America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by pdxstogieman. 130 replies replies.
3 Pages123>
More insider trading by elected officials. Boehner and Canadian oil companies.
FuzzNJ Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
A good job with benefits and a pension are hard to find and if any American is fortunate enough to have a job, it is unlikely they would resign unless circumstances made remaining on the job intolerable. There are, however, occasions when a compassionate employer finds it necessary to force an employee to resign for bad behavior instead of terminating their employment. Members of Congress are unlikely to ever resign unless there is an impending ethics investigation or morality issues that are egregious enough to spark an investigation and subsequent trial to expel the offender from the House or Senate. Newt Gingrich was forced to resign his position as Speaker of the House in 1999 after being fined and reprimanded for ethics violations, but it was pressure from Republicans that forced his eventual resignation.

The current House Speaker, John Boehner, has demonstrated that he, like Gingrich, is averse to ethical behavior and it is time for him to resign his position or face an ethics investigation and eventual expulsion from Congress. There is precedent in calling for Boehner’s resignation or expulsion, and ironically, it involved another representative from Ohio. James A. Traficant Jr. of Ohio was expelled in July 2002 after he was convicted of receiving favors, gifts and money in return for performing official acts on behalf of the donors. John Boehner’s case is similar to Traficant’s in that he is performing official acts on behalf of the oil industry and seven Canadian tar sands companies that stand to benefit if the Keystone XL pipeline is built between Canada and the Gulf Coast. Boehner’s official acts on behalf of Canada’s tar sands industry are scandalous because he owns stock in the aforementioned seven companies, and he is using his financial gain as impetus to hold 160 million Americans’ tax cuts hostage in return for immediate approval of the Keystone pipeline.

On Sunday, Boehner told “Fox News Sunday” that Republicans may tie approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to the next payroll tax cut extension to force President Obama to give his backing to the project. Boehner said, “We’re going to do everything we can to make sure this Keystone pipeline project is approved,” and as Republicans have shown with the debt ceiling, holding the payroll tax cut hostage is not out of the realm of possibilities. The only beneficiaries of the Keystone pipeline are Canada’s tar sands companies, the oil industry, and John Boehner.

Boehner’s 2010 financial disclosure form reveals his investment of $15,001 to $50,000 in Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, and they are in the business of tar sands oil and are just one of seven companies Boehner bought stocks in. His 2009 disclosure shows no stocks in Canadian Natural Resources Ltd leading any semi-intelligent American to believe Boehner bought stock in Canada’s tar sands just in time to reap financial benefits if and when the pipeline was completed and carrying Canadian oil to Texas for refinement and sale on the foreign market. Boehner’s push, as Speaker of the House, to build the pipeline is beyond simple conflict of interest; he is performing official acts for favors (campaign contributions) and money in the form of dividends from his oil sands stocks. Boehner’s gifts in exchange for performing official acts for the oil industry are $144,150 in the form of campaign contributions in 2010 alone. Boehner must resign or face an ethics investigation that may result in his expulsion from the House.

Boehner makes his unethical activity worse by lying to the American people about the number of jobs the pipeline will create and his assertions have been disproven time and time again. The fact that Boehner lies to the American people for pure personal financial gain and future oil industry campaign contributions is a matter for a House Ethics panel investigation. If Boehner wants to avoid a campaign to remove him from office, he must resign voluntarily to save himself and his family the embarrassment of a protracted ethics investigation.

As Speaker of the House, Boehner could have bought stock in Canada’s tar sands oil companies and let the State Department and Environmental Protection Agency conduct studies to grant a permit for the Keystone pipeline without pushing the project by lying and now, potentially holding 160 million Americans’ payroll tax cut extension hostage. However, the lure of personal financial gain was too enticing to Boehner and he took the only path available to an unethical congressman who stands to profit from performing official acts for money and gifts. Boehner must resign.

