A Kerry quote - liberals, please explain
-
K(arl) wrote: When I read all your posts, I'm more and more convinced the US isn't a nation but just a collection of selfish interests. It is a nation of individuals. That is the way and the reason we were founded and I wouldn't have it any other way. There were several attempts early in our history for communal style living, none of them worked. The early settlers were rugged individualists and the thread of that mindset continues on through today. What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. That, sadly, is changing - I just hope it doesn't change soon. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Mike Gaskey wrote: What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation, you seem to consider it as your enemy... such a mistrust is weird in a country which hasn't known dictatorship in its History. If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. The theory is that government provides less for you, but you've got more to pay for your own stuff. So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. We're coming up to an election in Australia, and both our governments seem to have forgotten this, and are keen to buy as many votes as possible. Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses. And on my income, no-one is going to give me a tax cut or rebate, so either way I lose. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses It would seem to me to be a moot point. If you already have the homes in question then the interest rate is fixed at what you purchased them at. If you were foolish enough to have a variable interest rate then you have no one to blame but yourself. Also is the interest rates go up and there is no or little inflation then your savings and investments should increase at a more rapid rate there by offsetting any percieved losses. The idea that the rich should subsidize the less rich through punitive taxes is more a socialist idea and less a capitalist idea. Why punish someone for being succussful ? Why reward someone for not being succussful ? The idea has a stink to it it think . Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Since the rich won't shoulder their share of the enormous deficit that the Bush regime is running up, someone else will have to, that would be the middle class. Rummie and his cronies were testifying a few days ago before Congress, about why they can't provide full health care benefits for reservists fighting in Iraq. It's because there's not enough money. Do you think that the guys dodging RPGs in Iraq are mostly rich, or middle-class? Most of our suffering will be down the road.
Heard the same whines about the Regan tax cuts. :zzz: Check my previous post: the rich are paying a larger percentage of the burden after the tax cuts: even though they got a bigger percentage break in marginal tax rate, they ended up paying a larger percentage of the total bill. Personally, I would rather see a change to a flat consumption tax like this one[^] which includes rebates to offset the impact on poor taxpayers. One recent proposal that I have heard is to make the rebate payments on a monthly basis, which would essentially gaurantee everyone a minimum monthly wage equal to the poverty level. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
jan larsen wrote: Are they paying a higher percentage or how is it measured? The US federal income tax system (for individuals) calculates your "taxable income" by summing all of your income (with a few exceptons) then subtracting specific deductions. Deductions can vary but in nearly all cases the deductions are smaller or not available to the rich. The amount of "payable taxes" is determined by calculating a percentage of "taxable income" (percentages are higher for the rich [approx 36%] than they are for middle class [approx 28% to %15]) then subtracting any tax credits. Tax credits vary by circumstance but are generally not available to the rich or even upper-middle class. Hope this helps. jan larsen wrote: And what should poor people pay and why? I don't have a problem with the poor paying no taxes. I just think it is disingenuous for the left to cry about a tax cut not helping a group that is currently not paying taxes. In order to help these people there are two schools of thought. One says "Give them money and they'll be better off". The other says "Give them jobs to earn their money and they'll be better off". I support the latter view. jan larsen wrote: I'm just as big an expert in the US tax system as you're an expert in European nanny states Touche' :-O I suppose I deserved that. :) "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Tax credits vary by circumstance but are generally not available to the rich or even upper-middle class. Hope this helps. Not really true. I am in the 30 -33% bracket ( it varies from year to year ) and self employeed and I can deduct all interest from my mortgage payments - a percentage of my health insurance - also the standard deduction for a married couple - monies given to charity - and a bunch of other things my accountant digs up. The biggest perk is something called a SEP account. Its kinda like a supercharged IRA. I can fund this account each year with up to 25% of my income not to exceed 40000.00 and this money is NOT counted as taxable earnings for the current tax year. I pay no taxes on this account until I begin withdrawing the money and then it is taxed at the tax rate at the time of withdrawal. This alone saves me up to 10000.00 or more a year in taxes. One cannot be a sheep waiting for the Gov to slaughter you. Get proactive with your taxes and save every penny and you can do alright. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
After the tax cuts and even a raise, I am now taking home less money than I was last year because of our skyrocketing healthcare insurance premiums. That's what I did with my tax cut.
Ours didn't go up nearly that much. In the tax cut, I am including the refund we got last year which totalled over $2500. Its the biggest refund I ever received, and we got it because of the increased child tax credit and other Bush policies.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Mike Gaskey wrote: What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation, you seem to consider it as your enemy... such a mistrust is weird in a country which hasn't known dictatorship in its History. If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation Actually I do I just have an adversion to centralized power. Remember, we broke away from a monarchy and there is an inherent fear of a strong central power. There has always been a states rights versus centralized government "argument". K(arl) wrote: you seem to consider it as your enemy Not really, just something to be wary of. By the way, this is (oh, you'll love this) one of the reasons for a strong support of the 2nd admendment to our constituition, the one that gives US citizens the right to own and carry fire arms. That provides a counter balance to what could become an out of control central government. K(arl) wrote: If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. Nope. That would permit 3 states (New York, California and Texas) to control teh rest of the country. It simply wouldn't work. K(arl) wrote: What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one. Yes, you are correct. The state is closer to the local population and should represent the wishes, desires and dreams of that locale. When it gets to be comething I disagree with I can simply move to a state that more clearly represnets the way I think. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Jason Henderson wrote: which only marginally helps the economy Please demonstrate. Jason Henderson wrote: These things add much more money to the economy than Joe-Six-Pack buying a new TV. Joe-Six-Pack will probably buy his TV in a store near his location, "helping" the store owner. If this one has enough money to satisfy his needs, he will perhaps invest it. This money will then have a "double" use. On the other hand, tthe big investor will probably put his money in foreign markets (as Jan noticed), not in the US economy. Moreover, there's no proof (s)he will invest in stable and profitable operations, but (s)he may well speculate, helping then to destabilize the economy.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
The vast majority of people that received tax cuts in the U.S. were not the super rich, but the middle class. We outnumber them and we all got a tax cut. So, take a poor chap who does not invest, but has to use the tax cut to pay off the debt he incurred from buying his big screen tv. That debt payment didn't help anyone but him. Now he can go get another loan maybe. Or if he went out and bought a new tv with the money, it helps the tv shop, which helps its employees, which helps others, etc. But the money's purchasing power diminishes after each step in the process. Let's say $600 for a new tv is divided evenly among 10 employees, so they now have $60 to spend on a new muffler for their car, which is spread among 10 mechanics who now have only $6 to spend, etc. See what I'm saying? Now if a middle class man, who has little or no debt, like myself, gets a tax cut and invests it in his home, that helps local business the same as the low income example above AND it increases the property value of the home. When the home is sold, it will sell for more than it would have before the improvements. That's more of a longer term example, but it can be used with any investment scenario. Investing in foreign markets will still bring money into the US economy through the interest earned by the US investor. It won't have as great an effect, but it will have one none the less.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Mike Mullikin wrote: Tax credits vary by circumstance but are generally not available to the rich or even upper-middle class. Hope this helps. Not really true. I am in the 30 -33% bracket ( it varies from year to year ) and self employeed and I can deduct all interest from my mortgage payments - a percentage of my health insurance - also the standard deduction for a married couple - monies given to charity - and a bunch of other things my accountant digs up. The biggest perk is something called a SEP account. Its kinda like a supercharged IRA. I can fund this account each year with up to 25% of my income not to exceed 40000.00 and this money is NOT counted as taxable earnings for the current tax year. I pay no taxes on this account until I begin withdrawing the money and then it is taxed at the tax rate at the time of withdrawal. This alone saves me up to 10000.00 or more a year in taxes. One cannot be a sheep waiting for the Gov to slaughter you. Get proactive with your taxes and save every penny and you can do alright. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Richard Stringer wrote: I can deduct all interest from my mortgage payments - a percentage of my health insurance - also the standard deduction for a married couple - monies given to charity - and a bunch of other things my accountant digs up. Those are deductions, not tax credits. I was thinking more of EIC (Earned Income Credit) and some of the various credits for child care. These come straight off the payable tax and are not available for even the average middle class family. As for deducting interest on mortgage payments AND claiming the "standard" deduction - I don't think this is legal. Isn't it a choice between itemizing your deductions (mortgage interest, property tax, medical bills over a certain %, etc....) OR taking the standard deduction? :confused: Richard Stringer wrote: The biggest perk is something called a SEP account. Sounds like a sort of 401K for individuals. Richard Stringer wrote: One cannot be a sheep waiting for the Gov to slaughter you. Get proactive with your taxes and save every penny and you can do alright. Amen "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation, you seem to consider it as your enemy... such a mistrust is weird in a country which hasn't known dictatorship in its History. If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: you seem to consider it as your enemy... such a mistrust is weird in a country which hasn't known dictatorship in its History And therein lies the reason. K(arl) wrote: If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. All things considered the President is a figurehead. The real power lies with the Senate and the Congress. K(arl) wrote: What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one. Because we KNOW those people on a local level. They live where we live - shop in the same places - send their childeren to school where we send our kids - drive the same roads. Their beliefs are very close to ours or they would not be in office. In the ideas of our founding fathers the Fed gov was to be small and had very well defines areas of authority. This has been degraded greatly - mostly during and after WWII - mostly by Democrats. It will be a sad day indeed when it everything is in the hands of the Federal Gov but that is where we are heading. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Tax credits vary by circumstance but are generally not available to the rich or even upper-middle class. Hope this helps. Not really true. I am in the 30 -33% bracket ( it varies from year to year ) and self employeed and I can deduct all interest from my mortgage payments - a percentage of my health insurance - also the standard deduction for a married couple - monies given to charity - and a bunch of other things my accountant digs up. The biggest perk is something called a SEP account. Its kinda like a supercharged IRA. I can fund this account each year with up to 25% of my income not to exceed 40000.00 and this money is NOT counted as taxable earnings for the current tax year. I pay no taxes on this account until I begin withdrawing the money and then it is taxed at the tax rate at the time of withdrawal. This alone saves me up to 10000.00 or more a year in taxes. One cannot be a sheep waiting for the Gov to slaughter you. Get proactive with your taxes and save every penny and you can do alright. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
What you are speaking of are deductions. Deductions and credits are different. Deductions reduce your taxable income. Credits reduce your tax obligation. Like you I can claim several deductions including mortgage interest, student loan interest, charitable contributions, retirement contributions, etc. But, I can't claim a single tax credit.
-
Richard Stringer wrote: I can deduct all interest from my mortgage payments - a percentage of my health insurance - also the standard deduction for a married couple - monies given to charity - and a bunch of other things my accountant digs up. Those are deductions, not tax credits. I was thinking more of EIC (Earned Income Credit) and some of the various credits for child care. These come straight off the payable tax and are not available for even the average middle class family. As for deducting interest on mortgage payments AND claiming the "standard" deduction - I don't think this is legal. Isn't it a choice between itemizing your deductions (mortgage interest, property tax, medical bills over a certain %, etc....) OR taking the standard deduction? :confused: Richard Stringer wrote: The biggest perk is something called a SEP account. Sounds like a sort of 401K for individuals. Richard Stringer wrote: One cannot be a sheep waiting for the Gov to slaughter you. Get proactive with your taxes and save every penny and you can do alright. Amen "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Those are deductions, not tax credits Thats why I hire an accountant to do my taxes :) Mike Mullikin wrote: As for deducting interest on mortgage payments AND claiming the "standard" deduction - I don't think this is legal See above. :) Mike Mullikin wrote: Sounds like a sort of 401K for individuals. Much better than a 401. It is a self managed account - just like a normal brokerage account. You can have any kind of investments that you want CD'd - money market - mutual funds - stocks - bonds - T Bills. Also you can continue funding the account even after you retire. You can also tap the fund before retirement at no penalty for health care - buying a house ( first time buyer only ) education etc. And you can begin withdrawing monies at 59 1/2 regardless of your retirement status. It's the best plan the Gov. has ever came up with for funding ones retirement. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
