April Fools?

[Sherman]

To all of you right wing cheerleaders that voted for W:

You have enslaved you children to debt and helped to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. You voted to get rid of tax and spend - how did that work out for you? My taxes didn't go down, did yours? 9 trillion national debt - worse than even Reagan.

You have helped to create the next great tyrant, and sacrificed our freedoms because you are afraid of the sand people, or you want your assault rifles, or you hate gays. Our best and brightest are sacrificed for the good of Exxon Mobile and the other oil giants. 3 tours of duty are now standard fare. Even Vietnam run by some of the greatest ******** of our country required only 1 year of overseas service. Your beloved leader is even boo'ed at a brand new stadium in our capitol on opening day - it is a tragic time in our history.

And you betrayed your children twice?

More Kool-Aid.

Remember the big lie?

Oh yeah and this is what your leader thinks of us.

I wish you were only April Fools, but you are November Fools.

Please, no more neo-cons - don't ever do this to us again. He may of broken the bank.

A true conservative would be OK, not overly religious please, but no more of these oily ******** ever ever.

Now we will have to clean up his ******* mess for years to come.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Yes this again. I thought I'd give you the picture you will be looking for in response. Wake up and smell the coffee your ****.

Iggy said it was OK today only.

Best Regards,

Bruce

 

[Fencer]

The Tax the Tax FoundationFoundation

2001 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1050

Washington, D.C. 20036

202.464.6200

February 19, 2008

Comparing Income Taxes under Bill Clinton and George Bush

by Alicia Hansen and Gerald Prante

Recently an incorrect comparison of income taxes under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been making the rounds of the internet, showing up in forwarded e-mails and on numerous blogs and message boards. (See examples here, here, here, and here.)

This message shows that income taxes under George Bush are lower than income taxes under Bill Clinton, and it relies on Tax Foundation data to make this comparison. The author used a Tax Foundation chart showing the federal individual income tax rates and brackets from 1913 to the present to calculate the income taxes paid by hypothetical married and single taxpayers at various income levels under 1999 tax law and 2008 tax law.

While the basic message of the comparison is correct (federal income taxes have indeed fallen under George Bush for groups at all points on the income spectrum), the chart created by the author of this comparison contains some mathematical errors. Furthermore, the comparisons are exaggerated by the fact that annual inflation adjustments in the tax code would have lowered tax bills in 2008 relative to 1999 under a constant nominal income amount.

The table below presents the correct amount of tax paid by each of the hypothetical taxpayers in the comparison. Note that this comparison does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the taxpayers in these examples take the standard deduction and do not have children.

(Click here if you're having trouble viewing the table.)

Individual Income Taxes Under Presidents Clinton and Bush, 1999 Law and 2008 Law

For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children

Taxpayer Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law

Single, income of 30,000 $3,157.50 $2,756.25

Single, income of 50,000 $7,262.50 $6,606.25

Married, income of $50,000 $5,085.00 $4,012.50

Married, income of $60,000 $6,585.00 $5,512.50

Single, income of $75,000 $14,262.50 $12,856.25

Married, income of $75,000 $9,426.50 $7,762.50

Single, income of $125,000* $29,378.50 $26,472.25

Married, income of $125,000* $23,426.50 $19,462.50

 

[Warchild]

Elect me... I don't have a fetus growing out of my neck like that Fundie guy!

 

[GalaxyBlue]

So, How do you really feel about Bush?

You have to be REALLY proud of the offerings for th Dems this year... <_<

Are you a teacher, By chance? You sound exactly like a good friend of mine!

 

[Sherman]

270 million Americans and this is all we get.

I am not too happy about what the Dems are offering either. I don't like royal families - Clinton or Bush.

Obama is too much of an unknown.

McCain is a real hero that should get the job, but he sold out to bush for the past 7 years. So I am not too happy there either.

I would choose Murtha, Dodd, Gephard, or Biden, over any of the current offering, but they don't have the sparkle that our people want. you'd think it was a ******* high school popularity contest.

Webb is in our future hopefully.

 

[Ignacio]

I'm kinda glad the countdown to April 2nd is little less than 9 hours away.

 

[exskibum]

Individual Income Taxes Under Presidents Clinton and Bush, 1999 Law and 2008 Law For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children

Taxpayer Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law

Single, income of 30,000 $3,157.50 $2,756.25

Single, income of 50,000 $7,262.50 $6,606.25

Married, income of $50,000 $5,085.00 $4,012.50

Married, income of $60,000 $6,585.00 $5,512.50

Single, income of $75,000 $14,262.50 $12,856.25

Married, income of $75,000 $9,426.50 $7,762.50

Single, income of $125,000* $29,378.50 $26,472.25

Married, income of $125,000* $23,426.50 $19,462.50

*SNORT*

Just another display of the power of manipulated statistics to lie -- in this case by hiding the inflationary "tax" of increasing the monetary supply to deficit finance that which we will not pay for up front via real taxes. Lyndon Johnson F'd us for a dozen years with his use of this spend-but-don't-increase-taxes deficit ploy, and W seems to have taken much of his economics education from LBJ's dismal economic failures, only to ramp them up on steroids.

As an example, calculate the difference of income minus taxes for each of those columns to get net income after taxes. Then index the 1999 net income after taxes against, let's say -- 1970 dollars, so that you have a 1999 column for net income after taxes expressed in 1970 dollars. Then construct the column for 2008 net income after taxes expressed in 1970 dollars. The two columns you'd get will provide a far more telling comparison re: tax policy as it affects the real effect on income of the working classes.

There are a lot more variables, but this at least addresses the basic oversight in the quoted statistics.

 

[twowheelnut]

Man, take fun stuff and **** it up. Sheesh. <_<

 

[Warchild]

See, this **** is funny 'cuz everyone knows it's April Fool's and to not really take this crap seriously.

When you actually try to be serious and want to try to talk political horsecock, it's not funny anymore; it's tedious, boring, and divisive.

And don't even for a second think that all future April Fool's Days will be a green light to talk politics. This AFD theme was a play off of ST.N's recent punting of their Politics forum, is all.

Last year, Looney Tunes characters.... this year, poking fun at PO forums.... next year, something altogether different.

 

[Sherman]

The Tax the Tax FoundationFoundation2001 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1050

Washington, D.C. 20036

202.464.6200

February 19, 2008

Comparing Income Taxes under Bill Clinton and George Bush

by Alicia Hansen and Gerald Prante

Recently an incorrect comparison of income taxes under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been making the rounds of the internet, showing up in forwarded e-mails and on numerous blogs and message boards. (See examples here, here, here, and here.)

This message shows that income taxes under George Bush are lower than income taxes under Bill Clinton, and it relies on Tax Foundation data to make this comparison. The author used a Tax Foundation chart showing the federal individual income tax rates and brackets from 1913 to the present to calculate the income taxes paid by hypothetical married and single taxpayers at various income levels under 1999 tax law and 2008 tax law.

While the basic message of the comparison is correct (federal income taxes have indeed fallen under George Bush for groups at all points on the income spectrum), the chart created by the author of this comparison contains some mathematical errors. Furthermore, the comparisons are exaggerated by the fact that annual inflation adjustments in the tax code would have lowered tax bills in 2008 relative to 1999 under a constant nominal income amount.

The table below presents the correct amount of tax paid by each of the hypothetical taxpayers in the comparison. Note that this comparison does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the taxpayers in these examples take the standard deduction and do not have children.

(Click here if you're having trouble viewing the table.)

Individual Income Taxes Under Presidents Clinton and Bush, 1999 Law and 2008 Law

For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children

Taxpayer Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law

Single, income of 30,000 $3,157.50 $2,756.25

Single, income of 50,000 $7,262.50 $6,606.25

Married, income of $50,000 $5,085.00 $4,012.50

Married, income of $60,000 $6,585.00 $5,512.50

Single, income of $75,000 $14,262.50 $12,856.25

Married, income of $75,000 $9,426.50 $7,762.50

Single, income of $125,000* $29,378.50 $26,472.25

Married, income of $125,000* $23,426.50 $19,462.50

"I believe" that my local taxes went up in amounts that more than covered these savings.

"I believe" that they have shifted the tax burden to local taxing authorities.

We are not funding our infrastructure (think Minnesota bridge) to the necessary levels. If the Gopers do not believe in taxes they should stay off of the roads and listen to Ron Paul.

Regardless, we now have a national debt exceeding 9 trillion that we will leave our children, or they can collapse the dollar to wipe it out along with our pensions and savings.

 

[GunMD]

And don't even for a second think that all future April Fool's Days will be a green light to talk politics.

WHAT? Then phuck it! I'm outta here. I don't need this collection of 'tards anyway.

:****:

 

[exskibum]

Last year, Looney Tunes characters.... this year, poking fun at PO forums.... next year, something altogether different.

Next year -- all NWS all day!?!?!

Hehehe -- yeah!!!! :yahoo: :yahoo:

Besides, that's really more fitting to the condition. C'mon mods -- you got all this pent up political ejaculate from 365 days (well, actually -- 366 days this year) of political subjugation. It's really just the equivalent of crawling over FJR topics to find a corner to masturbate in. (Notice how I fit "FJR" into the discussion?)

 

[Ignacio]

Last year, Looney Tunes characters.... this year, poking fun at PO forums.... next year, something altogether different.

Gunny.

You can bet the folks that didn't check in today are going to feel like they've missed the equivalent of a solar eclipse, winning lotto ticket, and party at Hef's mansion all rolled into one.

Have fun, but it would be prudent to remember we all gotta live in this forum tomorrow.

 

[Warchild]

Last year, Looney Tunes characters.... this year, poking fun at PO forums.... next year, something altogether different.

Next year -- all NWS all day!?!?!

Hehehe -- yeah!!!! :yahoo: :yahoo:

Hmmmmm..... has merit!

 

[UFO]

I'm kinda glad the countdown to April 2nd is little less than 9 hours away.

:lol:

 

[exskibum]

You can bet the folks that didn't check in today are going to feel like they've missed the equivalent of a solar eclipse, winning lotto ticket, and party at Hef's mansion all rolled into one.
Have fun, but it would be prudent to remember we all gotta live in this forum tomorrow.

Now, THAT is some funny **** to imagine. And you're gonna stomp on their warn meters when they try to jump in, right? :clapping:

May I suggest that you prepare some canned warnings to send out en masse to the predictable rules offenders in the next few days? h34r:

 

[twowheelnut]

Oh, you just gotta leave the Dungeon and lock it for at least a few days!

 

[Ignacio]

May I suggest that you prepare some canned warnings to send out en masse to the predictable rules offenders in the next few days? h34r:

I already planned an exit strategy...like a good politician. This particular thread area will be moved to Jokes and Fun Stuff with a slight title tweak...and set to read only for our historical viewing pleasure.

I also made careful notes to return all the stuff I've changed back to the way it was....like a three-handled moss-covered family credenza. Even TWN's post count will be returned to what it was..plus what he's posted today..which will be suspiciously close to a real 10,000.......post whore.

Shouldn't be a problem.

 

[TriggerT]

Is there a "None of the above" box we can check on the ballot?