|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Al, are you aware of the term "removal of income cap on Social Security taxes"? Is that part of your measly 3% hike you keep on mentioning?
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Jim Crandall said,<br>"Blah, Blah Blah, Blah, Blah."<br><br><br><br>YAWN
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Jeff:<br><br>Obama does not support removing the income cap on Social Security taxes, as far as I'm aware. He has discussed -but not committed to - asking for an additional 2-4% combined between the employer and the employee making over $250K, to begin ten years from now.<br><br>I did neglect to factor that in to the income tax increase I've been talking about. Forgot all about it. That extra 2%, though, that's a dealbreaker. I take back my vote.<br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>hrbaker</b><p>That's not extra taxes. Look at it as your government sponsored and administered 401K.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Aren't you on the radio right now?
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Al, you would be unaware then -- you must have missed the 4000 times he mentioned this. But I understand that it's tough to keep your facts straight when you're counting other people's money. Oh and by the way, I pay 50% of my income towards taxes. How much do you pay?<br><br>Edited to add: why can't we just all admit that our positions on what we think is best for our country often dovetail with whatever is most beneifical for each of us individually? <br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Jeff:<br><br><br><br>Right from Obama's website:<br><br>He Does Not Support Fully Uncapping the Payroll Tax for Social Security at the 12.4 Percent Rate. Barack Obama would like to work with members of Congress from both parties to strengthen Social Security and prevent privatization while protecting middle class families from tax increases or benefit cuts. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, he would ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound. Despite the smears of his opponents, Obama does not support uncapping the payroll tax at the full 12.4 percent rate. Instead, Obama and Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 0percentage points more in total (combined employer and employee). This change to Social Security would start a decade or more from now and is similar to the rate increases floated by McCains close adviser Senator Lindsey Graham and that McCain has previously said he could support.<br><br>If you could cite one or two of the 4,000 sources where he said otherwise, I'd appreciate it. I hate being wrong, but I'm more than happy to admit when I am.<br><br>As for what percentage of my income I pay toward taxes, I would imagine it's probably at a similar rate to what you pay. And I probably pay all the same corporate and payroll taxes you do, too. Not sure what you're implying in your statement about counting other people's money, so I'll just assume you weren't referring to me.<br><br>Edited to clean up the post and add a few points.<br><br><br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Jeff Amen...<br><br>"I pay 50% of my income towards taxes. How much do you pay?"<br><br>That makes two of us <img src="/images/sad.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="sad.gif">
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p><br>"If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."<br><br>Change.<br><br><br><br><br ><br><br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Seems like at some point after that article was written in September of 2007, Obama changed his position to reflect something closer to what Edwards discussed later in that article.<br><br>Either way I will give you that even on his website, he's not really offering a clear plan.<br><br>Edited to add: come on, Jeff, you're better than that. Taking out the link to the article and leaving in only the quote kinda distorts things a bit.<br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Changed.<br><br>Al, I took out the link only because it made my entire post underlined and weird looking. Stop looking for a conspiracy in every shadow.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am nomintating your last post for 1 of the top 5 in this thread. Well said....(even though I agree with Jim on much of what he says, certainly not all though)...<br><br>I watched Obama speak today, and although most of it was canned, he sounded pretty good. I still would have liked it had McCain won but we have Obama now and I wish him the best. I always said I thought he was a good guy....A good politician but still a good guy anyway....regards
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>And we need to work on your reading comprehension skills as I did the shows this morning. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"> Lucky for you you'll have another chance next Friday. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif">
