T1B

I flew a charter to DC yesterday morning and am flying another on Sunday for the big carnival that DC becomes every 4 years. Prior to leaving and at our stop in Memphis, these supporters were going on and on about what Obama will do for Americans in his first few months. One thing I heard at least 10 times was:

"Lowering Federal taxes for 95% of American working families."

So, while flying my FO and I talked about this and what it might mean for us. While waiting for the rest of their group in Memphis I ask one of the ladies about what she/Obama means by "working families." I ask why he just doesn't say 95% of American families. She goes into full campaign mode and says nothing for 3 minutes, then finishes by saying "rich folks like yourself won't see a tax cut, but most of us will." I bite my tounge and don't point out to a paying customer that there is no way in hell I can afford the charter cost of this flight like she can. Instead I say "well, I am no where near the top 5% of wage earners in the country so I should be included in his 95% of working families. She just smiled and said, "we will have to wait and see I guess."


So my question is, what does dude mean by "working families"? I certainly work hard. So does my wife. I dare say we work harder than many making minimum wage and we certainly work longer and take much more home with us. So just how badly are we "working Americans" going to be screwed by this language?

Further, outside of the obvious answer of politics, why is a tax cut a good idea now, and a horrible idea when Bush floated them?

The answer is POLITICS. The left is so good at finding buzzwords and phrases that the largely clueless like to hear.
A real tax break for all Americans would come with elimination or at least a reduction in capital gains and corporate taxes.
It boggles my mind how so many have no idea how those taxes affect the price of goods and serives that we all need and use. As mentioned-- it is just a way for the big spenders in DC to hide what we all pay.
Also-- I have first hand experience as to how the "estate" (death) taxes decimate the savings of some families. It would be nice to know that if you managed to leave a nice bit of money to your kids that those freaks in DC don't end up with half of it !

Wolfman wrote:The left is so good at finding buzzwords and phrases that the largely clueless like to hear.

You must be happy as a clam.

Wolfman wrote:It boggles my mind how so many have no idea how those taxes affect the price of goods and serives that we all need and use.

What boggles my mind is that someone as retarded as you was able to survive long enough to legally buy a drink, much less retire. I guess even Darwin found you too tedious to bother with.

Left Seater wrote:So my question is, what does dude mean by "working families"?

My presumption is that "working families" means those families for whom the head(s) of household work a job and file W2s every year. That to me is a "working family", not some distinction between those who have "made it" and those who have not done as well. In fact, simply by saying the words "95% of working families will not see a tax increase and most will receive a net tax CUT", Obama is indicating that he sees this issue in the terms I have described it.

I certainly work hard. So does my wife. I dare say we work harder than many making minimum wage and we certainly work longer and take much more home with us. So just how badly are we "working Americans" going to be screwed by this language?

If you make over 250k, you'll see an increase in taxes on your income over 250k.

Further, outside of the obvious answer of politics, why is a tax cut a good idea now, and a horrible idea when Bush floated them?

The Devil is in the details. I'm not about to spend my Friday afternoon writing an essay on macroeconomic theory. Just understand that there are those out there for whom the words "supply side" is a punch line and for whom cutting taxes on the wealthy via cuts in capital gains taxes, elimination of estate taxes etc... translates to class warfare.

Left Seater wrote: why is a tax cut a good idea now, and a horrible idea when Bush floated them?

Well, because Bush is... you know... EVIL INCARNATE

BSmack wrote:
My presumption is that "working families" means those families for whom the head(s) of household work a job and file W2s every year. That to me is a "working family", not some distinction between those who have "made it" and those who have not done as well. In fact, simply by saying the words "95% of working families will not see a tax increase and most will receive a net tax CUT", Obama is indicating that he sees this issue in the terms I have described it.

Good to hear that supporters don't see it as a distinction between those who have and those who don't. But then we get to your words about most will receive a net tax cut. Most, leads one to well more than half. If that is the case, how will we pay for all of these bailout packages, and Obama's .85 TRILLION plan?

