Comments
149,981 - 150,000 of 172,516 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156671
Dec 3, 2012
 
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton campaigned this year where was bush?
At home.
Bush's wife doesn't want to run for president in 2016.

Since: Jul 12

Petersburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156672
Dec 3, 2012
 
BlackHeart wrote:
<quoted text>
Heros get shot down and float around in little boats?
Don't they get to shoot back?
Some days, some days not. The point is, he risked something of great value that everyone can relate to. Risking political capital might make him a hero to those playing politics, but it don't mean nothing to most people.

Next thing you know, some will think a person betting his whole paycheck on the lottery so that his family will be better off is a hero as opposed to the idiot we currently think he is. "He sacrificed everything he had trying to better the lives of his family!"

Since: Jul 12

Petersburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156673
Dec 3, 2012
 
Lyndi wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB1000142412788732470510457814 9012514177372.html?mod=WSJ_hp_ mostpop_read
"When President Obama needed a business executive to come to his campaign defense, Jim Sinegal was there. The Costco founder, director and former CEO even made a prime-time speech at the Democratic Party convention in Charlotte. So what a surprise this week to see that Mr. Sinegal and the rest of the Costco board voted to give themselves a special dividend to avoid Mr. Obama's looming tax increase. Is this what the President means by "tax fairness"?
Specifically, the giant retailer announced Wednesday that the company will pay a special dividend of $7 a share this month. That's a $3 billion Christmas gift for shareholders that will let them be taxed at the current dividend rate of 15%, rather than next year's rate of up to 43.4%—an increase to 39.6% as the Bush-era rates expire plus another 3.8% from the new ObamaCare surcharge.
More striking is that Costco also announced that it will borrow $3.5 billion to finance the special payout. Dividends are typically paid out of earnings, either current or accumulated. But so eager are the Costco executives to get out ahead of the tax man that they're taking on debt to do so.
We think companies can do what they want with their cash, but it's certainly rare to see a public corporation weaken its balance sheet not for investment in the future but to make a one-time equity payout. It's a good illustration of the way that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's near-zero interest rates are combining with federal tax policy to distort business decisions.
One of the biggest dividend winners will be none other than Mr. Sinegal, who owns about two million shares, while his wife owns another 84,669. At $7 a share, the former CEO will take home roughly $14 million. At a 15% tax rate he'll get to keep nearly $12 million of that windfall, while at next year's rate of 43.4% he'd take home only about $8 million. That's a lot of extra cannoli.
This isn't exactly the tone of, er, shared sacrifice that Mr. Sinegal struck on stage in Charlotte. He described Mr. Obama as "a President making an economy built to last," adding that "for companies like Costco to invest, grow, hire and flourish, the conditions have to be right. That requires something from all of us." But apparently $4 million less from Mr. Sinegal.
Costco's chief financial officer, Richard Galanti, confirms that every member of the board is also a shareholder. Based on the most recent publicly available data, they own more than 4.1 million shares and more than 1.3 million options to purchase additional shares. At $7 a share, the dividend will distribute roughly $29 million to the board, including Mr. Sinegal's $14 million—at a collective tax saving of about $8 million. Even more cannoli.
To sum up: Here we have people at the very top of the top 1% who preach about tax fairness voting to write themselves a huge dividend check to avoid the Obama tax increase they claim it is a public service to impose on middle-class Americans who work for 30 years and finally make $250,000 for a brief window in time.
If they had any shame, they'd send their entire windfall to the Treasury."
========
Translation:
Get the money out before the government gets it.
If you had no problem with Romney's 14% tax rate why would this bother you in the least. In fact, what would be news worthy about it?

On the other hand, if Romney's 14% tax rate disturbed you, then I can see how this might matter.

Bobin will tell you the stock-holders can vote with their feet and sell their stock before the ex-dividend date.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156674
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL@U
First, Reagan could not run as a Republican today. They would not have him.
So what?
We've been over this.
JFK couldn't run as a democrat today. They wouldn't have him and he was the poster boy of democrats for a loooooong time.

Parties and leaders evolve according to the dynamics of the times.
One of the reasons the republicans are having such a hard time is they come in too many flavors. They need to trim the menu and cut back on the varieties of republicans.

Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156675
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had no problem with Romney's 14% tax rate why would this bother you in the least. In fact, what would be news worthy about it?
On the other hand, if Romney's 14% tax rate disturbed you, then I can see how this might matter.
Bobin will tell you the stock-holders can vote with their feet and sell their stock before the ex-dividend date.
It doesn't bother me. What gave you that impression?

I want as little of my money going to this administration as possible too and if I were on the board of Costco, I'd have done the same thing.
The PROBLEM is their hypocrisy which I'm pretty certain you can't see. They supported and touted Obama's plans. I didn't and I don't.
I'd have voted to do the same thing he did. Get the money and get it NOW.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156676
Dec 3, 2012
 
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
We've been over this.
JFK couldn't run as a democrat today. They wouldn't have him and he was the poster boy of democrats for a loooooong time.
Parties and leaders evolve according to the dynamics of the times.
One of the reasons the republicans are having such a hard time is they come in too many flavors. They need to trim the menu and cut back on the varieties of republicans.
Nor could Lincoln run as a Republican.

Different times.

Since: Jul 12

Petersburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156677
Dec 3, 2012
 
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
We've been over this.
JFK couldn't run as a democrat today. They wouldn't have him and he was the poster boy of democrats for a loooooong time.
Parties and leaders evolve according to the dynamics of the times.
One of the reasons the republicans are having such a hard time is they come in too many flavors. They need to trim the menu and cut back on the varieties of republicans.
Do you see me as including JFK as a current contender for President for the Democrats?

Did you see the post I was responding to?

I agree, lets whittle down those Republicans to their core belief so we only have one from East to West and North to South.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156680
Dec 3, 2012
 
karl47 wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Hillary has NEVER said she intends to run for President in 2016.
2) She has said she is tired as being Secretary of State is a very demanding job.
3 I and many Democrats including people that think with their God given brains hope she does run in 2016.
4) There isn't a republican alive that could be victorious over her.
1) I am aware of that Karl yet considering she tried 4 years ago but got thrown under the bus for the new kid on the block, it's not out of the realm of possiblity.
2) She's tired because she's doing her job and Obama's job. The man does little to nothing regarding foreign policy.
3) How about we take a view of the nation an 2016 before we decide who would be best for the job?
4) Be careful with predictions. I've found out how wrong one can be.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156682
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

karl47 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hillary publicly admitted Obama ran a better campaign, and was glad he got the nomination.
<quoted text>
Obama has proven he will listen to all of his cabinet and does not make decisions on a whim, SMART
<quoted text>
Looking at the republican party as it is today this would be a no brainer there are NONE up to the task. Maybe they will invent one by 2016 if Grover Norquist lets them
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should start listening to a reputable news source and don't depending on Rasmussen for polling information...Like I said before the election the best predictor in the world in the market. I recommend Intrade.com they were 100% correct in the last election.
* She was GLAD he won the nomination? What an odd response to losing.

* He doesn't release his decisions on a whim either evidently. Case in point: Benghazi. "MIA" comes to mind. So does "dropped the ball." So does, "if I don't say anything, it will go away."

* I won't rely on 'no brainers' in politics anymore. If a community organizer can win the highest office in the country, nothing would surprise me.

* I wouldn't know.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156685
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

karl47 wrote:
<quoted text>
She demonstrated grace and dignity, the GOP should have taken notes
<quoted text>
SMART, have all the facts inteligence reports and information before going public and sounding like a bumbling fool....(channeling GWB)....HA
<quoted text>
I know it is surprising to many righties the best candidate sometimes wins, regardless of Karl Rove and Grover Norquist
<quoted text>
As has been evident numerous times
* Showing grace and dignity, Karl is a far cry from being "glad" he won the nomination. You should know by now that Hillary puts the democrat party above all else. Allegience to the motherland or something......

* No, not smart. Deceitful. And someone in that decpetive administration of his, sent out Rice to be the bumbling fool and the scapegoat. The fall guy. "Save the King at all costs! Who's expendable around here!"

* Who could have guessed that the "best" canidiate was some unknown community organizer who spent 10 minutes as a senator? Maybe that's how we should recruit them from now on. Haul in all the unknowns. There's a plan!

* Shrug

Since: Jul 12

Petersburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156686
Dec 3, 2012
 
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
1) I am aware of that Karl yet considering she tried 4 years ago but got thrown under the bus for the new kid on the block, it's not out of the realm of possiblity.
2) She's tired because she's doing her job and Obama's job. The man does little to nothing regarding foreign policy.
3) How about we take a view of the nation an 2016 before we decide who would be best for the job?
4) Be careful with predictions. I've found out how wrong one can be.
The only ones that through Hillary under the Bus was Hillary herself and her campaign staff. Her campaign plan was to seal the deal in February and when that failed they had ran through so much money she could not make it back.

Maybe he will use Romney to replace her. They talked about something.

Something tells me based on you rhetoric you actually think you were correct about who was best for the job. The real question is who was the most electable. Of course, you were wrong on both counts.

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156687
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Does anyone else here think it would be a mistake by the R's to let the Bush tax cuts expire to protect the top 2% from paying a little more in taxes?

I think it would be a HUGE mistake..........

Since: Jul 12

Petersburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156688
Dec 3, 2012
 
karl47 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is the context of the question
NOT the ACT of compensation
In the Contest of the question you have a poster proudly proclaiming to be an educated black man and also claiming that some people might be put off by that. What is wrong with asking how you feel or what you think about reparations?

Since: Jul 12

Petersburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156689
Dec 3, 2012
 
Rider on the Storm wrote:
Does anyone else here think it would be a mistake by the R's to let the Bush tax cuts expire to protect the top 2% from paying a little more in taxes?
I think it would be a HUGE mistake..........
No, no, they should stand their ground. And then do it all over again when it comes to the debt ceiling.

(Sarcasm alert included for those who don't know.)

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156691
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
In the Contest of the question you have a poster proudly proclaiming to be an educated black man and also claiming that some people might be put off by that. What is wrong with asking how you feel or what you think about reparations?
This assumes the so-called question was something other than a red herring accusation.

It's blatantly obvious that assumption would be erroneous.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156692
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only ones that through Hillary under the Bus was Hillary herself and her campaign staff. Her campaign plan was to seal the deal in February and when that failed they had ran through so much money she could not make it back.
Maybe he will use Romney to replace her. They talked about something.
Something tells me based on you rhetoric you actually think you were correct about who was best for the job. The real question is who was the most electable. Of course, you were wrong on both counts.
I will always stand my ground that the people of the democrat party threw her under the bus in favor of the new kid in town. She was infinately more qualified and had done mountains of work and favors for that party for decades. He wasn't in her league. I think they owed her more loyalty. And to top it off, his resume pre 2008 could have fit on an business card with room to spare.

The real question shouldn't BE who is the most electable. The real question should be who is best for the job and that should get them elected. Did someone tell you because alot of people vote for someone it's the right decision because I can promise you history is filled with leaders who had no talent for leading and had no business being at the top of the heap.

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156693
Dec 3, 2012
 
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
We've been over this.
JFK couldn't run as a democrat today. They wouldn't have him and he was the poster boy of democrats for a loooooong time.
Parties and leaders evolve according to the dynamics of the times.
One of the reasons the republicans are having such a hard time is they come in too many flavors. They need to trim the menu and cut back on the varieties of republicans.
I would vote for Kennedy if he was runing today.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156694
Dec 3, 2012
 
nebka wrote:
<quoted text>
I would vote for Kennedy if he was runing today.
Would you like to tell us why?
Chris Clearwater

Largo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156696
Dec 3, 2012
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Only TeaTards care about that. TeaTards are a dying breed.
HaaaaBawwwwwwaaaaaa
More love and tolerance in action. Thanks for proving the left (most of them) do not mean what they say. I'm searching for people on the left that do say what they mean and mean what they say.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156697
Dec 3, 2012
 
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a problem. In the 70s the experts told us that at our current rate of use, we'd be running out of oil in 20 years. We now use more oil, its been 40 years, and we've located more oil reserves than the experts thought existed.
<quoted text>
What does this rant have to do with energy?
A Jackass like you wouldn't understand.

NEXT

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

396 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
more instagram followers (Dec '13) 20 min Emma Hester 7
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 27 min danetoo 115,487
Difference between white masons and black masons (Apr '08) 33 min Lil-Sis33 301
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 42 min truth 533,294
Why do BLACK People hate Mexicans so much? (Dec '13) 49 min uIDIOTRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE 242
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr sweets2360 721,945
Sudi Arabia Scientists Spreading deadly Ebola v... 2 hr yon 3
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 6 hr WasteWater 256,838
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 13 hr SimmerExtreme 85
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••