"White Trash" isn't usually used to deride people's heritage, as far as I can tell. It's applied to people who don't carry the burden of discrimination but are still so short-sighted or stupid that they can't make their lives work.

Being able to avoid the most common screw-ups will protect you from being called white trash or put on Maury for that reason.

True indeed - many people go to higher education for a job, or a certificate, or (in my day) a draft deferment.

But the environment exposes you to new ideas, a wide variety of people, and the value of thinking and questioning. It makes a difference.

Not everyone can be a business leader or winner. Successful businesspeople and salespeople are by definition better than others at getting money - where does that leave the people who aren't the best at it? Are they born losers? Is the ability to get money the only worth a human can have?

We're blanketed in propaganda that tells us that anyone who works for a living is a fool who deserves to be treated like dirt because they don't have the magic gift of business.

You have "A" profits @600 for 5 years and "B" profits @800 for 5 years and in that case your statement is not correct... "A" profit equals $3000 and "B" profit equals $4000 (of course that is NOT what I think that you mean, below is what I think you are getting at)...

You have "A" profits @600 for 8 years and "B" profits @800 for 5 years and in that case you are correct... "A" profit equals $4800 and "B" profit equals $4000...

You are changing the model based on "what you didn't say the first time"...?!? Now you are asserting that "A" can still beat "B" by expanding a second time when "B" expands...

In the short term, that is true but, not in the long term (or if you only count the 5 yr earnings of each)... To use your example...

You have "A" profits @600 for 5 years and "B" profits @800 for 5 years and in that case your statement is not correct... "A" profit equals $3000 and "B" profit equals $4000 (of course that is NOT what I think that you mean, below is what I think you are getting at)...

You have "A" profits @600 for 8 years and "B" profits @800 for 5 years and in that case you are correct... "A" profit equals $4800 and "B" profit equals $4000...

But what happens at 12 years...? "A" profit (@600 x 12) equals $7200 and "B" profit (@800 x 9) equals $7200... Which one comes out ahead at this point...?

And if we extend that model even longer, say over 15 years... Which one comes out ahead in the end...?

Ok, first off, I noticed you felt it necessary to truncate my quote when you responded... I'm wondering why...

Third, you're attempting to "move the goalposts"... You know damn well the issue at hand is "raising taxes" and my comments were based on a scenario where there was a tax increase coming...

Yes, they can expand during low tax years, it just wouldn't necessarily be "as wise or wiser" (see a bit further down for why)... but doing it during high tax times has a better chance of paying out REALY big later on... The increase in profits you realize through this will become huge if tax rates go down later, plenty of buffer for further growth or future increases in tax; when you do this during low tax times your profit levels won't grow as a result of future tax increases (you'll just have to figure out how you're going to expand further or eat the increase)...

Yes, they can expand during low tax years, it just wouldn't necessarily be "as wise or wiser" (see a bit further down for why)... but doing it during high tax times has a better chance of paying out REALY big later on... The increase in profits you realize through this will become huge if tax rates go down later

The smart company takes advantage of the situation to temporarily reduce thier tax liabilities by reinvesting back into the company to raise thier revenue stream... That company (the smart one) will offset the impact on profit and maintain/increase thier real dollar profits for subsequent years, making themselves more viable and vibrant and providing thier shareholders (or themselves in a 'close corp.') with larger 'real dollar' dividends (despite with a lower revenue-to-profit ratio)...

...............Or are you suggesting that a company can only keep it so long until it has to pay the corporate tax a second time...

First you give examples of these things being provided for middle-management/grunt workers (because you have personally "heard" of it) but deny that it can/is done for upper management (because you haven't personally "heard" of it)...?

Do ya'll want to tell me what size business we're speaking of...because in the case of the trucker ...why would he go any farther with incorporation than an LLC that would still be taxed as a proprietorship??? Many small businesses never incorporate and are taxed at personal income levels...eg proprietorship...

I don't think that is realy true... The amount of 'cash on hand' is only tangentialy relevant, very few businesses (especially the big ones) finance expansion on a 'cash and carry' basis...

Ever hear of the "corporate jet"...?

