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

WearyOne wrote:

Debjax wrote:
<snip>Well, it's not the goverment's place to decide "who needs it". The reason many of us equate Marxism with plans to penalize the "uber rich" is because that is exactly what it is, Marxism. Penalizing those who have worked harder, taken risks in business and succeeded or who just have more money that some of us do, is wrong. Taking “From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” IS Marxism, plain and simple. That line was written by Karl Marx.....and that is exactly what the government is proposing to do, forcibly taking "from each according to his capacity" and giving "to each according to his needs."

I am tired of people constantly slamming those who have money and means.

<stepping off soapbox>

No, you can stay on your soapbox, and I'll join you! And I am FAR from rich, much less uber rich. Middle class might even be stretching it.

Exactly.

We were playing a golf course in Las Vegas called Dragon Ridge and one of the houses overlooking the golf course with a panoramic view of "the strip", was absolutely huge. I'm guessing around 20,000 square feet. In the back there was a large glassed atrium that was larger than my house at the time (about 4000 sq ft then...), with a huge swimming poll inside and it was flat on top with a huge deck for sitting out looking over the magnificent view.

My buddy playing golf with me asked, "How is it right that one family lives in that place when there are so many in need?". I basically explained to him the free enterprise system as Debjax has described...

Is it perfect? Hell no. But I think it's the best system going.

Here's a fun scenario.

Let's say you produce a cpap machine that blows air at a set pressure setting and that's all. You sell a hundred thousand of these a year to OSA sufferers and after we in all fairness take most of your money away from you because, come on, how much money do you REALLY need to live? I mean, let's not get greedy here. Anyway, you end up with $60,000 a year and that's probably too much for just you as one person, but hey you're helping a lot of OSA sufferers so...

So you decided you can improve on this machine so you add C-Flex, an algorithm to detect flow limitations and change the pressure, firmware to monitor the patient's breathing and give AHI, and also measure leak rates. You also can develop a software program to help show all of this in graph form. Now you've got a much better cpap and you sell a few hundred thousand of these a year and after we in all fairness take most of your money away from you because, come on, how much money do you REALLY need to live? I mean, let's not get greedy here. Anyway, you end up with $60,000 a year and that's probably too much for just you as one person, but hey you're helping a lot of OSA sufferers even more so...

You think that better machine ever gets developed?

Raj wrote: ..........
If it makes you feel better Rooster, ........

Raj, Thanks for the thought, but I am feeling as well as I ever have with my clothes on.

Debjax wrote: ..........
I am tired of people constantly slamming those who have money and means. In many cases, it is those folks who are providing the jobs for those of us who make an average wage, who are funding the shelters for those who are unwilling or unable to work, and other charities. If you want to know what is wrong with the philosophy, take a look at initiative and quality of workmanship in any country that has enacted that policy.

.....

So true. Anytime I was unemployed, I tried to apply for positions where "wealthy" people worked.

Debjax wrote: .......... Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years. [/color][/i]
"Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.

.........

Is Baucus being vitriolic?

SharkBait wrote: ............
You take $1.00 and give it to charity and you have a fighting chance that $1.00 will go to helping someone. Even get into an organization like the United Way that some feel have a large overhead and some profiteering and you still have a legitimate chance that 50 cents of each $1.00 goes to helping someone.

..........

SB, Check your local UW's website. Mine gets $0.84 to the charity for every $1.00 we donate. But even then, I like to give direct to the charities to avoid UW's $0.16 cut.

SharkBait wrote: ............
..........
So yeah, I'm all for sticking it to the uber-rich because they've got so much dough and I don't ..........

Our Constitution exists to protect individuals from large groups with this attitude. Lose that Constitution and we are down the drain out into the sewer.

Debjax for president! Move over on that soapbox, I'm coming up.

I've never been "rich" and never will be, barring a lottery hit. But when did we become a country of people striving for the best lifestyle we could attain, to a country of people who view the wealthy as the greatest villains? And when did we as a collective group, become so utterly STUPID as to think the government is the solution to anything other than national defense?

