Author Topic: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines  (Read 6230 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39697
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« on: September 19, 2009, 01:57:10 PM »
Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
Wall Street Journal ^ | September 19, 2009 | Laura Sanders


Posted on Saturday, September 19, 2009 3:24:00 PM by reaganaut1

Five years ago, car-wash owner Orman Wilson set up a pension plan for himself and six employees. For that, he may owe the IRS a $1.2 million tax penalty.

Mr. Wilson, the owner of 19 coin-operated car washes in Houston, says he relied on four advisers, including a certified public accountant, to set up a plan that received approval from the Internal Revenue Service. Then, in late 2007, the IRS found fault with the plan and assessed it $250,000 -- plus special penalties of $1.2 million.
...

The source of the distress: tax-law changes made by Congress in 2004. At the time, lawmakers were worried that tax shelters, especially from large corporations, were costing the Treasury billions in revenue. To combat it, they imposed enormous fines on taxpayers who failed to tell the IRS of participation in any transaction the agency might consider a tax shelter.

"The fines are not for the shelter itself," says Mr. Brucker, "but merely for failing to file the form disclosing the transaction."

The penalty is $100,000 per offense, per year for individuals and $200,000 for businesses. In order to put teeth into the law, the provisions gave the IRS no leeway in imposing the fines and taxpayers no way to get them reviewed in Tax Court.

As drafted, they hit small businesses particularly hard because their entities of choice, Subchapter S and Limited Liability Companies, can incur both corporate and individual fines for every infraction.

National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, an IRS employee charged with protecting taxpayers' rights, has said the fines "have the effect of bankrupting middle-class families who had no intention of entering into a tax shelter."

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
________________________ ___________________

This is why people hate the govt. 

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2009, 07:19:34 PM »
The source of the distress: tax-law changes made by Congress in 2004.

...who was president in 2004?



The Luke

Mons Venus

  • Guest
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2009, 07:08:57 AM »
...who was president in 2004?



The Luke


As usual,,,,,,,The Luke laying the smackdown on 333bitchbitchbitch86.  ;D

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2009, 07:18:17 AM »
Mons Venus....."I was afraid to join the Air Force"  so now I make fun of them. Another whininy piece of shit who can't back up his "military record".  DD214 shitbag..Unit....somethi ng?
L

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39697
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2009, 07:23:28 AM »

As usual,,,,,,,The Luke laying the smackdown on 333bitchbitchbitch86.  ;D

Its not about party you idiot. 

The govt is simply out of control. 

Hereford

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2009, 11:50:59 AM »
I heard Mons Venus was special forces.

That's why he can't tell you.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2009, 02:33:48 PM »
Its not about party you idiot. 

The govt is simply out of control. 

...which administration:

-removed Habeus Corpus?
-gave dictatorial powers to the executive branch during a declared "emergency"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to both define and declare "emergency"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to declare anyone (even citizens) a "terrorist"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to inter "terrorists" for indefinite periods without trial or charge?
-stole the 2004 election by means of large scale voter fraud?
-overrode the Geneva Convention in order to set up a torture centre and concentration camp?
-actively delivered suspects to foreign governments to be tortured?
-tortured suspects in order to garner "proof" of a link between Saddam and Bin Laden? Which didn't exist.
-actually has long time business links to the Bin Laden family itself?
-redefined waterboarding as "enhanced interrogation" despite the fact that Japanese (and Vietnamese) soldiers who had waterboarded American soldiers were prosecuted for war crimes by the US?
-miserably failed the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?
-passed sweeping legislation to enlarge government power? (Patriot Act)
-deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?
-pressured the Fed to lower interest rates in the wake of 9/11 in order to prevent a recession, which in turn caused the artificial fiscal environment that collapsed the world banking system?

I'm pretty much sure none of this egregious behaviour happened on Obama's watch.

Even if you don't want to answer any of the above questions, as a "patriot", shouldn't you at least ask yourself, which administration trained and armed Osama Bin Laden?


I don't expect an answer 333386, my point is that you sound like a fool when you criticise well-meaning social policies instituted by Democrats while remaining blinkered against the horrific transgressions of the Bible Squad.


