Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on January 11, 2012, 12:40:28 PM
-
Results from New Hampshire have been in for a while now, and nobody has bothered to comment. As I had feared, no leader has emerged for us to unite behind. We have one dull candidate who is "our best chance to beat Obama," we have Ron Paul, and we have a smattering of conservative-ish candidates without much support. It's 2008 again, and we're sick of having the same conversation we've been having for four years.
The only question is whether Obama has enough hype left.
-
I was listening to a portion of Sean Hannity's radio show yesterday, and he mentioned a poll that showed that a majority of Americans don't want Obama re-elected. I don't know which poll it was or what the questions were.
In Romney's speech after winning New Hampshire, he went after Obama, and probably gave some clues as to how he'd campaign against Obama. It sounded pretty good.
He's not my pick--I don't have one any longer--but I'll vote for him if need be.
-
Yea, but that $1,000,000,000 that Barry has raised will buy a lot of advertising....
-
[barf]
Oh, please ..... I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO MOVE TO COSTA RICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And this goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY beyond blaming Fistful!!!!
-
Yea, but that $1,000,000,000 that Barry has raised will buy a lot of advertising....
True enough. But no president since Roosevelt has been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7.2%.
Even with the campaign cash, Obama can be beaten. Whether Romney is the one to do it, I don't know.
-
Well, tell us what Obama is going to do with the half of America who refuse to be serfs.
-
True enough. But no president since Roosevelt has been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7.2%.
Even with the campaign cash, Obama can be beaten. Whether Romney is the one to do it, I don't know.
Spot on. I continue to believe that the economy and unemployment will be the primary deciders of this election, absent a new war.
-
Spot on. I continue to believe that the economy and unemployment will be the primary deciders of this election, absent a new war.
Ayep. But Republicans can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Beating an incumbent isn't easy to begin with, even with the economy. Romney might be smart enough to harp on the economy/unemployment rather than family values stuff
-
Ron Paul has indicated that he doesn't want to run as a third party candidate in 2012. But this is all it would take to ensure that Obama wins in November. Ron Paul has quite a bargaining chip as far as the Republican platform ends up being or he simply will become a very rich man.
Romney is likely to have problems winning in the South. But the fractured nature of the overall support for any candidate is not very uplifting. But this is the process and it is playing out.
-
Here's what people don't understand:
it DOESNT MATTER
at this point, the worthless teet-suckers who drain the working class like leeches outnumber us greatly.
They will continue to vote themselves money from public funds.
We are at the point where no decent candidate will win.
-
Well, tell us what Obama is going to do with the half of America who refuse to be serfs.
What the heck do you mean "refuse to be"?
We all already are.
-
Results from New Hampshire have been in for a while now, and nobody has bothered to comment. As I had feared, no leader has emerged for us to unite behind. We have one dull candidate who is "our best chance to beat Obama," we have Ron Paul, and we have a smattering of conservative-ish candidates without much support. It's 2008 again, and we're sick of having the same conversation we've been having for four years.
The only question is whether Obama has enough hype left.
Actually, until the actual convention, I'm not going to hold my breath.
Greats like Reagan, and Milqtoasts like McCain have both come from behind or "nowhere" in the primary process.
-
The unemployment rate has dropped from 9.1% to 8.5% in the last 90 days. Granted, most of that drop is on paper only, due to unemployment insurance benefits drying up and people giving up on searching for work. Real employment numbers have crept up only marginally.
But this trend will continue, and the media will hype it to the point where Obama can ride it to reelection. Get ready for four more years of The One.
-
Ayep. But Republicans can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Never can dismiss that factor.
-
People really, really shouldn't vote for Romney as if he were some diametrically opposed alternative to Obama. He's just a different color of the same shill. Just take a look at his funding and compare that to Obama's. Look at his track record. Do it. If politics were like NASCAR, Romney would be considered Obama's teammate, because he would be running all the same corporate patches on his racing suit.
Screw it, if it's Romney vs Obama, I'm going third party. It's not throwing away your vote if you actually like the candidate. Voting for some one you can't stand out of fear is what a wasted vote really is.
