*Hidden Taxes You're Probably Paying

From Forbes.com I just thought you might want to be aware of these taxes!


Payroll Tax

Employers and employees split the cost of payroll taxes--the Social Security, Medicare and miscellaneous taxes you see listed as "FICA" on your paycheck. But many economists argue that you're paid less so that your employer can compensate for tax it pays just to keep you on the payroll. If you earn $97,500 or less, this could mean a 15.3% reduction in your take-home pay. (Half in the payroll tax you pay, half in your employer's share.) According to the Tax Policy Center, about two-thirds of all wage earners fork over more to Uncle Sam in payroll taxes (including the employer's share) than in income taxes.

Alternative Minimum Tax

The IRS' National Taxpayer Advocate calls the AMT "the poster child for tax law complexity." And because it's not indexed to inflation, it's ensnaring more of the middle class--particularly families with lots of kids and second mortgages. The AMT affected 4 million taxpayers in 2006, but this number could balloon to 23 million this year if Congress does not fix the problem, as it has done in years past. Why don't lawmakers just eliminate the AMT? Because it's expected to bring in about $800 billion in government revenue over the next 10 years.

Sources: Tax Policy Center, Internal Revenue Service

Social Security Tax

For your entire working life, Uncle Sam takes a chunk of your pay to help pay for Social Security. But when you start receiving a Social Security paycheck, you still may be taxed on some of this income--sometimes as much as 85% of it. If your total income plus half of your Social Security benefits exceeds $34,000 ($44,000 for couples filing jointly), you get stuck paying the 85% rate. Others, who earn less, either have 50% or 0% of their Social Security taxed. Like the AMT, these figures aren't adjusted for inflation, meaning an increasing number of people are being ensnared by the tax. Some price for retiring!

Sources: IRS, Tax Policy Center

*Teaching sex education in kindergarten????

Below is a transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show. It is a conversation including Obama and other strong voices. Do you think kindergarten students should be taught sex ed? And if so....on what level? Read about it below! Also, what do you think about all of the things Hilary Clinton is trying to control? Shouldn't you get to choose what kindergarten your child attends? I agree to some degree about teaching children at a young age where they should not allow anyone to touch but it is a very fine line to walk. There are just things that a five year old can't understand and shouldn't have to try to understand. They are only children once and it would be a terrible thing to force them to grow up faster then needed. I would love to hear your opinions. I am a little torn but I think if it is handled VERY carefully and VERY controlled it is possible teaching children things they need to know to protect themselves could be a good thing. But really....how much that is "controlled" by the government is "handled very carefully"? I mean we see people on welfare who are in "poverty"....and yet they walk around fully clothed, with cars, and are obviously well fed! ....now don't get offended because I know some people really do need the food stamps and the help and they are trying to turn their lives around....but some people....even if they started out with good intentions are now taking advantage of the welfare system. So, who is to say that this new teaching system wouldn't get taken advantage of or overlooked/neglected in the future? July 23, 2007

