Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-20-2010, 09:07 PM  
ROYC75 ROYC75 is offline
Time For Your Wake Up Call !!!
 
ROYC75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Barn Yard
Casino cash: $5366
Fact check : More lies !

http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/20...k+Watch+-+Blog)

Fact Checking the President -- Again

by Elizabeth MacDonald


“Right now, we could decide that every American household would receive a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income…The leaders across the aisle..want to hold these middle-class tax cuts hostage until they get an additional tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. It would mean borrowing $700 billion..to give a tax cut..to millionaires and billionaires.” -- President Barack Obama, September 15, 2010

Let’s start with: “Right now, we could decide that every American household would receive a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income” and that the Republicans are demanding “an additional tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.”

This debate is about preserving the Bush tax cuts for all brackets that were enacted earlier this decade that are set to expire January 1 -- not creating new ones.

Tax cuts that 28 House Democrats and 12 Senate Democrats, including Democrat Senators Max Baucus, Dianne Feinstein, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu all voted for in May 2001.

Tax cuts that Senator Baucus, along with Senator Chuck Grassley, said then in voting for them:

"Entrepreneurs and small businesses ... will receive 80% of the tax relief...Experts agree that lower taxes increase a business' cash flow, which helps with liquidity constraints during an economic slowdown and could increase the demand for investment and labor."

Taxpayers making $250,000 or more are considered middle class in many urban areas with a high cost of living, and are not as the President said “millionaires and billionaires.”

Next up: the President’s comment: “We simply can’t afford” extending the Bush tax cut on the upper bracket.

The US government takes in just $2.2 trillion annually in tax revenues from individuals and companies.

In the 20 months since the President took office, DC has borrowed $2.8 trillion, swamping the annual federal tax haul.

Taxing small businesses and workers won't cure the nation's estimated $13.4 trillion national debt. Interest costs on the national debt: about $375 billion.

Next: The president’s statement on reinstating the upper bracket cut: “It would mean borrowing $700 billion in order to fund these tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans.”

First, that $700 billion cost is not just for one year, it represents costs over a decade, according to government estimates, and the figure is actually $679.6 billion.

Moreover, the Treasury Dept. says the cost of the marginal income tax cut for the wealthiest is just $364.5 billion over ten years. The total $679.6 billion cost includes what the upper bracket would forgo in the way of expired tax cuts for capital gains and dividends, and other deductions.

So letting the tax cut on the $250K+ crowd expire would bring in just $36.5 billion to $68 billion in annual federal tax revenues, depending on how you slice it.

And that just about covers the estimated $27 billion in annual Congressional pork spending and many other subsidies given to buy votes, take your pick.

That revenue would cover only about 9% to 18% of the interest on the nation's debt, which the President and Congress have added to in dramatic fashion.

Government spending that will lead to inflation, pushing your income and capital gains into higher tax brackets, creating more tax bills because the alternative minimum tax and capital gains tax rates are not indexed to inflation (the AMT is catching more of the middle class every year).

You’ll also hear that “just 3% of Americans will be hit with higher taxes, 97% will not."

Small businesses will be hurt by the tax hike on the upper bracket.

Estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation, based on IRS 2007 return data, show that 48% of small business net income is reported on the returns of 750,000 taxpayers in the $200K/$250K+ crowd.

That’s the 3% of taxpayers cited now by White House officials. Government estimates show that the IRS is expected to collect $1 trillion in aggregate net business income in 2011. Meaning, an estimated $480 billion will be subject to higher taxes.

The $480 billion is more important than the 3% figure, because it is business income (and not the number of business taxpayers) that fuels new jobs.

“What you should focus on is how much money you are taking out of the hands of the entrepreneurs, not how many entrepreneurs you are taking money from,” says Fox News analyst James Farrell.

Also the President’s new small business jobs bill is partially paid for by a tax on multinationals — even though Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and the Administration have reassured the American people that the government will export our way out of the present recession.

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” – President Barack Obama, 2008.

I cede the rest of this column to Fox Business news director Ray Hennessey:

The debate in Congress now about whether the top 2% deserve the same tax breaks as the rest of the country has to be viewed in the context of the above quote, made to the man who would ultimately be known as Joe the Plumber during the campaign of 2008.

At the heart of why the administration does not want every American to be treated equally is an idea that spreading the wealth around – better known as wealth redistribution – helps make the economy better.

If you succeed, you should throw back some of that success to those who don’t, thus making them succeed, too. But there’s no basis in economic theory that supports that.

In fact, wealth redistribution is the destruction of wealth. If you work hard, succeed and make an income that hits some kind of arbitrary level, you are expected then to kick that back to the government so that the public sector can then make sure that those who perhaps have not worked hard or succeeded get an income, too.

So your wealth is capped. More importantly, that approach kills initiative, entrepreneurism and work ethic – all pillars on which this country is built. Why work hard to build your wealth when you will be forced to just give it to others?

On the flip side, why bother even working when you know your income will come from the government, subsidized by taxpayers who have succeeded? It doesn’t take an economic genius to see that such a model isn’t sustainable. Hell, even Cuba wants more free enterprise nowadays.

There is an element of class warfare here, as well. Particularly during an election season highlighted by growing populism, it pays politically to take an “us-versus-them” approach.

But it misses the point that the populism sweeping the country reflects that more and more Americans are finding their hard work is not appreciated, their success is punished and their burden in paying for the rest of the nation – a nation where now a majority of citizens gets a check from the government – is constantly rising.

The top 1% of the country pays 40.42% of the taxes, according to National Taxpayers Union. The top 5% pay 60.63%. Some observers have mentioned the so-called rich have to “pay their fair share.”

Yet, the current tax structure is such that the bottom 50% of this country pays just 2.89% of taxes.

So the reason the administration says the country can’t afford to extend tax breaks to the top 2% is because, indeed, that is true: the country relies disproportionately on the highest earners for the most revenue. So much for “fair share.”

And who are the “rich?” We are told they are “millionaires and billionaires.” Not so.

They are small business owners, fathers and mothers, and, indeed, some people finding that the cost of living makes it difficult to pay for college for their children. We are not talking about Mr. Monopoly here.


Read more: http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/20...#ixzz1086NFDLB
Posts: 28,003
ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2010, 09:10 PM   #2
ROYC75 ROYC75 is offline
Time For Your Wake Up Call !!!
 
ROYC75's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Barn Yard
Casino cash: $5366
More on Jobs.

Fact Checking the Democratic Leadership on Jobs

by Elizabeth MacDonald

Time to fact check the Democratic leadership's claims on job growth, given the smoke bombs being set off in this debate as the midterm elections loom.

First, the data. The Bureau of Labor Statistics issued a press release on the new unemployment numbers showing U.S. employers made a net cut of 54,000 jobs in August, aggravated by the loss of 114,000 Census worker jobs.

The unemployment rate, calculated using a separate household survey, edged up to 9.6% from 9.5% as more job seekers entered the labor force, versus the peak of 10.1% in October 2009. July payrolls were revised to a loss of 54,000 from an original estimate of a 131,000 drop.

Private-sector companies added 67,000 jobs, following an upwardly revised 107,000 gain in July. Manufacturers shed 27,000 jobs, after adding 34,000 the previous month.

Economists now attribute a chunk of the decline in the jobless rate to 9.6% to the net 1.4 million people who left the labor force since May. Add in 1.4 million people, and the jobless rate zooms higher to 10.3%, says Miller Tabak strategist Dan Greenhaus.

Deutsche Bank also says the private sector created a net total of 689,000 jobs since November 2009, the point when the jobs picture turned positive. That 689,000 is anemic compared to the 8.5 million private jobs lost in the downturn, Deutsche says, noting too that monthly private sector job creation is trending down. The Administration says stimulus enacted in February 2009 created or saved 3.4 million jobs--2.35 million jobs were lost since stimulus passed. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, says without stimulus, "we would have two and a half to three million fewer jobs," and the unemployment rate would be 11.5%. The White House said stimulus would drive the unemployment rate down below 8.5%. The government has added more than $3 trillion in debt in two years--14.9 million are still without jobs.

Now to fact checking the claims—Fox News analyst James Farrell has a go at it:

“We will have job growth of 250,000 to 500,000 a month.”

- Claim: In an April 23, 2010 fundraiser, Vice President Joseph Biden stated "Well, I'm here to tell you some time in the next couple of months we're going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month."

FBN Fact check: What today's BLS employment release stated: "Total nonfarm payroll employment was little changed (-54,000) in August."

"Automotive workers worked through the 'summer shutdown.'"

- Claim: In the July 2010 report titled "Rebuilding the Auto Industry," the administration claimed that "2010 is on track to be the strongest year of job growth in the auto industry since 1999.” To highlight the job growth, the report highlighted "the recent experience of the big three automakers" of "Working through the Summer Shutdown: Nine of GM’s eleven manufacturing and assembly plants, including Hamtramck, skipped the customary summer plant shutdown to meet growing consumer demand."

FBN Fact check: The latest employment release from the BLS indicates that automotive job numbers were inflated in July because workers did not "work through the Summer shutdown" – instead the timing of the "Summer shutdown" was adjusted to fall in August: "A decline in motor vehicles and parts (-22,000) offset a gain of similar magnitude in July as the industry departed somewhat from its usual layoff and recall pattern for annual retooling."

"Health care jobs will boom after Obamacare is signed."

- Claim: On February 25, 2010, in discussing Obamacare, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated: "So this bill is not only about the health security of America. It's about jobs. In its life it will create four million jobs -- 400,000 jobs almost immediately; jobs, again, in the health care industry, but in the entrepreneurial world as well."

FBN Fact check: What today's BLS employment release stated: "Thus far in 2010, the health care industry has added an average of 20,000 jobs per month, about in line with the average monthly job growth in 2009."

"Construction employment will increase during the 'Summer of Recovery.'"

- Claim: In a June 2010 report touting the "Summer of Recovery," Vice President Biden wrote: "As summer construction season kicks into high gear, commitments made late last year to infrastructure investments will transition from committed dollars into tangible action—thousands of projects will break ground and thousands more will increase activity and hiring."

FBN Fact check: The latest BLS employment release says that construction employment was in fact up by an estimated 19,000 in August, which seems like an improvement. But the BLS says this change partially reflected the return to payrolls of 10,000 [construction] workers who were on strike in July." So, the Vice President's claim might have been true, if Chicago construction workers had not gone on strike and delayed state and local construction projects. The workers went on strike to secure a 3.25% pay increase each year for the next three years --which the union workers said was necessitated by the rising costs of their health insurance premiums, the same rising premiums that health reform was supposed to drive down.


Read more: http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/20...#ixzz1087F6Q1V
Posts: 28,003
ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2010, 09:13 PM   #3
ROYC75 ROYC75 is offline
Time For Your Wake Up Call !!!
 
ROYC75's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Barn Yard
Casino cash: $5366
Now Health Care Reform : Another misleading fact from our POTUS & his administration

GAO Finds Sebelius Misleading Taxpayers on Health Reform

by Elizabeth MacDonald

The Government Accountability Office says a Medicare mailer sent out by Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, to Medicare recipients on the new health-care law isn’t accurate.

In fact, according to the GAO, the brochure, which cost $18 million in taxpayer dollars to publish and emanated from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, presented a view of the health reform law that is “not universally shared,” that it “overstated the benefits” of health reform,” and that it failed to note the possibility of less generous Medicare benefits and higher costs.

While the GAO cleared the administration of putting together a purely partisan or propagandizing brochure, it was nonetheless critical of its content.

Is this Sebelius brochure good use of nearly $20 million in taxpayer money?

Prior to press, Fox Business reached out to HHS for its response to the GAO report. After the story appeared on the FBN website, HHS emailed this statement: "The GAO report confirms what we have been saying all along. The Medicare brochure is a critical tool to inform Medicare beneficiaries and their families about how the Affordable Care Act affects them." The statement concludes by saying that the GAO report "confirms that it [the brochure] is not partisan and is not propaganda."

The irony is rich. Almost a year to the day, Humana, one of the biggest private insurers offering richer Medicare plans to the elderly, sent out a letter last September warning senior citizens that a government revamp of health insurance could eliminate their benefits.

An official with a unit of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services then sent the insurer a threatening letter instructing Humana that it was now under investigation, that it must “end immediately all such mailings to beneficiaries” and that it must “remove any related materials” from its website, adding, “please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions.”

