They are not married so they qualify for the earned income credit on their taxes even though they pay nothing in. It is based on how many children you have and your income.
It's been there forever! My sister gets upwards of $6000 a year every year and has for as long as I can remember; of course, when the children hit 17 or 18, that is gone, but for now it is like an extra $500 or $600 a month in income if you spread it out.
That's why I cannot figure out why these people are so upset about Obama giving money to poor people - heck, it's been going on for as long as I can remember... it's nothing new that Obama just came up with and decided to do.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
everybody's lines. If you can't hang with the witty "gals" drop out.
It's not really stealing a job
When the union strikes, these people have walked out of their jobs. As I said, I do not agree with scabs, but I cannot really call it "stealing" a job. It is merely filling a vacancy--and they usually lose the job once the union and company come to an agreement.
Stealing taxes
Actually, I had the same thing happen. I know you're mad. So am I. But you absolutely must remember the core truth -- the reason you had a tax bill that was more than your fair share and more than you could come up with by April 15th in the FIRST place was because democrats are leaning on you to fund the vote-buying giveaways with YOUR labor, YOUR income which they believe to be theirs. You are supposed to thank democrats for what they LEAVE you with, not grumble that they enforce their sick idea of social justice and obligation on people who actually get up in the morning and go work. I did the math. I had some of their constituency who are sucking on the government teat live with me for a homeless few months. I will never do that again. We are rapidly approaching a point in this country where half the country is living free off the other half. This economy will collapse when more than half live off less than half. Meaning me. And you. Remember, that you will never qualify for any government benefits under democrats because you work. You will however, qualify for their giveaway program, just not as a givee. At least the Republican plan is to share the burden of common needs (roads, defense) and let people who work hard keep as much as possible. Don't get me wrong. I am no lover of that RINO capitulator our party is running. He's made good press and put forth his false front of courage and honor, but every time he has had a chance to take a stand since he got into politics, he has compromised with the socialists. Please don't forget -- Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried and it always will. Nonconfiscatory capitalism works. Unfortunately, we don't have that in America anymore. But we do have socialism. All socialist economies eventually collapse to third world status unless they are coupled with a political system of tyrrany and fascism. Please don't vote for the communists.
Blogger responses to the rigging of Ohio's voting system:
The law growls a bit but comes up toothless for the common man most of the time--at all levels. Take the Supreme Court (please! as Henny Youngman would say). It was right down there in the gutter, snarling over the bone, which it wrested away in the 2000 election and handed over to George W. Bush. Democrat John Kerry did not attempt to even test this right-leaning court (with its Bush appointees) over the foul voting-day thievery in Ohio that cost him the election in 2004--his resolve no doubt already weakened by the vicious "Swift Boat" slander that had had been slathered over him during the preceding months. Consider, if you will, the eventual condition of our court system all across the country due to the appointment of federal judges at all levels. It's bad enough after 8 years of George Bush. Do we want another 4 or 8 years at the hands of McCain and/or Palin? Start by considering the decisions concerning just the environment--pollution, land-use, etc. They come up on a regular basis. We are fortunate to still have some long-time judges with integrity who date from earlier times. But this, too, could pass. Palin, in addition to being a Creationist, also doesn't believe in Global Warming. McCain, despite his inane campaign remarks, is right there in the hip pocket of big oil, opposes alternate energy sources (check his Senate record) and isn't really much concerned about the melting of the polar ice cap and glaciers everywhere. Not to mention the extinction of species (eventually our own?) and old-growth timber, the conversion of the Pacific ocean into a floating garbage dump that is a bird and fish killer. The country and the planet just can't stand the theft of another election by the Republicans.
Intense public scrutiny? Where was that? The only time the msm mentions voter fraud and stolen elections is when the gop starts complaining about nonexistent fraud by (gasp!) immigrants. Obama's chances remain somewhere between slim and none.
Bob and Harvey -- keep singing it out loud and clear! We can't afford another 2004 and it looks like we are going to get one. The most recent poll results showing McSame and that crazy Moose-woman ahead of Obama-Biden -- despite the fact that Democrats are out-registering Republicans and that Bush and the GOPs have almost destroyed life for the average American -- is absolutely chilling. THEY ARE SETTING US UP FOR THE STEAL and will blame Obama's "loss" on the Bradley effect, disaffected Hillary voters (Palin is a massive kick in the teeth to Hillary and everything she stands for), or who-knows-what. So please keep SINGING IT OUT! No stolen election 2008. We need people in the streets, not people lying down to take it in the A** again!
It is beginning to look more and more like Obama is a ringer just like Kerry was, who will roll over on command when his controllers in the GOP tell him to. The repeat of previous machinations in Ohio regarding the election there is simply the foundation that will be used to make the roll-over look semi-plausible. We need international observers to watch over our election process, just like we insist on for elections in many third-world countries. And we need to institute the death penalty for those who abuse their positions while in public office.
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 05:00 — Another Peasant (not verified)
Kind of disappointing that there aren't more posts here, but I think most people would rather yell about their candidate than face the possibility that the entire political circus is, or will be, an absolute waste of time. I'm going to write my representatives, AGAIN. Won't you all join me?
I agree. Send money to Cindy Sheehan and Dennis Kucinich!!! There is a million dollar GOP campaign against him. No matter what...kicking Pelosi out would send a message.
Impeachment? now we're talking. While we're on that subject, OBAMA is AGAINST impeachment!!! Still want to vote for him? Still think the Dems are humanitarians? They are cowards who can't call a liar a "liar"!!!
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 01:35 — Mel Smith (not verified)
I second that statement, If Nancy Pelosi doesn't allow Kucinich articles to be brought forward and start the procedure then she needs to lose her return to congress in November. We need Cindy Sheehan to beat her anyway. If McCain wins this election, I'm going to leave this country I was born in and lived for 74 years. It isn't worth living here anymore if Republicans stay in the white house. I won't live in this Police state anymore,as my Civil liberties have already been slowly taken away. Next they will come for me for posting on the internet. I don't want people that have no conscience or compassion for human life to be running this country.
Bush/Cheney are not legal officers of the United States Government because of fraudulent voting procedures in Ohio. They must be IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY. Nothing must take priority over the IMPEACHMENT process if our country is to remain a democracy.
I don't know if the law changed, but the mother is also in Mexico. Don't know if she went voluntarily or if she was deported, too. If she went voluntarily, then I feel she really didn't put her children first.
Like I said in my earlier post, I think the children should have gone with them even though they are American citizens. Why let the eldest take care of the younger ones, I think ages 15 and 11.
Now here again, I believe in God, but I also respect the fact that there are other Americans who do not. Isn't that one of the primary reasons we fought so hard for indepence? The freedom to choose our religion or not to choose any religion?
Separation of church and state. It boggles my mind that this basic, simple premise somehow is so complicated.
The Pledge did not even contain the words, under God until some time in the 1950s. The Pledge was ammended to include them. The founding fathers did not write those words.
Believing in God should not be a qualification for being an American. Including the words, under God, if one does not believe in God, prohibits them from reciting The Pledge. They don't want to have to leave the room or be silent. They want to pledge their allegiance to their country, but for those words.
It has nothing to do with Americans excluding God. It's just the right of all Americans to practice their religion of choice or no religion.
Proclaiming one's belief in God can be exhibited in so many more meaningful ways than insisting that 2 words be included in The Pledge.
I agree. Women will have them - legal or not
Although I don't think I would ever consider abortion personally and am also sickened by people who have them over and over again (get your tubes tied darn it!!!), I believe women will have them regardless of if they are legal or not, so I think it is much safer if they remain legal.
I also think the woman should have the choice of what to do with something that is actually inside of her body. She is the one ultimately 100% responsible for the medical bills due to the pregnancy, the emotional toll and physical risks of the pregnancy, and the child's well being afterwards. The man can get off scott free if he wants and skip from job to job to avoid paying child support, so it should definitely be up to the woman.
I also find it odd that many pro-life Republicans are so adamant that each baby have a chance to be born, but yet if that baby is born to a lower-class mother many (not all) don't want a dime of their money to go to help that baby with healthcare costs or any other costs that could help the child after it's actually born. Where is the deep concern for the children that are actually living?
Though the thought of abortion is definitely disturbing to me, I do not believe at less than 3 months old a baby's nerves are developed enough to feel pain as they are aborted, but I know for a fact many children in the USA are being abused and neglected on a daily basis because they were unwanted, and my heart breaks for them. There are over 100,000 foster kids in the USA right now that need good homes and more resources, and I think our focus should be on helping these children first. My sister has 2 amazing foster kids, and I really wish the anti-abortion activists would focus on fostering or helping the kids that are here now instead of focusing so much on fetuses that are inside of other women's bodies, and therefore really none of their business in my personal opinion. (I know some do foster and volunteer, but I have a sneaking suspicion that not all of them do!)
I don't understand your question, sorry....if I don't want him controlling my health care why would I want him deciding if an abortion should be legal? I don't want him controlling my health care, and the Supreme Court already decided (unconstitutionally I might add) that abortion is legal. THIS was about INFANTICIDE. Killing a living breathing infant outside and separate from the mother by denying it medical care. Abortion is horrific enough, but that is out and out negligent homicide, and he voted FOR it. That tells me all I need to know about Barack Obama and how he cares about people.
I read your "document". Very legal-looking and all,
How exactly do you know that's legitimate? Did you see the official hard-copy? Likely not. I could have typed something like that myself, and so could you, or any other person who owns a PC. Even a photo of a 'hard copy' posted on the internet can't be automatically assumed to be valid. You do know, don't you, that most of what you read and hear on the internet is suspect in its validity, and nearly impossible to prove? The internet has more urban myths, fantasies and lies floating around on it than Carter's has little pills. So you have to be very careful about making decisions and judgements based on what you find here, and even more careful about what you say.
Anyway, it's a nice-looking document, but again, I could produce something exactly like that with ANYone's name on it, and post it on an internet in a matter of minutes.
Real 'truth' is something that's actually very, very difficult to find under the best of circumstances, and your chances of finding any during an election year?
Pretty much zip.
If Obama is not legal, he is not doing our country
nm
You can go to school as a legal resident
& don't have to become a citizen. Being adopted by someone doesn't imply that you automatically have that person's citizenship.
I lived in a country that doesn't recognize dual citizenship. I could have gotten a residence visa (work visa would have been possible, but more difficult), but I worked legally and went to school without either of these things. I married a Dutch national and did not give up my U.S. citizenship, but if I had (I was 19 at the time) I could have requested that my U.S. citizenship be reinstated when I turned 21.
The concentration camps were legal, too.
Your argument doesn't hold any water. Just because someone's allowed to murder one type of human being and not another does not make either right or just.
And, FYI, killing an adult with cancer is NOT illegal, so you need to check your facts.
If Joe Legal is married and has 2 children
and 2 parents, whom he probably supports, why else did you mention this, anyways, Joe Legal does NOT pay 30% taxes.
After I read this statement, I did NOT continue to read your rant.
Also, this inquiry was started before she was running for the VP slot - so it was not something they cooked up to get her after she got picked by McCain.
how about legal!!/common sense test...
x
I didn't say it was correct, legal, or moral.
And the WMDs didn't have anything to do with it, although you'll never convince me that Sadaam didn't have the capability for such - he'd used them in the past to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Correct, legal, moral or whatever, if you're in line with a terrorist group, like many sent to these places were, then you have no rights. Plain and simple.
I just feel that we've gotten too far from 9/11 and remembering what that day was like and all those people killed. It seems like now we care more about the "rights" of those involved in terrorist activites than those innocent people who died that day. Maybe that's why we're such an easy target.
He has no legal recourse to "recall" bonuses.
Unfortunately, because these are private companies, they have contracts with the CEOs and they are absolutely within their rights to honor those contracts. However, if Obama can find a loophole to keep them from getting paid, then we'll see what happens then.
This is why the government shoulder NEVER get involved in private businesses. Once they start handing on money, they think they own private businesses and dictate everything to them, so now we are caught in a catch 22 so to speak; government has no business in private businesses but yet they have given private businesses OUR money with NO stipulations beforehand and are now "surprised" the bonsues will continue?! Pleeeze!!!
Again, the screw up here is letting the screwed up American legal system handle legal cases that are best served by military tribunals.
McCain's legal adviser has already voted for Obama.
Yet another high-profile Republican has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama — and this time, it’s one of Sen. John McCain’s own advisers.
Charles Fried, a conservative legal scholar, Harvard professor and former solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, has asked to be removed from McCain’s list of advisers and thrown his support behind the Democratic presidential nominee.
I don't expect anyone to quit taking their legal deductions and I don't see how his taking those deductions can be construed as his not having to pay more taxes. The amount you owe comes off the adjusted amount and that will still be the same after he itemizes - just the percentage paid against that amount will change.
GOP Pays Legal Bills in Vote-Thwart Case
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Republican Party says it still has a zero-tolerance policy for tampering with voters even as it pays the legal bills for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to thwart Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.
James Tobin, the president's 2004 campaign chairman for New England, is charged in New Hampshire federal court with four felonies accusing him of conspiring with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in Virginia to jam Democratic and labor union get-out-the-vote phone banks in November 2002.
The Republican National Committee already has spent more than $722,000 to provide Tobin, who has pleaded innocent, a team of lawyers from the high-powered Washington law firm of Williams & Connolly. The firm's other clients have included former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros.
Republican Party officials said they don't ordinarily discuss specifics of their legal work, but confirmed to The Associated Press they had agreed to underwrite Tobin's defense because he was a longtime supporter and that he assured them he had committed no crimes.
"Jim is a longtime friend who has served as both an employee and an independent contractor for the RNC," a spokeswoman for the RNC, Tracey Schmitt, said Wednesday. "This support is based on his assurance and our belief that Jim has not engaged in any wrongdoing."
A telephone firm was paid to make repeated hang-up phone calls to overwhelm the phone banks in New Hampshire and prevent them from getting Democratic voters to the polls on Election Day 2002, prosecutors allege. Republican John Sununu won a close race that day to be New Hampshire's newest senator.
At the time, Tobin was the RNC's New England regional director, before moving to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.
A top New Hampshire Party official and a GOP consultant already have pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors. Tobin's indictment accuses him of specifically calling the GOP consultant to get a telephone firm to help in the scheme.
"The object of the conspiracy was to deprive inhabitants of New Hampshire and more particularly qualified voters ... of their federally secured right to vote," states the latest indictment issued by a federal grand jury on May 18.
The Republican Party has repeatedly and pointedly disavowed any tactics aimed at keeping citizens from voting since allegations of voter suppression surfaced during the Florida recount in 2000 that tipped the presidential race to Bush.
Earlier this week, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, the former White House political director, reiterated a "zero-tolerance policy" for any GOP official caught trying to block legitimate votes.
"The position of the Republican National Committee is simple: We will not tolerate fraud; we will not tolerate intimidation; we will not tolerate suppression. No employee, associate or any person representing the Republican Party who engages in these kinds of acts will remain in that position," Mehlman wrote Monday to a group that studied voter suppression tactics.
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Thursday questioned Mehlman's commitment to the policy. "This is just another example of his say one thing, do another strategy. Ken Mehlman tells crowds his party is against voter fraud and intimidation, while in the backrooms he supports Republican officials who engage in these dirty tricks," Dean said.
Dennis Black and Dane Butswinkas, two Williams & Connolly lawyers for Tobin, did not return calls seeking comment. Brian Tucker, a New Hampshire lawyer on the team, declined comment.
Tobin's lawyers have attacked the prosecution, suggesting evidence was improperly introduced to the grand jury, that their client originally had been promised he wouldn't be indicted and that he was improperly charged under one of the statutes.
Tobin stepped down from his Bush-Cheney post a couple of weeks before the November 2004 election after Democrats suggested he was involved in the phone bank scheme. He was charged a month after the election.
Paul Twomey, a volunteer lawyer for New Hampshire Democrats who are pursuing a separate lawsuit involving the phone scheme, said he was surprised the RNC was willing to pay Tobin's legal bills and that it suggested more people may be involved.
The new development "really raises the questions of who are they protecting, how high does this go and who was in on this," Twomey said.
Federal prosecutors have secured testimony from the two convicted conspirators in the scheme directly implicating Tobin.
Charles McGee, the New Hampshire GOP official who pleaded guilty, told prosecutors he informed Tobin of the plan and asked for Tobin's help in finding a vendor who could make the calls that would flood the phone banks.
Allen Raymond, a former colleague of Tobin who operated a Virginia-based telephone services firm, told prosecutors Tobin called him in October 2002, explained the telephone plan and asked Raymond's company to help McGee implement it.
Raymond's lawyer told the court that Tobin made the request for help in his official capacity as the top RNC official for New England and his client believed the RNC had sanctioned the activity.
Fox news is barely legal and on its way out and RUSH is a lying druggie sm
and that is so obviously the source of your info. I am trying to feel sorry for you but it's all too ridiculous. Ethics and Legal Ethics
You obviously understand nothing about "legal ethics", confusing it with "ethics". Obviously, arguing something to be true that you know to be false is extremely dishonest and unethical. But legal ethics demands it. Similarly, legal ethics demands that you do everything in your power if it will help your client -- or at least this holds for legal ethics in some cultures, and the whole point of legal ethics is that no one should be criticized for doing something in its name. He was representing his clients which does not prove his *gasp* moral compass.
marks the location of current message within thread
![](http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_messenger/2005805_57541_1_300x250_lrec_freewwcalls_love.gif")
Intense public scrutiny?
Wed, 09/10/2008 - 16:38 — Anonymous (not verified)