Boston Tea Party on The Common

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I regard the amount I'm spending now in income tax is at the very high end of fair. I would like to see it go down but current is sustainable. What is not sustainable for me is all the new taxes and fees. What is not sustainable is our country's spending right now. This spending is significantly greater than what it takes in. How can this be good?

Hey, what till VAT hits
Europe's VAT Lessons - WSJ.com

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I regard the amount I'm spending now in income tax is at the very high end of fair. I would like to see it go down but current is sustainable. What is not sustainable for me is all the new taxes and fees. What is not sustainable is our country's spending right now. This spending is significantly greater than what it takes in. How can this be good?

JR, if you have money in the bank, eventually interest rates are going to soar. Good for the people who are prudent, not willing to gamble on the stock exchange.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I regard the amount I'm spending now in income tax is at the very high end of fair. I would like to see it go down but current is sustainable. What is not sustainable for me is all the new taxes and fees. What is not sustainable is our country's spending right now. This spending is significantly greater than what it takes in. How can this be good?

well, according to Obama in his speech yesterday...you need to stop asking these amusing but rediculous questions and start thanking him

[justplugit]

Didn't Joe Biden say it was good to pay taxes?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

well, according to Obama in his speech yesterday...you need to stop asking these amusing but rediculous questions and start thanking him

I heard that speach too. He is the most arrogant, insensitive, and classless President ever. He has nothing but disdain for "the opposition". He truly just doesn't get it.

[Nebe]

what did the republicans say about social security?

[striperman36]

do it yourself

[RIJIMMY]

I dont know if anyone listens to WTKK, but Jim Braudie (sp?) is one of the most left wing nuts on the radio and even he thinks the tea party is valid and that the members are not all nut jobs.
Part of the momentum is that Obama did a very good job communicating the problems George Bush (apparently) created. Obama has done NOTHING to reverse the problems other than some minor policy changes. We have 2 wars, an unpopular prison camp, a raging defecit and a divided country. Healthcare is not the biggest issue facing this country. He made it his biggest issue and it will be his downfall.

[RIJIMMY]

these people are f'in NUTBAGS!! This is CRAZY TALK !!!!!

Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.” Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.

Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

these people are f'in NUTBAGS!! This is CRAZY TALK !!!!!

Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.” Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.

Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

Jimmy,

I agree 100% with the first part of the statement (or actually the 2nd paragraph - not the commentary ) . My issues is that I think the policies of any pres./admin. should be directed at helping the poor, rather than the rich. I guess is a matter of degrees though.

[Joe]

The demographics of any group consisting mainly of white people over fifty is better educated and makes more in comparison to other groups. White males over fifty hold most of the wealth.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Joe

The demographics of any group consisting mainly of white people over fifty is better educated and makes more in comparison to other groups. White males over fifty hold most of the wealth.

I would replace "hold" with "earn". Its the governments job to ensure equal opportunity. The rest is up to you. I wonder how many Indian americans are creeping into that category? I wonder why racism and white men keeping them down hasnt factored into the massive success of Indians in the US in recent years?

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I would replace "hold" with "earn". Its the governments job to ensure equal opportunity. The rest is up to you.

I remember a Thanksgiving dinner several years ago with my in-laws. A cousin of my step brother was a pretty successful guy in his late 20's and making some money. He was adament that his success was his alone, he earned it himself.

Then his much older uncle Paulie proceeded to rip him apart listing all the thnigs done by others so that he could be positioned to do as well as he's doing today.

It was pretty remarkable to watch.

Some wealth is certainly earned, but you can't use "earn" to replace "hold".

I wonder how many Indian americans are creeping into that category? I wonder why racism and white men keeping them down hasnt factored into the massive success of Indians in the US in recent years?

You're joking right?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I remember a Thanksgiving dinner several years ago with my in-laws. A cousin of my step brother was a pretty successful guy in his late 20's and making some money. He was adament that his success was his alone, he earned it himself. Afterall, he gotten good grades in school, worked hard in college and impressed in boss at his new job.

Then his much older uncle Commie proceeded to rip him apart listing all the things done by others so that he could be positioned to do as well as he's doing today. He reminded him that he'd only climbed the ladder of success by stepping on the backs of those less fortunate and for every dollar he earned some child was starving to death that very second and that he should feel guilty about his success. He told this cousin that he was evil and greedy and ungrateful.

It was pretty scary to watch. Then he kicked the kid in the nuts and took his wallet.

Well, the cousin is an alcoholic now with no self esteem and collecting SSI, barely ever leaves the house....but he no longer gloats about success....or even strives for it...



Some wealth is certainly earned


-spence

sad story

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Some wealth is certainly earned, but you can't use "earn" to replace "hold".




-spence

"Hold " had to be "earned" by someone .

When it comes to "hold and save", that used to be part of the American Dream
that your chidren would have a better life than you.

