[Vision2020] OMG I hijacked a subject!

[Glenn Schwaller]

Ms. Roskovich - My error - I neglected to "Edit Subject" and it just seemed
to keep going from there.  I apologize.  However, I don't know that sounding
snide and nasty about an error is called for.  Please, some manners Ms.
Roskovich . . .

Mr Dredge - I was not referring to next April (2009 for year TY 2008) but
"next year's tax filings" as in filed in 2010 for 2009 earning.  I would
think by then some of Obama's tax plans would be in effect?  And I'm not
looking for sympathy, I'm making a point that I suspect, despite all "no
increase in taxes" claims for the "middle class", we will indeed see an
increase.  So I'll make a note on my calendar and revisit this issue in due
time and report on how taxes have increased, decreased, or remained
constant.  Deal??

By way of a reference (for this and "health care cost" issues) my 2007 1040
showed a taxable income of about 130,000, medical expenditures of around
13,000 including out-of-pocket costs of 10,000 for nothing more than major
medical with a 10,000 deductible, and a total tax "burden" of 27,010.  A
part of me hopes he can deliver, but part of me worries about the overall
consequences.

*"If you're so tax averse, then avoid generating taxable income"*

I'm not against taxes.  I complain about taxes but it's the name of the
game.  I really don't mind paying taxes as long as they go towards things on
which taxes should be spent.  (Now there's a can of worms subject . . .)

*"Me personally, I'd be happy paying significantly more taxes under Obama
because it would translate to me making more of an income under Obama than
under Bush."*

Well I have a couple of problems with this.  Of course one would be paying
more taxes if one is generating more income - no problem there.  What I find
abhorrent is the idea of "spreading the wealth" by paying much much more in
taxes than Bob the Builder simply because I make more than some arbitrary
figured deemed to put me in the "rich" category.  (Currently I think that
was $250,000 but I'll bet we see that drop down to the $100,000 range over
the next 4 years).  I find this to be nothing more than a penalty for being
successful.  Wrong, wrong, wrong, by any standard, wrong.  IMHO.

*"Also, you're concerned about a potentially unfair mistrust or suspicion if
Obama's campaign promises are unfulfilled?  I'm sure you're joking about
this."*

No, I'm not.  In 1995 House speaker Newt Gingrich said "We had 10 major
issues we'll vote on.  We voted on all 10. We passed nine out of 10."  Then
things went downhill from there, and voters became bitter and cynical.
 After the "first 100 days" of 2007 the Democratic-led house received rather
poor review for delivering on their campaign promises, proposals, and
policies (42% disapproval).  I'm only suggesting that if Obama will not or
cannot make good on his campaign promises (and I'll give him more than 3
times as many days) public perception and approval is going to fall.
 Certainly it will take time to do all he wants or hopes to do, but I think
a year should be enough to see any significant move towards these issues.
 Side point:  I noted in his acceptance speech he's starting to backpedal
already with "It may not happen in a year.  It may not happen in our first
term."

Time will tell.

