Ebonbetta wrote:There is a common mis coonception in the statement that the people making the lowest pay NO taxes.
I might be paying no income taxes but I pay an average of 9.25% on every dollar I spend. And even more for gas. So yeah being in a low income bracket may mean I do not pay income tax.. But I am paying tax on every thing else.

AZhitman wrote:I wish Howie's mother had been as pro-abortion as he is.

Until he hands his beloved 401k (which he didn't earn, some capitalist did) over to a poor crack whore with 6 babies, he's a hypocrite.

Talk is cheap, Howie - write the check!

telcoman wrote:

AZhitman wrote:I wish Howie's mother had been as pro-abortion as he is.

Until he hands his beloved 401k (which he didn't earn, some capitalist did) over to a poor crack whore with 6 babies, he's a hypocrite.

Talk is cheap, Howie - write the check!

This thread was about Ryan's budget but since you have attempted to hijack this on abortion Ryan, Romney, and Akin are as much of a wack job as you are.

Those three may have handed the election to the Dems over this.
Between their war on woman, and the Romney' tax returns, abortion, medicare it looks good for Obama


http://www.boston.com/politicalintellig ... story.html

Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan seek distance from ‘legitimate rape’ remark, but records show narrow support for abortion
By Callum Borchers, Globe Correspondent
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan say they disagree with Missouri Representative Todd Akin’s opposition to abortions for rape victims, but Akin’s reference Sunday to “legitimate rape” recalled the “forcible rape” language contained in a bill Ryan co-sponsored last year.
Akin, a Republican who is challenging Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill for her seat, said in a local television interview that he “understand from doctors” that rape-induced pregnancies are “really rare.”
“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” added Akin, a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
The Romney campaign quickly sought to distance itself from Akin’s remarks.
“Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape,” Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said in a statement Sunday.
Raise Your Voice
Click to contact candidates or elected officials about this issue. Romney offered a stronger condemnation Monday morning in an interview with the National Review.
“Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong,” Romney said. “Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive.”
Last year, Ryan joined Akin as one of 227 co-sponsors of a bill that narrowed an exemption to the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortions. The Hyde Amendment allows federal dollars to be used for abortions in cases of rape and incest, but the proposed bill -- authored by New Jersey Representative Christopher H. Smith -- would have limited the incest exemption to minors and covered only victims of “forcible rape.”
House Republicans never defined what constituted “forcible rape” and what did not, but critics of the bill suggested the term could exclude women who are drugged and raped, mentally handicapped women who are coerced, and victims of statutory rape.
The “forcible” qualifier was eventually removed before the bill passed in the House last May. The Democrat-controlled Senate did not vote on the measure.
On Friday, before the Akin remarks, President Obama’s reelection campaign launched a television ad in six swing states accusing Romney and Ryan of opposing abortion “even in cases of rape and incest.”
On Monday, the Obama camp charged Romney and Ryan with “contradicting their own records” as they rejected Akin’s comments. In a statement, Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith referenced Ryan’s co-sponsorship of the “forcible rape” bill and Romney’s stated support of a Human Life Amendment, which she said “would ban abortion in all instances, even in the case of rape and incest.”
The Romney campaign dismissed the criticism as “another in a string of false attacks by the Obama campaign.”
“Mitt Romney’s position is clear: He is pro-life,” Henneberg said. “He opposes abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. The Obama campaign is attempting to scare voters with false charges in an effort to distract from President Obama’s litany of failures in office.”
The term “Human Life Amendment” covers a series of legislative efforts to grant full human rights to fertilized eggs. Some versions have included rape and incest exceptions to a constitutional ban on abortion; others have not.
Romney has said he supports an amendment that would mark conception as the beginning of life and that he would have signed such a bill at the state level, if one had crossed his desk as Massachusetts governor. He also has said a federal Human Life Amendment -- which would require passage in both houses of Congress and approval by 38 of 50 states -- is unrealistic and that the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to write their own abortion laws.
“We have to decide what politically has the greatest potential of being successful,” Romney said in an interview with Mike Huckabee on Fox News last October.
“Would it be wonderful if everyone in the country agreed with you and me that life begins at conception, that there’s a sanctity of life that’s part of a civilized society, and that we’re all going to agree we’re not going to have legal abortion in the nation?” Romney asked Huckabee. “That’d be great, but I don’t think that’s where we are right now.”
Romney -- a devout Mormon who has maintained a consistent, personal opposition to abortion -- has altered his political position on abortion over the years. As a Senate candidate in 1994, he cited the death of his brother-in-law’s sister from complications of an illegal abortion as a touchstone.
“Since that time, my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter,” Romney said during a debate.
Romney even appeared that year at a fund-raiser for Planned Parenthood -- an organization he has pledged to de-fund if elected president.
In 2002, as a candidate for Massachusetts governor, Romney said he would “respect and fully protect a woman’s right to choose.”
But Romney wrote in a 2005 op-ed in the Globe that his “convictions have evolved and deepened during [his] time as governor.” He began to take pro-life stances, explaining that it had become difficult to reconcile his personal belief about abortion with the political position he had taken for years.
At a Republican presidential debate in 2007, Romney said he “would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said we don’t want to have abortion in this country at all, period.” He added that he would be “delighted to sign” a bill banning all abortions but added “that’s not where America is today.”
The Obama campaign cites those debate remarks as evidence to support its claim that Romney opposes abortions for victims of rape and incest.
But more recently, Romney wrote in a 2011 op-ed in the National Review that he is “pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.”
Ryan’s longtime position has been to permit abortion only when a woman’s life is endangered by a pregnancy.
Callum Borchers can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @callumborchers.





I

telcoman wrote:This thread was about Ryan's budget but since you have attempted to hijack this on abortion Ryan, Romney, and Akin are as much of a wack job as you are.

stebo0728 wrote:[
Romney, Ryan can have legitimate positions against abortion without being lumped in with Akins. Pro-life advocates get blessed one side and down the other for being heartless regarding rape/health concerns scenarios. So they go ahead and stump a bill that allows for these scenarios, and then thats not good enough either. Abortion for strictly birth control is not a good model. Getting the pregnancy to never occur is the better model. I'm sternly against willy nilly abortions, and will support a platform that agrees. Its not a frontline issue, and should be treated as such, still, when categorizing abortion as a conflict of rights, and recognizing that you are abridging the rights of one party, then only times that becomes a logical choice is the 2 big exemptions in this prohibition bill.

But again, this is not an issue that belongs in the limelight, for either side. When we get this economy in order, people working, and businesses investing here again, then maybe we can look back at this issue and take some measures here and there.

stebo0728 wrote:Ok, so to prove I am not closed minded, I took your last rebutal to heart, and retraced my thought pattern regarding "tax expenditures". I'm going to quote here what I based my assertions on, an assertion I've held to for about 5 or so years.

article wrote:Do you know what a "tax expenditure" is? You can get a detailed definition at this website, but simply stated a tax expenditure is the money that you are allowed to keep when you take advantage of certain tax breaks like the home mortgage interest deduction. Senator Coburn pretty much nailed it when he opined that the phrase seems to give the impression that the government is establish its claim to everything you earn, and anything that you are allowed to keep is a tax expenditure. In other words, the government owns all wealth, but the government will expend some of its resources so that you can receive some of the benefits of your hard work.

I bolded the appropriate section. Now, admittedly, the above does attribute the definition of a tax expenditure more along the lines of how you presented it. That not ALL take home pay is necessarily labeled a "tax expenditure", only the take home pay that results from your availing yourself of a tax credit program thats labeled a "tax expenditure".

But this does create a bit of a grey area, in that if a certain portion of MY OWN wealth is labeled as a "tax expenditure", its not too much of a stretch to imagine that, at least some politicians or fiscal experts, may operate under a preconceived notion that all wealth is of public domain. I've not found any particular quotes to support this however, so until I do, I will refrain from pursuing this particular line of reasoning.

telcoman wrote:We need to see 10 years of both Romney and Ryan's tax returns

Only then can we begin the necessary reforms in the tax code
It pisses me off to no end that Romney pays a lower tax rate than I do and he is worth over 1/2 billion dollars

telcoman wrote:We are talking about someone running for POTUS and what they may be hiding in offshore bank accounts to avoid paying US taxes

The super rich abusing loopholes in the tax code is a topic that needs to be addressed to close our budget deficit

telcoman wrote:It appears that Romney is abusing the US tax system

telcoman wrote: Greg thought McCain/Palin were going to be elected four years ago

IBCoupe wrote: Propose a list of things. Eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction would be an incredibly progressive act, so lead with that, because it also hits the middle class, and it demonstrates that you're serious. If there are other deductions to be addressed, go for them, too, but at least try to avoid setting yourself up for the inevitable attacks.

me wrote:
1. That a super majority is required to make ANY changes to the rate, or to add any future sorts of loopholes or exemptions. Id prefer that NONE were ever added, but we can't control future generations, only make it very tough for them to implement the changes.