We get it you're frightened by Chocolate Jesus.



The Luke

Mons Venus

  • Guest
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2009, 02:39:48 PM »
...which administration:

-removed Habeus Corpus?
-gave dictatorial powers to the executive branch during a declared "emergency"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to both define and declare "emergency"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to declare anyone (even citizens) a "terrorist"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to inter "terrorists" for indefinite periods without trial or charge?
-stole the 2004 election by means of large scale voter fraud?
-overrode the Geneva Convention in order to set up a torture centre and concentration camp?
-actively delivered suspects to foreign governments to be tortured?
-tortured suspects in order to garner "proof" of a link between Saddam and Bin Laden? Which didn't exist.
-actually has long time business links to the Bin Laden family itself?
-redefined waterboarding as "enhanced interrogation" despite the fact that Japanese (and Vietnamese) soldiers who had waterboarded American soldiers were prosecuted for war crimes by the US?
-miserably failed the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?
-passed sweeping legislation to enlarge government power? (Patriot Act)
-deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?
-pressured the Fed to lower interest rates in the wake of 9/11 in order to prevent a recession, which in turn caused the artificial fiscal environment that collapsed the world banking system?

I'm pretty much sure none of this egregious behaviour happened on Obama's watch.

Even if you don't want to answer any of the above questions, as a "patriot", shouldn't you at least ask yourself, which administration trained and armed Osama Bin Laden?


I don't expect an answer 333386, my point is that you sound like a fool when you criticise well-meaning social policies instituted by Democrats while remaining blinkered against the horrific transgressions of the Bible Squad.


We get it you're frightened by Chocolate Jesus.



The Luke


The Luke = Laying the Smackdown  ;D

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2009, 03:02:41 PM »
...which administration:

-removed Habeus Corpus?
-gave dictatorial powers to the executive branch during a declared "emergency"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to both define and declare "emergency"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to declare anyone (even citizens) a "terrorist"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to inter "terrorists" for indefinite periods without trial or charge?
-stole the 2004 election by means of large scale voter fraud?
-overrode the Geneva Convention in order to set up a torture centre and concentration camp?
-actively delivered suspects to foreign governments to be tortured?
-tortured suspects in order to garner "proof" of a link between Saddam and Bin Laden? Which didn't exist.
-actually has long time business links to the Bin Laden family itself?
-redefined waterboarding as "enhanced interrogation" despite the fact that Japanese (and Vietnamese) soldiers who had waterboarded American soldiers were prosecuted for war crimes by the US?
-miserably failed the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?
-passed sweeping legislation to enlarge government power? (Patriot Act)
-deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?
-pressured the Fed to lower interest rates in the wake of 9/11 in order to prevent a recession, which in turn caused the artificial fiscal environment that collapsed the world banking system?

Even if you don't want to answer any of the above questions, as a "patriot", shouldn't you at least ask yourself, which administration trained and armed Osama Bin Laden?

The Luke
hey look everybody the foreigner wants to come play american politics  ;)

actually luke your list is full of half truths

-habeus corpus is meant for civilians or uniformed military combantants not terrorists
-what executive powers did bush grant that were dictator like?
-the president can order military action without congress approval he simply cant declare war without it.
-obama is doing the same thing with holding ppl without trial...
-lol bush didnt steal anything they recounted numerous times and he came out ahead everytime
-the geneva convention again applies to uniformed soldiers not terrorists
-Katrina was a shit hole of a situation that couldnt be predicted the very fact you politicize a tragedy like that without even being in country says enough. I live in Houston luke you know where alot of these ppl were bused to and given federal aid and support?
-Obama is passing legislation that is even surpassing the patriot act...
-There were plenty or reasons and plenty of blame to go around for the financial crises the blame bush tatic is oversimplifying a very complicated situation...

also 3333 and many others including myself have been against many actions bush took...

I myself thought the patriot act was bs and Iraq was obviously a mistake...

but the question still remains why does a australian care about american politics?

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2009, 06:09:54 PM »
-habeus corpus is meant for civilians or uniformed military combantants not terrorists

...not true.

