For those of you who bought into Nobama's saying that he wasn't going to raise taxes...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/INSIDE-WASHINGTON-Rude-apf-15091434.html?.v=1
I guess he didn't really raise taxes, but he isn't going to let you keep them either. You would think that that MORON would have had his advisors go over this.
We got a letter about this today.
What was your letter about, Diane? I had a letter, too, about the $250.00 I am supposed to get. But if anyone thinks they are going to get it back by monkeying with the tax charts, it won't happen. For a person who has no taxable income after the exemptions and deductions, there is nothing to apply a credit to and I already know that you can't take a credit from nothing. Are they going to ask me to just simply mail the $250.00 back to them?
Besides this article was written by a reporter whose main purpose is to get attention. If he is capable of interpreting the tax code, more power to him. As to the individuals like you and me, it is our responsibility to see that enough is held out to cover what we are going to owe at the end of the year. You can either have more held out in anticipation of a bigger refund or have less held out and expect to pay in more at the end of the year. Trying for a balance is frustrating and would involve adjusting your withholding numerous times during the year.
If you are afraid that you will be asked for more money at the end of the year, have your withholding adjusted now so that there will be more withheld. Don't accept the apparent increase in your pay check. Have it withheld so that it will already be paid in. Or if you don't care, take the increase in the pay check, live it up and pay it back when asked to.
This is just another example of Nobamas dishonest, underhanded way of governing. he said he wasn't going to raise taxes, that he was giving a tax cut that would give taxpayers a larger paycheck, he just didn't say that they would have to pay that back. So he really cut a thing. Typical liberal. I wonder how much was wasted setting up this little scheme?
Wilma, Al and I both get small pension checks from the state of De. The letter was included. it explains the Making Work Pay business. IRS is the culpable one in this. There are new tax tables. "The Office of Pensions is required to use these new tax tables even though pension plan distributions do not meet the IRS definition of "earned income" and most pensioners will NOT qualify for the Making Work Pay Credit." In great big black letters it says,"while the new tables will increase your monthly net pay, they will also increase the likelihood that you will owe taxes and possible penalties at the end of the year." "Retirees who will not be eligible for the Making Work Pay credit are the most likely to be affected." Then it goes on to say to check with your tax preparer to see if you need to file a new withholding form or request more taxes to be taken out. Then there is a web site for us to use. It looks like we are going to be able to"borrow" our own money for a little longer. ( We pay quarterly as it is and don't have any withholding.) This letter really didn't have anything about the $250.00 coming later this month. Today's paper did have an article."The $250.00 payments are meant to provide a boost to those who don't qualify for the Making Pay Work tax credit." "However, they will go to retirees even if they have earned income and receive the credit." "Those retirees will have the $250.00 payment deducted from their tax credit - but not until they file their tax return next year, long after the money has been spent." So it is not a wind fall. I better save most of it.
Diane, just who do you suppose told the IRS to implement this little scheme?
Do you think that Obama has had the time along with everything else he has done, to create an intricate, complicated addition to the Tax Laws. The IRS can do that all by themselves.
And do you really believe anyone that says "no new taxes", "less taxes", or any of the other foolish things that campaigners promise to get your vote? I didn't. Do you believe that anyone can reduce taxes?
The IRS is perfectly capable of screwing it up all by themselves. :P
Quote from: Wilma on May 01, 2009, 10:15:03 AM
Do you believe that anyone can reduce taxes?
Yeah, I do. Regan did, that is how he turned the economy around. It was Nobama that went around saying that he was going to give ""95% of Americans a tax cut" now he's taking it back.
You skipped a couple of Presidents. Now be fair, what did they say and what did they do?
Well, wasn't it Regan that cut taxes instead of raising them on captial gains giving more money back to businesses?
He lowered taxes in '81 (Kemp/ Roth) ( who was one of mine, by the way) and then had deficits to deal with. Then lowered taxes again in '86. I believe that was the capital gains one. I liked him as a president and as always, didn't agree with all, but liked most.
Thats what I am getting at. He didn't try to spend his way out of debt, takeover private business, etc.
And he wasn't faced with failing banks and companies when he took office, either. And the capital gains tax didn't amount to all that much. It was most beneficial to people who already had a lot of money or other assets. We little people didn't benefit from it at all.
Don't you suppose the gov't ought not to be taxing just because of the success or profits of others?
Using the Feds to get other peoples' money does not seem to be right.
Quote from: Wilma on May 01, 2009, 01:53:40 PM
It was most beneficial to people who already had a lot of money or other assets. We little people didn't benefit from it at all.
Aren't the people with money and other assests the ones who open factories, up production, expand business and hire workers, i.e. "little people"?
How else are you going to pay for a government of any kind? By donation?
