Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:45:54 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:24:09 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


The point I've been making all along was that the retreat from Irak was forced on George W Bush around 2004, pretty much as soon as it became obvious that Irak needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford.

That's another lie, as evidenced by the SURGE, which worked.

The surge worked in the sense that it reduced the insurgencies that were active at the time to manageable proportions.

No shit Sherlock, like I said, Bush had it won,

The US Army beat the Iraqi Army, and to that extent, Bush had won the first round.

To win the country he had to occupy it with enough troops to maintain control - the Joint Chiefs of staff had told him he'd need 300,000 troops, and he hadn't believed them. It took a couple of years for him to admit that they'd been right, and negotiate a gradual withdrawal.

That's another lib lie. Why do you libs always lie? Sure, the years after
the war were not good. So what? Bush did put the troops in that the pentagon
recommended to fix it with the Surge in 2007!

The surge pushed the occupying army up to 180,000 men, not 300,000.

Irrelevant of course, it worked. IDK where the 300,000 number even comes
from, you just tossed it out.



It was enough extra troops to deal with the more florid up-risings and the larger-scale terrorist actions, but it wasn't ever enough to get the country under control, which is why Bush had to negotiate his phased and gradual withdrawal, putting an Iraqi Army together in the process.

That's a big lib lie. It was precisely because the surge worked, Al Qaeda
had been DEFEATED, the Iraqi govt was functioning, that Bush began the
withdrawals. And what did Bush say? Here at the WH, July 2007:

“To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.

He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U..S. left too early.

“It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.

“It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.

“It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.

“It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”


And then Obama let all the above happen when he IGNORED the warnings
above from Bush, but even worse the warnings from the US military commanders
and the State Dept and similar in Iraq that said it was a mistake to
withdraw completely. Bush laid it all out there, only it was ISIS that
moved in instead of Al Qaeda.

It worked! Iraq was secure and stable

Up to a point and not all that well. Irak wasn't all that secure and not particularly stable - there were still terrorist actions going on up until 2010 when the reconstructed Iraqi army started getting a grip, and they didn't go away then but just got less frequent and smaller in scale.

So, make up your mind. Was Iraq a lost cause and Bush ran away? Or was
it like I said, stable, Al Qaeda defeated, govt functioning after the
Surge?

and that's why Bush and the Iraqi govt agreed to removing the
troops. The Iraqi govt would not have agreed to it had they believed the
country was unstable.

If the Shiites in control had wanted the country to be stable, they wouldn't given the Sunni's the kind of bad treatment that kept the country unstable.

Ridiculous diversion to nowhere. The Shiites had been abused for decades
by the Sunnis and dopes like Maliki were not about to make normal,
rational decisions. Which again is precisely why it was a tragic, foolish
thing for Obama to let Maliki run amok and never even object to what
he was doing. If you were a Sunni, what would you think?

They cared about having power for themselves, and were perfectly happy to act in way that created more disorder - they would have liked stability, but only on the basis that the Sunni's should be beaten down to the point where they couldn't complain about their treatment.

And you know what? They may have desired that, but they sure didn't try
to pull it with Bush in office, did they? When did they? Well, when
Obama showed up and allowed it to happen. They tested him a few times,
he did nothing. Maliki was even over here for a visit when he claimed
his Sunni VP was trying to assassinate him. Now stop right there.
What would any competent US president do at that point? Obama knew
the Shia/Sunni history you just outlined or should have. This was
serious stuff, the PM claiming that a Sunni VP was about to kill
him. A competent president who gave a damn, would immediately express
concern, get the NSC involved to find out what's going on. Obama
simply told Maliki that it's his country now, he should just deal with
it. And deal with it he did.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:29:47 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 10:56:06 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:28:32 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:38:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:32:33 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:19:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:39:59 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:

snip

That may be from the link I cited, but what has it got to do with the position from 2003 - after the US invasion - to 2007 when Dubbya had to push up the occupying force (the surge) to control the insurrections that were going on then?

Nothing of course, because we're talking about how Obama let victory turn
into disaster starting in 2010, 2011.

No. You are trying to tell us that Dubbya's invasion of Irak was some kind of victory - based on the fact that the US Army defeated Saddam's army - when it fact it was a huge mistake, based on Dubbya's delusion that he could occupy Irak with an army of about 150,000.