BSmack wrote:If you make over 250k, you'll see an increase in taxes on your income over 250k.

Is this salary or AGI? Huge difference here.

BSmack wrote:The Devil is in the details. I'm not about to spend my Friday afternoon writing an essay on macroeconomic theory. Just understand that there are those out there for whom the words "supply side" is a punch line and for whom cutting taxes on the wealthy via cuts in capital gains taxes, elimination of estate taxes etc... translates to class warfare.

Clearly the Devil is in the details, hence my questions. Also, estate taxes are completely horrible. Taxing monies that have already been taxed is a fraud that has gone on for two long. Sadly, most Americans don't realize just how many people it hits. They sit back and say the "rich" don't need all that money anyway and kinda snicker. Then when Grandma dies and leaves them her house of 54 years, a few stocks, a retirement fund, and the death benefit of Grandpa's small life insurance policy, they are in shock. Estate taxes don't get the rich, they have the means to make sure. Estate taxes hit the lower end of the middle class and the poor. Sad, sad, reality.

Estate taxes don't get the rich, they have the means to make sure. Estate taxes hit the lower end of the middle class and the poor. Sad, sad, reality.

BINGO !!

You don't see say the Kennedy's suffer losses when any of them pass on. But my own father's life savings were sent to the IRS when he died to pay off his "death". Had he been able to stall it off a couple of years, the horrid Bush tax cuts for the rich would have sent that money to his Grandchildren instead of those wise guardians of money in congress !
Of course Barry O and Pelosi-Reid and Company think they have a better idea.

Wolfman wrote:Estate taxes don't get the rich, they have the means to make sure. Estate taxes hit the lower end of the middle class and the poor. Sad, sad, reality.

BINGO !!

You don't see say the Kennedy's suffer losses when any of them pass on. But my own father's life savings were sent to the IRS when he died to pay off his "death". Had he been able to stall it off a couple of years, the horrid Bush tax cuts for the rich would have sent that money to his Grandchildren instead of those wise guardians of money in congress !
Of course Barry O and Pelosi-Reid and Company think they have a better idea.

You are the dumbest motherfucker to ever slam his arthritic knuckles into a keyboard.

You can't be turned into Soylent Green fast enough.

Wolfman wrote:You don't see say the Kennedy's suffer losses when any of them pass on. But my own father's life savings were sent to the IRS when he died to pay off his "death". Had he been able to stall it off a couple of years, the horrid Bush tax cuts for the rich would have sent that money to his Grandchildren instead of those wise guardians of money in congress !

Your father died in the last ten years or so? Damn, he must have made the Guinness Book of World Records.

Either as the oldest living person ever, or the youngest person to become a parent.

sure nice to see that the libs have coherent articulate counters to your statement, wolfie.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Your father died in the last ten years or so? Damn, he must have made the Guinness Book of World Records.

Either as the oldest living person ever, or the youngest person to become a parent.

Don't you get it, Terry? Having kids at 14 gives you BODE in personal responsibility, a hallmark GOP taint ERRRR trait.

Martyred wrote: Soylent Green .

And to think people thought that movie was just too far fetched to ever be true.

Crazy Nancy has other plans- plans that make that movie look like a picnic

Cuda wrote:

Left Seater wrote: why is a tax cut a good idea now, and a horrible idea when Bush floated them?

Well, because Bush is... you know... EVIL INCARNATE

Wrong - that's Cheney. Thought you would have known this...

One more slip up like that coods, and your extra chromosome knuckledragger neocon membership will be revoked.

Wolfman wrote:Estate taxes don't get the rich, they have the means to make sure. Estate taxes hit the lower end of the middle class and the poor. Sad, sad, reality.

BINGO !!

This is a great example of hearing something without checking it out and then watching it snowball to utter bullshit proportions.

