The GOP

[Fly Rod]

The republicans have no one to blame but them selves for the loss...we R in the 21st century, U do not tell a woman what she can and can't do with their body.... can not tell a woman she can not abort a fetues regardless of how one feels about it...we R a diverse nation racially and ethicnally recognising several ethnic groups....did U ever notice the makeup of people at Romney's rallies...98% white...U really had to look hard to see an indian, black or asian at any....repubs need to change their platform to conform with today's way of life

[FishermanTim]

The flip side is that at the Obama rallies the vast majority of people there were probably unemployed and living on welfare and hoping to get MORE!

And then there is the illegal alien contingency too!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

The republicans have no one to blame but them selves for the loss...we R in the 21st century, U do not tell a woman what she can and can't do with their body.... can not tell a woman she can not abort a fetues regardless of how one feels about it...we R a diverse nation racially and ethicnally recognising several ethnic groups....did U ever notice the makeup of people at Romney's rallies...98% white...U really had to look hard to see an indian, black or asian at any....repubs need to change their platform to conform with today's way of life

"we R in the 21st century"

Two years ago, I believe we were still in the same century, and the GOp opened up an historic can of whoop-ass.

"U do not tell a woman what she can and can't do with their body"

This is very important. The abortion issue is not about telling a woman what she can do with her body...it is about the baby...here is what I mean by that.

Every state has laws that prohibit female teachers from having sex with underage male students. You said you don't tell a woman what to do with her body. So are you therefore opposed to these laws that limit the choices a woman can make regarding her own body?

Like anti-abortion laws, those are laws that tell women what they cannot do with their body. Yet I have never, not once, heard a liberal saying those laws should be overturned because "government can't tell a women what to do with her body". Why doesn't anyone suggest that?

Simple. Because in this case, we all agree that a woman cannot choose what to do with her own body, if that choice causes harm to another person.

The pro-life argument is based on the same exact premise. The same exact premise.

Abortion isn't about women's choice, no more than laws that prohibit female teachers from having sex with male students are about "women's choice". Its about whether or not the unborn baby constitutes "another person" who has the same rights that you and I have.

The GOP didn't lose this election on abortion. The latest polling shows that a very, very small number of Americans are now opposed to abortion.

"repubs need to change their platform to conform with today's way of life"

Again, did you forget what happened only 2 years ago? Furthermore, the popular vote for President was 51-49. It was not a rout.

The GOP doesn't need to change it's beliefs. We need to tell those demographic groups you mention why our beliefs are better for them, than liberal beliefs. That's tough to do when every network except for one, claims that we hate women, hate gays, are cannibals, etc...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

.repubs need to change their platform to conform with today's way of life

A year or so ago, Paul Ryan revealed his plan to deal with the looming Medicare crisis. His plan improved the financial solvency of Medicare by assuming that future seniors woul get lower benefits.

What did Domocrats do? Did they deny that Medicare is in fiscal trouble? No. Did they offer an alternate way to cut costs? No. They made a commercial showing Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff. That's as dishonest as it gets, but it worked on you.

We don't need to change our core values. We just need to look for forums where we can have an honest discussion about the merits of what we believe. But Democrats will do anything to avoid that. It's a lot easier to paint Republicans as monsters than it is to explain why reckless spending is healthier than fiscal responsibility.

We don't need to change our core values. Democrats (and the media) need to stop lying about what our core values are, so that an honest debate can ensue. If that ever happens, that's the end of liberalism. Because it's indefensible, and it's demonstrably unproductive.

[sburnsey931]

Sooner or later there just won't be enough money to support the promises being made. When cities and towns declare bankruptcu and the taxpayers say enough. Conservative Principles will prevail. I feel bad for my sons and granchildren. I plan on leaving a very nice Trust
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Every state has laws that prohibit female teachers from having sex with underage male students. You said you don't tell a woman what to do with her body. So are you therefore opposed to these laws that limit the choices a woman can make regarding her own body?

Uhm, those laws are to protect children. You'll twist ANYTHING to fit your agenda won't you?

The GOP doesn't need to change it's beliefs. We need to tell those demographic groups you mention why our beliefs are better for them, than liberal beliefs. That's tough to do when every network except for one, claims that we hate women, hate gays, are cannibals, etc...

Yes Jim, we know, you're always right, your opinions are the only ones that matter, you're the best person on earth, everyone else is wrong.

[spence]

Originally Posted by likwid

Uhm, those laws are to protect children. You'll twist ANYTHING to fit your agenda won't you?

Well, I'd wager that Jim believes a handful of cells just after conception is also I child.

-spence

[sburnsey931]

If life doesn't begin at conception. Then when? 8 months 29 days? If an illegal alien can get welfare snd free tuition when is a fetus entitled to the right to life. You can't kill a coyote but you can kill a 6 month oldfetus. Just sounds wrong to me. Though I do believe in the will of the people. If it's majority ruled so be it. Hell I don't agree with most of the crap the legislate anyways.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, I'd wager that Jim believes a handful of cells just after conception is also I child.

-spence

it's how you started out isn't it?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We don't need to change our core values. We just need to look for forums where we can have an honest discussion about the merits of what we believe. But Democrats will do anything to avoid that. It's a lot easier to paint Republicans as monsters than it is to explain why reckless spending is healthier than fiscal responsibility.

We don't need to change our core values. Democrats (and the media) need to stop lying about what our core values are, so that an honest debate can ensue. If that ever happens, that's the end of liberalism. Because it's indefensible, and it's demonstrably unproductive.

Exactly, Romney was demonized by the Dems from day one,and went all
the way to the first debate before people could see his qualifications.
Statements by O like, "vote for revenge", showed his true colors.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Uhm, those laws are to protect children. You'll twist ANYTHING to fit your agenda won't you?


Yes Jim, we know, you're always right, your opinions are the only ones that matter, you're the best person on earth, everyone else is wrong.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm saying the 2 are, if not identical, then they are analagous. The death penalty is the same thing (which I am opposed to). I feel that excedpt in true self-defense, the taking of life is not our right.

Likwid, liberals believe that Osama Bin Laden has more of a right to live, than un unborn baby. Try defending that.


I never said I'm a;ways right. These are tough issues. What I said was, liberals should have the intellectual honesty of framing the argument correctly. What I mean is this...you should not claim that I am anti-choice, because that means you are also anti-choice in the case of statutory rape.

Abortion isn't about choice. It's about whether or not you believe the unborn has rights. Liberals like to frame it as about choice, and it's dishonest. Because I'm sure you're opposed to women chosing to use their bodies to hurt babies, right?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, I'd wager that Jim believes a handful of cells just after conception is also I child.

-spence

Spence, do most liberals only support abortion up until "just after conception"? Hell, no. So what's your point? Your hero Obama literally supported the right of women to kill their babies afetr they were born, out of the womb and disconnected from the mother.

So you tell me Spence, which position is the more monstrous? Mine, or Obama's? My position is born out of compassion for the defenseless. Obama's position is literally, truly, monstrous. Snack on that.

Spence, have you seen a 5-month ultrasound? Is that a "handful of cells"?

Spence, are you up for an honest exercise? Can you answer ONE DIRECT QUESTION?

Spence, at what point do you think abortion (at least 'convenience' abortions) should be illegal?

Let's say you say abortion is legal until 7 months. Why 7 months? What's magical about that time? What happens one second before that, that turns the baby into a human being at the next second? Do the head and shoulders suddenly pop out at that moment? No. That's why picking a random time, at which you call the baby a 'person', makes no sense. None.

From conception until death, life is a slow, gradual, continuous process. There is only one moment when something gets created that wasn't there before - the moment of conception.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

You can't kill a coyote but you can kill a 6 month oldfetus. Just sounds wrong to me. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll do you one better. it's a crime to disturb eggs of certain birds. But abortion is OK.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Fly Rod]

Jim here is one for U..."A man conquers woman he is a king ...what is a woman?

jim I am a conservative...I do not belive in the dems or repubs...when it comes to any vote I'm an udecided


U must be a strict catholic...after what has gone on over the years with the catholics ....praying on kids....banging women and still talking about the cloth....let it go

I believe in women rights and the repubs do not agree

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Jim here is one for U..."A man conquers woman he is a king ...what is a woman?

jim I am a conservative...I do not belive in the dems or repubs...when it comes to any vote I'm an udecided


U must be a strict catholic...after what has gone on over the years with the catholics ....praying on kids....banging women and still talking about the cloth....let it go

I believe in women rights and the repubs do not agree

"..."A man conquers woman he is a king ...what is a woman?"

I honestly don't know what you mean by that or what you are asking.

"after what has gone on over the years with the catholics ....praying on kids"

Again, you are buying into lies that the media is perpetuating, aimed at whom they disagree with.

Yes, a small number of priests and bishops were involved in a monstrous scandal. Those pedophiles (actually, homosexual predators) were not acting on behalf of the Church, and they do not speak for Catholics, and their crimes are not condoned by the Church.

FlyRod, do you know that rates of child predation are actually higher in public schools than they are in Catholic Churches? But you don't see that reported. Because the media, and teachers union, are on the same political side. That same lefty media hates the Catholic Church.

Again, I'm not making light of what happened. But you cannot hold tens of millions of Catholics responsible for what a small number of criminals did. If you do that, you must assume all blacks are irresponsible gang-bangers who impregnate women and then head off to prison.

In this country, the Catholic Church provides more charity than any organization, other than the US Government. For you to paint us all as pedophiles is ignorant, repugnant, and deeply offensive.

"I believe in women rights and the repubs do not agree"

If you say that abortion is simply about "woman's rights" after what I posted before, you're either not listening, or I didn't say it clearly.

FlyRod, do you believe a female teacher has the "woman's right" to have intercourse with a male student? If the answer is no, then using your logic (or lack thereof), I can say that you are opposed to woman's rights. Who are you to tell a female teacher what she can and cannot do with her body?

Lastly, the notion that Catholism is antithetical to women's rights is patently absurd. Have you ever once been to Catholic mass? Half the parishoners are, wait for it, women. Why is that?

You don't see blacks joining the Klan. Ditto Jews in the Nazi party. But millions and millions of bright, selfless woman proudly call themselves Catholic.

FlyRod, how do you explain that?

Think about it FlyRod. Please don't look to MSNBC for your answer.

you want to know what Catholics are about? Go to a Catholic school, and see all the great teachers who work for a fraction of what they could make at a public school. Go to a Catholic homeless shelter, and see all the selfless volunteers taking care of the homeless. Go to a Catholic soup kitchen, and look at the volunteers who serve food every single day, to poor people. Lastly, go to a Catholic hospital at 9:00 at night. You'll see heroic priests, at the end of a 12-hour day, selflessly praying with the sick, comforting them, giving the Communion.

Catholics are human, which means we are all far, far from perfect. we suffer from all the same imperfections and vices as the rest of society. We are not, however, a bunch of pedophiles. You have been lied to, and successfully been duped.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Exactly, Romney was demonized by the Dems from day one,and went all
the way to the first debate before people could see his qualifications.
Statements by O like, "vote for revenge", showed his true colors.

How about the commercial that said Romney caused the death of a former employee's wife of cancer, and that he doesn't care about cancer victims?

That would be news to his wife Ann, who is a cancer survivor. And Romney stuck by her. Unlike the liberal hero John Edwards, who cheated on his wife when she had cancer. But to liberals, Edwards is a good guy, worthy of being President. But Romney is the monster.

Fly Rod says that Catholics don't care about women's rights. I guess Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards should teach us sexist Catholics how to treat women with respect.

Liberals say that conservatives have waged war on women? Funny. Ted Kennedy is the only politician I know of, with a confirmed kill in the war on women, and I never heard liberals hold him accountable.

But that's just me...

[Sea Dangles]

Jim, you need a vacation.
You can't seem to help yourself
Your Taliban is showing
ranting and raving like a lunatic
soon you will be speaking in tongues
help yourself and seek counseling

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Jim here is one for U..."A man conquers woman he is a king ...what is a woman?

If she's good looking enough she might become his queen. If not, she might be whatever the men that are conquered become.

jim I am a conservative...I do not belive in the dems or repubs...when it comes to any vote I'm an udecided

What is it that you want to conserve?


U must be a strict catholic...after what has gone on over the years with the catholics ....praying on kids....banging women and still talking about the cloth....let it go

Jim answered that pretty well.

I believe in women rights and the repubs do not agree

Women's rights are mostly about equal rights, which repubs do agree with. Specific "rights" which apply to her gender can be tricky. Other than abortion and birth control I can't think of any off-hand though there must be some. There are many things that women don't have a legal "right" to do which also apply to men. Jim mentioned one. Prostitution, in most states, is another. Then there are the everyday laws like murder, child molestation (doesn't happen only in Catholic churches), robbery, mayhem, suicide bombing (for those who Sea Dangles sees as talibans), spousal abuse, etc. There seems to be an equal support for these restrictions by Dems and Repubs.

The only real sticking point difference is abortion. Firstly, in the proposition of when life begins. Secondly, when is it proper to extinguish that life. Thirdly, in the perception of whose body and whose rights are in question. And finally, which level of government has jurisdiction.

The first seems to have no definitive answer. Obviously, killing innocent human beings, is a form of murder. I don't think that is in dispute. But scientific advancement has displaced nature in the ease of making a "choice." The so-called viability argument is specious. Saying that a fetus can be destroyed until the point that it becomes "viable" can lead to an extention of that point to years beyond birth. Newborn babies are not "viable" without support. Neither are toddlers nor most pre-teens. Society demands that they be cared for and nurtured until later in life.

The second, when it is proper to kill, is highly contentious. Partial birth abortion is heinous in the eyes of most. The slaughter of babies who survive abortion is also, though apparently less so for some.

The third contention, "whose body"
has more facets than the surface appearance. Obviously, the sperm that fertilizes the egg does not belong to the woman. And the fetus is not actually a part of the woman's body. It is a distinct being with its own genetic code. All three beings, the woman, the man, and the fetus, are part of the same process and each, presumably, have equal rights. That the courts have given the totality of "rights" to the woman is arbitrary. And treating the fetus as if it were some alien inhabiting the woman's body because it is a distinct being and therefor susceptible to her choice of removal would have validity if pregnancy were considered a disease. History and nature have spoken differently on that matter.
In extreme cases where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, that is akin, in some degree, to a disease, and a choice must obviously be made. In the case of conception by rape, philosophic argument may trump life. Above my pay grade stuff. The vast majority of abortions are of neither category.

And last, constitutionally, the jurisdiction should be state not federal. That is what most repubs believe and the most relevant legal difference between the two parties.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Jim, you need a vacation.
You can't seem to help yourself
Your Taliban is showing
ranting and raving like a lunatic
soon you will be speaking in tongues
help yourself and seek counseling

Jim, please don't respond to this nonsense. It will just lead to back and forth stupid stuff, and TDF will have to shut down the thread. Comments like these are not worth the bother.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

The republicans have no one to blame but them selves for the loss...we R in the 21st century, U do not tell a woman what she can and can't do with their body.... can not tell a woman she can not abort a fetues regardless of how one feels about it...we R a diverse nation racially and ethicnally recognising several ethnic groups....did U ever notice the makeup of people at Romney's rallies...98% white...U really had to look hard to see an indian, black or asian at any....repubs need to change their platform to conform with today's way of life

You seem to be arguing for government by demographics. Why would that be peculiar to the 21st century? How would that even be possible? Isn't the nature of government a cohesive force that binds diverse peoples by a common code? Without that common code and cohesion, wouldn't anarchy prevail? That most minorities gravitate toward the Democrat party does not make its particular codes better. Nor does it make those codes more "diverse." Those codes, again, are a cohesive force to bind, not to scatter.

Republicans believe their way is "better," and apparently about half the country is with them, including women. The difference that should matter is which is the best type of governance, not which groups like one or the other more. The mission for Republicans should be to persuade the minorities that their vision is the better one for all. It should not be to change that vision to suit various groups. And it should escpecially, in my opinion, maintain governance in the direction of constitutional principles. There is a distinct difference between the constitutional system and the one we have and the direction the present one is heading. It should preserve, conserve, the principles of limited government and individual sovereignty. If it surrenders to the collectivist direction of the Democrat party, it will surrender its reason to exist. And if it cannot convince the "minorities" that its vision is best for them rather than the nanny state, the GOP may well disappear.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Women's rights are mostly about equal rights, which repubs do agree with. Specific "rights" which apply to her gender can be tricky. Other than abortion and birth control I can't think of any off-hand though there must be some. There are many things that women don't have a legal "right" to do which also apply to men. Jim mentioned one. Prostitution, in most states, is another. Then there are the everyday laws like murder, child molestation (doesn't happen only in Catholic churches), robbery, mayhem, suicide bombing (for those who Sea Dangles sees as talibans), spousal abuse, etc. There seems to be an equal support for these restrictions by Dems and Repubs.

The only real sticking point difference is abortion. Firstly, in the proposition of when life begins. Secondly, when is it proper to extinguish that life. Thirdly, in the perception of whose body and whose rights are in question. And finally, which level of government has jurisdiction.

The first seems to have no definitive answer. Obviously, killing innocent human beings, is a form of murder. I don't think that is in dispute. But scientific advancement has displaced nature in the ease of making a "choice." The so-called viability argument is specious. Saying that a fetus can be destroyed until the point that it becomes "viable" can lead to an extention of that point to years beyond birth. Newborn babies are not "viable" without support. Neither are toddlers nor most pre-teens. Society demands that they be cared for and nurtured until later in life.

The second, when it is proper to kill, is highly contentious. Partial birth abortion is heinous in the eyes of most. The slaughter of babies who survive abortion is also, though apparently less so for some.

The third contention, "whose body"
has more facets than the surface appearance. Obviously, the sperm that fertilizes the egg does not belong to the woman. And the fetus is not actually a part of the woman's body. It is a distinct being with its own genetic code. All three beings, the woman, the man, and the fetus, are part of the same process and each, presumably, have equal rights. That the courts have given the totality of "rights" to the woman is arbitrary. And treating the fetus as if it were some alien inhabiting the woman's body because it is a distinct being and therefor susceptible to her choice of removal would have validity if pregnancy were considered a disease. History and nature have spoken differently on that matter.
In extreme cases where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, that is akin, in some degree, to a disease, and a choice must obviously be made. In the case of conception by rape, philosophic argument may trump life. Above my pay grade stuff. The vast majority of abortions are of neither category.

And last, constitutionally, the jurisdiction should be state not federal. That is what most repubs believe and the most relevant legal difference between the two parties.

thank you..........and you didn't even have to mention GOD...go figure????

this issue will always be a hammer for democrats at election time, it's divisive and it's an intellectually lazy argument for them and it(the argument) extends into and among republicans....

while it should not be an argument at the federal level(the left has made it a federal issue) and should not impact the direction of elections(but always does) it has become an entitlement per se on the list of entitlements that will be taken away if you pull the wrong lever....republicans will always be asked and as we saw with the candidates this go around and democrats will always be assumed to be on the correct side of the issue....democrats will pounce while being allowed to skate on the issue themselves, it's interesting how many democrats were pro-life shortly before having national aspirations....it truly is a litmus issue among those of open mindedness...interesting how little dissension there is on issues within the democrat party

it offers an opportunity to bash the religious although I'd argue that for many pro-life types, the stance has less to do with religion and more to do with the thoughtful points that Detbuch made above....if the "pro-chioce" crowd were actually consistent the woman's right to choose would not end at birth or be some arbitrary point before or shortly after, as Detbuch aptly pointed out........


polls show that nearly half of Americans still find it morally wrong...but most I think have been cowed by the venom that you have to endure, as shown here, the rolling of eyes in response for simply having a pro-life position...many are sick of hearing about the issue because in their mind it doesn't affect them directly

we've become really good a rights and entitlements but we appear to be forgetting many of the responsibilities that go along with those rights, we look to the federal government more and more for new and guaranteed rights while handing over the responsibility for our lives to them which ultimately burdens our neighbors...

interesting that many in the pro-choice camp bristle at the idea of the federal government or society through the federal government dictating what a woman might or might not do with what may or may not be a "part" of her body as they continue the march of the federal government into every aspect of your our lives

"Even putting aside the constitutional questions here, the Court’s record as a policymaker is dismal. If forced to be charitable, one might say that the rulings in these cases were prompted by a desire to reduce the incidence of unplanned pregnancy and abortion. But what has happened? In the early 1960s, only 6 percent of American children were born outside marriage. Today, the figure is above 40 percent, and social-science research overwhelmingly shows the disadvantages that such children face growing up and thereafter. Other research shows the drain on public resources arising from the normalization of out-of-wedlock child-bearing. Finally, and contrary to the prediction in Roe and its companion case Doe v. Bolton, abortion has not been an infrequent occurrence, but a widely used form of birth control — and this despite the much greater availability of contraceptives in the last 40 years."
Judicial Usurpation: Then and Now - National Review Online

and more specifically...53% of births to women 30 and under are out-of-wedlock....apparently all of the abortion, education, birth control and on and on have not worked as intended or claimed...I guess the dems would claimed it hasn't worked because the programs have been so horrible underfunded...of course, it's worked in the sense that it's created a culture of loyal democrat voters

The Times reporters Jason DeParle and Sabrina Tavernise spoke to dozens of people in Lorain, Ohio, a blue-collar town west of Cleveland where the decline of the married two-parent family has been especially steep, with 63 percent of births to women under 30 occurring outside of marriage. The young parents of Lorain said their reliance on the government safety net encouraged them to stay single and that they didn’t trust their youthful peers to be reliable partners.
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2...he-new-normal/

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim, please don't respond to this nonsense. It will just lead to back and forth stupid stuff, and TDF will have to shut down the thread. Comments like these are not worth the bother.

Agreed!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Women's rights are mostly about equal rights, which repubs do agree with. Specific "rights" which apply to her gender can be tricky. Other than abortion and birth control I can't think of any off-hand though there must be some. .

Great post as usual, but I'll disagree on birth control. Republicans are not opposed to birth control. Republicans are opposed to forcing the catholic church to provide birth control, when that clearly forces Catholics to go against their beliefs.

The constitution does not say you can get birth control at work. But for the entire existence of our republic, until Obama took over, we have believed the constitution says you can practice your religion without interference from the feds. Obama has negated 200+ years of precedence there. That's not great history-making, in my opinion.

[justplugit]

How about Men's rights. Why not offer free vasectomies. If you offered an
incentive like $500 for a vasectomy the druggies would flock in and that would
go a long way in cutting down on abortions and their cost in lives and $.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

How about Men's rights. Why not offer free vasectomies. If you offered an
incentive like $500 for a vasectomy the druggies would flock in and that would
go a long way in cutting down on abortions and their cost in lives and $.

Men are not a group that has been anointed with "victim" status by liberals, thus we get no freebies.

[sburnsey931]

Conservative principles will prevail. It looks like it might take a little longer but eventually the people paying for the people taking will have had enough. When they're done taxing the rich and there still isn't enough money.... guess who's next....either the middle class pony up or the takers get none.
Moody's is now taking into account pension liability (specifically unfunded) when determining a municipality's credit rating. Let's see how much that new school cost now..... the solution higher real estate taxes....
I always hear the mantra " paying their fair share" .. is it fair when a public union worker makes twice the pay of a private sector equivalent and gets better benefits and a lifer's pension for 20 years work?..
It makes me sick to my stomach when I hear them say how patriotic they are when they are only out for themselves...they have been ripping off cities and towns for decades... nothing like supporting the candidate you get to negotiate with for your contract......
Eventually the regular guy who thinks the rich have made his life harder all these years will see that it's liberals policies that somehow seem to cost him more and more....true conservative principles help the economy....the standard of living and OMG even the less fortunate .
I'm on a rant right now because I saw my Accountant last week. 35% federal tax Bracket plus being self employed matching FICA...plus Mass 6.25%..it's virtually half.....how is this not my fair share????
Maybe I should send a check to some idiot who mortgaged out 150% equity at a variable rate and then said he didn't understand when the rate adjusted...

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

Conservative principles will prevail. It looks like it might take a little longer but eventually the people paying for the people taking will have had enough. When they're done taxing the rich and there still isn't enough money.... guess who's next....either the middle class pony up or the takers get none.
Moody's is now taking into account pension liability (specifically unfunded) when determining a municipality's credit rating. Let's see how much that new school cost now..... the solution higher real estate taxes....
I always hear the mantra " paying their fair share" .. is it fair when a public union worker makes twice the pay of a private sector equivalent and gets better benefits and a lifer's pension for 20 years work?..
It makes me sick to my stomach when I hear them say how patriotic they are when they are only out for themselves...they have been ripping off cities and towns for decades... nothing like supporting the candidate you get to negotiate with for your contract......
Eventually the regular guy who thinks the rich have made his life harder all these years will see that it's liberals policies that somehow seem to cost him more and more....true conservative principles help the economy....the standard of living and OMG even the less fortunate .
I'm on a rant right now because I saw my Accountant last week. 35% federal tax Bracket plus being self employed matching FICA...plus Mass 6.25%..it's virtually half.....how is this not my fair share????
Maybe I should send a check to some idiot who mortgaged out 150% equity at a variable rate and then said he didn't understand when the rate adjusted...

Welcome to the 35% bracket... did your acct. ajust for what's coming January first....the cliff hanger may put us at 39% or higher..

[sburnsey931]

I'm hearing 39.6% will probably go thru mid 2013 retro back to Jan. 1st. Supposedly 2012 will be okay. If not I'll be short 15 to 20k on my quarterly
estimates. Forcing a double payment. She is advising to be aware it might happen.
Because I have employees I'm opening a profit sharing and 401K. It lets me tax defer the most. If I give 10k to the employees I'll save 28% on my Fed bill.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device