| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
Yep, they're all about lower taxes.....
A tax reform proposal agreed upon Tuesday by President Bush's advisory panel would eliminate the federal deduction for state and local taxes and sharply limit the tax break for home mortgage interest. That's leading some Democrats in California and New York to assail it as an attack on the blue states -- the ones that voted Democratic in the 2004 presidential election -- which tend to have higher taxes and housing costs. "The Bush panel's recommendations are a double-barreled blast aimed squarely at California and the middle class," state Treasurer Phil Angelides said in a press release. "These recommendations are good for Texas, but bad for California." Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called it a pernicious proposal and a "dagger to the heart of the people of New York." The bipartisan panel, appointed by Bush early this year, was asked to identify ways to simplify federal tax laws and redistribute the "burdens and benefits" of federal tax "in an appropriately progressive manner while recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity." Its proposals, on balance, are supposed to neither raise nor lower federal tax revenue. Most observers think the proposal has little chance of adoption because of the broad range of interest groups -- not to mention political sacred cows -- it would threaten. Still, the plan is expected to spark a far-reaching debate on tax reform. The plan, which the panel plans to finish up next week, would simplify taxes for the about one-third of taxpayers who itemize deductions -- by eliminating them. Schedule A, the IRS form used to itemize deductions, would go bye-bye along with many other tax-return forms. The deduction for interest on a home mortgage, the biggest write-off for many taxpayers, would be eliminated and replaced with a tax credit. Under current law, taxpayers who itemize deductions can deduct interest on up to $1 million in mortgage debt. The interest can be on one or two homes as long as it doesn't total more than $1 million. A deduction reduces income before taxes are calculated. The higher your tax rate, the bigger the benefit. A tax credit, by comparison, reduces your final tax bill dollar for dollar, regardless of income. The proposal calls for replacing the mortgage-interest deduction with a tax credit equal to 15 percent of the interest paid on one home. The credit could be claimed even by those who do not itemize deductions today. The credit would apply only to interest on mortgages up to the limit for loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA limit varies by region, but in most parts of California, it is $312,895. That is well below the median price of a home in California ($568,000) and less than half of the median price of a Bay Area home. In many parts of the country, the FHA limit is above the median home price. The average FHA limit nationwide is $265,000. The plan "would be devastating for states like California where real estate values have skyrocketed and affordability is at its lowest levels," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. The proposal would eliminate any tax break for interest paid on a second home or a home equity loan or line of credit. Under the proposal, the first $600,000 of profit from the sale of a primary residence would be tax-free for married couples filing jointly. That amount would be indexed to inflation. Any profit over that amount would be taxed as ordinary income. Under current law, couples can exclude up to $500,000 in profit from the sale of a home, but anything over that is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Home Builders, said the plan, if enacted by Congress, would "put an immediate chill on the housing markets and reverse almost a century of housing policy." On the plus side for blue states, the proposal also calls for eliminating the alternative minimum tax, a separate, mind-boggling system that raises taxes for a small but rapidly growing number of middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers. It could affect 30 million Americans in 2010, up from 2 million in 2002. The way most people fall into the alternative minimum tax is by claiming large deductions for state and local taxes, said Clint Stretch, director of tax policy with the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche. On a per-capita basis, the states with the most people paying alternative minimum tax are New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, California, Massachusetts and Maryland. All are blue states. Repealing the alternative minimum tax would reduce taxes for many Americans, but eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes would raise them for many more. Whether individuals would be better or worse off overall depends on their personal situation and other aspects of the tax plan. "The political problem is that a lot of the people who will benefit from the AMT being repealed don't know they have the problem yet," Stretch said. The proposal also would reduce the number of federal tax brackets. Today, there are six, ranging from 10 to 35 percent. Under the proposal, there would be four, ranging from 15 to 33 percent. The panel endorsed two plans for taxing capital gains from investments. Stretch said the tax panel was trying to simplify taxes without shifting the burden rich to poor, from poor to rich or from state to state. Ideally, the tax burden paid by the top 20 percent, the next 20 percent and so on would be the same before and after reform. But even if that happens, there could be big tax-burden shifts within those groups, and an individual's taxes could change dramatically based on whether they own a home, what kind of investments they have and other factors. "This is a very complicated puzzle to try to piece together," Stretch said. So much for tax simplification |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars)also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
wrote in message ups.com... Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... A tax reform proposal agreed upon Tuesday by President Bush's advisory panel would eliminate the federal deduction for state and local taxes and sharply limit the tax break for home mortgage interest. I seriously doubt that Bush would accept any proposal that included reducing or eliminating the home mortgage deduction. this is out of a bipartisan advisory panel. That's leading some Democrats in California and New York to assail it as an attack on the blue states -- the ones that voted Democratic in the 2004 presidential election -- which tend to have higher taxes and housing costs. There were Democrats sitting on the panel too. "The Bush panel's recommendations are a double-barreled blast aimed squarely at California and the middle class," state Treasurer Phil Angelides said in a press release. "These recommendations are good for Texas, but bad for California." Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called it a pernicious proposal and a "dagger to the heart of the people of New York." The bipartisan panel, appointed by Bush early this year, was asked to identify ways to simplify federal tax laws and redistribute the "burdens and benefits" of federal tax "in an appropriately progressive manner while recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity." Its proposals, on balance, are supposed to neither raise nor lower federal tax revenue. Most observers think the proposal has little chance of adoption because of the broad range of interest groups -- not to mention political sacred cows -- it would threaten. Still, the plan is expected to spark a far-reaching debate on tax reform. The plan, which the panel plans to finish up next week, would simplify taxes for the about one-third of taxpayers who itemize deductions -- by eliminating them. Schedule A, the IRS form used to itemize deductions, would go bye-bye along with many other tax-return forms. The deduction for interest on a home mortgage, the biggest write-off for many taxpayers, would be eliminated and replaced with a tax credit. Under current law, taxpayers who itemize deductions can deduct interest on up to $1 million in mortgage debt. The interest can be on one or two homes as long as it doesn't total more than $1 million. A deduction reduces income before taxes are calculated. The higher your tax rate, the bigger the benefit. A tax credit, by comparison, reduces your final tax bill dollar for dollar, regardless of income. The proposal calls for replacing the mortgage-interest deduction with a tax credit equal to 15 percent of the interest paid on one home. This would hurt me pretty badly. Currently, I get about $15,000 in tax savings due to the deductibility of my home mortgage. I figure that I'd end up paying an additional $8000 in taxes each year if they limit the credit to 15% of interest paid on my home. I'm all for eliminating the home mortgage deduction...BUT only if they first lower my marginal rate, and create a flat tax across the board for all income levels. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... wrote in ups.com: wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Uh... who brought it DOWN from 15 to 10 in the first place? Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families In other words, people who don't itemize? The tax credit proposal is a TAX CUT for those folks. but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) Eliminating the deduction for $1mm houses isn't going to make those houses disappear. It's going to make the owners of those houses fire the maids and gardeners whose salaries they were paying with their mortgage deductions. LOL. You really have a warped sense of reality. I have a $960,000 mortgage. I pay $46,145 in interest each year. The deductibility of my home mortgage saves me roughly $15,000 in taxes every year. Under the new proposal, I'd only save $6,000...which means it's an $8000 tax increase. I don't have maids nor gardners. Since my personal budget was set up before this ridiculous idea started floating around, I also don't have an extra $8k laying around each year. So I have to cut expenses somewhere (either around my house, or at work). Since I'm self-employed, the easiest way to cut expenses is to make some cuts at my business (ie--employee benefits, salaries, etc) The funny thing about supply side (trickle down) economics is that it also works in reverse. Raise taxes, and the economy and jobs picture suffer. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? The dirty little secret of housing boom is that it has sent property taxes soaring without local governments having to enact tax rate increases. That doesn't help things in Florida because of Save Our Homes (tax increases capped at 3% per year) |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates , and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. So would you cut back the deductibility of home mortgages as proposed? |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message ups.com... Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... A tax reform proposal agreed upon Tuesday by President Bush's advisory panel would eliminate the federal deduction for state and local taxes and sharply limit the tax break for home mortgage interest. I seriously doubt that Bush would accept any proposal that included reducing or eliminating the home mortgage deduction. this is out of a bipartisan advisory panel. Hell, they didn;t even follow his executive order.........eliminating the incentive of home ownership certainly is not "recognizing the importance of homeownership" Sounds like the panel was hijacked. http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/executive-order.shtml Executive Order: President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to assist in reforming the Federal Internal Revenue Code to benefit all Americans, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Establishment. There is established the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform (Advisory Panel). Sec. 2. Membership. (a) The Advisory Panel shall be composed of up to nine members appointed by the President. (b) The President shall designate one member of the Advisory Panel to serve as Chair and one member to serve as Vice Chair. Sec. 3. Purpose. The purpose of the Advisory Panel shall be to submit to the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this order a report with revenue neutral policy options for reforming the Federal Internal Revenue Code. These options should: (a) simplify Federal tax laws to reduce the costs and administrative burdens of compliance with such laws; (b) share the burdens and benefits of the Federal tax structure in an appropriately progressive manner while recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity in American society; and (c) promote long-run economic growth and job creation, and better encourage work effort, saving, and investment, so as to strengthen the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace. At least one option submitted by the Advisory Panel should use the Federal income tax as the base for its recommended reforms." That's leading some Democrats in California and New York to assail it as an attack on the blue states -- the ones that voted Democratic in the 2004 presidential election -- which tend to have higher taxes and housing costs. There were Democrats sitting on the panel too. "The Bush panel's recommendations are a double-barreled blast aimed squarely at California and the middle class," state Treasurer Phil Angelides said in a press release. "These recommendations are good for Texas, but bad for California." Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called it a pernicious proposal and a "dagger to the heart of the people of New York." The bipartisan panel, appointed by Bush early this year, was asked to identify ways to simplify federal tax laws and redistribute the "burdens and benefits" of federal tax "in an appropriately progressive manner while recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity." Its proposals, on balance, are supposed to neither raise nor lower federal tax revenue. Most observers think the proposal has little chance of adoption because of the broad range of interest groups -- not to mention political sacred cows -- it would threaten. Still, the plan is expected to spark a far-reaching debate on tax reform. The plan, which the panel plans to finish up next week, would simplify taxes for the about one-third of taxpayers who itemize deductions -- by eliminating them. Schedule A, the IRS form used to itemize deductions, would go bye-bye along with many other tax-return forms. The deduction for interest on a home mortgage, the biggest write-off for many taxpayers, would be eliminated and replaced with a tax credit. Under current law, taxpayers who itemize deductions can deduct interest on up to $1 million in mortgage debt. The interest can be on one or two homes as long as it doesn't total more than $1 million. A deduction reduces income before taxes are calculated. The higher your tax rate, the bigger the benefit. A tax credit, by comparison, reduces your final tax bill dollar for dollar, regardless of income. The proposal calls for replacing the mortgage-interest deduction with a tax credit equal to 15 percent of the interest paid on one home. This would hurt me pretty badly. Currently, I get about $15,000 in tax savings due to the deductibility of my home mortgage. I figure that I'd end up paying an additional $8000 in taxes each year if they limit the credit to 15% of interest paid on my home. I'm all for eliminating the home mortgage deduction...BUT only if they first lower my marginal rate, and create a flat tax across the board for all income levels. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. Agreed |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars)also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. Do you claim a deduction on your home mortgage interest Chuck? If you really believe what you said you would not. You need to set an example for the rest of us. ;-) |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
Harry,
Do you ever get frustrated that you have all of these ideas and no one really cares what you want to do? "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates, and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates , and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. So would you cut back the deductibility of home mortgages as proposed? I didn't say that, did I? I would, however, eliminate the deduction for a second home. Yup. Me too. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity in American society; and (c) promote long-run economic growth and job creation, and better encourage work effort, saving, and investment, so as to strengthen the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace. Get rid of my home mortgage interest deduction, and the following happens: I have less money at the end of the year than I currently have....which will cause: 1) decreased contributions to charity 2) decreased spending on employees at my business 3) decreased pension plan savings It sounds to me as if this panel was filled with a bunch of idiots. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:43:12 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:38:29 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 09:16:34 -0700, wrote: "The Bush panel's recommendations are a double-barreled blast aimed squarely at California and the middle class," state Treasurer Phil Angelides said in a press release. "These recommendations are good for Texas, but bad for California." Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called it a pernicious proposal and a "dagger to the heart of the people of New York. Heh. I find this really amusing. Senator Schumer blasting a tax increase. And I just saw none other than Nancy Pelosi, from California, yack about the mortgage deduction - which amuses me greatly. Pelosi will tie that in to the poor in New Orleans who lost their homes (rentals) and now won't be able to claim mortgage interest. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars)also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. Do you claim a deduction on your home mortgage interest Chuck? If you really believe what you said you would not. You need to set an example for the rest of us. ;-) Actually, I don't claim any mortgage interest deduction at all. (No mortgage, no interest). As far as an example goes; I hope you don't have to follow mine. AMT every stinking year. AMT; just another hosing of the middle class... :-( |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity in American society; and (c) promote long-run economic growth and job creation, and better encourage work effort, saving, and investment, so as to strengthen the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace. Get rid of my home mortgage interest deduction, and the following happens: I have less money at the end of the year than I currently have....which will cause: 1) decreased contributions to charity 2) decreased spending on employees at my business 3) decreased pension plan savings It sounds to me as if this panel was filled with a bunch of idiots. Yeah......they obviously do not know the difference between simplifying taxes and raising them. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. Agreed THERE WILL NEVER BE A FLAT TAX!!!! The ultimate control the government has over the people is taxation. Boost one group, bring down another group. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "P Fritz" wrote in message ... recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity in American society; and (c) promote long-run economic growth and job creation, and better encourage work effort, saving, and investment, so as to strengthen the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace. Get rid of my home mortgage interest deduction, and the following happens: I have less money at the end of the year than I currently have....which will cause: 1) decreased contributions to charity 2) decreased spending on employees at my business 3) decreased pension plan savings It sounds to me as if this panel was filled with a bunch of idiots. Maybe you would have to live within your income. Not bet on the come as to rising home prices to save you from an interest only loan. Why should the rest of the people support your real estate speculation? |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in : NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates , and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. So would you cut back the deductibility of home mortgages as proposed? I didn't say that, did I? I would, however, eliminate the deduction for a second home. What non-defense spending would you cut? why stick with non-defense? 42% of the budget,approximately, goes to military either past spending (i.e. Reagan's deficit) or current spending The military LOST, as in misplaced, one TRILLION dollars last year. If that was corporation all upper management would be in jail, because it is the military it barely made the news....... The military needs to be made accountable! http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/i...t_military.htm |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in : I'd make all income taxable at the current rates, and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. What non-defense spending would you cut? why stick with non-defense? 42% of the budget,approximately, goes to military either past spending (i.e. Reagan's deficit) or current spending The military LOST, as in misplaced, one TRILLION dollars last year. If that was corporation all upper management would be in jail, because it is the military it barely made the news....... The military needs to be made accountable! http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/i...t_military.htm |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"NOYB" wrote in message news:jpx5f.17098 I'm all for eliminating the home mortgage deduction...BUT only if they first lower my marginal rate, and create a flat tax across the board for all income levels. I'm all for a flat tax IF ALL money that a person makes is counted as income. Of course I am talking about no special treatment for dividend income or capital gains. The only exception would be the profit on the sale of your home, after all a lot of retirees are counting on that money for their security. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:58:41 GMT, "Gorf" wrote:
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in : NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates , and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. So would you cut back the deductibility of home mortgages as proposed? I didn't say that, did I? I would, however, eliminate the deduction for a second home. What non-defense spending would you cut? why stick with non-defense? 42% of the budget,approximately, goes to military either past spending (i.e. Reagan's deficit) or current spending The military LOST, as in misplaced, one TRILLION dollars last year. If that was corporation all upper management would be in jail, because it is the military it barely made the news....... The military needs to be made accountable! http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/i...t_military.htm Now *that's* funny! -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:58:41 GMT, "Gorf" wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in : NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates , and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. So would you cut back the deductibility of home mortgages as proposed? I didn't say that, did I? I would, however, eliminate the deduction for a second home. What non-defense spending would you cut? why stick with non-defense? 42% of the budget,approximately, goes to military either past spending (i.e. Reagan's deficit) or current spending The military LOST, as in misplaced, one TRILLION dollars last year. If that was corporation all upper management would be in jail, because it is the military it barely made the news....... The military needs to be made accountable! http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/i...t_military.htm Now *that's* funny! -- John H You really should try get your news from more than one source... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:58:41 GMT, "Gorf" wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in : NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates , and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. So would you cut back the deductibility of home mortgages as proposed? I didn't say that, did I? I would, however, eliminate the deduction for a second home. What non-defense spending would you cut? why stick with non-defense? 42% of the budget,approximately, goes to military either past spending (i.e. Reagan's deficit) or current spending The military LOST, as in misplaced, one TRILLION dollars last year. If that was corporation all upper management would be in jail, because it is the military it barely made the news....... The military needs to be made accountable! http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/i...t_military.htm Now *that's* funny! -- John H if you don't like sfgate hw=ere's another for you: http://bernie.house.gov/documents/ar...0520151455.asp |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"Gorf" wrote in message . com... "PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:58:41 GMT, "Gorf" wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in : NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates , and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. So would you cut back the deductibility of home mortgages as proposed? I didn't say that, did I? I would, however, eliminate the deduction for a second home. What non-defense spending would you cut? why stick with non-defense? 42% of the budget,approximately, goes to military either past spending (i.e. Reagan's deficit) or current spending The military LOST, as in misplaced, one TRILLION dollars last year. If that was corporation all upper management would be in jail, because it is the military it barely made the news....... The military needs to be made accountable! http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/i...t_military.htm Now *that's* funny! -- John H You really should try get your news from more than one source... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"Gorf" wrote in message . com... "PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:58:41 GMT, "Gorf" wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in : NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates , and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. So would you cut back the deductibility of home mortgages as proposed? I didn't say that, did I? I would, however, eliminate the deduction for a second home. What non-defense spending would you cut? why stick with non-defense? 42% of the budget,approximately, goes to military either past spending (i.e. Reagan's deficit) or current spending The military LOST, as in misplaced, one TRILLION dollars last year. If that was corporation all upper management would be in jail, because it is the military it barely made the news....... The military needs to be made accountable! http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/i...t_military.htm Now *that's* funny! -- John H You really should try get your news from more than one source... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable sfgate.com and ccmep.com.....both are indeed credible sources of information. LOL. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
" *JimH*" wrote in message ... "Gorf" wrote in message . com... "PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:58:41 GMT, "Gorf" wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in : NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates , and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. So would you cut back the deductibility of home mortgages as proposed? I didn't say that, did I? I would, however, eliminate the deduction for a second home. What non-defense spending would you cut? why stick with non-defense? 42% of the budget,approximately, goes to military either past spending (i.e. Reagan's deficit) or current spending The military LOST, as in misplaced, one TRILLION dollars last year. If that was corporation all upper management would be in jail, because it is the military it barely made the news....... The military needs to be made accountable! http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/i...t_military.htm Now *that's* funny! -- John H You really should try get your news from more than one source... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable sfgate.com and ccmep.com.....both are indeed credible sources of information. LOL. And did you read the other posting from the House of Representatives? http://bernie.house.gov/documents/ar...0520151455.asp |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"Gorf" wrote in message . com... " *JimH*" wrote in message ... "Gorf" wrote in message . com... "PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:58:41 GMT, "Gorf" wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in : NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates , and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. So would you cut back the deductibility of home mortgages as proposed? I didn't say that, did I? I would, however, eliminate the deduction for a second home. What non-defense spending would you cut? why stick with non-defense? 42% of the budget,approximately, goes to military either past spending (i.e. Reagan's deficit) or current spending The military LOST, as in misplaced, one TRILLION dollars last year. If that was corporation all upper management would be in jail, because it is the military it barely made the news....... The military needs to be made accountable! http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/i...t_military.htm Now *that's* funny! -- John H You really should try get your news from more than one source... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable sfgate.com and ccmep.com.....both are indeed credible sources of information. LOL. And did you read the other posting from the House of Representatives? http://bernie.house.gov/documents/ar...0520151455.asp What I read was a lot of accusation with absolutely no link or sources supporting the claims. So to me it is nothing more than..............political crap. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
" *JimH*" wrote in message ... "Gorf" wrote in message . com... "PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:58:41 GMT, "Gorf" wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in : NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates , and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. So would you cut back the deductibility of home mortgages as proposed? I didn't say that, did I? I would, however, eliminate the deduction for a second home. What non-defense spending would you cut? why stick with non-defense? 42% of the budget,approximately, goes to military either past spending (i.e. Reagan's deficit) or current spending The military LOST, as in misplaced, one TRILLION dollars last year. If that was corporation all upper management would be in jail, because it is the military it barely made the news....... The military needs to be made accountable! http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/i...t_military.htm Now *that's* funny! -- John H You really should try get your news from more than one source... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable sfgate.com and ccmep.com.....both are indeed credible sources of information. LOL. Here's McKinney grilling Rumsfeld over the lost $$$ http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...s_rumsfeld.htm |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
*JimH* wrote:
What I read was a lot of accusation with absolutely no link or sources supporting the claims. So to me it is nothing more than..............political crap. Didn't you say a while ago that you were going stay out of "political crap"? Didn't take you long to reneg, did it? It's easy to see why you are such a loyal Bush-Cheney cheerleader. DSK |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
" *JimH*" wrote in message ... What I read was a lot of accusation with absolutely no link or sources supporting the claims. So to me it is nothing more than..............political crap. Here's another beleive what you want.... Here's McKinney grilling Rumsfeld over the lost $$$ http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...s_rumsfeld.htm |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"Gorf" wrote in message . com... " *JimH*" wrote in message ... What I read was a lot of accusation with absolutely no link or sources supporting the claims. So to me it is nothing more than..............political crap. Here's another beleive what you want.... Here's McKinney grilling Rumsfeld over the lost $$$ http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...s_rumsfeld.htm yawn Wake me up when you find a credible source for your information. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called it a pernicious proposal and a
"dagger to the heart of the people of New York. Heh. I find this really amusing. Senator Schumer blasting a tax increase. Of course, if Bubba had proposed the tax increase,. Shumer would have been all for it! |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:58:53 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 03:39:33 -0700, wrote: Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called it a pernicious proposal and a "dagger to the heart of the people of New York. Heh. I find this really amusing. Senator Schumer blasting a tax increase. Of course, if Bubba had proposed the tax increase,. Shumer would have been all for it! There are very few people that I can't say something good about or even respect. Schumer is one of those self-aggrandizing weasels who just set my teeth on edge. IMHO, he doesn't come close to Pelosi. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
" *JimH*" wrote in message . .. "Gorf" wrote in message . com... " *JimH*" wrote in message ... What I read was a lot of accusation with absolutely no link or sources supporting the claims. So to me it is nothing more than..............political crap. Here's another beleive what you want.... Here's McKinney grilling Rumsfeld over the lost $$$ http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...s_rumsfeld.htm yawn Wake me up when you find a credible source for your information. so c-span is not credible? even when it is a video of House Hearing on FY06 Dept. of Defense Budget, March 11th, 2005. I guess you only believe Karl Rove and faux news eh? |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"Gorf" wrote in message . com... " *JimH*" wrote in message . .. "Gorf" wrote in message . com... " *JimH*" wrote in message ... What I read was a lot of accusation with absolutely no link or sources supporting the claims. So to me it is nothing more than..............political crap. Here's another beleive what you want.... Here's McKinney grilling Rumsfeld over the lost $$$ http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...s_rumsfeld.htm yawn Wake me up when you find a credible source for your information. so c-span is not credible? even when it is a video of House Hearing on FY06 Dept. of Defense Budget, March 11th, 2005. I guess you only believe Karl Rove and faux news eh? Nope. Do you? |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Gorf wrote: " *JimH*" wrote in message . .. "Gorf" wrote in message . com... " *JimH*" wrote in message ... What I read was a lot of accusation with absolutely no link or sources supporting the claims. So to me it is nothing more than..............political crap. Here's another beleive what you want.... Here's McKinney grilling Rumsfeld over the lost $$$ http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...s_rumsfeld.htm yawn Wake me up when you find a credible source for your information. so c-span is not credible? even when it is a video of House Hearing on FY06 Dept. of Defense Budget, March 11th, 2005. I guess you only believe Karl Rove and faux news eh? There isn't an instance in usenet history in which Jim Hertvik has demonstrated possession of more than below-average intellect. An amazing thing about some of these low-brain-output righties is their absolute refusal to take reality into account in their support for George W. Bush. No matter how Bush screws up, they're ready with the excuses and rationalizations. As much as I like Bill Clinton, I never held him up to be a paragon. He was and is a bright, articulate, capable fellow with unlimited ability to reveal his feelings for humanity, but, like most of us, he is a flawed individual. Bush, on the other hand, seems, as president, to be a model for incompetency. I hated Clinton and voted for Bush in 2000. I cheered when the SC declared Gore a cry baby, I thanked the good lord Bush was in office on 9/11, and I supported his invasion of Afghanistan 100%. But as soon as Bush started trying to sell the idea that Osama was not the real terrorist - Saddam was and started telling obvious lies about WMD's, that's when my opinion of Bush change 180 degrees. In 2000 I screamed that Clinton was the worst president that we ever had, But Bush has him beat hands down - now Clinton looks like the good ole days..... Another good video: Video-WMP http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn...op_051020a.wmv |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
"Gorf" wrote in message . com... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Gorf wrote: " *JimH*" wrote in message . .. "Gorf" wrote in message . com... " *JimH*" wrote in message ... What I read was a lot of accusation with absolutely no link or sources supporting the claims. So to me it is nothing more than..............political crap. Here's another beleive what you want.... Here's McKinney grilling Rumsfeld over the lost $$$ http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...s_rumsfeld.htm yawn Wake me up when you find a credible source for your information. so c-span is not credible? even when it is a video of House Hearing on FY06 Dept. of Defense Budget, March 11th, 2005. I guess you only believe Karl Rove and faux news eh? There isn't an instance in usenet history in which Jim Hertvik has demonstrated possession of more than below-average intellect. An amazing thing about some of these low-brain-output righties is their absolute refusal to take reality into account in their support for George W. Bush. No matter how Bush screws up, they're ready with the excuses and rationalizations. As much as I like Bill Clinton, I never held him up to be a paragon. He was and is a bright, articulate, capable fellow with unlimited ability to reveal his feelings for humanity, but, like most of us, he is a flawed individual. Bush, on the other hand, seems, as president, to be a model for incompetency. My statements had nothing to do with my like or dislike of George Bush and his policies. They had everything to do with the credibility of the articles posted. I would guess even a third grader could understand that.....you obviously did not. And *you* call my intellect below average? LOL! |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
*JimH* wrote: ? LOL! Idiots are easily amused. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
Gorf wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Gorf wrote: " *JimH*" wrote in message . .. "Gorf" wrote in message . com... " *JimH*" wrote in message ... What I read was a lot of accusation with absolutely no link or sources supporting the claims. So to me it is nothing more than..............political crap. Here's another beleive what you want.... Here's McKinney grilling Rumsfeld over the lost $$$ http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...s_rumsfeld.htm yawn Wake me up when you find a credible source for your information. so c-span is not credible? even when it is a video of House Hearing on FY06 Dept. of Defense Budget, March 11th, 2005. I guess you only believe Karl Rove and faux news eh? There isn't an instance in usenet history in which Jim Hertvik has demonstrated possession of more than below-average intellect. An amazing thing about some of these low-brain-output righties is their absolute refusal to take reality into account in their support for George W. Bush. No matter how Bush screws up, they're ready with the excuses and rationalizations. As much as I like Bill Clinton, I never held him up to be a paragon. He was and is a bright, articulate, capable fellow with unlimited ability to reveal his feelings for humanity, but, like most of us, he is a flawed individual. Bush, on the other hand, seems, as president, to be a model for incompetency. I hated Clinton and voted for Bush in 2000. I cheered when the SC declared Gore a cry baby, I thanked the good lord Bush was in office on 9/11, and I supported his invasion of Afghanistan 100%. But as soon as Bush started trying to sell the idea that Osama was not the real terrorist - Saddam was and started telling obvious lies about WMD's, that's when my opinion of Bush change 180 degrees. In 2000 I screamed that Clinton was the worst president that we ever had, But Bush has him beat hands down - now Clinton looks like the good ole days..... I applaud your honesty, as well as your ability to see that, even though conservative by nature, that Bush is horrible for this country. Most right wingers are mere lemmings, and would never, ever think of "betraying" BushCo. |
OT A Tax Raise from BushCo
*JimH* wrote: "Gorf" wrote in message . com... "PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:58:41 GMT, "Gorf" wrote: "OlBlueEyes" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote in : NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Yep, they're all about lower taxes..... Notice the 50% increase in the tax rate for the folks on the bottom end of the scale? (Increases from 10% to 15%). Mortgage deduction: Too bad it can't be saved for inexpensive "starter" homes purchased by young families, but a good percentage of folks who are allowing the government to subsidize their personal housing expense (by enabling them to pay interest on $1mm mortgages with tax-free dollars) A tax cut isn't a subsidy! also fall into a group that gnashes and wails at the very thought of any public assistance for low income renters. In reality, the mortgage interest deduction is probably safe- can you say "Catastrophic real estate crash", otherwise? It might be reasonable to phase out the mortgage interest deduction over a period of time, eliminating it entirely for mortgages dated after XX/XX/XX. It is long past time for a bi-partisan effort to reduce spending and/or raise taxes to restore some fiscal credibilty to our runaway spendthrift FEDGOV. I'd support the elimination of itemized deductions...BUT only if they went to a flat tax across all income levels. I'd make all income taxable at the current rates , and increase exemptions for families earning under $50,000, and, of course, I'd cut b ack drastically on corporate tax breaks. But I would offer incentives for those corporations building new factories and facilities in the USA. So would you cut back the deductibility of home mortgages as proposed? I didn't say that, did I? I would, however, eliminate the deduction for a second home. What non-defense spending would you cut? why stick with non-defense? 42% of the budget,approximately, goes to military either past spending (i.e. Reagan's deficit) or current spending The military LOST, as in misplaced, one TRILLION dollars last year. If that was corporation all upper management would be in jail, because it is the military it barely made the news....... The military needs to be made accountable! http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/i...t_military.htm Now *that's* funny! -- John H You really should try get your news from more than one source... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable sfgate.com and ccmep.com.....both are indeed credible sources of information. What do you find in the sfgate article that isn't truthful and correct? LOL. Idiots are easily amused. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com