1
Is this a cartoon about Michigan?
Cause them dumocrats here are sure loving raising taxes so much they have done it twice in just a month now.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at November 03, 2007 06:58 PM (BksWB)
2
It's Democrats all around the country, I assure you!
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2007 03:12 PM (2WD8n)
3
When I was laid off for almost 5 years, I went to school to better my situation and get to the point I could make a decient living. I went to being a single mom and making barely poverty level. Now I'm at a point where I make decient money and might be able to save enough to retire someday, and the Demonrats want to tax me to death and finance giveaway programs with my money! I guess even though I was a registered Democrat during those years, I was behaving like a Republican, because I never even took so much as a food stamp from the government!
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 05, 2007 06:47 PM (eaqGd)
4
How DARE you try and take care of yourself! Don't you care about The Children? Apparently you don't!
Don't you understand that you're supposed to rely on government to provide you with everything you need from cradle to grave. There's no need to save any money -- just ask government for some! They've got LOTS because of Democrats and tax increases.
Posted by: Ogre at November 05, 2007 06:59 PM (oifEm)
5
ROTFFLMAO!!!! OK, where's the line forming for Hillary Care, and the free money for being born in the USA and the funds to help me get a 401K started... where is it???? Oh crud, did you say I will be paying more taxes to get all of this???
I think this "entitlement thingy" is going to bankrupt the country and the working class. I wonder if I can become a citizen of Burmuda or something... LOL!!!
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 05, 2007 07:17 PM (eaqGd)
6
NO, no, there's no need for a 401K. Instead, just depend on the government to send you a check. THere's no need to save for it, they'll just send it to you.
Hillary Care's line is already forming -- in Massachusetts. Romney's recent forced insurance has literally got people lining up all over the place for their "free" government insurance -- because if they don't get insurance by year's end, the government will arrest them and throw them in jail!
Posted by: Ogre at November 05, 2007 07:19 PM (oifEm)
7
Now THAT is a system for you. It's my understanding they can get all the care they need in the prison infirmary! LOL!!!
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 05, 2007 07:44 PM (eaqGd)
Posted by: Ogre at November 05, 2007 07:53 PM (oifEm)
9
So why are working people taxed at 43% (28% earned income tax and 15% social security payroll tax) while rich people are taxed just 15% rate ONLY on capital gains (ie, stocks they sold; unrealized capital gains are not taxed?).
Republicans been settin' the tax rates since 1994 ... at least Dems are trying to make taxes more fair to working people.
Posted by: The Tax Man at November 07, 2007 10:25 AM (y2s/z)
10
Not true. There's plenty of opportunity to make taxes fair. There's not more than two politicians in Washington that have ANY desire to make them fair at all.
Posted by: Ogre at November 07, 2007 12:21 PM (oifEm)
11
Are you saying that W-2 employed people who get a paycheck stub do not see 28% of their paycheck withheld for IRS and 15% of their income deducted for FICA??
Please tell me what their paystubs read ...
Posted by: The Tax Man at November 11, 2007 07:46 AM (Cj1+K)
12
I don't know where you get your information about what counts as "rich" but a Wall Street Journal columnist has done fairly good investigative reporting on this subject:
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/
But that still begs the question about why you claim W-2 payroll deductions are "not true."
Posted by: The Tax Man at November 11, 2007 08:17 AM (oN/VZ)
13
Please read the entire comment before having your knee-jerk reactions. My "not true" was in response to your claim that Democrats are trying to make taxes "more fair" -- as should have been clear by my sentence that immediately followed "not true."
Posted by: Ogre at November 11, 2007 02:34 PM (2WD8n)
14
Ok, I'm willing to try one more time to get a straight answer from you:
Do W-2 employees have 28% of their paycheck withheld for IRS and 15% of their income deducted for FICA??
Posted by: The Tax Man at November 11, 2007 08:35 PM (O0YsD)
15
Wow. Maybe you are meatbrain in disguise. You sure are having a LOT of trouble reading what I'm typing. I'll try one more time as well:
You claimed that Democrats were working to make taxes more fair in response to the picture at the top.
I said that isn't true -- there are plenty of ways to make taxes honestly fair, but there's only about 2 people in all of Washington DC that are interested in making taxes fair. The Democrat Party is NOT one of them.
