Don't stop... believin'... Hold on to that feeling...

anyone watch This Week this morning?

Roger Ailes was on the panel.

Before I get into that, I was watching the Obama Q&A with the GOP on Friday. I usually watch FOX, but for some reason they kept showing it but they cut the audio and had an interview with Peter King for some reason. I quickly switched to CSPAN so I could keep watching it.

Now, on This Week, towards the end of the show after a heated discussion on healthcare, Beck, Obama, etc., Arianna Huffington confronted Ailes about why FOX stopped showing the full Q&A. His response was 'we're the most trusted name in news'.

Anyway, my theory is that the Q&A was Obama in his prime. Analytical, engaging, logical. Everything we come to expect from him. FOX doesn't like that. Not. One. Bit.
 
I can't imagine many Fox News viewers really wanted to watch it anyway. I'm guessing that their pundits later analyzed and ripped it apart, so they probably watched that instead.
 
They stopped midway through the live Q&A so their analysts could say Obama was "lecturing" the Republicans.

So you're right, but they didn't even bother for "later," they settled for "before it was over."
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I can't imagine many Fox News viewers really wanted to watch it anyway. I'm guessing that their pundits later analyzed and ripped it apart, so they probably watched that instead.[/QUOTE]

What a sad thought. There is too much "analysis" and "punditry" on the dreadful cable news networks without them substituting it for the most interesting event Obama has done in his time as president (IMO of course).
 
interesting insomuch as it's unscripted interaction between political opponents live on tv.

It seemed like we were watching natural debate with thought and resolution instead of squawking heads on your 24/7 news networks.

Granted, the Republicans got straight up punked and exposed for being ideologues. So if this happens again, I lament that they will be better prepared to obfuscate the issues and turn it into political theater. (I'm not going the route of "Repubs are wrong Dems are so super smart" here - I'm just saying that we should enjoy a good thing for what it was, and recognize that it will be turned into a political monstrosity sooner than later.)
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I can't recall a president ever doing what Obama did today. Hats off to him for having the balls to enter such a venue, with open questions on live national TV. Just like "question time" in the British Parliament. I loved it, most interesting event Obama's had in his entire presidency. They really should do this on a regular basis - please? And televised on C-SPAN, of course! I think this is a wonderful thing for our democracy. Again, great credit to Obama for being willing to do this.[/QUOTE]
Trust me, it was a fuck of a lot better than any parliamentary question period I've ever seen...
 
I read somewhere that internal Republican polling showed people that watched it thought Obama kicked the shit out of them and they've decided not to do it again. Maybe coming up with something so you don't get your ass kicked is a betters solution than taking your ball and going home.

I've been thinking about that exception to the excise tax for unions and I don't like it. I just can't think of a way that it's fair.
 
You'd think they'd take that as a cue. If it was me, I'd be chomping at the bit to get back into the ring with Obama and put some quality work on the table.

But that's just me. And you. And reasonable peops.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100201/us_time/08599195796400

"The lesson learned from the stimulus vote was our members felt comfortable in taking that political risk against a popular President if we had a credible alternative, and we did," Cantor says. Critics will surely debate just how credible those alternatives really were - their budget proposal, for instance, would have done away with Medicare.
Click to expand...

Seriously? That would have went over really well.:rofl:
 
[quote name='speedracer']I've been thinking about that exception to the excise tax for unions and I don't like it. I just can't think of a way that it's fair.[/QUOTE]

There isn't.

Don't take this as mindlessly bashing Obama - I totally understand that this is just "politics as usual" in Washington. Bush II, Clinton, Bush I - they all pulled this same kind of shit and that's why our tax code is the frickin' mess it is today (filing my taxes last night/this morning, so I'm a more rant-ier than usual on the subject).
 
Took us under an hour for state and federal, exemptions/deductions and all. That was an hour of my wife doing them and me playing Final Fantasy. :)

Is it complex? Yep. Is it a "mess"? Eh, it's easy to say that - but eliminating loopholes is more important than "simplifying" legislation. I also don't get what folks mean when they advocate "simplifying," anyway.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Took us under an hour for state and federal, exemptions/deductions and all. That was an hour of my wife doing them and me playing Final Fantasy. :)[/QUOTE]

Must be nice - my wife and I had five W2's this year. On the bright side, we only have to file in one state this time. :)

To be fair, I could have gotten it all finished last night, but I needed a property identification number (never needed it before?) for my state taxes and I had to call someone to get it - and, of course, they weren't open on Sunday night. Now, I'm sitting here waiting for my wife to text me her Driver's License number.... grrr...
 
Flat tax?

I know flat tax has it's issues and there are points to be made against it that are valid. But I would, at this point, swap it for the progressive tax we have now.

In other words, it's the lesser of two evils, imo.
 
I'm not getting into that discussion again. I'll just say one thing and then leave the conversation as is.

We don't have an equitable income structure, so there's no solid rational foundation for an equitable tax structure. In other words, when we all get paid the same wage, then it's okay to make us pay the same in taxes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not getting into that discussion again. I'll just say one thing and then leave the conversation as is.

We don't have an equitable income structure, so there's no solid rational foundation for an equitable tax structure. In other words, when we all get paid the same wage, then it's okay to make us pay the same in taxes.[/QUOTE]

When "we all" put forth the same about of effort - including work ethic, education and risk - then we'll talk about everyone getting paid the same.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I know flat tax has it's issues and there are points to be made against it that are valid. But I would, at this point, swap it for the progressive tax we have now.

In other words, it's the lesser of two evils, imo.[/QUOTE]
I can't quite figure out how shifting the tax burden to the middle and lower classes is a lesser evil than the rich playing peek-a-boo with the tax code and hoping not to get caught.
 
What I tend to think is that most folks conflate "fairness" with the ability to accurately predict what their fed. tax burden will be. So if it's X%, they can calculate it on the fly as they earn money. With the current system, people tend to not discover what it is until they actually look at the tax brackets when filling out their forms.

So they conflate up-front and ongoing knowledge as "fairness" and the current tax bracket system "unfair," when it's really just an issue of up-front knowledge versus delayed knowledge.

Which pretty much renders the whole point moot since the tax bracket obligations are available year-round, people just don't check 'em.
 
i think we should all just pay 100% taxes, and just let the government bottle fed and take care of us.

either that or pay zero taxes and just let the minorities do all the hard work. either way should work out.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What I tend to think is that most folks conflate "fairness" with the ability to accurately predict what their fed. tax burden will be. So if it's X%, they can calculate it on the fly as they earn money. With the current system, people tend to not discover what it is until they actually look at the tax brackets when filling out their forms.

So they conflate up-front and ongoing knowledge as "fairness" and the current tax bracket system "unfair," when it's really just an issue of up-front knowledge versus delayed knowledge.

Which pretty much renders the whole point moot since the tax bracket obligations are available year-round, people just don't check 'em.[/QUOTE]
Yet when there's a tax credit for a car or a house or xyz, people rush to wrap their head around it as fast as possible to see if they can take advantage.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Umm. Let me think..... let you ride in Air Force One for four years maybe?


So you are essentially saying that Obama had more important things to do than worry about one of his promises that had both sides of the aisle jumping out of their seats? Like what? Rocking it in Norway? Having beers with domestic disputers?

You Obama apologists need to give me a little more credit. I am saying I give him the benefit of the doubt on the C-SPAN thing and will give him a second chance. How many of you gave Bush a second chance with any of his let downs and broken promises? How could you when you were so busy joining Jon Stewart and company in thinking up clever quips like the one below?


I must have missed those promises. Youtube them please. If Bush actually did make those last two promises, I maybe should have been a fan.

*****************************************
As far as something I can back Obama 100% on.
It's even the top story on Drudge. I know it's not all that important of an issue, but it's one Obama has my full support on. :)[/QUOTE]

Do your own research.

You must have missed the State of the Union address where Bush named Korea and Syria part of an axis of evil. I guess that was just in jest?

And the last part about the Eleventh Commandment was a joke but I guess I should comb Youtube just to satisfy you.



As for taxes, they'll never be fair. People will always bitch about them and how they're getting "robbed at gunpoint."
 
Of course, speed. What's implicit in my point and more overt in yours is that the difference maker here is simply motivation. We know tax obligations for annual income less deductions are available year-round, so I think that the complexity of the current tax system has two possible hypothetical explanations. Feel free to chime in with another one if you feel so obliged.

1) The average American can't even begin to guess what their annual income is going to be for this year.

2) The average American can't be arsed to look up their tax obligation based on an estimate of their annual income less deductions.

Hands up, who falls under category #1?
 
i had to look up the tax brackets for 2010, because i got a raise late last year i was worried id get pushed into a new bracket. we are going to have our annual raises again soon, depending on how much mine is i might actually make less money because the increase in taxes is so significant. :(
 
[quote name='UncleBob']When "we all" put forth the same about of effort - including work ethic, education and risk - then we'll talk about everyone getting paid the same.[/QUOTE]

Bobsies worldview is laughably childlike. Effort in many ways has nothing to do wealth/income, Paris Hilton has much more money than any number of hard working PhD's ever will.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i had to look up the tax brackets for 2010, because i got a raise late last year i was worried id get pushed into a new bracket. we are going to have our annual raises again soon, depending on how much mine is i might actually make less money because the increase in taxes is so significant. :([/QUOTE]

New state bracket or what? The federal taxes couldn't possibly have you making less simply because you moved into a new bracket unless you're talking about the brackets themselves increasing (the top two, but that's not until 2011 I think) or you're losing a lot of deductions/credits.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Bobsies worldview is laughably childlike. Effort in many ways has nothing to do wealth/income, Paris Hilton has much more money than any number of hard working PhD's ever will.[/QUOTE]

You are the kind of person that enrages me when you start spouting off about fair shares of this and that, and taking more of someone else's money away because they're rich.

Do you really think there are more rich people in the country due to inheritance, than there are to hard work? I think that's an insane comment to make. Let's just take professional athletics. Probably a few thousand pro athletes making hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. Most 99.9% of them didn't inherit their wealth.

By doing away with the progressive, it would eliminate the W4 deduction needs, which would be great. You don't have to wait a year to see if you over or underpaid your taxes.
 
You could have a predictable progressive tax system, you'd just need to eliminate deductions and credits and rely purely on a set percentage. But in any case, restructuring a tax system just to make sure you know exactly how much taxes you owe ahead of time seems nonsensical to me.
 
[quote name='SpazX']New state bracket or what? The federal taxes couldn't possibly have you making less simply because you moved into a new bracket unless you're talking about the brackets themselves increasing (the top two, but that's not until 2011 I think) or you're losing a lot of deductions/credits.[/QUOTE]

Single Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]
10% on income between $0 and $8,375
15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
25% on the income between $34,000 and $82,400; plus $4,681.25
28% on the income between $82,400 and $171,850; plus $16,781.25
33% on the income between $171,850 and $373,650; plus $41,827.25
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $108,421.25
Click to expand...

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-09-50.pdf

im not a tax expert, but i would think that another raise might screw me.
 
But what you quoted is precisely why you can't earn less money by moving into another bracket, the higher bracket only applies to the money above the last bracket.
 
[quote name='berzirk']You are the kind of person that enrages me when you start spouting off about fair shares of this and that, and taking more of someone else's money away because they're rich.[/quote]

You sound more whiny than enraged but that is just quibbling.

The kind of person like who BTW, Adam Smith?

Do you really think there are more rich people in the country due to inheritance, than there are to hard work?
Click to expand...

Before I bother to respond further. Do you happen to think that there aren't poor people who work hard?

Let's just take professional athletes.
Click to expand...

Let's not.
 
Msut,

Yaaawn. Personal attacks in response to a post questioning your claims. At least CAG is dependable.

Guess everyone who is rich is lazy and inherited their money, and everyone who is poor works hard but is oppressed by the man.

You do realize by falsely claiming that I generalized poor people as not hard workers, you exposed the hypocrisy in your generalization saying that "effort in many ways has nothing to do with wealth/income". In fact, I said nothing about the poor at all.

K, back to work. I'll be sure to check again before I leave though, for your next irrational personal attack.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']im not a tax expert, but i would think that another raise might screw me.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you don't like the tax code because you don't understand the principle of progressive taxation as applied in the United States. You can't make less money because you make more money. It cannot be done.

Be honest thrust and bob. Did you think the same thing? Now's the time to cop to making this very reasonable error. In the interest of coaxing our conservatarian friends into honesty, I once thought the same thing. My wife did too. I think everyone does at some point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right. If you earn $373,651, you pay 33% on all but that last dollar, which you pay 35% on.

But if you make that much, I ain't feelin' sorry for yeh.

EDIT: This "hard work" concept is pretty bloody irreconcilable, folks. I drank a boatload of coffee and read all day with my feet up on my desk. And I call that a productive day of work...so yeah.
 
[quote name='berzirk']You do realize by falsely claiming that I generalized poor people as not hard workers[/quote]

Sigh, I asked you if that was what you believe.

Are you being silly or just responding in bad faith?

Both?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Sigh, I asked you if that was what you believe.

Are you being silly or just responding in bad faith?

Both?[/QUOTE]

Who in their right mind believes that? Of course that's not what I believe. Tons of very, very hard working people in jobs and industries where they aren't paid much.

...so with that explanation...what was your point?
 
[quote name='berzirk']Who in their right mind believes that?[/quote]

Bob for one.

And depending on how you define "right mind" but just about every wingnut and libertarian takes it for granted.

what was your point?
Click to expand...

In terms you might understand?

Yay progressive taxation.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Bob for one.

And depending on how you define "right mind" but just about every wingnut and libertarian takes it for granted.[/QUOTE]

Oh God. Nevermind. As you were. Have a good night.
 
[quote name='SpazX']But what you quoted is precisely why you can't earn less money by moving into another bracket, the higher bracket only applies to the money above the last bracket.[/QUOTE]

i get that part, but im more concerned with the "plus" part. ie if one barely goes over and goes up to $16,781.25 plus 28% instead of $4,681.25 plus 25%. the percentage is progressive. but the "plus" is flat.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i get that part, but im more concerned with the "plus" part. ie if one barely goes over and goes up to $16,781.25 plus instead of $4,681.25 plus 25%. the percentage is progressive. but the "plus" is flat.[/QUOTE]

Oh, no, they just did that to make it easier to calculate, the plus part is just all the lower tax bracket parts added together. So for instance the second tax bracket is "15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50" because the first bracket is 10% of $0 to $8,375, which means the maximum you can pay is 10% of $8,375 or $837.50, which you then add to 15% of anything you get above $8,375.

Then they just repeat that up the line.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Oh, no, they just did that to make it easier to calculate, the plus part is just all the lower tax bracket parts added together. So for instance the second tax bracket is "15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50" because the first bracket is 10% of $0 to $8,375, which means the maximum you can pay is 10% of $8,375 or $837.50, which you then add to 15% of anything you get above $8,375.

Then they just repeat that up the line.[/QUOTE]

well fuck me sideways.

and that ladies and gentlemen is why i majored in history and always stayed away from math.
 
IIRC, some state income tax brackets don't work that way (they actually apply the new percentage to the total income), but that's how it is with federal taxes. So, barring any changes in deductions or credits, it's mathematically impossible for you to actually make less money when getting a raise because of federal taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top