Rush gains from elderly tax break.
By on Oct 31st, 2006 at 11:46 am
Rush gains from elderly tax break.
A Florida tax measure “meant to protect the elderly from being taxed out of their homes also has let Florida’s wealthiest reap big tax breaks.” One major beneficiary has been Rush Limbaugh, who raked in a “tax break of about $224,000.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
And yet the overall average tax break is only about $1,000. Disgusting. At least Rush should be able to afford that oxycontin now. He obviously needs it more than the elderly need their heart medication.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:55 amNow that’s a lot of D.R. hookers!
October 31st, 2006 at 11:58 amScumbagulous, fo-fagulous.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:58 amAh yes! Rush, the verbal squat assasin get all the break’s, average joe middle class get’s $100.00 bucks and falling into the poor class who get in the food bank lines….Time to take our country back and lock all these fools up….Blessings
October 31st, 2006 at 12:00 pmI think he should be a big man and donate it to embryonic stem cell research in the name of Michael J. Fox.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:01 pmIf only this were “hush money”.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:05 pmWhy all the anger? He took a legal tax break. Oh, I get it, because he’s much richer than all of you put together X1000, he shouldn’t pay attention to the tax laws, and forget about any legal tax break.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:30 pmIt is long past time for someone to do the necessary research to ruin this man’s place as a National
October 31st, 2006 at 12:32 pmCultural Voice……ruin his career. I’m sure the info is out there.
Well that oughta keep old Brusque Limpballs in enough Vicodin and Viagra for the rest of his miserable, fat, lazy life…
October 31st, 2006 at 12:34 pmLimbaugh and all other millionaires who have benefitted from tax breaks and cuts, should return the money to the government earmarked for the “war on terror” or homeland security. Or do they think it’s patriotic to increase their personal wealth at the expense of the average taxpayer while American troops are dying in a war that will leave America in debt for generations. Come on guys. Show us how much you love America! Put your money where your mouths are.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:37 pmComment by Jkelly — October 31, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
You missed the point, RKelly — it’s not whether or not Brusque Limpballs is entitled to a legal tax break — it’s whether or not a tax break intended to help the elderly stay in their homes is, instead (or simultaneously), helping the richest, fattest cats supported by the repuglickin’ party. Just another example of the smoke and mirror tax policy of BushCo — “tell ‘em it’ll help the little guy, when it really will help the big (fat, lazy) guy instead.”
Next time, RKelly, try reading the WHOLE post before commenting on it…
October 31st, 2006 at 12:38 pm#7 – When the richest dip deeply into the public revenue, the rest of us end up paying for it. So tell me – do you like supporting Rush’s lavish lifestyle? Paying for Bush flying all over the country to make campaign speeches for Republicans? I’d rather see that money going to the local schools so that they quit hitting the rest of us up for the extra cash needed just to pay the heating bill…
October 31st, 2006 at 12:38 pmIf there were such a thing as a “walking pile of poo tax” Rush would be bankrupt.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:38 pmjkelly
Limbaugh is probably faking or exaggerating his wealth to get sympathy from the neocon tax policy makers. We know he has already faked and exaggerated his intelligence.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:40 pmHey, Pinhead….
the tax system is what it is and I’ve never seen a democrat or republican plan to simplify make it anything but more complex. You deride someone for following the law and taking all the breaks they are entitled to. Since Limbaugh is hated by the lefties so much — the venom on this site is obvious, it makes it that much worse. But, I doubt anyone here would voluntarily NOT take a every TAX break they possibly could.
Because the Republicans are looking out for their Interest Groups and the Democrates are looking out for their Interest Groups, you have the tax system we have today.
I could reform it. Trash the so-called ‘progressive’ tax system with all its inane rules and codes. Replace with a simple flat tax which everyone from pauper to prince would pay. Unfortunately, today we have most of the people paying NO INCOME TAX whatsoever and still expecting & receiving services. My plan would link benefits with responsibility. With EVERYONE watching the pot, there’d be less corruption.
Reform is impossible until the system breaks. Unbeknowest to most here and most everywhere, that day is coming.