That letter set off an explosive fight in Congress, with Democrats Sen. Max Baucus and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the one side and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell on the other.

Representatives David Camp (R-Mich.) and Wally Herger (R-Calif.) had asked the GAO to determine whether the HHS brochure violated publicity or propaganda prohibitions in federal law.

In the brochure, Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, says the handout provides taxpayers with “accurate” information about “new services and benefits” under health reform.

Specifically, in a section entitled "What Stays the Same," Sebelius advises taxpayers that "[t]he guaranteed Medicare benefits you currently receive will remain the same,” that reform “preserves and strengthens Medicare," makes "improvements," and creates "new benefits."

But the GAO says those statements are misleading and are overstatements.

For example, the GAO says the brochure fails to note that reform actually delivers cuts to the Medicare program, increases Medicare prescription premiums, and cuts payment to doctors.

The GAO also says the Sebelius brochure made misleading statements about health reform making “improvements” to Medicare Advantage, and that the brochure does not cite the $123 billion in estimated cuts over a ten-year period to Medicare Advantage, which provides services beyond regular Medicare offerings. Medicare Advantage is the private options that about one in five Medicare beneficiaries enroll in.

And the GAO says the brochure fails to note that “two government analyses have determined that [health reform] reductions in funding for Medicare Advantage may decrease enrollment and result in less generous benefit packages.”

The GAO also says the brochure misleadingly tells Medicare recipients that health reform "increases the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and physician assistants" enrolled in Medicare, when in fact, reform only provides incentives for those doctors to voluntarily join or stay in Medicare.

The GAO also says the brochure misleadingly refers to new programs as being available for Medicare recipients, when they are not eligible for these offerings.

A spokesman for the GAO says the report "confirms what we have been saying all along. The Medicare brochure is a critical tool to inform Medicare beneficiaries and their families about how the Affordable Care Act affects them and remind them to be on the alert for any scams asking for personal information. Today's GAO report confirms that it is not partisan and is not propaganda."

In a section called “Improvements beyond Medicare that you and your family can count on,” Sebelius’s brochure notes that under the new health reform law, children up to age 26 can stay on their parents plan. But the GAO says that section is misleading, as Medicare beneficiaries “are likely to be ineligible” for that offering, meaning, their children can’t get Medicare benefits.

And in that same section, the Sebelius brochure also cites a new long-term care insurance program that requires enrollees to work while paying premiums. But the GAO says that, again, Medicare beneficiaries “are likely to be ineligible” for that offering.

The GAO also says the brochure fails to acknowledge what the 2010 Medicare Trustees Report says, “that while the financial outlook for the Medicare program is substantially improved as a result of” reform, “the feasibility of long-range improvements is still uncertain, and significant increases in premiums for some beneficiaries may be necessary.”

The Sebelius brochure also states that reform will "ensure accountability throughout the health care system,” but the GAO report says it “does not guarantee it.”

Similarly, the brochure notes that health reform "reduces payment errors, waste, fraud, and abuse,” but again the GAO says those reductions are not guaranteed.

And the GAO says the brochure makes other “overstatements of information” on health reform, including that "[i]nsurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition for children starting in September, and for adults in 2014," when in fact the new law “does not apply to all health plans,” and that “a subset of health plans-grandfathered individual health insurance plans-are exempt” from restrictions on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.


Read more: http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/20...#ixzz1087ytfy8
Posts: 28,003
ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.ROYC75 wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2010, 09:21 PM   #4
Brainiac Brainiac is offline
Veteran
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lenexa, KS
Casino cash: $7686
Does this remind anyone of the tax on luxury boats that Congress passed in the early 1990s? That was another tax intended to soak the rich. It nearly destroyed an entire industry and cost thousands of people their jobs before it was hastily repealed.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. ****ing morons.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/21/ny...oat-sales.html

New Luxury Tax Trimming Boat Sales

By PENNY SINGER
Published: July 21, 1991




THE 10 percent excise tax on pleasure boats, coming on top of the recession, is helping to scuttle parts of the local boating industry, say those who make their livings building, selling and maintaining the boats.

