Do us all a favor. Go look up the definitions of tax cut
Posted By: and tax credit. Apples and oranges...sm on 2008-10-31
In Reply to: You show me anywhere where he said... - sam
The only way anybody gets money back more than what they pay in is if they earn very low wages and have many children. The income bracket they are in refunds all revenues back to them that they paid in. In addition, they get a tax CREDIT only if they qualify for earned income tax credit or child tax credit. For example, lowest bracket tops out at $7825. Their tax rate is 10%. Whatever they have paid in over $782.50, they get back and ONLY what they have paid over that amount, because this is based on the tax rate. They get more back only if they have qualified for EIC or CTC.
It you get a tax rate cut, you cannot benefit from it if you do not earn wages. These guys also will not get any additional refundable tax CREDIT as that is paid against tax liabilty. If you take issue with this, show me how I am wrong here.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Definitions....see inside
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative
http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal
There's much more. Just Google for different sites for unbiased definitions. Go to reliable sources, not opinions of the other side, to see definitions.
Then decide for yourself.
learn the definitions
Since you apparently don't think you're paying enough in taxes, here's an idea. Instead of my paying even more in taxes, why not have you go ahead and do it? You seem to think that gov't can run your life better than you can and that you would obviously make wrong/poor decisions otherwise.
Look up the words in the dictionary. Donald Trump said the same thing last PM on Greta about taxing us even more, and how it'd ruin things even more.
Just take the cash out of your wallet and hand it over to those who can make it just fine w/o living under socialism. Your naivity is just scary.
Economic definitions.............
Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
Depression is when you lose yours.
Recovery is when Obama loses his.
Look LVMT, you look up all the little definitions you want. You are still wrong. sm
Very very wrong. Christopher Hitchens is hardly a neoconservative. Neither am I and neither are most of the other conservative posters here.
Oh please humor me. Have you pieced together some definitions?
x
Has nothing to do with "humoring you" or "my" definitions.
It's important for you to discover the complexities for yourself (Google is all you need), and "my" definitions don't matter unless I am the one doing the analysis.
But I'll start the ball rolling.
1. "Prenatal care" starting at what point in the gestation (1st trimester? 2nd? etc.)?
2. Involving what different features or services?
3. Does the study adequately filter out other coincidental factors that tend to characterize some populations that do not receive prenatal care, but which also might impact infant survival, such as poor nutrition, smoking, alcohol and drug use, squalid living conditions and even low educational levels?
4. What time period after delivery will be used to define a relevant "infant death"?
5. What causes of infant demise will be considered relevant to the question?
6. Will all "modes" of delivery be included?
7. Will "high-risk" pregnancies be included or excluded?
8. Will premature deliveries be included or excluded?
The list of problems that have been identified in the design of studies that look very scientific and conclusive, and have been published in respected journals, has proven to be considerable.
Some have tried to get around these problems using a technique called "meta-analysis", which tries to reconcile and synthesize the findings from multiple studies, but this hasn't been very successful either.
The problems worsen when you simply use empirical evidence - say, by comparing birth/mortality rates in different countries with different "levels" of prenatal care. One study "showed" that the mortality rate in the US was higher than that in one of the Baltic states (I've forgotten now which one), but failed to take into account that in the US we try to deliver and save infants who are much more premature than they try to salvage in the other country - so naturally, our "failure" rate would look worse.
The other problem is really more or less endemic. "Prenatal care", however defined, will represent some set of services and characteristics. We may assume that all of them do not contribute equally (and some, perhaps not at all) to infant survival. This means that even if you can resolve all of the study design problems and show that prenatal care contributes to survival, you haven't said very much that's useful. It might be, for instance, that a simple regimen of multiple vitamins has as much impact on survival as all of the other factors combined. If so, have we presented a case for purchasing "prenatal care" as a constellation of services (from the standpoint of healthcare economics), or should we focus on finding ways to see that pregnant women get the multiple vitamins?
When we see "studies" of complex issues - especially those involving an interplay between myriad scientific and social or cultural factors - we should always put on the brakes and find out more about how the study was done, what assumptions it made, and keep a sharp eye out for flaws in the design of the study (which, I am sad to say, crop up more frequently than you might suspect), even or perhaps especially in the field of medicine. People who study things do have agendas, and sometimes the agenda amounts to grants of $millions in research funds, or sponsorship of the study by an organization that has a "mission", etc. A lot of what masquerades as "scientific proof" in the field of medicine, unfortunately, is nothing of the sort. Let's see now - are eggs good for us or bad for us?