GS


On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> How badly can you possibly get beaten up in your tax filing next April?
First, if you think Obama taking office in 2009 can retroactively jack up
the tax rate for 2008, you're giving him way, Way, WAY more credit of his
power reach then I think is even possible in American government.  And
second, you must be making a crap load of money to begin with if you're
worried about a significant tax hike on income - and that is actually a
pretty nice 'problem' to have so I don't exactly have a whole lot of
sympathy for you if sympathy is what you're looking for by claiming that
you're going to get badly beaten up paying taxes next year.  Alright...I'll
give cut you some slack and say Boo-Hoo!  By the way, have you seen the
latest unemployment numbers?  They're HUGE!!!  Me personally, I'd be happy
paying significantly more taxes under Obama because it would translate to me
making more of an income under Obama than under Bush.
>
> If you're so tax averse, then avoid generating taxable income.  It's not
that difficult.  I have 2 friends that pay no taxes.  One doesn't have a
social security number, lives on a boat, and makes about $15k per year under
the table doing odd jobs because he would rather not make triple that amount
working for a company if it means paying taxes to our evil government.  The
second one (OK maybe friend is a stretch here....he is a bitter crusty guy
who hates my guts because I joke around too much for him) rents a barn to
live in, drives around a beat up 1972 Firebird, and at one point had an
ungodly net worth due to the value of his stock holdings since he was
employee #7 of a small high tech firm turned big that was ultimately
acquired (and significantly overpaid for) by a big company.  So what was the
problem?  Selling any of that stock would mean writing that much too painful
to write check to the hated IRS and to the State.  Better to ride that stock
all the way from its high of $88 per share down to 88 cents per share,
completely avoid paying taxes because for some odd reason that's of
paramount importance, and then claim 'I was right all along!!!' when 10
years prior you stated that 'this crappy company ain't going to amount to
anything'.
>
> Also, you're concerned about a potentially unfair mistrust or suspicion if
Obama's campaign promises are unfulfilled?  I'm sure you're joking about
this.
>
> -Scott
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:47:30 -0800
> From: vpschwaller at gmail.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Don't you get it? EVERYONE'S rights are in
peril!
>
> It seems more like you're saying that Bush has no culpability and the Dems
are fully to blame which is absurd.
>
> No no Scott, I'm not saying that at all.  In fact I think it is exactly
the opposite which is why I'm a bit confused.  The Dems seem to have done
all the can, or at least tried to do what they set out to do when Pelosi
took over, but have been "hamstrung" by the current administration.  If this
is indeed the case, why not simply lay the blame fully on Bush and the rest
of his administration?  Certainly the Bush administration has taken a good
share of well-deserved blows, but when the Congressional approval rating has
been consistently 10 to 15 points lower than Bush's, it makes me wonder
what's up.
>
> Are you saying the American public is simply fickle and the blame JUST
gets passed around to everyone??  If that is the simple yet accurate
explanation, so be it, but I'm just not buying it yet!
>
> Yes I agree with you it is not going to be a rosy situation for Obama and
his administration.  I'm not sure people can appreciate how slow things may
actually move, and I'm afraid this is going to generate a perhaps unfair
mistrust or suspicion about campaign promises and delivery.  But I have to
admit I for one will be looking at next year's tax filings to see how badly
I get beat up!
>
> Thanks for your comments!
>
> GS
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > Why would you find it strange Glenn?  Approval / dissapproval seems to
me to
> > be based on the economy.  If the economic engine is humming and anyone
who
> > wants a job can find gainful employment, Congress and the President both
get
> > a thumbs up.  Whether or not Obama and Congress can make forward
progress on
> > any agenda is really up to them and how much they can realistically take
on
> > while being hamstrung with the cost of two wars as well as the
staggering
> > cost of the so-called economic rescue package.  I thought Clinton's
first 2
> > years in office with a Democratic Congress was an excruciatingly poor
> > combination, but that last 6 with a Republican Congress were spectacular
> > (admittedly from purely selfish viewpoint).
> >
> > If you want to say that the current mess can be blamed on Bush and
> > Congressional Dems, I'm in total agreement.  I'm not sure you're saying
> > that, though.  It seems more like you're saying that Bush has no
culpability
> > and the Dems are fully to blame which is absurd.  Ronald Reagan worked
> > miracles - in my opinion - with a Democratic Congress.  He pushed
through
> > sweeping tax reductions in his 6th year by going up in front of Congress
and
> > saying 'win one for the Gipper!'.  So it can be done...just not from a
guy
> > like George W. Bush.  He sucked with a GOP Congress and he sucked worse
with
> > a Pelosi / Reid Congress.  He just plain sucked as a President.  Good
> > riddance come January.  It's been a painful 8 years.  At least the
Carter
> > years were half of that time although since I was a lot younger, it
seemed
> > to be about the same duration to me.
