Lies, damn lies, and GOP propaganda

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Poor lazy people are simply useful idiots for the Liberal Democrats.

Dumb people and mathematically illiterate people are "useful idiots" for the GOP. What's your point?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Poor lazy people are simply useful idiots for the Liberal Democrats.

Dumb people and mathematically illiterate people are "useful idiots" for the GOP. What's your point?

Ah yes, the name calling, at least it has been applied equally thus far.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

So, basically, you're against any method that Liberal Democrats try to use to help the poor, lazy people?

I am saying I've witnessed this BS since 1964 and President Johnson's Great Society. It has not worked. Poor lazy people are simply useful idiots for the Liberal Democrats.

Poor lazy people need to be taught to value personal responsibility and personal achievement.

How do you teach them that, without converting them to Christianity, of course.

What about poor, lazy Republicans. I guess we haven't even talked about them yet.

That reminds me ... do you think there are very many RICH, LAZY people out there who sit back and make tons of money not producing anything of value? If so, do you think that LAZY people are OK and don't cost us anything as long as they are rich?

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, basically, you're against any method that Liberal Democrats try to use to help the poor, lazy people?

I am saying I've witnessed this BS since 1964 and President Johnson's Great Society. It has not worked. Poor lazy people are simply useful idiots for the Liberal Democrats.

Poor lazy people need to be taught to value personal responsibility and personal achievement.

How do you teach them that, without converting them to Christianity, of course.

What about poor, lazy Republicans. I guess we haven't even talked about them yet.

That reminds me ... do you think there are very many RICH, LAZY people out there who sit back and make tons of money not producing anything of value? If so, do you think that LAZY people are OK and don't cost us anything as long as they are rich?

I prefer government funding primarily for defense. That was my original position.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The attached graphic is going viral among the right wingers.

1. No-one pays federal tax at a 50% rate. Not even multi millionaires like Romney, who only pays 14%. The average federal tax rate of the wealthiest 400 individuals in the USA is only 16.6%

Right...like the GOP is the only party that shovels out bullshit. I remember some fairly ridiculous claims about the US supplying mexican gunlords with guns...until more details about Fast & Furious came out.

My net paycheck is less than half of my gross. This has distortions in it like state taxes (9.4%) and 401k and FSA deductions, so it's not true support of this graphic, but decrying it as total fabrication avoids reality too.

Let's suppose a self employed person with earned income of 200k in 2012

33% marginal tax rate, 25.25% blended
2.9% medicare
10.4% FICA to 110,000, 5.7% blended
---
33.85%. If we ignore state taxation and just talk about federal obligations, one third would have been an accurate description.

For very high wage earners (as opposed to those living off investments), the impact of SS diminishes, but the marginal rate increases.

1,000,000
35% bracket, 32.7% blended
2.9% MC
10.4% FICA to 110,000, or 1.1% blended
----
39%. 3/8ths.

It's hard for Californians to dismiss the state taxes. Even with itemization, that's about 6-7% on top.

---
Looping back, if the graphic had said one third was being distributed to the 50% of citizens who pay no income taxes and 5.85% in FICA taxes, it's close enough to reality.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

I prefer government funding primarily for defense. That was my original position.

Oh! I thought this was your original position:

Quote

1. Hard work and success should be allowed its reward, not penalized.

2. Defense should get the major funding because evil exists in the world. The churches should care for the poor not the government.

3. The lazy poor should not be rewarded. A major portion of our society associates income with the mailbox not work.

I was puzzled by your assertion that lazy poor people should not be rewarded. You haven't explained what you think should be done with them except that you think Christian ministries should reward them with charity and that they will no longer be lazy because their values will somehow be adjusted by the ministries and they will then no longer be poor because they will begin to work hard or something.

Why do you think the government is competent to run the military, but not capable of being competent to help lazy poor people and adjust their values?

What about all of the HARD WORKING poor people out there. Do you really think that if the government helps them out, they will become lazy too? If so, then why aren't you afraid that the government will make military personnel and contractors lazy also?

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

I prefer government funding primarily for defense. That was my original position.

Oh! I thought this was your original position:

Quote

1. Hard work and success should be allowed its reward, not penalized.

2. Defense should get the major funding because evil exists in the world. The churches should care for the poor not the government.

3. The lazy poor should not be rewarded. A major portion of our society associates income with the mailbox not work.

I was puzzled by your assertion that lazy poor people should not be rewarded. You haven't explained what you think should be done with them except that you think Christian ministries should reward them with charity and that they will no longer be lazy because their values will somehow be adjusted by the ministries and they will then no longer be poor because they will begin to work hard or something.

Why do you think the government is competent to run the military, but not capable of being competent to help lazy poor people and adjust their values?

What about all of the HARD WORKING poor people out there. Do you really think that if the government helps them out, they will become lazy too? If so, then why aren't you afraid that the government will make military personnel and contractors lazy also?

Right, I thought you were just going on the defense budget.

I stated my dissatisfaction in the Great Society. It has been 48 years and the situation has not improved with government funding. It is as useless as the War On Drugs.

The government is adept at increasing its power at the expense of the people. We are going down the tubes. Democrat/Republican, two heads same snake.

With the military fully funded we can at least identify an enemy.

My experience in social services has taught me that the only real enemy is the other programs. They are the ones that will take your funding. That is what social service programs due. They fight each other for funding. Funding is everything. Clients are just the pawns used to obtain it.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

I stated my dissatisfaction in the Great Society. It has been 48 years and the situation has not improved with government funding. It is as useless as the War On Drugs.

The government is adept at increasing its power at the expense of the people. We are going down the tubes. Democrat/Republican, two heads same snake.

With the military fully funded we can at least identify an enemy.

At the very least we can define one that exists everywhere and forever in order to justify spending unlimited amount of money on the military forever.

Quote

My experience in social services has taught me that the only real enemy is the other programs. They are the ones that will take your funding. That is what social service programs due. They fight each other for funding. Funding is everything. Clients are just the pawns used to obtain it.

Oh? And churches and charitable organizations don't have to fight each other for funding?

My experience in organized religion has taught me that the only real enemy is other religions. They are the one's that take our funding (and our souls). That is what organized religions do. They fight each other for funding and for souls. Funding and souls are everything. Poor people are just the pawns used to obtain funding and souls.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

I stated my dissatisfaction in the Great Society. It has been 48 years and the situation has not improved with government funding. It is as useless as the War On Drugs.

The government is adept at increasing its power at the expense of the people. We are going down the tubes. Democrat/Republican, two heads same snake.

With the military fully funded we can at least identify an enemy.

At the very least we can define one that exists everywhere and forever in order to justify spending unlimited amount of money on the military forever.

Quote

My experience in social services has taught me that the only real enemy is the other programs. They are the ones that will take your funding. That is what social service programs due. They fight each other for funding. Funding is everything. Clients are just the pawns used to obtain it.

Oh? And churches and charitable organizations don't have to fight each other for funding?

My experience in organized religion has taught me that the only real enemy is other religions. They are the one's that take our funding (and our souls). That is what organized religions do. They fight each other for funding and for souls. Funding and souls are everything. Poor people are just the pawns used to obtain funding and souls.

We all have to make choices.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

The attached graphic is going viral among the right wingers.

1. No-one pays federal tax at a 50% rate. Not even multi millionaires like Romney, who only pays 14%. The average federal tax rate of the wealthiest 400 individuals in the USA is only 16.6%

Right...like the GOP is the only party that shovels out bullshit. I remember some fairly ridiculous claims about the US supplying mexican gunlords with guns...until more details about Fast & Furious came out.

My net paycheck is less than half of my gross. This has distortions in it like state taxes (9.4%) and 401k and FSA deductions, so it's not true support of this graphic, but decrying it as total fabrication avoids reality too.

Let's suppose a self employed person with earned income of 200k in 2012

33% marginal tax rate, 25.25% blended
2.9% medicare
10.4% FICA to 110,000, 5.7% blended
---
33.85%. If we ignore state taxation and just talk about federal obligations, one third would have been an accurate description.

For very high wage earners (as opposed to those living off investments), the impact of SS diminishes, but the marginal rate increases.

1,000,000
35% bracket, 32.7% blended
2.9% MC
10.4% FICA to 110,000, or 1.1% blended
----
39%. 3/8ths.

It's hard for Californians to dismiss the state taxes. Even with itemization, that's about 6-7% on top.

---
Looping back, if the graphic had said one third was being distributed to the 50% of citizens who pay no income taxes and 5.85% in FICA taxes, it's close enough to reality.

Ummm, still an error, since the 1/3 includes BIG items like defense, social security, medicare as well as roads, education... that support everyone, not just the "50%"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[okalb 104]

Quote

As far as the cost, as I said before, Christians love to donate if they believe in the cause.

You left out the last part of that statement which is "as long as they get a tax deduction for that donation".

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

As far as the cost, as I said before, Christians love to donate if they believe in the cause.

You left out the last part of that statement which is "as long as they get a tax deduction for that donation".

Tax deduction is of little value. Most folks, me included, don't even use it. To utilize the tax benefit the donor must file long form and itemize deductions. Only a portion of the total contributions may deducted. The Christians I know generally just file short form and take the standard deduction.

I know it is hard to believe, most folks contribute from the heart and not from General Accounting Principles.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[okalb 104]

Quote

I know it is hard to believe, most folks contribute from the heart and not from General Accounting Principles.

I disagree, you are basing your statement on anecdotal evidence which in no way relates to facts. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Simple-Dollar/2011/1219/How-much-will-charity-help-your-tax-bill

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

I know it is hard to believe, most folks contribute from the heart and not from General Accounting Principles.

I disagree, you are basing your statement on anecdotal evidence which in no way relates to facts. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Simple-Dollar/2011/1219/How-much-will-charity-help-your-tax-bill

You are correct. I relate from personal experience and from what I know about folks like me. I do not know very many rich Christians. Also, I am not a Christian Scientist.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

As far as the cost, as I said before, Christians love to donate if they believe in the cause.

You left out the last part of that statement which is "as long as they get a tax deduction for that donation".

I never understood why this is a problem for folks. The donor is giving the earnings away and does not benefit from that money. Why should he be taxed on it? Let the beneficiary of that donation, whomever that may be, make their case for its "taxworthiniess". Otherwise the donor could just cap his earnings at an amount that does not include what he would have donated and simply not have to deal with the constant whining about "loopholes" and false tax breaks.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

I know it is hard to believe, most folks contribute from the heart and not from General Accounting Principles.

I disagree, you are basing your statement on anecdotal evidence which in no way relates to facts. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Simple-Dollar/2011/1219/How-much-will-charity-help-your-tax-bill

Additional info from a 2009 study.

"The 10 states with the highest percentage of Christian residents had an average median income of $42,297.07."

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2009/03/30/most-christian-states-are-least-wealthy/

Not much point filling long form with itemized deductions at that income level. These are my people. They are the working poor not the lazy poor.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Jesus is not wasting His time on this graphic. He is concerned only with your personal redemption.

If that is true, then why do you spend so much time pushing your personal 'redemption' onto others..... with posts like "the church should......"

[rehmwa 2]

If anyone here has any hungry horses, they should bring them in for all the strawmen being toss about left and right in here.


edit: Bonus, in addition to the straw, there's plenty of shit shoveling to keep the place tidy for the steeds as well

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As far as the cost, as I said before, Christians love to donate if they believe in the cause.

You left out the last part of that statement which is "as long as they get a tax deduction for that donation".

I never understood why this is a problem for folks.

Because they have to debase christianity in anyway they can, no matter how stupid the trivial accusations are...I just wish they could do it in a more humorous and entertaining fashion.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

make tons of money not producing anything of value?

If you think that's possible give us an example. .

[mirage62 0]

Hey could anyone here that is better at "numbers" tell me this.

The left just loves to throw out that Romney paid 14% in taxes....you can pick others.... I have no reason to not believe that is the case.

The ultra rich may pay at that rate.

But can any get a handle on what a S-corporation makinging say (the magical number) $250,000 a year pays at a %?

I really think that is the real question. Obama likes to make it sound like he is talking about ultra rich, I think it will impact the $250K people a LOT more than Romney, Buffet...

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

make tons of money not producing anything of value?

If you think that's possible give us an example. .

Mitt Romney.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

As far as the cost, as I said before, Christians love to donate if they believe in the cause.

You left out the last part of that statement which is "as long as they get a tax deduction for that donation".

I never understood why this is a problem for folks.

Because they have to debase christianity in anyway they can, no matter how stupid the trivial accusations are...I just wish they could do it in a more humorous and entertaining fashion.

Maybe, maybe not. But I was thinking more in general terms, not only faith-based but any donation (including faith-based).

[billvon 3,132]

>Obama likes to make it sound like he is talking about ultra rich, I think it will
>impact the $250K people a LOT more than Romney, Buffet...

Well, you have to define "ultra rich." A $250K individual income means the top 1% of the earners in the country (or the top 2% if you take total household income.) Is that "ultra rich?" To most people yes. To people who make $260,000, definitely not.

And what is "impact?" You could tax Buffet at 70% and he wouldn't be hard hit. You could raise taxes on a family of four making $35K from 15% to 17% and they might be a lot harder hit - if by "impact" you mean "increase in difficulty making ends meet.

But overall the total financial impact to Buffet is way, way more than the impact to the family of four, no matter how much you increase his taxes.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Hey could anyone here that is better at "numbers" tell me this.

The left just loves to throw out that Romney paid 14% in taxes....you can pick others.... I have no reason to not believe that is the case.

The ultra rich may pay at that rate.

But can any get a handle on what a S-corporation makinging say (the magical number) $250,000 a year pays at a %?

I really think that is the real question. Obama likes to make it sound like he is talking about ultra rich, I think it will impact the $250K people a LOT more than Romney, Buffet...

An S-Corporation is not subject to corporate tax rates. "Generally, an S corporation is exempt from federal income tax other than tax on certain capital gains and passive income," according to the Internal Revenue Service.
Instead, an S-Corporation passes-through profit (or net losses) to shareholders. The business profits are taxed at individual tax rates on each shareholder's Form 1040. The pass-through (sometimes called flow-through) nature of the income means that the corporation's profits are only taxed once – at the shareholder level. The IRS explains it this way: "On their tax returns, the S corporation's shareholders include their share of the corporation's separately stated items of income, deduction, loss, and credit, and their share of nonseparately stated income or loss."

S-Corporations therefore avoid the so-called "double taxation" of dividends.

So if you are the sole shareholder of an S corporation making a PROFIT of $250 a year (after all expenses etc.) then you pay tax like anyone else making $250/year. Which means you pay at a far higher rate than Mitt Romney.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.