FCP Bob 1,312 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/video/84388896/Interesting interview with Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs on China from this morning. One of the things he talks about is that there are 2 ways to adjust things if exchange rates are out of line one of which is to adjust labor costs and that's what's happening in China where the minimum wages across the country have been rising as much as 10% in some provinces. The governement policy is to increase wage rates in China. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 In China Bernie Madoff would have got the Death Penalty.Fraudulent Fundraising is punishable by death there.http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2012-0...nt_14482620.htm Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 In China Bernie Madoff would have got the Death Penalty.Fraudulent Fundraising is punishable by death there.http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2012-0...nt_14482620.htm In China most of us would have been imprisoned, or perhaps even executed, for many daily actions that we take for granted. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business...smid=tw-nytimesReally interesting article on manufacturing the I-Phone from the NY Times.The most important thing that I took from the article is that the reason that the manufacturing of electronics is in China and Asia isn't because of lower wages mainly but because of the manufacturing infrastructure there and the skill of the work force. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Chuck Grassley hacked on twitter:ChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 5mDear Iowans, vote against ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA, because this man, Chuck Grassley, wants YOUR internet censored and all of that BS.ChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 4mAnd yes, I am an Anonymous follower.ChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 4muh-oh looks like Chuck is online tooChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 2mYes I was hackedChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 1mYou might know me from a few weeks back.. :)ChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 1mWell, this was fun, lolChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 1m#WINNINGChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 2m@HawkeyeJosh Very well, Josh :)ChuckGrassley ChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 2mWow, Chuck hasn't even changed his password.ChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 2m@fleetadmiralj actually it was 'icecream'ChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 1mChuck is a supporter of SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, meaning he wants no privacy for private accounts.ChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 1m@MrTraywick Yes, I agree MrTraywickChuckGrassley @ChuckGrassley 40sI really wanted Herman Cain to get president this year.I wonder how long this will go on...Edit: The time marks don't make a lot of sense because I was copy/pasting at different times. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Such a good comparison of the left and the right.Under Bush, the left was soooo worried that Cheney's aide might have been the one to out a CIA operative ( who wasn't a secret operative as shown by the DC media all knowing she worked at the CIA ) and they spent a fortune investigating in their attempt to 'get Bush' through Cheney. Even months after the special prosecutor knew that Richard Armitage ( Colon Powell's aide ) was the one who mentioned the Plame outing to Novak, they still went after Cheney's aide because they wanted him to be guilty.Now we have a John Kerry aide who actually outed CIA identifies...to inmates at Gitmo no less.Will the right demand a special prosecutor and go after anyone connected directly to President Obama?If not, then the right >>>>>>>the left Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Will the right demand a special prosecutor and go after anyone connected directly to President Obama?If not, then the right >>>>>>>the leftYou have an extremely twisted brain. It takes information and then neads and distorts it until it fits into your fixed world view. It's not really that funny, actually.From your article:The case against John Kiriakou, who also served as a senior Senate aide, extends the Obama administration’s crackdown on disclosures of national security secrets. Kiriakou, 47, is the sixth target of a leaks-related prosecution since President Obama took office, exceeding the total number of comparable prosecutions under all previous administrations combined, legal experts said.So, president Obama is cracking down HARD on such leaks, and you for some reason think he should be investigated, and if he's not investigated, it proves that "the right >> the left".Um hmm. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 You have an extremely twisted brain. It takes information and then neads and distorts it until it fits into your fixed world view. It's not really that funny, actually.From your article:The case against John Kiriakou, who also served as a senior Senate aide, extends the Obama administration’s crackdown on disclosures of national security secrets. Kiriakou, 47, is the sixth target of a leaks-related prosecution since President Obama took office, exceeding the total number of comparable prosecutions under all previous administrations combined, legal experts said.So, president Obama is cracking down HARD on such leaks, and you for some reason think he should be investigated, and if he's not investigated, it proves that "the right >> the left".Um hmm.The investigation into Scooter Libby was the worst example of abuse of power in decades. A private citizen was rail roaded in an investigation that was pure politics, and everyone just looked the other way. Cheney even got upset with Bush for not pardoning Scooter at the end of his run.From wiki:On August 28, 2006, Christopher Hitchens asserted that Richard Armitage was the primary source of the Valerie Plame leak and that Fitzgerald knew this at the beginning of his investigation.[131] This was supported a month later by Armitage himself, who stated that Fitzgerald had instructed him not to go public with this information.[132] Investor's Business Daily questioned Fitzgerald's truthfulness in an editorial, stating "From top to bottom, this has been one of the most disgraceful abuses of prosecutorial power in this country's history...The Plame case proves [Fitzgerald] can bend the truth with the proficiency of the slickest of pols."[133]In September 2008, attorney Alan Dershowitz cited the "questionable investigation" of Scooter Libby as evidence of the problems brought to the criminal justice process by "politically appointed and partisan attorney general."[134]I knew this was a far stretch, and I read the article ( for once ) and saw this line and knew it would be the rebuttal point. I could of course retort with a ' so this administration has the worst criminal activity in history and you want to brag ' or give credit to the non-political people in government who actually investigate crimes regardless of who they find'. But instead I will just say there is a reason why the public isn't in the 'need to know' regarding a lot of military/intelligence issues. Making a celebrity of this guy for outing the waterboarding ( which he fabricated most of the details AFTER writing the book and testifying before congress ) was a mistake. Just like wikileaks.Making intelligence / national security issues political has harmed out country wayyy more than it's helped it. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 You have an extremely twisted brain.Here's how their brains work. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/01...the-taxman.html Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/01...the-taxman.htmlCriticizing someone for how little they give to charity is like criticizing someone for how much they put into the church donation box. It just seems bad form. Such donations should be private, voluntary interactions between a person and some charity. There are many ways to be a good person in this world, and giving to charity is only one of them. Those who criticize others for charity work should think a bit before casting the first stone. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Criticizing someone for how little they give to charity is like criticizing someone for how much they put into the church donation box. It just seems bad form. Such donations should be private, voluntary interactions between a person and some charity. There are many ways to be a good person in this world, and giving to charity is only one of them. Those who criticize others for charity work should think a bit before casting the first stone.For people who don't insist that other people support their causes through the use of the force of government, this is true. But people who consistently support taking more from others to help "the poor" deserve to be scrutinized for their giving habits. Hypocrisy is an ugly thing. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 For people who don't insist that other people support their causes through the use of the force of government, this is true. But people who consistently support taking more from others to help "the poor" deserve to be scrutinized for their giving habits. Hypocrisy is an ugly thing.As a general question, if a person claims:"We should make people do X because they won't do X on their own" and then that person doesn't do X on his own, is he being hypocritical?This seems to have come up lately, so let's settle it. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 As a general question, if a person claims:"We should make people do X because they won't do X on their own" and then that person doesn't do X on his own, is he being hypocritical?This seems to have come up lately, so let's settle it.That would seem to make him honest. But I don't think it would be unfair to question why he doesn't do X on his own. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 "We should make people do X because they won't do X on their own" and then that person doesn't do X on his own, is he being hypocritical?Outlying situations excluded, 'fairly certain that scenario tracks fairly closely with the textbook definition of 'hypocritical'. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 As a general question, if a person claims:"We should make people do X because they won't do X on their own" and then that person doesn't do X on his own, is he being hypocritical?This seems to have come up lately, so let's settle it.Yes, I think if you have the power to do something on your own, but you instead try to make others to do it under threat of jail, that is hypocritical.FWIW, I read an article today explaining that one of the reasons Obama's % to charity is so low is that he structures his giving so that it goes directly to the charity so he doesn't even have to count it as income. For example, he could give a speech that benefits charity X. He could take the $20K speaking fee and give it to a charity, or just have the organizers give it to charity. He apparently chooses the latter. He has apparently given millions this way.Biden, OTOH, is 100% hypocrite. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 FWIW, I read an article today explaining that one of the reasons Obama's % to charity is so low is that he structures his giving so that it goes directly to the charity so he doesn't even have to count it as income. For example, he could give a speech that benefits charity X. He could take the $20K speaking fee and give it to a charity, or just have the organizers give it to charity. He apparently chooses the latter. He has apparently given millions this way.Isn't that tax evasion? Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Isn't that tax evasion?No, because the money was never his to begin with. It's the same as any charity even where stars show up for free.And even if it was income, why would they bother making people do some accounting stop only to give it away immediately? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No, because the money was never his to begin with. It's the same as any charity even where stars show up for free.And even if it was income, why would they bother making people do some accounting stop only to give it away immediately?I cannot donate my services as charitable contributions, only the hard costs of my donating. So if I donate a balloon drop to a charity event, I can only write off the $115 in balloon costs, not the $1,800 I normally charge.A sitting president cannot 'profit' off his position, so he would not be eligible for compensation for speaking at an event. So instead he has it donated. After he leaves office we'll see how much he donates. ( I don't care if he keeps it all etc. I want my past presidents to be set for life since their entire life is ruined ) Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No, because the money was never his to begin with. It's the same as any charity even where stars show up for free.And even if it was income, why would they bother making people do some accounting stop only to give it away immediately?Regarding your first point, I suppose it depends on how the contract is set up and I'm sure there are really smart people setting it up so that it won't be counted as income. But it matters because there are all kinds of limits and other things in play when it comes to deductions. It's not as easy as saying $20k income, $20k deduction, net zero. It might end up as $20k income, $20k deduction limited to $15k, $5k taxable.Note: I don't think Obama is actually involved in tax evasion. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 A sitting president cannot 'profit' off his position, so he would not be eligible for compensation for speaking at an event.I didn't know this. Sounds vaguely familiar though; maybe I knew it at one time. Not sure you should get credit for donations where you have no choice. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I cannot donate my services as charitable contributions, only the hard costs of my donating. So if I donate a balloon drop to a charity event, I can only write off the $115 in balloon costs, not the $1,800 I normally charge.Right, you are talking about something different. You cannot go there and say my time is worth $10,000 and write it off, because you would be writing off $10,000 that you didn't actually make. But if someone paid you $10,000 for the event you could give it all to charity for a 100% write-off.What Obama is doing is more like making appearances to raise money, more like a celebrity golf tournament where the charity gets all the money, not the celebrities. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Regarding your first point, I suppose it depends on how the contract is set up and I'm sure there are really smart people setting it up so that it won't be counted as income. But it matters because there are all kinds of limits and other things in play when it comes to deductions. It's not as easy as saying $20k income, $20k deduction, net zero. It might end up as $20k income, $20k deduction limited to $15k, $5k taxable.Note: I don't think Obama is actually involved in tax evasion.The other BG, Barry Greenstein said he was only allowed to write off 1/2 his income as charitable contribution. So I know that could come into play, except the prez makes $400K Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I didn't know this. Sounds vaguely familiar though; maybe I knew it at one time. Not sure you should get credit for donations where you have no choice.That was just one of the examples in the article. Another was that a large portion of the profits from his book go to charity. Could he be keeping that? I would think so, but our laws are pretty screwed up. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 $115 in balloon costs, not the $1,800 I normally charge.****. Need a Chicago franchisee? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now