Well sure, look at the source of her income or
Posted By: questionable sources herself......nm on 2008-10-22
In Reply to: HC's campaign debt would suggest that - she pays for her own clothes.
!!
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
Check out his income tax returns. Bulk of his income
royalties he gets from his books, which are selling like hotcakes. Besides, he gets to spend his own salary, yes? Your second paragraph is incoherent and inaccurate. McC's age is an issue NOT because of his "image", but rather because of his ill-advised VP pick and the truly TERRIFYING idea that SP could ever get that close to the oval office. SP's beauty pageant competitions have little to do with image either, rather with perceptions. Your parting shot is ridiculous. Obama gives twice the average American to charity and his jet is something his contributors think is key to his ability to "spread himself around" and get the vote out. You or I cannot pretend to know what he will do with it once the election is over. One thing for sure is that he will not be lying about selling it on Ebay.
Income between 31K and 63K ?
Poster tried to get you to read this before but obviously ignored by most. You might want to remember this at the polls......... This was just back in March when this was attempted by Obama.. your hero!
WASHINGTON - Presidential candidates John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton interrupted their campaign schedules to return to the Senate for votes on taxes and spending likely to become key points of contention in the race for the White House.
Votes on tax cuts and on a one-year ban on pet projects topped the Senate’s agenda before an expected late-night vote yesterday to pass a $3 trillion Democratic budget blueprint. The nonbinding plan predicts a balanced budget in four years and promises generous increases for many domestic programs, but achieves those goals only by assuming major tax increases when President Bush’s tax cuts expire in about three years. This was found out and release the morning after they tried to get this passed in the mddle of the night back in March.
Obama(D-Ill.) and Clinton (D-N.Y.) both promise to reverse Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they’ll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.
right - available to the low income -
You said that the insurance program to everyone would become a free program. That is not what it is. It is going to cost. My point was that Medicaid was already there as a government program for free.
Income tax
Rich are given lots of stuff for free. There is no way to hold them accountable to declare it all. Look at the goody bags they get at the award shows. They are worth tens of thousands of dollar. Only just recently has it been taxed.
It will be just like the income tax
1. They'll sell it "for a good cause". The income tax was supposed to be a temporary tax that was sold to the people on the basis of paying off war debts.
2. It will start off small and end up big.
3. It will never end.
4. It will prove incredibly burdensome to whoever has to actually keep all the records and submit the tax to government.
5. It will act as another drag on economic growth.
6. It will serve as yet another brake on the entrepreneurial engine that has always been unique to America.
If a tax revolt of one kind or another isn't coming, I'll eat your hat, with or without feathers. It's gone way past the point of ridiculous now.
My MT pay is certainly not the main income....
in this household. Sure, we could lose our jobs, however, we are quite prepared for something like that. We have an emergency fund in place that would last at least a year (a year's worth of mortgage and utilility payments), we don't have a car payment, all credit cards are paid off and we have CDs, retirement funds, etc. It's called planning for the future and planning for the unexpected. We have paid into unemployment, so of course we would take it if we had to.
It is based on income . . .
not on grades. You have to keep your grades up to keep receiving it, BUT the primary requirement to receive it is low income. So do you thing those who have done well for themselves should be required to give money to those who are below them if they are trying to do better? Because that is what is sounds like. As long as it is benefiting you, it is okay because you are trying to do better?
No matter how you slice it, you are still taking from those who have and giving it to havenots. Just stay consistent with your argument. Who is to say who HONESTLY deserves aid?
this is phased out at $47,000-50,000 income nm
x
One income already does not pay the bills! nm
x
Exactly. It is income redistribution, even though he denies it...
and that does not work. Stirring up class warfare does not work. And that $200,000 puts small businesses' necks on the block. Because many S corporations and other small businesses pay the personal tax, not the business tax. He will effectively kill them and jobs will be lost and even MORE people added to the lower bracket. Do people really not see the socialist implications here?
i don't care what the individual income is
how is it anyone else's right to tell me that i have to give ANY portion of my income to help those less fortunate? I don't care if the income is $200,000 or $20,000!
