Happy Tea Baggers Day!
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17230) 11 years ago
Yes, today is April 15....that day of the year that pisses off the Tea Partiers more than anything......the day that your FEDERAL GUBMINT TAXES are due to the INFERNAL REVENUE SERVICE! Your hard-earned money, going to fund SOCIALIST PROGRAMS PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT, instead of going into the keno machines at Lucky Lil's like you want it to.

I know those grammerically challenged folks are rallying at the Capital today here in Helena....anything going on in Miles City? Perhaps a few sign wavers outside the courthouse? Or maybe a pot of hot tar and a sack of feathers for Mayor Joe?
Top
Posted by Matt - Schmitz (+165) 11 years ago
Tea Party and common sense in the same sentence? I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. Thanks. I needed that.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4462) 11 years ago
Not even when "Obamacare" and "deficit reduction" were thrown out in the same sentence?

Oh yeah, never mind.

This is definitely worth reading:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236383

By all estimates, the budget outlook is daunting. The latest projections of the Congressional Budget Office reckon the cumulative deficits under President Obama's policies to be $12.7 trillion from 2009 to 2020. In 2020 the estimated annual deficit will be $1.25 trillion, or 5.6 percent of the economy (gross domestic product), despite assumed "full employment" of 5 percent. And the deficits get larger with every succeeding year. Given unavoidable uncertainties, these precise projections are likely to prove wrong. But their basic message seems incontestable: there's a large and growing gap between the government's promises and the existing tax base.

How big a tax increase would be needed to close the gap? Well, huge. To put things in perspective, all federal taxes (income, payroll, and excise) averaged 18.1 percent of GDP from 1970 to 2009. Under CBO's assumptions about Obama's policies, taxes in 2020 would already be slightly higher, at 19.6 percent of GDP. But on top of that, there'd need to be a further tax boost approaching a third to balance the budget, because spending is projected at 25.2 percent of GDP. Needless to say, this would be the largest tax burden in U.S. history, even including World War II.


I guess that means time to celebrate?

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (4/17/2010)]
Top
Posted by Cindy Stalcup (+584) 11 years ago
Take a look at the National Debt Clock. Irregardless of where you wish to place the blame, this is not a pretty sight.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 11 years ago
I've seen the debt clock, it's in lower Manhattan.

They turned the debt clock off for two years because the debt was DECREASING thanks to the Clinton presidency.

Of course, under the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress, the deficit exploded.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17230) 11 years ago
Not even when "Obamacare" and "deficit reduction" were thrown out in the same sentence?


Ummmmm......where was that said? If you are looking at me, you would be wrong. I merely pointed out that the CBO projects the new health care law to have a positive impact rather than a negative impact on the treasury. What that means compared to all the other spending and revenues to the overall deficit is another matter.

Since when did you jump on the anti-deficit bandwagon, Rick? You seemed to have been pretty quiet on the subject until January 2009.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 11 years ago
When a Republican is President, it's a tax cut.

When a Democrat is President, it's a giveaway.


Rickenhawk is an ideologue, he just roots for his "team," like it's a sporting event or something.

Rickenhawk has no principles.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14948) 11 years ago
When your the one writing the check, and that check is for a lot more money than the check that you wrote last year, it is pretty damn hard to care about the rate.


Let's try this again with a hypothetical situation:

What I hear most of you saying is the following... a person pays in $7 as the result of a 10% rate in year one and in year two pays in $13 as a result of a 8% rate... and the person is supposed to be ecstatic because his rate is lower, even though he paid more in taxes?

And I am an idiot with a "math problem"? Really?

The government redistributing it's receipts from the "haves" to the "have nots" is not a tax cut. It is simply redistribution with the goal of making the status of the "have nots" permanently dependent on the government. I fail to see how such economic slavery is a good thing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14948) 11 years ago
Here is a list of 14 new new tax hikes totaling 316 billion dollars on middle class families.


http://republicans.waysan...eases1.pdf
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16946) 11 years ago
Richard Bonine, Jr wrote:
What I hear most of you saying is the following... a person pays in $7 as the result of a 10% rate in year one and in year two pays in $13 as a result of a 8% rate... and the person is supposed to be ecstatic because his rate is lower, even though he paid more in taxes?

And I am an idiot with a "math problem"? Really?

Richard, in year one you made $70 and paid 10% tax ($7) and kept $63. In year two you made $162.50 and paid 8% tax ($13) and kept $149.50. Had the tax rate remained 10% in year two you would have paid $16.25 in taxes and kept $146.25. If the tax rate had dropped to 8% and you only made $70 (the same as in year one) you would have paid $5.60 in tax and kept $64.40.

