IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New You're still not giving me useful information.
Are you griping about the cigarette tax increase again?

Why not gripe about increased passport fees under Bush (and Obama), too?

"$2400 this year directly attributable to obamacare increase in deductables." What does that mean? Your deductable never went up while Bush was president?

An increased deductable charged by a private insurance company isn't a tax paid to the government.

AFAIK, the ACA fees, etc., haven't taken effect yet and most won't until something like 2014. You are aware, I'm sure, that companies find all kinds of stated reasons to increase charges that don't necessarily correspond to reality.

Obama has said on multiple occasions that he won't raise taxes on those making less than $250k. You seem to be saying that you think your marginal rate will go up 4% points. Please point to a link or something that tells me specifically what you mean.

IOW, more words, please.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Just stop it
stop saying "didn't that happen under bush too?". The point is he directly said there would be NO hike in taxes on ppl making less than x. Box has told you, REPEATEDLY, that is simply not true, and given examples. And yes, the cigarette tax IS an example of a tax on the population that his a majority of people in the lower income demographic (if you smoke).

And we're not griping about the passport FEE because its not a TAX. D'uh.

A
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New Um, I wasn't talking to you.
If I annoy you so much, please put me in your kill file. I believe there's a trick with Span tags that can be implemented...

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Oh darn
sorry to point out minor truths that run contrary to your beliefs.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New ...
http://www.politifac...-plan-extend-som/

[...]

And then there's also the U.S. Treasury Department's "General Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2011 Revenue Proposals," known by policy wonks as "the green book." It outlines in even more detail how the Obama administration plans to increase taxes for high-earners and keep the current rates for everyone else.

"It is very much an official statement of policy. It's what they propose to do," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow with the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "Obviously, Congress will do or won't do what it will. But I have heard no one on the Hill saying we should let everything expire."

News coverage from other publications from The Wall Street Journal to our fellow fact-checkers at Factcheck.org have also noted the Democratic proposals and ideas on these issues.

"The Democrats' plan seems to me to be quite explicit: keep the tax cuts for those under $250,000 and let those for the rich expire," said Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and a longtime watcher of Congress. "Does that mean never, ever taxing the under-$250 (thousand) populace? No. But it is a straightforward policy plan."

Palin does make a good point that there is not pending legislation to make some parts of the Bush tax cuts permanent. Certainly, lots of unexpected and surprising things can happen when Congress actually begins to take up legislation. It's possible that Congress could become entirely gridlocked. If no legislation passes, the Bush tax cuts will indeed expire for all incomes.

And, she's also right that on the campaign trail Obama promised not to raise "any" taxes on a family making less than $250,000. We rated that Promise Broken after Obama signed laws increasing taxes on cigarettes and indoor tanning. There is also the controversial tax penalty in the new health care law that will tax those who don't have insurance, starting in 2014. Yet Obama also promised to extend the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes and let the Bush tax cuts expire for higher incomes. Those two promises are both rated In the Works. (See all of Obama's tax promises.)

[...]


HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New from your link
And, she's also right that on the campaign trail Obama promised not to raise "any" taxes on a family making less than $250,000. We rated that Promise Broken after Obama signed laws increasing taxes on cigarettes and indoor tanning.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New Categorical statements are trivially wrong. Film at 11:00.
Context matters. When the discussion is about federal taxes, and categories are based on income, then the context is federal income taxes. This isn't complicated.

Yes, Obama and Gibbs and the rest were sloppy in trying to make a soundbite. It's a tragedy up there with the Hindenberg.

Or something.

:-/

Way to miss the forest for the trees. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who guesses that Beep and Box will be voting for Team Sarah based on this important issue.)
New Ok, so unless just the singular
FEDERAL income tax rises on earners under that magic limit, you will not recognize it as a tax increase.

Every other federal tax could go up by 2000%, but HE will have kept his promise to you.

Got it.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New You're amazing...
New Me?
Thats funny. You bend over backwards and sometimes alter reality to defend something and >I< am the amazing one.

Too funny.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New I'm not your strawman. Open your eyes. :-)
New Really?
You state

"Yes, Obama and Gibbs and the rest were sloppy in trying to make a soundbite."

and are using this to forgive the fact that indeed some federal taxes have gone up that impact those making under $xxx and add now the qualification that it HAS to be income tax.

Thats not what HE said. But in order for HIM to violate HIS promise, you've now limited it to only income tax.

I'm not building an strawman. I'm quoting you.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New Yes, really.
What are these "taxes" you speak of. AFAIK, the only 2 are excise taxes on tobacco and on tanning services.

The federal tax was increased from $0.39 to $1.01 per pack of 20 cigarettes in April, 2009. http://www.ttb.gov/m...hip-summary.shtml Other taxes on tobacco were increased as well. It is intended to pay for an expansion of SCHIP. Imagine that - increasing a benefit and finding a way to pay for it under PAYGO. Whodoathunkit.

Smoke 2 packs a day, pay $226.30 more to the federal government a year. It's a huge burden. :-/

Don't like it? Don't buy tobacco. Problem solved.

It's not a tax on people who make less than $250k, it's a tax on smokers. This isn't complicated.

The excise tax on indoor tanning services is 10%. Around here, one can get "high level" monthly packages for $100 a month. That additional tax would be $120 a year. Another huge burden. :-/ It doesn't apply to medically necessary treatments at licensed medical offices - http://www.irs.gov/b...id=224600,00.html

Don't like it? Go to a doctor. Or go outside. Problem solved.

In contrast, Obama has cut taxes more than that - http://www.politifac...mulus-made-it-so/ . So even if someone is a heavy smoker and a heavy tanner, they would have come out ahead - had their net taxes cut. Or, IOW, he would have cut taxes on people making less than $200k/$250k.

But let's step back and see what Obama actually said that gets reduced to the "I won't raise any taxes" sound bite: http://www.barackoba...rack_obam_112.php

[...]

To pay for these tax cuts, I'll stand up to special interest carve-outs, close corporate loopholes and offshore tax havens, and ask the wealthiest Americans to give back a portion of the Bush tax cuts. It's time for folks like me who make over $250,000 to pay our fair share to keep the American promise alive for our children and grandchildren.

When you're running for four more years of George Bush's policies, it's hard to run on your plans. So you make stuff up. You twist facts, and you don't tell the truth - that's what John McCain has done when it comes to my tax plan. So let's be clear about what we are proposing.

My plan - all together - is a net tax cut. My plan will cut taxes to a smaller share of the economy than they were under President Reagan. Under my plan, income taxes for typical American families will be the lowest that they've been in more than a half century. Everyone in America - everyone - will pay lower taxes than they would under the rates Bill Clinton had in the 1990s. And under my plan, middle class families will get three times as much relief as Senator McCain is offering. In fact, his plan gives absolutely nothing to over 100 million American households.

And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. My opponent can't make that pledge, and here's why: for the first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits Apparently, Senator McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled, he thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too. That's a $3.6 trillion tax increase on middle class families. That will eventually leave tens of millions of you paying higher taxes. That's his idea of change.

Now I do want to be fair. Senator McCain is offering some tax cuts. He'd spend nearly $2 trillion over a decade in tax breaks for corporations. He would continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. His plan gives more than a half million dollars in tax cuts for households making over $2.8 million. That's right - $2.8 million. Now I know that Senator McCain has said that only those making over $5 million a year are rich, so maybe he thinks that folks making $2.8 million are middle class.

[...]


The big picture says he's right. He obviously wasn't talking about excise taxes. Excise taxes are in the noise. But the big picture isn't interesting to some people here. And some people around here seem to think that Obama is a dictator who writes legislation, while most of us who were awake in American History know that the House writes the tax rules... :-/

Your insistence in constructing a strawman of me as some brainwashed Obamabot ideologue is rather tiresome. But whatever.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Do you pay attention to your quotes?
And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.


That is an absolute statement made by President Obama.

Care to look up the demographic of smokers and or tanners? (other taxes have changed, but no need to look them up, as point is made here).

I'm willing to bet that those demographics are majority making less than 250k and the last piece IS absolutist and NOT a net calculation.

Yes, this is semantics. But I can bet pretty safely that I make under 250k and my take home is already down because of the change in withholding. And will everyone get this back equally? Or will alot of folks who don't make enough to file simply give that extra to the fed? (oh but they could get it back if they filed, so thats not the dems fault either). So again, we qualify to your semantics because it isn't >really< a tax increase.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New It's those bees ... in his head.


I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers!
-- via RC
New Well Mr President...It's the bees and spiders again
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
New javapuke I quit fapfapfap
type Exception report

message

description The server encountered an internal error () that prevented it from fulfilling this request.

exception

org.springframework.web.util.NestedServletException: Request processing failed; nested exception is org.iwethey.filter.FilterException: Handler stack is empty.
org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.processRequest(FrameworkServlet.java:488)
org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.doPost(FrameworkServlet.java:441)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:709)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:802)
sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor44.invoke(Unknown Source)
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
org.apache.catalina.security.SecurityUtil$1.run(SecurityUtil.java:244)
java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
javax.security.auth.Subject.doAsPrivileged(Subject.java:517)
org.apache.catalina.security.SecurityUtil.execute(SecurityUtil.java:276)
org.apache.catalina.security.SecurityUtil.doAsPrivilege(SecurityUtil.java:162)

root cause

org.iwethey.filter.FilterException: Handler stack is empty.
org.iwethey.filter.FilterContext.popHandlerEntry(FilterContext.java:222)
org.iwethey.filter.AbstractMatchingPoppingHandler.process(AbstractMatchingPoppingHandler.java:55)
org.iwethey.filter.FilterContext.filter(FilterContext.java:103)
org.iwethey.filter.Filter.filter(Filter.java:94)
org.iwethey.forums.web.post.PostValidator.validate(PostValidator.java:132)
org.springframework.validation.ValidationUtils.invokeValidator(ValidationUtils.java:63)
org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.BaseCommandController.bindAndValidate(BaseCommandController.java:373)
org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.AbstractFormController.handleRequestInternal(AbstractFormController.java:263)
org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.AbstractController.handleRequest(AbstractController.java:153)
org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.SimpleControllerHandlerAdapter.handle(SimpleControllerHandlerAdapter.java:48)
org.springframework.web.servlet.DispatcherServlet.doDispatch(DispatcherServlet.java:859)
org.springframework.web.servlet.DispatcherServlet.doService(DispatcherServlet.java:793)
org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.processRequest(FrameworkServlet.java:476)
org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.doPost(FrameworkServlet.java:441)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:709)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:802)
sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor44.invoke(Unknown Source)
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
org.apache.catalina.security.SecurityUtil$1.run(SecurityUtil.java:244)
java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
javax.security.auth.Subject.doAsPrivileged(Subject.java:517)
org.apache.catalina.security.SecurityUtil.execute(SecurityUtil.java:276)
org.apache.catalina.security.SecurityUtil.doAsPrivilege(SecurityUtil.java:162)

note The full stack trace of the root cause is available in the Apache Tomcat/5.5 logs.
Apache Tomcat/5.5
     10 RepubliCANT Lies About The Bush Tax Cuts - (lincoln) - (48)
         you really like that source -NT - (beepster) - (1)
             Yeah I do - (lincoln)
         sure I will play - (boxley) - (45)
             My only comment about that is - (jake123) - (2)
                 If it was singular, I would agree - (beepster) - (1)
                     It's still a hell of a lot less than the rest of the west - (jake123)
             Re: sure I will play - (lincoln) - (41)
                 useless links cant argue against facts - (boxley) - (40)
                     So let me get this straight - (crazy) - (28)
                         Re: So let me get this straight - (boxley) - (27)
                             Who's this "we" you're talking about? -NT - (Another Scott) - (22)
                                 me and mine, taxes and fees have already gone up under obama - (boxley) - (21)
                                     You've said that several times... - (Another Scott) - (20)
                                         federal excise tax, new rules on taxtables - (boxley) - (19)
                                             but HE didn't do it. - (beepster)
                                             You're still not giving me useful information. - (Another Scott) - (17)
                                                 Just stop it - (beepster) - (15)
                                                     Um, I wasn't talking to you. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                         Oh darn - (beepster)
                                                     ... - (Another Scott)
                                                     ... - (Another Scott) - (11)
                                                         from your link - (beepster) - (10)
                                                             Categorical statements are trivially wrong. Film at 11:00. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                                 Ok, so unless just the singular - (beepster) - (8)
                                                                     You're amazing... -NT - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                                                         Me? - (beepster) - (6)
                                                                             I'm not your strawman. Open your eyes. :-) -NT - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                                                                 Really? - (beepster) - (4)
                                                                                     Yes, really. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                                                         Do you pay attention to your quotes? - (beepster)
                                                                                         It's those bees ... in his head. -NT - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                                             Well Mr President...It's the bees and spiders again -NT - (beepster)
                                                 javapuke I quit fapfapfap - (boxley)
                             Re: So let me get this straight - (lincoln) - (3)
                                 They had a hand in it - (beepster) - (2)
                                     That's the best you got? - (lincoln) - (1)
                                         Did I say that? - (beepster)
                     Read it again S-L-O-W-L-Y - (lincoln) - (10)
                         you betcha - (boxley) - (9)
                             No, Bush controlled EVERYTHING - (beepster) - (8)
                                 How are the RepubliCANTS compromising today - (lincoln) - (7)
                                     Is Kagan being sworn in today? -NT - (beepster) - (6)
                                         nope republiCANTS didnt vote for her -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                             5 did - (beepster) - (1)
                                                 dont tell lincoln, he wont beleive it - (boxley)
                                         And that has what to do with Bush tax cuts? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                             Why don't you back read the thread - (beepster) - (1)
                                                 Heh. -NT - (Another Scott)

Those are German nouns, so they must always be capitalized.
178 ms