Ok..i'll Admit It - I Voted Democrat Because

[UNTflyer]

More on the "Bush Deregulation Myth"

Like the alligators lurking in New York City sewers, Bush's massive regulatory rollback is mostly urban legend. Far from throwing out the rulebook, the administration has expanded it: Since Bush became president, the Federal Register -- the government's annual compendium of proposed and finalized regulations -- has run to more than 74,000 pages every year but one. During the Clinton years, by contrast, the Federal Register reached that length just once.

Similarly, the administration has broken every previous record for regulatory agency spending. According to researchers at Washington University and George Mason University, appropriations for federal regulatory functions have soared during the Bush years. Adjusting for inflation, the regulatory budget has grown from $25 billion in fiscal year 2000 to an estimated $43 billion in FY 2009 -- a 70 percent increase. "In constant dollars," writes James Freeman in the Wall Street Journal, "the Bush regulatory budget increases vastly exceed those of predecessors Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and, yes, Lyndon Johnson." Staffing has skyrocketed, too. Regulatory agencies employed 175,000 people in 2000. They employ nearly 264,000 today. (Some of that reflects the Transportation Security Administration's takeover of airport security screening in 2003.)

Amid the stress and storm of the financial crisis, "deregulation" makes a convenient villain. But the facts tell a different story: The nation's regulatory burden has grown heavier, not lighter, since Bush entered the White House. Too little government wasn't what made the economy sick. Too much government isn't going to make it better.

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/602/the-great-bu...regulation-myth

[oldguystudent]

Uhh, yeah. The same suggestion we've been presenting for 20 years... eliminate the capital gains tax, which is nothing more than double taxation.

Eliminate capital gains taxes and the Dow will shoot up 5,000 points and banks will be eager to lend money.

I'll add that I believe dividends to be double taxed. I'd rather see those become tax exempt than capital gains. I'm of the probably misinformed opinion that it would bring fundamentals back to business instead of questionable practices that drive stock prices up to artificial prices.

[UNTflyer]

I'll add that I believe dividends to be double taxed. I'd rather see those become tax exempt than capital gains. I'm of the probably misinformed opinion that it would bring fundamentals back to business instead of questionable practices that drive stock prices up to artificial prices.

Actually, capital gains are triple taxed.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb64...33/ai_n29237117

Tax #1 - My paycheck is taxed.

Tax #2 - I take what's left after being taxed and buy 100 shares of GE. The income of the company is taxed, and what is left over is earnings for the company.

Tax #3 - I sell my 100 shares and I'm taxed, not on the amount I EARNED but on the amount the stock is worth when I cashed out.

[oldguystudent]

Actually, capital gains are triple taxed.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb64...33/ai_n29237117

Tax #1 - My paycheck is taxed.

Tax #2 - I take what's left after being taxed and buy 100 shares of GE. The income of the company is taxed, and what is left over is earnings for the company.

Tax #3 - I sell my 100 shares and I'm taxed, not on the amount I EARNED but on the amount the stock is worth when I cashed out.

You know, you have a point there. If mortgage interest is a tax deduction, then investment should also be. Same formula still applies to dividends though. My paycheck is taxed, I buy stocks and the company's earnings are taxed, then my dividends are taxed. Then, when I sell the stock, I'm taxed on the capital gains. That would be the hat trick plus one.

ETA -- A long time ago, before I ever understood the multiplier effect on spending and money supply, I realized that every time a dollar changes hands, the government takes a piece of it. If you and I stood in the parking lot handed a dollar back and forth, it would eventually dwindle down to nothing.

Edited March 7, 2009 by oldguystudent

[UNTflyer]

I'll say this about Obama... he's enabling me to find lots of bargains right now.

Earlier this week those hypothetical 100 shares of GE right now would cost you only $587. On inauguration day it would have been $1400, and a year ago it would have been $3,843. It's the Obama Stimulus Fire Sale!!!

Edited March 7, 2009 by UNTflyer

[oldguystudent]

I'll say this about Obama... he's enabling me to find lots of bargains right now.

Earlier this week those hypothetical 100 shares of GE right now would cost you only $587. On inauguration day it would have been $1400, and a year ago it would have been $3,843. It's the Obama Stimulus Fire Sale!!!

I need to look up GE. Last time they were considered cheap, they were at $23, but their pension plan was overfunded in the billions. Easy sell for us on the floor. I'm curious where that component stands these days.

[UNT90]

Its a small price to pay for having who I believe to be the right leadership in office right now.

Wow. This statement could be applied to so many in history, and rarely in a good way. Never a good thing to pay any type of price to have a charismatic leader. Ask Germany, Italy, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, etc... Usually that price is personal freedoms disguised as necessary sacrafices. Not that it will happen, but it constantly amazes me that people think our form of govt will never change. The coming 2 years will provide just that opportunity for the people that want it to happen.

Wealth destruction is NEVER a good thing. I'll put my money back in the market (ie, invest in companies, large and small) when the market hits 4500. And even then I may have to endure a temporary loss.

Being financially leaderless in this economy is a recipe for something which few in this country are prepared. Hang on, it's gonna be a bumpy and protracted economic ride.

