This could be a really simple post. All I have to do is post Drudge headlines. First, these three:
LIBYAN OFFICIAL WARNED USA ‘3 DAYS BEFORE ATTACK’…
Libyan president: ‘No doubt’ was ‘preplanned’ starting months ago…
Video Purports To Show US Ambassador Dragged, Cheers From Crowd…
and then this one:
Ambassador Rice: Attack NOT Premeditated…
But let’s flesh them out a bit.
It is obvious to all but the most mentally impaired that the attack that took the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was planned. Libyan officials agree. Hell, they even warned Washington.
Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.
Libya’s current President made it clear that this was planned:
Libya President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf said Sunday that 50 arrests have been made in connection with last week’s “preplanned” attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.
“The way these perpetrators acted and moved — I think we, and they’re choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no, this leaves us with no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined,” Magariaf said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
“And you believe that this was the work of Al Qaeda, and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that what you’re telling us?” CBS host Bob Schieffer asked.
“It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,” Magariaf said.
And the Obama adminstration?
Um, no it wasn’t. It was spontaneous.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.
“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”
– The attack in Bengahazi was not an attack in a nation’s capitol
– It was the only attack on US assets to include grenades and RPG’s
– It simply happened to occur when Chris Stevens was visiting
– The attackers knew where the safe house was
– There was no Marine guard
– It occurred on 9-11
– They knew Stevens was coming
I present to you three of the most grand lies in US government history:
“I am not a crook”[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M&feature=fvwrel[/youtube]
“I did not have sex with that woman”[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs[/youtube]
“This was a spontaneous attack”[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma6pMrMOIQ8[/youtube]
If you buy into this, and most liberals will, you are truly a useful idiot. Among those useful idiots?
Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, Bob Schieffer, David Gregory.
And all of PMSNBC.
But the fact is, Obama has jumped the shark.
And let us harken back to Obama’s words:
I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
Not Catholicism, not Judaism, only Islam.
Linked by Doug Ross. Thanks!
@Smorgasbord: A stere0type usually denotes a common characteristic of a class. What is the common ‘negative’ characteristic of all Islamic people?
@DrJohn: The amazing thing is that even though the majority of the people realize that, they still have an effect. Our MSM is one of the most effective propaganda machines in history. The ‘R’s do have a tendency to self destruct though. Missouri is a classic example. That seat was a given. They should win both the Senate and the presidency with little problem given a failed President and Reid’s antics. Both maybe in doubt now. We’ll found out in exactly 7 weeks.
@retire05: The country is no doubt at the crossroads. We are almost to the point of no return with the debt if we aren’t there already. The difference between the two parties is how fast we are going to get there. We are becoming a nation of sheep. It was always my contention that we would self destruct from the inside.
@Hard Right: I don’t think the left would overthrow our government in the conventional sense of say armed rebellion. They will do so through more subtle means like using the media, our educational system, and the government. By chipping away at our Constitution and laws to where we have no Constitution or laws, they can transform the country.
I posted this once before. It’s an interesting watch.
The road to the cross road has been coming for a long time. People have learned that they can vote themselves more largess from the taxpayer, i.e. public unions, who will promote the candidate that promises to give them the most from the taxpayer. Same with people on the welfare rolls. Democrats promise more theft from the hard working to give to the lazy.
As to Missouri, I don’t necessarily agree with you that the seat there “was a given.” Remember, Missouri voters put Criminal Clair McCaskill in office to begin with. Also, her election was rife with corruption from ACORN. It was in St. Louis that so many ACORN workers were prosecuted, and found guilty, of vote fraud. Missouri has always leaned blue due to the high population areas like St. Louis and Kansas City. Obama pretty much took the same counties that McCaskill took (St. Louis and all outlying counties; Kansas City proper and all outlying counties and a few southwestern counties). Since the Missouri Secretary of State has refused to purge the voter registration rolls, the refusal being in conflict with federal laws on such rules, you can bet that a number of grave yard residents will be voting for Criminal Clair. Any Republican in Missouri would have a tough time. Judging the political temperature of Missourians is tough; you have those who are fiscal conservatives that will still vote for a Democrat because their daddy was a Democrat, their granddaddy was a Democrat, and by God, they are Democrats. It is a strange state that is hard to predict. But Missouri electing a Republican was “a given?” No, not by a long shot.
