The Rise and Fall of the American Empire

[Foxfyre]

Mac. Do you take a interest mortgage deduction? Would you give that "free" tax deduction up?

What "free" stuff are you referring to? That mortgage deduction cost the Treasury like 120 billion a year. That's a bunch of "free" stuff right there. Why do people like you and I get this feebie Mac?

A tax deduction is not 'free stuff'. A tax deduction is what the government does not take of what we earn. It takes nothing out of anybody else's pocket; it just allows us to keep more of what we worked for and is rightfully ours.

"Free stuff" is what you did nothing to earn but you receive while somebody else pays for it out of their pocket.

There is a difference between these two things for those with the ability to reason and understand.

Oh bull shit. The mortgage interest deduction should have absolutely nothing to do with the payment of income tax. It is a freebie to people like me that have a mortgage. It reduces my tax obligation. Why?

The government has nothing to do with the contract I entered into for a mortgage loan.

So what are you talking about when you say the highlighted section above? Or do you know what you are talking about?

I know that the tax deduction is subtracted from the EARNED INCOME that we would otherwise owe taxes on. If you have no earned income or not enough earned income, the deduction is moot because you aren't paying taxes anyway. If you don't have enough deductions, the deduction is moot because you do better taking the general standard deduction allowed all taxpayers instead of itemizing.

But if I am legally entitled to pay $1,000 less in taxes because I have deductible mortgage and interest expenses, how does that cost anybody else anything? It takes nothing away from you and obligates you for nothing whatsoever.

But if the government gives me $1,000 it had to take that from somebody else or obligate somebody else to pay it plus interest.

 

[Darkwind]

.

I don't think our decline is about "free stuff". The "free stuff" thing is a symptom of a larger problem - our culture is in rapid decline and it's pulling us down with it.

Look at our popular culture - Holy shit, I was going to give examples, but anyone who actually needs examples is in such denial that I would be wasting my time.

Look at our educational system - we're now seeing the predictable result of placing a higher priority on self esteem than on ability: Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable

We continue to lower standards, make excuses, claim victimhood. So, we're in decline, we're reaping what we've sowed. Capitalism worked too well, it made us soft.

The "free stuff"? Meh. In the big picture, it doesn't really cost that much. What's killing us is a culture in decay.

.

Which means you missed the point.

In order to continue with the social engineering that brings on this cultural decay (no thinking person considers our decay as happenstance) those who promote it must remain in power. They use the marketing technique of big business, using peoples own greed against them, to keep getting elected. This comes in form of free stuff (which is much more expensive than you give credit for). After all, three years ago, the talking point about why blacks voted Democrat was answered simply by, "Why would they vote against their best interest?" This was said in the face of the decline of the black family, black community, and black culture.

Its free stuff......so that they can remain in power.

 

[francoHFW]

SOCIAL ENGINEERING MY BUTT- just helping the victims of the Booosh meltdown, without change in the laws. Hater dupes...

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn. What a bunch of mewling puking pessimists. Nattering nabobs of negativety.

Look, the US has gone through many periods of upheaval. When I was 10, I remember all the nonsense that the demogogues like Tailgunner Joe were screaming. All too many listened to the lieing bastard, and many lives were ruined. But the nation survived and thrived. Then came the '60's. Civil rights, and all the rest of the societal change. Even Vietnam. And we survived all of it, absorbed many Vietnamese who have become another asset to this nation.

Can we survive this? Yes, even if the Fruitloops force a default. But that will cause some major problems, and it is already clear who will shoulder the blame. Even though the miscreants are totally out of touch with reality.

And afterwards? Well, I think that we will look at the idiotic extremism that caused this nonsense, and get back to being America again. For at least another generation.

Time to get back to pursueing excellance, in our science, in our society, and in the environmental state of our nation.

 

[Contumacious]

The economy and the debt will take care of themselves once the power of the mindlessly obstructive, brainwashed debt cult Tea Party is broken and the recovery can proceed. IDIOTS.

The economy will be completely destroyed and martial law will be imposed. We are fucked.

.

 

[HenryBHough]

The economy will be completely destroyed and martial law will be imposed. We are fucked.

.

Yet many liberals will think Nirvana has come.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If that's the case, they're doing it wrong.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac. Do you take a interest mortgage deduction? Would you give that "free" tax deduction up?

What "free" stuff are you referring to? That mortgage deduction cost the Treasury like 120 billion a year. That's a bunch of "free" stuff right there. Why do people like you and I get this feebie Mac?

all interest payments since 1913 were deductible. It started with the idea that biz expense was an offset offered to defray the new taxes and real estate, housing, the investment financing in rent bearing property is enormous, they allowed interest deductions for the creation there of.

as to the mortgage deduction itself, here;

Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86), the interest on all personal loans (including credit card debt) was deductible. TRA86 eliminated that broad deduction, but created the narrower home mortgage interest deduction under the theory that it would encourage home ownership.[18] A New York Times article notes that, in 1913, when interest deductions started, Congress "certainly wasn't thinking of the interest deduction as a stepping-stone to middle-class home ownership, because the tax excluded the first $3,000 (or for married couples, $4,000) of income; less than 1 percent of the population earned more than that;" moreover, during that era, most people who purchased homes paid upfront rather than taking out a mortgage. Rather, the reason for the deduction was that in a nation of small proprietors, it was more difficult to separate business and personal expenses, and so it was simpler to just allow deduction of all interest.[19]

Home mortgage interest deduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't quite answer the question as to why, in this day of hatred for free government, why do people with mortgages get the freebie from the government? Do you know? Would you complain if you had to give up your deduction (if you have a mortgage note?)