I guess our definitions of a Patriot differs
and I guess that's okay, but the truth will come out in the wash, eventually. All the media filters in the world will not keep the truth coming from coming out eventually, and we may all be surprised at what the truth actually is which may be drastically different than either one of our points of view.
Do yourself a favor
don't ever get a job as a seer...because you're totally off base with your analogy.
All in favor, say "I"
Give it a rest. We got more important fish to fry.
I'm just more likely to get upset when it's not in my favor :)...sm
If it's not an honest mistake, it's shameful either way.
Who all is in favor of a polygraph?
I personally think that all candidates should be subjected to a polygraph. This way we won't have to dig through all the BS all the politicians give us and we know whether they are lying or not. LOL! Kind of like our own political BS detector.
Is anyone actually in favor of the bail out?
I personally think that we should just let the banks fail and not save their greedy banker butts. It seems like that's the way a lot of other people feel too. I haven't heard one person say let's save their greedy banker butts. However, I'm pretty sure that congress will bail them out. If I could vote on this, I would definitely say no, no matter what consequence to myself (drop in stock, retirement and possibly the value of my home, no loan for college next semester).
Are there any average Americans out there that are for this?
I'm in favor of choice
So, yes, I want the deck stacked on my side, lol! If you aren't in favor of an abortion, then please don't have one. You can make that choice all by yourself.
Well, I'm not in favor of bailing out
people who bit off more mortgage than they can chew. Assuming they could read, they should have read the fine print. If they agreed to buy a house for a price, then they owe that amount of money plus interest. That's the way it's always been. I think the governmennt is focusing on these "bad loans" to take the spotlight off the real people...those who bought a house they could afford, have made their payments and now many are faced with losing their homes because of losing their jobs. Those are the ones who get my sympathy.
So you're in favor of this?
You actually think that this bloated thing they're calling a stimulus plan ought to be passed in the House version? Do you really believe that this is the time and place to push through every piece of pork and catering to special interest groups and call it stimulus? Why not just call it the liberal Democrat wish list and let it go as that? This not the time to cater to special interests when our country is sinking economically. I had every hope that Obama would come up with a legitimate stimulus plan, but this is a tragic joke.
He does favor sex education for kindergartners...
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."
My question is, what part of sex education is age-appropriate for a 5-year-old? Can't we just let them be kids? Sigh.
And if the lipstick pig thing is a joke...it is in poor taste. In all honesty, I don't believe he actually meant to compare Sarah Palin to a pig. However, it was a poor choice of words. And if you look at the crowd he was talking to, THEY thought he was talking about Sarah Palin. That is why they stood up and had a big laugh over it.
In politics, sadly, perception is everything...and most people perceive he was taking a low blow shot at Palin.
I would favor a federal sales tax if
there were no exemptions whatsoever. If, say you earned a dollar, you owed a dime. No exceptions regarding where the money comes from. Tax welfare benefits too. Social Security is already taxed for some recipients. Those of us who receive Social Security and have enough income to pay taxes on 85% (maximum) of it ALL had the opportunity for a better life. Some took advantage of that and some didn't. Young people today have little hope of receiving Social Security and they also have little hope of being able to live while saving for their future.
In my usual long-winded way, t hat's what I think.
I am not in favor of a federal sales tax....
as much as I am in favor of a flat percentage income tax. For the sake of argument...let's say 10%. No deductions, no nothing. Flat 10%. I don't care if you make a dollar or 10 million dollars. Everyone pays the same amount. Cut back the IRS because if you pay a flat tax you don't need them and the incessant forms and reams of laws. Cutting back on the IRS would save millions in and of itself. Then every American pays the same tax. THAT is equality. Everyone gets the same shake. You make less, you pay less. You make more, you pay more. They should also abolish the death tax. IF the feds have already taxed all your money, they should not tax it AGAIN just because you die. That is unfair to the heirs you worked to provide for. Just my opinion.
DO OUR COUNTRY A FAVOR, show the BC!!!
