Early Morning:: "Going To the CPA", Happy Tax Day

This is to bring a little levity to those of you filling out income tax forms or extension requests today. Get them postmarked by midnight.

Here's an open thread, where you can rant about taxes or anything else.

< Drug Czar Goes to Congress, Describes Some Shift in War on Drugs | Obama Nominates Walsh for Colorado U.S. Attorney >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    NASA funding... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 07:51:22 AM EST
    the hardcore wingers are making me laugh...for 2 years they wail "stop spending, stop spending"...Obama cuts NASA spending and they wail "we need NASA, Obama hates science".

    Ya can't make this sh*t up...I say don't stop at NASA, start shredding the DEA, CIA, FBI, DOD, NSA, ICE, ATF, and many more acronym budgets...before ya know it we might be able to see the black in the distance.

    The issue isn't spending (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:04:05 AM EST
    but what we should be spending on.

    There are many rat holes to be stopped up before we shut down NASA...

    NPR, Endowment for the Arts, etc., etc.


    A drop in the ocean ... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:06:52 AM EST
    ... when compared to the one-half+ of our discretionary budget on the military.  NPR gets 1-2% of its budget from the federal government- @ 1 million dollars, plus contributions from its member stations, which receive about 15% of their budgets from the CPB, some of which is used to pay membership fees to NPR.  These fees totalled $65 Million in 2007, 15% of which is @ $10 Million, of which only an undefined fraction is federal (CPB) money.

    The NEA (which gets @ $150 Million), which Reagan tried to abolish in the early 80's, survived when even his own task force (including Charlton Heston, Adolph Coors, etc.) concluded that the spending was justified by "the needs involved and benefits of past assistance".  

    Compare these to the ocean of federal military spending - $708 Billion to the Pentagon, @ $200 Billion for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, $94 Billion in non-DOD military spending, and @ $400 Billion in interest on prior military spending.  Altogether, about 10,000 times more than is being spent on NPR and the NE combined.

    It is about how much is being spent and what we can afford, and trying to balance the budget by cutting those "librul" programs is like trying to lighten a sinking ship by throwing matchsticks overboard, while ignoring the cargo containers full of lead right behind you.



    Maybe... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:09:52 AM EST
    across the board cuts is the fairest way...DEA getting a 1.9% bump is hard to understand.

    But thanks for pointing out it boils down to a question of what an individual, and society at large, value. I'd cut NASA before the pittance we fund the arts...but my acronyms above before NASA.  I sure as hell don't see the point of spending a ton to go back to the moon, at least right now...if we get the books in order we could reconsider.


    You do realize (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:15:24 AM EST
    That things like cell phone and GPS technology were discovered because of the space program, right?  As well as many advances in medicine, computers, cars, and TVs?

    I do... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    and do you realize we're supposedly broke right now?

    I'd expect lefties to be upset about the NASA cuts, that's no suprise...the small government righties objecting is pretty funny to me.  


    Yes, but this is different. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:38:47 AM EST
    small government needs to give way to big government in the case of basic research---but basic research whose direct and primary purpose is military or space (basic research on fruit flies, for example,  is subject to ridicule and the budget ax). Moreover, any collateral benefits from the military or space research that can be applied to commercial use (advances in medicine, computers, cars or TV's) offers an opportunity for cunningly disguised corporate welfare, and is much more acceptable than cost-efficient, direct funding that could lead to similar advances.  

    You nailed it... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:41:25 AM EST
    camouflage corporate welfare...well said K.D.

    Why fund the middle man? (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    let's fund medical and communications research directly then, instead of hoping some of the NASA spending will eventually result in something we want. I really hate that argument.

    Why stop at those wingnut (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:13:09 PM EST
    bogey men?

    What about the public school system; multi-cultural outreach programs; community organizations, like that Marxist-front ACORN; those treehugger sanctuaries known as "our National Parks" (which never turn a profit)..?  


    If we keep chaining the tikes... (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:33:39 PM EST
    and trumping up felony child pron cases against the teens, I might be down with shutting the public schools...safer on the streets.

    Why stop at those wingnut (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:14:00 PM EST
    bogey men?

    What about the public school system; multi-cultural outreach programs; community organizations, like that Marxist-front ACORN; those treehugger sanctuaries known as "our National Parks" (which never turn a profit)..?  


    Not tax day for all of us (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by itscookin on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:05:56 AM EST
    If you live or do business in Rhode Island or certain counties in Massachusetts, our filing deadline has been extended to May 11 due to the flooding we've experienced. And you don't have to prove you were affected to qualify for the extension.

    Just extends the agony (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:10:18 AM EST
    Since I became self-employed, the anticipation and enjoyment of spring has been practically canceled by the dread of grappling with the tax forms.

    I know what you mean, (none / 0) (#11)
    by itscookin on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:18:47 AM EST
    but I figure that the lines at the post office will be shorter tomorrow. I also wonder if it's really anyone's job to check the postmark on the envelopes before they're opened to make sure it's really before midnight on the 15th and not 6am on the 16th.

    Sh*t... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:31:00 AM EST
    I could postmark some envelopes for y'all April 15, and you can drop 'em in the box in six months with a check dated April 15.

    But I'm guessing that's illegal:)


    The Post Office would reject the envelopes (none / 0) (#26)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:08:54 AM EST
    They are not about to be accused of being that inept. Metered mail is actually watched quite carefully for date. Besides, postage will probably be up another couple of cents in 6 months.

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:13:08 AM EST
    I've held an invoice or two back 2-3 days after postmark by accident, I guess that's an acceptable time frame because the postal inspector never came knocking...or I got lucky.

    More than once, I've watched (none / 0) (#76)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:37:59 AM EST
    administratives sit and run new tapes with zero postage and the correct date because the post office returned the mail for being backdated. Mail to the IRS is probably watched. Ever notice the designated slots for mail drops at the PO - one is for regular mail, another for Metered.