From Wiki:

For a person dying during 2006, 2007, or 2008, the "applicable exclusion amount" is $2,000,000, ($4,000,000 for couples) so if the sum of the taxable estate plus the "adjusted taxable gifts" made during lifetime equals $2,000,000 or less, there is no federal estate tax to pay. According to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the applicable exclusion will increase to $3,500,000 in 2009, the estate tax is repealed in 2010, but then the act "sunsets" in 2011 and the estate tax reappears with an applicable exclusion amount of only $1,000,000 (unless Congress acts before then).

So unless Wolfie knows a whole lot of people leaving 2M+ estates that he considers low and middle class it's a rubbish statement.

Furthermore, you can "gift" up to $12,000 per year to kids, grandkids, whoever that are also not taxed -

There's further sheltering that can be done with proper estate planning

ummm--the law/regulation you are quoting is the one passed through Congress that was proposed by none other than President GW Bush and the vast right wing conspiracy. FYI--my Dad died in 2000 and his estate was indeed raped by the existing law/regulation that will be back in place when it expires-- unless Barry O. and Pelosi/Reid decide to keep it intact---fat chance.

KC Scott wrote:

Wolfman wrote:Estate taxes don't get the rich, they have the means to make sure. Estate taxes hit the lower end of the middle class and the poor. Sad, sad, reality.

BINGO !!

This is a great example of hearing something without checking it out and then watching it snowball to utter bullshit proportions.

From Wiki:

For a person dying during 2006, 2007, or 2008, the "applicable exclusion amount" is $2,000,000, ($4,000,000 for couples) so if the sum of the taxable estate plus the "adjusted taxable gifts" made during lifetime equals $2,000,000 or less, there is no federal estate tax to pay. According to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the applicable exclusion will increase to $3,500,000 in 2009, the estate tax is repealed in 2010, but then the act "sunsets" in 2011 and the estate tax reappears with an applicable exclusion amount of only $1,000,000 (unless Congress acts before then).

So unless Wolfie knows a whole lot of people leaving 2M+ estates that he considers low and middle class it's a rubbish statement.

Furthermore, you can "gift" up to $12,000 per year to kids, grandkids, whoever that are also not taxed -

There's further sheltering that can be done with proper estate planning

So what if all this is true. Estate taxes are still straight up theivery. They should go away, period. Should someone with a business valued in this range have to worry about it being sold off because the gubmint decided they owned a third of it? And save the bit about there being ways to side step it. Citizens shouldn't need to hire accountants and lawyers to keep uncle sugar's greedy hands off their property.

smackaholic wrote: So what if all this is true. Estate taxes are still straight up theivery. They should go away, period. Should someone with a business valued in this range have to worry about it being sold off because the gubmint decided they owned a third of it? And save the bit about there being ways to side step it. Citizens shouldn't need to hire accountants and lawyers to keep uncle sugar's greedy hands off their property.

That wasn't the basis of what was said - which was "the poor and middle class would be raped by the estate tax"

As for the debate - I can see it from both sides - should wealth be earned or just given is the argument for.
The argument against is - It's mine, I earned it I paid taxes (presumably) and it should be free to go wherever I want - is the opposite side.

The real question is if we want lower income tax, repeal of the estate tax, lower Corporate taxes and lower sales taxes then how exactly do we pay for the Highways, Schools, millitary, etc?

Our per capita personal tax rate is pretty low compared to ROW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incom ... ountry.svg

So the question becomes how exactly do we finance the country?

First off, gubmint needs to get the fukk out of much of what they spend on. Next, we need to simplify the tax system. I would go with a simple consumption tax. No income tax. No corporate tax.

Trouble is, there are countless leeches in the current system that would have to find honest productive work if we did this, so ti will never happen.

KC Scott wrote:

The real question is if we want lower income tax, repeal of the estate tax, lower Corporate taxes and lower sales taxes then how exactly do we pay for the Highways, Schools, millitary, etc?

So the question becomes how exactly do we finance the country?

Easy. Highways should get all of the federal gas tax, instead of some of it being used for other projects. Schools should be financed by local taxes, and the military on our reduced income tax.

Scott wrote:The real question is if we want lower income tax, repeal of the estate tax, lower Corporate taxes and lower sales taxes then how exactly do we pay for the Highways, Schools, millitary, etc?

