Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 204

Thread: Trayvon Martin

  1. #161
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Metuchen, NJ
    Posts
    3,631

    Default Re: Trayvon Martin

    Do you see anyone talking about how to avoid a situation like this from happening in the future? NO....

    It's ALL about placing blame on someone who was not a career criminal.

    And the media slanting the truth.
    Good hunting, be safe and enjoy your back-country adventures!
    NRA Benefactor Life Member
    United Bowhunters of N.J. Life Member
    Trout Unlimited Life Member
    www.triggerthevote.org
    http://www.nranews.com
    http://www.ussportsmen.org
    CJRPC & ANJRPC Life Member


    "If your not working to protect hunting/AMERICA, Then you are working to destroy it"

    -Fred Bear

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    1,371

    Default Re: Trayvon Martin

    Rob, the 15% rate is on capital gains, which is not out of line. Capital gains rates need to be low to encourge investment. CEOs are taxed on income at a much higher rate. Don't confuse the two.

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    1,171

    Default Re: Trayvon Martin

    Kevin, Rob may have been referring to CEOs of private equity firms or hedge funds, etc. Their pay is usually in shares which is called something like "converted carry". It is taxed at 15% capital gain rates This is why Warren Buffet and Romney (when he was running Bain) pay (or payed) at the 15% rate. I don't understand the rational for this being different than any other earned income, other than it was lobbied for and put into law.

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mohawk Valley
    Posts
    9,634

    Default Re: Trayvon Martin

    Taxes should be collected for the purpose of operating the government - period. If you want to subsidize or encourage or reward some specific conduct do so directly. Burying crap in 66,000 pages of tax law is sneaky, underhanded and unacceptable.

    Robcollins: I said: "leftists in this country and elsewhere don't like being compared to the likes of Hitler, et al. despite the fact that there isn't a smidgen of difference between them. Have you noticed that the left believes the only way you accomplish anything is at gunpoint?"

    You replied: "Ralph, you have no clue... Hitler killed Catholics, (<=that's me) Jews, lots of others and yet the left in the US is usually identified as being "anti" gun."

    I really don't know what you think you are saying here. The left is anti-gun for everybody but themselves. You only get to be a really good mass-murderer when you can employ the powers of government. Bundy, Dahmer et al. were trivial compared to Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and that whole slimy crew who mudered in the thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions. It follows that the more unchecked power the government has the more likely that power will be abused.

    My reference to "gunpoint" above referred to the use of law/regulations employing government force - ultimately pointing a gun at you - to push some particular agenda. You need not go to the extreme of murder, a not-very-bright bureaucrat armed with a rule book can do just about as much damage.

    Left to its own devices a government will do what is pleases, to whomever it pleases, in any way it pleases and this is what the left wants to do. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit and restrict the powers of government by providing checks against unlimited power. Just listen to Obama and his synchophants whine about how their power is restricted by congress or the courts if you don't believe me.
    Last edited by Ralph; 04-09-2012 at 09:21 AM.

  5. #165
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Jet Capital, washington
    Posts
    2,547

    Default Re: Trayvon Martin

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedlam View Post
    No, Nazi's were not left wing, the political system of fascism is about as far to the right as you can go. On the other end (extreme left) of the political spectrum would be Socialism and Communism.

    Ryan

    Bedlam,

    You've accepted Stalin's propaganda if you believe that the German national socialist party is "rightwing". Jonah Goldberg does a good job tracing the roots of this error in his book "Liberal Fascism".

    Or Friedrich Hayek makes note of the same thing, with his observation that in 1920's and early 1930's Germany the best recruiting pools for both the Communists and the Nazi's were each other. You can also look at the platforms of the two and see how similar they are.

    The main difference between the two is scope. Communists want worldwide socialism of the worker. National socialists or fascists want socialism for their nation (Mussolini) or their particular defined class of persons (Aryans).

