PDA

View Full Version : Clint - Admit You Were Wrong


KCWolfman
07-18-2001, 01:46 AM
I believe that you said that there was no way we were getting a tax break and you'd believe it when you see it this year.

Guess what???

I just got my notice..... almost 400 dollars.

WOOOHOOOOOO!!!

That is more than I got in 8 years from Billary.

bkkcoh
07-18-2001, 07:15 AM
KCWolfman,

Do you really expect Clint to admit that a republican has followed through on a campaign promise and to admit he was wrong?

:D


My wife says, that sure is a HUGE tax break, but I tell her, what kind of tax break did Clinton give us. :)

Clint in Wichita
07-18-2001, 08:24 AM
I like the fact that we're getting money back that was rightfully ours in the first place, but I'm more anxious to see the "NET" column on my pay stub increase. Until then, my taxes haven't decreased at all.

Gaz
07-18-2001, 08:35 AM
Clint-

Sofeisty would be proud of you.

xoxo~
Gaz
Wondering why "I was wrong" is so hard to type.

BIG_DADDY
07-18-2001, 09:11 AM
CLINT WRONG? :confused: No way dude, you must be mistaken. Clint is never wrong.

BIG DADDY

Even when he is wrong he isn't WRONG.:rolleyes:

bkkcoh
07-18-2001, 09:11 AM
If the Clinton economy was so good and it was accomplished by raising taxes, why aren't the Senators proposing tax increases to help the economy? :D

KCTitus
07-18-2001, 09:52 AM
Reading Clint's explanation of how his taxes havent decreased even though he's receiving a refund for taxes withheld this year is akin to listening to democrats wail over federal spending 'cuts'.

Federal spending 'cuts' are actually smaller increases in spending than they wanted or budgeted. In 1994 or 95, the Mediscare ad campaign was in full force with rhetoric about starving seniors and homeless seniors, etc. In reality the only thing that was proposed was instead of increasing spending over 15% from the previous year, increase spending 10% from the previous year.

Gaz
07-18-2001, 10:33 AM
Let’s do some simple math, shall we?

Let us assume that your share of the tax burden was $10,000. You paid some of this burden in payroll taxes. You might have paid some of this by anticipated tax payments during the year. Or you might have written a check on April 15th. The exact method does not matter, so long as the total adds up to $10,000.

[I can supply the mathematical theorems supporting this reasoning if anyone is unfamiliar with grade school mathematics.]

Let us now assume that the Government cuts you a check for $250 as a tax rebate.

It gets a little tricky now, so pay attention and do not hesitate to ask questions.

$10,000 - $250 = $9,750.

Your tax burden has been reduced from $10,000 to $9,750. That is, by definition, a tax decrease. Regardless of whether this decrease occurred in your regular pay stub or in a rebate check from the Government. Your taxes have been decreased by a net of $250.

If you were one of those who said “I’ll believe it when I see it,” then you can without embarrassment wait until the check is in your hot little hands before eating your crow serving. The Conservatives will keep your serving hot for you.

xoxo~
Gaz
Doin’ the math.

KCTitus
07-18-2001, 11:07 AM
Speaking of Taxes and the economy, I've been listening to Greenspan's testimony before the House Banking Committee and I have to say that Maxine Waters is dumber than a box of rocks.

She couldnt ask a question or complete a single thought it was a non-stop ramble for about 3 straight minutes. She couldnt even remember Greenspan's name for cryin' out loud. What an embarrassment to the constituents of her district.

Mile High Mania
07-18-2001, 11:13 AM
Well, I did receive about $600 bucks yesterday for my taxes... but, I think it has more to do with the democrats having control.

:-)

BIG_DADDY
07-18-2001, 11:18 AM
Titus,

Agreed. I wish I had counted how many times she had said uh and uhmm.

BIG DADDY

Is not sure she is capable of completing a single thought without mumbling.

Clint in Wichita
07-18-2001, 12:01 PM
The way I understand it, these checks represent a tax cut retroactive to Jan. 1.

Once the checks are cut, our paychecks should increase...unless the govt. plans on cutting 100 million checks every 6 months.

I may have been wrong about the cut, but it remains to be seen if it actually pans out the way Bush claimed it would during the debates.

If spending isn't decreased, the cut won't matter much because the economy will nosedive like it did in the 80s.

