Hilary swilling beer abd dabcing? At 62? For shame!

And here's an image -- Romney drinking beer <g>

Guy if this was for 2010, then returns were due 1 year ago (except of course for folks like Romney who can afford to have tax accountants get their stuff filed on time and require a six month extension). That is reasonably quick turnaround.

I think the resolution to getting a larger proportion of people to pay taxes is to reduce all compensation above a few million a year and send to the sub $50K group -- that way they will have to pay taxes. Ought to make Republicans tickled pink I should think <smile>

The IRS must have finally caught up their data for 2010. That was for stuff they did *2 years* ago.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/americans-making-over-50000-year-paid-933-percent-all-taxes-2010

Hmmmm, at least 3 head scratchers in this article.

I think the resolution to getting a larger proportion of people to pay taxes is to reduce all compensation above a few million a year and send to the sub $50K group -- that way they will have to pay taxes. Ought to make Republicans tickled pink I should think <smile>

I guess playing politics is more important than an actual fix. Fiddling while USA is burning. I thought we had got past that.

---

I think what the conservative members here are missing is not that people are getting tax breaks but are being so underpaid that the gov't must help out otherwise these working folks waste an inordenate amount of time in the welfare lines when these are better off doing their low paying jobs.

It should be upsetting that businesses choose to pay poorly and then have their(most likely others) tax dollars spent supporting their employees. Point the finger at Welfare-mart whose employees get to pick up food stamps on top of a very low paying job. Yet, welfare-mart could easily pay for its employees health care and give substantial raises and still make billions. But whats billions when you can make trillions

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I think the resolution to getting a larger proportion of people to pay taxes is to reduce all compensation above a few million a year and send to the sub $50K group -- that way they will have to pay taxes. Ought to make Republicans tickled pink I should think <smile>

Amen. Heavier taxes on the well off, even a income "cap" for the top 1%, nothing unreasonable, the rich can be allowed a whole lot, just cut it off at some point. So at the very least, they are compelled to spend the money at least within their own business (wage increases, goods purchases, ya know- the stuff that HELPS the economy), and if not fork over the excess to the government.

[puts on flame proof vest]

---

#resist

It should be upsetting that businesses choose to pay poorly and then have their(most likely others) tax dollars spent supporting their employees. Point the finger at Welfare-mart whose employees get to pick up food stamps on top of a very low paying job. Yet, welfare-mart could easily pay for its employees health care and give substantial raises and still make billions. But whats billions when you can make trillions

Another amen. This is a great example of one of the most inherent problems with the current system.

The government pays vast amounts of money that ultimately only benefits the business owners'. Instead they should be forcing the businesses to pay employees better- Hence saving tax dollars and reducing government overhead in the end.

But that's just too simple and drastic to grasp I guess. But then again the politicians are in these people's pockets and that's why it wont happen, and why the system is screwed.
These people are robbing our system dry, and effectively robbing us and our children in the process.

---

#resist

Oxymoron alert -- legislative process 15 pages.

No, I think the solution is to reduce the current 72,536 page US tax code down to 10 pages.
(15 pages max, after it goes through the legistative process.)

I see -- but have you watched Congress 'legislate'?

I guess playing politics is more important than an actual fix. Fiddling while USA is burning. I thought we had got past that.

A Judge in the case of a law being Constitutional or not is only to look to the Constitution to see if it fits or not.

A Politician is to read the law and find consensus from them who put him/her in office in the first place.

There is no authority in the United States of Americas Constituiton for Health Care. They will rule 5 to 4 on the single payer system, when in fact they should rule 9 to 0 on the issue. Regardless of party the issue is the Constitutionality of the law.

A single payer system can be used within a state. I wouldn't if I was you.

When we borrow over 40 cents on the dollar, Id say stop. When each child is born with 10s of thousands of dollars of debt on their heads, Id say stop. Id say the government is making slaves [debt slaves] of our children.

A Politician should know the difference between Feds rights and states rights. Then again--we do elect Politicians, not Statesman.

