Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       08-26-2015, 10:51 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
Yes because what the country needs is another career politician to make minor changes in policy and have very little effect on the direction the country is headed.
Unless you've missed it, the President has very little power to "make changes in policy." Yes, the president is the face of the country and nominally the leader, but without congress being on board, big changes in policy (like cutting social security benefits, for example) are impossible.

Quote:
Is anybody in the US actually getting worried that Trump's ratings are so high. He has zero political experience, he is a bigot and xenophobic amongst other things, yet a high percentage of the public this this is ok? In the bigger picture, the damage that he would do to Americas international standing would be unimaginable.
He appeals to the disaffected white guy. Nobody gets to the white house on the disaffected white guy vote anymore. To get elected from the right, a candidate is going to need moderates, evangelicals, women, and conservative minorities. He's doing a pretty good job of alienating women and minorities and is letting the others pander to the moral majority.

He is a firebrand and says the semi offensive stuff that's on the minds of many a talk radio caller, but IMHO he cannot build a big enough coalition to get elected. He is a lot more fun to watch than the others tho. And who knows... aside from being overtly sexist, he does have some moderate/liberal palmares.... in the highly unlikely event he gets the nomination, maybe he tacks hard left and tries to draw in some moderates. I kinda doubt the viability of that strategy tho.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       08-26-2015, 10:52 AM Reply   
Quote:
Also, since when is being blunt and unfiltered the same as bigotry?
Exactly
IMO that's what has happend they have labeled the truth as "Hate Speech" & "Racism" no one wants to be labeled as a Racist so the steer clear of straight talk and the truth. What we have created is talking heads that say what we wanna hear and lie to us to stay popular.
Old     (alcarlaw1)      Join Date: Jun 2007       08-26-2015, 10:59 AM Reply   
From a foreign viewpoint, Trump is simply not perceived to be in any way equipped to negotiate on any level with anybody. He does seem to have a passion and talent for school ground style bullying however, will that be his foreign policy?. With his farcical attempts at riding roughshod over the laws of other countries for personal gain, he really should learn that diplomacy, and understanding are essential ingredients for success . Like it or not, people, or indeed countries, only have power to influence if there is respect, and trust. I cant see Trump valuing these two qualities thus America will become ignored on the international stage.

We had a very similar ultra right winged Xenophobic character that gained an alarming amount of traction in the general elections, fortunately Farage was booted into touch, On the other hand I do hope this Trump ego trip goes on a little longer, I really need to start streaming Fox news, their lobotomised and fact-less journalistic flair and the need for instantaneous "news" must surely be very entertaining.

Last edited by alcarlaw1; 08-26-2015 at 11:02 AM.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       08-26-2015, 11:01 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
Exactly
What we have created is talking heads that say what we wanna hear and lie to us to stay popular.
What? I thought Fox was Fair and Balanced?
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 11:30 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
Do you think that if social security is dissolved that you will get any of the money that you already contributed back? Where is it supposed to come from simplej? The boomers already spent YOUR contributions as well as their own on nuclear bombs, Muslim wars, and themselves. Do you think gen Y is going to continue to contribute even after it has been eliminated? Your stupidity astounds me. How about we just have a temporary moratorium on social security where the boomers don't get to collect but it starts up again when gen X retires. Boomers are the reason for all the mess we're in right now anyway. They may as well be the ones who pay the price.

So have you not saved sufficiently for retirement and are depending on social security?
Should we screw only the boomers?
Why would gen Y pay into it if it was dissolved?

I can do better saving on my own than the government can. They can keep what I have contributed to social security. **** it. Buy f-22s or pay down the debt, I don't care. It's a small price to pay for the ability to save and manage my own money.

I can add the percent difference to my 401k contributions that will actually COMPOUND and ultimately allow me to have a better retirement in ~40 years.

Another 7% of my own pay in my 401k. Compound that. I'll make up the difference quick.

Last edited by simplej; 08-26-2015 at 11:39 AM.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 11:36 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
Exactly

IMO that's what has happend they have labeled the truth as "Hate Speech" & "Racism" no one wants to be labeled as a Racist so the steer clear of straight talk and the truth. What we have created is talking heads that say what we wanna hear and lie to us to stay popular.

Comedians refuse to play college campuses because of all the self righteous 17-23 year olds who like to make issues out jokes and turn them into "hate speech"
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 11:52 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Unless you've missed it, the President has very little power to "make changes in policy." Yes, the president is the face of the country and nominally the leader, but without congress being on board, big changes in policy (like cutting social security benefits, for example) are impossible.







He appeals to the disaffected white guy.

Yes, that was more of a general statement about the Washington machine. Why can we not have some term limits here? I am well aware that the president is cuffed until he circumvents our checks and balances and gets sued by the house...


And yes, 100% appeals to the disaffected white guy. He has white male interests first and foremost. I am guessing most of us our white males so I am surprised he is not more popular here
Old     (lifetimewarranty)      Join Date: Oct 2008       08-26-2015, 12:03 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesos View Post
As a growing CA small biz I'm with Buffalow.

Also, http://boingboing.net/2015/07/09/don...ampaign=buffer

Haha

Wes, did some conservative hack your account and post this?

Or did starting your own company finally cause you to realize how difficult the government makes it for those of us who have our own business?
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       08-26-2015, 1:00 PM Reply   
[QUOTE=simplej;1920661
Why would gen Y pay into it if it was dissolved?
[/QUOTE]

Because that's how it works? It is NOT an investment system, it set up ponzi scheme style so that the current folks paying in pay the benefits of those collecting. That's how it has always worked. How in the world would the system have had the funds to get going if it didn't work that way?

So if GenY quits paying, Boomers quit collecting. In order to land the system with any grace, you've got to keep people paying but extend out their benefit collection date (i.e. 70 instead of 62, then 75 instead of 70, etc).
Old     (fouroheight68)      Join Date: May 2006       08-26-2015, 1:24 PM Reply   
Thankfully the election is over a year away, and American voters have the attention span of a goldfish.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 1:24 PM Reply   
That's exactly my point it's a bunch of nonsense. A government funded retirement program.

If you know how to save money it's terrible for you.

If you don't it's good for you.

We are all writing our parents and grand parents SS checks. It doesn't make you the slightest bit angry thinking about what an extra 7% saved will do for you in the long term vs what SS benefit will get paid out?
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       08-26-2015, 1:37 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
That's exactly my point it's a bunch of nonsense. A government funded retirement program.

If you know how to save money it's terrible for you.

If you don't it's good for you.

We are all writing our parents and grand parents SS checks. It doesn't make you the slightest bit angry thinking about what an extra 7% saved will do for you in the long term vs what SS benefit will get paid out?
You are looking at it as an investment. It's not... it's a ponzi scheme. The current workforce pays for the retired one.

Also SS is not a "lap of luxury" retirement program. It's a safety net. For some of the weekest and most feeble minded, who could no way no how save up 7% of their earnings for retirement, what's your proposal? Too bad old folks, hunt squirrels at the park?

The thing that probably needs to change is the concept of "retirement" altogether. When SS came on the scene with it's meager payout for those 65+, the avg lifespan in the US of A was 61. Now if you are 65 and a man you have a 50/50 shot of making it to 82, and 85 if a woman. That's a big shift in long term payouts.

It might make more sense to make social security a little more like welfare. Income caps to limit eligibility, for one thing. Put a stigma on it -- it's retirement for poor people. It also makes a lot of sense to raise the retirement age to something like 70 or 75 before benefits would be paid.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       08-26-2015, 1:49 PM Reply   
Interesting ideas, Shawndoggy. I figure that I wouldn't retire until I am 70 or so anyways but if I do retire earlier than that, hold off on filing for SS (if that's an option) for a few years.
Old     (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       08-26-2015, 2:10 PM Reply   
Social security used to be called Old Age Insurance. Shawndoggy nailed it, when it was revamped, people didn't live to 90 in some cases. Another broken program. Thanks Democrats!!
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 2:17 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
Do you think that if social security is dissolved that you will get any of the money that you already contributed back?
Not going to happen. Nobody is going to elect an extremist that will kill SS. So goodbye Rand Paul.

I love Trump. He is leading a bunch of delusional people down the yellow brick road. He's not electable. So in the off chance he gets the nomination the Republicans are going to lose the election.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 2:17 PM Reply   
I am well aware that it is not "investment" and your money will not grow in SS. Hence why I said we are paying our parents and grandparents SS right now...

Everyone is taxed SS. So you're putting money essentially back into their pockets. That money could be saved and invested. This is neither difficult nor selective based on income. If you make safe investments your retirement fund will grow bigger over your taxable working years than social security will.

The only problem is those who lack the sense to save the money they're given back and end up back on the dole anyways so basically you need to make it an opt in/ opt out program. Even if you half the tax for those that opt out of payment a smart investor could do better than SS over their lifetime and won't take the payments when the reach retirement age, will be better off in retirement, won't be on the dole, and will still have contributed to the system to support those less fortunate or who are not bright enough to handle their finances
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       08-26-2015, 2:19 PM Reply   
what of those who opt out and fail to invest wisely?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 2:21 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverd1 View Post
Social security used to be called Old Age Insurance. Shawndoggy nailed it, when it was revamped, people didn't live to 90 in some cases. Another broken program. Thanks Democrats!!
No problem. Just give me the $350K I've contributed plus a small amount of interest and you don't have to gamble on me living till I'm 100. I have to laugh at people hating on SS who we've all contributed to, but totally ignore the fact that govt is full of people retiring on defined benefit pensions. SS is not nearly in the trouble that people perceive that it is. Too bad we wasted $2T on Iraq. We could have made SS totally solid with that money. It's not in that bad a shape. It's just that people can't understand the difference between borrow and steal. Nobody is claiming that the Fed is stealing from all the people who loaned it the $17T in debt.
Old     (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       08-26-2015, 2:21 PM Reply   
or try to opt back in because they're now in poverty?

SS barely beats inflation. Not the most stellar investment return, but safe. I could do better picking stocks blindfolded
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 2:22 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Not going to happen. Nobody is going to elect an extremist that will kill SS. So goodbye Rand Paul.


It would be super fun to watch Rand Paul run as a third part candidate. If he didn't pander to the evangelicals he would be stealing Independents, right leaning liberals, and left leaning republicans.


Should be said I am a hardcore libertarian...
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 2:22 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
I am well aware that it is not "investment" and your money will not grow in SS. Hence why I said we are paying our parents and grandparents SS right now...
Wrong! You are paying back debt to the SS trust fund. It's govt debt, not a govt charity.
Old     (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       08-26-2015, 2:24 PM Reply   
John, you're older. You'll get your money out. I'm mid 30s. Not nearly as confident in my odds as I am in yours.

Still looking in the rearview on Iraq. Those decisions were made 20 years ago, time to move on.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 2:24 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
Should be said I am a hardcore libertarian...
If Libertarians got what they ask for their pension investments would be decimated. The stock market would look like a train wreck.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 2:25 PM Reply   
Imagine that 350k building interest in the market... Mmmm...
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 2:25 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverd1 View Post
Still looking in the rearview on Iraq. Those decisions were made 20 years ago, time to move on.
Apparently you've never heard the phrase that people who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 2:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Wrong! You are paying back debt to the SS trust fund. It's govt debt, not a govt charity.

Near as makes no difference
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 2:27 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
If Libertarians got what they ask for their pension investments would be decimated. The stock market would look like a train wreck.

Pensions or investments? Which would be decimated?

They are two very different things...
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 2:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
Pensions or investments? Which would be decimated?

They are two very different things...
Whatever you have in the stock market. Could be both.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       08-26-2015, 2:29 PM Reply   
Here is a great example of of George Ramos (Univision) twisting Trumps words to make him sound like a dictator.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jorge-ra...ws-conference/
Never has Trump said he is against Latinos. He has said that he is against ILLIGAL IMAGRANTS" and people sneaking across a unprotected US Mexico boarded. If you listen to this interview with George Ramos (Univision) he is making it clear that ALL Latinos are against TRUMP because as he says it "Trump is attacking all IMMIGRANTS" 100% not true. But I can see how this George Ramos is a influential person in the Latino community and you can see how Trumps diss of this guy can and will not go well for Trump. If this Ramos guy can engage the "useful idiots"

On the flip side several of my friends that employee Hispanic workers that are here legal say that their workers are FOR trump. He contends he workers say that the illegals take work away from them (remember they are Hispanic that are saying this) and that they see their pay check with all the deductions and they realize that they are working hard so that the Illegals can work here with no deductions and that they are helping pay for them! So what George Ramos is saying is a bunch of crap designed to manipulate and say the Latino vote. The "your either with us or your against us" train of thought

Last edited by grant_west; 08-26-2015 at 2:38 PM.
Old     (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       08-26-2015, 2:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Apparently you've never heard the phrase that people who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
then write your congressman.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 2:30 PM Reply   
More liberal media stirring things up...
Old    bigdtx            08-26-2015, 2:37 PM Reply   
Rand Paul is a clown - just like his daddy.

As for all you people ragging on social security and the social safety net in general - take a trip outside the US.

Enjoy walking down the streets of large cities stepping over old ladies and cripples begging on the street.
Skip over the fortress wall separating the slums from the *affluent* neighborhoods.
In South Africa you can run your convoy of safety cars to combat the gangs out to kidnap you on the highway and hold you for ransom.
Land in the airport and be greeted by soldiers carrying automatic weapons.

There is no doubt that the US will eventually see all of these things because that's the evolution of society. Do you think any of the Romans ever believed that the Empire would fall? Of course not - Rome was the greatest power the world had ever seen - until it wasn't.

Every empire outruns it's resources and eventually falls.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 2:39 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Whatever you have in the stock market. Could be both.


I don't understand how you feel that a self regulated market with some control will detract from the market. Markets operate on natural selection. Basically what we have had over the years with the exception of large market crashes requiring bailouts. Not to mention a more isolationist policy could help reduce market turbulence by reducing U.S. Involvement in conflict.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 3:01 PM Reply   
We are overdue for some shaking up that is for sure.


Regardless Of your views trump is fascinating. Everything that would normally destroy a candidacy feeds the man
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       08-26-2015, 3:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
Everyone is taxed SS. So you're putting money essentially back into their pockets. That money could be saved and invested. This is neither difficult nor selective based on income. If you make safe investments your retirement fund will grow bigger over your taxable working years than social security will.
That is not quite true. My wife is a school teacher and she doesn't pay SS tax, she pays into something in this state called Pera. When she retires, she will get a percentage of her last salary.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 3:25 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
I don't understand how you feel that a self regulated market with some control will detract from the market. Markets operate on natural selection. Basically what we have had over the years with the exception of large market crashes requiring bailouts. Not to mention a more isolationist policy could help reduce market turbulence by reducing U.S. Involvement in conflict.
Just shows how little you understand that the govt is subsidizing pension investments. Govt charity is not a free market.
Old     (Jmorlan)      Join Date: May 2013       08-26-2015, 3:39 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdtx View Post
Rand Paul is a clown - just like his daddy.

As for all you people ragging on social security and the social safety net in general - take a trip outside the US.

Enjoy walking down the streets of large cities stepping over old ladies and cripples begging on the street.
Skip over the fortress wall separating the slums from the *affluent* neighborhoods.
In South Africa you can run your convoy of safety cars to combat the gangs out to kidnap you on the highway and hold you for ransom.
Land in the airport and be greeted by soldiers carrying automatic weapons.

There is no doubt that the US will eventually see all of these things because that's the evolution of society. Do you think any of the Romans ever believed that the Empire would fall? Of course not - Rome was the greatest power the world had ever seen - until it wasn't.

Every empire outruns it's resources and eventually falls.
I think the problems we are running into in America are scalability issues. We are on a fast trsck to socialism. Socialism definitely, for a fact is not scalable. Maybe in a perfect utopian society, maybe. But humans are not utopian beings. And the less intelligent in our country do not understand this.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 3:43 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Just shows how little you understand that the govt is subsidizing pension investments. Govt charity is not a free market.

Can you please explain to me what a "pension investment" is?

Perhaps if we were speaking the same language I could provide you with viable a counter point...
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 4:11 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
Can you please explain to me what a "pension investment" is?

Perhaps if we were speaking the same language I could provide you with viable a counter point...
IRA, 401K, non federal govt defined benefit pensions. Pretty much anything invested in Wall Street. And given that consumer confidence takes a dive when people see their retirement investments go down, pretty much a lot of the economy is affected.