Boehner has obstructed, lied, and cheated the American people long enough. He is a hypocrite for calling for Anthony Weiner’s resignation for sending sexually charged pictures over his phone at the same time Boehner bought stocks in Canadian tar sands companies. Pushing the pipeline that only benefits the Canadian companies Boehner invested in, foreign oil markets, and the oil industry while jeopardizing prime agricultural land and critical aquifer is unethical at least and inherently despicable. John Boehner can resign and go to work as a lobbyist for Canada’s tar sands industry, but he cannot be their lobbyist and Speaker of the House at the same time. When Boehner was caught handing out payments for the tobacco industry, he promised he would desist from any act that appeared unethical, but his arrogance and love of oil money proved too tempting and drove him to perform official acts for gifts and money, and if it was enough to expel another Ohio congressman, then it is good enough for Speaker Boehner. Mr. Speaker, it is time for you to go.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/john-boehner-keystone-scandal
DrafterX Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,582
no big deal..... everybody does it... Mellow
Buckwheat Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
DrafterX wrote:
no big deal..... everybody does it... Mellow


Wasn't that Martha Stewart's defense?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
Buckwheat wrote:
Wasn't that Martha Stewart's defense?



That's a good thing!
HockeyDad Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
From the looks of his financial disclosure form, the stock holding is pretty tiny. I would be more worried about the Symantec holding.

Looks like typical liberal douchebaggery is at play here.
FuzzNJ Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Small? 15-50k in one company and he invested in all 7 on a salary of 220k? lol

That's gonna play well.
ZRX1200 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
And how much did warren buffet stand to gain from this deal not being made?
FuzzNJ Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
ZRX1200 wrote:
And how much did warren buffet stand to gain from this deal not being made?


You tell me. Did Boehner give him a heads up or something? What's Buffet got to do with insider trading by an elected official? Buffet is a criminal? Then put him in jail like Martha Stewart. You have any evidence of that send it to the FBI, SEC or the newspaper.
wheelrite Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
You tell me. Did Boehner give him a heads up or something? What's Buffet got to do with insider trading by an elected official? Buffet is a criminal? Then put him in jail like Martha Stewart. You have any evidence of that send it to the FBI, SEC or the newspaper.


Fuzz you are really misinformed..



Killing the Keystone XL pipeline may help one of the world’s richest men get richer. North Dakota’s booming oil fields will now grow more dependent on a railroad the president’s economic guru just bought,” Investor’s Business Daily write.

“Interestingly, another billionaire, Obama economic inspiration Warren Buffett, stands to benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline delay,” writes IBD in its Nov. 16 editorial “Billionaire Buffett’s Bakken Boom.”

“As oil production ramps up in the Bakken fields of North Dakota, plans to use the pipeline to transport it have been dashed. As a result, North Dakota’s booming oil producers will have to rely even more on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad, which Buffett just bought, to ship it to refineries.

“Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe in a deal valuing the railroad at $34 billion. Berkshire Hathaway already owns about 22% of Burlington Northern, and will pay $100 a share in cash and stock for the rest of the company,” IBD writes.

It’s Buffett’s largest-ever investment – so you know he’s pulling out all the stops to make money off it.

d'oh!

wheel,

HockeyDad Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
FuzzNJ wrote:
Small? 15-50k in one company and he invested in all 7 on a salary of 220k? lol

That's gonna play well.




So he had zero assets before being elected to congress? Did you look at the rest of the stuff in that financial disclosure or just what the article told you to look at?

To top it all off, he makes under 250K so Obama won't even try to raise his taxes!
HockeyDad Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
FuzzNJ wrote:
You tell me. Did Boehner give him a heads up or something? What's Buffet got to do with insider trading by an elected official? Buffet is a criminal? Then put him in jail like Martha Stewart. You have any evidence of that send it to the FBI, SEC or the newspaper.



Insider trading has a specific definition. This does not qualify. Boner is not an insider.

ZRX1200 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
This is too easy sometimes, almost makes me feel bad.....
FuzzNJ Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
Fuzz you are really misinformed..



Killing the Keystone XL pipeline may help one of the world’s richest men get richer. North Dakota’s booming oil fields will now grow more dependent on a railroad the president’s economic guru just bought,” Investor’s Business Daily write.

