zoocrew

Spreading rumors? Goodness. Who cares anyway? If it's true, its their business. If it's not true, look at the diminished character now in many people's mind about them.

Better off, yes. Considerably. However, the whole question manipulates the people to thinking the govrrnment makes things better for individuals and businesses. Comer on! Can't have it both ways. Either it is personal responsibility that makes your own luck, or it is the government that is supposed to shepherd prosperity. Which is it? The hypocrisy its glaring.

Barge is calling this exactly what it s, i.e., a back door attempt at vouchers to gut public education, divert public dollars to parochial schools, and give us another defacto system of segregation based on race and economics.

He had overstepped his obligations. Just wait.

Right. That was the part of the argument made when Congress first mandated withholding. I just repeated the rational as to why it is like it is.

I've used Yahoo! for my email/calendar forever. Honest to God, forever. Really like it. But recently I've had other people tell me that Google is a superior email and calendar setup. Then, when I asked some other folks at work, I get all sorts of email and calendar programs. So I'm going to ask what service you use and please tell me why. We currently have a server we use system wide, but for I still like a personal calendar to give me reminders too. So who, what and why?

I simply disagree. The reasons I gave were part of the discussion at the national level when Congress elected to do the withholding this way. Not saying your arguments are not valid, but the advantages of the withholding are greater than not.

Until the Great Recession of 2008, no. It made no difference to the tax payer if a mortgage went to foreclosure. When all this stuff is sorted out, it won't matter then either.

Not the same significance and cost to the tax payer. It is a matter of making it easy on the government and all other tax payers, too. That's why it was set up as an immediate collection. Withholding means it would require more people involved to cheat the government, too. The employer would have to be in on it. Enforcement is much easier when there is an incentive for the employer to help collect.

No. There is a huge difference between monthly bills and taxes that affect everyone. Huge, huge difference.

Nope. Not what I said.

Can't fix stupid. If they don't realize it is not "free" but their own over payment, well, they aren't too bright to begin with.

Exactly. It is done this way to protect everyone and make the system work. If it were not done this way, it wouldn't work.

Always been stupid people.

655 West. My link

I wouldn't characterize it like that. I believe that is really misrepresenting the whole thing as to what it really is. Fact is that if there were no immediate withholding, people would spend the money and then not have it to pay the taxes, making it a nightmare for the IRS to handle enforcement. It would put too many people in the situation where they are in a mess. Fact is, it is really protects everyone: the employee from herself, the taxpayer from having to pay more to collect when the money is gone, and the system itself by being more fair by collecting at the point of getting the

The reason health insurance premiums come out of employees' checks on a weekly basis is that if the employee had to come up with the entire sum at once, there would be a revolt against the high cost of health care. I sincerely believe that most people would have a totally different view on health care if there were no premiums withheld from their paychecks and had to make quarterly payments to the insurance company and other providers. Only then, would most people realize, how much they really pay in health care costs. By having the employers withhold health care premiums b

This is a regurgitation from Boortz.

NPR is a great news source for morning and afternoon drive time. Several NPR stations in every state, plus several different NPR shows on satellite. My link

You are absolutely correct. The thing that sets us apart is that we do have rules based on a moral framework, and we expect everyone to follow those rules. We don't want those things to happen to our troops so don't do that to other troops. Isn't the moral argument the most compelling here? After all, of we lose the moral high ground, we've lost the war already. What part are not explaining well enough in this thread to get this across?

But the thread is not about gratitude to those who served, nor the horrors of war. It is about the rules the personnel violated, rules that are based on a moral pillar that is non negotiable. The Constitution puts the military under civilian control for a reason, and this thread shows the genius of that very thing.

The first post in this thread demonstrates a failure to understand the basic premise of taxation, particularly the history regarding taxation of income verses assets, and the moral rational for tax credits given to lower wage earners. Basically the argument presented misrepresents the way the system works.

Don't forget Lt. Calley.

Is that the issue here? Lawlessness breeds contempt for all law. If our military ignores the rules without sanction, what right do we have to demand the enemy (or even our own people) obey the law?

Would you want them to do this to our military personnel? The ethical thing is to treat others the way we want to be treated, not the way they treat us. The law is the beginning of the right thing. Ethics is what we do above and beyond what the law requires. The fact is that what they did was against the military rules. The rules are there to protect everyone. Their actions gave the enemy an argument to rally people against us. Again, a bad move. Being in the military is not an excuse to be unethical and ignore the rules. Fact is, they knew the rules. They broke the rules. And