As a final thought, I don't think Obama is a well planted incumbent. A lot of his former supporters, particularly the young folk who made the 2008 election for him, have HAD IT with his unfulfilled promises. You can only promise "Hope n' change" once.
-
IMO, don't give up yet. It was a foregone conclusion months ago that Romney would likely win New Hampshire. It doesn't matter. If starts winning South Caroline and other Southern states, then you can say he is the likely nominee.
That said, it sounds like some criticism of Romney is starting to peek around the establishment corner. We'll how he holds up.
-
One of my favorite quotes or parapharses from the Obama campaign was "They're drinking the juice." I find this offensive and something a dictator might say. That would be Obama's juice and I'm afraid there are enough idiots out there that believe he is the last hope for the working class to get him re-elected. Unemployment rates are not likely to be any higher than they are now and they have come down slowly. And there's the statement that the last administration (aka Bush) left us in much worse shape than we thought when I took office on the Hope and Change slogan. Change we got... Hope we didn't.
-
As a final thought, I don't think Obama is a well planted incumbent. A lot of his former supporters, particularly the young folk who made the 2008 election for him, have HAD IT with his unfulfilled promises. You can only promise "Hope n' change" once.
Yes, Obama's been losing most every poll made of him vs. "something with a pulse" (anyone in the GOP field) they care to put out. And no incumbent with his fundamentals in the polls or the economy has survived a second term since FDR.
He sold himself to the squishy middle as "something new and different" based on raw emotionalism based on skillful oratory, and nothing else. He can't get away with it a second time. Worse, he has to run against an "obstructionist" Congress, and Bush II, which will by then be four years in the past, not his actual opponent. Blacks are generally hit worse by economic conditions, and while I still expect 98% of actual black voters to vote for Obama, turnout will be depressed. Figuratively and literally. And my final thought on the "racial dynamic" of this election, there also was a factor of "See? Yes America WILL vote for a black guy!" to this, and now that it's been done, there's no groundswell to repeat it.
Well, maybe at least for another 230-odd years or so. :laugh:
I'm coming to realize that Ron Paul's good second place performance has got a lot to do with Left/Democrat spoiler votes. Despite what we think here, whoever wins the GOP nomination is likely looking at 3-1 odds of beating Obama.
I am NOT saying "vote for the guy", but like that other thread I started a few weeks back, thinking hard about what kind of coordinated response can be made to kick Mittens in the ass repeatedly for the next four years, and make him one of the few POTUS's in history that have actually swung to the right once coronated inside the Beltway, might be a good idea.
-
Well, tell us what Obama is going to do with the half of America who refuse to be serfs.
Half? What half? The fact that Romney is even a viable GOP candidate speaks to the nature of the average Republican voter.
I'd bet money that no more than 15% of Americans really believe in the minimialist federal model.
-
Here's what people don't understand:
it DOESNT MATTER
at this point, the worthless teet-suckers who drain the working class like leeches outnumber us greatly.
They will continue to vote themselves money from public funds.
We are at the point where no decent candidate will win.
I understand.
Which is why I'm only sorta mildly interested in the campaign.
-
Ron Paul has indicated that he doesn't want to run as a third party candidate in 2012. But this is all it would take to ensure that Obama wins in November.
I can see your point, although I don't even think that would be a bad thing. I repeat: I'm not even sure that Mitt would be better than Obama. I will vote for Ron Paul in 2012, if I have to write him in, the way I did in 2008.
Ron Paul has quite a bargaining chip as far as the Republican platform ends up being or he simply will become a very rich man.
I think you a word out.
-
It puzzles me the TEA types are strangely silent. The very movement that breathed life into a moribund republican corpse has yet to be heard from. That silence may very well be about to end once the campaign moves to SC. Upstate SC is strong TEA territory. The revolt against Gresham Barrett began there and eventuated in the election of a TEA darling, Nikki Haley; a mistake if ever there was one. Up to this point TEA types have yet to be heard from and it surely hasn't had a chance to take a clean swing at Romney. SC will provide that opportunity.
I'm not saying Romney will lose in SC. SC has three distinct political districts. The Northwest third of the state is heavily evangelical with lots of TEA influence. The middle third of the state is democrat land and the coastal third is a giant RINO game preserve.