If you don't understand this then I'd say, yes, you are the one with the math problem. Really.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 11 years ago
Ricardo wrote:
And I am an idiot with a "math problem"? Really?


Yes, you are an idiot with a "math problem".

Let's try it again in all caps.

[b]YES, YOU ARE AN IDIOT WITH A "MATH PROBLEM"
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14948) 11 years ago
I understand all of that. Still, there is something a little painful about writing a bigger check to the IRS.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14948) 11 years ago
YES, YOU ARE AN IDIOT WITH A "MATH PROBLEM"


At least my idiocy has a justification. Your idiocy on the other hand... well not so much.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1903) 11 years ago
Progress. Richard has admitted he's an idiot.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17230) 11 years ago
I agree, Bob. That is progress.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Z (+996) 11 years ago
Richard, I feel your pain. Too bad the libs have a point this time. Just wait till next year when their taxes go up too. Then we will see who is crying.
Top
Posted by guylong (+103) 11 years ago
again, BLAH , BLAH , BLAH!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 11 years ago
Richard, I feel your pain. Too bad the libs have a point this time. Just wait till next year when their taxes go up too. Then we will see who is crying.


Yes, because Federal taxes only went up for wingnuts.

Only liberals know of a special-secret line on the 1040 that lowers their taxes.

That Obama is sure a sneaky Muslin pirate, let me tell you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14948) 11 years ago
Actually... over the last 48 hours I have been fighting off a drug interaction with a new allergy medicine that has caused me to be tired, unusually grouchy, a little depressed, and a little irrational.

I am better now.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (4/17/2010)]
Top
Posted by polar bear (+507) 11 years ago
If you look at debt incurred over the history of our presidents, 75% of it happened during Republican administrations.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16946) 11 years ago
Richard Bonine, Jr wrote:
Actually... over the last 48 hours...

If you had said "over the last 48 months" it might seem plausible.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Z (+996) 11 years ago
guylong, thank you sooo much for your profound intellectual input. You have enlightened none.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3711) 11 years ago
My income taxes went down massively this year. Unfortunately it was because my income did as well .
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Z (+996) 11 years ago
Again, Levi I feel your pain. Mine went down too but I had LOTS of deductions this year. I have already started saving extra for the increase in tax burden next year though.
Top
Posted by guylong (+103) 11 years ago
good deal!! i never intended to!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Z (+996) 11 years ago
Set your goals low enough and you will never be dissappointed.
Top
Posted by guylong (+103) 11 years ago
my goals have nothing to do with my input on this thread. its taxes that bore me. so i posted my opinion. nothing but that, so ease up steve.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 11 years ago
Levi wrote:
My income taxes went down massively this year. Unfortunately it was because my income did as well .



Using Ricardo Logic, you should be ecstatic.

It doesn't matter that your income went down, as long as you're paying less in taxes.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14948) 11 years ago
Fitting way to put this thread out of it's misery...

Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+597) 11 years ago
The 47% that pay no taxes? That would be the off shore corporations
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 11 years ago
Actually... over the last 48 hours I have been fighting off a drug interaction with a new allergy medicine that has caused me to be tired, unusually grouchy, a little depressed, and a little irrational.


Have a beer, Richard. You'll feel better.
Top
Posted by Marty (+14) 11 years ago
Still waiting on that civilized society.
Top
Posted by Elizabeth Emilsson (+796) 11 years ago
I think you should all stop hammering on Richard. After all this anti-government, anti taxes restarted with Ronald Reagan. Reagan was so keen to give us tax breaks (only the "us" wasn't the middle class). While We thought we were getting tax breaks, they took away key deductions like deducting interest rates on our credit cards, which cause the middle class to actually pay more in taxes. Why did this happen? Because the government at that time had been taken over by Goldman-Sachs in the form of Don Regan, the former CEO of GS. How do I know? Because I watched it happened and unlike so many American's who have the memories of nits, I do remember. Richard, you are right, we are not getting a tax break. Unless more people are put to work to generate taxes, we will continue to go further in debt especially if we continue these wars which were so stupidly begun in 2003. We need to have more regulations on the oligarchs and barbarians on Wall Street who have control over us and the government. But we need to know what the hell is going on and not just go half-cocked waving stupid and scary signs and blaming O'Bama for the sins of his predecessors.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9178) 11 years ago
I was under the impression that it was spelled "oligarhy'. I guess that's what I get for listening to Glenn Beck.



Whether or not that's better than a crusher video is left as an exercise for the viewer.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3711) 11 years ago
they took away key deductions like deducting interest rates on our credit cards


A person who could realize a significant tax savings from deducting credit card interest should be taxed more IMO, because obviously they are just wasting their money anyway.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 11 years ago
Levi:

Normally I would agree with you, but you're probably not old enough to remember the late 70s. I can't think of anyone that old, except for Ike.



Seriously, 18% APR on credit card debt didn't seem so bad back then.
Top
Posted by Elizabeth Emilsson (+796) 11 years ago
The 18% on interest rates didn't seem so bad back then because you could also get 15 to 18% on your savings. And yes Back in the 70's the interest rates had a major jump on credit cards, but since the banks made the money off the interest, they paid taxes on it, so people could deduct it from their income taxes. And yes, there were those of us who were fools enough to use credit cards, because then as now people found themselves out of work and sometimes needed to use credit cards to pay medical bills, buy school clothes and gasoline in hopes something would come along and they would be able to pay off the cards. We did pay off the cards over time. But my heart goes out to so many young people now who find themselves in the same scenario. And yes , Glenn Beck did spell oligarhy correctly even if he doesn't know squat about history.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14948) 11 years ago
Hmm.... why is my KO2K sensor in a state of alarm?
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 11 years ago
And yes , Glenn Beck did spell oligarhy correctly even if he doesn't know squat about history.


Um, no, he didn't. It's oligarchy.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4462) 11 years ago
They turned the debt clock off for two years because the debt was DECREASING thanks to the Clinton presidency.

Of course, under the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress, the deficit exploded.


Heh. Yeah, Bob. All the credit for the balanced budget goes to the guy who spent 5 years screaming about how those skinflint Republicans needed to spend more money.

Anyone who says otherwise is an ideologue. Am I right?

Presidents don't pass budgets. Congresses do. The only time a President's budget even matters is when his party controls both.

And sorry to say, but you kids have redefined 'exploded'

It's almost cute when you use it in reference to Bush now.



And remember, Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. 2008 was their first budget. Impressive.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 11 years ago
Hey, look who's back - Rickenhawk and his legion of straw men!

It only took Rickenhawk a week to come up with the same chart he's posted five times.

Nice work, Rickenhawk!

Remember your hero, Richard "Dick" Cheney? You know, the guy whose approval rating was lower than herpes when he left office?

"Dick" was quoted as saying "Deficits don't matter." Of course, Republicans were in charge back then, so I guess he was right.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3744) 11 years ago
Bob, your posts never fail to make me laugh.

Keep up the good work.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4462) 11 years ago
Eh. If Presidents don't make budgets, I'm reasonably sure VP's don't either. Considering how Lonely Joe's been put out to pasture, let's hope so, at least.

Anyway,I'd say I've posted the graph far fewer times then you've uttered "straw man" in complete defiance of what the phrase means.

Its like some political form of Tourrettes or something.

Blah blah blah. Clinton was God. Blah blah blah. Rickenhawk. Blah blah blah I'm Independent! Blah blah blah. Straw Man!

The only thing we can count on, Bob, is that you'll never really deal with the facts on any issue. If a three word out-of-context quote from a former Vice President is the best you can do, I'd say we can safely call it a day.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Z (+996) 11 years ago
Um, didn't the Dems have control when Chaney was VP?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1903) 11 years ago
For six of Bush's eight years, your boys had the power, Steve. Congress and the presidency.

Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1595) 11 years ago
Quotes by DICK

"If we have reason to believe someone is preparing an attack against the U.S., has developed that capability, harbours those aspirations, then I think the U.S. is justified in dealing with that, if necessary, by military force."

"I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." -on his five draft deferments, April 5, 1989

"There are a lot of lessons we want to learn out of this process in terms of what works. I think we are in fact on our way to getting on top of the whole Katrina exercise." --Sept. 10, 2005

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." -April 30, 2001

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." --March 16, 2003

"In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more." -Nov. 7, 2003

"Go f*ck yourself." --to Sen. Patrick Leahy, during an angry exchange on the Senate floor about profiteering by Halliburton, June 25, 2004

"The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to carry guns...When the decision was read, it created pandemonium in the court. Justice Scalia had to fire two warning shots to settle people down. And then at the White House, just for fun, Dick Cheney went out on the lawn and peppered a buddy with some birdshot." -David Letterman

Dick Cheney is the biggest horses ass to ever grace D.C. with its presence.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6024) 11 years ago
I've been out of the loop for a bit, so I don't know if anyone else has posted this. If not, I strongly encourage you to give it a look. It's excellent.

http://ephphatha-poetry.b...-wise.html

Peace.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Z (+996) 11 years ago
And what happened the last two years of Bush?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 11 years ago
Rickenhawk:

Imitation is the purest form of flattery.

A weak effort, but imitation nonetheless.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4462) 11 years ago
Not sure it was imitation so much as comprehensive anthology
Top