Once you remove tax deductions (i.e. flat tax or federal govt sales tax) the incentive for people to put their money in tax deductible accounts disappears. Once that govt charity for pension investments is gone, then so will be the money. Same will happen with the HC industry when the govt is no longer giving tax money to people's HI. The govt pays for about 40% of my HI through the lack of taxation on the dollars that go to my HI. Once you effectively eliminate the IRS then the market will drastically change. Isn't that what Libertarians want wrt the IRS?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 4:18 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmorlan View Post
I think the problems we are running into in America are scalability issues. We are on a fast trsck to socialism. Socialism definitely, for a fact is not scalable. Maybe in a perfect utopian society, maybe. But humans are not utopian beings. And the less intelligent in our country do not understand this.
Socialism (in the context we use the word) is not an all or nothing affair. Just as Capitalism (in the context we use the word) is not an all or nothing affair. If you mean Socialism as in the govt (people) own the means of production, then you are raising a strawman argument. Hardly anyone is suggesting that the govt own everything. The lack of humans being perfect is as applicable to capitalism as it is to socialism. When money is being created out of thin air as it is, then you are operating with an economic paradigm that is neither pure capitalism or socialism.
Old     (fouroheight68)      Join Date: May 2006       08-26-2015, 4:38 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
So it's okay for a "reporter" to heckle him? Did you even watch the video?


I hope social security dies. I don't need the government to save my pennies for me. I can do a better job.
The Post reports:

"“Mr. Trump, I have a question,” said Jorge Ramos, the top news anchor at Univision and one of the country’s most recognizable Mexican-Americans, as he stood up in the front row of journalists.

“Excuse me,” the Republican presidential front-runner told Ramos. “Sit down. You weren’t called. Sit down.”

Ramos, holding a piece of paper, calmly tried to ask Trump about his plan to combat illegal immigration. “I’m a reporter, an immigrant, a senior citizen,” he said. “I have the right to ask a question.”

Trump interrupted him. “Go back to Univision,” he said. Then the billionaire businessman motioned to one of his bodyguards, who walked across the room and physically removed Ramos from the room.

Trump doesn’t have to take everyone’s question, Trump sympathizers insisted. (Who said he did?) Ramos was being too opinionated, others declared, as if the press corps does not include other overtly partisan outlets. This all misses the essential point: When confronted with someone threatening to upstage him, Trump had to resort to physical force to remove him. (In a discussion about his inhumane plan to round up millions of illegal immigrants, it was a telling response.)

Trump could have ignored Ramos. He could have treated him like a heckler. He could have answered a question and then moved on. But Trump lacks verbal acuity and finesse. He incites and bullies, but he does not engage or disarm. What would he do in a debate when challenged forthrightly — call for his bodyguards?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...entrandom_1_na
Old     (Jmorlan)      Join Date: May 2013       08-26-2015, 5:01 PM Reply   
Why are we even talking about this? Didnt Univision cut ties with trump? So why do they even have a reporter there. Doesn't work both ways muchacho
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 5:12 PM Reply   
It strikes me that a reporter who insists that he asks the questions in a room full of reporters is out of line. And that's about all the support for Trump you'll hear from me.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       08-26-2015, 5:59 PM Reply   
John: If you watch the video George Ramos stand's up & starts repeating his question over & over. When asked to wait his turn he (because he had not been called on) George chose to make a seen. IMO he was the one being disruptive and IMO he was the one out of line & should be removed. Think how press conferences would go if everyone acted like George did.

Yes that's a good question Why is UNIVISION giving "The Donald" any play at all? They cut ties with him for what he said DONE! They were not there to cover any story UNIVISION was there to put Trump in a bad light. Some might say mission accomplished.
Old     (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       08-26-2015, 6:25 PM Reply   
So far, all Trump has done is pound his chest and say "They do it wrong. I can do it better."... he's offered nothing, absolutely nothing, to actually back that up. His written positions on actual issues offer nothing more than the same bluster he's prone to when in front of a camera.

I don't care if some people find that bluster charming or refreshing when compared to the other politicians in the race. It's all ridiculous posturing until he can actually show me how he plans to do any of the things he claims he can do.

Trump is the Kool-Aid man. His antics may seems kinda entertaining in the moment... but when he's gone all you're left with is a busted wall and rotting teeth.
Old     (Jmorlan)      Join Date: May 2013       08-26-2015, 6:37 PM Reply   
Who else should you suggest on the gop side digg? Rand? Certainly not. Chris Christie? No way! Ben carson?- while I like him, he is very intelligent, he is not pres material. In the cabinet? Certainly. Pres, no.
Carly fiorina? No thanks.
Jindal? We don't need another Muslim.
Rubio? You think immigration is messed up now? Just wait.
Jeb? We don't need another of the royal family (on either side)
Huckabee- haven't paid much attention, so no comment.
Cruz- too religiously linked for my liking.
Walker-I'm not sure about that fellow
Perry- he's done alright in Texas
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       08-26-2015, 6:41 PM Reply   
" trumps the Kool-Aid Man when he's done all you're left with is a busted wall and rotten teeth """
That's a good one dude thanks for the laugh

OK back to the subject at hand. I don't buy the rhetoric that he needs to lay out all his plans before you deem it any good. I mean didn't Congress vote in Obamacare before they even read it!
What does "HOPE" and "CHANGE" really mean. Yes it sounded great and got him elected but what did it mean for you and me
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 6:44 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
IRA, 401K, non federal govt defined benefit pensions. Pretty much anything invested in Wall Street. And given that consumer confidence takes a dive when people see their retirement investments go down, pretty much a lot of the economy is affected.



Once you remove tax deductions (i.e. flat tax or federal govt sales tax) the incentive for people to put their money in tax deductible accounts disappears. Once that govt charity for pension investments is gone, then so will be the money. Same will happen with the HC industry when the govt is no longer giving tax money to people's HI. The govt pays for about 40% of my HI through the lack of taxation on the dollars that go to my HI. Once you effectively eliminate the IRS then the market will drastically change. Isn't that what Libertarians want wrt the IRS?

Fair observation there's two big things here: it offers other benefits such as removing limits on those types of accounts. Having a bad year? don't contribute. Double it the next year. Just graduated and working and living at home? Put half your pay in instead of rent and start off with a big nest egg which can help immensely.
I don't put money in there because it is tax exempt, I put it in there because I want to actually be able to retire, while the trickle down effect seems bad, in reality it opens up other portions of flexibility

Plus the one fatal flaw in your argument: they tax you when you take it out anyways... Unless it is a Roth, which they tax you when it goes in. So there is really no difference in the end game.

Plus the sales taxing that goes with that has other benefits, other closed loop holes, and ultimately by taxing consumption you extract more money from more people who may attain their money illegally: illegal immigrants, criminals, those who profit off dividends.

Tis the fairest way to tax...
Old     (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       08-26-2015, 7:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
"
What does "HOPE" and "CHANGE" really mean. Yes it sounded great and got him elected but what did it mean for you and me
For starters:

Stocks have hit record highs (this last week not withstanding). We're at what? 64 straight months of private sector job growth.
Somewhere around 9 million jobs created, and the unemployment rate is now lower than the historical median. (This has been the best year of job gains since 1999.)
Business establishment start-ups have increased by 20 percent, and the number of job openings is the highest in more than 14 years.
U.S. oil production is up 94 percent. Wind and solar power are up 252 percent. U.S. dependency on oil imports is down to the lowest point since the 1970s.
The percentage of foreigners who say they approve of the U.S. is up in most countries including France, Britain, Japan, Mexico, Turkey, Pakistan and even Israel, where it stands at 81 percent of those polled this year.
You don't like Obamacare, but it has caused the rate of uninsured Americans to fall to its lowest level since they started tracking it.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 8:18 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
John: If you watch the video George Ramos stand's up & starts repeating his question over & over. When asked to wait his turn he (because he had not been called on) George chose to make a seen. IMO he was the one being disruptive and IMO he was the one out of line & should be removed. Think how press conferences would go if everyone acted like George did.
Grant, you should reread mine post. Because your response indicates that you didn't get what I said at all.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-26-2015, 8:20 PM Reply   
The stock market is up but I'm not sure for how much longer and that's all artificial sweetener (printed money) anyway. Other than that, most of those jobs created were part time and minimum wage and I know of five small business owners who no longer have insurance. I think the Forbes writing puts the economy into perspective and how effective his administration is http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...rst-president/
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 8:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by digg311 View Post
So far, all Trump has done is pound his chest and say "They do it wrong. I can do it better."... he's offered nothing, absolutely nothing, to actually back that up. His written positions on actual issues offer nothing more than the same bluster he's prone to when in front of a camera.
To be fair, you could say that about most candidates. And to the contrary Trump has definitely said he's building a wall and thinks being PC is a big problem with this country. The only intelligent way to choose is to read between the lines and try get understand the candidates ideology. The nice thing about Trump is he's easy to read. He not diplomatic, which means he doesn't give a crap about working with anyone. He doesn't even need his counterpoints to publicly declare they won't work with him first, like the GOP did when Obama was elected.

On the positive side he thinks that we need to bring jobs back to America. But unfortunately you can pretty much expect that to mean he believes we should turn America into the same sh*thole that China is. IOW, it's not that he believes Americans should have jobs that have living wages, but that Americans should be slaves to the wealthy.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 8:35 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
IOW, it's not that he believes Americans should have jobs that have living wages, but that Americans should be slaves to the wealthy.

Applying that logic: So those on welfare should remain jobless and slaves the wealthy government through social programs instead of the private sector?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 8:50 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
The stock market is up but I'm not sure for how much longer and that's all artificial sweetener (printed money) anyway. Other than that, most of those jobs created were part time and minimum wage and I know of five small business owners who no longer have insurance. I think the Forbes writing puts the economy into perspective and how effective his administration is http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...rst-president/
The fallacy of that article is the belief that recession means recovery just because that's the way it was in the past. The irony is that Obama is at fault for the lack of recovery even though Bush was responsible for the recession. To be honest I don't believe the fault is totally on either President, but arguments seem to always be based on that concept so I'll go with that as well. The reality is that you can't blame a President for American jobs being lost to impoverished labor. Well maybe Clinton for his support for Fair Trade. But that just illustrates how a President that presided over an economic boom could be responsible for economic disaster. IOW, what happened under one President can be traced back to policies of the past.

The economy doesn't just change direction on a dime. You can't start with a $1.4T deficit and expect a surplus the next year. The bottom line is that we are all responsible for depleting the US economy so that we can get the cheapest products. We value consumption over a cooperative effort to ensure decent jobs for our fellow countrymen. We don't give the slightest concern towards national security when it competes with WalMart. The natural reaction is to hold the line and try to maintain the maximum glutenous lifestyle for as long as we can. Fair enough, but at least have the intellectual integrity to admit it. Personally I don't really give a crap who we elect or where our choices take us. But I refuse to let people argue that it's poor people dragging us down without a challenge.

We are in a position now where every solution is a double edged sword. Despite our huge national debt the dollar is in a strong position because we share it with the world. To the tune of over a half trillion a year. And we've been doing it for a long time. That's why we can get away with huge debt. I can't tell you the solution, but somehow we need to figure out how to slow down the increase in debt without going on an austerity program. Because as soon as we quite sharing the dollar it's going to lose it's value in the world. If the Fed is going to keep printing money then perhaps it should give it to the govt instead of loaning it. And it sure as hell shouldn't be giving it to bond holders by buying bonds at above market value.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 8:54 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
Applying that logic: So those on welfare should remain jobless and slaves the wealthy government through social programs instead of the private sector?
People on welfare don't consume very much. If wages were high enough to provide the ability to support oneself and a family then welfare would not be very attractive. When wages are so low that the cost of holding a job eats them up, then welfare is very competitive.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-26-2015, 9:09 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
Fair observation there's two big things here: it offers other benefits such as removing limits on those types of accounts. Having a bad year? don't contribute. Double it the next year. Just graduated and working and living at home? Put half your pay in instead of rent and start off with a big nest egg which can help immensely.
I don't put money in there because it is tax exempt, I put it in there because I want to actually be able to retire, while the trickle down effect seems bad, in reality it opens up other portions of flexibility

Plus the one fatal flaw in your argument: they tax you when you take it out anyways... Unless it is a Roth, which they tax you when it goes in. So there is really no difference in the end game.

Plus the sales taxing that goes with that has other benefits, other closed loop holes, and ultimately by taxing consumption you extract more money from more people who may attain their money illegally: illegal immigrants, criminals, those who profit off dividends.

Tis the fairest way to tax...
So you are saying that being taxed 40 years in the future on a progressive tax schedule and low income (you're retired) is a disincentive to getting a tax break when you are making high wages is a "fatal flaw" in my argument. I disagree. I'm just about to turn 60 and I was totally all about getting that tax break when I maxed my retirement contribution. Add that 401Ks generally come with an employer match and it would be stupid to not contribute.

Employers wouldn't even match if the govt didn't come up with the idea of a 401K and the associated tax rules. The fact that 401Ks usually come with a annual fee and you can't even get out of them (even to roll over into an IRA) without quitting your job and you should realize that this was a plan that came from Wall Street straight to your bought and paid for Congress. When the company I worked for hit some hard times they quit matching. I went to the president and told him I was quitting on Friday and they could hire me back on Monday so I could roll my 401K into an IRA. After explaining why they closed the 401K so everyone could roll over.

I realize that predictions are basically no different than a bet. I'm not even a betting man, but I would put up virtually any amount of money on the bet that if the IRS rules for pension contributions were eliminated and all contributions both employee and employer were taxed that the market would take a hit at least as bad as the one in Bush's term. And if that happened then 401Ks would make no sense. I'm pretty sure that employer contributions would then make no sense. At best employers would give the difference to the employee as pay. Not likely that would ever see Wall Street. More like WalMart.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-26-2015, 10:04 PM Reply   
In a pure world, yes I agree and it makes sense if our tax brackets made proper sense.

However you're putting aside tax brackets, and any other supplemental income you may have in retirement. Given the width of the middle 25% and 28% tax bracket, If you've done a good job saving for many years and are a upper median income household you won't have a sizable drop in taxation come retirement. Enter the Roth 401k/IRA which someone your age likely would not use. However a younger person can use this tool to their advantage. It encourages earlier saving at a lower tax bracket, going on the opposite direction of a traditional retirement fund.

Getting into other side effects of the front loading the 401k taxation and reducing corporate taxes: numerous models show increases in wages, jobs and benefits for employees. It also has shown to improve the way we interact with other countries economies. Companies don't want waste, they want to run lean. If they cut benefits, healthcare, etc during profitable stints they lose employees, get on the temp employee hamster wheel and up retraining. 401k matches, HI, etc aren't going to disappear, these things mean unhappy employees.
Unhappy employees, leads to unproductively, and then after enough time a backlash in profitability. And even if it meant a raise instead of a 401k, it is still on you the employee to save for retirement, regardless of where the money comes from.

We have some comparatively high corporate tax rates in the U.S..

Just more food for thought, I can debate about it all day.
We are getting OT
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       08-26-2015, 10:34 PM Reply   
Do you seriously support replacing an income tax with a consumption tax simplej? I know what I'd do if I were making more than a million per year. I'd unofficially move out of the country. I'd buy a "vacation home" abroad and buy everything outside the country. Add to that the fact that the richest of the rich spend on average only around 3% of their income in any given year. I'm quite sure I could pay 0 taxes no matter what my income.
I'll bet if would take a month before every single fortune 500 company's headquarters was in another country.
Now in order to make up for all of the lost tax revenue from all the rich people now "vacationing" abroad, the new consumption tax will have to be boosted significantly in order to make up for the loss. I'm imagining a sales tax that equals multiple times the cost of the item purchased i.e.. buy a $3 loaf of bread and pay a $30 sales tax. This is because you're not just paying your own tax. You're paying the taxes for everyone that is "vacationing" abroad.
Add to the crisis the fact that everyone with lots of money is now spending all of it outside the country.
Now you have completely destroyed the US economy but the rich (way richer than you) don't care because they don't live here anymore. Is it obvious why extremely rich people love the idea of a consumption tax yet? Do you feel like a chump now simplej? You should.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-27-2015, 5:00 AM Reply   
The sky is falling the sky is falling!!! Not changes to tax code!!! If you're happy with it, good for you. I am not.

Technically I support flat taxation, which does include a large a tax on consumption. You can't have a sole source of taxation, while it is the most fair source of taxation.

Moving out wouldn't work due to the way some of our own countries import laws work (you think rich people are gonna go on vacation to buy their trust fund babies iPhones? Lol... At least we get to tax their jets/fuel/services on the way out), and aside from the fact that most every other country worth living in has the same types of "value added" taxation, who don't seem to be losing many residents to us, who are a bit of a tax haven comparatively speaking.

Ever look at the tax codes in Europe? I think you should. Flat taxation with a large sales tax. Riders for the über wealthy with tax increases for the top 1%.

Corporations would move back into the U.S., because it would also reduce corporate income tax on payroll, which will support job growth and enhance market interaction.

Yes you could live a year without spending a penny on consumption taxes or very little on consumption taxation, that's what is great about the system. You can live within in your own means by your own volition with less government intervention and fewer loopholes etc. plus what cold human would tax a loaf of bread? Sheesh...
Don't have it? Don't spend it. End of story.

If you would rather the most wealthy continue to pay their 20% on dividends and move to an low dividend tax/sales tax free state, while the lower middle class gets hammered by a 25% tax rate with meager increases up to the uber wealthy, I where we get a nice big drop, I would love to hear your supporting argument...

Last edited by simplej; 08-27-2015 at 5:03 AM.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       08-27-2015, 8:33 AM Reply   
My problem with Trump is that he's a business man. You know what that means? He will run this country like it's a business and a country is not a business. The country is not here to make money, it's here to support and protect its people. Businesses are worried about money first and people last. If Trump gets into office, he will be more worried about providing tax breaks to corporations than he will be about the people of this country. I believe greed is what is killing this country and there's more to life than just money. If corporation's weren't so worried about making more and more money every year and worried more about taking care of their community, this country would be in a far better place! Put American's to work, not the Chinese! Create the electronics production infrastructure here and move those manufacturing jobs back to the US. Yeah, the corp might not make $100 billion in profit, they might only make $85 billion instead but when you are taking care of those around you, it is better for everyone (less crime, better health, more money for education, etc).

On a side note, I'm just waiting for the story(ies) to come out on how many illegal alien's Trump has hired throughout the years whether it be in the construction of a skyscraper, hotel/casino staff, golf course groundskeepers, etc. Somebody is out there digging and it's only a matter of time before it's brought to light and we get the "I didn't know" speech.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       08-27-2015, 9:21 AM Reply   
Of course I would change the tax code a bit. I'd get rid of the loop holes that everyone talks about, get rid of some of the subsidy programs that are no longer deserved, and I would add a tiered system to capitol gains similar to what the income tax uses so that if you earn a million dollars in the stock market, it gets treated like a million dollars of income. Someone smarter than me would decide whether to pay off the debt or give the middle class a tax break with this money.

Most importantly, I would GUT the pentagon budget with a stipulation that all funds used directly for our troops are frozen and unaffected by the cuts. Since most of the money the pentagon uses goes to mystery programs this shouldn't be hard to do. Since 1996 the pentagon has LOST 8.5 trillion dollars. They literally don't know what they spent the money on. That's more than half of the national debt. And you thought it was illegal aliens that cost us? Welfare waste is a drop in the bucket. There are multiple sources to confirm this. I have a link to one.

http://theantimedia.org/the-pentagon...on-dollars-on/
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-27-2015, 10:04 AM Reply   
Gutting the pentagon?

Sounds very libertarian of you

I never said anything about illegal immigrants being a money suck, they contribute to issue in some ways but are just a piece of the puzzle. Welfare is a separate issue but again, another piece of the puzzle, they start adding up. I do believe that there are more people on welfare than those that have full time jobs. Lots of people need that and even deserve welfare, but you cannot sit here and tell me that it is okay for those people to collect rather than find ways to employ them. Then again, why work if you can sit and collect welfare from your neighbor for nothing...


The tiered system, to me, is fundamentally flawed because the perception is that you are taxed for simply existing and working. Particularly with the tax rates and brackets set where the are now (take a pay cut, make more money in some cases)

Anyone curious about VAT/flat tax/etc I encourage you to read about changes to the Russian switch in 2001. Their economy, GDP, and internal revenue following the change. It is pretty fascinating, their economy is similar to ours in terms of size, and have seen good growth as a result.

I am angry at the cronyism in government today. I am angry that feels like we are in a positive feedback loop where the gov gives money to millions upon millions of people and results in (or perhaps for the purpose of) perpetuation of their reelection. I am pissed off that politicians harp on denying gay marriage, abortions, and LGBT rights. We are in tons of debt, we're losing site of our constitution, congress doesn't read bills. It disgusts me that everything is now "hate speech" and that we cannot even have common sense gun control, like not giving automatic weapons to children even when supervised (WTF?). It's both sides of the aisle we need a shake up here.

For that reason alone I like trump. People are talking and thinking now more than ever before.

Last edited by simplej; 08-27-2015 at 10:08 AM.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-27-2015, 10:15 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
The tiered system, to me, is fundamentally flawed because the perception is that you are taxed for simply existing and working. Particularly with the tax rates and brackets set where the are now (take a pay cut, make more money in some cases)
In what situation do you take a pay cut and make more money?

I'm not going to argue with you about the details of your last response. But I think you missed my point. If IRS rules for pension investments were eliminated then I assert that people would not invest nearly what they do in the stock market. And that would be a disaster for current pension investments. It would prove that Wall Street is not a "free market". It's a market that is manipulated by govt charity.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-27-2015, 10:16 AM Reply   
If you make 37,500 instead of 37501 etc etc etc or whatever the bracket it

We can agree to disagree on the market, there is lots of scholarly literature to back up either point view.

Last edited by simplej; 08-27-2015 at 10:21 AM.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       08-27-2015, 10:40 AM Reply   
So you would continue to allow the pentagon to "lose" trillions of dollars? Somebody knows where all that money went. When it's less embarrassing to say you lost it than it is to tell the truth, just imagine how bad the truth actually is. 8.5 trillion lost!!! That doesn't include the nearly 2 trillion spent on the F-35 and the 2 trillion and counting spent in the middle east. That's nearly 12 trillion of the 18 trillion national debt.

More people on welfare than working full time??????
Where did you get that bit of brilliance from? An email forward?
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       08-27-2015, 10:45 AM Reply   
Your flat tax doesn't account for how you will make up for the lost revenue when you cut the taxes on the top tax bracket. When you lower Donald Trump's taxes, someone has to make up the difference. Taxing the poor is like squeezing a rock to get water. That means a middle class tax hike. I don't make more than 500K per year. Do you?
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-27-2015, 10:46 AM Reply   
The last US census hahaha.

Though I will admit it is a bit of a twisted stat because it doesn't separate out able bodied workers from the raw numbers. Astonishing either way.

I wish I made 500k/yr!!

I seriously encourage you to read studies of the Russian tax law.
Slap on an extra tax like Germany does once you hit the top X percentage of earnings if you can't make up the difference.

You nail Mr. Trump on high dollar property, that's where you make it up.

I would be curious to see what percentage of tax revenue comes from the top 1% of earners. I would bet it is less than you think.

That's why warren buffet is always crying about his secretary paying more in taxes than him. We can at least make it equal.

Last edited by simplej; 08-27-2015 at 10:54 AM.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       08-27-2015, 11:35 AM Reply   
According to what comes up in google, top 1% pays about 45% of all income taxes. Or did last year anyhow.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-27-2015, 11:45 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
If you make 37,500 instead of 37501 etc etc etc or whatever the bracket it

We can agree to disagree on the market, there is lots of scholarly literature to back up either point view.
You clearly don't understand how tax brackets work. You would only pay a higher tax on money in the next bracket. i.e. $1 in this case. So no... you cannot make more by lowing your salary. This of course brings into question everything you know about economics if something as simple as tax brackets have you confused.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       08-27-2015, 11:47 AM Reply   
^^^ this
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-27-2015, 11:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
Your flat tax doesn't account for how you will make up for the lost revenue when you cut the taxes on the top tax bracket.
The govt cannot fund itself on a flat tax. There is a certain amount of overhead that people have to expend to hold a job. It costs money to work and there are no tax deductions related to those costs. The progressive schedule and personal exemption compensates for that overhead. The flat tax is an idiotic idea.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       08-27-2015, 12:27 PM Reply   
The top 1% also collect nearly 90% of the income. That means that the rest of us collect the remaining 10% of the income but pay 55% of the tax. I don't like to demonize the top 1% much though because I don't have any problem with someone who gets 500K or a million per year. They aren't the problem. It's the top 0.001% that I have a problem with. The guys whose only purpose in life seems to be to win the race to be the first trillionaire no matter what the cost to the world. I would guess that when you exclude them from the equation, the top 1% probably have a much smaller piece of the pie.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-27-2015, 12:27 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
You clearly don't understand how tax brackets work. You would only pay a higher tax on money in the next bracket. i.e. $1 in this case. So no... you cannot make more by lowing your salary. This of course brings into question everything you know about economics if something as simple as tax brackets have you confused.

Hahaha been a long long day at work with entirely too much taxation distraction.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-27-2015, 12:28 PM Reply   
Right, so would a flat tax redistribute that 55/45 break down is the question? For income yes, then you add property tax in, which should do too much damage to anyone living within their means.

Scale the tax down on the lowest end, scale it up on the top end borrowing from German and Russian code.

I am betting there's some huge jumps from the 250-500 per year execs to the next tier. Info we will likely never get.

Last edited by simplej; 08-27-2015 at 12:37 PM.
Old     (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       08-27-2015, 1:50 PM Reply   
Wes, I should have put an lol or haha. It's hard to take Trump serious but we may have to. He might be the Dem I could vote for.
Old     (bcoppinger)      Join Date: Sep 2002       08-27-2015, 2:11 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
John: If you watch the video George Ramos stand's up & starts repeating his question over & over. When asked to wait his turn he (because he had not been called on) George chose to make a seen. IMO he was the one being disruptive and IMO he was the one out of line & should be removed. Think how press conferences would go if everyone acted like George did.

Yes that's a good question Why is UNIVISION giving "The Donald" any play at all? They cut ties with him for what he said DONE! They were not there to cover any story UNIVISION was there to put Trump in a bad light. Some might say mission accomplished.
It's not like Jorge Ramos's daughter works for the Clinton campaign or anything. No reason to try and disrupt Trump.

http://fusion.net/story/153677/a-note-from-jorge-ramos/
Old     (King12)      Join Date: Jul 2012       08-27-2015, 2:52 PM Reply   
I think the guy is a perfect storm for democrats. So much so that I wonder if it's a scheme he is committed to by knocking the extreme vote out of the republicans hands while also conveniently sweeping all minorities to the democratic side. He runs independent because Republican Party is concerned first and foremost about the party advancement, grabs a slice of that extreme republican vote and hands Biden the presidency by a landslide.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       08-27-2015, 2:55 PM Reply   
If Biden runs, which is still in question. Equally intriguing is the rise of Bernie, who has the type of fervency when he speaks, although with eloquence.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-01-2015, 2:00 PM Reply   
What a joker IMO
Attached Images
 
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-01-2015, 3:26 PM Reply   
^^^ LOL, BFD!

Good grief if I had to be responsible for every crazy thing every one of my bosses (or worse yet their wives!) had done over the years.....

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:25 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us