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Jet Capital, washington
    Posts
    2,547

    Default Re: Trayvon Martin

    Quote Originally Posted by robcollins View Post
    I had a political science professor about 15 years ago who described extremists from either side as resembling each other, and using the examples of Hitler and Stalin. I think the equation really is that they both were authoritarian extremists.
    I think that's a cop out, a way of ignoring something important by glossing it over with, "OH they're both just extreme." Well, extreme what? How will this professor's students know what kind of extreme agenda items they need to resist?

    Quote Originally Posted by robcollins View Post
    I think most here, based on this video, would call themselves constitutional moderates. I think the terms "Democrat" and "Republican" do just fine as far as differentiating, but sadly, I think most Republicans don't acknowledge that the real issue isn't gun control, abortion, or freedom of religion, but rather, it's taxation, and how CEO's get to pay only 15% if they structure their compensation as dividends.

    I think republicans stand for corporate welfare, although I don't think they realize it in most cases.
    1. The taxation method should not be via income. The worst thing an income tax does is to enable envy at a government level. The data from the income tax is used to "prove" all sorts of social programs are "necessary".

    2. The US should have tax policy that make it the most attractive place for capital on the planet. Most secure, lowest taxation, most efficient business environment, most honest citizenry, etc.

    3. We need to quit focusing on a few rich people. Give it a few generations and they will be dust like everything else.

    4. The Democrats and Republicans need to stop thinking that government can solve all, or even many, problems. You won't see payments made to corporations as part of our national debt problem. There shouldn't be any, and there shouldn't be any tax favoritism, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to middle-class entitlement programs, you know the two worst offenders in that category.

  7. #167
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Centennial, CO
    Posts
    1,088

    Default Re: Trayvon Martin

    Quote Originally Posted by Kmassaro View Post
    Rob, the 15% rate is on capital gains, which is not out of line. Capital gains rates need to be low to encourge investment. CEOs are taxed on income at a much higher rate. Don't confuse the two.
    It's also allowable on dividend income, which caused a significant shift in how executive compensation happens. Instead of being paid "salaries," they're paid in executive stock options (my wife's a payroll director, I'm a financial analyst) so instead of reducing a company's net income, they're paid directly out of retained earnings without the tax benefit. (contrary to the interest of the company, but, it gets them the 15% dividend tax rate, also contrary to the interests of STOCKHOLDERS)

    Aren't you getting paid in stock options? (chuckling) For smaller businesses, this is obviously less of an issue, limited number of stockholders, lower executive compensation levels sustainable by smaller enterprises, therefore closer matching of performance to compensation. But when executive comp proceeds beyond the six figure range, it gets really meaningful.

  8. #168
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Centennial, CO
    Posts
    1,088

    Default Re: Trayvon Martin

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph View Post
    Taxes should be collected for the purpose of operating the government - period. If you want to subsidize or encourage or reward some specific conduct do so directly. Burying crap in 66,000 pages of tax law is sneaky, underhanded and unacceptable. (agree completely with this)

    I really don't know what you think you are saying here. The left is anti-gun for everybody but themselves. (Brady was "right wing", and I know a lot of Democrats that are pro gun, I think we agree there) You only get to be a really good mass-murderer when you can employ the powers of government. Bundy, Dahmer et al. were trivial compared to Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and that whole slimy crew who mudered in the thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions. It follows that the more unchecked power the government has the more likely that power will be abused. (agree with you here too. I'd like to see the BATF dissolved. I've got a Yugo M92 kit that I haven't built just because of the cost of retaining the folding stock, and the disagreement with paying a tax to support an agency that would love to figure a way to take everything I've got if they could paint me as a criminal, which, I'm not. I don't see either party gutting that corrupt organization, their support goes clear to the attorney general. My parts sit in cosmolene for now, the receiver, without cuts for the folding trunion....)

    My reference to "gunpoint" above referred to the use of law/regulations employing government force - ultimately pointing a gun at you - to push some particular agenda. You need not go to the extreme of murder, a not-very-bright bureaucrat armed with a rule book can do just about as much damage.

