Well that's even more reason why you should be voting for right wing candidates, that is largely the right wing philosophy - minimal government and keeping the fuck out of peoples lives without imposing nonsense ideologies of how they think people should live.

Intelligent in what way? The most intelligent economists of our time are right wing. There are some very intelligent people out there that are complete morons when it comes to economics and politics.

Watched the video...nonsense. Blame the banks, blame the rich....people are so clueless as to the truth, stop trying to make out as if it were some massive conspiracy. Plenty of people warned of a financial collapse for years before it happened, go back and read the papers and it is all there for years. It was never a secret. Blame stupidity that's all it is. What erks me is when these types of stories will say "the end of capitalism, capitalism has failed us or something like that lol America is not a true capitalist economy, i don't think any country in the world is truly Capitalist. America is almost fascist, that's the problem.

I haven't watched the video yet, but if you want to know a the truth behind the financial crisis and the housing bubble i highly recommend the book by Thomas Sowell "The Housing Boom and Bust". How some Americans don't storm the white house with after this type of thing is beyond me.

BS would depend on age, height, weight, exercise etc. Hence my First question

In all seriousness,yes if you were not exercising i agree 4000 cals would make you a fat pig pretty quick. But Ache looks like a pretty big framed dude naturally and fairly tall and still seems young and i assume he trains hard therefore thought it would take a bit more then that to get fat. Don't get me wrong i would of expected pudgy just not that much (no offence)

Now if he trains like a typical permabulker and rests 10 mins between sets and never did cardio then i can understand a little easier

I Feel sorry for you and your pathetic genetics if you consider 4,000 a huge amount

4,000 calories though, I would have thought it would have taken a lot more then 4,000 cals to get to that size. How long were you bulking for bro?

Even still I would have thought you have reached a plateau before that size on 4,000cals. how tall and old are you?

For the few getbiggers who hold down a full time job, i need some tips on dieting while at work.

I seem to lose concentration very easy at work and turn into a complete retard by about lunch time. This is when i am trying to diet very strict. It really starts to set in badly when I try and get below 8%, as i have to really cut carbs and hit cardio hard to get below this.

Now obviously i have given serious thought to giving up on having a normal career and quitting my current job to become a personal trainer and selling gear on the side like a true iron warrior would, so i can concentrate on whats important, the pursuit of the perfect body. Either this or just become a permabulker.

Do any of the guys that compete have any tips or any particular diet that you find avoid this "brain fog" some what?

In all seriousness, what are the statistics on this? There are plenty of other countries around the world with gun control laws, how does gun violence in those countries compare to that of the States?

Having to put armed officers at schools and daycare's, that is pretty radical. You think that is a better solution to stopping people opening fire on kids then just making it a lot harder for them to source the means to do so?

I understand that gun control isn't addressing the underlying issue, but what will? are there just more nut jobs in the states then everywhere else then?

Its not a scam, financial organisations use this information to decide whether they should extend you credit. Of course someone with no past debt will have a bad score. Put your self in a banks position, why the hell would they want to lend to someone that cant demonstrate their ability to repay debt, and past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior. Its the same as when banks choose not to lend to someone who may have a 50k deposit for a house when it has actually been "gifted" to them. They cant prove they are responsible and good money managers. It is responsible lending practices and it makes sense....unless you are a moron.

Spot on.

Anyone stupid enough not to understand this i am actually envious of

The problem with your argument is that you assume there is no alternative, that we need big brother (the government) to take a high percentage of what we earn and then decide how it should be spent for us. Why cant these services exist without government providing them? We have insurance for our houses, our cars, life insurance, the list goes on. I have private health insurance, i have income protection insurance and i have a superannuation fund that i make contributions to which will help provide me an income in my retirement. If i were taxed less, i would be able to allocate my higher net income to all of these areas where i get to decide exactly which of each suits my needs best. The fact is, no one is more careful at spending your own money then you are. The most careless allocation of funds, is when you are spending someone else money, on someone else-which is essentially what the government does. Don't get me wrong, we need taxes and we need government, just not to the extent some people believe. I would hate to think how much of my tax money gets wasted just on administrative nonsense that goes along with all of these "services"

i wont bother to re-read my post but if i said tax RATES were lower in the 50's then they are now, i take it back. Tax RATES have been up and down over the last 50-60 years so i wont get into an argument about which period had the lowest rate, i am sure it would be easy to google that one and find out if you wanted. The point i am trying to make is you need to look at the revenue collected from tax (which would be a lot harder to get true figures) - that's what matters. the tax rates, even the effective tax rates don't give a true reflection. Higher tax rates don't result in more tax revenue, not in the long run. go back even further, in 1929 the highest tax rate was 25%, the number of people who reported high incomes in that period was 10 times higher (adjusted for cpi and population) then there was in the 70's, when the highest marginal rate was significantly higher - and you surely cant make the argument that income distribution had improved that much. When tax rates are higher than the costs of tax minimization strategies, tax shelters, deciding to spend a certain way over another etc, there will likely be less revenue from taxation, yet you impose an unnecessary burden on business.  But you know what, i'm an accountant so i should be on your side - the only people that win when taxes go beyond a certain point and become more complex are the accountants.

You really have no concept of the difference between the standard tax rate and an effective marginal tax rate do you? you are a moron

No, i don't think that's entirely true. Tax REVENUE has been higher in some of the periods you mentioned (not all) but EFFECTIVE marginal tax rates were not. The aftermath of lowering effective tax rates and personal income tax rates has, in history, resulted in a higher total tax revenue and budget surplus and a reduction in debt. Look, tax is necessary no doubt about it, however which ever way you want to spin it, imposing a tax for centralised health care on big business is just a tax on the employee, at the end of the day. From an employee benefits expense point of view, a business is going to pay X amount of dollars as a total remuneration package, it doesn't care how the total amount is split. Now me, i would rather have that extra money myself to decide what private health insurance is best going to suit me and what type of cover i need for my circumstances.

Finances before health, what are you talking about? A country cant keep spending money they don't have, they cant keep borrowing and printing money to finance health and welfare, it has to come from somewhere. Taxing big business more and more wont help, it never has. History has shown this over and over yet what is it about governments that are so determined to tax more and spend more, borrow more and print more-insanity.

Met Ronnie in 2004, was shocked out how short he was. I'm 6 foot, no way in hell Ronnie was 5 11'. I felt tall and lanky standing next to him. Cant trust a bodybuilder to give a real height, most are midgets.

Will keep that in mind

Perhaps i'm missing the point you are making but I don't think you understand how income tax works. Why would someone hide their expenses? the idea of minimizing the tax you pay is to show as many expenses as possible, to reduce your income = less tax. I would be VERY surprised if professional bodybuilders who did a lot of guest posing were not declaring the money they earn and paying tax on it. The tax department (IRS in the states i believe) are not stupid and this stuff is very easy to trace. Now i'm sure they will leave some out here and there, but the bulk of it would be declared. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning money laundering, the premise of money laundering is to integrate the proceeds of crime into legitimate income and hide its original source. What has this got to do with a bodybuilder not declaring his earnings and expenses? When someone Launders money, they declare it as legitimate income i.e. they pay tax on it. Do you not see, that the person paying the bodybuilder the guest posing fee would show this as an expense to reduce his income and pay LESS tax. If the bodybuilder then doesn't show this as income there is a gap = very easy to detect in an audit if there was one even if it was a cash payment. In Australia, major sporting competitions offering prize money are required to deduct tax at our highest tax rate on the winnings and remit it to the ATO, the "winner" is actually given a net amount, not the amount that is publicized. This is mainly to stop athletes from overseas not paying tax to the Australian taxation department as it would be pretty hard to chase them up after they leave. Now this is for major sporting competitions, i'm not sure if bodybuilding competitions would be caught under this rule, i'm sure Tony Doherty would know though.

I don't think you understand. Why would a promoter pay tax on an expense i.e guest posing fee? The promoter is in the business of promoting bodybuilding shows, the fee he pays Phil would be a deductible expense. To Phil it is income, Phil pays the tax on this. The promoter will of course claim this as a deduction as it will REDUCE the amount of tax he pays as it reduces his taxable income. If Phil didn't declare this as income, in the event of an audit it would be very easy to see as a promoter would have made a deduction for it. I don't understand what the story of Ronnie Coleman has to do with any of this. Don't be ridiculous, if athletes earn money, they pay taxes. If they are good with money, they pay less taxes. Its not hard nor illegal to minimize the tax you pay.

I am an accountant in Australia so tax is law is going to be different in certain areas however in Australia, professional athletes are not able to claim deductions for food etc as this is seen to be something that would be bought regardless of profession. Although an athlete may require more of a certain type, this is still a big no no in Australia. There have been some very specific tax rulings in regards to athletes allowable deductions as many have tried to claim things in the past and it has been stopped. Also, any free supplements he receives from sponsorship's would also have to be shows as "income" the monetary value of those that is, and would be taxed. At least in Australia he would anyway. Also, those guest posing appearances, if he was smart he would declare. You don't think the promoter of the show would show his guest posing fee as an expense? It would be very easy to catch them out. Not saying it would happen but lets say he got audited, then it would not be missed. As the saying goes "the only certainties in life are death and taxes" If Phil is making good money though i am sure he has a good accountant and would be minimizing his tax in certain ways as much as legally possible...who wouldn't be

Depends on the job. If its an actual "profession" i.e doctor, lawyer, accountant, teacher, engineer etc then no, no matter how much smarter you are then the degree qualified, you are not getting one of these jobs without the degree. There are laws that prevent this. If you are talking about anything else, some manager somewhere or something like that then yea, degree means nothing other then proof you can stick to something for a few years and apply yourself and are not retarded. It boggles my mind why anyone chooses to do some of those mickey mouse degrees though, like business management or marketing type degrees, what a waste of time IMO.