Romney may well win the state but it won't be without a black eye. Ron Paul's chance for a breakout is as high in SC as it is anywhere else. Like elsewhere, what happens to Paul depends to a large extent on Gingrich, Santorum, et al. That explains why Paul said everyone but Romney and Paul should resign. If we are to hear from the TEA movement is could well start in SC.
One other observation. Paul says he is not interested in a third party run. It could be because the republican establishment has quietly passed the word that if Paul runs third party, party republicans will move heaven and earth to terminate Rand Paul career in politics.
-
What is the TEA movement?
-
What is the TEA movement?
Nothing but vapor trails showing lately.
-
Every one of the current crop of candidates has appealed to the Tea Party movement, some with more success than others. Some candidates have tried to claim to be part of the movement even as they've been part of the problem (see Gingrich, Newt).
I suspect the Tea Party folks are looking at the possibility of a second Obama term, and keeping quiet as their favorites have been knocked down.
-
I'd bet money that no more than 15% of Americans really believe in the minimialist federal model.
It sickens me to say this, but I agree. As a nation we have lost our way. I doubt that we will find our way back to the track we should be on, the track that leads to the vision of the founders.
-
Every one of the current crop of candidates has appealed to the Tea Party movement, some with more success than others. Some candidates have tried to claim to be part of the movement even as they've been part of the problem (see Gingrich, Newt).
I suspect the Tea Party folks are looking at the possibility of a second Obama term, and keeping quiet as their favorites have been knocked down.
Yep, Michelle is gone and Paul will soon be with her.
-
Yep, Michelle is gone and Paul will soon be with her.
Do you seriously think Ron Paul will drop out?
-
I hope he wins, but if he doesn't, I hope he stays till the bitter end, and takes a fat chunk of the vote, and then runs as a third party, and takes another fat chunk of the vote and gets Obama reelected. The Republican party deserves worse.
-
I hope he wins, but if he doesn't, I hope he stays till the bitter end, and takes a fat chunk of the vote, and then runs as a third party, and takes another fat chunk of the vote and gets Obama reelected. The Republican party deserves worse.
This.
No mercy.
-
This just in. Jim Demint, Mr. Conservative nationally and paragon of virture in SC, says republicans need to pay attention to Ron Paul.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/11/jim-demint-its-time-to-start-listening-to-ron-paul/
I suspect they'll have no choice in the matter.
-
I am NOT saying "vote for the guy", but like that other thread I started a few weeks back, thinking hard about what kind of coordinated response can be made to kick Mittens in the ass repeatedly for the next four years, and make him one of the few POTUS's in history that have actually swung to the right once coronated inside the Beltway, might be a good idea.
Won't happen. The POTUS is too well insulated these days by spin doctors and pollsters. Romney can't chnge his yellow-bellied stripes.
I won't vote for Romney or Gingrich under any condition, consequences be damned.
-
I hope he wins, but if he doesn't, I hope he stays till the bitter end, and takes a fat chunk of the vote, and then runs as a third party, and takes another fat chunk of the vote and gets Obama reelected. The Republican party deserves worse.
How's about a dose of optimism from an unlikely source?
1. Paul goes on to the convention, never conceding, holding on to his delegates and reminding everyone of his proportion of the vote.
2. Paul manages to extract concessions (rhetorically, in the party platform, or otherwise) that move the GOP in the direction of fiscal, budgetary, and economic sanity. Like a $500B budget cut in year one, commitment to get back to teh year 2006 budget or some such.
3. Paul then concedes and works with the GOP to paint BHO as an economic failure precisely because of his lack of fidelity to the COTUS and fiscal sanity & rectitude. Also going after BHO hammer & tongs for starting a NEW war in the ME and bungling Egypt.
This smells more likely the more I read GOP/conservo-pundits who are honest enough to see and say that Paul has:
1. Garnered a lot of votes in both Iowa & NH.
2. Helped push the debate his direction on economic issues.\
3. Could royally screw the GOP with a 3rd party run if he isn't thrown some concessions.
See Waitone's post about DeMint.
