|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Why would they send Holder? What does the the AG have to do with international talks? He was in Paris for a security summit, so I guess it was more of a "swing by if you get a chance" thing. Also, it would befit a perspective on terrorism that views it as a criminal act.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Holder was in Paris on unrelated business. I guess you could argue Obama should have gone, but the proper way for this to happen would be for Kerry to go, as America isn't directly involved in European affairs, so Obama himself going would presumably be out of place. Unfortunately Kerry was attending Mohdi's birthday in India, and couldn't be there
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
It seems to me like this is the reason we have ambassadors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It seems to me like this is the reason we have ambassadors. No, we have ambassadors to generate a cottage industry in kickin' rad holiday cards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Yes, they had a Senate over-ride for a while. Are you going to say they still have control because Obama can veto bills for the next two years? What the gently caress are you even going on about here? It's a tax bill, which constitutionally has to start in the House. They lost the House 4 years ago. Even if the Senate had taken another bill and hollowed it out to start the process and sent it to the House it wouldn't even have gone to the floor there. You claim they just lost the legislature, which is patently false and I called you on it. Now you are claiming I'm the one who said they had control when they didn't? Are you drunk this early or just being aggressively dumb because you repeated a line that was already knocked about and don't want to admit you were wrong and didn't read? Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Actually it was all a ploy to get The One out in the open. Win win for the GOP if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:What the gently caress are you even going on about here? It's a tax bill, which constitutionally has to start in the House. They lost the House 4 years ago. You claim they just lost it, which is patently false and I called you on it. Now you are claiming I'm the one who said they had control when they didn't? Fun fact: the Senate can pick up virtually any bill passed by the House - to rename a post office, whatever - and turn it into an appropriations bill, because it will still have originated in the House.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Fun fact: the Senate can pick up virtually any bill passed by the House - to rename a post office, whatever - and turn it into an appropriations bill, because it will still have originated in the House. The CRomnibus, for instance, was originally a bill proposed by the US Virgin Islands non-voting delegation to create an energy task force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Fun fact: the Senate can pick up virtually any bill passed by the House - to rename a post office, whatever - and turn it into an appropriations bill, because it will still have originated in the House. Yeah, edited that in while you were posting that. Though this practice (which has been going on for hundreds of years) is currently under legal challenge in the courts as yet another way to attack things the Dems passed between 08-10 (namely the ACA)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Fun fact: the Senate can pick up virtually any bill passed by the House - to rename a post office, whatever - and turn it into an appropriations bill, because it will still have originated in the House. The ultimate obstructionist House tactic - don't pass anything so there's nothing the Senate can hollow out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Yeah, wasn't trying to play gotcha I just absolutely love that procedural quirk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Quick question about the Democractic tax proposal (basically Making Work Pay tax credit on high octane). I know little about taxes. Will it mean that Americans can expect a larger tax return check if they owe less than they have already payed? This is a stupid question, but this seems almost like direct payments to low and middle income wage earners, and that sounds almost too good to be true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Quick question about the Democractic tax proposal (basically Making Work Pay tax credit on high octane). I know little about taxes. Will it mean that Americans can expect a larger tax return check if they owe less than they have already payed? This is a stupid question, but this seems almost like direct payments to low and middle income wage earners, and that sounds almost too good to be true. Yes. Most of these types of tax credits are "refundable", meaning you get a check from the government if it's more than you paid in taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Wasn't there some talk about revoking that mortgage interest deduction a couple/few years back which sparked a lot of "I'm just an average guy in a $400k house and I need that deduction to make ends meet" type of abloobloo poo poo? Tax wonks have been noting for years that it doesn't actually do much for home ownership rates while being a massive expenditure mostly benefiting high income households, so phasing it out, turning it into a credit, or otherwise tweaking it is usually a part of any honest proposal to rework the tax code. You might be thinking of all 2010 budget proposals and reports. I don't remember talk about it in the 2012 election. More recently, the then-chair of the ways and means committee, Dave Camp, put together the Republican tax reform proposal for 2014, which would've pulled the cap back from 1 mil to 500k in mortgage debt, among other things. quote:"This is the beginning of the conversation," House Speaker John Boehner told reporters. When asked about the tax increases in the draft, he dismissed the question, answering, "Blah, blah, blah, blah."