On a different note, I haven’t visited many sites with as much hate and rudeness evident – especially for those they disagree with — as this one.
I’m sure my comments will reduce some here to rage.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:01 pmMocking the disabled…taking elderly widows’ tax breaks…if Rush can find a way to screw over some orphans he’ll have hit the worst person in the world trifecta.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:05 pmThis is the same bag of shit that wouldn’t allow ABC’s ‘This Week’ to come to his home for him to explain his side of the M.J.Fox story. No,
he’ll take pot shots of audio from Fox’s appearance, (’Stop the tape, now listen Americans, here is the real truth), in his bullet proof studio, but doesn’t dare enter the real world of debate or exchange.
The Media is still claiming he’s apologized…has anyone seen or heard an apology? Why do they make this shit up?
If only we could vote this drug induced madman out!
#15 – “On a different note, I haven’t visited many sites with as much hate and rudeness evident – especially for those they disagree with — as this one. ”
You must not be visitng any “conservative” sites at all! They don’t get mad with differing opinions, they ban and censor you.
I guess right-whiners hate it when people disagree with their propaganda.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:12 pmYea! More money for the wealthy!
We should just all find a rich person and send them our taxes. That way you cut out the republican run government middle man. That wya the rich can start reaping the benefits earlier and start trickling (peeing) on us faster.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:15 pmI visit sites of all persuasions — Democrat Soldier — my statement still stands.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:19 pmI bet Rush asks for the “senior” coffee (aka: free) at McDonald’s, too.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:20 pmBesides Zimzone – I don’t personally excuse bad behavior by pointing out others also behaving badly.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:22 pmUnfortunately, today we have most of the people paying NO INCOME TAX whatsoever and still expecting & receiving services. My plan would link benefits with responsibility.
Damn the disabled vets, the mentally and physically challenged children! They need to show some responsibility!
How about you try linking corporate responsibility to their tax benefits? Let’s say if a corporation creates a superfund site by dumping toxins it’s no longer eigible for government subsidies and tax breaks.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:24 pm#21, Good for you, KY Jelly
October 31st, 2006 at 1:27 pmNow go lube yourself for some exciting action with that pic of Laura!
OK…. let’s play the game of extreams…..
I will edit my commentary concerning the flat tax to include only able-bodied citizens.
Didn’t think I had to, but perhaps some needed a little more elucidation.
For your benefit.
I will try to dot my ‘i’s’ & cross my ‘t’s’ just for you. (Surprising amount of people here have lambasted me about spelling as well.)
October 31st, 2006 at 1:28 pmZimzone — thank you for proving my point
October 31st, 2006 at 1:28 pmFirst
Then
I am confuse by the right wing logic here.
BTW big fella. You haven’t visited many other political web sites if you think this one is really bad.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:29 pmhey, I understand — when you can’t argue and debate successfully, you resort to the tactics of making it personal with crudness. I do understand you.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:29 pm#15: Don’t try to sell us on the “flat tax” scam, because it would be filled with the usual loopholes for investment income and inherited wealth and whatnot that the rich would still not pay their fair share. We’re better off plugging the holes in the system we have, but we’ll have to get the Republicans out of office to do it.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:31 pmBigCynic:
Flat tax means no loophole – it’s really too simple for most to comprehend. You’d fill out a postcard at yearend – I made X $’s divide by N% and send the check. As far an inherited wealth being taxed — why do you want to tax money that has already been taxed once? We’ll never plug up the ‘holes’ in the system as long as we have polititians.
BTW, I don’t expect anything like a flat tax to happen until a total financial meltdown occures. Since I am heavily involved in the financial markets, I can tell you that’s a distinct probability.
And, Spunge .. what portion of ‘I don’t excuse bad behavior by pointing to others behaving badly, did you not understand? Of course (here I go elaborating on the obvious for the benefit of a few) other sites have rude posters using personalized attacks, like this one. That is a given. But … and, now watch… that doesn’t make this one less rude or purile.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:57 pmJkelly
I agree that this site often contains personal attacks and rude putdowns. For example,
Hey, Pinhead….
