2015 State of the Union Address

[onejayhawk]

While legally a blow job is different to a sexual relationship, that kinds cheating to say that Clinton didnt lie. Giving how Republicans are very forgiving of sex scandles should have no problem with simply admonishing Clinton.
Clinton cover up made it worse. Anyways the Republicans were looking for any reason for impeachment no matter what.

What President Clinton admitted to would get 100% of Senators or Congressmen expelled from Congress. He did not admit to the more serious charges.

J

 

[Flying Pig]

Clinton was dealing with questions from lawyers. They both knew how the terms were defined by the court for the purposes of the deposition. Paula Jones' lawyers should have asked more specific questions if they wanted knowledge of activities they fell outside of the court definitions.

I agree that everyone played by the rules and Clinton 'won'; my point is that the rules shouldn't have been set up in that way in the first place. It should be as difficult as possible to tell what ordinary society would consider a lie, and currently lawyers have to be particularly skilled even to get doing so registered as lying. At any rate, we do say 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', which strongly suggests that equivocation and 'white lies' are out.

 

[JollyRoger]

When "sexual relations" are defined as "intercourse", under the circumstances, it us pretty clear that oral sex falls outside the definition and is not equivocation nor a white lie, especially considering the context (deposition and grand jury testimony) was for the consumption of a narrow group of people aware of the definition and not the public in general. Of course when he made public statements of the sort, it was equivocating under the circumstance, but he was not impeached for his public statements. Those that legal training that voted to impeach were likely violating an oath of their own.

 

[Flying Pig]

Absolutely - I'm questioning whether we should be in a situation where the court essentially speaks a language of its own, and you can't understand what's going on without learning a set of rules. In this case in particular I can't see that the opacity did any good; it just made the whole process less comprehensible and so less accountable to the people on whose behalf it was supposedly taking place.

 

[civvver]

Here's how they're funding "free" community college.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/18/surprise-obama-to-back-tax-hikes-in-state-of-the-union/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/01/20/obama_wants_to_tax_529_savings_it_s_a_great_idea.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanell...tax-hike-is-an-assault-on-the-american-dream/

Stupid because it makes zero economical sense for 529 plans to exist. In the comments section on one of the articles was a great insight. 529s were originally to pay for college education at today's rates and guarantee tuition credits in the future. But these were changed when states realized the cost of college was skyrocketing and they couldn't guarantee this anymore. So they converted it from a defined benefit program to a defined contribution. Now it's like a roth ira, your withdrawals are tax free but you still pay current price for college tuition. Ok, still not a terrible deal. Now the white house wants to come in and say meh we don't like this plan let's just get rid of it. So what's the point of a 529 now? Better off just putting it in an index fund and paying long term gains instead of ordinary tax rates. It just doesn't make any sense this legislation.

I think it also sets a frightening precedent. Who's to say white house doesn't arbitrarily decide ok 500k is enough to retire on so now any money in your 401k over 500k is all taxable and immediately. Or bye bye roth ira, those withdrawls now taxable at ordinary income. I mean it's all on the table now, tax whatever you want whenever. Better hope house shoots this down, terrible, terrible precedent.

And I don't give a crap if mostly "rich" (laughable statement the dems definition of rich) people have 529 plans. The point of tax incentives are to incentivize things that the government and society deem worthwhile. We want people to own houses because we believe property and house ownership is good for our community thus we implement tax breaks on mortgage interest. If we value education then we should have tax breaks and incentives for education for everyone regardless of income level. If those rich people can afford college anyway and that's the argument then just make it income level based, have a phase out but don't take it completely away from everyone that's just stupid.

 

[Farm Boy]

If somebody has over half a million saved for retirement I have zero problems with further profitable accumulation past half a million dollars getting taxed. Oh poor rich babies, possibly needing to spend a portion of further new fat for their cookpots on tax. As if Americans with less aren't already greasing the system that creates such wealth with consumption based taxes comprising significant portions of their wealth.

 

[Light Cleric]

If somebody has over half a million saved for retirement I have zero problems with further profitable accumulation past half a million dollars getting taxed. Oh poor rich babies, possibly needing to spend a portion of further new fat for their cookpots on tax. As if Americans with less aren't already greasing the system that creates such wealth with consumption based taxes comprising significant portions of their wealth.

There are plenty of places in the country where $500k is not nearly enough to retire on. It's the same thing as saying $250k a year is "rich" when it's not "rich" in the places with insanely hit cost-of-living. Hell, I might not feel safe with $500k if was 60-something years old in Georgia. Increasing medical costs and increased lifespans mean you're going to live longer and pay more, not to mention having to deal with the possibility of inflation happening down the road. You better believe I'm not going to be happy if I'm an old person saving for something catastrophic that I am not going to like the government saying "You've saved enough", especially if they screw things up and we end up with another meltdown and suddenly I need that money. I and basically everyone I know has been taught to aim for a million dollars to retire on so you can be sure you won't outlive it.

Now if you want to talk about changes to the death tax and stopping trust fund babies, that's another thing entirely.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not saying you can't accumulate more, or even that the 500,001st dollar be taxed at full rates, but having additional income past a half million dollars start to become exposed to taxation? Oh damn, poor. darn. kids. Whatever will they do? Zero sympathy. Actual visceral contempt for the counterargument.

