PDA

View Full Version : Obama to offer up tax increases?



soonercoop1
4/12/2011, 05:04 PM
Will Obama seriously offer up tax increases to fix the problem tomorrow instead of drastically reducing the size and scope of the federal government first? Giving more money to congress would be like giving more alcohol to a raging alcoholic...he can't be seriously considering this...

SoonerNate
4/12/2011, 05:09 PM
Will Obama seriously offer up tax increases to fix the problem tomorrow instead of drastically reducing the size and scope of the federal government first? Giving more money to congress would be like giving more alcohol to a raging alcoholic...he can't be seriously considering this...

Don't you get it? He can do no wrong in the media's eyes.

cccasooner2
4/12/2011, 05:21 PM
No, Jesse "fixed" him.

tcrb
4/12/2011, 06:31 PM
Thus far, he's gotten just about everything he's wanted. Why would it change now?

rekamrettuB
4/12/2011, 07:08 PM
If he doesn't feel like winning a re-election or feels he has no chance, then he could. If he's going to run again he might want to hold off.

SoonerNate
4/12/2011, 07:08 PM
If I were him I would sprint to the right as it's obvious his base isn't bright enough to care or know the difference. They will vote for him no matter what.

It's not the issues with his supporters. He is merely a cult of personality to them.

soonerscuba
4/12/2011, 07:09 PM
Empire ain't cheap. At some point revenue increases are going to have to happen, it isn't like this came out of nowhere. We have to present a position that suggests we are actually care about deficits to maintain a flow of credit, the only way this happens is revenue. My guess it will be modest amounts for people making +250k, I have no doubt the board kooks will deride it as Islamofacistnazicommunism.

Republicans in their current role are great, they aren't a real threat to actual power and they actually maintain their principals when they don't have to govern which so far is putting us half way to austerity, the other half is fading tax breaks that were a bad idea to begin with.

SoonerNate
4/12/2011, 07:14 PM
Empire ain't cheap. At some point revenue increases are going to have to happen, it isn't like this came out of nowhere. We have to present a position that suggests we are actually care about deficits to maintain a flow of credit, the only way this happens is revenue. My guess it will be modest amounts for people making +250k, I have no doubt the board kooks will deride it as Islamofacistnazicommunism.

Republicans in their current role are great, they aren't a real threat to actual power and they actually maintain their principals when they don't have to govern which so far is putting us half way to austerity, the other half is fading tax breaks that were a bad idea to begin with.

I'm all for tax breaks on ordinary income (wages, etc...) But this nation needs to roll back the cuts on passive rates (dividends, cap gains, etc...)

The richest of the rich do not pay tax on ordinary income. This is why Buffet states he pays less than his secretary and he is correct. It's time the uber wealthy (those that live off of dividend income) pay up

pphilfran
4/12/2011, 07:15 PM
I'm all for tax breaks on ordinary income (wages, etc...) But this nation needs to roll back the cuts on passive rates (dividends, cap gains, etc...)

The richest of the rich do not pay tax on ordinary income. This is why Buffet states he pays less than his secretary and he is correct. It's time the uber wealthy (those that live off of dividend income) pay up

Buffet's complaint is mostly about SS taxes...

SoonerNate
4/12/2011, 07:16 PM
Yes, there is a low cap on that and he has a good point there.

soonerscuba
4/12/2011, 07:24 PM
I would say a 5% surcharge on AGI over $1m is a wholly reasonable policy as long as the cuts stay in place.

cccasooner2
4/12/2011, 07:28 PM
Just make sure your AGI is no more than $249,999.99 at all costs.

soonerscuba
4/12/2011, 08:06 PM
Just make sure your AGI is no more than $249,999.99 at all costs.Why? Your 250,001st dollar is charged at a higher bracket, not the first 250,000.

okie52
4/12/2011, 08:10 PM
Only the rich should have to pay taxes. They owe us.

Sooner5030
4/12/2011, 08:20 PM
if you raise the rates on folks that make over $250k then fewer folks will make over $250k.

folks will

-shift their earnings from wages to dividends
-find all kinds of clever ways to absorb more costs to make their bottom line smaller.

AlboSooner
4/12/2011, 08:23 PM
The wealthy owe nothing. They created all their wealth by themselves, to themselves, of themselves.

Kimberlyz4OU
4/12/2011, 08:44 PM
He can kiss my @$$....I will quit my job, sit on my porch and draw unemployment before I let him have the satisfaction....

soonerscuba
4/12/2011, 08:47 PM
He can kiss my @$$....I will quit my job, sit on my porch and draw unemployment before I let him have the satisfaction....Something tells me it's not you this will affect.

Kimberlyz4OU
4/12/2011, 08:49 PM
why do you say that?

soonerscuba
4/12/2011, 08:55 PM
if you raise the rates on folks that make over $250k then fewer folks will make over $250k.

folks will

-shift their earnings from wages to dividends
-find all kinds of clever ways to absorb more costs to make their bottom line smaller.Do you have anything to back this up? I've seen data that suggest productive output goes down when you increase the rates, but one could make the serious argument that the benefit would out weigh the slack in productivity should it maintain or lower the interest on outstanding debt.

A lot of people that make $250k/y, especially at the lower end, don't structure their own benefits, they are more likely to be salaried professionals (I would think, I have no idea if that is the case). People at the higher end that realize income via ownership probably already structure themselves to shield from tax liability as it is. There is certainly not an easy answer for partnership and sole proprietorship because then you start messing with investment capital which can effect employment, but demand isn't currently there anyway. Tough spot on that, but my guess is that they are about to be pinched a bit more.

soonerscuba
4/12/2011, 08:56 PM
why do you say that?Because typically people with the education and wherewithal to put themselves in high paying positions don't talk like unruly teens on Springer.

Kimberlyz4OU
4/12/2011, 08:59 PM
Oooooohh, I get it.....because my name is Kimberly and it's Tuesday and I'm posting on a SoonerFans board and I "claim" to have a porch AND a job then then it's a given that I don't make $250,000+ a year ..... Ok, gotcha! You know, truthfully, I didn't even read that part of the thread. Whatev

soonerscuba
4/12/2011, 09:07 PM
Oooooohh, I get it.....because my name is Kimberly and it's Tuesday and I'm posting on a SoonerFans board and I "claim" to have a porch AND a job then then it's a given that I don't make $250,000+ a year ..... Ok, gotcha! You know, truthfully, I didn't even read that part of the thread. WhatevAssuming you aren't named after a product or zodiac sign, I don't judge people's names.

REDREX
4/12/2011, 09:11 PM
Ed Schultz is a BUFFOON

okie52
4/12/2011, 09:14 PM
Ed Schultz is a BUFFOON

:D

Always beautiful Red.

Sooner5030
4/12/2011, 09:14 PM
Do you have anything to back this up? I've seen data that suggest productive output goes down when you increase the rates, but one could make the serious argument that the benefit would out weigh the slack in productivity should it maintain or lower the interest on outstanding debt.

It varies but human nature would tell me that if wage tax rates increase and the result is that dividends + corporate tax rates is lower than marginal (individual) rates then an individual will elect to distribute through dividends rather than wages.........if they have the option.

Also, some folks will just elect to work less and enjoy life......especially when every additional dollar earned can only be 65% enjoyed. It's a choice.

Also, I can take certain expenses and legally absorb them into my entity's income statement rather than paying for them with my wages. Why own a personal car when I can run the depreciation expense though my P/L? why pay $15k/year in groceries with post-taxed personal income when I can travel more and pay myself tax free per diem from my Co?

soonercruiser
4/12/2011, 09:30 PM
Empire ain't cheap. At some point revenue increases are going to have to happen, it isn't like this came out of nowhere. We have to present a position that suggests we are actually care about deficits to maintain a flow of credit, the only way this happens is revenue. My guess it will be modest amounts for people making +250k, I have no doubt the board kooks will deride it as Islamofacistnazicommunism.

Republicans in their current role are great, they aren't a real threat to actual power and they actually maintain their principals when they don't have to govern which so far is putting us half way to austerity, the other half is fading tax breaks that were a bad idea to begin with.

Granted, at some point taxes will increase.
But, that should only be after all the government cutbacks are completed!
And we are a long way from that needing to be done!

Higher taxes to significantly increase revenue is economic suicide!
You increase taxes, and depress the economy, stalling job growth.
The best way to grow revenue is to grow the economy!!!!
And THAT, is what the boy who would be King can't figure out!

SoonerNate
4/12/2011, 09:34 PM
I think everyone would have no problem increasing taxes if they were assured the money wouldn't be wasted.

pphilfran
4/12/2011, 09:45 PM
Do you have anything to back this up? I've seen data that suggest productive output goes down when you increase the rates, but one could make the serious argument that the benefit would out weigh the slack in productivity should it maintain or lower the interest on outstanding debt.

A lot of people that make $250k/y, especially at the lower end, don't structure their own benefits, they are more likely to be salaried professionals (I would think, I have no idea if that is the case). People at the higher end that realize income via ownership probably already structure themselves to shield from tax liability as it is. There is certainly not an easy answer for partnership and sole proprietorship because then you start messing with investment capital which can effect employment, but demand isn't currently there anyway. Tough spot on that, but my guess is that they are about to be pinched a bit more.

Yep...after the Clinton tax increases actual income tax revenue declined...his gain in revenue came from cap gains...

This link is for total revenue by year...table 1.2

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

This link is for cap gains by year...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

Where did the majority of the gains come from...income taxes from increased taxes or cap gains from a booming economy...

StoopTroup
4/12/2011, 10:45 PM
I don't see how we are going to keep things going without raising taxes. I'm not for it but we can't pay off the debt and cut taxes. The best thing to do is cut spending and raise taxes or change the tax structure to a flat type of tax.

The rich and powerful don't want it though.

It's funny that the poor and middle-class would do it if they felt we could really save our Country and lower the debt and really strengthen our role as a Superpower. Thing is...the rich don't like it and the Politicians are against cutting anything that won't get them re-elected.

diverdog
4/12/2011, 10:59 PM
Granted, at some point taxes will increase.
But, that should only be after all the government cutbacks are completed!
And we are a long way from that needing to be done!

Higher taxes to significantly increase revenue is economic suicide!
You increase taxes, and depress the economy, stalling job growth.
The best way to grow revenue is to grow the economy!!!!
And THAT, is what the boy who would be King can't figure out!

cruiser:

Your statements are absolutely untrue. We had higher federal income tax rates under Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton and the economy did just fine.

We cannot cut enough from government to balance the budget. Taxes will have to increase and they will increase a lot. No one will want to see the kind of cuts Ryan is asking for in his budget....which is a joke.

diverdog
4/12/2011, 11:01 PM
Yep...after the Clinton tax increases actual income tax revenue declined...his gain in revenue came from cap gains...

This link is for total revenue by year...table 1.2

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

This link is for cap gains by year...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

Where did the majority of the gains come from...income taxes from increased taxes or cap gains from a booming economy...

So how about we go back to the capital gains tax rate under clinton?

SoonerNate
4/13/2011, 01:21 AM
http://obamalies.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/obamaleader1.jpg

hawaii 5-0
4/13/2011, 02:24 AM
I'm all for tax breaks on ordinary income (wages, etc...) But this nation needs to roll back the cuts on passive rates (dividends, cap gains, etc...)

The richest of the rich do not pay tax on ordinary income. This is why Buffet states he pays less than his secretary and he is correct. It's time the uber wealthy (those that live off of dividend income) pay up



Nate, Besides the love for the Sooners I knew there had to be something we agreed on.



5-0



Trump/Mr. Moose 2012

yermom
4/13/2011, 02:31 AM
we need to do something to pay for the world police force

hawaii 5-0
4/13/2011, 02:37 AM
We could easily cut the Defense by 1/4 and still have enough punch to protect ourselves.


Nobody has the balls to propose it.



5-0



Trump/Eddie 2012

TheHumanAlphabet
4/13/2011, 02:53 AM
Obama [will] offer up tax increases to fix the problem tomorrow instead of drastically reducing the size and scope of the federal government...

Gee, color me surprised... :rolleyes:

And, EVERYONE earning money through a job or through investments SHOULD pay Taxes!!! Nobody should get more money than they paid into the system, even if you earn a little, you need to pay a little. Period end of story. You are a citizen or live in this country, then you need to pay taxes. Everyone needs to "feel the pain" not just people over a certain income level or a percentage. This crap of 48% or 52% of the people paying taxes has got to go. The number needs to be 100%.

