Look at this chart from the Washington Post comparing the two.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
A Contradiction
I keep reading about all the fortunes to be made with MLM and travel. Even the comments in yesterday's post brought out claims of $100K (revised down to $75K) worth of travel sold by an RTA. Despite what the public record shows, it seems everyone is making tens of thousands of dollars each month. If this is the case, why is it that these same people all seem to favor Barack Obama in the upcoming election? If you look at the two tax plans, the folks in the MLMs should be supporting McCain.
Look at this chart from the Washington Post comparing the two.
Unless, the claims might not be as true as they say. Makes one wonder!
Look at this chart from the Washington Post comparing the two.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
John,
ReplyDeleteI must say you have balls!
As heated as the YTB discussion is, you are now going to open up a political one? Have at it. I will happily watch from the outside.
Josh
Well with the YTBers pulling God into the mix all the time, you may as well add politics!
ReplyDeleteKate,
ReplyDeletePart of your problem is that you make sweeping generalizations to make a point. It diminishes it, IMO.
Personal benefit from one candidate's tax plan is not the only reason to support a candidate.
ReplyDeleteI would personally do better under McCain's tax plan, but I believe that Obama's policies are better for the country as a whole. I don't think think we can deal with another 4 years of Republican mismanagement of the Government.
Thus, even though the McCain plan would benefit me personally, I will be voting for Obama.
This posting is nothing more than a red herring.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI am trying to resist.....can't fight the urge....
ok here we go......
Republican mismanagement of the govermnent?
How about the Democratc controlled congress. Weren't they supposed to fix everything 2 years ago. I am no McCain fan, but the thought of Obama with Democrats in charge of the house and Senate, and potentially 3 new judges in the next 4 years, you would see a locking up of gov't and personal growth for decades. That is what should be thought of.
Ok, I have to stop.
"I don't think think we can deal with another 4 years of Republican mismanagement of the Government."
ReplyDeleteWhat about CONGRESS? They are just as guilty as the White House in mismanagement. Yet, no one says anything about them. 2 sides to every story just like in a divorce. Democrats and Republicans are BOTH at fault. IMO, they all need to be voted out especially those who have sat on their butts and kowtowed to the lobbyists and everyone else. They work for us the taxpayers. Not their party. Not the lobbyists.
There is plenty of blame to go around, I agree. If I could be Ruler of All for a day, I'd get rid of all 535 in the Congress (House and Senate), as well as every political appointee, and every Federal Government Senior Executive, and start fresh. While I may inadvertently get rid of a couple of good people, that is collateral damage I am willing to accept.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Congress the past two years, everything controversial that the Democrats have tried to pass has been filibustered by the Republicans in the Senate. During the 8 years of the Bush Administration, the financial regulations that have not been canceled have not been enforced. Congress has nothing to do with that. This deregulation, both actual and lack of enforcement, has allowed greed to run rampant. The average CEO of a fortune 500 Company made approximately 25 - 30 times the average worker salary in their company as recently as 1980. Currently, that multiple is up to around 300 times. It was as high as 450 just 2 or 3 years ago. Why did that multiple need to go up by an order of magnitude?
One of the regulations that was relaxed was to allow the big-5 investment banks to increase their leverage from no more than 8-1 to upwards of 30-1. This works well when times are good, but it only takes a small bump in the road to knock that train off the track. Guess what, all 5 investment banks are now gone, either out of business or swallowed up by others. It was all this excessive leverage that has caused the financial crisis. This is similar to the 1929 Stock Market collapse, which was mostly caused by 10% margin rates. You would think we could learn from history that excess leverage is bad. It is nothing more than gambling, and with gambling, you sometimes go broke.