-
The GOP leadership can't cut a deal with libertarians because it neither understands nor respects libertarians.
-
He's just a different color of the same shill.
This. Romney is the albino Obama.
Why is Romney the desired candidate?
1) He'll maintain the status quo as far as how politicians operate. Yes, I'm specifically looking at corruption, kickbacks, and so forth that allow them to greatly benefit financially.
2) He is a weak candidate...much like McCain. Obama needs a weak candidate to run against, even more so now than back in '08.
3) Even if Romney is elected prez, he will still move along the Democrat path if his past actions are any indication. That way, they accomplish their goals anyway. Except now that a "Republican" has done it, they also get to point and sceam about the continual decline of the country...basically they get a new "It's Bush's Fault111!!!!11" schtick.
Romney is a RINO extraordinare, and that's that. How the hell do you think he got elected gov in Massachussets, which is a leftist bastion? (look at how they worship the Kennedys up there). Other candidates have been sniped off or pushed aside for a reason...
-
In the final analysis it won't matter who the GOP runs or who wins in November. The republic is doomed either way.
We are already in the death spiral.
All that remains to be seen is how long it takes to auger in.
We have broken the tipping point where very nearly half the population is on the government dole, they will not vote to cut off the flow, there is also a significant number of voters that approve of that condition along with a staggering number of *expletive deleted*ing idiots that really shouldn't be allowed the responsibility of voting.
If Obama gets re-elected the collapse will be sooner.
Maybe if a pseudo-conservative gets elected it will delay it for a while but the die is cast, it is only a matter of time.
Personally I'd just as soon get it over with and maybe, just maybe we can rebuild a better government in my lifetime.
-
We have broken the tipping point where very nearly half the population is on the government dole
Please provide proof.
-
...All that remains to be seen is how long it takes to auger in.
We have broken the tipping point where very nearly half the population is on the government dole, they will not vote to cut off the flow, there is also a significant number of voters that approve of that condition along with a staggering number of *expletive deleted*ing idiots that really shouldn't be allowed the responsibility of voting.
If Obama gets re-elected the collapse will be sooner.
Maybe if a pseudo-conservative gets elected it will delay it for a while but the die is cast, it is only a matter of time.
Personally I'd just as soon get it over with and maybe, just maybe we can rebuild a better government in my lifetime.
Well, I agree the above is likely true. We're on a downward spiral. However I will still be voting against Obama, no matter who the republican candidate is. Rebuilding is a worthy job but I think there is a moral imperative to do everything we can to straighten our country out before it happens.
Maybe it won't work .... maybe it can't. But we still need to try. Speeding the process up isn't the answer, that's just wrong. It may "feel" right -- and believe me, I understand the temptation -- but it isn't; IT IS WRONG.
-
Just a few more font size points and you'd have persuaded me!
-
:facepalm:
-
I'll be voting against Obama and against Romney in November. I hope that means I can vote for Paul as the Republican candidate, but if not, Gary Johnson looks pretty good. I don't like his position on abortion, but I kind of understand it, and the President's position on that issue is not very influential. Meanwhile, I've given money to Paul and I'm voting for him in the primary (actually, it's called a caucus here.) I've heard there's a Ron Paul strategy meeting here Friday, I think I might attend...
Romney is Lite Obama. [barf] [barf] [barf] [barf] [barf] [barf] [barf]
The best thing that could happen might be for Obama to be reelected, and soon thereafter lead away in handcuffs along with most of his cabinet. (mostly the Fast and Furious thing) But I don't see that happening. The political vacuum created would be interesting to watch.
-
Please provide proof.
I'll restate my position.
With the combination of people on welfare, medicaid as well as other federal assistance programs not labeled as welfare and the number of people that pay no federal income tax or actually get back more than they pay in very nearly half of the population are not productive and will not vote to change that status.
Well, I agree the above is likely true. We're on a downward spiral. However I will still be voting against Obama, no matter who the republican candidate is. Rebuilding is a worthy job but I think there is a moral imperative to do everything we can to straighten our country out before it happens.
Maybe it won't work .... maybe it can't. But we still need to try. Speeding the process up isn't the answer, that's just wrong. It may "feel" right -- and believe me, I understand the temptation -- but it isn't; IT IS WRONG.
I'll vote against Obama no matter who the stupid party runs. I don't want to live through a collapse but I still expect it within the next decade (probably sooner).
-
I'll restate my position.
With the combination of people on welfare, medicaid as well as other federal assistance programs not labeled as welfare and the number of people that pay no federal income tax or actually get back more than they pay in very nearly half of the population are not productive and will not vote to change that status.
So what you're saying is, a person who is not paid enough to owe Federal income tax, even if he does not get any welfare, is a leech on society?
-
So what you're saying is, a person who is not paid enough to owe Federal income tax, even if he does not get any welfare, is a leech on society?
--Or, as radio pundit Neal Boortz says, "moochers."
But really, that's beside the point. What's being said is all these people who are a net drain on society are contributing to its economic collapse. The people have found out that they can raid the treasury.
There's too many moochers and not enough producers.
That type of system is not economically sustainable.
-
The only reason I have never owed Fed income tax is because they take their "share" before I even get my paycheck.
Why do people seem to forget that this is how it works, now? ???
-
--Or, as radio pundit Neal Boortz says, "moochers."
But really, that's beside the point. What's being said is all these people who are a net drain on society are contributing to its economic collapse. The people have found out that they can raid the treasury.
There's too many moochers and not enough producers.
That type of system is not economically sustainable.
So do you effectively say that because I work an honest job, but because I am not taxed through income tax, I am a leech on society?
I do not understand. I thought that people wh work honest jobs for honest pay are upstanding members of our community.
-
Somewhat on point here and with the public school thread, Medicare is actually the largest state budget expenditure for most states, far outstripping what is spent on K-12 education.
-
I do not understand. I thought that people wh work honest jobs for honest pay are upstanding members of our community.
If you pay no taxes, you're a mooch. But it's your patriotic duty to not pay much taxes. (it's complicated) ;)
-
As I vote in Oregon and will see the three most populous counties, all blue, far outweigh the rest of the state, all red, I get to vote any way I wish with confidence that I have not "wasted" my vote.
A talk radio yapper, whose identity I do not recall, argued that the entire crop of Republican candidates is the "second string." Given my electile dysfunction, my inability to be aroused by any of the candidates, I think I may write in General Powell or Dr. Rice just for S&Gs.
-
So what you're saying is, a person who is not paid enough to owe Federal income tax, even if he does not get any welfare, is a leech on society?
Yes. If I have to pay a certain % of my income (above 30% now) then everyone, regardless of income needs to pay into the kitty. Personally I'd like to see a flat percentage or national sales tax. That way everyone pays. This crap of "oh, you only made XX this year, you dont owe taxes (and in some cases get money back)" and with others "oh you made this much, you owe enough to choke a horse". Fair would be everybody pays the same percentage. Period
-
Yes. If I have to pay a certain % of my income (above 30% now) then everyone, regardless of income needs to pay into the kitty. Personally I'd like to see a flat percentage or national sales tax. That way everyone pays. This crap of "oh, you only made XX this year, you dont owe taxes (and in some cases get money back)" and with others "oh you made this much, you owe enough to choke a horse". Fair would be everybody pays the same percentage. Period
I agree that income taxes are to be made flat. But I do not think that - in the circumstance that taxes are not flat - that people who earn an honest living and owe less taxes than they owe are somehow stealing from you.
-
While it might not properly be considered stealing I don't care to subsidize "refunding" someone more taxes than they actually paid in. Not actually living here to see it first hand I can understand your not "getting it".
-
While it might not properly be considered stealing I don't care to subsidize "refunding" someone more taxes than they actually paid in. Not actually living here to see it first hand I can understand your not "getting it".
I do not understand. Are you talking about people getting some fictionalizd "tax refund" (actually a government handout by a new name) or people just plain not owing taxes?
-
Mostly the former. There are some classifications that justifiably don't owe any taxes.
-
Mostly the former. There are some classifications that justifiably don't owe any taxes.
I justifiably don't owe any income taxes. I earn less money than where the lowermost tax bracket starts. I don't see how I owe anybody to start earning more money just so the state could steal it.
(Of course I pay 17% VAT on everything I buy).
-
Micro, this will make your head explode.
An acquaintance of mine and his wife are musicians in the Army band. They are stationed in the DC Metro area and don't see combat. They have two kids and a small, but nice house. I don't know their salaries, but based on their spending habits, I would guess at least a combined 6 figure income. He has multiple, expensive bikes (he's a very avid cyclist, which is how I know him). Some of his bikes are expensive to the point it would make your eyes bleed if you saw the price tag. He recently (in the past year or two) bought a new car, not an econobox, but a fairly nice Subaru. He's also a gadget-hound (iToys, etc). I point all this out to draw the picture of a comfortable middle-class, maybe upper middle-class lifestyle.
They are raging lefties. He always claims we as Americans don't pay enough taxes. When I suggest he take some of the money he spends on expensive bikes and send that to the US Treasury as a donation to the tax pool (they actually have a process for this), he says it wouldn't do any good because the money wouldn't go where it is needed.
Here's the kicker.
After doing taxes last year, he found out they got a refund $100 GREATER than their total tax liability. In other words, this comfortable middle class family who claims we all don't pay enough taxes got more money back as a refund than they paid in taxes.
Pick your jaw up off the floor.
I paid in a 5-figure sum and got a 3-figure sum as a refund.
Chris
-
Chris if you were to tell me there ranks, if you know that information and the zip code to where they live, I can get you within a few dollars of their combined income.
-
I think he's a Captain, but I'm not certain. Dunno about wifey. I don't know the zip, but they're in Fairfax County (or maybe Arlington). In either case, they live in fairly expensive parts of NoVa.
Chris
-
I too have some liberal friends who think people who make a lot of $$ should pay more in taxes only because they make more $$. No other reason. Now these friends also do not make enough $$ to owe income tax. Yet they get $$ back, due to having four kids and other tax credits (income redistribution).
its simple. get rid of the IRS and have either a flat percentage tax or national sales tax. but for Pete sakes,get rid of the IRS.
-
Well a CPT with over 8 years of service has a taxable income of $5536 a month and BAH rates with dependents is $2742 a month and that isn't taxable. Add in another $240 or so for BAS which is non taxable also.
-
No idea what BAH and BAS is. Just the taxable portion alone is $66k/year. X2 means a comfortable existence in NoVa even with a family of 4 (we're a family of 4 as well and our kids are about the same age as his).
Chris
-
Yes. If I have to pay a certain % of my income (above 30% now) then everyone, regardless of income needs to pay into the kitty. Personally I'd like to see a flat percentage or national sales tax. That way everyone pays. This crap of "oh, you only made XX this year, you dont owe taxes (and in some cases get money back)" and with others "oh you made this much, you owe enough to choke a horse". Fair would be everybody pays the same percentage absolute dollar amount. Period
Now, THAT's fair.
Fed budget of X. Number of adults is Y. X/Y=everybody's slice of the poo-poo pie.
-
No idea what BAH and BAS is. Just the taxable portion alone is $66k/year. X2 means a comfortable existence in NoVa even with a family of 4 (we're a family of 4 as well and our kids are about the same age as his).
Chris
IIRC, BAH=off-base housing and BAS=providing your own chow, rather than getting it in the chow hall.
-
You are correct roo_ster on the meanings of BAH and BAS. The way it works in the military for BAH for dual military couples the highest ranking one will get BAH at the with dependents rate and then the other would draw BAH at the without dependents rate. So if the wife is a lower rank than the husband she will get a lower amount. BAH is based on zip code. Both individuals will draw the BAS.
-
Micro - From my point of view at least, it's not that someone is working hard but not paying taxes. It's that in a system where everyone is (rightly or wrongly) supposed to pay taxes, a large segment of society (usually lower middle class and lower) pays no taxes. Our tax system creates different philosophies depending on where you are in the tax structure. If I'm making $20K a year, getting all my tax money back, and a politician tells me he's going to increase taxes "on those rich folks" so I can continue to live tax free, who am I going to vote for?
I'd love to not pay taxes. I'd love to pay less taxes. But because I pay taxes, I'm not so easily swayed into the "I'll raise taxes on the other guy so you pay less" argument. Tomorrow I may be the other guy. I have skin in the game so I realize this. Someone who pays no taxes (or even gets more money back than was deducted) has no skin in the game. Even if that $20K earner paid only $1000 in taxes, I'm betting their political philosophy would change.
The government would never be able to get its money this way, but I have always said the best way to get everyone to understand the raping they're getting is to pay taxes the way business owners have to -- write a check to the government every quarter. Payroll deductions are like anesthesia for most wage earners -- since they never see the money it's never really there to them. Especially in modern society, where most people get electronic paychecks. I'm willing to bet 75% of them never log in to their payroll accounts to look at how much was deducted. They just see the net pay show up in their bank accounts and they're good to go.
-
What this Election is all about is how much **** the people who built and maintain America are willing to take. Everyone is giving the electoral process one more good ol' college try, but if Obama proves in November that the game is up because the culture of America is irreversibly deformed then good Americans will have to face the real "electoral" choice: embrace their serfdom or separate themselves from the insanity. The same is true is Romney shows himself to be just a paler Obama, that the Tea Party cannot move him starboard. There is no future for a "united" America unless we are willing to accept a complete obliteration of all the core values on which this nation was founded.
-
...
Here's the kicker.
...
After doing taxes last year, he found out they got a refund $100 GREATER than their total tax liability. In other words, this comfortable middle class family who claims we all don't pay enough taxes got more money back as a refund than they paid in taxes.
I paid in a 5-figure sum and got a 3-figure sum as a refund.
Chris
I, too, received a refund a little greater than my tax bill. Unless I am misunderstanding, you describe that he, and you, are, as I am, over-withheld and need to adjust the W-4. Any of us who get refunds are lending money at 0% interest. I get sneered at by a friend who claims far more dependents than he supports and writes a small check each April, usually boasting about "no stinking interest free loans."
It is left as an exercise for the student to discover how much the "float" is on over-withheld income. =D
-
So do you effectively say that because I work an honest job, but because I am not taxed through income tax, I am a leech on society?
I do not understand. I thought that people wh work honest jobs for honest pay are upstanding members of our community.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Good grief. GET A LIFE.
A "moocher" is someone who subsists on $$$$ given to him by the government, which are in turn, taken from workers in the form of taxes. It's called "welfare" or "being on the publiuc dole."
As YOU have a job, YOU are NOT a moocher. How much you are taxed is nongermain to this issue.....
Sorry if I got snippy .... but, REALLY.
-
How much you are taxed is nongermain to this issue.....
WHAT DO THE GERMANS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
-
WHAT DO THE GERMANS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
:facepalm:
"nongermain" = "irrelevant."
-
Now, THAT's fair.
Fed budget of X. Number of adults is Y. X/Y=everybody's slice of the poo-poo pie.
The Earth is a Harsh Mistress
So ... what do you do with those who can't pay ???
-
I think there's some confusion in this thread.
I think most of us would agree that anyone who RECEIVES more from the federal government in tax refunds/welfare than they paid in... THAT's a leech. Not someone who gets a refund.
So, you pay 10k in taxes, get a 1000 dollar refund... Not a leech, your contribution was 9k.
Pay 4k in taxes, get 8k refund
Leech.
Seems pretty simple.
-
Unless I misunderstood what my acquaintance was saying, he did the latter. Paid X, got X+Y back in a refund.
Chris
-
Seems unlikely for a married military couple, but possible I guess.
-
Not being military, I don't know what is deductible or not. I assume they get the typical kid deductions, mortgage deductions, etc. Beyond that, I dunno.
Chris
-
Not being military, I don't know what is deductible or not. I assume they get the typical kid deductions, mortgage deductions, etc. Beyond that, I dunno.
Chris
Being in the military you get no "special" deductions. It is just that certain parts of your pay is considered non-taxable but for certain things under the tax code it has to be accounted for.
-
:facepalm:
"nongermain" = "irrelevant.
That would be proper use of a large font.
-
That would be proper use of a large font.
Finally got SOMETHING right!! =D
-
Finally got SOMETHING right!! =D
FIFY.
Chris
-
;/