Did I say “poor”? I believe I used the words “low income working families”. Despite Romney’s best efforts to paint those who don’t pay income tax as lazy people who live off the government, the majority of people in that category pay payroll tax. Romney’s hackneyed argument is a sham designed to appeal to a segment of society who resent those who use social services because they choose to focus on that one part of the federal budget as the reason their taxes are higher than they’d like. Furthermore, it’s an argument that attempts to attach a taint of moral failure to economic circumstances that are not always the result of choices. I can see these arguments working for people who are cantankerous, judgmental, scornful of others and not overly mindful of facts. In other words, you.
I think we will see more Ayres type rear their heads should they lose the WH and the Senate.
Ok. thanks for the clarification.
The Republican party in it’s current state is unsustainable nationally due to changing demographics. The Michelle Bachmans of the world have a very narrow appeal, and yet she’s one of the faces of the party. It’s really quite stunning how that wing of the party gained such eminence.
@Tom, let’s start putting some real numbers to some generally vague stats… and let’s also lay some guidelines as to what constitutes “taxes” for this subject.
i.e. the usual mantra about those not paying federal income taxes is the sputtering response that they pay payroll taxes (only the employee portion, unless they are self-employed like me) as well as the other sundry consumption taxes. This is like talking about the art of baking pies, and one party decides to expand it to include baking of all kinds of pastries.
Payroll taxes have been at an effective rate of between 4.2% to 5.4% for employees. This is cash that is supposed to go into Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds for entitlement/pension packages. But as we all know, Congress uses accounting shell games to get those funds back into General Revenue for spending anyway. But let’s go on the concept that they are supposed to be stashed away for benefits you will be receiving later… ergo, not counted as aid in sustaining the workings of a welfare oriented, behemoth central government and a pay-as-you-go philosophy.
Therefore, I’m not going to let those who pay payroll taxes off the hook when discussing who is paying federal income taxes destined for the general revenue coffers. But, as numbers show, that may give us a break down of the 46.4% between retired/not working – those working for low wages – and those existing off unemployment or other welfare programs.
By some real numbers, and using the the Tax Policy Center findings linked by your NYTs source.
2011 estimated population is 311,591,917. Of those, 23.7% are under 18. So for debate purposes, let’s assume we’re talking about a population of 237,744,632 of 18 and over, that either are working, could work or are retired.
110,313,509 of these do not pay any federal income tax.
28.3% of all over 18 – or 67,281,730 must be employed in either low wage or part time jobs because they paid some payroll tax, but don’t pay income tax.
This leaves 43,031,778 people who pay either no income or payroll taxes.
24,487,697, or 10.3% are elderly with their retirement combine income below $25K. Because, you see, the elderly/retired are responsible for federal income tax, the percentage of that taxable income varying between 50% and 85% of their benefits. So you not only pay in during your working life, you will be paying taxes on it when you get it doled back out by the feds.
According to the SSA’s estimates, Social Security benefits were paid out to 59.2 million people in 2010. If only about 24.48 million are not paying income tax, that means that 34.72 million retirees are still paying income tax… or about 59% of retirees are still paying in to the cost of government.
This pretty much disseminates the argument that those not paying taxes are the retirees. The majority of them are *still* carrying their weight.
This leaves us with the remaining 7.9% of non elderly and “others” who pay no income tax or payroll taxes… or 18,781,826. They make up about 17% of the entire 110,313,509 who don’t pay federal income tax. When you add them to the 67,281,730 who are working (because the pay FICA), but don’t pay income tax, you have a combined total of 86,063,556 Americans who are not retired, are either unemployed or employed and falling under the tax radar. That’s a whopping 78% of the 110.3135 million that aren’t paying any income tax at all.
Needless to say, I don’t think you can hold the 41% of retired seniors who fall into the no-income-tax bracket as the majority getting a free ride, considering the other 86.06 million under the retirement age make up a larger piece of the pie.
I was listening to CNN, and there was a breakdown of that 67.281 million who work, and how they got to the tax free income bracket after IRS deductions.. Don’t remember the exact, but it was the majority of these earners who would have been paying taxes but for the deductions, credits and loopholes in the IRS.
Then add the examples that retire05 pointed out above, in added income even after their deductions and they aren’t as bad off as the stats, and the liberal talking points, suggest.
I’m not concerned about the 24.48 mil retired elderly as they are only making up 10.3% of everyone who, theoretically, can contribute. I am, however, concerned the rest who could be paying in.
What is happening is that far too many are learning how to play the system to get into that no-income-tax bracket, but not really living in poverty level. I’m finding more and more people I know in the almost retirement age that are confessing, with great embarrassment, that they are learning to play this system too… not because they want to but because they feel they have no other choice. It’s an unfriendly economic growth environment – and especially difficult for the not-such-a-spring-chicken-anymore age group.
@DrJohn: More proof. This is some scary stuff when you think about it.
@MataHarley: You make an excellent argument for a flat, or flatter, tax with no or limited loopholes. It’s amazing how people are taxed on the money they make when they work. Then they get taxed on it again when they retire or invest it. And then the leftovers get taxed again when they die. Then there are those who just leach off the system without paying any taxes at all and then complain if they are made to work for it or if they are made to take a drug test in order to receive their freebees to show they are truly needed and not spending their free handouts on drugs and other non-essentials.
If “low income families” are not your definition of “poor”, then explain who the poor are because I damn sure can’t find them unless you are referring to the homeless who panhandle for booze money. The federal government (Democrats) define the “poor” as anyone who lives below the federal poverty level.
Yet, as I proved, and you ignored, they do not live worse than those who earn roughly $30K/year more and actually have greater buying power than their $53K/year counterparts.
Like all progressives/liberals/socialists, you jump up and shout “but they pay taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes” and to that I say “so what?” If they don’t want to pay sale tax, don’t buy anything; if they don’t want to pay property tax, don’t own a home they probably can’t afford anyway but were allowed to buy under the disasterous Community Reinvestment Act; and their payroll taxes are paid with the expectation of getting them back with a lot of interest.
The fact is they, your “low income families” pay nothing into the IRS coffers. Yet, they live equally as well as those who do. They also make a more than proportional drain on public services like police and fire protection and emergency and health services. So they actually take more than they pay in any form of taxation.
And who is the face of the Democrat Party? Idiot Harry Reid who seemed to profit quite well from insider real estate deals or maybe John Kerry who parks his yacht where he didn’t have to pay state private property tax on it, or maybe Joe Biden who seems to favor keeping his money instead of donating to charities, or perhaps Dianne Feinstein whose husband profited greatly from insider defense contracts? Or maybe Keith Ellison who degrades Christianity and promotes radical Islam? So please, tell me who is the face of the Democrat Party? Barney Franks? John Conyers with his convict wife?
I suggest you read Stealing From Each Other although I am sure all the math in that book will just fly right over your head. Democrats have never been good at math/ecomonics and I don’t foresee that changing anytime soon.
I appreciate your in depth look into the numbers, Mata. I really do. Very interesting. Unfortunately, you seem to be misunderstanding the reason I brought up the payment of payroll taxes. I am not, and never was, making an argument that payroll taxes are in any way an equitable substitution for income tax. It goes to what that 47% of people are doing with their lives. Mitt Romney claimed that 47% of Americans, “believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them”. Well, as demonstrated, he’s referring to millions of working Americans right there, so I would opine his colorful descriptions of those peoples’ motives and characters are simply not true. Of course this all comes down to your interpretation of what makes a man/woman a “worker”. I don’t look at what a person earns when I make that determination, nor do I weigh the value of person’s work vis-a-vis the pride and fulfillment one takes in it by the amount of zeros on the paycheck. If someone is getting out of bed in the morning and going to work, I don’t care if he’s working on Wall Street of digging ditches, he’s working, not asking the Government to “give it” to him. Perhaps you feel differently. On a personal level, I certainly don’t think people who are just scraping by at sustenance level should be paying more in taxes because it’s actually a disincentive to work if working isn’t going to pay the bills. But that’s an argument about tax laws, not about whether those people are working or not. Let’s also remember that Republicans are the ones calling on Americans to get into the work force by any means necessary and take those lowest paying jobs that they claim shouldn’t be going to illegal immigrants, yet here we have the Republican message to those same low wage earners, telling them that they’re no different than those who earn no wages at all and don’t deserve to escape that stigma. A little hypocritical perhaps?