> >
> > -Scott
> >
> >> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:49:45 -0800
> >> From: vpschwaller at gmail.com
> >> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Don't you get it? EVERYONE'S rights are in
> >> peril!
> >>
> >> Well yes, I think anyone can see that the Bush administration was not
> >> particularly "friendly" towards legislation put forth by the
> >> Democrats, but I find it odd that the American public would hold this
> >> lack of action against the Democrats (of whos legislation I assume
> >> they would approve), and NOT the governing body who is putting the
> >> brakes on everything? It's not as if the Dems threw up their hands in
> >> resignation and said "OK - you've got us. We'll give up and go home."
> >> THAT would justify poor approval ratings.
> >>
> >> In other words, why be so bitterly antagonistic against such an august
> >> group and hold the Democratic congress to blame for lack of positive
> >> action by the current administration?? I just don't think Andreas' or
> >> Sunil's explanation is completely correct or satisfactory.
> >>
> >> So there is more to the story here, and I would find it very strange
> >> if simply bringing in Democratic administration suddenly shifts
> >> congressional approval from 15% to 75%.
> >>
> >> More thoughts?
> >>
> >> GS
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Sunil Ramalingam
> >> <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > What the Glenns aren't mentioning here is that the primary difference
is
> >> > that Obama isn't going to be as likely to veto legislation produced
by
> >> > the
> >> > Dems as Bush was.
> >> >
> >> > Sunil
> >> >
> >> >> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:20:10 -0800
> >> >> From: vpschwaller at gmail.com
> >> >> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Don't you get it? EVERYONE'S rights are in
> >> >> peril!
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmmm - seems to me this was a common thread NW had been hammering
home
> >> >> for awhile: Everyone's Rights Will Be (and are now) at Risk. But not
> >> >> to belabor that point.
> >> >>
> >> >> My question is, given that the current approval rating for a
> >> >> DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY (and even a greater majority now) congress is
> >> >> abysmal, how is simply electing a democratic president going to
change
> >> >> the public perception of congress? And why is their approval rating
> >> >> at it's lowest point in history to begin with?? I mean, YOU guys put
> >> >> THOSE guys in there - and you're not happy about what they have
done?
> >> >>
> >> >> I am indeed confused.
> >> >>
> >> >> GS
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Ellen Roskovich <
gussie443 at hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > The long awaited for election is finally over. We breathe a sigh
of
> >> >> > relief
> >> >> > and look forward to the promise of change and hope for the future.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > However, there's also a dark side to this past election. It is so
> >> >> > disturbing that one of our states would have an initiative on the
> >> >> > ballot
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > change their state constitution, to allow for discrimination
against
> >> >> > one
> >> >> > specific group of citizens. And then it passed. Bigotry is now
law.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We need to keep an eye on our neighbor states, because what
affects
> >> >> > them
> >> >> > today , could affect us tomorrow. We must be ever vigilant of
> >> >> > distant outside forces that would try to manipulate events close
to
> >> >> > our
> >> >> > home. We must realize that hate was well funded. . . money was
poured
> >> >> > into
> >> >> > California by groups that preach love. "Love your neighbor". . . .
> >> >> > but
> >> >> > make
> >> >> > sure it's only a certain kind of love that we approve of.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ellen A. Roskovich
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ________________________________
> >> >> > Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to
> >> >> > suspicious
> >> >> > email. Sign up today.
> >> >> > =======================================================
> >> >> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> >> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> >> > http://www.fsr.net
> >> >> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> >> > =======================================================
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> =======================================================
> >> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> >> http://www.fsr.net
> >> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> >> =======================================================
> >> >
> >> > =======================================================
> >> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> > http://www.fsr.net
> >> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> > =======================================================
> >> >
> >>
> >> =======================================================
> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> http://www.fsr.net
> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> =======================================================
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today.
>
>
> ________________________________
> Get 5 GB of storage with Windows Live Hotmail. Sign up today.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081108/97fe58fd/attachment-0001.html