Obama's "fuzzy" promises

[chuckakers 425]

Another good one:

In his speech to Congress the other night, Obama said people making less than $250,000 a year under his plan "won't see their taxes go up by a dime. I repeat, not one single dime".

Neil Cavuto just announced that his people found in the plan that under the tax changes, people will begin to lose certain deductions - like home mortgage interest, oddly enough - once they earn just $209,000.

So I guess if you pay more taxes via a reduction in deductions, that's not a tax hike to Obama.

Watch out. You guys bankin' $175K are next, followed by $150K, $90K........

Either this guy is the biggest moron that ever organized a community, or he's trying to pull a big-ass wool sweater over our eyes. At least the taxpayers eyes.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[freeheelbillie 0]

Oh I can hear people throwing the "read my lips" comment Bush senior used already. Thats okay though. "Change" remember?

obama's terminology is a mess…tax rebate (when you don’t pay taxes) isnt the same as welfare. Not raising taxes means loss of deductions. “Spreading the wealth” is somehow not socialism. Apparently, he does not know what an earmark is either. Stimulus and earmark are the same. Terrorist is the same as a college professor. Hate monger is the same as a church pastor. Political fundraiser is the same as convict…the list goes on and on.

Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Oh I can hear people throwing the "read my lips" comment Bush senior used already. Thats okay though. "Change" remember?

obama's terminology is a mess…tax rebate (when you don’t pay taxes) isnt the same as welfare. Not raising taxes means loss of deductions. “Spreading the wealth” is somehow not socialism. Apparently, he does not know what an earmark is either. Stimulus and earmark are the same. Terrorist is the same as a college professor. Hate monger is the same as a church pastor. Political fundraiser is the same as convict…the list goes on and on.

As I remember it, Bush didn't try to hide anything. He changed his mind given the circumstances and told the American people what he was doing.

Cost him his re-election too. We can only hope it'll be the same this time around.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[livendive 8]

Quote

or he's trying to pull a big-ass wool sweater over our eyes.

I'm not much of a fan of wool clothing in general, and I think ass wool would be exponentially worse, regardless of size.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[FallingOsh 0]

Donald Trump was on this morning talking about some of the other deductions taking a hit. Contributions to charities will no longer be deductions. Sucks to be a charity that relies on large private donations.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Donald Trump was on this morning talking about some of the other deductions taking a hit. Contributions to charities will no longer be deductions. Sucks to be a charity that relies on large private donations.

Sounds good to me. Why should anyone's contribution to running the country be reduced just because they want to give money to a megachurch or an art museum?

[Capt.Slog 0]

Yes, we need clarity in presidential speech like:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again."

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Quote

Donald Trump was on this morning talking about some of the other deductions taking a hit. Contributions to charities will no longer be deductions. Sucks to be a charity that relies on large private donations.

Sounds good to me. Why should anyone's contribution to running the country be reduced just because they want to give money to a megachurch or an art museum?

Or a local mission for the homeless, or a battered women's shelter, or an orphanage, or the Red Cross, or an animal adoption center, or a boys and girls club, or a food bank, or a local scholarship fund, or a Goodwill store, or a home for runaways.

It's called incentiving good deeds and it works pretty well....or did.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[freeheelbillie 0]

Quote

Yes, we need clarity in presidential speech like:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again."

I love how your rebuttals typically are in reference to Bush…the old well Bush did it attitude. It sure reeks of “change” doesn’t it?

Smells like the same old shit to me.

Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976...

[wmw999 2,452]

Actually, it will reduce the percentage of deduction. It won't eliminate it.

From "The Daily Beast" (hey, it's what I found first that was reasonably clear and accurate)

Quote

tax police are already having a stroke over Obama’s plan to limit the value of itemized deductions (like the ones for mortgage interest and for charitable donations) taken by people who earn more than $250,000 a year. Under Obama’s plan, such earners could deduct those expenses only at the 28 percent rate, not at the 35 percent rate (or the 39.6 percent rate, once Bush’s tax cuts expire after next year). What’s that mean concretely? Today, every $1,000 in mortgage interest or charitable gifts generates $350 in tax savings for top earners; under the new plan the tax savings would be $280.

So it reduces the benefit from giving, but does not eliminate it.

And this is probably for adjusted gross income of $250,000. Which means that you take all the business deductions first. That means that if you're a small business owner taking home $250,000 (already less than 20% of small business owners), you are vanishingly unlikely to have this as an issue.

Donald Trump is likely to be impacted.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Or a local mission for the homeless, or a battered women's shelter, or an orphanage, or the Red Cross, or an animal adoption center, or a boys and girls club, or a food bank, or a local scholarship fund, or a Goodwill store, or a home for runaways.

