I wouldn't mind making 250K and paying
Posted By: holycrap on 2008-09-23
In Reply to: i don't mind working and helping out others - sm
25% in taxes....
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
Not unless I am making over 250K and that's not happening. nm
.
No more than I mind paying for yours.
x
SO you don't mind paying more taxes under
??
You don't mind paying for an illegal mortgage?
nm
He was good natured and he didn't mind making fun of himself...
which is more than O could do.
I sure wouldn't mind having that car! ("The Beast")
definitely come in handy for those times when I have to drive through East Oakland and the Raiders have won,
or in San Francisco during Critical Mass. A hood-mounted bazooka wouldn't be half bad either, for those massive tieups on the Bay Bridge.
;)
heck I wouldn't mind giving illegals benefits if I could
and i'm nervous about my 3 month waiting period at my new job for health insurance!
the $250K
it's the business making $250K, not the man. Big difference.
MTs make under $250K
Just because plumbing seems like a crappy job, let's face it, I see those guys driving Jaguars where I live. They are expensive and make a lot. MTs work very hard for very little. Wise up people. Obama is our hope. All the BS about him being with terrorists is dangerous propaganda. That board who had Ayers and Obama on was a big Reagan supporter and actually the Anenbergs are McCain supporters so it's all crapola. Obama is a wonderful man and a smart man. McCain stutters and whistles through his teeth, clears his throat loudly. I thought he was rude in the debate. The losers usually feel desperate and he shows it.
He later corrected to $250K
He knows the middle class. I'm sure you make under $250K so why are you splitting hairs?
He never said that he made over $250K
He said that he wanted to buy a business that he thought made over $250K. I thought that it was okay to have dreams. How do you know what his intentions are? Even if he were a plant--which I think is silly--he is a citizen and ultimately has a right to propose a hypothetical question to someone asking for his vote to be the leader of our country. If he is attacked in this manner, should we not all fear what will happen if we say anything bad about Obama or ask a question that makes him look bad once he is--if he is--elected?
they changed that $250K...
Now they're saying more like $200K and going lower. And let's just face it. 20 bucks or $200K, everybody is gonna pay more taxes.
I understand the payroll tax on only over $250K....sm
I understand I won't pay more payroll tax and income tax at our low income, but it's the property taxes, fuel taxes, sales taxes, and capital gains taxes that are going to go up too, and being landowners and ranchers raising livestock, those taxes affect us big time and just add to the cost of our business, which already is hard to make a profit on.
I know it's hard for people whose income is from a job where you go to work and bring home a paycheck and taxes are simple to understand. But running a business isn't just about how much comes out of your paycheck for payroll tax and what you pay for income tax once a year. These corporate taxes he's talking about are going to affect so many small businesses because most of them make between $500,000-$1,000,000 a year, and increasing their tax rates is going to kill them. It's going to cause them to lay off employees, raise their prices, or simply close their doors.
I have several family members with mom-and-pop business in small towns from a beauty salon to a restaurant and a small computer fix-it business and they will really be hurt by this. They can't raise their prices because people in their small town can't afford to pay higher prices.
There are a lot of big farmers in our area who easily make over $250,000 a year, but what people don't realize is that probably 90-95% of what they sell their crops for has to go into planting and harvesting those crops and they have little to actually live on to pay their heating and food bills, etc., when it's all said and done, so where are they going to come up with the extra tax money?
By sticking it to the big corporate business, there's going to be a lot of collateral damage in the wake and those are going to be the small to mid-sized business of our friends and family. They need to raise the amount to 1-2 million or something because this is going to kill small town main street. JMHO
Oh, and BTW, $250K is not wealthy businesses
They're middle of the road, just making it businesses. They don't employ 3000 people like big business and they will be hurt the most. Big business will pass the tax increase onto the taxpayers. They'll be able to find loopholes with their 30+ laywers (exageration) who are paid to do that.
Wake up and take the blinders off!
If you make less than $250K you get tax break nm
nomopopo
Sorry Sam, but the Bush cuts were only for those over $250K nm
not us peons
It was $250K including a business....
and $250K for a business is nothing. and since when is rich a bad word. Only when someone is jealous.
