Sassy

Grand Rapids, MI

#279 Feb 25, 2013
So you claim to be working in the accounting field again Sandy? That is truly laughable. You don't even recognize that insurance health care premiums are an expense to the corporation and are written off. You are so full of lies and BS it is truly funny.
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Have you? As for the "boogy-man", if you haven't seen the payments that have been made, I suggest you put a sock in it. I see them each and every month...."new jobs tax" is just that....a tax paid to the local community colleges for "job training". Whatever, SIB. You refuse, for whatever reason, to admit that the taxes on business are the highest in the world. THAT has been referenced many, many times. Since you refuse to believe what you read, I suggest you leave it alone.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#280 Feb 25, 2013
And the last time I called you a Fascist was when Beaver?

Yours is the blunder accusing me of advocating taxes be raised on business. I've never done it. But then you believe it a tax increase for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Technically, allowing them to expire would be an increase from what was being paid during the cuts period, but an intentional misrepresentation of it being a tax increase. And if you don't know the difference that is not my problem.

Factually speaking I have never advocated the tax rate on business be raised.

Simply put, of course you'll have a problem with this too, I have advocated they pay their share of what they benefit the most from. Plus many loopholes need to be eliminated.

How many foreign military bases are there in the United States? How much do we pay them to protect us?

Now how many United States military bases are there in foreign countries? How much do they pay us to protect them?

How did Bush plan to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? No president in our history engaged us in a war, much less two, without planning for a way to pay for it/them. Certainly not reducing revenue.

So "The dumbest way to do any budget is to start with “here’s what I want” and then borrow money to pay for what one wants and not just what one needs" does apply here. And that is exactly what Bush did. Instead reducing the tax rate. Really helpful...

According to a February 06, 2012 article in Time Business and Money - Economy and Policy the effective corporate tax rate is 12.1%.
http://business.time.com/2012/02/06/the-corpo...
I will let you read the article to see where that effective rate isn't true across the board.

Plus it should be acknowledged ours is as high comparatively because many countries have recently reduced their rates. Still they don't have the military responsibilities on the global scale we do.

This is specific to Philadelphia and cities but it does explain why cutting taxes is not THE answer to attracting business. And from experience over the last 30 years I have seen this to be more true than not.
http://www.onephiladelphia.org/pdf/TaxReformP...
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#281 Feb 25, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>No, quit be obtuse. You know what I was saying, but just to clarify it for you....you were demeaning the accounting departments of the businesses, big and small, by calling their accounting departments "bookkeepers" and you knew you were doing it. Just one more show of your disdain for the businesses in this country.
Your EXACT words were; "Try this on for size...due to the complexity of the tax codes, no business with a brain does their own forms anymore. They have accountants to do them for them because of the risk of losing their business for missing something."
Which pretty clearly indicates they outsource their books to accounting firms according to you. What else could "no business with a brain does their own forms anymore" mean? Not every business has an accounting department. Usually because they aren't large enough to be able to afford one.

And if you had bothered to look at the form it's now all that difficult to understand. Even to a non-accountant.

Because you don't seem to know there are many many small businesses that have bookkeepers to perform the day-to-day recording. The "bookkeeper" could just be the owner. They don't have to have an accounting degree. And if they don't they shouldn't be designated as the accountant for personal liability reasons.
Why would you want to insult a bookkeeper by saying being a bookkeeper is an insult?

What you consider my disdain for business is a fabrication of your own.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#282 Feb 25, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Right now we have the 3rd highest corporate tax rate in the world according to multiple sources, including the CBO. We are at 39.3% compared to Japan at #1 with 40.4%.
NO the U.S. is NOT the 3rd highest corporate tax rate in the world. Statutory yes but the EFFECTIVE rate -- the amount corporations and business actually pay the TREASURY AFTER all of their skimming -- is about 12%. Look it up. Furthermore the EFFECTIVE rate has been falling for about the last 4 decades. stop with your games of charades and nonsense. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Why do you think our deficit is so high? Think about it, do a little research and get back to us next week.
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

