The Daily Obamanation .... ALL ROLLED INTO ONE

This is good, very. :bears:

I salute you.

 

Obama's spending plan

THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL
February 22, 2008
Barack Obama has a plan. Well, he actually has lots of plans. Paying for those plans is no secret.

Bear with us even though the costs aren't hidden in these details. To finance (1) his 10-year, $150 billion program to "establish a green energy sector," (2) his 10-year, $60 billion "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank," (3) his nearly universal health care plan (whose annual price tag he low-balls at $50 to $65 billion) and (4) a host of refundable tax credits ranging from $4,000 per year for college students to a tripling of the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers, Mr. Obama plans to (1) end the war in Iraq, (2) permit the Bush tax cuts to expire for households earning more than $250,000 and (3) "change our tax code," which "has been rigged by lobbyists with page after page of loopholes that benefit big corporations and the wealthiest few."

In his attempt to appease the anti-war brigades, Mr. Obama may be overestimating the peace dividend. And in his efforts to engage in class warfare, he is demonizing businesses and wealthy individuals, who collectively bear the lion's share of the nation's tax burden.

Regarding the peace dividend, it must be recalled that Mr. Obama declined in September to promise that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by January 2013, which was more than five years down the road. Meanwhile, U.S. military forces in Afghanistan will soon exceed 32,000 troops, there are growing expectations that more will be needed and it is likely that our allies will be withdrawing more of their forces. If a Democratic president managed to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq by 75 percent from the surge's peak level, there would still be 40,000 troops there. That means the Afghanistan/Iraq theaters would still have a total of about 75,000 U.S. troops. In October, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) examined a scenario in which 75,000 U.S. troops would remain in those two countries through fiscal 2017, it concluded that the costs "would total $1,055 billion over the 2008-17 period." That figure did not include an additional $290 billion in interest outlays; nor did it include another $147 billion over the 2009-17 period to increase the size of the Army and Marines; and it did not include the tens of billions of dollars that will be required to reset the military's equipment.

Regarding the lobbyists who have "rigged" the tax code with "loopholes that benefit big corporations and the wealthiest few," two facts are worth noting. First, as total tax receipts increased from 16.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal 2003 to 18.8 percent of GDP in fiscal 2007, corporate income taxes increased from 1.2 percent of GDP to 2.7 percent, the highest level in 30 years. Thus, the four-year proportionate increase in corporate income tax revenue (from 1.2 percent to 2.7 percent) accounted for 65 percent of the proportionate increase in total revenues (from 16.5 percent to 18.8 percent). The second point relates to the "loopholes" for the "wealthiest." According to a December 2007 CBO study, in 2005 the top 1 percent of households earned 18.1 percent of income and paid 38.8 percent of individual federal income taxes and 27.6 percent of all federal taxes. The highest quintile (the top 20 percent) earned 55 percent of income and paid 86.3 percent of individual federal income taxes and 68.7 percent of all federal taxes.

Mr. Obama's anti-war and class-warfare rhetoric borders on the demagogic.

::

 

Did I ever say things would automatically turn around?

No

I said he's going to make shit a LOT worse. His fiscal idiocy guarantees it.

So who's not too smart ... I think it's the guy that can't understand English.

As for Paul ... BULLFUCKINGSHIT if they didn't and YOU didn't look for any and all dirt you possibly coulld on him.

There isn't any ... and drawing to much attention to him would have been VERY dangerous.

You keep your audacity to hope on Obama Phonetap ... I promise not to laugh too hard when you get made a fool of for supporting this obvious shyster.