“Interestingly, another billionaire, Obama economic inspiration Warren Buffett, stands to benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline delay,” writes IBD in its Nov. 16 editorial “Billionaire Buffett’s Bakken Boom.”

“As oil production ramps up in the Bakken fields of North Dakota, plans to use the pipeline to transport it have been dashed. As a result, North Dakota’s booming oil producers will have to rely even more on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad, which Buffett just bought, to ship it to refineries.

“Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has agreed to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe in a deal valuing the railroad at $34 billion. Berkshire Hathaway already owns about 22% of Burlington Northern, and will pay $100 a share in cash and stock for the rest of the company,” IBD writes.

It’s Buffett’s largest-ever investment – so you know he’s pulling out all the stops to make money off it.

d'oh!

wheel,



Is there something illegal or unethical in that? If so then go after him.

My position is that it is unethical for elected officials to benefit from this information financially.

My position also always been get rid of the corporate corruption of our leaders, regardless of party.

Just because I might find an attack on a liberal to not be always warranted, it doesn't mean I make excuses or cover for them. It just means the attack, like obama's a communist, a muslim etc is stupid and demonstrably wrong.
FuzzNJ Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
HockeyDad wrote:
So he had zero assets before being elected to congress? Did you look at the rest of the stuff in that financial disclosure or just what the article told you to look at?

To top it all off, he makes under 250K so Obama won't even try to raise his taxes!


lol funny stuff
FuzzNJ Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
'60 Minutes' Uncovers Pelosi's Insider Stock Trades

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bought stock in initial public offerings (IPOs) that earned hefty returns while she had access to insider information that would have been illegal for an average citizen to trade with – even though it’s perfectly legal for elected officials, CBS’s "60 Minutes" reported Sunday night.

In a piece relying on data collected from the conservative Hoover Institution, "60 Minutes" revealed that elected officials like Pelosi are exempt from insider trading laws – regulations that carry hefty prison sentences and fines for any other citizen who trades stocks with private information on companies that can affect their stock price.

In the case of elected officials – this secret information ranges from timely details on lucrative federal contracts to legislation that can cause companies’ stocks to rise and fall dramatically.

How do they get away with it? Lawmakers have exempted themselves from the laws that govern every other citizen.

Pelosi, D-Calif., and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs while having access to information directly relating to the companies involved. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies, began making its way through the House.

“Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of $44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House,” Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" reported.

Kroft confronted Pelosi at a regular press conference after she declined an interview.

Kroft: Madam Leader, I wanted to ask you why you and your husband back in March of 2008 accepted and participated in a very large IPO deal from Visa at a time there was major legislation affecting the credit card companies making its way through the —through the House.

Nancy Pelosi: But —

Kroft: And did you consider that to be a conflict of interest?

Pelosi: The — y — I — I don't know what your point is of your question. Is there some point that you want to make with that?

Kroft: Well, I — I — I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential, favorable stock deal?

Pelosi: Well, we didn't.

Kroft: You participated in the IPO. And at the time you were speaker of the House. You don't think it was a conflict of interest or had the appearance--

Pelosi: No, it was not —

Kroft: — of a conflict of interest?

Pelosi: —it doesn't — it only has appearance if you decide that you're going to have — elaborate on a false premise. But it — it — it's not true and that's that.

Kroft: I don't understand what part's not true.

Pelosi: Yes sir. That — that I would act upon an investment.

The Hoover Institution’s Peter Schweizer stressed that what Pelosi did was completely legal.

“There are all sorts of forms of honest grafts that congressmen engage in that allow them to become very, very wealthy. So it's not illegal, but I think it's highly unethical, I think it's highly offensive, and wrong,” he told Kroft.

“… Insider trading on the stock market. If you are a member of Congress, those laws are deemed not to apply,” Schweizer added. “The fact is, if you sit on a healthcare committee and you know that Medicare, for example, is — is considering not reimbursing for a certain drug that's market moving information. And if you can trade stock on — off of that information and do so legally, that's a great profit making opportunity. And that sort of behavior goes on.”

