There was a bill passed by Reagan that was called something Like "Tax credit & accelerated depreciation"
What this did was allowed a SMALL or LARGE business to purchase an EXPENSIVE machine (cars, boats, airplanes, CNC machines) for his business OR persoanl .INC. The way it worked was the DEPRECIATION of the purchase could be WRITTEN OFF for a redeamable TAX CREDIT. Since the depreciation was ACCELERATED the new equipment could be DEPRECIATED down to near zero in a few years and could then be SOLD to another small .INC for a higher value even though it was "worth less". The new OWNER could then take the TAX CREDIT and depreciate the VALUE even more over a few years.
The firestorm it cause in the BIG booms of the 80's were LEASED equipment. Car rental businesses, aircraft salses and "lease back" oppertunities, sales of business equipment like company cars, computers, typewriters. (while they were still en vogue) and other rapidly depreciable business related items.
-------------- Arriving home after survivng the 1 mile journy through hell, 84Bill grabs his peanut bag and begins feeding the squirrels. He was delighted when one squirrel hopped on his shoulder and ate a peanut after peanut while the others fought each other for position and were too scared to approach this friendly giant. After having his fill the smart little squirrel lept from 84Bill shoulder and scampered away. 84Bill though to himself as he sauntered off left all the other squirrels to starve for the night. Silly things will get hungy and eventually take the nut, if not screwem because 1 in 99 are great odds for success.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-17-2004).]
IP: Logged
08:37 PM
Tigger Member
Posts: 4368 From: Flint, MI USA Registered: Sep 2000
Jeez, Tigger this is getting annoying. Do you EVER read my entire post before going off half cocked?
"BASED ON THE INTEL" - Toddster's LAST post on the subject.
And yes, the Saudi's don't have to have a WMD program to be dangerous. But they DO need one to be invaded. Get the difference NOW!?!?!?!
Annoying and going off half cocked, lol.
What do you mean by? "BASED ON THE INTEL"
So if a drunken homeless man 7 years ago told an FBI or CIA agent that "Iraq has WMD's and is a threat" the President should ignore the source of this intelligence and use it to decare a war because it's after all "BASED ON THE INTEL" we have?
So you acknowledge the Saudi's don't have to have a WMD program to be dangerous. Wow we're making strides. Ohh, but they DO need a WMD program to be invaded.
Saudi Arabia should be invaded because they harbor, grant amnesty, and we have proof they've funded terrorists organizations including hijackers who crashed those jetliners on 9/11.
However Saudi Arabia should not be invaded because hijacked jetliners flown into buildings are not considered a weapons of mass destruction program. Can't do a damn thing.
Todd, thanks for pointing out the difference, the double standard should be very clear by now to everyone else.
[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited 07-17-2004).]
So if a drunken homeless man 7 years ago told an FBI or CIA agent that "Iraq has WMD's and is a threat" the President should ignore the source of this intelligence and use it to decare a war because it's after all "BASED ON THE INTEL" we have?
So you acknowledge the Saudi's don't have to have a WMD program to be dangerous. Wow we're making strides. Ohh, but they DO need a WMD program to be invaded.
Saudi Arabia should be invaded because they harbor, grant amnesty, and we have proof they've funded terrorists organizations including hijackers who crashed those jetliners on 9/11.
However Saudi Arabia should not be invaded because hijacked jetliners flown into buildings are not considered a weapons of mass destruction program. Can't do a damn thing.
Todd, thanks for pointing out the difference, the double standard should be very clear by now to everyone else.
BEWARE of goldfish, they are evil and the parinoid on the potomic will all die!!!! Beware of Toads on toadstools they are inept and arrogant!!!! Alms.... Alms...... Alms for the poor.... Alms..... Alms for the poor.. am willing to work for a parking spot... Alms.... Alms for the poor.
IP: Logged
09:51 PM
Tigger Member
Posts: 4368 From: Flint, MI USA Registered: Sep 2000
Hey Bill, you can replace "a drunken homeless man" with Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial Iraq leader, former exile, and Bush administration fave, as one of their main sources for the WMD intel.
He might be a better source.
[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited 07-17-2004).]
Hey Bill, you can replace "a drunken homeless man" with Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial Iraq leader, former exile, and Bush administration fave, as one of their main sources for the WMD intel.
He might be a better source.
He had to get into power somehow... see how usefull money mongers can be?
