Re: Above reproach based on his race

Interesting. 18% of readers went to a tea party when .00001% of all Americans attended one. It explains why readers here had McCain winning by 18% in a 2oo8 pole at Fedsmith when he lost by 7%. LOL

Re: Above reproach based on his race

As usual, the GS-14 accountant has a smattering of information that is almost true but taken completely out of context and used to mislead and to reach an illogical conclusion.

In doing a quick search of this site, there was a poll that showed McCain being ahead of Obama by 15%--but it was not the one just before the election. The one he is probably referring to was before the party conventions--before the campaigns began in earnest and before either candidate had received a nomination. That is considerable different than "readers here had McCain winning by 18% in a 2oo8 pole (sic) at Fedsmith when he lost by 7%." The poll taken in October on the site showed McCain winning--but by 5% and not 18%--and undoubtedly the polls were shifting day by day. (http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1755/)

In fact, a poll of readers taken several weeks prior to that showed Obama ahead by 7% (http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1730/)

So, take his comments for what they are worth.

Re: Above reproach based on his race

I wonder what "pole" he was referring to? Likely not the one about GS14 grammarians...

"LOL" Is that still used by 60-something retirees that can't use English properly?

Re: Above reproach based on his race

Dissent is only patriotic when there is a Republican in the White House. Weren't we just hearing how wonderful it was that Barack Obama was bringing all of this excitement about the political process? Now when we have similar excitement that favors a more limited government (which the mainstream media opposes), we have nothing but insults hurled at the participants in these rallies. We've become a country that lacks any ability to engage in meaningful dialogue. Name-calling and bullying is what awaits for those who do not subscribe to the politically correct notions.

Re: Above reproach based on his race

retired GS14 accountant - why do so many of your posts contain misleading assertions and wrong information?

Re: Above reproach based on his race

14 retired why?? think the answer is obvious he's a left wing political hack and is desperate to justify his vote but its becoming more difficult every day

Re: Tea Party

I'll be the mega-rich are glad to have people like you to champion their cause.

A sucker is born every minute.

Yes, your taxes might go up. That's because we don't pay enough in taxes to cover even the big ticket items (defense, medicare/medicaid, education, farm subsidies). Much less pork-barrel spending.

But let's start by putting taxes on the rich back to reasonable levels like we had when this nation was most prosperous (under LBJ). Even Clinton did not tax the rich enough.

BTW - Adam Smith and many (if not most) of our founding fathers favored a progressive tax system.

Re: Tea Party

Dear Consultant,

You need to "consult" somebody 'cause evidently, you don't know. You write, "Yes, your taxes might go up. That's because we don't pay enough in taxes... " Are you serious? You must be one of the "mega-rich" you mentioned in your misguided post.

What's wrong with this country? IMO-
1. The government's too big.
2. People in elected government stay too long.
3. Even people with opinions like yours get to vote

Get a grip.

Re: Tea Party

This is to LRS USPS:
Consultant is right. Your taxes may or may not go up. Since no one except you knows your income, no one can say. If you are wealthy, your taxes will go up according to Obama. It is also true that your taxes went down the most under Bush. See the highest marginal tax rate cuts, dividend tax cuts, and other cuts. The middle class got smaller tax cuts and temporary cuts.
If you are middle class, you probably will not see any tax increases. You might even get a small cut. The wealthy will see their taxes increase.

Re: Confused

Manager DOT - well said, and don't forget we're also "right-wing EXTREMISTS" and (presumably) "rich." I'm curious to those who think all the Tea Party attendees are "rich" - just how do you define "rich," by the way? What I'd really like to know is when did it become a crime to work hard so as to become financially comfortable? Dems/liberals wear their "tax and spend" labels and defend their socialistic viewpoints to the point of making me sick! If the protesters at these Tea Parties shared their narrow point of view, they'd be praised as patriots!

Re: Confused

To manager DOT and Editor DOD,
Racisim is being against someone because of race, not because of economics. Forget the racist garbage. It is not there.
As far as the tea party issue, the wealthy have the most to gain by the tea party stuff. They are the ones who had relatively permanent tax cuts under George Bush.
These include larger bracket cuts and dividend tax cuts. The middle class got temprorary cuts such as exemption credit increase until child is 17, college credits while child is in college, etc.
Of course they run out in 2011.
Do not forget the estate tax. The wealthy call it the death tax to make it sound bad. However, you already have a $2,000,000 or more exemption. That is pretty large for a middle class person. The people affect by this are the wealthy.
The non wealthy tea party people are being used by the wealthy for their own purposes.

Re: Confused

"Racisim is being against someone because of race, not because of economics. Forget the racist garbage. It is not there."

Wrong.

We'll forget the racist garbage when Obama defenders stop playing the race card just for disagreeing with them. They're still playing it.