#283 Feb 26, 2013
Sassy wrote:
So you claim to be working in the accounting field again Sandy? That is truly laughable. You don't even recognize that insurance health care premiums are an expense to the corporation and are written off. You are so full of lies and BS it is truly funny.
<quoted text>
Since you claim to know so much about me, perhaps you can tell me where I AM working now? As for your lies, you apparently think working as a bookkeeper for someone qualifies you to do taxes and practice before the IRS??? Think again. And yes, I knew and know the health insurance premiums are an expense that can get written off, but when the value of just one employee's insurance is $10,000+ for the year, use your superior math skills and tell me what that adds us to with 1,000+ employees? Perhaps you would like to explain to the class how that impacts the bottom line AND the wages of the employees???? Knowing your lying, better than thou attitude as we do, you won't answer. Whatever, Sassy.
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

#284 Feb 26, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
NO the U.S. is NOT the 3rd highest corporate tax rate in the world. Statutory yes but the EFFECTIVE rate -- the amount corporations and business actually pay the TREASURY AFTER all of their skimming -- is about 12%. Look it up. Furthermore the EFFECTIVE rate has been falling for about the last 4 decades. stop with your games of charades and nonsense. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Why do you think our deficit is so high? Think about it, do a little research and get back to us next week.
Running around lapping up SIB's leftovers are you? You must be little lap dog, because I KNOW you are too lazy to look anything up yourself.
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

#285 Feb 26, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Your EXACT words were; "Try this on for size...due to the complexity of the tax codes, no business with a brain does their own forms anymore. They have accountants to do them for them because of the risk of losing their business for missing something."
Which pretty clearly indicates they outsource their books to accounting firms according to you. What else could "no business with a brain does their own forms anymore" mean? Not every business has an accounting department. Usually because they aren't large enough to be able to afford one.
And if you had bothered to look at the form it's now all that difficult to understand. Even to a non-accountant.
Because you don't seem to know there are many many small businesses that have bookkeepers to perform the day-to-day recording. The "bookkeeper" could just be the owner. They don't have to have an accounting degree. And if they don't they shouldn't be designated as the accountant for personal liability reasons.
Why would you want to insult a bookkeeper by saying being a bookkeeper is an insult?
What you consider my disdain for business is a fabrication of your own.
Whatever, SIB. Your disdain for business as a whole is very evident in your every post. You would increase the tax rate on every single business in this country if you could. You would also increase it on the individuals that you deem to be "rich" so they would pay their "fair" share. You are an elitist of the sort that SHOULD be in DC because you sound just like them. Your posts reveal a true disdain for anyone who disagrees with you or has the temerity to question your "knowledge and experience".

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#286 Feb 26, 2013
Hi SIB:

You called me a Fascist same time I called you a Communist, which I’ve never done either. I said you were a Marxist (and I put a note that said I wasn’t calling you a Communist) because of your views towards social class and structure. You have similar attitudes towards the rich (Bourgeoisie) and the poor (Proletariat).

You say “you …accuse me of advocating taxes be raised on business. I’ve never done it.” But just yesterday you said “Only the chronically stupid refuse to see it when they've given business the $1.6billion in tax cuts and increased the taxes and fees $1.4billion on everyone else that can't take those increases as deductions like business can take deductions not available to the citizenry. And at the same time taking tax deductions away from the citizenry. And anyone that believes the number of jobs that will be "created" by this cluster juck will make up for the tax cuts to business by increased income taxes is smoken crack” That sure sounds like you believe businesses should pay more taxes.

I agree with you regarding the bases, but then I’m from CA so I’ve wanted a Korean style fence put up on our Southern Border for decades.

I assume that Bush planned to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the same way Pelosi and Reid did when they voted for the funds. Again and again and again. To paraphrase you, anyone who believes the wars in I and A are “Bush’s wars” is smoken crack on a daily basis.