I will point out that you are talking about the small business owner... I'm wondering, just how many people do small owners like truckers and welders typically hire directly (I can figure out the farmer and shop thing myself)... In other words, just how big of a benefit is it, overall, for these people to be "incentivised" to leave money in thier company instead of taking it themselves...?

Or, as tends to be the case with the big business owners, they will be "incentivized" to purchase thier homes, cars, yachts, etc. on the corporate dime, deduct it from the corporate gross (reducing thier corporate tax paid) and living AS IF they were actually taking home millions (and reducing thier personal tax paid)... The "Double Impact" of paying less corporate and personal tax while generating little to nothing of additional economic benefit or value...

I was just saying that higher taxes incentivize greater tax-exempt reinvestment in the business

OK, maybe I can still get this across... *pep talk to self: "I can successfully teach this... it's not futile... anyone can learn... anyone CAN learn! 'There is no spoon.'"*...........................

...........................
Now, let's assume the high tax rate in your example of 39%. I am only seeing 61 cents on the dollar of my profits.
BUT if I give my employee a raise, it is only costing me 61 cents on the dollar. AND that is a whole 39 cents on
the dollar that I am NOT letting the government take!

Any "test" that scores total cluelessness as "mainly conservative" is definitely ROFL, actually, ROFLMAO... Sadly true but still hilarious, especially when it is designed by a conservative from supposedly conservative values...

ending income tax completely and switching to a flat tax on all goods and services would be the only "fair" tax..because those with most money would end up paying more because they purchase more

You will definitely find right wingers from days past who echo parallel sentiments of today's right-wingers, but I believe the difference is that they had a more diverse portfolio of opinions in the past.

could you imagine being lectured about "unnatural sex", or "Muslim takeover", or "We have communists in our congress"

You're basically backing up my point, that labels are so persistent that one could be mistaken for their view for one single point of disagreement. That is the core of conservative America today....stay in line no matter how complex and not so certain an issue maybe.

I say this from not just growing up with a conservative and a Republican from Texas before it was politically acceptable to be one, and also having interaction with the people he had to deal with in business (oil) who were all self-identified fiscal conservatives, there is no way that any politician today can be considered that. But are they liberal? Pffft. They're extremist lunatics for sure.

I used it as an example of why there is no discussion of left wing issues in America. All political discussions are defined by the right there. You see disputes on the talking head shows between a conservative and a raving right wing lunatic and that's what constitutes "balance" in the media.

The segment was a very Republican town in New Jersey interviewer went around asking the citizens who was just hit by Sandy about the budget. Of course, being conservatives, they all wanted to cut the deficit. So the interviewer asked, would you cut Medicare? "No". How about Social Security? "No". Military Spending? "No". FEMA aid for Sandy? "Of course not!!!"

You mean the GOP was more open to raising capital gains tax? Do tell...

Substitute "liberals" in your statement with "conservatives and liberals" and you would be more accurate and sound more reasonable

I'm kind of wondering who you're talking about. I've seen his show on HBO. I used to watch his show on ABC. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I've never heard him talk about tax policies.

Speaking of climate change, how do our resident Canadians feel about the Keystone XL pipeline? Is it a national preference to be able to move the tar sands to a port?

Has the production of oil been a benefit to the average Canadian?

1) Maher's program is national, and he is talking about one state's taxation

2) Maher's income is mainly wage income, which is, indeed, taxed higher than capital gains-- where the real wealth resides

3) Maher has been known to make comments that he later felt the need to explain and contextualize, if not retract-- if and when that happens, righties will not be so eager to acknowledge it

Not understanding that the % paid by a group of people is a completely meaningless statistic, is just that, not understanding

Because it does not matter what a group of people pay in taxes, it only matters what individuals pay in taxes and if one could do the math and add all taxes up I bet you would see that the middle class pay the highest % to income than all other levels.

And nothing is wrong with your explanation of exponentials...I just thought the application and context was beneath the level of your other comments.

Since his reason for being is to be anti-gay, he's obviously a conservative....even if he claims to be a Democrat.

I didn't know that left/right political scale was an American thing. Seems either narcissistic or narrow in scope.

Maybe, but it's not because of the bills he signed. He took over an ongoing bank bailout

Honestly, people who were all gung-ho on starting wars should not be trying to give silly lectures about exponentials they couldn't understand a few years ago.

So what insights do you "leftists" have on the current events?

Heck, Fred Phelps' grand kids are calling out their bigot of a grandfather.

and/or that you only spend public money on helping rich people get richer.

In my opinion, someone who claims that they are 'fiscally conservative,' and that they therefore oppose putting any money into infrastructure maintenance/improvement, or education, until the insane debts are paid off, are fooling themselves big time.

Even in this thread I see the problem with trying to "talk left" in America.

The political left isn't inherently more fiscally prudent than the right - it's just that they face more scrutiny so they have to be. The whole "Tea Party" thing didn't start when Bush turned surpluses into record deficits. It started when a Democrat won the Presidency.

I'm pointing out that lowering upper income and corporate taxes, and paying for that reduction by increasing the cost of living of the customer base, is mathematical idiocy.

Making changes in government policies about an economy, is a lot like taking vitamins. If the reason why you feel sluggish is because you are low on vitamin C, then taking more of it will help. But if the reason why you feel sluggish is because you are low on basic proteins, then taking more C will just risk your getting a stomach ache on top of everything else.

There are 210 new billionaires from 42 countries, including 27 from the United States. The average net worth of those on full list has risen to $3.8 billion from $3.7 billion. Sixty people have dropped off the list and eight have died.

The Asia-Pacific region saw the biggest number fall off the list with 29, followed by the United States, which lost 16.

Most of the billionaires are self-made, 961, while 184 inherited their wealth and 281 inherited part of it and are increasing it.

The oldest billionaires, on average, are in the Americas, with an average age of 67, with those in the United States slightly younger at 65.

The United States had the most billionaires with 442, followed by Asia-Pacific with 386, Europe with 366, Middle East and Africa with 103 and the Americas, excluding the United States, with 129.

Hence, neither cutting tax rates on the rich, or eliminating government expenditures will cause investment.

Post-secondary education makes a big difference in how you think and reason.

Higher education means never having to go on Maury.

be referred to as "baby daddy."

You learn how to learn, how to evaluate sources and how to test ideas for soundness..........You learn to learn from your mistakes AND those of other people.

Nope. Two wrongs don't make a right

Just as lots of people pull the lever for Democrats while holding their noses, or crossing their fingers, they will continue to do the same for Republicans, because though they know the GOP will hurt them, they fear that the other side will hurt them more.

Not really a flip-flop. In the first instance, he's accepting and supporting the cuts.

Paul Ryan fresh off his tour of washing clean dishes for photo ops and making up marathon times, is here to show you just how much of a hypocrite he really is.

But Harper’s prorogations were seen as more crassly motivated for political gain than others.

why would I be surprised when you are actually unable to refute any of the claims made and spend your post attacking me.

Prorogations of Parliament:
Other governments have prorogued Parliament many times. But Harper’s
prorogations were seen as more crassly motivated for political gain than
others. His second prorogation, 16 months ago, brought thousands of
demonstrators to the streets to decry his disregard for the democratic
way.

What ... did CIBC... RBC... Bank of Nova Scotia ... TD ... BMO need a bailout???

and you listed how MANY .... NONE ....

SUN NEWS TV is a joke .... Their audience is MANY the far right in Canada ...

Stephan Harper's policies are CLOSER to Obama then the Republicans.

NO banking problems here in Canada ...

Banks in Canada .. did NOT need bailouts in 2008

Republicans, Libertarians , Tea Party ... THE PARTIES OF FEAR .. AND NO SOLUTIONS.

Fine then post a couple, that showed as I said, it was not anger at 9/11.... etc.

At one time the majority of Americans supported Bush and the war in Iraq.... those who were against the war should have just shut up?

The rest is not worth addressing...

Thus, the interests of these GOP members are no longer (if they have ever been) for the majority of the pple; but rather the 2 percenters up on top who want to remain privileged as such!

First off save the lies!

Do you actually believe Romney would not be pressing HIS agenda, full tilt if he had won?

ANOTHER LIE!!!

Shit...why not throw on some question about his birth certificate, or his Muslim faith? That fits so nicely with the narative you people like to believe...maybe toss in a reference to 'gifts' like magic underpants did!

the republicans awake to the same campaign ideas the had before they LOST the election...

