Archbishop Warns Obama: You’ll Cause 'Conflict Between Church and State of Enormous Proportions’

[scipio337]

And paid an effective tax rate that is nearly the same today. . The difference between today and the days of Dwight D is about twice as many people pay no federal income tax today than they did in the 50s.

There we go with the neo-conservative label again

I thought it was 99%? !

Isn’t it nice when others can tell you what you believe? It reminds me of some of my conversations with my Protestant brothers and sisters: “No, here is what Catholics believe about Holy Communion:”…

Apparently, small government fiscal conservatives never existed before 2000.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Eisenhower is one of my favorite presidents (interstate highways are very useful ).

Look it up.

It’s really called the National Defense Highway System.

globalsecurity.org/military/facility/ndhs.htm

[Tthey didn’t build it the way Eisenhower envisioned; the clearances under bridges and overpasses are too low to allow all the anticipated high and wide military equipment to pass underneath … and inside the bridge abutments there were supposed to be fallout shelters for civilians. These “changes” were made to “save money” … although some say that political correctness was the real reason. They DID build them with “ring roads” around cities, in case of nuclear attack and some facilities were spread out, such as telephone company facilities, to prevent them from all being taken out by one nuclear bomb. And some segments were built in such as a way that they actually could be used as military runways for Air Force planes. In the event of a “national emergency” [ i.e., “all out war”], the Air Force would “flush” its planes from air bases that would certainly be targets and the planes would deploy to previously designated highway segments. There was a “partial flush” during the Cuban Missile Crisis. ]

Those were the military threats of the 1950’s.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Isn’t it nice when others can tell you what you believe? It reminds me of some of my conversations with my Protestant brothers and sisters: “No, here is what Catholics believe about Holy Communion:”…

Apparently, small government fiscal conservatives never existed before 2000.

<>I was thinking the same thing.

When we don’t fit into the “neo-con” box liberals put us in, they accuse us of lying. EstesBob has done a fine job of documenting the fact the 47% of Americans don’t pay taxes but we are being told “don’t believe him.”

Never mind he is in the tax business himself.

 

[estesbob]

<>I was thinking the same thing.

When we don’t fit into the “neo-con” box liberals put us in, they accuse us of lying. EstesBob has done a fine job of documenting the fact the 47% of Americans don’t pay taxes but we are being told “don’t believe him.”

Never mind he is in the tax business himself.

“neo-con” has a fascinating etymology. Orginally it meant “Jew”. Now it means any conservative you dont like,

 

[qui_est_ce]

“neo-con” has a fascinating etymology. Orginally it meant “Jew”. Now it means any conservative you dont like,

I know… why do people have to resort to name-calling? Call me a Conservative. I’m proud to wear that label.

 

[scipio337]

<>I was thinking the same thing.

When we don’t fit into the “neo-con” box liberals put us in, they accuse us of lying. EstesBob has done a fine job of documenting the fact the 47% of Americans don’t pay taxes but we are being told “don’t believe him.”

Never mind he is in the tax business himself.

I’m in the business of tax analysis, too.

I think it would be an interesting thread about inequalities we see in the tax code, or how we would change them, but I’m not sure it would get much traction outside of tax nerdom.

 

[estesbob]

I’m in the business of tax analysis, too.

I think it would be an interesting thread about inequalities we see in the tax code, or how we would change them, but I’m not sure it would get much traction outside of tax nerdom.

Or a thread on how the tax code discourages marriage and promotes single motherhood.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m in the business of tax analysis, too.

I think it would be an interesting thread about inequalities we see in the tax code, or how we would change them, but I’m not sure it would get much traction outside of tax nerdom.

That’s because people who disagree with us don’t read the links. They want to believe whatever it is that agrees with their pre-ordained views.

I see it in my daughter. She voted for Obama when she was a senior in high school (they shouldn’t let kids that young vote). She is now a junior in university and studying economics. It’s painful for her to change her political ideology. I wonder if she’ll vote for Obama next time around!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Or a thread on how the tax code discourages marriage and promotes single motherhood.

Why don’t you? I’m somewhat out of the tax prep loop now, but I’d be interested in lurking.

 

[estesbob]

Why don’t you? I’m somewhat out of the tax prep loop now, but I’d be interested in lurking.

It is an unintended consequence of how the EIC is calculated, I am afraid such a thread would be too technical for most to follow and would result in a few CPA explaining how it works while we are inundated with posts asking us why we hate the poor.!

 

[qui_est_ce]

It is an unintended consequence of how the EIC is calculated, I am afraid such a thread would be too technical for most to follow and would result in a few CPA explaining how it works while we are inundated with posts asking us why we hate the poor.!

True.

 

[donsnow]

It is an unintended consequence of how the EIC is calculated, I am afraid such a thread would be too technical for most to follow and would result in a few CPA explaining how it works while we are inundated with posts asking us why we hate the poor.!

Good afternoon, estebob,

Gee, I always thought the tax code went easy on the poor, what with the standard deduction for everybody.

My income is just over the poverty line. It’s a fixed income: Social Security Retirement and VA disability pension. I have paid taxes to gain a refund at the beginning of the year, and use the refund to get things done which have waited months to be taken care of on my house. The only reason I’m getting by is because my house is paid for and the city stops taxing homes when the owner’s 65yo.
This year, Medicare D knocked my tax with holding off my Social Security. I didn’t ask for it, the Medicare dumped it on me, and I cancelled it. But my taxes were no longer withheld. So, they have cost me much of my next year’s refund. Medicare B was also dumped on me, and the state was supposed to pay me. But the state wrote to me they weren’t going to pay it and I cancelled it. I get my medical from the VA and it costs less than Medicare.
I called Social Security and they mailed me the form to request taxes withheld. It came, I filled it out, authorizing 15% withheld, and mailed it back this summer. Last month I went to SS web page and asked for an awards letter. When it came, my taxes were not yet withheld.

I guess I’m crazy to be irritated that my taxes are not withheld from my SS. I just want to be ready and not have to pay when ever the president and his bunch raise SS taxes.

God loves you,
Don

 

[estesbob]

Good afternoon, estebob,

Gee, I always thought the tax code went easy on the poor, what with the standard deduction for everybody.

My income is just over the poverty line. It’s a fixed income: Social Security Retirement and VA disability pension. I have paid taxes to gain a refund at the beginning of the year, and use the refund to get things done which have waited months to be taken care of on my house. The only reason I’m getting by is because my house is paid for and the city stops taxing homes when the owner’s 65yo.
This year, Medicare D knocked my tax with holding off my Social Security. I didn’t ask for it, the Medicare dumped it on me, and I cancelled it. But my taxes were no longer withheld. So, they have cost me much of my next year’s refund. Medicare B was also dumped on me, and the state was supposed to pay me. But the state wrote to me they weren’t going to pay it and I cancelled it. I get my medical from the VA and it costs less than Medicare.
I called Social Security and they mailed me the form to request taxes withheld. It came, I filled it out, authorizing 15% withheld, and mailed it back this summer. Last month I went to SS web page and asked for an awards letter. When it came, my taxes were not yet withheld.

I guess I’m crazy to be irritated that my taxes are not withheld from my SS. I just want to be ready and not have to pay when ever the president and his bunch raise SS taxes.

God loves you,
Don

Working with the Social Security Administration is a nightmare. IMO SS shouldnt be taxed anyway-you have already paid taxes on the money you contributed!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Working with the Social Security Administration is a nightmare. IMO SS shouldnt be taxed anyway-you have already paid taxes on the money you contributed!

I thought you only paid taxes on the employer’s portion after you reached a certain income level?

 

[estesbob]

I thought you only paid taxes on the employer’s portion after you reached a certain income level?

It is means tested now and you can pay on more than the emplyers portion.

 

[jomoco]

"jomoco:

No, today’s neoconservative GOP get their principles from wolfowitz and cheney, who set the precedent for lowering taxes during wartime as a means of meeting their fiscal duties, even though the math used by them is completely antithetical to ever fulfilling that goal.
[end quote]

There we go with the neo-conservative label again

!

Tell yu what Bob, why don’t you solve the neo-conservative math problem?

How do taxcuts during wartime either pay war costs, or balance our natnl budget?

Do you have any history whatsoever that proves this crazy new neoconservative notion that cutting taxes during any American war like the Civil war, WW1 or 2, Vietnam after it got hot, or the Gulf war?

How can any budget in the red be balanced by reducing the revenue that funds it?

In short, how exactly does this new neoconservative math ever balance any budget period?

I look forward to your answer friend.

jomoco

 

[vz71]

How can any budget in the red be balanced by reducing the revenue that funds it?

Removing restrictions placed on businesses allow growth.
Business growth drives the economy.

It is really that simple.

 

[estesbob]

jomoco:

No, today’s neoconservative GOP get their principles from wolfowitz and cheney, who set the precedent for lowering taxes during wartime as a means of meeting their fiscal duties, even though the math used by them is completely antithetical to ever fulfilling that goal.
[end quote]

Tell yu what Bob, why don’t you solve the neo-conservative math problem?

How do taxcuts during wartime either pay war costs, or balance our natnl budget?

Do you have any history whatsoever that proves this crazy new neoconservative notion that cutting taxes during any American war like the Civil war, WW1 or 2, Vietnam after it got hot, or the Gulf war?

How can any budget in the red be balanced by reducing the revenue that funds it?

In short, how exactly does this new neoconservative math ever balance any budget period?

I look forward to your answer friend.

jomoco

http://www.ncaabbs.com/html/funnies/general/derailment.jpg

 

[qui_est_ce]

Removing restrictions placed on businesses allow growth.
Business growth drives the economy.

It is really that simple.

The economy grows jobs, not the other way around!

 

[Raskolnikov]

Removing restrictions placed on businesses allow growth.
Business growth drives the economy.

It is really that simple.

Removing restrictions does not universally cause growth, nor does imposing restrictions universally hamper growth. look up “missing markets” on wikipedia to see some examples of a natural (in regulated) market causing an economic inefficiency and hindering growth.

the regulation of markets needs to be applied on a pragmatic, case-by-case basis, as all markets are not the same; in fact most have their own peculiarities. It is dangerous to just cateorically obey an ideological maxim like “less regulation=more growth.”

Secondly, you didn’t explain how lowering taxes in a time of war would and with both a budget deficit and gigantic debt was financially sound.

Lower taxes may increase investment, but investment alone does not drive an economy. Consumption is needed as well. No matter how much investment capital is available, a company won’t produce more goods or provide more jobs if there aren’t people willing to pay for them. Or if they do produce more goods and supply far outstrips demand, what you have is a crisis of over-production. Prices fall, but then so do wages, and deflations sets in. Much as so many fear inflation today, deflation is probably worse. It was deflation that came with the great depression, and deflation is far more difficult to fix than inflation.

Followers of supply side economics persistentlyforget that supply is only one half of the equation. Same can be said of course of people who obsess over the demand side.
qui est ce:

The economy grows jobs, not the other way around!

The economy does not necessarily grow jobs. Even a growing economy can decrease the number of jobs. In this day and age, the fastest growing sectors of the economy are the high tech sectors that *decrease *the amound of labor necessary. Meanwhile, labor-intensive industries, like manufacturing ones, are declining fast. So even as the economy ‘grows’ financiallly, unemployment can still increase. Take note of the Russian Revolution: it occurred during a time of rapid economic development and growth and industrialization. So why were so many people so doscontented and poor? Because that growth also destroyed a great many jobs that had become obsolete.

Also, the assumption that lowered taxes for people who already have money to spare will even increase investment is a false assumption. In all likelihood most of the money they would save from lower taxes would end up being invested in foreign corporations with higher profit potential than their American competitors. So tax cuts may end up doing little more than reducing tax revenue, depending on how much or how little meven ends up invested in American businesses.