October 31st, 2006 at 2:11 pmUnbeknowest to most here and most everywhere
it’s really too simple for most to comprehend.
here I go elaborating on the obvious for the benefit of a few
But … and, now watch…
Pinhead was the name of the poster, not my name for the poster.
As to my commentary — I was really commenting on how many of the posters obviously don’t read the post they’re commenting on.
My first comment isn’t a putdown. It a commentary of most in America, and the world for that matter. Most people (and I’m sure you’d agree, go around completely unaware of what’s happening in the world around them. At least, that’s my take.)
My second comment is about human nature. Usually it’s the simplist ideas that escape all of us.
The last two comments were out of frustration, again wishing the commentators, if they are to respond to my comments, would at least read what I’ve wrote. It amazes me that some who personally attack me not only twist & distort what I have written, but actually quote it in their commentary. Spungeboy’s comments above are an actual example of this.
Yes, I was being a bit acerbic and attempting humor at the same time but don’t think my comments rise to the level, or depth, of some of the vicious one onboard here.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:21 pmHe talks about personal attacks, which I haven’t done to him, unless you are offended by “big fella”, by calling me “Spunge.”
Or do you think being called a right winger is an insult. That would be weird, since you are a right winger.
Yeah real growed uppity of you there dumb shit. Now you have zero credibility here, because you are doing exactly what you said you don’t like. We call that hypocritical and we don’t listen to hypocrits. Have a good time spinning yourself into a corner.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:21 pmJkelly…You have some points you’ve made. A ‘TRUE’ flat tax would be great,but the crooks would put the loopholes in it.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:34 pmYour point approach is like a bulldozer, I will not call you a ‘pinhead’, we can agree to disagree. We here are so sick of trolls we jump on them when we should IGNOR them,but we’re all humans and anger must be delt with. SpugeBoy is one of the best about facts,he does his research.
So I say stick around, and discuss the one thing we have in common…Improve our bad government.
Jkelly
OK, I’ll accept your explanation of referring to Pinhead (instead of Zippy) and your level of frustration with other posters and your wish to be humorous.
Now, how about acknowledging that many of us posting here are just as d*** patriotic, intelligent, caring, moral, and concerned about America and her safety as ANYONE in the Bush Administration (and often, more) and that WE have been frustrated for 6 years, which we express in a blog, in an attempt to get people to THINK instead of, like BushCo, to just blindly follow.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:37 pmJeez, JKelly, if you are having a tough time with getting attacked here, then you better stay away from HuffPo. MoeLarryand Jesus would eat you for breakfast. Having said that….
I don’t see where a “flat tax” would work. Didn’t Katherine Harris come up with something like this? Some hot shot dude (sorry, forget his name) ran the numbers (and i agree with his findings) that every person would end up paying at least 50% of their income just to support the Federal Government. I’m not willing to give 50% of my hard earned money to the government. It’s bad enough that the take 33% of MY BONUS. A bonus that I work my ass of for.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:42 pmAs far an inherited wealth being taxed — why do you want to tax money that has already been taxed once? We’ll never plug up the ‘holes’ in the system as long as we have polititians.
Does my income tax return count as income for my next years’ return? Isn’t that taxing money twice?
If you want to eliminate the inheritance tax, fine. Just remove the cap on SSI income as well. Since SSI is paying for most of the off-budget spending, it would be an excellent way for the rich to pay their fair share.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:44 pmAnd you can bet your ass that if the rich were fully “bought in” to the SSI program, it would work more effeciently – all the money they currently spend for think-tank justifications for killing SSI, they would devote to making sure it was properly run.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:52 pmThis pisses me off to no end I have no idea where to begin. THis thrice-divorced, welfare-mooching, draft-dodging, drug-addicted bastard gets over $200,000 while people cannot even make ends meet? Despicable.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:00 pmAs far an inherited wealth being taxed — why do you want to tax money that has already been taxed once?
