Pretty sure this as a Dem Hot Button

[elysiantraveller]

Obama Extends Patriot Act (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/27/congress.patriot.act/index.html?hpt=T2)

If you were a platform voter for this guy you have to be disappointed. I'm not on that platform but aren't most of you Libs/Socs pissed off at his performance thus far?

[PhantomOnTour]

Pretty sure this IS a hot button or pretty sure this AS a hot button???

[elysiantraveller]

Obama Extends Patriot Act (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/27/congress.patriot.act/index.html?hpt=T2)

If you were a platform voter for this guy you have to be disappointed. I'm not on that platform but aren't most of you Libs/Socs pissed off at his performance thus far?

Is or was.. can't remember

[Robert Goren]

Obama Extends Patriot Act (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/27/congress.patriot.act/index.html?hpt=T2)

If you were a platform voter for this guy you have to be disappointed. I'm not on that platform but aren't most of you Libs/Socs pissed off at his performance thus far?yes we aren't happy with somethings he has or hasn't done. But show me a republican who do all the liberal things in the platform that Obama hasn't done and I will vote for him.

[elysiantraveller]

yes we aren't happy with somethings he has or hasn't done. But show me a republican who do all the liberal things in the platform that Obama hasn't done and I will vote for him.

I'm not saying you are going to vote republican because of him just saying he has failed miserably on some of his campaign promises. Wondered the opinion of some of the socialist/liberals on here.

[Robert Goren]

I'm not saying you are going to vote republican because of him just saying he has failed miserably on some of his campaign promises. Wondered the opinion of some of the socialist/liberals on here.He got the big one for me through congress, health care reform. It did not goes as far as I would have liked, but it is big improvement over what we had. I know because I had extensive dealing with it in 2006. Nobody should have to through what I went through dealing with an employer's insurance company while being very ill.

[elysiantraveller]

He got the big one for me through congress, health care reform. It did not goes as far as I would have liked, but it is big improvement over what we had. I know because I had extensive dealing with it in 2006. Nobody should have to through what I went through dealing with an employer's insurance company while being very ill.

Would HCR have done anything different in your specific situation?

HCR seems more or less designed to break the back of major medical providers. Given the currently mandated loss ratios very few insurance companies will be able to survive in the major medical arena. IMO

[Light]

One of the reasons he won the election was because he campaigned against this sort of thing including wiretaps,torture,state secrets,detainees and other provisions of the patriot act. He also distanced himself from the Bush administration and promised a new hope. Since being in the WH, he has continued the Bush policies and actually taken them a step further. :faint:

It's funny to see conservative Republicans who only see the name of his party,getting all worked up about him and comparing him to extreme liberals and radicals,when he is everything a conservative could want because he does everything a conservative could want like extending the Patriot act.

I didn't vote for him because he was already talking war and killing the "bad guys" :sleeping: in his election campaign, but my wife did. I asked her this morning if she thinks he can win in 2012 and she said no because he is a "dork and a jerk". That about sums it up.

[Robert Goren]

Would HCR have done anything different in your specific situation?

HCR seems more or less designed to break the back of major medical providers. Given the currently mandated loss ratios very few insurance companies will be able to survive in the major medical arena. IMOIt would have forced my insurance company to pay for what they said they covered. At least in my state, you had no legal recourse to make them do that. It wiped out my entire retirement saving and even then some people didn't get paid. I posted quite a bit about this during the time when the law was being debated.

[Black Ruby]

I know more people who voted for Obama whose votes were really against McCain much more than they were for Obama. He hasn't delivered much of what he promised, and hasn't tried to deliver a lot of what he promised. I don't plan to vote for a Dem or Rep for national office again, and most of my friends won't either. Obama's backflip on the Patriot Act just adds to that resolve.

[Tom]

George W. Obama.

mmm mmm mmm!

[ArlJim78]

hmmm, he signed the patriot act from Paris using a device called autopen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391138/Barack-Obama-uses-autopen-sign-Patriot-Act-France.html

first TOTUS, and now autopen. I can see in the future that the presidency can be run from a Pacific island, where the real president merely uploads speeches and instructions to a portable remote control device that gives speeches, signs bills, etc. It would save a lot of money.


http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/autopen.gif

[JustRalph]

A Nobel Peace Prize Winner who has killed hundreds in war

This guys awards even lie.............

[NJ Stinks]

....He hasn't delivered much of what he promised, and hasn't tried to deliver a lot of what he promised. I don't plan to vote for a Dem or Rep for national office again, and most of my friends won't either. Obama's backflip on the Patriot Act just adds to that resolve.

I agree that much was promised and got deep-sixed. And I'm no fan of the Patriot Act either. Just the name itself makes me want to make sure my wallet is still in my back pocket. But I digress...this is not about Republicans.

I look at Obama's performance so far and I see a guy who is too pragmatic. He may think something should be done one way but he is easily convinced to accept a half a loaf. At times I'm sure he is right to compromise - and it does take a big man to compromise. But it gets aggravating when it appears Barack is the only one doing the compromising.

Anyway, looking at Obama objectively, I see a smart guy who ran on "hope and change" and it turns out the hope and change meant he is willing to compromise - unlike his predecessor - in order to move the country forward. It may turn out OK in the long run - it's too soon to say. But it occurs to me (too) that Barack seemed more like a guy who knew exactly what he wanted when he was running for president but not so much now.

[newtothegame]

I agree that much was promised and got deep-sixed. And I'm no fan of the Patriot Act either. Just the name itself makes me want to make sure my wallet is still in my back pocket. But I digress...this is not about Republicans.

I look at Obama's performance so far and I see a guy who is too pragmatic. He may think something should be done one way but he is easily convinced to accept a half a loaf. At times I'm sure he is right to compromise - and it does take a big man to compromise. But it gets aggravating when it appears Barack is the only one doing the compromising.

Anyway, looking at Obama objectively, I see a smart guy who ran on "hope and change" and it turns out the hope and change meant he is willing to compromise - unlike his predecessor - in order to move the country forward. It may turn out OK in the long run - it's too soon to say. But it occurs to me (too) that Barack seemed more like a guy who knew exactly what he wanted when he was running for president but not so much now.

You are one hillarious dude......:rolleyes:
Dems want to pass taxes more.......
rethugs want to NOT increase taxes....
And your worried about your wallet from rethugs???

Dems want to tax business and the rich.....
Rethugs want to give them tax breaks.....
Do you understand that a business will NOT pay more in taxes?? They will just pass along those cost to the consumers!
And you worry about your wallet from rethugs??

Gas pre-obama was an average of 1.79 per gallon....
Now, gas has over DOUBLED...
and your worried about your wallet from rethugs???

Do we need to even mention food cost???
lol.....
Seems to me your worried about the right thing...just from the wrong party!

[lamboguy]

George W. Obama.

mmm mmm mmm!
no question you are the greatest

what a joke this barney frank is too. he's like the rest of his palls in the congress, when they know they are on the way out they go for the throat's of the american public. you go into the voting both and think you are voting for a conservetive or a liberal, all you wind up getting is a thief

[lamboguy]

what has happened here is what happened when they fitted osama bin laden with cement shoes and dumped him in the ocean to swim with the fish. they are now singing the terrorism song so we need more patriot act. this is all happening while young people all over the world go to college and can't get a job. the bankers are all getting pay raises while the rest of the public is busted. patriot acts are nothing but scare tactics and create a smokescreen to get your heads away from the real problems in this country, like the government is completly broke and will not be able to provide the services that you have paid for with your taxes. they are going to raise your taxes to pay off their debts to other countries and keep scaring you with terrorism.

gold going to $1600

[Tom]

MagCoUYvIXE

[toetoe]

One of the reasons he won the election was because he campaigned against this sort of thing including wiretaps,torture,state secrets,detainees and other provisions of the patriot act. He also distanced himself from the Bush administration and promised a new hope. Since being in the WH, he has continued the Bush policies and actually taken them a step further. :faint:

It's funny to see conservative Republicans who only see the name of his party,getting all worked up about him and comparing him to extreme liberals and radicals,when he is everything a conservative could want because he does everything a conservative could want like extending the Patriot act.

I didn't vote for him because he was already talking war and killing the "bad guys" :sleeping: in his election campaign, but my wife did. I asked her this morning if she thinks he can win in 2012 and she said no because he is a "dork and a jerk". That about sums it up.



Man, she's in a tizzy. Give her a wide berth, sailor. I did not know she was a racist --- sorry about that, too. :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

You are one hillarious dude......:rolleyes:
Dems want to pass taxes more.......
rethugs want to NOT increase taxes....
And your worried about your wallet from rethugs???

Dems want to tax business and the rich.....
Rethugs want to give them tax breaks.....
Do you understand that a business will NOT pay more in taxes?? They will just pass along those cost to the consumers!
And you worry about your wallet from rethugs??

Gas pre-obama was an average of 1.79 per gallon....
Now, gas has over DOUBLED...
and your worried about your wallet from rethugs???

Do we need to even mention food cost???
lol.....
Seems to me your worried about the right thing...just from the wrong party!

I can't blame you for the response above, Newt. It fits the narrative of the Republican party.

But for the record, here's what I meant when I said: "Just the name itself makes me want to make sure my wallet is still in my back pocket."

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 was anything but. Ditto the Patriot Act. The Jobs And Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 may be the most cruel joke of all.

Every time federal taxes are cut, my real estate taxes climb. Every time federal taxes are cut, our country's debt climbs. So we borrow more money from China and India which is bad enough on it's own. Not to mention the effect of these federal tax cuts on the American dollar.

Just try not paying your own bills and borrowing more and more. Your credit rating/score will plunge accordingly. Hence, when Republicans try to tell me they know what's good for me, I check my back pocket. Because I know it's going to cost me/us sooner or later.

P.S. Aside from treason, is there anything more unpatriotic than passing legislation that legalizes not paying your fair share to keep the country solvent?

