Change you can believe in, My Butt

"...It was wrong of me to tie you to an administration that has nominated five people for high office who have failed to pay some level of tax indebtedness..."<------ OC

Well I am probably opening myself up for a real barrage on this one but I wonder how many of us could withstand the level of scrutiny these guys have to endure on their tax returns to be confirmed.

i.e. this last guy is cbeing castigated for not paying tax on speaking fees he donated back to his alma mater.

I figure he had an accountant doing his taxes and that he thought it was deductible.

Sometimes I wonder why people would get into public service when they open themselves up to relentless vicious, partisan attacks.

(although I am not privy to any inside info here, just speculating...)

Well, in this spirit of camraderie, what the hell are you talking about? I wouldn't hesitate to go to an audit today. Geithner was told each and every year that he was liable to self-employment tax. This guy is the TARP guru. You think he can't work his own taxes? Looks like TARPs in big trouble. That's not a vicious partisan attack to suggest these deadbeats pay their taxes. We've already established at you do. Why shouldn't they?

I agree with you somewhat Sodbuster. I think the scrutiny our public servants have to endure today is the biggest reason we don't get qualified people to run and are stuck deciding between a washed up war hero claiming to be something he's not (conservative when he's actually a democrat) representing a party he shouldn't be representing and a do nothing gifted speaker claiming to be something he's not (moderate when he's actually a liberal socialist) representing a party he's got no business representing.

Collin Powell said as much when he declined to run way back in the early 90's.

Saying that and knowing how the game is played, I think that is why those who do chose to go into public office have to hold themselves to a higher standard and if they do make a mistake, be outfront and open about it.

Most Obama nominated didn't do that.

Aaron wrote:You're wrong on welfare mommies and daddies Cato.

It's only welfare mommies because the deadbeat daddies ain't around and Sodbuster's government doesn't do an adequate job of making them care for their kids. They let them off pretty much never pay for the children they fathered.

Nor do the punish the welfare mommy, many whom have multiple children with multiple fathers, some of actually know who the father is.

If a parent can't take care of a child and refuses to work, then that is neglect in my book and the child should be removed from the home. I would much rather see them in a state ran orphanage then giving the money to the deadbeat parent.

We are saying the samething Aaron.

I know. Except you put welfare daddies in there. You're more likely to find bigfoot then that. Most of the single fathers I know (and there are a lot of us) work. They don't ride welfare.

sodbuster wrote:Also I doubt anyone on here pays over 25% in federal income tax.

And am almost certain you dont pay over 28%.

Probably dont even get into the 28% marginal rate.

http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008_tax_rates.htm

More like 10% of gross income.

I bet you'd be surprised how much of our income is stolen from us with taxes. There are federal income taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, user fees, registrations, licenses, surcharges that we all pay. Then there is the increased cost of goods and services because of the taxes on them.

I'll bet the 40% figure is low for a lot of people.

Stephanie wrote:

sodbuster wrote:Also I doubt anyone on here pays over 25% in federal income tax.

And am almost certain you dont pay over 28%.

Probably dont even get into the 28% marginal rate.

http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008_tax_rates.htm

More like 10% of gross income.

I bet you'd be surprised how much of our income is stolen from us with taxes. There are federal income taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, user fees, registrations, licenses, surcharges that we all pay. Then there is the increased cost of goods and services because of the taxes on them.

I'll bet the 40% figure is low for a lot of people.

That figure exist. If one takes all the taxes and fees to all the levels government as a percentage of all the income earned per year, the figure is 38.5%. On average 38.5% of a person's income goes to one tax or another.

I have a friend who recently declared bankrupsy. His taxes and fees totaled over 50% of this gross earnings of his business. They would be in business today, if their tax burden had not existed and 40 people would have good paying jobs. But I guess its more important to build storage buildings on the side of a community theatre, bailout wall street CEOs, bailout the UAW and automakers, and the welfare mommies and daddies than it is to see that employers aren't taxed out fo business.

Aaron wrote:I know. Except you put welfare daddies in there. You're more likely to find bigfoot then that. Most of the single fathers I know (and there are a lot of us) work. They don't ride welfare.

And I'm not talking about single parents, mothers or fathers, that work and are doing the best possible to raise their kids. I'm talking about the deadbeats that are little more than baby factories for the sake of a welfare check.

sodbuster wrote:Well OC you have insinuated several times that I dont pay income tax.

I dont know how much who pays, but I doubt many on here pay more than my wife and I pay.

Ya'll don't pay taxes.

The private sector taxpayers pay your taxes.

Like the PEIA insurance.

If the State raises the Premiums ......... they give you a raise to cover it.

And where does the money for that raise you got come from?



.

Sam I will wager I paid a hail of a lot more tax than you did.

Unless you lied in previous posts.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Well Cato, maybe you should thank your god that you and your wife have an income sufficient to put you in such a tax bracket.

