Just did my taxes - Got AMT pwn3d this year

[Chuck Storm]

but I guess that's ok since according to B.H. Obama I'm "rich".

Funny, I don't feel rich.

[socal]

Guess I wasn't aware of Obama's hand in writing the AMT laws. It's good you can find such good attribution.

Because he really DOES hate you and wants you to be miserable.

[Chuck Storm]

socal said:

Guess I wasn't aware of Obama's hand in writing the AMT laws. It's good you can find such good attribution.

Because he really DOES hate you and wants you to be miserable.

Thank God Obama didn't write the AMT laws or else the tax rate would probably be 10% higher.

And I don't think Obama hates me personally, just people like me. That's why he wants to raise my taxes by 11%.

[socal]

It's OK to say you've got nuthin... and you're just pissed you have to pay taxes to the government / country you hate soooo much.

[Chuck Storm]

socal said:

It's OK to say you've got nuthin... and you're just pissed you have to pay taxes to the government / country you hate soooo much.

I don't mind paying taxes so that the brave men and women of our armed forces can bring freedom to the good people of Iraq. just don't want to pay more so that B.H. Obama can engineer another massive handout to people who don't feel like working for a living.

[socal]

autolykos said:

socal said:

It's OK to say you've got nuthin... and you're just pissed you have to pay taxes to the government / country you hate soooo much.

I don't mind paying taxes so that the brave men and women of our armed forces can bring freedom to the good people of Iraq. just don't want to pay more so that B.H. Obama can engineer another massive handout to people who don't feel like working for a living.

Again, I guess I missed some huge dot here:
www.thebudgetgraph.com/


Could it be that your taxes were part of the 363 tons of cash flown to Iraq - and subsequently lost?

If so, I'd be really pissed too. As the military spends more than their top 10 competitors combined... and they needed to take YOUR friggin money to lose?

[Norm "racerhawk" Parker]

autolykos said:

socal said:

It's OK to say you've got nuthin... and you're just pissed you have to pay taxes to the government / country you hate soooo much.

I don't mind paying taxes so that the brave men and women of our armed forces can bring freedom to the good people of Iraq. just don't want to pay more so that B.H. Obama can engineer another massive handout to people who don't feel like working for a living.

This is what perplexes me about conservatives, be they fiscal or social conservatives.

They seem to have no problem with massive millitary spending, regardless of the outcomes. However, when it comes to anything else, they want to know exactly what their money bought for them.

In the case of this ill-begotten war, it bought all of us more problems, and that's it. Help me understand why you're so okay with the military's budget. It's friggin insane. By the way, I'm a former military officer.

[Chuck Storm]

superracerhawk said:

autolykos said:

I don't mind paying taxes so that the brave men and women of our armed forces can bring freedom to the good people of Iraq. just don't want to pay more so that B.H. Obama can engineer another massive handout to people who don't feel like working for a living.

This is what perplexes me about conservatives, be they fiscal or social conservatives.

They seem to have no problem with massive millitary spending, regardless of the outcomes. However, when it comes to anything else, they want to know exactly what their money bought for them.

In the case of this ill-begotten war, it bought all of us more problems, and that's it. Help me understand why you're so okay with the military's budget. It's friggin insane. By the way, I'm a former military officer.

1. I don't think a true fiscal conservative would be ok with "massive military spending, regardless of the outcomes."

2. While I think the war in Iraq was misguided (to be kind) that doesn't change the fact that (i) our troops need support, including monetary support and (ii) bringing democracy to another part of the world is a net positive, no matter how you slice it. I know that the blame America first liberals think that communism is the greatest political system ever devised and that we need more Castroesque regimes in the world (including the US) to take away people's cell phones, impoverish the nation (so that we're all equal) and limit those pesky things like freedom of speech, but I actually believe that the right to vote is a great thing (as an aside, I'll never understand the libs who say we should have left Saddam in power to rape and pillage as he pleased, but get apoplectic about the slightest human rights abuses by US troops or the Iraqi government).

3. While I'm no pacifist, I recognize that large amounts of military spending are a necessary evil. We could certainly argue on the margins about places the military budget should be reduced, but on the whole military spending is a necessary social good (unlike massive transfer payments to people who feel they're entitled to retire at 62, even though they haven't bothered to save for retirement).

[socal]

autolykos said:

superracerhawk said:

This is what perplexes me about conservatives, be they fiscal or social conservatives.

They seem to have no problem with massive millitary spending, regardless of the outcomes. However, when it comes to anything else, they want to know exactly what their money bought for them.

