CheapyD on U.S.' debt ceiling

[quote name='dohdough']Huh? I'd like you to quantify that again. If I remember correctly, you're not exactly on the liberal side of same-sex marriage or abortion.[/QUOTE]

You remember incorrectly.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals. I don't feel it is the place of the government to put restrictions on who can enter into this contract based on the gender of one or both parties.

As for abortion, I've *always* qualified any anti-abortion comments I've made with the stipulation of "if you consider the fetus to be a person". I do not.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You remember incorrectly.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals. I don't feel it is the place of the government to put restrictions on who can enter into this contract based on the gender of one or both parties.

As for abortion, I've *always* qualified any anti-abortion comments I've made with the stipulation of "if you consider the fetus to be a person". I do not.[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying. See...I can be reasonable. HA!
 
And so can I. ;)

Although, and I can't remember who, but someone on here attacked me for my stance on same-sex marriage, not because they disagreed with the overall idea, but they thought my reasoning behind me being okay with it was complete BS...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Are you saying that I shouldn't be married if I disagree with the way the government determines who is eligible for marriage?[/QUOTE]

You say that marriage should be a contract between two people.

What's stoppin' you?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You say that marriage should be a contract between two people.

What's stoppin' you?[/QUOTE]

It is a contract between two people. Legally recognized by the state of Illinois. My wife and I agree to it, the state says "Sure."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So then you support same-sex marriage, yes?[/QUOTE]

For the love of the flying spaghetti monster...

dohdough figured this one out... but it's lost on Professor Myke?

Yes - I support the legal option of same-sex marriage for those who wish to partake in it.
 
No, it's more simple than that.

You said someone attacked you on here. I'm curious why.

You're a conservative/corporatist apologist with no regard for logic, so my expectation is that you set up an elaborate mess of something pretending as a means of explaining why you do not support same-sex marriage. I don't keep tabs on what you think your views on things are, so I genuinely had no idea you supported same-sex marriage.

But alas, you do support it, or so you say. Lovely.
 
at least you're honest.abortion should be legal.same sex should be legal.end the war on drugs.end the wars we are currently in.drop the military budget.those should be most social issues.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']my expectation is that You're a conservative/corporatist apologist with no regard for logic, [...] I keep tabs on what I already think your views on things are, so I genuinely had no idea you supported same-sex marriage.[/QUOTE]

ftfy.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']at least you're honest.abortion should be legal.same sex should be legal.end the war on drugs.end the wars we are currently in.drop the military budget.those should be most social issues.[/QUOTE]

We're gonna get our Tea Party express tickets revoked...
 
[quote name='camoor']As if you don't vote for tea party candidates.[/QUOTE]

Have you been looking at my voting record?

We get a lot of Tea Party candidates here in Carmi. That guy I voted for City Council... total teabagger.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I have no idea what the amounts are or how much you can give before losing more money than you pay out in taxes etc. though.[/QUOTE]



Deductibility Limitations to 501(c)(3) Groups
Individuals giving to 501(c)(3) organizations that are either public charities, private operating foundations, and certain private foundations may deduct contributions representing up to 50% of the donor's adjusted gross income if the individual itemizes on his tax returns. The 1986 Tax Reform Act, which become effective January 1, 1987, does not allow non-itemizers to deduct charitable donations on their federal income tax returns.

Individuals giving to 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations may generally deduct contributions representing up to 30% of their adjusted gross income.

Corporations may deduct all contributions to 501(c)(3) organizations (regardless of foundation status) up to an amount normally equal to 10% of their taxable income.

======================

And that's just for 501(c)(3) which is one of 5 or 6 "recognized" organizations for the IRS. Geez, maybe just say "donate to charity and you can remove that from your AGI up to 10% of your income"? Nah, we don't need to completely revamp the tax code at all! That's just silly talk!
 
