Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
My buddy that was talking to me about it said that we can do something like that twice a year and change it back to what our normal exemptions are, just sounds off to me.

Don't listen to him. The exemptions you claim on your W-2 are just an easy way to estimate the taxes you'll owe next April (and how much should be withheld so you don't get blind-sided). They have no impact on the amount you'll ultimately owe; so claiming 99 exemptions will result in bigger pay checks (due to smaller withholding), but a much larger annual tax bill.
 
Last edited:

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
It's absolutely hilarious that some folks think the deficit would be lower if a republican was president. It would be the same or higher, just spent on different things.

If this is in response to my article postings just above...
1) I was simply pointing out what the president said and what has happened
2) I never said the debt would not increase under Republican leadership
3) Considering the huge rate of increase in the debt under President Obama, I certainly do believe that while it would have increased under Mitt, the amount of increase would have been less.

Not even sure I'd go that far. The last Republican administration gave us: (1) Medicare Part D; (2) multiple wars of choice; (3) a new and completely unnecessary cabinet-level department; etc.

Even with that O has outpaced W
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
3) Considering the huge rate of increase in the debt under President Obama, I certainly do believe that while it would have increased under Mitt, the amount of increase would have been less.

Even with that O has outpaced W

Is it any wonder the GOP is in decline? "Same Policies; Slower Pace" isn't exactly inspiring.

This a major reason why the US is on a worrisome trajectory; there's no representation in Washington for anything but neoliberalism. Democrat v. Republican is basically a debate over how fast we liberalize.
 

enrico514

New member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
45
It's absolutely hilarious that some folks think the deficit would be lower if a republican was president. It would be the same or higher, just spent on different things.

Republican/Democrat... who cares! Both party has gotten the US to where it is today... americans should be revolting against their politicians irrespective of what party they are in.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
My buddy that was talking to me about it said that we can do something like that twice a year and change it back to what our normal exemptions are, just sounds off to me.

Don't listen to him. The exemptions you claim on your W-2 are just an easy way to estimate the taxes you'll owe next April (and how much should be withheld so you don't get blind-sided). They have no impact on the amount you'll ultimately owe; so claiming 99 exemptions will result in a bigger pay checks (due to smaller withholding), but a much larger annual tax bill.

What he said.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Is it any wonder the GOP is in decline? "Same Policies; Slower Pace" isn't exactly inspiring.

This a major reason why the US is on a worrisome trajectory; there's no representation in Washington for anything but neoliberalism. Democrat v. Republican is basically a debate over how fast we liberalize.

I didn't say I liked it or endorsed it. I actually even hoped that coming out of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that spending would actually decrease. But did not consider it a probability just a possibility. Yes, DC is broken and I want it fixed but don't see that person out there with enough backing to accomplish it. I wish more people would fight to get spending down.
 

enrico514

New member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
45

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
$17 trillion is nothing!

When you look at the present value of what america has promised and the present value of future tax revenues the hole is north of $200 trillion.

I once saw an article claiming the US would be worth approx. 1.8 quadrillion dollars if you valued it as a business. I wonder if it's true?

Calling whiskey.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
3,260
Is it any wonder the GOP is in decline? "Same Policies; Slower Pace" isn't exactly inspiring.

This a major reason why the US is on a worrisome trajectory; there's no representation in Washington for anything but neoliberalism. Democrat v. Republican is basically a debate over how fast we liberalize.

What's the alternative? Run on the platform of limited taxes, limited spending, fiscal responsibility, etc.? Makes sense to me.

The "Tea Party" took a shot. The mainstream media took care of that problem real quick - now they're just an extremist group who tried to hijack America.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I once saw an article claiming the US would be worth approx. 1.8 quadrillion dollars if you valued it as a business. I wonder if it's true?

I've read the same, and I believe it. Focusing simply on tax receipts v. government liabilities is like looking only at the P & L sheet for a business while ignoring the current value of its assets; it's not a very accurate picture of financial health. But it's an effective way to "engage" fiscal conservatives, so conservative pundits keep hammering on it.

America's foreign holdings are never discussed in this context, American business is stronger than ever, etc. The problem is that those assets are overwhelmingly owned by the 1%. It gets back to the issue of socialized risk v. privatized gain that was briefly discussed in the media after the bank bailouts (but apparently forgotten in the interim); the system is rigged against John Q. Public.