MamaMia
4/13/2011, 03:34 AM
If he doesn't feel like winning a re-election or feels he has no chance, then he could. If he's going to run again he might want to hold off.

Obama is way way way way waaaay too arrogant to ever think for a moment that he doesn't have a "chance" at whatever. He could sell ice to the Eskimos. That man knows all he has to do is lie lie lie like the devil, chuckle up a little whimsical joke laced with a sarcastic funny funny ha ha, add a little grin and all the idiots will swoon on key.

pphilfran
4/13/2011, 08:34 AM
We could easily cut the Defense by 1/4 and still have enough punch to protect ourselves.


Nobody has the balls to propose it.



5-0



Trump/Eddie 2012

What is your time frame for the 25% cut?

pphilfran
4/13/2011, 08:36 AM
Gee, color me surprised... :rolleyes:

And, EVERYONE earning money through a job or through investments SHOULD pay Taxes!!! Nobody should get more money than they paid into the system, even if you earn a little, you need to pay a little. Period end of story. You are a citizen or live in this country, then you need to pay taxes. Everyone needs to "feel the pain" not just people over a certain income level or a percentage. This crap of 48% or 52% of the people paying taxes has got to go. The number needs to be 100%.

I agree....keep in mind everyone pays into SS/medicare...

pphilfran
4/13/2011, 08:40 AM
So how about we go back to the capital gains tax rate under clinton?

We could but that just ignores the root cause...too many loopholes...

Make sure the economy is up and running prior to the increase or we could see a loss in GDP and job creation...

As far as I am concerned you can take STCG as high as you want...LTCG need to be at reasonable levels...

If you want to increase revenue/reduce unemployment then you need to prioritize GDP growth...

sappstuf
4/13/2011, 08:47 AM
We could but that just ignores the root cause...too many loopholes...

Make sure the economy is up and running prior to the increase or we could see a loss in GDP and job creation...

As far as I am concerned you can take STCG as high as you want...LTCG need to be at reasonable levels...

If you want to increase revenue/reduce unemployment then you need to prioritize GDP growth...

4% a year and I would be happy.

pphilfran
4/13/2011, 08:58 AM
4% a year and I would be happy.

4% isn't enough growth to lower the unemployment rate...needs to push 5% for several years to get workers back into jobs...in an economy that is humming along we would do fine at 4%...

sappstuf
4/13/2011, 09:01 AM
4% isn't enough growth to lower the unemployment rate...needs to push 5% for several years to get workers back into jobs...in an economy that is humming along we would do fine at 4%...

I meant 4% a year for the next 100 years.. ;)

CrimsonCream
4/13/2011, 09:02 AM
Obama is way way way way waaaay too arrogant to ever think for a moment that he doesn't have a "chance" at whatever. He could sell ice to the Eskimos. That man knows all he has to do is lie lie lie like the devil, chuckle up a little whimsical joke laced with a sarcastic funny funny ha ha, add a little grin and all the idiots will swoon on key.

Pretty much sums it up.

It is very disheartening not to believe in your Government to do the right things for the American people. This Government has taken lying, deception, distortion, half-truths, etc., to levels never imagined before.

Why raise taxes when Obama p*sses away money like a drunken horse.

Can anyone say where the $867 billion in Stimulus was used? The effect of Cash for Clunkers? The bailouts of Freddie and Fannie? ObamaCare? Etc.

Obama's Presidency is a shameful one.

pphilfran
4/13/2011, 09:04 AM
I meant 4% a year for the next 100 years.. ;)

That would work....:D

pphilfran
4/13/2011, 09:11 AM
Pretty much sums it up.

It is very disheartening not to believe in your Government to do the right things for the American people. This Government has taken lying, deception, distortion, half-truths, etc., to levels never imagined before.

Why raise taxes when Obama p*sses away money like a drunken horse.

Can anyone say where the $867 billion in Stimulus was used? The effect of Cash for Clunkers? The bailouts of Freddie and Fannie? ObamaCare? Etc.

Obama's Presidency is a shameful one.

Cash for clunkers helped a little...the fall off after CFC was not as large as I though it would be...trucks sales did take a hit and overall was about a wash...auto sales did improve and help lower the inventory and keeps plants operating...

Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate data (SAAR)..the spike in the following charts is when CFC was in place...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/domesticautosales14.jpg

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/totalvehiclesales13.jpg

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/importvehiclesales13.jpg

JLEW1818
4/13/2011, 09:15 AM
the rich are rich for a reason... it's called hard work for the most part.

CrimsonCream
4/13/2011, 09:24 AM
the rich are rich for a reason... it's called hard work for the most part.

Yes, and don't they already pay something like 90% of the taxes?

There is no doubt that Obama wants to redistribute the wealth. In fact, he has said so.

Remember your Daddy saying to you, "Work hard Son and you'll get ahead." Of course, Obama has never had a real job inasmuch as everything has been given to him.

So, take from me and give to the lazy shiftless bastards that want something for nothing.

sappstuf
4/13/2011, 09:27 AM
Cash for clunkers helped a little...

Phil did you see last week where a guy asked about the rising price of gas and that he was struggling. Obama asked him how many kids he had and the guy said 10! Obama did one of those double takes and then said the guy needed to buy a new hybrid mini-van.

Nothing like good advice.. The guy can't afford gas and Obama goes and tells him he needs to buy a new car.

Of course the other problem is that there is no such animal as a hybrid minivan for sale in the USA.

Ah, I found the video..

1RV8aIXm4DY&

soonerscuba
4/13/2011, 09:28 AM
Remember your Daddy saying to you, "Work hard Son and you'll get ahead." Of course, Obama has never had a real job inasmuch as everything has been given to him.Now that you mention it, the make up of Ivy League law schools is typically poor children of single mothers.

It's totally cool to not jibe with his politics, but the people that think he is dumb/lazy are a hoot.

StoopTroup
4/13/2011, 09:44 AM
I just heard the House Majority Speaker Boner complain that President Obama wants them to do all the hard work.....

Last time I heard....they were complaining he was trying to run everything.....lol

Guess not being able to just take that vacation is starting to make them all a little gripey.

pphilfran
4/13/2011, 09:48 AM
Phil did you see last week where a guy asked about the rising price of gas and that he was struggling. Obama asked him how many kids he had and the guy said 10! Obama did one of those double takes and then said the guy needed to buy a new hybrid mini-van.