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Here it is, the most worthless Hot Take of all time: In conclusion, the GOP is a party of contrasts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
He will quickly cash that $89,000.00 consulting fee check.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Here it is, the most worthless Hot Take of all time: #tcot #civilizingforces
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
So the big news on facebook has been that nobody on America's team went to the Charlie Hebdo unity march. Any truth to this, since it is Fox News? EDIT: Sorry, it was a thing I woke up to and it was a blindly emotional post. My Face When fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
My Face When posted:So the big news on facebook has been that nobody on America's team went to the Charlie Hebdo unity march. Any truth to this, since it is Fox News? Click the "page back" button
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
My Face When posted:So the big news on facebook has been that nobody on America's team went to the Charlie Hebdo unity march. Any truth to this, since it is Fox News? I've read here that there was a US ambassador but no, nobody noteworthy in the Obama administration was there. The Press Secretary has already admitted that was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:I've read here that there was a US ambassador but no, nobody noteworthy in the Obama administration was there. The Press Secretary has already admitted that was a mistake. And as we know, US ambassadors are basically nobody important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:56
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:And as we know, US ambassadors are basically nobody important. In American internal politics? Yes, they are.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Here it is, the most worthless Hot Take of all time: Things are more moderner than before. It's computers. SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:In American internal politics? Yes, they are. In fact, I bet if something happened to one there wouldn't be seven investigations and years of hysterical news coverage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Here it is, the most worthless Hot Take of all time: The GOP presidential campaign begins each cycle in Iowa, whose main export is corn (which the Indians call "maize").
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:03
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:In fact, I bet if something happened to one there wouldn't be seven investigations and years of hysterical news coverage. I bet that before the attacks, less than 1% of Americans could have named any ambassador, and that more than half couldn't identify Stevens by name today.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Wasn't there some talk about revoking that mortgage interest deduction a couple/few years back which sparked a lot of "I'm just an average guy in a $400k house and I need that deduction to make ends meet" type of abloobloo poo poo? Or am I confusing it with the usual abloobloo poo poo where the case is made that a family earning $375k yearly spends so much money on Rich people also weren't fans of the idea but industry opposition and the ability of the absurd numbers of Association of But now would be an amazing time to phase it out. Loans these days are at such low rates that the deduction (which remember is only on the interest of the loan) isn't anywhere near as valuable as it used to be. Having a gradual phase where the deduction drops by 1% each month over 100 months or something with the deduction locked in for the term of the loan would be a pretty pain free way to do it for the average homeowner and buyer. Downsides would be the refinance market would take a hit and people might be slightly less likely to sell given they would lose their deduction and the banks and realtors, respectively, hate those possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah I don't know either. Presumably they talked about it and decided against it, I wonder how the political calculus balanced to come up with that decision. He's currently in India. Had a car accident. Probably just couldn't get there in time. ... I gotta refresh faster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:The GOP presidential campaign begins each cycle in Iowa, whose main export is corn (which the Indians call "maize"). Coincidentally Iowa is also the head of the man on the US Map. It is joined by Louisiana, Missouri, Minnesota, and Arkansas. Some even say that Tennessee and Kentucky make up a tray of fried chicken that the man is carrying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I bet that before the attacks, less than 1% of Americans could have named any ambassador, and that more than half couldn't identify Stevens by name today. I honestly don't have a clue who your talking about, so I guess I agree
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:I honestly don't have a clue who your talking about, so I guess I agree  BENGHAZI! is what he's talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:I honestly don't have a clue who your talking about, so I guess I agree Have we already forgotten 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:I honestly don't have a clue who your talking about, so I guess I agree talking about when Obama got Hillary Clinton to lead his muslim terrorist buddies in an attack on an embassy in BENGHAZI
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If this had anything to do with the deduction for dependents you might have a point. I mean, you still wouldn't for reasons that have to do with how the brackets are set up for married couples. But it would be closer to having a point. The quote clearly states that only one person can take "the credit" for child care. IRS posted:Review/Change | Start Over | ITA Home Can you be more specific as to which tax credit you are talking about? Is there a separate credit, which "enables the filer to work", to the credit the IRS is referring to in the above?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Quote of the day, "Is he the cat from the Friskies commercials? I thought he died…" ~ Dan Backer, founder of the Stop Hillary PAC, upon learning that not a single person has donated to Dick Morris' Just Say No to Hillary PAC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Quick tax tidbit for you non-Americans (or confused Americans) out there. There are two main types of tax benefits - credits and deductions. I'll go over two of the most important ones for middle-class Americans. TAX CREDITS You have an account with the IRS. Even if the IRS doesn't know how much money you'll owe for the tax year yet, most people pay into their account either by having their employer send the IRS money withheld from their pay OR by sending the IRS some money ahead of time in the form of Estimated Payments. Eventually the IRS finds out how much you should owe. The credits to your account are matched against what you owe. If you paid more in than you owe for that year, you get a refund. If you owe more than you paid in, you have to send the IRS the difference. Let's say you are claiming a ten-year-old child as your dependent and you are a single parent. You earn $100k a year, you lucky dog. For the tax year you owe $15,200 in income taxes, and you've paid in $15k already. You put your kid in day care so that you could work, so you can claim the Child Care Tax Credit. It works like this: if you claim 1 kid you can get a credit of up to $600* on child care expenses. You fill out the form when you do your taxes, so it's as though you paid in $15,600, so you'll get a refund of $400. *You get more than $600 per child if your combined household income is less than $45k TAX DEDUCTIONS The amount you owe in federal income taxes is calculated based on your income. For a single person with no dependents this is roughly 20% total, the exact number depends on a number of different factors. A deduction reduces your taxable income. That is to say, when you have a deduction, the IRS says "We know you made X, but for the purpose of calculating what you owe, we'll pretend you made (X - deduction)." Let's say you are claiming a dependent child on your return and you are a single parent. As a benefit, your employer offers a dependent care account, a type of flexible spending account. You can put up to $5k into the account to spend on child care and however much you put in will be deducted from your taxable wages. You earn $100k per year as in the previous example. Because your taxable wages are now $95k, you owe only $14,000 in income taxes. The big difference? To take advantage of the credit, you first have to file. You essentially get the advantage of the deduction right away. By the way, you might have noticed that a $600 credit per child is kind of bullshit. The credit has not increased in like 20 years. EDIT: to answer the above question, no there is not a separate tax credit. The child care tax credit can only be used by one person per child. It can only be used by single parents who work or study full time OR families in which both parents work full time or are full-time students. (In other words, you must pay for child care in order to work/study.) Just to show you how hilarious IRSs documentation is, here's a picture of my "cheat binder" related to the credit:  Just a simple flow chart! (I work for a boutique accounting firm that specializes in domestic servant stuff, so I'm not some crazy person who carries this chart around.) Xibanya fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Obama is going to deliver a series of speeches this week to preview plans in the State of the Union around improving the government's and private sector's cybersecurity. Can't wait to see CISPA or an equally lovely law get passed using fear like when the PATRIOT Act got passed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There's no good way to tax a married couple as a single unit with a progressive tax scheme that does not disadvantage someone in some way. It's way more difficult to set tax policy for married couples than people think and you always wind up with edge cases where it seems to penalize the couple. Part of implementing a flat tax would demand that we get rid of marriage as a legal construct, which will also end the gay/straight debate  Evil Fluffy posted:Can't wait to see CISPA or an equally lovely law get passed using fear like when the PATRIOT Act got passed. All part of the script - you don't know who was flying those planes and you definitely don't know who took over a couple social media accounts 
Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:The quote clearly states that only one person can take "the credit" for child care. That's the credit, which requires that the care be provided such that it enables a return to work for one or both claiming parents. You can easily structure that credit so both parents in an unmarried couple cap it in many circumstances (e.g., two children, child and dependent adult, etc.). For a single child I can't think of a way off the top of my head but there might be one. Like most tax things, it depends on how you allocate and file everything. Since it's irritating to try and make everything perfect, we have generally provided increased deductions and credits to married-filing-jointly couples to account for the fact that they're only entitled to take one deduction/credit where unmarried single filers can take two. Sometimes it doesn't make sense in a given situation (one child) but does in another (multiple children, child and dependent adult) and mostly Congress provides the doubled deduction because it seems fairer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
In other news, "Katrina moment" has officially lost all meaning: Edit: By the way, if Obama DID show up, it would have been denounced by the same people as a shameless photo-op, which it basically was. Rhesus Pieces fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 22:00
|
|