The article was interesting. For example it pointed out that “In 2010 and 2011, companies were allowed to deduct the full cost of the purchases of new equipment, while normally these costs would be expensed over several years. In 2012, this deduction will go down to 50% and be eliminated altogether thereafter, causing the effective tax rate to return to roughly the 25.6% average effective tax rate corporations paid since the late 1980s, according to CBO forecasts.” So according to your article the 12.1% tax rates were done under Obama and they are climbing and will be back to the 25.% rate this year. I also thought this line from your article was interesting “the best way to make corporations pay their fair share may be to do away with the corporate tax altogether.” Interesting concept although I can’t see Obama and Reid jumping on that bandwagon.

Just as corporate tax rates had a published rate and an effective rate, so do individual taxes. That’s partially where the 47% comes from but the reality is that no one pays the published rate. You don’t nor do I. According to the IRS, someone with a 25% tax rate actually pays 15% with (again according to the IRS) the average tax rate actually paid is 17%, well below the average corporate tax paid.

The Philadelphia article was also interesting. First, it came from Robert Lynch who is with the Economic Policy Institute ( epi.org ) an organization dedicated to “shared prosperity.” Hmmm. Second it mentions Lynch presented findings from his book,“Rethinking Growth: How State and Local Taxes and Services Affect Economic Development,” You can buy it on Amazon for $1.50 While I agree that there is more than just business taxes that influence whether or not to relocate/start, I disagree with him that “In fact, a more successful path for local economic development and swaying firms’ location decisions may involve raising taxes.” For an economist to ignore the migration numbers, that anyone can find fairly easily, which show people and business moving out of high tax places like CA, Detroit, Chicago and moving to lower tax places like FL and TX, makes no sense. And in a city that is losing population, how raising taxes which will result in goods, services and housing costing more, will attract more people needs more than a two page article.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#287 Feb 26, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, the Dems wanted that program bad and Mitt was COMPROMISING in a Dem State..... You should live there sometime.... People there are just like you......
Every right wing radical comes up with dire warnings of impending doom to health care once the ACA kicks into high gear. And yet, we have a perfect example of what will happen sitting right in the State of Massachusetts.

So show us the examples......

How many people don't have health insurance in that state?

How many doctors and hospitals folded up and quit?

Who sits on that state's DEATH PANELS?

Name the names of all the victims who died because they were denied health care.

Prove that the unemployment there is so much higher than the national average.

If all of the things you whack jobs say is true, then FAUX News would be doing hourly reports of how bad things are in that state....... So far, nothing but silence!
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#288 Feb 26, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Since you claim to know so much about me, perhaps you can tell me where I AM working now? As for your lies, you apparently think working as a bookkeeper for someone qualifies you to do taxes and practice before the IRS??? Think again. And yes, I knew and know the health insurance premiums are an expense that can get written off, but when the value of just one employee's insurance is $10,000+ for the year, use your superior math skills and tell me what that adds us to with 1,000+ employees? Perhaps you would like to explain to the class how that impacts the bottom line AND the wages of the employees???? Knowing your lying, better than thou attitude as we do, you won't answer. Whatever, Sassy.
Seriously Really you expose your ignorance more than you are able to recognize. A small business has someone that keeps the books, a "bookkeeper", that records the daily or weekly or monthly expenditures and receipts that are supplied to the tax preparer or accountant or CPA for tax filing.

If you don't do you own taxes do you not take your financial information that you keep track of to your tax preparer or accountant or CPA?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#289 Feb 26, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Whatever, SIB. Your disdain for business as a whole is very evident in your every post. You would increase the tax rate on every single business in this country if you could. You would also increase it on the individuals that you deem to be "rich" so they would pay their "fair" share. You are an elitist of the sort that SHOULD be in DC because you sound just like them. Your posts reveal a true disdain for anyone who disagrees with you or has the temerity to question your "knowledge and experience".
That's an outright false accusation of your own design. I just recognize the realities of doing business and not bow down to the alter of business is this altruistic benevolent venture.