Cliff Notes answer is that you follow the Constitution.


You boot illegals out of the country.
You stop to welfare/deadbeat state.
You stop the insanity of our military being all over the globe, and you bring most all of 'em home.

Do those three things and check back on what our budget looks like.

smackaholic wrote:First off, gubmint needs to get the fukk out of much of what they spend on. Next, we need to simplify the tax system. I would go with a simple consumption tax. No income tax. No corporate tax.

Trouble is, there are countless leeches in the current system that would have to find honest productive work if we did this, so ti will never happen.

Yea, the National Sales Tax is a great idea until you consider what would spring out of it - reduced consumption and black market.
There's no way it works - enforcement would require an army of IRS agents

As for spending here's the 2007 Federal Budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._ ... Y_2007.png

Looks like 42% is entitlement programs - although since we did contribute to the system, we are entitled to it I guess.
I'm pretty sure that 9% interest is going up too

Left Seater wrote: Easy. Highways should get all of the federal gas tax, instead of some of it being used for other projects. Schools should be financed by local taxes, and the military on our reduced income tax.

Social Security? Medicare? ......... FAA?

There's earmarks and pork that can be cut, but I'm thinking as bad as a shape as some states are in there's no way some of these school districts survive without Federal Funding - what do you do with those kids?

poptart wrote:
You boot illegals out of the country.
You stop to welfare/deadbeat state.
You stop the insanity of our military being all over the globe, and you bring most all of 'em home.

Do those three things and check back on what our budget looks like.

OK - you figured out a way to boot out the illegals and still get the lettuce picked yet Dave?
Better idea? Make 'em pay fucking taxes which is what they will gladly do if we let 'em pick the lettuce.
Or maybe youre OK with paying $6.00 a head for the lettuce, then you can scream about the high cost of food.

Next is the great myth that a huge chuck of our Federal budget is handed out in Welfare.
Here's another chart: http://www.federalbudget.com/

The actuality of it is the states give out the food Stamps, Wick and other such programs.
The Federal welfare is Social Security, Medicare, Vet benefits - is that what you want to cut?
Go stand in line to Fight Wolfie then

And yea, we wasted a shitload of money on a War in Iraq - and looks like the new administration is planning to pull them out - so you get your wish there. We'll see how much that drops military spending on the next budget.

You boot illegals out of the country.

That ain't gonna be cheap. Plus, let's face it...they represent cheap, willing labor...something that many employers will find hard to replace.

You stop to welfare/deadbeat state.

Hey, we needed those bailouts.

You stop the insanity of our military being all over the globe, and you bring most all of 'em home.

I'd like to see that...but if we isolate ourselves, i's gonna be hard to secure access to resources in the ways that we do.

Scott, you asked me two direct questions.

I'll give my answers and then comment ... just a bit.


1. OK - you figured out a way to boot out the illegals and still get the lettuce picked yet Dave?

Answer: The lettuce will get picked by CITIZENS ... IF, you eliminate - illegals- and -welfare for deadbeats- from the equation.

Deadbeats either a) pick lettuce, or b) die

Guess which one they'll choose?

I've seen the "poor" people in America, and they are ... FAT.
And many/most of them have color TV, DVD players, AC, and a refrig ... with grub in it.
... and beer.

I've seen the poor people in S. Korea and they are ... POOR.

The fed gov can cook the books however they want to try to make it look like it ain't that bad, but the illegals and the welfare state are milking the living fuck out of the taxpayer.

They are NOT assets.

If you run a business, what do you do with things that are not assets?



2. The actuality of it is the states give out the food Stamps, Wick and other such programs.
The Federal welfare is Social Security, Medicare, Vet benefits - is that what you want to cut?

Answer: The overwhelming majority of "entitlement" programs are NOT authorized to be handled by the federal government ... according to the Constitution.
Bush had it right, of course, with his effort to privatize SS.
Everything the fed government gets it's hands on turns into a giant phallus going up the taxpaying citizens @sshole.