JoeSox wrote: Mike, Mike, Mike... Joe, Joe, Joe - I took this directly from this link[^] Frankly I believe Kerry is saying anything he can to secure the election, I don't believe a word he says. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Mike Gaskey wrote: Joe, Joe, Joe - I took this directly from this link Then why did you compose it like.... I just saw this quote from Kerry: Kerry said, "America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy." When the correct quote is from the author "Kerry said America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy." I am just pointing out that you miss quoted which does happen here in the soapbox often. Mike Gaskey wrote: Frankly I believe Kerry is saying anything he can to secure the election, I don't believe a word he says. I am skeptical about anything a politician says. I don't think it is wise to make a judgment ASAP about it though. Personally, I trust Kerry's judgment more than Bush's because Kerry is more of a centralist out of the two. I also think Kerry is a Thinker, meaning he will be more logical about the decisions he makes. Bush is more extreme. I mean, what a dirtball for conducting his campaign the way he is. But whatever. Bush has shown the world that he will do whatever it takes to win. It makes me nauseous just thinking about it. X| This is probably why Putin said he Bush is predictable. Anything to win. Why do we have to win all the time? I am really tired of thinking about politics. After watching that McNamara documentary the other night it's amazing how White House mistakes can mess up the planet, or save the planet. It's one reason why I just want to move to Canada or maybe Europe because it's one place I'd like to travel too. Although I loved Australia, in fact, I liked it so much I almost didn't go back to the ship:-O Hey, I was 21. It looks like the National Debates is going to be a nice scripted sitcom this election.:~ X| :suss: Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
Christian Graus wrote: Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated. If you can't pay for them, you're not able to have them, they are a burden to society. :omg: I never thought I would hear from you such a totalitarian proposition! that's a mix between the T4 operation and the Stalinian "Article 58[^]" Unless you're trolling? :suss:
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
Actually, I would prefer if they discovered a way to temporarily sterilize everyone at birth and only enable them to have children once they meet a strict set of guidelines, such as: 1. "Parenting" license, 2. Decent income, 3. Home ownership, 4. 25 years of age or older, 5. Never been jailed or out of it for the past 5 years, 6. Married for 3 years, 7. etc... I know it's radical but just think of all the problems this could potentially solve. Regards, Alvaro
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. - George W. Bush
-
Actually, I would prefer if they discovered a way to temporarily sterilize everyone at birth and only enable them to have children once they meet a strict set of guidelines, such as: 1. "Parenting" license, 2. Decent income, 3. Home ownership, 4. 25 years of age or older, 5. Never been jailed or out of it for the past 5 years, 6. Married for 3 years, 7. etc... I know it's radical but just think of all the problems this could potentially solve. Regards, Alvaro
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. - George W. Bush
Are you absolutly sure you wouldn't be sterilized too?
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Christian Graus wrote: Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses It would seem to me to be a moot point. If you already have the homes in question then the interest rate is fixed at what you purchased them at. If you were foolish enough to have a variable interest rate then you have no one to blame but yourself. Also is the interest rates go up and there is no or little inflation then your savings and investments should increase at a more rapid rate there by offsetting any percieved losses. The idea that the rich should subsidize the less rich through punitive taxes is more a socialist idea and less a capitalist idea. Why punish someone for being succussful ? Why reward someone for not being succussful ? The idea has a stink to it it think . Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Richard Stringer wrote: If you already have the homes in question then the interest rate is fixed at what you purchased them at. If you were foolish enough to have a variable interest rate then you have no one to blame but yourself. Also is the interest rates go up and there is no or little inflation then your savings and investments should increase at a more rapid rate there by offsetting any percieved losses. I have no savings - why earn 2% on money that could be saving me 6.5% on my home loan. And see my earlier comments about how in Australia it's not possible to get a home loan that's fixed for more than a year or two. Richard Stringer wrote: The idea that the rich should subsidize the less rich through punitive taxes is more a socialist idea and less a capitalist idea. Why punish someone for being succussful ? Why reward someone for not being succussful ? The idea has a stink to it it think . I agree totally. But the idea that only the rich should get a tax cut is equally wrong - a fair tax cut will benefit the rich more, because they earn more. But for the poor to get nothing ( as happened in Australia recently ) is plain wrong. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Christian Graus wrote: Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated. If you can't pay for them, you're not able to have them, they are a burden to society. :omg: I never thought I would hear from you such a totalitarian proposition! that's a mix between the T4 operation and the Stalinian "Article 58[^]" Unless you're trolling? :suss:
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
Damn - my lengthy reply has been killed by IE. Yes, I'm serious. We spend far too much time defending the rights of adults to be terrible parents, and not enough time worrying about the rights of children who are ( through no fault of their own ) born to idiots. And through environmental conditioning, they grow into people who offer nothing to society but a bill for their dole cheque. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Are you absolutly sure you wouldn't be sterilized too?
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
:confused:
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. - George W. Bush
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. What I don't understand is that you don't seem to consider your federal government as representative of your Nation, you seem to consider it as your enemy... such a mistrust is weird in a country which hasn't known dictatorship in its History. If your president was elected directly, (s)he would perhaps be more legitimate, elected by the US people rather than by the States. What I also miss is the difference of perception between the State and the Federal level, you seem to trust much more the first one than the second one.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
Remember, the very people who created our central federal government were suspecious of it themselves, considering it, at best, a necessary evil. We are culturally imbued as a people with a deep seated mistrust of centralized power - which is precisely why we have never had a dicator and never will. Dictators can only occur in governments which have centralized political systems. Traditionally, Americans instinctively do not want to be 'taken care of' and we do not view government as having any responsibility to do for us that which we can do for ourselves just as well. Until very recently, we have always chosen to honor the founding principles of our nation and to deny power to the government that, while it could care for us, could just as easily be used to control us. That government is best which governs least. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Richard Stringer wrote: If you already have the homes in question then the interest rate is fixed at what you purchased them at. If you were foolish enough to have a variable interest rate then you have no one to blame but yourself. Also is the interest rates go up and there is no or little inflation then your savings and investments should increase at a more rapid rate there by offsetting any percieved losses. I have no savings - why earn 2% on money that could be saving me 6.5% on my home loan. And see my earlier comments about how in Australia it's not possible to get a home loan that's fixed for more than a year or two. Richard Stringer wrote: The idea that the rich should subsidize the less rich through punitive taxes is more a socialist idea and less a capitalist idea. Why punish someone for being succussful ? Why reward someone for not being succussful ? The idea has a stink to it it think . I agree totally. But the idea that only the rich should get a tax cut is equally wrong - a fair tax cut will benefit the rich more, because they earn more. But for the poor to get nothing ( as happened in Australia recently ) is plain wrong. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: I have no savings - why earn 2% on money that could be saving me 6.5% on my home loan. I am sure that even Down Under they have heard of mutual funds and stocks :) I ma getting around 6.5 % on my money and if interest rates go up I'll move some money into bonds and make a little more. Christian Graus wrote: have no savings - why earn 2% on money that could be saving me 6.5% on my home loan There are a lot of reasons for not paying off a home. If the home is appreciating in value enough to cancel out the interest rate you are paying on your mortgage then you are essentially living in the home for free. Using your existing monies to pay off the home if you are not investing it is not a real good choice because you are paying with todays dollar which is going to be more than tomorrows dollar so to speak. Of course I have no clue about the vagrancies of an adjustable rate mortgage - I would never take one - its financial suicide. Christian Graus wrote: agree totally. But the idea that only the rich should get a tax cut is equally wrong - a fair tax cut will benefit the rich more, because they earn more. But for the poor to get nothing ( as happened in Australia recently ) is plain wrong. One benefits according to what one contributes. If I pay 50000.00 a year in taxes ( which I do ) and get a 10% tax cut I get 5000.00 bucks. Joe Lazybones pays 200.00 a year and gets 2 bucks. I am not gonna cry for him - he got what I got. And if the poor pay nothing well 10% of nothing is nothing. Seems fair to me. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Joe, Joe, Joe - I took this directly from this link Then why did you compose it like.... I just saw this quote from Kerry: Kerry said, "America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy." When the correct quote is from the author "Kerry said America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy." I am just pointing out that you miss quoted which does happen here in the soapbox often. Mike Gaskey wrote: Frankly I believe Kerry is saying anything he can to secure the election, I don't believe a word he says. I am skeptical about anything a politician says. I don't think it is wise to make a judgment ASAP about it though. Personally, I trust Kerry's judgment more than Bush's because Kerry is more of a centralist out of the two. I also think Kerry is a Thinker, meaning he will be more logical about the decisions he makes. Bush is more extreme. I mean, what a dirtball for conducting his campaign the way he is. But whatever. Bush has shown the world that he will do whatever it takes to win. It makes me nauseous just thinking about it. X| This is probably why Putin said he Bush is predictable. Anything to win. Why do we have to win all the time? I am really tired of thinking about politics. After watching that McNamara documentary the other night it's amazing how White House mistakes can mess up the planet, or save the planet. It's one reason why I just want to move to Canada or maybe Europe because it's one place I'd like to travel too. Although I loved Australia, in fact, I liked it so much I almost didn't go back to the ship:-O Hey, I was 21. It looks like the National Debates is going to be a nice scripted sitcom this election.:~ X| :suss: Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: Why do we have to win all the time? Because we are - by nature - a competitive ape. Show me anyone who doesn't want to win ALL THE TIME - and I'll show you a loser. JoeSox wrote: It's one reason why I just want to move to Canada or maybe Europe because it's one place I'd like to travel too Be careful not to be ran over by all the Canadians and Europeans who are trying to get to the US on your exit. Been there - done that - have a T shirt. JoeSox wrote: I also think Kerry is a Thinker, Maybe in the sense of Rodin - but a real thinker - nope. What has he ever done in his life except marry rich women and politics. GB has at least had to struggle a bit and one having overcome adversity is only made stronger by it. And please don't make the mistake of underestimating his intelligence - the road is littered by those who made this mistake - just ask Ann Richards. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)