If you want to believe business is not for the purpose of enrichment of it's owners and/or stock holders that is your delusion.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#290 Feb 26, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Every right wing radical comes up with dire warnings of impending doom to health care once the ACA kicks into high gear. And yet, we have a perfect example of what will happen sitting right in the State of Massachusetts.
So show us the examples......
How many people don't have health insurance in that state?
How many doctors and hospitals folded up and quit?
Who sits on that state's DEATH PANELS?
Name the names of all the victims who died because they were denied health care.
Prove that the unemployment there is so much higher than the national average.
If all of the things you whack jobs say is true, then FAUX News would be doing hourly reports of how bad things are in that state....... So far, nothing but silence!
Very few don't have health insurance. MA has the lowest levels of uninsured in the country. Nor have they lost doctors and hospitals. But then again, they have a population of about 6.5 million. Their plan was to add 500,000 people to the pool. They also don't have a death panel unlike the national plan. Since their plan went into effect their health care costs have significantly risen and are now 15% above the national average and MA has the highest premium costs in the country.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8311.p...

Adding people is easy, but what will happen when everyone's costs go way up? If the point of the plan is to get everyone insured, that's easy and it will be done. If the point is to lower costs, it didn't happen in MA and ACA will significantly increase costs; in fact it has already started as many companies are raising rates now and will continue to do so.

The problem is that liberals want to pretend statistics and math, business and money don't really exist and they can just make up numbers to make things work the way the liberals want. As reality comes into play, I'm sure the liberals will have some excuse (probably blame the insurance companies and medical industry) instead of admitting math is real.

It's all about the consequences, and libs (along with most politicians on both sides) tend to ignore those.
Working stiff

Wayland, MI

#291 Feb 26, 2013
Obama so loved the poor that he created millions more.









SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#292 Feb 26, 2013
You do enjoy getting into these elaborate rebuttals just to have something to argue about don't you Beaver?

If you will notice many of what I link to discusses more than just one side of the argument. Whereas you pontificate on your philosophy throwing bread crumbs to the other side just to appear "fair".

Well here's another you can take as why corporations are taking over the world and why they should. Though you will probably miss the wider ramifications of them accomplishing it.
http://business.time.com/2012/01/27/are-compa...

Are "governments" the answer? No. Because they have become more concerned with protecting their wealthy benefactors, as was explained by Lynch saying "businesses like the fiscal benefits they receive, and that elected officials “believe what they want to believe," rather than [governments] being the referees of what benefits the whole of the population rather than the smallest segment of it so as not to return to the world of the Middle Ages of feudalism. You did learn about the Middle Ages and feudalism didn't you? And even monarchy? What the founders of this country fought a revolution against and formed a government not based on the monarchy model? Monarchy being really nothing more than a inherited business (power) enterprise.

Just as you say no one pays the published tax rate where is it the general tax payers can pass that burden off onto? You've acknowledged business can. And does. So where can the general tax payer recover their tax obligation from?

No matter how you want to re-word me my belief is business should be literally paying their proper proportion for what they get the major share of it's benefits from.

While you call me a Marxist I look at it more of a believer of Adam Smith. Marx got most of his ideas on capitalism from Smith. As much as Smith advocated capitalism he also put forth some very serious warnings of it's abuses. And Adam Smith was a large influence on the formation of this country. Along with Thomas Paine. So you figure out how Socialist our founders were. And then reconcile with what you believe it should be.

And while you are bashing Lynch for 'his belief in shared property' as a bad thing, perhaps you should look into the founders of the country, and many others since, that didn't believe that all the lands should be privately owned. That a country and/or state and/or community should not be controlled by a small segment of the population. It's not a new idea. All over Europe there are commons. Where all the people can enjoy where they live. Not just those with the means to garner it for themselves. But then you don't seem to believe in that. You seem to believe if we want to walk outside we must pay a toll to those who own the property outside our own. Also not a new idea. But then revolutions were fought over and people died for against it.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#294 Feb 26, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Very few don't have health insurance. MA has the lowest levels of uninsured in the country. Nor have they lost doctors and hospitals. But then again, they have a population of about 6.5 million. Their plan was to add 500,000 people to the pool. They also don't have a death panel unlike the national plan. Since their plan went into effect their health care costs have significantly risen and are now 15% above the national average and MA has the highest premium costs in the country.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8311.p...
Adding people is easy, but what will happen when everyone's costs go way up? If the point of the plan is to get everyone insured, that's easy and it will be done. If the point is to lower costs, it didn't happen in MA and ACA will significantly increase costs; in fact it has already started as many companies are raising rates now and will continue to do so.
The problem is that liberals want to pretend statistics and math, business and money don't really exist and they can just make up numbers to make things work the way the liberals want. As reality comes into play, I'm sure the liberals will have some excuse (probably blame the insurance companies and medical industry) instead of admitting math is real.
It's all about the consequences, and libs (along with most politicians on both sides) tend to ignore those.
In other words, every fear mongering rant about ACA is just that....

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#295 Feb 26, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an outright false accusation of your own design. I just recognize the realities of doing business and not bow down to the alter of business is this altruistic benevolent venture.
If you want to believe business is not for the purpose of enrichment of it's owners and/or stock holders that is your delusion.
If you truly recognized the realities of doing business while not "bowing down to the the alter of business as an altruistic benevolent venture" you would not be preaching busines as a selfish, heartless, unsympathetic venture.

I had lots of friends in high school and college who wanted to get rich. All of them are far from it. The folks I know who are rich, never set out to get there. Bill Gates didn't start Microsoft with the purpose of becoming rich. He did it because he saw a need, enjoyed computers and figured it was better than working for someone else. Same with Sam Walton, Buffett and all the others. I seem to recall that Jobs and Apple were only a couple months from going bankrupt back in the 90's.

Anyone who truly "recognizes the realities of business" would never claim that the purpose of any legitimate business is to make owners and/or stock holders rich.

So that is your delusion.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#296 Feb 26, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
You do enjoy getting into these elaborate rebuttals just to have something to argue about don't you Beaver?
If you will notice many of what I link to discusses more than just one side of the argument. Whereas you pontificate on your philosophy throwing bread crumbs to the other side just to appear "fair".
Well here's another you can take as why corporations are taking over the world and why they should. Though you will probably miss the wider ramifications of them accomplishing it.
http://business.time.com/2012/01/27/are-compa...
Are "governments" the answer? No. Because they have become more concerned with protecting their wealthy benefactors, as was explained by Lynch saying "businesses like the fiscal benefits they receive, and that elected officials “believe what they want to believe," rather than [governments] being the referees of what benefits the whole of the population rather than the smallest segment of it so as not to return to the world of the Middle Ages of feudalism. You did learn about the Middle Ages and feudalism didn't you? And even monarchy? What the founders of this country fought a revolution against and formed a government not based on the monarchy model? Monarchy being really nothing more than a inherited business (power) enterprise.
Just as you say no one pays the published tax rate where is it the general tax payers can pass that burden off onto? You've acknowledged business can. And does. So where can the general tax payer recover their tax obligation from?
No matter how you want to re-word me my belief is business should be literally paying their proper proportion for what they get the major share of it's benefits from.
While you call me a Marxist I look at it more of a believer of Adam Smith. Marx got most of his ideas on capitalism from Smith. As much as Smith advocated capitalism he also put forth some very serious warnings of it's abuses. And Adam Smith was a large influence on the formation of this country. Along with Thomas Paine. So you figure out how Socialist our founders were. And then reconcile with what you believe it should be.
And while you are bashing Lynch for 'his belief in shared property' as a bad thing, perhaps you should look into the founders of the country, and many others since, that didn't believe that all the lands should be privately owned. That a country and/or state and/or community should not be controlled by a small segment of the population. It's not a new idea. All over Europe there are commons. Where all the people can enjoy where they live. Not just those with the means to garner it for themselves. But then you don't seem to believe in that. You seem to believe if we want to walk outside we must pay a toll to those who own the property outside our own. Also not a new idea. But then revolutions were fought over and people died for against it.
To be brief :-)
Large companies aren't taking over the world, but they are ignoring boundries. Continuing to prove that they are way smarter than politicians. If you can,do. If you can't, teach. If you have no talent be a politician. Also interesting given the one-world movement that was so popular to eliminate national borders, that we are all just one people. Global corporations do more to join people than politicians do.

Business can push taxes to their customers. People can push taxes to others (47%) or eliminate the need for taxes altogether. We can vote to eliminate 100% of individual taxes in one day. Business can't. People choose the taxes they pay (or don't). People also choose the taxes business pays.

You may want to revisit your studies of the Founders,especially since they seriously considered only allowing property owners to vote and many were very much against "mob rule."

Out of room.:-)

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#297 Feb 26, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, every fear mongering rant about ACA is just that....
Only if someone says that everyone won't be insured (although many will choose not to).

MA showed that the cost will be significantly above what was sold to the people. As I said, insurance costs have already gone up and they system isn't even fully in place. If your costs go up by 20% now, how will you react when it goes up by 50%?

Basic economics shows that the quality of medical care will go down for the country as a whole. There is already a lack of doctors and with the new system, the prediction is that it will get worse.

None of this is "fear mongering" it is just dealing with basic reality of economics, statistics and human nature. If you have an alternative universe where math doesn't work, then ACA will be fine there. Here, not so much.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#298 Feb 26, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
If you truly recognized the realities of doing business while not "bowing down to the the alter of business as an altruistic benevolent venture" you would not be preaching busines as a selfish, heartless, unsympathetic venture.
I had lots of friends in high school and college who wanted to get rich. All of them are far from it. The folks I know who are rich, never set out to get there. Bill Gates didn't start Microsoft with the purpose of becoming rich. He did it because he saw a need, enjoyed computers and figured it was better than working for someone else. Same with Sam Walton, Buffett and all the others. I seem to recall that Jobs and Apple were only a couple months from going bankrupt back in the 90's.
Anyone who truly "recognizes the realities of business" would never claim that the purpose of any legitimate business is to make owners and/or stock holders rich.
So that is your delusion.
Business has enough like you and Really and others that kiss the ground business "walks on". Someone has to balance the fantasies with the realities. But then you don't believe in checks and balances. Probably why you are so in favor of everything business and nothing government and nothing the lowly non-wealthy.

The do tell dear boy. What is the purpose of business? It's contrived to supply the masses? Like Larry the cable guy says on the commercials...we make everything you want and a whole lot more of what you don't know you want?
Is it maybe business owners have so much money they have to find a way to get it to other people so they create jobs? How's that been worken out? How does that explain the unemployment numbers?

Don't even bother. Only the unintelligent would believe the purpose of business isn't to make the owners money.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#299 Feb 26, 2013
And what the founding fathers believed in only property owners having the right to vote has nothing to do with what I was talking about them on. Trying to distract from the subject isn't going to work.

They also believed black people were only three fifths of a person. Also believed it was proper they be property.

John Adams wanted a monarchy. Only not an inheritable one. He wanted the president to be for life.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
sony balony 2 hr kookierecluse 4
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 3 hr Go Blue Forever 1,479
Experience a historical Christmas in downtown G... 5 hr DrX 54
Put Tolls on Our Interstate Highways 14 hr Really 18
3 reasons Grand Rapids-area Muslims want to ope... Thu tom_ 21
City of Pentecost Christmas program Thu COP OUTREACH 1
The curse of success - america Wed Idea Maker 2
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 6:00AM
Dissecting Most Crucial Matchups in Chicago Bears' Week 16 Contest with Lions
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
Fantasy Football Week 16: Updated Rankings for Sunday's Action
Bleacher Report 6:02 AM
The Coach That Could Turn Around Bears
Bleacher Report11:28 AM
Jay Cutler Rumors: Latest Details, Speculation on Bears QB's Future
NBC Sports12:33 PM
1 thing even Rahm can't fix: Da Bears - NBC Sports