home

Tax Day Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Economy
Posted on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:25:00 AM EST
Tags: marijuana reform, taxes (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Re-legalize it now!
Tax marijuana today! Control it tomorrow!
Re-legalize it!
Pot prohibition's failed!
Let's tax and control it!
Pay down the US deficit!
Tax and control marijuana!
Please tax me!
Hey US Treasury! Make my day, TAX ME!

What are your thoughts on April 15, taxes and how they are collected and spent?

< Consumer Prices Drop In March | Lessons From The Panic Of 1825? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tax Day Thread | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What is your authority (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Bemused on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:35:41 AM EST
     for the assertion the 16th was never rartified?

    Link

     8\ The Sixteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress on July 12,
    1909, when it passed the House, 44 Cong. Rec. (61st Cong., 1st Sess.)
    4390, 4440, 4441, having previously passed the Senate on July 5. Id.,
    4121. It appears officially in 36 Stat. 184. Ratification was completed
    on February 3, 1913, when the legislature of the thirty-sixth State
    (Delaware, Wyoming, or New Mexico) approved the amendment, there being
    then 48 States in the Union. On February 25, 1913, Secretary of State
    Knox certified that this amendment had become a part of the
    Constitution. 37 Stat. 1785.
            The several state legislatures ratified the Sixteenth Amendment
    on the following dates: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8,
    1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910;
    Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8,
    1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19,
    1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington,
    January 26, 1911; Montana, January 27, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911;
    California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota,
    February 1, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February
    11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911;
    Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Kansas, March 2,
    1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April
    7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected the amendment
    at the session begun January 9, 1911); Wisconsin, May 16, 1911; New
    York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 3, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912;
    Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; Delaware,
    February 3, 1913; Wyoming, February 3, 1913; New Mexico, February 3,
    1913; New Jersey, February 4, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913;
    Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having
    rejected the amendment on March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected
    (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.

      As for paying taxes, my only problem is that I am taxed at the same marginal rate (and pay the same absolute amount of FICA and MC)  as people who make 10, 20 or even hundreds of times more money. I believe we should have a more progressive tax structure

    Ari Fleischer has been making the (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Slado on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:39:01 AM EST
    case for a fairer tax system.

    Like him I believe rich people should pay more but I also think it's ridiculous that many in this country pay little if no income taxes at the same time they are paying a non progressive share of taxes in terms of Medicaid, Social Security etc...   This is weird.  

    Also the tax code is too complicated and has too many loopholes that encourage fraud and hiding money from the government.   Special intrests be they corporate or private use lobbiests to create these loopholes and once they are created they are hard to undue.  A simpler fairer system would lead to more revenue for the government with less pain on the economy.   However any system that lets half the country (whether rich or poor) pay no income tax simply isn't fair.

    Interesting idea.

    Parent

    Fleisher (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:00:52 AM EST
    didn't mention that the Top 10% also make a far, far greater share of income (more than they pay in taxes)- given that its hard to take him seriously.

    Parent
    please, for the tax system to be fair.... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:35:49 AM EST
    ...someone making a million a year would need to pay at about a 90% rate to even approach the genuine physical effect the tax system has on people who make less.  And if you make so little you don't pay federal income tax, Slado, I don't think this is someone you want to hold up and somehow living the high life or getting away with something.  You go live on that income, or lack thereof, get sick, have an emergency, whatever, then get back to me.

    Parent
    Jeez, I just read that tripe (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:47:10 AM EST
    Fleischer doesn't have a  plan we haven't heard before from the usual suspects.

    He launches another idiotic rant, another round of whining about the terrible burdens on the enslaved super rich.  Ari Fleischer makes the worst kind of `Lucky Ducky' claims about those free loading working poor.  His argument amounts to: tax them poor folk more so that us rich folk pay less. He whined about the Bush tax code that inserted a 10% rate but failed to say that the rate applies only to the first $6,000 (try living on that) and given we have a progressive tax that also amounted to a cut for everyone, even the super rich. He said nothing about the ridiculous dividend income scam in the Bush tax code that cut taxes for the idle rich.

    With Fleischer it's one deceptive statement after another, a reprise of his stint as press secretary.

    He rattled on and on about deficits and dodges the fact that tax revenues would have been higher without the Bush cuts, deficits would have been lower or non-existent and that lowered revenue brought about cuts in many social programs and regulatory enforcement activity, reducing food inspections, mine safety inspections, etc.

    I wonder if Ari wants a new Bentley or has his eye on another vacation home, courtesy of lower paid people who actually work for a living.


    Parent

    Whenever I hear (none / 0) (#19)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:36:09 AM EST
    people snort that the Federal Income Tax structure is TOO complicated I get suspicious.

    In a bygone era the tax system was more complicated for most people.  However, those added 'complications' benefitted most people.  

    There were devices like income averaging that made taxation far more fair for people whose income tended to fluctuate from year to year, for young people getting their first 'grown up' jobs, etc.

    There were deductions for all state sales tax paid as well as ALL interest paid on ANY kind of loan.

    Those 'complications' were very helpful for most people; for the 'little folk.'

    It was a simplification drive that eliminated these deductions.  Deductions used by ordinary people.

    The simplification ideas I hear are always intended to cut taxes for the rich and leave everyone else with a larger share of the burden or in the decrease in government services and/or support.

    It's also amazing what some people regard as simplification.  It so often turns out to be a flat tax scam or other device that allows the super rich to duck their responsibilities as citizens.

    Parent

    Wow, easy overaction (none / 0) (#46)
    by Slado on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 02:20:23 PM EST
    If you actually read my point I would like Ari remove Social Sercurity and Medicaid taxes and replace them with a real income tax that would be progressive.

    Those taxes are not progressive.  Rich people don't pay their "fair" shar by your definition with nothing to say for local, state and other federal taxes that have nothing to do with your income but instead punish economic growth or just your very existence.

    Did I really read that rich people should pay 90% of their income in taxes?

    Did I really read that?

    Parent

    It worked for Eisenhower. n/t (none / 0) (#54)
    by reslez on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:08:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Circle of life (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:02:02 AM EST
    I have what I like to call a holistic view of taxes. A great deal of my income in my life has come from defense spending, which of course is directly funded by taxes, and the airline industry, which also benefits. So I look at the taxes I pay as eventually coming back to me anyway.

    Many occupations benefit either directly or indirectly from federal funding, so think of it that way as you pay your taxes and it will make you feel better.

    yup (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CST on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:18:25 AM EST
    and it's not just your job either.  Although the gov't pays for a lot of mine too.  I also ride the subway, drive, go to parks, went to public school, etc... etc...

    I definitely feel like I'm getting my money's worth.


    Parent

    Gotta disgree... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:26:26 AM EST
    I don't see where I'm getting a little over 4 grands worth of service from the feds (strictly the feds)...I see a bunch of services I don't want and don't we feel we need or can afford...foreign occupations, drug war, corporate welfare...not much actual service of value.  I'm sure there is much I don't see, but not 4 large worth...no way.  And that's not even factoring in all the other forms of federal taxation we don't see as easily, like corporate taxes passed onto us as consumers.

    500 bucks worth, maybe a grands worth...not over 4k CST.  

    Parent

    More feel good stuff (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 01:25:14 PM EST
    (with some exceptions of course), you breathe clean air, drink clean water, drive on interstate highways, have prescription drugs regulated for safety, food is inspected for safety...

    You pay to help people who suffer from natural disasters - even if the government falls down on the job.

    You pay for national parks and the Smithsonian, so people from all over the world can come and visit us and enjoy these treasures (and spend money here).

    You pay for the NEA and support the arts.

    Parent

    You're feeding the starving (none / 0) (#26)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:29:31 AM EST
    in a lot of countries.  Fed revenues go to more than war.  If it makes you feel better, figure that others are paying for guns, while your $4,000 is all going for foreign aid of the good sort that we also do.

    Parent
    Makes me feel a little better... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:34:16 AM EST
    I neglected to think of foreign aid...TY Cream.

    But why can't we just keep the good and drop the obvious bad news from the budget?  Is it because we constantly elect crooks and cronyists?

    Parent

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:43:32 AM EST
    At least, some elect them.  I'm feeling pretty good about where my vote went this time -- and where I refrained from voting rather than endorse crooks and cronyists, even if only by default because they were bound to win.

    It helps to be freed, at long last, of voting by party -- voting for someone just because they're in a party, even when they don't endorse the party platform.  But as a libertarian, you knew that.

    Parent

    Oh, also think of some of your taxes (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:45:06 AM EST
    going to federal student financial aid.  I can tell you that it is making a big difference in many fine young students' lives -- and they will pay back that investment, if we can just create jobs again for them to pay income tax for decades to come.

    Parent
    Another good one... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:47:52 AM EST
    its just so hard to see past the one that I stare down everyday...chains on people over plants....that's the real infuriator...that and the aggressive wars.

    Far too few good reasons...far far too few.

    Parent

    Well, that's far from few (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 11:18:21 AM EST
    mouths fed or students educated.  Millions in both cases.  Millions.

    But if you're in a glass-half-empty mood, there 'tis.

    Parent

    The prison population... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 11:59:44 AM EST
    is a whole lotta empty Cream...maybe I'm just a kill-joy, but there's a lotta empty to pass through to get to the water.

    Its like fulling the glass to the brim is out of the question...the old "thats the way it is" and throw up your hands.

    I don't wanna believe that.

    Parent

    I know, kdog -- (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:45:41 PM EST
    I'm in the state with the highest percentage of our African American population imprisoned.  It's a disgrace.  That's what the longest-term governor in the country's history, a Repub, accomplished -- while slashing the state university budgets, now to be slashed again even more (and by a Dem).  The so-called "progressive" state that spent more on building prisons than on buildings schools.

    We've got a lot out of whack in a lot of ways.  But I'll keep fighting for reallocation of our taxes while I keep paying them, hoping that the bucks that fund the good things help to buck the trend.

    Parent

    kdog, You Wrote (none / 0) (#40)
    by daring grace on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 11:26:22 AM EST
    But why can't we just keep the good and drop the obvious bad news from the budget?

    Somewhere someone else on this tax day is moaning something similar:

    "Why o why can't my taxes just go to the 'good stuff' like missiles and military defense and putting away those drug dealers and forget about all that stupid, bleeding heart feeding the rest of the world!"

    To each his/her own...

    Parent

    I hear you too grace... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 12:00:41 PM EST
    but they're wrong!...:)

    Parent
    But, Of Course... (none / 0) (#45)
    by daring grace on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    I thought that goes without saying...

    BTW, Bon voyage on your cruise. Glad you seem to be sailing in pirate free waters. (But, hey, you never know. Especially if you rake in the winnings.)

    Parent

    Thanks.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    4 working days and counting!!!

    Need to unplug from the rat race for a spell.

    Parent

    Will there be a... (none / 0) (#49)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 02:45:30 PM EST
    ...twitter feed or live blogging or at least a postcard with a pretty PR stamp on it telling us the weather is fine and that you wish we were there?  

    Parent
    Absolutely not.... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:25:29 PM EST
    no twitter, no blogs, no electronics except maybe a computerized slot machine.

    But of course I will wish you all were there with me!

    Parent

    Just checking. (none / 0) (#56)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:56:56 PM EST
    I'd hate for you to have your International Order of Luddites membership revoked.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:41:13 AM EST
    They also represent a decent chunk of my paycheck, and I'd be lying if I said that doesn't help with the "money's worth" aspect.

    But I also use Creamcity's advice and pretend that my money is just going toward the stuff I like and the other programs are funded by people who like that stuff.

    Parent

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    But it is pretending, gets kinda old.

    And who do you pretend funds the stuff nobody likes?

    Parent

    what's the stuff (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 11:04:35 AM EST
    nobody likes?

    there are plenty of people who like the things I am opposed too.

    I see it not so much pretending as looking on the bright side.  I am funding the things that I need, use, and like.  I also do see the need for some military and police spending.  Obviously there are a lot of things I disagree with, those things don't make up the majority of my tax dollars anyway.

    Parent

    The bottom line (none / 0) (#37)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 11:11:53 AM EST
    is that we live in a democracy (sort of) and one side will win and the other side will lose.  

    Where the public money goes, how it's spent, is determined by the side that wins.

    Parent

    You said it... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 11:55:33 AM EST
    "sort of"...I see two-sides of the same crooked coin and regular people, for the most part, out in the cold.

    Parent
    Right there with you, ruffian.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:38:03 AM EST
    for the past six or seven years, I can thank the taxpayer for my living as a government contractor.

    Parent
    A bad year meant higher taxes (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    for us in 2008. It's ironic, but my breast cancer led to both less income and more non-deductible out of pocket expenses last year. We made less but spent more -- less of our earnings could be reinvested in our business and retirement and more had to be spent on my care and various expenses associated with my illness -- and therefore declared and taxed as income. My illness also curtailed business travel and new product development -- along with both the income and deductible expenses that arise from those activities. Less income and more expenses meant less savings and less money available for tax deductable contributions to our retirement account. So even though last year was the first year since we've been in business that we saw a drop in sales (in the last quarter) while also experiencing big increases in shipping, transportation and materials costs, we ended up with a tax bill 3x higher than the year before.

