OT: OBAMA SOAKS THE RICH: CHURCHES, DAY CARE, HOMELESS SHELT

[roster]

In 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, four million taxpayers had adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more. They comprised 3% of the tax returns, made 31% of the income, but donated 44% of all charitable contributions. Together, they provided charity with $81 billion in that year.

Obama's plan will cost them $10 billion in extra taxes on the income they allocated to charitable donations.

Imagine all the harm Obama's program will cause. Churches will be hit most hard. They account for the largest share of charitable donations, but universities, disease research, hospitals, soup kitchens, and cultural institutions will also be hard hit. So will international relief efforts that funnel aid abroad through churches or directly.

It will most directly impact them (the poor) since most of the charities Obama is hurting focus on helping the impoverished.

This proposal is not about saving money. It is about controlling it. By, in effect, transferring at least $11 billion a year from private philanthropy to government spending, Obama empowers the public sector at the expense of the voluntary one.

President Obama's recommended reduction in the tax deduction for charitable giving reflects his fundamental belief that only the government can or should help the poor. He wants to keep the impoverished directly dependent on the government - and the Democratic Party - for their daily bread.

The voluntary sector has always been the backbone of compassion in the United States. Our charitable donations dwarf those of any other country. And our system of tax deductions for giving permits us to decide what charities are worthy of our generosity - a decision Obama will transfer to the politicians under his program.

[SharkBait]

In 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, four million taxpayers had adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more. They comprised 3% of the tax returns, made 31% of the income, but donated 44% of all charitable contributions. Together, they provided charity with $81 billion in that year.

Obama's plan will cost them $10 billion in extra taxes on the income they allocated to charitable donations.

Imagine all the harm Obama's program will cause. Churches will be hit most hard. They account for the largest share of charitable donations, but universities, disease research, hospitals, soup kitchens, and cultural institutions will also be hard hit. So will international relief efforts that funnel aid abroad through churches or directly.

It will most directly impact them (the poor) since most of the charities Obama is hurting focus on helping the impoverished.

This proposal is not about saving money. It is about controlling it. By, in effect, transferring at least $11 billion a year from private philanthropy to government spending, Obama empowers the public sector at the expense of the voluntary one.

President Obama's recommended reduction in the tax deduction for charitable giving reflects his fundamental belief that only the government can or should help the poor. He wants to keep the impoverished directly dependent on the government - and the Democratic Party - for their daily bread.

The voluntary sector has always been the backbone of compassion in the United States. Our charitable donations dwarf those of any other country. And our system of tax deductions for giving permits us to decide what charities are worthy of our generosity - a decision Obama will transfer to the politicians under his program.

That's going in the wrong direction!!! Argh!!!

When are these people going to realize that handing things to the government to try to accomplish/control is always going to end badly. Geesh.

[Billy6]

Obama is a total Marxist, and anyone who cant see the road he's leading us down is either a total moron, or is deep, deep in his hypnotic trance. I guess he thinks by massively raising taxes and cutting deductions (double whammy) that employers will rush out to hire people, give them nice payraises and provide a pension and and health benefits. I cant believe I got sucked into voting for him and his huckster lies.

[Julie]

What's going to change is that "charity" will be given out by the gov't and spread around to those who need it, plus those other people (the ones with money going in) will still give, if only to continue to get write-offs. Why is it that anyone who doesn't stick up for the uber-rich is automatically a Marxist?

[janp]

I must be in the wrong forum.

I thought this was a CPAP Forum!

[roster]

I must be in the wrong forum.

I thought this was a CPAP Forum!

Jan,

Breaking news: "OT" means off-topic.

Please just stay out of any threads that start with OT!

[travismcgee]

What's going to change is that "charity" will be given out by the gov't and spread around to those who need it, plus those other people (the ones with money going in) will still give, if only to continue to get write-offs. Why is it that anyone who doesn't stick up for the uber-rich is automatically a Marxist?

I guess if you consider people who make $200,000 the bottom threshold for being "uber-rich" then there is no point in convincing you that Obama isn't a Marxist. Though technically his policies are more Socialist than Marxist. This is just another of his policies to demonize any private-sector component of the US economy and to further his agenda to convince the brain-dead voters (no offense is meant toward Billy6) that only the government can sustain economic growth. It isn't any more complicated than that and if it is allowed to continue this country will experience the greatest expansion of governmental control in it's short but so far prosperous history.

Furthermore, not only will his policies expand governmental control, his current budget will triple the national debt. In fact with our level of debt based on this budget, the US could not even be admitted to the European Union, which is the focal point of western socialism today. We couldn't be admitted, our debt ratios and leverage are so high we couldn't qualify for admission to the European Union! Now that really is some serious "change" but I doubt it it is the "change" that Obama voters had on their mind when they stepped into the voting booth last November.

[roster]

........ In fact with our level of debt based on this budget, the US could not even be admitted to the European Union, which is the focal point of western socialism today. We couldn't be admitted, our debt ratios and leverage are so high we couldn't qualify for admission to the European Union! ...........

Now that is frightening!

Travis, Thanks for the sobering input.

[janp]

I must be in the wrong forum.

I thought this was a CPAP Forum!

Jan,

Breaking news: "OT" means off-topic.

Please just stay out of any threads that start with OT!

Be glad to when it drifts off CPAP support and into politics.

[kteague]

Jan, yes "OT" is a warning for those who don't care to read any non cpap stuff. Usually the titles let your know the topic. Some are good information, others interesting or funny, some just a soapbox for controversial opinion. Especially for a newbie, it can be unsettling when our usually cohesive community displays the reality that we are a cross section of a global society, and do not have the same views.

Of course, feel free to visit any thread you want, OT or not. Now that you know what to expect, you can pick and choose accordingly. I probably would not have replied to this one except for I saw you are new here and remembered how disappointed I was the first time I saw the disunity that can come with controversial posts. I usually try to avoid being drawn into discussions that detract from the greater good of the forum's purpose (but sometimes I jump in with both feet), but each to their own. Sometimes I read them though, cause I like to know who's who.

Kathy

[Raj]

Rooster's quotation came from Dick Morris. It's worth doing a bit of research on Morris if you care to judge how seriously to take his analysis.

[TSSleepy]

I must be in the wrong forum.

I thought this was a CPAP Forum!

Jan,

Breaking news: "OT" means off-topic.

Please just stay out of any threads that start with OT!

Yeah, Jan...I have to keep reminding myself not to read Rooster's OT politics threads. They're like a trainwreck: I know I shouldn't look, but I'm morbidly curious.

[roster]

Rooster's quotation came from Dick Morris. It's worth doing a bit of research on Morris if you care to judge how seriously to take his analysis.

Raj,

I suggest an approach better than attacking personalities (Dick Morris's), is to look into the facts behind the Dick Morris excerpt. I admit to not having done this.

I posted this as a lazy man's way of getting some factual refuting arguments. I definitely would not take the Morris quote for truth without research. So it remains a troubling quote until I find info to the contrary.

All I have so far is that even more depressing post by Travis.

Regards,

[janp]

Jan, yes "OT" is a warning for those who don't care to read any non cpap stuff. Usually the titles let your know the topic. Some are good information, others interesting or funny, some just a soapbox for controversial opinion. Especially for a newbie, it can be unsettling when our usually cohesive community displays the reality that we are a cross section of a global society, and do not have the same views.

Of course, feel free to visit any thread you want, OT or not. Now that you know what to expect, you can pick and choose accordingly. I probably would not have replied to this one except for I saw you are new here and remembered how disappointed I was the first time I saw the disunity that can come with controversial posts. I usually try to avoid being drawn into discussions that detract from the greater good of the forum's purpose (but sometimes I jump in with both feet), but each to their own. Sometimes I read them though, cause I like to know who's who.

Kathy

Thanks Kathy,

Your right I'm new to this Forum ... actually I normally stay away from them.

But, I came to this one looking for help on CPAP.

I didn't expect the vitriol!!

Jan

[DreamStalker]

Well ... I don't see anything "charitable" about rich people giving money to their favorite non-profit ONLY if they get a tax break. If they are really charitable, whether or not they get a tax break should make no difference. Put simply, removing tax "loop holes" from the tax code is a good thing.

BTW - I'm not very happy with all of Obama's policies or cabinet appointees but I would say it is a different direction rather than the wrong direction at this point since we have not had the time to determine whether or not the different direction is right or wrong or something else. I voted for him (primaries) before I voted against him (national elections). .... and No, I didn't vote for McPalin nor would I ever !!