Clint in Wichita
07-18-2001, 12:01 PM
The way I understand it, these checks represent a tax cut retroactive to Jan. 1.

Once the checks are cut, our paychecks should increase...unless the govt. plans on cutting 100 million checks every 6 months.

I may have been wrong about the cut, but it remains to be seen if it actually pans out the way Bush claimed it would during the debates.

If spending isn't decreased, the cut won't matter much because the economy will nosedive like it did in the 80s.

It's lunchtime, so this reply may or may not get through!:rolleyes:

KCTitus
07-18-2001, 12:16 PM
very close, Clint.

The retroactive part was the 10% tax bracket. Your withholdings would be adjusted as of July 1st assuming that you hadnt reached the 15% bracket yet.

Next year, your first few checks will have fed w/h around the 10% level until you reach the next bracket. these w/h will continue to change as your income goes into the higher brackets.

Cannibal
07-18-2001, 12:20 PM
I think the tax refund is excellent. First good thing Bush has accomplished.

I just can't believe that we are going to get all this money, and then continue to spend money like there is no tomorrow on things like military increases. If we cut taxes, we must cut spending, not increase it. If not, the buget "surplus" will disappear in no time at all and we'll be back to large deficits, unemployment and inflation.

If the economy nosedives, people will forget about this tax cut in the blink of an eye.

KCTitus
07-18-2001, 01:03 PM
That's true Cannibal. The Repubs in Congress have been pathetic in restraining spending over the last 7-8 years. I would love to actually see a federal budget go down rather than up.

Unfortunately, for Reps they dont have the political will to cut the spending that needs to be actually cut. Everything should be cut accross the board since we dont have the money to fund every damn thing under the sun.

MrBlond
07-18-2001, 02:05 PM
As a Republican I agree that spending has got to be reigned in. Were should we start? School lunches? No, that starves children. Entitlements for those who refuse to work? What are you a racist? Medicare? Meet the AARP. I know... the Military. Those facist only want more and more nukes.

Cannibal
07-18-2001, 06:10 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing spending cuts equally across the board either.

But I don't think we should cut social programs out totally. There are people who truly need them. My mother was one. She did not abuse the system however.

I do think it could come back to bite Bush in the arse as far as exponentially increasing military spending and giving a large tax cut at the same time.

Luzap
07-18-2001, 07:23 PM
Cannabal,

You've hit the nail on the head.

There are people like myself that feel we do need to beef up our military ~ it's an essential element to our freedom. Without it, we won't have the ability to help people like your mother.

I believe that there are many, many social programs that are not as critical as our military. There are so many, that we could find enough to dramatically cut the budget without hurting the people that really need our help.

I think it's going to take us, the average citizen, to stand up and demand that our politicians start making hard (and real) choices. Setting priorities ~ not just bashing the other side.

Luz
just my opinion...

Skip Towne
07-18-2001, 07:49 PM
Why do you guys want to beef up the mlitary? To fight who? If ever I've seen the chance, in my 56 years, to cut military spending, it is now. There are no superpowers left, but us. Lets take advantage of the relative peace & put that money where it will do more good. We were not at all prepared for WWII but we got prepared in one hell of a hurry. We can do thatagain & again. It is all technology now, not brute strength. We lead in both, I'm happy to say.

KCWolfman
07-18-2001, 08:02 PM
Skip - Ever hear of China? It is a country 1 billion strong and growing. WHile they are not the military threat that the USSR was, they are more volatile than any superpower in the last 200 years. No one knows what they will do next.

I suggest reading The China Threat by Bill Gertz. Even the left has stated that not only is Bill a good read, but well informed and put together in a format that is easily understood.

Here are some quick quotes from the book

China must pay close attention to those countries that are opposed to American interests. It must be borne in mind that the enemies of enemies are one's own allies
Chinese Newspaper Journalist He Xing

Some strategic targets cannot be reached at this time, but in 10 years it will be an era in which strategic nuclear weapons will enjoy rising technology levels and those targets may be reached
Huan Xiang, National Security Advisor for the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army


Use reality, make a noise in the east, but strike in the west. Cut time and strike in multiple waves. That is the key to reabsorbing Tawain.
Colonel Wang Benzhi of the Chinese PLA

People also argued that the friends of WWII would never be our enemies and that the USSR should be a trusted friend.