I never said I made $250K a year... where did you get that from my post?...sm
Actually, I work one full-time MT job and a part-time general transcription off and on. I make less than $38,000 a year. My husband is self-employed (we own a ranch) and everything we make from the sale of our livestock and grains has to go back into the operation of the ranch for property taxes, insurance, feed, equipment, repairs, so at best, we break even, and even that doesn't happen often. So we basically live on what I make as an MT, which is less than $38,000 a year.
Yes, it can be done. We do not apply for, nor take any of the government subsidies. We've worked hard and scrimped and saved, and have also sold aluminum cans to help with extra cash coming in, etc. I've always shopped thrift shops for clothes for us and the kids, I've never bought new furniture, have no china or crystal, and the only jewelry I've ever owned was my wedding ring, so couldn't fall back on having the option of selling things such as these to help out.
We've actually been rather comfortable with this and have always felt like we weren't missing out on anything by living a very simple and quiet life. But now I'm afraid we're going to lose what we've worked so hard for because we can't afford any more taxes to pay for those who won't work hard.
I could go on disability due to some physical problems and inability to do probably 99% of jobs out there, but my physical disability doesn't keep me from doing MT work, and I can make a decent living doing that, so why not? If at some point in my life something happens that I can no longer do MT, then I'll have no choice but go on disability because I can't stand/walk/move around in order to get most other jobs out there, but for now I have a choice to work doing something I can do, and I choose to do that.
Most people I know on disability have other skills and could be doing other jobs, but they'd rather take the label of disabled and never work again. I choose to work at what I can do until I can't do it anymore.
I know one gal who was on disability and was offered a great job that paid over $2000 a month, but she would lose her disability, so didn't take the job... when I asked her how much her disability was, it was only $1300 a month! Duh... And the thing is, she would be great in that position and would have been a wonderful asset to the community doing that job. Just didn't make sense to me.
I feel for your situation and I don't think that things like your disabled child being on SSI or whatever is ''on the dole'' because those are exactly the people we as fellow Americans need to be helping. I'm sorry for your health situation and that is most tragic as it can happen to anyone.
The people I'm talking about are the ones who have no major health problems, no job, but could get a job if they wanted to, but welfare pays better, so they don't. My daughter works in a field where she sees daily where parents are dropping kids off at a daycare which is paid for through the social services office, and they go sit in the casino and gamble and smoke cigarettes. How much is a pack of smokes these days, $5? That's $150 a month that could pay for heating your house, putting food on your table, etc., but they don't need the money for those things because they are on programs to get those paid for too.
I'm not pointing a finger at you or people who have real problems and can't work, it's the abusers of the system that I'm upset about. I know of one couple who just a few years ago traveled on a vacation to Tokyo and got to leave their five adopted children with a foster care service absolutely free. This woman used to complain that she only got 15 hours a week of ''respite'' babysitting service.... I raised my kids and probably never had 15 hours total away from them in all the years they grew up as I didn't have family around where I lived and couldn't afford a babysitter. This particular family drives new vehicles, has memberships to clubs, eat out all the time as it's too hard for the mom to cook for so many people, etc., and they have no jobs or any other income. How do they do that?
Again, I'm just saying, we have always made as much as we could and spent as little as we could get by with and were perfectly happy that it balanced out enough that we could live on our own without having to take any freebies from anybody, and if we have to pay more taxes in the future, that balance is going to be upset, and I don't want to lose what we've worked so hard for.
I don't know which candidate is going to be able to do anything about our healthcare situation, but I believe your medical situation is a prime example of how the messed up healthcare industry is bringing decent people down and something needs to be done about it... But I can't afford my own medical care, how can you expect me to pay for everyone else's?
Holycrap! You make more than 250K a year!
How did you do that with MT jobs?
Bidens words - no longer $250K - Now $150K (nm)
x
"Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k"...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.
However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.
I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.
The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.
No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.
Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.
This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.
(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.
No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.
There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.
This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$10,581
|
$9,304
|
$9,231
|
$10,581
|
$1,350
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$8,293
|
$6,796
|
$6,781
|
$8,293
|
$1,512
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$11,143
|
$9,304
|
$9,231
|
$11,143
|
$1,912
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$9,424
|
$8,189
|
$8,094
|
$9,424
|
$1,330
|
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
$75,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$17,923
|
$15,739
|
$15,620
|
$17,923
|
$2,303
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$15,293
|
$12,364
|
$12,219
|
$15,293
|
$3,074
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$18,803
|
$16,083
|
$15,972
|
$18,803
|
$2,831
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$16,424
|
$14,439
|
$14,344
|
$16,424
|
$2,080
|
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $100,000/year Taxable Income
|
2000 Tax Tables
|
2003 Tax Tables
|
2004 Tax Tables
|
2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
|
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
|
Taxable Income
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
Tax: Single
|
$25,673
|
$22,739
|
$22,620
|
$25,673
|
$3,053
|
Tax: Married - Filing Joint
|
$22,293
|
$18,614
|
$18,469
|
$22,293
|
$3,824
|
Tax: Married - Filing Separate
|
$27,515
|
$23,715
|
$23,504
|
$27,515
|
$4,011
|
Tax: Head of Household
|
$23,699
|
$20,741
|
$20,594
|
$23,699
|
$3,015
|
* When "President" Obama allows President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a DE facto tax increase
According to that., I would also be paying...
less, but the difference is minimal. There are so many disclaimers on the site I don't know if I believe it anyway...however, what you have to take into consideration along with this, is all the programs he is proposing to the billions of dollars. Look at our economy now. I don't think he can deliver on any of it without sending us into another financial crisis. Either of them actually. So what I am looking at is who can do the best with what he is going to be faced with. I believe McCain and his reforming agenda, his history (he saw this fannie/freddie debacle coming years ago and the Dems pooh-poohed him)...that is the experience and track record I want to see.
why would we be paying for it?
I am not talking about a low income clinic, I am talking about a regular gynecology office. When I took my daughter in for visits, I did not ask the taxpayers to pay for it. I paid my copay and filed it on my insurance -
I don't think we pay for everybody's medical care - that would be socialism, remember?
How about paying for good
So much for exporting Democracy.
U.S. paid for Iraqi praise, paper says
BY LOLITA C. BALDOR
ASSOCIATED PRESS
December 1, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military offered a mixed message Wednesday about whether it embraced one of its programs that reportedly paid a consulting firm and Iraqi newspapers to plant favorable stories about the war and the rebuilding effort.
Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said the program is an important part of countering misinformation in the news by insurgents. A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, called a report detailing the program troubling if true and said he was looking into the matter.
This is a military program initiated with the Multi-National Force to help get factual information about ongoing operations into Iraqi news, Johnson said in an e-mail.
Details about the program were first reported Wednesday by the Los Angeles Times. It was the second time this year that Pentagon programs have come under scrutiny for reported payments made to journalists for favorable press.
Two other federal agencies have been investigated in the past year for similar activities, leading Congress' Government Accountability Office to condemn one -- the Education Department -- for engaging in illegal covert propaganda.
Military officials who spoke to the Times on condition of anonymity said the Information Operations Task Force, based in Baghdad, bought an Iraqi newspaper and took over a radio station to put out pro-U.S. messages. Neither outlet was named out of fear that they would be targeted by insurgents, the newspaper said.
The stories in Iraqi newspapers often praise the efforts of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce terrorism and promote Iraq reconstruction efforts.
The Times quoted unnamed officials as saying some of the stories in Iraqi newspapers were written by U.S. troops and though basically factual, they sometimes give readers a slanted view of what is happening.
Defense Department officials didn't deny the report.
Rumsfeld spokesman Bryan Whitman said, so this article raises some question as to whether or not some of the practices that are described in there are consistent with the principles of this department.
The Pentagon hired the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based firm that translates the stories into Arabic and places them in Baghdad newspapers, the newspaper said. Lincoln's staff or subcontractors in Iraq occasionally pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they hand stories to Iraqi news outlets, it said.
Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for the Lincoln Group, said Wednesday she couldn't comment on the contract because it is with the U.S. government.
Copyright © 2005 Detroit Free Press Inc
If you live on the GC, you were paying about
nm
My dear, you will not be paying any
more taxes than they paid in the 1990s, and I can't feel sorry for you. 250K is a lot of money. Our country is under seige by big business, and you feel sorry for yourself that you might have to pay your fair share. My DH and I work our butts off for 60K a year, and we pay 20% to 25% in taxes, but we don't whine about it. However, it would be nice to get a break.
Paying for it is a problem
I already have almost $20,000 in student loans and I'm still a year or two away from a bachelor's. And I am attending a little podunk school in South Georgia! But through the pell grant I was able to take a year and get my MT certification through the community college, and while it wasn't Andrews or MTech, I still received a good education and I make a decent living for a newbie who is still taking classes. There are a lot of grants and what not out there that you can use to take classes for free if you can keep up the grades. And it may be something the candidates need to look into. Maybe instead of just handing out checks to be used however, they can put them towards paying for education for people who can't afford it.
You don't have to have a bachelor's to make a decent living. You can go to school to be an auto mechanic, a paralegal, a respiratory therapist, etc. Most of these only take a year or two, and they will give you a lot more money than being on welfare. Plus, there are many online accredited schools now that take financial aid that parents can use if they can't physically go to class because of kids, etc.
90% of the time, it is the lack of will on the persons part that keeps them where they are. Just giving them more money is an incentive to stay down. That is why the welfare system is so horrible. There needs to be case workers who are working with these people and helping them get off of welfare. If they are on welfare and driving a BMW and can afford cable, internet, etc, then there is a problem. Something is fishy about that.
I know there are people who legitimately need help, and they deserve it. But for the most part, people are just to lazy, or don't care, and they just stay right where they are, never trying to better themselves. NO ONE should have to take care of them.
No, was just stating that we are still paying them...
its not like they are not getting an income while they are campaigning.
The point was that he could share his own wealth if he wanted to without being forced to by the government...lead by example, before he forces the rest of us to join in whether we want to or not.
what are you talking about? Are you saying paying
taxes is stealing? Don't get your post.
With all the not paying of taxes going on...
I think maybe an audit of all politicians should be undertaken? LOL! Sheesh....then again....I'd hate to see actually how many of them are screwing us even more by not paying taxes. Yeeks!!!
My point was that they are not paying for anything...
I quit smoking to save money and take offense to paying for someone else to continue.
We are literally paying for their
countries defense. We are ultimately paying for our own self destruction. China doesn't like us. They have been civil because the US has controlled the seas for so long and we had an awesome military and great defense. Now Obama is wanting to cut back on our countries defense and sit down and talk with countries while China gets more of our money to go towards its own defense. If they take control of the seas and have a greater military force than we do.....do you honestly think they will still play nice? He!!s no they won't.
In my county, we have been paying
what I call the "right to breathe" tax. Just because we are living, we are taxed for it. It's only $252 a year but only 2 years ago, it was only $10 a year.
The stimulus also isn't helping our area. The little bit of money that came to this county is going for the same things (landscaping, etc.) that Hannity listed. Yet, our school district needs a new roof and more classrooms, so they are raising our taxes another 3.1 mils. We already are the highest taxed district in the county. A $100,000 home pays $1500 in property taxes...at least that was last year. The property taxes go up every year.
have you been paying attention
to the differences between what he said and what he does on other issues. things like (Paraphrased) "I don't want to be in the business of running car companies." ".....won't see any new taxes of any kind." "taxing health care benefits would be wrong." I think when you say when thing and do another that is a lie and it is manipulative.