Yes, my income grew after 2001...nm
Moved home, and I took my primary account home with me as an IC, and then promptly found two other accounts. I've always worked more than one job, and being at home is no different. And it's always been just me doing the work, no one else.
However, in the last two years, since dems have had control of Congress, my income has plummeted by 20,000. The most I ever made was close to $80,000 a year, and that was working 12 hours a day, every day, seven days a week.
Now, I have to work more day, get paid less, and make somewhere around $55 or 60,000.
I'm an IC MT/editor/QA type person, who does all three, for different clients, depending on who I work for.
Not an MTSO, but took advantage of all the tax breaks for small businesses, as well as HSA account for health purposes, just for my husband and myself.
Soooo...to answer your question to sam....Yes, I did well in the first four years after 9/11. I work my butt off, to be able to live where I do. We're middle class America....but dropping fast.
I cannot afford to have more taxes. I cannot afford to pay for more social programs for those who do not work.
As someone said recently on this board. Why should I work my butt off to make $60,000 a year, to be told I am in an upper middle class bracket, and have to dole out thousands more in taxes to the people who refuse to work? (And if they can't work, there are progrmas for them) I'd do just as well working only 40 hours a week, instead of the 80 to 100 I do work.
Do not believe for a moment, that Obama knows what he's doing for the economy. It's all a subterfuge to raise taxes anything that isn't tied down, and then some. A one time tax rebate to lower and middle America, to buy their votes. Then tax, tax, tax.
No thanks.
okay - what do you think earned income credit is?
My sister pays no taxes - she has no taxes taken out of her check every week - she works a full time job, but she still every year gets back $5000-6000. Now why do you think that is any different than what you are talking about now? It is the same thing...
Income tax versus sales tax......sm
Since sales tax was brought up below, let's take a little poll..........
Do you believe that a federal sales tax to replace the current income tax system would be a good move? Do you think it would be more fair or less fair and why?
I'll post my opinion separate from this.
The $83,000 question. SCHIP income guidelines
I agree that the bill is a bit confusing, but I think it's great so many of us are actually looking into it to find out what it is really about. I think the New York Times article below clarifies the income guidelines pretty well. I also want to say that I heard that if we go with Bush's $5 billion plan for SCHIP it will be grossly underfunded, as apparently, it is already underfunded and many kids who qualify with the current income guidelines cannot get on SCHIP, so I hope he is willing to at least compromise and give more money to the program if his veto isn't overridden. It's for a good cause, darn it!
"Oct. 16 — It is the $83,000 question: Could children with that amount of family income qualify for subsidized health insurance under the bipartisan bill passed by Congress and vetoed by President Bush?
When the House votes Thursday on whether to override the veto, Republicans will insist that the answer is yes. They will express outrage that rich children could get coverage from the government while hundreds of thousands of poor children still go uninsured.
Democrats say it is a total distortion for Mr. Bush and his Republican allies to say that the bill allows coverage with family incomes up to $83,000 a year.
Who is right? Each side appears to overstate its case. The bill does not encourage or prohibit coverage of children with family incomes at that level.
Of the 6.6 million children now covered by the program, most come from families with incomes well below $83,000, and the bill would give states financial incentives to sign up low-income children who are eligible but not enrolled.
In general, children with family incomes below the poverty level ($20,650 for a family of four) are eligible for Medicaid. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is meant for families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.
Mr. Bush said Monday that the bill would expand eligibility for the program up to $83,000.
But Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and an architect of the bill, said Tuesday that the president’s argument was specious. “About 92 percent of the kids will be under 200 percent of the poverty level,” Mr. Hatch said at a news conference with supporters of the bill, including the singer Paul Simon.
Another Republican author of the bill, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said the White House claims were “flatly incorrect.”
States establish income limits for the child health program. A recent survey by the Congressional Research Service found that 32 states had set limits at twice the poverty level or less, while 17 states had limits from 220 percent to 300 percent of the poverty level. Only one state, New Jersey, has a higher limit. It offers coverage to children with family incomes up to 350 percent of the poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four.
In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature this year passed a bill that would have raised the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. The Bush administration rejected the proposal, saying it would have allowed the substitution of public coverage for private insurance.