    Never noticed... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:47:45 AM EST
    When I miss the letter carrier I just drop it in the box on the corner, not at the post office...nothing has ever come back, but the most I ever let a post dated envelope sit was 2-3 days tops.

    I don't know how... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:22:35 AM EST
    you self-employed cats do it, especially without shelling out for an accountant.

    I think there is no reason it should be so complicated...50 bucks a head:)


    It's known as (none / 0) (#14)
    by SOS on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:38:14 AM EST
    "slavery" . . having to to create something out of nothing . . then be responsible for keeping it going, etc, etc, while everyone else is out having a good time.

    Don't you mean theft? (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:40:50 AM EST
    as in taxation is theft, conscription is slavery.

    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:08:08 AM EST
    I went to the Post Office yesterday to drop off my taxes and it was bad enough then.  Godspeed to today's tax filers!

    File electronically (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Coral on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:15:09 AM EST
    It's easy!

    Talk about just desserts... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:38:51 AM EST
    Some high school officials try to make some inappropriate s*xting between students into a felony child pron case...now same officials might be charged with same felonies for viewing the material.  Link

    Instant Karma gonna get ya...

    sad update (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:41:40 AM EST
    Im sorry I have to write this.  I am sorry I have to tell you this at all but after last weekend I would feel dishonest not writing about it.
    Loudon Wainwright 3.5 died on wed morning early in the am.  I cant even verify the egg story because I never actually saw it.  that was second hand from a friend who called around noon to tell me that.
    when I got home at about 6:30 (that would be monday) it was obvious something was wrong.  he was swimming erratically as if he was having trouble keeping is balance.
    I called the fish expert and he said 'take the female out of the tank'.  which I did. I have a smaller one she could go in temporarily.
    but it was to late.  his condition deterioriated that night the next day and into the night and he finally died wed morning early.  it was not a quick or easy death.
    watching that magnificent creature die slowly after spending the previous amazing weekend with him was an experience I am unable to put into words.
    we dont yet know for sure why he died.  we may know more later.  for now John says he thinks it was simply the stress of being relocated to two new environments with a few weeks after being in one for his whole life and then the stress of mating.
    everyone else including Mary Jane seem fine.  altough she seems a little confused and sad.  but perhaps thats a projection of my own feelings.
    rip Loudon.  you will be missed.

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:54:30 AM EST
    It is hard losing the living things we love.

    thank you (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:58:47 AM EST
    it was absolutely awful. he would sort of float vertically in the tank for long periods barely breathing punctuated by brief violent periods of swimming aimlessly and banging into things. it was very very hard to watch.

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    It is crappy and humbling and helpless.  I do my best to be brave about the end of life.  I do my best to be as present as possible with my children and pain, saying goodbye to my grandparents and my dogs.....but it is the hardest thing.  And please God, let my kids outlive me because I'm way too much of a coward for that.

    Sorry for your loss (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:51:16 AM EST
    thank you (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:54:50 AM EST
    it may sound silly but it really effected me.

    It's not silly (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:59:09 AM EST
    I'm not much of an animal person, but I understand. I really am sorry.

    Awwww (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:03:13 AM EST
    Sorry to hear... Sad end to a beautiful love story... Tragic..

    Hope that MJ gets over it quickly..  At least the polypterus his girlfriend back..  silver lining?


    well (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:16:10 AM EST
    there is that.  he has been following her around and she has not chased him away.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#75)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:36:06 AM EST
    I also have a fish that I am extremely attached to - a 16 year old goldfish. He wags his tail and fins at me every time I walk by and everyone admires him - as is fitting. I never thought one could be so attached to a fish, and I was wrong. Yours sounds like he was an amazing beautiful creature with a wonderful name.

    is it a Koi? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:49:04 AM EST
    if so it could outlive you.  they live to be very old.

    No I've been told he is a (none / 0) (#84)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    regular goldfish. Sometimes they grow large (he's around 9" so far) and get very old. He's had a tumor under his chin for a couple of years which freaked me out at first, but it does not seem to bother him. Was yours a Koi? They are beautiful.

    nope (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    he was an arowana
    the one on the right for most of this video

    very handsome fish! (none / 0) (#147)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 06:43:20 PM EST
    And I see you have a plecostomus too. I have two who clean up after my monster goldfish who is a very dirty fish. I read up on arowana and they seem rather fascinating. I visited the aquarium in Vancouver BC several years ago which was great. Have lots of photos of fish in tanks along with reflections of onlooking humans.

    indeed (none / 0) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:33:00 AM EST
    he was

    Schedule M - for tax credit (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Coral on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:18:39 AM EST
    Here's a link.

    Individuals get $400, Families $800. If you don't have a tax person to fill out your forms, you might not realize you have this credit coming. A couple friends of mine found out they were due a refund rather than owing $.

    I didn't realize it... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:43:29 AM EST
    and the IRS went ahead and adjusted my return for me, adding 4 hundo...so just in case anybody else missed it, the IRS will probably adjust the amount for you.

    for some reason (none / 0) (#38)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:52:42 AM EST
    I didn't take you for the kind of guy to file his taxes well ahead of time!  :P

    If I owed money... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:54:44 AM EST
    I'd be doing it today...believe you me:)

    But since I was due a return I filed the day I got my W2 from my employer.


    I owed money (none / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:01:48 AM EST
    for the first time this year.  In part because no federal tax was taken out of my bonus, but still, had I not received that bonus I would've owed.  And I make only about 30k a year.  Weird...

    That is odd... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:19:17 AM EST
    did you change your withholding amount?  Assuming you're a fellow wage earner....

    So much for that right-wing talking point that broke d*cks like us pay no income taxes...we're living proof!


    I dunno (none / 0) (#46)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:31:01 AM EST
    I benefited from the Obama tax cut at the beginning of 2009.  That's the only change I could remember.