It happens all the time. Again, that's a big selling point charities, universities etc. use to solicit donations. "Why give that money to uncle sam, when you can donate it and help improve your alma mater or feed the homeless or help cure cancer etc."

It's a way to show them they can donate and help out with out really costing themselves any actual take home pay.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It happens all the time. Again, that's a big selling point charities, universities etc. use to solicit donations. "Why give that money to uncle sam, when you can donate it and help improve your alma mater or feed the homeless or help cure cancer etc."

It's a way to show them they can donate and help out with out really costing themselves any actual take home pay.[/QUOTE]

So... they're not really donating as a way to dodge taxes... Just as an alternative.
 
The tea party wants to balance the budget with NO additional taxes. Currently, federal spending accounts for 25% of total GDP. 40% of the federal budget is paid for through borrowing. So in order to balance the federal budget, we would need to cut GDP by 10%. Of course, in order to start paying down the debt, we'd need additional spending cuts, probably 1-2% more to pay it down slowly over time. So we're looking at 11-12% cuts in GDP + knock on effects from layoffs and businesses shut down from huge cuts.

To me, this is a huge problem. The last time we balanced the budget during down times was during the Hoover administration and that made the great depression so much worse. I'm worried that we're going to repeat this mistake. There's nothing wrong with cutting spending some but it's better to do it when the economy is in good shape. To consider cutting spending without raising taxes (not even rolling back the Bush tax cuts) is absolutely disastrous.

government spending as a percent of GDP over time:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/government-spending-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-2/
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... they're not really donating as a way to dodge taxes... Just as an alternative.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. They have to spend the money anyway, so give it to a good cause instead of to the government to waste. It's a big selling point in getting donation, especially with so many people with negative views of the government and government spending.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']The tea party wants to balance the budget with NO additional taxes. Currently, federal spending accounts for 25% of total GDP. 40% of the federal budget is paid for through borrowing. So in order to balance the federal budget, we would need to cut GDP by 10%. Of course, in order to start paying down the debt, we'd need additional spending cuts, probably 1-2% more to pay it down slowly over time. So we're looking at 11-12% cuts in GDP + knock on effects from layoffs and businesses shut down from huge cuts.

To me, this is a huge problem. The last time we balanced the budget during down times was during the Hoover administration and that made the great depression so much worse. I'm worried that we're going to repeat this mistake. There's nothing wrong with cutting spending some but it's better to do it when the economy is in good shape. To consider cutting spending without raising taxes (not even rolling back the Bush tax cuts) is absolutely disastrous.

government spending as a percent of GDP over time:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/government-spending-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-2/[/QUOTE]

I can't speak for the Tea Party, but there's a lot of us who aren't completely against raising taxes - eventually. We simply want to see the government cut spending first (and, as I said before, really cut spending - not "We spent $100 last year and planned to spend $110 this year, but instead, we'll only spend $108" types of cuts). Once they've proven they're serious about getting overall spending under control (and does anyone really believe total government spending is perfectly reasonable where it is at?), then we can talk about raising taxes. Hell, I'd even consider doing it concurrently, in a system were $1 of every additional tax raised is met by $2 of cuts (again, real cuts, not the $108 cuts).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Exactly. They have to spend the money anyway, so give it to a good cause instead of to the government to waste. It's a big selling point in getting donation, especially with so many people with negative views of the government and government spending.[/QUOTE]

I'd still be interested in the exact ratio of Donation Amount vs. Tax Savings.

If I could donate $1,000 to a charity and avoid paying $999 in taxes, then, sure, no problem.
But if I had to donate $1,000 to a charity to avoid paying $350 in taxes... well, I'm not going to make that donation simply to avoid the tax liability.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I can't speak for the Tea Party, but there's a lot of us who aren't completely against raising taxes - eventually. We simply want to see the government cut spending first (and, as I said before, really cut spending - not "We spent $100 last year and planned to spend $110 this year, but instead, we'll only spend $108" types of cuts). Once they've proven they're serious about getting overall spending under control (and does anyone really believe total government spending is perfectly reasonable where it is at?), then we can talk about raising taxes. Hell, I'd even consider doing it concurrently, in a system were $1 of every additional tax raised is met by $2 of cuts (again, real cuts, not the $108 cuts).[/QUOTE]

I'm not so sure about that 1:2 ratio, I'd have to look at the figures, where do you propose these cuts come from? Perhaps eliminate medicare part D? It's not like Grandma needs her pills right? Bush is responsible for that part of medicare and it's very expensive.

If you look at the GDP chart I posted, you'll see that after most major wars, government spending decreases as we draw down our military. I don't think we can discuss taxes and cuts without discussing the possibility of following historic examples and cutting military spending by significant amounts. The military accounts for 1/5th the federal budget or 5% of total GDP.

IMO, we should cut military spending by shutting down a bunch of bases in Europe (maybe all but a few). Lets face it, European nations don't spend nearly as much on defense as they should because we're there. We're a giant military subsidy, allowing them to have a higher standard of living and better social programs. All paid for by the American people. It's not 1945 any more. They don't need our assistance to defend themselves and they don't need us to help them rebuild anymore. Shut down those bases and lay off some troops (or force a bunch of the older ones to retire).
 
[quote name='Clak']Cuts in spending aren't the issue, what to cut is. And we all know what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]

Which I just don't understand... why does cuts to military spending *rarely* come up in main stream politics? Seems like about the only one talking about it is Ron Paul and no one takes him seriously.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'd still be interested in the exact ratio of Donation Amount vs. Tax Savings.

If I could donate $1,000 to a charity and avoid paying $999 in taxes, then, sure, no problem.
But if I had to donate $1,000 to a charity to avoid paying $350 in taxes... well, I'm not going to make that donation simply to avoid the tax liability.[/QUOTE]

Charity is an itemized donation. So it's not dollar for dollar. At the top tax bracket, the best you can do is 35%. So perhaps $1,000 would save you $350 in taxes at the most - for most people it's far less savings.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']I don't think we can discuss taxes and cuts without discussing the possibility of following historic examples and cutting military spending by significant amounts.[/QUOTE]

That's a HUGE start.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Charity is an itemized donation. So it's not dollar for dollar. At the top tax bracket, the best you can do is 35%. So perhaps $1,000 would save you $350 in taxes at the most - for most people it's far less savings.[/QUOTE]

This was my understanding, but I've never tried to write off any charitable donations I've made.

One must *really* hate the government if they're willing to donate $1,000 to avoid paying $350 in taxes.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']This was my understanding, but I've never tried to write off any charitable donations I've made.

One must *really* hate the government if they're willing to donate $1,000 to avoid paying $350 in taxes.[/QUOTE]

I really doubt that most people are giving to charity to avoid taxes. I would have to assume that the vast majority simply want to give money to a cause they believe in and take advantage of the donation on their taxes. Even the staunchest anti-tax person must at some level understand that at least parts of government spending is what allows them to run their businesses, be it the military, the roads, or whatever.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Even the staunchest anti-tax person must at some level understand that at least parts of government spending is what allows them to run their businesses, be it the military, the roads, bailouts, or whatever.[/QUOTE]

Forgot one. ;)
 
Well, they have to want to help out the charity in the first place of course. :D

The tax off set is just an additional selling point. Now having the numbers, the message is more like, "Donating $1,000 to us only costs you $650 after your tax deduction."
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, they have to want to help out the charity in the first place of course. :D

The tax off set is just an additional selling point. Now having the numbers, the message is more like, "Donating $1,000 to us only costs you $650 after your tax deduction."[/QUOTE]

Of course they'd have to front the entire 1k and get the 350 off their tax bill the following April 15th so it's not an immediate savings.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Which I just don't understand... why does cuts to military spending *rarely* come up in main stream politics? Seems like about the only one talking about it is Ron Paul and no one takes him seriously.[/QUOTE]

The right in particular never goes for it. It's a matter of pride in having the best military in the world. It's a matter of fear in overblowing threats--in the past communism, in the present terrorism, etc.

