kapkomet

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 08:33 AM) Right. Nothing new. Move along. In fact, if looking at the polls tells me anything, it's that the average American voter hardly even pays attention to politics and mostly just associates things along a general liberal or conservative mindset, and takes things mostly at face value. People who pay attention to things like this, to include the reporters and talking heads on TV who overanalyze these things, assume everyone else is like them, and knows what they know. How is this a "fault" of Obama's? Do you want him to stop being charismatic? Ok, so he has a tendency to hypnotize voters, which you may find creepy and automatically associate with some historical tyrants and dictators who ran cults of personality. Ok. But whenever I find people bringing this up they always ignore the fact that people like Reagan, Kennedy, Churchill, Roosevelt etc. also had this quality. So in and of itself, being a charismatic figure/great public speaker doesn't mean jack diddly. The difference between RSO and Reagan is light years different. RSO has to keep reminding us about how bad everything is and he's going to fix it all for us. Reagan told us that WE the people should be the example, not our government.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 08:27 AM) So what exactly is surprising here to you? Obama has been conducting a much more positive campaign than we've seen in a generation and counting on a true grass roots movement. And then add his charisma. Compare that to McCain who seems like an ordinary, run-of-the-mill guy running for president that you'd have difficulty differentiating from someone like Bob Dole or Walter Mondale (Personality-wise at least). Is there any surprise that a lot of people with little interest in politics are gravitating towards Obama? No, and that makes my point even bigger. If people understood as a whole the irrepairable damage RSO can do with a supermajority congress, they wouldn't gravitate toward him. That's the main reason why this man isn't going to delve into details on anything (so he has plans on his website, whooo, most people aren't going to sit there and read it). Charisma alone is probably going to win him the election.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 08:20 AM) The whole point is that a large number of people that will vote for McCain know equally as little about him. So what else is new? This happens all the time. No they won't. The "feel good" exposure is on RSO, not McCain.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 07:33 AM) I don't know why you assumed that was directed at you - I think most of the regular posters here know your position/reasons for not liking Obama. Actually, I think saying "most" Obama voters not knowing why they're voting for him is a pretty ignorant statement. If you were to ask a politically literate person why they were voting for him in a non-confrontational tone I'm sure they could tell you, and justify it, even if you won't agree with their reasons (this is the whole point of elections). If you're talking about the politically illiterate or apathetic, that's another matter entirely, and it shouldn't surprise you. The ones who tend to vote Republican, or not vote at all, are exactly the same. Anti war is an "ok" reason to vote for him. Hello, McGovern. If people realized just how far left he really is, I don't think he'd have near the support he does now. I stand by my statement that there's a MAJORITY of voters that are simply enamoured by the man and doesn't have a clue what he stands for. Most people in this forum are versed enough in the issues (hell just read the board here, that keeps most people up on what's happening) to get it. I just don't think the majority of Americans are, period. They vote with emotion, not rationale, and "RSO" (Rock Star Obama) is much more of an emotional character then McCain.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 07:29 PM) Litty! (Former IHL'er... viva Orlando Solar Bears!).

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 11:18 PM) Hehe, almost as silly as though whose say they're not voting for Obama because of his popularity. Yup, that's my ENTIRE reason for not voting for Rock Star Obama. Sadly, though, there will be a few people like that... and even sadder, most don't know why they ARE voting for him, other then he'll "CHANGE" things. I for one, don't want a hell of a lot of change, but apparently, most want "change" (i.e. government running everything for me since I am not smart enough to do anything for myself).

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 13, 2008 -> 12:00 AM) How are you able to do that an stay competitive? Other industries have killed themselves with great benefits. That's a longer story and more complex then I can post here, but I've been there 15 months now and our headcount has gone up (nearly) +100 since I've been there across all departments. Part of that is an acquisition. I was watching the news the other day and they were saying that our business is nearly "recession proof", and I believe it after seeing some of the demand information. Our transfer pricing model is a large part in it; and that lowers the effective tax rate as a whole through worldwide initiatives. The whole point is that "savings", if you will, is reinvested in the largest market in the world (and others), but allows us in the U.S. and we are still able to maintain what is a very healthly bottom line for the US market. Of course, individuals pay taxes on their take home pay - so we as a corporation (well not technically but the point is the same) are still flowing money into the US treasury because we are able to hire more people then we otherwise would. As a matter of fact, the taxes paid by the company on a payroll and individual level exceeds what they would get out of the "profits" by the time you factor in FICA, income tax, etc. And that to me, is the main point.