Re: tea parties

This movement was NOT for the benefit of the wealthy although they may directly benefit. It is an outcry of the failed policies, both Democrat & Republican that have driven this country to the brink of failure. Racist? BULL CRAP! The average citizen is fed up with the corporate greed and government bailouts which is coming out of our tax dollars. We do not want to support some lazy slob who wants nothing more than to feed at the government trough while contributing nothing to society. What we do want is fair taxes, good jobs, access to good reasonable cost medical care and a good education that will not bankrupt the average American Family. If I'm a racist for wanting that, then so be it.

Re: tea parties

Check out the US Constitution, if you were at all familiar with it you would realize that IT IS the "regular" citizens (that you mention in a negative sense) that are "supposed" to decide how this REPUBLIC is to operate, and what freedoms and liberties we have.

Re: COURSE CORRECTION NEEDED !!

It's true about earmarks. The Republicans make up 40% of Congress AND 40% of the earmarks in the bill. DO REPUBLICANS OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE? LOL

Re: COURSE CORRECTION NEEDED !!

So where were these patriots during the past 8 years, when the debt was being created? Clinton left office with a surplus. Bush and his gang used it up, and piled up a mountain more of debt. Now, types like you want to gripe when someone comes in and tries to clean up the mess. Could it be that you are one of the sore loser elephants?

Re: COURSE CORRECTION NEEDED !!

Accountant, Retired

The above comment was non-partisan, as were the Tea Parties. Your comment shows partisan bias by asking if the Republicans had any better alternatives. BOTH parties have been delinquent.

The answer to your question is stated above in a non-partisan affirmative manner--

NO more lack of transparency;

NO more deficit spending;

NO more (socialist) government intervention (than we already have); and

NO more corporate bailouts.

We may experience some short term pain to let the free market run its course, but the long term health of the nation is at stake and the free enterprise system is the foundation of our democratic society and will serve to balance out all these problems in the end better than what's been implemented already and under consideration.

Re: COURSE CORRECTION NEEDED !!

You are just an uninformed uneducated populist. Americans are always against deficit spending, no matter what. Most have never taken a macro economics course and the average American has a 100 IQ. In times of great economic stress deficit spending is necessary. We had a 6% decline in economic activity last quarter. Without deficit spending we could easily fall into a depression. We finally got out of the great depression when we spent 25% GDP for 4 years in 1941 through 1945 and we paid it off. Third parties usually fail.... at least since 1861.

Re: COURSE CORRECTION NEEDED !!

To Specialist, VA: No, Clinton did NOT leave office with a surplus. That is a myth:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Yes, the prior administration piled on the debt, but the current one is making it even worse by doubling and tripling the debt, and our children and grandchildren will be paying for it.

Re: COURSE CORRECTION NEEDED !!

I still find it amazing that these people did not come out during the previous administration

Re: COURSE CORRECTION NEEDED !!

I agree our politicians in DC are out of control. TWO THINGS that need to happen in order for "We The People" to Regain Control of our Federal Gocernment:

1) Our Presidents are limited to 8 years in office in their lifetime, the 535 members of the house and senate should be so limited as well!

2) The Internal Revenue Tax Code give Congress too much power. The IRS and Tax Code need to be repealed and replaced with a consumption tax such as the Fair Tax, check it out at www.fairtax.org

Unless the above happens, we will continue to head in our current direction, more debt, more government, more taxes, and LESS FREEDOMS!

Re: COURSE CORRECTION NEEDED !!

Lets see $3 Trillion is new debt in only 100 days more than Bush in 8 years . Yep its all the republicans fault

Re: COURSE CORRECTION NEEDED !!

To employee DOI

The Internal Revenue Code does not give Congress any power. An amendment to the Constitution gives the government the right to impose an income tax. The Internal Revenue Code imposes various taxes including an income tax. Regulations issued by the Comm issioner of the Internal Revenue Service interprets the internal Revenue Code. Case law by the Judiciary provides more interpretation based on the Code and Regs. There are other itens such as Rev Procs, and Rev Rulings, but it is not necessary to go there as it will muddy up the waters even more.
Tax law is based on a progressive system where the wealthy pay more because they can do so. The wealthy are trying to flatten the progressive system so they can pay less relative to the middle class.
Please do not impose a consumption tax. This is a regressive tax. The poor and middle class consume more relative to income and will pay more taxes, while the wealthy will end up paying less taxes.

Re: COURSE CORRECTION NEEDED !!

To worker FED- You don't know near as much as you think you do about our tax system! Congress-President do all kinds of social engineering and manipulation of the economy and how companies/individuals invest and spend. THAT gives them TOO MUCH power via the tax code. Interest paid (used to be all types of interest, now for most just real estate interest) is tax deductible, but interest earned (savings) is taxed. That's backwards, and results in our government encouraging debt and discouraging savings (via the tax code). Look where that has gotten us- trillions in debt, but many people haven't prepared (saved) for retirement, they'll be dependent on the Government! Also, you don't know what you're talking about pertaining to the Fair Tax (consumption) either, since it would not tax anyone's consumption up to the poverty level, through a monthly "prebate check", to address your very concerns. Check it out and get the facts before you discredit the Fair Tax. www.fairtax.org