The Upcoming Battle for the American Soul

[TheOne]

THE UPCOMING BATTLE for the American Soul

Second Story: The stakes in the coming presidential election are frighteningly high

By ANTHONY VIOLANTI

8/1/2004

You will remember where you were this summer. It will be the same way you remember where you were when John Lennon was shot, or when Scott Norwood missed that field goal, or when our lives changed as profoundly as they did that crystal-clear Sept. 11 morning when hijacked planes flew like arrows into two humanity-filled symbols of American hegemony.
Now, the American cultural homeland, the landscape where all of us play out the drama of our lives, is about to confront its destiny. The moment of truth for this country is coming, and its name is that four-year commencement known as a presidential election. There's a word to describe all those people who still reject or cannot recognize the meaning of this presidential election: idiots.

This country will define itself in November. American history, the kind that leaves an indelible mark on each citizen, is going to be made. If it's not clear by now, it should be: The direction of our country and our lives will be determined by what happens in this presidential election. Now, in mid-summer, sandwiched between the Democratic and Republican conventions, we are catching the heat of a campaign that will not only shape our future but the future of our country.

article

 

[5stringJeff]

More aptly titled "The Battle for the Identity of the Democratic Party." They are the party without a vision, unless you count "Anybody But Bush" as a vision. Meanwhile, the GOP has a clear vision: winning the War on Terror and brining peace to America while strengthening her economy.

BTW - have you all noticed how there is not one peep from the Left about the downhill economy? Since the economic news is so great, the Dems decided (wisely) to shut up about it. Bush should be trumpeting every good economic report from now until November as more proof that tax cuts work to stimulate the economy.

 

[HGROKIT]

Maybe it will back off from its existing policy of pre-emptive war, building a new American Empire and fostering fear-mongering back home with endless warnings of terrorist threats. If the Bush administration does not change that existing policy - the choice between the candidates seems clear.

puhleeeeez! The new "The Sky is Falling" American Left. Sounds like Dean this morning.

 

[TheOne]

The economy is great if you are a corporate executive and your pay has increased from 15% to 22% or you are wealthy and made out on 15% dividend taxes. But most people's wages are stagnant or declining and most people who lost their jobs and then finally found another are making on average. $9000 less. Tell me about this great economy and how it has helped the average working American again?

Lagging U.S. Wage Growth a Worry for Economy
Tue Jul 6, 2004 01:14 PM ET

By Victoria Thieberger
NEW YORK (Reuters) - While American companies are enjoying their best profits in decades, workers have seen scant gains in wages and if that doesn't change soon, economists worry consumer spending could falter, hurting the economy.

Workers have played a vital role in reviving the economy by spending through thick and thin during the recent downturn. But they have yet to reap the benefits of the recovery.

The latest employment report released on Friday showed U.S. wage growth slowed sharply in June after a recent pick-up, and analysts say the benefits of solid economic growth have flowed more to corporate profits than to workers.

"I'm very surprised that reasonable people are worrying about the rise in wages and unit labor costs," said Jim Glassman, senior economist at J.P. Morgan.

"To me, the news that we're watching tells us that labor is not getting its fair share yet," he said.

Indeed, wage increases are falling far short of inflation, suggesting workers may have trouble keeping up with the economic recovery.

article

CEO Pay Continues to Rise, Despite Calls for Restraint
Median compensation increased 15% in 2003, a corporate governance research firm finds.
From Associated Press

July 28, 2004

The median pay for U.S. chief executives increased 15% last year and rose even more — 22% — for those at larger companies, according to a survey by Corporate Library, a corporate governance research firm.

The survey, to be released today, showed increases in almost every category of executive compensation, including base salary, annual bonus, total annual compensation, restricted stock, long-term incentive payouts and the value realized from the exercise of stock options. The only category to decline in 2003 from 2002 was the value of stock option grants.

Despite some calls for more restraint in CEO pay, it was a better year for the executives than 2002, when total compensation rose by a median of 9.5%.

"With statistics such as these, it would appear that any chance of reining in executive compensation has disappeared," the report stated.

The report further stated that "CEOs are unlikely to feel the squeeze for at least three years, perhaps never."

article

 

[rtwngAvngr]

scant gains are not a decrease. MAY have trouble?

The constant negativism of the left is disheartening. Our economy is doing great, and all you guys want to do is deny it. Take off your poo colored glasses.

 

[TheOne]

scant gains are not a decrease. MAY have trouble?

The constant negativism of the left is disheartening. Our economy is doing great, and all you guys want to do is deny it. Take off your poo colored glasses.

Did you read the whole article? Real wages are decreasing. This means the meager gains are so small, they aren't even pacing inflation. That means, in essence, wages are falling.

Over the year to June, hourly earnings rose only 2.0 percent -- well below the 3.1 percent inflation rate recorded in May, the most recent data available.

Research by the independent Economic Policy Institute in Washington shows that, after adjusting for inflation, real wages have fallen in six of the last seven months. The average hourly wage of $15.63 in May was the lowest in inflation-adjusted terms since May 2002.

I was responding to this post:

BTW - have you all noticed how there is not one peep from the Left about the downhill economy? Since the economic news is so great, the Dems decided (wisely) to shut up about it. Bush should be trumpeting every good economic report from now until November as more proof that tax cuts work to stimulate the economy.

Some here seem to think the Dems have "shut up" about the economy and the news is "so great". I was demonstrating that the news isn't so great and educating you who wonder why so many people are disgruntled about the economic policies of Bush. Certainly, Bush's base, the "haves" and the "have mores", are delighted with the economy. But that's not going to cut it with the rest of us working stiffs who are tightening our belts and sending our kids to die overseas while the ultra wealthy cash in and send their kids to college.

The stats I posted are one of the many reasons Bush is in the fight for his political life this year. If more working class people who support Bush understand who he caters to, the corporate world and the wealthy, they would think twice about giving him their vote. Unfortunately, people like gop_jeff don't understand that the "booming economy" is selective in who is benefitting from it. Either that or he is one of the ultra wealthy trying to deceive us.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

If more working class people who support Bush understand who he caters to, the corporate world and the wealthy, they would think twice about giving him their vote.

Oh sure the Billionaire Kerry's and the Millionaire Edwards' are the "champions" of the working stiff.............

 

[Annie]

Oh sure the Billionaire Kerry's and the Millionaire Edwards' are the "champions" of the working stiff.............

Again, the assumption of stupidity of the 'unwashed masses'.

 

[TheOne]

Oh sure the Billionaire Kerry's and the Millionaire Edwards' are the "champions" of the working stiff.............

Yes. It is puzzling why such wealthy men wouldn't shut up and enjoy their massive tax breaks. Why on earth would they raise their own taxes and let the bulk of the country keep their tax cuts?

Maybe it's because they are committed to serving the public and the greater good. I can think of no other reason why a wealthy person would not support Bush, can you? I mean, they will LOSE money rolling back the tax cuts for those who make more than $200K a year.

Think about that.

 

[freeandfun1]

Yes. It is puzzling why such wealthy men wouldn't shut up and enjoy their massive tax breaks. Why on earth would they raise their own taxes and let the bulk of the country keep their tax cuts?

Maybe it's because they are committed to serving the public and the greater good. I can think of no other reason why a wealthy person would not support Bush, can you? I mean, they will LOSE money rolling back the tax cuts for those who make more than $200K a year.

Think about that.

Your ignorance shows once again.

Because most small businesses are S corporations, their tax structure is such that the "profits" of the corporation flow through to the owner at individual tax rates. So let us say that an owner pays himself a salary of $50,000 a year. Now, let us say that at the end of the year the corporation has a profit of $150,000 which is REINVESTED into the corporation. Well, the owner now pays tax on $200,000 even though he only received, in actual compensation, $50,000. Now go tell me that EVERYBODY that is making over $200,000 are rich greedy bastards. Why don't you at least try and grasp the concept of owning a business before spouting off about shit you know nothing about?

 

[freeandfun1]

Yes. It is puzzling why such wealthy men wouldn't shut up and enjoy their massive tax breaks. Why on earth would they raise their own taxes and let the bulk of the country keep their tax cuts?

Maybe it's because they are committed to serving the public and the greater good. I can think of no other reason why a wealthy person would not support Bush, can you? I mean, they will LOSE money rolling back the tax cuts for those who make more than $200K a year.

Think about that.

How will they lose money? Both of them are not working and therefore, they do not make over $200,000 a year in earned income. They probably do have some investment income, but most likely their investments are long-term investments and therefore, they only pay a 15% capital gains tax. The ones that get killed by individual income tax hikes are the small business owners. Not rich folk like JK and JE that make most of their income from investments.

 

[TheOne]

Your ignorance shows once again.

Because most small businesses are S corporations, their tax structure is such that the "profits" of the corporation flow through to the owner at individual tax rates. So let us say that an owner pays himself a salary of $50,000 a year. Now, let us say that at the end of the year the corporation has a profit of $150,000 which is REINVESTED into the corporation. Well, the owner now pays tax on $200,000 even though he only received, in actual compensation, $50,000. Now go tell me that EVERYBODY that is making over $200,000 are rich greedy bastards. Why don't you at least try and grasp the concept of owning a business before spouting off about shit you know nothing about?

I always thought that when you re-invest money in your company, it's a business expense and you can write it off. In essence, the profit isn't determined until you itemize all your business expenses. So, if you re-invest for say, capital equipment or more office space, the expenses associated with that aren't part of your taxable income because they are legitimate business expenses.

Are you saying this is not the case for your S corporation? Maybe you need a new accountant?

 

[insein]

Yes. It is puzzling why such wealthy men wouldn't shut up and enjoy their massive tax breaks. Why on earth would they raise their own taxes and let the bulk of the country keep their tax cuts?

Maybe it's because they are committed to serving the public and the greater good. I can think of no other reason why a wealthy person would not support Bush, can you? I mean, they will LOSE money rolling back the tax cuts for those who make more than $200K a year.

Think about that.

MAybe its because Kerry doesn't pay taxes on inhreitance.

 

[MtnBiker]

Take a look at number 10.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4696&highlight=economic+indicators

 

[freeandfun1]

I always thought that when you re-invest money in your company, it's a business expense and you can write it off. In essence, the profit isn't determined until you itemize all your business expenses. So, if you re-invest for say, capital equipment or more office space, the expenses associated with that aren't part of your taxable income because they are legitimate business expenses.

Are you saying this is not the case for your S corporation? Maybe you need a new accountant?

It is only a business expense if you actually spend the money. If you pay personal income taxes on that money even if you are not using it personally. At the time you actually spend the money, you get the deduction. You did not follow my example very good. As I said, if you pay yourself $50,000, make profit of $150,000 then you are taxed at $200K. If you had invested the money during the year, you would not have made the $150,000 profit. If I had not saved money during the 1996 - 1999 economic run, I would not have had the money to survive when the economy tanked in 1999 early 2000.

BTW, my accountant is the same accountant that does Kirk Kerkorian's taxes. So I really doubt if I need to find a new one. But perhaps you should got take a couple of basic business classes as you apparently do not understand how small businesses operate.

 

[Hobbit]

I always thought that when you re-invest money in your company, it's a business expense and you can write it off. In essence, the profit isn't determined until you itemize all your business expenses. So, if you re-invest for say, capital equipment or more office space, the expenses associated with that aren't part of your taxable income because they are legitimate business expenses.

Are you saying this is not the case for your S corporation? Maybe you need a new accountant?

You still get popped up into the upper tax bracket, and $200,000 a year still isn't filthy rich. Kerry would have you believe those guys are sitting on golden toilets.

Some here seem to think the Dems have "shut up" about the economy and the news is "so great". I was demonstrating that the news isn't so great and educating you who wonder why so many people are disgruntled about the economic policies of Bush. Certainly, Bush's base, the "haves" and the "have mores", are delighted with the economy. But that's not going to cut it with the rest of us working stiffs who are tightening our belts and sending our kids to die overseas while the ultra wealthy cash in and send their kids to college.

The stats I posted are one of the many reasons Bush is in the fight for his political life this year. If more working class people who support Bush understand who he caters to, the corporate world and the wealthy, they would think twice about giving him their vote. Unfortunately, people like gop_jeff don't understand that the "booming economy" is selective in who is benefitting from it. Either that or he is one of the ultra wealthy trying to deceive us.