Nothing like good advice.. The guy can't afford gas and Obama goes and tells him he needs to buy a new car.

Of course the other problem is that there is no such animal as a hybrid minivan for sale in the USA.

Ah, I found the video..

1RV8aIXm4DY&

Inaccuracies in his speech...

1. He talks about having 2 or 3% of the world oil reserves (close enough) but we use 25% of the worlds oil (I am good with that number)...now he starts to mess with us...he says if we double the oil we produce we will still be short by a factor of 5...he ain't very good at math, or logic...he double the reserve number and not the production numbers to come up with the factor of 5...totally meaningless...if we actually doubled our production we would be completely off of ME oil...we would be producing at least 2/3's of our needs...

2. He puts the blame on the guy driving an 8 mpg truck...when the blame should be put on the US policy of cheap gas...and like you said he tells him to trade in that truck for a non existent mini van...when the guy says he hardly has enough money to buy gas Obama tells him to be the new car...

3. He said that everybody agreed to the increase CAFE standards...bs...the manufactures were squealing like a stuck pig and were drug into the new policy by their nose

StoopTroup
4/13/2011, 09:56 AM
Inaccuracies in his speech...

1. He talks about having 2 or 3% of the world oil reserves (close enough) but we use 25% of the worlds oil (I am good with that number)...now he starts to mess with us...he says if we double the oil we produce we will still be short by a factor of 5...he ain't very good at math, or logic...he double the reserve number and not the production numbers to come up with the factor of 5...totally meaningless...if we actually doubled our production we would be completely off of ME oil...we would be producing at least 2/3's of our needs...

2. He puts the blame on the guy driving an 8 mpg truck...when the blame should be put on the US policy of cheap gas...and like you said he tells him to trade in that truck for a non existent mini van...when the guy says he hardly has enough money to buy gas Obama tells him to be the new car...

3. He said that everybody agreed to the increase CAFE standards...bs...the manufactures were squealing like a stuck pig and were drug into the new policy by their nose

Yeah....his people behind him aren't doing him any favors.

I can remember a POTUS going on as many speech runs has this one has.

Everyday I wonder what kind of Company's green Vehicle he's gonna be standing in front of. He should probably go stand in front of a drilling rig soon too.

jkjsooner
4/13/2011, 09:57 AM
Pretty much sums it up.

It is very disheartening not to believe in your Government to do the right things for the American people. This Government has taken lying, deception, distortion, half-truths, etc., to levels never imagined before.

Why raise taxes when Obama p*sses away money like a drunken horse.

Can anyone say where the $867 billion in Stimulus was used? The effect of Cash for Clunkers? The bailouts of Freddie and Fannie? ObamaCare? Etc.

Obama's Presidency is a shameful one.

1. Much of the stimulus was done under the previous administration. You guys seem to always forget that. The most relevant actors were Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Obama, and Geitner. Three of those five were Republicans or initially appointed by a Republican administration.

2. As distasteful as they were, the bailouts kept us out of a market collapse. Remember the economists telling us the economic conditions were worse than those leading up to the Great Depression?

Bush tried to sit back and have a hands off approach and Bear Sterns and Lehman Bros were allowed to collapse. After noticing that the ripple effects were about to take down every major bank and investment house, they then decided they had to step in.

I ask this question and nobody has ever given me an answer. Do you honestly think a liberal President had dreams of enriching Wall Street executives?

JohnnyMack
4/13/2011, 09:58 AM
Something tells me it's not you this will affect.

LULZ.

REDREX
4/13/2011, 10:00 AM
the rich are rich for a reason... it's called hard work for the most part.---CORRECT

StoopTroup
4/13/2011, 10:05 AM
---CORRECT

Well that and the AMT....


The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was originally designed as a way of making sure that wealthy taxpayers could not take advantage of "too many" tax incentives and reduce their tax obligation by too much. It is a parallel system of calculating a taxpayer's tax liability that eliminates many deductions. However the applicable AMT rates were not adjusted to match the lowered rates of the 2001 and 2003 acts, causing many more people to face higher taxes. This reduced the benefit of the two acts for many upper-middle income earners, particularly those with deductions for state and local income taxes, dependents, and property taxes.

The AMT exemption level aspects of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as the sunsetting year of capital gains and dividends, were among the tweaks made to the tax code in the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.

CrimsonCream
4/13/2011, 10:21 AM
Now that you mention it, the make up of Ivy League law schools is typically poor children of single mothers.

It's totally cool to not jibe with his politics, but the people that think he is dumb/lazy are a hoot.

Never said he was dumb or lazy. I said that he has never had a real job with everything given to him and Michelle.

How come he won't say how Columbia and Harvard was paid for?

diverdog
4/13/2011, 10:26 AM
Never said he was dumb or lazy. I said that he has never had a real job with everything given to him and Michelle.

How come he won't say how Columbia and Harvard was paid for?

Crimson:

You guys continually dismiss that he is an author and made a lot of money writing books. That is a legitimate living and one that has made a lot of people rich.

soonerscuba
4/13/2011, 10:34 AM
Never said he was dumb or lazy. I said that he has never had a real job with everything given to him and Michelle.

How come he won't say how Columbia and Harvard was paid for?That doesn't make a lick of sense, and he paid for his education via loans, this isn't a secret.

StoopTroup
4/13/2011, 10:35 AM
You mean a real job like POTUS?

Fraggle145
4/13/2011, 10:53 AM
I think everyone would have no problem increasing taxes if they were assured the money wouldn't be wasted.

This might be one of the smartest things you've said on this board.

Fraggle145
4/13/2011, 10:58 AM
the rich are rich for a reason... it's called hard work for the most part.

My ****in ***.

Maybe their daddy's or granddaddy's hard work. How many people do you know that have become rich in one generation?

Fraggle145
4/13/2011, 11:00 AM
Inaccuracies in his speech...

1. He talks about having 2 or 3% of the world oil reserves (close enough) but we use 25% of the worlds oil (I am good with that number)...now he starts to mess with us...he says if we double the oil we produce we will still be short by a factor of 5...he ain't very good at math, or logic...he double the reserve number and not the production numbers to come up with the factor of 5...totally meaningless...if we actually doubled our production we would be completely off of ME oil...we would be producing at least 2/3's of our needs...