No, you just keep repeating this same lie. I never said the Bush victory was
because he defeated the Iraqi Army. I never said anything close to that.
I said that when Bush left office, Iraq was stable, had a functioning govt,
Al Qaeda had been defeated.

Irak was sort of stable, and there weren't very many terrorist outrages.

The government was functioning on the basis the Shiites had power and were using it to give the Sunnis a hard time, in the same way (but less brutally) than Saddam - as a Sunni - had been giving the Shiites are hard time before the American invasion. This isn't a good way to run a country, but Irak is a very badly designed country - it also includes a a substantial Kurdish element, and Saddam had used poison gas on them.

Al Qaeda wasn't all that active, but that sort of guerilla organisation isn't defeated as long as it can find new recruits and Maliki's government encouraged a lot of people to sign up.

Basically, Dubbya passed Obama a parcel of shit, and you want to complain that there was a stink when the parcel came unwrapped.

> THAT was the victory.

It would have been, if it had happened. It didn't.

> And that Obama then let it all slip away.

If you can fool yourself into thinking that Dubbya had won anything, you can presumably fool yourself into thinking Obama could have prevented Irak from getting knocked flat by ISIS. Gullible idiots will believe anything that they feel like believing.

You yourself documented the case that Iraq started
to go wrong in 2010, 2011, because you didn't realize that OBAMA was
president. Ouch! Once you learned it was on his watch, well then the
story changed.

Try and find a direct quote where I ever said anything like that. You've dreamed this up because you think it sounds plausible, and you are much too dim to realise that it is obviously false.

Irak was more or less okay from 2009 to 2014, and it was the ISIS incursion from Syria that showed that the reconstructed Iraqi army was useless for dealing with anything bigger than small scale local terrorism.

If Dubbya had had enough sense to settle for leaning on Saddam, rather than replacing him, it wouldn't have been America's problem at all.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:29:47 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 10:56:06 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:28:32 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:38:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:32:33 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline..net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:19:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:39:59 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra....@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:

snip

That may be from the link I cited, but what has it got to do with the position from 2003 - after the US invasion - to 2007 when Dubbya had to push up the occupying force (the surge) to control the insurrections that were going on then?

Nothing of course, because we're talking about how Obama let victory turn
into disaster starting in 2010, 2011.

No. You are trying to tell us that Dubbya's invasion of Irak was some kind of victory - based on the fact that the US Army defeated Saddam's army - when it fact it was a huge mistake, based on Dubbya's delusion that he could occupy Irak with an army of about 150,000.

No, you just keep repeating this same lie. I never said the Bush victory was
because he defeated the Iraqi Army. I never said anything close to that.
I said that when Bush left office, Iraq was stable, had a functioning govt,
Al Qaeda had been defeated.

Irak was sort of stable, and there weren't very many terrorist outrages.

The government was functioning on the basis the Shiites had power and were using it to give the Sunnis a hard time, in the same way (but less brutally) than Saddam - as a Sunni - had been giving the Shiites are hard time before the American invasion. This isn't a good way to run a country, but Irak is a very badly designed country - it also includes a a substantial Kurdish element, and Saddam had used poison gas on them.

Al Qaeda wasn't all that active, but that sort of guerilla organisation isn't defeated as long as it can find new recruits and Maliki's government encouraged a lot of people to sign up.

Basically, Dubbya passed Obama a parcel of shit, and you want to complain that there was a stink when the parcel came unwrapped.

Assuming that analogy is true, then what Obama did was leave the package
in the sun, ignore it as flies started to gather and it started to stink
and then he continued to unwrap it, without regard to what would happen.
Your excuse for that is because poor widdle Obama had to continue to the
unwrapping that Bush had started years ago that was based on the conditions
then. And what did Bush warn about?

Here at the WH, July 2007:

“To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.

He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U..S. left too early.

“It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.

“It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.

“It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.

“It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

THAT was the victory.

It would have been, if it had happened. It didn't.

And that Obama then let it all slip away.

If you can fool yourself into thinking that Dubbya had won anything, you can presumably fool yourself into thinking Obama could have prevented Irak from getting knocked flat by ISIS. Gullible idiots will believe anything that they feel like believing.

