Gov't Shutdown Closes National Wildlife Refuges

I don't want to wade into the debate of who should pay more and who should pay less. Both sides of this argument have very valid points. However, I always warn my clients to be careful what they wish for when they advocate for this idea that everyone should pay their tax as correlated with their percentage of the income pie.

As illustrated in the attached file Taxpaying Couple 2 (which is where most of America is) would see their federal income taxes just about double. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but it would be tough for me and my family to swallow doubling up on our federal income taxes so that #6 can have his taxes cut by 13%.

This chart is based on 2012 income tax rates for joint filers. Taxpayers 1-5 have taxable incomes right smack dab in the middle of their income tax bracket, and Taxpayer 6 is a figure that approximates NHY's 43% of the income pie.
 

Attachments

  • Doc1.pdf
    165.2 KB · Views: 69
Just as soon as you show me that it's not a statistical anomoly and that there is actually rampant abuse of WIC, then I'll get behind meaningful reform that doesn't just gut the program (which is all the House has offered in terms of "compromise")

GE, like all corporations spreading cash around the Hill, knows that Gov't can be bought. They're no different than any other large corporate donor. It doesn't matter who's in charge, the money buys them all.

Do women having children out of wedlock that they know they cannot provide for count as an abuse in your book?
 
GE, like all corporations spreading cash around the Hill, knows that Gov't can be bought. They're no different than any other large corporate donor. It doesn't matter who's in charge, the money buys them all.

Now, now Ben, you're starting to sound like one of those crazy teabaggers! :D
 
Now you're making an argument for funding Planned Parenthood. Good for you.

I'm all about letting liberals kill their own offspring on their own dime, no public funding. Depopulation is a good thing in that regards. Now answer my original question please.
 
I'm all about letting liberals kill their own offspring on their own dime, no public funding. Depopulation is a good thing in that regards. Now answer my original question please.

PP cannot, by law and by Executive Order, use public funds for abortion.

You tell me how your politics line up with Matthew 25 and then let's talk about how punishing a kid with no public assistance is a viable political platform.
 
PP cannot, by law and by Executive Order, use public funds for abortion.

You tell me how your politics line up with Matthew 25 and then let's talk about how punishing a kid with no public assistance is a viable political platform.

Don't really have any energy to debate the stupidity of either side but I do have a question about aligning my politics with Matthew 25?

Do I align with the parable of the 10 virgins, the parable of the bags of gold or in separating the goats from the sheep? I don't get what Matthew 25 has to do with punishing kids either?

So back on to topic.

Nemont
 
Don't really have any energy to debate the stupidity of either side but I do have a question about aligning my politics with Matthew 25?

Do I align with the parable of the 10 virgins, the parable of the bags of gold or in separating the goats from the sheep? I don't get what Matthew 25 has to do with punishing kids either?

So back on to topic.

Nemont

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
 
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

There it is right there. Even Jesus doesn't want the lib's!
 
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Mk. 10:25)
 
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
-Albert Einstein
 
I have a draw hunt on an Army ammunition plant here in Oklahoma the middle of November. I wonder how this will affect it.
 
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
-Albert Einstein

"I'm to drunk to taste this chicken" Col. Sanders

Colberjs - I'm not sure. I would imagine that you might be in luck, but I'd try and call the base to make sure one way or another. I haven't seen anything particular to military bases and hunting related to the shutdown, but contractors and other "nonessential" positions are on hold.
 
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

And how do you equate the "righteous", who I suspect were the ones directly paying for and taking care of the least of these, with the government being responsible for this?

I don't know that is a valid way to align my politics as it appears to me that in this passage it was the duty of the righteous and not the government.

Not saying you are wrong I am just trying to figure out how you make the leap from Mathew 25 to billion dollar government programs?

I pay more taxes than I want but I also leverage the tax code for every dollar allowed by the law.

I feel sorry for the the guys who cannot get a break and for the good hardworking people who are just not able to make ends meet. It was not that long ago I was working and finishing my degree with a wife and two kids at home, so I have been in those shoes as well.

Nemont
 
Last edited:
Advertisement

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,576
Messages
2,025,556
Members
36,237
Latest member
SCOOTER848
Back
Top