You would be the envy of most West Virginians- if they but knew your financial status.

But somehow I don't think that people working a minimum wage job- nor even two minimum wage jobs, feel your pain.

Ziggy, I started in a minimum wage job years ago and I worked four different jobs at the same time to get myself through school, all of them minimum wage. I have been layed off and had to start over. The job I have today, which I got during the stagflation years of Carter, I began at by cutting brush at minimum wage. The key is you practice a few things, like improving your skill level, having a good work ethic, and being willing to move to another job if you have to.

Just so you know, my wife and I have worked hard for everything we have. We've played by the rules. When people were buying 200,000 dollar homes, we paided under $40,000 for ours. When it was generally accepted to have a hugh amount of debt, we kept our debt load including the house at less than our combined salaries. When people were using 50% percent and above of their take home pay for debt service, we stayed under 20%. We haven't depended on the government for a handout. Frankly it burns me up when people like you come whining that I should be thankful I have a job and how badly others have it.

Both my wife and I've been down that road also. The fact of the matter is it is just as David Ramsey said this morning on ABC Good Morning America. You can sit on your butt and whine and never get anywhere or you can get off your butt and improve your situation. Obvisouly, like most of the left, you can't see past the first option and instead choose to sit on your butt and whine. The one thing that really pees me off is that people like you avocate the government taking a sizable portion of our salary to give to people who are aren't willing to help themselves. You do so, just so you can feel all good and cuddly inside.

Again Cato, you, like Aaron, keep talking about what single people- individuals- can theoritically do. So what about ALL the people? Aaron dodged that question earlier toiday. But maybe you can answer it. Surely you are not telling us that everyone can escape poverty if they were but as smart and industrious as you and your wife.

ziggy wrote:
Again Cato, you, like Aaron, keep talking about what single people- individuals- can theoritically do. So what about ALL the people? Aaron dodged that question earlier toiday. But maybe you can answer it. Surely you are not telling us that everyone can escape poverty if they were but as smart and industrious as you and your wife.

Yes, I am telling you that anyone in the United States that truly seeks to escape poverty, can. There is no theory to it, it is a fact that has been proven time and again. Of course, first you have to want to, and then you have to plan, then you have to work, HARD. You may even fail and have to begin again a few times, but hard work and persistance always pays off. What doesn't happen is that the success fairy doesn't just pop out and wave her magic wand like you and sodbuster would like think happens.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Again Cato, you, like Aaron, keep talking about what single people- individuals- can theoritically do. So what about ALL the people? Aaron dodged that question earlier toiday. But maybe you can answer it. Surely you are not telling us that everyone can escape poverty if they were but as smart and industrious as you and your wife.

Yes, I am telling you that anyone in the United States that truly seeks to escape poverty, can. There is no theory to it, it is a fact that has been proven time and again. Of course, first you have to want to, and then you have to plan, then you have to work, HARD. You may even fail and have to begin again a few times, but hard work and persistance always pays off. What doesn't happen is that the success fairy doesn't just pop out and wave her magic wand like you and sodbuster would like think happens.

No, you are switching again. You keep saying that "anyone" can escape poverty. My question is can everyone escape poverty?

There is no theory to it, it is a fact that has been proven time and again.

During what times has everyone in the USA escaped poverty?

I didn't dodge anything Ziggy. You just didn't like my answer.

Let me clarify it in a simpler manner so perhaps you can understand it.

The question is not whether EVERYONE can escape poverty, the question is do we as a nation have an obligation to ensure they do, thus giving the government the right to take MY tax dollars and spend them on the poor and the answer is plain and simple, NO.

Clear enough or do I need to dummy it down some more.

ziggy wrote:
No, you are switching again. You keep saying that "anyone" can escape poverty. My question is can everyone escape poverty?

We can play word games until the cows come home, if you want. That isn't going to change the fact the anyone who desires to escape poverty, can if they apply themselves.

ziggy wrote:During what times has everyone in the USA escaped poverty?

You seem to think that everyone should be wealthy and if they aren't you have the obligation to use the government to force people who have wealth to give a part of their earning to another. What you appear to be wanting is to remove human nature and achievement from the equation and you can't. It would be nice if everyone could rise out fo poverty. And, Yes, I believe that everyone in this nation could escape poverty if that was their desire. People have to desire escaping poverty, but desire isn't enough, it requires things like work and commitment. It requires a williingness to fail, accept that failure, learn from it, and the guts to try again.

Yes, there is discrimination and yes, it can be very difficult, and yes the playing field isn't level. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. However, none of that is an excuse to set around and wring your hands, whine "woe is me", and collect a government check. In fact, one of the reasons people remain in poverty is the very government they are looking to for help, keeps them there.

Aaron wrote:I didn't dodge anything Ziggy. You just didn't like my answer.

Let me clarify it in a simpler manner so perhaps you can understand it.

The question is not whether EVERYONE can escape poverty, ........................................

Yes, that IS the question.

I was the one who posed the question. And I am not going to let you and Cato twist it into something it isn't.

Cato wrote: And, Yes, I believe that everyone in this nation could escape poverty if that was their desire.

Saved for posterity.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I didn't dodge anything Ziggy. You just didn't like my answer.

Let me clarify it in a simpler manner so perhaps you can understand it.

The question is not whether EVERYONE can escape poverty, ........................................

Yes, that IS the question.

I was the one who posed the question. And I am not going to let you and Cato twist it into something it isn't.

And what if I don't give a fat rat's ass if EVERYONE can escape poverty or not?

You want to impose your desires to grab everyone by the boot strap up and help the poor and downtrodden out of theie current situation because after all, it's the big bad corporations and the rich holding them down and the only way to combat that is for the government to step in...

Blah, blah, blah, you’re singing the same old song and dance. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but it’s pure and unbridled HORSESHIT, plain and simple. Neither you nor the government have any constitutional authority to take MY tax dollars for UNCONSTITUTIONAL spending and that’s exactly what you’re crying about.

You’re war on poverty failed so give it up. Quit bankrupting working Americans for your Marxist dreams. They don’t belong here. That is not what America was founded on and it is not what will sustain America. In fact, it won’t sustain any country any where at any time.

Socialism/Communism is a miserable failure and the reason why is simple. There are no incentives and without something to gain, it’s only a matter of time until the workers figure out they don’t have work to get the same thing as everyone else so they become lazy and your dream becomes a vicious cycle of nothingness that ends in poverty.

If you really want to end poverty, the solution is simple. Put in place a system that says if you don’t work, you don’t eat. That’s the ONLY way to end poverty.

Leaving all that aside though, what I find really pathetic is that you think the government is somehow obligated by imposing themselves on those who don't agree for YOUR cause but when the Terry H's of the world think the exact same thing but instead of imposing MY tax dollars, they substitute religion in it's place, you get your granny panties in a wad and start crying like a bitch.

You're a hypocrite Ziggy.

Save that for posterity.

Ziggy,

Surely even you must admit that poverty in this nation has been redefined. Have you ever asked yourself what percentage of households receiving government assistance have satellite tv, high speed internet connections and cell phones?

Look, several months ago my neighbor asked me if I'd "gotten Katie's voucher yet". I had no clue what she was talking about. Apparently, the state of WV provides clothing vouchers for "low income" families. The family that moved across the way from me a bit got one for their son. They just bought a brand, spanking new double-wide trailer. It's beautiful. They have two trucks, 2 cars, a tiller, a car trailer, a riding mower, built a very elaborate coop for the chickens they raise, put up a rather large shed, and fenced the place off. Apparently that is poverty living in WV if you don't work. They got a clothing voucher for their teenaged son.

Now I can't recall right now how much that voucher was, I think it was either $200 or $250. I can tell you my husband does work, our home is much older, much smaller, and we couldn't afford to put up a fence or a shed last year. We also have two fewer vehicles, no car trailer, a reel mower, and no tiller.

Like I said, poverty has been redefined.

Poverty pays and those who support it know it. They use it as a justification for raising our taxes and then send a percentage of our taxes to the 'poor and downtrodden' and who knows what they do with the rest.

And what if I don't give a fat rat's ass if EVERYONE can escape poverty or not?

At least you would be being consistent. That would fit right in with your expressed economic agenda.

So what took you so long to just say so outright?

How so? The current economic agenda, just like the new deal, is going to do more harm to the poor through increased taxes and reward the rich then doing nothing would.

We'll see. I am not a fan of the "new" economic agenda. I thought the old one (pre-Obama) worked pretty well- except for the defecit government spending part.

I agree. We should greatly reduce the size and scope of government. Like Ronnie said, Government is the problem, not the solution.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

Surely even you must admit that poverty in this nation has been redefined. Have you ever asked yourself what percentage of households receiving government assistance have satellite tv, high speed internet connections and cell phones?

Look, several months ago my neighbor asked me if I'd "gotten Katie's voucher yet". I had no clue what she was talking about. Apparently, the state of WV provides clothing vouchers for "low income" families. The family that moved across the way from me a bit got one for their son. They just bought a brand, spanking new double-wide trailer. It's beautiful. They have two trucks, 2 cars, a tiller, a car trailer, a riding mower, built a very elaborate coop for the chickens they raise, put up a rather large shed, and fenced the place off. Apparently that is poverty living in WV if you don't work. They got a clothing voucher for their teenaged son.

Now I can't recall right now how much that voucher was, I think it was either $200 or $250. I can tell you my husband does work, our home is much older, much smaller, and we couldn't afford to put up a fence or a shed last year. We also have two fewer vehicles, no car trailer, a reel mower, and no tiller.

Like I said, poverty has been redefined.

As well it should have been "redefined". A rising tide should lift all boats, and not lift some boats while sinking others.