Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Retired old people draw from the national treasury. Pay in longer, draw out less.
Get all this damned government intervention out of the markets and the economy will improve. The debt alone is killing jobs.
Does anyone know if G5000 is a schizophrenic? 80% of the time he rants against capitalism like an unhinged communist. The other 20% of the time, he flawlessly supports free markets like a bright, rational, educated American.
I'm simply baffled by this guy....
Exactly... 90% of the time he rants like an unhinged loon.. he seldom makes any sense whatsofuckingever.
Does anyone know if G5000 is a schizophrenic? 80% of the time he rants against capitalism like an unhinged communist. The other 20% of the time, he flawlessly supports free markets like a bright, rational, educated American.
I'm simply baffled by this guy....
Exactly... 90% of the time he rants like an unhinged loon.. he seldom makes any sense whatsofuckingever.
I have never ranted against capitalism and I challenge anyone to show where I have.
I rant against manufactured bullshit and illogic. I rant against inferior ideas and conservative inaction and weakminded piss drinkers.
Can someone making a million dollars a year afford to have his house burglarized or his car stolen or to be mugged for the money in his pocket? Sure he can.
This board is plagued with parroting copy-and-pasters who don't apply a single watt of critical thinking to their favorite hack media sites.Exactly... 90% of the time he rants like an unhinged loon.. he seldom makes any sense whatsofuckingever.
I have never ranted against capitalism and I challenge anyone to show where I have.
I rant against manufactured bullshit and illogic. I rant against inferior ideas and conservative inaction and weakminded piss drinkers.
See? That's exactly what we're talking about... go take your meds and calm the fuck down Charles Motherfucking Manson.
Wrong question. The right question is do you have the right to take the money that somebody else has earned regardless of whether they can afford it or not.
I would say no.
The Constitution says otherwise. Start a movement to repeal the income tax amendment and let us all know when it is ready for ratification by the states.
The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.
Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.
Does anyone know if G5000 is a schizophrenic? 80% of the time he rants against capitalism like an unhinged communist. The other 20% of the time, he flawlessly supports free markets like a bright, rational, educated American.
I'm simply baffled by this guy....
Exactly... 90% of the time he rants like an unhinged loon.. he seldom makes any sense whatsofuckingever.
I have never ranted against capitalism and I challenge anyone to show where I have.
I rant against manufactured bullshit and illogic. I rant against inferior ideas, liberal thievery, conservative inaction, and weakminded piss drinkers.
)
This board is plagued with parroting copy-and-pasters who don't apply a single watt of critical thinking to their favorite hack media sites.I have never ranted against capitalism and I challenge anyone to show where I have.
I rant against manufactured bullshit and illogic. I rant against inferior ideas and conservative inaction and weakminded piss drinkers.
See? That's exactly what we're talking about... go take your meds and calm the fuck down Charles Motherfucking Manson.
Things would be much improved if they did.
The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.
Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.
Ame®icano;8171921 said:Ame®icano;8171837 said:Why to give incentives for anything? If you can't afford the house, don't buy it.
Why should government spend my tax dollars on incentive for, let's say "high efficiency furnace"? People should know if they run old furnace they would spend more on heat. If that's not incentive good enough, what it is?
Government should stay out of all of it.
who would own property under your system? the rich or the government? without the tax deduction for mortgage interest few people would buy homes, it would be easier to rent and let someone else worry about maintenance, insurance, etc. Personally, I don't see that as a good scenario
Who would buy you asked? I say, people who could afford it.
Put it this way, when product is not selling, price falls. If people are not taking mortgages because interest is too high, banks are forced to lower their rates. Who's gaining in both cases?
Consumer.
That is how free market works.
The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.
Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.
They don't pay their fair share? They pay what the law requires them. If the people don't determine what the fair share to pay is, who does? And it's still far more than we are required to pay.
Let's make it simple. Everyone pays exactly 9% of their income. Not a penny more. That's fair to everyone. Well actually it's a little on the high side for everyone, but everyone would be treated equally.
The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.
Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.
Who determines what is fair? Why should I pay anything for social welfare programs?
Ame®icano;8171921 said:who would own property under your system? the rich or the government? without the tax deduction for mortgage interest few people would buy homes, it would be easier to rent and let someone else worry about maintenance, insurance, etc. Personally, I don't see that as a good scenario
Who would buy you asked? I say, people who could afford it.
Put it this way, when product is not selling, price falls. If people are not taking mortgages because interest is too high, banks are forced to lower their rates. Who's gaining in both cases?
Consumer.
That is how free market works.
doing away witht he mortgage deduction makes home ownership more expensive. some would opt to continue to rent at a lower monthly cost. Its all about cash flow with most people.
The landlords would still hold mortgages, so you interest dropping idea fails.
This board is plagued with parroting copy-and-pasters who don't apply a single watt of critical thinking to their favorite hack media sites.See? That's exactly what we're talking about... go take your meds and calm the fuck down Charles Motherfucking Manson.
Things would be much improved if they did.
More evidence of this liberal hack. When a liberal has been defeated on the battlefield of minds, he immediately feigns intellectual superiority by using nonsensical buzz words like "yeah, well you just don't get it because you just don't use 'critical thinking' like I do"...
Some other personal favorites from that side:
Invest in Infrastructure (ie, we have no solutions for the economy other than government spending)
Green energy (ie, investing in infrastructure hasn't worked, NOW we're really desperate and in deep shit)
Diversity (ie, we need to indoctrinate because we've had our asses handed to us with facts)
Ame®icano;8171921 said:who would own property under your system? the rich or the government? without the tax deduction for mortgage interest few people would buy homes, it would be easier to rent and let someone else worry about maintenance, insurance, etc. Personally, I don't see that as a good scenario
Who would buy you asked? I say, people who could afford it.
Put it this way, when product is not selling, price falls. If people are not taking mortgages because interest is too high, banks are forced to lower their rates. Who's gaining in both cases?
Consumer.
That is how free market works.
doing away witht he mortgage deduction makes home ownership more expensive.
Ame®icano;8171921 said:Who would buy you asked? I say, people who could afford it.
Put it this way, when product is not selling, price falls. If people are not taking mortgages because interest is too high, banks are forced to lower their rates. Who's gaining in both cases?
Consumer.
That is how free market works.
doing away witht he mortgage deduction makes home ownership more expensive.
No, it doesn't. Quite the contrary. I have provided the evidence already (from libertarian sources even!) that the deduction drives up the cost of real estate. You need to check your conservative credentials.
The cost problem is that the richies do not pay their fair share along with bloated government, though the workforce is less than that of Bush's administration.
Reform entitlements, end the DOE, and cut DoD by 70% over ten years.
They don't pay their fair share? They pay what the law requires them. If the people don't determine what the fair share to pay is, who does? And it's still far more than we are required to pay.
Let's make it simple. Everyone pays exactly 9% of their income. Not a penny more. That's fair to everyone. Well actually it's a little on the high side for everyone, but everyone would be treated equally.
Costing at least $70 billion a year, the mortgage interest deduction is one of the largest federal tax expenditures, but it appears to do little to achieve the goal of expanding homeownership.
The mortgage interest deduction is considered a tax expenditure or tax subsidy because it provides a benefit to a particular group of taxpayers; it is the most costly itemized deduction and among the largest tax expenditures.
Researchers who have studied variations in the value of the mortgage interest deduction over time and across states have generally concluded that it has little overall impact on homeownership.
At the hearing, Camp hosted several critics of the deduction, including Eric Toder of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and Phillip Swagel, who was a Treasury Department official for President George W. Bush. Toder said the deduction doesnt increase homeownership rates and instead encourages buyers to borrow more or buy bigger homes.
By contrast, completely eliminating the mortgage interest and property tax deduction—a drastic change that probably would only happen if accompanied by a new tax preference for housing—would cause housing prices to fall by an average of 11.8 percent in the 23 cities studied. Estimated price declines would range from 10.3 percent in Seattle to 13.8 percent in Milwaukee.
