mattp

You can have them laminated at many print shops.

What's up with Republicans trying to steal a whole bunch of states? You down with that?

Single person, $20,000.00 a year: Estimated Tax Analysis Gross income $20,000 Qualified plan contributions - $0 Adjusted gross income = $20,000 Standard/Itemized deductions - $5,450 Personal exemptions - $3,500 Taxable income = $11,050 Tax liability before credits $1,256 Child tax credits - $0 Estimated tax liability = $1,256 federal income tax calculator site

Yup. I wondered about that too. Could this be another distortion used for political argument? Example: single person, no kids, $40,000.00 income: Estimated Tax Analysis Gross income $40,000 Qualified plan contributions - $0 Adjusted gross income = $40,000 Standard/Itemized deductions - $5,450 1 Personal exemption - $3,500 Taxable income = $31,050 Tax liability before credits $4,256 Child tax credits - $0 Estimated tax liability = $4,256 This is on top of what we've been calling "payroll taxes."

I thas taken me several google searches to figure out the actual proposals we have been talking about, and these are twofold: So there is, in the second proposal, something Scott and Farweather can call welfare. However, even though the last sentence in that paragraph links it to "tax relief," it is a proposed energy "rebate" funded by a proposed taxes on oil companies. This is not a tax rebate in any sense of the term. Under the first proposal, this makes it appear that nobody gets any tax credit unless they actually paid taxes, and I've seen this specifically stated in several discussions of Obama's proposal. However, elsewhere, I've seen it said to be a "refundable" tax credit. Bottom line: at this point I'm not sure whether there could actually be a proposal that has potential to result in somebody getting a tax rebate when they didn't pay income taxes but only paid payroll taxes. Either way, the Republican blog attacks have been misleading and the posters here repeat them without concern for that.

I'm with you, minx. I think the rebate thing may simply be a campaign gimmick. But these guys don't know what they are talking about with this "giving rebates to people who don't pay taxes" B.S. and apparently have no interest in finding out the basis for these misleading statements.

There IS a basis for his statement here, to the extent that the 38% figure actually did reflect something although it was used in a misleading fashion. And there is a rebate proposal floating about - though it is not part of any ongoing plan that could even remotely be called welfare. Where Fairweather tried to argue here that payroll taxes are not income tax and people shouldn't get any return of these deductions he'll take the counter view tomorrow or the next day. And the rebates he complains of? They are a one-time thing that is proposed as an aid to this economic crisis and it is a rebate. I believe this means that you get refunded up to $1,000 toward taxes actually paid. It appears Fairweather is getting his information from bloggers or pundits who cast any Democrat sponsored tax relief as a socialist redistribution of wealth even if they might tomorrow (or yesterday) argue for the same thing and call it "simple fairness." You are right, though, that (as usual), when I asked him to clarify his statement he declined.

It is pretty sad that you would think the guy who has worked tirelessly and very successfully on humanitarian missions, conflict resolution and promoting fair elections around the world "takes the cake for worst ex-president."

Fairweather - First of all, I don't think the Obama plan involves a rebate, though I don't know all the details. Second of all, if the plan contains some sort of break in payroll taxes it is not tax relief but welfare? Are YOU serious? I don't know all the details but I don't see any basis for your statements here.

Fairweather, your source may be using fuzzy math. They pay payroll taxes even if no deduction is taken for "federal income tax." I'm not sure how Obama's proposal will apply to these people, but they DO pay taxes and thus COULD receive a reduction without receiving a cash grant or, as you put it, welfare.

Same here, except I have trust issues on #3. Same here.

Good luck with that, Prole. I doubt Obama is going to make any big moves in this direction and on a National level I doubt the Congressional Democrats will either. There may be districts where they think they are safe, but my guess is they won't want to get mired in this issue even if they believe it should be addressed. There's always hope, though.

In GW's case, it was to appoint agency heads who would do nothing to reduce the size of the agencies, but render them ineffective. I guess the end game is that we'll get so fed up with them that we'll be calling for closure of the EPA or FEMA etc. etc.

As I said, Curt, the DNR guy said that cost was a paramont concern and I believe it. However, I also think that public recreation was lower on the list of priorities than I would like. He was disdainful as to hikers, climbers, boaters, or anybody else who might want to access the area for recreational purposes. Seriously so.

Dane, I don't disagree with most of what you posted except for the last line: I've climbed with "pick up" partners all over the world and here on cc.com. I have not found a concentration of "bad" partners on the Internet. In fact, I have found ALL (100%) of my partners gained on the Internet to be AT LEAST as competent as they advertised before we actually met. Maybe I'm lucky, but I have done pretty good with pick up partners all over the world and better than "pretty good" on the Internet.

I agree, Bug, and I only hope that Obama can lead the Democrats to getting their heads out of their you know where's. They've forgotten that they actually had a platform and could actually stand for something ever since Gingrich kicked their butts.

If you think it is inevitable, what are we accomplishing by remaining there? The contractors are making a butt-load of money and if you are into corporate welfare that is a good thing, and maybe our oil companies will secure some deals that will survive a civil war. What else? Are you hoping we can help strenghten the "good guys" in Iraq so maybe they will be more likely to win the inevitable civil war?

I am guessing that we are likely to see some kind of civil war there whether we leave now or gradually withdraw. I think we may yet be able to avoid that, however, and that is why I'm not quite as adamant as I think Tvash is that we should leave today.

I wasn't implying that there would only be two choices. I was trying to flush out Bill's point a bit: ----- I don't think "impose" is too strong of a word. As I understand it, most Iraqi's want us to leave. The Iraqi government wants us to set a date when we will leave, though they don't want us out of there today. If we really wanted them to work it out "on their own," we'd leave. Neither present candidate is talking about it much but the military people have said that we in fact cannot maintain the level of deployment that we have at present. We WILL be witdrawing troops - at least to some extent. I suspect that you, I, MK Porwit, and Billcoe would largely agree about the considerations as to when and how fast that should take place (Tvash maybe not) but I bet we disagree more about the prognosis.

That is what I was asking. And I'd agree with you if I thought that there was any chance that we can actually get out of there "on a footing/premise that we'll never have to go back in again." By that I assume you mean that you would hope we can impose some kind of stability and a government at least half-way friendly toward our interests in the region though I realize you are critical of our having gone in out of "lust for oil." My own sense of it is that the war is a waste. Dollar for dollar, I'd rather see money wasted on infrastructure or social programs here at home than spending it on infrastructure and the big social program of trying to impose "democracy" and "stability" in Iraq.

What's up with the Republicans trying to steal the entire election. You down with that? The ranting and raving about Acorn is a cover up for purging voters from voter roles to suppress vote. Is anybody but me concerned about this? We've seen great efforts toward vote suppression undertaken in the last two presidential elections, and it looks as if it is continuing. Isn't purging voter roles far more likely to influence an election outcome than Acorn's registering Mickey Mouse or signing up the telephone book?