You really must not have been paying attention
Other than a very brief period about 8-1/2 years ago, the divide in the country has been growing larger for about the last 10 years...surely you did not think we had national unity back in the Clinton years, did you? How about the 8 years of Bush the Younger? Frankly, other than a few of the more vociferous 'radical right' pundits, the country is not doing too bad. The moderates and independents have not chimed in yet as they realize that it's going to take longer than 150 days to clean up the mess left when the keys were handed to the POTUS. So far, the only people truly divided are the extremes, and, frankly, I tend to be happier when I'm catered to in the middle since we're so often forgotten.
So you are okay with paying for his affair?....(sm)
With all the whining you guys do about where your tax dollars go, I would think you might be a little more concerned. I guess not though because that was a stand-up, God fearing republican.....I guess that makes it okay.
You have a better shot at getting the truth paying sm
attention to alternative media. You will not get it in the box by mainstream, heavily censored, corporate owned media.
We are already paying for the health care
...of those folks you mention. Who did you think pays for all the uninsured health care in this country? Santa Claus? Folks without insurance often wait until the last minute and then utilize ER services which in the end cost more than if they'd been followed in a clinic.
It also sounds like you believe that kids of welfare abusers should be punished because their parents can't/don't/won't provide for them. I don't agree. All children deserve basic care regardless of who their parents are. We are a wealthy country, after all.
Personally, I'd be happy to pitch in on my taxes to help provide a health care program for the uninsured. Better that than funding a war in Iraq.
So, you look forward to paying for more social
xx
He's paying attention to ducking the RNC
Just like last time.
Yea, I'll probably be paying for your free
xx
No, she just hates paying for lazies of any
__
Not quite the same as paying it from his own personal account....sm
You can rest assured that Obama, like every other American, will take all the tax credits he can and pay the least amount of taxes he has to. A nice campaign slogan, but it doesn't hold water.
aren't we still paying McCain also? nm
x
Yeah, just think! MT co's might just have to start paying
;)
You obviously haven't been paying attention...(sm)
Dems oppose UNJUST war, like going into Iraq or Israel's constant terror against Palestine. There's a huge difference. We are in the middle of 2 wars -- that Bush started. Did you really think that we would be able to clean his mess up with just a wave of a hand?
Pakistan has a government that has no control of its country, which means that militants are currently in charge of the attacks on the supply line that goes into Afganistan. Those are the targets. My guess is that the real Pakistan gov probably gave the coordinates to the US for these and many previous hits. However, they can't really claim that because their people would be all over them because of the anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. This is why you haven't heard a lot of arguement from the UN about these hits. This was the same thing that was going on when Bush was in office.
Obama has consistently said that he wants diplomacy first, but he has also said that he will not hesitate to use force when necessary. In this particular instance, the US is currently working out a deal with Russia for a different route for supplies to Afganistan, but in the meantime it is necessary to protect the existing route through Pakistan. Did you really think that Obama was just going to leave our people in Afganistan with no supply line? And if he had, what would you have said about that?
It looks as though you weren't really paying attention...
He said the same thing over and over. Withdraw troops from Iraq and put more boots on the ground in Afghanistan..........how could you have missed THAT? Selective hearing? Selective posting, too, I guess.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Because this is exactly the attitude O has been taking when visiting foreign countries. America has to be rebuilt because the way we are now does not agree with the European model. And good thing he is around now to guide us in through that. Most of us are way too enterprising and independent for his taste and that's something he is looking to change.
You should really start paying attention....(sm)
to what is said by the president as opposed to the Fixed Noise version. What Obama actually said:
".....we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
He is absolutely correct. The US is not a theocracy and is therefore not bound by or based on any relgion.
The Fixed Noise version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEF2-a6QBx8
Excuse me, but plenty of us ARE paying
nm
There are other ways of paying taxes.......... sm
than just in your paycheck each week. When the tax goes up on anything, that cost is passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Wait until cap and trade passes and see if you don't pay not only higher utility bills but also higher grocery costs because the cost of the store's utilities increasing.
Okay, so our income tax is not necessarily going up, but the increase on everything else is more than offsetting any small rebate I see in my paycheck. Heck, even ramen noodles went up from 11 cents to 14 cents per package recently. At that rate, I wonder how long I will be able to afford to eat!
|
