So now it's ok to make dog eater jokes?

[artist4perry]

You make my head hurt. Most libs do that to me and it's not worth the effort. Just remember that I am right and all will be well.

BTW, what was our bet on The Won becoming The LoOser? Was it a case, cause I'm really liking the new 24oz Natty Daddys.

1) You think youre right, cause other sources tell you what you think.
2) Our bet still remains. Wait and see
3) I stand corrected, I would think that THINKING would be the cause of your head hurting, but we all know you cant think for yourself, see #1

Truth be told Beshad...what we think is right is from other sources unless we ourselves were present when a situation comes about.

Knocking FF because he directly refers back to his source of information is a bit hypocritical. After all you had a source where you got your knowledge on a subject did you not?

Most knowledge is not first hand but second hand.

[artist4perry]

You take this stuff TOO seriously. I AGREE WITH YOU. It didn't cause the meltdown. Happy?

And according to you bad bank loans for houses is a good thing. It never hurt anyone. It should be an ongoing practice. Right? My point...it shouldn't. These bad loans gave the bad investments fodder to play with. Regardless of weather you agree or not. Regardless of weather it caused the meltdown or NOT.

Um.. no...

a bad bank loan is not a "good thing"... I never said that.. how you construe that from what I wrote is beyond me..

I don't think I am making myself clear enough and personally this is not something I would spend anymore time discussing. I am sorry I made a statement that was not CLEAR enough and made you go into tangents. I should have added that the bad investments to my statement. I apologize that I left that out. It wasn't because I was not aware of how the housing market crashed.

Now go play in traffic will ya?

Apologizing because you weren't clear enough is simply disingenuous. You've been crystal clear in your opinion that bad bank loans for houses is the cause of the crisis... you repeat it in literally every post. No one was "tangenting".. All 3 of us were pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about... and supporting it with FACTS...


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, if that opinion is not supportable factually.. then that opinion is simply a guess...

The simple truth is that you do not know what you are talking about, yet you want to, and are entitled to have an opinion...


THAT is even scarier than the crisis were are currently in.

I may have stated things badly...there was no disingenuous motive there at all. You don't know me and should not make that assumption about me. Nor should you measure a persons ability to think over a discussion in a forum. I wrote a quick partial thought and had to put up with all this nonsense over it.

Maybe you debate team captains should lighten up a bit.

What we write in a forum.. much like what we say in face to face conversation, is all we have to ascertain ones opinion on a given topic... so suggesting I not "measure a persons ability to think" by what they say(post), is akin to you apologizing to me, BEFORE you beat me up.. it makes no sense...

It's your responsibility to be clear and be able to support you statements.. if you don't wish to be challenged, either be prepared to defend your post or don't post. It's that simple.

I certainly do not think you are stupid... and i never said you were... On the topic we were discussing, ,meaning YOUR POINT... I said you did not know what you were talking about. That doesn't mean you are stupid, just uninformed.

I can concede I handled my end of the discussion badly, but it does not mean I don't know about what happened. When you called me on what I wrote I said I agreed with you...did I not? And even if in your opinion I am uninformed, we are not omniscient beings. There are things I know you guys would not have a clue over. Should I dole out the same condescending attitude to you on said subjects? A discussion is an exchange of thoughts, and you might just get your point across better by just letting the points you have to show be your guide.

What kind of teacher would I be if I was condescending and rude to a student when I tried to show them that a previous thought they held was wrong? While your at it, tell me why should the student even listen to me if I do?

Trust me I have students who make false or inaccurate statements all the time... I don't degrade them if they are wrong.

[artist4perry]

You make my head hurt. Most libs do that to me and it's not worth the effort. Just remember that I am right and all will be well.

BTW, what was our bet on The Won becoming The LoOser? Was it a case, cause I'm really liking the new 24oz Natty Daddys.

You don't teach art, do you?

Could you? It isn't as easy as you guys think. How many of you can teach complex instructions to 30 kids in a crowded room and all of them learn the same thing? Add into that account special needs children with downs syndrome, and various other physical and learning disabilities...even blindness. They all are mixed in one classroom. They all have to learn the same project. You can modify and adapt the lesson but you cannot deny them the right to learn what the other children are learning.

I teach 900 students a week. I am given 800 dollars for almost 900 students for a year for supplies. You do the math...make that stretch to cover printmaking, weaving, drawing, painting, collage, crafts, textile arts, career arts, art history, and all the other things I am required to cover in one year.

That is for all the paper and supplies.
Not to mention the time it takes off the clock for preparation of materials.

We have to incorporate history, English, math, science, and many other disciplines of learning into our lessons. As a matter of fact with the new Common Core method we are being trained to do I am to include some of the same subjects the regular classroom is working on to reinforce their learning skills.

We go to Professional Development classes every summer. This includes 6 hours of Technology classes, 3 hours of Parental Involvement classes, the New Common Core strategy courses, and 18+ hours of classes in our own field. We are not done with learning just because we are a teacher.

I keep up on my art history knowledge on my own time and keep up with current styles in art as much as I can.

Deal with children squabbling, backtalk, lying, stealing, crying, hitting each other, bloody noses, tantrums, throwing things, peeing their pants, intercom constant interruptions, leaking ceilings, and whining all day long!

Yes a piece of cake...one most of you would run home screaming if you had to deal with it all day.

I do it because I love it.

[slucero]

You take this stuff TOO seriously. I AGREE WITH YOU. It didn't cause the meltdown. Happy?

And according to you bad bank loans for houses is a good thing. It never hurt anyone. It should be an ongoing practice. Right? My point...it shouldn't. These bad loans gave the bad investments fodder to play with. Regardless of weather you agree or not. Regardless of weather it caused the meltdown or NOT.

Um.. no...

a bad bank loan is not a "good thing"... I never said that.. how you construe that from what I wrote is beyond me..

I don't think I am making myself clear enough and personally this is not something I would spend anymore time discussing. I am sorry I made a statement that was not CLEAR enough and made you go into tangents. I should have added that the bad investments to my statement. I apologize that I left that out. It wasn't because I was not aware of how the housing market crashed.