Money isn’t taxed, people are. If you come into money, that’s income to you.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:06 pmI will try to dot my ‘i’s’ & cross my ‘t’s’ just for you. (Surprising amount of people here have lambasted me about spelling as well.)
And a surprising number of people in this country absolutely flip out when immigrants don’t speak perfect English. Like it or not, people are judged by their language arts skills.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:09 pmRush takes any advantage — when Lintball was in trouble with the law, it was the ACLU who came to his defense. The same ACLU he slams at every opportunity.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:12 pmSure, he likes his tax break — he needs every nickel he can get to support his drug habit.
On a different note, I haven’t visited many sites with as much hate and rudeness evident – especially for those they disagree with — as this one.
I’m sure my comments will reduce some here to rage.
Comment by Jkelly — October 31, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
No kellster, just a wistful shake of the head..
try Huffpo for some true vitriol!
I agree the tax system is convoluted, but skewed toward providing advantages to the wealthiest, undoubtably.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:15 pm39 Ann
Well explained!
Now, Florida, close the loop-hole. Now, America, shut down the Limbaugh-hole.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:17 pm1st – to all those that think I am namecalling when I used the term, ‘Pinhead’, please READ the POSTS. I was calling someone by their own posting name, “Zippy the other pinhead”.
Ok, that should be put to bed already. I can hope.
And PatLibChristian: you said:
Now, how about acknowledging that many of us posting here are just as d*** patriotic, intelligent, caring, moral, and concerned about America and her safety as ANYONE in the Bush Administration
Why should I? I don’t get it. I didn’t attack your patriotism or anyone elses here. But if it makes you feel good, I acknowledge it. Wouldn’t want’ you to feel bad.
To Barfly who said
Does my income tax return count as income for my next years’ return? Isn’t that taxing money twice?
No, your income tax return is that amount of money taken as taxes but not owed. It’s being returned to you as part of your income. Since that money has never been taxed and it will be the next year.
If you want to eliminate the inheritance tax, fine. Just remove the cap on SSI income as well. Since SSI is paying for most of the off-budget spending, it would be an excellent way for the rich to pay their fair share.
While it’s true that many off-budget items are being paid by with the supplus in SSI (something I don’t agree with) it works like a loan. The gov has to pay it back. SSI isn’t income.
And again, I ask why do you want to tax someone twice. I mean if your father wanted to leave some money – money he’s already paid taxes on — you want to gov to require that money to be taxed again after he’s gone?
crazy!
ann:
Money isn’t taxed, people are. If you come into money, that’s income to you
so true. why should someone who’s saved money, paid taxes on it and want’s to pass it on to their children, have it taxed after they die?
and,
And a surprising number of people in this country absolutely flip out when immigrants don’t speak perfect English. Like it or not, people are judged by their language arts skills
I don’t understand. Since I was making a comment on some here that took me to task harshly when I didn’t spell a word correctly, you think I might have a problem with immigrants that don’t speak perfect English? I do agree, however, that people are judged by how they present themselves.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:37 pmJkelly
My request was for you to acknowledge that the anger of many of us progressive bloggers is a reflection of the attacks we have endured from the Bush Administration and to give you the opportunity to distance yourself from that, since your complaints about our ire made you appear to be aligning yourself with the ad hominem attacks.
I guess if I misconstrued your position, then I should apologize for that. Wouldn’t want you misunderstood, after all.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:49 pmI’d much perfer someone’s dad’s money stay in the family rather than go to the federal coffers for politicians to fight over.
Politicians, of all stripes, are lowlife.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:49 pmI don’t get you PLChristian:
Why should I acknowledge something because you feel that something.
I’m not part of your perceived attack on progressives (I still don’t know why liberals don’t like to be called liberals.) .
It’s like Kerry attacking those who are critizising him today instead of addressing or explaining what he plainly said. Is this some kind of tactic?
October 31st, 2006 at 3:53 pmso true. why should someone who’s saved money, paid taxes on it and want’s to pass it on to their children, have it taxed after they die?
Because the person who died isn’t paying the taxes, the heir is. The peson who died when they earned the money, the person who inherited it is taxed (currently only if it’s over 2 mil, I might add.) Two different people are taxed. Like I said, money isn’t taxed, people are.
P.S. if by “so true” you were agreeing with me, then why continue the same baseless argument?
October 31st, 2006 at 3:59 pmann:
My ’so true’ was in response to your comment that people are taxed – not people.
What I am so against really is how taxes are so arbitrary – only beholden to the whims of politicians. I really trust money in the hands of the people, not government. I realize we need some taxation, but the situation today is akin to economic slavery. Yes, inheritance tax applies to those who inherit over 2 million, but that number, and every other number the bureacrates come up with is arbitrary.
It now takes one third of a year worth of income to pay your taxes.
Here’s my plan. Everyone pays an equal % of their income in taxes. That way everyone has a stake in how it’s spent. As it stands today, most people don’t pay income taxes so obviously they care little on how its spent, overspent, as long as it benefits them.
If you can’t go along with my plan, how ’bout this. Keep the tax code the way it is but every representative must, without any outside help, do their own taxes. And, further, have their returns publicly audited. Do you think that would help simplify the code?
October 31st, 2006 at 4:27 pm“I’d much perfer someone’s dad’s money stay in the family rather than go to the federal coffers for politicians to fight over. Politicians, of all stripes, are lowlife. Comment by Jkellyâ€
And the vast majority of inheritances do stay in the family. It’s just the ones over 2 million that are subject to the inheritance tax. And frankly, most people who have more than 2 mil to leave behind are pretty savvy with money and already know the rules on gifting and tax shelters, etc.
October 31st, 2006 at 4:57 pmann:
So, you are saying the gov is better at deciding what to do with the money than people?
As to the 2 mil mark, it’s arbitrary and with inflation more and more will find themselves exceeding the mark. Reminds me of the problem with the ATM, set up to insure than no one uses legal tax deductions to the max. You see, many people and politician were pissed that people tried to keep as much money as they could, their own money, by using the tax law and legit deductions. So they decided in their wisdom, for those people –ha, the so called rich– they’d design a system to tax them too! Problem is over the years — and not too many either — because of inflation, more of the middle class got corralled into paying the onerous ATM. Ah, people have complained, the problem is being discussed, but like addicts the politicians won’t do anything about it!
Yea, I know the tax rules and they are arbitrary as they can be and totally inane.
The inheritance tax is another example of gov trying to control the populace.
It will all change, but not the way most think. Money is Power & Politicians will never give up power. So, the code stays with us until a financial crisis of unforseen magnatude is upon us. I don’t wish this upon anyone, but the odds of that happening are actually quite good.
October 31st, 2006 at 5:25 pmSo, you are saying the gov is better at deciding what to do with the money than people?
No, I’m saying that the vast majority of people don’t even meet the threshold for the inheritance tax so it’s a non-issue.
October 31st, 2006 at 5:34 pmann:
yes an non-issue for most but not everyone. and, as I pointed out with my example of the ATM, non-issues become issues for the majority given time and inflation.
also, i notice those who favor heavier taxation do not favor it for all. in other words, they believe in ‘tyranny of the majority’. Let me explain by giving you an example. A couple of years a tax on the very rich was passed here in California to fund mental health clinics (a worthy goal). It wasn’t a big tax — say somewhere in the neighborhood of a 1% or 2. One of those who was rich enough said that although the tax would not affect him much and it did go to a worthy goal, there were plenty of worthy goal to go around. He figured that the taxation of the few rich, the minority, by the many not-so-rich, the majority, would continue ad infinitum. And, wouldn’t you know it! This election go-’round, there are new proposals to tax the rich for the purpose of funding worthy goals!
The tyranny of the majority.
The problem with all this taxation is that you tax the productive to become unproductive. And, what no one seems to know, money and the rich are really can move to avoid taxation. California is losing productive and rich people and their tax base because of taxation policies.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:05 pmWhile it’s true that many off-budget items are being paid by with the supplus in SSI (something I don’t agree with) it works like a loan. The gov has to pay it back. SSI isn’t income.
You missed my point. What about elimination of the cap?
SSI isn’t income? Perhaps not , but it certainly is treated as such by lawmakers. If the rich were fully brought in to the system (taxed on every dollar they earn) they would have a great incentive to stop the use of SSI “borrowings” by lawmakers. But since this system of “borrowing” tax dollars greatly enriches wealthy investors, don’t expect any change from that direction.
Since so few actually are subject to the inheritance tax, eliminating it would easily be offset by the added revenue generated by eliminating the current cap on payroll taxes.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:05 pmJKelly:
Why does a person making $300,000 a year deserve a lower overall tax rate than someone making $80,000?
October 31st, 2006 at 6:12 pmWrong, you called me Spunge, a’hole. No, it isn’t put to rest. You wanna play dirty, but not get dirt on you when it is thrown back. You are a liar, but what should I expect from a right wing shill.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:14 pmI would be in favor of removing the cap if you increased benefits to reflect what the individual contributes. In other words, don’t cap the benefit.
It’s really all moot, however, because the system is bankrupt & there’s no way to save it. You’d either have to reduce benefits dramatically or increase the tax rate to 100% of income. Not sustainable.
What I predict in a few years happening – they will stop giving SSI to people who have any income or savings at all — after all they have enough even though they contributed. In a reversal of the children’s fable, the slothful grasshopper gets a benefit and the industrious ant get told to take a hike.
In anticipation, I’m funding my own retirement. To those that aren’t, what are you thinking? That the gov might rescue you! Ha!
October 31st, 2006 at 6:15 pmBecause you are trying to lump us into one category, which doesn’t work in this day and age. I hate Bush. I am for the death penalty, I am for abortion. I am against gun control. Does that sound like a liberal or more like a centrist libertarian? I don’t hug trees, I served in the military and have killed plenty of small animals in my life. Does that sound liberal to you? It doesn’t to me.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:17 pmSpudgeBoy — thin skinned you are!
laughable and certifiable.
barfly.
Reverse the question why does someone who’s working 2 jobs, busting his ass, trying to get ahead and earning $100,000 a year deserve to have more of his money percentagewise confiscated by the gov than that slob, with plenty of potential, plenty of time on his hands, plenty of education, that has a part-time gig doing something he loves but making only $22,000 a year?
(Both friends of mine)
What’s fair is fair, right?
October 31st, 2006 at 6:21 pmIt’s really all moot, however, because the system is bankrupt & there’s no way to save it. You’d either have to reduce benefits dramatically or increase the tax rate to 100% of income. Not sustainable.
Why? Because you say so?
You’re being pretty free with “bankrupt,” aren’t you? It isn’t bankrupt. The fund is good until about 2020, and at that point it pays out only 60% of benefits. Hardly bankrupt.
Yes, let them collect benefits commensurate with their contributions. And anyone who dies before reaching eligibility age could pass survivors’ benefits to their offspring – until the child reaches 21 – and the rest of the person’s contribution would go back into the fund, just as it does with the rest of us.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:23 pmSpudgeboy…
if the label doesn’t fit, don’t use it.
you have shown yourself to easily be offended and
obviously you anger easily
easy, have a beer, pop a prozac
my question was to all the real liberals.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:24 pmAnd that would be a perfect example of PROJECTION.
You came on here talking about how you got attacked, while attacking us. It is you who are thin skinned and can’t take it when you want to dish it out. Dip sh!t.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:26 pmbarfly….
you surprised me. we are in agreement. we both agree SSI is a basketcase — you say not until 2020, but that dates within shooting distance — only 13 years away!
I for one don’t trust the gov figures
October 31st, 2006 at 6:28 pmOh, spudge….
I don’t care about the attacks. for all I know they might come from prepubescent, acned geeks. I was commenting, not complaining — wouldn’t do me any good.
keep using a’hole & d’shit…. shows your colors
October 31st, 2006 at 6:31 pmReverse the question why does someone who’s working 2 jobs, busting his ass, trying to get ahead and earning $100,000 a year deserve to have more of his money percentagewise confiscated by the gov than that slob, with plenty of potential, plenty of time on his hands, plenty of education, that has a part-time gig doing something he loves but making only $22,000 a year?
(Both friends of mine)
What’s fair is fair, right?
Comment by Jkelly
You haven’t answered my question. Your anecdotal example is a weak attempt to duck out.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:31 pmIt is not a basket case. Now run along, as you obviously aren’t prepared to debate . . .
October 31st, 2006 at 6:33 pmit’s so quiet around here about Kerry’s remarks. Bet the boys & girls upstairs are strategising on how to rationalize his remarks. Yea, he was joking — really!
why doesn’t own up to them and make amends to those in uniform?
October 31st, 2006 at 6:34 pmBecause he has nothing to apologize for, Jkelly. His remarks were about Bush, not soldiers – but desperate republicans will latch onto anything at this late date.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:37 pmI will and you just keep non-complaining in a complaining whiny girly manner. Dumbass. You started it and I am more than welcome to keep going much longer than you.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:37 pmbarfly…
I wasn’t attempting to duck anything…. I just don’t understand the question:
your question: Why does a person making $300,000 a year deserve a lower overall tax rate than someone making $80,000?
We’re talking deserve, right?
Who the hell is deciding who is more deserving than someone else when it comes to taking percentages of their hard earned income. I mean, the concept is absurd to me. Just because someone earns more than someone else, they deserve to keep a lower percentage of their earnings? And your question is why isn’t that fair?
My question is why would it be fair?
That’s why I gave an anecdotal example to your anecdotal example.
I honestly think everyone should pay the same percentage.
October 31st, 2006 at 6:40 pmpeople who resort to a’hole, d’shit, dumbass, have little to nothing to say of import.
this is obvious
October 31st, 2006 at 6:42 pmbarfly!
did you read, see what kerry even said?
Quote:
“You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq,” he said.
Nope, he didn’t mention Bush.
And reported by ABC:
What’s unclear is if Kerry’s comments will help rally Republican voters or help their party portray Democrats as against the troops to score victories next Tuesday. A Democratic congressman told ABC News, Tuesday, “I guess Kerry wasn’t content blowing 2004, now he wants to blow 2006, too.”
Ah, come on, he screwed up. Why doesn’t he just apologise? (Bet he won’t)
October 31st, 2006 at 6:48 pmfurther —
LANHAM, Md., Oct. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ — AMVETS’ National Commander expressed disbelief and disappointment in the comments by Senator John Kerry Monday.
“For the Senator to suggest that today’s United States military is made up of uneducated men and women who didn’t ‘study hard’ or ‘make an effort to be smart’ is ridiculous and appalling,†AMVETS National Commander Thomas C. McGriff said Tuesday. “The men and women in uniform today make up the most advanced, highly-educated force ever seen. To suggest otherwise is a slap in the face to every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine and Coast Guardsman who has spent countless hours working to better him or herself. This is also an insult to every person and organization who has worked tirelessly to provide our troops and their families with education benefits.
“Senator Kerry should retract his remarks and apologize immediately,†McGriff said after listening to comments made by Senator Kerry at a political rally in Pasadena, Calif., Monday. “It is especially outrageous coming from a member of the U.S. Senate.â€
and you still think he shouldn’t make an apology?
October 31st, 2006 at 6:58 pmjust one more:
INDIANAPOLIS, Oct. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ — The National Commander of The American Legion called on Sen. John Kerry to apologize for suggesting that American troops in Iraq are uneducated.
“As a constituent of Senator Kerry’s I am disappointed. As leader of The American Legion, I am outraged,” said National Commander Paul A. Morin. “A generation ago, Sen. Kerry slandered his comrades in Vietnam by saying that they were rapists and murderers. It wasn’t true then and his warped view of today’s heroes isn’t true now.”
someone’s in a state of denial
October 31st, 2006 at 7:00 pmSo, you are saying the gov is better at deciding what to do with the money than people?
If they’re old people who’ve demonstrated precious little in the way of financial acumen earlier in life and are now whittling away their miniscule nest eggs as senility encroaches on their brains, then yes, the government is almost certainly better at deciding how to spend their money than they are. (My dad ran my Grandma’s finances after Grandpa died as best as he could — but the credit card offers kept coming, kept getting accepted, and kept being used to buy random crap on TV… I hope and pray that my parents can die independent and sane.)
And, ironically, the folks who have demonstrated that they are capable of managing thier finances and preparing for the future that they’ve arrived at are the ones that don’t need a tax break — they’ve got money and expected that “taxes” would be an expense item in their plan.
And, as is the natural conclusion, the folks who have the best plans get the largest tax cuts — which were wholly unnecessary to how they’d planned their retirement (if they’ve retired at all, which Limbaugh hasn’t).
Tax cuts don’t help the majority of people who are in need because they aren’t making enough money to have taxes to cut. And while we would all like our government to be smaller, more efficient and thereby cheaper, the simple fact of the matter is that a tax cut is not the same thing as a cheaper government so long at the government can keep on expensing things to a pile of outstanding debts — with the special bonus irony being that those debts are going to be going against social programs that keep poor people safe and healthy domestically or to international warmongering that Rush Limbaugh proudly supports.
October 31st, 2006 at 7:04 pm“You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq,†he said.
When I first heard this, I thought he was speaking of Bush. Since Bush isn’t doing well right now in Iraq, to me, he was referencing Bush’s gentleman “c”’s, and general lack of intellectual fervor; that if perhaps Bush had done more studying in school, he wouldn’t now be stuck in Iraq.
October 31st, 2006 at 7:24 pmOh really? Then what’s up with “Lower standards help Army meet recruiting goal” over at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-09-army-recruiting_x.htm
Besides, isn’t Boot Camp all about abusing our would-be soldiers until they’re strong enough to take the abuse and are thus ready to be soldiers? Even if Kerry’s comment should be taken at face value (he says he “botched a joke” — probably missed the words “your nation” between “get” and “stuck”), how many of them wouldn’t acknowledge an educational deficiency either in themselves or one-or-more of their commrades? From what my (Iraq Veteran) brother-in-law says and what my (Vietnam Veteran) father-in-law says and what my (Other Iraq Veteran) aunt says, there’s practically enough stupid people in the military to invade China — just not enough smart people to ensure that everybody can come home safe. And that’s how we get stuck in Iraq.
October 31st, 2006 at 7:45 pmjkelly:
You are being disiningenuous. The White House should be paying you.
Because from the beginning you are not being forthright there is no merit in engaging your biased argument.
You should apply to be a White House mouth piece and contribute to their daily Snow Job.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:47 pmSo, you are saying the gov is better at deciding what to do with the money than people?
Definitely not the “fiscal conservatives” running the show in DC these days. They’ve borrowed and spent your great-grandchildren into perpetual debt. Who do you think is paying for all those guns we keep losing track of? Not the NRA, that’s for sure.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:06 pmKerry is a bonehead. Even some of his supporters – like Imus – know that.
If he made a mistake on a joke, and I’m willing to see it that way, why’d he wait so long to say so?
He’s a bonehead. That’s the type that runs the Democratic party today — your saints, Gore, Kerry, Dean, and (shudder) Hillary. Those people are boneheads who the common man can see right through?
If this were not true, Gore & Kerry could’ve have beat that other bonehead, George W. Bush. He was the most politically vulnerable president we’ve had. But they didn’t.
Wake up, the your beloved party has boneheads running it — men born with silver spoons in their mouths — knownothings, that will lose again.
Imagine this if you will. Democrates don’t take the Senate and don’t take the House this time around. (This is hypothetical – don’t get your panties in a wad. I’m not pronosticating.) But if they lose, who you gona blame. I know, you know. You’ll blame everyone but yourselves – you’ll never blame the party themselves.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:36 amI’ve taken a quick look at your postings, which are very interesting. Lots of material and ideas! Congrats on being so focused!
November 7th, 2006 at 4:27 amElderly Retirement
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll come to this blog more often.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 4:52 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 10:08 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm