You didn build that !

john b wrote: That math doesn't work either, 10,000 of the cars are built here and exported to Europe and sold as the Opel/Vauxhall. That accounts for $400,000,000 toward our trade deficit. Kinda makes the incentive look puny, along with the fact that many buyers don't get the full tax credit due to their tax status. The 30 sold to the French Embassy don't count either.

Are you sure?

But are you sure we are not subsidizing their sales?

john b wrote: can you be sure that your dreams are not reality and your waking hours a fantasy?

I am reasonably sure based on "the only thing that is certain is death and taxes theory". There is no tax assessment for dreaming, no wealth gets transferred, there is not even a budget, and I never die. Reality must be reality.

Pretty interesting stuff Bob Woodward's been writing the past few days.

Riley wrote: Pretty interesting stuff Bob Woodward's been writing the past few days.

I have not had the time to find and read the pieces, I have just heard some quotes, but it is neat to observe when people have an ahh-hah moment.

The evolving story with ICE releasing prisoners sounds like it is becoming another Benghazi. The initial story that it was a rogue decision changed yesterday to it having been ordered by homeland security a week ago. The numbers released are about triple the 8.5% cut "needed". With the media on their side this administration seems to think it can lie with impunity. I have never seen such fear mongering or such blatant abuse of power trying to ensure a 1% reduction of spending causes the most visible harm possible to further the spend and tax agenda.

I didn't see it, but aparantly our local National Guard packed up and left today; guns and all.

That is exactly what the inmates running the asylum want you to think.

Well, Dave,
At least we are moving in the right direction. Since the top 20% hold more than 85% of the wealth, they are still screwing the dog, paying less than their share. We can only hope it gets back to the "good old days".
Top tax rates by year;

35.0 percent;   2012
39.6 percent:   2000
31 percent:      1991
50 percent:      1986
70 percent:      1980
91 percent:      1963
84.4 percent:   1950
94 percent:      1945
79 percent:      1939
63 percent:      1935
25 percent:      1931
46 percent:      1924
73 percent:      1921

john b wrote: Well, Dave, At least we are moving in the right direction. Since the top 20% hold more than 85% of the wealth, they are still screwing the dog, paying less than their share. We can only hope it gets back to the "good old days". Top tax rates by year; 35.0 percent;   2012 39.6 percent:   2000 31 percent:      1991 50 percent:      1986 70 percent:      1980 91 percent:      1963 84.4 percent:   1950 94 percent:      1945 79 percent:      1939 63 percent:      1935 25 percent:      1931 46 percent:      1924 73 percent:      1921

That 1931 rate would be fine with me!

I came across a thought provoking interview today. One snippet is shared below. You can find more if you follow the link.

"For top earners, we need more research, but I have yet to see a study that shows me that when you increase top tax rates, top earners work less. An interesting study that was done by Robert Moffitt and Mark Wilhelm using the tax overhaul of 1986—Reagan’s big second tax reform. The study showed that when Reagan cut the top tax rate, pre-tax top income surged, but the authors looked at the hours of work of those high earners and couldn’t see any effect on their reported hours. Of course, it was a small sample, but I hope that in the future, researchers can look at margins like retirement—do highly paid executives retire earlier now that Obama has raised their tax rates? That’s exactly the type of study we need. And of course I would revise my views if you showed me convincingly that those top guys are indeed working a lot less."

Taxing Away Inequality
A Conversation with Emmanuel Saez

The only citizens pushed into a corner with the sequestration are those who will be layed off. none of the politicians are affected by this.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (sequestration) was supported by both sides of the isle, but far more Republicans than Democrats voted in favor.

House vote;
"Passed with amendment by recorded vote"
Vote by party     Yea     Nay     NV     Total
Democrats          95       95       3       193
Republicans        174     66       0       240

Senate vote;
"Agreed in the House amendment to the bill by Yea-Nay Vote"
Vote by party     Yea     Nay     NV     Total
Democrats          45        6        0     51
Republicans        28       19       0     47
Independents      1        1        0     2

It is not a party line issue, it is a "I really don't care about my country or those who elected me" issue. Naturally the posturing and finger pointing has now begun.

john b wrote: The only citizens pushed into a corner with the sequestration are those who will be layed off. none of the politicians are affected by this. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (sequestration) was supported by both sides of the isle, but far more Republicans than Democrats voted in favor. House vote; "Passed with amendment by recorded vote" Vote by party     Yea     Nay     NV     Total Democrats          95       95       3       193 Republicans        174     66       0       240 Senate vote; "Agreed in the House amendment to the bill by Yea-Nay Vote" Vote by party     Yea     Nay     NV     Total Democrats          45        6        0     51 Republicans        28       19       0     47 Independents      1        1        0     2 It is not a party line issue, it is a "I really don't care about my country or those who elected me" issue. Naturally the posturing and finger pointing has now begun.

!. It was barracks idea, and he signed it into law. Now he says it is stupid.
2. Republicans in the house passed two alternative bills to ease the impact. Dems in the senate took no action on the republican bills and failed to pass any of their own.

3. The sequester only cuts the increase in spending, the federal budget is bigger this year than last. Why is it we can no longer pay for what we paid for last year with a bigger budget than we had last year? Almost seems like the cuts are being made by a spoiled child who wants them to look as bad as possible so no one ever tries to do it again, almost.......

john b wrote: OverMyHead wrote: JoeinNY wrote: OverMyHead wrote: That 1931 rate would be fine with me! Ahh yes the good old days of the Great Depression .... I said I liked the RATE! John seems to think anything historical is good. We have that in common, Dave. We never would have met if not for these historical CCs.

Very true, and yet none of us seems to be collecting t-18's



Historical yes, but a good idea????????

Dave....that very issue has been discussed heavily on my Favorite News Channel

davidg wrote: Dave....that very issue has been discussed heavily on my Favorite News Channel

Dave, I almost did not post about this for that very reason. I am not a shill for anyone. I (apparently like many others) was taken back to the Benghazi speech the second I heard the word justice. I find his use of the word justice interesting because justice in this administration has proven not to be blind, it is in the eye of the beholder. (It's interesting that "Holder" is in beholder). So if the person speaking of justice believes a radical cause is "just", then doing nothing is "justice". "Just" a thought.

Speaking of the eye of the beholder. I cannot believe that Obama at least Biden will not attend Thatchers funeral. England is our historic strongest ally, and Thacher on of its all time most influential leaders. quite a "dis" based on ideology.