Search results

It was just a matter of time... http://www.break.com/index/leaked-tiger-woods-mistress-sex-tape.html

I thought this was an excellent comment by "nextstep" from the link above. The last three lines, I feel, are very compelling. The effect of this tax change will be felt by those with pensions, retirement accounts and taxpayers through government employee pension funds with government...

'Friends with Benefits' sex does no psych harm

The author (Robert Weissman) apparently has an agenda. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ug0l4m7zXAg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed...

I concur!!! And I'm livin' in the wrong neighborhood! :mad:

If nothing else this week we've learned a lot about the mating habits of the Tiger.

So I was fortunate enough to meet Rachel Uchitel in an exclusive club. Frankly my luck could not have been any better as she agreed to come back to my hotel. After 45 minutes of mind blowing sex I rolled over and said, "that was awesome, I need a rest!" After about ten minutes of relaxation...

Just my random thoughts:With all the exemptions it still raises $150 billion. They're pulling this number out of some unnamed orifice. They don't know the definition of the word "no". $100K really isn't that much, it still has an impact on the average investor. As someone else already...

From the 12/4/09 issue of IBD. Nothing new here. (Although the instant Pavlovian response in my head when I see this guys face is amazing. Sorry - emotions are now back in check)

Ah yes, the proposal du jour. Clearly *if* that "sticks" this tax becomes a different animal.

A little on the traders tax and the EPI proposal from Investors Business Daily http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=514000 Democrats kept the jobs problem on the back burner as they strived to cook up health care reform. But with unemployment over 10%, the issue is...

Would you care to elaborate on why you're for this tax? Frankly I'd really like to understand both sides, but I have yet to read a compelling argument for it.

Thanks rsikit. I'm off to consume some "Turducken" then I'll get busy commenting!

Thanks, I missed that somewhere along the line.

We are talking about HR 1068 right? I don't see any such reference in that bill (and it's certainly possible I'm missing it!) Is this still a good link to the bill? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1068

Thanks. That's sort of what I suspected. Also thanks to everyone that has made this thread such a great source of information. I feel like I'm doing my part to keep a local "traders and investment" group involved in fighting this tax. This thread has been a great resource!

What I'm looking for was discussed by who and where. We wouldn't be typing now if this bill was "final"! :eek: So is you're understanding that, as proposed, the tax "kicks in" once you've exceeded $100K in trades? If that's the case I'm not so optimistic... :mad:

I've seen references to trades of less than $100K being exempt from this tax. However it's only been in the comment sections various places. Has anyone seen anything even close to "authoritative" like this? If true that really changes the picture in my mind...

Are you referring to the language in HR 1068 or somewhere else? If somewhere else do you have a link?