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>"I pay 50% of my income towards taxes. How much do you pay?"<br><br>Jeff, <br><br>I hope you're counting Federal, State, Local, FICA, Local Property, and Local Sales Taxes. <br><br>If not, you gotta get you a new tax man! <br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>That's right, my bad. I'll catch you next week on my way to work.<br><br>Just to clarify, the article Jeff posted was from September of 2007, where Obama "floated" the idea of uncapping the income limits, but did not make it a statement of policy. He said it, but didn't say he was going to do it.<br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Jim, I'm not counting sales or property taxes in that number. That's just life in the big city, I guess.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>"That's just life in the big city"<br><br><br>Psst! So's the part about State and Local Taxes!<br><br>By the way, even in the boonies, Property taxes are ridiculous.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>"He said it, but didn't say he was going to do it."<br><br>Perhaps he just said it into a microphone just to see if it was working? Like a sound check? <br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Kinda. He was quoted in the article as saying it was "one possible option," and not a formal plan. So I guess that's sorta like a soundcheck. Perhaps if it had sounded good in the back of the room, he would have played it at the big concert. But, apparently, it didn't.<br><br>Aside from clearly stating on his campaign website that he was NOT going to do that, he never actually offered a formal plan.<br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Al, I know you can't possibly believe what you just wrote. We both know full well that eliminating the cap is exactly what he's going to do.<br><br>The election is over; there's no need to dissemble anymore.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Jeff, all I can do is vote for a candidate based on what they say they're going to do, or not do.<br><br>Lots of people who I know that voted against Obama did so because they believe he's going to do something different from what he says he's going to do. I suppose that's a reason why not to vote for someone.<br><br>But to paraphrase the words of a great man, I prefer not to look for a conspiracy in every shadow. Instead, I look at a politician's platform, do my best to take it at face value, and cast my vote.<br><br>So, yes, I do believe what I wrote. And if he changes his position, as most presidents eventually do on one thing or another, I'll evaluate his reasons for doing it, and decide whether or not I'm pissed enough to vote the other way when the time comes.<br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Al, he actually already changed his position on this issue -- well after the sound check. Initially in the fall of 2007 he proposed eliminating the Social Security cap; when pressed during a debate with Hilary in the Spring of 2008 he proposed the 'doughnut hole' which would keep the free tax pass on those making between 102K (the current cap) and 250K -- and then uncap it completely.<br><br>Nuance.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Jeff, I posted his position above in this thread, which I took directly from his website two minutes before I posted it, and I think the only thing about it that's clear is that he does NOT intend to completely eliminate the cap. So unless he's changed his position in the time it's taken for this thread to evolve (which is possible, I guess, given his lack of clarity on the issue), that's his position.<br><br>Edited to add: Either way, we can go back and forth on this, but the only way we're going to know what he's going to do is when he does it. Or doesn't. Or whatever. So I guess we'll have to wait and see. And either way, that 2% is not going to be a dealbreaker for me, either.<br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Just curious -- what you took from his website was what existed before he got elected, right? When he was still trolling for votes, right? Do you believe what was written there? Or do you believe instead what he has said repeatedly over the past year -- considering that you know full well he will raise taxes?<br><br>Edited to add: Al, removing the Social Security tax cap would not imopse just a 2% increase in taxes. Keep going...<br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Jeff:<br><br>It seems I must have been mistaken about my analysis of the candidates because I was not using the correct sources to obtain information.<br><br>Assuming that his website, his speeches, and his presidential debate performances include nothing but lies designed to get him votes, can you please let me know where I can find out more information about John McCain, so I can re-evaluate my opinions on his positions?<br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Al, nice try. We're not talking about McCain -- we're talking about the increase in taxes once the Social Security cap is removed -- whether it be after 102K as Obama said a year ago or after 250K that he said in the Spring. Or what is presently on his website.