GOP desperate to avoid defense cuts agreed to in automatic trigger

I agree, they have painted themselves into a corner.

After Promising To End Earmarks, Tea Party Freshmen Hog Defense Pork

No leg to stand on for this BS. Teapublicans started in congress taking the position that they were going to do away with pork projects. Eliminating pork is the right thing to do, but they turned around immediately and porked down the Department of Defense budget will billions of dollars of pork projects - all of those contracts going to factories in their districts that keep their voters employed. And it does not make any difference if those contracts are for items that military has not requested and/or represent outdated technology. It was especially hypocritical for Teapublicans who ran against Democrats and criticized them for exactly this type of pork, then turning around immediately and doing the same thing.

America currently accounts for 46.5 percent of the world's military spending. Our closest competitor is China at just 6.6 percent. We could cut our military spending in half and still be out spending China three to one. Under George W Bush, America accounted for more of the world's military spending than all other countries combined. The bottom line here is that level of spending is over the top excessive. We can't continue with military spending as if we are the new British Empire.

We have over 760 military bases world wide. We need to close down most of these bases. We need to close down BOTH quagmires in the Mideast. We should even consider a time table to shut down our perennial quagmire, Korea. This is no longer the cold war or arms race and we need to plan for the essential defense of America only, not fund our role as the world's police force.

While talking the big plan to be fiscally responsible the Republican freshmen have packed a huge $553 billion spending bill with millions of pet defense projects for their home districts

Excellent find Mike....

oink, oink

Don't forget to put some bright 'RED' lipstick on that... thingy.

IT is odd as at first it looked like Obama was foolish.

Remember he caved to cuts at first, to get the debt ceiling raised, which was always raised without a squeak from the gop(sans paul), some 80+ times before. Obama clearly lost that match up and he didnt even get the ceiling raised enough to finish an entire year. And this is paying for stuff the republicans voted for but didnt want to provide the money for.(as usual) It really look like Obama took a swing at a big hanging curveball and missed.

But then there was the deficit reduction fiasco, that clearly made the GOP look like the ones obstructing. The dems saying they would accept double the called for cuts, if the GOP accept revenue increases. The GOP said they would accept only cuts and not to programs the GOP like and they called that a compromise.

and now they want to reneg on their agreement with the across the board cuts, the GOP who claim spending is out of control and our country is dying for it and that Obama is saddling our children with debt and suddenly Obama looks like micheal jordan playing a pick up game with some teens.

Wasn't it Bohner who said he got "98% of what he wanted" in that negotiation? Hey if they agreed to the deal, are reneging in their responsibilities, now they don't want the cuts they agreed to...well then don't put them on the table! Yeah the President is playing Chess to their Checkers...He knew they are forbidden to raise revenue by norquist, so all this cost cutting will be credited to the President if repubs cant do their job, and they will try to cry their familiar Democrats want to gut the military meme to mitigate their disaster for what little electoral gain they could get out of it.They are pathetic.

Yes, Boner declared that he got 98% of what he wanted and ran through the gauntlet to high-five his co-thugs

How you like your 98% now, Bonehead?

Cut that defense budget.. The pentagon is a nothing but a welfare program...cut it !

michelle-1073610 - and are pissing off their war machine rich war lords with the big cuts they signed onto.

Like I stated at post# 1.17. paragraph 15. a. Who created the current US Military Defense Industrial Complex that employs almost a hundred million overpaid expensive US Civilians that get a "Fair and Living Wage" (b. reason the US Military must pay $300 for a Hammer and those expensive USAF Toilet Seats, c. instead of allowing the US Military to Violate US Law (US Code) "US Military Must Buy Only US Products, Goods, and Services and buy these from Walmart as less expensive Made In China).

You posted opinion reflects paragraphs of post #1.17:

11. Believe that Blogs (americablog.com aka this Article) are Facts and not Opinions.

12. Are not smart enough to do the research to figure out Facts.

13. Cannot add two nickels together and come up with the correct answer of a dime.

mountainmike-1199289 - We have over 760 military bases world wide. We need to close down most of these bases.

Do you want me to embarrass you again by reposting your previous posts (and the links to the Newsvine Topics that you posted on).

Simply put, YOU FIRST. You demand that the US Military Installations in YOUR State be Closed First. OR as usual are you all mouth and no action(s).

mountainmike-1199289 - America currently accounts for 46.5 percent of the world's military spending. Our closest competitor is China at just 6.6 percent. We could cut our military spending in half and still be out spending China three to one.

Like I said at post#1.17:

12. Are not smart enough to do the research to figure out Facts.

13. Cannot add two nickels together and come up with the correct answer of a dime.

15. Talk about those matters they have not done the research about nor will do it (must be spoonfed, and someone has to change their diapers).

examples: a. Who created the current US Military Defense Industrial Complex that employs almost a hundred million overpaid expensive US Civilians that get a "Fair and Living Wage" (b. reason the US Military must pay $300 for a Hammer and those expensive USAF Toilet Seats, c. instead of allowing the US Military to Violate US Law (US Code) "US Military Must Buy Only US Products, Goods, and Services and buy these from Walmart as less expensive Made In China).

