" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
For you, reality doesn't matter. Fact is that it started with rural people screaming bloody hell and murder because they would have to pay more than city people for telephone service. Now it is poor people in cities who get the benefit, it is suddenly a despiccable freebie.
Seems you condone lies, but I know better than that ...
It's a free enterprise thing, Keith. If I am entitled to get something for "free" should I not exercise my rights? Why don't you ask Mitt for advice, he had said that he would not be fit to be president if he didn't claim charitable deductions he was entitled to. But wait, he had $4 million in charitable deductibles in 2011, and, oops, that would have reduced his tax rate too much, so he claimed only half. Now he is suddenly fit to be president? Laughably poor Mitt.
Uh, Romney claimed the charitable deductions to which he was entitled.
A Gannett newspaper echoed your observation and conclusion:
"The documents also made clear Romney, who donates millions of dollars to charity each year, reduced the amount of charitable deduction he claimed this year TO KEEP HIS TAX RATE ABOVE 13 PERCENT." (emphasis added)
Yet there is ZERO evidence of Romney's motives in not claiming additional deductions. It may very well be that the charities to which he donated are, through no fault of his, problematic and he wanted to avoid any controversy. Perhaps a worthy endeavor to which he subscribed had not (yet) met federal guidelines for acceptable deductions. There could be, I'm saying, any number of reasons for not claiming a charitable deductions and it is mendacious to claim (seemingly) evil intent when there is absolutely no basis for so doing.
Yes, but prior to that a similar fee was imposed on phone companies starting in 1934. Who was in charge back then? It was with the deregulation of telecom that the new method of achieving some of the same things went into effect in 1996. And the Republicans aren't fool proof and sometimes get things wrong too. They also have to sometimes accept some of what they don't want in order to get the rest of what they do want. So the fact that a Republican controlled Congress in 1996 passed it doesn't mean that Republicans today would not pull the plug on this crap if they could. The Republican party of today is not what it was in 1996 or even 2010. Who do you think is more likely to be in favor of this? Obama and the libs or the Republicans, particularly the Tea Party Republicans?
I don't have to see the above. Only a lib would think it's a swell idea to hand out free cell phones to people too lazy to work as an entitlement.
I see, so now everyone is entitled to the latest and greatest in technology. When will my new iPhone be arriving?
And that is why the country is going broke and down the drain.
Of course that isnt' the issue. The issue is that a government that is going broke is piling on ever more entitlements, giving people things they never earned.
It's pretty despicable to slam Romney over his charitable giving. Between charity and taxes he gave back 42% of the money he earned last year. Obama, is about half that. And Biden, the libs #2 guy gave a whopping $5,500 to charity last year with an income of $380,000. How's that for giving? Romeny is doing precisely what you libs claim the rich don't do. He's giving back MORE than his fair share. And so you stoop to bitching about that too.
And Romney gives away his own money. You libs just give away the money of those that produce in this society.
Democrats winning? Winning what exactly? The lottery? The Democrats controlled the White House, Senate and House for two years under Obama. They decided what their priorities were. That was Obamacare, an $800bil stimulus and green energy. They rammed that through, despite the fact that most Americans were against Obamacare. Why, we were even told that Obamacare was absolutely essential to producing a sound, solid economy. The Democrats got exactly what they wanted.
Now, 4 years later, we have little to show for it. Healthcare costs have continued to escalate, unemployment remains very high, the economy is barely growing and gasoline prices have doubled, taking food prices up with them. But we are continuing to run annual deficits of $1.2tril and the Democrats have added another $6 tril to the national debt and are totally unconcerned about piling up even more. Why, they want to spend even MORE money as they follow the role model of Greece.
Compare that to the recovery under Reagan. At this point in his first term, we were creating jobs at the rate of 400,000 a month. One month we hit 1.2mil created. Under Obama right now hitting 160,000 is an exception and mabye 90,000 is typical. And is it any wonder when you have a president that is an anti-business socialist?
As Bob F demonstrates, the Dems are excellent at blaming the Repubs for all the problems the Dems created. Under W, we had 5% unemployment, and under O we have 16% or so. They have been dropping people out of the number pie, to keep the stated unemployment down. Still, even then, it's over the 8% that O promised not to exceed. Plenty of people still believe that it's all W's fault, and that B. Hussein is the saviour.
I asked a woman, last week. Two Obama 2012 bumper stickers on her SUV. Why? Well, she doesn't like the way Republicans treat women and minorities. I figure that's a good example of someone who's breating the liberal dem party line, and won't listen to reason.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
formatting link
.
Democrats winning? Winning what exactly? The lottery? The Democrats controlled the White House, Senate and House for two years under Obama. They decided what their priorities were. That was Obamacare, an $800bil stimulus and green energy. They rammed that through, despite the fact that most Americans were against Obamacare. Why, we were even told that Obamacare was absolutely essential to producing a sound, solid economy. The Democrats got exactly what they wanted.
Now, 4 years later, we have little to show for it. Healthcare costs have continued to escalate, unemployment remains very high, the economy is barely growing and gasoline prices have doubled, taking food prices up with them. But we are continuing to run annual deficits of $1.2tril and the Democrats have added another $6 tril to the national debt and are totally unconcerned about piling up even more. Why, they want to spend even MORE money as they follow the role model of Greece.
Compare that to the recovery under Reagan. At this point in his first term, we were creating jobs at the rate of 400,000 a month. One month we hit 1.2mil created. Under Obama right now hitting 160,000 is an exception and mabye 90,000 is typical. And is it any wonder when you have a president that is an anti-business socialist?
"HeyBub" wrote in news:I62dnQi0ZP51YvjNnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
It's all in the timing, Heybub. One day Mr. flipflop says he would be unfit to be president if he didn't claim all the deductions he is entitled to, next thing he isn't claiming charitable deductions. I also do not claim a few contributions I think might qualify very easily. Small amounts that do not warrant the effort to look up all the info that is now required to be listed. But $2 million in charity is suddenly suspect, although it is listed as charitable?
And I commend Mr. Mitt for not claiming deductions so as to keep his tax rate up a bit. But the previous statement of being unfit to be president if he didn't claim everything he was entitled to is what ices it.
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
I commend Mr. Romney for paying (not giving) his tithing to his church. That is conviction. (Of course in Germany you need to pay your titthing to the catholic church or you won't be entitled to sacraments, including burial - state-supported religion, but that is Germany).
Charitable giving in the tax code includes the tithing of a religious institution, a commendable encouragement by the government of religion. Since this is an appreciable % of income in the LDS, it really helps cut down on taxes owed.
Oh, btw, just federal income taxes were a LOT more than 42% just a few decades back, at the income levels of Mr. Flip-flop.
"HeyBub" wrote in news:uPydnZI_pOGlYfjNnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
Correct. But facts are indeed facts. She thinks Obama did it and will therefore (hopefully) vote for the better candidate - Obama.
Gov Christie gave me back some money on my paid property taxes also. Really weird system here in NJ = you pay local property taxes and then the state gives you a rebate. Would have been more efficient to cut down administrative costs and just pay more state aid to the towns, or even better, lower state taxes and let the towns set their rates more realistically. Now this system was instituted long ago, and Christie is only gaming it anew, withholding rebates one year then generosuly giving it again the next. Not his fault that it was there, but instead of reforming it, he uses it as a stick and carrot thing. I don't like bullies ... But Corzine did indeed reveal something of himself.
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
Oh, well, the "supermajority" you indirectly refer to was only 130 or so day, not 2 years (2x365=730). So the statement of 2 years is very close to a lie. Republicans in the House have shown remarkable cohesion under the threat of the Teaparty and Norquist. Now they harvest the storm from the wind they sowed (sorry, can't find the right quote). Something like close to 80% of the current deficit is due to unpaid wars, taxcuts (that didn't promote employment as promised, just enriched the top), a drug benefit program that wasn't paid for, etc. On top of that, Obama inherited an economy in free fall, with bailouts etc, that were already cooked up by the outgoing Bush administration (note that Obama held onto a few of Bush's guys, such as Bernanke, for reasons that aren't yet clear to me).
We aren't living just in the US anymore, either, but in the world. We are comparatively well off here. See Spain and the rest of south Urp. Even China is in big economic trouble. They can't figure out whether the change in the party and government, or the economic and corruption problems deserve more attention. Our economic welfare has for a VERY long time depended on manufacturing and export. Recently manufacturing has been in decline, and export too reliant on services and software. While many, many people are very, very smart and inventive in the US, the idea of Asians only being good at copying is really old. In science in this country, it has very frequently been the immigrants and visitors who did the radical inventing, with American entrepreneurs making those inventions marketable. Of course there are American inventors as well. But now, we see (or will see shortly) that those foreign-born inventors are going back to their (asian) countries. Big US corporations invest also a LOT abroad (better to be close to the Chinese car buyers, right?). No wonder those "foreigners" will get used to our way of doing things. Maybe not all, but certainly some. And labor in those foreign countries is still cheap, compared to here.
Nah. For the first six years of the last administration things were swell. Unemployment less than 5%, stock market above 12,000, very little inflation,
24 consecutive quarters of economic growth (as much as 5.5%), and so on. All this in spite of two wars, Katrina, and 9-11.
Then the Democrats took over the Congress and things went to hell.
The Democrats continued to control Congress for the first two years of the Obama administration and gave us a $1 trillion "stimulus," Obamacare, "Cash for Clunkers," and other explosives.
But you questioned "which party would get rid of that in a minute". Clearly both the red and the blue teams put their all behind the expansion of "free stuff" in 1996.
So is there ever a case that individuals need help much like say the help we gave to the bankers and gm and chrysler in our "free market"?
I've heard reports that the Obama Administration and Commiecrat Senate have yet to, by law, pass a budget during Obama's entire term. Gee, can I ignore federal law too? ^_^
The Daring Dufas wrote in news:k46r5o$slu$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
As long as the House insists on passing bills to the Senate that are totally unacceptable, there will be no set of real budget bills. When the House Republicans get their act together and use some form of compromise, it will be easier than slicing butter with a hot knife.
The Republican party of today is not the Republican party of
1996. You now have the Tea Party folks restoring some sanity. It's kind of funny that the libs think the Republicans would kick everyone off of Medicare and end Social Security, but it's a far fetch to think they would end a free cell phone program? It also depends obviously on what it takes to get rid of it. If the Republicans could just push a button and do it, then I bet they would. But in the real world, we know it's not that simple. You have only so much political capital to expend to get what you want. You have to prioritize. So, if you're saying the Republicans from a practical standpoint would not likely deem it important enough to start a big battle over, I would agree with that.
Yes, we already have too much of that in the form of welfare, medicaid, loads of people collecting SS disability who could work, etc. I don't see a cell phone as being an entitlement necessity. I bet if you did a study you'd find that a majority of those receiving that free cell phone service have other phones in the family and or a landline, etc. I bet you'd find nth generation welfare families, where not only mon has the free phone, but so too does the daughter with two kids and no father. Maybe YOU want to support that, but I don't.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.