Politics - Political Threads

[Eric]

Howdy all!

I'd like to try something new... If a thread is political in nature, please prefix the thread title with "Politics".

I know that a thread can be both tax AND politics related, but the prefix has more to do with the tone of the thread. If it's preachy "Obama this and Bush that", then I would appreciate the addition of the Politics prefix. You know what your intentions are when you start a thread, so use your judgment as to whether it's necessary.

People feel strongly about their political views, and political discussions on forums tend to get out of hand quickly. I don't mind the debate, but I understand that some would like to skip it. I'm a Constitutionalist/Libertarian, so I disagree with at least half of just about everyone's political views, although I try to keep my mouth shut.

Thanks :)

[TAXBILLY]

I think it's a good idea.

taxbilly

[JohnH]

Seems reasonable to me, especially since I'm often one of the culprits.

[MontanaEA]

But the phrase that some need to pay particular attention to is "you know what your intentions are when you start the thread". I think that's usually true, but the thread starter often tries to disavow their intentions with "Oh, it's about taxes, so it's OK. Never mind that I'm calling the Democrats or Obama a bunch of unprincipled, stupid, dirty rotten scum. I can't imagine why anyone might possibly be offended by that." I have no objection to debating tax principal after April 15, but right now it just gets my dander up to see so much misinformation put forth as the facts and I don't have the time to properly rebut so that a fair and balanced picture of the issues can be seen. I really find it a distraction on a board that I depend on as an aid to my practice during tax season, and I think there are far more appropriate places to have these kinds of blog discussions. Just my opinion.

[kcjenkins]

I have to point out that YOU are the only one who has used that sort of talk, Montana. One thing that I especially liked in the last thread was that no one did descend to calling names. I did remove the thread, because it had started to get repetitive, and because it bothered you so much, but I think there was some good [and polite] debate before that.

And since I started that thread, I do take just a bit of offense that you are saying that I was "calling the Democrats or Obama a bunch of unprincipled, stupid, dirty rotten scum." I would never do that. It WAS about the use of the tax code to raise the money for the social programs the President is pushing, and that is something that I think will always be a legitimate subject on this group. I'll put Politics in the heading in future, and you can then skip the thread. But please do not accuse those you disagree with of name-calling, just because you do not like the light that the facts put on the pols behind it. Just naming the party behind a policy is NOT calling them the names you used.

[JRS]

But the phrase that some need to pay particular attention to is "you know what your intentions are when you start the thread". I think that's usually true, but the thread starter often tries to disavow their intentions with "Oh, it's about taxes, so it's OK. Never mind that I'm calling the Democrats or Obama a bunch of unprincipled, stupid, dirty rotten scum. I can't imagine why anyone might possibly be offended by that." I have no objection to debating tax principal after April 15, but right now it just gets my dander up to see so much misinformation put forth as the facts and I don't have the time to properly rebut so that a fair and balanced picture of the issues can be seen. I really find it a distraction on a board that I depend on as an aid to my practice during tax season, and I think there are far more appropriate places to have these kinds of blog discussions. Just my opinion.

I totally agree, but sometimes, it is hard to keep one's mouth shut. I also agree with the new heading by Eric and I am at fault for the last one, it was about taxes, but not relevant to our practices.

[michaelmars]

i agree with kc totally and from a practise point of view debating and airing opinions gives food for thought and ideas that can be shared with clients. every client i meet with asks for my opinion and comentary on the current political/economic environment and reading diff outlooks here certainly helps. i'd rather see debate here amoung financial minded people than in the paper or the talking heads on tv.

perhaps there can be an option to block a thread so those here don't have to even see it anymore since if offends them to even know its here.

i don;t understand how once you know what the thread is about why it would be a distraction - just skip it.

[zeke]

This time, I agree with Jainen!

z

[mgmea]

But the phrase that some need to pay particular attention to is "you know what your intentions are when you start the thread". I think that's usually true, but the thread starter often tries to disavow their intentions with "Oh, it's about taxes, so it's OK. Never mind that I'm calling the Democrats or Obama a bunch of unprincipled, stupid, dirty rotten scum. I can't imagine why anyone might possibly be offended by that." I have no objection to debating tax principal after April 15, but right now it just gets my dander up to see so much misinformation put forth as the facts and I don't have the time to properly rebut so that a fair and balanced picture of the issues can be seen. I really find it a distraction on a board that I depend on as an aid to my practice during tax season, and I think there are far more appropriate places to have these kinds of blog discussions. Just my opinion.

I would like to correct a misstatement I made in the earlier thread. The recently signed stimulus bill did not contain 9000 earmarks. The stimulus bill was officially earmark free, although I personally feel that Harry's multi-billion dollar train set doesn't pass the smell test.