I see we have another old school libertarian joining the discussion.

state run healthcare in most states, is FAR superior to what you and I get from our private suppliers (if you need it, it's covered, that simple, period). If I get ill and land in the hospital, I'm responsible for 1000$ PLUS 25% of the bill, up to 15,000$, and I pay sixty dollars a week for that "insurance". (It's so worthless, I only have it because I'm required to by law, it would be cheaper and more worthwhile to pay full price for state insurance, but I am not allowed to by law because I have that awesome private insurance available. Great freaking system...)

And there is a whole lot going on in this country and world that is not mandated by our constitution.
I'd argue that massive reform is needed in order to ENSURE "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

---

#resist

So, now we hear that, in part of the videos filmed during the waste of our $800,000 in taxpayer money, that Obama's Clean Energy Plan is mocked. That would make the money wasters, what ... ? Clearly, they can't be fiscal conservatives, can they? ;)

It makes them government employees, the ones who are in the know about the efficiencies of building bureaucracies.

Let's cut to the chase. This is a great example regarding what may be the fundamental source of political disagreements.
The debate is over whether a collective can make rational decisions in the interest of all more often/netter, or whether an individual can act rationally, making good decisions for himself or herself, while not harming others.
I'm sure federal employees include both those that vote Republican and those that vote Democrat.
Clearly, the GSA spending scandal is an example of a group not being able to make rational decisions.
But it also an example of individuals not being able to make rational decisions, either.
Those of the Democratic persuasion that work at the GSA, we should think, would not have allowed such things to happen/continue, because it goes against their implicit or explicit belief in collective rationality. So, on an individual level, their choices were also not rational.
Those of the Republican persuasion that work at the GSA (particularly those that believe themselves to be fiscal conservatives), we should think, would not have allowed such things to happen/continue, because of the waste of money. By allowing this to happen, continue, and taking part in it, their choices indicate a willingness to act against their beliefs. Their choices were not rational.
I think we should view this as a blow to the beliefs of both the left and the right: neither individuals or collectives can act rationally 100% of the time.

Ah, so you support the suggestion of Rachel Maddow regarding our approach to warmaking and how to fix it.

ARTICLE 15. Universal military service is law. Military service is an honorable duty of the citizens.

I see we have another old school libertarian joining the discussion.

If Old School libertarian as in the intent of the Constitution then yes. More exact I belong to the Constitution Party of Illinois.

state run healthcare in most states, is FAR superior to what you and I get from our private suppliers (if you need it, it's covered, that simple, period). If I get ill and land in the hospital, I'm responsible for 1000$ PLUS 25% of the bill, up to 15,000$, and I pay sixty dollars a week for that "insurance". (It's so worthless, I only have it because I'm required to by law, it would be cheaper and more worthwhile to pay full price for state insurance, but I am not allowed to by law because I have that awesome private insurance available. Great freaking system...)

And there is a whole lot going on in this country and world that is not mandated by our constitution.
I'd argue that massive reform is needed in order to ENSURE "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

elastic clause 
noun
a statement in the U.S. constitution (Article I, Section 8) granting Congress the power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated list of powers.

We can grow an airforce with it. Float a navy with it. Neither of which can be a standing army, part time is allowed [militia]. But try as I may I have not seen the right to health care or the words health care in our Constitution. I have looked.

I have argued against abortion with the words you have posted. How can we ensure liberty and the pursuit of happiness if we take the life before the child has even drawn it's first breath?

I have argued against abortion with the words you have posted. How can we ensure liberty and the pursuit of happiness if we take the life before the child has even drawn it's first breath?

That's a whole 'nother argument for other day (and one I'm not touching with a 30 ft pole). And it really comes down to ones definition of "life".

But try as I may I have not seen the right to health care or the words health care in our Constitution.

And you don't see that as a problem?... In this day and age over 200 years after that document was written (in a time before mass healthcare insurance mind you!), and in a time when the majority of the industrialized nations have seen the need and taken on guaranteed healthcare systems, you don't see the need for a change? But, we see which side each of us are are on...

Anyways back to what sarge was saying.

I think rationality is easily overcome by laziness [sloth, greed etc.]. So much so that in a job setting when given an opportunity a certain percentage of people regardless of political standpoint and values, will always opt to take advantage. And perhaps that is the very human weakness that mirrors closely the weakness in our system.

---

#resist