2. We need to keep some sort of standard deduction system, for EVERYONE, this insures that taxation is removed from those that can't pay both taxes and living expenses. Standard deduction is how we currently handle this, and the FairTax handles it with the prebate. The standard deduction should not be a political tool, it should be tied to some sort of metric, perhaps the same as the FairTax prebate, the average income at the poverty line. It should also not be any greater than 100% of this metric, we dont need to create a buffer zone of free loaders in between the extremely poor, and the moderately wealthy.

3. The tax should be in the form of a bill, not a withholding. Withholding is a tool for masking the reality of taxation, and allows for easier manipulation. It doesn't necessarily have to be an annual bill, it could be bi-annually, or maybe even quarterly, but it HAS to be a bill. People need to KNOW what they are paying in taxes, not just what they are getting back after cashing in the interest free loan they gave the government all year. The private sector could set up an escrow system that people could take advantage of if they choose, or they could create their own escrow and reap their own interest.

4. The standard deduction should be the ONLY deduction, no mortgage interest, no daycare, no tuition or office supplies deductions, no itemizations period, and we have to end refundable tax credits like the EIC. I dont mind poor people having their tax liability zeroed out, but to get money out of the deal to boot, that has to stop.

5. No imputing income in order to increase tax liability. Im not sure that we actually do this now, but I know its been discussed heavily in the past, such as imputed income for home owners who are mortgage free. Whether we do it now or not, we have to be sure we DONT do it with the new plan.

6. Income taxes for businesses go away. They don't pay them anyway, we do. All income tax should come from individuals only. This would decrease the cost of living, and would further aid lower income families who would fall under the standard deduction anyway.

7. Capital gains stops being a separate tax. Any capital gains get written in on the income tax forms, and taxed same as any other income source.

IBCoupe wrote:There is a strain of economic thought that places all wealth in the "public domain," and one can find some amount of logic in it even without agreeing with it, but regardless: that strain of economic thought has literally nothing to do with the phrase "tax expenditure."

telcoman wrote:I agree but we need to start at the top with the wealthy and go from there.

Warren Buffet's secretary should not be paying a higher tax rate than her boss

telcoman wrote:I agree but we need to start at the top with the wealthy and go from there.

Warren Buffet's secretary should not be paying a higher tax rate than her boss

stebo0728 wrote:
Lets also address another big misconception most people have about capital gains. Capital gains taxes area secondary tax, not a primary tax. Tax has been paid on the original income that was then used to purchase whatever holdings are now qualifying for capital gains. Simple as that.

WDRacing wrote: If you're pro-Obama you don't mind spending 4 billion a day in interest on the National Debt. In fact, you're so ok with it, you want to spend more! Like the Transportation bill some silly Libs like to talk about. Or the Green energy jobs Obama likes to tote around as some kind of great idea. Hello, they cost about a million bucks each.

telcoman wrote:...and an unpaid for Medicare Part D gift to the drug companies and over payments under Medicare Advantage...

WDRacing wrote:Here's your problem Howie, I've always said we need to shut off the wars. After all, I'm a vet of 2 foriegn wars myself. I wonder every day why the mainstream media isn't talking about Afganistan. Trickle down has zip to do with paying 10 billion a week RIGHT NOW, in interest alone. The only way to fix the economy is to stop spending, to include the damn wars.

Obama's plan continues spending and doesn't shutoff the wars. His record is awful when it comes to spending, that is just an ugly fact.

stebo0728 wrote:Still, I find it a bit curious that tax credits are handled this way, or described this way, rather than just being labeled as a reduction in revenue.

WDRacing wrote:

stebo0728 wrote:Lets also address another big misconception most people have about capital gains. Capital gains taxes area secondary tax, not a primary tax. Tax has been paid on the original income that was then used to purchase whatever holdings are now qualifying for capital gains. Simple as that.

If you're pro-Obama you don't understand this.

WDRacing wrote:If you're pro-Obama you don't think people should be able to invest their money successfully without "sharing" their "fair" share. Fair would be taxing people at the same rate they were initially. God forbid you want to invest for your retirement.

WDRacing wrote:If you're pro-Obama you don't mind spending 4 billion a day in interest on the National Debt. In fact, you're so ok with it, you want to spend more!