    That;'s one (none / 0) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:12:12 AM EST
    everyone needs to look for closely. It's an added line from last year, easily missed, and free money from the stimulus plan. Well done Coral.

    Don't mind the making work pay part (none / 0) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:35:56 AM EST
    of that tax credit. I am rather ticked that only government retirees get to claim a credit. The State  of MO also lets government workers have up to $33,700 of their pension tax free. The rest of us have to be almost at poverty level to get a $6,000 tax break on our pensions.

    For years, when my husband was a starving artist (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:59:20 AM EST
    he would pay our accountant in artwork. Now the accountant is a big wig in Seattle's largest accounting firm and we pay his firm, and the underlings he assigns to the task, to do the work. In terms of doing and filing our taxes, it always feels pretty painless.

    As a small business owner, I understand how depressing it can be to write those big checks. But as people who know what NOT making enough money to pay taxes really means, my husband and I actually feel grateful that we can do so.

    Our government is, and always has been, totally devoted to encouraging, subsidizing and sustaining business -- and that is reflected in the tax code. Anyone who claims otherwise is uninformed or has an unspoken agenda. This may sound unsympathetic, and, actually, it is; if you are a business that can't pay your federal taxes there is something wrong with how you do business, not with how the government taxes business.

    That's a great story (none / 0) (#72)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:30:03 AM EST
    lots of artists barter, and are supposed to pay dollar taxes on those barters. If anyone should know that it would be an accountant. Never stops artists and art lovers (including, apparently, accountants) trading work for work tho! Its a perk.

    And let me take a moment to complain about taxes for artists... Artists are always being hit up for donations of art to charitable auctions. In my small neck of the woods, the artists I know get seriously approached at least 6-10 times every year. If they donate and their work is auctioned for, say, $5000 which goes to that charity (sometimes artists get percentage) they cannot write that off as a charitable donation. All they can write off are material costs for that piece. If they give that work of art to a spouse or friend that person, however, can deduct the full amount as a charitable donation.


    Agree wholeheartedly about the unfairness of (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:02:44 PM EST
    artists only being able to write off the material costs for their work rather than the fair market value.

    Why does this seem unfair? (none / 0) (#127)
    by coast on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    No one/company who produces something gets to deduct more than their cost in the item.  IBM donates computers, they only get to deduct the cost of producing the computer.  They don't get to deduct the FMV of the computers.

    Well, there you go. (none / 0) (#130)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:59:22 PM EST
    Very logical. Now I don't think it's so unfair.

    They get to write off the (none / 0) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 07:46:26 AM EST
    cost of producing the computer. Even that is different than just the cost of the materials since it would include a value for labor.

    Once again, (none / 0) (#161)
    by coast on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 02:33:20 PM EST
    that is a cost to the company of producing the item.  No different from the materials used.  When a lawyer does work pro-bono, they do not get to deduct the value of their time.  To get a deduction, you have to have basis (cost) in the item.

    Never heard of such a thing (none / 0) (#91)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:34:27 PM EST
    If they give that work of art to a spouse or friend that person, however, can deduct the full amount as a charitable donation.

    Charitable donations must be made to organizations that are classified as a non-profit charity if anyone wants to take a deduction on their taxes for a donation. And, donating to a charity auction, is fair market value of the item donated. The person who buys it may not take a deduction for a donation because they actually received something for their money...unless they paid over the fair market value, then they can take the difference between FMV and what they actually paid.


    The person who actualy makes the donation (none / 0) (#95)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    is the artist, and they cannot deduct either fair market value or the actual auction amount which is the actual donation. (and these are to non-profit charities) Artists have been grumpy about this for years. If, however, I donate some valuable work of art in my collection then I get to deduct (not sure if it is fair market which is not always easy to determine, or actual price at the auction).

    Clarification (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:12:13 PM EST
    And then if the friend, Don't know about spouse, donates the work to a charity auction, the friend gets to deduct the full value of the work. Here are the rules.

    More here

    But if an artist donates a work that s/he can sell for $1mil all s/he can deduct if donated to a charity is the cost of materials.. stretcher, paint, etc..


    Ah, I empathize (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:45:45 PM EST
    as an author.  I could deduct books I bought to read to write mine, copies I made of primary sources in archives, etc. -- but wouldn't it have been interesting if I could have deducted the fair market value of a book?  I.e., $39.95 x press run.  That would have been great! :-)

    I wonder if your accountant (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:23:18 PM EST
    listed the artwork he received as income on his own taxe return?

    Don't know -- but, at the time, he wasn't making (none / 0) (#105)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    a lot more money than my husband. I doubt the work of a young, freelance illustrator just beginning his career added greatly to a young, budding accountant's taxable income or net worth.

    Why do people talk about taxes as if income and wealth were fixed things with "some" (as conservatives would have it, "productive") people being affluent and "some" (again, as conservatives would have it, "unproductive") people being poor. The truth is, disparities in income (and wealth), and differences in tax burden, are most explained by age.

    That's why a progressive tax system (that lets young earners who are building wealth defer their tax burden until their investments in work, education, assets, etc. have paid off) makes the most sense and is the most justifiable if you are concerned about "fairness," while a supposedly "fairer" "flat" tax is incredibly unfair to everyone except those who inherit their wealth (like its long-standing proponent, Mr. Forbes).


    Dunno, (none / 0) (#114)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    I've often commented here that income is not fixed, especially among higher earners.

    Case in point, me. I'm a business owner. 5 or 6 years ago when I first started posting on TL I was a high earner, last year I made less money than I did when when I was a senior in HS. Hopefully the economy will continue to turn around...


    And the great thing about a progressive tax (none / 0) (#135)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 03:39:01 PM EST
    is this; if you have a bad year and earn less, you'll pay less taxes too. If your business doesn't make any profit, you don't pay any income tax.