www.RushLimbaugh.com : Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now! BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: On Tuesday of last week, Planned Parenthood's annual public affairs conference in Washington, Barack Obama, referring to Republican Alan Keyes and sex education, said this. OBAMA: I remember him using this in his campaign against me, saying, "Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners." (Laughter.) And -- you know, which, I didn't know what to tell him. (Laughter.) But it's the right thing to do. You know, to -- to provide age-appropriate sex education, science based sex education in the schools. RUSH: Yeah, kindergarten. Barack Obama, sex education in kindergarten. Now, the next day, July 18th, on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney responded to these comments from Obama by saying this. ROMNEY: How much sex education is age-appropriate for a five-year-old? In my view, zero is the right amount. (Applause.) Instead of teaching about sex education in kindergarten to five-year-olds, let's clean up the ocean of filth, the cesspool in which our kids are swimming. RUSH: All right, amen, right on, right on, right on, right on, right on, right on. This is all part of the Democrat effort -- if you listen to Obama and Hillary and Edwards, they want abortion on demand, paid for by the taxpayers, they want national, universal health care for everybody. They just want total control over your life, now to the point of sex education of kids. Well, this finally woke up somebody who's been dormant and lying prostrate for a little while, Joycelyn Elders. Remember her, the sturgeon general from the Clinton administration. She was on Fox and Friends this morning, Gretchen Carlson talked to her, said, "Look, Senator Obama last week said that he would agree with certain types of sex education for kindergarteners when it comes to teaching them what appropriate touching is, what inappropriate touching is. I assume you agree with Barack Obama to the full capacity, or do you have a differing opinion at all?" ELDERS: I agree with Mr. Obama to the full capacity. I feel that we should have age-appropriate, scientifically based evidence, sex education taught in schools from kindergarten through twelfth grade. RUSH: Okay, so as for kindergarteners, what would be appropriate? ELDERS: To teach them that there are certain places on the bodies nobody is to touch. If they do, they should tell somebody, and if somebody is touching them in ways that makes them feel uncomfortable, you know, so much more sex goes on above the neck than it does below the waist. RUSH: Hmm. That's why I've been missing out all my life. I've been heading in the wrong direction. Sex takes place above the neck. She would know, from the Clinton administration, wouldn't you think? No wonder I've been bombing out. I've been zeroing in on the wrong places. Let's go back, shall we? July 11th, 1999, Fox News Sunday, Elaine Bennett and Joycelyn Elders. Tony Snow hosting the show said, "Dr. Elders, you earlier said that we shouldn't be guilty of innocence. Is that an overly innocent way of looking at the way the world works these days?" ELDERS: You know, if we want to talk about teaching children sexuality education, it starts at birth. And it's self-esteem, how you feel about yourself, it's all of those things. RUSH: Let's go even further back, from the woman who just told us that more sex goes on above the neck than it does below the waist, this is audio from my TV show, December 12th, 1994. Here is Joycelyn Elders talking about masturbation. ELDERS: In regard to masturbation, I think that that is something that is a part of human sexuality, and it is a part of something that perhaps should be taught. RUSH: So my only question, since she thinks that masturbation should be taught, and she meant in grade school, masturbation should be taught and much more sex goes on above the neck than it does below the waist, how she must know this. How do you masturbate above the neck?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Since we're talking about sex, kindergarten and all this, I want to share with you an editorial from the Investor's Business Daily, actually an opinion column. It was from July 20th, posted last Friday. "Senator Hillary Clinton ignited few fireworks, speaking before the nation's largest teachers union over the July 4th holiday, but one proposal is proving explosive: state-run preschool for all families. Her proposal, which was introduced Thursday in the Senate, last Thursday, would give the states $28 billion over five years to incorporate the nation's 120,000 preschools now run in firms, churches, and storefronts into a government-run system. The former Goldwater girl's come a long way from the western ways of neighborhood values that she once embraced. Her universal preschool idea is sparking heated debate over the back fence and in policy circles, but the question is basic: How much control should the government have in raising and teaching our young kids?" Now, what you have to remember about this, she's saying that the government should take over small, independent preschools. What are small, independent preschools? They are independent and private businesses. A preschool is a private business. You send your kid to a preschool that's not part of the state education system, and you're paying for it, you obviously know you're sending your kid to a private business. Hillary Clinton wants to come in and essentially nationalize them all, under state control. I'm telling you, these people, if they get power, if they win the White House, the first thing that they're going to do is go after and outlaw home schooling. It's going to happen so fast it will curl your hair. They want control over every aspect of your kid's life, even now suggesting sex education in kindergarten, and let's not pull any punches. We all know what that's about. We all know what sex education in kindergarten is all about. These people are loony, folks. They're painting Mrs. Clinton here as a moderate? But compared to Obama and Edwards, I mean they're all suggesting the same thing: government-provided abortion, socialization of the health care system, taking your kids at age four now, and getting them into their state-run, government-run kindergartens. They're basically taking away your choice, and they're taking away your kid. You want to send your kid to a preschool that you pay for. Mrs. Clinton wants to shut them down and have them taken over by the states just like she wants to seize the profits from Exxon as she said.