America need to wakey wakey and follow the Constitution.
The law of the land.
Doing so would right most of the wrongs that have grown so pronounced by now that they SERIOUSLY threaten to take this country down.

Peter Schiff had it DEAD SOLID PERFECT when he said that America has dug itself into a hole and it needs to GET BACK TO WORK.
It's that simple.
Both individually and as a whole, America needs to stop borrowing, WORK, and start saving.

Americans are fat and spoiled, bottom line.

poptart wrote: The fed gov can cook the books however they want to try to make it look like it ain't that bad, but the illegals and the welfare state are milking the living fuck out of the taxpayer.

Dave - it's like you just ignored the fact and went back to sermonizing. The discussion was Federal Govt. Taxes and I've already shown the "Welfare" rail is a state issue and note Federal. is there Abuse of the system of a State level - Hell yea, but aid programs have been cut way back. Did you know a lot of the families on the WIC program are working? They just can't afford on minimum wage to feed their kids and pay the bills. And knowing your pronounced "Sanctitiy of Life" Stance, it's hipocritical as hell to say let those kids starve.

Answer: The overwhelming majority of "entitlement" programs are NOT authorized to be handled by the federal government ... according to the Constitution. Bush had it right, of course, with his effort to privatize SS.

Authorized or not 42% of he budget is allocated to SS and Medicare. So what are you proposing?
Bush tried to privatize it - but where do you think that money would be if Wall Street had gotten it?
And what about Mediicare?
Should we just default on both programs and say fuck you seniors - thanks for paying in but you're fucked now?

Maybe you're seeing there's no easy answers, it's all a balancing act.

Peter Schiff had it DEAD SOLID PERFECT when he said that America has dug itself into a hole and it needs to GET BACK TO WORK.
It's that simple.
Both individually and as a whole, America needs to stop borrowing, WORK, and start saving.

Get back to work is a great idea - what is it exactly you think we offer as a global export anymore?
We're not a manufacturing economy - it's done much cheaper and in some cases better overseas.

Even while collar services that require brains are moving beacuse other countries have seized on eductaion (India for example) -
My wife is a recruiter and sees double majors with 3.5 GPA that held down two jobs to get though school competing with US kids with 2.7 who just glided through beacuse it was a 5 year party.

You're spot on with this:

Americans are fat and spoiled, bottom line.

You should have added Lazy - and until the cold reality hits that just beacuse you're a citizen here you're entitiled to a job and the American Dream doesn't mean it gets handed to you.

poptart wrote:The fed gov can cook the books however they want to try to make it look like it ain't that bad, but the illegals and the welfare state are milking the living fuck out of the taxpayer.

What percentage of fines issued by the feds to corporations have been collected?

TIA

KC Scott wrote: Get back to work is a great idea - what is it exactly you think we offer as a global export anymore?

Oh, about $900 billion dollars worth of products a year ranging from semi-conductors to weapons to fertilizer and thousands of others. We've had this discussion before.

We're not a manufacturing economy...

Bullshit.

The U.S. economy is still the worlds largest with almost a $13 trillion GDP, a large chunk of that coming from mfg. Just because you work in the service industry, don't assume that others don't earn a paycheck actually producing things.

I work for a small company employing around 200 workers that exported over $40 million worth of concrete forming products to Mexico and South America last year. Don't tell those welders and machine operators (most of whom are now laid off) that we're not a manufacturing economy and don't have anything to export.. We make the best forming equipment systems in the world.

You're spot on with this:

Americans are fat and spoiled, bottom line.

You should have added Lazy - and until the cold reality hits that just beacuse you're a citizen here you're entitiled to a job and the American Dream doesn't mean it gets handed to you.

What a crock of shit.

Nice generalization there and it couldn't be any further from the truth. I'm neither fat, lazy, or entitled and neither are most of the folks I work with. We earn our paychecks with a thing called "sweat equity". I doubt we're unique to most other Americans in that regard.