Pelosi’s office issued a statement Sunday saying, “It is very troubling that ‘60 Minutes’ would base their reporting off of an already-discredited conservative author who has made a career out of attacking Democrats.”

Schweizer’s books include “Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” and “Architects of Ruin,” according to Schweizer’s page on the Hoover Institution website.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-stock-insider-60minutes/2011/11/13/id/417848
FuzzNJ Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
ZRX1200 wrote:
This is too easy sometimes, almost makes me feel bad.....


lmfao
ZRX1200 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
At least you can laugh at yourself too.


My family got a kick outta that one too!
FuzzNJ Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
ZRX1200 wrote:
At least you can laugh at yourself too.


My family got a kick outta that one too!



/hugs and kisses for my self-congratulatory friend with the irrational ego
ZRX1200 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
O.k. but no tongue
HockeyDad Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
FuzzNJ wrote:
Is there something illegal or unethical in that? If so then go after him.

My position is that it is unethical for elected officials to benefit from this information financially.




So now you acknowledge that it is not insider trading. Now on to the unethical charge......

What information? What information did Boner have that everyone else did not?
wheelrite Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
Is there something illegal or unethical in that? If so then go after him.

My position is that it is unethical for elected officials to benefit from this information financially.

My position also always been get rid of the corporate corruption of our leaders, regardless of party.

Just because I might find an attack on a liberal to not be always warranted, it doesn't mean I make excuses or cover for them. It just means the attack, like obama's a communist, a muslim etc is stupid and demonstrably wrong.



Hmm?
So ,the the richest man in the world has the POTUS"ear.The POTUS kills the pipeline just after the rich guy bought a Railroad that will now be the sole transporter of the oil. The rich guy schills for the POTUS' failed economic plans .And,the Rich guy owes MILLIONS in unpaid Fed.Taxes..

you're ok with that ?
doesn't seem fishy to ya ?


Please....Anxious Whistle
DrMaddVibe Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
Meanwhile back at the ranch....


The SECRETARY pays more in taxes than her uber-rich gazillionaire boss!

now a word from our sponsors...


This message was brought to you by the manufacturers of "Hope And Change". "Hope and Change" and all of it's subsidiaries are proud to be a sponsor for the 44th American President. We recognize that "Hope and Change" is hard to define but it's our mission to deliver it to you and yours in a caring and responsible manner.
FuzzNJ Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
Hmm?
So ,the the richest man in the world has the POTUS"ear.The POTUS kills the pipeline just after the rich guy bought a Railroad that will now be the sole transporter of the oil. The rich guy schills for the POTUS' failed economic plans .And,the Rich guy owes MILLIONS in unpaid Fed.Taxes..

you're ok with that ?
doesn't seem fishy to ya ?


Please....Anxious Whistle


Allrighty then. Make a case for it, prove it and destroy them both if Obama was out to help Buffet, doesn't bother me at all. However if it's just a conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up it's sh*t.

With Boehner, Pelosi and other Washington insiders are investing in companies that rely on congressional approval to increase their value right before legislation comes up and then pushing through that legislation hard.

I can't believe all you anti government people are arguing over this topic. Seems like a pretty cut and dry case of unethical conduct to me and I no longer have interest in the usual pettiness of this conversation.
wheelrite Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Meanwhile back at the ranch....


The SECRETARY pays more in taxes than her uber-rich gazillionaire boss!

now a word from our sponsors...


This message was brought to you by the manufacturers of "Hope And Change". "Hope and Change" and all of it's subsidiaries are proud to be a sponsor for the 44th American President. We recognize that "Hope and Change" is hard to define but it's our mission to deliver it to you and yours in a caring and responsible manner.


Actually she only paid 15% LAST YEAR and just bought a 2nd home in Phoenix with a pool and a putting green..

Anxious
HockeyDad Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
You need to actually prove unethical conduct just like you have to prove insider trading. You can do neither.

You could do the same research as their financial advisers from the comfort of your couch and make the exact same investments. You didn't. They got over on you. That is why they are 1%ers and you.......will never be.

