Ditto.

Whoever wants to get rid of that write off needs to be thrown into a shark pit.

medicare is a part of ss, it's part of the ss act that amended the social security program. 1965.
just reminding you of that, so that in future when i mention that ss needs help, it's the entire program, not just the retirement portion.

a lot of people depend on that check; they paid into it, they earned it. i think it's rather disingenuous to harp on someone for saying they rely on it, and then going on about how it's a ripoff and you won't get yours.

i can't believe that cut has even been suggested.

well keep some then. I've never bought a house so I dont have experience with that.

but I think there should be a flat tax rate.. and no loopholes. maybe some deductions allowed, I never claimed to know everything!

but it really pisses me off when I have friends with kids get back more than what they paid in. that shouldnt happen.

I agree: Flat tax, no deductions. Make 10x as much, pay 10x as much. Make half as much, pay half as much.

Put in a poverty line, and anything above that line gets taxed at one uniform rate. No bracket creep. Simple - anyone who can do elementary math will know what to pay. No complex accounting.

it's all well and good to suggest changes to other programs-but if the govt would just buckle down and make the needed changes to what constitutes the bulk of fed. govt. spending, none of these other small issues would have to be addressed.
we do need tax reform. we also need entitlement reform. the tax break on housing isn't a budget buster-it probably does a lot more good than it does harm.
the cash for clunkers program wasn't a budget buster either.
we need to stop ignoring the elephant in the corner. he's not going anywhere.

I'm sure whoever came up with the idea probably owns their houses Free and clear so they could give 2 shi*ts about the rest of the country... That is the problem.

:tro: Agree but AICPA lobbying money will shut that down.

everyone should contribute-even if it's a negligible amount. perhaps more people would care about the goings on in washington if they felt they were actually a part of it-rather than just getting from it. it's supposed to be by,of, from the people, not just some of the people...


as for the house tax-i have a house i don't own in full as yet, but i use the standard deduction, so it has no bearing on me. however, it does have on others, and with the housing market being as anemic as it is, i'd hate for them to do anything that would exacerbate the problem.

I have wanted a flat tax for years but we will never have one because we have too many leaches that don't want to pay any taxes and live off the middle class and rich.
If that bum Obama ever voted for a flat tax he would lose 3/4 of the people that voted for him because all of a sudden they would have to contribute something and that sure as hell would never happen.

Your HATERED for Obama is blinding you to the fact that the "Rich" would be the most negativley impacted as most through deductions pay much less than they would via a flat tax and the "Bums" really won't be impacted all that much becuase they probably can't hire the teams of accounts to find said loopholes now. But feel free to make all the worlds troubles about Obama...

What current non-taxpayers "want" is irrelevant. They WILL pay something, if somebody like me gets to truly reform (read as "rewrite") the tax code.

At least with a flat tax rate and no deductions, there's no more class warfare. Everyone pays an equally "fair" share since everyone is paying the same proportional amount of their income. And there would be no barriers to continued growth or success built into the tax code.

I have no hatred for this President (no more than any before him any way). This gov't is a complete disaster and needs a square one approach. The Onion had an article a few weeks ago about giving the Fed a red ball because that was something it could handle playing with rather than anything complex. Great satire and a sad truth exposed.
The bureaucracy that has gone on for too long has created a system that needs constant feeding, it is similar to what happens to celebrity chefs. They start out great cooking great food, move onto TV, open a new restaurant nearby, get another TV show, open a restaurant in Vegas, another TV show and so on. Now they have this conglomerate of people and business that need to be fed at all times. This is the progression of a good idea when placed in the wrong hands for too long. Eventually it causes a downgrade in the product and service and nobody notices because they are eating at such and such's restaurant so it doesn't matter. Meantime he is nowhere to be found, not watching over, not leading the kitchen. Sure you can see him on the VS channel with his race horses but what about the food, huh?

leave Bobby Flay alone!! haha

just don't let him call any more races.

Sorry, venting. Was in Vegas last week and ate at Mesa (at the ceaseless prodding of a Star***ker friend). Back when I lived/worked in NYC I used to go to Bolo all the time and that was such an amazing little place. I was disappointed is all.

It does relate though.

that would constitute the govt "looking in the mirror" to find the problem

no, what we need are people who are willing to put themselves on the line, and perhaps not get re-elected, in order to fix the problems. what they also need to understand is that for every person saying 'i won't vote for you if you do...' there are others who say 'i won't vote for you if you don't....'



honestly, the more i think about it, the more i think the scenario could pan out. dems say absolutely no changes to ss/medicare. reps say absolutely no to taxes. so, get each to budge just a little on those two things; it would work wonders for us both now and in future. make them both give a bit on what they like most. then, both sides have their base pissed off at them-but also pissed at the other side at the same time! a win/win/win for everyone!!

Perhaps a basic math class for all involved too. Not new math but actual math where the answer is important too.

:tro:


like mark pryor told bill maher in religulous, you don't have to pass an iq test to be a senator.

LOL - a flat tax has been part of the progressive platform for years.

The first thing to do would be to aggressively get all the corporate money out of elections. All the GOP, and half the Dems, are simply wholly-owned corporate subsidiaries.

neither party really embraces it, but it's more of a conservative platform than progressive. Dick Armey (dead republican) was the guy who tried to push it through congress.

really? only half the dems? insert head into sand.

even Obama is a wholly-owned corporate subsidiary.

They switch back and forth. Jim DeMint fully supported and recommended Obamacare just a few years ago, recommending that Romney's healthcare plan be made national, it was "so good" :D

Today Romney announced he thinks that corporations are people. Jeebus, save us from these empty heads and give us back our democracy.

"Corporations are people, my friend" (which makes total sense, except for that dang Citizen's United supreme court ruling) - video with heckling, here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_924426.html

I work for a corporation that is made up of over 8,000 americans.

Yes, corporations are people.

"Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend."

here's the actual quote instead of a cherry picked line. what doesnt make sense?

If dems are going to hang on that paragraph to beat Romney, they have huge problems.

Sigh ... as I said, related to the Citzen's United ruling. Completely ****ing tone deaf to the Citizens United ruling. Especially as just this week it was discovered Romeny had received millions in donations from several shell corporations, corporations created only to donate to Romney under PAC rules, then dissolved. That's what hangs Romney, and why the hecklers were so angry.

Here, today, op-ed in Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politic...CdN/index.html

Still no clue - still talking about doing more road work. Guess who pays for that? Taxpayers. It never ends with this guy.

I'd rather spend tax money on road work in America and hire Americans to do it than 80% of the other crap they spend it on... especially all the money we give other countries.

Well, hell yeah, if they can eliminate foreign aid, contributions to the U.N., World Bank, and International Money Fund and fix the roads instead - that's a win win.

If that's what he means (I doubt it) I'll support him on that. I think he meant to increase taxes with this as a pretext, and keep sending money out of the country where it does us no good.

Like naming the CEO of one of the worlds largest and most profitable companies to your personal team? The one company in the top 10 that pays zero taxes, coincidence?