No one can legally be deemed either a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant" unless the executive branch declare them to be so. Till then Habeus Corpus applies.

Only the president or someone acting upon orders of the president can decide whether Habeus Corpus applies, by declaring the person involved either an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist".

Comparing civilians and uniformed military combatants to "enemy combatants/terrorists" is misleading, as "enemy combatants/terrorists" have NO legal standing once declared to be so. Civilians and uniformed combatants are people... prisoners declared "enemy combatants/terrorists" are not legally people under American law: evidence by the fact that American citizens (interrogators) can and do deny them ANY and ALL of their human rights with impunity from prosecution.

Hence, the President of the United States becomes the final and sole arbiter of the human/non-human status of anyone in the world (technically this is legally correct as America retains the right to forcefully repatriate anyone whom they decide should be repatriated).

Read the Patriot Act. 


-what executive powers did bush grant that were dictator like?

...the right to decide the human/non-human status of any person on this planet. The right to deny people their human rights by Presidential order. See above point.

The power to torture detainees by name, an unlimited amount of times.
The power to deny people their privacy.
The power to read emails (and all forms of correspondence) without a legal warrant.
The power to order wiretaps without a warrant.
The power of unlawful search and seizure, again without warrant.
The power to hold people without trial.
The power to forcefully repatriate, both to the US and its torture partner countries.
The power to decide, as sole arbiter: dictatorially, when the Geneva Convention applies.

The power to suspend Congress and the Senate and the Judiciary (your three branches of government) in times of national emergency... this has been a presidential power for some time, but Bush changed it so that the president alone decides what constitutes a "state of emergency", the president alone decides when the Constitution should be suspended, the president alone decides how long such a state of totalitarian dictatorship should last, and can prolong it indefinitely.

What other power does a dictator need?

Granted, Hitler also had the power of summary execution (not legally, but practiced)... Bush never gave himself that power... he stopped with the power to torture anybody he chose every day for the rest of their lives, just on his unappealable order.


-the president can order military action without congress approval he simply cant declare war without it.

...I never argued otherwise.

Did Congress "approve" a formal declaration of war on "terror"?

If not, the Iraqi and Afghan invasions are technically illegal.


-obama is doing the same thing with holding ppl without trial...

...agreed.

They should all be facing charges for high crimes against humanity in the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague (Netherlands): Bush; Cheney; Rumsfeld; Tony Blair; Gordon Brown; even Obama.

-lol bush didnt steal anything they recounted numerous times and he came out ahead everytime

...isn't there a very detailed non-partisan report made by international observers that found otherwise?

From what I can tell, Bush has never been properly elected: voter fraud and election tampering by the Supreme Court in 2000, and widespread voter fraud in 2004.


-the geneva convention again applies to uniformed soldiers not terrorists

...again, read my first point: then read the Patriot Act.

Besides, most of those who were raped; abused; mutilated and tortured in Gitmo, were taken prisoner while wearing uniforms... Iraqi National Guard and Taliban fighters.


-Katrina was a shit hole of a situation that couldnt be predicted the very fact you politicize a tragedy like that without even being in country says enough. I live in Houston luke you know where alot of these ppl were bused to and given federal aid and support?

...so there was no shockingly poor response to this crisis?

Then why did Bush admit that both he and the administration failed the people of New Orleans (farewell interview with Larry King)? Why did he ask for forgiveness? Why did he declare it the biggest failing of his presidency?

Are you actually arguing that George Bush DOES care about black people.


-Obama is passing legislation that is even surpassing the patriot act...

...agreed.

He should face charges in the Hague.

On the plus side, he has put a stop to the abuse; beatings; rape; mutilation and torture at Gitmo.


-There were plenty or reasons and plenty of blame to go around for the financial crises the blame bush tatic is oversimplifying a very complicated situation...

...what exactly did Bush do to prevent this financial Armageddon? Finish reading "My Pet Goat"?


also 3333 and many others including myself have been against many actions bush took...

...yes, your condemnation has been deafening.

