Posted on 07/29/2012 5:08:23 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
July 29th, 2012
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Pre-empted by the Olympics.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; Penn State President Rodney Erickson; Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney; Robert Gibbs, adviser to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign; Kevin Madden, adviser to Romney’s presidential campaign.
STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.
?
Didn’t you see the date above the title on the right hand side?
I also posted the date in my post.
I didn’t at first because I limit Java Scripts from running on my computer. Once I turned that back on it came up. Oh well, thanks for the jogging me for my browser settings.
Yeah. I try to avoid the bread if I can so nix the sandwich part. Kinda the opposite of Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces. I WANT the chicken, not the toast!
Gibbs lecturing Romney on embarrassing America belongs on the comedy channel. Gibbs was an embarrassment every time he opened his mouth in the WH.
Pray for America
Sorry to butt in, but I've got thirty years or so of experience with this crap to back up anything I think you may have seen.
The business? Name just anything that pops into your head. Aerospace, Production machine manufacture, Light/Heavy manufacturing, Steel mills, Uranium mining, Consumer goods.....
The short and simple answer to "what has he done to damage it": Government regulations and court decisions, Federal, state or (in some of my jobs) tribal.
You could blame it on the Sierra Club, trial lawyers and the EPA (You certainly can't leave out the MSM, either), but that's just the most obvious names on the long, long list.
What it boils down to is a subculture that has been promoting communism/total state control in this country for at least the last forty years under the cover story of "protecting the environment".
The 0's just the latest and most successful in a long line of snake oil peddlers, primarily because there aren't any limits on the things that the EnviroCommies inside Federal agencies can try while he's nominally In Charge.
...at least until they're found out, publicly criticized for it and the WH decides it's going to affect a poll someplace.
You want a current example of the people, industries plus the EnviroCommies' Ways & Means, have a look at what they're attempting with "Fracking"....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2912080/posts
(I'm going to stop this now before I start REALLY getting PO'd.....)
I apologize in advance for my ignorance --:( -- but I do recall reading that if a small business is organized as an S Corporation, the owner's reported income is misleading. If this is indeed the case, someone should explain it. Or maybe I misunderstood . . . all too possible . . .
Someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I’ll try. A Sub S Corporation provides the protections against law suits, as a regular C Corporation. However, the income from a Sub S passes through to the owner as regular income and taxed as personal income. If the person is a C Corporation, he or she would have to pay both corporate taxes and personal taxes.
Crap, sorry. My post was for the person before your post.
Someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I’ll try. A Sub S Corporation provides the protections against law suits, as a regular C Corporation. However, the income from a Sub S passes through to the owner as regular income and taxed as personal income. If the person is a C Corporation, he or she would have to pay both corporate taxes and personal taxes.
Yes Vet, you nailed it with your post. Thanks for the “misery loves company” explanation. You could add OSHA to the list as well. Ever have to deal with these people?
I thought that and went to a lawyer to create an LLC. The lawyer I went to is a member of my church, a great guy and conservative. However, he informed me that no incorporation would would protect me from a lawsuit if I personally screwed something up. An LLC, S or C corp might protect me if an employee of mine screwed something up and I had done due dilligence to prevent it.
Other than that, some other predatory lawyer can always sue you and hope for the best. Another reason it’s hard to start and run a business!
I have no employees, so I did not incorporate. He didn’t charge me.
Yes, that’s how I understand it — but aren’t there expenses that would normally be paid by a C corporation that are instead paid by the S corporation’s owner(s) out of his (their) declared income, so that the owner’s (I’m getting sick of providing the alternate form!) income declared on his tax return is bigger than his actual income (as most people understand it) is? I know I’m phrasing this awkwardly, but, as I said, I read something about it years ago, and don’t really remember specifics.
Hopefully your source is not Ulsterman, a.k.a Anthony G. Martin, whose name and work has been banned from FR. Most agree with a poster who said his work was fiction and product of "a yarn spinner, a purveyor of tall tails and cryptic horse manure. People who should know better are reeled in."
Having expressed my opinion on the possibility that your White House source is bogus, what you say about the American people coming to realize the real nature of the Poser in the White House rings true. Unfortunately two things do much to pour cold water on that conclusion.
First is that Obama is making promises and taking action to solidify many voters who have come to rely on the government largesse to provide for them rather than their own skills, ability and ambition in making a meaningful contribution to their life, their family and society in general. That includes many minority Blacks and Hispanics to whom the concept of a family provider has been replaced by a government one in the form of everything from food stamps, to health care, to child care, to welfare, to unemployment checks. These are the ones Obama’s campaign minions are going to ensure get to the polls with promises of continued monthly US Treasury deposits to their bank accounts.
Second is Romney himself. The favorability/unfavorability ratio is skewed highly in Obama’s favor, mainly due to the daily/evening gushing love affair by the mainstream media. By contrast, Romney is portrayed almost as a 50’s boss on the “Mad Men” series — always work oriented, profit motivated, a strong taskmaster uninterested or unaware of others around him, or the effect his decisions have on employee jobs and their families. Fair or unfair, that is the picture we will have of Romney throughout the campaign season both from the Obama campaign and the compliant media.
I totally agree with you about Romney being comfortable in his next role as potus. (And with the rest of your comments, also.)
Let us compare him with his opponent - who has only had one Cabinet Meeting in all of 2012.
That reminds me, I should look at the differences between a LLC and a S Corp. Many lawyers I know are LLC’s (limited liability corporations)and not Sub S Corps. I’m sure there’s a reason for that but I’m not an accountant so it’s not something I know for sure.
Living in Alabama, I have a lot of contact and friendship with blacks. I do not have any practical exprerience with people on welfare/government assistance however.
I will say this: Almost all the blacks I do know are fierce supporters of Obama, whether his policies help them (they don’t) or hurt them (they do). None of that matters. It’s all about race.
It’s sad to say, but it’s the truth. I don’t think many care who is or isn’t giving them a handout. Still, I subtly focus on that aspect when I (rarely) debate them about Obama. Some get mad if I bring up the fact that they support him because he’s black, not based on his harmful policies, which they acknowledge is harmful!
Some think about it just a little. That’s who I’m working on.
Now, there is a subset of white liberals who actually are similar in their support for Obama, that is, they support him because he’s black. I don’t know what to say to them.
Bottom line is Republicans will not get many blacks this election, or in many elections to come. I liked that Romney went to the NAACP to tell them truth, not pander, but neither will garner their votes.
I think we should benignly write them off. By that I mean we do no harm to them, except to grow the economy, promote liberty, law and order, and a colorblind justice system. They may not support us, but it will do them much good.
Wow what a blockbuster Chgogal!In the report one city had 97.1% of new jobs from small businesses! This really says it all.THanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.