Well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two children, you don’t pay any taxes. So you probably, if you don’t pay any taxes, you are not going to get a very big tax cut. -Dennis Hastert (R-IL)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecMpgYvKLng

Out of touch, much?

What a dick.

Maybe he should explain why Bush gave his little speech as he extended the "tax relief", telling Americans it will let them do more with their money and give them more control for a much better future.

Meanwhile, if you're making like <$30,000 a year you get $9 extra I believe. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah Bush, that tax cut is gonna significantly change the lives of so many (rich people).

What the fuck is $9 anymore? I can't believe they get away with this shit.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/16/pf/taxes/tax_bill_and_you/

Talk about ungrateful! if you don't want your 9 bucks then I'll take it. Jeez!

Talk about ungrateful! if you don't want your 9 bucks then I'll take it. Jeez!
I think I could live without it. The point I'm trying to make here is that this is a joke to hard working Americans everywhere that don't make much.

$9 dude. $9. What is a family, or hell, a single individual going to do with $9 that is going to significantly make a difference in his/her life financially?

Maybe if they save that $9 every year until they die, their kids can buy them a really nice casket.

I think I could live without it. The point I'm trying to make here is that this is a joke to hard working Americans everywhere that don't make much.

$9 dude. $9. What is a family, or hell, a single individual going to do with $9 that is going to significantly make a difference in his/her life financially?

Maybe if they save that $9 every year until they die, their kids can buy them a really nice casket.
They already have the lowest percentage of tax and now it's going down. That's a bad thing?

What's bad is that Bush stands there and makes his speech about how this is going to help Americans do more with their money and blah blah. False advertising comes to mind. In that regard this proposal is a joke for those who aren't making much. $9 extra in the bank isn't gonna change your life at all. You might as well not give us anything if we're only gonna get $10 at the most. It's like an insult. "You worked hard... here's $10."

Maybe those people should get better jobs

That's a very unrealistic thing to say. As far as I'm concerned, any hard working American deserves more than $10 even if they aren't getting that great of a salary.

There wouldn't even be enough high paying jobs to support all of the people at the bottom, even if they did magically wake up one day and become qualified and educated enough to actually get one.

Effloresce, I'm totally with you on this. I was making a joke earlier.

Ah, sorry. The thing is, there are so many people that say what you said and MEAN IT; that's why I reacted that way.

I don't know if that's something we should laugh or cry about. :\

Someone tell me where I'm going wrong on this:

Married person filing a joint return:

40000 income

- 10000 (standard deduction)

- 6400 (personal deductions for taxpayer and spouse)

- 6400 (dependent deductions for kids)
_________________________________
17,200 taxable income

14000 * 10% = 1400
+3200 * 15% = 480

= 1850 tax liability

- child tax credit (2 * 1000) (up to amount of tax liability)

= 0 tax.

Who's out of touch again?

Someone tell me where I'm going wrong on this:

Married person filing a joint return:

40000 income

- 10000 (standard deduction)

- 6400 (personal deductions for taxpayer and spouse)

- 6400 (dependent deductions for kids)
_________________________________
17,200 taxable income

14000 * 10% = 1400
+3200 * 15% = 480

= 1850 tax liability

- child tax credit (2 * 1000) (up to amount of tax liability)

= 0 tax.

Who's out of touch again?

You, of course.

Sales tax, gas tax, property tax, state tax and assuming the 40,000 comes from wages then, PAYROLL/FICA TAX (social security and medicare):

$40,000 income x 7.65% = $3,060

You, of course.

Sales tax, gas tax, property tax, state tax and assuming the 40,000 comes from wages then, PAYROLL/FICA TAX (social security and medicare):

$40,000 income x 7.65% = $3,060
Ok wait a second. He was talking about a tax cut. Do you really think he was talking about sales tax? Or state income tax?

Social Security isn't a "tax" remember? It's a wonderful magical bank account that nobody is allowed to privitize or control on their own.

You're grasping at straws with this defense.

I need some kids and a wife

Ok wait a second. He was talking about a tax cut. Do you really think he was talking about sales tax? Or state income tax?

Social Security isn't a "tax" remember? It's a wonderful magical bank account that nobody is allowed to privitize or control on their own.