 

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

 

The intelligent man's response . :clap:

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6262

::

 

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=311 border=1><TBODY><TR align=middle><TD width=311 colSpan=3 height=54>Individual Income Taxes Under Presidents Clinton and Bush, 1999 Law and 2008 Law</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width=311 colSpan=3 height=50>For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width=127 height=67>Taxpayer</TD><TD align=middle width=94>Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law</TD><TD align=middle width=90>Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law</TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=59>Single, income of 30,000</TD><TD align=right width=94>$3,157.50 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$2,756.25 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=51>Single, income of 50,000</TD><TD align=right width=94>$7,262.50 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$6,606.25 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=54>Married, income of $50,000</TD><TD align=right width=94>$5,085.00 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$4,012.50 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=46>Married, income of $60,000</TD><TD align=right width=94>$6,585.00 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$5,512.50 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=51>Single, income of $75,000</TD><TD align=right width=94>$14,262.50 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$12,856.25 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=53>Married, income of $75,000</TD><TD align=right width=94>$9,426.50 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$7,762.50 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=47>Single, income of $125,000*</TD><TD align=right width=94>$29,378.50 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$26,472.25 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=127 height=41>Married, income of $125,000*</TD><TD align=right width=94>$23,426.50 </TD><TD align=right width=90>$19,462.50 </TD></TR><TR><TD width=311 colSpan=3 height=45>*This chart does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

::

 

so much for the poor getting jacked under bush

::

 

yup...you denying your God, ron paul has anything negative in his past is intelligent alright. was ron paul born from a virgin? :laughing:

 

this isn't english

 

njgfuewgcvd ojfgouewvc ewfhoie? :dunno:

 

Why Is Bill Clinton Cultivating Envy?

by Stephen Moore
<!--BIO-->
<!--CITATION-->This article appeared on cato.org on July 31, 1997.
<A style="TEXT-DECORATION: none" onclick="window.print();return false;" href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6111#"> PRINT PAGE
E-MAIL PAGE
TEXT SIZE
<!-- AddThis Bookmark Button BEGIN --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> addthis_url = location.href; addthis_title = document.title; addthis_pub = 'cato_webmaster'; </SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/addthis_widget.php?v=12" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT> <!-- AddThis Bookmark Button END -->
<!--BODY-->
The biggest winner in the tax-cut passage that Congress and the White House have agreed on might be the greed and envy lobby.
For weeks the Clinton administration has assailed the GOP tax plan as unfair and heavily skewed toward the wealthy. In order to inoculate themselves from this class-warfare virus, Republicans have now made concessions that make the tax bill worse. These concessions include dropping the proposal to index capital gains for inflation, providing income tax "cuts" to low-income families that don’t pay taxes, and imposing a $75,000 income cap on the child tax credit.



Republicans shouldn't have wilted so easily. They should have met the class-warfare argument head-on. This is not -- nor has it ever been -- a nation principally motivated by greed and envy. Most Americans don't hate rich people as much as Dick Gephardt apparently does. Americans don't begrudge billionaires like Microsoft's Bill Gates or Federal Express's Fred Smith their fortunes. The vast majority of Americans don't want to tax the rich out of existence; they want to become rich themselves.
What does it mean for a tax plan to be "fair?" According to President Clinton's definition, a tax cut is equitable if the least productive people in the economy get the largest tax break and if the most productive people get no tax cut at all. Four years ago he made the amazing statement that his tax increase plan was "fair" because "70 percent of the taxes would be paid by the wealthiest 2 percent of the families."
Americans do want a fair tax system. But by "fair" they do not mean the Clintonian notion of requiring the rich to bear almost all the tax burden. Rather, most Americans think of a "fair" system as one in which everyone plays by the same rules. (That is why a flat rate tax system with no special-interest loopholes is the fairest tax system of all.) What offends Americans is not a tax cut that benefits all but a tax cut that carves out sweetheart deals for powerful political groups at the expense of the rest of us. This is precisely why the Reagan tax cut was so politically triumphant: everyone got an equal percentage reduction in their tax burden. There were no windfalls, and there were no losers.
The Republicans have unwittingly fallen prey to the class warfare argument partly because of their own political timidity. By agreeing to such a small tax cut in the first place ($85 billion over five years is one percent over total revenues), the tax debate predictably has generated into a battle over how the pie should be divided.
The White House complains that "two-thirds of the benefits of the Republican plan go to the richest 20 percent of Americans." It turns out that in calculating family income, the Clinton Treasury uses a bizarre notion of income that includes fringe benefits, imputed rental value of one's home, Individual Retirement Accounts and other forms of non-cash income. A family with earnings of $28,000 a year can easily appear to be making $40,000 under the Clinton definition of income. A family with earnings of $70,000 can easily be converted into a $100,000-plus income family. The reason that the Clinton administration says that the GOP tax plan benefits the rich is that according to the White House model, if you have a full-time job, you're rich.
Once phony indicators of income -- like the rental value of one’s house -– are eliminated, the Institute for Policy Innovation calculates that three-quarters of the tax reduction benefits help Americans with incomes under $75,000. Only 7 percent of the benefit goes to Americans with earnings over $100,000. Most of the benefits of the tax cut go to middle-income families with children through the $500 per child tax credit.

<CENTER><TABLE border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=middle>Income</TD><TD align=middle>Percent of GOP
Tax Cut Benefit</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>Less than $20,000</TD><TD align=middle>5%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>Less than $75,000 </TD><TD align=middle>76%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>Less than $100,000</TD><TD align=middle>93%</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>More than $100,000</TD><TD align=middle>7%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>​

Polls show that many Americans mistakenly believe that the rich today pay very little in federal taxes. The Internal Revenue Service just released data on the distribution of tax burdens in America that offer some surprising results. The richest 1 percent of Americans today -- the Steven Spielbergs, Michael Jordans, Warren Buffetts and Madonnas -- earned 16 percent of the total income in 1995. How much of the income tax did they pay? Two percent? Five percent? Try 30 percent. That's right! One percent of Americans pay almost one-third of the income taxes. The top 5 percent pay almost half. How is that fair?
On the lower end of the income scale, the numbers are even more shocking. Americans who fall below the median income level (those in the bottom 50 percent) pay only 5 percent of all income taxes. Those in the bottom 25 percent pay no income taxes -- zero! Bill Clinton complains that the Republicans don't cut income taxes for Americans at the bottom of the income scale. But how could they? Those Americans don't pay any income taxes at all. Clinton wants to send non-taxpayers a government check. That's welfare, not a tax cut.
Ultimately, to win the tax fairness debate, tax cutters need to make the case that they want to expand the economic pie, whereas the Clintonites are mainly focused on dividing it. An agenda of wealth creation always trumps an agenda of wealth redistribution. Not long ago a New Jersey painter was quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "You're looking at a poor man who thinks the capital gains tax [cut] is the best thing that could happen to this country. People say capital gains are for the rich, but I've never been hired by a poor man."
Republicans will win the tax fight this summer and fall if they can learn to speak with such simple eloquence

:laughing: ::

 

oh

well you shoulda just said this from the start

 

Obama calls for $1,000 income tax cuts




<!-- Article Publsih Date -->November 7, 2007
<!-- Article By Line -->BY JENNIFER HUNTER Sun-Times Columnist
<!-- Article's First Paragraph -->BETTENDORF, Iowa — Hoping to make it easier for working Americans to realize their dreams, White House hopeful Barack Obama today proposed a sweeping legislative package aimed at shoring up middle America. The legislation — which Obama will champion if elected president in 2008 — calls for an income tax cut of $1,000 per working family.
It would eliminate income taxes for seniors who earn less than $50,000 a year, provide an annual raise in the minimum wage, offer quality after-school programs, and expand family and medical leave.
The plan also would:
—Target mortgage fraud by raising “penalties on lenders who have broken the rules.â€
—Provide a tax credit covering 10 percent of a family’s mortgage interest payment each year.
—Establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to ban “unilateral changes to a credit card agreement.â€
—Create a $4,000 refundable tax credit when a student enrolls in college.
Obama, a Democratic U.S. senator from Illinois, said he wants to “put some wind at the backs of working people, to lower the cost of getting ahead†and “protect and extend opportunity for the middle class.â€
Like rival U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton’s plan to rejuvenate middle-class fortunes, Obama’s package also offers a workplace pension policy that requires businesses to enroll workers in portable, direct-deposit retirement accounts.
“And the federal government will match savings for working families,†Obama said, although he didn’t disclose costs. “This will dramatically increase the number of Americans who save for retirement.â€
“There has been a lot of talk in this campaign about the politics of hope,†Obama concluded. “But understand, the politics of hope doesn’t mean hoping that things come easy. It’s a politics of believing in things unseen; of believing in what this country might be; and of standing up for that belief and fighting for it when it’s hard.â€
“And what binds us together, what makes us one American family is that we stand up and fight for each other’s dreams, not just our own.â€
Earlier this year Obama laid out his plan for more than $80 billion in tax cuts for middle-class Americans offset by tax increases for investors and companies. That proposal involved raising the top rate on capital gains and dividends, eliminating ‘‘corporate loopholes,’’ including one used by hedge funds and private-equity firms, and cracking down on overseas tax havens.
Clinton, of New York, and another Democratic rival, former U.S. Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), have also endorsed tax increases for investment funds and wealthier Americans.
Obama is on a week-long campaign swing through Iowa, home of the nation’s first presidential contest on Jan. 3. He trails Clinton in state polls.

i guess having a home is going to become a right now too

brilliant way to help the economy, tax investment and capital gains

what a fucktard

 

This is the kind of simple minded, ignorant thinking that has held back true victims of racism for years.

It couldn't possibly be Obama's connections to these questionable people that have voters wary of him...it HAS to be because he's black.

Here's a newsflash, Sly. Not everything bad that happens to a black man is the result of racism. It's possible to dislike Obama because of his associations, his stance on the issues, his inadequecy to be president. It doesn't have to be just because he's black.

As soon as you idiots can see past this, open your eyes to reality, stop trying to use racism as a crutch everytime something bad happens to a black person...the world will be a much better, happier and peaceful place. And then the real racism can be dealt with. But every bullshit cry of racism marginalizes true instances of racism.

As a black man, you should be ashamed of yourself.

TFK

 

ouch

burn

 

Tax Delusions

by Alan Reynolds
<!--BIO-->
<!--CITATION-->This article appeared in the New York Post on February 15, 2008.
<A style="TEXT-DECORATION: none" onclick="window.print();return false;" href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9224#"> PRINT PAGE
E-MAIL PAGE
TEXT SIZE
<!-- AddThis Bookmark Button BEGIN --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> addthis_url = location.href; addthis_title = document.title; addthis_pub = 'cato_webmaster'; </SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/addthis_widget.php?v=12" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT> <!-- AddThis Bookmark Button END -->
<!--BODY-->Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both propose to "turn the economy around" in a novel way - by raising tax rates on small businesses, working couples and stockholders in general, including retirees.
Of course, their plans are also meant to raise revenue for their various hundreds of billions in new spending - but the move would fall flat on that front, too.
Start with the deficit. The Bush administration predicts a $409 billion budget shortfall for fiscal 2009. But that rests on absurd assumptions - a sudden $104 billion drop in the price of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a freeze in non-security discretionary spending - and a speeding up of economic growth.
In fact, this election year's "stimulus" bills are likelier to slow things down in 2009. Seven of the 10 postwar recessions began in the year after a presidential race, including 2001 and 1981.
So, with luck, the next president may start out with an economy that is only fragile or feeble and a deficit not much above $500 billion.
Now, on to tax hikes.

Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.
​

The federal government now takes 33 percent of taxable income above $200,000 on a joint return and 35 percent of income above $357,700. Both Democrats would raise those tax rates to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively.
Even the Tax Policy Center (a think tank famously friendly to tax hikes and Democrats) estimates that raising the top two tax rates might bring in a mere $32 billion in 2010. That's 6 percent of the likely deficit - not a license to start a dozen new programs.
To squeeze a few more pennies from top taxpayers, Clinton and Obama would also phase out all personal exemptions at $250,000. That means large families would pay higher taxes than childless couples with the same income. They'd also phase out itemized deductions - which would force two-earner families in New York and California to pay more federal tax than those living in Texas and Florida.
And this politically suicidal tax discrimination against New Yorkers, Californians and big families would bring in only an extra $15 billion a year.
All in all, these tax hikes add up to, at most, $47 billion a year - only 1.5 percent of federal spending and 0.3 percent of GDP.
And even that assumes nobody makes the slightest effort to avoid the increased taxes. In reality, many two-earner families would become one-earner families; doctors would play more golf; some folks would quit working long hours and others would retire early. Top-bracket taxpayers would maximize deductions (take out a bigger mortgage, put more in the 401k) and minimize taxable income (buy municipal bonds or just spend rather than invest).
Such tax avoidance alone would cut the estimated revenue in half. The tax hikes' adverse effects on the stock market and the economy would more than eliminate the other half.
<STYLE> .author_pub2 a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 152px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/reynolds_w.jpg) no-repeat -110px 0; } .author_pub2a a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 152px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/reynolds_w.jpg) no-repeat 0 0; } </STYLE>Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow and author of Income and Wealth (Greenwood Press, 2006).

More by Alan Reynolds

Meanwhile, both candidates are eager to spend more tens of billions a year on health-insurance subsidies, billions more for biofuels and (in Obama's case, at least) tens of billions more for several more refundable tax credits - checks to people who don't pay income tax. All these shameless vote-buying schemes would only worsen the real budget problem - which is runaway spending, not taxes.
Marginal tax rates are now much lower than they were in 1993 to 1996 on all incomes, large or small. And tax rates are much lower on dividends and capital gains. Yet the individual income tax brought in 8.5 percent of GDP last year - the same as in 1996 and much more than under the higher tax rates of '93-95.
Why do lower rates bring in as much money? In part because people do less to avoid taxes once rates are cut, in part because lower rates promote economic growth.
But the Democrats have an ideological bias against recognizing these clear facts - a naive faith in higher tax rates and an aversion to confronting excess spending. So they plan on two more tax hikes that won't work.
Obama wants to bring back the 28 percent tax on capital gains. In fact, our experience in the first Clinton administration proves that this would lose a lot of revenue: Investors would sit on stocks rather than sell and pay the tax.
The cap-gains tax dropped from 28 percent to 20 percent in 1997 - and revenues from that tax alone accounted for 12 percent of all individual income-tax payments from 1997 to 2000 - up from just 7.9 percent from 1993 to 1996.
Obama and Clinton also want to raise the tax on dividends from 15 percent to 39.6 percent. But that would just compel investors to liquidate blue-chip stocks at distress-sale prices and get back into tax-exempt bonds, cutting revenues further.
Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.
Other presidents have tried and failed to tax their way out of a budget squeeze. During the 1990 recession, the first President George Bush raised tax rates on "the rich," mostly by ending their deductions and exemptions. It didn't work: Individual income taxes brought in 8.3 percent of GDP in 1989 and just 7.6 percent of GDP by 1992.
President Bill Clinton then piled on another layer of high tax rates, 36 percent and 39.6 percent, while also greatly hiking taxes on Social Security benefits of working seniors. That failed, too: Individual income taxes brought in only 7.8 percent of GDP in 1993 and '94, 8.1 percent in 1995.
Federal revenues did not get much above the 1989 level until 1997 - when they rose because the capital-gains tax was cut.
In short, Obama is a "tax-and-spend" liberal, while Hillary is a "spend-and-tax" liberal. If either actually launched their gargantuan spending plans on the basis of imaginary revenues expected from taxing the rich, he or she would quickly end up having to tax the stuffing out of the middle class.

 

Just about ... there are few more honorable men in Congress. And deep down you know it.

What's sad here tap is ... you and I know the real reason you like Obama and it has nothing to do with his political stance. Hell ... you're willing to overlook glaring flaws in the man and his CURRENT associations .

All these threads and hundreds of posts and you cannot muster a credible argument as to WHY anyone should support him. WHY ?

Because the real reason you support Obama is because you relate to him. You see yourself , LIKE Obama and as such , you're willing to overlook so much obvious controversy about him.

In Illinois , Obama talked a good game , luckily his opponents imploded , but he was charismatic there too ... hiding all his dirty laundry behind the same phoney smile ... and ultimately what did he do during his time at the helm ... JACK SHIT. That's what he did. Lots of talk , no actions.

What does Obama have to offer when I look at him ?

Bad policies
Bad associations
Bad past choices
Bad current choices

All wrapped up and hidden behind a big smile and a lot of talk .

Trying to compare Paul to Obama ? That's like comparing Jesus Christ to Satan. :clap:

You chose , I will point out your errors later if he's elected , since you can't see them now.

 

As ironic and contrary as it is, this post will only enhance your legacy as a racist.

 

i agree

TFK hates muppets

 

Oh, I'm well aware of that.

But anyone with even a lick of common sense can see that it's the exact opposite.

Unfortunately, we have quite a few members here who will interperate my words for what they want it to say, not for what it actually says.

TFK

 

Let's pretend for a moment that Obama was not a charismatic speaker ...

Who here thinks he would be doing so well if he presented his piss poor policies like say , Ron Paul speaks ...

with this look on his face all the time ?



::

Therein lies the difference between real solutions and bullshit.


And THAT is what Obama is doing ... bullshitting his way to the Whitehouse.

 

I agree with your post in principle, I also hate it when people cry race for no reason. however in this case it's not for no reason.

Obama has preached unity, love for his country, denounced prominent black leaders and words from black pastors who happen to say things that are at odds with his message. He has never played the race card and yet there are still people like you who want to condemn him based upon things HE HAS NOT DONE and NOT SAID.

So you tell me what the reason for this is

 

so questionable connections with people isnt something to bring up?

i call BS, if any other candidate had any connection with someone like wright youd be all over them and you know it

ive never said obama personally held any of these views, however its questionable that he would associate himself with these people

this is also about hypocrisy, either you think this shit is racist or you dont, period, thats all im trying to get at, this dude is a raving lunatic and a racist, that obama would associate himself with this clown is something that could and should brought up

and it doesnt matter if obama has said these things himself or not, obama knew about this clown a long time ago and still put him on some BS committee, he only recently kicked his ass to the curb

 

what was said that was racist?

 

youve seen the tapes

if you cant see it for yourself than your beyond my help

 

Nonsense.

So if you had an uncle who loves you and gives generously to your family and takes you fishing etc...blah blah...bottomline you have a relationship with him...but he happens to have racist views....he wouldn't kill a black man or anything...but he certainly wouldn't vote for a black man to become president under any circumstance...you telling me that you'd cut him out of your life and kick his ass to the curb based upon this?

Answer the question yes or no

 

firstly this guy isnt obamas uncle

secondly im not running for president

thirdly you know youd be all over mccain or anyone else

fourthly obama knew about this guy long before this whole thing started and only kicked him out recently, before that he put him on some committee, at that point it went past "just some crazy uncle"

and to answer your question, no i wouldnt kick that uncle out of my life, but i sure as hell wouldnt vote for him for president or anyone that decided itd be a great idea to put him on a political committee

 

so now you answer the question, is what this guy has been saying racist or is it not?

yes or no

 

This is the only part of your post which answers my question and is remotely relevant. And THAT my friend is my point.