2. He puts the blame on the guy driving an 8 mpg truck...when the blame should be put on the US policy of cheap gas...and like you said he tells him to trade in that truck for a non existent mini van...when the guy says he hardly has enough money to buy gas Obama tells him to be the new car...

3. He said that everybody agreed to the increase CAFE standards...bs...the manufactures were squealing like a stuck pig and were drug into the new policy by their nose

For #2, maybe the dumbass should have thought about that before he had 10 kids.

StoopTroup
4/13/2011, 11:06 AM
This might be one of the smartest things you've said on this board.

Agreed......but then once they actually knew how it was spent.....NOBODY would want to give anything....lol

Condescending Sooner
4/13/2011, 01:13 PM
Now that you mention it, the make up of Ivy League law schools is typically poor children of single mothers.

It's totally cool to not jibe with his politics, but the people that think he is dumb/lazy are a hoot.

How exactly was his education paid for? How good were his high school grades?

Condescending Sooner
4/13/2011, 01:17 PM
My ****in ***.

Maybe their daddy's or granddaddy's hard work. How many people do you know that have become rich in one generation?

90% of millionaires are self made, so I guess 90% of them would be the answer. Keep spouting the company line, even if it's not true.

sappstuf
4/13/2011, 01:27 PM
Inaccuracies in his speech...

1. He talks about having 2 or 3% of the world oil reserves (close enough) but we use 25% of the worlds oil (I am good with that number)...now he starts to mess with us...he says if we double the oil we produce we will still be short by a factor of 5...he ain't very good at math, or logic...he double the reserve number and not the production numbers to come up with the factor of 5...totally meaningless...if we actually doubled our production we would be completely off of ME oil...we would be producing at least 2/3's of our needs...

2. He puts the blame on the guy driving an 8 mpg truck...when the blame should be put on the US policy of cheap gas...and like you said he tells him to trade in that truck for a non existent mini van...when the guy says he hardly has enough money to buy gas Obama tells him to be the new car...

3. He said that everybody agreed to the increase CAFE standards...bs...the manufactures were squealing like a stuck pig and were drug into the new policy by their nose


As far as #1, it wouldn't be the first time a member of the Party of Science has had trouble with basic math..

And #2, I have heard Obama on a couple of occasions talk about 8 mpg... The only car on the market that gets 8mpg is the V16 Bugatti Veyron.

http://www.carshowp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2011-Bugatti-Veyron-Super-Sport-Rear-Side-View.jpg

I'm thinking the owners of that car don't mind the gas mileage...

I wonder when the last time a mass produced car was rated at 8 mpg.. A decade? Two decades?

CrimsonCream
4/13/2011, 01:39 PM
How exactly was his education paid for? How good were his high school grades?

Well, he won't say.

He refuses to say how his education was paid nor will he show any college transcripts like Bush did.

He, as everyone knows, won't release his birth certificate. I truly believe he was born in Hawaii. The problem is, I think, is what he has listed for "Religion."

The main problem with Obama is the corrupt and biased Media. If they would have properly vetted this guy we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

CrimsonCream
4/13/2011, 01:43 PM
Crimson:

You guys continually dismiss that he is an author and made a lot of money writing books. That is a legitimate living and one that has made a lot of people rich.

Diver,

Do you think he sat around around and wrote these books all by himself?

OutlandTrophy
4/13/2011, 01:44 PM
My ****in ***.

Maybe their daddy's or granddaddy's hard work. How many people do you know that have become rich in one generation?

c'mon Cool Breeze.


* Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.


from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm

soonercruiser
4/13/2011, 01:47 PM
Inaccuracies in his speech...


"Inaccuracies"! Wow! What a suprise!
:rolleyes:

REDREX
4/13/2011, 01:48 PM
"Inaccuracies"! Wow! What a suprise!
:rolleyes:
---SHOCKING

soonercruiser
4/13/2011, 01:50 PM
cruiser:

Your statements are absolutely untrue. We had higher federal income tax rates under Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton and the economy did just fine.

We cannot cut enough from government to balance the budget. Taxes will have to increase and they will increase a lot. No one will want to see the kind of cuts Ryan is asking for in his budget....which is a joke.

Come on DD.
Clinton's economy has been discussed inside & out many times.
He simply rode the wave of the techie boom, and Reagan's cap gains breaks.
That booming economy simply absorbed the higher taxes.
It wouldn't work now.
(Just like Clinton was pulled to the balanced budget table kicking & screaming by the Repugs).

StoopTroup
4/13/2011, 02:03 PM
Basic math.....

Wouldn't it be cool if that's what Congress and Accountants, CEOs and CFOs would have been using the last 60 years.

CrimsonCream
4/13/2011, 02:27 PM
Basic math.....

Wouldn't it be cool if that's what Congress and Accountants, CEOs and CFOs would have been using the last 60 years.

Yes, and Social Security wouldn't be broke.

Social Security is funded through 2037. The problem is that there is no money just IOUs. Thank you, Representatives of the People.

REDREX
4/13/2011, 02:28 PM
Basic math.....

Wouldn't it be cool if that's what Congress and Accountants, CEOs and CFOs would have been using the last 60 years.---Actuarial tables would have been better

pphilfran
4/13/2011, 02:30 PM
Yes, and Social Security wouldn't be broke.

Social Security is funded through 2037. The problem is that there is no money just IOUs. Thank you, Representatives of the People.

Only a brilliant set of minds can turn an asset into a liability...

SoonerNate
4/13/2011, 03:12 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y215/FAUALUM29/obama-kool-aid-1.jpg

CrimsonCream
4/13/2011, 03:18 PM
^^^^^^^^^^

What truly is sad is the amount of people that fell for his bullsh*t. What is even sadder are the ones that continue to believe it and support it.

hawaii 5-0
4/13/2011, 04:12 PM
What is your time frame for the 25% cut?



Phil, I never got back to you on this one and really can't give a detailed answer. It was just a blanket statement.

I never finalized which units are really unnecessary, which trucks can be scrapped, which planes are outdated, which supply ships could be used for target practice.

Is 25% too much? Enough? I dunno. I just pulled the figure outta my *** and it didn't smell too bad. Even with a 25% cut we could still kick everyone's *** many times over and still have enough left for a kegger.