Luzap
07-18-2001, 09:10 PM
Skip,

The simple truth is that in todays world of high technology and mass destruction, we would never be given the time to 'gear up' as we did in WWII.

We 'gear up' now, or give up our sovereignty.

There is another, perhaps larger, aspect of this that is not being addressed.

We are spending billions of dollars of private money in China and other Pacific Rim countries to expand our economic sphere of influence around the world. There is no question that this is good for America.

Question
What keeps China and other countries from nationalizing our assets there?

Luz
we need a strong defense...

Logical
07-18-2001, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Clint in Wichita
The way I understand it, these checks represent a tax cut retroactive to Jan. 1.

Once the checks are cut, our paychecks should increase...unless the govt. plans on cutting 100 million checks every 6 months.

I may have been wrong about the cut, but it remains to be seen if it actually pans out the way Bush claimed it would during the debates.

If spending isn't decreased, the cut won't matter much because the economy will nosedive like it did in the 80s.

It's lunchtime, so this reply may or may not get through!:rolleyes:

Clint, that is not likely how it will work dependinging on your company. Most companies payrolls are computerized, they realize that if they continue to withhold at the current rate you will just pay less or receive a greater refund next spring and will not likely spend the money to alter their payroll systems until the end of the year when they would do it anyway.

So, if you want to see a greater net for the remainder of the year your best bet is to alter your exemption deductions increasing them by 1 which should account for the total change for the rest of the year(try to contact your payroll depart to confirm that they will or will not be instituting the new rates in their payroll software first). If you do this you should be positioned for the same refund or payment as last year provided there has been no significant change in your yearly earnings, while increasing your net on each paycheck for the remainder of the year. Next year you would want to change back your exemption deductions so that when your company changes the payroll software you will have the right amount deducted.

Mi_chief_fan
07-19-2001, 06:34 AM
Cannibal,

You've hit the nail on the head.

Luzap and Cannibal agree on a POLITICAL issue!?!?!?




Never thought i'd see the day........................

KCTitus
07-19-2001, 07:26 AM
Cannibal: I dont think we should cut social programs out totally, just the ones that are miserable failures. The real problem areas are SS and Medicare they will bleed us dry in less than 20 years.

BIG_DADDY
07-19-2001, 12:05 PM
Why do you guys want to beef up the mlitary? To fight who? If ever I've seen the chance, in my 56 years, to cut military spending, it is now. There are no superpowers left, but us. Lets take advantage of the relative peace & put that money where it will do more good. We were not at all prepared for WWII but we got prepared in one hell of a hurry. We can do thatagain & again. It is all technology now, not brute strength. We lead in both, I'm happy to say.

Skip,

Don't look past the European Union either. They are combining their resources as well as their technologies creating potentially VERY viable opponent. I would like to believe that they would never attack us but it simply cannot be disregarded. The French worry me more than anyone in the Union and seem to have more control over it than anyone else. We pretend to back the Union but I can assure you, a united Europe is NOT in our best interest.

Cannibal
07-19-2001, 08:11 PM
I think Luz misunderstood me.

I don't want to increase military spending. If we stayed at our current level of spending, or even cut military spending slighty we would still remain light years ahead of the second place nation.

Like I said, I favor cuts across the board, not just in social programs.

If we do abolish social security, then I want all the money I've put into it back right now.

If we tax less, we must spend less. It's simple economics.

Cannibal
07-19-2001, 08:13 PM
BTW,

I tried to reply at work on my lunch hour, but of course the board was down. It's down pretty much everday between 12:15 to 1:00-1:30.

It's really starting to get annoying.

I could post during work hours, but I try not to do that, because that's not what I'm getting paid for.

Skip Towne
07-19-2001, 09:01 PM
Big Daddy - I apreciate your concern over a unified Europe. But what have those folks ever agreed on except their hatred of the Nazis. I also appreciate Luz and Da Wolf's fear of China. (Because they have so many people). Peope in great numbers doesn't matter anymore. It used to, see Korea. Ask Saddam Hussein what a "million man army" is worth against a few stealth aircraft. China, with its MFN status doesn't need to nationalize our interest and would indeed be foolish to do so. It is wise to be aware of potential threats and thus be forewarned but not to the extent of seeing "a commie behind every tree". I am not a politico & have no intention of entering into a debate of this fashion. I simply think we are being presented an opportuniy to spend our money on something more constructive at this moment. An opportunity that I have not seen before in my 56 years of existence.

Luzap
07-19-2001, 09:25 PM
Cannabal,

I wasn't trying to say that we were in agreement, but rather, that you have outlined the problem well.

I agree that spending needs to be cut ~ PERIOD.

The problem is, politicians don't do that. The argument is always over which programs deserve to be increased more than others.

We, as a people, need to force our politicians to make the committment to cut the budget first ~ then decide where to cut (A balanced budget amendment perhaps)?

I believe that in an open forum of ideas, we would reach common agreement on the importance of the military (no offense Skip). I also believe that when politicians are finally forced to fight over a finite amount of dollars, much of the waiste will mysteriousely disapear.

It would be like shining the light of truth on the dark secret of our budget process.

Luz
i truly believe most Americans would want the same things here...

Skip Towne
07-19-2001, 10:23 PM
Hey, Luz - I agree with what you are saying. Especially the "finite amount of dollars" concept. I am generaly aware of what is takng place around the globe but do not study it in great detail. I am thankful for those of you who do, so I don't have to. That way, I can concentrate on FOOTBALL. BTW, we should fire everyone who jumps out of airplanes for a living. We don't need you!! Haven't you heard of the "A" bomb. Just kidding John, old buddy, I just had to get you in this post.

old_geezer
07-20-2001, 05:55 AM
There's a simple way to cut spending. Take the Social Security trust fund out of the equation when planning our budget. Almost every budget that has been planned by our wonderful politicians (Repubs and Dems both) includes the social security surplus as income. It's not. Take it off the board before the planning starts. Social Security would be healthier and our spending would be cut. Way too simple for our current group of politicians who would rather spend every penny they can get their hands on. :rolleyes:

Rausch
07-20-2001, 05:58 AM
I only got $132....:mad:



But you know what?


It's more than I had before, and I'm not about to gripe...:cool:

KCTitus
07-20-2001, 07:05 AM
Cannibal: That SS money you put in is loooong gone. This is one of the big problems. Most DONT understand the SS process.

The money deducted from your check is immediately sent back out to existing SS recipients. YOUR SS money isnt even being earned yet because the people who would be 'supporting' you are probably not even born yet.

SS is NOT a personal savings account nor is the money stashed away for you to recieve back at a later day. It's a simple transfer of dollars from you to the SS recipients.

Cannibal
07-22-2001, 11:38 AM
Titus, I know what you're saying. But I don't care. If SS is not going to be there for me when I retire, then I want all I've paid into it back in my hands. If it is going to be there for me, then I can live with being taxed for it now.

Radar Chief
07-22-2001, 01:37 PM
I’m not trying to bust anyone’s chops here, I just wanted to clear the air a little about the Military Spending thing.

"Ask Saddam Hussein what a "million man army" is worth against a few stealth aircraft."

First, the Iraqi’s were caught totally unprepared for the type of war we had been training for. The 7 Year War between Iraq and Iran was, as I understand it, was like a 9 to 5 affair. At dusk both sides would cease-fire, everyone would adjourn to the rear to relax and at dawn the war would start all over again. They weren’t ready for a 24-7 assault from the air, the Electronic Jamming of all communications, or the stress of all this and loud speakers blasting Metallica across the border. Then when we did attack from the ground, we did so with quick, powerful strikes that coordinated air elements with artillery and ground forces for a Blitzkrieg effect (that’s why the air campaign seemed to last forever, the Blitzkrieg depends on air superiority).
I read in Stars and Stripes about an Iraqi Infantry Commander that when asked as to why he surrendered so quickly replied that, he had no communication with his superiors and all he had seen for over a week were American planes headed north. For all he knew, Baghdad had been nuked and no longer existed.

Second, since we’re on the subject of Desert Storm, remember the 7th Corp.? The same group that so badly hammered the Elite Republican Guard, and had been in place in Europe preventing a massive Russian Invasion? I believe that it was last year that they were declared “Unfit for Combat”, because they are at less than 60% strength. We should consider the Military Spending a rebuilding rather than a “Bulking Up”.

"BTW, we should fire everyone who jumps out of airplanes for a living. We don't need you!! Haven't you heard of the "A" bomb. Just kidding John,"

Finally, I realize you were kidding, but 82nd Airborne is a very vital part of our national security, and honestly the security of the world. They are the largest unit of Artillery, Armor and Ground Pounder’s that can be delivered any where in the world in 24 hours. Wasn’t it Nicaragua that peacefully ended a coup as soon as they found out that the 82nd was in the air and on the way there?

Lee

Wastes way too much time watching the History Channel.

Mi_chief_fan
07-22-2001, 01:49 PM
Radar,

As a fellow vet, I can certainly understand the importance of sustaining a strong military. I have a suggestion, however: stop all of the fraud, waste and abuse that is a regular part of a military day. I was in a carrier HS squadron out of Jacksonville, FL, and the waste was incredible. For instance, at the end of each quarter, squadrons would line their aircraft on the flightline to get fueled, only to be immediately de-fueled in order to get the same amount of funds for the next quarter(aka OPTAR). I've also seen aircraft carriers just sitting off the coast of Norfolk, for no other reason than to show congressmen. senators, etc. all of the wonderful toys at a carriers disposal(at about $1 million a day, that adds up fast).

So many other examples, I could probably devote a whole website devoted exclusively to the defense department waste, but that idea has probably been taken.

Radar Chief
07-22-2001, 02:30 PM
"I have a suggestion, however: stop all of the fraud, waste and abuse that is a regular part of a military day."

You said a mouth full there, MI. I saw a little of the same thing in Germany.
That’s why I feel that a larger portion of the military spending needs to go to the Grunts (EM’s). All branches of our military are undermanned, with the Army being hit the hardest.
I’m not normally one to bash a particular administration, but under Clinton there were mass defections from our Armed Forces and I feel that this is what should be addressed first.

KCTitus
07-22-2001, 02:34 PM
Titus, I know what you're saying. But I don't care. If SS is not going to be there for me when I retire, then I want all I've paid into it back in my hands. If it is going to be there for me, then I can live with being taxed for it now.

Then what you're saying is you're willing to stick your head into the sand about the problem just to b!tch and moan about it.

There is no guarantee in life of anything, including fairness, and the best and only way to get along is to do things for yourself.

The fact that you're willing to give up your money on a tenuous promise is telling.

It's good, at least, that you're honest about liking a failed program and are willing to throw your money away on it. I guess I wont be seeing anymore posts about how you want the federal budget to be 'decreased' anymore.

NaptownChief
07-22-2001, 02:41 PM
SS is a joke...They steal your money up front and make a wobbly promise to give you a small piece of it back late in life if you don't die first...Nothing more than another Robin Hood rob from the rich to give to the poor scheme...

If I had all the money that they have stolen from me and my employers being invested properly I would be able to comfortably retire already.

NaptownChief
07-22-2001, 04:01 PM
My last post got me thinking a little bit...I just looked at my social security statement and calculated the contributions that have been made on my behalf....

Assuming a 12.4% annualized return, which is avg. return on a well diversified aggressive growth model from 1970-2000, if I were to stop working today and never make another contribution the total of those contributions would be $5,441,351 dollars when I turn 67....

I will be fortunate if I recover $41K of that five million, four hundred and forty one thousand dollars...

My hats off to FDR and his raw deal....:mad:

Cannibal
07-22-2001, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by KCTitus
Titus, I know what you're saying. But I don't care. If SS is not going to be there for me when I retire, then I want all I've paid into it back in my hands. If it is going to be there for me, then I can live with being taxed for it now.

Then what you're saying is you're willing to stick your head into the sand about the problem just to b!tch and moan about it.

There is no guarantee in life of anything, including fairness, and the best and only way to get along is to do things for yourself.

The fact that you're willing to give up your money on a tenuous promise is telling.

It's good, at least, that you're honest about liking a failed program and are willing to throw your money away on it. I guess I wont be seeing anymore posts about how you want the federal budget to be 'decreased' anymore.


You don't have to be d!ck about it you fuggin ahole. All I'm saying is that if that fuggin program is going to dry up and die, then I what spending cut in other areas so that they can give my fuggin money back. I don't want my money to disappear is all I'm saying.

Cut some spending across the board, [military, space programs, welfare, medicare etc. etc.] and give us our money back.

KCTitus
07-23-2001, 06:55 AM
The name calling is a nice touch, Cannibal, but I will abstain, thanks.

Again, your money has already disappeared. You have said you dont care that it's already gone, you want it back. A similar analogy would be to demand all of the money you paid in sales tax should the tax be repealed--that's just silly talk.

That's an impossible outcome/solution to the problem and you prefer to take that position in an attempt to do nothing more than b!tch about the program or lack thereof. Maybe it's not me that's being the 'fugging ahole' here (to borrow your term, not mine).

The program will dry up and die, hopefully, before it winds up costing the entire federal budget (about the time you and I retire). I will take comfort in knowing that Cannibal will still be b!tching about the program not because it is there, but now because it's gone.

Cannibal
07-23-2001, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by KCTitus
The name calling is a nice touch, Cannibal, but I will abstain, thanks.

Again, your money has already disappeared. You have said you dont care that it's already gone, you want it back. A similar analogy would be to demand all of the money you paid in sales tax should the tax be repealed--that's just silly talk.

That's an impossible outcome/solution to the problem and you prefer to take that position in an attempt to do nothing more than b!tch about the program or lack thereof. Maybe it's not me that's being the 'fugging ahole' here (to borrow your term, not mine).

The program will dry up and die, hopefully, before it winds up costing the entire federal budget (about the time you and I retire). I will take comfort in knowing that Cannibal will still be b!tching about the program not because it is there, but now because it's gone.

Actually it's not impossible at all. Just cut spending in other areas enough to get the money to pay back the SS taxes. Cut some from every program until you have enough.

And don't go acting all high and mighty like you don't call names. Remember the Steve Bono [your favorite player] comments?

KCTitus
07-23-2001, 08:27 AM
LOL! Where'd that come from? If I remember, it wasn't I who said anything about Bono. Matter of fact, all I did was ask you to prove where anyone had said anything that you were claiming--ie, you were putting words in peoples mouths. As I recall, my comments were mere reciprocation.

Nevertheless, Maybe we could stick to the topic, huh?

It's impossible. Im sure you realize, but dont really care, that SS and Medicare are the biggest budget items in the federal budget right now...to refund 20 years of that money would require the federal budget to be zero for more than a few years to 'refund' this money. Truthfully, if you really wanted to do this, the proper way would be to stop paying the beneficiaries that received the money from you and I and those in our generation that will not receive it until we were paid back. Of course anyone in their right mind wouldnt do that, so you're safe to continue b!tching about the problem without getting realistic about a solution.

Cannibal
07-23-2001, 01:07 PM
You were "flustered" during a debate we were having and you told me to "go have sex with Steve Bono".

I know your MO Titus, you can quit acting as though you're too "mature" to sink down to the name calling level.

You may be right, maybe we can't be repaid. But think about the billions upon billions of dollars this country wastes every year in areas other than SS. We need to find a better way to spend that money and putting back into the hands of the people that have paid SS, but may never see a penny of it would be something I'm in favor of.

The government is going to have to set a cut-off date for people that will not get SS benefits. Then those people should not be taxed on it. They'll have to cut spending in other areas and put that money towards paying for the people that are currently retired and will be retired. The people that will not get the benefits will have to put the money they aren't being taxed on into a retirement fund.

Basically, they are going to have to phase the whole thing out slowly.

KCTitus
07-23-2001, 01:38 PM
Not exactly, Cannibal, but I'll let you have that. I apologize if you were offended and that's the only time that I have 'stooped' to that level--maybe my apology will demonstrate that I have the fortitude to realize that I've said somethings in haste I shouldn't have to you.

Back to the subject, yes, I totally agree with your last two paragraphs. SS should be phased out, but it should also be voluntary, so that we could opt out if we wanted--cut our losses so to speak.

Cannibal
07-23-2001, 06:49 PM
Oh gee thanks, "you'll let me have that"?

You better, because that's the way it happened.

And thanks for the apology, although none is required. I am relatively thick skinned. You telling me to have sex with Bono was more humorous than anything. Especially the way you melted down when you said it :D

I am glad we can agree that SS should be phased out eventually though.

I still wish I could get some of that money back before it tanks.