You sound just like Michael Moore, who is a fat, lying turd. First off, everybody that paid taxes got a tax break. The only way economic policy can help people like that is to actually pay them money, which is bad for the country because it breeds laziness.

Nobody is "sending their children to die." Our military is 100% volunteer. Everybody who was sent to Iraq knew what they were getting into when they signed up.

A booming economy is not selective. Whenever there is money gained...anywhere, it trickles down into all layers of the economy. Even if a CEO decides to be a greedy pig and raise his salary instead of pay his employees a little more, he'll be spending his ill-gotten gains somewhere, and when he does, that money goes into another profit pool used to pay people, and those people spend their money on something. It's econ 101. That's what FDR's "New Deal" was about. He spent tons of money to pay people for anything he could get an excuse for. Those people spent that money on other things, further stimulating the economy.

 

[TheOne]

It is only a business expense if you actually spend the money. If you leave the money in a corporate account for future expenses, then yes, at THAT TIME you get the deduction. You did not follow my example very good. As I said, if you pay yourself $50,000, make profit of $150,000 then you are taxed at $200K. If you had invested the money during the year, you would not have made the $150,000 profit. If I had not saved money during the 1996 - 1999 economic run, I would not have had the money to survive when the economy tanked in 1999 early 2000.

BTW, my accountant is the same accountant that does Kirk Kerkorian's taxes. So I really doubt if I need to find a new one. But perhaps you should got take a couple of basic business classes as you apparently do not understand how small businesses operate.

Hmmm...well the basic understanding I have of S-Corps is that you don't take a salary. All of the business profits, minus expenses (including re-investment), flow through to the owners as salary and are taxed as personal income. What type of S Corp are you talking about?

What Is an S Corporation?

An S corporation is a regular corporation that has elected "S corporation" tax status. An S corporation lets you enjoy the limited liability of a corporate shareholder but pay income taxes on the same basis as a sole proprietor or a partner.
In a regular corporation (also known as a C corporation), the company itself is taxed on business profits. The owners pay individual income tax only on money that they draw from the corporation as salary, bonuses or dividends. By contrast, in an S corporation, all business profits "pass through" to the owners, who report them on their personal tax returns (as in sole proprietorships, partnerships and LLCs). The S corporation itself does not pay any income tax, although a co-owned S corporation must file an informational tax return like a partnership or LLC -- to tell the IRS what each shareholder's portion of the corporate income is.

article

Where'd you get your MBA?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Hmmm...well the basic understanding I have of S-Corps is that you don't take a salary. All of the business profits, minus expenses (including re-investment), flow through to the owners as salary and are taxed as personal income. What type of S Corp are you talking about?

explain this. - well the basic understanding I have of S-Corps is that you don't take a salary. All of the business profits, minus expenses (including re-investment), flow through to the owners as salary and are taxed as personal income.

you either take a salary or you don't. do YOU understand business?

 

[freeandfun1]

Hmmm...well the basic understanding I have of S-Corps is that you don't take a salary. All of the business profits, minus expenses (including re-investment), flow through to the owners as salary and are taxed as personal income. What type of S Corp are you talking about?



article

Where'd you get your MBA?

I wish you were HALF as smart as you THINK you are.

I have owned an S Corp for over 10 years. If I did not take a salary, I would avoid paying Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many other state and local taxes. The SS Administration has been known to go after S corp owners that do not pay themselves salaries. They go after them for avoiding those taxes previously mentioned. Therefore, every S corp owner takes a salary.

Expenses are only deductable as you spend. You cannot deduct "future" expenses. Furthermore, many capital expenses have to be deducted over time. It is called "depreciation". Thank goodness Bush passed laws allowing for quicker depreciation, as he realized this is important for small businesses. If kerry has his way, he will change things back so that you have to write off a $1,500 computer over 7 years.

You obviously know VERY little about business.

 

[freeandfun1]

The S corporation itself does not pay any income tax

You are such a dope. You didn't even read your own source. The S corp does not pay taxes. As I pointed out. The owner pays them at individual rates.

Where did you get your MBA?

LMFAO!