So confused why people think this is the right leadership when this Pres has done nothing but go to school and run for office. Not a lot of life experience there. But, man, he sure does talk nice.

[greenminer]

Incredible. FNMA bought our department lunch. I got to build my 10" Cavalli's oven roasted pizza, as did every one else!

Thank you FNMA stimulus. Thank you tax payers. Thank you elephants.

[oldguystudent]

I have voted Democrat most of my life because I value their social platform over the Republican's economic stance. When I voted for Obama, I think I grossly underestimated the power that Nancy Pelosi would wield based on her feeling of entitlement with a Democratic president. I think I would like to see an Obama presidency with a Republican house in 2010. It's all about balance, isn't it? Reagan got great things done with a Democratic house, and Clinton got some good things done with a Republican house. Checks and balances. We had 8 years of Republicans in the house and presidency, and now we've swung polar opposite. I don't think it's ever good to have one party running both branches.

[UNT90]

I have voted Democrat most of my life because I value their social platform over the Republican's economic stance. When I voted for Obama, I think I grossly underestimated the power that Nancy Pelosi would wield based on her feeling of entitlement with a Democratic president. I think I would like to see an Obama presidency with a Republican house in 2010. It's all about balance, isn't it? Reagan got great things done with a Democratic house, and Clinton got some good things done with a Republican house. Checks and balances. We had 8 years of Republicans in the house and presidency, and now we've swung polar opposite. I don't think it's ever good to have one party running both branches.

Actually, just the opposite. Thinks DON'T get done when when the two branches are split. And thats a very positive thing!! Money doesn't get spent. Social agendas don't get passed. It is probably the best form of govt, doing as little as possible.

Oops, missed that last line. Glad to see you'll be voting repub in the midterms.

Edited March 7, 2009 by UNT90

[oldguystudent]

Actually, just the opposite. Thinks DON'T get done when when the two branches are split. And thats a very positive thing!! Money doesn't get spent. Social agendas don't get passed. It is probably the best form of govt, doing as little as possible.

Well that's kinda' my point. When you have both parties in place, only the important things get done. The agendas get killed.

[UNTflyer]

I think I would like to see an Obama presidency with a Republican house in 2010.

You may get that wish. He's pissed off a lot of people, and Democrats typically sit at home in mid-terms. "Huh? Wha- What election? Didn't we just have one two years ago?"

I agree, divided government is good government. My favorite time in politics is when Congress adjourns... means they aren't making laws to make us miserable.

[UNT90]

Well that's kinda' my point. When you have both parties in place, only the important things get done. The agendas get killed.

I gotta quite responding after reading the first sentence. Damn ADD.

[UNTflyer]

Thank God we have a leader who will repair our relations with the world, a world that clearly despises and hates us (even though they all want to come here).

President Obama has been rudeness personified towards Britain this week. His handling of the visit of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to Washington was appalling. First Brown wasn't granted a press conference with flags, then one was hastily arranged in the Oval office after the Brits had to beg. Obama looked like he would rather have been anywhere else than welcoming the British leader to his office and topped it all with his choice of present for the PM. A box of 25 DVDS including ET, the Wizard of Oz and Star Wars? Oh, give me strength. We do have television and DVD stores on this side of the Atlantic. Even Gordon Brown will have seen those films too often already.

This was coupled with Michelle Obama's casual choice of gifts for the Brown sons - matching models of the helicopter which ferry her husband around. While Sarah Brown had spent time choosing gifts for the Obama girls, Michelle had clearly sent an aide to the White House gift shop at the last moment.

If Obama, or someone in his inner circle, had spent two minutes thinking about what present to get Brown then they could easily have come up with something appropriate. He likes books. He loves American history. Get him a signed first edition of a good Robert Dallek book such as the brilliant Flawed Giant on LBJ. Come to think of it, Obama should read it too, if he hasn't yet, as it reveals a great deal about how a Presidency can go so wrong.

[oldguystudent]

Thank God we have a leader who will repair our relations with the world, a world that clearly despises and hates us (even though they all want to come here).

Any halfwit know that this is the appropriate gift for a brit.

[CaribbeanGreen]

what, i don't get to see illuvius type "banhammer" again? That's like, one of my top three GMG moments.

[UNTFan23]

what, i don't get to see illuvius type "banhammer" again? That's like, one of my top three GMG moments.

There was drama the last time the hammer went down.

[UNTflyer]

Any halfwit know that this is the appropriate gift for a brit.

Or this...

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Actually, capital gains are triple taxed.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb64...33/ai_n29237117

Tax #1 - My paycheck is taxed.

Tax #2 - I take what's left after being taxed and buy 100 shares of GE. The income of the company is taxed, and what is left over is earnings for the company.

Tax #3 - I sell my 100 shares and I'm taxed, not on the amount I EARNED but on the amount the stock is worth when I cashed out.

#3 is so wrong... You are taxed on the gains** (EARNED as you called in) .. Obviously you are not one of the super rich that has been getting all the breaks either that are you have royally screwing yourself on your income tax. ----------Think what you just said---- You could buy stocks one day and sell it the next for exactly the same amount and you would owe a lot of taxes... that is crazy.

#2 is sort of a stretch.. What is left of income after expenses and taxes is the earnings which might become dividends or may be just kept by the company for expansion, debt payment, or what ever reason they want to use it for. .

** that is why they are called capital gains

I certainly hope you don't have a degree in business..if so NT should refund some of your money.

Edited March 7, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTflyer]

#3 is so wrong... You are taxed on the gains** (EARNED as you called in) .. Obviously you are not one of the super rich that has been getting all the breaks either that are you have royally screwing yourself on your income tax. ----------Think what you just said---- You could buy stocks one day and sell it the next for exactly the same amount and you would owe a lot of taxes... that is crazy.

#2 is sort of a stretch.. What is left of income after expenses and taxes is the earnings which might become dividends or may be just kept by the company for expansion, debt payment, or what ever reason they want to use it for. .

** that is why they are called capital gains

I certainly hope you don't have a degree in business..if so NT should refund some of your money.

You're right on #3. I was thinking back to when I exercised my stock options, which work a little differently. You are taxed on the total amount cashed out.

But I am right on #2. As a shareholder, I am "the company". Whether the earnings are retained or paid out in a dividend, I am still taxed as part owner of the company.

But I see you did not address the main point... Republicans do have a better idea and that's to let the People keep more of the money they earn and to encourage investment by removing the triple taxation on investors.

And I did get a business degree from UNT... graduated cum laude.

[hickoryhouse]

And I did get a business degree from UNT... graduated cum laude.

I also like to cum laude, preferrably is a 69'

Sorry I had a kevin smith moment

[greenminer]

I also like to cum laude, preferrably is a 69'

Sorry I had a kevin smith moment

/Comiconed?

[UNTflyer]

I also like to cum laude, preferrably is a 69'

Sorry I had a kevin smith moment

[El Paso Eagle]

You seemed to left off a few details.... It went down during the entire year of 2008... a full year before Obama became President.

The problems started in last administration...if not why the bail out in Sept by Bush. ???

It had dropped 5200 points under Bush and 1500 since then.

And I'm sure Pelosi, Reid and Company had nothing to add to this...

[UNT90]

You seemed to left off a few details.... It went down during the entire year of 2008... a full year before Obama became President.

Again the Whole Truth seems to be a problem....Look at the last number...

The Dow

Date Open High Low Close Avg Vol Adj Close*

Mar-09 7,056.48 7,056.48 6,531.28 6,594.44 9,534,909,800 6,594.44

Feb-09 8,000.62 8,376.56 6,952.06 7,062.93 7,022,036,200 7,062.93

Jan-09 8,772.25 9,175.19 7,856.86 8,000.86 5,844,561,500 8,000.86

Dec-08 8,826.89 9,151.61 8,072.47 8,776.39 5,320,791,300 8,776.39

Nov-08 9,326.04 9,711.46 7,392.27 8,829.04 6,199,530,000 8,829.04

Oct-08 10,847.40 11,022.06 7,773.71 9,336.93 7,290,362,100 9,336.93

Sep-08 11,545.63 11,831.29 10,266.76 10,850.66 7,009,506,600 10,850.66

Aug-08 11,379.89 11,933.55 11,144.59 11,543.55 4,264,482,300 11,543.55

Jul-08 11,344.64 11,820.21 10,731.96 11,378.02 5,923,937,200 11,378.02

Jun-08 12,637.67 12,652.81 11,226.34 11,350.01 4,840,303,300 11,350.01

May-08 12,818.34 13,191.49 12,397.56 12,638.32 4,039,814,700 12,638.32

Apr-08 12,266.64 13,052.91 12,208.42 12,820.13 4,113,069,000 12,820.13

Mar-08 12,264.36 12,687.61 11,650.44 12,262.89 4,661,172,000 12,262.89

Feb-08 12,638.17 12,841.88 12,006.79 12,266.39 4,148,143,000 12,266.39

Jan-08 13,261.82 13,338.23 11,508.74 12,650.36 4,925,982,300 12,650.36

Dec-07 13,368.22 13,850.92 13,059.32 13,264.82 3,299,866,500 13,264.82

Not a pretty chart.. but just look at last number. The problems started in last administration...if not why the bail out in Sept by Bush. ???

It had dropped 5200 points under Bush and 1500 since then.

The GOP people hate colleges and the mainstream media who actually check facts.

This will be the liberal game plan for the next two years. It's all Bush's fault. It doesn't matter if the market drops to 3000, that, too, will be Bush's fault.

It doesn't matter if Pres. Obama's policies lead us into a prolonged depression, that will be Bush's fault, much like FDR's failed policies were blamed on Hoover.

I'd like some of the left leaners on here to tell me exactly when Pres. Obama becomes responsible for what happens with this economy. Next year? 2011? Never??

Seriously, WRITE IT DOWN NOW. Lets see how many respond.

Time to look forward, not backward. To quote someone I read somewhere FIX THE PROBLEM (which for the fed govt means let the problem fix itself)