So, by cutting the capital gains tax, business was encouraged to expand and provide more to everybody? Right?
Yes Sir! Billy you're right again.
And when the U. S was established, there was no power whatsoever for the Fed's to
tax income or capital gains. Further, the Fed's did not "manage" the economy.
Now the greed has set in and we're paying for it.
Certainly, gov't can be cut when there is a mandate to do so.
But, how many are ready to support something like our found fathers when
they established the USA?
Probably not many - too many gov't checks being issued to people and companies.
I doubt most of the so-called "conservatives" would give up their entitlements and gov't
checks. Exception would be veterans' benefits which began at the American Revolution.
Um, do you guys know how far Eminent Domain goes back? and political influence? Not everybody was happy with their Gov't even way back then. There was plenty of political power to be pushed around and what makes you think the Gov't didn't manage the economy? Who do you think got the military contracts? Who got the best market roads? Whose packet boat got docked and unloaded first? Who scratched whose back when? That kind of thing has always been there. I'm sure they just called it "good business" too.
Diane, are you calling it "good business" too? Where do you stand?
Quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
I said THEY would call it good business. They would defend their position just as most would. No, I don't like that kind of thing when its just for the benefit of a chosen few who (wink,wink,nudge, nudge) rub elbows with what they see as power.
Okay class, once again lets review...
Who or what caused the banks and companies to fail...don't be scared, just shout out the answers...could it be gov't interfernce telling the banks to make loans even though they were risky???
Yes, we all have to pay our taxes. But why would we want to hurt or increase taxes on those who are providing the jobs this country so badly needs? Espcially when we could cut federal programs and the size of gov't?
Poorly managed mortgage lending institutions and mortgages in bundles that had been sold and resold so many times nobody knew who owned what and misinformation by the rating services. Try that on.
Try government stepping in a telling mortgage companies to make loans to folks that couldn't afford it, and using the excuse of racism to base it on.
Are you trying to blame Obama for this, too? Can't do it. He inherited the situation.
Quote from: Wilma on May 01, 2009, 03:35:09 PM
Are you trying to blame Obama for this, too? Can't do it. He inherited the situation.
No one is saying he caused it, but he has enough blame to sink him now. His shelling out taxpayors money to prop up failed and insolvent companies is reckless and making the problem worse. 16 out of 19 of the biggest banks are insolvent and all it will take is one more downturn in the market and their gone. Why have we pumped billions into these failed companies? ITs not the Governments job to bail out anyone. Let the market work and it will take care of the failed companies.
So if the government hadn't intervened the companies and banks would have failed. The government intervened and they are going to fail anyway. Down go the banks, down go the businesses, now where is the government going to go? Obama is just trying to fix what he had no hand in creating? What else can he do?
Wilma, I never said obama created this. But wasn't he a U.S. senator, where is the legislation that he organized trying to stop it? he was a part of the organization that started it and while he doesn't carry the full blame he does have his share. he may have inherited the overall responsibility of it, but his hands are just as dirty from the makings.
Now if I remember correctly, and I may not have this quite right Poppa Bush sent Fannie and Freddie away from being Gov't backed entities and into the private sector. (Somehow there was money to be made.) Pres. Clinton pressed the two to pick up more risky mortgages to help poor folks get into houses, as it appeared they were able to handle the additional risk without a stretch. Huge pots of money were being made by a booming housing market that seemed to have no top. But there was a top! Mortgages were sold and resold and resold and every time fees were paid, more bad risk paper was bundled and resold over and over again. More and more money was made, but it couldn't last and the house of cards fell. Enron had their crooks and Mortgage Institutions had theirs....along with a lot of innocent workers who got plowed under too. Many of the risky mortgages were successful, but enough failed to make the situation precarious. Pres. Bush Jr. didn't appear to help. Pres. Obama inherited the deck of cards as it was falling, put Fannie and Freddie back where they had once been, and it remains to be seen if his plan will work or not. Whew! Billy how long was Pres. Obama a Senator before the election?
Jobs still lost, money being wasted, dollar losing value, not really good signs of a working plan.
Four years.
Where did I get the idea that he had served only two years in the senate?
he did three terms in the illonis state senate 1997-2004 before he became a U.S. represenative.
So, four years in total experience to straighten out what has been at least 30 years in the making?
While he was a U.S. representive, can you show by way of bills, legislation, petitions, anything at all, that he did to try and stop the programs and policies that he says is to blame?
He has managed to screw up and cost the Americans more money in his 100 days in office than any other president..
Wilma........once again... I'd like to ask you.. Do you really agree with everything that Obama has signed..all that he and his doting Congress are doing to America... and what he has done so far?
I don't want any "give him a chance" BS.. (Give him anymore of a chance and he will bury us so far in the latrine we will never smell fresh air again..)
I want to know if you support his socialistic platform?
Quote from: Wilma on May 01, 2009, 03:41:48 PM
So if the government hadn't intervened the companies and banks would have failed. The government intervened and they are going to fail anyway. Down go the banks, down go the businesses, now where is the government going to go? Obama is just trying to fix what he had no hand in creating? What else can he do?
Government has no business using money they take from us to fix the businesses.
banks fail and other banks buy up assets. Thats free market. Now we will have to pay for generations as well as limp along in a hyperinflated economy for years.
He took a bad situation and made it devestating for years to come. In essence it fits in his socialistic plan by destroying wealth and making government the saviour of people instead of letting capitalism and freemarket society produce for us.
Quote from: Wilma on May 01, 2009, 05:11:24 PM
So, four years in total experience to straighten out what has been at least 30 years in the making?
155 days i think total he worked as a representative. His term was not completed.
he spent more time campaigning then he did in office. Gee, now what phrase could we use to describe his time in office...lets see...oh, how about "not present"
How anyone can uphold how he has handled all that has come before him, is beyond me. Those of you that say " I did not vote for him" and now you are saying " you are not giving him a chance" Where in the world are you coming from??? Either you are for his misrepresentation of our great country or you are not. Make up your mind!
He is NOT I repeat NOT a president for our country -- he is without a doubt the most undermining person to hold this office, and is digging a hole that we will be hard pressed to get out of.
May God help us!
So we are not supporting our president. What should we do about it? Does anyone have any ideas about how to change things? Do you know anyone that could do any better under the circumstances? I can think of one, but he didn't get elected, did he? There is lots of complaining. Where are the solutions?
I believe that ron paul could have done better. John McCain although I have true respect for him as a veteran, wouldn't have done much better. Both canidates were socalist to some extent.
Solutions have ben presented time and again but somehow the debate conveniently changed. The idea of a Constitutional gov't has been expressed many times over.
How do you propose going about getting a "Constitutional" government. I though our government was based on a constitution.
Quote from: Wilma on May 02, 2009, 07:27:27 PM
How do you propose going about getting a "Constitutional" government. I though our government was based on a constitution.
This government does not follow the constitution anymore.
So, as the lady said, how do you propose going about getting a "Constitutional" governmnt?
...by seeing to it that officals who are elected folloow the Constitution to the letter, if not then they are out. Look at their track records before voting, if they support legislation that isn't in line with the constitution then they don't get nominated. Put together a third party that bases itself in the constitution.
Got get 'em, Billy. When do you start organizing and politicking physically, not just by anonymous written words? Oh, and how are you going to change the Constitution so we can have another election next month that will oust our present unpopular masses of politicians? Show us the way, Billy.
;D ;D
Quote from: sixdogsmom on May 02, 2009, 08:36:42 PM
So, as the lady said, how do you propose going about getting a "Constitutional" governmnt?
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Act IV, Scene II).
That might actually work....but it's generalizing again. ;)
Does this sound like, "Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it"?
Its called a Consitiutional Convention. If that doesn't work, and letter writing, voting, etc doesn't work, then perhaps a more "forceable" solution is called for.
Uh oh...ya have me worried again. ;D Surely Elk County won't hike up its britches and march to DC. Or at least not until this flu thing is done.
Are you advocating forcible overthrow?
wilma, lets just say that there is a time and place for everything and sometimes force is whats called for.
But aren't you part of a minority now?
What minority?...Republican, I told you I'm not one, I am not a conservative either. I am an American, and last time I checked we outnumbered any other group in this country.
Surely you aren't saying that the people you disagree with aren't Americans?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on May 03, 2009, 09:12:51 PM
Surely you aren't saying that the people you disagree with aren't Americans?
What I am saying is that the people who come here and do not want to uphold our beliefs, traditions, customs, language, laws etc..are not american.
Now that statement has to be true. The people who come here are not American or they would already be here, not just coming.
Billy, how do you feel about naturalized citizens? Do you trust them or does it depend on which country they came from.
Diane, I think that if a person is willing to conform to american ideals, that if they love freedom and are willing to fight for it, and make an honest effort to assimilate into our culture and not just abuse our rights and priviledges then they should be given a chance, regardless of where they are from. That being said however, I also think that at this point in history america needs to be extra careful about who it lets in.
That should have been started many, many years ago. It is a little late to close the barn door now. The horses are already in.
Tell me something wilma, did you speak out against it then, or were you just "loyaly" accepting it?
The reason I asked is because I'm not happy about the children of illegals automatically being US citizens just because they are born here. Children of naturalized citizens, yes.
You got a point. I agree