keepthefaith

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586581,00.html Apparently this guy thought he was taxed too much.

The numbers don't lie. The only way out is dramatic spending cuts all over. We just have to elect people who will do it. Like you said, not easy.

As someone who went through a business audit a year ago, I can tell you that it's not fun. However, if you're closet is clean (as ours was) it is quite satisfying to know that. In our case the cost to taxpayers for the audit (3 years were reviewed) was less than what they recovered from us. Significantly less. The definition of ICs is vague, but any company that hires people on that basis should know that they might at some time have to defend that decision. I noticed that the article says nothing about illegal immigrant employees. That should be a big target as well, but not by this administration.

You shouldn't beat up on Biden. The poor guy is in a position where he has to defend the actions of the White House, which is a very tough job.

Must be a slow news day for the Examiner if they even write about this. The Palin responses seem appropriate but unnecessary. Overall a yawner.

If you look closely you'll see it's the non-union employees that got the bigger burns.

You do realize that the banks have repaid the money with interest and that it's the auto companies, Freddie/Fanny, CIT and some others that haven't.

It's advertised as loan guarantees so taxpayers should be repaid. Full speed ahead.

Your preferred party can't get elected on a platform of self sufficiency. What would happen if our government just leveled the playing field for everyone? Make everyone play by the same rules, cut unproductive agencies and a flat tax rate?

Couldn't agree more.

Another Dem that sees the writing on the wall.

Trent's inexpensive and could be a fit as a backup. I do feel that any QB that has spent all or most of his NFL career under Jauron and co. deserves another look.

Of course you aren't. He's big on things like self sufficiency, personal responsibility, strong foreign policy, free markets and return on investment. We should continue to support cadidates that don't provide taxpayers with a return on their investment. Right? I like Mitt a lot and feel he would be a good candidate and a good President. I'll probably get blasted for this, but the person I like best to be our next President, a guy who I think has the best grasp on the issues and could pound Obama in a debate is Newt, However, he's too polarizing and has some baggage. Romney overall would be a better candidate IMO.

The labor market (except for unions) is a supply and demand market. If I can hire people to do a job at $15/hour and replace those people if they leave for $15/hour then the market rate for that job is basically $15/hour. Conversely, if the people that are working here for $15/hour can find a better paying job, they are free to leave and take that job. Unions have won battles for people but lost many wars. It's ridiculous that they continue to hold the power to strike and disrupt and entire company's operation while charging labor rates that are above market. An individual's compensation more than ever is tied to the value they bring to the job every day and that company's ability to pay (profits). Obama doesn't get this. He doesn't realize that every dollar he wants to take in taxes or other cost increases to businesses will likely be offset by lower wages, reduced benefits or fewer employees.

Yeah, know that. Was looking for Pbills answer. To his credit he said spending needed to be cut.

The government is so unbelievably bloated. I'll bet you could cut 1/3 or more from the budget. If the feds made the big tough cuts they would likely find the American people would be more open to a modest tax increase and even funding some of the Democrat social projects. It's shocking how so many elected officials (moreso the Dems) get to Washington and can only resort to taxing and spending to fix nearly everything. They've got a huge toolbox with only two tools inside.

What would be the other way?

Obama and company could gain more support for the green initiative if they simply focused on the the opportunitiy to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. That is of strategic importance to us long-term, it can create a lot of jobs and it can reduce emissions at the same time. That's the real opportunity and one that I believe would have broad support across party lines.

LOL! Well, you're making some false assumptions of me here, but we do actually agree on some things. Keep up the good work. I'm humbled by your superior intellect.

I'm suprised they let you out of the straight jacket long enough to type.

It's nice to have a historian on the board. The present and the future has more weight for me.

I have a friend that went to High School with Romanowski and also played on the football team with him. He's told me a couple stories. The guy was nuts back then too. Maniac.

So when she mentions the enormous amount of Federal spending as an issue, it really isn't an issue in your mind? Only in her mind and not others?

You're supporting your decision to vote for and support Obama because you don't like the alternatives rather than you like what Obama is doing. If you aren't feeling "silly" now, explain why you support Obama's agenda. What's good about it, who benefits and how so?

Explain why they are dumb. Is it because you feel they are dumb to support her position on the issues?