Politics

[Wild Bill]

- the government is providing assistance in the form of a tax credit. this is how a whole lot of policies are implemented. there are a few differences in the details of policies designed as tax credits, the main one being that everyone eligible automatically gets it - i.e. it is an entitlement, unlike the other program you mentioned, housing choice vouchers, which can be limited so that eligible individuals have a very hard time actually accessing the benefit.

I'm confused, are you saying the mortgage interest deduction is a tax credit?

 

[autry_denson]

I'm confused, are you saying the mortgage interest deduction is a tax credit?

deduction, sorry

(note: I'm wondering why your argument is seemingly drifting into one that is based on correcting me for word choice. this one's important, i grant you, but i think we all understand that the mortgage interest deduction is, in fact, a deduction. it would be seriously misnamed otherwise. but the rest of your argument now seems to be based on whether people you know should be considered your friends, whether blaming a group for the nation's problems reflects anger, and whether someone at the lower bound of the income range I've described, which happens to represent the 67th percentile in the distribution, should be considered wealthy or not. I guess my point is that your arguments have taken a strange turn away from the actual debate to my word choice. Weird.)

 

[pkt77242]

I never mentioned my friends.



And most of those mortgage paying homeowners are not wealthy. That's my point, the deduction helps middle class Americans far more than it does wealthy Americans.



You consider someone making $75,000 wealthy?



The government isn't providing anything. They are simply allowing a tax deduction to promote a public policy.



Why do you assume I'm angry? What anger have I directed at anyone?

Except a lower tax rate. I am sure that all of the people who get that credit, don't really care and just want to give it back. Right? While you are right that it isn't an expenditure there is no doubt that it adds to the deficit or budget imbalance just as much as an expenditure. Both "handouts (food stamps, unemployment, etc)" and tax credits are meant to achieve a public policy goal (feed the hungry, help the unemployed, encourage home ownership) and both equally add to the deficit when not properly planned for (yes I know that you shouldn't end a sentence in for).

Also the whole idea that wealthy people don't have mortgages and don't benefit from the mortgage interest deduction is down right laughable.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

The deduction is a distortion of the market, whether it is good intentioned or not. One could make the argument that the increased construction employment takes manpower and brainpower away from other areas where it could produce a greater long term benefit. Truth is, we don't know for sure and probably never will.
...

You could make that argument, but it wouldn't be a very good one. For one, it's impossible to know, as you acknowledge. For another, the vast majority of "housing jobs" are in construction and blue collar, meaning a "brain drain" into the construction industry is unlikely, if not laughable. For another, the unemployment rate is currently so high that there is enough untapped labor force to satisfy the increase in construction jobs or residential real estate sales, or home mortgage processing, such that there would never be such a "brain drain" from other industries. For another, residential housing is such a huge part of Americans' spending, I'm not sure there is a more worthwhile "long term benefit" to the country than developing that resource.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I don't want us involved in another war, but we can't let them use chemical weapons on their citizens and just ignore it.

Progressives were anti war in 2003 because Iraq didn't do anything to us. So will those same people be crying and protesting if we use military action against Syria?

 

[pkt77242]

The deduction is a distortion of the market, whether it is good intentioned or not. One could make the argument that the increased construction employment takes manpower and brainpower away from other areas where it could produce a greater long term benefit. Truth is, we don't know for sure and probably never will.

The one thing I do know is that the problem we have as a country is nobody is willing to take the pain pill. Aside from the fact that it doesn't feel good, we must argue endlessly about who is feeling more pain and whether or not that is fair, as if "fair" is a concept that we all can agree.

The freaking asshat republicans want to gamble on debt ceiling. Okay, that sounds smart. The democrats keep pushing for "balance" via "revenues" as if there is a never ending well of money. Meanwhile, my neighbor finds out his tax bill will be $40k larger this year than last year, on approx. the same income. What does he do? He works less since he will actually make more money working less to be under the income limit. Sounds pro growth to me, especially when you consider the employees he has will be working less too. Our system is broken.

Sorry for the rant.

The real question is on how much income? I highly doubt your neighbor is making 200K. Is it 40K higher on 2 million?

 

[Wild Bill]

deduction, sorry

(note: I'm wondering why your argument is seemingly drifting into one that is based on correcting me for word choice. this one's important, i grant you, but i think we all understand that the mortgage interest deduction is, in fact, a deduction. it would be seriously misnamed otherwise. but the rest of your argument now seems to be based on whether people you know should be considered your friends, whether blaming a group for the nation's problems reflects anger, and whether someone at the lower bound of the income range I've described, which happens to represent the 67th percentile in the distribution, should be considered wealthy or not. I guess my point is that your arguments have taken a strange turn away from the actual debate to my word choice. Weird.)

I assumed you thought it was a credit, b/c you, in fact, referred to the deduction as a credit.

I don't care to argue with you.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The real question is on how much income? I highly doubt your neighbor is making 200K. Is it 40K higher on 2 million?

much less than $2m. This guy is near retirement and most of his investment income is in tax accounts. His goal in retirement was to have enough dividend and interest income to replace what he was making. So, while he is still working and is close to investment income, he still wanted to work a few more years for both his enjoyment and to keep his employees employed.

However, the new tax changes for the year (dividends change,rate change, medicare surtax, exemption phase outs & itemized deduction phase outs) have made it so he now has incentive to lower his earned income.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I don't want us involved in another war, but we can't let them use chemical weapons on their citizens and just ignore it.

North Koreans are being starved to death, Christians in the Middle East (even nuns) are being murdered and having churches burned down. Christians in Africa are being slaughtered. I could go on and on...

So is the act of murder or the weapon being used that leads to your opinion that "we can't let that happen"?

 

[BobD]

North Koreans are being starved to death, Christians in the Middle East (even nuns) are being murdered and having churches burned down. Christians in Africa are being slaughtered. I could go on and on...

So is the act of murder or the weapon being used that leads to your opinion that "we can't let that happen"?

We could make a long and sad list of atrocities going on around the world. I have strong opinions of what I feel we should be doing about almost every one of them and how I feel we don't do enough. Here I'm only speaking of the use of chemical weapons.

To be clear, when I say "we don't do enough", I'm not meaning just militarily.

 

[Ndaccountant]

After reading this and listening to other reports, I am not so sure we should be doing this quite yet. This has the feeling of Iraq.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/w...s-attack-against-syria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

"While the Obama administration has robust European backing and more muted Arab support for a strike on Syria, the position of the Arab League and the unlikelihood of securing authorization from the United Nations Security Council complicate the legal and diplomatic case for the White House. "

"The White House said Tuesday that there was “no doubt” that President Bashar al-Assad’s government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack — an assessment shared by Britain, France and other allies — but it has yet to make clear if it has any intelligence directly linking Mr. Assad to the attack."

"But their silence created a potential problem for the United States and its European allies, he said, because it undermined the notion of a broad-based coalition with Arab support. “And every day that it goes on, opponents will try to exploit it,” he said. "

 

[Buster Bluth]

Progressives were anti war in 2003 because Iraq didn't do anything to us. So will those same people be crying and protesting if we use military action against Syria?

Many were for it, because Bush and Co lied to the American people about there being WMDs there, which we later found out they didn't know existed and allies even doubted at all.

 

[irishpat183]

Different topic.

You guys think we're gonna tomahawk Syria?

If we do bomb Syria, I hope all the progressive/ code pink/ anti war activists still have their banners and signs ready for nationwide protests like they were 10 years ago.

I'll also be asking all the people driving toyota prius or subaru's with the bumper stickers reading "war is not the answer" or "coexist" why they voted for a war-mongerer.

THANK YOU.


But I don't want anything to do with the middle east. We need to stay out. If they want to chem bomb their own, so be it. No reason to put OUR boys at risk.

 

[irishpat183]

I don't want us involved in another war, but we can't let them use chemical weapons on their citizens and just ignore it.

Saddam was using chemical weapons for over 10 years on his people...yet Bush is a war criminal for sending us to war against them?

I can't wait to hear MSNBC try and rationalize this one.

 

[irishpat183]

Screw the Useless Nations. Only thing they've ever achieved is dropping rice bags from airplanes to third world countries.

Oh! And don't forget spending our money and trying to pass gun legislation on our soil.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Many were for it, because Bush and Co lied to the American people about there being WMDs there, which we later found out they didn't know existed and allies even doubted at all.

Scenarios are apparently similar. While we know chem weapons were used, there is strong doubt in the region that it was actually tied back to the regime. Nobody can prove who actually used them.

Once more, people were upset that we didn't find WMD, but I would argue people were also pissed b/c the war dragged on, and on, and on. Messing with Syria now doesn't really stabilize the region and many in the Arab world don't want the US there at all, humanitarian effort or not.