When would this happen? I never considered it seriously, but I think over 10 years of so we could sell off a lot of surplus before it's totally useless, downsize personnel, close bases, etc. and tighen the belt to make the Armed Services a still strong but very effective and efficient force.


I'll leave the details to the Generals, Commodores, and Paper Pushers.


5-0


Trump/Ike 2012

pphilfran
4/13/2011, 04:14 PM
Phil, I never got back to you on this one and really can't give a detailed answer. It was just a blanket statement.

I never finalized which units are really unnecessary, which trucks can be scrapped, which planes are outdated, which supply ships could be used for target practice.

Is 25% too much? Enough? I dunno. I just pulled the figure outta my *** and it didn't smell too bad. Even with a 25% cut we could still kick everyone's *** many times over and still have enough left for a kegger.


When would this happen? I never considered it seriously, but I think over 10 years of so we could sell off a lot of surplus before it's totally useless, downsize personnel, close bases, etc. and tighen the belt to make the Armed Services a still strong but very effective and efficient force.


I'll leave the details to the Generals, Commodores, and Paper Pushers.


5-0


Trump/Ike 2012

It could be done in 10 years....we would need to keep spending at current levels and let inflation close the gap....

Fraggle145
4/13/2011, 04:18 PM
90% of millionaires are self made, so I guess 90% of them would be the answer. Keep spouting the company line, even if it's not true.

Glad to see you are just throwing those stats around without any links etc...

Crawl back under that rock you've been hiding under. Nobody missed you.

Fraggle145
4/13/2011, 04:20 PM
c'mon Cool Breeze.



from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm

So I was wrong. Just saying I dont know that many self-made millionaires.

SoonerNate
4/13/2011, 04:32 PM
It could be done in 10 years....we would need to keep spending at current levels and let inflation close the gap....

Wrong. We need to slash like a mother ****er. Some of you I feel are ignorant as to just how much money we owe.

pphilfran
4/13/2011, 04:39 PM
Wrong. We need to slash like a mother ****er. Some of you I feel are ignorant as to just how much money we owe.

You don't know what you are asking for....it will take time for the economy to suck up the jobs that are thrown off from big government...

You get in too big a hurry and you will really see unemployment skyrocket and the deficit/debt climb...

You might get by with slightly higher cuts the first year or two but then the nut cutting comes into play...year after year after year of cuts would not be easy....

Raise SS limits to 140k and you help the situation considerably..

Get out of three wars and you cut additional trillions in 10 years...

But I don't see either one of those happening in the near term....

JLEW1818
4/13/2011, 04:40 PM
YES WE CAN AMERICA!!!! derr

JLEW1818
4/13/2011, 04:41 PM
My ****in ***.

Maybe their daddy's or granddaddy's hard work. How many people do you know that have become rich in one generation?

I'm not saying super million dollar people

I'm talking about people making over 250k a year. "the rich" in terms of Obama.

most people making 250k did work hard to get it.

soonercoop1
4/13/2011, 05:05 PM
Empire ain't cheap. At some point revenue increases are going to have to happen, it isn't like this came out of nowhere. We have to present a position that suggests we are actually care about deficits to maintain a flow of credit, the only way this happens is revenue. My guess it will be modest amounts for people making +250k, I have no doubt the board kooks will deride it as Islamofacistnazicommunism.

Republicans in their current role are great, they aren't a real threat to actual power and they actually maintain their principals when they don't have to govern which so far is putting us half way to austerity, the other half is fading tax breaks that were a bad idea to begin with.

Might be for that after the federal government is drastically reduced in size and scope and legislation exists to limit congressional spending...never ever until that is accomplished...which might be a cold day in hell....

soonercoop1
4/13/2011, 05:09 PM
Gee, color me surprised... :rolleyes:

And, EVERYONE earning money through a job or through investments SHOULD pay Taxes!!! Nobody should get more money than they paid into the system, even if you earn a little, you need to pay a little. Period end of story. You are a citizen or live in this country, then you need to pay taxes. Everyone needs to "feel the pain" not just people over a certain income level or a percentage. This crap of 48% or 52% of the people paying taxes has got to go. The number needs to be 100%.

No problem with taxes just the thought of giving more alcohol to a raging alcoholic until he is cured as it were...:D

Caboose
4/13/2011, 05:13 PM
Crimson:

You guys continually dismiss that he is an author and made a lot of money writing books. That is a legitimate living and one that has made a lot of people rich.

That is debatable.

soonercoop1
4/13/2011, 05:16 PM
Crimson:

You guys continually dismiss that he is an author and made a lot of money writing books. That is a legitimate living and one that has made a lot of people rich.

Can't believe anyone actually bought his book let alone read it DD...;)

2121Sooner
4/13/2011, 05:18 PM
Crimson:

You guys continually dismiss that he is an author and made a lot of money writing books. That is a legitimate living and one that has made a lot of people rich.


Being an author is quite the accomplishment....

http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Sarah-Palin-Book-Cover1.jpg

StoopTroup
4/13/2011, 05:22 PM
Can't believe anyone actually bought his book let alone read it DD...;)

If you don't read people's books.....how do you know what the hell they stand for?

bigfatjerk
4/13/2011, 05:23 PM
If you were to tax and somehow get 100% of the money from those that make 250k dollars or more you would get roughly 1.5 trillion dollars right now. And that's only true if 100% of those that make that much money pay all their taxes and don't run out and find ways to play less through loopholes or putting the money in savings accounts etc. If you got that roughly 1.5 trillion dollars you would still need about 2 trillion dollars to pay an annual debt of 3.5 trillion like we've had the last couple years.

Nobody will ever tax the "rich" 100% unless Bernie Sanders takes over the democrat party.

Taxing the rich isn't changing anything either way because honestly our tax system doesn't allow for the rich or poor to pay as much taxes as it should because the rich gets loopholes and poor and middle class can't make up enough for it. Almost half the country doesn't pay federal income tax right now.

soonercoop1
4/13/2011, 05:43 PM
If you don't read people's books.....how do you know what the hell they stand for?

Didn't need to know anymore about Obama than I already researched before the election and I have been correct...how would Obama's book tell you anything about him anyway as we can't even see his school records let alone trust what he has to say about himself...

StoopTroup
4/13/2011, 05:54 PM
Didn't need to know anymore about Obama than I already researched before the election and I have been correct...how would Obama's book tell you anything about him anyway as we can't even see his school records let alone trust what he has to say about himself...