Surprise! The people who own both political parties in this country are doing better than ever, largely because they've lobbied all their downside risk onto the unwashed masses.
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
What's the alternative? Run on the platform of limited taxes, limited spending, fiscal responsibility, etc.? Makes sense to me.

The "Tea Party" took a shot. The mainstream media took care of that problem real quick - now they're just an extremist group who tried to hijack America.

Until a viable alternative to neoliberalism emerges, I expect we'll be in for a lot more painful political dysfunction. Whether the GOP can successfully reform from within or will be killed from without by a 3rd party, I have no idea. But the status quo is unsustainable.
 

enrico514

New member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
45
I've read the same, and I believe it. Focusing simply on tax receipts v. government liabilities is like looking only at the P & L sheet for a business while ignoring the current value of its assets; it's not a very accurate picture of financial health. But it's an effective way to "engage" fiscal conservatives, so conservative pundits keep hammering on it.

America's foreign holdings are never discussed in this context, American business is stronger than ever, etc. The problem is that those assets are overwhelmingly owned by the 1%. It gets back to the issue of socialized risk v. privatized gain that was briefly discussed in the media after the bank bailouts (but apparently forgotten in the interim); the system is rigged against John Q. Public.

Surprise! The people who own both political parties in this country are doing better than ever, largely because they've lobbied all their downside risk onto the unwashed masses.

Can't wait to see the US sell valuable assets to pay for future promises!

Simply ignoring future liabilities is simply a dishonest way of presenting america's financial position.

I do agree with most of your other comments. The system is rigged... the last 5 years has seen the largest transfer of wealth to the .1 of 1% and will only continue under Yellen.
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Can't wait to see the US sell valuable assets to pay for future promises!

Simply ignoring future liabilities is simply a dishonest way of presenting america's financial position.

I'm not suggesting that future liabilities should be ignored; simply that focusing on two variables in a very large and complex system (that incorporates private and international entities, assets, actors, etc.) presents an inaccurate picture of our fiscal health which serves as a (not coincidentally) convenient political football.

My intuition is that, if we look at the big picture, America's power structure-- big corporations, the Federal government, the military, etc.-- is doing just fine. Despite all our recent political dysfunction, the stock market is flying high and our bond prices are very low. The problem is who benefits from those things (the 1%) and who bears the costs of those policies (the 99%).
 

enrico514

New member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
45
I'm not suggesting that future liabilities should be ignored; simply that focusing on two variables in a very large and complex system (that incorporates private and international entities, assets, actors, etc.) presents an inaccurate picture of our fiscal health which serves as a (not coincidentally) convenient political football.

We agree.

My intuition is that, if we look at the big picture, America's power structure-- big corporations, the Federal government, the military, etc.-- is doing just fine. Despite all our recent political dysfunction, the stock market is flying high and our bond prices are very low. The problem is who benefits from those things (the 1%) and who bears the costs of those policies (the 99%).

Artificial environment not reflecting reality...
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Americans demand change, as long as it doesn't inconvenience them personally.
 
Last edited:

potownhero

New member
Messages
164
Reaction score
34
We will see as it plays out, but they have zero authority to do this and it has been noted many times in many publications that the tax/penalty can be avoided by those savvy enough to do it.

I wonder how this was scored by the CBO?

While AD wants to take a wait and see, some of what we've already seen is loads of people are:

losing their jobs,
getting hours cut back, and
having their existing health care plans dissolved.

Why are the Democrats giving exceptions to their big business pals?
Why did the Democrats allow the governing class the ability to live under different rules than they set for the rest of us?

Did I mention that it increases the deficit too.

More Awesomeness.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I wonder how this was scored by the CBO?

While AD wants to take a wait and see, some of what we've already seen is loads of people are:

losing their jobs,
getting hours cut back, and
having their existing health care plans dissolved.

Why are the Democrats giving exceptions to their big business pals?
Why did the Democrats allow the governing class the ability to live under different rules than they set for the rest of us?

Did I mention that it increases the deficit too.

More Awesomeness.

hahahhahhaha
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,960
Reaction score
6,451
I shouldn't bother to enter this thread {since I am too left-leaning in the common extremely-non-useful brainless broadbrush-painting parlance of those not really wanting to think about the variety that exists in people other than themselves}, but I'd like to insert just one overview idea for whatever it's worth:

For those imagining a collapse of the American economy and the consequent destruction/impoverishment of "All Things Holy", I would suggest that if this is all one worries about one should just crack open a Bell's Beer and watch a football game. American "Business" has placed itself at the core of a Global system of raw materials controls which will ensure that as long as anyone can continue to turn raw materials into products and sell them, they will do so.

$Dollars$ and stocks might seem to go up or down, but only the uneducated, or un-nimble, or disadvantaged will miss out. {admittedly we have more and more such individuals in America, but we "can conveniently not look too closely in their direction", and proceed with our whining Bell's Beer, Football-watching, gee-I-can't-afford-a-yacht lives.}

American business will survive over all challenges because of their homogeneity-of-purpose with the US Government. This homogeneity expresses itself most effectively and formidably in the Leviathan. The Leviathan is the Pentagon nickname for the Sea-based US military power. There is nothing like the Leviathan anywhere else on the planet, and China and Russia nervously know it.

If there are genuinely serious problems of supply of natural resources TO US BUSINESSES, the Leviathan is utilized one way or another to "moderate" if not obliterate THE SUPPLY END of those problems. BUSINESS WILL CONTINUE. The Leviathan will continue. American production and product and profit will continue. All the rest of the economic "game" is, in the end just that, a "Shadow Show" for we mini-Capitalists' playground.

If you really want to worry about something, look for something catastrophic which the Leviathan's type of force-projection cannot handle vis-a-vis resource availability. There are, I believe, only three categories: catastrophic third-world chaos on multiple geographic fronts, exhaustion of critical resources due to poorly planned consumption rates without sufficient "replacement" technology, or severe widespread environmental deterioration.

The thinking members of IE might be able to envision how these three dangers are related.......
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
Question:

Since I am finally getting a paycheck, they said it's all supposed to be lumped onto one paycheck coming up. I was told that I can change my tax exemptions to 99 and that will essentially allow me to get my paycheck tax free. I've never heard of this and could use a little guidance.

You're just delaying when you pay the tax. (Which is valuable to some people). But your employer will still withhold FICA/Soc. Sec./Medicare taxes. And you'll owe state taxes unless you live in Texas/Florida/etc.(?)
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
1383873_10151648297135925_1821112189_n_zps9b009a5b.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]


Need I say more?
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
You don't think Democrats have big business buddies???


You really are drunk on the kool-aid...

sure they do, but to read a post that whines about how unfair the world is that Dems have big business buddies from a republican whose party has made it an artform is funny.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Question:

Since I am finally getting a paycheck, they said it's all supposed to be lumped onto one paycheck coming up. I was told that I can change my tax exemptions to 99 and that will essentially allow me to get my paycheck tax free. I've never heard of this and could use a little guidance.

You'd owe a sh!t load come April 15th.

My buddy that was talking to me about it said that we can do something like that twice a year and change it back to what our normal exemptions are, just sounds off to me.

Don't listen to him. The exemptions you claim on your W-2 are just an easy way to estimate the taxes you'll owe next April (and how much should be withheld so you don't get blind-sided). They have no impact on the amount you'll ultimately owe; so claiming 99 exemptions will result in bigger pay checks (due to smaller withholding), but a much larger annual tax bill.

That's what's known as tax fraud.

26 United States Code §7205 (a) said:
Fraudulent withholding exemption certificate or failure to supply information

(a) Withholding on wages. -- Any individual required to supply information to his employer under section 3402 who willfully supplies false or fraudulent information, or who willfully fails to supply information thereunder which would require an increase in the tax to be withheld under section 3402, shall, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, upon conviction thereof, be fined* not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
I'm trying to think of a website that hasn't had issues at one time or another. Especially sites that have never been done before. Hmmmm?

Get over it folks, they'll get it worked out.

The drama is sickening these days.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
I'm trying to think of a website that hasn't had issues at one time or another. Especially sites that have never been done before. Hmmmm?

Get over it folks, they'll get it worked out.

The drama is sickening these days.

The website is the least of the "drama." This is only one very small piece of this $hitshow cake America's gonna eat up. The icing on the cake is that just like Medicare, Medicaid, and SS, getting rid of it or "reforming" it will be ten times harder than the implementation was. It will either be too late or impossible by the time enough people figured out what happened.

Meanwhile...

GALLUP POLL: OBAMA APPROVAL DROPS FOR THIRD STRAIGHT QUARTER

Poll: Obama Approval Drops for Third Straight Quarter
 
Top