*US House backs Iraq withdrawal

"The US House of Representatives has voted in favour of pulling most combat troops out of Iraq by April 2008, defying the threat of a presidential veto. The move came hours after the Bush administration conceded that an interim assessment showed the Iraqi government was making only limited progress on military and political issues. The Democrat-controlled house approved the troop withdrawal measure, 223 in favour to 201 against. The legislation would require combat troops to begin pulling out within 120 days, with a full withdrawal completed by April 1, 2008. A poll has showed more than 70 per cent of Americans favour withdrawing nearly all US troops by April [AF The measure says only a limited residual force would remain to train Iraqi troops, protect US assets and fight al-Qaeda and other groups. Earlier George Bush, who has ruled out any immediate shift in policy, sought to defend his troop "surge" strategy in Iraq, saying he would wait until a fuller report is delivered by the head of US forces there in September. "I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must,"' Bush said at a White House news conference at which he stressed the interim nature of the report. The much-anticipated assessment released on Thursday said that the security situation in Iraq remained "complex and extremely challenging", and that the level of violence had "undermined efforts to achieve political reconciliation". "Amid such violence, it became significantly harder for Iraqi leaders to make the difficult compromises necessary to foster reconciliation," it added. Benchmarks The interim assessment said only eight of the 18 US benchmarks in Iraq have been achieved satisfactorily. It said progress on eight other benchmarks, intended to grade Iraqi political and security developments, had been unsatisfactory, while progress on two others had been mixed. The interim report gave a bleak assessment of progress in Iraq [EPA] The interim report gave a bleak assessment of progress in Iraq [EPA] The report found that the US-backed government had failed to achieve goals considered necessary to bring sectarian violence under control, such as passing legislation to divide the nation's oil revenues. But despite the bleak tone, Bush said he continued to have confidence in Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. "Yeah, I've got confidence in him, but I also understand how difficult it is. I'm not making the excuses, but it is hard," said Bush. Bush highlighted the benchmarks that had been satisfactorily achieved, including the Iraqi government's co-operation in letting Iraqi forces combat anti-US fighters and money spent to train and equip its forces. But Hoda Abdel Hamid, Al Jazeera's Baghdad correspondent, said military people on the ground – both American and Iraqis – have told her that co-operation is well below levels Bush might expect. She said: "A lot of recruits do not show up for work. "The Iraqis are more reluctant to go into neighbourhoods because of sectarian reasons and other times because they just don't have the equipment. "Sometimes they don't have bulletproof vests, they don't have bulletproof cars and sometimes they don't really have bullets." Breaking ranks Bush signalled he would veto any legislation requiring a "hasty" withdrawal [EPA] The report came as several prominent Republicans broke ranks with Bush on Iraq, saying the so-called troop "surge" was not working and it was time to rethink US policy. Asked about waning Republican support, Bush said he took what was said into account. "I value the advice of those senators, I appreciate their concerns ... and I will continue listening to them." But he said he would also waiting to hear from General David Petraeus, the most senior US commander in Iraq, in September. Some analysts have suggested Bush is trying to shift blame for failure of the so-called "surge" on to the military. Speaking before the vote on withdrawing troops in the House of Representatives, Bush signalled that he would veto any legislation requiring what he described as a hasty pull-out from Iraq. "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war," he said. "The idea of [Congress] telling our military how to conduct operations, for example, or how to deal with troop strength, I don't think it makes sense today, nor do I think it's a good precedent for the future." A USA Today/Gallup poll this week showed more than seven in 10 Americans favour withdrawing nearly all US troops by April."

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies _________________________________________________________________ As of right now I am in support of us pulling back out troops. We have been there for a long time and if it isn't working yet ...I don't know if it ever will. Apart of me wants our troops to stay to help them get established and have their democracy ...but it doesn't seem that is what they want or that right now it is even possible. I think we have lots of issues that should be taken care of right here in our own country. Imagine if we had put half the effort ,required of our troops over these long years, into ending poverty or violence. Those are just a few deas. But you get my point. It is just hard for me to understand sometimes why soooo much effort, time, and money has been spent on this effort. Please help me to understand!!!

Alex's Lemonade stand for Cancer

I saw a precious commercial for Alex's Lemonade stand. You may be wondering what's the big deal? Well, read this and you will understand.

Here is the touching story behind this childs desire to raise money to fight cancer!

____________________________________________________________________

ABOUT ALEX'S LEMONADE STAND
In 2000, a 4 year old cancer patient named Alexandra "Alex" Scott announced a seemingly simple idea -she was holding a lemonade stand to raise money to help "her doctors" find a cure for kids with cancer. The idea was put into action by Alex and her older brother, Patrick, when they set up the first "Alex's Lemonade Stand for Childhood Cancer" on their front lawn in July of 2000.

For the next four years, despite her deteriorating health, Alex held an annual lemonade stand to raise money for childhood cancer research. Following her inspirational example, thousands of lemonade stands and other fundraising events have been held across the country by children, schools, businesses, and organizations, all to benefit Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation for childhood cancer. On August 1st, 2004, Alex died peacefully at the age of 8 -- she had raised over $1 million for childhood cancer research in her short lifetime.

Alex's spirited determination to raise awareness and money for all childhood cancer while she bravely fought her own deadly battle with cancer has inspired thousands of people, from all walks of life to raise money and give to her cause. Alex's family and supporters are committed to continuing her inspiring legacy through Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation, a registered 501c3 charity. As of June 2007, Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation has raised over $12 million for childhood cancer research. The result -- Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation has given millions of dollars for childhood cancer research across the country!

________________________________________________________________

please visit the link below to see how you can be apart of the solution!

www.Alexslemonade.com

*Kids today...WHAT IS GOING ON???

"Preteens allegedly kidnap baby, demand ransom

ENID, Oklahoma (AP) -- Detectives arrested a 12-year-old girl and her 10-year-old sister for allegedly abducting their neighbor's 1-year-old son and demanding $200,000 for his return.

Authorities escort two sisters, ages 10 and 12. The girls are accused of abducting their neighbor's baby.

Brandon Wells was back at home Thursday night, hours after intruders broke into his family's residence and took him while his mother, Sheila Wells, slept, police said.

"I've been doing this 18 1/2 years, and this is the first time I know of when a 10- and a 12-year-old kidnapped a 1-year-old," said police Capt. Dean Grassino. "It definitely ranks up there with the unusual crimes."

"If you want to see your son again then you won't call police and report him missing and you will leave $200,000 on the sofa tonight and we will return your son back safe," the note read, according to police.

The girls appeared in Garfield County District Court on Thursday afternoon and were taken to Community Intervention Center for juveniles. They have not been formally charged.

"I know they're so young, but they need to learn from their mistakes," Wells said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

"If you want to see your son again then you won't call police and report him missing and you will leave $200,000 on the sofa tonight and we will return your son back safe," the note read, according to police.

The girls appeared in Garfield County District Court on Thursday afternoon and were taken to Community Intervention Center for juveniles. They have not been formally charged.

"I know they're so young, but they need to learn from their mistakes," Wells said."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

__________________________________________________________________

This is a crazy story! I wonder what gave these kids this idea? It also makes me wonder how kids can think that they can get away with this...or if they thought they were doing it as a joke....what gave them the idea that it was funny? What do you think? Do you think the media or video games or some other influence causes kids to behave like this? Do you think it is parents who don't teach their kids how to respect others? It just all makes me wonder. This is just one story but I am sure there are many others with children acting out in ways as outrageous as this. What can we do to change the course of a generation?

* A Health Warning!

Thought this was important to share in case any one reading might be doing this or thinking of doing this:

Diabetes eating disorder warning

People with type 1 diabetes need daily insulin injections

Thousands of young diabetics could be skipping insulin injections in order to lose weight, the BBC has learned.

People with type 1 diabetes need daily injections to help them absorb glucose to use as fuel. Failure to take correct doses can lead to rapid weight loss.

Charity Diabetes UK estimates that up to one-third of young women with the disease miss injections to stay thin.

Doctors warn that the "diabulimia" eating disorder can lead to blindness, heart and kidney disease.

US doctors recently went public on their concerns about the practice.

Since then, the BBC's Radio One Newsbeat has received correspondence from dozens of type 1 diabetics in the UK who say they have done the same.

A Diabetes UK spokesman said: "Blood glucose that is too high for too long can cause serious complications.

"Diabetes is the leading cause of blindness in younger people.

"Cardiovascular disease can also result from long period of insulin abuse as well as kidney disease and nerve damage."

( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6267910.stm )

*U.S. Senate blocks Bush's immigration bill

The Associated Press

Published: June 27, 2007

WASHINGTON: The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President George W. Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.

Responding to a stinging political setback, Bush sounded resigned to defeat.

"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people, and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment," Bush said after an appearance in Newport, Rhode Island. "The American people understand the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to our immigration laws. A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work.

___________________________________________________________________

Some one explain this to me...am I reading this right? Did Bush want to legalize all the illegal immigrants??? Please tell me that is not what I'm reading. That makes NO sense! They break the law and come to the U.S. illegally and not only do we reward them by not sending them home but now we want to legalize them....just for the fun of it?? If I'm getting this wrong....someone please tell me! I really hope I'm just having bad understanding because it's late at night!!!

*Paris or.....something important?

I have noticed in the past few months that there has been more said about Paris and other celebs in the national media then the war, immigration, and gas prices.

Why do you think this is? I have an idea. I think that the media has figured out that people don't want to hear about all of the "bad" things. Because if they knew what was going on they would actually have to deal with it. People would rather hear about other peoples problems (like Paris in jail) then issues that actually affect them. It makes sense to me that they would want to hear about things going on that actually affect them...that way they would know what they can do to make sure they have a say the outcome.

There are many bills being tossed around in government that we should be aware of and make a choice about. We need to let our representatives and on up the ladder know how we feel.

What it boils down to is this...

In ten years when things have ended up in a mess and you begin to realize that the nation is in trouble...if you never took notice and voted...then you don't have a place to complain.

I am hoping that in 10 years we can all look back and realize that we did make a difference and helped the nation get back on track by making our voices heard instead of sitting back and thinking "oh, someone else will do it."

BE someone!

I am curious of a few things:
1. Your age?
2. Did you vote in the last Pres. Election? Why or why not?
3. Who are you leaning towards in the coming election? Why?
4. Who is the Speaker of the House?
5. Who is serving time in jail and misses her dog?

Thank you for taking the time to answer these to give us an idea of where we are as a nation!