A ? for those in favor of national healthcare
What is your rationale for wanting government in charge of your healthcare? You have to know that if this happens, healthcare in this country IS going to be rationed, the same as it's been rationed in Great Britain, Sweden, and Canada. There will be long waits for procedures that we now take for granted being done in a very short time. I know Obama promised the same healthcare as he now has in the senate...do you believe him?
Doesn't look like ALL the people are in favor of it. sm
Not even all Dems support it and looks like their support is dropping as well.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.
Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.
Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37
Total climbing in favor of impeachment sm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
The bully thing would argue in favor of
nm
Bottom line...are you in favor of infanticide? nm
nm
Oh well. Looks like libs have fallen back into favor.
is how we stage our revolutions. This one is long overdue and while lamenting this cruel turn of events, you might want to ask yourself why all this is happening. Could it be that W, his cronies and right-wing fringers have overplayed their hand and the voters are fed up with lies, deception, misinformation, politics of fear, division and the culture war, and yet the McCain camp keeps right on keepin' on. When you do a poor job, you get fired. That's the way it works. Change is what they want and change is what they are going to get. We are getting ready to write a new chapter in our history that will move us far beyond that mentality and will thrust us onto the threshold of the post post-911 era. I can't wait to get started and thank God I have managed to live long enough to watch it all unfold.
I am not in favor of the financial institution bailout either..... sm
I think it was just the first in a long line of folks parading to the White House with their hands out. I think we have opened a huge can of worms by bailing them out and there does not seem to be an end in sight.
I'd sure like to know when MTs are going to get their bailout! I'd probably get in line for that one! LOL
Undecided voter score of 98% in favor of
x
One more reason why I favor federal sales tax....sm
Our retirees are being taxed on money on which they have already paid taxes.
And yes, there should be no exemptions. People are going to buy cars, appliances, take vacations, remodel their homes, etc., so the federal sales tax should apply to everything. Food.....I'm still not too sure about that as I believe that food is a basic necessity of life.
The conservative way....but that's fallen out of favor this cycle....you'd all rather pay out
EPA slants analysis to favor Bush's agenda
Report Accuses EPA of Slanting Analysis
Hill
Researchers Say Agency Fixed Pollution Study to Favor Bush's 'Clear
Skies'
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday,
December 3, 2005; A08
The Bush administration skewed its analysis of pending legislation on air
pollution to favor its bill over two competing proposals, according to a new
report by the Congressional Research Service.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Oct. 27 analysis of its plan -- along
with those of Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) --
exaggerated the costs and underestimated the benefits of imposing more stringent
pollution curbs, the independent, nonpartisan congressional researchers wrote in
a Nov. 23 report. The EPA issued its analysis -- which Carper had demanded this
spring, threatening to hold up the nomination of EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson -- in part to revive its proposal, which is stalled in the Senate.
The administration's Clear Skies legislation aims to achieve a 70 percent cut
in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide after 2018, while Carper's and
Jeffords's bills demand steeper and faster cuts and would also reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, which are linked to global warming. The Bush plan would also
cut emissions of neurotoxic mercury by 70 percent, while Jeffords's bill reduces
them by 90 percent.
Although it represents a step toward understanding the impacts of legislative
options, EPA's analysis is not as useful as one could hope, the Research Service
report said. The result is an analysis that some will argue is no longer
sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantially to congressional debate.
The congressional report, which was not commissioned by a lawmaker as is
customary, said the EPA analysis boosted its own proposal by overestimating the
cost of controlling mercury and playing down the economic benefits of reducing
premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.
EPA estimated the administration's plan would cost coal-fired power plants as
much as $6 billion annually, compared with up to $10 billion in Carper's measure
and as much as $51 billion for Jeffords's. It calculated that Bush's proposal
would produce $143 billion a year in health benefits while Carper's would
generate $161 billion and Jeffords would yield $211 billion. Carper's measure
would achieve most of its reductions by 2013, while Jeffords's bill would enact
even more ambitious pollution cuts by 2010.
EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency based its cost estimates on
mercury controls by gathering comments from boilermaker workers, power companies
and emission control companies, whereas the Research Service used a single study
to reach its conclusions on mercury.
Clear Skies delivers dramatic health benefits across the nation without
raising energy costs and does it with certainty and simplicity, instead of
regulation and litigation, Witcher said. Because of our commitment to see this
become a reality, EPA went above and beyond to provide the most comprehensive
legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency, so it does a real
disservice to this discussion to have a report that largely ignores and
misinterprets our analysis.
But aides to Carper and Jeffords said they felt vindicated by the
congressional study.
The CRS report backs up a lot of what we initially said about EPA's latest
analysis, that it overstated the costs of controlling mercury and understated
the overall health benefits of Senator Carper's legislation, said Carper
spokesman Bill Ghent. The report clearly states that there's no reason to settle
for the president's Clear Skies plan because the legislation doesn't clean the
air much better than current law.
© 2005 The Washington Post
Company
Iraqi Soldiers Speak Out in Favor of Murtha
On January 5, 2006, Congressman Murtha held a town hall meeting with Cong. Jim Moran (D-VA 08).
The soldier who asked the first question served in Afghanistan and said that morale among troops is high and that he would gladly serve in Iraq today. His comment was the only one replayed by Fox News the next day.
But the majority of soldiers in attendance spoke out against the current policy. Fox News did not broadcast their remarks.
Here are some excerpts.
John Brumes, Infantry Sgt. US Army:
Everything that the Bush Adminstration told us about that mission in Iraq is absolutely incorrect. Furthermore, I'd like to say ... I came home to no job, no health insurance. Until we take care of this war, we can't take care of the problems that matter like health care.
I've witnessed both ends... Congressman Murtha, I implore you to keep doing what you're doing.
John Powers, Capt. 1st Armored Division, served 12 months in Iraq:
The thing that hits me the most is the accountability. ... Where is the accountability for those men [who took us to war], as well as where is the accountability for Paul Bremmer, who misplaced millions of dollars and claims to keep accountability in the war zone?... I know that if we lost $500 we would be court marshaled. So where is the accountability for this leadership?
Garin Reppenhagen, served as a sniper in Iraq for a year in the First Infantry Division:
My question is also about accountability. The soldiers that you see, Congressman Murtha, at the hospitals... those are my friends. After coming back, being a veteran, my question is why? Why did we go to this war, why the hell did it happen, why are we in this condition. A lot of soldiers are debating whether this war was fraudulent to begin with. And there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. A lot of Americans now are debating the fact over whether or not the war was fraudulent in the first place. How come there hasn't been an investigation on the fraudulent lead up to the war by this Administration?
C-SPAN has the full broadcast here.
Poll MSNBC 87% in favor of impeachment for Bush.sm
Really popular guy - 283,513 polled 87% said yes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
Obama has already said he is in favor of draft - see link inside
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s13_prn.shtml
So you favor the choice to deny a living child...
independent of the mother...who manages to survive an abortion...medical care that it needs to survive. You condone infanticide.
So your in favor of a creep who tazered a child to be allowed
She put a stop to this creep being able to abuse his position as a cop who tazered a 10-year old child and put fear into a family with death threats.
She had the proper and legal authority to fire him. She should have also fired the person who didn't fire him.
If you think its okay to let thugs run around the streets in cop uniforms yielding badges and guns tazering children and threatening death to people your a real piece of work.
The liberal media is biased in favor of Obama.....
Half this country believe in this so called savior, and I hold the media 90% responsible, and the ill-informed people will and are following blindly.
God help us.
I would favor community service. We are talking about military (sm)
x
19 Republicans vote in favor of amnesty for those who kill our soldiers.
In the Senate today, 19 Senators voted that it was okay for the Iraqi government to give amnesty to anyone known to have attacked, killed or injured American soldiers, and every single one of them was a Republican. I guess this is an example of how Republicans *support* the troops. The only one that truly surprises me is McCain. He must have lost his mind since he began pandering to those who believe they are Bush's *base.*
Vote Summary:
Question: On the Amendment (Nelson (FL) Amdt. No. 4265 )
Vote Number: 178 Vote Date: June 20, 2006, 03:27 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number:S.Amdt. 4265 to S. 2766 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 )
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Vote Counts: YEAs 79
NAYs: 19
Not Voting: 2
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped By Vote Position
NAYs ---19
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Warner (R-VA)
Not Voting--- 2
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Shelby (R-AL)
YEAs ---79
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/20/19-gop-senators-vote-agai_n_23445.html
Republicans favor giving poor families subsidies to afford private schools. Obama opposed.
Yet Obama sends his daughters to a private school, 29,000 for EACH KID. Hypocrisy, here we come. Geesh, not even in office yet.
|