Posted by: Ogre at November 11, 2007 09:47 PM (2WD8n)
16
I was trying to settle one point: the current tax system taxes working people 43% (only on incomes below $90,000) and rich people 15% (capital gains) -- do you think the current system is fair?
My understanding is that Democrats have proposed replacing the AMT with a small tax increase on incomes over $200,000.
What's wrong with that?
Posted by: The Tax Man at November 11, 2007 11:15 PM (O0YsD)
17
Because it's unfair -- it very clearly punishes people who are successful. That's just wrong to those who support freedom.
Posted by: Ogre at November 11, 2007 11:30 PM (2WD8n)
18
Ok, but if we leave things "as is", doesn't the current tax system very clearly punish people who must work for a living?
Posted by: The Tax Man at November 12, 2007 03:46 AM (O0YsD)
Posted by: Ogre at November 12, 2007 10:25 AM (2WD8n)
20
Yes, the editorial cartoon implies that Democrats are taking aim at the apple but will probably clobber the Middle Class with tax increases.
So I cited a simple example where Middle Class people will receive a tax break when the AMT is abolished and wealthy people (incomes over $200,00/year) will see a slight increase.
I don't know everything that's going on in Congress, but at least as far as AMT goes, the Democratic proposal does seem to target tax breaks for the Middle Class (just the opposite of what your cartoon portrays.)
But have you read a single thing I've posted here? (e.g., "Ok, but if we leave things "as is", doesn't the current tax system very clearly punish people who must work for a living?")
I'm just trying to get your views on some specific issues I've investigated a little bit, rather than platitudes or slogans like "tax and Spend Democrats" without any supporting documentation. (I think you have mentioned elsewhere that Republican politicians spend just as much, or more, than Democratic politicians)
The impression (so far) is that you feel it's OK to tax incomes less than $90,000 at a rate of 43%, while wealthy people pay only about 1/3 as much -- only 15% of their income.
Please let me know how you feel about this inequity (perhaps I missed something). A simple answer to my question might clear up everything and then I'd know where you stand on income/wealth inequality in America .
Maybe we say at some point "Aha! This is where our differences are, and there's no point trying to reconcile that issue any further.
Like abortion -- one either thinks life begins at first breath or life begins at conception. These are gut-level (religious) beliefs and there is no point to debate them any further. Better to discuss a different issue to see if there is any common agreement, or if it boils down to something we can only agree to disagree on that issue.
Or, we might discover that we actually agree on something (like the 3-state solution in Iraq).
Posted by: Robert Rubin at November 13, 2007 08:20 AM (604CD)
21
Wow. I'll type slow:
To tax people more because they work harder isn't fair. I don't comprehend how you can call punishing hard work "fair."
Posted by: Ogre at November 13, 2007 09:45 AM (2WD8n)
I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism.
See what else the mayor of a town in Iraq has to say about the United States Military machine.
1
I consider this the greatest shame the MSM has in our country. By refusing to publish items like this mayor's statement of gratitude, they deny thousands of families and loved ones of the fallen heros in Iraq, the satisfaction of knowing their soldier, sailor, airmen or marine's sacrifice is honored by the Iraqi people that they have fought for. I know if my son fell in battle over there, this man's words would comfort me greatly.
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 05, 2007 09:38 PM (eaqGd)
2
And some people actually still claim that the formerly mainstream media doesn't have an agenda.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 01:29 AM (2WD8n)
3
Just heard on Fox (O'Reilly) that some jerk strapped dynamite on himself to try to blow up a Washington, DC Church and the Newspaper withheld info from the FBI and refused to print the story! Hidden Agenda indeed!
Watch, the paper won't be held accountable for it either. You or I would be doing serious time.
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 06, 2007 01:52 AM (TzKlC)
4
The media today is pretty much above the law most of the time. And they know it. And they don't care who they hurt or kill.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 02:05 AM (2WD8n)
5
Well stated Ogre. They seem to be owned by government, Demonrats, or special wackjob interests. They aren't even real Americans.
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 06, 2007 02:56 AM (TzKlC)
6
I first really noticed it during coverage of the wars in the 1990s when they refused to identify themselves with the Americans. Fox News always said "us" when talking about Americans, while all the other networks went out of their way to say "The American Troops" and NEVER "our" or "us."
Disgusting, if you ask me.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 02:15 PM (oifEm)
Celebrity Deportation
Uh oh, it seems that even celebrity children are not immune to being deported. Oh, the humanity. Someone protest something or burn something!
Posted by: Ogre at
01:01 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
NC Raw MilkThis story is for those people who think the people of North Carolina have any freedom at all. It's just beyond comprehension to someone who wants a country that is based on freedom. Apparently, at least in North Carolina, if someone milks a cow, you're not allow to buy that milk from them. Yes, the North Carolina government actually had discussions about your right to buy milk from someone. Wow.
But to show even more insanity, did you know there are "Raw milk activists?" Holy crap. I just seriously cannot imagine what planet these Democrats live on. They actually believe it is dangerous and that it's their job to STOP people from buying milk from a cow. I'm speechless. Just holy crap.
Even worse, there's actually an underground economy for milk! Seriously, if you want to buy raw milk, you have to act like a drug dealer and make secret deals in the night! How incredibly insane is this?
Un-freakin-believable. I wonder how soon before they make it illegal to even DRINK milk in North Carolina. Go ahead, try and convince me you have any freedom in this state. Give it a shot.
1
Here you have to be registered to sell it and then people have to sign up with you to buy it special. But, once you drink raw milk, you won't ever want store-bought milk again!
Posted by: oddybobo at November 02, 2007 01:22 PM (mZfwW)
2
I just cannot understand people in government who think that they need to regulate it. I mean, sure, I understand the cash from the dairy industry that buys the laws to protect them, but still. It's damn COW MILK!
Posted by: Ogre at November 02, 2007 01:26 PM (oifEm)
3
Ogre, you are looking at this the wrong way.
There is plenty of freedom left there, but it is all in the freedom one has to take freedoms away from people.
See?
People are free to take freedoms away, they just aren't free to do anything else, but boy is there a lot of that other freedom happening there.
Posted by: kender at November 02, 2007 01:42 PM (C6VZP)
4
The North Carolina Democrat government certainly leads the world in using that freedom to take freedoms away, that's for sure.
Posted by: Ogre at November 02, 2007 01:45 PM (oifEm)
5
Maybe over regulation and a black market for
Raw Milk adds to the excitement of drinking it?
You know like Prohibition and Speak Easys???
I do imagine it comes down to the FDA stuff.
Cleanliness of equippment, temperature of product, processing methods, etc... all the things Corporate Dairy farms have to comply with. I remember going out in the country to buy fresh eggs from a farmer and fresh sweet corn too.
Wonder if the "Corporate Farmer Lobby" will be all over that too? Soon we will all have to have a license to sit down and eat in a resturant, maybe even a "gathering permit".
This dumb stuff starts in one state and spreads into the others in no time!!!! LOL!!!!
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 02, 2007 05:23 PM (eaqGd)
6
I imagine there's some attraction due to the thrill of drinking illicit milk...
But sure, the government claim that we're too dumb to drink raw milk and we'll all die if we do, so therefore they have to stop us. Since before pasturation, after all, everyone who drank milk did die, you know. Well, according to government, anyway.
Posted by: Ogre at November 02, 2007 05:29 PM (oifEm)
Purpose of Public Schools
A school board in Montana says:
Allowing him to finish school online could have opened the door to allowing other students to take a high number of courses online, reducing the need and benefits of a regular school setting, the board decided.
In other words, their STATED purpose is to put students in a "regular" school setting. They honestly have no interest in education. They don't care about high school diplomas. They honestly do not care if someone learns anything. Instead, their ONLY purpose, according to the school board itself, is to put students in a "regular school setting."
If someone were interested in education and learning, they would have said something along the lines of, "Gee, we'd like this fellow to get an education, and we're willing to work with him and his family to ensure that he gets one." But no, instead they said they ONLY wanted students. They want warm bodies in seats because that's where they get more cash. Nothing else matters to the public school system in America. Seriously.
If your child is in a public school in America, keep in mind those who are "Educating" them are only interested in them as a body to get them cash. The system seriously does not care if they learn one single thing.
1
But don't you think that its important for children to go to school and learn how to socialize with peers and function in a society? I met most of my friends in school and had some of my fondest childhood memories took place there. I learned how to interact with people, deal with problems, and work hard, and I feel like my experience is typical. Is this not worth our tax dollars? Despite the issues you have with greedy officials and with the quality of the education, doesn't a child benefit from being around children his own age?
Posted by: Brian at November 01, 2007 09:35 PM (fzGw8)
2
Not one bit.
Why should children be limited to only associating with people who are their same chronological age -- and not with people who are their intellectual peers and/or mental peers? Why should we limit children to only one speed in classrooms, artificially teaching smarter children to slow down and NOT work?
Children very clearly DO NOT benefit from only being around children their own age. Every last person that I have met that has been homeschooled, I can tell in an instant. The children who are not forced into a public school are able to interact with people of ALL ages, not just their own -- and they've learned to work hard at their maximum capacity, instead of the state-mandated minimum capacity.
Posted by: Ogre at November 01, 2007 09:45 PM (2WD8n)
3
I think you would do well to go to a high school football game. Look at the team, who have probably played together for ten or twelve years, and see the brotherhood that they share. Look at the band, and see how hard they work at what they do. The rest of the student body at the game, enjoying life forming relationships. These are experiences that are difficult to replicate with home schooling. Isn't it easier to make friends with people your own age. I have had a different experience with people who are home schooled. I find them to be sheltered and less social than most.
Posted by: Brian at November 01, 2007 10:16 PM (fzGw8)
4
I see the "brotherhood" shared by forced segregation by age. I see the dumbing down and holding back of students because they don't want to "offend" any other student who's dumb.
And without a single exception, every homeschooled person I've ever met has had an easier time talking to people not of their age. In fact, there's been various studies done that show homeschooled children are MORE socially adept than those who have been forced into a public school.
The relationships from sporting and other events are incredibly easy to recreate because of various recreation departments. In the area I live there are over 90,000 kids who are homeschooled. They have their own football league. They have tons of activities -- many, many more physical activities than public schools could ever dream of.
Posted by: Ogre at November 02, 2007 01:46 AM (2WD8n)
5
What would you reccommend for families where both parents need to during the day, or single parent homes. How could they provide a good education on their own?
Posted by: Brian at November 02, 2007 05:57 PM (fzGw8)
6
In the home where both parents work, I would suggest they get a less material-focused lifestyle so that one can work and the other can stay home. I'm willing to bet in nearly all those cases, they are working to pay for a lot of luxuries they don't truly need. Having children should require sacrifice. Those who don't want to sacrifice their lifestyle at all for their children are being very selfish.
To those who are single parents, I suggest not becoming a single parent. I realize that sometimes it is through no fault of their own, but often it is through personal choice. And even when stuck as a single parent, I'd suggest finding their own family. Everyone has parents. If families were a lot stronger, they could stay together and raise their children.
Finally, if government completely got out of education, there were be TONS of opportunities for children to get educated. Even now there's co-ops and church organizations. If government got out of the way, I'd open a school tomorrow myself. And many, many more churches and organizations would open up educational institutions.
Posted by: Ogre at November 02, 2007 06:15 PM (oifEm)
7
I'm adding this. when kids paricipate in YMCA sports, many times they are able to participate on teams in some of the private schools, like church schools, YOu have lots of different sports going on outside the realm of public school in every communuity. I do know many home schooling parents utilize the sports teams at private schools by enrolling their kids in after school care on the days they will be practicing with the team. I used to work in a church school daycare when my son was going to the school. There was a huge spirit of cooporation between the home schoolers and the Christian private schools and those kids didn't miss anything. I worked in after school care when I was a single Mom in order to get half price tuition for my son and took night classes at the local University. It wasn't easy, but it was doable. In many ways, I felt the home schooled kids adapted better socially than the private school kids. Go figure.
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 05, 2007 10:48 PM (eaqGd)
8
It's because the home school kids learn to deal with different types of people and different aged people while public school kids ONLY learn how to act with others of their own age -- usually without adult supervision.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 01:40 AM (2WD8n)
Language = Civil Right?
So, did you know that you have a "civil right" to force other people to speak any language you want? No, really. If you speak to someone in a language, any language at all, and they do not speak to you in that very same language, they are violating your civil rights. At least that's what immigrant advocacy groups are claiming in New York.
Among the list of slimy, scummy, bastards who are claiming this (not in small part to get free cash, of course) are:
Nisha Agarwal, a bottom-feeder lawyer.
Andrew Friedman, an executive director of "Make the Road New York (crappier)".
New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (that's "public" as in "not you").
New York Immigration Coalition (lawyers opposed to laws).
Oh, and by the way? These pharmacies already produce labels in 14 or more languages and have interpreters who speak 150 languages. But according the the slimy bastards (lawyers) that's just not good enough.
Two poster children whined that they were scared because they couldn't read the labels on medicine. Learn English you miserable S.O.B! If you can't speak English in America, I do feel sorry for you. But when you claim that everyone else in the country should adapt to YOU and spend hundreds of billions because YOU don't want to learn the language of the country, it's YOU that are the problem. YOU are the miserable, selfish bastard, not anyone else.
And any judge that lets complete BS lawsuits like this continue based on "civil rights" deserves to be disbarred and fired on the spot. I'm not holding my breath, because to do that would require some sort of freedom -- like the freedom to speak any language I want. Apparently I no longer have that freedom in America, either.
1
What do you call 110 lawyers with cement overshoes at the bottom of the ocean?
answer: Off to a good start...
the tip of the iceberg!!!!
LOL!!!!!
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 05, 2007 10:05 PM (eaqGd)
2
You don't know how much I agree with that statement. Then again, there's quite a few judges that need to get the boot, too, for allowing these moron lawyers to continue.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 01:37 AM (2WD8n)
NC Biotechnology
Great news! The North Carolina Biotechnology Center is expanding! Hooray. So what is this center? It's called "a private, non-profit corporation." Of course in today's newspeak, what that really means is that it's a government front group. Seriously.
Here's how it works: the Democrats in the North Carolina Legislature create a "corporation." They register it as "non-profit." They make it "private." Then they appoint their friends (or even themselves) on the board that runs the corporation. Since it's "private," no one is allowed to see the records of the "corporation." Then they pass laws providing the funding for the "private non-profit corporation." And yes, they often draw personal salaries from these "corporations."
So in North Carolina, when you see "private, non-profit corporation" what that really means is "a company that the Democrats in the Legislature use to launder taxpayer cash to their personal pocketbooks." And again, since they're private, no one is allowed to see their records. And since they're "non-profit," they can just exist to pay out cash to their board of directors.
If I did anything like that, I'd be arrested. But this is the Democrat Legislature of North Carolina, and they answer to no one. Just keep paying your taxes, these legislators just need more money to spend on themselves.
1
Maybe I should run for office and start a private non profit corp. Sounds like a "shut yer pie hole, pay your taxes and quit asking questions citizen" low overhead operation! Add free healthcare courtesy of the Dems and I'm ready to retire in style! *snicker*
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 05, 2007 10:13 PM (eaqGd)
2
You can do so in NC. Of course, you have to be a Democrat, and you have to get permission from the party bosses. Once you're in, you're in. And if you oppose them, strange things might happen to your and your finances, and your body parts...
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 01:38 AM (2WD8n)
3
Oh... Mafia!!!! Omerta!!! Lord, politics can be so corrupt, but I know from what I have seen in my own hometown that the Dems just do corruption better! It's like "Good Ole Boy Networks R Us" should be tattoo'd on their foreheads.
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 06, 2007 01:59 AM (TzKlC)
4
And in North Carolina you have to realize one thing -- Democrats have been in power for OVER 100 years. They have a system set up so they will retain power no matter the cost. It's a serious good ol boy network here.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 02:06 AM (2WD8n)
5
Indiana is traditionally Republican, but we have a Republican Governor who acts like a Moonbat. Go figure. There are a lot of fake conservatives and/or Republicans out there.
Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at November 06, 2007 03:21 AM (TzKlC)
6
To show you how gerrymandered North Carolina is -- the people, as a state, have voted for a Republican for President every election since the 1970s -- but cannot get a majority in the House or Senate (other than once time in the House). Each year, thousands more people vote for Republicans for Senate, but the Democrats retain a giant majority.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2007 02:19 PM (oifEm)
