Yes, my income grew after 2001...nm

• Tina Fey on SNL - ROFL - Anon
  • Sarah Palin was amused by the SNL impression of her...sm - ms
    • As we ALL were! SNL will have as much fun - with SP as they did with both Bushes.
  • The first time I laid eyes on SP on TV, I was sure that SNL - would get Tina Fey to portray her in a skit.
  • Go Sarah!!!! ....sm - ms
    • They spoof Obama all the time. - Anon
      • One more thing....sm - ms
        • Disagree. sm - Anon
          • What Palin said is exactly right.... - sam
            • Al Qaeda did claim responsibility for 9-11 sm - oldtimer
              • Bin Laden got what he aimed for..... - sm
                • Good grief....talk about misleading.... - sam
                  • so,........... - sm
                  • Question: When the economy GREW the 4 years after - 9/11, did your income? Savings? -sm
                    • Yes, my income grew after 2001...nm - ms
                      • So maybe your net worth went up cuz you're - living at home, but isn't that a minus in itsel
                      • should have been see message...sm - ms
                    • As a matter of fact, it did. And I don't live in India. - sam
                      • So obviously you are not an MT. Perhaps... - you OWN an MTSO?
              • But the fact remains, old timer...it is they.. - sam
      • Yeah, I figured it was that way...sm - ms
        • No. sm - Anon
          • Can you believe how long this show has...sm - oldtimer
            • Yeah....this show dates us, doesn't it...sm - ms
              • Time stood still for me at 16, I just don't...sm - oldtimer
                • Hmmm....I thought it was just my friends - another oldtimer
          • Oh good, thanks for replying. Glad they're not just giving it to the right....lol...thx. - ms
  • Thank you! LOL. nm - Moo
  • What a talent, she was dead on. nm - oldtimer

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/

Before discounting this because it is on a conservative site....the You Tube tape is there...you can hear "O" in his own words.

My father had gun racks and he always kept one rifle loaded in case someone tried to break into the house.  All three of us kids knew it and we also knew not to touch it.  My dad taught us how to shoot, the safe way to use guns, and what NOT to do with a gun.  I think the problem with a lot of gun related accidents is that parents hide the guns and don't teach their kids the dangers and how to properly handle guns. 

If you take guns away from the law-abiding citizens....it won't stop the criminals from getting them and then we will have nothing to protect ourselves with.  That is common sense really.  It will just create an even bigger black market for guns and only the unlawful citizens will buy them illegally like that which will leave the lawful citizens unprotected from criminals. 

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.

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.

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.

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

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 

(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.