that I fudge my taxes to save money. And yet here you are not only upset (again) that a politician did the same thing, but implying that she should have been honest even if she weren't getting appointed, thus bypassing any "politicians should know they're held to a higher standard" argument.

When did I do that?

I don't understand why they wouldn't have been able to take deductions on their taxes since they sold the house for less than what it was worth. That is a loss. Aren't you supposed to be able to claim losses on your taxes? And the charitable contributions, they have to have a letter? I thought a receipt would do.

The friggin' tax laws are so complicated in this country, it doesn't surprise me at all that so many people are having trouble with that part of the confirmations.

And yet you're all convinced an easy to understand flat tax would hurt the poor and working classes.

It would, because it favors the wealthier classes.

Bullshit. You can't rest your flag on the idea that the current system favors the wealthy because of all the deductions and tax shelters which help them to pay a lower than expected tax rate AND say that a zero deduction flat tax also favors them.

Gosh guys, isn't there a solution in between?

Now you're just being ridiculous Bruce :P

It was here. I kind of called you on it at the time too (post 1393,) because that was when the news stories about nominees owing back taxes were in full swing, and you had expressed frustration over it several times.

An "easy to understand" flat tax is absolutely regressive...hurting the poor and working class far more than higher income groups with far greater disposal income.

And the more "complicated" you make it to counteract that inherent unfairness, the higher the tax rate will need to be just to generate enough revenue to pay for basic national needs.

SO, the current tax system is unfair because it is progressive and the rich pay a greater share of their income.

A flat tax is unfair because it is regressive and the poor and working class pay a greater share of their income.

Which group should pay that greater share of their income.....the group that relies on a large portion of its income to meet basic needs and perhaps a few luxuries or the group with much greater disposable income?

The answer is easy to me.

Of course it would.

Ah, but you forget the basic notion (almost considered a given with most flat-tax proponents) that there could be a floor underneath which there would be no tax. Say, the first $25,000.

Okay, then to gain sufficient revenue, you'd have to have your tax rate so high that you'd clobber the middle class.

Which is, of course, the whole point. The funniest thing is that the rich have sold this to the middle class (or at least their kids away at college).