How about you, mountainmike-1199289, explaining why the Chinese and Russian Federation can spend less and get more than the US Military. I already explained this to your two year old brain over and over and over again.

Or is it true of you:

12. Are not smart enough to do the research to figure out Facts.

13. Cannot add two nickels together and come up with the correct answer of a dime.

Jake319 - Cut that defense budget.. The pentagon is a nothing but a welfare program...cut it !

LOL. You almost figured out who Created the current US Military Defense Industrial Complex. Now all you have to do is figure out the when, why (motives), how, etc..

Imagine signing a business contract with these greasy pricks.

Woe be to anyone who trusts a Republican. They are obviously all bull@!$%# and no integrity, as powerfully evidenced by this.

yeah, well they created the trap to cause President Obama to fail and is now snared by their own trap

Just goes to show ya, don't it.......................if ya brain is drowning in cold tea, it just don't work so good.

Wonder what loophole, fine print, or slight of hand their gonna use to get themselves out of this mess. I smell smoke from the Hill, so I know their little brains are just awhirlin' away.

The GOP is Wile E Coyote to Obama's Road Runner. Meep Meep.

The GOP is looking for nasty little goodies they have always wanted to stick in the bill to make it so untenable that the Pres. can't and won't sign it. I never think for one minute they plan to "compromise", LOL. Never.

I've got a better idea.

Showdown. Absolutely end the spending by killing any and all budget deals. Starve the Democrats out. The military wasn't ever meant to be permanent as a fixture anyway, any Constitutionalist knows that, so the damage done isn't really any damage the Constitution didn't expect anyway.

Ending the welfare checks though, that's going to be loads of fun and the only people it can hurt would be Obama voters anyway.

If you've got a strategic ability to hurt the voters of your enemy, then why wouldn't you take that shot and hurt them as badly as you could?

This glee of Democrats is predicated on a false belief that Republicans don't have the guts to pull the trigger. Like HELL we don't. I'd do it in a heartbeat. Closing the welfare checkbook would be worth every laugh.

This is going to be Game On and Republicans aren't going to back down for any silly military cuts. Democrats are going to find out that their Ace in the Hole is nothing but a Hole.

Do Democrats really think that Republicans love the military more than they hate the poor? Are they willing to bet their entire welfare state on that?

This is going to be Game On and Republicans aren't going to back down for any silly military cuts. Democrats are going to find out that their Ace in the Hole is nothing but a Hole.

Do Democrats really think that Republicans love the military more than they hate the poor? Are they willing to bet their entire welfare state on that?

It is really nice how Teapublicans HATE the poor. Something we on the left always new. Thank you for confirming it.

You say this:

Ending the welfare checks though, that's going to be loads of fun and the only people it can hurt would be Obama voters anyway.

Then you complain this:

Do Democrats really think that Republicans love the military more than they hate the poor?

It's pretty obvious you hate poor people. What is funny is that the amount of money that goes to "welfare" is almost invisible next to the military budget. Like comparing an elephant and a flea. What is also funny is your weird, right-wing construction that Democrats are "buying votes" by taking care of their constituents.

And right-wingers buy votes by pushing special-interest group legislation ALL THE @!$%#ING TIME. I strongly recommend you climb down off of that high horse before you make a fool of yourself when you fall off face-first.

This glee of Democrats is predicated on a false belief that Republicans don't have the guts to pull the trigger.

Actually our glee is predicated on the belief that the GOP clearly bargained in bad faith, and it's so @!$%#ing obvious now. As for having "guts," I haven't seen a single Republican politician with a real spine in decades. If "guts" means standing up for what is right as opposed to kowtowing to their wealthy donors.

What the Republican VOTERS love more than the Military is Social Security and Medicare.

If the Republicans had any REAL GUTS they would have made sensible Military Spending Cuts and restored Taxes to the 1990's Tax Rates, which would easily fix most of the deficit.

The Republican solution to finding a wart on their toe appears to be lopping off their foot with an axe.

The Republican solution to finding a wart on their toe appears to be lopping off their foot with an axe.

Correction; lopping off their "other" foot.....

Wizeguy - Go after Medicare cheats...

And that would be? According to President Obama, Face the Nation, September 20, 2009:

Obama: No, the difference is that they're making huge profits on it, Bob. I mean, let's take the Medicare HMO programs that are being run by insurance companies. It's estimated by everybody that they're overcharging by about 14 percent. This amounts to about $177 billion over 10 years. About $17 billion a year, $18 billion a year. That's just going to pad their profits, hasn't been shown to make Medicare recipients any healthier. And in fact because those huge subsidies are going to insurance companies, Medicare recipients are not getting a good deal. Now if we are enforcing what should be the rules around Medicare and making sure the people are getting a bang for the buck, it's not going to be possible for insurance companies to simply pass on those costs to Medicare recipients because ultimately it's Uncle Sam that's paying for those services anyway.

Instead of fairy tale "Uncle Sam", that is US Taxpayers "that's paying for those services anyway".

NOW ask yourself, WHY (Motives) did President Obama reward the Insurance Corporations with $67 Billion in the Section of Source of New Revenues in his $1.7 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion Health Care Reform Act, instead of removing them as the stated problem from managing Medicare (Frauding the Citizens of the US).

Don't even attempt to deflect the blame, this is all on President Obama (references, PBS Documentary "Obama's Deal"; Article, Unlikely ally of health care reform, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35989945/ns/business-us_business/; actual solution: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5247963n&tag=contentMain;contentBody).

Terry-2167801 - What the Republican VOTERS love more than the Military is Social Security and Medicare.

Like what I posted at #1.17:

12. Are not smart enough to do the research to figure out Facts.

13. Cannot add two nickels together and come up with the correct answer of a dime.

14. Everything has a consequence.

15. Talk about those matters they have not done the research about nor will do it (must be spoonfed, and someone has to change their diapers).

16. Don't know how to add and subtract, or maintain a Budget.

You clearly never worked for a living to earn a paycheck, then looked at the paycheck deductions. And you believe that Social Security is an "Entitlement" and NOT a US Citizen Mandatory Contributory Fund (Payroll Deductions). With BOTH Parties Stealing from the US Citizens and using this US Citizen Money to fund anything including their own US Politician Automatic Pay Raises.

Read Post# 6.6 about Medicare.

Read Post#1.17 about US Military.

Read Post#2.9 about implied consequences (you do the research to figure out the consequences).

Agreed, they are lusting so bad for a war with Iran, they can taste the profits their buddies will get, and pass along to their coffers.

Better Careful- Cuts on discretionary spending is something Republicans do not accept

Really why did the Demoncraps refuse to work on the US Budget, and kept on passing Continuing Resolutions (go research who controls the US Congressional Appropriations Committees (Hint: It is NOT the Repugnants, Scrotums (Tea Baggers)).

Nice Failed Attempt at Deflecting the Blame.

As what do you think funded the President Obama War At Libya in violation of Candidate Obama's Campaign Promise (Verbal Contract) NEVER to use "Discretionary Spending". GO WATCH YOUTUBE.COM.

Read post#6.6 about Medicare.

And it is both Parties that keep calling Social Security an "Entitlement" so that they do not have to pay back all the money that they stole from the US Citizen Mandatory Contributory Fund of Social Security.

The GOP will fight to the death for preferential rates for unearned income. Heck, they want to cut the rate further.

Tappy,

The 15% tax rate for "unearned" income is well within the average effective rate paid by everyone. My problem is not the rate, it's the term unearned. How do you have income you didn't "earn" there should only be one term, INCOME.

How do you have income you didn't "earn" there should only be one term, INCOME.

Agreed.

My effective rate is above 15% because I earn my income. If we say income should be taxed at rate 'x' then it shouldn't matter if you are a day laborer, white collar or a vulture capitalist. Income should be income.

Tappy,

Forgive me if I don't believe you since I have better than a 50% chance of being right. I too work for my money and make a decent living. My effective rate (after deductions) isn't 15%

Buckey, we just want all income to be taxed as income tax, even if your income comes from capital. It just does not make any sense to tax income from capital at a less rate than labor. WHy should a man who busts his ass all day until he is soar to the bone, get taxed more than mister small business killer romney? Who kills businesses from the comfort of his bubble bath?

Buckeye, are you actually anti reagan? Because the left have gone so far right, that reagan agrees with us. ANd the right have gone so far right that reagan thinks yall are crazy.

IT WAS RONALD REAGAN WHO FIRST RAISED CAPITAL GAINS TAXES TO BE THE SAME AS INCOME TAXES and now the right want to pretend it is socialism. THIS IS A KEY REAGAN POLICY. HE THOUGHT IT WAS TOTALLY UNFAIR BANKERS PAID LESS THAN LABORERS AND CEOS. You stillw ant to bitch about it buckeye? do you want to call reagan a commie?

toomanypuppies wrote in post 8.6

"we just want all income to be taxed as income tax,"

buckeynut wrote in post 8.2

" there should only be one term, INCOME"

TMP should read all the posts before TMP replies to a post with nonsense.

ALL Income should be taxed at the same progressive rates.

The FICA Taxes should apply to ALL Income equally, and the ceiling should be doubled.

Almost Laughing.

"Tax the Rich", "Rich Pay Their Fair Share".

As Repeating the Same Mistakes and Expecting a Different Result.

1. Who do you think the Founding Fathers were. They were the Rich that did not have to do daily subsistence living, owned land, had slaves (indentured servants) to do their Farming for them (just like all the CEOs that all of you b!tch about). They refused to pay the British Stamp Act Taxes to fund the British Military protection against the "Indians", fund the other British Colonies of the British Empire of Great Britain, pay for the British Military to fight the Indians and possibly the French to expand the Colonies. And we know what they did later, as the Boston Tea Party, the "No Taxation without Representation", the American Revolution, the foundation of the Republic of the United States of America (they believed that a Democracy was "Mob Rule", as proven by the establishment of the Rich Elitist Electoral College (their argument being that "the average Citizen was too ignorant to determine the Highest Offices of the Land, President and Vice President" - Congressional Records, Library of Congress).

2. During the Global Great Depression and Hitler's hatred of the Jews, including the Blame the Jews for Everything, "Protocols of the Wise Elders of Zion"; Hitler's "The Rich Jews Own Everything", "The Jews must pay their fair share", "Germans must take back Germany from the Rich Jews", Hitler's ordering the Sturmabteilung (SA) to attack the Jews to force them out of Germany, and later confiscations of Jews property, businesses, wealth and then "relocating the Jews" to the "Work Camps". The Rich Jews converting their Wealth to things they could carry like diamonds and fleeing Germany (causing a loss of the Rich investing in Businesses and Hitler having to Nationalize all German Businesses and German Industry).

3. During the Global Great Depression at the US, "Tax the Rich", "Rich Pay Their Fair Share", failed as many of the Rich either fled, or hid their Rich. By fleeing the US this only added to the Credit Crisis of the 1929-1939 Great Depression at the US (Businesses could not get money to continue to operate or loans for improvements and expansions). Instead of "Bailing out" the US Businesses and US Industry, President FDR, a. Nationalizes all US Businesses and US Industry., b. Suspends all US Labor Union Activities (suspected and later proven Mussolini sympathizers after being taken over by "Italian Organized Crime")., c. Realizes after his Failed New Deal to the America People (US Government spending money did not have to create jobs) that US Consumerism will not get the US out of the Great Depression and that the sales of "War Materials" will (and did, 1939 before US Entry into WWII 1941).

4. The British Labor Party, "Tax the Rich", "Rich Pay Their Fair Share" chased the Rich British Investors and Rich Foreign Investors to flee Britain. The "Rich" British even abandoned their British Icon Businesses. The Academic Idealistic British Labor Party (no Real World Business Experience) attempted to manage the British Icon Businesses and Bankrupted them, creating more British Citizens to go on the dole. Britain Unemployment sky rockets. The British Labor Union Party Government increases everyone's taxes, more of the Rich leave Britain leaving the "Middle Class" (that did not flee yet) and the "Poor" to pay for all of the British Social Programs. Many of the British Rock Stars flee the British Taxes and become US Citizens. The British Labor Party Government starts to ration the British Social Programs. To continue the British Labor Party Government to make money starts selling British Icon Businesses like Jaguar to India's Tata Motors, this causes even more British Unemployment and increases those Brits on the Dole. The British Labor Party Government start Austerity Programs, with many Brits then demonstrating.

5. 2007 to 2008, Candidate (Senator) Obama's "Tax the Rich", "Rich Pay Their Fair Share" (youtube.com)(and promise to get US Military out of Iraq by December 31, 2009, also youtube.com). This chased the Rich US and Foreign Business Investors out of the US; especially the Richest Person In The World and all the "Rich" that copied his successes. When the Richest Person In The World and all the "Rich" that copied his successes left the US, this withdrawal of their investments left many US Businesses to either seek new investors (Bankruptcy Reorganization/Refinancing) or close (Bankruptcy Closure/Liquidation). The Rich already knew thru the Rich Elitist Electoral College that Candidate Obama would become US President with the Richest Person In the World realizing (figuring out) that he could either lose $10 Billion then or wait until Candidate Obama became US President then lose $100 Billion (2011 update he was correct as stated he lost $10 Billion); so he left the US with many of the other Rich copying him and going to China, Vietnam, India (investing in Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian Businesses). The US Retail is the canary in the coal mine, the frogs of the environment as to the state of the US Economy. The First victim of the withdrawal of the Richest Person's In the World's Business Investments at the US was CompUSA (Bankruptcy Closure), then Sears Holdings (Bankruptcy Reorganization/Refinancing), K Mart (Bankruptcy Reorganization/Refinancing), Circuit City (Bankruptcy Closure), Aloha Airlines (Bankruptcy Closure), etc. (very long lists). In 2008, the Richest Person In The World, explained to all his Retail Managers (my 3rd Career) why he was abandoning us, I still keep in contact with him thru linkedin.

There are many more examples, so sure:

Repeating the Same Mistakes and Expecting a Different Result

Almost laughing at the sound bites. How about looking up the taxes on investments, 15% versus the "earned income" taxes of the Rich as 35%. If you don't know the difference go learn. If you cannot figure out why investments are taxed at a lower rate (15%), there is no real reason for my even attempting to explain anything to you.

Here are a few modern facts to chew on.

From 1950 to 2010, the economy grew the most in times when the top marginal tax rates were above 39%, the economy grew the most when the top rate was 75-80%. These are the facts, and they are, in general terms, recent. Your argument about low tax rates and prosperous times is a lie. It should also be noted that the "rich" were much more prosperous in those times as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/tax-rates-and-economic-growth-in-one-graph/2011/05/19/AGLaxJeH_blog.html

What about the 47% who pay more than 15% on incomes much lower than Romney's? 15-28% > 13%

I'm sorry, I will not comment on numbers without a link to back up those numbers. If you can provide a link that shows 47% paying an effective rate of 15% to 28% then I'll play ball.

Tappy,

"What about the 47% who pay more than 15% on incomes much lower than Romney's? 15-28% > 13%"

I might also add, I'll leave that argument to the 47% who PAID federal income tax since they are the ones who have a legitamate complaint. What I'm trying to say is, if you didn't pay federal income tax, SHUT UP.

Why do Republicans keep trying this stale, debunked argument??? Buckeyenut - unless you are saying that the unemployment rate is 49% then your argument is moot... because if you have a job - YOU ARE PAYING INCOME TAXES!!! The government takes the money out of your check - month, after month, after month, after month, etc...

Bobby,

Unless you learn how to read, I'm not going to have a discussion with you. First, I'm talking about FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. If you get back all that you pay in federal withholding which 49% did in 2010 you pay an effective rate of 0%.

Get it? or do I need to type slower?

Bobby,

More reading just for you.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-10-06/income-tax-nonpayment/50676912/1

What about the 47% who pay more than 15% on incomes much lower than Romney's? 15-28% > 13%

You can't compare Romney to an actual working citizen, that's apples and oranges.

Bobby,

Are you OK? I see smoke off in the distance.

Buckeyenut,

Thanks for the info - and I can read ( just an FYI for you...) There is no such thing as an "effective" tax rate - that's just more Republican BS that they have adopted in their Rich vs. The Rest of US strategy - you either pay income tax or you don't, simple concept, right??? That people get back as much or in some case even more than they paid in the form of a refund - DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY HAVE A TAX RATE OF ZERO, "effectively" or otherwise.

Getting a refund for all the tax money you have paid - is a product of DEDUCTIONS. Deductions for things like mortgage interest, buying a home, clean energy vehicles, etc... Those types of things spur the economy (hence the reason for the deduction).

That smoke you see wasn't me Buck - must've been Romney... ;-)

BUckeye, I guess you are a rich hedge fund manger, and are totally clueless when it comes to the fact that the poor have their own tax... see if is called payroll taxes.

I find it humorous that you compare Romneys capital gains taxes, to the poors income taxes and pretend the poor dont pay taxes. YOu cant just have everything your way. Either neither the poor NOR ROMNEY PAYS INCOME TAXES, OR BOTH THE POOR AND ROMNEY PAY FEDERAL TAXES. Now way arround that, becuase ROMNEY PAYS NO INCOME TAXES, HE IS ONE OF THOSE 47%

tl;dr

ROMNEY IS ONE OF THOSE 47% WHO PAY ZERO INCOME TAXES THAT THE RIGHT BITCH ABOUT, WE AGREE WITH YOUR BUCKEYE, MAKE THE PEOPLE WHO PAY ZERO INCOME TAXES PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.

Bobby,

The effective tax rate is the rate you actually pay after you are finished with deductions such as the standard deduction for your filing status, deductions for dependents, deductions for IRA contributions..... So yes there is such a thing as effective rate.

"That people get back as much or in some case even more than they paid in the form of a refund - DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY HAVE A TAX RATE OF ZERO, "effectively" or otherwise."

Folks, I blame a failure in public schools for this.

If you pay $3,000 in withholdings for federal income tax and you get back 3,000 in federal income tax return, YOU PAID ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. If you pay 3,000 in withholding for federal income tax and get back $3500 in federal income tax return, you paid zero federal income tax AND GOT MONEY FROM SOMEONE WHO DID PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX.

Now back to reading for you.

BUckeye, I guess you are a rich hedge fund manger, and are totally clueless when it comes to the fact that the poor have their own tax... see if is called payroll taxes

And I think you are clueless because everyone who works pays payroll taxes. I'm self employed and I pay the same taxes you pay when I file. Social security, Medicare.....

Your turn.

Bobby,

"Effective tax rate. Your effective tax rate is the rate you actually pay on all of your taxable income. You find your annual effective rate by dividing the tax you paid in the year by your taxable income for the year."

For something that doesn't exist there sure are a lot of definitions that can be found for it. There are even several sites that give examples on how to calculate YOUR EFFECTIVE TAX RATE.

Back to reading now.

Nope - nada - sorry Buckeyenut,

I've looked everywhere on my check stub - and nowhere does it say anything about my "effective taxes paid" - you must be sitting next to Bill O. in the "All Spin" zone...

Maybe I just wasn't talking slowly enough for you "republican-types"... Either... You... pay... taxes... or.... you.... DON'T!!! Having... a.... tax.... rate.... of.... zero.... means.... that.... you.... don't.... pay.... any.... taxes.... You.... can't.... both... pay.... taxes.... and.... have.... a.... tax.... rate.... of.... zero.... You.... can't.... get.... a.... refund.... on.... your.... taxes.... if.... you.... haven't.... paid.... any.... taxes....

Damn, my fingers are tired...

Bobby,

Now I think you are just lying since a check stub doesn't show the rate you pay it merely shows how much was withheld from your pay. You rate comes at tax filing time and the EFFECTIVE rate is determined as explained above.

I sure hope you don't work for H&R Block.

Bobby,

Let me ask you this,

If you go to a store and buy an item for $100 and get a cash rebate for $100 how much did you pay for the item after the rebate?

buckeyenut

" it merely shows how much was withheld from your pay..." so I am paying taxes!!! Thanks for clearing that up...

The "effective tax rate" is a ploy used by Republicans to convince sympathetic morons that 49% of the country doesn't pay any taxes - and that LIE has been dis-proven countless times. If that logic was true - then when you go to the store and buy a product that you get a rebate on that is equal to the price you paid - then you never bought the product and should be charged with theft...

Bobby,

Answer the question above @ 9.16. Then I'll continue this lesson.

Bobby,

Sorry, I just realized I am using big numbers. I'll make it easier. If you pay $1.00 for an item and get a cash rebate of $1.00 how much did you pay for the item after the rebate?

Come on Bobby! I know you can do this! 1-1=?

Actually Buckeyenut,

It's more like 200 million taxpayers - 116 million taxpayers =????

The answer to your question is that you paid $100 for the item - that you got a rebate is inconsequential to whether or not you paid for the item...

Now answer my question on #9.17... does getting a rebate for the price you paid for an item mean that you never bought the item and should be charged with theft??

or...

How about this Buckeyenut,

Take that $100 reciept to your accountant - and tell him/her that you paid "effectively" nothing for the item... Let's see what he/she tells you...

does getting a rebate for the price you paid for an item mean that you never bought the item and should be charged with theft??

Damn, I don't know how to reply to this much ignorance. If get a rebate equal to the price of the item I bought it means I paid nothing for the item after the rebate. Don't you use coupons? It happens all the time in grocery stores. Buy an item, give the cashier a coupon (sometimes two) for the item that is equal to the cost of the itme and you pay nothing for the item.

Now for your next example:

Since you mention my accountant, IF I give him (my accountant is a man) a receipt for 1.00 and a rebate for 1.00, He enters the cost of the item as an expense and the receipt of 1.00 from the rebate as income. That makes the net income and expense ZERO. The expense of 1.00 nullifies the cost of 1.00 making it zero.

OH MY GOD!

Buckeye - please talk to your accountant,

You don't have an "effective" expense line anywhere on your account statement...

You had an EXPENSE of $1 for an item - then you had a CREDIT for $1 in the form of a rebate, YOU STILL PAID FOR THE ITEM even though you got a rebate for that same item. There is no "EFFECTIVE" line on your accounting statement - just income and outgo... Same with taxes - either you are paying them or you aren't, there is no "effective" tax rate...

that somebody gets a refund at the end of the year - doesn't mean that they have a tax rate of "effectively" zero...

The "effective tax rate" is a ploy used by Republicans to convince sympathetic morons that 49% of the country doesn't pay any taxes - and that LIE has been dis-proven countless times.

How do you want to throw out the term "effective tax rate" and claim the rich don't pay their fair share? If you don't use effective tax rates, the top 1% pay 37% of all income taxes collected. It would seem they're paying MORE than their fair share.

YOU STILL PAID FOR THE ITEM

Except, in this case, you're not paying taxes out of your paycheck. The federal government is with holding a portion of your pay check to be used for taxes...At the end of the year. You haven't "paid" anything yet.

@ Matt,

You do know that the top 1% control 90% of the wealth of this country, right?? And that the 37% of all income taxes that they pay only amounts to 2% of their total wealth, right???

"You're not paying taxes out of your paycheck..." Are you serious??? "Withholding a portion of my check to be used for taxes" - IS paying taxes...

And that the 37% of all income taxes that they pay only amounts to 2% of their total wealth, right???

So they effectively only pay 2% of their wealth in taxes? I guess, you could say that's their "effective tax rate".

We also do not tax wealth. We tax income. The top 1% makes up 27% of income...

"You're not paying taxes out of your paycheck..." Are you serious??? "Withholding a portion of my check to be used for taxes" - IS paying taxes...

No, no it's not. Because, technically speaking I can elect to not have anything withheld from my checks - but - I would still have PAY at the end of the year. When you have a tax bill due on April 15th - it means they didn't withhold enough. When you get a refund - it means they didn't withhold enough. If you elect not to have anything withheld from your checks and you don't make enough to pay any taxes - you don't pay any taxes. Period. Simply telling the government they can hold onto what you expect to pay in taxes is not paying taxes. And if they give you back what you "loaned" them - you didn't pay any taxes.

I mean seriously, if you get a refund do you think the government is giving you back money you paid in taxes? No. They're giving you back money they withheld.

@ Buckeyenut & Matt,

Also - here's another thought, My tax rate can never be zero, "effectively" or otherwise (unless I don't work for the entire year or claim any benefits) because I am taxed on each paycheck from January 1 thru Dec 31 of each year... I cannot file for a refund of the taxes I paid until the FOLLOWING year, which means that the government is always a year ahead of me in it's taxation of my income...

When you get a refund - it means they didn't withhold enough withheld too much.

Gotta fix that.

Also - here's another thought, My tax rate can never be zero, "effectively" or otherwise (unless I don't work for the entire year or claim any benefits) because I am taxed on each paycheck from January 1 thru Dec 31 of each year.

Nope, you're not taxed yet. You're taxed from January to December. What you see out of your check is not paying taxes. It's withholding by the government for the purpose of paying taxes. But, you haven't paid anything yet.

I cannot file for a refund of the taxes I paid until the FOLLOWING year, which means that the government is always a year ahead of me in it's taxation of my income.

EXACTLY! Because you've haven't actually paid your taxes yet. You do not file for a refund on taxes paid - you file for a refund on tax withholding. I think you're getting it - but - I have a sneaking suspicion you're not quite there yet.

You are correct Matt,

We don't tax wealth - which is why Romney can hide most of his in the Caymans and in Switzerland and then keep a straight face when he tells us that he pays all his taxes...

Also choosing how to pay your taxes doesn't mean that you don't owe any taxes - some people like to pay everything they owe in one lump sum, others like me want to pay my taxes over the entire year...

"I can elect to not have anything withheld from my checks - but - I would still have PAY at the end of the year" - that is what I've been saying all along... also filing a return is not the same as paying your income tax... filing a return is just a verification to the government of your income and deductions that you are claiming for the current tax year...

Matt,

I think your argument is more about semantics than anything else - the same could be said of a car or house payment, is the person paying it off completely or is it just the monthly amount that they are paying???

We don't tax wealth - which is why Romney can hide most of his in the Caymans and in Switzerland and then keep a straight face when he tells us that he pays all his taxes...

Irrelevant, it's sheltering his income that causes it to be tax evasion.

Also choosing how to pay your taxes doesn't mean that you don't owe any taxes

Of course, choosing your withholding does not mean you don't owe any taxes or have paid any taxes either.

some people like to pay everything they owe in one lump sum, others like me want to pay my taxes over the entire year

No, you're still paying in one lump sum. Period. There's no getting around that. You're just letting the government hold unto the money for you until you file your return for the previous year. That's what a withholding is. Until you file you're return - you haven't paid anything.

also filing a return is not the same as paying your income tax. filing a return is just a verification to the government of your income and deductions that you are claiming for the current tax year

Nonsense, Why do you think your W-2 shows how much was withheld from you during the year? It's so they can determine what you need to pay. They take that amount and balance it against what they've withheld to determine whether you are refunded your withholding or if you have taxes due.

Your do not PAY taxes until they can verify your income for the year. Taxes are not based on your paycheck schedule. They're based on what you made for the year. If you work two jobs, you can't "pay" your taxes from both jobs out of one of the checks.

I think your argument is more about semantics than anything else

It's not semantics - especially when you make comments like:

" it merely shows how much was withheld from your pay..." so I am paying taxes!!! Thanks for clearing that up...

That's factually incorrect on it's face.

the same could be said of a car or house payment, is the person paying it off completely or is it just the monthly amount that they are paying

No...Completely apples and oranges. One is a payment - one is a withholding. If you overpaid your car payment - do they send you a refund? Nope. If you over withhold your taxes do they send you a refund? Yep. How do you not see the difference? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Tax_withholding_in_the_United_States

Matt asked; "How do you not see the difference?"

When one is covering their eyes and plugging their ears and screaming LA LA LA LA LA it's not that hard. It became obvious to me Bobby was arguing for the sake of arguing and rational thought went out the window after about the second post.

Bobby,

I'm gonna totally blow your mind here. On double coupon day, I can walk into a store and buy an item for .99 cents and give A coupon for .50 cents and the clerk will GIVE ME A PENNY BACK and all I had to do was give them A coupon NO MONEY.

Bobby,

"Also choosing how to pay your taxes doesn't mean that you don't owe any taxes - some people like to pay everything they owe in one lump sum"

More mind blowing for you, I can pay no estimates all year, file my taxes and guess what I pay, NOTHING. That's right ZERO. After deductions and credits I can pay ZERO in taxes for the year. So what would my tax rate be? Zero? 10%, 15%, 20% or 35%

Vote for Ron Paul he is the only one with the balls to make the big cuts needed.

You guys keep saying this, but it is Congress that actually makes the cuts, not the President. Paul would have no more backup in Congress than Obama has now, probably less.

The budget office is located in the office of the President. If we had a president with the balls to send congress a reduced budget that would be a good place to start. The budget is commonly referred to as the president's budget. Almost all budgets passed are based on the budget sent to congress by the president rarely are major changes implemented.

Obama offers more than double the cuts the right did and DM thinks it is crap.

DM congress controls the purse. OBama did send a reduced budget and it was voted down. I really wish you right wingers were as informed as you are pissed.

Obamas budgets show deficits of about 1.2 trillion dollars annually even with his tax hikes. They are disastrous.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/28/the-truth-about-obamas-budget-deficits-in-pictures/

Thats because Bush left a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit, and a collapsed economy. Obama's deficits were the reason we didn't collapse further...we are now in the biggest drawdown of federal spending since Truman...and with regards to the debt, the wars Bush left and his tax deferments account for half the deficit by 2019...Heritage,could you cite a less credible source? The belief tank that predicted Clintons 93 budget would result in massive deficits and recession, and predicted bushs' tax cuts would yield surplus' and high employment...what a crock...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/understanding_the_politics_of031728.php

What i find hilarious the right bitch about 47% of the people not paying income taxes and getting a free ride, when it is ROMNEY WHO PAYS ZERO INCOME TAXES. He is the 47% the right are bitching about. WE are trying to fix this. and the right are fighting us on it.

Multi millionaire Mittens ROmeny is one of the 47% who pays zero income taxes.

Link please.

Multi millionaire Mittens ROmeny is one of the 47% who pays zero income taxes.

Not true...not even close.

I believe he paid 14% in income tax. That is still a disgrace.

That is still a disgrace.

So is smearing someone with a lie. He paid the correct amount of tax...he reported all his income. He violated no tax law.

A disgrace is Charlie Rangel.

I did not tell a lie, nor did I accuse him of violating any tax law.

It is an absolute disgrace that someone can make over $20 million dollars in a year and only pay 14% in taxes. Capital Gains taxes and other loopholes need to be revised.

This has been brought up in Congress before. I'm sure you can guess which side Mitt lobbied for?

California is also a perfect example of what happens when liberals are left in complete control.

And how do you reach that conclusion exactly?

IndependentVoter
California is also a perfect example of what happens when liberals are left in complete control.

Wrong. We need a 2/3rds majority to pass budgets. We also have the largest GDP in the nation 1.8 trillion dollars

And how do you reach that conclusion exactly?

According to the California Controller..the state will be out of money mid-march 2012. Broke. I was living in California right before Grayed Out Davis was recalled. The banks would not honor CA state tax refund checks because the state was broke...busted. Now it will happen again. Mid-march...broke.

I could have sworn California had a Republican Governor...I guess Governor's don't count for anything anymore.....

As I said, republicans are blocking ANY revenue raising even though Democrats provide the most austere cuts in a generation. Republicans have been doing here for decades what they are willing to do now nationally, oppose any revenue increases even when budget cuts are multiple times more significant. Yeah the last Republican in office left a 28 billion dollar deficit...double anything Davis left. and it silly to say we're broke , when the argument is about 1.8% of the GDP...

california the 8th largest economy in the world.

Jeff-3469909 - And how do you reach that conclusion exactly?

BBC Documentary: Requiem For Detroit

http://vimeo.com/10554065

Illegal Immigration Costs California Over Ten Billion Annually (and do not even say Repugnants, at California that is Nancy Pelosi and StarKist), the current numbers (2011) are way over $10 Billion of $85 Billion as more like $21 Billion of $79 Billion.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

reddirthippy - california the 8th largest economy in the world.

The biggest "Welfare" Recipient of the US Military Defense Industrial Complex*. That is currently the "Bankrupt Illegal Alien Harbor State of California" (when you pay over 1/8th of your yearly Budget to Illegal Aliens (Loyal Citizens of another Nation, that do not pay Income Taxes (as no Employer Paperwork equals no Income Tax Withholding as Felony Criminal Tax Evasion, Illegal Aliens "Cash For Work Only", since Employer paperwork is used by ICE to get search warrants according to President Obama) and Sales Taxes of $17 Million do not pay for the over $10 Billion spent on Illegal Aliens (not including Public Assistance, Public Housing, SNAP, etc. as required for Illegal Aliens since the defeat of California Proposition 187.).

*Like I said before I WANT the Automatic US Military Defense Budget Cuts of 10%. I would even WANT the US Military Defense Budget Cut of 50%; as a justification for the Secretary of Defense to throw a million US Civilians on Unemployment with the 10% Cuts, or the almost hundred million US Civilians if cut by 50%. As once again a Repeat of Mistakes and Expecting a Different Result, just after WWI, and before the start of the 1929-1939 Great Depression.

I also want all the US Military Installations at Anti US Military California to close down, including all the US Government Owned Government Operated (GOGO) and US Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) Plants and Factories that manufacturer US Military Equipment, with these US Military Installations moved to the Pro US Military States at the Southeastern US (and Hawaii, I already know who (more than just one) wants the USN Bases at Hawaii by closing USN Bases at California.).

As just like what happened after President Clinton's Closures of 14 US Military Installations many of the US Towns and Cities surrounding these Closed US Military Installations had near Great Depression Era Economies. This caused those US Civilians that previously worked at the US Military Installations to flee to other States, causing a significant decrease of Local, City, State Revenues, causing the Local, City, State Governments to increase Taxes, causing even more US Civilians to flee. Then the US Contractors left those States, taking their Jobs with them, increasing the Unemployment in those areas around the closed US Military Installations, more US Civilians fleed. Local, City, State Governments then increased Taxes even more.

Do you even know why I want all of this to happen, like it did before? Then that way all of you that did not have to go thru that mess before, will finally have some Real World Life or Death School of Hard Knocks Education.

whino33 - I could have sworn California had a Republican Governor...I guess Governor's don't count for anything anymore.....

Who controls the money? And if you are talking about Arnold, he was about as Repugnant (Republican) as Demoncrap Nancy Pelosi.

add to post#13.8

whino33,

Also stop California from sponging off the State of Hawaii; by using the excuse of the Jones Act, and automatically increasing the costs of anything being transported to the State of Hawaii as some sort of California imposed "Paradise Taxes" against the State of Hawaii, and then slapping on Transportation Costs greater than if shipped to a further away Foreign Nation.

Eliminate those portions of the Jones Act that attempt to justify what California does, as it is the State of Hawaii NOT the Territory of Hawaii since 1959.

You can still retain those portions of the Jones Act that created the Merchant Marines (a USN Reserve Entity).

Give the race card a rest already...good grief...