Re: Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.
 

tomorrow, and into the future, when you all see Beslan photos over and over- if you are bothered I apologize.

I suggest you pm adder and tell him to leave the board or behave properly- and tell Ty to delete these several posts

Re: Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.
 

baseless? really?

Re: Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.
 

Again, no matter what you might think, for the record: In my view, you can post anything you would like to post. There is nothing you could post that I would say falls in the realm of the unacceptable, although local and federal law enforcement may disagree with me.

But again, the retreat from your initial apparent point is a bit overwhelming. I (and everyone else) will assume that you now recognize that your initial (juvenile) statements are not your actual beliefs.

Re: Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.
 

Yes.

I will be happy to sue your clients, though.

Re: Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.
 

Once again, as though truth is found only in what the cowardly majority finds palatable.

What kind of brave "conservative" or you?

Re: Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.
 

I have to flag you here, Hank. I wouldn't brag about having a "successful career at a US government agency." It's like saying you won "Best Finger Painter" among the short bus crowd. The govt's where you get wired to make money in a later private sector job manipulating those in their previous agency lacking the talent to leave and make money in the private sector manipulating those those in your previous agency lacking the talent to leave and... etc...

You had the good goddamned sense to get out. That's your success.

Re: Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.
 

In order...

1. Indeed. "Tax Attorney" existing as a subspecialty only since 1982... I believe it came in just as disco was waning.

2. You wouldn't if I did, and you've no evidence of the opposite, so drop the debating trope.

3. They might. It's my opinion they won't. I've couched it as nothing else.

4. I think its more pointless regulation. No nation has ever taxed itself to prosperity (some knucklehead will make the argument one has, but it'll be one of the posters who's never managed anything but picking up a paycheck and dicking around with legal arguments... a wonk with shit for brains [no offence, Wonk]).

5. Agreed.

6. The glaring exception doesn't disprove the rule.

7. Yeah, and that does wonders for creation of small businesses.

Carry on.
 

Truly, a surprising time for a K race.

Rev. Moore was right!
 

Bristol Palin got a 666 score from the judges last night - coincidence?!

Re: Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.
 

If there's one thing we learned in 2008, it's that giving people more control over their own finances -- the "ownership society" -- was truly a panacea.

What planet do you live on, Sebby? Most people make choices based on the short-term. That's not an "elitist" view -- I know plenty of so-called "elites" who make stupid financial choices. It's a realist view. And 2008 showed us that we're so interconnected, with the so-called "spreading of risk," that the aggregate of these stupid choices is financial disaster.

Now you want to apply that same wisdom to tax collection? Yeah, right. "The market will keep people honest," right?

Go to Vegas. Watch people chain-smoke, eat Krispy Kremes, and play slots until they are well past broke. And tell me how good most people are at "taking control over their own shit." Hell, you can't even save enough to afford good Scotch.

Re: Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.
 

It would create a new lending product for payment of taxes due. But that would be a product that would only arise if it were exempt from BK discharge, like the taxes themselves.

As long as it's not freedom to, well, you know...
 

"We are going to have to choose, as a nation, between the homosexual agenda and freedom, because the two cannot coexist.”

Re: As long as it's not freedom to, well, you know...
 

I don't know if it's fair to use quotes from people who are paid to be idiots, at a convention for "values voters". Fair to ask the politicians who were there (as in, at this particular speech) if they agree with that position or not, but that's about the extent of it.

Re: Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.
 

I see it differently. I see a situation where idiots and greedheads loaning money to people who can't handle their own finances made a mess that caused problems for the rest of us. Had those of us who knew better not lost our minds - not thrown fundamentals out the window - and refused to lend to people with no hope of repayment, we'd have been fine. There'd have been no bubble; we'd still be delevering from the 2000 tech implosion.

The aggregate of these choices is disaster only to the extent we allow the failures of those who make bad decisions become shared liabilities for the rest of us. We can't afford any more bailouts. In the future, when short-term thinkers fail, they're going to be on their own. I say we should start preparing people for that. And really, can anyone argue against enhanced education of the public re: financial planning/investing? How can that hurt us?

I don't think the market will keep tax avoiders honest. I think a simplification of tax law would go a long way toward removing the loopholes which allow so much avoidance to take place. I've a menu of neat deductions to use right now to pare down my liability. If you removed a bunch of them, I'd have to pay more. The idiocy at the heart of government is belief more statutory devices equal better results. In regard to taxes, they only increase the level of avoidance. They are, in fact, the exclusive instrumentality of avoidance. Remove the endless complexities and I think you'll realize far more revenue.

We're better off letting the dumb weed themselves out of the system early. A fool who eats badly and smokes often dies before he takes a penny from the retirement benefits system. An idiot who spends beyond his means and fails spectacularly may very well wind up homeless, cutting years off his existence - again at benefit to our retirement benefit plans. I say educate people to better handle themselves. If they take the lesson, excellent. If not, we're better off without them. That's cold, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. A shrewder society can hardly be viewed as a bad thing. And really, argue against it as much as you like, that is the ultimate natural law. We can try to subvert as we like, but the "thinning of the herd" will continually take place. I say admit the reality of it and prepare people for it, rather than edging them cynically toward a more involved nanny-state we can't afford and would only further degrade our already infantile, naive culture.

Now go ahead, call me an ogre.

Re: As long as it's not freedom to, well, you know...
 

I just like the quote. The never ending battle between freedom and it's all-too-free enemies never ceases to amuse me.