The luxury tax, which began Jan. 1, is applied to that part of a new boat's sale price over $100,000. The National Marine Manufacturers Association, the industry trade group, estimates that from 10,000 to 15,000 boats nationally will be subject to the tax.

In Mamaroneck, Howard McMichael Jr., who is 52 years old and joined the family business, McMichael Yacht Brokers, in 1962, said his business has been hit by the tax and the recession. Sales of New Boats Down

"In 1989, we sold 30 boats costing over $100,000," Mr. McMichael said. "We sold 8 last year in that category and so far this year, we've sold 2."

The business was founded in 1935. "Traditionally, we have always sold a mix of new and used boats, with the bulk of sales, or about 60 percent of them, in new boats," he said. "Today, new boat sales account for only 10 percent of our business."

According to the manufacturers association, new boat sales, which reached a high of 749,020 in 1988, dropped to 504,100 in 1990 and are expected to drop even more sharply this year. .

Mr. McMichael's father, who founded the business, said this season is the worst he can remember.

"Everything hit at once," he said. "The luxury tax plus the recession left boat dealers with large inventories of boats they can't sell while they owe the banks millions of dollars in outstanding loans."

The elder Mr. McMichael said that over the years, he had been over-cautious about borrowing and keeping large inventories. "Now," he said, "over-caution has turned into an economic benefit. We're not saddled with a lot of new boats we can't sell." The company has broken sales records in the last three months, Mr. McMichael said, but the sales have been for used boats.

The executive vice president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, Frank Scalpone, said the tax had already adversely affected the nation's top boat builders. He cited companies like Pearson Yachts, O'Day Corporation, Shannon Boat Builders and Bristol Yachts as ones that have been forced out of business. "For production boat builders fighting the recession, it was the straw that broke the camel's back," Mr. Scalpone said.

The trade organization reports that new boat sales, which soared to a high of 749,020 in 1988, dropped to 504,100 in 1990; they are expected to drop even more sharply this year, Mr. Scalpone said. Exceptions to the Trend

In Westchester, two companies -- one a top-of-the-line luxury craft designer and one a dealer whose trade is mostly in sailboats costing less than $100,000 -- are going against the trend. They said their business is good, despite the tax and the recession.

At the Mamaroneck shipyard of Robert E. Derecktor, work has just been completed on a custom-designed 58-foot sailboat commissioned for a New Jersey couple at a price of $1.6 million. And work is almost completed on a $6 million 110-foot motor yacht for another private owner.

The Derecktor yard, which built the 1987 America's Cup winner, the Stars & Stripes, is well known for its custom-designed yachts in the $1.5 million to $8 million range. Mary Ann Clerkin, director of marketing, said general consumer apprehension about the Persian Gulf war had affected sales there more than the luxury tax.

"Customers thought twice about ordering yachts while the war was raging, and they put their plans on hold," she said. "Since our boats take 12 to 20 months to build, business slowed down to the point where we had to let some of our employees go."

"With the end of the war," she said, "orders started coming in and we not only rehired all our old employees, but we added additional workers."

Ms. Clerkin said Derecktor's customers were escaping the luxury tax by setting up off-shore corporations to purchase the boats. The corporations are exempt from all taxes, including state sales tax.

Mr. Scalpone explained that boats bought through offshore corporations cannot be brought back to the United States for six months.

"In reality, the boat tax is self-defeating," Ms. Clerkin said. "Not only is it not bringing in the revenue that was expected, it has caused great hardship to the boating industry, which is one of the few United States manufacturing industries that earns money abroad.

"Everyone in the industry has been actively lobbying to get the tax repealed," she said, "and we have hopes that will happen sometime very soon before it does even more damage." 'One of Our Best Seasons Ever'

At Samalot Marine in Ossining, the luxury tax has had little effect because the company mostly sells sailboats under the $100,000 cutoff where the tax begins.

"What kind of a year are we having? A very good one, one of our best seasons ever," said Guy May, the manager. "More people want sailboats instead of power today, and we've been selling a lot of used sailboats for under $10,000."

Besides boat sales, Mr. May said, "we have a long waiting list for our slips; all 33 of them were rented early." Priced at $50 a foot, or about half of what a slip on the Sound costs, it is not surprising.

Businesses connected to boat sales have felt the ripple effect of the recession and the luxury tax, said Virginia Daniels of the Nichols Yacht Yard, in the West Basin of Mamaroneck Harbor. Cheaper Slip Rental

"In 1989, we were charging $105 per foot, or $3,100, to rent a slip for a 30-foot boat, and we had a waiting list of people who wanted berths," Ms. Daniels said. "Last year, we were 70 percent full, so this year we lowered the price. A 30-foot boat now costs $2,900 and we're 80 percent full, which we feel is very good when other yards are reporting 40 to 50 percent occupancies this season."

Near the Nichols yard, at Total Yachts Sales, Thomas G. Caruso, who owns the yard with his father, John, said his 120 slips had all been sold at $100 a foot.

"But our sales of new boats costing more than $100,000 are nonexistent," Mr. Caruso said. "We haven't sold one since January. We've also had a couple of boats in the yard that have been repossessed when their owners couldn't keep up their bank payments."

Several boat owners went bankrupt, he said, leaving unpaid yard bills for storage and maintenance. "We were able to get only a small percentage of what we were owed."

To compensate for the drop in new boat sales, Mr. Caruso said, he is expanding his storage and service work. Mixed Reports at Sailing Schools

"We figure that people are buying more used boats and people with boats are keeping them longer, and that they will need more in the way of service and repairs to keep those boats in good shape," he said.

Similarily, to stimulate the sales of used boats, McMichael is offering boat owners who want to sell a package including a haul-out, a scrub, yard space and advertising, said the younger Mr. McMichael.

At other businesses connected to boat sales -- two sailing schools on City Island in Long Island Sound -- reports on business were mixed.

"The excise tax is terrible for the future of the industry, but our business was more directly affected by the war in the gulf and the recession," said Stephen Palma, owner of the New York Sailing School. "Our bookings came in late this year; the war stopped people from thinking about such things as sailing lessons.

"And those people who formerly were our best customers -- Wall Street types who wanted to learn how to sail before buying a boat -- have pretty much disappeared." A four-day learn-to-sail program in 23-foot Sonar boats costs $395.

But at the Offshore Sailing School, Tyler Pierce, director of operations, said the number of students was about the same as last year. "We did especially well selling learning-to-sail courses at discount to people who signed up for it at the Boat Show this year," Mr. Pierce said. His two-week sailing class, in Soling boats, costs $425.

And with fewer people buying boats, he said, he is offering rentals.
Posts: 4,406
Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2010, 09:29 PM   #5
petegz28 petegz28 is online now
Supporter
 
petegz28's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $14982
This is what most people know, though some can't come to grips with themselves to admit it but deep down they know we were lied too. The HC bill does absolutely nothing to reduce costs at all. This Administration has been shoveling bullshit since day 1 and now the once emotionaly charged Obama supporters are starting to realise they were shafted.
__________________
Posts: 67,181
petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2010, 10:16 PM   #6
Mr. Kotter Mr. Kotter is offline
Lookin' for the answers...
 
Mr. Kotter's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Somewhere else
Casino cash: $1809
How long will it take for reactionary conservative types to realize, that citing FOX news and its affiliates...is just plain, stupid, for supporting their arguments. FOX is bought, stock, lock, and barrel by, Republican interest groups. Period. End of any rational discussion.

FTR...yeah, yeah, there are plenty of liberally biased sources as well, that are equally stupid for libs to cite. However, this is your side doing the same shit. And the shit still stinks to high heaven, regardless of which "side" is doing it.

Period.
__________________
Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel...
Posts: 40,009
Mr. Kotter has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2010, 10:23 PM   #7
morphius morphius is offline
World's finest morphius
 
morphius's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $6487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter View Post
How long will it take for reactionary conservative types to realize, that citing FOX news and its affiliates...is just plain, stupid, for supporting their arguments. FOX is bought, stock, lock, and barrel by, Republican interest groups. Period. End of any rational discussion.

FTR...yeah, yeah, there are plenty of liberally biased sources as well, that are equally stupid for libs to cite. However, this is your side doing the same shit. And the shit still stinks to high heaven, regardless of which "side" is doing it.

Period.
Prob about the same time that people on the left realize that people on the right believe the same of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN...
__________________
Herm Edwards neutering offenses one QB at a time.
Posts: 24,609
morphius would the whole thing.morphius would the whole thing.morphius would the whole thing.morphius would the whole thing.morphius would the whole thing.morphius would the whole thing.morphius would the whole thing.morphius would the whole thing.morphius would the whole thing.morphius would the whole thing.morphius would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2010, 10:35 PM   #8
Mr. Kotter Mr. Kotter is offline
Lookin' for the answers...
 
Mr. Kotter's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Somewhere else
Casino cash: $1809
Quote:
Originally Posted by morphius View Post
Prob about the same time that people on the left realize that people on the right believe the same of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN...
Agreed. No prob, from me....
__________________
Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel, Alex Smith will be better than Geno or Cassel...
Posts: 40,009
Mr. Kotter has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 05:45 AM   #9
Brainiac Brainiac is offline
Veteran
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lenexa, KS
Casino cash: $7686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter View Post
How long will it take for reactionary conservative types to realize, that citing FOX news and its affiliates...is just plain, stupid, for supporting their arguments. FOX is bought, stock, lock, and barrel by, Republican interest groups. Period. End of any rational discussion.

FTR...yeah, yeah, there are plenty of liberally biased sources as well, that are equally stupid for libs to cite. However, this is your side doing the same shit. And the shit still stinks to high heaven, regardless of which "side" is doing it.

Period.
It's telling that that you made no absolutely no attempt to say that anything posted was factually incorrect. You simply trotted out the tired old "Fox is Republican" argument.

THAT'S what is stupid.
Posts: 4,406
Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 06:44 AM   #10
mlyonsd mlyonsd is offline
Supporter
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spink, SD
Casino cash: $8299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter View Post
How long will it take for reactionary conservative types to realize, that citing FOX news and its affiliates...is just plain, stupid, for supporting their arguments. FOX is bought, stock, lock, and barrel by, Republican interest groups. Period. End of any rational discussion.

FTR...yeah, yeah, there are plenty of liberally biased sources as well, that are equally stupid for libs to cite. However, this is your side doing the same shit. And the shit still stinks to high heaven, regardless of which "side" is doing it.

Period.
Says the guy whose job is based on tax revenue.
Posts: 25,245
mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 06:44 AM   #11
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $14343
Remember that previous luxury boat tax? It crashed that industry with the average joe who builds them, sells them lost their jobs due to huge drop in sales.

Obama is stooooopid!
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution
Posts: 58,408
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 06:53 AM   #12
Amnorix Amnorix is offline
In BB I trust
 
Amnorix's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Boston, Mass.
Casino cash: $9180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac View Post
It's telling that that you made no absolutely no attempt to say that anything posted was factually incorrect. You simply trotted out the tired old "Fox is Republican" argument.

THAT'S what is stupid.
You can blow it up point by point, but that takes time and effort. I'll do it in cursory fashion, but don't have time for this now. Suffice to say that Faux News is always spinning things their way because it's a politicized organization with a specific agenda.
Posts: 33,600
Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 06:59 AM   #13
Amnorix Amnorix is offline
In BB I trust
 
Amnorix's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Boston, Mass.
Casino cash: $9180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYC75 View Post
Fact Checking the President -- Again

by Elizabeth MacDonald


“Right now, we could decide that every American household would receive a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income…The leaders across the aisle..want to hold these middle-class tax cuts hostage until they get an additional tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. It would mean borrowing $700 billion..to give a tax cut..to millionaires and billionaires.” -- President Barack Obama, September 15, 2010

Let’s start with: “Right now, we could decide that every American household would receive a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income” and that the Republicans are demanding “an additional tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.”

This debate is about preserving the Bush tax cuts for all brackets that were enacted earlier this decade that are set to expire January 1 -- not creating new ones.
The law RIGHT NOW is that the tax will be X as of Y date. To vote to lower that tax as of Y date is a tax cut. That is one legitimate way of looking at it. Yes, it's semantics by the Democrats, but semantics and how you describe something is how you try to control the argument, right? So spare me the false outrage.

Quote:
Next up: the President’s comment: “We simply can’t afford” extending the Bush tax cut on the upper bracket.

The US government takes in just $2.2 trillion annually in tax revenues from individuals and companies.

In the 20 months since the President took office, DC has borrowed $2.8 trillion, swamping the annual federal tax haul.

Taxing small businesses and workers won't cure the nation's estimated $13.4 trillion national debt. Interest costs on the national debt: about $375 billion.
Thsi same thinking, applied eleventy billion times to other "minor expenditures" of a billion here and a billion there, is how we're $11 trillion or whatever in debt. "A billion here and a billion there and soon you're talking about real money."

Quote:
Next: The president’s statement on reinstating the upper bracket cut: “It would mean borrowing $700 billion in order to fund these tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans.”

First, that $700 billion cost is not just for one year, it represents costs over a decade, according to government estimates, and the figure is actually $679.6 billion.
Usually numbers above 5 round up to the next increment. Also, governmental estimates are usually off, and usually to the government's disfavor. Besides, you just said (paragraph above) that a few billion dollar is an insignificant sum compared to the overall deficit/debt, but now you're outraged by rounding the number 679.6 to 700? WTF?!? Finally, the usual way the government does estimates is over a 10 year period. THAT'S WHY THESE TAX BREAKS SUNSETTED AFTER 9 YEARS OR WHATEVER, because the government could HIDE THE TRUE COST of the tax breaks because having them reset to the higher number resulted in a disingenously lower number in the estimates made back in 2001.

So again, spare me the bullshit.

Yeah, that's enough. Again, no time for this.
Posts: 33,600
Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 07:05 AM   #14
Brainiac Brainiac is offline
Veteran
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lenexa, KS
Casino cash: $7686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix View Post
You can blow it up point by point, but that takes time and effort. I'll do it in cursory fashion, but don't have time for this now. Suffice to say that Faux News is always spinning things their way because it's a politicized organization with a specific agenda.
Fair enough. No sensible person would deny that Fox News leans far to the Right. However, I don't immediately dismiss what they report simply because the story supports their agenda. When Left-leaning networks like MSNBC and CNN report the news or editorialize, I listen to what they have to say and decide whether or not it's credible, just like I do with Fox.

Based upon what I've seen so far from the Obama administration, these stories appear very credible to me, especially the story about Sebelius. The way Sebelius is attempting to engage in thought control regarding HC reform is chilling. If a Republican were doing that the Democrats would be outraged, and rightfully so.

If you are planning to provide a point-by-point rebuttal to any of the stories, that's great. But for people like Kotter to simply dismiss it in the manner that he did is intellectually lazy. I thought the guy was supposed to be a teacher. Is this how he teaches his classes?
Posts: 4,406
Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 07:09 AM   #15
Brainiac Brainiac is offline
Veteran
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lenexa, KS
Casino cash: $7686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix View Post
The law RIGHT NOW is that the tax will be X as of Y date. To vote to lower that tax as of Y date is a tax cut. That is one legitimate way of looking at it. Yes, it's semantics by the Democrats, but semantics and how you describe something is how you try to control the argument, right? So spare me the false outrage.



Thsi same thinking, applied eleventy billion times to other "minor expenditures" of a billion here and a billion there, is how we're $11 trillion or whatever in debt. "A billion here and a billion there and soon you're talking about real money."



Usually numbers above 5 round up to the next increment. Also, governmental estimates are usually off, and usually to the government's disfavor. Besides, you just said (paragraph above) that a few billion dollar is an insignificant sum compared to the overall deficit/debt, but now you're outraged by rounding the number 679.6 to 700? WTF?!? Finally, the usual way the government does estimates is over a 10 year period. THAT'S WHY THESE TAX BREAKS SUNSETTED AFTER 9 YEARS OR WHATEVER, because the government could HIDE THE TRUE COST of the tax breaks because having them reset to the higher number resulted in a disingenously lower number in the estimates made back in 2001.

So again, spare me the bullshit.

Yeah, that's enough. Again, no time for this.
Seriously? This is your rebuttal? That keeping the same tax rates that we have today is a tax cut?

And you wonder why people get outraged at the doublespeak. Your rebuttal is just as much bullshit as the original bullshit that the OP called out.
Posts: 4,406
Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.Brainiac is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:03 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.