IP: Logged
10:11 PM
Tigger Member
Posts: 4368 From: Flint, MI USA Registered: Sep 2000
Michael Moore doesn't exactly have a history of being unbiased. And are these lies anything new than what else is going around? All of them unsubstantiated and can't be proven at all. In fact the guy that has spent a year now going after Bush full force (of course with the medias FULL cooperation and support) has turned out to be a big fat LIAR. You know the guy I'm talking about. The one who accused Bush of lying to the American people and the world about WMD? Its been the most believed to date, and if I'm not mistaken...it was the first widely accepted one amongst those who couldn't wait to find a reason to hate Jr. and blame yet another one for the recession of 1990. It has also been the longest running...and even Kerry STILL uses it (remember this has been proven to be a lie) on his website to further his campaign.
All I can say is that nothing has fueled my fire more to register to vote this year than that movie. Not the Arabian multi-national political system or terrorists, not the many other haters of Israel and God, not gov't supported gay marriage, not abortion....not anything more than that movie. If there were ever anything that I hated right now in this world....it is the lies of our "unbiased, fair, and truthful" media.
------------------ I have the precious gift of patience.....it just takes too long to use it!
[This message has been edited by Key Of David (edited 07-17-2004).]
So if a drunken homeless man 7 years ago told an FBI or CIA agent that "Iraq has WMD's and is a threat" the President should ignore the source of this intelligence and use it to decare a war because it's after all "BASED ON THE INTEL" we have?
In case you haven't been paying atention it is NOT the job of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to evaluate intelligence sources...He kinda has other things to do. That is what the CIA is for. They dropped the ball. They paid the price. Kerry voted for the same resolution based on the same data. Why didn't he stand-up and say, "Hey wait a minute. I don't trust you boys down there in Langley. I want to see the resume of the spy for myself."
quote
So you acknowledge the Saudi's don't have to have a WMD program to be dangerous. Wow we're making strides. Ohh, but they DO need a WMD program to be invaded.
Saudi Arabia should be invaded because they harbor, grant amnesty, and we have proof they've funded terrorists organizations including hijackers who crashed those jetliners on 9/11.
However Saudi Arabia should not be invaded because hijacked jetliners flown into buildings are not considered a weapons of mass destruction program. Can't do a damn thing.
Come into the Parlor said the Spider to the fly. Flying planes into the WTC is a direct assault on America. It DOES NOT NEED to be considered WMD for retaliation. The only problem with your logic is that the intel that links Saudi Arabia to those attacks is THE SAME INTEL you just blasted in your last post. So which is it genius? Do we trust the intel or not?
Just let me know if I'm going too fast for ya.
If not, invading ANYBODY is unjustified. Since we NOW know the intel was flawed invading SA on that info is not supported by accurate intel. And since we DIDN'T know it was faulty intel last year the Iraq Invasion WAS totally justified.
quote
Todd, thanks for pointing out the difference, the double standard should be very clear by now to everyone else.
Yes, you are right about that for a change. If should be PERFECTLY clear by now that there is NO Double Standard.....except with you.
edit: thought better of a personal remark
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 07-18-2004).]
In case you haven't been paying atention it is NOT the job of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to evaluate intelligence sources...He kinda has other things to do. That is what the CIA is for. They dropped the ball. They paid the price. Kerry voted for the same resolution based on the same data. Why didn't he stand-up and say, "Hey wait a minute. I don't trust you boys down there in Langley. I want to see the resume of the spy for myself."
In case you haven't been paying atention, Dick Clarke QUIT.
The reason he cited was because Duhbya refused to listen to the voice of reason and kept telling Clarke to find information that JUST DID NOT EXIST!!
Understandable sine you are an economics student Humm I guess the new Reichstag will need one.
IP: Logged
04:35 PM
Tigger Member
Posts: 4368 From: Flint, MI USA Registered: Sep 2000
Yes, you are right about that for a change. If should be PERFECTLY clear by now that there is NO Double Standard.....except with you.
edit: thought better of a personal remark
I don't know, you seem to be the only one that is arguing with me over this double standard.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster: In case you haven't been paying atention it is NOT the job of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to evaluate intelligence sources...He kinda has other things to do.
It's not the President's job to gather intelligence but it is his responsibility to make sound decisions in matters like "going to war" on it.
Before 9/11 they told us intelligence showed Saddam's WMD program was containable and not a threat. After 9/11, even that day Rummsfeld was working on plans to Invade Iraq, based on the same intelligence. And all of a sudden it's an iminent threat?
If we knew they had stockpiles of WMD's and knew right where they were, don't say that isn't true because Bush and the administration said so, why not spy on these locations, send in our underground special ops to search and gather proof? Why not? Because then we'd find out they didn't have WMD's, was not a threat, and that wouldn't be "the right answer".
I don't make blind-eye decisions at my job. Hell I know if I did it wouldn't be long before it would end up getting myself fired.
IP: Logged
04:55 PM
Sep 9th, 2004
BUCK WILLIAMS Member
Posts: 110 From: WATKINSVILLE GEORGIA USA Registered: Dec 2000