<br><br>The fact is, the reason this issue means nothing to you is because it does not affect you.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>My heart goes out to our poor, poor, Jeff, who will soon have to pay more in taxes.<br><br>If you really believe the increase will adversely impact your lifestyle, Jeff, maybe you'll have to raise your hourly rate.<br><br>I'm sure the Gotti family will spring for it.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Jeff:<br><br>At the risk of sounding disrespectful, I'll ask that you please refrain from making assumptions about my income and calling them "facts." The word "fact" implies some degree of accuracy.<br><br>Not that I need to drag my personal income into this discussion, but by suggesting that I am in support of a candidate because his financial plans do not impact me, you are entirely incorrect. However, you are proving - at least in your case - your aforementioned assertion that "our positions on what we think is best for our country often dovetail with whatever is most beneifical for each of us individually."<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>-Al<br><br>Edited to add: David, as usual, as soon as you enter the discussion, you're out of line. Don't wreck a good discussion.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>David, don't you have some students to abuse? To wit:<br><br><br>"Terrible teacher, makes fun of students who ask legitimate questions. Arrogant. Uncaring advisor, acts like you're wasting his time. I expected to be a physics major. After this instructor, I changed my mind."<br><br>"worst teacher i've ever had. avoid at all costs, you won't learn a thing. i had my friend go into class for me wearing my clothes, went withough a hitch."<br><br>"worst teacher i can remember, dating back to kindergarten."<br><br>"One of the worst classes I ever took in my yrs at skidmore. He sucks big time."<br><br>"Stay away."<br><br><br>Keep up the good work, David!<br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Al, you were the one that mentioned that your income was below the 250K figure, not me.<br><br>And I was the one who stated above "why can't we just all admit that our positions on what we think is best for our country often dovetail with whatever is most beneifical for each of us individually?" I didn't exempt myself, did I? <br><br>My point is, we all like to think that we're totally altruistic but the truth is usually much different. Our altruism is usually affected by our bottom lines, agreed?<br><br><br><br><br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>There is very little about me that's altruistic. I'm the world's only liberal Rand disciple. Don't ask how I square that in my head; I don't have an answer.<br><br>I interpreted your "doesn't affect you" comment as referring to the space between the current cap and the 250K level, since the argument you appeared to be making was that he was going to eliminate the cap altogether. Speaking of which, isn't the cap at 97K?<br><br>I need to go home now and drink.<br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>The cap is actually at 102K for 2008.<br><br>I was referring to the 'doughut hole' example as it is more in line with Obama's 250K threshhold for 'rich.' And under that example, an increase in Social Security taxes would only kick in above 250K in income.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>You may think I'm out of line, Al. Others don't.<br><br>Jeff pissed and moaned about Rev Wright. Over and over. "Can't support Obama, 'cause his spiritual adviser is that America-hating demagogue."<br><br>But that wasn't it at all. What Jeff <i>really</i> couldn't live with was his going to have to pay a bit more to put this country back on its feet, and heading in the right direction.<br><br>And Jeff, I can look myself in the mirror each day with no problems. I can sleep well at night, and I'll never have to make excuses to my children, explaining to them what it is I do. And to whom I sell my services.<br><br>And, Jeff. Posting unattributed quotes from disgruntled eighteen year old pre-meds. And selected by you. Really. Is that the best you can do?<br><br>(Besides, Bruce already posted those. Can't you find anything new?)<br><br>I wonder what some of your currently imprisoned former clients have to say about you.<br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>David, you may be able to look at yourself in the mirror -- but it would seem that no one else can stand to look at you.<br><br>As for public opinion about our skills, temperments and personalities it would seem I come out way ahead (nearly every single public rating about you on that site was negative). But then again, everyone comes ahead of you in those departments except, perhaps, Charles Manson. Perhaps if you didn't have tenure you'd make more of an effort to be a human being. Perhaps not.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Anthony S.</b><p>Although Jeff, I was a little suspicious of the student comment on that site that began with "Whilst..."