Scott wrote:Dave - it's like you just ignored the fact and went back to sermonizing. The discussion was Federal Govt. Taxes and I've already shown the "Welfare" rail is a state issue and note Federal.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002.


What do you think that figure is by now, in 2009?
What do you think it will be in the future ... when the "amnesty" nonsense is jammed down our throat?

Hell yea, but aid programs have been cut way back. Did you know a lot of the families on the WIC program are working? They just can't afford on minimum wage to feed their kids and pay the bills. And knowing your pronounced "Sanctitiy of Life" Stance, it's hipocritical as hell to say let those kids starve.

It's bizzare that you bring abortion into the discussion.

Look, starving kids will NEVER be good or right.
You can wring your hands over it all you want, but if you SUBSIDIZE something, you only get MORE OF IT.

Where in our Constitution does it require Joe Upright Citizen to pay for Joe Dipshit's 5 kids?

Oh that's right, it doesn't.


I am ALL for PRIVATE charity organizations doing good work for society.

Definitely IN.

Definitely NOT IN for STEALING from taxpayers in order to pay for another @sshat citizen's (or NON-citizen lol) shit decisions.

poptart wrote: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

What do you think it will be in the future ... when the "amnesty" nonsense is jammed down our throat?

Very good article - And if you'd read it all you'd see that they would increase tax base if granted amnesty, but would also be able to access more Government programs. Net is still a deficit.

But now go back to the Lettuce example I gave earlier - Who is going to do the work for $4 an hour?
Your answer of making the welfare class go to the fields makes for good sound bite but it's not reality.
The majority of the poor on public aid are Women / Children / disabled - not able bodied men - they're living under bridges instead

It's bizzare that you bring abortion into the discussion

No it's not - it's just your dogma that blocks you from connecting the two.
I'd much rather children not be born at all, as oppossed to a life of abject poverty or worse.
You're cult however has mindwashed you into believing they must be born - but after that you're attitude is "fuck 'em - not my problem"

Were I Supreme Leader, I'd make Norplant, Sterlization or Vasectomy Mandatory for anyone asking for Govt. Aid - but that would trample all over that Constitution thingy - But hey, it's just one less problem to deal with.

Look, starving kids will NEVER be good or right.

I think we'd all Agree - but yet you offer No solution only a restatement of the obvious....

You can wring your hands over it all you want, but if you SUBSIDIZE something, you only get MORE OF IT.

Hence Termination or Prevention of any unwanted Pregnancy

I am ALL for PRIVATE charity organizations doing good work for society.

Definitely IN.

Yes you are - Albeit your doing that work NOT in the USA - hmmmmm........

It's too bad your Cult puts memebership recruitment abroad above helping the less fortunate of your own country.

But I guess it's all in your priorities.

Scott wrote:No it's not - it's just your dogma that blocks you from connecting the two.
I'd much rather children not be born at all, as oppossed to a life of abject poverty or worse.
You're cult however has mindwashed you into believing they must be born - but after that you're attitude is "fuck 'em - not my problem"

My "attitude" is that it isn't the government's duty to take care of the poor.

I'm not a socialist.

As I stated, I AM in favor of private charity organizations doing their work with PRIVATE (not forced) donations.

This is the American way, according to our Constitution, and it is a very far cry for the "fuck 'em" attitude you attributed to me.

When a child is aborted he is denied his basic right to life under the Constitution.

The Constitution does not grant people (children) the right not to grow up in poverty.


Btw, I'm not doing charity work in Korea.

KC Scott wrote: Were I Supreme Leader, I'd make Norplant, Sterlization or Vasectomy Mandatory for anyone asking for Govt. Aid - but that would trample all over that Constitution thingy - But hey, it's just one less problem to deal with.

bullshit. It would not trample on the constitution. It would simply be a case of the gubmint saying, "since you can't take care of the chillins you got, we want to ensure you don't hatch new ones while someone else is supporting your ass".

smackaholic wrote:

KC Scott wrote: Were I Supreme Leader, I'd make Norplant, Sterlization or Vasectomy Mandatory for anyone asking for Govt. Aid - but that would trample all over that Constitution thingy - But hey, it's just one less problem to deal with.

bullshit. It would not trample on the constitution. It would simply be a case of the gubmint saying, "since you can't take care of the chillins you got, we want to ensure you don't hatch new ones while someone else is supporting your ass".

So I can count on your vote then?

You'd really Jam on my solution for the Wars on Drugs

Great.

We've got both 'tart and Scott blowing smoke up each others skirt, and neither having a clue.

You're both worthless as teats on a boar hog.

mvscal wrote:

KC Scott wrote:

poptart wrote: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

What do you think it will be in the future ... when the "amnesty" nonsense is jammed down our throat?

Very good article - And if you'd read it all you'd see that they would increase tax base if granted amnesty,

Are you insane or just dumb as motherfucking dirt?

How come you didn't copy the full sentence?

And if you'd read it all you'd see that they would increase tax base if granted amnesty, but would also be able to access more Government programs. Net is still a deficit.

Here's the full paragraph from the article:

Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.

As for the options given, I'll take insanity any day

Man, after all these years, I shouldn't be shocked at the level of ignorant dumbfuckery on display here... but I am.


Hello? Are all of you fucking retarded (or at least the Obominations)?

Does the phrase "trillions in deficit spending" mean anything to you?

Hello?


Fucking idiots...


Uhm... printing up/borrowing nonexistant money creates inflation (which is the fed's goal, dumbasses).

Here's some really basic shit for you tards -- inflation is a universal tax. æffects corporations, heads of household, unemployed people, welfare recipients, and even children.

EVERYONE'S taxes are going up, dumbasses... regardless how you've been duped by a cooking-of-the-books.


I truly am shocked at the gullibility here... just jaw-dropping ignorance.

But maybe, just maybe the light will come on someday, and instead of all of your childish finger-pointing, just maybe there might be some unity, and the collective will wake up and say "damn, we ALL got screwed"...


But I doubt it.

War Wagon wrote:
Bullshit.

I work for a small company employing around 200 workers that exported over $40 million worth of concrete forming products to Mexico and South America last year. Don't tell those welders and machine operators (most of whom are now laid off) that we're not a manufacturing economy and don't have anything to export.. We make the best forming equipment systems in the world.

Well....when we are actually working and making the forming equipment..right now we are all laid off and drawing lucky bucks, and spending it all on cheap beer and meth whilst bitching that we are STILL ARE a manufacturing economy...and if you say we are not, we'll just kick your fucking ass when YOU get off WORK.

Sincerely,


Wags home boy's that are never seeing the inside of that manufacturing plant ever again.

Dinsdale wrote:Here's some really basic shit for you tards -- inflation is a universal tax. æffects corporations, heads of household, unemployed people, welfare recipients, and even children.

EVERYONE'S taxes are going up, dumbasses... regardless how you've been duped by a cooking-of-the-books.

Exactly.

It is absolutely stunning that people were actually JOYFUL about voting for Obama ... or McCain.

Do you have any idea what will be happening to the value of our currency with 70 Billion new pieces of ... paper ... dropped in?

Dumbfucks much?

Not to mention that the financial institutes receiving YOUR money don't even intend to disclose HOW the money is being used.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD957NEHO0


"We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,'" said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?

None of the banks provided specific answers.


Both B.O. and McFlame pushed this bailout down the throats of the taxpayer, despite the taxpayer being OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST it.

Yes WE can?

bwaaaa ...


B.O. will jam the amnesty bullsheet down the throat of the taxpayer, again, DESPITE the fact that taxpaying citizens being OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST IT.

Yes WE can??

bwaaaa ....


WE the people ...

WE???

bwaaaa ....




O baaaaa ma ...O baaaaa ma ... O baaaaa ma ...
O baaaaa ma ... O baaaaa ma ... O baaaaa ma ...
O baaaaa ma ... O baaaaa ma ... O baaaaa ma ...
O baaaaa ma ... O baaaaa ma ... O baaaaa ma ...





Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ...