Recent

Check Out Our Forum Tab!

Click On The "Forum" Tab Under The Logo For More Content!
If you are using your phone, click on the menu, then select forum. Make sure you refresh the page!

The views of the poster, may not be the views of the website of "Minnesota Outdoorsman" therefore we are not liable for what our members post, they are solely responsible for what they post. They agreed to a user agreement when signing up to MNO.

Author Topic: JOKE OF THE DAY  (Read 3818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fishahollik

  • Xtreme Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 268
  • Karma: +0/-0
Just Released - Agenda 
>> for the Democratic National Convention for 2008:
>>
>>       7:00 P.M. Opening flag burning.
>>       7:15 P.M. Pledge of allegiance to U.N.
>>       7:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
>>       7:30 till 8:00 P.M. Nonreligious prayer and worship.  Jessie 
>> Jackson and Al Sharpton.
>>       8:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>>       8:05 P.M. Ceremonial tree hugging.
>>       8:15- 8:30 P.M. Gay Wedding - Barney Frank,  presiding.
>>       8:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>>       8:35 P.M. Free Saddam Rally.  Cindy Sheehan & Susan Sarandon.
>>       9:00 P.M. Keynote speech.  The proper etiquette for 
>> surrender - French President Jacques Chirac
>>       9:15 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>>       9:20 P.M. Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney 
>> transplant fund.
>>       9:30 P.M. Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from 
>> Guantanamo Bay - Sean Penn.
>>       9:40 P.M. Why I hate the Military - a short talk by William 
>> Jefferson Clinton.
>>       9:45 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>>       9:50 P.M. Dan Rather presented Truth in Broadcasting award 
>> by Michael Moore.
>>       9:55 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>>       10:00 P.M. How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down 
>> the World Trade Center Towers - Howard Dean.
>>       10:30 P.M. Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud 
>> Ahmadinejad.
>>       11:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>>       11:05 P.M. Al Gore reinvents the Internet.
>>       11:15 P.M. Our Troops are War Criminals - John Kerry.
>>       11:30 P.M. Coronation Of Mrs. Rodham Clinton.
>>       12:00 A.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
>>       12:05 A.M. Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home.
"When asked what man has done in his life, I can say,' I was in the United States Navy'" JFK

I am member #297

Offline Bufflehead

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 911
  • Karma: +0/-0
 A "Vet" posted this reply to this exact post on another site

  Well, let's see......

At the Republican Convention(really the utra-conservative right wing of the party that bears no resemblence to the Republican Party that I once believed in).....

Should we have Dick Cheney give one speech with five chapters, or should he give five different speeches - one for each of his deferrments to avoid military service.

Should we have the Vice-President then give a hunter safety class - or - is that how to knock off the others in your hunting party so you get their game bags gifted to you as a final bequest?

Then we can have the President tell us how he got tired of serving in a champagne reserve unit and decided to have Daddy pull strings so he could help campaign for a Senator friend in Mississippi. Maybe that's where he picked up the phrase, "Cut and Run".

Then we'll bring the Vice-President back to explain the Halliburton no compete contract in Iraq that's cost our country billions of our children's dollars.

We'll also have Mr. Businessman Donald Rumsfeld tell those at the convention how he managed to screw up so badly at not having the proper gear for our troops and how we could have lost over 300,000 weapons that were supposed to have gone to the Iraqis. Maybe he could also explain the "Shock and Awe" campaign that so far has shocked me as to how poorly it was run and left me in awe at our leaders stupidity and their inability to even recognize that they have made a mistake(and admit it) and maybe should have listened to their field commanders instead of telling them to do it "their way".

Then maybe they'll bring out Representative Foley to a Standing ovation as he talks about "Instant messaging your wishes to Congressional Pages".

Or, how about Former Speaker of the House Tom Delay talking about how to bend campaign laws.

Maybe we could even get a few blowhards to give some speeches as well - like Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, and the ultimate idiot Rush Limburger, er Limbaugh.

As a veteran I support the troops - HOWEVER - I cannot support those who shirked their military obligations and now send those troops into harms way while talking tough and using silly catch phrases, "Stay the course", yadda, yadda, yadda.

Maybe they'll even bring out the "Mission Accomplished " banner that the White House provided for his dog and pony show on the carrier when he said that we had beaten Saddam.

Sorry Gary, but the Republicans have enough items in their closet of their own over the past few years to really make people wonder if they are really interested in looking out for the country or just making hay while they're there.

 AMEN!!! Couldn't have said it better myself

« Last Edit: November 11/26/06, 07:29:16 PM by Bufflehead »
There's plenty of room for all gods creatures...right next to my mashed potatoes

Offline Fishahollik

  • Xtreme Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 268
  • Karma: +0/-0
They are all crooked....I just preffer the ones who at least won;t raise my taxes or take my guns.

I love the one about having Ted drive Hillary home though...
"When asked what man has done in his life, I can say,' I was in the United States Navy'" JFK

I am member #297

Offline Bufflehead

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 911
  • Karma: +0/-0
You mean like these Tax Cuts


"The facts about these two tax cuts are as follows:

Under the tax code as it operates today, these are limits on the value of the personal exemptions and itemized deductions that people at high income levels can take.  The two tax cuts scheduled to start taking effect in January would phase out these limits and repeal them entirely by 2010.  (See the box on page 6 for a further description of the two tax-cut measures.)
President Bush did not ask for these tax cuts.  Congress added them to the 2001 tax-cut bill, which was enacted at a time when policymakers assumed budget surpluses would surpass $5 trillion over the coming decade.
According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, a majority of the tax cuts from these two tax-cut measures — 54 percent of these tax cuts, to be precise — will go to the 0.2 percent of households that have annual incomes of more than $1 million a year.  These households will receive added tax cuts averaging nearly $20,000 a year from these two tax-cut measures, when the measures are fully in effect.
Some 97 percent of the tax cuts from these two measures will go to the 3.7 percent of households that have incomes of over $200,000 a year.
Virtually none of the tax cuts from these measures will go to families in the middle of the income spectrum.
As noted, these tax cuts will phase in fully by 2010.  The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates they will reduce revenues by $9 billion in 2010, and by $16 billion in 2015.  The ten-year cost of these provisions in the first ten years that they will be fully in effect (2010 through 2019[1]) will be $146 billion.[2]  When the associated interest payments on the debt of $51 billion are added in, the cost rises to $197 billion over this ten-year period.
These estimates understate the cost of the two tax cuts.  These estimates are based on Joint Tax Committee estimates that do not assume continuation of relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax.  The Joint Tax estimates instead assume that a swelling AMT will cancel out a portion of these tax-cut benefits, reducing their costs.  Virtually all observers expect, however, that AMT relief will be extended.  With AMT relief in place, these tax cuts will cost significantly more than the amounts cited here.
Over time, the costs of these two tax cuts will exceed the costs of relief and recovery from Hurricane Katrina (assuming that the tax cuts are extended beyond 2010, as the President has proposed).
Will Today’s Policymakers Have the Courage of Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush?

When substantial budget deficits emerged in 1982, President Ronald Reagan agreed to undo a significant share of the tax cuts he had signed the previous year.  In 1990, facing large deficits, President George H. W. Bush had the courage to change his position on taxes and to play a leadership role in developing a major bipartisan deficit-reduction package that both raised revenues and cut spending.  Today, with deficits projected as far as the eye can see and additional costs now looming, the question is whether President George W. Bush and Congressional leaders are willing even to consider and discuss forgoing these two tax cuts, which were enacted at a time when large surpluses were thought to exist.

This question takes on particular poignancy because the two tax cuts in question are simply measures that repeal two revenue-raising provisions that the first President Bush negotiated and signed into law in 1990, to help address troubling budget deficits.  Forgoing these two tax cuts would advance the cause of fiscal discipline.  It also could serve as an alternative to some troubling budget cuts that could harm some of the nation’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens.

These issues are examined in more detail below.

Distribution of the Two Tax Cuts, 2010
 
Income Group
(thousands of 2003 dollars)
 Share of Households
 Share of the Tax Cuts
 Average Tax Cut
 
$0-75
   77.1%
          0.0%
  $0
 
75-100
 8.3
 0.1
  1
 
100-200
 10.9
 3.2
 25
 
200-500
 3.0
 19.1
 558
 
500-1,000
 0.5
 24.0
 4,141
 
More than $1 million
 0.2
 53.5
 19,234
 
Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.   
 

The Two Tax Cuts that Have Not Yet Begun to Take Effect

One of the tax cuts slated to start taking effect in January repeals a provision of the current tax code that scales back the size of itemized deductions that high-income taxpayers may take.  The other measure taking effect on January 1 repeals another provision of the tax code under which the personal exemption is phased out for households with high incomes.  (See the box on page 6 for a fuller description of these measures.)  These two provisions of current law will start to be phased out in 2006 and be eliminated entirely in 2010.

The Two Tax Cuts Are Regressive

The Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution has analyzed these two tax-cut measures.  The Tax Policy Center has found:

Some 54 percent of the tax cuts from these two measures will go to households with incomes of more than $1 million a year, the top 0.2 percent of households.[3],[4]  Another 43 percent of the tax-cut benefits will go to the 3.5 percent of households with incomes between $200,000 and $1 million.  Thus, 97 percent of the tax cuts from these two provisions will go to the 3.7 percent of households with incomes over $200,000.
That leaves only 3 percent of the tax-cut benefits for the 96 percent of U.S. households with incomes below $200,000.  That 3 percent of the tax cuts will go almost entirely to households in the $100,000-$200,000 range.  Essentially none of the benefits will flow to families with incomes under $100,000 (see table).
High-income households already are receiving extremely large tax cuts without these two new tax-cut measures.  According to the Tax Policy Center, households with incomes of more than $1 million are receiving tax cuts that average $103,000 this year, and will receive tax cuts averaging $108,000 in 2010, from the other income-tax cuts included in the 2001 and 2003 tax-cut laws.  (The Tax Policy Center estimates that when the effects of repeal of the estate tax are taken into account, those in this very high income group will receive tax cuts averaging $133,000 in 2010 from tax cuts other than the two measures discussed here.)  The Tax Policy Center’s analysis shows that adding in the two tax-cut provisions slated to start taking effect in 2006 will bring the total tax cut for people with incomes over $1 million to $152,000, on average, in 2010.  (These figures are in 2010 dollars.)

 

The Role of the Two Presidents Bush

These two provisions of the tax code were adopted on a bipartisan basis in 1990, as part of the deficit-reduction package enacted that year, in no small part because of the leadership of the first President Bush.  These measures were part of a large, balanced, and highly effective deficit-reduction package enacted that year that featured shared sacrifice.  The package included both substantial program reductions and substantial tax increases.  These two revenue-raising provisions were included in the package to direct more of the revenue increases to those who could most readily afford them.

In 2001, President George W. Bush did not propose elimination of these two revenue-raising provisions.  Repeal of these provisions was added on Capitol Hill.  Since then, the President has called for making these tax cuts permanent.

 

What Other Recent Republican Presidents Have Done

Faced with a need to address unanticipated deficits, other recent Republican Presidents have moderated their stances on taxes and opted for a more balanced approach.  They have led even when some of their supporters staunchly opposed such a policy change.  As noted, Ronald Reagan agreed to scale back his tax cuts in 1982 when the fiscal situation deteriorated.  President George H.W. Bush altered his position on taxes in 1990 in the face of difficult fiscal realities.  A question today is whether, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, President George W. Bush would be willing to consider the modest step of forgoing two tax cuts for the affluent that are not yet in effect, or whether he and Congressional leaders rule out any consideration of such a step.  The early indications are not promising.

Tax Cuts Would Repeal Two Tax Provisions Enacted in 1990 Deficit-Reduction Effort

The two provisions in question were enacted as part of the 1990 deficit-reduction package and made permanent in the 1993 deficit-reduction package.  Under the 2001 tax-cut law, both would be phased out starting in 2006 and repealed entirely in 2010.

The first provision phases out the personal exemption for those at high income levels; it is known as the “personal exemption phase-out,” or “PEP” for short.  The tax code provides for a personal exemption that taxpayers can use to shield some income from taxation.  The personal exemption is set at $3,200 in 2005.  The personal exemption phase-out provision reduces a tax filer’s total personal exemption amount by two percent for each $2,500 by which the tax filer’s income exceeds $218,950 for married couples in 2005 (or exceeds $145,950 for individuals).

The second provision limits the value of itemized deductions for taxpayers with high incomes.  (This is sometimes referred to as the “Pease” provision, after the late Rep. Don Pease, who originally designed it.)  The tax code allows taxpayers to reduce their taxable income either by the standard deduction or by an amount equal to the sum of an array of itemized deductions.  About two-thirds of taxpayers use the standard deduction, while one-third — typically those with higher incomes — itemize deductions.  Under this provision, certain itemized deductions are reduced for high-income taxpayers; the value of these deductions is reduced by an amount equal to three percent of the amount by which a taxpayer’s income exceeds $145,950 in 2005.  Thus, a taxpayer with income of $245,950 would reduce his or her itemized deductions by $3,000 ($100,000 x 3 percent).  If such an individual were in the 33 percent bracket, the provision would cause the individual’s tax liability to be $990 higher ($3,000 x 33 percent) than if this provision did not exist.a


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 a  Note:  Itemized deductions affected by the limit cannot be reduced by more than 80 percent under this provision.
------------------------------

Quote
"Thus, 97 percent of the tax cuts from these two provisions will go to the 3.7 percent of households with incomes over $200,000. "

----------------------

 Thank You Mr Bush...My wallet is much thicker now LMFAO

 
There's plenty of room for all gods creatures...right next to my mashed potatoes

Offline JohnWester

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 2294
  • Karma: +9/-8
  • Kabetogama, MN
who started the $1000 dollar tax credit per child? i would like to thank them.
If a gun kills people then I can blame a pen for my misspells?

IBOT# 286 big_fish_guy

Offline jigglestick

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1704
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Ice house rentals on Lake Winnibigosh
    • www.campjigglestick.com
who started the $1000 dollar tax credit per child? i would like to thank them.

selective consideration
take a kid hunting and fishing!!

THWACK KILLS!!

Offline JohnWester

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 2294
  • Karma: +9/-8
  • Kabetogama, MN
who started the $1000 dollar tax credit per child? i would like to thank them.

selective consideration
what does that mean?
If a gun kills people then I can blame a pen for my misspells?

IBOT# 286 big_fish_guy

Offline jigglestick

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1704
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Ice house rentals on Lake Winnibigosh
    • www.campjigglestick.com
who started the $1000 dollar tax credit per child? i would like to thank them.

selective consideration
what does that mean?

I am saying that it is easy to pick and choose bit and pieces of fact to support an argument. saying that one administration has not helped us "fatten our wallets"
and another one has, is a prime example.

we could go through each and every presidents terms and pick out ways that they have indeed helped us. some have helped more, some less, but there are many factors.
the fact that our national debt is out of control and the mere suggestion that we attempt to do anything about it, takes away from these hand it out perks that some are accustomed to wait openhandedly for. our country as a whole is spoiled.
from health care to welfare, we have grown less dependant on ourselves and to much so on the government.

what I am saying is that the country is in trouble and any attempt to fix it, is tough on all of us in one way or another, so quit bitching and tough it out so we can right our ship.

this will spin in a thousand different directions, I am going to move it to the political forum where it and all the other topics like it belong.
take a kid hunting and fishing!!

THWACK KILLS!!

Offline labs4me

  • Xtreme Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +1/-0
AMEN!!! 

It's nice to see someone else stand up and admit we are TO DEPENDENT ON THE GOVT!

Thanks Dave!