The almost 9000 earmarks are contained in the recently House passed $410 billion spending bill. To be fair, Obama has not yet signed this bill as it has not made it's way through the Senate. The excrement to electricity funding is definitely an earmark in the House $410 billion spending bill. It doesn't involve methane generation from cows, we've already spent millions on researching that and it already is a commercially viable technology. This research may be worthwhile, but I'm sure much of the other almost $8 billion of earmarks slipped into the $410 billion spending bill aren't. The problem is that there is no scrutinty of these earmarks to separate the good from the bad. Obama the candidate pledged to eliminate earmarks when he was elected. Let's see what he does with this bill when it crosses his desk.

[Janitor Bob]

I have to point out that YOU are the only one who has used that sort of talk, Montana. One thing that I especially liked in the last thread was that no one did descend to calling names. I did remove the thread, because it had started to get repetitive, and because it bothered you so much, but I think there was some good [and polite] debate before that.

And since I started that thread, I do take just a bit of offense that you are saying that I was "calling the Democrats or Obama a bunch of unprincipled, stupid, dirty rotten scum." I would never do that. It WAS about the use of the tax code to raise the money for the social programs the President is pushing, and that is something that I think will always be a legitimate subject on this group. I'll put Politics in the heading in future, and you can then skip the thread. But please do not accuse those you disagree with of name-calling, just because you do not like the light that the facts put on the pols behind it. Just naming the party behind a policy is NOT calling them the names you used.

I, for one, would like to discuss things like this in person with you one day, KC....I get the feeling I could learn a thing or two.

[Catherine]

I, for one, would like to discuss things like this in person with you one day, KC....I get the feeling I could learn a thing or two.

I think KC should sell tickets to let us all just hear her talk and ask her questions. She _always_ has fabulous information and I have learned _so_ much from her posts here and elsewhere. I want to _be_ KC when I grow up one of these decades.

Yay, KC! Rah, rah sys-boom-bah! ^_^

[kcjenkins]

:wub: Gee, now I am embarrassed.

JB, I bet if we met and talked, we'd both end up having a good time, and agreeing a lot more than we'd disagree. Of course, I bet that MontanaEA and I would also find things to be friends over!

I freely admit to climbing on a soapbox, from time to time. Not as often as I am tempted to do, but still, maybe more than I should. But, gosh, folks, these are SERIOUS issues, that are going to affect not just us, but our grandchildren and even great-grandchildren. I feel we do need to talk about them, work out in our own minds possible ideas for dealing with them, and spread our educated thoughts on tax policy, especially. After all, the average Joe knows almost nothing about the tax code, he just wants to pay his fair share but no more, and he wants the government to treat him fairly. But unless a LOT of people raise a lot of commotion with the idiots in DC [both sides of the aisle have lots of idiots] nothing will get changed.

The 'folks' wanted CHANGE, that is one of the major reason Obama won. But did they have any idea what sort of change they would get? I doubt it. Is the 'change' we are getting right now the change YOU wanted? If so, you are happy, and should care not at all for my opinion. If it is not the change you wanted, then lets talk about how to correct it, and how to ask for the right kind of change. And I promise to try not to get on the soapbox too often, and to label it when I do.

And thank you, to those of you who posted such nice things about me. :wub:

[Janitor Bob]

Gee, now I am embarrassed.

JB, I bet if we met and talked, we'd both end up having a good time, and agreeing a lot more than we'd disagree. Of course, I bet that MontanaEA and I would also find things to be friends over!

I freely admit to climbing on a soapbox, from time to time. Not as often as I am tempted to do, but still, maybe more than I should. But, gosh, folks, these are SERIOUS issues, that are going to affect not just us, but our grandchildren and even great-grandchildren. I feel we do need to talk about them, work out in our own minds possible ideas for dealing with them, and spread our educated thoughts on tax policy, especially. After all, the average Joe knows almost nothing about the tax code, he just wants to pay his fair share but no more, and he wants the government to treat him fairly. But unless a LOT of people raise a lot of commotion with the idiots in DC [both sides of the aisle have lots of idiots] nothing will get changed.

The 'folks' wanted CHANGE, that is one of the major reason Obama won. But did they have any idea what sort of change they would get? I doubt it. Is the 'change' we are getting right now the change YOU wanted? If so, you are happy, and should care not at all for my opinion. If it is not the change you wanted, then lets talk about how to correct it, and how to ask for the right kind of change. And I promise to try not to get on the soapbox too often, and to label it when I do.

And thank you, to those of you who posted such nice things about me.

Talking / debating with others about this type of thing makes me smarter....How else am I supposed to get an understanding of all sides of an issue? It is difficult in today's world...with its tendancy to lean left or right...to get a true grasp of a topic. If you do not discuss issues (and yes, sometimes listen to things you may not agree with) you will never learn about other very valid viewpoints and ideas.