[SK in CV]

[quote=captcha]
That hurts 🙂

The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.[/quote]

1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)

2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?

[SK in CV]

[quote=captcha]
That hurts 🙂

The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.[/quote]

1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)

2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?

[SK in CV]

[quote=captcha]
That hurts 🙂

The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.[/quote]

1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)

2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?

[SK in CV]

[quote=captcha]
That hurts 🙂

The government increases what it takes and all of the sudden the money that it does not take becomes a subsidy? I am not saying that taxing interest on mortgage is unfair way of covering the expenses incurred by the government, but that deduction is not something given to people. It is something not yet taken away from them.[/quote]

1st, it was a subsidy for all debt when all interest was deductible. The remaining deductions for mortgage and other interest is still a subsidy. (The argument used in the mid-80’s when the elimination of the personal interest deduction was proposed is that it was a subsidy for borrowers who went into debt.)

2nd, your argument would seem to support never reducing government entitlements or expenditures. So social security can never be reduced, medicaid cutbacks are out of the question, the Earned Income Credit must be permanent, reduction of college education funding should have been opposed, and eliminations of government employee retirement plans is yet again, the government taking something away. Is that really the argument you want to make?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]It’s not about the ponzi, it’s about Job’s

It’s just that there is no way in heck to have an economic recovery when people are stuck, and going into foreclosure,

Well whatever, you will not get to below 6% unemployment UNTIL THE MAJORITY OF UNDERWATER HOME OWNERS ARE NO LONGER UNDER WATER,
One way or the other..

The candidate who finally admits that will get my vote.[/quote]

He (or she) will get your vote and a handful of others. Unfortunately, that candidate has no chance of getting elected. Because the candidate that admits that, will also have to admit that there is no quick and easy fix. That there is no fiscal or monetary policy that can fix it. And that even if that candidate wins the election, it may not be fixed by the end of his (or her) term. Honesty is not necessarily a path to success as a politician.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]It’s not about the ponzi, it’s about Job’s

It’s just that there is no way in heck to have an economic recovery when people are stuck, and going into foreclosure,

Well whatever, you will not get to below 6% unemployment UNTIL THE MAJORITY OF UNDERWATER HOME OWNERS ARE NO LONGER UNDER WATER,
One way or the other..

The candidate who finally admits that will get my vote.[/quote]

He (or she) will get your vote and a handful of others. Unfortunately, that candidate has no chance of getting elected. Because the candidate that admits that, will also have to admit that there is no quick and easy fix. That there is no fiscal or monetary policy that can fix it. And that even if that candidate wins the election, it may not be fixed by the end of his (or her) term. Honesty is not necessarily a path to success as a politician.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]It’s not about the ponzi, it’s about Job’s

It’s just that there is no way in heck to have an economic recovery when people are stuck, and going into foreclosure,

Well whatever, you will not get to below 6% unemployment UNTIL THE MAJORITY OF UNDERWATER HOME OWNERS ARE NO LONGER UNDER WATER,
One way or the other..

The candidate who finally admits that will get my vote.[/quote]

He (or she) will get your vote and a handful of others. Unfortunately, that candidate has no chance of getting elected. Because the candidate that admits that, will also have to admit that there is no quick and easy fix. That there is no fiscal or monetary policy that can fix it. And that even if that candidate wins the election, it may not be fixed by the end of his (or her) term. Honesty is not necessarily a path to success as a politician.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]It’s not about the ponzi, it’s about Job’s

It’s just that there is no way in heck to have an economic recovery when people are stuck, and going into foreclosure,

Well whatever, you will not get to below 6% unemployment UNTIL THE MAJORITY OF UNDERWATER HOME OWNERS ARE NO LONGER UNDER WATER,
One way or the other..

The candidate who finally admits that will get my vote.[/quote]

He (or she) will get your vote and a handful of others. Unfortunately, that candidate has no chance of getting elected. Because the candidate that admits that, will also have to admit that there is no quick and easy fix. That there is no fiscal or monetary policy that can fix it. And that even if that candidate wins the election, it may not be fixed by the end of his (or her) term. Honesty is not necessarily a path to success as a politician.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]It’s not about the ponzi, it’s about Job’s

It’s just that there is no way in heck to have an economic recovery when people are stuck, and going into foreclosure,

Well whatever, you will not get to below 6% unemployment UNTIL THE MAJORITY OF UNDERWATER HOME OWNERS ARE NO LONGER UNDER WATER,
One way or the other..

The candidate who finally admits that will get my vote.[/quote]

He (or she) will get your vote and a handful of others. Unfortunately, that candidate has no chance of getting elected. Because the candidate that admits that, will also have to admit that there is no quick and easy fix. That there is no fiscal or monetary policy that can fix it. And that even if that candidate wins the election, it may not be fixed by the end of his (or her) term. Honesty is not necessarily a path to success as a politician.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=captcha]I was under impression that all interest used to be deductible. If that is the case the current deduction is really not a subsidy, but money not confiscated by the government. Yet.

And low-income renters do get some breaks like Section 8 and renter’s tax credit in some states (including CA).[/quote]

captcha is correct. Interest on credit cards and installment loans (e.g. car loans, furtniture loans, etc) were deductible before 1986 tax reform.
[/quote]

Yeah, he’s right on the first sentence. The second sentence is a logical fallacy of some sort. I’m not sure which kind. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=captcha]I was under impression that all interest used to be deductible. If that is the case the current deduction is really not a subsidy, but money not confiscated by the government. Yet.

And low-income renters do get some breaks like Section 8 and renter’s tax credit in some states (including CA).[/quote]

captcha is correct. Interest on credit cards and installment loans (e.g. car loans, furtniture loans, etc) were deductible before 1986 tax reform.
[/quote]

Yeah, he’s right on the first sentence. The second sentence is a logical fallacy of some sort. I’m not sure which kind. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=captcha]I was under impression that all interest used to be deductible. If that is the case the current deduction is really not a subsidy, but money not confiscated by the government. Yet.

And low-income renters do get some breaks like Section 8 and renter’s tax credit in some states (including CA).[/quote]

captcha is correct. Interest on credit cards and installment loans (e.g. car loans, furtniture loans, etc) were deductible before 1986 tax reform.
[/quote]

Yeah, he’s right on the first sentence. The second sentence is a logical fallacy of some sort. I’m not sure which kind. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=captcha]I was under impression that all interest used to be deductible. If that is the case the current deduction is really not a subsidy, but money not confiscated by the government. Yet.

And low-income renters do get some breaks like Section 8 and renter’s tax credit in some states (including CA).[/quote]

captcha is correct. Interest on credit cards and installment loans (e.g. car loans, furtniture loans, etc) were deductible before 1986 tax reform.
[/quote]

Yeah, he’s right on the first sentence. The second sentence is a logical fallacy of some sort. I’m not sure which kind. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=captcha]I was under impression that all interest used to be deductible. If that is the case the current deduction is really not a subsidy, but money not confiscated by the government. Yet.

And low-income renters do get some breaks like Section 8 and renter’s tax credit in some states (including CA).[/quote]

captcha is correct. Interest on credit cards and installment loans (e.g. car loans, furtniture loans, etc) were deductible before 1986 tax reform.
[/quote]

Yeah, he’s right on the first sentence. The second sentence is a logical fallacy of some sort. I’m not sure which kind. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]So your thesis for the constant coordinated ignoring, of a well polled popularity, is due to a high school like immaturity, rather than people of power conspiring due some of his potentially world changing views – yes removing the military from around the world is big business – surely it has nothing to do with that.[/quote]

There might be some back room discussions about dismissing Paul as a serious candidate. I couldn’t say for sure. But the fact is, Paul is not a popular candidate nationwide, and never will be. I can find one major nationwide poll that puts him higher than 4th. Which is pretty much where he’s remained for the last 9 months. I kind of wish he had more support. He’s a lot more interesting than some of the other candidates.

[Author]

Posts