    One of the things I think is rarely addressed in discussions of health care is the fact that serious illness both increases ones expenses at the same time it compromises one's earning ability. For that reason alone, employment based health insurance has never made sense to me. I was lucky as I was going through chemo and its various side effects to be my own boss -- in control of my own work schedule, in a business that earned enough to cover those expenses not covered by health insurance, and with dedicated employees who stepped up and picked up the slack for me. My heart ached for the people I saw in treatment who still had to drag themselves off to their jobs afterward in order to keep paying the bills and paying for the insurance to pay for it all. And who must have worried about how they could pay for it all if their illness cost them their job.

    In that context, higher taxes is getting off easy.

    by and large, (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 02:36:46 AM EST
    we have the single most successful voluntary tax reporting system in the world. i know, it isn't really voluntary if a gun is being held to your head, but that isn't literally so.

    as well, collections is pretty darn efficient too.

    how they're used is, of course, a matter of debate, it can always be improved.

    i'm afraid our government has so demonized pot and other drugs, they'll have a tough time explaining their sudden turn around, especially to those in jail because of their policies.

    that it's created exactly the same kind of organized crime activity as alcohol prohibition did, with exactly the same results (only some of the names have changed), seems to just go right over their heads.

    better to continue shelling out billions supporting the failed enforcement industry.

    Malcolm X (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:11:32 AM EST
    pointed out that the Government can make us like or hate things.
    It changes from day to day.  Nowadays we can see that we are told whom to hate, whom to fear, whom to love, and that these places change according to the whims of our government. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan... one day bad, one day our buddy.

    They also control how we see things. Bald, for example, is now a fashion statement instead of a curse. Men wearing earrings is seen as masculine.

    They will have no trouble turning around our conception of pot, should they so choose.

    You refer to the era of prohibition - from which nothing seems to have been learned. People were arrested, imprisoned and even shot over the consumption of beer. Now, the New York Times features columns on people's favorite cocktail recipes on the front page.
    The martini glass - with an olive with a toothpick in it - is the symbol of elegance and joie de vivre.

    If the tide continues, we will see, hopefully, the emergence of the equivalence of liquor stores that sell pot. Controlled in quality and taxed. It would be nice if there were elegant pot bars as well. And people would be glad to see the police in their neighborhood instead of perceiving them as the enemy.

    Parent

    So sorry (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 11:23:51 AM EST
    that you're going through that terribly difficult process. I pray that the process will restore your health.

    My wife was one of those who had breast cancer and went back to work after every treatment.

    That was twelve years ago and the good news is that she beat it.

    I hope you have the same success.  It can be beaten.

    Parent

    Taxes (none / 0) (#2)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:52:14 AM EST
    The 16th Amendment, which allowed Congress to collect income taxes, was never ratified.

    On what legal grounds does the Federal government tax us?

    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:19:37 AM EST
    The Wesley Snipes argument.  As he found out, just believing it doesn't make it so.

    Parent
    Taxes... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:57:14 AM EST
    too high with too few justifications for their height(the fed should be able to run on 50 bucks a head per year approx., in peacetime at least), they are taken from instead of paid by wage earners, and spent to enrich the connected instead of enriching the nation as a whole...in a nutshell, we're not being served, we're getting served.

    This calls for The Beatles!

    So, why aren't you at a tea party (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:14:49 AM EST
    somewhere?  :-)

    When you get a minute, I would really like to see a break-out of the US budget based on an annual assessment of $50 per head.  How many heads would equal a corporation?

    Oh, and people who don't earn wages also pay taxes - dividends and interest and capital gains are all taxable.  

    I don't disagree that where the money comes from and how it is spent both need some serious adjustment, but I don't think it's as simple as you and many others would like it to be.

    Do you think participating in Social Security and Medicare should be optional?  Those are taxes we pay, as well, and when I hear people complaining about the non-voluntary nature of taxes, I think that is exactly what the entitlement reformers like to hear.  The "it's your money and you should be able to make better decisions about spending it than the government" argument is exactly the one the conservatives use to advocate against any and all social programs - and if they get their way...well, it wouldn't be pretty.  They don't give a rat's a$$ that Average Joe and Jane have couple extra bucks in their pockets - extra bucks that will never buy Joe and Jane health care, or help support them when they are too old to work - the "reformers" can already pay for their health care and their retirements, so it's all about just having more for them, and the heck with everyone else.

    Do I "like" paying taxes?  Do I want to pay more?  Well, that might depend on what I get out of it.  I'd pay more to have a single-payer health care system in this country, for sure.  

    In the meantime, I don't want to live in a country where, if I don't have serious money, I have no access to much of anything; taxes are for many people the only thing that even puts them on the field with everyone else, and ensures that they have access to somewhat basic services.  That field may not be as level as we would like it, but at least we're on it.

    Parent

    First... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:33:28 AM EST
    I'm just talking income tax, S.S. and Medicare are seperate and don't really bother me because, in theory at least, that goes to the sick, the disabled, and the old...that's righteous.

    My quick knuckleheaded 50 bucks a head federal budget....50 x 306 million = 15.3 billion.

    5 billion national defense...which means no offense, just defense.

    5 billion standards enforcement....FDA, OSHA, etc.

    5 billion administrative costs/pet projects/miscellaneous.

    Everything else is the responsibility of the states and state taxes....they do the day to day important stuff anyway...picking up the garbage, police and fire, local water authorities, etc.

    I'm flexible, you can double those and make it 100 a head:)

    No tea-parties for me...right-wing ten minutes hate ain't my bag...I just dodge when and where I can, thats my protest:)

    Parent

    Love the 'Tax Me' poster. (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:53:12 AM EST
    Wish I could bring one to a tea party protest.

    I don't know ruffian... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:58:10 AM EST
    I haven't gone to one of the tea-parties because I don't think the crowd is too big on prohibition repeal...they're piker freedom advocates afraid to take the liberty train to the last stop, imo.

    You'd be liable to get chased off with that sign, better to wait for a 4/20 protest, or the annual NYC Pot Parade in May.

    Parent

    I'd like to go... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:17:11 AM EST
    ...with a sign that defines what teabagging really is, just for the grins and giggles.  

    Parent
    I can see the Fox News ticker now.... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:35:09 AM EST
    "Dope-fiend sexual deviants infiltrate tax day protests tonight on Hannity"

    Parent
    No, no - you forgot the most (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:37:23 AM EST
    important part:

    Dope-fiend sexual deviants, believed to be spies planted by the Obama administration, infiltrate tax day protests tonight on Hannity.

    Because you know that's where they would go with that...

    Parent

    Let me put on my tinfoil.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:46:12 AM EST
    ya know, I wouldn't put it past the Obama admin...Cointelpro right-wing troublemaker edition.

    Nixon and the CIA did it to the anti-war crew, who is to say Obama and the CIA wouldn't pull a page out of the old playbook?

    Hey Mile...you ain't moonlighting for the spooks are ya?...:)

    Parent

    Not that I'm aware of. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    Although they could be controlling me through the fillings in my teeth.  Or, Gawd knows what they could have put inside me when I've been under for surgery.  

    It is pretty amusing that the rightwingers are now all up in arms that the government might be keeping an eye on them.  

    As we were told over and over and over for the last eight years--if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.  

    Parent

    What I should have done... (none / 0) (#22)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:47:51 AM EST
    ...is gotten a bag of buttons that say "Proud to be a Teabagger" on them and passed them out to the self-involved and unaware.  

     

    Parent

    Perfect description (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:03:38 AM EST
    piker freedom advocates afraid to take the liberty train to the last stop

    I'll add that to the poster in my imaginary visit to the tea party!

    Parent

    April 15th (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:25:51 AM EST
    thoughts this year are fairly simple. With all the hullabaloo concerning tea parties and tea bagging my thoughts go in two directions for those attending these Fox News soirees: Upper crust having tea or Samantha Jones.

    For those few Republicans attending their tea parties in support of a failed GOP, I suggest the wealthy arrogant Republicans in attendance extend their pinkie finger while the poor clueless Republicans in attendance breathe through their nose.

    For me, I'll just eagerly await the first pitch of the Marlins game at 7PM ET.

    This type of criticism (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Slado on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 02:30:09 PM EST
    of tea parties is eerily similar to the criticism by the right of war protesters just 3 or 4 years ago.  Myself included I'm sad to admit.

    Amazing how hypocrisy knows no bounds. :-)

    Parent

    I did find it humorous (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    that today's tea bagging protest against the government in DC was stymied because the organizers failed to get the required permits for their protests at Lafayette Square and at the Treasury Building.

    "Protest Against The Government Stymied Due To Failure To Follow Government Guidelines"

    That headline just cracks me up.

    Parent

    "Fury Made the Difference in (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 02:58:42 PM EST
    Spector Trial."  Headline this morning in LAT.  Recently changed to "Harmonious Jury Made the Difference in Spector Trial."  

    Now that makes sense.

    Parent

    Oops. "Jury" not "Fury"! (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 02:59:08 PM EST


    Parent
    It is more humerous... (none / 0) (#53)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:03:42 PM EST
    ...with the Furries involved.  

    Parent
    Refund from the Feds paid the State ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 01:12:12 AM EST
    ... and the accountant, with a tad bit left over.  I stuck it in my mattress.  No, really I left it at the bank.  No sweat.

    Tax Day Thread | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment