The same way.

Giving Capital Gains tax breaks is forcing more and more emphasis to be on how the stock of the company is perceived and not always, how it performs in the market place.

All the major discussion makers are vested in keeping the stock that they earn through option plans rising at whatever cost.

And with billions of shares of stock transacting each and every day, the pressure is on to keep the investors happy.

But are they really investors?

They are more like margin hunters who shave off profits from companies. The problem is there is no real consequence. Even the short-term capital gains rate is far lower than the highest marginal tax rate.

So if you make a couple of million dollars of salary, you pay about 39% on taxable income.

If you make a couple of million moving stock from here to there, your highest rate is still four percent below what you would make from earning a wage or salary.

The thing is this; there is an investor driven motivation margin on the value of stock.

And since the people who are running the company feel that the shareholders are more import, mainly because they are shareholders, they just might not make the most economical decision and choose to go to taking action to increase the value of the stock.

Now this really gets us down to the FoxComm thing.

The large computer companies are willing to shave the money to pay for workers in order to increase the value of the stock.

With technology and shipping put into the mix, I wonder just how profitable selling stuff here in the US of A would be if there were a tax on overseas manufacturing, you know, make it a little bit more competitive.

That is why all these trade agreements go the way they do. The companies, who have set up shop in the third world, mainly with US and European investments, have it both ways. They keep their profit margins high and still sell like crazy here in the biggest market in the world.

And then of course, there is all this emphasis on credit and must have things feeling in America today. That makes up nicely for the whole in the wallet that all this capital manipulation has put in the pockets of most Americans, you know, the 99% thank you very much.

But there will be a tipping point if the people here in this country can no longer afford the newest do dads and whatchacallits...

Then….

We have a lot of work to do to reshape this country. Perhaps the kids that now can’t afford to move out of the house until they are thirty may be just like my grandparents who never got over the fear of the Great Depression.

Who knows?

The bottom line, our culture has to change.

And I don’t care how much anyone dislikes the actions of president Obama. I cringe as I look at those loathsome margin chasers on the other side salivating to get the reins of power back so they can shovel more money at the rest of the 1%.

To, you know, stand uo for their union brothers with this right to work crap they passed just last week in Indiana...

After all, the Super Bowl is being played in Indiana.

It would be great if some of the big time Unions, NBA has a team in Indiana, to voice solidarity with workers.

They could really fuck things up for the whole country by refusing to play in states where they have right to work laws.

Just thought I would bring that up....

gains from that investment is absurd.

First of all, earning money is in and of itself is an isolated economic event.

Investing money is as well an isolated economic event.

The gain (or loss) from that investment increases (or decreases) the pile of money you started with from the start.

Second, if you make investment income tax free then you would also have to say that it should not be used to lower taxes if a loss is the result of your investment.

Now as it stand, you can deduct up to $1,500 to $ 3,000 from your ordinary income (Wages, rents and interest) if you sell an asset or investment at a loss.

That would go away using the magical financial segregation Mr. Romney believes in with all his heart.

So Mr. Romney, this is a country of individuals who come together to form a society. If we continue to pit one class of people against another, how long can we expect that society to stand firm.

After all, it wasn't the sons and daughters of the 1% who were fighting and dying "for" our country, it was overwhelmingly the kids who were looking to fit in someplace and found the Armed Forces.

If you lose the support of the people who love their country, believe that this is a country of men and women and not a country of haves, and have not’s then you destroy the connection we have to the USA...

gains from that investment is absurd.

First of all, earning money is in and of itself is an isolated economic event.

Investing money is as well an isolated economic event.

The gain (or loss) from that investment increases (or decreases) the pile of money you started with from the start.

Second, if you make investment income tax free then you would also have to say that it should not be used to lower taxes if a loss is the result of your investment.

Now as it stand, you can deduct up to $1,500 to $ 3,000 from your ordinary income (Wages, rents and interest) if you sell an asset or investment at a loss.

That would go away using the magical financial segregation Mr. Romney believes in with all his heart.

So Mr. Romney, this is a country of individuals who come together to form a society. If we continue to pit one class of people against another, how long can we expect that society to stand firm.

After all, it wasn't the sons and daughters of the 1% who were fighting and dying "for" our country after 9/11, it was overwhelmingly the kids who were looking to fit in someplace and found the Armed Forces.

If you lose the support of the people who love their country, believe that this is a country of men and women and not a country of haves, and have not’s then you destroy the connection we have to the USA...

I'm Sorry, I meant to post this over on General Discussion......

he hadn't been born into a family of privilege and entitlement.

There is something uniquely American about the self-made man, a woman who sacrifices to build a company or a practice or someone inventing a key advancement.

But there is absoluty something wrong about a tax code that punishes work and benefits investments.

When I was growing up, I was taught that intellectual ability, willingness to work hard and access to investment funds were essential to success under our economic system.

It wasn't a guarantee, but it would surely be the foundation on which success is built. Especially when they were all weighed in equal parts.

an incentive based social tinkering, touchy feely kind of program

The very stuff that drives conservatives wild when it comes to handing actual funds to those in need.

But they never once consider the opportunity, funds, lost by all that carved out of the taxes paid by encouraging behavior deemed beneficial to the overall economy.

It isn't really a matter of fairness; it is a matter of entitlement for those who fancy themselves as more important to the economy than consumers.

Now again, I have been preparing taxes since 1986 and have seen so many changes in the tax code.

The overall result has been an increase in reckless economic activity, the glorification of the guy who is willing to do whatever it takes to squeeze the last available dollar from an investment and, most important to all of us who aren't full time "investors", less money available to the federal government for public investment.

The result of this is an increased private sector solution to stuff such as roads and schools that should be public investments.

The deficit has been used to scale down the scope of government, which, I believe, will ultimately set up a society that is divided between those who own and those who do not. Kind of like midlevel Europe.

The serfs, most of us, will be there simply to serve the needs, wants, and desire of the owning class.

Is it time our society to finally view criminal activity as a matter of justice instead of, as it is in so many cases, seeking revenge?

If we can get passed this point, I think we can make a giant step forward toward a moral based society that deals equally with all kind criminal behavior.

Think how we treat the situation when murder is the crime. What I want to focus on now is the questions asked after the verdict has been adjudicated.

There is always the feeling that somehow justice is served if the death penalty is handed down.

You can gussy it up anyway you want but the eye for an eye path is seeking revenge. Now that we have a judiciary that is set aside from the individuals involved, which should not even be a consideration.

The bottom line is that the person has been killed and that no matter what we do to the perpetrator, that murdered person is not coming back.

Then again, I like the idea that the punishment must fit the crime.

Nevertheless, is the state killing to satisfy a personal, and I would add, as well as a societal revenge justified?

I am sure there will be people who will not be satisfied unless a life is traded for a life. And often times I feel that way as well. It's instinctive I guess.

I just want to put forth this idea of vengeful justice versus indifferent or rather impartial punishment.

What about the corrupting influence the changes in the Capital Gains Tax did to the Investment Class, those in and supporting it...

It is pretty simple to me, the GOP, no matter how many Black People they can parade on stages, are, at heart, racial.

Not so much the people running the show, they are more calculatingly cynical, but the majority of the rank and file.

The Board was depolitisized starting in 2002...

I served as a Board Member in 1995-96 and we were mainly dealing with tech issues since it was when everything was going digital.

The percieved problems in the counting in Cuyahoga Country was a flub of double counting absentee ballots in a few precincts. As soon as they discovered it happen, the numbers changed in these precincts and people just went with it.

Also, they had consolidated a whole mess of precints in the early part of the 2000's. There was over 2200 precincts in 2000. I believe they got it down to about 1700 for the 2004 election. This was mandated by the SOS. But each board was responsible for their actions. Many of the precincts were dead due to massive populations shifts. 2004 was the first election with all the new precincts in so there were several areas that were not allocated the correct nember of machines.

Also, Cuyahoga County is so dominated by democrats, no one in their right mind would believe that the GOP would be able to manipulate voting. There would have had to have been unprecidented cooperation between the party's and that wasn't going to happen.

I had a thread on DU that explained how it happened. It's probably still over on DU2.

You have to remember that the Boards of Election were hyper partisan. For every democrat there had to be a republican. It was crazy. So there was always one person watching another person all the time.

The corruption in the County is strickly about people doing favors for other people. It's as simple as that.

I know most of the major players and was in fact Dimora's treasurer for the party and his political accounts.

I quit in 2001 so what ever happened after that....

Anyway, Dimora just got greedy. He was drunk with power being a commisioner and the chairman of the party.

I ran into him about two years before the scandal broke and he had become a real self-important jerk. I'm glad I got out hen I could.

So the stuff that happened in the county as of late had nothing at all to do with the stuff that happened at the BOE in 2004.

Yea, it is as simple as that.

In a society that is completely over run by "what's in it for me" mentality, what does anyone expect?

How is it possible that any candidate would be completely in tune with all of any persons particular set of issues?

But the truth is you need to get one more vote than the other guy in enough states to cobble together 270 electoral votes.

Last time I looked that means satisfying millions of people with thousands of stands on issues.

So yes, I have voted many times for the lesser of two evils in my life.

But I have never voted for a republican and I am certainly not going to start at this late time in my life.

Especially since my dad's republican party left his slightly conservative mind set back in the 1980's.

So yes, I support president Obama, warts and all.

Beside that, he is the most normal person to sit in the Oval Office since 1980...