The only thing we will leave our children is a life of debt.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

I remember a Thanksgiving dinner several years ago with my in-laws. A cousin of my step brother was a pretty successful guy in his late 20's and making some money. He was adament that his success was his alone, he earned it himself.

Then his much older uncle Paulie proceeded to rip him apart listing all the thnigs done by others so that he could be positioned to do as well as he's doing today.

It was pretty remarkable to watch.

Some wealth is certainly earned, but you can't use "earn" to replace "hold".


-spence

you're only proving my point, I didnt say its purely an individual effort. My success is due in a large part to my parents sacrfice. NOT, I REPEAT NOT due to taxpayers sacrafice. I remember thanksgiving and christmas when my Dad was going to work and as a kid I would beg him to stay home and he would explain that he would make triple time going in and tha was 3 days worth of work. I undestood then and understand now.
I dont hold wealth, it was earned not deemed to me by a family name or class structure as "hold" implies.

[JohnnyD]

The NYT poll is interesting.

As scottw pointed out, the movement is supposedly for lower taxes yet, 52% of Tea Party supporters regard the income tax they pay as "Fair".

62% of them support Socialized programs and feel "the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare worth the costs of those programs."

Not to mention 47% of them feel as though their figurehead, Sarah Palin, would *not* be an effective President.


The above is what I'm talking about when I say that the makeup of the party is detrimental to the foundation of the movement.
And then there's always this:

“I just feel he’s getting away from what America is,” said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. “He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think he’s a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don’t care what he says. He’s been in office over a year and can’t find a church to go to. That doesn’t say much for him.”

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The NYT poll is interesting.

As scottw pointed out, the movement is supposedly for lower taxes yet, 52% of Tea Party supporters regard the income tax they pay as "Fair".

62% of them support Socialized programs and feel "the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare worth the costs of those programs."

Not to mention 47% of them feel as though their figurehead, Sarah Palin, would *not* be an effective President.


The above is what I'm talking about when I say that the makeup of the party is detrimental to the foundation of the movement.
And then there's always this:

Always the unbiased positive thinker JD.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The NYT poll is interesting.

As scottw pointed out, the movement is supposedly for lower taxes yet, 52% of Tea Party supporters regard the income tax they pay as "Fair".

62% of them support Socialized programs and feel "the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare worth the costs of those programs."

Not to mention 47% of them feel as though their figurehead, Sarah Palin, would *not* be an effective President.


The above is what I'm talking about when I say that the makeup of the party is detrimental to the foundation of the movement.
And then there's always this:

JD, I believe in a lot of what the Tea Party stands for, as well. I also feel that I pay more than enough in taxes, but it's still "fair" because I do get benefits from them. If I had to pay more taxes, I would start to no longer consider the amount fair.

I also support government programs paid for with taxes. If we didn't help the less fortunate, we'd fail to exist as a strong country. But, there has to be limits and/or requirements for these programs. As you've pointed out, people who benefit from the programs should have to contribute in some way to society to be eligible for the benefits. No sitting on the couch with a bag of weed and and an XBox 360 to play.

I'm not sure why anyone would be suprised at the lack of support for Palin. She didn't even complete one term as governor of Alaska. She's way too politically inexperienced to lead this country, much like the guy in the White House now.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The NYT poll is interesting.

As scottw pointed out, the movement is supposedly for lower taxes yet, 52% of Tea Party supporters regard the income tax they pay as "Fair"but oppose the massive increases that are coming..... "supposedly"...no JD, they're actually for much higher taxes

62% of them support Socialized programs and feel "the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare worth the costs of those programs." show me where in the poll it states 62% support "socialized programs", if you've paid into these programs your whole life you probably don't consider them "socialized" because you get the statement showing your contributions and what you are getting and figure you are collecting your own contributiuons ..more like a savings...but if you are currently paying and realize that every penny that you contribute today is being transferred to someone else immediately and not being "saved"...then you would consider this a "socialized" program or more aptly... a PONZI SCHEME "

Not to mention 47% of them feel as though their figurehead, Sarah Palin, would *not* be an effective President.I'm guessing most don't expect her to run either


The above is what I'm talking about when I say that the makeup of the party is detrimental to the foundation of the movement.
And then there's always this:

you hate the movement, why do you care?

[buckman]

The Feds now spend more on employee pensions and benefits then on education. Vote them all out

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by buckman

The Feds now spend more on employee pensions and benefits then on education. Vote them all out

We could say that for Mansfield too

[Joe]

Inheritance is how most wealth is acquired.
Frankly, I'd be careful about the parsing the semantics of 'hold or earn.' The Obama Admin might agree, and get the idea to tax investment income at the higher rate wages are taxed at.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by Joe

Inheritance is how most wealth is acquired.
Frankly, I'd be careful about the parsing the semantics of 'hold or earn.' The Obama Admin might agree, and get the idea to tax investment income at the higher rate wages are taxed at.

I hope to become a vampire. compounded interest over 300 years should be fine.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Buckman

this is the difference between somewhat reasonable (you) and blinded by hate (scottw)

The 5.5 was mostly book money, so the income was not including the nobel prize, which was donated 100%

And scott, if someone walked up to me and said here's 1.1 million "that I've done nothing to deserve" I'd donate some but you bet your ass I'd be fishing on a new boat this season . I guess you are more giving and liberal than you let on


***This is a cut and paste, 100%:***

WASHINGTON - The Tea Party was out railing against taxes on Tax Day on Thursday, but it's a safe bet few of them paid as much as President Obama.

Tax returns released by the White House show Obama's adjusted gross income was $5,505,409 in 2009 - mostly from best-selling book sales.

On that, he owed $1,792,414 in federal taxes, or a third of his income, but overpaid by $8,287. The Obamas applied the refund to next year's bill.

The Obamas' total gross income was $5,623,690, before adjustments.

The President offset his tab somewhat by being very generous, giving $329,100 to 40 different charities.

In addition, the Obamas donated his entire $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize income to charity and paid $163,303 in Illinois state income taxes.

Because Obama donated the entire Nobel award to charity, it didn't count as income and he wasn't able to claim a deduction for those gifts.

Joe and Jill Biden aren't nearly so well-off. The vice president and his wife's income was $333,182, on which they paid $71,147 to Uncle Sam. They gave away $4,820 to charity and paid $13,897 in state income taxes.

The returns show that the Obamas made about as much in charitable contributions as the Bidens earned in 2009.

Among the 10 charities who received contributions from Obama's Nobel cash are the Posse Foundation, a New York-based group that got $125,000 to provide scholarships for students with extraordinary academic and leadership potential.

The Obamas' income included $374,460 in wages, $13,473 in interest, $12,018 in dividends and $4,230 in other income. The overwhelming majority of their income - nearly $5.2 million - was from book royalties.

Like millions of Americans, the Obamas reduced their tax bite by contributing - in their case $49,000 - to a retirement plan.


mmcauliff@nydailynews.com

With Thomas M. DeFrank and Glenn Blain in Albany

Read more: President Obama tax return reveals he made $5.5M in 2009, largely from book sales

[scottw]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;763011]Buckman


And scott, if someone walked up to me and said here's 1.1 million "that I've done nothing to deserve" I'd donate some but you bet your ass I'd be fishing on a new boat this season . I guess you are more giving and liberal than you let on

QUOTE]

so...if you happen to be awarded a prize and attached money around 1.5 million(or any amount for that matter) and there's absolutely no justification for you receiving the award and there are numerous other far more deserving people who actually did something that might earn them the prize...you'd go out and buy a boat??? that's really pathetic.... not blinded by hate ...eyes wide open and just want a little honesty, decency and consistency from our dear leader....still waiting

and the cut and paste is as pathetic as Biden's 1.44% and I'd love to compare Obama's charity compared to that of other 5.5 millionaires and see how they rank being charitable with their easy money....


giving and liberal? that's funny...see...I am very "giving" with my own money...I would never feel "entitled" to such a sum of money that I didn't deserve for any reason and particularly if there were those more deserving.....I think we have a trend here with democrat leaders and their rhetoric and their pathetic showing when the numbers come out...the same thing was discovered of Al Gore(your hero) and the Kerry's were paying a miniscule amount in taxes and the Clinton's were deducting their dirty underwear.....nice people...

the perpetual quandry of the limousine liberal

[RIROCKHOUND]

Scott.
If someone walks up to you and said you've been randomly selected to win a million dollars based on having the exact number of posts on S-B, you'd say no?

You are in the minority my friend.


The point I was making is that you claimed a big chunk of the 5.5 he reported as income was Nobel prize money, I was pointing out it wasn't included, so technically, the Obama's donated 300+K + the 1million + of the Nobel money.

In full disclosure, I gave well less as a % than both the Pres and VP.
If you donated more than 10% of your after tax income, (339,000/(5.5Mil - 1.7Mil = ~9%) then you can stand on your soap box on this issue. I would wager that for everyone who has 5.5mil of 'easy' money and donated 10% after taxes to charity, there are at least 2 that don't. Did you give more than that? I didn't. Did you give more than 1.8% after taxes to charity? I didn't. I put what little extra money we had into my mortgage, college fund for jr. and construction on my second floor.

I guess I'm a hypocrite too then.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Scott.
If someone walks up to you and said you've been randomly selected to win a million dollars based on having the exact number of posts on S-B, you'd say no? is this how Obama was selected for the Nobel prize? it was a lottery? or he was randomly selected? he had the right number of "present" votes?...that would make the prize pretty meaningless under your scenario...would it not? I mean more meaningless than they've already denigrated it to be

You are in the minority my friend. I suppose


The point I was making is that you claimed a big chunk of the 5.5 he reported as income was Nobel prize money my point was that they didn't do a whole lot of actual earning like the folks that they attack on a daily basis, if the prize was a wash then I was correct that they donated 5.8% of their "income" to charity...you can give them credit for giving the prize to charity...I say it would have been reprehensible to have kept any of it and he should have refused it in the first place simply on principle so he doesn't get credit, at least from me for donating ill gotten gains, I guess you can say he did the right thing or more correctly, the most obvious thing , I was pointing out it wasn't included, so technically, the Obama's donated 300+K + the 1million + of the Nobel money.technically

In full disclosure, I gave well less as a % than both the Pres and VP.and that is entirely your choosing, I would never question what amount you or someone else gave unless they were in the habit of preaching and then shown to be falling far short of what they were preaching....Obama campaigned through all of 2009...not only did he have no expenses because everything he and his wife did were on the campaign tab, and reports were that they were living quite lavishly while simultaneously lecturing about sacrafice...his earnings required little or no effort, if there were ever and opportunity given all of the rhetoric to put his money where his mouth was...this would have been a good time
If you donated more than 10% of your after tax income, (339,000/(5.5Mil - 1.7Mil = ~9%)talk about number fudging, I'm still not crediting the prize and you keep making it larger then you can stand on your soap box on this issue. so, don't criticize the "one" unless the mailman accidentally drops off a pile of money at your house that should have gone to someone else that you then donate to charity and take credit for?... I would wager that for everyone who has 5.5mil of 'easy' money and donated 10% after taxes to charity, there are at least 2 that don't. Did you give more than that? I didn't. Did you give more than 1.8% after taxes to charity? I didn't. yes, I did I put what little extra money we had into my mortgage, college fund for jr. and construction on my second floor.

I guess I'm a hypocrite too then.

you completely miss the point ...if you pontificate constantly about "sacrafice" and "having skin in the game" and "paying taxes being patriotic" and deamonize others, earners...the evil rich, capitalism... for all sorts of reasons that really boil down to ideaology....then yes...you are a fing hypocrit if your tax return shows a paultry effort vs. a large and largely unearned income...when you are the "leader of the free world" ...you are hardly leading by example ....if you recall, during the primaries, Biden and Obama's previous returns showed the same for previous years....despite having the biggest mouth in Washington...Biden has the tightest wallet...and OBama barely gave squat till he hit it big with his book deals and then he gave the most to the Church of Hate that he attended.....funny that when you simply point out facts about this regime..you are considered blinded by hate....I don't hate..... I can't stand arrogance and hypocricy from these guys with so much power

hey Rock...you equated liberalism with giving recently...pretend O didn't with the Nobel..it's not hard to do...would 1.44% and 5.8% in "giving" from the super lib vice pres and pres be acceptable?

wait..maybe they are improving???

Delaware Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for vice president, and his wife reported giving a fraction of 1 percent of their income to charity during the past decade, below the national average, tax records show.
Over the past decade they reported giving an average of $369 to charity.

The Bidens' giving represents a smaller portion of their income than the $353 then-Vice President Al Gore was criticized for donating on an income of $197,729 in 1997.

The Bidens' deductions for charity ranged from a low of $120 in 1999 to $995 last year. Most were in the range of $260-$380 per year, their tax returns show.


The Obamas gave less than 1 percent of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 to 2004 to charities, their returns showed. They increased their giving to more than 5 percent when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a best-selling book.

Bill Clinton, the former president, earned $109 million from 2000 through 2007. They donated about $10.3 million of that to their own charitable foundation.

McCain released his own tax returns on April 18, which showed he reported $405,409 of income and gave $105,467 to charity, about 26 percent.

[mekcotuit]

: rotf2:

Scott - try using some current data - your "material" is from September 2008 and maybe also include the complete text and gives us your source:

McCain released his own tax returns on April 18, which showed he reported $405,409 of income and gave $105,467 to charity, about 26 percent. His wife, Cindy, who files separately, released a summary of her own returns on May 23, which showed she earned $6 million and paid $1.75 million in tax. She didn't release the schedule of her tax returns that discloses her charitable contributions.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by mekcotuit

: rotf2:

Scott - try using some current data - your "material" is from September 2008 and maybe also include the complete text and gives us your source:

McCain released his own tax returns on April 18, which showed he reported $405,409 of income and gave $105,467 to charity, about 26 percent. His wife, Cindy, who files separately, released a summary of her own returns on May 23, which showed she earned $6 million and paid $1.75 million in tax. She didn't release the schedule of her tax returns that discloses her charitable contributions.

is there a point?