Funny, I don't remember any of them putting down the giant "USA #1!" foam finger long enough to do the decent thing and become conscientious objectors.

It's one thing to be complicit in such abhorrent behaviour and policies with your vote, but some of these guys have actually gone to war for this lunatic! Killing poor people in the worlds poorest countries, for George Dubya Bush... but then again, they are brown people (just like Obama).

Shameful.


I myself thought the patriot act was bs and Iraq was obviously a mistake...

Did you, or did you not, vote for the dumbest president America has ever seen?

Did you vote for the dumbest president America has ever had a second time?

Did you then vote for a pro-war nutjob running with the dumbest vice-presidential candidate America has ever seen?


Maybe you could answer these questions before we consider your learned opinion on the Iraq invasion?

You have already proven yourself shockingly misinformed with your supposed corrections of my post. What credibility can you have in this discussion?


The Luke

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2009, 07:04:15 PM »
...not true.

No one can legally be deemed either a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant" unless the executive branch declare them to be so. Till then Habeus Corpus applies.

Only the president or someone acting upon orders of the president can decide whether Habeus Corpus applies, by declaring the person involved either an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist".

Comparing civilians and uniformed military combatants to "enemy combatants/terrorists" is misleading, as "enemy combatants/terrorists" have NO legal standing once declared to be so. Civilians and uniformed combatants are people... prisoners declared "enemy combatants/terrorists" are not legally people under American law: evidence by the fact that American citizens (interrogators) can and do deny them ANY and ALL of their human rights with impunity from prosecution.

Hence, the President of the United States becomes the final and sole arbiter of the human/non-human status of anyone in the world (technically this is legally correct as America retains the right to forcefully repatriate anyone whom they decide should be repatriated).

Read the Patriot Act. 

The Luke

Actually you're wrong, and unsurprisingly misinformed...as usual.  The Supreme Court put this issue to rest last year in Boumediene v. Bush where it ruled habeas corpus applied to the Gitmo detainees as well as anybody else designated an "Enemy Combatant".  Since then, several have been freed via writs of habeas corpus.

No, the president or his designee does not decide if, when, and to whom habeas corpus applies.  That is a function of the court, and the SC put the issue to rest.

If you're going to give us crap about our laws, at least know what the fuck you're talking about.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2009, 07:13:54 PM »
Actually you're wrong, and unsurprisingly misinformed...as usual.  The Supreme Court put this issue to rest last year in Boumediene v. Bush where it ruled habeas corpus applied to the Gitmo detainees as well as anybody else designated an "Enemy Combatant".  Since then, several have been freed via writs of habeas corpus.

No, the president or his designee does not decide if, when, and to whom habeas corpus applies.  That is a function of the court, and the SC put the issue to rest.

...eight years late?

I know this is changing now, Ireland has even agreed to accept some of these detainees freed via these Habeus Corpus writs.

The court may decide to whom Habeus Corpus applies NOW, but the detainees had no access to the courts for many, many years... no representation, no appeals, no legal motions allowed.


Guess I should have been more precise with my tenses, I was referring to the dictatorial powers Bush conferred upon himself.


The Luke

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39697
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2009, 05:14:36 AM »
...which administration:

-removed Habeus Corpus?


For who?  American Citizens? Terrorists? Enemy combatants?  Members of a foreign military under uniform?  The Geneva Convention was never intended to cover terrorists and was meant to apply to people fighting in uniform for a recogognized nation state.  



-gave dictatorial powers to the executive branch during a declared "emergency"?


Which are what?  From what i can tell, the congress signed off on those powers.  BTW - if 9/11 did not qualifiy as an "emergency" I dont know what does.    

-gave the executive branch sole authority to both define and declare "emergency"?

What is your support for this?  

-gave the executive branch sole authority to declare anyone (even citizens) a "terrorist"?

Who should do this?  Who did it prior to the Bush admn?  

-gave the executive branch sole authority to inter "terrorists" for indefinite periods without trial or charge?


I never agreed with this, but Obama is carrying forward with this policy as well.  

-stole the 2004 election by means of large scale voter fraud?