And it's a matter of how we use our military. We don't really have a defense budget, we have an offense budget. That mindset has to change or we'll continue spending vastly more on defense than any other country.

The key is a change in mindset to maintaining a military solely to protect our borders and help our allies if needed. And not using it to over throw dictators, protect oil interests and other crap like that.

But it will be a hard sell. It's much like the war on drugs and other crime policies that don't work (three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences etc.)--it's political suicide to oppose them as you'll get labeled as being "soft on crime." Talking about cutting defense spending is much the same, bring it up and you get hammered as doing things to make the country less safe.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Of course they'd have to front the entire 1k and get the 350 off their tax bill the following April 15th so it's not an immediate savings.[/QUOTE]

Sure. But no big deal for the wealthy. People making donations (at least 4 figure and up donations) generally have the money in the bank to cover those kinds of things.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The right in particular never goes for it. It's a matter of pride in having the best military in the world. It's a matter of fear in overblowing threats--in the past communism, in the present terrorism, etc.

And it's a matter of how we use our military. We don't really have a defense budget, we have an offense budget. That mindset has to change or we'll continue spending vastly more on defense than any other country.

The key is a change in mindset to maintaining a military solely to protect our borders and help our allies if needed. And not using it to over throw dictators, protect oil interests and other crap like that.

But it will be a hard sell. It's much like the war on drugs and other crime policies that don't work (three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences etc.)--it's political suicide to oppose them as you'll get labeled as being "soft on crime." Talking about cutting defense spending is much the same, bring it up and you get hammered as doing things to make the country less safe.[/QUOTE]

I totally get what you're saying - but considering there's so many on the left (and in the middle, and to some extent, on the right) who are for cutting defense spending, why isn't there any mainstream candidates who are seriously talking about it (again, aside from Ron Paul, whom everyone blows off as crazy).

Cutting the military budget is easily in my top five issues - and I know I'm not alone...
 
It ain't in the top five if you're getting campaign donations from Lockheed Martin, puddin'.

Public funding of campaigns would be a nice start if you want to see the corporatists begin to lose influence.

2/3 of the country want to see taxes raised on the wealthiest Americans.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-increase-for-wealthy-and-deep-spending-cuts/

But that's not on the table because of who funds campaigns. Just like military cuts. Just like changes to criminal justice policy (e.g., widespread decarceration for nonviolent drug offenders).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I totally get what you're saying - but considering there's so many on the left (and in the middle, and to some extent, on the right) who are for cutting defense spending, why isn't there any mainstream candidates who are seriously talking about it (again, aside from Ron Paul, whom everyone blows off as crazy).

Cutting the military budget is easily in my top five issues - and I know I'm not alone...[/QUOTE]

1. Campaign financing as Myke noted.

2. Those on the left also get killed on it. "The soft on crime" or "making the country less safe" jabs don't just come from the right. It's political suicide on both sides. If a democrat campaigns on cutting defense spending, some of his primary candidates will probably hammer him/her for it, and if not the republican in the general election surely will. And it's a big problem as most people bought all the fear propaganda through the cold war and now the war on terror.


Probably the best hope for big defense cuts is rooting for the debt reduction commission to fail, so that the big ($600 billion IIRC) triggered cut in defense spending goes into place.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']2. Those on the left also get killed on it.[/QUOTE]

Who's voting for these people though? In the Ron Paul thread (and I know I keep chanting Ron Paul, but he makes for the perfect case), watch the Jon Stewart video, in particular, the clip from the FOX News debate - Ron Paul goes on a rant about cutting military spending and the audience goes WILD. And these are people who are attending a FOX News event - friggin' FOX News junkies - cheering like crazy at someone talking about massive cuts to military spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top