[bigmack]

P.S. Aside from treason, is there anything more unpatriotic than passing legislation that legalizes not paying your fair share to keep the country solvent?
Stunning, how anyone could make such a foolhardy statement knowing 51% don't pay a nickel in Fed income tax, yet have the nerve to talk about "fair share."

Your fixation with lopsided taxation is firmly intact.

[Light]

Man, she's in a tizzy. Give her a wide berth, sailor. I did not know she was a racist --- sorry about that, too. :rolleyes:

No,she's not a racist but I know a BIG one.

[Tom]

P.S. Aside from treason, is there anything more unpatriotic than passing legislation that legalizes not paying your fair share to keep the country solvent?

Like GE, a HUGE Obama supporter?
They have money for his political career but none for the USA?

Like that, NJ?

[JustRalph]

Stunning, how anyone could make such a foolhardy statement knowing 51% don't pay a nickel in Fed income tax, yet have the nerve to talk about "fair share."

Your fixation with lopsided taxation is firmly intact.

beat me to it............ :ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

Stunning, how anyone could make such a foolhardy statement knowing 51% don't pay a nickel in Fed income tax, yet have the nerve to talk about "fair share."

Your fixation with lopsided taxation is firmly intact.

For the 98th millionth time, you can't get blood out of a rock.

Get it? I doubt it.

[cj's dad]

No,she's not a racist but I know a BIG one.

And that would be ??????????????

[newtothegame]

For the 98th millionth time, you can't get blood out of a rock.

Get it? I doubt it.
But what YOU dont get is at some point, you have to stop collecting rocks and start growing plants!

[benzer]

For the 98th millionth time, you can't get blood out of a rock.

Get it? I doubt it.
Correct you are, except not everyone wants to be a rock. The point being let's get the rocks a rolling. Jobs for more Americans can do that.

[NJ Stinks]

Here's a somewhat off the wall way of looking at the whole "paying your fair share" in taxes thing.

When the U.S. needs soldiers to defend our country, we don't look for 70 year olds to fill the bill. As a matter of fact, we would refuse at least 80% of the population because that 80% will not be of much use when it comes to protecting our country. Nope. We rely on the young and the strong to protect us. Now one could say it's not fair on the young and the strong. Why should they have to bear the burden while the other 80% sit safely at home and in most cases are never called to duty?

The same thing holds true with paying the country's bills. The percentage of people who can really keep us solvent is maybe 20% of the citizens tops - the other 80% will not be of much use when it comes to providing tax revenue. Nope. We must rely on that 20% because they are the fittest financially and can actually afford to pay the country's bills. Now one could say it's not fair on the rich and super-rich. Why should they have to bear most of the tax burden while so many others get what appears to be a virtual free ride?

It's a big country and everybody needs to do their part to keep us great. But that sentence doesn't change the fact that certain Americans need to do more than most Americans if only because they can.

In short, eliminating the draft and screaming constantly for tax cuts is not what made this country great IMO.

[bigmack]

In short, eliminating the draft and screaming constantly for tax cuts is not what made this country great IMO.
Does you remember me postin' some stats about takin' every penny from the rich & every major Corp, la tee da, and it funding the Fed Budg for less than 200 days?

Of course you remember that.

Are you slow in getting it being a spending problem? I mean, really, really, slow? What in the world is wrong with you? You've been shown dozens of times that there isn't enough money to get from people with 100% taxation to solve anywhere near enough of this problem.

Tell me you're obtuse for internet show and actually think normally in real life.

[HUSKER55]

Suppose we had a national sales tax of 10% to fund medicare and pay off the debt. Everyone would have to pay. No write offs at tax time.

Any math guys have an idea on how long it would take to pay off the debt?

[Tom]

No new taxes. Period.
For any reason.


CUT SPENDING!!!!

[newtothegame]

Here's a somewhat off the wall way of looking at the whole "paying your fair share" in taxes thing.

When the U.S. needs soldiers to defend our country, we don't look for 70 year olds to fill the bill. As a matter of fact, we would refuse at least 80% of the population because that 80% will not be of much use when it comes to protecting our country. Nope. We rely on the young and the strong to protect us. Now one could say it's not fair on the young and the strong. Why should they have to bear the burden while the other 80% sit safely at home and in most cases are never called to duty?

The same thing holds true with paying the country's bills. The percentage of people who can really keep us solvent is maybe 20% of the citizens tops - the other 80% will not be of much use when it comes to providing tax revenue. Nope. We must rely on that 20% because they are the fittest financially and can actually afford to pay the country's bills. Now one could say it's not fair on the rich and super-rich. Why should they have to bear most of the tax burden while so many others get what appears to be a virtual free ride?

It's a big country and everybody needs to do their part to keep us great. But that sentence doesn't change the fact that certain Americans need to do more than most Americans if only because they can.

In short, eliminating the draft and screaming constantly for tax cuts is not what made this country great IMO.

You know at one point, i thought you to be intellectual (having worked with the IRS and all those numbers). But, when you post crazy stuff like above, you truly have me rethinking my thoughts......

Are you trying to say the only people on entitlements are over 70 and incapable of paying?
Have you not seen the reports that 50% of people here pay NO taxes??? You should know this from prior work.
Those reports directly conflict with your numbers above.....
So either your telling a BOLD LIE...or those reports are...which is it???
You can NOT tell me, or any logical person that 50% of this country is incapable of paying taxes.
What percentage of the population is over the working age or disabled?
Lets exclude those people...im cool with that.
And lets focus on the part of the population that is capable and does NOT pay anything. I am sure you have numbers...right??

[Robert Goren]

I don't know where they get that 50% don't pay taxes. Everybody but very small childern pay some sort of taxes that go some level of government.:bang:

[Steve 'StatMan']

Suppose we had a national sales tax of 10% to fund medicare and pay off the debt. Everyone would have to pay. No write offs at tax time.

Any math guys have an idea on how long it would take to pay off the debt?

Most states and taxing jurisdictiongs aleady have at least some of that. The sales tax non non-food or precription items in Chicago/IL is 9.5% to 11.5%. Last I knew, the restraurant meal tax was 11.5% in the Schaumburg/Arlington Heights area. I would really hate to see an extra 10% in a Sales/Value Added Tax, at least without a reduction in Fed/State Income Tax.

[newtothegame]

I don't know where they get that 50% don't pay taxes. Everybody but very small childern pay some sort of taxes that go some level of government.:bang:

You should be beating your head against a wall if ya cant figure this out.....:faint:

[fast4522]

No new taxes. Period.
For any reason.


CUT SPENDING!!!!

Sanity is just too simple for these dirty filthy bastards Tom!

[Tom]

It's a big country and everybody needs to do their part to keep us great. But that sentence doesn't change the fact that certain Americans need to do more than most Americans if only because they can.

Now ask yourself, if you are one of the one who can.....why should I carry those who can't? They don't contribute, so why do I need them?
Why should they enjoy the good life I provide?

I'm watching mu neighbors out mowing lawns today in near 90 degree weather, on their short weekend off of work and I wonder.....why are theses lawns not mowed by those who do not go to work during the week and sit back and collect checks and food stamps? They are all willing to share my paycheck but not my chores. This is where you libs lose credibility. You guys are big on talk, short on walk.

[mostpost]

Stunning, how anyone could make such a foolhardy statement knowing 51% don't pay a nickel in Fed income tax, yet have the nerve to talk about "fair share."

Your fixation with lopsided taxation is firmly intact.

You talk about this as if they were somehow cheating. With the exception of the earned income credit, the deductions taken by poor workers are dollar for dollar the same as offered to rich taxpayers. As head of household with two children both can take a standard deduction of $11,400. Both can claim an exemption of $3650 for each person total $ 14600.

After taking those deductions a person who earned $30,000 is left with a taxable
income of $4000. A person who earned $200,000 has taxable income of $174,000. Is it not obvious why one is paying more in taxes?

The one thing I did not include is the earn income credit. If I used the IRS calculator correctly the head of household who earned $30,000 is eligible for an EIC of $2170, but I am not sure how to apply that. Is it deducted from the taxable income or from the tax owed?
Perhaps NJ Stinks can enlighten me or correct me if any of my calculations or assumptions are incorrect.

[Robert Goren]

You should be beating your head against a wall if ya cant figure this out.....:faint: I am pretty sure where they pulled that number from, but since there are ladies who post here, I won't post it.

[fast4522]

The tax code is a crock of shit, a flat tax fixes all filth and everyone gets to pay. Best of all, people like John Kerry will have to pay about double what they do while a George W Bush would get to pay a little less, both rich.

[lsbets]

You talk about this as if they were somehow cheating. With the exception of the earned income credit, the deductions taken by poor workers are dollar for dollar the same as offered to rich taxpayers. As head of household with two children both can take a standard deduction of $11,400. Both can claim an exemption of $3650 for each person total $ 14600.

After taking those deductions a person who earned $30,000 is left with a taxable
income of $4000. A person who earned $200,000 has taxable income of $174,000. Is it not obvious why one is paying more in taxes?

The one thing I did not include is the earn income credit. If I used the IRS calculator correctly the head of household who earned $30,000 is eligible for an EIC of $2170, but I am not sure how to apply that. Is it deducted from the taxable income or from the tax owed?
Perhaps NJ Stinks can enlighten me or correct me if any of my calculations or assumptions are incorrect.

Its a tax credit. Surprised you don't understand what that is, since you like to tell us how smart you are and how you have all the facts all the time.

So, if the taxable income is reduced to 4k, and the rate there is 10% (I'm not looking at the IRS tables), the tax owed would be 400. But when you add in the credit, that person would get a check for $1770 in addition to any refund of their withholding. In other words, with the EIC, lower income people can get a check for more than they paid in withholding taxes through the year. That person pays zero dollars in federal income tax.

