2010 November Election past….

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: So, you remember my mentioning that I thought Hillary would begin positioning herself for a 2012 run?

Take a look at Dana Milbank’s latest column in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110505214.html

I know you believe Hillary is of unimpeachable character and all, but I believe she is just like any other politician, but with more brains, balls and savvy. She wants to be President and 2016 is too late, especially with GOPers like Marco Rubio coming on strong. I’m willing to bet good money that old Bill is starting to get the money machine going, on a backchannel basis for 2012 run.

Right now, she is a better bet for the Dems than Obama is, especially given the fact that he’ll be fighting uphill over the next two years. She can watch him beat himself bloody and then step in.

[briansd1]

Ok, I’m willing to bet you $100 that Hillary will not oppose Obama for the Democratic nomination. But Hillary will run if Obama doesn’t (which I think is highly unlikely).

Time will tell….

[briansd1]

Ok, I’m willing to bet you $100 that Hillary will not oppose Obama for the Democratic nomination. But Hillary will run if Obama doesn’t (which I think is highly unlikely).

Time will tell….

[briansd1]

Ok, I’m willing to bet you $100 that Hillary will not oppose Obama for the Democratic nomination. But Hillary will run if Obama doesn’t (which I think is highly unlikely).

Time will tell….

[briansd1]

Ok, I’m willing to bet you $100 that Hillary will not oppose Obama for the Democratic nomination. But Hillary will run if Obama doesn’t (which I think is highly unlikely).

Time will tell….

[briansd1]

Ok, I’m willing to bet you $100 that Hillary will not oppose Obama for the Democratic nomination. But Hillary will run if Obama doesn’t (which I think is highly unlikely).

Time will tell….

[briansd1]

[quote=PatentGuy]

That one is right up there with “a happy wife is a happy life.”[/quote]

Wife should make you happy. If your job is to make her happy, then who are you living for?

[briansd1]

[quote=PatentGuy]

That one is right up there with “a happy wife is a happy life.”[/quote]

Wife should make you happy. If your job is to make her happy, then who are you living for?

[briansd1]

[quote=PatentGuy]

That one is right up there with “a happy wife is a happy life.”[/quote]

Wife should make you happy. If your job is to make her happy, then who are you living for?

[briansd1]

[quote=PatentGuy]

That one is right up there with “a happy wife is a happy life.”[/quote]

Wife should make you happy. If your job is to make her happy, then who are you living for?

[briansd1]

[quote=PatentGuy]

That one is right up there with “a happy wife is a happy life.”[/quote]

Wife should make you happy. If your job is to make her happy, then who are you living for?

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]

Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.

If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.

By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.

Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.

The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.

But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell[/quote]

Dj, it sounds like you’d be in support of a sizable estate tax. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]

Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.

If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.

By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.

Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.

The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.

But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell[/quote]

Dj, it sounds like you’d be in support of a sizable estate tax. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]

Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.

If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.

By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.

Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.

The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.

But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell[/quote]

Dj, it sounds like you’d be in support of a sizable estate tax. 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=Djshakes]

Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.

If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.

By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.

Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.

The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.

But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell[/quote]

Dj, it sounds like you’d be in support of a sizable estate tax. 😉

[Author]

Posts