You're grasping at straws with this defense.
Yeah really. When Congress discusses "taxes" and "tax cuts" they almost always are talking about income tax. As far as I know, nobody rich or poor is having their FICA and social security contributions cut, so it'd be pretty non-sequitur for Hastert to be talking about that sort of thing. Its quite clear he was talking about income taxes, and that he was absolutely right that the people he described don't pay them.

But Debaser knows all this. He's just trying to find a way to save face.

It's like every guy who complains about how "Welfare is ruining America!" Turn off Fox News and stop complaining about how you pay six dollars out of your paycheck to keep an elderly woman alive and fed. If I made one million dollars every year, I wouldn't care if the government took even 50% of my money, but for some horrible reason it is the other way around. Poor people see less of a benefit from taxes, but for absolutely no reason at all. They are the people who need the break. Hasn't history pointed out already that Reaganomics do NOT work?

i think the single/no children people need to start a revolution. we're getting screwed here.

It's like every guy who complains about how "Welfare is ruining America!" Turn off Fox News and stop complaining about how you pay six dollars out of your paycheck to keep an elderly woman alive and fed. If I made one million dollars every year, I wouldn't care if the government took even 50% of my money, but for some horrible reason it is the other way around. Poor people see less of a benefit from taxes, but for absolutely no reason at all. They are the people who need the break. Hasn't history pointed out already that Reaganomics do NOT work?
Haha, what the hell was this

It seems Walter Mondale still has a cable modem

Well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two children, you don’t pay any
taxes. -Dennis Hastert (R-IL)

The fact is that I'm still right about what he said and I've proven how false his statement is. Despite this, its ridiculous that the gap between rich and poor has never been wider and they still use bullshit reasoning like this to pass tax cuts for the rich.

Yes people pay sales tax. Way to go Alex in proving yourself right, even though it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Huzzah.

Haha, what the hell was this


It's uh... a uh... umm... Can't think, hypnotized by avatar... :confused:

Well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two children, you don’t pay any
taxes. -Dennis Hastert (R-IL)

The fact is that I'm still right about what he said and I've proven how false his statement is. Despite this, its ridiculous that the gap between rich and poor has never been wider and they still use bullshit reasoning like this to pass tax cuts for the rich.
If you wanna take the guy's quote completely out of context so he can be wrong and you can be right, more power to ya. Whatever you need to do to keep that self-esteem up, you go ahead and do. But we all know full well that he was talking about income tax cuts, and that by necessity he had to be talking about income taxes.

COrganist perhaps you forgot that that man must also pay tolls when he drives down I-95

Fuck you you insensitive bastard

Oh look, Nimmy is trying to leech onto someone else's point again. <blow me Nim, DO IT!>

If you wanna take the guy's quote completely out of context so he can be wrong and you can be right, more power to ya. Whatever you need to do to keep that self-esteem up, you go ahead and do. But we all know full well that he was talking about income tax cuts, and that by necessity he had to be talking about income taxes.

Let's examine the context then.

1. Record federal deficit.

2. High gas prices that hurt the lower and middle class the most.

3. Skyrocketing Healthcare costs that hurt the lower and middle class the most.

So what's the answer, republicans? That's right we need more tax cuts for the rich? Why? Cuz the middle class don't pay any taxes so therefore they don't need any help, right?

Oh look, Nimmy is trying to leech onto someone else's point again. blow me Nim, DO IT!
You're right. From now on I propose that any new post in a politics thread MUST NOT AGREE with ANY previously posted point, even to the point where outlandish positions are taken.

Oh wait, you're already got that covered

Let's examine the context then.

1. Record federal deficit.

2. High gas prices that hurt the lower and middle class the most.

3. Skyrocketing Healthcare costs that hurt the lower and middle class the most.

So what's the answer, republicans? That's right we need more tax cuts for the rich? Why? Cuz the middle class don't pay any taxes so therefore they don't need any help, right?


It's already been explained to you numerous times how federal deficits don't impact the economy in a negative way.

Yes, rich people do invest their money more wisely than the government. So that's why we give them more of it, so they can do what the government can't do. It's not hard to figure out.

You get so worked up about the stupidest shit. You're going to soon have serious ulcers, and for really no reason. Even with a Democratic president and Democratic congress, it would take about 6 years to return tax rates to their pre-2001 levels. So i guess you'll be hating rich people for a long time!

Yes, rich people do invest their money more wisely than the government.

Wishful thinking. Why do you automatically think rich people are wise?

It's already been explained to you numerous times how federal deficits don't impact the economy in a negative way.


oh, really?

You get so worked up about the stupidest shit.

I don't get worked up to the point that I neg rep somebody I disagree with every single chance I get like you do. :2thumbsup

Wishful thinking. Why do you automatically think rich people are wise?

Ownership of money. People spend their money more wisely when they feel like they have ownership of it. People don't care so much for how well the government is spending money because I don't even think most people realize how much money they're giving to the government! It's taken away from them before they even get their paychecks on Friday. I would love to see what people think of taxes if they instead had to write a pesonal check every month payable to the US government.

By the way, if you are so confident that you are on the right side of this issue, and that the government knows what to do with this money better the American people that fund it, then you would have no problem with making income taxes voluntary, right? Because i am so sure that everyone agrees with you on this issue, and that a good 95% of the public would continue asking the government to take income taxes out of their paycheck, right? Point proven. :)

And yeah, there was a good 3 or 4 page thread about the insignificance of deficits about a month ago.

that makes absolutely no sense. poor people spend money stupidly because they "feel" like they don't have money and rich people spend money wisely because they have it?

there are so many logical fallacies in that last post I don't even want to start.

what? can you highlight where i was talking about poor people or distinguishing poor people from rich people? i missed it.

and are you willing to make taxes voluntary or not? come on, where's your balls on this issue?

Because i am so sure that everyone agrees with you on this issue, and that a good 95% of the public would continue asking the government to take income taxes out of their paycheck, right? Point proven. :)

wow

what? can you highlight where i was talking about poor people or distinguishing poor people from rich people? i missed it.


debaser: Why do you automatically think rich people are wise?

shawn osmond: People spend their money more wisely when they feel like they have ownership of it.

debaser: :noway:

and are you willing to make taxes voluntary or not? come on, where's your balls on this issue?

you've shifted this debate into some fantasy land libertarian debate.

Hey, let's make paying for food at a restaurant voluntary! We customers can spend our own money more wisely than the chef! I bet if you took a survey and asked if they would like restaurant paying to be voluntary that they would agree! That proves me right!

You're right. From now on I propose that any new post in a politics thread MUST NOT AGREE with ANY previously posted point,Thats not what Im saying at all. Here, this is how a typical thread plays out:

Nimmy enters: Makes a snide comment, 50% chance its even on-topic

Corgo/other: Makes a point worthy of consideration

Nimmy the Leech: "Yeah, thats what I meant"

even to the point where outlandish positions are taken.
Oh wait, you're already got that covered

This...what? Seriously, what?
And that "blow me" comment was a private communication from me to you, I dont appreciate you sharing it to the world. <blow me, bitch>

debaser: Why do you automatically think rich people are wise?

shawn osmond: People spend their money more wisely when they feel like they have ownership of it.

debaser: :noway:
Um. That has nothing to do with rich v. poor, unless you're implying that the poor aren't "people."

you've shifted this debate into some fantasy land libertarian debate.
Who was the one who shifted the debate from "Hastert is an idiot for saying something that is true" to the tired old "tax cuts are bad" spiel?

Who was the one who shifted the debate from "Hastert is an idiot for saying something that is true" to the tired old "tax cuts are bad" spiel?

Hilarious. What Hastert said is not true. It's not true even when taken in context. It's only true when you parse and change Hastert's words and intent.

It's a pretty sad defense when you have to ignore Hastert's words and say "nah, he really meant this...."

Hilarious. What Hastert said is not true. It's not true even when taken in context. It's only true when you parse and change Hastert's words and intent.
Why would the amount of FICA/sales/state/etc. tax a person pays have anything to do with how much that person would get from an income tax cut? Stop being obstinate and save your energy for a place where you might actually have a point. Its quite clear what Hastert meant: If you don't pay income tax, you don't benefit from an income tax cut. That is not a wild assertion.

Why would the amount of FICA/sales/state/etc. tax a person pays have anything to do with how much that person would get from an income tax cut? Stop being obstinate and save your energy for a place where you might actually have a point. Its quite clear what Hastert meant: If you don't pay income tax, you don't benefit from an income tax cut. That is not a wild assertion.

oh, so you are saying a payroll tax that takes money from your income is not an income tax?

It's quite clear what Hastert meant: We need tax cuts for the rich because the middle class doesn't need any tax cuts because they don't pay taxes anyways. And that is completely out of touch with reality.

oh, so you are saying a payroll tax that takes money from your income is not an income tax?
Yes, I am. Income taxes are under a totally different subtitle of the Internal Revenue Code than employment taxes (such as payroll taxes) are.

It's quite clear what Hastert meant: We need tax cuts for the rich because the middle class doesn't need any tax cuts because they don't pay taxes anyways. And that is completely out of touch with reality.
I don't think he was talking about why we "need" tax cuts one way or the other. He was just explaining why the tax cuts would affect some people and not others. I'm sorry, but there's just not anything in that thirty second clip you posted that warrants all of your complaining.

But again, you know all this. God forbid you just say you got things wrong and save the same old "tax cuts/rich people are bad" spiel for some discussion where it applies.

God forbid corganist ever admits that the republicans fucked up instead of nitpicking, revise meanings, and parsing to death everything until he thinks he's made a counter-point.

The greater issue: Why do we need more tax cuts for the rich?

The greater issue: Why do we need more tax cuts for the rich?
hey now who's parsing? you said the tax cuts were for everyone

you've shifted this debate into some fantasy land libertarian debate.

Hey, let's make paying for food at a restaurant voluntary! We customers can spend our own money more wisely than the chef! I bet if you took a survey and asked if they would like restaurant paying to be voluntary that they would agree! That proves me right!
that's not libertarian at all

hey now who's parsing? you said the tax cuts were for everyone
I think he's talking about fairness, man.
Like, more than $10 for people at the bottom of the income tree.

I think he's talking about fairness, man.
Like, more than $10 for people at the bottom of the income tree.
"Fairness" is a relative term.

Were taxes "fair" everyone regardless of income level would pay the same percentage of taxes.

Say what you will, $10 for someone making $30,000 a year is an insult.

Say what you will, $10 for someone making $30,000 a year is an insult.
If the government was just sending out checks because they wanted to give people money, maybe. For tax cuts, its more complicated than that.

Say what you will, $10 for someone making $30,000 a year is an insult.

Someone who bitches about receiving $10 from someone or something, without having done any extra work to receive it in the first place, is an insult. Dipshit.

without having done any extra work to receive it in the first place, is an insult. Dipshit.

Who exactly does "extra work" worthy of a tax cut?

Who exactly does "extra work" worthy of a tax cut?
I think his point is that no one does.

His point stands without the extra work bit. Bah, whatever.

Someone who bitches about receiving $10 from someone or something, without having done any extra work to receive it in the first place, is an insult. Dipshit.
Then why does Bush talk about it as if it's going to siginificantly boost the potential of families financially? Did you see the little presentation he gave last week when he signed it, it made me want to vomit.

No need to resort to insults.

Then why does Bush talk about it as if it's going to siginificantly boost the potential of families financially? Did you see the little presentation he gave last week when he signed it, it made me want to vomit.

He's advertising, that's what he does each time he signs big bills. I want you to tell me why anyone with sense would rely on a tax cut to boost their financial prosperity, when they only come around once every couple years. Don't expect them, just be appreciative of them when they happen. People bitch about how much they get back but I don't remember anyone returning those tax rebate checks to the IRS back in 2001. Everyone's pretty much forgotten about those by now, I guess.

If you want to significantly increase your financial situation, then go work a second job or have an annual garage sale or sell stuff on ebay. Or if you're great at playing cards like me, go down to the local casino and make some cash there. If you can't do any of those things, then go the other route and cut your expenses. You can start with your ISP service since Netphoria isn't really a life necessity.

And why are you concerning yourself with how much money other folks do or don't get back? Do you really have that much free time that you can worry about your finances and those of others at the same time? Perhaps if people concentrated on managing the money and property that they own, they could better figure out how to get out of an average of $8000 of debt.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_officia.html

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is seeking to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress, ABC News has learned from senior U.S. law enforcement officials.

Out of touch with the law, much?

Out of touch with the law, much?
Not the tax law at least...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_officia.html

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is seeking to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress, ABC News has learned from senior U.S. law enforcement officials.

Out of touch with the law, much?

He's the Speaker of the House, he's probably been under investigation for the last 7 years because when you are in charge of a body that has a history of corruption, people are going to watch you every step of the way. Besides, the Justice Department already said he wasn't the subject of any investigation. And they would know more than ABC News' blogsite. This is why Fox News is killing everyone in the ratings, they have the most credibility and don't post stuff and attribute it to supposed "high-level officials".

Where will Debaser's next article come from? Moveon.org? Cindysheehan.org?