    Left to its own devices a government will do what is pleases, to whomever it pleases, in any way it pleases and this is what the left wants to do. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit and restrict the powers of government by providing checks against unlimited power. Just listen to Obama and his synchophants whine about how their power is restricted by congress or the courts if you don't believe me. (I think their whining is more about the purely obstructionist policies of GOP members of congress, who I view as willing to bring down our economy just to prove the point government is too damned big. During FDR's presidency, big government took over where private enterprise couldn't/wouldn't, so the $14 trillion deficit, I don't like, but prefer to complete collapse and ceding control over to the chinese who do far more to manipulate things to their favor, and our detriment.
    I think many of your statements, this one in particular "Left to its own devices a government will do what is pleases, to whomever it pleases, in any way it pleases and this is what the left wants to do." readily apply to the right wing more readily than to the left. I see pure unadulterated selfishness and greed in their platform of protecting the haves while outsourcing jobs of the have less's to the lowest bidder..

    I apologize if I've been disrespectful to anyone on here, I know (hope) that your responses to this thread are inspired not by self interest, but rather by the fear for the way of life we've all enjoyed. I wish that that would come closer to calming the hateful rhetoric.

    More than anything, I hope that I hope the original intent of the start of the thread causes a lot of thought for ccw holders and your role in protecting your family first, and the constitution, whether you've taken an oath or not.

  9. #169
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mohawk Valley
    Posts
    9,634

    Default Re: Trayvon Martin

    "I think many of your statements, this one in particular "Left to its own devices a government will do what is pleases, to whomever it pleases, in any way it pleases and this is what the left wants to do." readily apply to the right wing more readily than to the left."

    Here again, I think you confuse the right and left. Forget what your nitwit professors taught. The far left would have government empowered to do anything and everything without restraint, the far right would have no government at all. The constitutional moderates (and I find I like the definition explained in a previous post) realize that some government is necessary as a matter of practicality and that government must have the power to do something in order to function, but that power must be closely defined and restrained.

    All along, I have stated that the individual citizen has the right to do whateber he pleases except for a few things specifically - and clearly - forbidden, and those things are the subeject of the penal code. Government, on the other hand, including government agents and agencies, can do only those things specifically authorized and those things are the subject of the constitution.

    When it come to interpretation, matters affecting the rights, perogatives and privileges of the individual private citizen must be interpreted as broadly as possible while restrictions on citizens must be interpreted as narrowly as possible. In matters pertaining to the powers of government are exactly reversed, the powers of government must be interpreted as narrowly as possible while the duties, responsibilities and restrictions placed upon government must be interpreted as broadly as possible. If there is a tie, the citizens must always win.

    "I see pure unadulterated selfishness and greed in their platform of protecting the haves while outsourcing jobs of the have less's to the lowest bidder.. "

    A citizen or a privately owned company may do whatever it wishes - or that the stockholders let them get away with. Except in a very narrow sense, and that concerning matters of public policy and applicable, constitutional law, the government has no business or constitutional authorization to be picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

    On the matter of outsourcing etc. I take the rather pragmatic view of asking what if everyone did that? Let's say you are GM and pay American engineers $60,000 per year but can hire competent engineers in, say, India for $6,000 per year. Sound reasonable but if everyone did that, who would buy your $30,000 car? Not that Indian engineer. Eventually, whatever you save is going to have to be passed down to lower the cost of the new car. If it isn't one of your competitors will and you will lose the sale, lose enough sales and you are dead. The laws of economics are just as immutable as the laws of physics. Just as congress cannot make manned flight easier by repealing the law of gravity, congress cannot make the economy better by repealing the laws of economics. Everyone who ever tried to do things without regard to the laws of economics failed and always will.

  10. #170
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    1,371

    Default Re: Trayvon Martin

    And if the company fails to perform, the options have little to no value. I see no problem with linking pay to value to shareholders. And, no, I do not get paid in stock options. And, the problem is, your solution penalizes everyone else's stock portfolio, discouraging investment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •