Barack Obama Wants U.S. Economic Failure

[canndo]

If you claim 100 bucks in charitable donations, you get to take that 100 dollars off your total income for the year. Then they tax that.

So you pay less in taxes...

Yep, I pay less in taxes, taxes you all have to pay more for, in essence you have paid a portion of the charity.

 

[ginwilly]

Winna winna chicken dinna! Give that man a cigar. And of course,the very venue the "we built that" crowd are in this week was heavily subsidized by none other than that government.


And every single small business speaker who stood up talking about how they built their business - got government help. Republicans are either ignorant, stupid or lying.

Fuck that government lovin noise. You guys can celebrate the government for building roads, the rest of us will celebrate Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone for creating the need for roads. You can celebrate the government for allowing power lines to be run and the rest of us will celebrate Edison for creating the need for power lines.

It's people that create success, not government.

 

[ginwilly]

I pay 100 dollars to a charity, after taxes I actually have only taken 85 dollars out of my bank account - that means that someone else has paid the other 15, that someone else is all of the rest of us. I have paid 15 dollars less toward government functions and the debt that everyone else has to pay in my stead.

That means the entire 100 dollars goes to a charity, it doesn't mean somebody else makes up the money. If the government were in charge of that charity only 20 bucks would go to that charity while the other 80 bucks would go toward red tape.

So for the government to do the same job as you we would have to contribute 500 dollars for that 100 bucks to reach the charity. Giving to charity actually SAVES the taxpayers money, not cost them, what an odd way to look at things. If the left were as generous with their own money as they are with other people's our country could wipe out poverty.

 

[ginwilly]

Yep, I pay less in taxes, taxes you all have to pay more for, in essence you have paid a portion of the charity.

no, just no

if you DON'T give that money to charities then taxes have to make up for it. At a 5 to 1 cost once filtered through government inefficiency.

 

[canndo]

Fuck that government lovin noise. You guys can celebrate the government for building roads, the rest of us will celebrate Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone for creating the need for roads. You can celebrate the government for allowing power lines to be run and the rest of us will celebrate Edison for creating the need for power lines.

It's people that create success, not government.

You are missing the point. I agree that people create success, however, what was stated was that Romney "fixed" the olympics. He did that by getting gobs of money from the Federal Government. If he is a guy who claims that "we built that" or "we fixed that" then he will probably not come out and announce that in fact - in Fact, his use of government funds is what "fixed" the olympics. He doesn't get to have it both ways.

 

[canndo]

That means the entire 100 dollars goes to a charity, it doesn't mean somebody else makes up the money. If the government were in charge of that charity only 20 bucks would go to that charity while the other 80 bucks would go toward red tape.

So for the government to do the same job as you we would have to contribute 500 dollars for that 100 bucks to reach the charity. Giving to charity actually SAVES the taxpayers money, not cost them, what an odd way to look at things. If the left were as generous with their own money as they are with other people's our country could wipe out poverty.

I am not going to disupte that government may not be as efficient with the money - then again, giving to a private charity is just as easy for a government as an individual.

If we now get less money in taxes from an individual, money that, had he not deducted his contribution, he would have had to send to the IRS, then the rest of us suffer.

 

[beenthere]

It isn't an "obama" thread so much as it is a debt thread Beenthere. Obama has contributed very very little to our current debt and what he has contributed tends to go away as a portion of the debt very quickly. Seems again you are subject to the lies of the right.

LOL Now you're telling me what my thread is all about huh?

I can see that you can't figure out how Obama is going to pay down the debt, so instead you claim the right lies! That's pretty weak canndo.

 

[canndo]

no, just no

if you DON'T give that money to charities then taxes have to make up for it. At a 5 to 1 cost once filtered through government inefficiency.

Really? so if I send my charitable contribution to some organization that promotes "the family" (while campaigning against gays) then the government will have to make up for it?

 

[canndo]

LOL Now you're telling me what my thread is all about huh?

I can see that you can't figure out how Obama is going to pay down the debt, so instead you claim the right lies! That's pretty weak canndo.

First - the right does lie, lots, as a matter of fact you challenged me on that and I posted 4 big lies they are telling, I don't know if you responded.

Secondly, I can only go by what I see posted, and what I saw was about Obama's handling of the debt, now that can easily mean that the thread is about the debt.

I told you what he was doing or trying to do.

 

[althor]

I donate every year just for the purpose of tax deductions.
I would rather choose where it goes than give it to the government to give somewhere I would be 100% against it going.

 

[canndo]

I donate every year just for the purpose of tax deductions.
I would rather choose where it goes than give it to the government to give somewhere I would be 100% against it going.

You wouldn't donate if there were no tax advantage to it?

 

[beenthere]

Tell me NL, exactly how he "saved the olympics"? Hmmm? please, tell us all how he managed to do this.

Why did you avoid NL's comment about Mitt Romney giving away all of his inheritance to charity, cat got your tongue canndo? LOL

 

[althor]

You wouldn't donate if there were no tax advantage to it?

Not on the level I donate now, if that makes me a bad person so be it, but yeah I donate specifically for a tax deduction.

 

[ginwilly]

I am not going to disupte that government may not be as efficient with the money - then again, giving to a private charity is just as easy for a government as an individual.

If we now get less money in taxes from an individual, money that, had he not deducted his contribution, he would have had to send to the IRS, then the rest of us suffer.

unless the charity he gives to would have had to have government handouts had he not given. Then his 7million he gave would have to be made up by the government (at a cost of 35M given their track record).

I really don't think your argument is honest. He doesn't cost us taxpayers money by giving to charity, he saves us money.

 

[canndo]

Why did you avoid NL's comment about Mitt Romney giving away all of his inheritance to charity, cat got your tongue canndo? LOL

It didn't seem important - it is laudable. Now beenthere, did he get any tax advantages from his generous act?


I responded beenthere. Now how about responding to the fact that the way Romney "fixed" the olympics is by getting massive amounts of money from the government?

 

[beenthere]

My point is that we subsidize the rich's charity.

You need to understand the word subsidize my friend, because you are way out in left field.

 

[canndo]

unless the charity he gives to would have had to have government handouts had he not given. Then his 7million he gave would have to be made up by the government (at a cost of 35M given their track record).

I really don't think your argument is honest. He doesn't cost us taxpayers money by giving to charity, he saves us money.

Perhaps, if the charity got government funding I will have to agree. If it does not, will you agree that we subsidize his giving? In other words, if Romney gave that money to the morman church, and the Government does not give any money to that church, we are subsidizing his offering.

 

[beenthere]

It didn't seem important - it is laudable. Now beenthere, did he get any tax advantages from his generous act?


I responded beenthere. Now how about responding to the fact that the way Romney "fixed" the olympics is by getting massive amounts of money from the government?

Come on canndo, what kind of question is, did he get any tax advantages from donating ALL of his money to charity? That's laughable!\
Your second question is loaded my friend, the federal government is always financially involved in the U.S. Olympics. Which when you look into it, 50% of working Americans do not contribute to federal income taxes, therefore they do not contribute to the U.S. Olympics.

 

[ginwilly]

First - the right does lie, lots, as a matter of fact you challenged me on that and I posted 4 big lies they are telling, I don't know if you responded.

Secondly, I can only go by what I see posted, and what I saw was about Obama's handling of the debt, now that can easily mean that the thread is about the debt.

I told you what he was doing or trying to do.

of course the right lies, so does the left, that's why Christie's comment about telling the truth was historic in a sense that it would be nice if he really meant it.

As for the thread subject. Bush had 3 unfunded wars, TARP, auto bailouts and his own idiotic stimulus spending. Obama has increased the debt left by quite possibly the worst fiscal president of our time. The argument from the left is that Obama hasn't increased it as much when calculated as a percentage. You guys are using Bush as your baseline, that's gross.

 

[canndo]

You need to understand the word subsidize my friend, because you are way out in left field.

\
I understand the word. I believe you are unwilling to see the broad view because it infringes upon your belief system.