You’ve chosen to dissect my interpretation of the 47% figure, and from what I can tell, you’re not accusing me of any falsehood. Meanwhile, you’ve chosen to ignore Mitt Romney’s interpretation of the 47%, the person who raised the figure in the first place. Romney, at the very least, has insulted millions of working Americans. At the very worst, he’s a liar depending on how much he knew about the breakdown of that figure and to what ends he was trying to spin it. Maybe you should turn that high powered perception on Romney’s words for a change, because I for one would be very interested to hear it.
I am all for a flat tax on every dollar you earn; no deductions whatsoever. Not for the kids you could have chosen to abort, not any deduction. No matter what you make, a flat tax of say 5% is applied. A three line income tax return:
How much did you earn? Enter amount
Multiply that amount by .05
Pay that amount
So you think that because someone just gets out of bed every morning and goes to a job digging ditches they should be given a pass on paying taxes? What conditions forced them into a ditch digging job? Refusal to take advantage of a free education thru high school graduation? Previous drug use and a criminal record? I take you think that because of previous “choices” (dropping out of high school, drug use, criminal history) that the person who has not reached their actual potential should be helped by those who made better choices?
Tell me, where is any of those things you mention, shelter, food, medical care, etc, mentioned in the U.S. Constitution as a “right?” Yes, all those things are required to sustain life, but so is water, so why do I have to pay my city for the right to use water? Why isn’t water provided to me for free?
Mitt Romney is more right than you are willing to admit; when you claim that all those things he mentions are “rights” and you should be provided those things without having to work for them, or because your life choices make you eligible for nothing more than low paying jobs, then yes, that is the epitomy of the entitlement mindset.
Tom and Greg I’ll echo Larry’s sentiments and give you an additional Ooh-rah for the way you stand against the haters on this site. Keep smiling while you continue the good fight.
I’ve tried to give the Repubs and Romney a fair shake. The stuff I’ve seen on here the last couple of weeks–unbelievable!
I’ve got some undecided friends. I think a good reading of Hard Right, Retire 05 and Wm.Sherman will bring them back.
Semper Fi RJW
The fact you think tom and greg are good people speaks volumes of you rich.
I bet you won’t have the guts toshow those “undecideds” what tom said after giffords got shot or the Mormon bashing greg has engaged in.
I shouldn’t be surprised you count yourself among them. Vermin of a feather…
You are the enemy of freedom and have betrayed everything you and others fought for.
The haters love to justify using the government to rob from those who work to give goodies to their PC buddies. They hate society because they lack the talent, skills, and energy to compete. They like Sandra Fluke “know” that society owes them whatever they wish.
These delusional people are the same ones who refuse to consider a flat ten per cent tax, be it on income of collected as a sales tax because they would be forced to pay their fair share.
These haters want to take from those who have worked hard, educated themselves to build a better life while they whine how an evil society won’t pay a gay-lebian-transgender.Marxist major what she/he/it considers him to be worth and hence has a hard time getting a job at Obama’s DMV.
Just remember folks the Left always projects itself and its actions on those who oppose their utopian Marxist ideals. Ever seen a Wall Street demonstration?
Tom, if you are waiting for some sort of blind defense of Romney, using charged rhetoric to talk to fundraisers, you’re not going to get it. Obama does the same at his fund raisers, so it’s pretty much a golden rule for pols when trying to get fools to part with their money. And I tend to ignore it as part and parcel of the game from both candidates. Just don’t care…
What I do care about is rhetoric directed to the population at large more than catering to jacking up the enthusiasm level of fundraisers. I do think you know the value of “red meat” thrown to the faithful to elicit the desired result. Happens at every type of sales seminar in the private industry as well. Embellishment is designed to up the adrenaline level.
Of course it’s been done here, but it’s equally done on your side of the aisle… and a perfect example is this embellished portrayal of Romney as not caring, insulting or whatever spin you want to put on the moment.
The NYTs has a transcript of Romney’s response. And the most important thing you can take away from it is the reality that there is *no transcript of the full fundraising Q&A session* provided by the secret filmmakers.
As a result, they only picked out a partial response to a question, and deliberately did not include the question. This is dirty pool tactics, of course… not unexpected, but certainly falls far short of any perceived moral integrity or honesty.
From what I gather, the question seemed to revolve around criticism of Romney’s campaign approach (well deserved since it’s really a pathetically run campaign…) and likely addressed to how much focus he should be putting on the tax issues to draw off traditional Obama voters.
Now I agree that Romney is a clumsy off the cuff speaker. Then again, so is the current POTUS without the superior TOTUS. But I believe the point he was trying to make is that using low taxes isn’t much of a selling point when 46.4% of US citizens don’t pay taxes.
To show that futility – or that Romney is right that focusing on low taxes isn’t worth much – let’s use the 110 mil approx number I mentioned above. Accommodating for a good registered voter turnout year, perhaps 50 million may vote in Nov.
Let’s use a heavy Dem state, like Mass, for a voter demographic. Assuming a 36% Dem demographic advantage over GOP and other, they are discussing trying to peel off about 18 million likely voters from the Dem party, based on a low taxes platform. IMHO, it’s a waste of time. But I think jobs and a genuine economic growth policy for the nation is a universal campaign issue.
(BTW, the largest voting bloc of constituents are the indys and unaffiliated… this should say something about the disdain for both of the two major parties…)
All in all, this is just another rabbit hole thrown out at a convenient time to keep the audience busy watching the magicians right hand so you don’t notice the left. This, too, will pass in a short amount of time, but it serves it’s purpose. The lib/progs can poke and prod Romney to continue their class warfare, capitalist Romney is evil campaign, and unfortunately Romney gave them a snippet of dialogue to help that class warfare campaign. And the GOP can whine about the dirty tactics. Red meat for both sides and serves to ratchet up the resolve of both.
It would be disingenuous not to admit your side of the political fence is exhibiting the same absurd hyperbole that my side of the fence does equally well…. especially on this. I think you know that I call out both sides on BS. In this case, I don’t believe that Romney is guilty of what you charge… of not caring. Simply that he was identifying a demographic that isn’t like to be swayed by a low taxes campaign argument.
I hardly think you can disagree with that. And when he did so to an audience that he wanted to open their wallets, he threw out the expected “red meat” for effect and excitement, just like your guy does at every turn.
In the overall prospect of a nation’s tipping point, history has proven this all crashes when you run out of other people’s money… and that is easily detectable on the horizon even now. And it may be that tipping point has already been passed. I hope not, but we shall see.
Yes, I believe that you and I interpret the data differently, and I wanted to give you a better perspective on the reality that your peers tend to use it as granny’s being thrown off the cliff. That example best comes from Greg’s comment:
That is, of course, a flat out lie for partisan “red meat” effect, as I’ve shown.
president bongo knew some thing like this would happen when he put the muzzie brotherhood in charge because he can’t be so stupid not to remember the jimmy carter and sha of iran.i won’t shed any tears for stevens who was a jew hater from berkley helped these human savages come to power because love the plo,hamas,the brotherhood and every other terror group on the planet.for all that he did for them the religion of piss murdered him because that is what ragheads do when there is no dictator to keep them in line.stupid democrats and more than a few republicans.bongo has done every thing he can to harm america and put us in danger.
I don’t know whether to laugh or shake my head in disbelief over that one.
I wonder if he really believes that?
I had no problem kicking Akins off the island for his beliefs and he was “one of ours”. Greg and tom have never criticized the actions/words of the dems no matter how dispicible, and rich rarely ever does it. You’ll also notice how rich backs individuals like greg and tom simply because they are “on his side”. It’s called integrity rich. I’d say you should try getting some, but your hero is the corrupt JFK which says it all.
Mata, interesting taxpayer numbers.
And there are other places to get similar data.
The US Debt Clock has this:
US population 314,402,487.
US INCOME TAXPAYERS 114,359,034.
US workforce 142,220,250.
Food Stamp Recipients 46,907,672
And lots more.
Interesting other possibilities using that figure, Nan G. The first thing that pops into my mind is that 20% of the perceived work isn’t paying taxes. LOL But that isn’t accurate because many retirees pay income taxes with added pensions, investments, etc to their SS incom e- but aren’t part of the workforce – so that skews the numbers and picture.
INRE the population, the April 2010 census was 308,745,538. The 311 million number was the estimate for 2011. My guess is the 314 million is the 2012 estimate. Other than the census, they are all estimates tho.
There are many Medicare-eligible elderly people in America who are struggling to make it on their Social Security checks. A base figure is actually very easy to come up with: There are at least 1,164,000 such people. This figure represents the number of Social Security recipients who are over 65, and whose combined monthly Social Security checks and other income are so low that they also qualify for Supplemental Security Income.
If you add in disabled Americans who are in the same situation, that brings the base number up to 2,776,000.
Generally speaking, if you’re an elderly or disabled individual who receives both Social Security and Supplemental Security Income, your monthly cash income presently totals only $708–and that’s before your Part B Medicare premium deduction. If you’re lucky, Medicaid might be picking the premium up for you.
If your combined monthly income, including your Social Security check, exceeds $708, you’re generally not eligible for SSI. As of July 2012–the month for which the above figures apply–the average monthly Social Security check was $1,230. So, there are undoubtedly a lot more people making do with Social Security as their only monthly cash income. They’re probably reliant on food stamps to eat regularly. All it really takes to be in that situation is a lifetime of work at low-paying jobs, where no union or employer pension plan was involved.
Greg, as I originally pointed out to you, the existing retirees see no changes to their benefits. Additionally the 1.164 million retirees people is an even lower number than my 24 million ball park calculations, based on all US citizens that are 18 and older… and would be part of the workforce or retired. So you’ve just made my point that Romney talking about Medicare and retirees with his statement is nothing but pure BS.
I know many retirees that fight to make ends meet because they don’t have pension incomes or other investment incomes to subsidize their SS payments. It certainly doesn’t help with current Fed Reserve and WH economic policies that are driving up the cost of living with doing nothing to deal with oil futures and tanking the dollar value.
Let’s see, Rich, you label me a hater, so let’s see how much I hate:
I finished high school and because I had kids, and a job, had to take my college courses at night, all of them paid for out of my own pocket.
I have never done drugs.
I have drank alcoholic beverages in my life time, but can honestly say that I never abused the practice and I don’t drink any alcoholic beverage, except for my one annual glass of Bailey’s Irish Cream I drink every Christmas Eve.
I didn’t have kids out of wedlock, or before I was prepared to care for them, and more important, cover the cost of their expense.
I have never been arrested, and received ONE traffic violation citation for a burned out tail light.
I have never drawn an unemployment check, or been given food stamps, or had taxpayers pick up the cost for my insurance, or the insurance on my kids.
And I’m the hater because I think everyone should be responsible and not demand that I, who have paid my own way my whole life, also pay their way?
So you tell me; why am I, as a taxpayer, responsible for the poor choices made by others? Why do I have to pay taxes to support someone’s out-of-wedlock kids when they have the legal option of aborting a kid they can’t afford? Why do I have to pay to house someone who is unemployable because they dropped out of high school, abuse drugs or any other reason that makes them unemployable? Why are my endeavors punished, via the IRS, to reward the slackers?
I think you, and people like you, are the haters. You promote failure and punish success and you do it for no other reason than to maintain control over people. When government provides for the masses, the masses will always support the government, no matter how oppressive that government becomes. Being a slave to the government (where they tell you where to live, how much you can spend on groceries, etc) is just as dispicable as being a slave to any slave master.
@MataHarley: To take advantage of the Roth IRA two year conversion window, the gummint accessed significant $s pulled ahead of the normal IRA spending and taxing cycle (can anyone suggest where this information may be found?). In my case, my wife and I will have sent the gummint $70K in two years while being laid off by cashing in another Roth IRA (robbing hood to pay IRS).
Quite the trend of the cake-eaters here to de-rail the main thread….First and foremost the administration had warning, did nothing and then tries to cover it up Al La Fast and Furious….
Al Qaeda, ex-Gitmo detainee involved in consulate attack, intelligence sources say
BTW, also FTA:
But here’s the main point:
More from other sources:
Sufyan Ben Qumu was released from Libyan prison in 2008 as part of a reconciliation with Islamists in Libya.
He receives a jihadist payment from that 1/7th of all Islamic charitable giving that is reserved to help the jihadists.
His alias is “found on a list of probable Al Qaeda personnel receiving monthly stipends and family support.”
The dossier on Abu Sufyan Ben Qumu,, courtesy of the Wikileaks documents.
He was captured in Pakistan, thanks to a tip from the Gaddafi Organization. Qumu was one of the leaders of the Libyan “Arab Spring” rebel movement… oh wait, they wanted “democracy”, right? LOL
Gadaffi released him in 2008 as part of a “reconciliation” agreement with that country’s Islamists. In retrospect, not such a good idea, eh? Wasn’t such a good idea to let him go from Club Gitmo either, but then emptying out the detainees was all the rage then.
PC strikes again.