QUOTE (Chet Lemon @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 06:29 PM) The U.S. companies that dodge paying federal income taxes are guilty of treason in my view. International tax law and international accounting standards exist for a reason. I hope you like your job (painting a broad brush as you just painted), because if you do then you'll welcome some of the advantages companies look for in the tax compliance and tax structure. My company transfers money over to another country and they pay the rax rate in that country, and it's all legally done. As a matter of fact, we just went through a tax audit from the IRS, and they were impressed at how well we kept things to show the way we do business (and that's saying a lot). What do we do with that savings? We go and double the size of our employment pool with some of the best benefits any company can offer. I guess that's "treasonous", huh?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 05:03 PM) There's also the idea of the "fair tax." From what I understand of it, its essentially a flat sales tax rate on all items and a certain chunk of income (say first $25k) is exempted because those are 'necessary' costs like food and housing. You'd get that money back in the form of a monthly refund check to cover sales tax on basic needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax R-E-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E = does not work.

Of course, being the pro-business person that I am, sees it about like SS does. At its root, people make up companies, and if they aren't making enough money, they will cut the people. Corporate taxes are in a sense a double tax, because the same money that they make is taxed again, somewhere in the chain, be it investments, individuals, whatever. So, that's why I'm a proponent of lower corporate taxes. You talk about "supply side" economics - forget individuals - corporate taxation is a lot more bang for the buck. Anyway, I'll chime back in later after I see some more.

/grabs another bowl of popcorn. I'm getting full, and this is getting good. /carry on

/sits back and eats some popcorn. /carry on

It's good to see the 'Hawks back in the spotlight in Chicago.

Have you noticed the demand numbers coming out of China and India? Their economic reports lately? The dollar? The price per barrel of oil? I've been saying for a year all of what's happening now would happen, and I think it's no accident. As I've said before, I'd be a rich man right now if I had some money because I knew the markets would be doing EXACTLY what they are doing at EXACTLY this point in time. It may not stick in the long run, but the timing of all of this is interesting.

I'd hope so... the 15th is almost here.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 10:53 AM) Oh, and I thought for sure the Sox were going to waste their high pick on Jordan Danks. Well, they got a good pick AND Jordan Danks. I guess that's not so bad.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 11:36 AM) No more game threads for me next year. What 're ya gonna do during Sox games now next season?

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 09:32 AM) Gavin Floyd.....there, I've cleansed myself of the stupid "guarantee" I made. And what was that guarantee?

I'm an expert in this area (I'm no tax attorney... but let's just said I'm pretty damn versed in transfer pricing now, thanks to where I work). I was wondering if someone was going to post this. I saw the article this morning, and in that same article, it said "companies need to pay their fair share". Blah. Of course, though, I work for a wholly owned subsidiary of two very large non US MNE's.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 09:50 AM) That's the best pic ever.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 08:35 AM) so in your mind, the President, Govenor, Lawmakers, etc are the same as a Dental Hygenist in Burbank, IL? They should be treated the same way, and compensated the same? Couldn't one argue, that being the Govenor of Illinois is a bit more important than your average joe? 1% of $150,000 is $1,500. 1% of $75,000 is $750. They still get double the raise of the ordinary joe in dollars. It's not what's important, it's how they get raises. Give 'em a "bonus" if they balance the budget (or stay out of jail, in Blago's case, ). By the way, I don't necessarily agree with this, I'm just playing devil's advocate. If I agreed with this, I wouldn't be doing what I do...

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 09:11 AM) gotta factor in inflation. So if inflation rises at 3% per year (which is a bs amount anyway as it historically does not include housing or fuel increases), then the lawmakers get a 1% raisie, so they lose 2% each year. sounds fair. That's what the rest of us deal with every day (year, month, whatever you want to say).

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 08:05 AM) here's what bothers me. I understand the cheating part.. that is between him and his wife and no one else. How can he honestly think that none of this would have come out during the primary or general. Imagine if he was the nominee as many had hoped he would have been. Race over. All of that money, donations, opportunities, etc are wasted. especially after the Bill Clinton affair. And I'm glad it didn't turn out that way, Obama, Clinton, or anyone else aside.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 07:57 AM) Because nothing was proven until he came out and admitted it himself. Prior to that, it was nothing more than a typical front-page Enquirer story which means nothing, and the only thing that was confirmed was the fact that he went to the hotel. The media (reputable ones anyway) doesn't run with stories until they confirm facts. Didn't stop the NYT from running the McCain story (on the front page, no less), did it?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 06:47 AM) For me its not that he cheated on his wife, though it doesn't help. The part that really cheeses me is tha the paraded his dying cancer ridden wife as one of his biggest reasons for everything in his campaign, and all of the policies that he wanted to enact. He wanted the whole rest of the country to make all of these changes because of the life changing experiences he has had, and it turns out that wasn't even enough to keep his pecker in his pants. If he had just cheated on his wife that would be one thing, but he used her to symbolize everything he stood for, and it turns out that wasn't important enough for him to consider as sacred. Screw John Edwards and the two faced horse he rode in on. Another point, besides the one that you just made, which is EXACTLY it for me: How DARE the media run with this! Keep in mind that the Foley scandal broke pretty much right at election time in 2006, and this story was SAT ON for almost a year. The Enquirer just scooped every major news media outlet for a year. Now how does that happen?