|
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
Pay attention Herr Krause; you too JIPS- I know the odds are against
it, but there remains hope that you both may learn something. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...ng-big-in-2012 |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:41:14 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote: Pay attention Herr Krause; you too JIPS- I know the odds are against it, but there remains hope that you both may learn something. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...ng-big-in-2012 We need to face it, we're a nation that claims to be fiscally conservative, yet we never tire of goofy wars to name just one bizarre contradiction. Then when we see the bill we look to elect somebody new no matter what crazy claims he makes as long as he doesn't mention our previous assinine decisons, or criticize us for making them. The latest crazy claims are that the applicants can make up for the 5 trillion cost of the middle east fiasco by cutting taxes further and getting rid of the EPA, unions, etc. Who'd be dumb enough to believe that except for maybe 51% of the voters? So Cook could be right. God help us. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:41:14 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote: Pay attention Herr Krause; you too JIPS- I know the odds are against it, but there remains hope that you both may learn something. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...ng-big-in-2012 gallup has obama beating any current GOP candidate good luck with your delusions |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:02:02 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:41:14 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog wrote: Pay attention Herr Krause; you too JIPS- I know the odds are against it, but there remains hope that you both may learn something. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...ng-big-in-2012 gallup has obama beating any current GOP candidate good luck with your delusions Reagan and Carter were even going into the last days of the 1980 election. How did that turn out for Carter's second term? you're the one betting on polls a year before the election. go back to your security blanket. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
|
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 20/11/2011 11:33 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:31:43 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:02:02 -0500, wrote: In , says... you're the one betting on polls a year before the election. go back to your security blanket. Obama could be beat by any republican with a pulse. Too bad they haven't found that one yet. yeah. that's cuz aint no republican wiht a pulse Bet a Tea Party. I really think the GOP wants Obama to win so it will be a democrat who makes the cuts to SS and Medicare that we are going to have to do. sorry sport. that's already on the table what terrifies the GOP is raising taxes on the rich Not at all, all the billionaires total net worth is $1.5 trillion. How much taxes do you think they pay in a screwed up economy losing money? Don't worry, never met a fleabagger that could do grade 5 math. the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Funny, is 0bama a GOP? I thought he was Muslim Brotherhood. -- All successful people have one thing in common, if even for a moment they think rationally. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 20/11/2011 12:41 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:41:14 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog wrote: Pay attention Herr Krause; you too JIPS- I know the odds are against it, but there remains hope that you both may learn something. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...ng-big-in-2012 gallup has obama beating any current GOP candidate good luck with your delusions Going to be good to see 0bama skid on his ass as he gets the boot. Nope hope, no chance 0bama is history. Just hasn't finished racking up the next 1.8 trillion in debt yet. -- All successful people have one thing in common, if even for a moment they think rationally. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 01:53:26 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 20/11/2011 11:33 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: what terrifies the GOP is raising taxes on the rich Not at all, all the billionaires total net worth is $1.5 trillion. How much taxes do you think they pay in a screwed up economy losing money? not enough. guess who's RESPONSIBLE for screwing up the economy? you guys pretend that wall street had NO responsibility at all THEN tell us how wall street needs MORE money Don't worry, never met a fleabagger that could do grade 5 math. the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Funny, is 0bama a GOP? I thought he was Muslim Brotherhood. ah, now THERE'S a nice little RACIST comment |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:37:12 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 20/11/2011 12:41 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:41:14 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog wrote: Pay attention Herr Krause; you too JIPS- I know the odds are against it, but there remains hope that you both may learn something. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...ng-big-in-2012 gallup has obama beating any current GOP candidate good luck with your delusions Going to be good to see 0bama skid on his ass as he gets the boot. good luck with that! you let me know when it happens, OK? Nope hope, no chance 0bama is history. Just hasn't finished racking up the next 1.8 trillion in debt yet. yeah let's finish the job. turn ALL of the country over to wall street. vote republican |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
In article ,
says... On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:31:43 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:02:02 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... you're the one betting on polls a year before the election. go back to your security blanket. Obama could be beat by any republican with a pulse. Too bad they haven't found that one yet. yeah. that's cuz aint no republican wiht a pulse I really think the GOP wants Obama to win so it will be a democrat who makes the cuts to SS and Medicare that we are going to have to do. sorry sport. that's already on the table what terrifies the GOP is raising taxes on the rich the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Washington DC doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Everyone is looking for the solution from on wrong side of the ledger. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 11/21/11 8:46 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:31:43 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:02:02 -0500, wrote: In , says... you're the one betting on polls a year before the election. go back to your security blanket. Obama could be beat by any republican with a pulse. Too bad they haven't found that one yet. yeah. that's cuz aint no republican wiht a pulse I really think the GOP wants Obama to win so it will be a democrat who makes the cuts to SS and Medicare that we are going to have to do. sorry sport. that's already on the table what terrifies the GOP is raising taxes on the rich the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Washington DC doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Everyone is looking for the solution from on wrong side of the ledger. D'oh. Stop channeling the moronic GOP leaders in the house and senate. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 11/21/2011 8:59 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/21/11 8:46 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:31:43 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:02:02 -0500, wrote: In , says... you're the one betting on polls a year before the election. go back to your security blanket. Obama could be beat by any republican with a pulse. Too bad they haven't found that one yet. yeah. that's cuz aint no republican wiht a pulse I really think the GOP wants Obama to win so it will be a democrat who makes the cuts to SS and Medicare that we are going to have to do. sorry sport. that's already on the table what terrifies the GOP is raising taxes on the rich the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Washington DC doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Everyone is looking for the solution from on wrong side of the ledger. D'oh. Stop channeling the moronic GOP leaders in the house and senate. Why? You don't want to know what's on their mind? http://www.answers.com/topic/channeling -- 1-20-13 The end of an error |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 01:53:26 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 20/11/2011 11:33 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: sorry sport. that's already on the table what terrifies the GOP is raising taxes on the rich Not at all, all the billionaires total net worth is $1.5 trillion. How much taxes do you think they pay in a screwed up economy losing money? not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% they wrecked the economy. they should pay for the damage Don't worry, never met a fleabagger that could do grade 5 math. the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Funny, is 0bama a GOP? I thought he was Muslim Brotherhood. why not just call him want you want to call him? use the N word! |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:37:12 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 20/11/2011 12:41 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:41:14 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog wrote: Pay attention Herr Krause; you too JIPS- I know the odds are against it, but there remains hope that you both may learn something. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...ng-big-in-2012 gallup has obama beating any current GOP candidate good luck with your delusions Going to be good to see 0bama skid on his ass as he gets the boot. Nope hope, no chance 0bama is history. Just hasn't finished racking up the next 1.8 trillion in debt yet. funny, bush's last budget was 1.2T in debt but bush is white |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:46:54 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Washington DC doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Everyone is looking for the solution from on wrong side of the ledger. notice the right wing bull**** cliches...like a truckload of manure they DO have a revenue problem because taxes are at an all time low how we doing? taht make the country stronger?? and we keep cutting taxes on the RICH. and the middle class pays ALL the bills |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:59:42 -0500, X ` Man
wrote: On 11/21/11 8:46 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:31:43 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:02:02 -0500, wrote: In , says... you're the one betting on polls a year before the election. go back to your security blanket. Obama could be beat by any republican with a pulse. Too bad they haven't found that one yet. yeah. that's cuz aint no republican wiht a pulse I really think the GOP wants Obama to win so it will be a democrat who makes the cuts to SS and Medicare that we are going to have to do. sorry sport. that's already on the table what terrifies the GOP is raising taxes on the rich the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Washington DC doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Everyone is looking for the solution from on wrong side of the ledger. D'oh. Stop channeling the moronic GOP leaders in the house and senate. Where was Bertie when we started bombing rocks in Afghanistan and unseating Saddam? Bush had a spending problem called war. And, he was the one who pushed through the medicare drug bill that put us even further in debt. Funny, didn't hear Bertie say a damned thing when all that spending was goin' on. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:58:59 -0700, California Rocket Scientist
wrote: On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:41:14 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog wrote: Pay attention Herr Krause; you too JIPS- I know the odds are against it, but there remains hope that you both may learn something. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...ng-big-in-2012 We need to face it, we're a nation that claims to be fiscally conservative, yet we never tire of goofy wars to name just one bizarre contradiction. Then when we see the bill we look to elect somebody new no matter what crazy claims he makes as long as he doesn't mention our previous assinine decisons, or criticize us for making them. The latest crazy claims are that the applicants can make up for the 5 trillion cost of the middle east fiasco by cutting taxes further and getting rid of the EPA, unions, etc. Who'd be dumb enough to believe that except for maybe 51% of the voters? So Cook could be right. God help us. Well said. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
In article ,
says... On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:59:42 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 11/21/11 8:46 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:31:43 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:02:02 -0500, wrote: In , says... you're the one betting on polls a year before the election. go back to your security blanket. Obama could be beat by any republican with a pulse. Too bad they haven't found that one yet. yeah. that's cuz aint no republican wiht a pulse I really think the GOP wants Obama to win so it will be a democrat who makes the cuts to SS and Medicare that we are going to have to do. sorry sport. that's already on the table what terrifies the GOP is raising taxes on the rich the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Washington DC doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Everyone is looking for the solution from on wrong side of the ledger. D'oh. Stop channeling the moronic GOP leaders in the house and senate. Where was Bertie when we started bombing rocks in Afghanistan and unseating Saddam? Bush had a spending problem called war. And, he was the one who pushed through the medicare drug bill that put us even further in debt. Funny, didn't hear Bertie say a damned thing when all that spending was goin' on. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 11/21/11 11:45 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:59:42 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 11/21/11 8:46 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:31:43 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:02:02 -0500, wrote: In , says... you're the one betting on polls a year before the election. go back to your security blanket. Obama could be beat by any republican with a pulse. Too bad they haven't found that one yet. yeah. that's cuz aint no republican wiht a pulse I really think the GOP wants Obama to win so it will be a democrat who makes the cuts to SS and Medicare that we are going to have to do. sorry sport. that's already on the table what terrifies the GOP is raising taxes on the rich the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Washington DC doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Everyone is looking for the solution from on wrong side of the ledger. D'oh. Stop channeling the moronic GOP leaders in the house and senate. Where was Bertie when we started bombing rocks in Afghanistan and unseating Saddam? Bush had a spending problem called war. And, he was the one who pushed through the medicare drug bill that put us even further in debt. Funny, didn't hear Bertie say a damned thing when all that spending was goin' on. Bertie was shivering in a corner, hoping and praying he wouldn't get called up and sent to a combat zone. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 11/22/2011 8:11 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/21/11 11:45 PM, jps wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:59:42 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 11/21/11 8:46 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:31:43 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:02:02 -0500, wrote: In , says... you're the one betting on polls a year before the election. go back to your security blanket. Obama could be beat by any republican with a pulse. Too bad they haven't found that one yet. yeah. that's cuz aint no republican wiht a pulse I really think the GOP wants Obama to win so it will be a democrat who makes the cuts to SS and Medicare that we are going to have to do. sorry sport. that's already on the table what terrifies the GOP is raising taxes on the rich the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Washington DC doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Everyone is looking for the solution from on wrong side of the ledger. D'oh. Stop channeling the moronic GOP leaders in the house and senate. Where was Bertie when we started bombing rocks in Afghanistan and unseating Saddam? Bush had a spending problem called war. And, he was the one who pushed through the medicare drug bill that put us even further in debt. Funny, didn't hear Bertie say a damned thing when all that spending was goin' on. Bertie was shivering in a corner, hoping and praying he wouldn't get called up and sent to a combat zone. Now that's projecting ones shortcomings onto another. Mommy use her political connections to see to it that you didn't get drafted? -- 1-20-13 The end of an error |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 11/22/2011 9:07 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 11/22/2011 8:11 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 11/21/11 11:45 PM, jps wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:59:42 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 11/21/11 8:46 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:31:43 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:02:02 -0500, wrote: In , says... you're the one betting on polls a year before the election. go back to your security blanket. Obama could be beat by any republican with a pulse. Too bad they haven't found that one yet. yeah. that's cuz aint no republican wiht a pulse I really think the GOP wants Obama to win so it will be a democrat who makes the cuts to SS and Medicare that we are going to have to do. sorry sport. that's already on the table what terrifies the GOP is raising taxes on the rich the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Washington DC doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Everyone is looking for the solution from on wrong side of the ledger. D'oh. Stop channeling the moronic GOP leaders in the house and senate. Where was Bertie when we started bombing rocks in Afghanistan and unseating Saddam? Bush had a spending problem called war. And, he was the one who pushed through the medicare drug bill that put us even further in debt. Funny, didn't hear Bertie say a damned thing when all that spending was goin' on. Bertie was shivering in a corner, hoping and praying he wouldn't get called up and sent to a combat zone. Now that's projecting ones shortcomings onto another. Mommy use her political connections to see to it that you didn't get drafted? His daddy bought him a spot in the one university that would take him... |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 11/22/11 9:28 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 11/22/2011 9:07 AM, Drifter wrote: On 11/22/2011 8:11 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 11/21/11 11:45 PM, jps wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:59:42 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 11/21/11 8:46 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:24:51 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:31:43 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:02:02 -0500, wrote: In , says... you're the one betting on polls a year before the election. go back to your security blanket. Obama could be beat by any republican with a pulse. Too bad they haven't found that one yet. yeah. that's cuz aint no republican wiht a pulse I really think the GOP wants Obama to win so it will be a democrat who makes the cuts to SS and Medicare that we are going to have to do. sorry sport. that's already on the table what terrifies the GOP is raising taxes on the rich the GOP has no problem destroying the middle class. but god forbid the rich should pay an extra buck in taxes for all the damage they caused Washington DC doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Everyone is looking for the solution from on wrong side of the ledger. D'oh. Stop channeling the moronic GOP leaders in the house and senate. Where was Bertie when we started bombing rocks in Afghanistan and unseating Saddam? Bush had a spending problem called war. And, he was the one who pushed through the medicare drug bill that put us even further in debt. Funny, didn't hear Bertie say a damned thing when all that spending was goin' on. Bertie was shivering in a corner, hoping and praying he wouldn't get called up and sent to a combat zone. Now that's projecting ones shortcomings onto another. Mommy use her political connections to see to it that you didn't get drafted? His daddy bought him a spot in the one university that would take him... Fascinating how you simps demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity over and over and over and over and over. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
|
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 20/11/2011 11:58 AM, California Rocket Scientist wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:41:14 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog wrote: Pay attention Herr Krause; you too JIPS- I know the odds are against it, but there remains hope that you both may learn something. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...ng-big-in-2012 We need to face it, we're a nation that claims to be fiscally conservative, yet we never tire of goofy wars to name just one bizarre contradiction. Then when we see the bill we look to elect somebody new no matter what crazy claims he makes as long as he doesn't mention our previous assinine decisons, or criticize us for making them. The latest crazy claims are that the applicants can make up for the 5 trillion cost of the middle east fiasco by cutting taxes further and getting rid of the EPA, unions, etc. Who'd be dumb enough to believe that except for maybe 51% of the voters? So Cook could be right. God help us. Need to get rid of "In Debt We Trust!" and put God back in there. Dishonored debt is a sin. Unpaid debts is a form of theft. -- All successful people have one thing in common, if even for a moment they think rationally. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 11/22/11 1:52 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
Need to get rid of "In Debt We Trust!" and put God back in there. To be fair, we should alternate that moronic aphorism with others, such as: In Unicorns We Trust In the Tooth Fairy We Trust And so forth |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:59:40 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0500, bpuharic wrote: not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% Bull****. If you pay 28% you are one of the 1%. Two people, no kids, making a combined $100k end up paying about 11% taking the standard deduction. not too smart are you? 28% is middle class income: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-In...1-Tax-Year.htm •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus •25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus •28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus •33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus •35% on taxable income over $379,150. no wonder you're right wing. you're too stupid to be anything BUT.... |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 22/11/2011 2:18 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:59:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0500, wrote: not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% Bull****. If you pay 28% you are one of the 1%. Two people, no kids, making a combined $100k end up paying about 11% taking the standard deduction. not too smart are you? 28% is middle class income: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-In...1-Tax-Year.htm •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus •25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus •28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus •33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus •35% on taxable income over $379,150. no wonder you're right wing. you're too stupid to be anything BUT.... Bull****, the tables you quoted are for taxable income, not gross income you dumb**** loser. With deductions a more typical is about 25% as the marginal (not average) tax rate. Man you're on stupid idiot. -- All successful people have one thing in common, if even for a moment they think rationally. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 11/22/2011 4:18 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:59:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0500, wrote: not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% Bull****. If you pay 28% you are one of the 1%. Two people, no kids, making a combined $100k end up paying about 11% taking the standard deduction. not too smart are you? 28% is middle class income: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-In...1-Tax-Year.htm •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus •25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus •28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus •33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus •35% on taxable income over $379,150. no wonder you're right wing. you're too stupid to be anything BUT.... Those are the rates for "taxable" income after deductions, credits, etc. And we do NOT pay 28% on the whole "taxable" amount. There are brackets below the 28% bracket where the applied tax is lower. From your cite the first 8.5K is taxed at 10%. From 8.5K to 34.5K is taxed at 15% and so on. Thus the net percentage paid is lower that 28% for the bracket under discussion. But you're too stupid to know that. I hope your account is smarter than you are. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Nov 22, 9:18*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:18:32 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:59:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0500, bpuharic wrote: not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% Bull****. If you pay 28% you are one of the 1%. Two people, no kids, making a combined $100k end up paying about 11% taking the standard deduction. not too smart are you? 28% is middle class income: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-In...ates-For-The-2... •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus •25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus •28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus •33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus •35% on taxable income over $379,150. no wonder you're right wing. you're too stupid to be anything BUT.... Who does your taxes Bob? Let's start with $100,000 (you can follow along with your 1040 book) You start out reducing your taxable income by $11400 for the standard deduction Then you reduce it by $7300 for 2 exemptions You have 81300 that you take to the tax table You get $12, 694 *but you are not done yet Now you subtract $800 from that for the "make work pay" tax credit Your tax on $100,000 is $11,894 That is 11.9%, not 28% That is for someone with no mortgage deduction, no kids no other deductions. but don't let facts confuse what Olbermann is telling you.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Good Lord... does that cover both Federal and State income taxes? |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 11/22/11 9:33 PM, North Star wrote:
On Nov 22, 9:18 pm, wrote: On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:18:32 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:59:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0500, wrote: not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% Bull****. If you pay 28% you are one of the 1%. Two people, no kids, making a combined $100k end up paying about 11% taking the standard deduction. not too smart are you? 28% is middle class income: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-In...ates-For-The-2... •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus •25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus •28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus •33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus •35% on taxable income over $379,150. no wonder you're right wing. you're too stupid to be anything BUT.... Who does your taxes Bob? Let's start with $100,000 (you can follow along with your 1040 book) You start out reducing your taxable income by $11400 for the standard deduction Then you reduce it by $7300 for 2 exemptions You have 81300 that you take to the tax table You get $12, 694 but you are not done yet Now you subtract $800 from that for the "make work pay" tax credit Your tax on $100,000 is $11,894 That is 11.9%, not 28% That is for someone with no mortgage deduction, no kids no other deductions. but don't let facts confuse what Olbermann is telling you.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Good Lord... does that cover both Federal and State income taxes? It's just federal income tax. There's more to it than that, of course. Federal tax rates in the USA are lower than in other western countries but, of course, we don't get the benefits other countries have, such as national health insurance. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 22/11/2011 3:39 PM, Disgusted wrote:
On 11/22/2011 4:18 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:59:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0500, wrote: not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% Bull****. If you pay 28% you are one of the 1%. Two people, no kids, making a combined $100k end up paying about 11% taking the standard deduction. not too smart are you? 28% is middle class income: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-In...1-Tax-Year.htm •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus •25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus •28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus •33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus •35% on taxable income over $379,150. no wonder you're right wing. you're too stupid to be anything BUT.... Those are the rates for "taxable" income after deductions, credits, etc. And we do NOT pay 28% on the whole "taxable" amount. There are brackets below the 28% bracket where the applied tax is lower. From your cite the first 8.5K is taxed at 10%. From 8.5K to 34.5K is taxed at 15% and so on. Thus the net percentage paid is lower that 28% for the bracket under discussion. But you're too stupid to know that. I hope your account is smarter than you are. Pretty obvious bpuharic never has worked or filed, just a jailbird loser. -- All successful people have one thing in common, if even for a moment they think rationally. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 22/11/2011 7:59 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:33:45 -0800 (PST), North Star wrote: On Nov 22, 9:18 pm, wrote: On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:18:32 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:59:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0500, wrote: not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% Bull****. If you pay 28% you are one of the 1%. Two people, no kids, making a combined $100k end up paying about 11% taking the standard deduction. not too smart are you? 28% is middle class income: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-In...ates-For-The-2... •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus •25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus •28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus •33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus •35% on taxable income over $379,150. no wonder you're right wing. you're too stupid to be anything BUT.... Who does your taxes Bob? Let's start with $100,000 (you can follow along with your 1040 book) You start out reducing your taxable income by $11400 for the standard deduction Then you reduce it by $7300 for 2 exemptions You have 81300 that you take to the tax table You get $12, 694 but you are not done yet Now you subtract $800 from that for the "make work pay" tax credit Your tax on $100,000 is $11,894 That is 11.9%, not 28% That is for someone with no mortgage deduction, no kids no other deductions. but don't let facts confuse what Olbermann is telling you.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Good Lord... does that cover both Federal and State income taxes? That is just Federal and Florida doesn't have state income taxes. I did run the same $100,000 against the Ontario tax web site calculator and it was scary. There is a "payroll" tax on wages but Obama cut that to about 5%. (plus the employer side of 7%.) Want to get real scary, use the link below. It includes some hidden taxes....and both provincial and federal taxes as Canadian provinces tax more than US states do. A more accurate view. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/tools...alculator.aspx But economic freedom is where it is at: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploa...erica-2011.pdf 65% of Canada has none to low (red). No mistake why I live in Alberta. Coincidentally or not, the red provinces are also the largest, liberal-socialist types. -- All successful people have one thing in common, if even for a moment they think rationally. They talk about ascent of Canada, but is it pretty much the west. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On 22/11/2011 10:01 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:38:19 -0700, wrote: On 22/11/2011 7:59 PM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:33:45 -0800 (PST), North Star wrote: On Nov 22, 9:18 pm, wrote: On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:18:32 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:59:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0500, wrote: not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% Bull****. If you pay 28% you are one of the 1%. Two people, no kids, making a combined $100k end up paying about 11% taking the standard deduction. not too smart are you? 28% is middle class income: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-In...ates-For-The-2... •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus •25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus •28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus •33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus •35% on taxable income over $379,150. no wonder you're right wing. you're too stupid to be anything BUT.... Who does your taxes Bob? Let's start with $100,000 (you can follow along with your 1040 book) You start out reducing your taxable income by $11400 for the standard deduction Then you reduce it by $7300 for 2 exemptions You have 81300 that you take to the tax table You get $12, 694 but you are not done yet Now you subtract $800 from that for the "make work pay" tax credit Your tax on $100,000 is $11,894 That is 11.9%, not 28% That is for someone with no mortgage deduction, no kids no other deductions. but don't let facts confuse what Olbermann is telling you.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Good Lord... does that cover both Federal and State income taxes? That is just Federal and Florida doesn't have state income taxes. I did run the same $100,000 against the Ontario tax web site calculator and it was scary. There is a "payroll" tax on wages but Obama cut that to about 5%. (plus the employer side of 7%.) Want to get real scary, use the link below. It includes some hidden taxes....and both provincial and federal taxes as Canadian provinces tax more than US states do. A more accurate view. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/tools...alculator.aspx Yes if you run that same $100,000 I get this Province Tax Bill Tax Newfoundland $45,594 P.E.I $41,663 Nova Scotia $45,257 New Brunswick $42,472 Quebec $46,304 Ontario $43,629 Manitoba $43,166 Saskatchewan $43,169 Alberta $37,484 British Columbia $44,244 That "free" health care sure isn't. Even if you bought a $15,000 "Cadillac" health plan you would still be $15,000 ahead of the game The same is true if you ran it on the $60,000 but would only have about 5 grand left over. Newfoundland $27,227 P.E.I $23,556 Nova Scotia $25,249 New Brunswick $23,661 Quebec $25,824 Ontario $24,480 Manitoba $24,400 Saskatchewan $24,281 Alberta $21,259 British Columbia $25,040 Imagine how low our taxes could be if we were not the world's policeman, spending $800 billion a year on the DoD. Maybe we should just charge Western Europe, Canada, Israel, Korea and Japan "protection" money. Yep, it is "free" if you are on the lamb, in prison or welfare. Milk the workers up here like slaves. But even the poor get it, $50 for jeans, in Portland it be $13. Excise taxes can be crazy. And GST/PST on everything. I can beat this, I pay no where nears that but it is because I use tax advantages. But can't beat it all. Bad part is we do pay, but the service is crap. 40% in this city can't get a family doctor, or perhaps more accurately, once that speaks English. Best way to get a doctor si to get sick, then they will assign you one. Biggest economic growth is in the underground cash economy. To evade taxes. You know, just like a 3rd world country. It isn't all roses. Just that the warts are on the other cheek. You could reduce military spending by $600 billion, and you still would be spending more than China and Russia combined. Doesn't mean you layoff 75%, just stop all the expensive stuff. -- All successful people have one thing in common, if even for a moment they think rationally. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Nov 23, 1:01*am, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:38:19 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: On 22/11/2011 7:59 PM, wrote: On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:33:45 -0800 (PST), North Star *wrote: On Nov 22, 9:18 pm, wrote: On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:18:32 -0500, *wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:59:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0500, *wrote: not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% Bull****. If you pay 28% you are one of the 1%. Two people, no kids, making a combined $100k end up paying about 11% taking the standard deduction. not too smart are you? 28% is middle class income: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-In...ates-For-The-2... •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus •25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus •28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus •33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus •35% on taxable income over $379,150. no wonder you're right wing. you're too stupid to be anything BUT..... Who does your taxes Bob? Let's start with $100,000 (you can follow along with your 1040 book) You start out reducing your taxable income by $11400 for the standard deduction Then you reduce it by $7300 for 2 exemptions You have 81300 that you take to the tax table You get $12, 694 *but you are not done yet Now you subtract $800 from that for the "make work pay" tax credit Your tax on $100,000 is $11,894 That is 11.9%, not 28% That is for someone with no mortgage deduction, no kids no other deductions. but don't let facts confuse what Olbermann is telling you.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Good Lord... does that cover both Federal and State income taxes? That is just Federal and Florida doesn't have state income taxes. I did run the same $100,000 against the Ontario tax web site calculator and it was scary. There is a "payroll" tax on wages but Obama cut that to about 5%. (plus the employer side of 7%.) Want to get real scary, use the link below. *It includes some hidden taxes....and both provincial and federal taxes as Canadian provinces tax more than US states do. *A more accurate view. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/tools...alculator.aspx Yes if you run that same $100,000 I get this Province * * * *Tax Bill * * * *Tax Newfoundland * *$45,594 P.E.I * $41,663 Nova Scotia * * $45,257 New Brunswick * $42,472 Quebec *$46,304 Ontario $43,629 Manitoba * * * *$43,166 Saskatchewan * *$43,169 Alberta $37,484 British Columbia * * * *$44,244 That "free" health care sure isn't. Even if you bought a $15,000 "Cadillac" health plan you would still be $15,000 ahead of the game The same is true if you ran it on the $60,000 but would only have about 5 grand left over. Newfoundland * *$27,227 P.E.I * $23,556 Nova Scotia * * $25,249 New Brunswick * $23,661 Quebec *$25,824 Ontario $24,480 Manitoba * * * *$24,400 Saskatchewan * *$24,281 Alberta $21,259 British Columbia * * * *$25,040 Imagine how low our taxes could be if we were not the world's policeman, spending $800 billion a year on the DoD. Maybe we should just charge Western Europe, Canada, Israel, Korea *and Japan "protection" money.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Just who do you protect us from? Our most dangerous opponent is a Republican led US gov't. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:39:13 -0500, Disgusted wrote:
On 11/22/2011 4:18 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:59:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0500, wrote: not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% Bull****. If you pay 28% you are one of the 1%. Two people, no kids, making a combined $100k end up paying about 11% taking the standard deduction. not too smart are you? 28% is middle class income: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-In...1-Tax-Year.htm •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus •25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus •28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus •33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus •35% on taxable income over $379,150. no wonder you're right wing. you're too stupid to be anything BUT.... Those are the rates for "taxable" income after deductions, credits, etc. And we do NOT pay 28% on the whole "taxable" amount. There are brackets below the 28% bracket where the applied tax is lower. From your cite the first 8.5K is taxed at 10%. From 8.5K to 34.5K is taxed at 15% and so on. Thus the net percentage paid is lower that 28% for the bracket under discussion. But you're too stupid to know that. I hope your account is smarter than you are. I can understand why you're disgusted. |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
|
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:26:22 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 22/11/2011 2:18 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:59:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0500, wrote: not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% Bull****. If you pay 28% you are one of the 1%. Two people, no kids, making a combined $100k end up paying about 11% taking the standard deduction. not too smart are you? 28% is middle class income: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-In...1-Tax-Year.htm •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus •25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus •28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus •33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus •35% on taxable income over $379,150. no wonder you're right wing. you're too stupid to be anything BUT.... Bull****, the tables you quoted are for taxable income, not gross income you dumb**** loser. didnt read the original poster did you? oh. you can't read |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:39:13 -0500, Disgusted wrote:
On 11/22/2011 4:18 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:59:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0500, wrote: not enough. not enough at all. they pay 15%. i pay 28% Bull****. If you pay 28% you are one of the 1%. Two people, no kids, making a combined $100k end up paying about 11% taking the standard deduction. not too smart are you? 28% is middle class income: http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-In...1-Tax-Year.htm •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus •25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus •28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus •33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus •35% on taxable income over $379,150. no wonder you're right wing. you're too stupid to be anything BUT.... Those are the rates for "taxable" income after deductions, credits, etc. And we do NOT pay 28% on the whole "taxable" amount. There are brackets below the 28% bracket where the applied tax is lower. From your cite the first 8.5K is taxed at 10%. From 8.5K to 34.5K is taxed at 15% and so on. Thus the net percentage paid is lower that 28% for the bracket under discussion. But you're too stupid to know that. I hope your account is smarter than you are. oh. you dont know what a marginal tax rate is even though you just defined it yeah, you're right wing alright |
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:40:57 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: Pretty obvious bpuharic never has worked or filed, just a jailbird loser. says the guy who lives in a social welfare state who complains about social welfare states |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com