    The real problem for small business isn't the income tax. It is the self-employment and payroll taxes -- social security. If you hire more employees than your business can justify, you'll can end up in trouble with payroll taxes. And, even if you don't have any employees to worry about, the self-employment tax can be painful to come up with when you are first starting out (of course, below a certain level of earnings you won't have to pay the self-employment tax either, but it's not a level you'd like to have to live on.)


    Not sure what your point is here, (none / 0) (#137)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    are trying to make the case that our existing progressive tax system is good? Or that we don't have a progressive tax system, but we should?

    A genuinely progressive tax system would (none / 0) (#143)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    be better than what we have today, but what we have today is certainly better than the various schemes proposed by conservatives. The fact is that over the last 30 years of increasingly conservative tax policy we've made the system less and less progressive and therefore more and more of a burden for younger earners. Increases in payroll taxes -- that have NOT been used as advertised to secure future social security benefits -- have contributed to the problem.

    I was also responding to your comment that you earned less this year by pointing out that would mean a lesser income tax burden also -- the government doesn't ask you to pay boom time taxes on recession earnings. The real point of inflexibility is payroll taxes. The way to lessen your payroll tax burden is to lessen your payroll -- that is, lay off employees. But, it can be difficult to predict the right staffing levels in difficult times and businesses are naturally reluctant to let go of skilled workers. That why small businesses often get in trouble with their payroll taxes during hard times.

    When conservatives use small business as an excuse for their income tax reduction policies they are usually being dishonest. It's payroll taxes, not income taxes, that create the most problem for small business.


    So FIT policy has (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:34:51 AM EST
    nothing to with the nation's economy and the nation's economy has nothing to with a business's gross receipts...



    Just got back from the doctor (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    My asthma is greatly improved.  Having to use a nebulizer isn't off the table yet but things look good now and we will examine where I am again after the new HVAC with pureair is in and doing its thing.

    Of interest (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Kimberley on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:57:09 AM EST
    From the department of spot-on observations, Taegan Goddard turns in the quote of the day:

    Palin's Real Base
    Despite several high profile speeches in recent weeks, Sarah Palin seems to be much more influential with the media than she is with Republicans.

    You betcha!

    Dave Abel of The Boston Globe attends a teabagger rally to hang out with "real" Americans, excuse me, Koch Industries dupes:

    Tea party rally generates plenty of criticism, opposing views

    Early yesterday morning, Valerie and Rob Shirk corralled their 10 home-schooled children into their van for the 2 1/2-hour drive from their home in Connecticut to Boston, arriving just in time to hear Sarah Palin denounce government-run health care at the tea party movement rally on Boston Common.

    "The problem in this country is that too many people are looking for handouts,'' said Valerie Shirk, 43, of Prospect, Conn. "I agree with the signs that say, `Share my father's work ethic -- not his paycheck.' We have to do something about the whole welfare mentality in this country.''
    The couple, who rely on Medicaid for their health care, were also upset about the nation's new health reforms.

    When asked why her family used state-subsidized health care when she criticized people who take handouts, Valerie Shirk said she did not want to stop having children, and that her husband's income was not enough to cover the family with private insurance.

    Well, that's gratitude for you.

    A-holes (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    and sooooo typical, and they don't even have the common sense or the common decency to be ashamed of themselves when it comes to that practicing and preaching thing.

    Ten? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Kimberley on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:21:11 AM EST
    Seriously? Ten kids they can't pay for and then dedicated activism towards undercutting the very party and people that fight hard to keep their brood alive on top of it all?

    My jaw hit the floor.

    Does she imagine that she and her husband's gene pool is so valuable to humanity that American taxpayers ought to invest in it until her uterus falls out?

    Or do she and her husband think they're fascinating and "with it" enough to hold a birthed audience captive?

    What a pair of clowns.


    They're not even aware of it (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:26:04 AM EST
    I guarantee that, while these idiots are railing against "welfare" and "handouts" and "socialized" government spending, they completely rationalize their own use of these programs.  They're likely unaware of the myriad government progams from which they benefit.  "Keep your hands off my paycheck!", as long as you pay for health care for my family of 12.

    And these people are home schooling their kids?!?

    Uggghh ...


    New poll out (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:06:06 AM EST
    from NYT/CBS:

    Their responses are like the general public's in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as "fair." Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.

    The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites -- compared with 11 percent of the general public.

    They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

    Short poll:  The majority of tea party members are stupid racists.


    I'm no out of work social rocket scientist :) (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:09:04 AM EST
    But I suspected as much :)

    Well I was (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:12:30 AM EST
    soooooooooo shocked this morning!!  

    Just kidding.


    These are the George Wallace (none / 0) (#69)
    by brodie on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:23:37 AM EST
    voters of 68 and 72, the blue-collar low-income and low-education whites who gravitated away from the Dems when my party went all Civil Rights on them.

    I don't know how our side is supposed to reach these people; seems like an exercise in futility.  A few high-minded libs in the media  -- Paul Begala last night for instance -- insist we should be trying to cultivate this crowd, but how do you break through not only the breathtaking ignorance, but also the unthinking and probably very deep-seated racial bigotry?


    One idea... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:44:23 AM EST
    is to direct their ire at the bankers, everybody right/left/center hss had it with those welfare queens, except those on the finance sector welfare teet of course.

    But I hear ya...willfull ignorance and kick-the-dog are tough nuts to crack.


    They can't see bankers as a problem (none / 0) (#82)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    because bankers and banks make a lot of money. I'm guessing, also, that they are tough on some kinds of crime, but not so tough on domestic violence, abuse, or neglect. Drugs, DWNW (Driving While Non-White), belonging to a union, these are the "serious" crimes. Fraud, embezzlement, not so much. Those are difficult to understand.

    Good point... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    and they wanna steal..err, "make"...alotta money too one day.

    Bingo. (none / 0) (#107)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:51:11 PM EST
    Next question... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:54:01 PM EST
    what was their beef with Al Capone? Dude made tons of money.  It can't be the violence...they love that just as much as accumulating wealth.

    I was wondering (none / 0) (#110)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    ... he was from Chicago?

    I got it... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:08:50 PM EST
    Italian descent, dirty no good immigrant taking bootlegging work away from Americans.

    Explains why Pablo Escobar isn't a hero either...dirty foreigner.

    Neil Bush, now he is their type o' guy:)


    Actually (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:12:38 PM EST
    Capone was born and raised in NY

    Like that matters... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    he "looked" like an immigrant.

    They got him (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:10:36 PM EST
    On tax evasion. He made tons of money and didn't pay taxes on his illegal gains!

    Yep... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:18:29 PM EST
    good old tax evasion charges...the last refuge of prosecutorial scoundrels:)

    Hard to have sympathy (none / 0) (#122)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:30:54 PM EST
    He was, after all, responsible for dozens of murders that he either ordered or committed himself.  And the fact that he died of syphillis in prison is even better.

    Compared to some of our presidents... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:40:20 PM EST
    he had hands like Mr Clean...but I hear ya, I'm glad they repealed prohibition and hurt the gangster bottom line, if only we'd expand on that lesson learned....much more repealing to do!

    Well (none / 0) (#86)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:10:45 PM EST
    this quote is telling from the article:

    "That's a conundrum, isn't it?" asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. "I don't know what to say. Maybe I don't want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security." She added, "I didn't look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I've changed my mind."

    Uh, no sh*t Sherlock.  

    I wonder about your characterization of them as voters of '68 and '72 though.  For ex. this woman would've only been 22 in '68.  Did the Civil Rights movement really lose that many young people?


    Except that they aren't (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:39:49 PM EST
    Read the poll stuff in the Times.  These people are overwhelmingly well off.

    Scratch Wallace. (none / 0) (#121)
    by brodie on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:29:54 PM EST
    I must have either misremembered an earlier poll, or done some quick extrapolating from some of the confused lower-income and bigoted-sounding TPers interviewed lately.  

    Frankly, the actual poll numbers surprise me as to some of the demographics.  But not the overall level of weak public support for this "movement."


    That was my reaction, too (none / 0) (#140)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 04:14:27 PM EST
    But worth remembering that actual blue-collar workers don't have time to go swanning around the country attending rallies on weekdays, and generally too tired and too busy to go on weekends, either.  In my experience, the angry and disaffected ones are so demoralized and alienated, they don't participate all that much in the political/electoral system.

    Oh oh. Let's remember that Wallace (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:50:06 PM EST
    pulled 15% of the popular vote -- and even in his first run, he seriously screwed up some primaries.

    And in surprising places . . . well, surprising to some, perhaps, if they buy popular political mythologies.

    For example, in '64, in the first presidential primary, George Wallace came in second in Wisconsin.

    So if we really are seeing the parallel with the tea-partiers, the major parties have problems.  And I don't think it will be a problem for just one of the parties.


    Well, by early '72 Tricky (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by brodie on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:37:19 PM EST
    thought another Wallace 3d party candidacy would hurt him far more than the Dem.  He was probably right about that in that year, as compared with a more even mix of R and D Wallace voters in '68.

    But one of the latest polls on the TPers shows them to be overwhelmingly R-registered or R-voting in the past.  The D-voting TPers are only in the single-digits.

    Should there be a 3d party TPer in 2012, that person would almost certainly draw more from the Repub candidate than the Dem.  


    They're not fooling anybody. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Kimberley on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    I imagine these people are just recent editions of the same small percentage of destructive idiots that have held humanity back in 101 pursuits since time immemorial.

    This surprises me: (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 05:42:53 PM EST
    Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, . . .

    Why? (none / 0) (#146)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 05:53:21 PM EST
    They are rich white GOPers who have the morons go out and make fools of themselves while they are playing golf..

    There's a difference between an audience and a (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:18:59 AM EST
    constituency, or an electorate. The media is interested in drawing an audience -- and therefore are most interested in "politicians" (I would argue that Palin has ceased being one in favor of being a media celebrity) and "political" events in terms of the freak show audience they draw rather than the issues they represent and the votes they can actually garner (Palin can't even win a straw poll at conservative events). That's why a sex scandal will always take precedence in the media over almost anything else happening in the political world on any given day, and why a Palin will always get more attention than a serious politician who isn't doing anything more exciting than sticking around to finish their full term in office, promoting the general welfare, etc.

    Alice Cooper drew crowds in his day. That didn't mean he could ever be president.


    Upon traveling over (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:52:37 AM EST
    a mile of Interstate on their 2l/2 hour drive to Boston, they received more in benefits, given the cost to construct and maintain one mile of Interstate, than federal taxes they are likely to  pay in their lifetimes. The remainder of this road trip and all future road trips are on us.

    I think it is also mandated... (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:36:50 AM EST
    totally checked out mentally (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CST on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    today.  It's gorgeous outside, work is slowish, and I am leaving on a jetplane at 8pm.

    Also ticketmaster.com should be renamed crackformusicjunkies.com.  I went to check out one show and almost spent waaaay too much on tickets for like 5 other shows.  I keep repeating to myself "Lady Gaga is not worth it" "you don't even like her that much" "crowds are annoying".  So far so good.  Currently only caving on Erykah Badu and Wicked the musical.

    I saw wicked (none / 0) (#142)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    when the road show came to Boston about 5 years ago or so.  I enjoyed it thoroughly, though the music itself is really, really dreadfully bad.  But the dialogue and just the concept itself are great fun.

    Paid less taxes than last year... (none / 0) (#1)
    by magster on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 07:38:21 AM EST
    ... pleasant surprise.

    As did I (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:42:55 AM EST
    $327 less in tax even with a minimal increase in income. That gives me a free flight to my daughters graduation next month. Hate the budget deficit, but I'll take the free flight.