You mean as opposed to you, who makes things up? Who documented what I
was saying, that it started to unravel in 2010, 2011, when you thought
Bush was still president and you thought you were pinning it on him?
Ouch! After not knowing who was president and having that backfire
all over you, I don't think I'd be calling someone else a gullible idiot.

You yourself documented the case that Iraq started
to go wrong in 2010, 2011, because you didn't realize that OBAMA was
president. Ouch! Once you learned it was on his watch, well then the
story changed.

Try and find a direct quote where I ever said anything like that. You've dreamed this up because you think it sounds plausible, and you are much too dim to realise that it is obviously false.

Irak was more or less okay from 2009 to 2014,

That's not true, The Atlantic and you yourself documented how it started
to go badly wrong in 2010/2011. Everyone knew what Maliki was doing,
running amok, arresting Sunnis, having troops fire on Sunni protesters.
Obama chose to ignore it.





and it was the ISIS incursion from Syria that showed that the reconstructed Iraqi army was useless for dealing with anything bigger than small scale local terrorism.
>

It was way more than that. Maliki, with Obama watching, had abused the
Sunnis to the point that they thought ISIS was better than the Maliki govt.
They welcomed ISIS. Now that is simply stunning. We had spent years,
lives and treasure winning over the Sunnis in the process of defeating
Al Qaeda. Yet in just a few years Maliki reversed it all. With Obama
watching and sending him his monthly hundred millions.

If Dubbya had had enough sense to settle for leaning on Saddam, rather than replacing him, it wouldn't have been America's problem at all.

Totally irrelevant to what happened post surge, of course.

 

But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner of the IRS. It is simply not true.

 

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:46:01 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner of the IRS. It is simply not true.

It is the IRS:

https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/collection-procedural-questions/collection-procedural-questions-3

If your return was over 60 days late, the minimum failure-to-file penalty is the smaller of $210 (for tax returns required to be filed in 2019) or 100% of the tax required to be shown on the return."


So even if you've paid enough in withholding and/or estimated tax payments,
if you fail to file, it's a $210 penalty. I'm surprised it's that low.

 

On Fri, 17 May 2019 09:45:56 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner of the IRS. It is simply not true.

Trader is right. If you had income, filing is required. You won't go
to prison if you don't pay but you might if you don't file.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 2:53:20 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:29:47 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 10:56:06 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:28:32 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:38:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:32:33 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:19:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:39:59 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

Irak was more or less okay from 2009 to 2014,

That's not true, The Atlantic and you yourself documented how it started
to go badly wrong in 2010/2011. Everyone knew what Maliki was doing,
running amok, arresting Sunnis, having troops fire on Sunni protesters.
Obama chose to ignore it.

He didn't ignore it. He privately deplored it and used private communications channels to let Maliki know that it wasn't doing anything good for the stability of Irak as a whole (as was mentioned in the Atlantic article which you cited, but clearly failed to read). Public condemnation would have been undiplomatic, and would have encouraged Maliki to cozy up to the Shiites in Iran.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:56:12 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:45:54 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:24:09 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


The point I've been making all along was that the retreat from Irak was forced on George W Bush around 2004, pretty much as soon as it became obvious that Irak needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford.

That's another lie, as evidenced by the SURGE, which worked.

The surge worked in the sense that it reduced the insurgencies that were active at the time to manageable proportions.

No shit Sherlock, like I said, Bush had it won,

The US Army beat the Iraqi Army, and to that extent, Bush had won the first round.

To win the country he had to occupy it with enough troops to maintain control - the Joint Chiefs of staff had told him he'd need 300,000 troops, and he hadn't believed them. It took a couple of years for him to admit that they'd been right, and negotiate a gradual withdrawal.

That's another lib lie. Why do you libs always lie? Sure, the years after
the war were not good. So what? Bush did put the troops in that the pentagon
recommended to fix it with the Surge in 2007!

The surge pushed the occupying army up to 180,000 men, not 300,000.

Irrelevant of course, it worked.

In the sense of suppressing the larger insurrections. It didn't stop terrorist actions and other smaller scale stuff.

IDK where the 300,000 number even comes
from, you just tossed it out.

As I have mentioned repeatedly, it was the Joint Chief's of Staff estimate of the size of the army required to occupy Irak and keep it under control after a successful invasion.

George W Bush and his clown car had been informed of this before the invasion, and chose not to believe it. The post-invasion insurrections made the point a lot more clearly than the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been able to manage, and Dubbya was eventually persuaded to negotiate a gradual withdrawal, with a reconstituted Iraqi progressively taking over more of the business of suppressing insurrections and stopping terrorist attacks.

The number has been around since 2003. You wouldn't be the kind of person who would remember it, or any other inconvenient fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

"In February 2003, the US Army's top general, Eric Shinseki, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it would take "several hundred thousand soldiers" to secure Iraq"."

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:c3b40e72-6696-43b9-815a-c3c8879b1771@googlegroups.com:

But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner of
the IRS. It is simply not true.

If one fails to file there "can be" a penalty. If it apparent to the
IRS that you are evading.

But for most lower income folks they are not hefting big penalties on
folks. They merely tell you to get off your ass and file. IOW they
give you a date to file by or BE penalized. If you let it get to that
point maybe you should be penalized.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:bfc50e01-494d-436c-8b6e-20c7bdf54d59@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:46:01 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com
wrote:
But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner of
the IRS. It is simply not true.



It is the IRS:

https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/collection-procedural-
quest
ions/collection-procedural-questions-3

If your return was over 60 days late, the minimum failure-to-file
penalty is the smaller of $210 (for tax returns required to be
filed in 2019) or 100% of the tax required to be shown on the
return."


So even if you've paid enough in withholding and/or estimated tax
payments, if you fail to file, it's a $210 penalty. I'm surprised
it's that low.


What you fail to note is that they rarely levy the fine.

 

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:42:29 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Fri, 17 May 2019 09:45:56 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner of the IRS. It is simply not true.

Trader is right. If you had income, filing is required. You won't go
to prison if you don't pay but you might if you don't file.

I think technically it's income above certain limits, then you must file
and there is a deadline. For example, if you made just $1000, had
no withholding or I guess don't care if you get a refund, then you
don't have to file. But if you're making $50K, you do need to file a
return, even if you've paid all you owe through withholding and/or
estimated tax payments or you'll have at least that $200 penalty,
a lot more than that if you haven't paid enough. It's all kind of
silly anyway. To know if you've paid enough, you pretty much have to
go through and do the return anyway, unless you want to just shove
plenty of extra $$$ to the IRS to be sure.

 

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:50:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:56:12 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:45:54 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:24:09 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline..net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


The point I've been making all along was that the retreat from Irak was forced on George W Bush around 2004, pretty much as soon as it became obvious that Irak needed a bigger occupying army than the US could afford.

That's another lie, as evidenced by the SURGE, which worked..

The surge worked in the sense that it reduced the insurgencies that were active at the time to manageable proportions.

No shit Sherlock, like I said, Bush had it won,

The US Army beat the Iraqi Army, and to that extent, Bush had won the first round.

To win the country he had to occupy it with enough troops to maintain control - the Joint Chiefs of staff had told him he'd need 300,000 troops, and he hadn't believed them. It took a couple of years for him to admit that they'd been right, and negotiate a gradual withdrawal.

That's another lib lie. Why do you libs always lie? Sure, the years after
the war were not good. So what? Bush did put the troops in that the pentagon
recommended to fix it with the Surge in 2007!

The surge pushed the occupying army up to 180,000 men, not 300,000.

Irrelevant of course, it worked.

In the sense of suppressing the larger insurrections. It didn't stop terrorist actions and other smaller scale stuff.

IDK where the 300,000 number even comes
from, you just tossed it out.

As I have mentioned repeatedly, it was the Joint Chief's of Staff estimate of the size of the army required to occupy Irak and keep it under control after a successful invasion.

No, that number came from one place, Shinseki, who was the head of the
Army. He did not speak for the Joint Chiefs. It was his personal opinion,
based on his experience and guesstimates, in response to persistent
questioning by Carl Levin during a hearing.

George W Bush and his clown car had been informed of this before the invasion, and chose not to believe it. The post-invasion insurrections made the point a lot more clearly than the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been able to manage, and Dubbya was eventually persuaded to negotiate a gradual withdrawal, with a reconstituted Iraqi progressively taking over more of the business of suppressing insurrections and stopping terrorist attacks.

Like almost anything else, all the estimates, all the opinions were
discussed. No one knew for sure what the right number was. And in
the end a decision was made. It wasn't a static, forever decision
and Bush changed it when it was clear that more troops were needed.

The number has been around since 2003. You wouldn't be the kind of person who would remember it, or any other inconvenient fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

"In February 2003, the US Army's top general, Eric Shinseki, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it would take "several hundred thousand soldiers" to secure Iraq"."

That's right, one General, head of the Army, gave his opinion.

It's all irrelevant anyway, because it has nothing to do with Obama
letting Iraq slide into a disaster long, long after the war was over.

 

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 2:39:35 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:bfc50e01-494d-436c-8b6e-20c7bdf54d59@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:46:01 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com
wrote:
But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner of
the IRS. It is simply not true.



It is the IRS:

https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/collection-procedural-
quest
ions/collection-procedural-questions-3

If your return was over 60 days late, the minimum failure-to-file
penalty is the smaller of $210 (for tax returns required to be
filed in 2019) or 100% of the tax required to be shown on the
return."


So even if you've paid enough in withholding and/or estimated tax
payments, if you fail to file, it's a $210 penalty. I'm surprised
it's that low.


What you fail to note is that they rarely levy the fine.

And your cite for that is? Or are you such a deadbeat that you know
from personal experience? I suspect the cite is in the same place as
the cite for all the B1 bomber crashes you claimed were caused by
fly-by-wire failure.

 

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:59:34 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 2:53:20 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:57:47 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:29:47 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 10:56:06 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:28:32 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline..net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:38:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:32:33 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:19:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:39:59 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:11:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, tra....@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:

snip

Irak was more or less okay from 2009 to 2014,

That's not true, The Atlantic and you yourself documented how it started
to go badly wrong in 2010/2011. Everyone knew what Maliki was doing,
running amok, arresting Sunnis, having troops fire on Sunni protesters.
Obama chose to ignore it.

He didn't ignore it. He privately deplored it and used private communications channels to let Maliki know that it wasn't doing anything good for the stability of Irak as a whole (as was mentioned in the Atlantic article which you cited, but clearly failed to read). Public condemnation would have been undiplomatic, and would have encouraged Maliki to cozy up to the Shiites in Iran.

snip

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Why do libs lie constantly? I read the article, you're lying again.
That article doesn't say that OBama did a damn thing privately.
It outlines how he totally ignored Iraq, ignored what Maliki was
doing, exactly as I first told you. You're quite a piece of work,
you are. You use one number, tossed out one time by Shinseki
and based on that it's all Bush's fault because you claim he didn't
send enough troops initially. One guy, one personal opinion, speaking
before Congress, in response to a question. Yet
in 2010, 2011 it was the opinion of the US commanders on the ground,
of the Pentagon, of the State Dept people, of many Republicans in
Congress and even some Democrats, that if we pulled out, disaster
would follow. But heh, no blame on Obama.....


From The Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy
The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years.


Obama inherited an Iraq where better security had created an opportunity for better government. The Bush administration’s troop “surge” did not solve the country’s underlying divisions. But by retaking Sunni areas from insurgents, it gave Iraq’s politicians the chance to forge a government inclusive enough to keep the country together.

For the Obama administration, however, tangling with Maliki meant investing time and energy in Iraq, a country it desperately wanted to pivot away from. A few months before the 2010 elections, according to Dexter Filkins in The New Yorker, “American diplomats in Iraq sent a rare dissenting cable to Washington, complaining that the U.S., with its combination of support and indifference, was encouraging Maliki’s authoritarian tendencies.”

According to Emma Sky, chief political adviser to General Raymond Odierno, who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq, American officials knew this violated Iraq’s constitution. But they never publicly challenged Maliki’s power grab, which was backed by Iran,

“The message” that America’s acquiescence “sent to Iraq’s people and politicians alike,” wrote the Brookings Institution’s Kenneth Pollack, “was that the United States under the new Obama administration was no longer going to enforce the rules of the democratic road….


Yet as Ned Parker, the Reuters bureau chief in Baghdad, later detailed, “Washington quickly disengaged from actually ensuring that the provisions of the deal were implemented.” In his book, The Dispensable Nation, Vali Nasr, who worked at the State Department at the time, notes that the “fragile power-sharing arrangement … required close American management. But the Obama administration had no time or energy for that. Instead it anxiously eyed the exits, with its one thought to get out. It stopped protecting the political process just when talk of American withdrawal turned the heat back up under the long-simmering power struggle that pitted the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds against one another.”


In recent days, Republicans have slammed Obama for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But the real problem with America’s military withdrawal was that it exacerbated a diplomatic withdrawal that had been underway since Obama took office."

 

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 2:32:39 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:c3b40e72-6696-43b9-815a-c3c8879b1771@googlegroups.com:

But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner of
the IRS. It is simply not true.


If one fails to file there "can be" a penalty. If it apparent to the
IRS that you are evading.

Wrong again, always wrong. And even after I gave the cite from IRS.


https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/collection-procedural-questions/collection-procedural-questions-3

If your return was over 60 days late, the minimum failure-to-file penalty is the smaller of $210 (for tax returns required to be filed in 2019) or 100% of the tax required to be shown on the return."

But for most lower income folks they are not hefting big penalties on
folks. They merely tell you to get off your ass and file. IOW they
give you a date to file by or BE penalized. If you let it get to that
point maybe you should be penalized.

Maybe you should stop making things up? Or are you such a deadbeat
that you have personal experience?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 3:36:42 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:50:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 1:56:12 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 12:45:54 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:04:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:24:09 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:13:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

The surge pushed the occupying army up to 180,000 men, not 300,000.

Irrelevant of course, it worked.

In the sense of suppressing the larger insurrections. It didn't stop terrorist actions and other smaller scale stuff.

IDK where the 300,000 number even comes
from, you just tossed it out.

As I have mentioned repeatedly, it was the Joint Chief's of Staff estimate of the size of the army required to occupy Irak and keep it under control after a successful invasion.

No, that number came from one place, Shinseki, who was the head of the
Army. He did not speak for the Joint Chiefs. It was his personal opinion,
based on his experience and guesstimates, in response to persistent
questioning by Carl Levin during a hearing.

If he wasn't speaking for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, why would Congress have been listening to him?

George W Bush and his clown car had been informed of this before the invasion, and chose not to believe it. The post-invasion insurrections made the point a lot more clearly than the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been able to manage, and Dubbya was eventually persuaded to negotiate a gradual withdrawal, with a reconstituted Iraqi progressively taking over more of the business of suppressing insurrections and stopping terrorist attacks.

Like almost anything else, all the estimates, all the opinions were
discussed.

And the well-informed opinions from the military professionals were ignored..

> No one knew for sure what the right number was.

The army was pretty confident about their estimates. Dubbya and his crew really wanted to invade Irak, and decided to ignore the advice of the professionals.

> And in the end a decision was made.

A remarkably foolish decision.

It wasn't a static, forever decision
and Bush changed it when it was clear that more troops were needed.

After a lot of money had been spent and a lot of people killed for no useful
purpose.

This is what idiotic decisions look like.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Syney

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:145655dc-a2b9-4eb3-b752-b61f682835dc@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 2:39:35 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:bfc50e01-494d-436c-8b6e-20c7bdf54d59@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 12:46:01 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com
wrote:
But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner
of the IRS. It is simply not true.



It is the IRS:

https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/collection-procedural-
quest
ions/collection-procedural-questions-3

If your return was over 60 days late, the minimum
failure-to-file penalty is the smaller of $210 (for tax returns
required to be filed in 2019) or 100% of the tax required to be
shown on the return."


So even if you've paid enough in withholding and/or estimated
tax payments, if you fail to file, it's a $210 penalty. I'm
surprised it's that low.


What you fail to note is that they rarely levy the fine.


And your cite for that is?

I have done taxes for people before, you fucking piece of shit
putz.

Or are you such a deadbeat that you
know from personal experience?

That is the second time you made a huge tell of your total retard
psychosis.

I suspect the cite is in the same
place as the cite for all the B1 bomber crashes you claimed were
caused by fly-by-wire failure.

I never said that all of the B1 crashes were from fly-by-wire
failures. I said that at least one was attributed as such.

Fuck you, fatass. Find your own facts or shut the fuck up, you
stupid fact free piece of shit.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:492af249-6288-4d43-b933-972f65fbcbe2@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 2:32:39 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:c3b40e72-6696-43b9-815a-c3c8879b1771@googlegroups.com:

But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner
of the IRS. It is simply not true.


If one fails to file there "can be" a penalty. If it apparent
to the
IRS that you are evading.

Wrong again, always wrong. And even after I gave the cite from
IRS.


https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/collection-procedural-
quest
ions/collection-procedural-questions-3

If your return was over 60 days late, the minimum failure-to-file
penalty is the smaller of $210 (for tax returns required to be
filed in 2019) or 100% of the tax required to be shown on the
return."




But for most lower income folks they are not hefting big
penalties on
folks. They merely tell you to get off your ass and file. IOW
they give you a date to file by or BE penalized. If you let it
get to that point maybe you should be penalized.

Maybe you should stop making things up? Or are you such a
deadbeat that you have personal experience?

So people who do not agree with the piece of shit that you are,
you call 'libs'. And I guess folks late to file their taxes are all
'deadbeats'. What you are is a total retard. You are about as
unamerican as it gets, boy.

You, fucktard, are one of those puke fucks whom would end up in
the dumpster behind the bar as soon as you identified yourself as
this retarded piece of shit Usenet putz that you are.

Experience? What a punk fuck like you needs to experience is a
nice hot hunk of fast moving lead, right between the eyes.

 

On Sat, 18 May 2019 07:20:08 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 11:42:29 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 09:45:56 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner of the IRS. It is simply not true.

Trader is right. If you had income, filing is required. You won't go
to prison if you don't pay but you might if you don't file.

I think technically it's income above certain limits, then you must file
and there is a deadline.

Sure, but I didn't want to get into the weeds here (thought it's
higher than I'd remembered).
<https://www.thebalance.com/are-you-required-to-file-a-tax-return-3192868>

For example, if you made just $1000, had
no withholding or I guess don't care if you get a refund, then you
don't have to file. But if you're making $50K, you do need to file a
return, even if you've paid all you owe through withholding and/or
estimated tax payments or you'll have at least that $200 penalty,
a lot more than that if you haven't paid enough. It's all kind of
silly anyway. To know if you've paid enough, you pretty much have to
go through and do the return anyway, unless you want to just shove
plenty of extra $$$ to the IRS to be sure.

 

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 9:06:56 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:492af249-6288-4d43-b933-972f65fbcbe2@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 2:32:39 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:c3b40e72-6696-43b9-815a-c3c8879b1771@googlegroups.com:

But if you fail to file, there is a penalty, regardless if
you've paid enough to cover the tax or not.

Whoever told you that is full of shit even if he is the owner
of the IRS. It is simply not true.


If one fails to file there "can be" a penalty. If it apparent
to the
IRS that you are evading.

Wrong again, always wrong. And even after I gave the cite from
IRS.


https://www.irs.gov/faqs/irs-procedures/collection-procedural-
quest
ions/collection-procedural-questions-3

If your return was over 60 days late, the minimum failure-to-file
penalty is the smaller of $210 (for tax returns required to be
filed in 2019) or 100% of the tax required to be shown on the
return."




But for most lower income folks they are not hefting big
penalties on
folks. They merely tell you to get off your ass and file. IOW
they give you a date to file by or BE penalized. If you let it
get to that point maybe you should be penalized.

Maybe you should stop making things up? Or are you such a
deadbeat that you have personal experience?


So people who do not agree with the piece of shit that you are,
you call 'libs'.

That's a lie, I didn't call you a lib, nor do I call someone a lib just
because they disagree with me. Words have meaning. You're just confused
because YOU toss out all kinds of silly insults and labels that have no
relation to reality, so you think everyone does.



And I guess folks late to file their taxes are all

'deadbeats'. What you are is a total retard. You are about as
unamerican as it gets, boy.

So, do you have experience filing more than 60 days late or not?
You told us there is no penalty. Seems there are two ways you'd
know. Either with a cite online which I asked for and you have
not provided or from personal experience.

You, fucktard, are one of those puke fucks whom would end up in
the dumpster behind the bar as soon as you identified yourself as
this retarded piece of shit Usenet putz that you are.

Experience? What a punk fuck like you needs to experience is a
nice hot hunk of fast moving lead, right between the eyes.

Gee, I wonder what the monitor of free speech here, your buddy Bill
thinks about that one? What do you think Bill, should I take this
threat to the local police? You won't see Bill making a post about
this. But Ann Coulter or Condi Rice, now that's dangerous, offensive
speech. ROFL.