Those lazy fuckers should get a job, why are they just sitting there lookin for handouts? And....animal shelters? Survival of the fittest baby, that's how God intended the world to be.....

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Donald Trump was on this morning talking about some of the other deductions taking a hit. Contributions to charities will no longer be deductions. Sucks to be a charity that relies on large private donations.

don't worry, after the increase in taxes they won't have any money to donate. semms people forgot about the fact that the largest amounts of donations in this great country is from the ones that Obama wants to over tax. The US has been one of the most charitable nations in the world until now, no money left after taxes will greatly reduce that.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The US has been one of the most charitable nations in the world until now, no money left after taxes will greatly reduce that.

Off course it has. Have you ever wondered why? Could it be because most other western countries have government organizations looking after issues that are left to charities in the USA?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

The US has been one of the most charitable nations in the world until now, no money left after taxes will greatly reduce that.

Off course it has. Have you ever wondered why? Could it be because most other western countries have government organizations looking after issues that are left to charities in the USA?

would you rather donate money to causes that you want or have the government take that money from you and donate it to a cause that you opose?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The US has been one of the most charitable nations in the world until now, no money left after taxes will greatly reduce that.

Off course it has. Have you ever wondered why? Could it be because most other western countries have government organizations looking after issues that are left to charities in the USA?

Or could it be that most other western countries are a groupe of overtaxed nanny-states?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Or could it be that most other western countries are a groupe of overtaxed nanny-states?

You can call it that if that makes you feel better. Doesn't change the validity of what I wrote though.

But with the incredible spending spree that the USA has been on for the last lustrum or so the taxes will have to soar at some point. Either that or go bankrupt as a country and slip into the history books, like many empires before it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Or could it be that most other western countries are a groupe of overtaxed nanny-states?

You can call it that if that makes you feel better. Doesn't change the validity of what I wrote though.

But with the incredible spending spree that the USA has been on for the last lustrum or so the taxes will have to soar at some point. Either that or go bankrupt as a country and slip into the history books, like many empires before it.

While you're at it, why don't you provide us some examples?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Examples of what? Empires or taxes?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Examples of what? Empires or taxes?

"government organizations looking after issues that are left to charities in the USA"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Higher education
Breakfast before school
expanded health care
housing
Phsychiatric care

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Donald Trump was on this morning talking about some of the other deductions taking a hit. Contributions to charities will no longer be deductions. Sucks to be a charity that relies on large private donations.

Sounds good to me. Why should anyone's contribution to running the country be reduced just because they want to give money to a megachurch or an art museum?

Or a local mission for the homeless, or a battered women's shelter, or an orphanage, or the Red Cross, or an animal adoption center, or a boys and girls club, or a food bank, or a local scholarship fund, or a Goodwill store, or a home for runaways.

It's called incentiving good deeds and it works pretty well....or did.

Why would good deeds need incentives? Isn't being good incentive enough in itself? (Maybe not for Republicans.)

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Donald Trump was on this morning talking about some of the other deductions taking a hit. Contributions to charities will no longer be deductions. Sucks to be a charity that relies on large private donations.

Sounds good to me. Why should anyone's contribution to running the country be reduced just because they want to give money to a megachurch or an art museum?

Or a local mission for the homeless, or a battered women's shelter, or an orphanage, or the Red Cross, or an animal adoption center, or a boys and girls club, or a food bank, or a local scholarship fund, or a Goodwill store, or a home for runaways.

It's called incentiving good deeds and it works pretty well....or did.

Why would good deeds need incentives? Isn't being good incentive enough in itself? (Maybe not for Republicans.)

The facts:

Biden and wife averaged $369 per year to charities in the past 10 years. Biden and wife claimed $995 in charitable gifts in 2007 or 0.3 percent of income of nearly $320,000.

McCain in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and charitable contributions of $105,467, or 26 percent of total income.

McCain files a separate return from wife. The totals do not include Ms. McCain’s charitable contributions.

Obama and wife donated $240,000 in 2007, or about 5.7 percent of the couple’s $4.2-million in income.

Seems I remember Gore and Kerry followed the democrat mold too. I also remember during the election hearing about a poll from one of the big research outfits that people who identified themselves as democrats gave far less overall in dollars and even volunteer work than people ho identified themselves as republicans.

That makes sense, though. Maybe Democrats don't give as much to charity because getting a tax deduction would take money away from the government.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[chuckakers 425]

Quote

Actually, it will reduce the percentage of deduction. It won't eliminate it.

From "The Daily Beast" (hey, it's what I found first that was reasonably clear and accurate)

Quote

tax police are already having a stroke over Obama’s plan to limit the value of itemized deductions (like the ones for mortgage interest and for charitable donations) taken by people who earn more than $250,000 a year. Under Obama’s plan, such earners could deduct those expenses only at the 28 percent rate, not at the 35 percent rate (or the 39.6 percent rate, once Bush’s tax cuts expire after next year). What’s that mean concretely? Today, every $1,000 in mortgage interest or charitable gifts generates $350 in tax savings for top earners; under the new plan the tax savings would be $280.

So it reduces the benefit from giving, but does not eliminate it.

And this is probably for adjusted gross income of $250,000. Which means that you take all the business deductions first. That means that if you're a small business owner taking home $250,000 (already less than 20% of small business owners), you are vanishingly unlikely to have this as an issue.

Donald Trump is likely to be impacted.

Wendy W.

Re-read my post. My point was/is that Obama said people earning less that $250K won't have a tax hike, then we find the number is $209K for having certain deductions reduced or cut altogether.

Gross or net, business owner or W-2 employee, it's still a sham. A reduction in deductions IS a tax hike.

And here's another good one. You know why Obama is giving tax rebates rather than just cutting the tax rate? Because you'll have to pay income taxes on your rebate!! $13 extra per week in your pocket? Try more like $8 or $9.

Welcome to change, comrades.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually, it will reduce the percentage of deduction. It won't eliminate it.

From "The Daily Beast" (hey, it's what I found first that was reasonably clear and accurate)

Quote

tax police are already having a stroke over Obama’s plan to limit the value of itemized deductions (like the ones for mortgage interest and for charitable donations) taken by people who earn more than $250,000 a year. Under Obama’s plan, such earners could deduct those expenses only at the 28 percent rate, not at the 35 percent rate (or the 39.6 percent rate, once Bush’s tax cuts expire after next year). What’s that mean concretely? Today, every $1,000 in mortgage interest or charitable gifts generates $350 in tax savings for top earners; under the new plan the tax savings would be $280.

So it reduces the benefit from giving, but does not eliminate it.

And this is probably for adjusted gross income of $250,000. Which means that you take all the business deductions first. That means that if you're a small business owner taking home $250,000 (already less than 20% of small business owners), you are vanishingly unlikely to have this as an issue.

Donald Trump is likely to be impacted.

Wendy W.

Re-read my post. My point was/is that Obama said people earning less that $250K won't have a tax hike, then we find the number is $209K for having certain deductions reduced or cut altogether.

Gross or net, business owner or W-2 employee, it's still a sham. A reduction in deductions IS a tax hike.

And here's another good one. You know why Obama is giving tax rebates rather than just cutting the tax rate? Because you'll have to pay income taxes on your rebate!! $13 extra per week in your pocket? Try more like $8 or $9.

Welcome to change, comrades.

this is a loosing battle, the koolaid is too strong, the left doesn't believe in hard work, pay your own way, and donate to things you care about. the left believes in government knows best and welfare for the lazy and unmotivated. when was the last time government took something over and did a better job at a cheaper price than letting private companies do the job with compitition?

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Actually, it will reduce the percentage of deduction. It won't eliminate it.

From "The Daily Beast" (hey, it's what I found first that was reasonably clear and accurate)

Quote

tax police are already having a stroke over Obama’s plan to limit the value of itemized deductions (like the ones for mortgage interest and for charitable donations) taken by people who earn more than $250,000 a year. Under Obama’s plan, such earners could deduct those expenses only at the 28 percent rate, not at the 35 percent rate (or the 39.6 percent rate, once Bush’s tax cuts expire after next year). What’s that mean concretely? Today, every $1,000 in mortgage interest or charitable gifts generates $350 in tax savings for top earners; under the new plan the tax savings would be $280.

So it reduces the benefit from giving, but does not eliminate it.

And this is probably for adjusted gross income of $250,000. Which means that you take all the business deductions first. That means that if you're a small business owner taking home $250,000 (already less than 20% of small business owners), you are vanishingly unlikely to have this as an issue.

Donald Trump is likely to be impacted.

Wendy W.

Re-read my post. My point was/is that Obama said people earning less that $250K won't have a tax hike, then we find the number is $209K for having certain deductions reduced or cut altogether.

Gross or net, business owner or W-2 employee, it's still a sham. A reduction in deductions IS a tax hike.

And here's another good one. You know why Obama is giving tax rebates rather than just cutting the tax rate? Because you'll have to pay income taxes on your rebate!! $13 extra per week in your pocket? Try more like $8 or $9.

Welcome to change, comrades.

this is a loosing battle, the koolaid is too strong, the left doesn't believe in hard work, pay your own way, and donate to things you care about. the left believes in government knows best and welfare for the lazy and unmotivated. when was the last time government took something over and did a better job at a cheaper price than letting private companies do the job with compitition?

You must be thinking of companies like GM, Chrysler, and the following list of 2008 bankruptcies of MAJOR corporations:

AIG (insurance)****
Agriprocessors, Inc. (food services)
Aloha Airlines (airline)
American Color Graphics (newspaper)
Ascendia Brands (retail)

ATA (airline)
Bear Stearns (banking)****
Bill Heard Enterprises (auto)

Bluepoint RE (insurance)

Blue Water Holdings (auto)
Boscov’s (retail)
Brooke Corporation (insurance)

Buffets Holdings (restaurants)
CDX Gas, LLC (energy)
Chesapeake Corporation (packaging products)

Ciena Capital (real estate)
Circuit City (electronics retail)

Comfort Co. (bedding)
DBSI Inc. (real estate)

Downey Financial (banking)
Dreier LLP (legal services)

Dynamic Leisure (travel)
Eclipse Aviation (airplane manufacturer)

Education Resource Institute (insurance)
Empire Land (real estate)
Eos Airlines (airline)
Equity Media Holdings Corporation (media)
EZ Lube, LLC (auto services)

Fashion House Holdings (retail)
Flying J (trucking and transportation services)

Fortunoff (retail)
Franklin Bank Corp. (banking)

Friedman’s Jewelers (retail)
Fred Leighton Holdings (retail)
Fremont General (banking)

Frontier Airlines (airline)
Gainey Corporation (trucking)

Gemini Air Cargo (air delivery/freight)
GETRAG Transmission Manufacturing LLC (auto manufacturing)

Goody’s (retail)
Greatwide Logistics (trucking)

Greektown Holdings (casino)
Hawaiin Telecom Communications, Inc. (telecom)

Hospital Partners of America (healthcare)
HRP Myrtle Beach Holdings (entertainment)

Indymac (banking)
Integra Hospital Plano, LLC (healthcare)
Integrity Bancshares, Inc. (banking)

JHT Holdings (trucking/transportation)
KB Toys, Inc. (retail)
Key Plastics, LLC (auto manufacturer)
Laketown Wharf (real estate)
LandAmerica Financial Group (insurance)

Land Resource, LLC (real estate)

Landsource (real estate)

Legends Gaming (casino)
Lehman Brothers (banking)
Lenox Group (tableware)

Lillian Vernon (retail)
Linens n’ Things (retail)
Luminent Mortgage Capital (banking)

Kimball Hill (real estate)
Landsource Community Development (real estate)
Matrix Development Corporation (real estate)
Mervyn’s (retail)
Mortgages Ltd. (banking)
Motorcoach Industries International (transportation)
MPC Corporation (computers)

MPF Corp. (transportation)
Mrs. Fields Famous Brands (food services)
National Wholesale Liquidators, Inc. (retail)
NetVersant Solutions (IT services)

PFF Bancorp, Inc. (banking)

Pierre Foods (food services)
Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (food services)

Pope & Talbot, Inc. (pulp/wood products)
PPI Holdings, Inc. (auto manufacturer)

PRC LLC (business services consulting)
Propext (textiles)
Quebecor World (USA), Inc. (office services/printing)
Red Envelope (retail)
Rock Well Petroleum, Inc. (energy)

Sharper Image (retail)
Silverjet Airlines (airline)
Sirva (moving services)
Skybus (airline)
STA Restaurants - Bennigan’s (restaurants)

Steakhouse Partners (restaurants)
Steve and Barry’s (retail)
Storm Cat Energy Corporation (energy)
SunCal Bickford Ranch, LLC (real estate)

Syntax-Brillian - Olevia (electronics)
Taro Properties (real estate)
Tribune Company (media)

Tropicana (casinos)
Vail Plaza Development (real estate)
Value City Department Stores (retail)
VeraSun Energy (alternative energy)

Vicorp (restaurants)
Village Homes of Colorado, Inc. (real estate)

Washington Mutual (banking)

WCI (real estate)
Whitehall Jewelers (jewelry)
WHM Copper Mountain Investments (investment company)

Wickes Furniture (retail)
Woodside Group (real estate)
WorldSpace, Inc. (satellite broadcasting)

Ziff Davis (media)

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.