Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,534,772 times
Reputation: 2038
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Thanks for not contributing one darn thing to the thread...
What do you mean? Obama could not find out something, about a major company going bankrupt, the reasons why, in the same manner than you and I could?
By staying on top of the news and reading a......paper or magazine?
What do you mean? Obama could not find out something, about a major company going bankrupt, the reasons why, in the same manner than you and I could?
By staying on top of the news and reading a......paper or magazine?
Note, Palin is not the topic of the thread (even though I noted that you couldnt help insulting her out of left field), but... A company going bankrupt could be due to hundreds of reasons, not always CEO fraud, and not always reported in the paper.. (in fact the reason WHY, is rarely noted)
Are you now proposing that CEO's should be buying reportes to report false news stories about why their companies have gone down? Please find a few news stories where CEO's admit.. Yes, I messed up, it was my fault to a reporter..
The post above speaks volumes. Clinton cut funds for the military causing the "unprepared military" for the 9/11 response.
You can not forget 9/11 in terms of economy. The tax cuts where there to curb 9/11 and the 10th worst stock market crash of all time in the US. The bubble was set. The housing market deregulated. The system was setup to fail. Bush tried over and over to fix it only to come in conflict with democrats.
September 11, 2003
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago
Yet Buffett starts by making the extraordinary claim that he and his receptionist currently both pay the same 30% of their very different incomes to the federal government. This is pretty much impossible unless receptionists in Omaha are paid more than the CEO's of the companies they work for. Buffett takes a salary of $100,000 from Berkshire Hathaway (according to the company's most recent proxy statement) -- and assuming that his receptionist makes the same amount, then her average federal tax rate would be something like 16%, according to the IRS's online calculator. Adding the 6.2% payroll tax paid by her employer, we get to about 22%. Her salary would have to be about $250,000 to get up to the 30% Buffett claims. Can I have her job?
Quote:
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7% on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30%
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