In 2000 Bush lost the general election vote by 500,000 votes, BUT won the electoral college

And yet, the republicans claim a victory, to continue or try and implement their policies? Hahahaha! If government is supposed to be majority rules, as dictated by the people in an election

I know that obviously, if the country does go "over the cliff," that the GOP will blame the Democrats for refusing to let them have their way with things instead,

Why not look at Accuride..... Or the case of the Holson Company..... Or the DDI corp.....

All of these were clearly in the Romney era of Bain.

This will be my last post to you

"So much for romney and KB toys"

So now you "think" you have proof the mittster wasn't involved?

At the time of the KB Toys deal, Romney was a Bain investor and owner, making him a mere beneficiary of the raping and pillaging, rather than its direct organizer. Moreover, KB's demise was hastened by a host of genuine market forces, including competition from video games and cellphones. But there's absolutely no way to look at what Bain did at KB and see anything but a cash grab – one that followed the business model laid out by Romney.

You obviously hold him in high regard, fine, I can't lead you where you don't want to go.

the people who liken Romney to Gekko are just the leftist equivalent of those rightwing nutjobs who believe Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya.

I did not mention the matt taibbi article in Rolling Stone, because I know all will say it is a left wing publication. I believe many of his articles are factual but can and would be viewed as left in the extreme.

Once all that debt is added, one of two things can happen. The company can fire workers and slash benefits to pay off all its new obligations to Goldman Sachs and Bain, leaving it ripe to be resold by Bain at a huge profit. Or it can go bankrupt – this happens after about seven percent of all private equity buyouts

At the time of the KB Toys deal, Romney was a Bain investor and owner, making him a mere beneficiary of the raping and pillaging, rather than its direct organizer. Moreover, KB's demise was hastened by a host of genuine market forces, including competition from video games and cellphones. But there's absolutely no way to look at what Bain did at KB and see anything but a cash grab – one that followed the business model laid out by Romney.

Take a typical Bain transaction involving an Indiana-based company called American Pad and Paper. Bain bought Ampad in 1992 for just $5 million, financing the rest of the deal with borrowed cash. Within three years, Ampad was paying $60 million in annual debt payments, plus an additional $7 million in management fees. A year later, Bain led Ampad to go public, cashed out about $50 million in stock for itself and its investors, charged the firm $2 million for arranging the IPO and pocketed another $5 million in "management" fees. Ampad wound up going bankrupt, and hundreds of workers lost their jobs

The company continued to enjoy 53 percent compound annual growth in net sales, which increased from $8.8 million in 1992 to $200.5 million in 1996, when the company became publicly traded. The company made a number of acquisitions, including writing products company SCM in July 1994, brand names from the American Trading and Production Corporation in August 1995, WR Acquisition and the Williamhouse-Regency Division of Delaware, Inc. in October, 1995, Niagara Envelope Company, Inc. in 1996, and Shade/Allied, Inc. in February 1997.

So, OK then tell me what is unfactual about the companies I cited, YOU were the one to claim Stage didn't undergo bankruptcy.

It is not a business in the true sense of the word, since it is about buying a company to rape it down to it's lowest common denominator, load it with debt, and then jettison it into the world once you have achieved the maximum profit, you could make.

Was it slanted, yes it was. Some of the cracks were unneccessary to prove the point of the article.

The major 3 networks I think are fairly even in their approach.

But that just wasn't good enough for the folks at Bain Capital Partners, the private equity group. Bain and its partners bought Clear Channel at that time, but the buyout loaded the company with roughly $12 billion in more debts -- which still isn't paid off. The debts are so large they threaten the future of the company. About $1 billion in Clear Channel's debt comes due in 2014, and another $10.4 billion comes due in 2016.

What does this have to do with Republican presidential candidate Romney? He was Bain's CEO through 1999. While he had nothing to do with its disastrous Clear Channel investment he was the founder of Bain and draws many of his life lessons from it.

http://www.cbsnews.com

Just checked, they expired at the end of 2010.

but some folks seem to have an issue with research.

You love him? Invite him up to Canada

Dec 6, 2010 7:00 PM EST