    Lucky! (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 07:46:44 AM EST
    I made less money last year but for the first time ever I had to pay taxes because I took a partial disbursement from an IRA.  I knew I was going to get hit, but thankfully, it was only a couple hundred bucks.

    Is what you mean that you have (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:02:06 AM EST
    previously over with held, thus giving the Feds an interest free loan?

    Yes (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:07:23 AM EST
    But frankly, the few extra dollars they take every week would not get invested anyways, but would rather probably be wasted, so I'd rather get a refund the next year.  In the past, I've used it to pay down a chunk of debt or splurged on something I normally wouldn't have bought.

    That is the bright side... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 07:48:02 AM EST
    of less income...less funding of our own demise.

    Texas Gov. Perry... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:00:12 AM EST
    thinks liberal activists might try to pull some CoIntelPro business at the tea parties.  Link

    If true, shame on the left-wingers...it was wrong when the government did it during the anti-war movement in the 60's-70's, and its just as wrong now.  Never cool to be an undercover narc instigating trouble, much cooler to be honest...hold the deceit.

    Oh, heavens (none / 0) (#9)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:11:53 AM EST
    both sides, all sides, have been doing this more or less forever.  Big yawn.

    Sure... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:18:24 AM EST
    deceit and dishonesty are as old as mankind...but it should always be called out as deceitful and dishonest behavior.

    Nobody likes a narc.


    They are being honest (none / 0) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:44:36 AM EST
    They are organinized groups with web-pages announcing to the world what they are doing in detail.  There is nothing undercover about it.

    C'mon... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:51:07 AM EST
    showing up at a tea-party pretending to be a teabagger with mispelled and racist anti-Obama signs isn't undercover, dishonest, and deceitful?  

    Is it not more righteous to counter-protest with a sign expressing what you actually believe in?


    Might be more interesting if they showed up (none / 0) (#45)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:25:03 AM EST
    bearing arms. I personally wonder what would happen to the open carry movement if the fellows bringing guns to political rallies, let's say one where Palin, Bachman or Pawlenty, etc., were scheduled to speak, and packing heat in coffee shops, weren't all lily white or exclusively protesting progressive policies and Democratic candidates and office holders.  

    Sh*t... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:31:44 AM EST
    with all those hot heads I wouldn't suggest counter-protestors matching the teabaggers pistol for pistol...too many "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" people in that crowd:)

    We know the answer to your question...we've already seen what happens when another protest group of a darker shade starts packing heat and getting loud...the Black Panthers.  They were not tolerated.


    Exactly. (your point about the Panthers) (none / 0) (#50)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:45:17 AM EST
    But shouldn't someone make this point obvious and try to inspire a little political and law enforcement embarassment about the hyposcrisy they are indulging in (by tolerating conservative intimidation)?  

    Just imagine if organizers for the now defunct Acorn had insisted on open carry. Or, if La Raza showed up armed at Tancredo's speaking engagements.

    But, having gone to the "crash the tea party" website, that has been mostly promoted by FOX, I'm having trouble taking it seriously. Intentionally or not, it is just a good excuse for conservatives to deny responsibility for the racist, idiots and nutcases among their "base."



    I think the hypocrisy.. (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:19:31 AM EST
    is plain as day...those that need it pointed out woouldn't get it even if you drew a diagram in crayon.

    Yet I support the right to bear arms...I think the tea party crew and the Panthers have the inalienable right to do it...I just ain't hanging around when they excercise it, guns give me the creeps.  

    I'm glad somebody is excercising it though...sure as hell don't want the authorities to be the only ones packing heat.


    You mean like (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:50:52 AM EST
    the 25 year old female fund raiser for the LA guv and her boyfriend in New Orleans??

    Broken leg, broken noses.....

    Yes sir, no violence in those Left Wing protests.


    Left? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:07:38 AM EST
    I hadn't seen any info they were 'lefties'... in fact I read a couple of conservative sites being clear to note that the rumor the victims were wearing Palin pins was false.

    Just a coincidence I am sure. (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:39:26 PM EST
    I am the photographer for the LA GOP and I was at the Brennan fundraiser. When I left about one hour or so after all 3 of the governors left the crowd of protesters had grown. The were very nasty, signs were vulgar using the "F" word. As I left the restaurant I was yelled at - there was a family visiting the restaurant with a baby stroller - they had nothing to do with the fundraiser and they were being heckled using the "F" and "MF" words.. A couple of them made comments to me.
    Thanks, Eric


    This was the crowd they walked into.


    Dirty, long-hair (none / 0) (#98)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    I see the item you link to is assuming 'lefties' with their description.  :)  

    MF is an insult of a Repub by a 'leftie'?


    Did you read? (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 04:16:07 PM EST
    there was a family visiting the restaurant with a baby stroller - they had nothing to do with the fundraiser and they were being heckled using the "F" and "MF" words.

    Of course it happened (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:47:48 PM EST
    EXACTLY that way..because Rethugs and chickenhawks, if anything, downplay the indignities and tribulations they're subjected to.. because they know the liberal-controlled-media will only ignore them anyway..

    Nobody every gets violent (none / 0) (#111)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:08:13 PM EST
    on Bourbon or Royal Street, and nobody EVER drinks there. It MUST be politically motivated.

    Well, perhaps by dislike of Palin, but that could as easily be motivated by her persona in public, couldn't it?


    Palin wasn't there (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 04:13:23 PM EST
    And did you even bother to look at the photos and the video?

    Video Link

    Look, violence happens. In this case two innocent people wandered into the middle of a demonstration against Jindal and got savagely beaten when they spoke back at some jackals who have to be in groups to attack.

    And if there had not been a political demonstration going on the attack would not have happened.


    I looked at the links and the video. (none / 0) (#144)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 04:40:11 PM EST
    If you read the supposed report, the attacks occured because they were wearing Palin buttons. I saw no violence in the video link you posted and I saw no sign that a "skinny, dirty white male" attacked them because of Palin buttons, as stated on the link you provided.