HockeyDad Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
wheelrite wrote:
Hmm?
So ,the the richest man in the world has the POTUS"ear.The POTUS kills the pipeline just after the rich guy bought a Railroad that will now be the sole transporter of the oil. The rich guy schills for the POTUS' failed economic plans .And,the Rich guy owes MILLIONS in unpaid Fed.Taxes..

you're ok with that ?
doesn't seem fishy to ya ?




Warren Buffett is under the Obama Cone Of Protection. It is nice in here. Milk & honey flowing!
FuzzNJ Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
HockeyDad wrote:
You need to actually prove unethical conduct just like you have to prove insider trading. You can do neither.

You could do the same research as their financial advisers from the comfort of your couch and make the exact same investments. You didn't. They got over on you. That is why they are 1%ers and you.......will never be.




HD, I rarely laugh as hard as I did while reading this post. Of course you have to prove it if there is going to be any action on this. This and the 60 minutes piece covered the issue, conservatives are extremely pissed at Pelosi for possibly benefitting from this practice. This is not a partisan thing.

Now if you are saying making money on investments with non-public information is fine, ethical and should be legal then ok. If not you're just being silly.
Rclay Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2006
Posts: 1,813
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Meanwhile back at the ranch....


The SECRETARY pays more in taxes than her uber-rich gazillionaire boss!

now a word from our sponsors...


This message was brought to you by the manufacturers of "Hope And Change". "Hope and Change" and all of it's subsidiaries are proud to be a sponsor for the 44th American President. We recognize that "Hope and Change" is hard to define but it's our mission to deliver it to you and yours in a caring and responsible manner.


tru dat.


Throw them all out, in prison, deport them, send them to Mexico to make a difference.
It is always a leftist character trait to not notice that most of the Conservative/Libertarians do not worship their elected officials like deities. It is the founding principals and a good dose of common sense. Not years of inculcation and the desire to control others.
FuzzNJ Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Rclay wrote:
tru dat.


Throw them all out, in prison, deport them, send them to Mexico to make a difference.
It is always a leftist character trait to not notice that most of the Conservative/Libertarians do not worship their elected officials like deities. It is the founding principals and a good dose of common sense. Not years of inculcation and the desire to control others.



You guys are on a roll. Ever listen to a conservative talk about the founding fathers? They treat them like angels from heaven. And you even brought up founding principles. And Reagan? Holy crap.

No controlling others? Comic gold!

This is better than watching hee haw tonight.
HockeyDad Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
FuzzNJ wrote:

Now if you are saying making money on investments with non-public information is fine, ethical and should be legal then ok. If not you're just being silly.




What non-public information?
pdxstogieman Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
FuzzNJ wrote:
HD, I rarely laugh as hard as I did while reading this post. Of course you have to prove it if there is going to be any action on this. This and the 60 minutes piece covered the issue, conservatives are extremely pissed at Pelosi for possibly benefitting from this practice. This is not a partisan thing.

Now if you are saying making money on investments with non-public information is fine, ethical and should be legal then ok. If not you're just being silly.



He didn't say that at all. He basically said these legislators are only making investments based on information generally available to the public and to their investment advisors. If he believes that these legislators aren't using any special knowledge of how legislation they are involved in either fighting or pushing through might affect any of their investments and are in no case seeking to influence legislation that enhances the future value of their investments, then he's in shocking denial for someone who holds his own opinion of his business acumen and worldliness in such high regard. The fact is if you or I or Martha Stewart did something similar to what Senators and congressmen are doeing routinely, it would meet the legal definition of insider trading and we could go to jail for it. However, Congressmen and Senators are not subject to insider trading regulations. So while it may be reprehensible and not serve the interests of their constituents, it isn't illegal...which is the real crime.
FuzzNJ Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
HockeyDad wrote:
What non-public information?


Please stop if you are joking around, seriously, you've taken it too far.

Where do you think these bills come from, little surprises from heaven? No lobbyist pushing for their plans and/or writing the bills first?
HockeyDad Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
pdxstogieman wrote:
He didn't say that at all. He basically said these legislators are only making investments based on information generally available to the public and to their investment advisors. If he believes that these legislators aren't using any special knowledge of how legislation they are involved in either fighting or pushing through might affect any of their investments and are in no case seeking to influence legislation that enhances the future value of their investments, then he's in shocking denial for someone who holds his own opinion of his business acumen and worldliness in such high regard. The fact is if you or I or Martha Stewart did something similar to what Senators and congressmen are doeing routinely, it would meet the legal definition of insider trading and we could go to jail for it. However, Congressmen and Senators are not subject to insider trading regulations. So while it may be reprehensible and not serve the interests of their constituents, it isn't illegal...which is the real crime.



What special knowledge did they have?

What insider information?

I haven't seen anything in this thread that looks like something that wasn't public knowledge.
FuzzNJ Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
pdxstogieman wrote:
He didn't say that at all. He basically said these legislators are only making investments based on information generally available to the public and to their investment advisors. If he believes that these legislators aren't using any special knowledge of how legislation they are involved in either fighting or pushing through might affect any of their investments and are in no case seeking to influence legislation that enhances the future value of their investments, then he's in shocking denial for someone who holds his own opinion of his business acumen and worldliness in such high regard. The fact is if you or I or Martha Stewart did something similar to what Senators and congressmen are doeing routinely, it would meet the legal definition of insider trading and we could go to jail for it. However, Congressmen and Senators are not subject to insider trading regulations. So while it may be reprehensible and not serve the interests of their constituents, it isn't illegal...which is the real crime.



Of course he's not saying that and that's what makes his arguing over this so pointless. The conversation is fascinating if people actually think this way.
HockeyDad Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
FuzzNJ wrote:
Please stop if you are joking around, seriously, you've taken it too far.

Where do you think these bills come from, little surprises from heaven? No lobbyist pushing for their plans and/or writing the bills first?




Right. So what non-public information?

HockeyDad Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
FuzzNJ wrote:
Of course he's not saying that and that's what makes his arguing over this so pointless. The conversation is fascinating if people actually think this way.



They're more successful than you therefore they are guilty until proven innocent.
Rclay Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2006
Posts: 1,813
FuzzNJ wrote:
You guys are on a roll. Ever listen to a conservative talk about the founding fathers? They treat them like angels from heaven. And you even brought up founding principles. And Reagan? Holy crap.

No controlling others? Comic gold!

This is better than watching hee haw tonight.



HEE HAW OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!


Who said Reagan? or founding fathers? You suffer from Inference derangement syndrome.


HockeyDad Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ej9Dqhe5p4&feature=related
ZRX1200 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
I agree with pdx.

And this thread is hilarious.
rfenst Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,424


I think a condition of serving such a high level office should include "full" disclosure and investments being placed into a "blind trust". Some do this voluntarily.
ZRX1200 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
That would only work if they're intentions were to actually serve.
HockeyDad Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
rfenst wrote:
I think a condition of serving such a high level office should include "full" disclosure and investments being placed into a "blind trust". Some do this voluntarily.




Nobody ever said that Boner's investments were not in a blind trust.
wheelrite Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
HockeyDad wrote:
Nobody ever said that Boner's investments were not in a blind trust.


Lawyers make money setting up Blind Trusts,,,

pdxstogieman Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
wheelrite wrote:
Lawyers make money setting up Blind Trusts,,,



You say that like there's something wrong with it. Must be because they're more successful than you.

wheelrite Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
pdxstogieman wrote:
You say that like there's something wrong with it. Must be because they're more successful than you.



Nothing wrong with making money.

And, I have no issues with people who have more than I do. I'm a happy guy and me and the wife do ok..


Lawyer Salary:
From the U.S. Department of Labor:
In May 2008, the median annual wages of all wage-and-salaried lawyers were $110,590. The middle half of the occupation earned between $74,980 and $163,320.



Whistle

wheel,
HockeyDad Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
pdxstogieman wrote:
You say that like there's something wrong with it. Must be because they're more successful than you.





Now don't go away mad.....

Face it, you and Fuss can't produce any non-public information, insider information, or anything else. The info they had any investor that watched Jim Cramer could have yet somehow you guys believe these multimillionaires heard something juicy and ran home and logged into their Etrade accounts and bought $15K in some stock.

I have more access to insider information than Boner has and I already told you people that the pipeline would be killed and it was. Did you rush out and buy ADM stock before Obama killed it?
daveincincy Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
FuzzNJ wrote:
Small? 15-50k in one company and he invested in all 7 on a salary of 220k? lol

That's gonna play well.


Someone making over 200k could easily invest that much....especially if they've been earning a decent income and investing for a number of years. Why is that so hard to figure out?



Also, I've had enough of Obama continuing to try and get mileage out of the "Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary" BS. If Warren Buffett actually took a salary I'm sure he'd be paying considerably more in taxes than his secretary. (Those of you smart enough to know this can tune out now) He earns enough in capital gains not to have to take a salary...a nice position to be in. Thus, he pays only capital gains taxes, which is less than the taxes on other income. I understand that most of you on this forum understand this so I'm just horse However, maybe some of you don't, and I'm guessing a large majority of the people out there (i.e. Obama supporters) don't get it...and never will. So when Obama can only come up with the Buffett and his secretary example, all he's doing is polishing a turd and spoon feeding it to his supporters...which is pretty much what he does with all of his speeches.


Obama math formula...

(UG>) + (IG<) = FS

Where:
U = You
G= Give
I = I
> = more
< = less
FS = Fair Share
DrMaddVibe Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
daveincincy wrote:
Someone making over 200k could easily invest that much....especially if they've been earning a decent income and investing for a number of years. Why is that so hard to figure out?



Also, I've had enough of Obama continuing to try and get mileage out of the "Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary" BS. If Warren Buffett actually took a salary I'm sure he'd be paying considerably more in taxes than his secretary. (Those of you smart enough to know this can tune out now) He earns enough in capital gains not to have to take a salary...a nice position to be in. Thus, he pays only capital gains taxes, which is less than the taxes on other income. I understand that most of you on this forum understand this so I'm just horse However, maybe some of you don't, and I'm guessing a large majority of the people out there (i.e. Obama supporters) don't get it...and never will. So when Obama can only come up with the Buffett and his secretary example, all he's doing is polishing a turd and spoon feeding it to his supporters...which is pretty much what he does with all of his speeches.


Obama math formula...

(UG>) + (IG<) = FS

Where:
U = You
G= Give
I = I
> = more
< = less
FS = Fair Share



POST OF THE WEEK CANDIDATE!
bloody spaniard Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
DrMaddVibe wrote:
POST OF THE WEEK CANDIDATE!


Haven't read the whole thread but I agree. Dave has just posted what some of us were thinking all along. LOL!
FuzzNJ Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
daveincincy wrote:
Also, I've had enough of Obama continuing to try and get mileage out of the "Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary" BS. If Warren Buffett actually took a salary I'm sure he'd be paying considerably more in taxes than his secretary. (Those of you smart enough to know this can tune out now) He earns enough in capital gains not to have to take a salary...a nice position to be in. Thus, he pays only capital gains taxes, which is less than the taxes on other income. I understand that most of you on this forum understand this so I'm just horse However, maybe some of you don't, and I'm guessing a large majority of the people out there (i.e. Obama supporters) don't get it...and never will. So when Obama can only come up with the Buffett and his secretary example, all he's doing is polishing a turd and spoon feeding it to his supporters...which is pretty much what he does with all of his speeches.


No. This is how Romney does it. When he did receive a salary from Bain he claimed it as capital gains, a little trick because the profit the company makes is from investments.

The real question is why is there this disparity? I know the republicans say it's been taxed already, and perhaps the initial money in the investment was salary and paid a higher rate, but in Romney and Buffet and others in the invester class like you said, most of it is capital gains that they use to invest personally so it was also taxed at a really low rate. Return on investment should be considered income, especially when we're talking numbers as big as these. We have to claim our interest we earn on savings accounts as income and pay interest on it at our top marginal rate. The wealthy, like Mitt, who earn 60k a day on just investment income pays 13.9%.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages123>