[mostpost]

You are one hillarious dude......:rolleyes:
Dems want to pass taxes more.......
rethugs want to NOT increase taxes....
And your worried about your wallet from rethugs???
Do you pay attention? NJ explained why he was worried. For one thing when rethugs reduce taxes on a federal level things have to be paid for on the local level. Real Estate taxes go up. Local sales taxes go up. The taxpayer ends up paying more than he did before the kindly Republicans in Washington gave him a tax break. And the tax break costs him because it weakens the country.

Dems want to tax business and the rich.....
Rethugs want to give them tax breaks.....
Do you understand that a business will NOT pay more in taxes?? They will just pass along those cost to the consumers!
And you worry about your wallet from rethugs??
By this logic, if we ended taxes on corporations they would immediately lower prices on all their products in the exact proportion that their taxes are lowered. Because we all know what wonderful citizens corporations are. :rolleyes: Are you really that naive. Here is what would really happen. If we were lucky they would drop prices a little. More likely prices would remain the same and the extra profits would go directly to the corporations bottom line.
Their logic would be; people are used to paying these prices, they won't even notice.

Gas pre-obama was an average of 1.79 per gallon....
Now, gas has over DOUBLED...
and your worried about your wallet from rethugs???

Do we need to even mention food cost???
lol.....
Seems to me your worried about the right thing...just from the wrong party!

Gas pre-Obama was also $4.12 a gallon (July 2008) Gas prices collapsed because of the recession and the collapse of the oil speculation bubble. Gas prices never rose more rapidly than they did during the administration of George W. Bush.

Seems to me NJ is worried about the right thing, from the right party. The far right party.

[mostpost]

Its a tax credit. Surprised you don't understand what that is, since you like to tell us how smart you are and how you have all the facts all the time.

So, if the taxable income is reduced to 4k, and the rate there is 10% (I'm not looking at the IRS tables), the tax owed would be 400. But when you add in the credit, that person would get a check for $1770 in addition to any refund of their withholding. In other words, with the EIC, lower income people can get a check for more than they paid in withholding taxes through the year. That person pays zero dollars in federal income tax.

I'm smart enough to know that I don't know everything and smart enough not to post what I'm not sure of. But thanks for your information. I do appreciate it.

[mostpost]

Now ask yourself, if you are one of the one who can.....why should I carry those who can't? They don't contribute, so why do I need them?
Why should they enjoy the good life I provide?

I'm watching mu neighbors out mowing lawns today in near 90 degree weather, on their short weekend off of work and I wonder.....why are theses lawns not mowed by those who do not go to work during the week and sit back and collect checks and food stamps? They are all willing to share my paycheck but not my chores. This is where you libs lose credibility. You guys are big on talk, short on walk.
In my neighborhood nobody mows their own lawn. It's all done by those lazy Mexicans. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

I am pretty sure where they pulled that number from, but since there are ladies who post here, I won't post it.

It isn't that the 50% is inaccurate, it's that it is flawed and looks at only a part of the picture. It's like looking at a picture of a farm and saying that it is a picture of chickens.

#39 explains why it is perfectly fair that some lower income folks don't pay any federal income tax. (I'm sure you already knew this)

A bigger misrepresentation is that those who keep posting about the 50%ers never mention that those folks all pay Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes and unemployment taxes at the same rate as the wealthy. So they (the lower income groups are paying for the very programs that the righties here want to eliminate. These people also pay sales taxes and property taxes. (either directly or through their rents.

[elysiantraveller]

It isn't that the 50% is inaccurate, it's that it is flawed and looks at only a part of the picture. It's like looking at a picture of a farm and saying that it is a picture of chickens.

#39 explains why it is perfectly fair that some lower income folks don't pay any federal income tax. (I'm sure you already knew this).

Your argument explains why it is 50% don't pay taxes it does not demonstrate how that is fair.

A bigger misrepresentation is that those who keep posting about the 50%ers never mention that those folks all pay Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes and unemployment taxes at the same rate as the wealthy. So they (the lower income groups are paying for the very programs that the righties here want to eliminate. These people also pay sales taxes and property taxes. (either directly or through their rents.

But these people still don't pay Federal Income Tax. Yet they want the rich to pay over 40% of their income to the feds.

Either way this thread has been derailed.

[benzer]

In my neighborhood nobody mows their own lawn. It's all done by those lazy Mexicans. :rolleyes:
This post from mosty say's a lot about a true liberal Democrat. Maybe we can call it a slip of the tongue, or maybe not.

[Ocala Mike]

benzer, didn't you see the emoticon? :faint: :faint: :faint: :faint: :faint:


Ocala Mike

[mostpost]

Your argument explains why it is 50% don't pay taxes it does not demonstrate how that is fair.
I thought it did. I have tried several times in various threads to explain this. The problem is we have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes fairness.

Let me ask you this. Would it be fair if they paid what they should pay? Assuming your answer is yes, then they pay a fair amount; even if that amount is zero or they get money back. It is fair because they take deductions authorized by law, claim exemptions allowed by law, and apply credits provided by law.

Perhaps you feel these exemptions, deductions and credits should not be applied. OK then let us also tax capital gains at the same rate as other income.



But these people still don't pay Federal Income Tax. Yet they want the rich to pay over 40% of their income to the feds.

See explanation above.

Either way this thread has been derailed.

It hasn't been derailed, its been switched to another track. In case you haven't noticed that happens a lot here. :rolleyes:

[benzer]

benzer, didn't you see the emoticon? :faint: :faint: :faint: :faint: :faint:


Ocala Mike
I did, that does not take away from the implications of the post. :)

[mostpost]

I did, that does not take away from the implications of the post. :)

Here are the implications. One, I have doubts that people in Tom's neighborhood mow their own lawns. Two, If Mexicans come here to get on welfare and drain the system, how come I see so many of them working; mowing lawns, working in restaurants, working on road crews, stocking supermarket shelves, all the easy jobs. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Note three emoticons,

[JustRalph]

Here are the implications. One, I have doubts that people in Tom's neighborhood mow their own lawns. Two, If Mexicans come here to get on welfare and drain the system, how come I see so many of them working; mowing lawns, working in restaurants, working on road crews, stocking supermarket shelves, all the easy jobs. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Note three emoticons,

you are so out of touch with the real world. In my job I deal with Illegals who are taking advantage of the system, every week. Btw, those ones you see mowing lawns and working? They very often have a Mamacita at home who is also collecting a state check. They are double dipping.

[elysiantraveller]

To answer you question they should contribute before using their majority to impose taxes on a minority.

This is the same bloc that wants a 40+% bracket on top wage earners. Since you support that bloc how can you honestly claim that it is fair to expect upper income people to pay over 40% of their wages to federal income taxes while 50% of people in this country don't have to.

To you that is fair?

I'm not taking sides in this argument on taxation (I want a new code) just pointing out how one definition is considered fair and one isn't.

By the way, as a new age leftist I would be very careful using existing laws as a symbol that something is fair and righteous in society. Many very unjust laws have existed here in this country so I can't believe you would even stoop to the point of saying... "Oh hey well its the law so it must be good!" Alinsky would be very disappointed in you.

[benzer]

Here are the implications. One, I have doubts that people in Tom's neighborhood mow their own lawns. Two, If Mexicans come here to get on welfare and drain the system, how come I see so many of them working; mowing lawns, working in restaurants, working on road crews, stocking supermarket shelves, all the easy jobs. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Note three emoticons,
Ok, I'll go were no politician wants to go and you want to backtrack.

To be clear I'm not talking about legal immigrants. Love them and welcome them.

How do you justify millions of illegals working in this country while millions of American citizens are unemployed?

I guess you think American citizens won't belittle themselves to mowing lawns, working in restaurants, working on road crews, stocking supermarket shelves.

That is not what you are in favor for is it? :eek: :eek: :eek:

[NJ Stinks]

You know at one point, i thought you to be intellectual (having worked with the IRS and all those numbers). But, when you post crazy stuff like above, you truly have me rethinking my thoughts......



Obviously, I'm no intellectual. But I am a liberal and proud of it.

Having said that, I think we do have a few "intellectuals" here in Off Topic but most of us are too emotional when it comes to our political beliefs to qualify.

Hey, is that profound or just more jibberish? :p

[NJ Stinks]

Perhaps NJ Stinks can enlighten me or correct me if any of my calculations or assumptions are incorrect.

Isbets said it well, Mostpost. The only thing I will add is that a tax credit is much better than a tax deduction because the taxpayer who gets the tax credit offsets his tax liability dollar for dollar whereas a tax deduction does not offset one's tax liability dollar for dollar.

[bigmack]

Isbets said it well, Mostpost. The only thing I will add is that a tax credit is much better than a tax deduction because the taxpayer who gets the tax credit offsets his tax liability dollar for dollar whereas a tax deduction does not offset one's tax liability dollar for dollar.
There ya go. That's how so many people walked away with free golf carts the last few years. That worked well. :ThmbUp: Certainly better than cash for clunkies. That was a HUGE success. :rolleyes:

Any news on you coming to terms with a Ntl spending problem as opposed to your boxers riding high about people with loot and their taxes?

PS. Have I mentioned how rich & campy it is that you're retired IRS and work like a drone around here harping about higher taxes for "some."?

[NJ Stinks]

There ya go. That's how so many people walked away with free golf carts the last few years. That worked well. :ThmbUp: Certainly better than cash for clunkies. That was a HUGE success. :rolleyes:

Any news on you coming to terms with a Ntl spending problem as opposed to your boxers riding high about people with loot and their taxes?

PS. Have I mentioned how rich & campy it is that you're retired IRS and work like a drone around here harping about higher taxes for "some."?

I'll try to answer in sequence.

The Earned Income Credit started in 1975. A Republican was in the White House in 1975. The EIC is touted as the "principle anti-poverty program in the federal budget". I'm not sure by your comments if you are for the EIC or not but that's the story on EIC.

As for people with loot and their taxes vs. the spending problem, I'll let Paul Krugman speak for me:

_____________________________
What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001438-tax-cuts-debate.pdf), making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html
___________________________________

As for me being a drone harping on higher taxes for some:

The first 10 years or so that I worked for the IRS I used to think: "Damn! That guy is sure paying a hell of a lot in federal income tax! Sure - he made a lot of money but still....That's really tough." Meanwhile, I'm hearing very little about the federal debt. Or people owning three or more homes.

By the early 2000's I was thinking: "This can't be right. This guy made $5M and he's barely paying over 20% in federal taxes. What the hell?" Meanwhile, we can't afford jack as a country, the debt figures are going through the roof, and supposedly, we wonder what the hell happened. Oh yea, and nowadays some people can't even remember how many homes they own.

If I spent 33 years as an auto mechanic and came on this board and said: "Don't buy a Saturn. It's a piece of junk that breaks down far too often", one may be inclined to respect my opinion on the matter. After all, I've been repairing cars for 33 years and should know something about cars after all that time. Well, I've seen thousands of tax returns in 33 years. I should know something about the federal tax liability and tax rates after all those years.

In the end it doesn't matter if one believes me or not. My main reason for not letting the tax cut mantra slide by like it is somehow a panacea for what ails us as a country is because I want people to at least think outside the proverbial box. It's easy to blame entitlements or those people who won't help themselves. It's a whole other ballgame to blame the most affluent people out there on the right for creating a tax climate that insures the rich get even richer while we as a country either go broke or neglect those citizens in real need of assistance.

P.S. Nothing against Saturn. I picked Saturn only because I heard they are gonna stop making Saturns soon if they haven't stopped already. Fine car that Saturn! :)

[benzer]

I'll try to answer in sequence.

The Earned Income Credit started in 1975. A Republican was in the White House in 1975. The EIC is touted as the "principle anti-poverty program in the federal budget". I'm not sure by your comments if you are for the EIC or not but that's the story on EIC.

As for people with loot and their taxes vs. the spending problem, I'll let Paul Krugman speak for me:

_____________________________
What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001438-tax-cuts-debate.pdf), making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html
___________________________________

As for me being a drone harping on higher taxes for some:

The first 10 years or so that I worked for the IRS I used to think: "Damn! That guy is sure paying a hell of a lot in federal income tax! Sure - he made a lot of money but still....That's really tough." Meanwhile, I'm hearing very little about the federal debt. Or people owning three or more homes.

By the early 2000's I was thinking: "This can't be right. This guy made $5M and he's barely paying over 20% in federal taxes. What the hell?" Meanwhile, we can't afford jack as a country, the debt figures are going through the roof, and supposedly, we wonder what the hell happened. Oh yea, and nowadays some people can't even remember how many homes they own.

If I spent 33 years as an auto mechanic and came on this board and said: "Don't buy a Saturn. It's a piece of junk that breaks down far too often", one may be inclined to respect my opinion on the matter. After all, I've been repairing cars for 33 years and should know something about cars after all that time. Well, I've seen thousands of tax returns in 33 years. I should know something about the federal tax liability and tax rates after all those years.

In the end it doesn't matter if one believes me or not. My main reason for not letting the tax cut mantra slide by like it is somehow a panacea for what ails us as a country is because I want people to at least think outside the proverbial box. It's easy to blame entitlements or those people who won't help themselves. It's a whole other ballgame to blame the most affluent people out there on the right for creating a tax climate that insures the rich get even richer while we as a country either go broke or neglect those citizens in real need of assistance.

P.S. Nothing against Saturn. I picked Saturn only because I heard they are gonna stop making Saturns soon if they haven't stopped already. Fine car that Saturn! :)

Great thinking, tax those rich sob's to oblivion. Of course only the rich on the right should be the focus, they are after all on the right. The rich people on the left, we'll give them exemptions from the rules. ;)

Do you really think this will work?

We need more jobs to help this economy get going again.

The circle side of economics shows that taxing the rich more is not going to help in the long run.

We need more people working, they in turn buy things, this increases demand for goods and services, this creates greater employment opportunities, and generates more positive revenue for the gov. with less outlay.

Those unable to work or retired will always be taken care of. This of course will be much easier to accomplish if we keep the circle side of economics going strong.

Circle side of economics challenge: Pick a side of the circle.

[hcap]

For all the "holier than thou" outraged Ditto heads. (This also means you Tom. ;) )
Shove this up your tight wing sensibilities.
Read ALL of it.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f2.jpg

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

A recent finding by Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation that 51 percent of households owed no federal income tax in 2009 [1] is being used to advance the argument that low- and moderate-income families do not pay sufficient taxes. Apart from the fact that most of those who make this argument also call for maintaining or increasing all of the tax cuts of recent years for people at the top of the income scale, the 51 percent figure, its significance, and its policy implications are widely misunderstood.

* The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

The 51 percent figure covers only the federal income tax and ignores the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay . As a result, it greatly overstates the share of households that do not pay any federal taxes. Data from the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center show only about 14 percent of households paid neither federal income tax nor payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[3]

# This percentage would be even lower if federal excise taxes on gasoline and other items were taken into account.
# Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In a year like 2009, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)
# Moreover, low-income households as a whole do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households as a group paid an average of 4 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007 (the latest year for which these data are available), not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are — the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007. [4] The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.
# Even these figures understate low-income households’ total tax burden, because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2010.[5]
# When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account,the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010. The second-poorest fifth paid 20.7 percent. [6]

[newtothegame]

"By this logic, if we ended taxes on corporations they would immediately lower prices on all their products in the exact proportion that their taxes are lowered. Because we all know what wonderful citizens corporations are. :rolleyes: Are you really that naive. Here is what would really happen. If we were lucky they would drop prices a little. More likely prices would remain the same and the extra profits would go directly to the corporations bottom line.
Their logic would be; people are used to paying these prices, they won't even notice."


This might be one of your best post yet MOSTY.....:faint:
So let me see here.....corporations are evil and should not be trusted to reduce prices from a tax reduction...right???
but on the other hand, you trust corporations to NOT pass on tax hikes to consumers if you are allowed to raise their taxes.....???
WTF are you smoking?? lol
In one example..."bad" corporations...in the other "good" corporations....lol
Although you might like too...you cant have it both ways.....

[Tom]

OK, hcap, so to be fair, I can stop paying Federal income taxes too?

[hcap]

OK, hcap, so to be fair, I can stop paying Federal income taxes too?Sure just become a large profitable corporation with a mail drop in the Caribbean and a congressman in your pocket.

[Tom]

Like GE, a big Obama contributor, but not so much an America contributor?
I am surprised he has not returned the contributions. Must be short on character.

[elysiantraveller]

For all the "holier than thou" outraged Ditto heads. (This also means you Tom. ;) )
Shove this up your tight wing sensibilities.
Read ALL of it.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f2.jpg

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

A recent finding by Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation that 51 percent of households owed no federal income tax in 2009 [1] is being used to advance the argument that low- and moderate-income families do not pay sufficient taxes. Apart from the fact that most of those who make this argument also call for maintaining or increasing all of the tax cuts of recent years for people at the top of the income scale, the 51 percent figure, its significance, and its policy implications are widely misunderstood.

* The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

The 51 percent figure covers only the federal income tax and ignores the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay . As a result, it greatly overstates the share of households that do not pay any federal taxes. Data from the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center show only about 14 percent of households paid neither federal income tax nor payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[3]

# This percentage would be even lower if federal excise taxes on gasoline and other items were taken into account.
# Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In a year like 2009, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)
# Moreover, low-income households as a whole do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households as a group paid an average of 4 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007 (the latest year for which these data are available), not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are — the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007. [4] The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.
# Even these figures understate low-income households’ total tax burden, because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2010.[5]
# When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account,the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010. The second-poorest fifth paid 20.7 percent. [6]

The payroll tax is a flat rate so of course the percentage of the tax based on your income is going to be skewed. Also it is used for your SS Standard Wage so even comparing FIT to payroll taxes is a joke... People plan on taking SSI right...?

[mostpost]

This might be one of your best post yet MOSTY.....
So let me see here.....corporations are evil and should not be trusted to reduce prices from a tax reduction...right???
but on the other hand, you trust corporations to NOT pass on tax hikes to consumers if you are allowed to raise their taxes.....???
WTF are you smoking?? lol
In one example..."bad" corporations...in the other "good" corporations....lol
Although you might like too...you cant have it both ways.....

What you say might be true if taxes were the only thing corporations used in determining prices. There are many other factors including cost of materials, cost of labor and what people will pay for the product. You can't say that if a corporation has it taxes raised one dollar the cost of the product will go up one dollar. Economic realities may dictate that the price only be raised fifty cents or not at all.

You often hear corporations complain that taxes are too high; that they can no longer make a profit. Well, if corporations could simply offset tax hikes by raising prices then why wouldn't they just do so. In that case it wouldn't matter to them how high taxes were. You can't say that corporations will pass all tax hikes on to consumers and then turn around and say high taxes are cutting into corporate profits.

The truth is that a tax hike is absorbed partly by the consumer and partly by the corporation. If we did not have corporate taxes, the tax burden would fall entirely on the consumer.

As to my statement that the corporation would not lower the price of its product to reflect its non tax status, let me modify that slightly to say there would probably be a reduction. That reduction would be nowhere near the savings realized.

[lamboguy]

there are plenty of uprising going on in the world these days. egypt, greece, portugal, ireland spain and i am pretty positive that it will all spread in a worse way in this country. in all these countries the bankers have raped the citizens that live there. in iceland the bankers from england want to tax the citizens of that country to pay for the losses of the bankers. the fine people of iceland have told them to take a hike.
in spain the young ones are revolting because they have finally figured it out. they have 2 political parties in spain, one liberal and the other conservetive. the young people in spain have figured out they aren't going to change things from the voters booths. they have fringe parties and 2 major ones, they amount to the same thing as the bonano's and the gambino's from new york.

i have been watching all the cable news stations, fox, msnbc, cnn. i have read a few newspapers as well and no one is discussing what is going on in spain. instead of reporting about spain they are all talking about the different smokescreens they always talk about, like obama's stupid trip, or the guy from france that probably got set up for rape, the disaster's going on in the midwest, and sarah palin runiing around the country in harley davidson.

the media flat out sucks and you need to use your heads to figure out what is really going on around you. they only tell you the news that can't expose how bad the bankers and the system is these days.

[mostpost]

The payroll tax is a flat rate so of course the percentage of the tax based on your income is going to be skewed. Also it is used for your SS Standard Wage so even comparing FIT to payroll taxes is a joke... People plan on taking SSI right...?

No. It's not skewed because it's a flat rate. It's skewed because the rate does not apply to money earned over a certain amount. (I think $108,000?) So if you earn up to $108,000 a year your rate is 6.2%. If you earn $1m a year your rate is .6696% of your annual income.

Look at it another way. If you earn $20,000 a year and pay 6.2%, you have $18760 left for a years worth of living expenses. If you have two children and a spouse that is not enough money to get by.

[mostpost]

I'll try to answer in sequence.

The Earned Income Credit started in 1975. A Republican was in the White House in 1975. The EIC is touted as the "principle anti-poverty program in the federal budget". I'm not sure by your comments if you are for the EIC or not but that's the story on EIC.

As for people with loot and their taxes vs. the spending problem, I'll let Paul Krugman speak for me:

_____________________________
What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001438-tax-cuts-debate.pdf), making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html
___________________________________

As for me being a drone harping on higher taxes for some:

The first 10 years or so that I worked for the IRS I used to think: "Damn! That guy is sure paying a hell of a lot in federal income tax! Sure - he made a lot of money but still....That's really tough." Meanwhile, I'm hearing very little about the federal debt. Or people owning three or more homes.

By the early 2000's I was thinking: "This can't be right. This guy made $5M and he's barely paying over 20% in federal taxes. What the hell?" Meanwhile, we can't afford jack as a country, the debt figures are going through the roof, and supposedly, we wonder what the hell happened. Oh yea, and nowadays some people can't even remember how many homes they own.

If I spent 33 years as an auto mechanic and came on this board and said: "Don't buy a Saturn. It's a piece of junk that breaks down far too often", one may be inclined to respect my opinion on the matter. After all, I've been repairing cars for 33 years and should know something about cars after all that time. Well, I've seen thousands of tax returns in 33 years. I should know something about the federal tax liability and tax rates after all those years.

In the end it doesn't matter if one believes me or not. My main reason for not letting the tax cut mantra slide by like it is somehow a panacea for what ails us as a country is because I want people to at least think outside the proverbial box. It's easy to blame entitlements or those people who won't help themselves. It's a whole other ballgame to blame the most affluent people out there on the right for creating a tax climate that insures the rich get even richer while we as a country either go broke or neglect those citizens in real need of assistance.

P.S. Nothing against Saturn. I picked Saturn only because I heard they are gonna stop making Saturns soon if they haven't stopped already. Fine car that Saturn! :)
What really bugs me is that the taxes the Democrats are proposing are nowhere near the taxes we had in the fifties and sixties. My recollection is that those were prosperous times. I understand that there were also other factors at work then, but no one is suggesting we go back to 70 to 90 percent tax rates.

[JustRalph]

Uprising in this country is a longshot. Things would have to get much worse. The poorest people in this country are living to well to rise up. The middle class would have to fall a long way before any uprising would occur.

We don't have the balls to rise up against our greatest enemies, or even close our borders. No way in hell we turn against uncle sugar

[RaceBookJoe]

No. It's not skewed because it's a flat rate. It's skewed because the rate does not apply to money earned over a certain amount. (I think $108,000?) So if you earn up to $108,000 a year your rate is 6.2%. If you earn $1m a year your rate is .6696% of your annual income.

Look at it another way. If you earn $20,000 a year and pay 6.2%, you have $18760 left for a years worth of living expenses. If you have two children and a spouse that is not enough money to get by.

Or look at it in another way. If you earn $20K/year....maybe you should have re-thought your career choice and the decision to have a family if you couldnt afford it??? rbj

[RaceBookJoe]

there are plenty of uprising going on in the world these days. egypt, greece, portugal, ireland spain and i am pretty positive that it will all spread in a worse way in this country. in all these countries the bankers have raped the citizens that live there. in iceland the bankers from england want to tax the citizens of that country to pay for the losses of the bankers. the fine people of iceland have told them to take a hike.
in spain the young ones are revolting because they have finally figured it out. they have 2 political parties in spain, one liberal and the other conservetive. the young people in spain have figured out they aren't going to change things from the voters booths. they have fringe parties and 2 major ones, they amount to the same thing as the bonano's and the gambino's from new york.

i have been watching all the cable news stations, fox, msnbc, cnn. i have read a few newspapers as well and no one is discussing what is going on in spain. instead of reporting about spain they are all talking about the different smokescreens they always talk about, like obama's stupid trip, or the guy from france that probably got set up for rape, the disaster's going on in the midwest, and sarah palin runiing around the country in harley davidson.

the media flat out sucks and you need to use your heads to figure out what is really going on around you. they only tell you the news that can't expose how bad the bankers and the system is these days.

You are absolutely correct..the media is doing everything it can to keep our attention away from this artificial economy. I think they are being told what not to report, thats why i stop listening to them and prefer to get my info from other sources. And by the way...Gold is eventually going well past $1600 :)

[NJ Stinks]

Great thinking, tax those rich sob's to oblivion. Of course only the rich on the right should be the focus, they are after all on the right. The rich people on the left, we'll give them exemptions from the rules. ;)

Do you really think this will work?



The highest earned income tax rates in the 1970's was 50%. I never met anybody who was taxed into oblivion. Further, back then we were actually paying off the debt for the War in Vietnam. Back then both parties not only considered that was the patriotic thing to do - it was the only thing to do.

The rich people on the right are the focus because they are the ones that live to cut their tax liability no matter what. Damn the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, damn the cost the country's debt on the U.S. dollar, damn those entitlement programs that help somebody's grandmother.

As for the will it work part, it worked well long before the Trickle-down bs was sold as gospel.

[mostpost]

Or look at it in another way. If you earn $20K/year....maybe you should have re-thought your career choice and the decision to have a family if you couldnt afford it??? rbj
What a great idea!!!! How stupid of those people to have a $20k/year job when a $200k/year job would support them so much better. After all there are $200k/year jobs just waiting to be claimed. :bang: :bang: :bang:

And luckily for us having children is retroactive so if you have a good job and lose it, just send your kids back to the kid store and solve all your problems.

Did I say "What a great idea?" I meant what a stupid idea. :mad: & :bang:

[Ocala Mike]

Or look at it in another way. If you earn $20K/year....maybe you should have re-thought your career choice and the decision to have a family if you couldnt afford it??? rbj


Back in the 50's, one wage-earner could raise a family in this country by earning an "average" wage. I know, because my father did it (five kids), and my mother never had to work.

The tragedy of this country is that it now takes two or three jobs in a family of "average" wage-earners just to get by.

It's not about "career choices"; it's systemic. Not enough room at the top of the capitalist pyramid, I'm afraid.


Ocala Mike

[Tom]

Or look at it in another way. If you earn $20K/year....maybe you should have re-thought your career choice and the decision to have a family if you couldnt afford it??? rbj

What a great post.
mostie feels others should pay the difference for his deficiencies as a provider.

[bigmack]

For all the "holier than thou" outraged Ditto heads. (This also means you Tom. ;) )
Shove this up your tight wing sensibilities.
Read ALL of it.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f2.jpg

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

A recent finding by Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation that 51 percent of households owed no federal income tax in 2009 [1] is being used to advance the argument that low- and moderate-income families do not pay sufficient taxes. Apart from the fact that most of those who make this argument also call for maintaining or increasing all of the tax cuts of recent years for people at the top of the income scale, the 51 percent figure, its significance, and its policy implications are widely misunderstood.

* The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

The 51 percent figure covers only the federal income tax and ignores the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay . As a result, it greatly overstates the share of households that do not pay any federal taxes. Data from the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center show only about 14 percent of households paid neither federal income tax nor payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[3]

# This percentage would be even lower if federal excise taxes on gasoline and other items were taken into account.
# Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In a year like 2009, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)
# Moreover, low-income households as a whole do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households as a group paid an average of 4 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007 (the latest year for which these data are available), not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are — the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007. [4] The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.
# Even these figures understate low-income households’ total tax burden, because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2010.[5]
# When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account,the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010. The second-poorest fifth paid 20.7 percent. [6]
A classic, hcap, post. All that bosh to basically say the same thing. 51% didn't owe a thing in Fed income tax.

(Graphs used for obfuscation)

[RaceBookJoe]

What a great idea!!!! How stupid of those people to have a $20k/year job when a $200k/year job would support them so much better. After all there are $200k/year jobs just waiting to be claimed. :bang: :bang: :bang:

And luckily for us having children is retroactive so if you have a good job and lose it, just send your kids back to the kid store and solve all your problems.

Did I say "What a great idea?" I meant what a stupid idea. :mad: & :bang:

Well if you aim just low enough you will definately hit your target :bang:

In your original post, you said nothing of having than losing a job..guess you gotta change things as they come up huh :bang: :bang:

Keep banging you head since you wont be hurting anything inside :bang: :bang: :bang:

While we are at it, and since you like statistics....go find out how many families both had a loss of job and/or historically made less than $30k since 2010 ( a year after the big meltdown )...and STILL had a child born to them that they cannot afford. rbj

[RaceBookJoe]

Back in the 50's, one wage-earner could raise a family in this country by earning an "average" wage. I know, because my father did it (five kids), and my mother never had to work.

The tragedy of this country is that it now takes two or three jobs in a family of "average" wage-earners just to get by.

It's not about "career choices"; it's systemic. Not enough room at the top of the capitalist pyramid, I'm afraid.


Ocala Mike

I tend to agree, but things have changed since then...you have to adjust and career choice has a lot to do with it. Prices have skyrocketed over the years and where a normal salary would have once gotten you by, now it doesnt. It even applies to horseracing...if you read a lot of systems from the 50's up until the mid 70's, they talked about you actually having a chance to make a living wage betting to place. If you made $100 day you were doing ok....not so much anymore. My heart goes out to a lot of people, but a lot of them are in the position they are in due to their own choices both good and bad at the time they were made. rbj

[RaceBookJoe]

What a great post.
mostie feels others should pay the difference for his deficiencies as a provider.

Thanks, it was meant as a way to look at people who are having self-caused issues, not the ones who are/were unwillingly blindsided. rbj

[hcap]

A classic, hcap, post. All that bosh to basically say the same thing. 51% didn't owe a thing in Fed income tax.

(Graphs used for obfuscation)
Today 02:50 PM
Read the article Yappy.

You are just like your mentor boxhead. Milk the poor's meager resources while corporations pay even less. Why don't you re-open company stores and put the children of the poor back in the coal mines. Doing your lawns on the weekends of course.

In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

# Even these figures understate low-income households’ total tax burden, because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2010.[5]

# When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account,the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010. The second-poorest fifth paid 20.7 percent. [6]

[bigmack]

Read the article Yappy.

You are just like your mentor boxhead. Milk the poor's meager resources while corporations pay even less. Why don't you re-open company stores and put the children of the poor back in the coal mines. Doing your lawns on the weekends of course.

In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

# Even these figures understate low-income households’ total tax burden, because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2010.[5]

# When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account,the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010. The second-poorest fifth paid 20.7 percent. [6]

Like I said, it does nothing to negate the 51% figure.

What a surprise you show-up with smoke & mirrors taking shape in the form of graphs.

Next time at least throw in an Alakazaam.

[hcap]

Like I said, it does nothing to negate the 51% figure.


"In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

So Yappy how many corporations earning over 10 million also paid federal taxes?

[bigmack]

"In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

So Yappy how many corporations earning over 10 million also paid federal taxes?
You bring stats from other years for what? You started with such bluster with your "For all the "holier than thou" outraged Ditto heads. Shove this up your tight wing sensibilities."

Turns out it was just smoke & mirrors from other years.

51% stands. Nice try, Chump.

GE '10 profits were $14B. Immelt is one of BO's bestest buds.

[newtothegame]

Back in the 50's, one wage-earner could raise a family in this country by earning an "average" wage. I know, because my father did it (five kids), and my mother never had to work.

The tragedy of this country is that it now takes two or three jobs in a family of "average" wage-earners just to get by.

It's not about "career choices"; it's systemic. Not enough room at the top of the capitalist pyramid, I'm afraid.


Ocala Mike
There will NEVER be enough room at the "top"......(ie the word TOP)......
But, there is plenty of room at the middle . Along with SMART decisions in the home, a family should be able to get by.
The problem is people no longer feel they need to get by. They need to have that 50,000 car....That 250,000 home.....live high on the hog (for lack of a better cliche).
Those things are reserved for the people who go out and earn them.
Too many people feel they are "owed" something.
NO ONE...and I mean NO ONE is owed a damn thing. That mentality is what has dragged down this country.
I have said for sometime, on here and other places, that the american worker has gotten lazy. Now I know that will tick some people off....but prove me wrong.
You have mosty telling people not to work for a certain wage..as they deserve more.
NJ telling people that those at the top need to pay more for you because you didnt get your fair share..
Cap backing it up with graphs.....
Yet, I have offered this challenge to mosty before and I will say it again...(with no response again I am sure)...p.s feel free to chime in NJ or cap...

I have a few friends who I know for a fact,make less then either of you three...
Would you all be willing to send one specifically a check monthly due to the imbalance.....??? I mean between the three of you, you all should be able to part ways with some of your cabbage and help him out....Better yet, lets just put all of your monies (NJ MOSTY CAP) in a pool withhim and divide it four ways....seems like the fair thing to do.
And mosty and NJ, I could care less if you worked a lifetime for your pension etc etc/....HE DESERVES his fair share. P.S don't mind his little drug habit....I am sure its because of feeling depressed that he can't hold a job. But,heis a nice guy.
So who is signing up first???

[elysiantraveller]

No. It's not skewed because it's a flat rate. It's skewed because the rate does not apply to money earned over a certain amount. (I think $108,000?) So if you earn up to $108,000 a year your rate is 6.2%. If you earn $1m a year your rate is .6696% of your annual income.

Because thats how Medicare and SSI Standard wages are created. If I make more money than that why would I have to pay more money in to fund the same program as someone else... because I make more money my medicare is suddenly more expensive on the front end? That makes no sense, it already is a helluva lot more expensive on the back end.

[mostpost]

There will NEVER be enough room at the "top"......(ie the word TOP)......
But, there is plenty of room at the middle . Along with SMART decisions in the home, a family should be able to get by.
The middle is going the way of the dodo bird. The country increasingly consists of a small, very rich oligarchy at the top, a shrinking middle class and a growing lower class. At the same time corporate profits are increasing quarter by quarter the average wage has stagnated. Since when was it the American Dream to get by?

The problem is people no longer feel they need to get by. They need to have that 50,000 car....That 250,000 home.....live high on the hog (for lack of a better cliche).
Those things are reserved for the people who go out and earn them.
Too many people feel they are "owed" something.
NO ONE...and I mean NO ONE is owed a damn thing. That mentality is what has dragged down this country.
I have said for sometime, on here and other places, that the american worker has gotten lazy. Now I know that will tick some people off....but prove me wrong.
You have management syndrome. All my workers are lazy. I'm the only one that works around here. Blah, blah, blah. Both you and Tom post a dozen or more times a day during your work hours. Do your workers do that?
You have mosty telling people not to work for a certain wage..as they deserve more.
You are misstating my position. My position is that the only way to determine a fair wage is by negotiation between equals. This will sometimes mean a union is needed to negotiate for the employee. It doesn't mean that every new employee needs to negotiate a salary. The salary for a position is determined through negotiation between union and management and applied to all in that position.
NJ telling people that those at the top need to pay more for you because you didnt get your fair share..
I think NJ is talking about taxes and it has nothing to do with us getting anything. It has to do with them contributing their fair share. The money paid in taxes goes to a lot of things not related to social programs. Things like national security, roads, transportation impact the wealthy to a much greater degree than they impact a poor person. The wealthy ought to pay a greater share of those costs. Cap backing it up with graphs.....
Yet, I have offered this challenge to mosty before and I will say it again...(with no response again I am sure)...p.s feel free to chime in NJ or cap...

I have a few friends who I know for a fact,make less then either of you three...
Would you all be willing to send one specifically a check monthly due to the imbalance.....??? I mean between the three of you, you all should be able to part ways with some of your cabbage and help him out....Better yet, lets just put all of your monies (NJ MOSTY CAP) in a pool withhim and divide it four ways....seems like the fair thing to do.
I am not going to do that. First of al, I never said that everyone should get the same pay for doing different jobs. Nor did I ever say that a peron should be able to keep a job if he is incapable of doing that job. Or refuses to do it.
I do think that an employer needs to document his reasons for firing an employee. I think an employee deserves representation in these cases.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your friends are working for substandard wages. It is not my duty to alleviate that injustice. It is the duty of the person who caused it in the first place-the employer.


And mosty and NJ, I could care less if you worked a lifetime for your pension etc etc/....HE DESERVES his fair share. P.S don't mind his little drug habit....I am sure its because of feeling depressed that he can't hold a job. But,heis a nice guy.
So who is signing up first???
I'm confused. :confused: (happens a lot when I read you.)
Above you said,
Those things are reserved for the people who go out and earn them.

Well, I did earn my pension. My contract with USPS provided that if I work for them and contribute my own portion of my salary, they would contribute to and establish a pension fund which I could use at retirement. I believe the same applies to NJ.

Now you are telling us that we don't deserve that pension. I think we are dealing with a lot of bitterness on your part that we have a pension and you don't. Too bad pal. You're the one who has a crush on the company you work for. You're the one who refuses to support unions which would provide you with better working conditions.

I saw this alot in the Wisconsin situation a few months ago. People saying "I don't have a pension so the teachers-public workers etc. should not have one either." Pure stupidity. Instead they should have been saying, "They have a pension, I should have one too and I am not going to rest until I have one"

[hcap]

You bring stats from other years for what? You started with such bluster with your "For all the "holier than thou" outraged Ditto heads. Shove this up your tight wing sensibilities."

Turns out it was just smoke & mirrors from other years.

51% stands. Nice try, Chump.

Obviously you can't read chump. 51% is Atypical , and stands only in your confused mind chump. Got it chump?

"In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

[bigmack]

Obviously you can't read chump. 51% is Atypical , and stands only in your confused mind chump. Got it chump?

In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent.[/I] [2]
Wrong again, Putz. 51% is the issue at hand. Dipping into other years is smoke & mirrors. Your specialty.

[hcap]

Wrong again, Putz. 51% is the issue at hand. Dipping into other years is smoke & mirrors. Your specialty.Obviously you, Mr Putz don't read.
Ok Putz here it is again. Got it Putz?

* The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

Anomaly is a too BIG word for you Putz. In other words in Sarah Palin lingo, "ATYPICAL"
Comments P-U-T-Z ??

[bigmack]

Obviously you, Mr Putz don't read.
Ok Putz here it is again. Got it Putz?

* The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

Anomaly is a too BIG word for you Putz. In other words in Sarah Palin lingo, "ATYPICAL"
Comments P-U-T-Z ??
Q: Why are you using '07 figures? A: Because you're a dishonest debater.

You're a dunce. You actually think you're going to play games with data on me? :lol:

Well, in 2007, just 38 percent of Americans didn't pay tax. It jumped to 49 percent for 2008, and 47 percent this year, primarily because of the stimulus bills that we've put in place trying to get the economy going again. In 2008, President Bush's stimulus payments sent $600 to individuals, $1,200 to couples, plus a little bit more if you had kids, and that all showed up as a tax reduction when you filed your income taxes.

This year we have the 2009 stimulus, which includes making work pay. Almost every American who works got benefit from that and a few other things that bring down tax bills.

SIEGEL: Now, let's look at this from the other end. If we take the higher income taxpayers, how much of the income tax do the taxpayers with the highest incomes pay?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Well, if we take a look at people with incomes, say, over $500,000. That's about one percent of all Americans. And the total share of taxes that they pay is about 24 percent. They have about 16 percent, 17 percent of income. They pay about half again that much share of taxes.

SIEGEL: And if we looked at, say, the top 20 percent, the top fifth of all incomes in the U.S., who would that be and how much do they pay?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The top fifth starts a little bit above $100,000. That group makes about 56 percent of all income and pay about 70 percent of all taxes.

SIEGEL: So when it comes to the federal income tax, at least, we have a progressive system. The more you make, the more you pay. The less you make, the less you pay. But we pay other taxes, most notably the federal payroll tax. How many Americans pay more in payroll tax, FICA tax, than in income tax?

Mr. WILLIAMS: If you consider both the share paid by the employee and by the employer, which most economists think is borne by the employee, about 75 to 80 percent of us pay more payroll tax than income tax. Only 13 percent don't pay either one of the taxes a far cry from the 47 percent who get out of the income tax.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180

[newtothegame]

I'm confused. :confused: (happens a lot when I read you.)
Above you said,


Well, I did earn my pension. My contract with USPS provided that if I work for them and contribute my own portion of my salary, they would contribute to and establish a pension fund which I could use at retirement. I believe the same applies to NJ.

Who is the "they" you were referring to above when you said "they" would contribute?? Don't you really mean the tax payer??


Now you are telling us that we don't deserve that pension.
I never once said you didnt deserve YOUR pension. It has always been YOUR position that the haves need to take care of the have nots. So I am asking...put up or shut up. See this is the problem with libs...its very EASY for you libs to give away other peoples money. But, when YOU personally have to give it up...things change as you noted above.
So you refuse to help a fellow american (which I have offered you to help)...
Very unpatriotic of you mosty!
Now on to NJ and Cap...I am sure they are patriots willing to help....:faint:

I think we are dealing with a lot of bitterness on your part that we have a pension and you don't. Too bad pal. You're the one who has a crush on the company you work for. You're the one who refuses to support unions which would provide you with better working conditions.

Ohhh please...lol.....
Apparently, you have not read my post very well. I am glad you got a pension. And please...dont worry about me...my little nest egg is there and ready to roll. Not too mention I still have many more years to contribute. I will be just fine without NANNY state taking care of me.
Unions....lol...not going to revisit that... We have shown time and time again your union brothers being "efficient"...lol

I saw this alot in the Wisconsin situation a few months ago. People saying "I don't have a pension so the teachers-public workers etc. should not have one either." Pure stupidity. Instead they should have been saying, "They have a pension, I should have one too and I am not going to rest until I have one"
:rolleyes: lost as usual are ya mosty?? Change stories as quick as ya can...even elysian sees it now

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by newtothegame
There will NEVER be enough room at the "top"......(ie the word TOP)......
But, there is plenty of room at the middle . Along with SMART decisions in the home, a family should be able to get by.
The middle is going the way of the dodo bird. The country increasingly consists of a small, very rich oligarchy at the top, a shrinking middle class and a growing lower class. At the same time corporate profits are increasing quarter by quarter the average wage has stagnated. Since when was it the American Dream to get by?

The problem is people no longer feel they need to get by. They need to have that 50,000 car....That 250,000 home.....live high on the hog (for lack of a better cliche).
Those things are reserved for the people who go out and earn them.
Too many people feel they are "owed" something.
NO ONE...and I mean NO ONE is owed a damn thing. That mentality is what has dragged down this country.
I have said for sometime, on here and other places, that the american worker has gotten lazy. Now I know that will tick some people off....but prove me wrong.
You have management syndrome. All my workers are lazy. I'm the only one that works around here. Blah, blah, blah. Both you and Tom post a dozen or more times a day during your work hours. Do your workers do that?
You have no clue lol.....I am very well liked by the employees that I oversee. Do I expect the job done? Yes....
Do they get it done? yes
And yes, my workers have breaks just as I to post as they wish...
Its better then them taking a dump in someones yard!
You have mosty telling people not to work for a certain wage..as they deserve more.
You are misstating my position. My position is that the only way to determine a fair wage is by negotiation between equals.
Explain to me again the equal part that a union and politician can negotiate a wage and agreements that the politician does NOT have to pay? Yet, the tax payers are responsible for that tab and they have NO say in it? Where's the equal again??

This will sometimes mean a union is needed to negotiate for the employee. It doesn't mean that every new employee needs to negotiate a salary. The salary for a position is determined through negotiation between union and management and applied to all in that position.
NJ telling people that those at the top need to pay more for you because you didnt get your fair share..
I think NJ is talking about taxes and it has nothing to do with us getting anything. It has to do with them contributing their fair share. The money paid in taxes goes to a lot of things not related to social programs. Things like national security, roads, transportation impact the wealthy to a much greater degree than they impact a poor person. The wealthy ought to pay a greater share of those costs. Cap backing it up with graphs.....
Yet, I have offered this challenge to mosty before and I will say it again...(with no response again I am sure)...p.s feel free to chime in NJ or cap...

I have a few friends who I know for a fact,make less then either of you three...
Would you all be willing to send one specifically a check monthly due to the imbalance.....??? I mean between the three of you, you all should be able to part ways with some of your cabbage and help him out....Better yet, lets just put all of your monies (NJ MOSTY CAP) in a pool withhim and divide it four ways....seems like the fair thing to do.
I am not going to do that.
Of course you're not going to do that. But now, you are seen for who you really are. You are a person who thinks the "have's" should give more to the "have nots", UNTIL you become the one giving. Its real easy for you libs to give away other peoples money.
First of al, I never said that everyone should get the same pay for doing different jobs. Nor did I ever say that a peron should be able to keep a job if he is incapable of doing that job. Or refuses to do it.
So then we agree that ultimately the company (union or not) should determine the employees fate based on performance?? Ohhh this is gonna be good. Let me get my videos reloaded again while you answer....:)
I do think that an employer needs to document his reasons for firing an employee. I think an employee deserves representation in these cases.
Employers that I know, do document...in triplicate as to protect themselves from lawsuits titled "wrongful termination".
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your friends are working for substandard wages. It is not my duty to alleviate that injustice. It is the duty of the person who caused it in the first place-the employer.
Lol...but you wish to take on the huge "injustice" of pay in this country??? I thought that was what you whole arguement was when you said the rich need to give more...no??? Then why do they need to give more to help those less fortunate??
Again, you want to take from the "have's" and give to the "have nots"....its YOUR way!

And mosty and NJ, I could care less if you worked a lifetime for your pension etc etc/....HE DESERVES his fair share. P.S don't mind his little drug habit....I am sure its because of feeling depressed that he can't hold a job. But,heis a nice guy.
So who is signing up first???

[lamboguy]

The highest earned income tax rates in the 1970's was 50%. I never met anybody who was taxed into oblivion. Further, back then we were actually paying off the debt for the War in Vietnam. Back then both parties not only considered that was the patriotic thing to do - it was the only thing to do.

The rich people on the right are the focus because they are the ones that live to cut their tax liability no matter what. Damn the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, damn the cost the country's debt on the U.S. dollar, damn those entitlement programs that help somebody's grandmother.

As for the will it work part, it worked well long before the Trickle-down bs was sold as gospel.i am not trying to scare anyone, just make them aware. they can say whatever they want on television, but they can't do anything about the price of gold forever. it most surely is being supressed right now. if you see gold over $3000 you will know that there is a problem in houston. what i do know about the people in this great country is they go to church and worship god, then they all come home and worship their money. if and when they don't have any money the mode will completely change here.

[newtothegame]

i am not trying to scare anyone, just make them aware. they can say whatever they want on television, but they can't do anything about the price of gold forever. it most surely is being supressed right now. if you see gold over $3000 you will know that there is a problem in houston. what i do know about the people in this great country is they go to church and worship god, then they all come home and worship their money. if and when they don't have any money the mode will completely change here.

Lambo...seriously??? Does it have to be every thread? I am really surprised that Mike has allowed you to continue with this "pump and dump" your putting on.
Now you may not see it that way, and you can make an arguement that a few people buying can not fluctuate the price....
But, let me explain...its OBVIOUS you own a stake in gold.......(if you dont, I would seriously question who you work for)....
Secondly, you continually, in almost every thread ive seen, TOUT gold as the next best thing. Influencing people if you will...
They buy...price continues upward...YOU win.
Its easy...
Everyone here knows and sees that you think gold is going well above 1600.
Mike tells other advertisers about their posting here without being a "authorized" advertiser.....
Couldnt the same be said for you?
Got it though...gold going up!! :faint:

[lamboguy]

i am flattered that you think that i can pump the price of gold or anything else!

i am not here to advertise gold either, i am an agent for a large adw and i pump that whenever i can.

also i have not been a johnie come lately when it comes to gold, you can go back to the year 2007 and see that i have been writing threads about it back then. i like gold so much that i am seriously thinking about changing my name from lamboguy to goldfinger. tom gave me that idea. i haven't owned or been in a lamborguini in 30 years now and suppose i have no right to the name that i have been using here for the past 5 years, you might say that it is disrespectfull for the brand name.

[newtothegame]

i am flattered that you think that i can pump the price of gold or anything else!

i am not here to advertise gold either, i am an agent for a large adw and i pump that whenever i can.

also i have not been a johnie come lately when it comes to gold, you can go back to the year 2007 and see that i have been writing threads about it back then. i like gold so much that i am seriously thinking about changing my name from lamboguy to goldfinger. tom gave me that idea. i haven't owned or been in a lamborguini in 30 years now and suppose i have no right to the name that i have been using here for the past 5 years, you might say that it is disrespectfull for the brand name.

I understand and I personally dont think that you alone can fluctuate the price anyways.....but as far as the part ive bloded.....,
You may not intentionally be here to advertise for gold.....But, your post say otherwise....
Anways, have a good day...
and ive got it...gold to over 1600. :faint:

[mostpost]

Well, I did earn my pension. My contract with USPS provided that if I work for them and contribute my own portion of my salary, they would contribute to and establish a pension fund which I could use at retirement. I believe the same applies to NJ.

Who is the "they" you were referring to above when you said "they" would contribute?? Don't you really mean the tax payer??

Print out the following paragraph, then tape it to your computer. Read it everytime you feel the urge to post something.

THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE RECEIVES NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING. TAXPAYERS CONTRIBUTE NOTHING TO THE SALARIES OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES. POSTAL SERVICE REVENUES CONSIST SOLELY OF MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF POSTAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.

I've only told you this about twenty times. I am not making it up. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[newtothegame]

Print out the following paragraph, then tape it to your computer. Read it everytime you feel the urge to post something.

THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE RECEIVES NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING. TAXPAYERS CONTRIBUTE NOTHING TO THE SALARIES OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES. POSTAL SERVICE REVENUES CONSIST SOLELY OF MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF POSTAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.

I've only told you this about twenty times. I am not making it up. :bang: :bang: :bang:

OK so explain how they can be LOSING BILLIONS every QUARTER....is someone not getting paid? Some trucks not being repaired??
Some building maintenance not being done??
I mean if they are paying out more then they take in ( a loss)...how can this be.....
please show me the math!

[newtothegame]

lol...hey mosty...ive been reading a little. guess what I found? You're right....NO TAX PAYER dollars. But, a MOUNTAIN of UNSECURED debt. Guess what they are looking at to solve the problem?
Well obviously cutbacks in post master etc etc...but also something called the PSRHBF...(maybe you could enlighten us on that).....,(I think it has something to do with your pension).
From the post offices own quarterly stement,

"The legal and/or regulatory consequences to the post office if the PSRHBF or the workers compensation obligations cannot be fully funded are unknown"..

Now there is ALOT in that statement...(including the above sentence).....
Gee, hope they can fund that PSRHBF......
They have already reduced one of the past payments to the above PSRHBF by 4 BILLION.....hmmm
and you said I was jealous of your pension....NOT QUITE!

[mostpost]

OK so explain how they can be LOSING BILLIONS every QUARTER....is someone not getting paid? Some trucks not being repaired??
Some building maintenance not being done??
I mean if they are paying out more then they take in ( a loss)...how can this be.....
please show me the math!
I have also explained some of the problems facing USPS. I'm not doing it again. Yes, trucks are not being repaired. Building maintenance is not being done. They are borrowing money to pay salaries. There is no provision in the law for the use of taxes to fund USPS.

[mostpost]

lol...hey mosty...ive been reading a little. guess what I found? You're right....NO TAX PAYER dollars. But, a MOUNTAIN of UNSECURED debt. Guess what they are looking at to solve the problem?
Well obviously cutbacks in post master etc etc...but also something called the PSRHBF...(maybe you could enlighten us on that).....,(I think it has something to do with your pension).
From the post offices own quarterly stement,

"The legal and/or regulatory consequences to the post office if the PSRHBF or the workers compensation obligations cannot be fully funded are unknown"..

Now there is ALOT in that statement...(including the above sentence).....
Gee, hope they can fund that PSRHBF......
They have already reduced one of the past payments to the above PSRHBF by 4 BILLION.....hmmm
and you said I was jealous of your pension....NOT QUITE!
PSRHBF equals Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund.

From what is written above you would get the impression that the PSRHBF is severely underfunded. You would think that if USPS stopped contributing to the fund, retiree health benefits would cease. Completely not true. PSRHBF is vastly overfunded, but the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 requires the USPS to make annual payments to the fund regardless of whether those payments are needed. At present the PSRHBF is overfunded to the tune of $20.9B. USPS has also overfunded its retirement obligations and is required by the same law to continue doing so.
A number of audits that have indicated that the Postal Service has made $50 billion to $75 billion in overpayments to the Civil Service Retirement System, and $6.9 billion in overpayments to the Federal Employees Retirement System

In other words, there is over $100B sitting in various pension funds which will not be used for years and decades to come. Releasing a portion of that will solve the USPS financial situation and will not endanger the pensions or health benfits of retirees. Just so you know, I still pay a monthly premium on my Postal Service health insurance.

There is currently a bill in congress to address this situation.
Link to the info above:
http://federaldaily.com/articles/2011/05/17/usps-billions-in-benefits-overpayments.aspx

ETA: the bill is S1010 sponsored by Sen Tom Carper (D) of Delaware, but as yet it has not returned from the printer so I can't say what is in it exactly.

[lamboguy]

newtothegame, i wanted to add one more thing about gold. there would be no one happier than myself to see the price of gold go back down to under $300 an ounce like it was back in the year 2000. the high price of gold vs. the reserve curency of the world the united states dollar is really not that pretty a sight to see. and even if i am right on the gold price rising while i do own gold, i really don't gain one blessed thing by it. my life along with many others in this world would be alot better with gold once again below $300 an ounce. unfortunately i don't see that happening anytime soon, a matter of fact i see a rise in gold price for at least the next decade no matter who is the president of this country or any other country throughout the world.

what i do see clearly is that the people's republic of china are taking over alot of the assets in the world. they have a pretty firm grip on rare earth metals, food production, real estate, and various other business throughout the world. it also seems to me that they are not only the largest producers of precious metals, meaning platinum, gold and silver, but they are the largest buyers of them that are mined away from their land. they have over a billion people that live there and they urge their population to own gold. the only thing i don't understand is that when their citizens buy gold they don't get the actual metal, they get a piece of paper saying that they own it backed by their government. i don't know how that is going to play out down the road. the chineese governent has a very large position in united states dollars in the international monetary fund, they are underinvested in gold will less than an 11% stake of their total assets in that metal. i am not sure of the number, but the united states is the largest holder of gold in the IMF, i believe but am not sure it is over 20% of their total assets. just recently the country of mexico made a very large purchase of gold as well.

[PaceAdvantage]

Once the FED starts tightening, you'll see gold plunge. And the FED has to start tightening sooner rather than later, don't you think?

I think the days of ever rising Gold are over....

During the Bush era, Gold went from what? Around $200 to around $800? That was over eight years.

It's gone from around $800 to around $1600 under Obama in less than four years...I've never traded gold and certainly don't intend to start anytime soon, but this thing is just crying for a serious pullback...

And by the way, I just noticed at my particular broker, the margin requirement for a SINGLE CONTRACT of SILVER is $27,000!!!! Gold only requires $6,700. What the hell happened? Back in February, the margin requirement for silver was about a quarter of what it is now....holy shite!!

[lamboguy]

the margin requirements for silver just went up 3 weeks ago 4 times in 5 days silver had been jumping around $2 and $3 a day.

as far as WHEN the federal reserve raises the interest rates, i would think that gold will take off like a rocketship this time unlike volker back in 1980, the amount of money that this country owes is astounding and basically there are 2 ways to pay it back, first way would be to hyperinflate the currency and let gold drift to about $3000 per ounce, the second way would be to try to strengthen the dollar and put some raises in interest rates, that would probably push gold to $10,000 an ounce or more.

during bush years gold made it as high as $1200 per ounce, when they elected obama it fell to just under $1000 per ounce in anticipation of a more physcal responsebly run government and running of the country. you wound up getting neither and the deficit has shot up close to $1 trillion more than it was under bush. if they raise interest rates 1% now without printing more money, this country will be bancrupt. it will be worse than greece, ireland, iceland, portugal, spain and whatever stupid country you have out there all put together.

i speak with the worlds authority on monitary regulations and gold, JAMES SINCLAIR. REAGAN hired him to liquidate the HUNT brothers silver positions back in 1981. he is pretty much under the same opinion that i have reguarding the monetary structures and gold. he seems to think that they won't raise interest rates and just let the currency hyperinflate, i think they WILL raise them and get the gold to over $10,000 per ounce.

[hcap]

Q: Why are you using '07 figures? A: Because you're a dishonest debater.

You're a dunce. You actually think you're going to play games with data on me?
You know your insults do not change the data. The recent increase of those who pay no federal income taxes (while still paying a host of OTHER federa; taxes) is mostly due to an effective TAX CUT included in Obama's stimulus program. I was under the impression that is what all you CONS crow about constantly? Of course since it benefited the poor and middle class, it appears to be evil. Some of those poor were now not OBLIGATED to pay income taxes.

Meanwhile the very wealthy-poor dears-are now suffering unfairly because they are forced to carry the freeloaders.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

"Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?
By BRUCE BARTLETT
Today's Economist

Bruce Bartlett has served as an economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress.

Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years."

This particularly applies to corporations

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/31/business/31economist-bartlett2/31economist-bartlett2-blog480.jpg

So claiming that 51% pay no federal income taxes is is totally out of historical context and misses the point