How would you know if you didn't read it?

bigfatjerk
4/13/2011, 05:59 PM
I've read his stuff, and it's just politically the polar opposite of what America really is. He would fit in perfectly with the Europeon Socialists. And that's not really working out for Europe right now either.

soonercoop1
4/13/2011, 06:06 PM
How would you know if you didn't read it?

His actions and sometimes lack there of....

2121Sooner
4/13/2011, 06:15 PM
How would you know if you didn't read it?

You run your mouth about PLENTY of stuff you know nothing about.

StoopTroup
4/13/2011, 07:07 PM
I've read his stuff, and it's just politically the polar opposite of what America really is. He would fit in perfectly with the Europeon Socialists. And that's not really working out for Europe right now either.

I agree to a point. At one point in his life he really took to task on his education and was honored as such. He then moved on and tried to be an example to kids in his District and get them to realize that if you study hard make goals and stick with them....you can become an example instead of a gang banging crack dealer.

Europe legalized drugs so I think he might lean towards legalizing pot but I doubt he's for legalizing heroin, Crack, Cocaine or Meth. I think he found his own American Dream. Much different than mine or yours but I didn't move to Chicago.

StoopTroup
4/13/2011, 07:08 PM
You run your mouth about PLENTY of stuff you know nothing about.

Well....that's not what this is really about though now is it?

StoopTroup
4/13/2011, 07:09 PM
His actions and sometimes lack there of....

I've felt that way about every President....except for Nixon. I think he did the right thing getting the US out of Vietnam.

TheHumanAlphabet
4/13/2011, 07:27 PM
The thing about taxes is it shold never be about "redistribution" of wealth. Everyone lives in this country, everyone should pay to have the benefits of this country.

The thing about "redistribution" is that the people who are being redistributed will find a way not to pay, not to make income or leave. Then where does that leave the "redistributees"?

diverdog
4/13/2011, 07:28 PM
Being an author is quite the accomplishment....

http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Sarah-Palin-Book-Cover1.jpg

She is laughing all the way to the bank. There is not one of you on this board that would turn down a multimillion dollar book deal.

REDREX
4/13/2011, 07:55 PM
So I was wrong. Just saying I dont know that many self-made millionaires.---I know very few millionaires that are not self-made

StoopTroup
4/13/2011, 08:03 PM
She is laughing all the way to the bank. There is not one of you on this board that would turn down a multimillion dollar book deal.

Not one. And not a one of us would continue to be Governor if Fox offered us 5 Million bucks to leave.

okie52
4/13/2011, 08:09 PM
---I know very few millionaires that are not self-made


Yeah, but are they paying their fair share?

REDREX
4/13/2011, 08:13 PM
Yeah, but are they paying their fair share?----More than their fair share

okie52
4/13/2011, 08:21 PM
----More than their fair share

Well...their are some that think paying 80% of the taxes isn't enough.

SCOUT
4/13/2011, 08:45 PM
The thing about taxes is it shold never be about "redistribution" of wealth. Everyone lives in this country, everyone should pay to have the benefits of this country.

The thing about "redistribution" is that the people who are being redistributed will find a way not to pay, not to make income or leave. Then where does that leave the "redistributees"?
I had a funny exchange with a family member (in-law) a while back. She called very upset saying that her great aunt's accountant was trying to steal money from her. It seems this accountant was advising the aunt to give $10,000 to her family members each year before she passed away. She was sure that this was a trick to steal money from the aunt somehow.

I asked how much money she had because I assumed it was to avoid any inheritance tax. She gave me the amount and sure enough the aunt was over the limit at the time.

I explained that the inheritance tax was intended to redistribute wealth away from the rich and to those in need and that based on her bank account, her aunt was rich.

She was beside herself because her aunt wasn't rich. Her uncle was a mailman and worked his whole life and never spent any money. He saved his whole life so the rest of his family could have a better station that he had. That just isn't fair.

I should point out that she is the first person to jump up and decry the evil rich and how they should pay more. Of course, when it was someone she knew it was borderline criminal.

CrimsonCream
4/14/2011, 08:20 AM
Well, the Presidential sleaze bag blamed the $14.3 trillion deficit on Bush. He said it was due to Bush's two wars, tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug plan. He, as always, accepted no responsibility for anything.

Then "Scuzz" tries to scare everybody into passing his budget. If you don't pass then Granny won't get her Senior Citizen meals and would starve, Pappy won't get his healthcare and will die. Surprised that he didn't use the worn out line about laying off cops and firemen or calling the opposition racist.

Let me ask this question one more time to the Left, where did the $867 billion Stimulus go? Shovel Ready jobs that Obama admitted never existed?

How about kickbacks, payoffs, bribes to Unions and increasing the size of government?

A total embarrassment to the Country.

The Profit
4/14/2011, 08:30 AM
I've felt that way about every President....except for Nixon. I think he did the right thing getting the US out of Vietnam.



Stoop, yes and no about Nixon. His campaign accused McGovern (a war hero) of being a coward about wanting to leave Vietnam. Then, Nixon prolonged the war at least six more years, and even escalated it into Laos and Cambodia. Then, after he resigned in shame before he could be the only president impeached and convicted by congress, President Gerald Ford actually ended the 10-year war.

I give Nixon credit for opening up relations with China and the former Soviet Union, but that is where I draw the line. He was a puke of a human being,and now resides in the hottest spot of hell (my opinion, of course).

Condescending Sooner
4/14/2011, 08:54 AM
So I was wrong. Just saying I dont know that many self-made millionaires.

Oops. Accuse me of making up stats when you have no idea what you are talking about, heh.

Go back under your rock, nobody will miss you.

diverdog
4/14/2011, 09:01 AM
I had a funny exchange with a family member (in-law) a while back. She called very upset saying that her great aunt's accountant was trying to steal money from her. It seems this accountant was advising the aunt to give $10,000 to her family members each year before she passed away. She was sure that this was a trick to steal money from the aunt somehow.

I asked how much money she had because I assumed it was to avoid any inheritance tax. She gave me the amount and sure enough the aunt was over the limit at the time.

I explained that the inheritance tax was intended to redistribute wealth away from the rich and to those in need and that based on her bank account, her aunt was rich.

