Didn't know you had inside information.  

All you have to do it read his tax plan.  He's ending the Bush tax cut, which means the taxes go back to what they were prior.

Now, regardless, this is all going to go through the ringer in Congress, so who knows what we're actually going to get.  This is just Obama's plan and his intention. 

My expectation is that the taxes will be no higher than they were under Clinton, when our economy was booming and our deficits were shrinking.

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

haha, my goodness, im not trying to debate you my friend.., your coming off badly, If I say a few other folks think so too it's because its been discussed with me by others, I'm merely pointing it out, if you want to continue looking like you do, go on..It doesn't bother me in the slightest, I have just always called it like I see it and I always will.

If you were my kid tho, I'd put you to bed early.. no supper and a good spankin for not playing nice with others

go on for another 1000 angry, bitter posts, its ALL u baby!

Brad , you may as well be talking to a brick... in the twilight zone.

Um, your company has grown since then because of the quality of your products, market, etc. right?  I was not under the impression that Stardock was the same size today as it was 10 years ago.  Or are you claiming that the ONLY reason your company has grown is due to a Bush tax break?  I don't believe that and neither do you I suspect, so I think the logical fallacy of the statement above (and the others related to it) has now been made clear to you.

Besides, my biggest issue employee wise has been the cost of health care premiums.  Since my people are paid into the low to mid six figures, the cost of benefits to salary remains negligible, relatively speaking.  But assuming you are paying standard programmer and office/sales rates for your staff, I'll bet your monthly nut for benefits represents a REAL loss of hiring potential.  And have seen those figures SKYROCKET since 2000.   I would think that's a MUCH bigger drain on your annual corporate gross to net than a possible 2% tax increase on your net salary draw/earnings.

So, I'd think you might support true Health Care reform (rather than McCain's taxpayer giveaway to the HMOs, like that RX legislation scam) like that Obama supports...from a purely business owner's perspective.

You continue to make the assumption that this is a pissing contest.  It isn't. 

But I am sad to see you keep bringing this up, as if this is the measure by which you judge yourself against other men.  By all accounts you are a reasonably prosperous small business owner with your own home and I assume a loving family.  Kudos to you for that and I hope, for the sake of your customers, your employees, and your family that your success continues.

he's even more dense than me frogboy, you'll never get anywhere

Nice post

I'd be intersted to see how this one overlays a population density map (Cities)

Hardly personal attacks.  These forums are for opinions.  You dont like them, dont read them.  But saying you are wring Bottish posts or that you can shut up and go away are not in any way impugning your character of the marital status of your parents.  And as Daiwa states, if you dont want to read the posts, why are you posting?

But I see that the new regime is going to make sure that we cannot disagree civily as that is now a personal attack. Yea, go over to du.org and tell them you like Bush and see what a REAL personal attack is.

One of many during the campaign, and starting a new list after the election!  I am sure this guy is going to wow heads of states with his gaffs.  The best thing for him is to get a portable telepromter so that he cannot open mouth without engaging handlers!

And I saw where you were so forgiving of theother candidates for their "one" mis-speak.  NOT.

And you can show proof of that?  I doubt it.  Taxation without representation was not about giving to anyone, just taking without representation.  Welfare was a foreign and unknown concept to the founding fathers. But then you dont seem to grasp that, or know how to read the constitution.

No.  The founders guarded against the tyranny of the majority by making the changing of the constitution require a super majority.  Yet neither Congress, the Dems or the courts have ever addressed that issue.  Now we know how the snake oil salesman got around it. Packing the court (FDR's tactic).  But it still does not say that "we the people" can change the constitution on a whim.  And it actually has been done 27 times.  I am sure if congress could figure out how to make women interstate commerce, they would never have tried the ERA amendment since it had no chance in hell of passing.

But dont let facts stop you.  You seem to like to spout irrelevancies and then try to defend them with a statement about posting a fact (the sky is blue I think was the one you did post) that has nothing to do with your attempt at making a point of your opinion.

Get it straight.  No one alive did that so there is no we.  And no American did that, so it still cant be an historical we.

You continue to make the assumption that this is a pissing contest.  It isn't.  

But I am sad to see you keep bringing this up, as if this is the measure by which you judge yourself against other men.  By all accounts you are a reasonably prosperous small business owner with your own home and I assume a loving family.  Kudos to you for that and I hope, for the sake of your customers, your employees, and your family that your success continues.

I bring it up because YOU keep implying how you're unselfish purely because you support higher taxes.

Supporting higher taxes doesn't make you unselfish. It's what you DO, not what you BELIEVE that makes you unselfish or not.

Now, getting back to the point about company size - Stardock's growth obviously has been because of its market success.  But I am telling you, flat out, that without the Bush tax cuts, we would not have been able to hire as many people as we have hired.

That would seem to make sense.

And add to that the other two argue that the first man is "greedy" for objecting to having the apples he picked distributed to them and that they are being compassionate and caring for taking those apples to give to themselves.