Are taxes and charity equitable?

Liberals see government providing as 'charities' do via taxation. It's not surprising that they don't like people 'giving' outside of taxes, cutting out the middleman and all those government jobs.

Mitt Romneys income comes in the form of investment income. He pays Capital Gains taxes of 15% on this income just like every other American who chooses to invest in America. Capital Gains taxes should be outlawed because Americans who choose to invest in the stock market are risking their own money in hopes of making a profit, but they also risk losing this money. That is why Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary. Because his income is from risk-taking and hers is work income. Making investors pay Captial Gains taxes is unAmerican and steifels overall economic growth. And yes, you and your parents pay the same 15% as Mitt Romney on your 401K because you are patriots just like Mitt who choose to invest in America! As for charity, Mr. Romney is a saint, giving millions each year to care for those who need assistance.

Where's Vera Baker

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
- Winston Churchill

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it."
- Ronald Reagan

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

- Emma Lazarus, 1883

Curtis Lowe wrote:

Mitt Romneys income comes in the form of investment income. He pays Capital Gains taxes of 15% on this income just like every other American who chooses to invest in America. Capital Gains taxes should be outlawed because Americans who choose to invest in the stock market are risking their own money in hopes of making a profit, but they also risk losing this money. That is why Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary. Because his income is from risk-taking and hers is work income. Making investors pay Captial Gains taxes is unAmerican and steifels overall economic growth. And yes, you and your parents pay the same 15% as Mitt Romney on your 401K because you are patriots just like Mitt who choose to invest in America! As for charity, Mr. Romney is a saint, giving millions each year to care for those who need assistance.

I agree and we should adopt the Saul Wry-an plan where extremely wealthy "risk-takers" and "job-creaters" like Bishop Rmoney would pay less than 1% in income taxes. Who cares if the jobs are in China and the profits are in secret tax exempt Cayman Islands bank accounts? Who cares if workers in America have to pay for the US military to protect Bishop Rmoney's trade routes while he pays little or no taxes. Who cares how many wives someone may have in other countries? After all, wasn't life better when we had serfs? Back then, the privileged knew their place and the serfs knew they had no place. Yet I wonder how Bishop Rmoney has done so well despite all the strict constraints of our unfair and overly burdensome tax code and the Bush tax cuts. There really hasn't been much trickle down yet. The rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. We really could learn a lot about Bishop Rmoney's financial expertise if he would show us his tax returns. I'm happy he pays little or no taxes and that he gives so much money to the Mormon Temple. I agree with their views that women, gays, and blacks should have less rights. Heck, whites without money should also have less rights. In fact, voting is a privilege, NOT A RIGHT. Only people who make over $1 million a year should be able to vote. After all, THEY are the job creators. I TRUST Bishop Rmoney and Saul Wry-an to lead our nation backwards to the future. Workers are way too uppity today.

Makes sense wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree and we should adopt the Saul Wry-an plan where extremely wealthy "risk-takers" and "job-creaters" like Bishop Rmoney would pay less than 1% in income taxes. Who cares if the jobs are in China and the profits are in secret tax exempt Cayman Islands bank accounts? Who cares if workers in America have to pay for the US military to protect Bishop Rmoney's trade routes while he pays little or no taxes. Who cares how many wives someone may have in other countries? After all, wasn't life better when we had serfs? Back then, the privileged knew their place and the serfs knew they had no place. Yet I wonder how Bishop Rmoney has done so well despite all the strict constraints of our unfair and overly burdensome tax code and the Bush tax cuts. There really hasn't been much trickle down yet. The rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. We really could learn a lot about Bishop Rmoney's financial expertise if he would show us his tax returns. I'm happy he pays little or no taxes and that he gives so much money to the Mormon Temple. I agree with their views that women, gays, and blacks should have less rights. Heck, whites without money should also have less rights. In fact, voting is a privilege, NOT A RIGHT. Only people who make over $1 million a year should be able to vote. After all, THEY are the job creators. I TRUST Bishop Rmoney and Saul Wry-an to lead our nation backwards to the future. Workers are way too uppity today.

You can move back to Russia any time you want Ivan. But here in America, we respect those who take risks and do well for themselves. John F. Kennedy was one of the richest men in the world and he was a great President. And he didn't even earn his money like Bishop Romney did. Mitt is a shining example of American entrepreneurial spirit and charity. Too bad he's a goddamned Mormon. But I'll vote for Paul Ryan...a good Catholic. Cause if it ain't by the Pope, then go piss up a rope!

Curtis Lowe wrote:

<quoted text>
You can move back to Russia any time you want Ivan. But here in America, we respect those who take risks and do well for themselves. John F. Kennedy was one of the richest men in the world and he was a great President. And he didn't even earn his money like Bishop Romney did. Mitt is a shining example of American entrepreneurial spirit and charity. Too bad he's a goddamned Mormon. But I'll vote for Paul Ryan...a good Catholic. Cause if it ain't by the Pope, then go piss up a rope!

I totally agree with you, AGAIN. BTW we'll have a tough time with those Catholics that think people should help the poor.

Makes sense wrote:

<quoted text>
I totally agree with you, AGAIN. BTW we'll have a tough time with those Catholics that think people should help the poor.

People should help the poor. The people elect the government. The government should govern and leave the helping to the people. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal results.

Curtis Lowe wrote:

<quoted text>
People should help the poor. The people elect the government. The government should govern and leave the helping to the people. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal results.

Amen, but we Republicans can't complain. We got our bailouts, record profits, bonuses, tax cuts, and we didn't have to create ANY jobs!!!! Life is GREAT! It's a win win for US!

Makes sense wrote:

<quoted text>
Amen, but we Republicans can't complain. We got our bailouts, record profits, bonuses, tax cuts, and we didn't have to create ANY jobs!!!! Life is GREAT! It's a win win for US!

Obama passed the bailouts with TARP, GM, and Stimulus. Record profits and bonuses happened under Obama. Obama extended the Obama tax cuts for the wealthy. Obama didn't create any jobs. And the businesses that did create jobs, well, they didn't build that, Obama did.

Curtis Lowe wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama passed the bailouts with TARP, GM, and Stimulus. Record profits and bonuses happened under Obama. Obama extended the Obama tax cuts for the wealthy. Obama didn't create any jobs. And the businesses that did create jobs, well, they didn't build that, Obama did.

Actually, we have to thank Saul Wry-an who voted for TARP and begged all Tea Partiers to agree with him. In his famous speech, he cited our beloved Republican President, Herbert Hoover, and said we have to compromise our principles in order to preserve our principles. As Republicans, life is GREAT for us. If we can elect Bishop Rmoney, it can only get BETTER for US.

BTW, didn't Saul Wry-an make $8 million the day after he passed TARP and compromised his principles? Did he have some government information that gave him a personal winfall in the stock market?

Makes sense wrote:

BTW, didn't Saul Wry-an make $8 million the day after he passed TARP and compromised his principles? Did he have some government information that gave him a personal winfall in the stock market?

Probably. Who is Saul Wry-an?

Remember when Obama said, "You didn't build that."? And when his wife said, "For the first time in my life, I'm proud of my country."? Makes you wonder what country they come from.

Makes sense wrote:

<quoted text>
I totally agree with you, AGAIN. BTW we'll have a tough time with those Catholics that think people should help the poor.

Like Biden giving $364 dollars of his Half Million income. Liberals are big givers.......with others money.

Makes sense wrote:

BTW, didn't Saul Wry-an make $8 million the day after he passed TARP and compromised his principles? Did he have some government information that gave him a personal winfall in the stock market?

By the way, didn't Pelosi's net income go up 62% last year from insider trading, and Obama went from one million to 10 million in three years.......funny you didn't mention that commiecrat.

Jackasscrats are Hypocrites by nature. Don't expect that Filth to encourage charity. They simply want to Raid Medicare to Pay for Illegals Aliens. That's just wrong.

Paglia Continues to Hammer her beloved Obama Admin

As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism.

This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing.

It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives.

A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished.

Surely, the basic rule in comprehensive legislation should be: First, do no harm.

The present proposals are full of noble aims, but the biggest danger always comes from unforeseen and unintended consequences.

What was needed for reform was an in-depth analysis, buttressed by documentary evidence, of waste, fraud and profiteering in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

Instead what we've gotten is a series of facile, vulgar innuendos about how doctors conduct their practice, as if their primary motive is money. Quite frankly, the president gives little sense of direct knowledge of medical protocols; it's as if his views are a tissue of hearsay and scattershot worst-case scenarios.

Of course, it didn't help matters that, just when he needed maximum momentum on healthcare, Obama made the terrible gaffe of declaring that, even without his knowing the full facts, Cambridge, Mass., police had acted "stupidly" in arresting a friend of his, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. Obama's automatic identification with the pampered Harvard elite (wildly unpopular with most sensible people), as well as his insulting condescension toward an officer doing his often dangerous duty, did serious and perhaps irreparable damage to the president's standing.

The strained, prissy beer summit in the White House garden afterward didn't help. Is that the Obama notion of hospitality? Another staff breakdown.

Both Gates and Obama mistakenly assumed that the original incident at Gates' house was about race, when it was about class.

It was the wealthy, lordly Gates who committed the first offense by instantly and evidently hysterically defaming the character of the officer who arrived at his door to investigate the report of a break-in.

There was no excuse for Gates' loud and cheap charges of racism, which he should have immediately apologized for the next day, instead of threatening lawsuits and self-aggrandizing television exposés. On the other hand, given that Cambridge is virtually a company town, perhaps police headquarters should have dispatched a moderator to the tumultuous scene before a small, disabled Harvard professor was clapped in handcuffs and marched off to jail.

But why should an Ivy League panjandrum be treated any differently from the rest of us hoi polloi?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/1...

Scuffles Over Stimulus Projects

June 16, 2009, 6:53 pm
By Kate Phillips

Sage grouse.

Fish sperm.

Steam rooms.

A turtle crossing.

Oyster beds.

A four-person bunkhouse.

A train-horn free zone.

An energy plant in President Obama’s home state.

Harley-Davidson cycles.

The Obama administration has been put on the defensive, as some critics grow impatient with the slow flow of money to the states and projects while others continue to question whether the package will actually create the number of jobs projected by its economic advisers.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16...

Liberals do not give to charity. That's a proven fact. Their whole ideology is that the Government is in place to take care of the people so contributing to charity is a waste of time. ONLY government can properly support chosen groups or projects. Libs. believe we should give more to the gov. so the gov. in turn can support the (in their minds) PROPER charities. Catholic services - OUT, adoption rather than abortion - OUT, conservative family value projects or services - OUT and so on. Free Love, Gay Marriage, ANY type of "Marriage", abortion up to the day before delivery, any perversion known to man and so on - IN.

Conservatives choose to support the charities of THEIR choice. Most of us, from the lowest income to the highest, give thousands of dollars to charity and walk away thinking, "There but for the grace of God go I".

Washington Post = Obama lovers

Mothra wrote:

Liberals see government providing as 'charities' do via taxation. It's not surprising that they don't like people 'giving' outside of taxes, cutting out the middleman and all those government jobs.

So, what legislation has been proposed to eliminate the income tax deduction for 'charitable' contributions? If Congress don't like people giving outside taxes it seems they would punish it by removing the deduction.