 

[warpus]

I've heard that the recommended minimum amount for retirement is $1 million. That is not a lot of money if you look at it in the proper context (of it lasting you for like a couple decades and stuff)

If the claim is that only rich people can save up that much, then that's essentially saying that only the rich can retire. That doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sounds like a bunch of rich white boys having a conversation!

 

[Light Cleric]

Oh yeah, I'm sure rich alright. Watching my extended family struggle with their finances and basically only being held together because my uncle had a huge amount of savings and has been able to help family members with hospital bills, house payments, and car payments while we couldn't really help because we were in our own difficult financial straits(and eventually declared bankruptcy) especially when I was laid off for a bit after some budget cuts. It's a shame he wasn't forced to give more of his alms to the state that gave him and everyone else the finger the only times they needed them.

Seriously, eff you, Farm Boy. Don't run your mouth and pretend you know a damn thing about me or my financial situation and history. I'm ing done with you and everyone else in this craphole of a subforum. I've been spat on enough around here.

 

[JollyRoger]

How would it be politically feasible to tax at 100%? We are struggling now to move those with over $500,000 in annual income back to the capital gains rates we had under Reagan and Clinton and that is only moving from like 24% to 28%.

 

[JollyRoger]

And why did Obama give us a State of the Union address? This is the United States - he should be giving a State of the Corporation address.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh yeah, I'm sure rich alright. Watching my extended family struggle with their finances and basically only being held together because my uncle had a huge amount of savings and has been able to help family members with hospital bills, house payments, and car payments while we couldn't really help because we were in our own difficult financial straits(and eventually declared bankruptcy) especially when I was laid off for a bit after some budget cuts. It's a shame he wasn't forced to give more of his alms to the state that gave him and everyone else the finger the only times they needed them.

Seriously, eff you, Farm Boy. Don't run your mouth and pretend you know a damn thing about me or my financial situation and history. I'm ing done with you and everyone else in this craphole of a subforum. I've been spat on enough around here.

I know life's hard. Having a million bucks doesn't make it easy either. It's still going to be hard. But lots, almost everyone, gets to enjoy the fact that life is hard without a nest egg equal to about two decades of median take home pay. If this is the reaction to the argument that it's unconscionable to not even think about starting to tax income on savings over a half million? Then crap, class warfare is probably way overdue.

 

[bhsup]

Wait... FB, it is taxed. Roth IRA deposits come from already taxed income. Traditional IRAs are taxed with you withdraw funds. So basically, if you tax Roth IRA monies that are already in the account, that's just money grubbing from the govt on stuff they've already taxed when you first earned it. Now, yes, the interest is I think nontaxable, so you have a point on that portion of the IRA I guess, but then I suppose I'd have to ask what the point of creating a special retirement account would be if it is no different than a savings account?

 

[Farm Boy]

That you can deposit up to limits per annum pretax income into them. That income up to 500000 be exempt. That income past that be taxed at different rates, probably far lower than say, wages. That stuff schmucks live from.

 

[warpus]

What's up with the term "monies" ? Why doesn't the word "money" work in this context? It works as both a plural and singular, doesn't it?

 

[sophie]

What's up with the term "monies" ? Why doesn't the word "money" work in this context? It works as both a plural and singular, doesn't it?

Depends on the context, but it can be used to refer to many different currencies/media of exchange collectively, much like with "fishes" or "peoples"

 

[Light Cleric]

I know life's hard. Having a million bucks doesn't make it easy either. It's still going to be hard. But lots, almost everyone, gets to enjoy the fact that life is hard without a nest egg equal to about two decades of median take home pay.

Yeah, screw those people. Those people who work from 18 to 65, manage their money, cut corners, make smart investments with the money they have after taxes, and hope that the $500k in 2015 dollars they managed to save over +4 decades lasts them from 65 to the end of their life and doesn't run out before they die penniless from rising costs of living, medical care, possible inflation and economic downturns to avoid having to go work part-time at 80 years old. My aforementioned uncle one of those so-called "shmucks", working at a tool and repair facility, and he managed to make it through Hurricane Katrina and still manage his situation.I guess he deserves to be penalized for it, huh?

Like seriously, do you think they just magically had 500 grand deposited in their bank account? Do you think this is really the best or even a good way to get tax revenue? You don't think there are waaaaay better options to tax? Or maybe a better starting point besides only half of what we've been told our whole lives to save towards and then suddenly the rules change in the middle of the game.

If this is the reaction to the argument that it's unconscionable to not even think about starting to tax income on savings over a half million? Then crap, class warfare is probably way overdue.

No, this is the reaction that you get when you ignorantly talk out your ass about people's positions in life when you really have no clue what you're talking about and then try and put the blame on the person you misrepresented.

 

[Farm Boy]

So what, taxes are theft? Or are they appropriate? Is it inappropriate to steal from/tax people with 20 years of accumulated median take home wages? Yes, I take it?

And it's not an attack. It's a recognition of good fortune, literally. As if I'm unfamiliar with taxes screwing families out of inheritances, especially when you're in an industry where generations sink almost everything into a capital investment, that investment is your retirement, then the kids get to buy it back, and the kids get to but it back, and the kids get to buy it back. I just recognize that taxing accumulated wealth is probably fair. That people who have been able to accumulate a half million dollars are people that have benefited enough through opportunity and hard work to chip back in.