States that cover middle-income children often charge premiums and co-payments on a sliding scale, so the coverage is not free.
While the bill passed by Congress would not prohibit states from setting the income limit at $82,600, it would set stringent new standards for such coverage.
In general, after Oct. 1, 2010, a state could not receive any federal money to cover children above 300 percent of the poverty level unless a vast majority of its low-income children — those at or below 200 percent of the poverty level — were already covered. To meet this test, a state would have to show that the proportion of its low-income children with insurance was at least equal to the average for the 10 states with the highest rates of coverage of low-income children.
Moreover, if a state was allowed to cover children over 300 percent of the poverty level, the federal payment for those children would, in most cases, be reduced. New Jersey and New York would be exempt from the cuts if they met the bill’s other requirements.
Citing that provision, the White House said Oct. 6 that the bill included a “grandfather clause” allowing higher payment rates for children above 300 percent of the poverty level in New Jersey and New York.
Jocelyn A. Guyer, a researcher at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University, said: “This is a wildly contentious political issue, but it’s largely a theoretical question. More than 99 percent of children in the program are below three times the poverty level, and New York is the only state that has expressed any interest in going to four times the poverty level.”
Suzanne Esterman, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Department of Human Services, said that 3,000 of the 124,000 children in the state program — about 2.4 percent — had family incomes exceeding three times the poverty level.
Some of the current confusion can be traced back to a bill introduced in March by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, both Democrats. They would have explicitly allowed all states to expand eligibility to families making four times the poverty level. But the bill passed by Congress did not go that far." -by Robert Pear
Instead of trying to move the lower income levels....
out of those levels by incentivizing them to work instead of stay there, he wants to move the upper income levels DOWN closer to them. Socialism. Makes absolutely NO sense. If he really cared about lower income levels, he would be trying to figure out a way to help them OUT of it, not keep them IN it and bring others DOWN. That is his idea of "economic parity." Misguided, to say the least.
Spread the wealth, redistribution of income...that is the big O's
plan...AKA I'll give to those who don't deserve it by taking it from those who have worked hard to get it. O wants to take the hard earned money from many Americans and then HE will decide who he gives it to. Sounds a bit like socialism to me. Just where is he going to get the money for all the programs he wants to GIVE to us? Oh, and remember the words of Biden, it's patriotic to pay taxes. So what does that make the 40% of Americans who DON'T pay taxes?
they lose a lot of their income and also their Medicare if they marry - nm
x
Yes, earned income credit, we pay our taxes....
Whaddya you make? 7 cents a line? LOL. You call that paying taxes? HAHAHAHA!
No, it's more than jus the earned income credit and kids.
This is adding in things like tuition and related school expenses, but not claiming the grant money they've recieved to pay for that - which you legally have to do. That's what makes me so mad!
Are you complaining about the "earned income credit?" nm
x
Sorry, earned income credit, I have to pay taxes.....
I have no dependents, alas. I don't get food stamps or Welfare, either. Unlike you, the prophet, I will wait and see what direction our President takes us. You might be disappointed or I might be disappointed, but, obviously, it will all roll out in the end, won't it? Yes, I know about gas. Unfortunately for you, it has no escape route because you are too full of $hit to allow its escape. Sorry about the blockage.........honest, it isn't brain matter - it is fecal.
I thought this article clarified the income issue
You guys are probably sick of hearing my opinions on this if you read the last thread, but I wanted to re-post this section of an article that addresses the income level concern. It sounds like the only state that asked for income guidelines to go as high as $83,000 was New York, and their request was denied, so that income level is not a part of the current bill. (To me it sounds like even the $60,000 guideline may be limited to New York, but I'm honestly not sure on that and will try to find out).
--The president also complained that the bill would cover too many children who don't need federal help. "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.
Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.
link to the entire article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685
1 more time. INDIVIDUAL income means 1 person.
not a family. It means the income that one single person makes. This means that a husband and wife making less than $500,000 yearly combined incomes will receive tax cuts. I am posting separate information under a second post to dispel any confusion that is being generated on this issue. Small businesses have a different plan does not involve tax increases of any sort of description.
Full coverage based on income for people whose...sm
employers do not offer insurance.
Time to stop the earned income tax credit
No more WELFARE period. Everybody can plant a small garden - even in pots. Go fishing and deer hunting for your meat. Tents are cheap - can walk or hitchhike to warmer climates so you're more comfortable. Live off the land! And let govt get smaller - no more handouts to ANYONE! If we did that, we wouldn't need roads or bridges - end that spending habit. Get rid of government completely. Everybody arm yourselves and live like they did in the old west. We are already well on our way to being a 3rd world country (even airports are dingy). Everybody is on their OWN. Consumerism would end. Who needs TV or iPods or computers or anything else? We're all gonna die anyway. Some sooner than others, but there's no way outta that one. If you don't make any money - you won't have to pay taxes.
Two-Thirds of US Corps pay no federal income taxes
Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax
GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12, 2008
(AP) Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.
Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.
"It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.
"Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said.
The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.
More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.
The GAO said it analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service, examining samples of corporate returns for the years 1998 through 2005. For 2005, for example, it reviewed 110,003 tax returns from among more than 1.2 million corporations doing business in the U.S.
Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices - amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities. The GAO did not suggest which companies might be doing this.
"It's time for the big corporations to pay their fair share," Dorgan said.
Combined income or small business making 120,000 or higher
will be taxed big time instead of the 250,000. It could down lower to where anyone making 42,000 or higher will be taxed big time. He keeps changing his mind, but we will for sure see if he wins.
How much did you make on your "earned income credit" this year? Welfare momma......
x
Sing it sister!! Earned income tax credit most defintely is welfare.
But I bet very few people who receive it think of it that way. They just happily cash that refund check.
What is the source for this?
.
source?
What is your source for this info? As in, how do you know this is true - did you see it, hear or, what? I really want to know. Where can it be verified or disproved?
There never will be a source on this
nm
Consider the source.
nm
Consider The Source
Sam, this is the same group of people who thought that what Bill did with all those women was okay, or simply a "private" matter.
So nobody in this bunch has ever had a pg teenager? And if any one of these women here would just throw (that's Demspeak for kill) away a DS baby? It's simply a continuation of what they do is okay and what those nasty conservatives do is just criminal!
Wow, that's just classy.
Source: About.com
su
And your source for this is? nm
.
Source please. nm
.
No source? Of course not.
x
what i the source for this??
I have never seen this before. Where does it come from?
And your source is?....nm
x
One source............sm
is the NYT, but you can Google the quote and find it in several articles and blogs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html
And what source exactly would it take
to satisfy you as being reliable?
SM, you have to consider the source,
this is the network that is fair and balanced, only if you are a democrat. These folks have an Obamachip embedded in their brain. Besides, this is a way to get let the guys and gals on here who are so enamored by their high priest a chance to get their minds off the fact that he could even come close to screwing up something or changing a campaign promise. Don't worry about double standards, they don't apply to Obama.
And your source is????? nm
x
And your source is???? (nm)
x
Well, consider the source............
The majority of those voting for Obama pay NO taxes, never paid a tax in their life, and rarely if ever held down a job...........
So why in the world do they see tax as a bad thing..... they've never paid a tax and will continue to NOT pay taxes and think Obama will just take care of all their needs. This is why they think "rich" is a bad word; they have no ambition, no drive, and never will, so for those that do, they must be punished for succeeding!!??
The lazy and ignorant are running this country through votes they really have no right having.......... IMHO
And your source is????????????? NM
.
And this is a source of pride? nm
The source of your post
I'm not sure why you cut and paste far-right-wing-biased sources as the "truth" in your posts on a liberal forum. In your above post you copied an article from frontpagemag.com and for those who know little about it:
FrontPage Magazine's main focus is on issues pertaining to foreign policy, war, and Islamist terrorism. It regularly condemns official enemies of the U.S. and is a strong proponent of the war on terror, the Iraq War, and Israel's military actions.[citation needed] It has also published articles condemning what it perceives as left-wing organizations and causes, such as the Democratic party, the media, the environmental movement, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, left-wing interpretations of feminism, Islamism, socialism, communism, anarchism, anti-war groups, the United Nations, and other matters.[
consider the source. MM is the sicko....
.
|