She was beside herself because her aunt wasn't rich. Her uncle was a mailman and worked his whole life and never spent any money. He saved his whole life so the rest of his family could have a better station that he had. That just isn't fair.

I should point out that she is the first person to jump up and decry the evil rich and how they should pay more. Of course, when it was someone she knew it was borderline criminal.

What was the total worth of her estate?

Sounds like she had a crappy accountant.

diverdog
4/14/2011, 10:15 AM
Come on DD.
Clinton's economy has been discussed inside & out many times.
He simply rode the wave of the techie boom, and Reagan's cap gains breaks.
That booming economy simply absorbed the higher taxes.
It wouldn't work now.
(Just like Clinton was pulled to the balanced budget table kicking & screaming by the Repugs).

Do you honestly think the tech boom drove the entire economy? I am surprised you did not mention the peace dividend.

Skysooner
4/14/2011, 10:30 AM
Well, the Presidential sleaze bag blamed the $14.3 trillion deficit on Bush. He said it was due to Bush's two wars, tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug plan. He, as always, accepted no responsibility for anything.

Then "Scuzz" tries to scare everybody into passing his budget. If you don't pass then Granny won't get her Senior Citizen meals and would starve, Pappy won't get his healthcare and will die. Surprised that he didn't use the worn out line about laying off cops and firemen or calling the opposition racist.

Let me ask this question one more time to the Left, where did the $867 billion Stimulus go? Shovel Ready jobs that Obama admitted never existed?

How about kickbacks, payoffs, bribes to Unions and increasing the size of government?

A total embarrassment to the Country.

Sounds like you are drinking the Beck line of bs. This deficit was caused by a multitude of things over a large amount of time and by both parties. The stimulus was only a 6 percent effect. Tax cuts, defense spending and the unfunded Medicare prescription entitlement was roughly 46 percent. Stop blaming Obama and demand that your representatives work together to put something in place that will hopefully fix all of this. Defense, social security and medicare/medicaid have to be on the table as well as some tax increases.


"It is possible to diagnose the specific causes of the lost surplus. Since the 2001 budget surplus projection, the CBO has published 28 baseline updates. Each update specified the causes of the deteriorating surplus or expanding deficit since the previous update. Combined, the 28 updates identify the causes of the $11.7 trillion swing. As Chart 1 shows, these causes are:

Economic and technical revisions ($3.8 trillion or 33 percent of the swing). Most of these arose from CBO’s early 2001 budget projections understandably not anticipating two recessions and two major stock market corrections over the decade.
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts ($1.7 trillion or 14 percent). These tax cuts receive most of the blame for the lost surplus, but are responsible for just one-seventh of it.[2] And the tax cuts for “the rich”—those earning more than $250,000 annually—account for just 4 percent of the saving.
The 2009 stimulus ($0.7 trillion or 6 percent). The stimulus plays a significant role in the 2009 through 2011 budget deficits, but a small role in the overall deficits over the decade.
Other new spending ($3.7 trillion or 32 percent). Defense spending accounts for $2 trillion, other discretionary spending for $700 billion, and new entitlement spending for $1 trillion. The largest entitlement expansions came from the new Medicare drug entitlement, financial bailouts, farm subsidies, and refundable tax credits.[3]
New net interest costs ($1.4 trillion or 12 percent). Instead of the federal government paying off the entire national debt by 2009 as the CBO had projected in 2001, rising debt meant steeply rising net interest costs.
Other tax cuts ($0.4 trillion or 3 percent). This includes the 2008 tax rebates, annual tax extension packages, and the patches to the alternative minimum tax (AMT).[4] "

http://haltingarkansasliberalswithtruth.com/2011/03/17/lyons-gops-tax-cuts-for-rich-created-national-debt-real-cause-of-deficit-pt-3/

soonerscuba
4/14/2011, 10:31 AM
I had a funny exchange with a family member (in-law) a while back. She called very upset saying that her great aunt's accountant was trying to steal money from her. It seems this accountant was advising the aunt to give $10,000 to her family members each year before she passed away. She was sure that this was a trick to steal money from the aunt somehow.

I asked how much money she had because I assumed it was to avoid any inheritance tax. She gave me the amount and sure enough the aunt was over the limit at the time.

I explained that the inheritance tax was intended to redistribute wealth away from the rich and to those in need and that based on her bank account, her aunt was rich.

She was beside herself because her aunt wasn't rich. Her uncle was a mailman and worked his whole life and never spent any money. He saved his whole life so the rest of his family could have a better station that he had. That just isn't fair.

I should point out that she is the first person to jump up and decry the evil rich and how they should pay more. Of course, when it was someone she knew it was borderline criminal.Was this while back before the exclusion was raised to $5m? Also, you only pay tax on anything past $5m, and can give $13k year to anybody without having to report it. Don't take this the wrong way, but nothing in this example adds up, the purpose of the estate tax is so that certain families don't exist in perpetuity tax free and establish what would essentially be an aristocracy.

texaspokieokie
4/14/2011, 10:37 AM
I've felt that way about every President....except for Nixon. I think he did the right thing getting the US out of Vietnam.

i think he did too, but it took a long time.

bigfatjerk
4/14/2011, 10:53 AM
I don't know why Nixon didn't just change parties. He might have been the most progressive president since the 1970s till Obama took over. And that's saying a lot because Bush was extremely progressive and so was Carter.

Fraggle145
4/14/2011, 12:36 PM
Oops. Accuse me of making up stats when you have no idea what you are talking about, heh.

Go back under your rock, nobody will miss you.

**** you.

You didnt know either. I didnt see you providing a link.

StoopTroup
4/14/2011, 12:53 PM
**** you.

You didnt know either. I didnt see you providing a link.

Did you tell him where you lived?

http://www.telovation.com/photos/setenil-spain-city-under-rock.jpg

homerSimpsonsBrain
4/14/2011, 12:59 PM
---I know very few millionaires that are not self-made

I think it depends on how you define "self-made". I know very few people that are what I would define as self-made. Millionaire or otherwise.

Fraggle145
4/14/2011, 01:01 PM
Did you tell him where you lived?

http://www.telovation.com/photos/setenil-spain-city-under-rock.jpg

He apparently figured it out once...

homerSimpsonsBrain
4/14/2011, 01:07 PM
the rich are rich for a reason... it's called hard work for the most part.

That Paris Hilton is a freakin work horse I tell ya!
:D