There were a number of major issues that I disagreed with Bush on. But, because he couldn't put 3 words together and felt that - to some extent - we need to use unconventional tactics if we are to win a war on terrorism against a 12th century culture, we've kicked out his entire party and replaced him with an empty suit who is well on his way to destroying every stone in the foundation on which this country was built.

I would never have started this thread here, but will certainly contribute my thoughts on it, as I believe we are witnessing the destruction of the United States as we know it.

Sounds like most on this board might want to spend some time studying economics rather than watching and listening to the worthless rhetoric in the news.

rooster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote: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. ............

Sorry DS, the math does not work like that.

Under certain conditions, charitable contributions can be deducted from your income before calculating the tax. Most of the people in the quote would be in a marginal tax bracket (for 2008) of 28, 33, or 35%.

For sake of an example, let's assume I am in the 33% bracket. I want to give $1,000 to the local food bank. I discuss it with my CPA. He tells me it is totally deductible. Now the way many charitable givers think, including me, is, "OK, it is deductible, I will write a check to the food bank for $1,300."

When I file my tax return, I deduct $1,300 from my taxable income for a savings of $300 in taxes. So my net outlay is $1000 but the food bank gets $1,300.

So yes, changing the deductibility will have a big impact on donations to charities.

(But don't get me started on our tax code. That will be a new thread. I am for FairTax which would mean the elimination of all deductions. Government should not be in the business of pushing our social lives in any direction, left or right.)

Rooster
Vitriolic awake, deathly vitriolic asleep

Again, regardless of how you do the math ... charity as defined by Websters:

Pronunciation: \ˈcher-ə-tē, ˈcha-rə-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural char·i·ties
Etymology: Middle English charite, from Anglo-French charité, from Late Latin caritat-, caritas Christian love, from Latin, dearness, from carus dear; akin to Old Irish carae friend, Sanskrit kāma love
Date: 13th century

1. benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity 2a. generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering ; also : aid given to those in need 2b. an institution engaged in relief of the poor 2c. public provision for the relief of the needy 3a. a gift for public benevolent purposes 3b. an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift 4. lenient judgment of others

Nowhere does it say that it depends on the tax code regardless of what bracket the giver is in.

As for the business of pushing social lives to the right or left ... tell that to the right wing conservatives pushing religion into the science education curriculum in Texas.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819751472561761.html

Our country is suffering a decline in science and engineering education and this is not the way to improve our competitive edge against the Chinese. Faith-based math, science and technology just does not work! ... leave religion to more appropriate things like say ... uhhh, I dunno --- charity?

DreamStalker wrote: Faith-based math, science and technology just does not work!

I agree! Let's continue to question and test the sacred cows of science instead of just declaring them "Truth"! Why are evolutionists so afraid to have it questioned? If it's the slam-dunk Truth you think it is, it will stand up to scrutiny. But if something better and more accurate turns up...well, isn't that the Scientific Method at work?

I want future generations to be inquiring, thinking beings. Pursuing ALL possibilities. Not lemmings spouting only the "approved" teachings of the god "Science".

How "thinking" and/or "inquiring" do you think your children will be if everything they 'learn' is filtered through a faith-based 'religion' from 2000 years ago and interpreted by a slew of others who followed along a few years after that, putting their own spin on what (to me anyhow) was already "spin" to begin with?

Julie wrote:How "thinking" and/or "inquiring" do you think your children will be if everything they 'learn' is filtered through a faith-based 'religion' from 2000 years ago and interpreted by a slew of others who followed along a few years after that, putting their own spin on what (to me anyhow) was already "spin" to begin with?

How thinking and/or inquiring do you think your children will be if everything they learn is filtered through liberal agendas whose ideas and "theories" constantly change, who put their own spin on everything leaving out and being intolerant of anything that challenges that thinking? I say give them both, don't leave anything out. At the end of 8th grade in an advanced public school program, my son begged to be home schooled, because of, among other things, totally ignoring so much of the way history really happened, science, etc. He's now a third-year straight-A college student having made very high SAT scores. The home school program was Christian-based, and obviously has not hampered his thinking or inquiring mind at all. In fact, it strengthened it. He said he's glad he did have the public school experience before the Christian-based home school because it gave him the opportunity see exactly how much is being "left out" of public school education.

Pam

I am not trying to make enemys here, but most of the comments are typical of people not understanding the policy. Persaon a tells person b that this is what it is, and all of a sudden it is the truth, wether or not it started out as the truth or not. The donations Charitable one, from the "rich" instead of getting 33% write off on taxes, they would only get a 28% write off. If you are in the 28% bracket, you only get to write off 28% of you charitable deductions. If you are in the 33% bracket , teh way it use to be, you could write off 33%. Does that seem fair? the people that are contributing that dont earn as much dont get as much of a break,as the "rich" people get.

I might be for the straight tax for everyone.

LinkC wrote:

DreamStalker wrote: Faith-based math, science and technology just does not work!

I agree! Let's continue to question and test the sacred cows of science instead of just declaring them "Truth"! Why are evolutionists so afraid to have it questioned? If it's the slam-dunk Truth you think it is, it will stand up to scrutiny. But if something better and more accurate turns up...well, isn't that the Scientific Method at work?

I want future generations to be inquiring, thinking beings. Pursuing ALL possibilities. Not lemmings spouting only the "approved" teachings of the god "Science".

The God of Science?

Dang it Link! ... How the hell am I supposed to respond to that?

I can neither prove nor disprove such a concept. Game over ... I guess you outwitted me with that that ... that scientific method thingy.

Note however, that with inquiring, thinking beings like the Texas Board of Education chairman who believes God created the universe fewer than 10,000 years ago ... the creationists (uhhh, I mean lemmings) will in time pursue ALL possibilities to slam-dunk their own extinction in "True" classic Darwinian fashion.

May the God of CPAP bless the continuous mass quantities of air into your head.

DreamStalker wrote: ..............
.......... Faith-based math, science and technology just does not work! ... ...........

DS,

At a practical level, you and I probably agree on this one. We don't want a religious council interfering with the work of scientists or the writing of science text books.

Where we may disagree is on the idea that science is a complete framework for understanding man and the universe, so unscientific claims should be rejected. I believe this is an irrational idea. It would be like trying to understand the love between a newlywed couple through the laws of physics and chemistry alone.

Trying to explain everything through science is inadequate and unreasonable.

Regards,

rooster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote: ..............
.......... Faith-based math, science and technology just does not work! ... ...........

DS,

At a practical level, you and I probably agree on this one. We don't want a religious council interfering with the work of scientists or the writing of science text books.

Where we may disagree is on the idea that science is a complete framework for understanding man and the universe, so unscientific claims should be rejected. I believe this is an irrational idea. It would be like trying to understand the love between a newlywed couple through the laws of physics and chemistry alone.

Trying to explain everything through science is inadequate and unreasonable.

Regards,

Very well said, Rooster.

LinkC wrote:

DreamStalker wrote: Faith-based math, science and technology just does not work!

I agree! Let's continue to question and test the sacred cows of science instead of just declaring them "Truth"! Why are evolutionists so afraid to have it questioned? If it's the slam-dunk Truth you think it is, it will stand up to scrutiny. But if something better and more accurate turns up...well, isn't that the Scientific Method at work?

I want future generations to be inquiring, thinking beings. Pursuing ALL possibilities. Not lemmings spouting only the "approved" teachings of the god "Science".

Hey, you want to be my VP?

Julie wrote:How "thinking" and/or "inquiring" do you think your children will be if everything they 'learn' is filtered through a faith-based 'religion' from 2000 years ago and interpreted by a slew of others who followed along a few years after that, putting their own spin on what (to me anyhow) was already "spin" to begin with?

I do not want religion taught in the public schools, (although it would be nice to put some morality back in there, that CAN be done without religion), however I also do not want the public schools telling my children they are wrong for allowing their faith to guide some of their decisions on life and history. Present both sides, or one side...I don't care, but allow my children the freedom of their faith without ridicule.