Now go play in traffic will ya?

Apologizing because you weren't clear enough is simply disingenuous. You've been crystal clear in your opinion that bad bank loans for houses is the cause of the crisis... you repeat it in literally every post. No one was "tangenting".. All 3 of us were pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about... and supporting it with FACTS...


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, if that opinion is not supportable factually.. then that opinion is simply a guess...

The simple truth is that you do not know what you are talking about, yet you want to, and are entitled to have an opinion...


THAT is even scarier than the crisis were are currently in.

I may have stated things badly...there was no disingenuous motive there at all. You don't know me and should not make that assumption about me. Nor should you measure a persons ability to think over a discussion in a forum. I wrote a quick partial thought and had to put up with all this nonsense over it.

Maybe you debate team captains should lighten up a bit.

What we write in a forum.. much like what we say in face to face conversation, is all we have to ascertain ones opinion on a given topic... so suggesting I not "measure a persons ability to think" by what they say(post), is akin to you apologizing to me, BEFORE you beat me up.. it makes no sense...

It's your responsibility to be clear and be able to support you statements.. if you don't wish to be challenged, either be prepared to defend your post or don't post. It's that simple.

I certainly do not think you are stupid... and i never said you were... On the topic we were discussing, ,meaning YOUR POINT... I said you did not know what you were talking about. That doesn't mean you are stupid, just uninformed.

I can concede I handled my end of the discussion badly, but it does not mean I don't know about what happened. When you called me on what I wrote I said I agreed with you...did I not? And even if in your opinion I am uninformed, we are not omniscient beings. There are things I know you guys would not have a clue over. Should I dole out the same condescending attitude to you on said subjects? A discussion is an exchange of thoughts, and you might just get your point across better by just letting the points you have to show be your guide.

What kind of teacher would I be if I was condescending and rude to a student when I tried to show them that a previous thought they held was wrong? While your at it, tell me why should the student even listen to me if I do?

Trust me I have students who make false or inaccurate statements all the time... I don't degrade them if they are wrong.

You'll have to show me where I was condescending or rude to you... because I do not recall being either.

You did not "handle your end badly"..... you did not factually defend it... , and as such demonstrated you are uninformed on the topic.

Points were made to you and factually supported.. yet you STILL discounted them, for your own, admitted, uninformed opinion. If you know more about a topic than I.. then I will challenge you to explain yourself, until you do that, I won't concede your data to be valid... I think you would expect your students to do the same of your positions, at least well enough to convince them that you are correct..

A discussion IS an exchange or thoughts.. and if the discussion is to be of any value, then it also must contain ACCURATE information, or else it's waste of time and will very likely result in people being incorrectly informed. In our "discussion", your thoughts were inaccurate.. and that is what was pointed out to you repeatedly... yet you still did not see the logic in Monkers or my posts, or the empirical data supporting it.. You said you did... but always qualified that by reiterating your original, uniformed opinion..

What kind of teacher would you be if a student of yours, in a discussion in class, proved a point that you were making was 100% wrong, even providing supporting data to prove it? Would you acknowledge your error or instead insist that your point was still valid?

That is exactly what you are doing here.

[Don]

You make my head hurt. Most libs do that to me and it's not worth the effort. Just remember that I am right and all will be well.

BTW, what was our bet on The Won becoming The LoOser? Was it a case, cause I'm really liking the new 24oz Natty Daddys.

You don't teach art, do you?

Could you? It isn't as easy as you guys think. How many of you can teach complex instructions to 30 kids in a crowded room and all of them learn the same thing? Add into that account special needs children with downs syndrome, and various other physical and learning disabilities...even blindness. They all are mixed in one classroom. They all have to learn the same project. You can modify and adapt the lesson but you cannot deny them the right to learn what the other children are learning.

I teach 900 students a week. I am given 800 dollars for almost 900 students for a year for supplies. You do the math...make that stretch to cover printmaking, weaving, drawing, painting, collage, crafts, textile arts, career arts, art history, and all the other things I am required to cover in one year.

That is for all the paper and supplies.
Not to mention the time it takes off the clock for preparation of materials.

We have to incorporate history, English, math, science, and many other disciplines of learning into our lessons. As a matter of fact with the new Common Core method we are being trained to do I am to include some of the same subjects the regular classroom is working on to reinforce their learning skills.

We go to Professional Development classes every summer. This includes 6 hours of Technology classes, 3 hours of Parental Involvement classes, the New Common Core strategy courses, and 18+ hours of classes in our own field. We are not done with learning just because we are a teacher.

I keep up on my art history knowledge on my own time and keep up with current styles in art as much as I can.

Deal with children squabbling, backtalk, lying, stealing, crying, hitting each other, bloody noses, tantrums, throwing things, peeing their pants, intercom constant interruptions, leaking ceilings, and whining all day long!

Yes a piece of cake...one most of you would run home screaming if you had to deal with it all day.

I do it because I love it.

What are you rambling on about? You don't even know why I asked him that yet you are throwing down another Blueskies inspired diatribe in this thread for simply no reason.

[slucero]

You make my head hurt. Most libs do that to me and it's not worth the effort. Just remember that I am right and all will be well.

BTW, what was our bet on The Won becoming The LoOser? Was it a case, cause I'm really liking the new 24oz Natty Daddys.

You don't teach art, do you?

Could you? It isn't as easy as you guys think. How many of you can teach complex instructions to 30 kids in a crowded room and all of them learn the same thing? Add into that account special needs children with downs syndrome, and various other physical and learning disabilities...even blindness. They all are mixed in one classroom. They all have to learn the same project. You can modify and adapt the lesson but you cannot deny them the right to learn what the other children are learning.

I teach 900 students a week. I am given 800 dollars for almost 900 students for a year for supplies. You do the math...make that stretch to cover printmaking, weaving, drawing, painting, collage, crafts, textile arts, career arts, art history, and all the other things I am required to cover in one year.

That is for all the paper and supplies.
Not to mention the time it takes off the clock for preparation of materials.

We have to incorporate history, English, math, science, and many other disciplines of learning into our lessons. As a matter of fact with the new Common Core method we are being trained to do I am to include some of the same subjects the regular classroom is working on to reinforce their learning skills.

We go to Professional Development classes every summer. This includes 6 hours of Technology classes, 3 hours of Parental Involvement classes, the New Common Core strategy courses, and 18+ hours of classes in our own field. We are not done with learning just because we are a teacher.

I keep up on my art history knowledge on my own time and keep up with current styles in art as much as I can.

Deal with children squabbling, backtalk, lying, stealing, crying, hitting each other, bloody noses, tantrums, throwing things, peeing their pants, intercom constant interruptions, leaking ceilings, and whining all day long!

Yes a piece of cake...one most of you would run home screaming if you had to deal with it all day.

I do it because I love it.

You do it because you love it... all the rest of the reasons above that are irrelevant then..

I wouldn't do it because I'd hate it.. for all the reasons you posted...

[Behshad]

You make my head hurt. Most libs do that to me and it's not worth the effort. Just remember that I am right and all will be well.

BTW, what was our bet on The Won becoming The LoOser? Was it a case, cause I'm really liking the new 24oz Natty Daddys.

1) You think youre right, cause other sources tell you what you think.
2) Our bet still remains. Wait and see
3) I stand corrected, I would think that THINKING would be the cause of your head hurting, but we all know you cant think for yourself, see #1

Truth be told Beshad...what we think is right is from other sources unless we ourselves were present when a situation comes about.

Knocking FF because he directly refers back to his source of information is a bit hypocritical. After all you had a source where you got your knowledge on a subject did you not?

Most knowledge is not first hand but second hand.

You dont get it do you ?

When we all discuss things over here, while we use SOURCES, we also use our brains to develop our own thought and opinions about things, well not ALL of us FactFinder can never share his own opinion because all he has to share is 100% what others think. Surely as a teacher , you should know that while you get your knowledge from other sources, you have to as a person develop your own thoughts and opinion and be able to at least explain what you "copy and paste "
As far as you being disappointed in me, oh well. When you call me anything you want , then its of course all in good and fun Listen , you got involved in a debate about our nations economy and ALL YOU keep talking about is bad loans. You're a great artist and thank God you teach that ant not politics or economy in school. Youre great at what you do , but you just dont know much about the big picture when it comes to politics. You have SOME knowledge, but You still dont get it, thats the sad part

Have a good day

[artist4perry]

You make my head hurt. Most libs do that to me and it's not worth the effort. Just remember that I am right and all will be well.

BTW, what was our bet on The Won becoming The LoOser? Was it a case, cause I'm really liking the new 24oz Natty Daddys.

You don't teach art, do you?

Could you? It isn't as easy as you guys think. How many of you can teach complex instructions to 30 kids in a crowded room and all of them learn the same thing? Add into that account special needs children with downs syndrome, and various other physical and learning disabilities...even blindness. They all are mixed in one classroom. They all have to learn the same project. You can modify and adapt the lesson but you cannot deny them the right to learn what the other children are learning.

I teach 900 students a week. I am given 800 dollars for almost 900 students for a year for supplies. You do the math...make that stretch to cover printmaking, weaving, drawing, painting, collage, crafts, textile arts, career arts, art history, and all the other things I am required to cover in one year.

That is for all the paper and supplies.
Not to mention the time it takes off the clock for preparation of materials.

We have to incorporate history, English, math, science, and many other disciplines of learning into our lessons. As a matter of fact with the new Common Core method we are being trained to do I am to include some of the same subjects the regular classroom is working on to reinforce their learning skills.

We go to Professional Development classes every summer. This includes 6 hours of Technology classes, 3 hours of Parental Involvement classes, the New Common Core strategy courses, and 18+ hours of classes in our own field. We are not done with learning just because we are a teacher.

I keep up on my art history knowledge on my own time and keep up with current styles in art as much as I can.

Deal with children squabbling, backtalk, lying, stealing, crying, hitting each other, bloody noses, tantrums, throwing things, peeing their pants, intercom constant interruptions, leaking ceilings, and whining all day long!

Yes a piece of cake...one most of you would run home screaming if you had to deal with it all day.

I do it because I love it.

What are you rambling on about? You don't even know why I asked him that yet you are throwing down another Blueskies inspired diatribe in this thread for simply no reason.

I added it because it seems to be the pile on game to use art teacher as a term of degradation. Maybe more because I had enough of the jabs at my job. Maybe that was not your intent and if so I am sorry I used this under your point.

[artist4perry]

You take this stuff TOO seriously. I AGREE WITH YOU. It didn't cause the meltdown. Happy?

And according to you bad bank loans for houses is a good thing. It never hurt anyone. It should be an ongoing practice. Right? My point...it shouldn't. These bad loans gave the bad investments fodder to play with. Regardless of weather you agree or not. Regardless of weather it caused the meltdown or NOT.

Um.. no...

a bad bank loan is not a "good thing"... I never said that.. how you construe that from what I wrote is beyond me..

I don't think I am making myself clear enough and personally this is not something I would spend anymore time discussing. I am sorry I made a statement that was not CLEAR enough and made you go into tangents. I should have added that the bad investments to my statement. I apologize that I left that out. It wasn't because I was not aware of how the housing market crashed.

Now go play in traffic will ya?

Apologizing because you weren't clear enough is simply disingenuous. You've been crystal clear in your opinion that bad bank loans for houses is the cause of the crisis... you repeat it in literally every post. No one was "tangenting".. All 3 of us were pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about... and supporting it with FACTS...


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, if that opinion is not supportable factually.. then that opinion is simply a guess...

The simple truth is that you do not know what you are talking about, yet you want to, and are entitled to have an opinion...


THAT is even scarier than the crisis were are currently in.

I may have stated things badly...there was no disingenuous motive there at all. You don't know me and should not make that assumption about me. Nor should you measure a persons ability to think over a discussion in a forum. I wrote a quick partial thought and had to put up with all this nonsense over it.

Maybe you debate team captains should lighten up a bit.

What we write in a forum.. much like what we say in face to face conversation, is all we have to ascertain ones opinion on a given topic... so suggesting I not "measure a persons ability to think" by what they say(post), is akin to you apologizing to me, BEFORE you beat me up.. it makes no sense...

It's your responsibility to be clear and be able to support you statements.. if you don't wish to be challenged, either be prepared to defend your post or don't post. It's that simple.

I certainly do not think you are stupid... and i never said you were... On the topic we were discussing, ,meaning YOUR POINT... I said you did not know what you were talking about. That doesn't mean you are stupid, just uninformed.

I can concede I handled my end of the discussion badly, but it does not mean I don't know about what happened. When you called me on what I wrote I said I agreed with you...did I not? And even if in your opinion I am uninformed, we are not omniscient beings. There are things I know you guys would not have a clue over. Should I dole out the same condescending attitude to you on said subjects? A discussion is an exchange of thoughts, and you might just get your point across better by just letting the points you have to show be your guide.

What kind of teacher would I be if I was condescending and rude to a student when I tried to show them that a previous thought they held was wrong? While your at it, tell me why should the student even listen to me if I do?

Trust me I have students who make false or inaccurate statements all the time... I don't degrade them if they are wrong.

You'll have to show me where I was condescending or rude to you... because I do not recall being either.

You did not "handle your end badly"..... you did not factually defend it... , and as such demonstrated you are uninformed on the topic.

Points were made to you and factually supported.. yet you STILL discounted them, for your own, admitted, uninformed opinion. If you know more about a topic than I.. then I will challenge you to explain yourself, until you do that, I won't concede your data to be valid... I think you would expect your students to do the same of your positions, at least well enough to convince them that you are correct..

A discussion IS an exchange or thoughts.. and if the discussion is to be of any value, then it also must contain ACCURATE information, or else it's waste of time and will very likely result in people being incorrectly informed. In our "discussion", your thoughts were inaccurate.. and that is what was pointed out to you repeatedly... yet you still did not see the logic in Monkers or my posts, or the empirical data supporting it.. You said you did... but always qualified that by reiterating your original, uniformed opinion..

What kind of teacher would you be if a student of yours, in a discussion in class, proved a point that you were making was 100% wrong, even providing supporting data to prove it? Would you acknowledge your error or instead insist that your point was still valid?

That is exactly what you are doing here.

Banks should not have changed policies that allowed them to give out bad loans. What is in error about that? I do agree that by making a blanket statement about it being the cause of the crash I was incorrect. I know it wasn't and I said that you were right about what you said. You guys cannot even concede that I have time and time again acknowledged that your points were right.
What is annoying is even saying as much you keep harping on and on about how dumb I am...so I am dumb to say you were right?
I never said any of you were wrong in your points.

I even said you were right so many times it is nauseating. But you cannot see that I was agreeing with your points the whole time because your too busy trying to be superior in the argument.

When did I say you guys were stupid, wrong, had no idea what you were talking about?

[artist4perry]

You make my head hurt. Most libs do that to me and it's not worth the effort. Just remember that I am right and all will be well.

BTW, what was our bet on The Won becoming The LoOser? Was it a case, cause I'm really liking the new 24oz Natty Daddys.

1) You think youre right, cause other sources tell you what you think.
2) Our bet still remains. Wait and see
3) I stand corrected, I would think that THINKING would be the cause of your head hurting, but we all know you cant think for yourself, see #1

Truth be told Beshad...what we think is right is from other sources unless we ourselves were present when a situation comes about.

Knocking FF because he directly refers back to his source of information is a bit hypocritical. After all you had a source where you got your knowledge on a subject did you not?

Most knowledge is not first hand but second hand.

You dont get it do you ?

When we all discuss things over here, while we use SOURCES, we also use our brains to develop our own thought and opinions about things, well not ALL of us FactFinder can never share his own opinion because all he has to share is 100% what others think. Surely as a teacher , you should know that while you get your knowledge from other sources, you have to as a person develop your own thoughts and opinion and be able to at least explain what you "copy and paste "
As far as you being disappointed in me, oh well. When you call me anything you want , then its of course all in good and fun Listen , you got involved in a debate about our nations economy and ALL YOU keep talking about is bad loans. You're a great artist and thank God you teach that ant not politics or economy in school. Youre great at what you do , but you just dont know much about the big picture when it comes to politics. You have SOME knowledge, but You still dont get it, thats the sad part

Have a good day

Troglodite is not really a serious term now is it? I would not have even taken pause at your STFU cut. It would not have been personal now would it?

And you don't know what I know except for the few times I get on and state an opinion here. Let's face it there are two schools of thought, but you only think that if one agrees with you is the only correct way to think.

Oh, and even if they do agree with you they are still dumb? I never said any of you were wrong at all. You guys keep going on and on as though I was disagreeing with your points. I made the mistake of restating one point and from there I think you thought I was saying your points were wrong.

This is all much to do about nothing. And I still love ya B.

[Behshad]

[parfait]

You're really cool.

[Behshad]

You're really cool.

And you're a fucking tool. Piss off !:)

[slucero]

Banks should not have changed policies that allowed them to give out bad loans. What is in error about that?

Just as capitalism is not an altruistic endeavor, businesses (such as banks) are not benevolent institutions. Capitalism and businesses (such as banks) are all about profit, although there can be consequences of business activity that may be beneficial to society.

Just as humans have varying degrees of morality, so do the humans who work in business, that is why there is regulation. Banks are in the business of making money... especially after the government deregulated the banking industry in 1999.

I do agree that by making a blanket statement about it being the cause of the crash I was incorrect. I know it wasn't and I said that you were right about what you said. You guys cannot even concede that I have time and time again acknowledged that your points were right.

Which is why I posted this:


"Points were made to you and factually supported.. yet you STILL discounted them, for your own, admitted, uninformed opinion."


and this:


"In our "discussion", your thoughts were inaccurate.. and that is what was pointed out to you repeatedly... yet you still did not see the logic in Monkers or my posts, or the empirical data supporting it.. You said you did... but always qualified that by reiterating your original, uniformed opinion.. "



You were 100% in error... so using your original point to qualify your admission you were wrong is a bit like crossing your fingers behind your back while telling a fib...

What is annoying is even saying as much you keep harping on and on about how dumb I am...so I am dumb to say you were right?
I never said any of you were wrong in your points.

I never said you were dumb... you should be specific regarding just who you are talking about.

I even said you were right so many times it is nauseating. But you cannot see that I was agreeing with your points the whole time because your too busy trying to be superior in the argument.

See 2 places up, and I certainly wasn't trying to be "superior", if you took it that way... I'll apologize.. but that wasn't my intent.

When did I say you guys were stupid, wrong, had no idea what you were talking about?

This has more to do with your hurt feelings than the discussion, and I'm assuming you're directing that at Monker and B.

You never did say I was "Stupid", nor did I you.

Had you told me I "didn't know what I was talking about".. I would have challenged you to prove that statement with facts.

[artist4perry]

Needless to say on to other things. You guys have a good day. No Slucero you were not the one who ever put me down. For that reason I had more respect for your postings. Look guys I am human and I do make mistakes. If I am wrong correct me on the mistakes made.

B blow it out your ear...

[parfait]

Waving to epmty seats...

Could you (or anyone else around here) please explain to me what you see in Mitt Romney and and the, frankly retarded state of the republican party? The whole political system in the US have become the laughing stock of the West.

I'm not a big fan of Obama, but there's no way he's worse than what the republicans has to offer.

[slucero]

Waving to epmty seats...

Could you (or anyone else around here) please explain to me what you see in Mitt Romney and and the, frankly retarded state of the republican party? The whole political system in the US have become the laughing stock of the West.

I'm not a big fan of Obama, but there's no way he's worse than what the republicans has to offer.

..and Hollande, the first French socialist president since Francois Mitterand, who promises wiggling out of the previously agreed-upon European austerity package beats the guy who negotiated the deal in a national election (Sarkozy), which will lead to a multi-nation simultaneous sovereign bond crises, contagion and defaults....leading to collapse of the Euro....

...is gonna be better than Sarkozy... right?

[parfait]

Waving to epmty seats...

Could you (or anyone else around here) please explain to me what you see in Mitt Romney and and the, frankly retarded state of the republican party? The whole political system in the US have become the laughing stock of the West.

I'm not a big fan of Obama, but there's no way he's worse than what the republicans has to offer.

..and Hollande (the first French socialist president since Francois Mitterand) is gonna be better than Sarkozy... right?

No, not at all. I certainly don't think so. Sarkozy had to cut in government spending because of the current economic climate, so now they want Hollande because he has promised to spend more. This isn't the time to spend - what a bunch of retards.

[parfait]

Maybe because Obama reminds Americans of Mr Hollande.

Wealthy French people are looking to London as a refuge from fresh taxes on high earners pledged by candidates in the country’s presidential elections.

The “soak the rich” rhetoric that has punctuated the presidential campaign has prompted a sharp rise in the numbers weighing a move across the Channel, according to London-based wealth managers, lawyers and property agents specialising in French clients.

Now you will see French businessmen sit on cash like American businessmen are. Once Romney, or anybody really, takes over for Obama, the money will start flowing again.

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. You can't honestly say that the only way for the economy to get back on track is to reduce the tax for the wealthy? Bush, with his tax cuts completely raped the economy, especially when considering how much he spent on the wars. 64 % of the national debt was run up on Reagan and the two Bushes. Bill Clinton was the first president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt after the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981

Economy aside, how can you vote for a republican party which seems completely delusional. They're moving further and further away from sanity; promoting creationism and ignorance in schools, talking about war with Iran (!) and their stance on women and gay issues is frankly disgusting. It's like they're moving backwards towards the middle ages.

[Behshad]

Alan,

Pretty sad that a guy from France , less than half your age , understands politics & our economy better than you do !

The answer to our country's problems is not more tax cuts for the rich. You still don't get it that most of wealthy
people in this country write off enough to avoid paying as much taxes as you and I do.
You simply don't understand it . You think if you help the rich become richer , they'll throw you some $. But they won't

[Behshad]

Here in true FF C&P style , not cause I can't use my own words , but since right now I'm too lazy to type on my phone and explain this to you Read please, then answer with valid points.

When people get to a point of wealth where it is almost absurd you have to question the ethics of the system put in place. So why is it that they can pay at only a 8 or 9% tax rate while poor people have to pay a 15% tax rate? To say that they pay 8 or 9% off the bat is rather dubious. In fact there are people doubting Warren Buffet who has mingled with millionaires and billionaires on a daily basis.

On paper the percentages of upper class people vary per state, but these people ranges from 3% to  6%. Those high income people on paper would normally pay 33% to 35% of their income if they happen to be in either a salary or a hourly position. But hold on; it is not what it seems on paper now is it?  So how does 33% to 35% turn to that 8% or 9%? The short answer in a complicated process is financial wizardry. The United States has a system put in place where rich people are the benefactors of hidden fringe benefits. One such benefit is tax deductions.

Let's take a 35% tax rate for example: we can simply knock it down with deductions. If you are married you get a small deduction hence our system is biased towards married couples. If you have a child, you get another deduction. Not a big deal right? Well let's add another. I hear that Octomom had big tax breaks just from her kids, but obviously that would just be a ridiculous point and would probably cause a diseconomy of scale within the nuclear family. You can get huge breaks if your paying for their meals, tuition, camps, medical and dental bills. Kids are expensive, but really in the grand scheme of things: adults are more expensive.

Then we have the fact that the 35% can do these same deductions for themselves. They can also tally up their food and hotel costs too and write them off as business trips. On top of this there are tax haven investment shells like a Roth IRA, limited liability companies, and business expenses. Guess what? If they are self employed they can deduct a plethora of things from how much interest they pay on a loan to how much commission they have to pay and they get a fixed percent for tax payment. They can write off gifts, too.

It gets even better when you have employees and an actual business because the deductions skys the limit. Really it does.   You can easily whittle the costs of making extra money down to a mere 8% or 9%. Warren Buffett, without taking any deductions was able to get away with 15% while his secretary wounded up paying more. But the ultimate question that I think many people forget to ask is why does this happen? While I did analyze the upper class bracket, the super upper class, that 1% also falls under the same umbrella.

Financial wizardry only accounts for one half of the solution. The other half is because they can. They have amassed so much wealth that their bargaining power has only become stronger and stronger. If they do not like the rates they are being taxed at, they can simply leave. Their wealth is beyond a point where they are bound by citizenship. They can easily vacate if they feel they are overtaxed. That being said, you should take a look at these companies that change teams. Some of them you might find shocking.  After all when your rich, does the concept of being loyal to a country mean anything or is it just a mere notion to entertain the masses?

Of course not all of the super rich fall under this category. There is still a portion of the super rich that pay their fair share and do not abuse the system. There are still some that do not over deduct themselves to the point of absurdity. Let's face it. Taxes are necessary for the functioning of public goods and services and it keeps government and public sector employees .

The fact remains that the rich will always be taxed at a less rate than poor people. They have the power and clout to leave. They can also cut jobs if they feel they are overtaxed. It is futile to complain against a deaf entity. Your cries will go unheard. The best thing to do is work within the system and break away from it. Since I have became middle class, I have been less stressed and I have been able to focus on things that actually matter outside of saving like my health. More times than not, these entities have a high amount of debt to go with their wealth. It is arbitrary for them, (not for us) to control their spending.I would say, do not spend the time hating these individuals even though it is the easiest course of action. I would rather say you should try to not fall victim to their umbrella, by straight boycotting their products and their services. A lot of the super wealthy became so via financial institutions and companies. If they are not going to be good neighbors and pay their fair share or if you think they are not doing their part, do not invest nor contribute to their wealth. It is as simple as that.

[Memorex]

Taxes should not be based solely on how much one needs to do the things they want. For example, when Obama talks about the rich paying their fair share (a completely empty argument) he is saying that he wants the rich to be more in line with the middle class or the poor. So the question is, what is fair?

I do think the corporate loopholes that allow GM and GE to pay zero have to go. Period. But I need my boss, a small business owner, to keep as much as humanly possible to keep me and others employed.

I personally think no one should ever be allowed to take more than a fourth or fifth of what you make. So that's 20 to 25%. Our country could survive on that if we changed several factors. Number one, life is not fair. Some people are not in a position to buy new cars, go to Vegas, or take expensive vacations. Number two, everyone should pay their way. If you make under some dollar amount, 10% is really not that much. Pay it. Hell, pay 5% - something. Number 3, control the welfare state. I'm all about freedom, but we all know that government checks are not spent to better one's life. If the government is going to support you, it can't simply be by giving you a check and not controlling how/where that money is spent. Sometimes, people need to be hungry, need to live in difficult circumstances, etc. in order to learn what it looks like to be poor.

The other point in all of this, which even the smartest of you completely ignore, is that this whole discussion is meaningless. For all the grumbling about fair shares and rich getting richer, the problem will never be solved by taxing the rich more. Never. It provides less than 1% of the relief we need (not a made up number - it's less than 1%). So why spend so much energy talking about it? It's just an empty conversation and an empty solution.

Politicians spend too much of our money. Wars, waste, fraud, nanny-state, failing education system, wasted money to the UN... You name it, we waste it.

Is there any liberal here that pays less in taxes than they wish? If so, why not send some money in? That's always the age old question. I don't have a single liberal friend who says they personally want to pay more. And every single one of them love the fact that they benefit from the tax cuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dehMglYuoT4

[Behshad]

Taxes should not be based solely on how much one needs to do the things they want. For example, when Obama talks about the rich paying their fair share (a completely empty argument) he is saying that he wants the rich to be more in line with the middle class or the poor. So the question is, what is fair?

I do think the corporate loopholes that allow GM and GE to pay zero have to go. Period. But I need my boss, a small business owner, to keep as much as humanly possible to keep me and others employed.

I personally think no one should ever be allowed to take more than a fourth or fifth of what you make. So that's 20 to 25%. Our country could survive on that if we changed several factors. Number one, life is not fair. Some people are not in a position to buy new cars, go to Vegas, or take expensive vacations. Number two, everyone should pay their way. If you make under some dollar amount, 10% is really not that much. Pay it. Hell, pay 5% - something. Number 3, control the welfare state. I'm all about freedom, but we all know that government checks are not spent to better one's life. If the government is going to support you, it can't simply be by giving you a check and not controlling how/where that money is spent. Sometimes, people need to be hungry, need to live in difficult circumstances, etc. in order to learn what it looks like to be poor.

The other point in all of this, which even the smartest of you completely ignore, is that this whole discussion is meaningless. For all the grumbling about fair shares and rich getting richer, the problem will never be solved by taxing the rich more. Never. It provides less than 1% of the relief we need (not a made up number - it's less than 1%). So why spend so much energy talking about it? It's just an empty conversation and an empty solution.

Politicians spend too much of our money. Wars, waste, fraud, nanny-state, failing education system, wasted money to the UN... You name it, we waste it.

Is there any liberal here that pays less in taxes than they wish? If so, why not send some money in? That's always the age old question. I don't have a single liberal friend who says they personally want to pay more. And every single one of them love the fact that they benefit from the tax cuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dehMglYuoT4

Bingo. Corporate loopholes need to go away.

And I agree , the rich don't need to get taxed more. They should pay the same tax rate as anyone else. But they should actually PAY it , not use the loopholes.

[parfait]

parfait wrote

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. You can't honestly say that the only way for the economy to get back on track is to reduce the tax for the wealthy?

Just like all liberals and 7wishes, you just don't understand what Pres. Bush did. I'll help you, because you are not from here, there's no excuse for those like Behshad and 7 and Monker who live here.

Bush Tax Cuts:

EGTRRA generally reduced the rates of individual income taxes:

a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000. (A new tax bracket which helped low income filers get some skin in the game.)

the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket (Lowered taxes on the poorest by 50%.)

the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006. (Lowered taxes for lower middle class by 12%.)

the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006 (Lowered taxes for upper middle class by 10.75%.)

the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006 (Lowered taxes on the rich by 9.1%.)

the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006 Lowered taxes on the super rich by 13.2%.)

The EGTRRA in many cases lowered the taxes on married couples filing jointly by increasing the standard deduction for joint filers to between 174% and 200% of the deduction for single filers.

Additionally, EGTRRA increased the per-child tax credit and the amount eligible for credit spent on dependent child care, phased out limits on itemized deductions and personal exemptions for higher income taxpayers, and increased the exemption for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and created a new depreciation deduction for qualified property owners.

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.

Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006.

Data show that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. The Bush tax cuts (along with some Obama tax cuts) were responsible for just 24 percent.

The 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

So now you have the Facts, that it is increased spending and not lower taxes that caused the deficit problems. And please note the tax brackets and the effect on the rich and what they pay, and realize that the tax cuts for the wealthy mantra is nothing more than just that, a mantra of the left socialist. The biggest tax cut by far was the 50% reduction to the poorest among us not the wealthy, yet the wealthy paid far more after the cuts than before. There is a reason for that and I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

I never thought that it was the lack of taxes that caused the huge deficits, but this stuff is new to me. Interesting though. Overspending is a big problem. Take medicaid for example. It's obvious that the current system isn't good enough, but is this really the time to spend a shit ton of government money on it? I'm not too sure about that.

[Memorex]

Beshad - seriously. Reading your post I was just in complete wonderment of how people don't get it. Yes - loopholes should be taken out. But...

Number 1 - kids and marriage barely matter for the super wealthy. It's not percentages. It's the same deduction for everyone. So a person making $20k a year with three kids gets a far better percentage write off than someone making $250k with even 6 kids. Octomom benefits greatly because she has very little income and has many kids. But if that was Warren Buffet with 15 kids, it wouldn't even register on his return.

Number 2 - Reducing your tax burden because you had business expenses is the way it ought to be. Expenses means money flowing to the market. Restaurants, hotels, taxis, airfare, etc. Those things make a business more successful (hopefully) and therefore their income goes up, along with their taxes. If there was no benefit to it, the company may not be able to afford to grwo their business.

Number 3 - Every rich person takes advantage of the same deductions a the poor person. Obama and his wife gifted a large sum of money to their daughters in order to reduce their tax debt for 2011. Because they can. And a person making $50k a year has that same opportunity.

Again, I need my boss' tax debt as low as possible. He is laying people off as we speak. We need to survive.

[parfait]

EUROFINS SCIENTIFIC, a bio-analytics firm, is the sort of enterprise that France boasts about. It is fast-growing, international and hungry to buy rivals. So people noticed when in March it decamped to Luxembourg. Observers reckon it was fleeing France’s high taxes. It will soon be joined by Sword Group, a successful software firm, which voted to move to Luxembourg last month.

François Hollande, the Socialist candidate, and the current favourite to win the second and final round on May 6th, has promised a top marginal income-tax rate of 75% for those earning over €1m ($1.3m). He has declared war on finance. he pledges, corporate taxes will rise and stock options will be outlawed.

François Hollande, the Socialist “My true adversary in this battle has no name, no face, no party ... It is the world of finance.”

__________________________________________________________

French elite are fleeing Paris, to live in Brussels ‘tax haven’
02 May 2012

Faced with increasing hostility at home, France’s moneyed classes are taking flight to Belgium because they do not like either Hollande or Sarkozy - Brussels, on the other hand, seems to cater for all of the needs of the rich

France’s wealthy do not feel the need to wait for the outcome of their country’s presidential election; they are already voting with their feet. Convinced the rich will no longer be welcome under the next government, many are moving to neighbouring Belgium. Calls from France to tax lawyers and estate agents in Brussels are increasing in frequency by the week. When Socialist candidate François Hollande, the pollsters’ favourite, broke clear of incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy after the first round of voting - Brussels estate agents reported receiving up to 20 calls a day from French house-hunters. Most were looking to rent four and five-bedroom properties in the capital’s most desirable districts with an average budget of €3,500 a month.

Hollande - who famously said he “doesn’t like the rich” - wants to put up the country’s wealth tax; in French, impôt sur la fortune. Belgium, on the other hand “loves entrepreneurs,” says Brussels-based tax lawyer Manoel Dekeyser. Belgium’s salaried employees might suffer under some of the highest taxes in the European Union, but the fiscal system is quite forgiving for the cash-rich. “Half of all those who move to Belgium want to sell their company,” Dekeyser tells PublicServiceEurope.com . “They are usually aged between 40 and 50.” There is no capital gains tax in Belgium, meaning that those who sell a firm - provided they can prove residency - walk away with the entire profit. To preserve this money from France’s wealth tax, they often stay permanently in Belgium.

That's really scary. If he touches my stocks to spend on bullshit social subsidies, then I'll rape him.

[Behshad]

EUROFINS SCIENTIFIC, a bio-analytics firm, is the sort of enterprise that France boasts about. It is fast-growing, international and hungry to buy rivals. So people noticed when in March it decamped to Luxembourg. Observers reckon it was fleeing France’s high taxes. It will soon be joined by Sword Group, a successful software firm, which voted to move to Luxembourg last month.

François Hollande, the Socialist candidate, and the current favourite to win the second and final round on May 6th, has promised a top marginal income-tax rate of 75% for those earning over €1m ($1.3m). He has declared war on finance. he pledges, corporate taxes will rise and stock options will be outlawed.

François Hollande, the Socialist “My true adversary in this battle has no name, no face, no party ... It is the world of finance.”

__________________________________________________________

French elite are fleeing Paris, to live in Brussels ‘tax haven’
02 May 2012

Faced with increasing hostility at home, France’s moneyed classes are taking flight to Belgium because they do not like either Hollande or Sarkozy - Brussels, on the other hand, seems to cater for all of the needs of the rich

France’s wealthy do not feel the need to wait for the outcome of their country’s presidential election; they are already voting with their feet. Convinced the rich will no longer be welcome under the next government, many are moving to neighbouring Belgium. Calls from France to tax lawyers and estate agents in Brussels are increasing in frequency by the week. When Socialist candidate François Hollande, the pollsters’ favourite, broke clear of incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy after the first round of voting - Brussels estate agents reported receiving up to 20 calls a day from French house-hunters. Most were looking to rent four and five-bedroom properties in the capital’s most desirable districts with an average budget of €3,500 a month.