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>More clarity please...name calling accomplishes nothing...I would like to respond to Jim Crandall who at times I have disagreed with and at times I have agreed with. I like Jim and I do not recall every having a problem with him in the past. I do respect him but some of his views are either short-sighted or not well thought out in my opinion. Jim, really my opinion and not an attack and I would love to hear a response from you in kind. Without name calling or the silliness that this discussion seems to have finally turned to.<br><br>First, I have to agree partially with Jim in stating that the victory of Obama was due to the economy. I also feel that the state of the Republican party, the choice of VP (for both candidates), anti-Bush backlash, and a hundred other factors probably contributed to this victory.<br><br>I also agree that because of the changing demographics of the country it will continue to be difficult for Republicans to win votes. They do win votes on the conservative immigrant side but lose votes when it comes to equality, minority status, and the economics of minorities. Republicans just have not embraced the viewpoint that the demographics of America are changing quickly. Until they seriously address these issues, it will be tough.<br><br>I find it interesting that he forsees "higher government spending, higher taxes, a decline of free enterprise, and a moral decline." <br><br>I will take these one at a time. <br><br>Government spending had actually gone down under Bill Clinton and rose under Bush. Not surprising since we are fighting a war, you say? True and the defense accounts for a large portion of our spending but according to the government run reports most other areas of government spending have increased as well. (see www.usaspending.gov)<br><br>Higher taxes will ensue for the wealthier people of the land. I see no problem with this as most Americans will see the same taxes or slightly lower taxes. I just want to understand the problem with this Jim. Your church (and I assume from many of your comments that you do belong to a Christian church of some form) ask for tithes, membership fees, donations, etc. These tithes (et. al.) are to help offset church costs and help the less fortunate in your congregation and to support other community related projects. This sounds very close to the socialism you fear so much. Have you increased your tithe as your income has increased? I bet you have. This is the same philosophy (a markedly Christian philosophy no less) that the democrats are following. As I said in a previous post, the bible promotes this kind of redistribution of wealth. (Acts 4:34-37)<br><br>A decline of free enterprise. This is one that might actually happen. But the decline will be in large corporations and bigger companies. Free enterprise will be alive and well for main street and the small business owner. I am tired of seeing a Wal-Mart on every corner. One less Wal-Mart and thirty small shops will likely help our economy more.<br><br>A moral decline....how about some statistics here...<br>The aggregate divorce rate among liberal states (including the dissolution of civil-unions) is 22% lower than Christian Coalition red states. (infoplease.com)<br>Your great political hero, Sarah Palin, contributes to this by having a grandchild out of wedlock. Her moral fiber, although no doubt very strong and well-intentioned, did nothing to stop her daughter's pregnancy. Would education, openness, and a willingness to listen? Possibly, but we will never know.<br>Speaking of Mrs. Palin. She voted every time to cut special education funding until the second she had a special education child. (Alaska voting record). Amazing how she flipped so easily when confronted with her own problems. I hate to speculate what would happen if one of her offspring "chose" to be gay.<br>Drug use is another hot button topic. The good news is that conservative children do not experiment or "try" drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes nearly as much as their secular peers. The bad news is that the rates are nearly the same once they hit adulthood.<br>I agree that there is a certain moral downturn in America. I do see that drugs, teen pregnancy, hate crimes, gangs, etc. are on the rise. Is this because America is run by a liberal Democrat? Do you think that the average teen who steals, does drugs, or gets pregnant is thinking about who is in office? Nope...are they reacting to the situations created by those in office? ABSOLUTELY! Now think about this...a moral conservative Republican who takes money away from social programs, education, and the medical industry to give big tax breaks, handouts, and capital to the already wealthy. A liberal Democrat who spends on education, after-school programs, treatment facilities, etc. using money from huge corporations? Who is the cause here? Who is part of the solution?<br><br>I always look back at reading the newspaper in the neighborhood of my school when they arrested a homeless man for stealing oranges and he fought with the officer and injured the officer. The owner of the rather large homestead was quoted as saying, "Why this guy is allowed on the streets is beyond me." To which the officer replied with a straight face, "Because the conservatives in the valley voted down the small homeless shelter that was on the ballot last month."<br><br>Jim, I do respect your views. I really do. But I want you to understand that there are other viewpoints out there and maybe somewhere in the middle we can help change things. I look at Obama as a force for good and change. Someone like Kennedy or King Jr. Someone who will mobilize the spirit of helpfulness, patriotism, and change.<br><br>I agree that the Dems. not taking 60 senators is a good thing. Even I, as a liberal democrat, see the need for checks and balances.<br><br>I still have not heard a concise, cogent and non-Biblical based reason for the ban on gay marriage. If the California Republican Party came out in opposition to the ban on the basis of equal rights, I bet you McCain would have had a ton more votes from California (and across the nation). I really do feel that the first political party that finally accepts people as equals regardless of sexual orientation will gain a lot of political power (you can read this as money and influence too). Jim, I sincerely hope you can provide me with one. I will listen.<br><br>James F. my friend...you make my arguments all too easy...What to do with your 37% of out of wedlock and possibly unwanted children?...give them to gay couples who often have more money, more stability, and lower divorce rates than "traditional families." Let them grow up loved and cared for with values like education, hard work, and equality for all.<br><br>Stepping off my soapbox for the night....<br><br>Joshua
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>So, what's the next big hurdle? A female president? A gay president? An atheist president?<br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>anthony</b><p>i voted for ralph nader...just kidding, that would of been as useful as a vote for ross perot.<br><br>the guy who won this time was the best liar. as we can see from our history of politicians, they lie, cheat, steal, use drugs, drive drunk, and commit every other criminal act and get away with it...i could name about 25 senators or congressmen that have committed more crime than you can shake a stick at. and i know there are a ton more i cant name.<br><br>one of the qualifications to being president is that you have to have on your record some type of covered up crime, be it drug use, drunk driving/manslaughter, accepting bribes, etc...<br><br>unfortunately, i cant be president. i am a republican and a proud citizen and will respect the office of the president democrat or republican, not necessarily the man who is president
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Joshua,<br><br>Thoughtful comments--my response(probably not nearly so thoughtful):<br><br>1)Demographics make it increasingly difficult for the Republicans in the future. More of the country every year will be black and hispanic--two groups that vote overwhelmingly democratic. I don't believe it is in the cards for the Republicans to significantly turn this around unless they abandon their low tax, controlled govt spending and views on illegal immigration. What the US is facing is not unlike the rest of the world. The birth rate among western Europeans has now for many years been below the level to sustain its population--immigrants have come in to fill the void. Muslims and Black Africans are experiencing strong population growth in most western European countries.<br><br>2)Govt spending--I am not disputing your figures but I am surprised that non-defense social spending went down under Clinton. If so it was probably because it was constrained by deficits. The positive effect of the deficits has been that they have limited the amount that Democrats could spend. Regardless, I am an advocate of an extremely limited role of govt. Like many of the previous posters, the govt takes over 50 percent of everything I make and we have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. I have a middle class background and worked hard to achieve what wealth I have today. To see the government grab over half of every dollar I make to see the things they spend it on is extremely disheartening.<br><br>3)I give a lot to charity including our church and various educational, pro-life and charities for the needy. I believe in giving and believe I give generously. I don't believe it is the role of government to spend money on all of the earmarks it does--see the Grace Commission report--old but still valid. This is not just the fault of the democrats.<br><br>4)Moral issues--I am not defending Palin's life here. All I am saying is she has the same set of moral values that I do--which are the opposite of what the democratic party believes today. I would rather have someone as vp who believes that life begins at conception and does not know if Africa is a continent or a country as vp than having someone who is seemingly indifferent to the tens of thousands of unborn children who are murdered every year. <br>I don't think I ever said I was for tax breaks to the already wealthy--I am for taxing all income at the same rate. I think corporations are overtaxed. Many companies have reincorporated overseas to avoid the high tax rates in the U.S. You have to be competitive in this world--the big corporations are global in nature and can certainly relocate out of the U.S. Obama I believe favors a "windfall profits" tax on the oil industry which is one of the most ridiculous concepts imaginable--if you want the oil companies to slow down their investments for oil and gas and alternatives that is a good way. The logical conclusion of that argument is less supplies and higher prices and ultimately rationing.<br><br>This is probably not as thorough an explanation as you wsould like Joshua but I have to head into my office so I can give 55 cents of every dollar I earn back to the Government.<br><br>Jim
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>"James F. my friend...you make my arguments all too easy...What to do with your 37% of out of wedlock and possibly unwanted children?...give them to gay couples who often have more money, more stability, and lower divorce rates than "traditional families." Let them grow up loved and cared for with values like education, hard work, and equality for all."<br><br><br><br>Oh my good secular humanist friend Mr. Levine, you missed the obvious answer. Let them be adopted by Mormon families. We have a far lesser divorce rate than any other Christian demonination, tend to do well financially (as I check my empty pockets) and will be reared by a nuclear family with positive male and female role models. We will teach them as I have been taught that advanced education, volunteerism, hard work and treating everyone with respect, even if they don't agree with you is the way to go. We have huge families, why not make them larger? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"> <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <br><br><br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>How many Mormon families will adopt children of color?<br><br>(The reason I ask has to do with the LDS Church's historical record on race.)
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>J Levine...very well thought and backed comments...yet to be equalled...imho!<br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>David,<br><br><br><br>I know somebody on this board who will answer you very well regarding that. P.S.: I hope people will read my previous statement as an attempt at humor and not literally.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>I'm glad to hear that, Jim.<br><br>(Since the LDS Church posthumously converted to Mormonism millions of Jews killed in the Holocaust, I never know what to believe.)
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>"My condolances... November 7 2008, 7:25 PM <br><br>"My heart goes out to our poor, poor, Jeff, who will soon have to pay more in taxes.If you really believe the increase will adversely impact your lifestyle, Jeff, maybe you'll have to raise your hourly rate."<br><br>So David because Jeff has done well and worked very hard to get where he is, he doesnt deserve the right to be concerned about his lifestyle and income taxes? Didnt somebody say people didnt make successful guys out to be villains...huh could have fooled me?<br><br>So only certain people who make what you make or less can complain, or worry about their futures under a new leader.<br><br>Anyone else who makes more should grin and bare it and be prepared to spend extra money to help out the oh so grateful people like yourself huh?<br><br>Oh and that raise your hourly rate jab well...may be more true than you think wait until peoples lifestyles are changed, to see how long it takes for high paid professionals to pass on the increases to you. Like Jim said see how long it is before more folks move more business overseas you may not pay up front like Jeff, but sooner or later you going to pay for the "Change" Obama is talking about trust me.<br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>"Anyone else who makes more should grin and bare it..."<br><br><br>I don't care if Jeff grins, but if he starts to "bare" it, we all need to find a new forum! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif">
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>How many children of ANY color have you adopted?<br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>1880nonsports</b><p>4)Moral issues--I am not defending Palin's life here. All I am saying is she has the same set of moral values that I do--which are the opposite of what the democratic party believes today. I would rather have someone as vp who believes that life begins at conception and does not know if Africa is a continent or a country as vp than having someone who is seemingly indifferent to the tens of thousands of unborn children who are murdered every year.<br><br>sigh.<br><br>government shouldn't tell business what to do - just women.......<br><br>women shouldn't have to know geography - just how to make babies<br><br>believing that people have rights over what to do with their body is "indifference".....<br><br>so it's all about you and a moral sympatico over the importance of the country to have someone with knowledge and intellegence representing them?<br><br>bit too miopic and self-serving for me..........
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>James, if I may indulge a bit...the divorce rate of Mormons is nearly the same as any other Christian denomination. ReligiousTolerance.Org has a great article about this. Most mormons have a ceremony where they are sealed in the Mormon temple. Not telling you anything new here. The problem is that the Mormon church only gives divorce stats for the members that go through a rather tough Unsealing in the temple. Most Mormons who divorce do it the traditional American way through the courts and do not bother with the Temple Unsealing ceremonies. So, as a result, the divorce rate is right along line with the National Average. <br><br>Second...I agree...let those kids be given to responsible Moromon parents...and responsible Jewish...and responsible Catholic...etc.<br><br>Joshua
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p><<How many children of ANY color have you adopted?>><br><br>Two, Tom.<br><br>(As Jeff can tell you, on cross, never ask a question whose answer you don't already know.)
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Jim C...thanks for your response and it was rather well thought out. I do understand the Republican views on less government, less handouts, etc. I also agree that we are in trouble when it comes to earmarks and I am familiar with the Grace Report. That is why I said that the Dems getting 60 would be a bad thing. I was glad to see that you give consideration to charity and that you believe that it starts at home. You would not believe how many Republican/Conservative people I know that give the very least possible when they could actually make a difference. Thanks for responding and your views are noted. We will just have to agree to disagree on certain points.<br><br>Joshua
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p><<So David because Jeff has done well and worked very hard to get where he is, he doesnt deserve the right to be concerned about his lifestyle and income taxes?>><br><br>Not when the tax increase isn't going to change his Upper East Side life style one iota.<br><br>Pissing and moaning about being taxed a few thousand extra dollars, when you spend more than that on one baseball card, is just plain selfishness.<br><br>And, as I've said many times before, I've worked hard, and I've been lucky (as has Jeff), and I don't mind contributing a bit more.<br><br>It's a mitzvah.<br><br>(Jeff will understand.)
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>David, two adopted kids? I hope Child Services is keeping a close watch. And yes, I'm happy to subsidize your terror campaigns against teen-agers (along with crushing their dreams).
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>E-mail to be sent shortly <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"><br><br>James<br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>GeorgeHC</b><p><img src="http://www.voidedwarranty.co.uk/Photos/cowbell.jpg" alt="[linked image]">
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Richard Simon</b><p>"thousands of unborn children who are murdered every year".<br>Mr Crandell, based on your quote, have you reported these "murders" to the police? I would assume not since abortion is a legal right in this country.<br>==<br><br>I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.<br>Unknown author <br>--<br>We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.<br>No retreat baby, no surrender.<br>The Boss
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p><<David, two adopted kids? I hope Child Services is keeping a close watch.>><br><br>Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. How ill-informed you are.<br><br>You should know that adoptive parents have far lower rates of abusing their children than do birth parents.<br><br>You see, none of <i>their</i> children were accidents.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>David, I wasn't commenting on the generalized abuse rate of adoptive parents; I was commenting on one seemingly psychologically imbalanced parent with anger and jealousy issues who somehow got past the MMPI on the road to adoption.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>that's about a goofy argument........<br><br>It's the law of the land, agreed. But anyone that looks at a million or so abortions in the US and 10's of millions in the world yearly and doesn't feel just a little bit torn isn't really human.<br><br>Difficult situation that won't be solved by a bunch of schmucks on a baseball board.<br><br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>Hey, Tom--<br><br>How about an apology.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>For what?
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>"How about an apology."<br><br>LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br> <br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>For your ill-conceived assumption.<br><br>(And judging by your avatar photo, you really should know better.)
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>I believe James is speaking of Rhys & I above about the adoption thing. I don't know if anyone on here knows the history of our family (as we try not to mention it too often), but we are 2 of 23 (Thats right I said 23!) kids in our family. My parents were not raised in the LDS (Mormon) church, but later converted to being LDS. They had 7 children of their own, and while doing so also adopted 16 children. Of those 16 they are from all over the word (Cambodia, Korea, Russia, Bolivia, Haiti, and 6 adopted from within the US - all of which are African American). <br><br><br><br>Most would think doing something like this would warrant praise from all sides, when in reality I will be the first to tell you that is NOT the reaction bestowed by many. This coming from each side of the aisle, from each of the different racial groups and demographics.<br><br><br><br>Irrespective of that, my parents have been great examples for each of their children and have been able to provide a good home to many children that otherwise wouldn't have been given that opporunity. I am number 10 of the 23 and we just our first last year but have every intention of adoption down the road (just not to the extent of my CRAZY parents), and to date my older siblings have also adopted several children.<br><br><br><br>This isn't something I talk about much, as it is very personal but I thought it should be shared. <br><br><br><br>-Rhett
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>question. You gave a simple answer. No apologies needed. You shouldn't want one. Given your normal tone and holier than thou attitude, it was a well-placed question. Congrats on adopting. It's a great thing to do. We're in the process of adopting special needs from China......
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Rhett, that's an incredible story. As one of 23 I would have been most concerned about some of them stealing my cards as a kid. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"> Seriously, I'd love to hear a lot more about your experience sometime. I find it hard to imagine that anyone could be critical of your parents considering the sacrifices they went through.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>Come on, Tom. Your capitalized "ANY" completely gives away that you felt very strongly that you knew the answer to that question. It should not have been asked.<br>Perhaps you don't know me as well as you think you do. (And vice versa.)
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>jeff, I assure you, the only one I had to keep an eye on growing up was Rhys!<br>-Rhett
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>emphasis, not knowing the answer. Now that I know the answer, it does give me pause for just a moment about you......
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>I just looked it up-if you switch from Sevruga to Beluga, the additional tax on income above $250K will not even be felt, assuming your caviar intake does not change after 1/20/09.<br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>You'd be completely surprised at SOME comments people make when asking us about adopting from China. I guess they don't see them as completely rude but I can only imagine what Rhett's folks went through--especially given that it was so long ago and intl adoption wasn't quite as prevalent as it is today.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>was a rough theoretical amount. It had already dropped to $200K with mention of $150K and $120K by some of the lackeys. Pretty soon, it'll be $100K, $80K, $60K who knows. But, as someone above said, we take them at their 'word' and then after we get screwed, we make decisions about if we vote 'em out next time. <br><br>I can, however, say that he won't be getting me as a small business person anymore as I'm selling my small business on 12/1 and just sticking to my day job working for the man.........
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Tom, true -- I'm looking at this issue in 2008, not 1975. I have close friends who adopted a kid from China and know the blow-by-blow trials they went through. Truly an amazing (and frustrating) experience it seemed.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Richard Simon</b><p>Tom - I am not saying that it is not a sad fact that there are millions of abortions every year. I am saying that women have a CHOICE and the law does not make them a murderer despite the accusations of Mr Crandell and the pro life anti-choice movement.<br><br>=<br><br>I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.<br><br>Unknown author <br><br>--<br><br>We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.<br><br>No retreat baby, no surrender.<br><br>The Boss
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>J.McMurry</b><p>Rhett,<br><br> I just want to say God bless your parents, and your entire family.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Adoption is a great thing and all of you adoptive parents should be commended.<br><br>As for those of you who treat the murder of the unborn child(and noone can dispute that it is a child) as a woman's right--while it is currently legal I feel sorry for you.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Steve F</b><p> Jim, Don't stop there... Lets take it a step furthur and condemn those that have ever had tubal ligations, vasectomies, worn a condom, IUDs, BCp's, the rhythm method, just simply "pulled out" or those that had sex to just have fun. <br><br> Heaven is surely a cold lonely place.<br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>THis thread had deteriorated substantially. LEON!!!<br>JimB<br><br><br>P.S. I probably should not contribute to this, but to the ever thoughtful Jim Crandall: Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions from happening. It will just make them more dangerous, where many mothers will also die in the process of back alley abortions. I am personally opposed to abortion, but I think the issue is much more complex than anti-choice people try to make it seem. There are religious claims (which should be kept out of lawmaking in this country), biological ambiguities about the beginning of life, social ramifications of decisions on lawmaking on this issue, health concerns, psychological concerns, and an assortment of other issues and consequences that make this a very grey issue legally in the United States, not at all black and white. To claim otherwise is to pretend all other issues do not exist. I know it is practically un-American to actually think through all the complexities of an issue before drawing conclusions, but being more simplistic is not the solution in my opinion.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>Leon,<br><br>Lock thread? Please?
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Steve,<br><br>No -- just murder. The others don't kill living human beings.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:59 AM. |