In the case of this ill-begotten war, it bought all of us more problems, and that's it. Help me understand why you're so okay with the military's budget. It's friggin insane. By the way, I'm a former military officer.

1. I don't think a true fiscal conservative would be ok with "massive military spending, regardless of the outcomes."

2. While I think the war in Iraq was misguided (to be kind) that doesn't change the fact that (i) our troops need support, including monetary support and (ii) bringing democracy to another part of the world is a net positive, no matter how you slice it. I know that the blame America first liberals think that communism is the greatest political system ever devised and that we need more Castroesque regimes in the world (including the US) to take away people's cell phones, impoverish the nation (so that we're all equal) and limit those pesky things like freedom of speech, but I actually believe that the right to vote is a great thing (as an aside, I'll never understand the libs who say we should have left Saddam in power to rape and pillage as he pleased, but get apoplectic about the slightest human rights abuses by US troops or the Iraqi government).

3. While I'm no pacifist, I recognize that large amounts of military spending are a necessary evil. We could certainly argue on the margins about places the military budget should be reduced, but on the whole military spending is a necessary social good (unlike massive transfer payments to people who feel they're entitled to retire at 62, even though they haven't bothered to save for retirement).

I kinda stopped at the "Democracy to another part of the world" part.

When the group our 140,000+ troops are supporting is literally called the "Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq", and leaders from Iran become intermediaries for discussions between warring Iraqi groups... I don't think the ROI for the $2+ Trillion is too great.

[Chuck Storm]

socal said:

autolykos said:

1. I don't think a true fiscal conservative would be ok with "massive military spending, regardless of the outcomes."

2. While I think the war in Iraq was misguided (to be kind) that doesn't change the fact that (i) our troops need support, including monetary support and (ii) bringing democracy to another part of the world is a net positive, no matter how you slice it. I know that the blame America first liberals think that communism is the greatest political system ever devised and that we need more Castroesque regimes in the world (including the US) to take away people's cell phones, impoverish the nation (so that we're all equal) and limit those pesky things like freedom of speech, but I actually believe that the right to vote is a great thing (as an aside, I'll never understand the libs who say we should have left Saddam in power to rape and pillage as he pleased, but get apoplectic about the slightest human rights abuses by US troops or the Iraqi government).

3. While I'm no pacifist, I recognize that large amounts of military spending are a necessary evil. We could certainly argue on the margins about places the military budget should be reduced, but on the whole military spending is a necessary social good (unlike massive transfer payments to people who feel they're entitled to retire at 62, even though they haven't bothered to save for retirement).

I kinda stopped at the "Democracy to another part of the world" part.

When the group our 140,000+ troops are supporting is literally called the "Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq", and leaders from Iran become intermediaries for discussions between warring Iraqi groups... I don't think the ROI for the $2+ Trillion is too great.

Nice laydown.

[Norm "racerhawk" Parker]

autolykos said:

superracerhawk said:

This is what perplexes me about conservatives, be they fiscal or social conservatives.

They seem to have no problem with massive millitary spending, regardless of the outcomes. However, when it comes to anything else, they want to know exactly what their money bought for them.

In the case of this ill-begotten war, it bought all of us more problems, and that's it. Help me understand why you're so okay with the military's budget. It's friggin insane. By the way, I'm a former military officer.

1. I don't think a true fiscal conservative would be ok with "massive military spending, regardless of the outcomes."

2. While I think the war in Iraq was misguided (to be kind) that doesn't change the fact that (i) our troops need support, including monetary support and (ii) bringing democracy to another part of the world is a net positive, no matter how you slice it. I know that the blame America first liberals think that communism is the greatest political system ever devised and that we need more Castroesque regimes in the world (including the US) to take away people's cell phones, impoverish the nation (so that we're all equal) and limit those pesky things like freedom of speech, but I actually believe that the right to vote is a great thing (as an aside, I'll never understand the libs who say we should have left Saddam in power to rape and pillage as he pleased, but get apoplectic about the slightest human rights abuses by US troops or the Iraqi government).

3. While I'm no pacifist, I recognize that large amounts of military spending are a necessary evil. We could certainly argue on the margins about places the military budget should be reduced, but on the whole military spending is a necessary social good (unlike massive transfer payments to people who feel they're entitled to retire at 62, even though they haven't bothered to save for retirement).

I agree with parts of what you are saying, but the "bringing democracy" theme is highly suspect. Really, how is occupying a country for God knows how long bear any resemblence to democracy. Also, there are disgusting regimes all over the world. It's kind of ironic that one would bring democracy by a coup, but ignore atrocities in Africa and Asia for decades. This argument is really flawed in my opinion.