    There are plenty of skinny, dirty muggers in New Orleans who aren't political.


    If you watched the video then you are (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:02:39 AM EST
    aware that the demonstrators left the meeting location and went to Brennan's. (You can clearly hear the destination called out.) That was where the couple was attacked when they exited the restaurant and walked down the street.

    April 15, 2010, 9:38PM
    Yes, there is more to this story. A co-worker, who went to college with the boyfriend, was relating what he was told when he talked to him. It WAS political, as the attackers were recognized as protesters at the fund-raising event, and there were 5 attackers, not 3. The couple realized they were being stalked after being berated for their political affliations and support of Jindal. The bf told the gf to run for their car; 4 of the attackers lit into the bf, beating him to the point of concussion; and the last tracked down the gf. She broke her leg when he bashed her to the ground.


    The Democrats, Main Stream Media and the Left in general are creating a lot of Tea Party members by trying to deny what happened.


    New Orleans: (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:38:15 PM EST
    After having spent a year there, I can tell you that someone gets jacked up around the Quarters about every five minutes..

    But of course the only reason it could've happened was because some dirty hippie, with no available vets to spit on, attacked them when he saw those Palin buttons.


    Perry (none / 0) (#148)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:30:04 PM EST
    You think maybe the Texacutioner might be trying to preemptively spin things, against the advent of ACTUAL racist yahoos showing up at Teapartys?

    What are the odds?


    No doubt... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 06:34:32 AM EST
    if there is one CoIntelPro wannabe Perry would say there was a thousand infiltrators...all I'm saying is it is not a righteous tactic to achieve a political end.

    Tax Reform is needed (none / 0) (#36)
    by WS on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:49:59 AM EST
    The Tax Code has become way too cumbersome through the years since the 1986 major rewrite.  It's time to enact major tax reform on the level of the 1986 legislation.

    Ezra Klein mentioned Sen. Wyden and Sen. Gregg were working on just that but I'm still withholding judgment on their legislation:

    It's Time for Tax Reform by Ezra Klein

    The Wyden-Gregg plan takes the six income brackets currently on the books and compresses them into three (15 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent). It gets rid of the alternative minimum tax. It triples the standard deduction available to all taxpayers, which means that people don't need to spend as much time trying to itemize deductions and figuring out ways to game the system. It kills off the existing six corporate rates and eight corporate brackets, and replaces them with a flat corporate tax of 24 percent. And it reduces the task to a one-page form.

    Pros: Simplifies Code.  Triples Standard Deduction reducing need for Itemizing Deductions.    

    Cons: The 35% tax bracket would keep the top tax brackets at Bush levels and increase the bottom bracket to 15%.  Still not sure if a flat 24% corporate tax bracket is too low and if that will bring in enough revenue.  An AMT repeal should be offset by shareholder "fat cat" taxes.    

    Actually, the 15% bracket (none / 0) (#85)
    by coast on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:04:57 PM EST
    would not technically be increased since it is due to increase to that level when the Bush tax cuts sunset at the end of 2010.

    Interesting, (none / 0) (#88)
    by WS on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    didn't know that.  I thought though that the middle/working class tax cuts would stay while the top tax brackets would be sunsetted into the pre-Bush levels.  That's what the Dem candidates promised at least during the campaign.    

    They lied (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:32:07 AM EST
    All FIT rates will revert to the Clinton level.

    You may also lose the (up to) $1000 per child tax credit.

    Here's a useful site re taxes and brackets.


    Today marks Britain's first ever (none / 0) (#44)
    by brodie on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 10:23:25 AM EST
    PM-level televised debates.  Gordo Brown vs David Cameron vs Lib Dem Nick Clegg, 90 minutes.

    A guy at the Daily Beast says it has overtones of the Kennedy v Nixon debates, this time with the more conservative young and upbeat candidate in the Kennedy role and the more liberal older and dour dude playing Nixon.

    A couple of Obama advisers (one is Anita Dunn) are actually advising Cameron, while a couple of others have been trying to make Brown presentable.

    Should be interesting.  I'll be tuning in after polishing off the tax stuff.  Brits have always done other types of debates better than us -- Oxford Union, parliament, PM's Q&A.  We'll see about this one, and whether the organizers have allowed too many rules to get in the way.

    Taxes (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:05:28 AM EST
    The pinch of federal tax is bad enough but knowing that 53% goes to military funding really makes it tough to feel good about dropping that check in the mail..  

    If it eases the pain (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:22:50 AM EST
    just hope your military chunk goes to the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, or to Walter Reed. My military chunk paid to get Mr. MT back to Alabama.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:28:47 AM EST
    Too bad we cannot allocate where the money goes.. I know it would be near impossible to manage, but wingnuts can give toward Military and abstinence only programs, while those on the left can give to health care, environmental programs,  etc..

    Everyone would be happy.. oh but the wingnuts, who are responsible for the ever increasing military budget, do not want to pay any taxes.. forgot that part..


    On this day in history (none / 0) (#64)
    by brodie on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:17:38 AM EST
    1) 145 yrs ago, Abe Lincoln died from gunshot wounds inflicted by actor JW Booth.  Allegedly, this was a small conspiracy led by one Confed sympathizer out to avenge the South, but from my reading yrs ago the newer "follow the money" evidence found suggests a much larger conspiracy, with Booth probably as Confed spy, getting his marching orders from the gov't in Richmond in a plan that might have started out as a kidnapping scheme and triggered by the Confed gov't's reaction to the Union Dahlgren raid of 1864.  

    Interesting theory anyway, and does logically account for how Booth was able to dispose of so much money in his final months, well after he'd lost money in one business blunder and also had retired from acting.

    1.  Titanic goes down, 1912.

    2.  Jackie Robinson breaks color barrier in baseball, 1947.

    3.  Large antiwar protests in NYC and SF, 1967.

    My dad would have turned 85 today. (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    It's also the anniversary of my husband's mother's death, and the death of my aunt's first husband.

    Thinking about all of them today.


    October is like that for me (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    I know how you feel.

    Also on 15 April... (none / 0) (#78)
    by desertswine on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 11:44:44 AM EST
    Published on 15 April 1755 and written by Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language is among the most influential dictionaries in the history of the English language.

    Johnson took nearly nine years to complete the work he expected to be finished in three years. Remarkably, he did so single-handedly, with only clerical assistance to copy out the illustrative quotations that he had marked in books. Johnson wrote several revised editions during his life.

    And all this time, I thought that Baldrick had thrown it in the fire.


    Chewing Tobacco Ban (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    I think this is a good thing. Kids want to be just like their heros and start the habit early.
    Chew on this: Congress is putting pressure on baseball to ban major leaguers from using smokeless tobacco during games. Smoking tobacco while in uniform and in public view is already banned, and don't get Tigers manager Jim Leyland going on that one....

    The use of such products has been barred from the minors since 1993. But while baseball can impose such rules on minor leaguers without collectively bargaining them, just like it did rules on performance-enhancing drugs, it would need agreement from the union for this kind of ban on major leaguers



    Say it ain't so squeaky!... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:22:57 PM EST
    Of course MLB can make their own rules and all, and their precious anti-trust exemption opens them up to such congressional meddling...but I hope MLB doesn't heed this call.  I don't mind one bit if ballplayers dip or chew, they've got enough unnecessary restrictions on personal behavior.  Its bad enough poor Jimmy Leyland has to hit the clubhouse crapper to smoke a cig:)

    The anti-tobacco crusade is getting outta hand...the anti's have made their point, education is up, tobacco use amongst the youth is way down, enough already.

    Let them dip, let them dip!


    Heh... (none / 0) (#120)
    by desertswine on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    Honus Wagner, 1948 Leaf baseball card.

    Gasp! (none / 0) (#128)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:41:52 PM EST
    Think of the children d'wine!

    Suprised the chaw hasn't been airbrushed out by now.


    Well (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 03:08:10 PM EST
    I never understood the draw to tobacco products, and the chew seems disgusting to me.

    I prefer to use other drugs that are not tweaked to enhance corporate profits by upping the addictive properties of the drug,   while knowing that a high percentage are going to get some kind of nasty cancer.

    Personally I think that ball players that chew are walking billboards for big tobacco and will influence many young kids to get the habit. I see it as no different from the product placement in Hollywood by big tobacco, long since banned.

    Many smokers took it up to feel as cool as James Dean et al. courtesy of his corporate sponsor.


    as I write this. Redman is (was) my personal favorite, though I haven't touched in it many years. I chewed it for, oh, about 20 decades.

    I can still feel it's texture in my mouth, taste that sweet flavor...

    Ah well, I've given it up for good.

    Don't some/a lot of baseball players chew gum instead of tobaccy?


    er, 2 decades/20 years... (none / 0) (#134)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 03:27:42 PM EST
    I'm on the other side of the fence... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    it annoys me to see smoking all but forbidden from motion pictures...sometimes it fits a certain character or scene, and to surrender an art form to political correctness, no matter how well intentioned the p.c., is a travesty.

    I get the role model argument, but I feel baseball players or any other celebrity should have to carry the burden of being a role model...they only have one life to live too, and should live it in a way that brings them the most happiness...if it is being a squeaky-clean role model, fine.  If it is being a tobacco chewing, cussing, mean sob thats fine too....it's their life and they don't owe anything to kids they'll never meet.  It's up to parents to be role models and to point their kids to role models they approve of.


    Then (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 03:40:15 PM EST
    They should be accountants or janitors or sales clerks or secretaries.  You make millions of dollars playing a child's game, then your behavior will be watched and emulated.  You don't like it - get a real job where no one will care what you do.

    Nonsense jb... (none / 0) (#138)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 04:02:26 PM EST
    they get paid millions because they are the best of the best playing a game that generates billions in revenue.

    If kids choose to emulate ballplayers instead of of true role models like human rights workers, that is on them and those that raised them...all a ballplayer is paid to do is play ball better than 99.9% of us, making people wanna pay to watch them play.

    If anyone on the Mutts can win 20 games or bat .350 I don't care if their smoking crack in the dugout...I pay to see good baseball, which will keep me away from Sh*ti-Field for another year it looks like:)


    Personally not a fan of bans (none / 0) (#123)
    by Raskolnikov on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:33:13 PM EST
    I agree with Kdog...education has worked and smoking is no longer perceived as cool, at least as far as I can tell.  Years ago in high school, people chewed because it was inconspicuous and they could do it in class and between.  With the non-smoking ban in Iowa I've seen an increase in chewing in bars amongst college aged kids but not too significant.  

    Definitely not cool anymore... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 02:47:45 PM EST
    the education campaign has truly done wonders...I'm fast becoming a pariah even in the degenerate circles I run with:)

    I wish prohibitionists would see take note of the tobacco example...education is effective with little to no negative side-effects, where prohibition is ineffective with terrible side-effects.


    Hit where you spit (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:46:24 AM EST
    Lots of card rooms have banned smoking so some players have switched to chewing... So they want to have a spit cup in the coffee cup holder... Few months ago a guy missed and splashed some on another player.. quite a scene.

    The brush 86'd the chewer and the room banned spit cups..

    All without Waxman sticking his snout into it.

    Democracy and freedom. Ain't it great?


    Which casino, Jim? (none / 0) (#158)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:41:32 AM EST
    I play and dip, so that's another one to NOT enter.

    God bless the home game... (none / 0) (#160)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:54:30 AM EST
    and house rules...where smoking/dipping/swearing/tripping isn't only permitted, it is encouraged!

    It is great... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:52:18 AM EST
    as long as a casino operator has the option to allow dipping or smoking as well as disallowing...let freedom ring.