Hollande - who famously said he “doesn’t like the rich” - wants to put up the country’s wealth tax; in French, impôt sur la fortune. Belgium, on the other hand “loves entrepreneurs,” says Brussels-based tax lawyer Manoel Dekeyser. Belgium’s salaried employees might suffer under some of the highest taxes in the European Union, but the fiscal system is quite forgiving for the cash-rich. “Half of all those who move to Belgium want to sell their company,” Dekeyser tells PublicServiceEurope.com . “They are usually aged between 40 and 50.” There is no capital gains tax in Belgium, meaning that those who sell a firm - provided they can prove residency - walk away with the entire profit. To preserve this money from France’s wealth tax, they often stay permanently in Belgium.

That's really scary. If he touches my stocks to spend on bullshit social subsidies, then I'll rape him.

[parfait]

EUROFINS SCIENTIFIC, a bio-analytics firm, is the sort of enterprise that France boasts about. It is fast-growing, international and hungry to buy rivals. So people noticed when in March it decamped to Luxembourg. Observers reckon it was fleeing France’s high taxes. It will soon be joined by Sword Group, a successful software firm, which voted to move to Luxembourg last month.

François Hollande, the Socialist candidate, and the current favourite to win the second and final round on May 6th, has promised a top marginal income-tax rate of 75% for those earning over €1m ($1.3m). He has declared war on finance. he pledges, corporate taxes will rise and stock options will be outlawed.

François Hollande, the Socialist “My true adversary in this battle has no name, no face, no party ... It is the world of finance.”

__________________________________________________________

French elite are fleeing Paris, to live in Brussels ‘tax haven’
02 May 2012

Faced with increasing hostility at home, France’s moneyed classes are taking flight to Belgium because they do not like either Hollande or Sarkozy - Brussels, on the other hand, seems to cater for all of the needs of the rich

France’s wealthy do not feel the need to wait for the outcome of their country’s presidential election; they are already voting with their feet. Convinced the rich will no longer be welcome under the next government, many are moving to neighbouring Belgium. Calls from France to tax lawyers and estate agents in Brussels are increasing in frequency by the week. When Socialist candidate François Hollande, the pollsters’ favourite, broke clear of incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy after the first round of voting - Brussels estate agents reported receiving up to 20 calls a day from French house-hunters. Most were looking to rent four and five-bedroom properties in the capital’s most desirable districts with an average budget of €3,500 a month.

Hollande - who famously said he “doesn’t like the rich” - wants to put up the country’s wealth tax; in French, impôt sur la fortune. Belgium, on the other hand “loves entrepreneurs,” says Brussels-based tax lawyer Manoel Dekeyser. Belgium’s salaried employees might suffer under some of the highest taxes in the European Union, but the fiscal system is quite forgiving for the cash-rich. “Half of all those who move to Belgium want to sell their company,” Dekeyser tells PublicServiceEurope.com . “They are usually aged between 40 and 50.” There is no capital gains tax in Belgium, meaning that those who sell a firm - provided they can prove residency - walk away with the entire profit. To preserve this money from France’s wealth tax, they often stay permanently in Belgium.

That's really scary. If he touches my stocks to spend on bullshit social subsidies, then I'll rape him.

You deserve to be raped too, just for being you.

[Behshad]

EUROFINS SCIENTIFIC, a bio-analytics firm, is the sort of enterprise that France boasts about. It is fast-growing, international and hungry to buy rivals. So people noticed when in March it decamped to Luxembourg. Observers reckon it was fleeing France’s high taxes. It will soon be joined by Sword Group, a successful software firm, which voted to move to Luxembourg last month.

François Hollande, the Socialist candidate, and the current favourite to win the second and final round on May 6th, has promised a top marginal income-tax rate of 75% for those earning over €1m ($1.3m). He has declared war on finance. he pledges, corporate taxes will rise and stock options will be outlawed.

François Hollande, the Socialist “My true adversary in this battle has no name, no face, no party ... It is the world of finance.”

__________________________________________________________

French elite are fleeing Paris, to live in Brussels ‘tax haven’
02 May 2012

Faced with increasing hostility at home, France’s moneyed classes are taking flight to Belgium because they do not like either Hollande or Sarkozy - Brussels, on the other hand, seems to cater for all of the needs of the rich

France’s wealthy do not feel the need to wait for the outcome of their country’s presidential election; they are already voting with their feet. Convinced the rich will no longer be welcome under the next government, many are moving to neighbouring Belgium. Calls from France to tax lawyers and estate agents in Brussels are increasing in frequency by the week. When Socialist candidate François Hollande, the pollsters’ favourite, broke clear of incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy after the first round of voting - Brussels estate agents reported receiving up to 20 calls a day from French house-hunters. Most were looking to rent four and five-bedroom properties in the capital’s most desirable districts with an average budget of €3,500 a month.

Hollande - who famously said he “doesn’t like the rich” - wants to put up the country’s wealth tax; in French, impôt sur la fortune. Belgium, on the other hand “loves entrepreneurs,” says Brussels-based tax lawyer Manoel Dekeyser. Belgium’s salaried employees might suffer under some of the highest taxes in the European Union, but the fiscal system is quite forgiving for the cash-rich. “Half of all those who move to Belgium want to sell their company,” Dekeyser tells PublicServiceEurope.com . “They are usually aged between 40 and 50.” There is no capital gains tax in Belgium, meaning that those who sell a firm - provided they can prove residency - walk away with the entire profit. To preserve this money from France’s wealth tax, they often stay permanently in Belgium.

That's really scary. If he touches my stocks to spend on bullshit social subsidies, then I'll rape him.

You deserve to be raped too, just for being you.

Thank you dear.