More liberal CT that are baseless.  Acorn and other groups committed equal violations that if anything offset anything that happened with 2004 election.    


-overrode the Geneva Convention in order to set up a torture centre and concentration camp?


More nonsense.  Gitmo is a concentration camp?  Please.  I have seen housing projects five minutes from me where people are subjected to worse conditions.      

-actively delivered suspects to foreign governments to be tortured?

You mean rendition?  I thought we did the torturing?  Why would we need to send them elsewhere is we did the torturing?  

BTW - Obama admn is continuing the rendition policy.      

-tortured suspects in order to garner "proof" of a link between Saddam and Bin Laden? Which didn't exist.

If that is true thats horrible.  

-actually has long time business links to the Bin Laden family itself?

Show me where GWB had these ties.  


-redefined waterboarding as "enhanced interrogation" despite the fact that Japanese (and Vietnamese) soldiers who had waterboarded American soldiers were prosecuted for war crimes by the US?


I have no problem with this, never did, never will, especially under a ticking time bomb scenario.  We are not fighting uniformed armies on a battlefield, but ruthless savages who kill children, women, dogs, etc, and themselves.  

-miserably failed the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?

Most of the blame goes to Ray Nagin and Blanco.  The idiots in NO were warned for three days to leave and chose to stay.  

Nagin had 700 school buses that he could have used but didnt because they could not find Union bus drivers to drive the busses.  Blanco also was a miserable failure.  

Bush is not to blame for Katrina, although I do blame his admn for the FEMA trailers and gift cards they gave out.      

-passed sweeping legislation to enlarge government power? (Patriot Act)

The congress signed off on that and explicitly gave him those powers.    

-deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?

If you are referring to the repeal of Glass Steagal, it was Bill Clinton who signed that at the urging of Phil Graham and Robert Rubin.  

-pressured the Fed to lower interest rates in the wake of 9/11 in order to prevent a recession, which in turn caused the artificial fiscal environment that collapsed the world banking system?

Show me where Greenspan bowed to pressure to do this?  

I'm pretty much sure none of this egregious behaviour happened on Obama's watch.

we have only been in this admn for less than a year and Obama has already adopted most of the worst of GWB's worst policies and has attempted to enact his own massive overreach of govt power via cap & trade, health care, czars, etc.  


Even if you don't want to answer any of the above questions, as a "patriot", shouldn't you at least ask yourself, which administration trained and armed Osama Bin Laden?

The thought at the time was that the mujahadeen could check the soviets, which they did.  Unfortunately, they calculated wrong in that there would not be blowback.  

I don't expect an answer 333386, my point is that you sound like a fool when you criticise well-meaning social policies instituted by Democrats while remaining blinkered against the horrific transgressions of the Bible Squad.

"Well-meaning social policy" usually means more dependence on govt, which I am not ok with.  Maybe you are, and for that you should stay wherever you are.  

BTW -  I was thrown off FR for bashing Bush and have always expressed major disagreements with what he did.  


We get it you're frightened by Chocolate Jesus.

Please, Obama is a joke, a liar, a fraud, and is half white.  He cant get a coherent thought out without his teleprompter.  

What I am "fightened of" is the massive overreach of govt into my finances, choices, etc, which Obama's policies all are attempting to do.  They are not "well-meaning" as you say, but attempts to control and make people dependent on govt for everything.  


Mons Venus

  • Guest
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2009, 05:50:17 AM »
...which administration:

-removed Habeus Corpus?


For who?  American Citizens? Terrorists? Enemy combatants?  Members of a foreign military under uniform?  The Geneva Convention was never intended to cover terrorists and was meant to apply to people fighting in uniform for a recogognized nation state.  



-gave dictatorial powers to the executive branch during a declared "emergency"?


Which are what?  From what i can tell, the congress signed off on those powers.  BTW - if 9/11 did not qualifiy as an "emergency" I dont know what does.    

-gave the executive branch sole authority to both define and declare "emergency"?

What is your support for this?  

-gave the executive branch sole authority to declare anyone (even citizens) a "terrorist"?

Who should do this?  Who did it prior to the Bush admn?  

