Landrieu as VP

Well let me hit home with this one Shane, what do you think about the most recent GI bill that was proposed. That would have increase benefits, medical benefits, higher reenlistement bonus, and more money for college for soldiers.

That McCain said was to generous and Obama and Clinton backed the bill.

What do you think about that?


I think the returning soldiers should be overcompensated for their sacrifice.

 

MM, true, but it would be a little hypocritical for me to run around wanting the best of both worlds. I honestly haven't researched it enough to say a lot either way. I would be concerned as to where he is getting the money to pump the GI bill up that way. There are quite a few poloticians that want to alter our retirement system so that we won't draw our pension until we are 62 or 65 instead of the way it is now which I will be retired in 5 months. I will be one pissed off coona$$ if that happens. OH wait, back to the issue. Sounds good on the surface, but like I said, dont' know enough about it right now. The guy just scares me, scares the hell out of me. It may be small potatos to some of you but his affiliation with all these nut jobs scares me. Hell just the other night he had a woman on stage wearing one of the cheeto gurerra T shirts. WTF? Are you serious? I know here come the "Well he wasn't wearing it" That is BS. He should be wise enough to not let her in the building wearing that crap much less on the stage. It makes him a target and just makes me question his loyalty more.

 

I would like to see his brackets and how he determines the "upper class". Depending on where you live, upper feels a whole lot like middle. In other words, his idea of middle does not include me or my neighbors and we are all paying a pretty good share in taxes already.

This philosophy is what I struggle with:

First of all, exactly how will he "dramatically" simply filings? Is doing your taxes in less than 5 minutes a good thing? I have yet to see anyone ensure that the IRS does anything other than collect. So basically the government will fill out your papers for you, tell you how much you owe, and will discourage you from maximizing all the possible exemptions you might deserve and only hear about from private companies. Tax preparers often earn the fees they charge by increasing the return (and I'm not talking about loopholes or cheating).
Unless I'm missing something the work is being transfered from the private sector to the government. I would prefer smaller government.

 

Oh you opened up a can now Vball. I'm staying out of this one. At least I think you are on the right side of this thing.

 

I did and I still don't see it. Seriously, I apologize and I'm sure it's right there but I need help.

I am not making 7 figures but I can tell you that $100k in Kansas goes alot further than in California.

And allows the government to tell me how much I should pay. It isn't that complicated when you're an accountant. I don't want or need the US government to do my taxes for me. If someone can do my taxes in less than 5 minutes, I can guarantee that I'm getting screwed.

How is it smaller when the IRS will now be taking on the responsibility of doing everyone's taxes? You think they have your best interest in mind? What is the IRS' incentive for maximizing your return? Some folks have easy taxes. I did too when I was fresh out of HS and no investments or property. I absolutely do not trust the IRS to apply all the deductions I am owed. He also wants to increase capital gains which historically has proven to decrease the amount of money collected.

Perhaps I'm too suspicious but I do not trust a pre-completed tax form delivered to me by the IRS compiled from my personal banking records and only awaits my verification and signature.

 

Liberals don't get that.
According to Barack,it isn't about the money collected ,it is about fairness....ohhh, I had it wrong all this time.

 

I understand why some people are scared about discussion about redistribution of wealthy or tax reform, "change", etc. Obama may not have directly stated any intentions but I can understand why many get a feeling that's the direction he would like to take us.

Here are a few Hurricane Katrina examples that bother me.

1) Fortunately I had full coverage for the vehicle that couldn't swim. Although I didn't like paying the premiums it was the responsible (there's a word many don't like to hear) thing to do. Even though I didn't receive as much as I had hoped for, I was glad I had purchased the policy.

Several other people I know lost their vehicle as well. Although they could have purchased insurance, they chose not to. When FEMA visited them and learned of their misfortune, they were each issued a check for more than there vehicle was worth.

When I later inquired about this with FEMA the response was that of a bleeding heart liberal that stated that we can't allow these poor, unprivileged people live without a car. What a crock!

2) I was very thankful when the federal government decided to issue $2,600 (or so) checks to people with residences in zip codes affected by the storm. Unfortunately there were no provisions on how to use the money. Within a few short weeks there were tons of vehicles in New Orleans driving around with brand new rims and spinners. It's amazing to see a $500 car with $5,000 wheels.

This is an example of why you can't correct problems by just throwing money at people. You could divide all wealth in this country equally today and within a few short years most people would be back in the same class they're currently in.

I'm at the 28% tax bracket and not interested in paying a penny more unless I see my money at work. A strong military, secure borders, improved infrastructure, smaller government, better schools, and opportunities for those willing to work are things I would like to see.

I'm not interested in social programs, drug rehabilitation, accommodating non-English speaking citizens who don't want to assimilate, paying for abortions, increasing welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, job skills training, etc.

If we want to increase revenue, I think we should cut funding for those who aren't interested in contributing and force them to work so they'll have to pay taxes as well.

Increasing my taxes will lead to me spending less and hiring less people. If my dollars don't change hands, then the government won't earn as much money. The more these dollars change hands, the more tax dollars we have to spend. Start increasing taxes on the brackets who already contribute the most and you'll definitely see less revenue generated.

We like to attack the "so called" rich as evil people who steal from the country but the second we mention those who intentionally drain the economy we're called every name in the book.

It's time for the lazy, non-contributors to start producing. We pay their housing, their utilities, their schools, their food, their medical bills, fire & police production, and many other services and we get nothing in return.

I'm not talking about the elderly, mentally or physically impaired, or injured veterans.

I'm referring to healthy, able-bodied men & women who prefer to live off of the government cheese!

While we're going after those at the top let's not forget about the bottom feeders either!

 

Purple, I like you more and more with every post. Give em hell brother.