Sunday, May 19, 2013
Comment Archives: stories: Columns: Between The Lines
Re: “Lamborn: Yes, we're upset”
Cranky - that old song of yours is getting old. You were a GOPer the last time I was a flaming fiscal liberal.
Posted by
smartestman
on 01/26/2012 at 1:29 PM
Re: “Lamborn: Yes, we're upset”
Mr. K and Obama - the big lie. Median income in the US (2009) was $50221 which puts that income in the 25% tax bracket with an effective rate of 17.28% - not 35%.
Assuming no deductions - tax burden - $8680.
Capital gains income is two tiered and double taxed. 1st taxed at the corporate rate of 35% and then another 15% of what is remaining. Stock holders corporate profit of $50221 taxed at 35% = $17577 the reaming $32644 taxed at 15% = $4897
Total tax burden - $22474
Shall we tax it more and destroy all incentive to invest in our country's economy?
Posted by
smartestman
on 01/26/2012 at 1:25 PM
Re: “Lamborn: Yes, we're upset”
This GOP'er will send his money and vote to Blaha and Obama. Today's GOP is a sad cartoon.
Posted by
OldCrank
on 01/26/2012 at 11:48 AM
Re: “Lamborn: Yes, we're upset”
Lamborn's conduct goes way beyond childish. At this point it smacks of racism.
Furthermore, we are demonstrably in better shape today than we were when Bush left office.
Finally, we all know the "vast" difference between wages and capital gains. Wages are taxed at 30% and capital gains are taxed at 15%.
Posted by
Mr. K--
on 01/26/2012 at 11:44 AM
Re: “Lamborn: Yes, we're upset”
It seems like a childish thing to do. However, Obama said exactly the same thing two years ago and, after spending trillions (yes trillions) of dollars, we are in just as bad or worse shape.
By the way, there is a vast difference between wages and capitol gains.
Posted by
smartestman
on 01/26/2012 at 9:22 AM
Re: “Lamborn: Yes, we're upset”
I write and email Doug Lamborn quite frequently to voice my displeasure. I have never heard a peep back from him or his office - not even an auto-reply. Yesterday, however, i did get a big shiny expensive Lamborn flyer in the mail. I showed it the same kind of respect Lamborn has shown me (rip-rip-trash).
Posted by
jabberly
on 01/26/2012 at 9:19 AM
Re: “Lamborn: Yes, we're upset”
I would gladly vote for ANYONE but lamborn. Everyone should
Posted by
gregR
on 01/26/2012 at 9:14 AM
Re: “Lamborn: Yes, we're upset”
You know how to voice your frustration in a meaningful way? Vote for Obama.
Posted by
staunchliberal
on 01/26/2012 at 7:20 AM
Re: “Council takes proper stand”
Can't possibly imagine why Bach brought in former mayor Rivera (perhaps one this city's least liked politicians) to pitch Bach's resolution to council. More puzzling yet, council actually passed this resolution to support Lambert's ill-fated bill!
Posted by
goldsabbath
on 01/19/2012 at 3:58 PM
Re: “Council takes proper stand”
Special K: and once again, another post from my friend K that says absolutely nothing.
Posted by
smartestman
on 01/14/2012 at 7:37 AM
Re: “Council takes proper stand”
Really, smartestman, you are too humble.
I would say a person needs to be much more than "just a wee bit brighter" to fathom what it is you are attempting to communicate when you mangle the English language. I would say it takes at least a masters degree in metaphysics to make sense of it!
Posted by
Mr. K--
on 01/13/2012 at 6:14 PM
Re: “Council takes proper stand”
Special K: I believe my point was quite obvious to those folks that are just a wee bit brighter.
Posted by
smartestman
on 01/13/2012 at 2:48 PM
Re: “Council takes proper stand”
So, smartestman, you are saying that you are in favor of an ordinance that would make it illegal to set up camp in crowded theaters. What if the theaters are not crowded?
Posted by
Mr. K--
on 01/13/2012 at 12:36 PM
Re: “Council takes proper stand”
The number of PR gaffes (to put it nicely) committed by this administration is remarkable. I say administration, because I'm assuming that Bach gets some sort of advice from his staff before he puts his foot in his mouth. I may be mistaken, and I hope I am, because that would mean that the entire crew doesn't know what it's doing.
Posted by
staunchliberal
on 01/13/2012 at 7:11 AM
Re: “Council takes proper stand”
"... sea to shining sea" - Just as it would be inappropriate (and illegal) to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, so it would be inappropriate for the "occupiers" to set up camp and spew their anti-everything rhetoric in the same theater.
I, for one, am glad I don't have to anymore gaze upon their filthy, unorganized, pitiful little settlement which desecrated our downtown park for much too long.
Activists (and street bums) are not the only ones that have rights.
Posted by
smartestman
on 01/12/2012 at 9:23 AM
Re: “Twelve to watch in '12”
Regarding item 12, maybe Amy should challenge Lamborn as the GOP candidate in the race for the U. S. House of Reps for District 5; we could sure use better representation for our district.
Posted by
OldCrank
on 01/05/2012 at 10:18 AM
Re: “Lump of coal in our stocking”
It makes sense that states with few electoral votes get fewer federal dollars because the low electoral numbers reflect low total population. I would be surprised if the dollars turned over to these states, Colorado included, turned out to be less than the dollars paid out in taxes to the federal government.
Many, if not most, of the states with more electoral votes, like NY and CA, pay out more in federal taxes than they get back in federal grants. This extra burden on richer states, that is, states with richer residents, does not work in Obama's favor.
Before saying that Obama has written off the small states, I would want to see how he would spend infrastructure money, if Congress would only pass an infrastructure improvement plan.
Posted by
Mr. K--
on 12/29/2011 at 1:59 PM
Re: “Lump of coal in our stocking”
I note the states that were stiffed have relatively low-electoral-vote counts, and were probably written off by the Obama administration as lost causes for the 2012 election. The breakdown for the stiffed states is: AZ 10, CO 9, NE 5, NM 5, NV 5, UT 5, WY 3, which totals: 42, or less than CALI's 55.
Looking at the electoral vote allocation shows that he only needs 22 states to win it again. To win in 2012, Obama needs 270 electoral votes: If he carries CA 55, CT 7, DE 3, DC 3, FL 27, HI 4, IL 21, ME 4, MD 10, MA 12, MI 17, MN 10, NH 4, NJ 15, NY 31, OH 20, OR 7, PA 21, RI 4, VT 3, WA 11, WI 10, then he garners 299 electoral votes from just 22 states. He could even lose FL and still get 270 votes to win.
With the Feds essentially broke, money for road improvements will have to come from local taxes, but that's a non-starter in our elections here, no matter how deep the potholes get. Either way, this city and county are screwed, done in by a self-inflicted wound.
Posted by
OldCrank
on 12/29/2011 at 10:59 AM
Re: “Time for some special presents”
Ralphie: You had better leave the attempt at comedy to my pal Rich. You don't seem to be "equipped" to handle it.
Posted by
smartestman
on 12/22/2011 at 8:17 AM
Re: “Lamborn: Yes, we're upset”
Great column Ralph! Lamborn is an embarrassment to Colorado Springs. After hearing that he had a challenger, I switched my party affiliation to Republican so I can vote in the Republican primary, which is unfortunately, the election here. I urge independents and Democrats to consider doing the same. It doesn't mean you have to vote for a Republican in November but it could be our best hope to unseat this fool. Here is the web page where you change it.
http://car.elpasoco.com/Election/Pages/Ver…
GaryM