 

[Black Irish]

Syria seems like a lose-lose situation for the USA and other nations. If we do nothing, we look like we are just sitting on our hands while atrocities happen. If the President authorizes a military strike, we look like bullying war-mongers to much of the world. What if a military strike doesn't show results and Assad keeps on using chemical weapons? So we risk getting pulled into another long term military commitment in the Middle East? I don't envy the decision President Obama has to make here.

 

[irishpat183]

Scenarios are apparently similar. While we know chem weapons were used, there is strong doubt in the region that it was actually tied back to the regime. Nobody can prove who actually used them.

Once more, people were upset that we didn't find WMD, but I would argue people were also pissed b/c the war dragged on, and on, and on. Messing with Syria now doesn't really stabilize the region and many in the Arab world don't want the US there at all, humanitarian effort or not.

Also...aren't Chemical wepons "WMD's"??? (according to John Kerry the other night, they are)

 

[irishpat183]

Syria seems like a lose-lose situation for the USA and other nations. If we do nothing, we look like we are just sitting on our hands while atrocities happen. If the President authorizes a military strike, we look like bullying war-mongers to much of the world. What if a military strike doesn't show results and Assad keeps on using chemical weapons? So we risk getting pulled into another long term military commitment in the Middle East? I don't envy the decision President Obama has to make here.

Solution: We sit on our hands. Americans aren't at risk, and we stay outta issues that have nothing to do with us.


It's the most LOGICAL.


(but I don't envy the POTUS either)

 

[Ndaccountant]

Syria seems like a lose-lose situation for the USA and other nations. If we do nothing, we look like we are just sitting on our hands while atrocities happen. If the President authorizes a military strike, we look like bullying war-mongers to much of the world. What if a military strike doesn't show results and Assad keeps on using chemical weapons? So we risk getting pulled into another long term military commitment in the Middle East? I don't envy the decision President Obama has to make here.

I don't either, but he put himself in this situation. Plus, as the NY Times documented today, western governments have been privately funding the rebels. I understand Arab nations are asking for help in private, but to the people of the region it looks like we are picking sides when there is no side to really choose.

The ME is a mess and will always be a mess. Truth be told, we really don't have a need to be in that region (aside from Israel) if we could just get our domestic energy sorted out.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Also...aren't Chemical wepons "WMD's"??? (according to John Kerry the other night, they are)

they are and there is a theory floating around that these weapons are the ones that went missing. Who knows, but interesting thought none the less.

 

[Cackalacky]

Saddam was using chemical weapons for over 10 years on his people...yet Bush is a war criminal for sending us to war against them?

I can't wait to hear MSNBC try and rationalize this one.

Iraq got alot of help from western countries ( Us, France, Britain, etc) in developing bio and chem weapons during the 1970s and 1980s and even soviet help with nuclear reactors before that. The CIA was involved in helping Iraq target Iranian forces under Reagan as well as supplied biological agents and cpus for nuclear plants.Under Clinton, the US and UN supposedly cleared out Iraq's weapons but they were supposedly there in 2000s.

These things are never simple and as Black Irish said I think this is lose-lose for everyone, but chemical weapons are atrocious and you only need to look at the Iraq-Iran war to know that, which we are complicit in.

We also couped the Iranian democratically elected government in the 1950s and replaced it with the shah which later went rogue. Why would we do that?

Its not just MSNBC. Fox and especially CNN are pumping this thing up big time. The propaganda machine is revved up. I don't think we can sit on our hands. We have been involved in this area too much to sit idly by now.

 

[irishpat183]

Iraq got alot of help from western countries ( Us, France, Britain, etc) in developing bio and chem weapons during the 1970s and 1980s and even soviet help with nuclear reactors before that. The CIA was involved in helping Iraq target Iranian forces under Reagan as well as supplied biological agents and cpus for nuclear plants.Under Clinton, the US and UN supposedly cleared out Iraq's weapons but they were supposedly there in 2000s.

These things are never simple and as Black Irish said I think this is lose-lose for everyone, but chemical weapons are atrocious and you only need to look at the Iraq-Iran war to know that, which we are complicit in.

We also couped the Iranian democratically elected government in the 1950s and replaced it with the shah which later went rogue. Why would we do that?

Its not just MSNBC. Fox and especially CNN are pumping this thing up big time. The propaganda machine is revved up.

My fear is we will fight Russia and China in Syria.

Doesnt matter how the chem weapons got there...they were used agains their own people. My point, was when the last admin went in there to remove a simliar situation, it was war mongerering. Now it's "preventing atrocities". Of course.


But I agree...the war machine is starting to move. I hope we stay the hell out. I'd rather be viewed as sitting on our hands...than pissing off China/Russia and kicking off WW3.

 

[Black Irish]

My fear is we will fight Russia and China in Syria.

Great, a proxy war against two global powers with chips on their shoulders. As if this situation wasn't bad enough.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Iraq got alot of help from western countries ( Us, France, Britain, etc) in developing bio and chem weapons during the 1970s and 1980s and even soviet help with nuclear reactors before that. The CIA was involved in helping Iraq target Iranian forces under Reagan as well as supplied biological agents and cpus for nuclear plants.Under Clinton, the US and UN supposedly cleared out Iraq's weapons but they were supposedly there in 2000s.

These things are never simple and as Black Irish said I think this is lose-lose for everyone, but chemical weapons are atrocious and you only need to look at the Iraq-Iran war to know that, which we are complicit in.

We also couped the Iranian democratically elected government in the 1950s and replaced it with the shah which later went rogue. Why would we do that?

Its not just MSNBC. Fox and especially CNN are pumping this thing up big time. The propaganda machine is revved up. I don't think we can sit on our hands. We have been involved in this area too much to sit idly by now.

But if we don't remove ourselves now, when will we?

 

[T Town Tommy]

So in Syria we have Assad and Hezbollah on one side and Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood on the other side. Wonder which one is our enemy?

The US needs to stay out of this one. If our President - who is ridiculous on foreign policy - would have stepped to the plate three years ago - the US could have assisted the more pro-US Arab fighters - but instead stood by and did nothing which allowed the MB and Al-Qaeda gain the upper hand against the more friendly forces fighting Assad. Now, he comes out with this ridiculous "red line" statement that he now must put into action or risk being further weakened in his reputation around the globe (if that is even possible at this point).

It is very clear to both our allies in the region and our enemies in the region know that Obama is not capable of doing anything right. He has destroyed what little influence we had to begin with and now he will throw some tomahawks to "save face" and then grandstand on the television that he is doing what is morally right. All the while, the millions in Africa still starve, N Korea people are eating each other, Egypt is in chaos, and our President will make a speech today declaring that our country is still the most racist and repressive country on the face of the earth.

 

[Cackalacky]

But if we don't remove ourselves now, when will we?

I am not sure we can economically. Lots of industries are tied to this region and thereby lots of money. The world (and particularly the US) needs the persian gulf, suez canal, etc to move goods or provide oil.

The US tolerates some regional instability for these purposes, and propagates it as well, but this might be too much.

 

[irishpat183]

I am not sure we can economically. Lots of industries are tied to this region and thereby lots of money. The world (and particularly the US) needs the persian gulf, suez canal, etc to move goods or provide oil.

The US tolerates some regional instability for these purposes, and propagates it as well, but this might be too much.

We really don't need them for that...We make it seem like we do, but in reality, we're just hoarders.

 

[irishpat183]

So in Syria we have Assad and Hezbollah on one side and Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood on the other side. Wonder which one is our enemy?

The US needs to stay out of this one. If our President - who is ridiculous on foreign policy - would have stepped to the plate three years ago - the US could have assisted the more pro-US Arab fighters - but instead stood by and did nothing which allowed the MB and Al-Qaeda gain the upper hand against the more friendly forces fighting Assad. Now, he comes out with this ridiculous "red line" statement that he now must put into action or risk being further weakened in his reputation around the globe (if that is even possible at this point).

It is very clear to both our allies in the region and our enemies in the region know that Obama is not capable of doing anything right. He has destroyed what little influence we had to begin with and now he will throw some tomahawks to "save face" and then grandstand on the television that he is doing what is morally right. All the while, the millions in Africa still starve, N Korea people are eating each other, Egypt is in chaos, and our President will make a speech today declaring that our country is still the most racist and repressive country on the face of the earth.

Yep

 

[Ndaccountant]

I am not sure we can economically. Lots of industries are tied to this region and thereby lots of money. The world (and particularly the US) needs the persian gulf, suez canal, etc to move goods or provide oil.

The US tolerates some regional instability for these purposes, and propagates it as well, but this might be too much.

Maybe shipping, but we could look to North America for all of our energy needs if we wanted to.