As for country finances, while the Republican's call the Democrats the "tax and spend" party, the Republican party is the "tax cuts for the rich, but spend anyway" party. When Reagan took office, the total Federal deficit was approximately $1 Trillion. When Bush the Elder left office 12 years later, the deficit stood at approximately $4.5 Trillion. After 8 years of Clinton, the deficit had gone up $5.5 Trillion. Now it stands at about $11 Trillion. We can't afford this anymore. The deficit is a higher percentage of GDP than at any time in history, higher even than during WWII and the Great Depression. More than 70% of that debt is held by foreign countries. The only way we are going solve this is through inflation, so we can pay down the debt through inflated dollars. Of course, that isn't good for the debt holders, so this Recession is dragging down the whole world. Before 1980, less than 10% of the U.S. debt was held by foreign interests, so problems at home did not affect the whole world as much.
No matter how you look at it, we are in for a rough time for the next several years. I think the country will do better with the party that historically has been for the little guy, than with the party that historically has been for the rich and big business.
I did not intend to turn this into a political discussion. I was just pointing out that supporting one candidate or another is not and should not be based on any single issue. I have many people at my church that will vote straight Republican simply because of the Abortion issue. It is my opinion that one must look at the totality of positions, and pick the one that is least offensive, as generally my vote is for the lesser of two evils.
Anyway, trying to tie this single tax policy to support of Obama, and saying that shows that their income claims are lies is just a red herring. While I am against MLM Travel companies, I try very hard not to bring up issues that don't relate, and I felt compelled to state that here.
I'll refrain from further political debate here. If you want to debate my positions further, go to http://mdmalcontent.blogspot.com. I haven't made a posting in a few weeks, but the archives should provide more than sufficient fodder for debate.
First Comes Love, Then Come Taxes --
ReplyDeleteIf Barack Obama's "family-friendly" tax code sounds too good to be true, a little research into his plan proves that it probably is. Senator Obama says that under his proposal, "families" (i.e., married couples) making less than $250,000 wouldn't experience a tax increase. But he also says that single people earning less than $200,000 would face no tax increase. In other words, if you are a cohabiting couple each making $200,000 a year ($400,000 total), you will be spared a tax hike, but if you're a married couple who each makes $200,000 a year, you would likely face a substantial tax penalty. Talk about a marriage deterrent! On page five of his six-page plan, it states, "Obama would work with the Treasury Department to adjust the thresholds of these rates slightly to ensure that no married couple making less than $250,000 (or single making less than $200,000) was affected by these changes." Of course, it won't just be wealthier families who find themselves burdened by Obama's plan. The Illinois senator has said that he opposes making President Bush's tax cuts permanent, meaning that every family would experience a tax increase after the per child tax credit and marriage relief expires. For more information on the candidates' platforms, log on to www.frcaction.org and download our special, compact edition of the Presidential Voter Guide-perfect for church bulletins!
Until we get a democrat that has the morals enough to be pro-life then they will never get my vote. Every law, every tax cut, every issue has to do with someone's life. But they throw the most vulnerable to the curb and then turn around and reward the lazy.
ReplyDeleteInteresting Anon ! I won't vote for anyone who is not pro choice. guess we'll go through our voting life cancelling each other out.
ReplyDeleteMakes sense ed that you would be voting liberal since most of the biggest BMW's (Bitchers, Moaners, Whiners) on here are libs. That's the liberal way bitch and moan and cry about the rich instead of getting off their ass and doing something about it. They are like crabs in a bucket. They want to pull everyone down to their level. Socialists.
ReplyDeleteHow nice of you to bestow the liberal banner on me. I actually am quite conservative in most areas and vote that way as well. But, considering your post, and your attitude, I may consider differently. I certainly would not want to be put in whatever bigoted, arrogant and elitist box you are in. Have a nice day!
ReplyDeleteIf you are voting for the most liberal person in the Senate then you probably are not as conservative as you claim.
ReplyDeleteLooks like firemedic has changed his name to anonymous!
ReplyDeleteI thought we were doing away with anonymous postings now? If you don't have the guts to use something other than anonymous scram!
ReplyDeleteAs to Josh's post this morning in reply to Kate's. Josh, religion and God have been used to death by the MAJORITY of YTB in recruiting and everything else. It is NOT a generalization. It's fact. AND, IMO it doesn't belong in travel period.
Anon - who said I was voting for Obama? There are more than 2 names on the ballot in my state. Typical.
ReplyDelete"As to Josh's post this morning in reply to Kate's. Josh, religion and God have been used to death by the MAJORITY of YTB in recruiting and everything else. It is NOT a generalization. It's fact. AND, IMO it doesn't belong in travel period."
ReplyDeleteWhat about religious travel?? Where does that fit in???
Let me rephrase that for you anonymous you gutless coward (who won't use another moniker and hides behind anonymous.) Religion and recruiting in travel don't belong. YTB uses religion to further their agenda. The Reps/RTA's do also. It's all a bunch of phoney baloney. Is that clear?
ReplyDeleteNo, not really because we do not use religion in recruiting. If a prospect expresses their belief that provides an open door to explain the principles the company is built on.
ReplyDeleteThe princples? YTB has some? and here I thought it was say anything, promise anything to get the credit card info. YTB has principles when they are shown to be lacking in some fundamental basics of travel agency operations. Then, and only the, they find those much needed principles to wave around like a flag.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, but Bernie Sanders is certainly the most "liberal" member of the Senate - just showing you don't know anything about the Senate other than what you've been told.
ReplyDeleteInteresting John, the YTBers are alwasy ranting here and elsewhere about how us TTAs must be lefty/libs and certainly they are implying that they are themselves ultra-conservatives - I thinkyou can rest assured that they are all voting for McCain, not Obama.
"No, not really because we do not use religion in recruiting. If a prospect expresses their belief that provides an open door to explain the principles the company is built on."
ReplyDeleteHave YOU been hiding under a rock anonymous you gutless wonder? (Use a google name like the rest of you you twit.) Even firemedic and Josh use a name.
Responding to your comment about religion and recruiting, it's all over the blogs, WAHM, scam.com, craigslist, linkedin and all the other places on the internet yoy people recruit. You all use religion to further your recruiting and agenda. You use Churches to recruit. That is a FACT. You use God and Jesus to recruit. You are LYING by saying it ain't so. AND, I for one find it offensive and un-Christianlike to use God to further YTB's scamming cause......
Bernie Sanders is running for President? Is Pat Paulson running this year too?
ReplyDelete"Bernie Sanders is running for President? Is Pat Paulson running this year too?"
ReplyDeleteYou aren't funny either.
ROFL
ReplyDeleteAnonymous is that sicko YesUR and her evil twin posting on scam.com.
ReplyDeleteYou all are real idiots.
ReplyDeleteJohn started this thread but doesn't weigh in. Why not John?
ReplyDeleteJohn has been in Baltimore at a travel show fending off YTBers for the past two days and will be there again tomorrow!
ReplyDeleteI check in periodically.
John, contrary to your belief no one is even thinking about you.
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant John was why don't you put your two cents in on what you think about the thread topic? Who are you supporting?
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how some people think that your faith is something you turn off at certain times. (Business, friendships, politics) If you are Christian, for example, it is part of your values and being and therefore you don't just turn it off when it's politically correct or convenient. I would guess that would go for all faiths that people take seriously. Those that don't live by their faith are usually the ones offended by those that do.
ReplyDelete"Those that don't live by their faith are usually the ones offended by those that do."
ReplyDeleteMaybe in some cases, but not most of the time. What we find offensive (or maybe the word is naive? credulous?) is that instead of basing their faith in YTB on facts, most tend to fall back on the "G~d is going to make it right" argument. There's no winning that argument since G~d is not going to weigh in here. Stick to the facts.
Nothing wrong with living your faith. The problem lies when God and religion are used for recruiting purposes which YTB does. YTB exploits religion for financial gain.
ReplyDelete"YTB exploits religion for financial gain."
ReplyDeleteThat is an opinion only. I am part of YTB and I can say from my experience that the above statement is just not true.
I second that I can say its not true also.
ReplyDeleteI'll take your word for that Fireman, although you may be in the minority.
ReplyDeleteAnon, you don't exist so second all you want.