-gave the executive branch sole authority to inter "terrorists" for indefinite periods without trial or charge?


I never agreed with this, but Obama is carrying forward with this policy as well.  

-stole the 2004 election by means of large scale voter fraud?

More liberal CT that are baseless.  Acorn and other groups committed equal violations that if anything offset anything that happened with 2004 election.    


-overrode the Geneva Convention in order to set up a torture centre and concentration camp?


More nonsense.  Gitmo is a concentration camp?  Please.  I have seen housing projects five minutes from me where people are subjected to worse conditions.      

-actively delivered suspects to foreign governments to be tortured?

You mean rendition?  I thought we did the torturing?  Why would we need to send them elsewhere is we did the torturing?  

BTW - Obama admn is continuing the rendition policy.      

-tortured suspects in order to garner "proof" of a link between Saddam and Bin Laden? Which didn't exist.

If that is true thats horrible.  

-actually has long time business links to the Bin Laden family itself?

Show me where GWB had these ties.  


-redefined waterboarding as "enhanced interrogation" despite the fact that Japanese (and Vietnamese) soldiers who had waterboarded American soldiers were prosecuted for war crimes by the US?


I have no problem with this, never did, never will, especially under a ticking time bomb scenario.  We are not fighting uniformed armies on a battlefield, but ruthless savages who kill children, women, dogs, etc, and themselves.  

-miserably failed the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?

Most of the blame goes to Ray Nagin and Blanco.  The idiots in NO were warned for three days to leave and chose to stay.  

Nagin had 700 school buses that he could have used but didnt because they could not find Union bus drivers to drive the busses.  Blanco also was a miserable failure.  

Bush is not to blame for Katrina, although I do blame his admn for the FEMA trailers and gift cards they gave out.      

-passed sweeping legislation to enlarge government power? (Patriot Act)

The congress signed off on that and explicitly gave him those powers.    

-deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?

If you are referring to the repeal of Glass Steagal, it was Bill Clinton who signed that at the urging of Phil Graham and Robert Rubin.  

-pressured the Fed to lower interest rates in the wake of 9/11 in order to prevent a recession, which in turn caused the artificial fiscal environment that collapsed the world banking system?

Show me where Greenspan bowed to pressure to do this?  

I'm pretty much sure none of this egregious behaviour happened on Obama's watch.

we have only been in this admn for less than a year and Obama has already adopted most of the worst of GWB's worst policies and has attempted to enact his own massive overreach of govt power via cap & trade, health care, czars, etc.  


Even if you don't want to answer any of the above questions, as a "patriot", shouldn't you at least ask yourself, which administration trained and armed Osama Bin Laden?

The thought at the time was that the mujahadeen could check the soviets, which they did.  Unfortunately, they calculated wrong in that there would not be blowback.  

I don't expect an answer 333386, my point is that you sound like a fool when you criticise well-meaning social policies instituted by Democrats while remaining blinkered against the horrific transgressions of the Bible Squad.

"Well-meaning social policy" usually means more dependence on govt, which I am not ok with.  Maybe you are, and for that you should stay wherever you are.  

BTW -  I was thrown off FR for bashing Bush and have always expressed major disagreements with what he did.  


We get it you're frightened by Chocolate Jesus.

Please, Obama is a joke, a liar, a fraud, and is half white.  He cant get a coherent thought out without his teleprompter. 

What I am "fightened of" is the massive overreach of govt into my finances, choices, etc, which Obama's policies all are attempting to do.  They are not "well-meaning" as you say, but attempts to control and make people dependent on govt for everything.   


The Luke

Hahahaaaaaaaaaa The Luke destroying 3333bitchbitchbitch86!!  ;D

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39697
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2009, 05:52:04 AM »
What the heck are you talking about? 

I went line by line and refuted almost everything in his post.  Go back to bed.   

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2009, 02:26:00 PM »
What the heck are you talking about? 

I went line by line and refuted almost everything in his post.  Go back to bed.   

...citing your misconceptions regarding a point does not constitute refutation.

It merely demonstrates poor reading comprehension, or intellectual dishonesty. look at the amount of points I made that you didn't refute but asked for sources on... have you been asleep for the past nine years? Or have you been watching FOX News?


If you want to criticise the Obama administration, I'm right behind you... but blinkered apologist attitudes towards the horrific record of the Bush administration is patently disingenuous.


You didn't refute even one of the points I made. Saying you did, doesn't make it so.




The Luke

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2009, 02:36:35 PM »
Look dude...he answered ur stupid post. Ur country was right behind us until u elected a left wing retard. We don't comment on ur crap....nobody here cares.
L

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39697
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2009, 02:41:45 PM »
I guess you want to blame Bush for this? 


The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2009, 02:44:17 PM »
Look dude...he answered ur stupid post. Ur country was right behind us until u elected a left wing retard. We don't comment on ur crap....nobody here cares.

...Ireland?

We won't even let American planes refuel here in case they might be flying rendition prisoners.



The Luke

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39697
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2009, 02:46:31 PM »
Here you go Luke - another point of your utterly destroyed.  
________________________ ________________________ ____________

The Bi-Partisan Origins of the Financial Crisis
Shattering the Glass-Steagall Act
By WILLIAM KAUFMAN


If you're looking for a major cause of the current banking meltdown, you need seek no farther than the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

The Glass-Steagall Act, passed in 1933, mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking in order to protect depositors from the hazards of risky investment and speculation. It worked fine for fifty years until the banking industry began lobbying for its repeal during the 1980s, the go-go years of Reaganesque market fundamentalism, an outlook embraced wholeheartedly by mainstream Democrats under the rubric "neoliberalism."

The main cheerleader for the repeal was Phil Gramm, the fulsome reactionary who, until he recently shoved his foot even farther into his mouth than usual, was McCain's chief economic advisor.

But wait . . . as usual, the Democrats were eager to pile on to this reversal of New Deal regulatory progressivism -- fully 38 of 45 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal (which passed 90-8), including some famous names commonly associated with "progressive" politics by the easily gulled: Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer. And, of course, there was the inevitable shout of "yea" from the ever-servile corporate factotum Joseph Biden, Barack Obama's idea of a tribune of "change"--if by change one means erasing any lingering obstacle to corporate domination of the polity.

This disgraceful bow to the banking industry, eagerly signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999, bears a major share of responsibility for the current banking crisis. Here's the complete roll call of shame:

REPUBLICANS FOR (52): Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Bennett, Brownback, Bond, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Chafee, Cochran, Collins, Coverdell, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Gorton, Gramm (Tex.), Grams (Minn.), Grassley, Gregg, Hegel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Jeffords, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Mack, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Roth, Santorum, Sessions, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner. DEMOCRATS FOR (38): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Byrd, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Edwards, Feinstein, Graham (Fla.), Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey (Neb.), Kerry (Mass.), Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Moynihan, Murray, Reed (R.L), Reid (Nev.), Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Torricelli and Wyden.

REPUBLICANS AGAINST(1): Shelby.

DEMOCRATS AGAINST(7): Boxer, Bryan, Dorgan, Feingold, Harkin, Mikulski and Wellstone.

NOT VOTING: 2 REPUBLICANS (2): Fitzgerald (voted present) and McCain.

The House Democrats were no less enthusiastic in their endorsement of this invitation to plunder--the repeal passed there by a margin of 343-86, with the Donkey Party favoring the measure by a two-to-one margin, 138-69. Current House speaker Nancy Pelosi managed not to register a vote on this one, so great was her fear of offending her party's corporate paymasters even though she knew passage was a sure thing.

According to Wikipedia, many economists "have criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. Citigroup played a major part in the repeal. Then called Citicorp, the company merged with Travelers Insurance company the year before using loopholes in Glass-Steagall that allowed for temporary exemptions. With lobbying led by Roger Levy, the 'finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors [in 1999]. They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, ' according to the Center for Responsive Politics. ' These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the act. ' "

This lust for banking largesse is as wanton among Democrats as Republicans--right up to the current presidential campaign. According to the Phoenix Business Journal,

Obama and McCain . . . have accepted a substantial amount of campaign money from Wall Street bankers, investment and securities firms and their executives during this election cycle.

Investment firms have donated $9.9 million to Obama and $6.9 million to McCain this campaign thus far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Commercial banks have given Obama $2.1 million and McCain $1.9 million. Private equity firms and hedge funds have given Obama $2 million and McCain $1.4 million, according to CFRP.

Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase & Co., UBS and heavyweight law firm DLA Piper are among Obama's top contributors. JP Morgan acquired Bear Stearns with the federal government taking on as much as $30 billion Bear assets as part of the deal. McCain's top donor sources include Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Blank Rome and Greenberg Traurig LLP law firms.

So . . . the next time a mass-media-lulled Democrat ridicules Ralph Nader for arguing that there are few significant differences between the two major parties on the truly important issues, you might refer them to this atrocity, along with all the other ones.

William Kaufman can be reached at kman484@earthlink.net
________________________ ________________________ _____

Are you going to blame Bush for this Luke?  

 

 



 


 




headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2009, 02:48:10 PM »
Oh never mind.....I thought u were an Aussie....u matter even less. My moms' from Dublin and I've been there a few times...I refueled there in both 2003 and 2007.
L

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2009, 02:56:42 PM »
...Ireland has even agreed to accept some of these detainees freed via these Habeus Corpus writs.


The Luke


That's great.  I hope Ireland takes more.  They can stay over there and fuck your women, leech off your welfare, and have you pay all their medical bills...all the while advocating for Sharia Law.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2009, 03:31:23 PM »
333386,


I know all about the Glass-Steagall Act.

My point was that the Bush Administration watched the global derivatives market grow from 600 trillion to 1.2 quadrillion dollars.

Yet did nothing to reign in any of this excessive speculation.


Clinton had a budgetary surplus... Bush had two off-balance-sheet wars and a chronic deficit.

That's not the time to insist upon lowering interest rates to all-time record-lows further fueling suicidal speculation; double-down on speculation to smooth over a long overdue recession (Dot Com bust); then spend (borrowed) billions giving unneeded tax-cuts to the richest Americans.

Bush oversaw the fastest biggest increase in wealth disparity America has ever seen, that is his economic legacy... national bankruptcy is merely the result of his policies.


The Luke

Mons Venus

  • Guest
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2009, 03:47:58 PM »
333386,


I know all about the Glass-Steagall Act.

My point was that the Bush Administration watched the global derivatives market grow from 600 trillion to 1.2 quadrillion dollars.

Yet did nothing to reign in any of this excessive speculation.


Clinton had a budgetary surplus... Bush had two off-balance-sheet wars and a chronic deficit.

That's not the time to insist upon lowering interest rates to all-time record-lows further fueling suicidal speculation; double-down on speculation to smooth over a long overdue recession (Dot Com bust); then spend (borrowed) billions giving unneeded tax-cuts to the richest Americans.

Bush oversaw the fastest biggest increase in wealth disparity America has ever seen, that is his economic legacy... national bankruptcy is merely the result of his policies.


The Luke

Once again....The Luke laying the Smackdown on 3333bitchbitchbitch86!!  :D

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2009, 04:06:27 PM »
Once again....The Luke laying the Smackdown on 3333bitchbitchbitch86!!  :D

...I wish you would stop using the term: "Smackdown"

333386 doesn't know he doesn't know... he doesn't arrive at his own conclusions, his opinions are all absorbed by osmosis.

He doesn't think, he regurgitates what he has been told to believe.


That's a military thinking mode.

But personal attacks will only force upon him the option he would prefer: construe query as assault, and opt for dismissal. That way you don't have to consider your opinions, just protect them.

He needs to think for himself, and question what he has accepted without question.

That's why I utilise weaponised patience in these threads, just point out the facts... question their conclusions... point out more facts... question their criticisms... on and on till they attack me personally, (evidence they have lost the argument)... then continue without reprisal.

Already in this thread posters are attacking me for daring to know more about what's going on in America than these Americans do.

That means they're becoming unsettled... maybe even questioning their brainwashing.


The Luke