I'm also for a strong military, don't get me wrong, but right now we're weaker as a result of the Iraq debacle.

I think we should expect results. When those results don't happen, or are misguided, it's a huge mistake to continue the same course of action by calling it "supporting the troops." Nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't totally disagree with your points, but fail to see how massive military spending greatly trumps health and human service programs in our own country in terms of promoting health, etc for our own populace. One can take the "individual responsibility" theme to the point where one loses touch with reality in this country, which incidentally has a large number of people who cannot legitimately help themselves (mentally ill, poor elderly for example). It's a tough argument to say that "transfer payments" to help them is terrible, while occupying Iraq for longer than WWII is bringing anything but death and suffering to hundreds of thousands of innocents. You can't spin that, no matter how gifted you are with language.

[lpcalihawk]

autolykos said:

socal said:

I kinda stopped at the "Democracy to another part of the world" part.

When the group our 140,000+ troops are supporting is literally called the "Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq", and leaders from Iran become intermediaries for discussions between warring Iraqi groups... I don't think the ROI for the $2+ Trillion is too great.

Nice laydown.

I know it's hard without BTR here to back you up, but your argument continues to be refuted and only supported by about 1/4 of the country.

It was wrong when the Communists tried to spread their brand of government to other regions of the world (i.e. Vietnam), but it is not wrong for us to force our form of government on other parts? Is that what I understand from your side of the aisle?

Why doesn't America concentrate on getting our shit together at home before telling other countries to get their shit together?

[Chuck Storm]

superracerhawk said:

autolykos said:

1. I don't think a true fiscal conservative would be ok with "massive military spending, regardless of the outcomes."

2. While I think the war in Iraq was misguided (to be kind) that doesn't change the fact that (i) our troops need support, including monetary support and (ii) bringing democracy to another part of the world is a net positive, no matter how you slice it. I know that the blame America first liberals think that communism is the greatest political system ever devised and that we need more Castroesque regimes in the world (including the US) to take away people's cell phones, impoverish the nation (so that we're all equal) and limit those pesky things like freedom of speech, but I actually believe that the right to vote is a great thing (as an aside, I'll never understand the libs who say we should have left Saddam in power to rape and pillage as he pleased, but get apoplectic about the slightest human rights abuses by US troops or the Iraqi government).

3. While I'm no pacifist, I recognize that large amounts of military spending are a necessary evil. We could certainly argue on the margins about places the military budget should be reduced, but on the whole military spending is a necessary social good (unlike massive transfer payments to people who feel they're entitled to retire at 62, even though they haven't bothered to save for retirement).

I agree with parts of what you are saying, but the "bringing democracy" theme is highly suspect. Really, how is occupying a country for God knows how long bear any resemblence to democracy. Also, there are disgusting regimes all over the world. It's kind of ironic that one would bring democracy by a coup, but ignore atrocities in Africa and Asia for decades. This argument is really flawed in my opinion.

I'm also for a strong military, don't get me wrong, but right now we're weaker as a result of the Iraq debacle.

I think we should expect results. When those results don't happen, or are misguided, it's a huge mistake to continue the same course of action by calling it "supporting the troops." Nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't totally disagree with your points, but fail to see how massive military spending greatly trumps health and human service programs in our own country in terms of promoting health, etc for our own populace. One can take the "individual responsibility" theme to the point where one loses touch with reality in this country, which incidentally has a large number of people who cannot legitimately help themselves (mentally ill, poor elderly for example). It's a tough argument to say that "transfer payments" to help them is terrible, while occupying Iraq for longer than WWII is bringing anything but death and suffering to hundreds of thousands of innocents. You can't spin that, no matter how gifted you are with language.

Make no mistake, I'm not defending the decision to invade Iraq. The decision to enter was fundamentally flawed and the result of both flawed logic and a decision making process that assumed the desired conclusion. That doesn't mean that bringing democracy isn't a beneficial side effect. With respect to whether we should continue the war or just pull out, sunk costs are sunk costs. You have to make the decision based on the costs and benefits on a going-forward basis.

With respect to your last paragraph, I don't take as hard a line on transfer payments as BTR does. I think there's a legitimate place for transfer payments within the American system and that they can do a lot to increase the standard of living of the poor. What I object to is the entitlement culture that many Americans have and that pervades the democratic party.

[Chuck Storm]

lpcalihawk said:

autolykos said:

Nice laydown.

I know it's hard without BTR here to back you up, but your argument continues to be refuted and only supported by about 1/4 of the country.

It was wrong when the Communists tried to spread their brand of government to other regions of the world (i.e. Vietnam), but it is not wrong for us to force our form of government on other parts? Is that what I understand from your side of the aisle?

Why doesn't America concentrate on getting our shit together at home before telling other countries to get their shit together?

I don't think it's a question of spreading our form of government, it's a question of ensuring fundamental human rights.

The right to select ones leaders is so important precisely because it acts to secure other human rights. The willingness of the democratic party to support and encourage regimes that deny the right to vote because they like their economic policies is just another indicator of their moral bankruptcy.

I personally don't care if other countries adopt our economic system. If Venezuela chooses to elect a socialist, that's their choice. I object to Chavez on a number of grounds (his support of FARC, his anti-American statements and attempts to undermine the US in the region, his attempts to subvert Venezuelan democracy, etc.), but at the end of the day the Venezuelan people have the choice to kick him out (for now).

That doesn't mean I'm advocating spreading democracy by force, but I would like to hear your explanation for how democracy is not a fundamental human right and/or a social good.

[GhostMod 5000]

First of all, where the hell do you get off saying the Democratic party supports tyranical regimes?



Second, democracy is not a right that someone can give you; it is something that a people have to take for themselves. The Athenians, the Romans, the Americans, the French, all of them overthrew a crooked monarch in favor of popular rule. The only instance I can think of where a country without a tradition of Democracy sucesfully implimented it was Japan; however Japan is definately an imperfect democracy since one party held power since 1955.

[NOTTHOR]

Ha ha ha. AMT pwn3d. I blame Barry because he could have helped re-write the tax code during his time in office if he is so hell bent on change. Or hope. Or hope for change. Or change for hope.

Democracy is a terrible idea. Just ask the Chinese government, they are the voice of over a billion people and they are anti-Democracy. 1 billion voices can't be wrong.

[socal]

Heck, someone has to raise the taxes to pay for all the military cost overruns.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033102789.html?hpid=topnews

[Solar Stud]

I owe $8550 to IRS and $300 to state. No biggie...we have about $23K in liquid money.

Also no biggie, because I used most of my non-taxed "weekend work" 2007 money to eliminate about $35K in equity debt. We now only have a minor mortgage left to pay, and I'm saving thousands a year in equity interest.

Seemed like a prudent decision to completely eliminate long-term debt rather than pay 25% in quarterlies in 2007.

However, to keep out of IRS-hot water, we're going to pay $2200 in quarterlies this year.

[NOTTHOR]

Is it really non-taxed or is it that you are not paying tax on it? Or is it that it is just not subject to withholding and you are truing up now?

I got hit with a big payment due last year and I just jacked up my withholding in lieu of quarterlies. Then, I got a huge refund this year because I overshot so badly.

[Iowafan1]

To SoCal and Racer's points:

SoCal first: The 363 tons of cash and the military cost overruns.....We have all at various times seen where you take a great deal of pride in ridiculing those who sacrifice to keep you and your family safe, but do you really think that anyone in uniform had anything to do with cost overruns or the decision to ship 363 tons of cash?.....or maybe......could it have been the fault of political bureaucrats who made all these decisions on funding approvals in the first place. Men and women in uniform put their lives on the line and fight....they destroy shit and kill people. They don't approve budgets or contribute to cost overruns. They also don't make the decisions on who to turn the cash over to when it arrives to the destination. They just deliver the goods when and where they are told to do so.

Racer: The reason we Conservatives (Upper case) are more focused on where our tax dollars go, aside from the Military, is because our Founding Fathers decreed that taxes would be spent on defense and infrastructure of our Country, and to help the helpless ONLY. It was never intended to go to free heroin needles, millions of $ for piles of shit, otherwise known as "art", on public display or unemployment or welfare checks for perfectly healthy adults who are capable of, if not eager to, be gainfully employed. The politicians, democrats and Republicans alike, have bastardized the federal tax dollars so badly that it has literally turned in to an unlimited money tree. As far as Military spending goes, I will always accept the word of the flag officers that they need what they say they need. We will never know as well as they do what they need to fight. I still remember from my Military career the transition from six month deployments with 2 years between at home to having to deploy with aircraft carrier battle groups for 10 months at a time, plus work ups, with eight months home time, all because Billy Clinton tore the Military to bits. We robbed parts from two full squadrons of aircraft to keep the other squadrons in the air wing in an airworthy condition. That was a sad and demoralizing statement from someone who was supposed to be our Commander in Chief.

[socal]

iowafan1 said:

To SoCal and Racer's points:

SoCal first: The 363 tons of cash and the military cost overruns.....We have all at various times seen where you take a great deal of pride in ridiculing those who sacrifice to keep you and your family safe, but do you really think that anyone in uniform had anything to do with cost overruns or the decision to ship 363 tons of cash?.....or maybe......could it have been the fault of political bureaucrats who made all these decisions on funding approvals in the first place. Men and women in uniform put their lives on the line and fight....they destroy shit and kill people. They don't approve budgets or contribute to cost overruns. They also don't make the decisions on who to turn the cash over to when it arrives to the destination. They just deliver the goods when and where they are told to do so.

Do you have a point that rebuts my argument?

[Norm "racerhawk" Parker]

iowafan1 said:

To SoCal and Racer's points:

SoCal first: The 363 tons of cash and the military cost overruns.....We have all at various times seen where you take a great deal of pride in ridiculing those who sacrifice to keep you and your family safe, but do you really think that anyone in uniform had anything to do with cost overruns or the decision to ship 363 tons of cash?.....or maybe......could it have been the fault of political bureaucrats who made all these decisions on funding approvals in the first place. Men and women in uniform put their lives on the line and fight....they destroy shit and kill people. They don't approve budgets or contribute to cost overruns. They also don't make the decisions on who to turn the cash over to when it arrives to the destination. They just deliver the goods when and where they are told to do so.

Racer: The reason we Conservatives (Upper case) are more focused on where our tax dollars go, aside from the Military, is because our Founding Fathers decreed that taxes would be spent on defense and infrastructure of our Country, and to help the helpless ONLY. It was never intended to go to free heroin needles, millions of $ for piles of shit, otherwise known as "art", on public display or unemployment or welfare checks for perfectly healthy adults who are capable of, if not eager to, be gainfully employed. The politicians, democrats and Republicans alike, have bastardized the federal tax dollars so badly that it has literally turned in to an unlimited money tree. As far as Military spending goes, I will always accept the word of the flag officers that they need what they say they need. We will never know as well as they do what they need to fight. I still remember from my Military career the transition from six month deployments with 2 years between at home to having to deploy with aircraft carrier battle groups for 10 months at a time, plus work ups, with eight months home time, all because Billy Clinton tore the Military to bits. We robbed parts from two full squadrons of aircraft to keep the other squadrons in the air wing in an airworthy condition. That was a sad and demoralizing statement from someone who was supposed to be our Commander in Chief.

Iowafan, for a guy that digs heavy women and coors, you do make some good points. The only parts about what you wrote that I question are:
-the absolute truth-telling of flag rank officers. Why would they be any more honest when trying to get their needs met than anyone else?
-the definition of DEFENSE. I agree that the constitution specifically outlines everything related to defense. However, what the hell the Iraq debacle has turned out to be may not be labeled DEFENSE (upper case).

I agree that our brave fithting men and women are generally honorable, and that their job is to blow shit up under orders. No qualms there. We have many wonderful people serving now, and how have served. You and I are fine examples! At any rate, I Aree (upper case) with your point that the military follows the politicians. In this case, the republican (lower case) leadership was Retarded (upper case).

cheers,
P

[Solar Stud]

bigtimeralph said:

Is it really non-taxed or is it that you are not paying tax on it? Or is it that it is just not subject to withholding and you are truing up now?

I got hit with a big payment due last year and I just jacked up my withholding in lieu of quarterlies. Then, I got a huge refund this year because I overshot so badly.

Ah hah...BTR...is a financial perfectionist I see. ;D


It is taxable income, however I chose to not withhold any throughout the past 12 months, and now Uncle Sam is taking his fair share out of my financial keister.

[barber]

Socal the point you miss about conservatives and military spending is that national defense is a market failure, so therefore conservatives naturally believe that taxes are necessary to fund the military. That's true even if you're pro-terrorist (like yourself, autolykos and many others here). Even if you believe Sadam Hussein should still be in power, if you're a conservative, you understand the need to fund a military.

I am happy to pay my share to fund the war in Iraq. I'm not happy to fund the part where we employ the government to compete with the private sector (e.g., US Mail competing with private carriers, financial incentives in welfare programs and socialist security which discourage work, etc.).

And I believe the war in Iraq is necessary to prevent future attacks on American soil. S. Hussein was a terrorist who tortured his own people, didn't believe in women's rights, etc. He hated America and if given a chance, he would have led the effort to destroy us. That is why he recruited others in the US like Rep.'s Mdickbuttrmott and Bonior to be his agents inside the US.