120 BILLION A YEAR in tax deduction. A freebie for mortgage holders. Now if you only owe 30k on your house, big deal. But lets say you owe 2.2 million on a mortgage. BIG DEAL is the tax deduction.

You don't think the deduction works really well for the very rich do you? You don't think Dems and Repubs would protect that write off to keep their real rich friends happy. Do you?

Now lets go back to complaining about the woman who get 112 dollars freebie food stamps.

The obvious answer as to why people who take out mortgages get a tax deduction is that the tax deduction motivates them to spend and stimulate the economy.

Very few, if any, individual purchases have a ripple effect as the purchase of a home. When people purchase a home it is often after the seller has spent money and hired people to improve that home for sale; then the purchaser often goes out and buys new furnishings or appliances or paint for the home. That's why people in finance (including myself) always look to the health of the real estate market when considering the overall health and direction of the economy. Feel free to ask anyone in the industry for confirmation on that if you'd like.

That's the easiest question I'll get all day.

As far as the "free stuff" is concerned, I have noted that it's not about the cost of the "free stuff" -- which is clearly relatively low in the grand scheme of things. It's how the free stuff exacerbates the decline of our culture, as more and more people now expect "the government" to give them the free stuff without even knowing or appreciating from where it comes. People deserve better than to constantly have standards lowered just to make life a little easier for them, when going in the opposite direction would motivate them to improve their own lives. And not wait for the "free stuff".

Most individual and business deductions are designed to stimulate spending and investment. As compared to those who want to just receive.

Probably the second easiest question I'll get all day.

.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The following is excerpted from a longer piece available at the link:

The Rise and Fall of the American Empire

by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky​

"The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.

Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentive-izes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote.The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from the government.

Almost half of the population has no skin in the game - they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

Truer words were never spoken.

snopes.com: Rabbi Steven Pruzansky -- The Decline and Fall of the American Empire

I wonder if anybody cares?

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.

no

he is too wishy washy rino

he is another big government guy

he pretty much is a lefty

and folks simply tuned him out

 

[TemplarKormac]

He's right and wrong. Something will die only if you let it. There are people in this country that still care and want to return it to form. If the masses continue succumbing to ignorance and propaganda, then yes our country will die a slow death. If it hasn't already.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Romney lost because to many looking at his dismal record in Massachusetts he seemed just slightly to the left of his opponent.

I know that's the assigned talking point, but you can't get around the fact that no president with as abyssmal record as Obama has provided in his first four years has ever been re-elected. But Obama was. So is it possible that there were dynamics at work that had nothing to do with eithe candidate except that Obama was the president promising free stuff and Romney was not?

nope a lot of the free stuff people didnt show up either

they are a disappointing lot in general

fact is Romney just has too many lefty positions

romney care

for AWB

big government

could go on

but right there was enough to sink him

 

[Geaux4it]

SOCIAL ENGINEERING MY BUTT- just helping the victims of the Booosh meltdown, without change in the laws. Hater dupes...

Interesting. I keep hearing all about this big Bush meltdown. Whatever that means, didn't effect me the least

In 08' I was smart enough to protect my assets. Furthermore, I didn't upgrade my housing to something I knew I couldn't afford, just because a bank said I could, then default and blame it on someone else.

Our country needs to pay the price many of it's stupid a$$ citizens did for over extending itself. In this case, default on the debt and blame it on the Republicans.

Sound familiar?

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Mac. Do you take a interest mortgage deduction? Would you give that "free" tax deduction up?

What "free" stuff are you referring to? That mortgage deduction cost the Treasury like 120 billion a year. That's a bunch of "free" stuff right there. Why do people like you and I get this feebie Mac?

all interest payments since 1913 were deductible. It started with the idea that biz expense was an offset offered to defray the new taxes and real estate, housing, the investment financing in rent bearing property is enormous, they allowed interest deductions for the creation there of.

as to the mortgage deduction itself, here;

Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86), the interest on all personal loans (including credit card debt) was deductible. TRA86 eliminated that broad deduction, but created the narrower home mortgage interest deduction under the theory that it would encourage home ownership.[18] A New York Times article notes that, in 1913, when interest deductions started, Congress "certainly wasn't thinking of the interest deduction as a stepping-stone to middle-class home ownership, because the tax excluded the first $3,000 (or for married couples, $4,000) of income; less than 1 percent of the population earned more than that;" moreover, during that era, most people who purchased homes paid upfront rather than taking out a mortgage. Rather, the reason for the deduction was that in a nation of small proprietors, it was more difficult to separate business and personal expenses, and so it was simpler to just allow deduction of all interest.[19]

Home mortgage interest deduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't quite answer the question as to why, in this day of hatred for free government, why do people with mortgages get the freebie from the government? Do you know? Would you complain if you had to give up your deduction (if you have a mortgage note?)

120 BILLION A YEAR in tax deduction. A freebie for mortgage holders. Now if you only owe 30k on your house, big deal. But lets say you owe 2.2 million on a mortgage. BIG DEAL is the tax deduction.

You don't think the deduction works really well for the very rich do you? You don't think Dems and Repubs would protect that write off to keep their real rich friends happy. Do you?

Now lets go back to complaining about the woman who get 112 dollars freebie food stamps.

Taking away the mortgage deduction would be the final nail in the coffin of the housing market

-Geaux

 

[zeke]

all interest payments since 1913 were deductible. It started with the idea that biz expense was an offset offered to defray the new taxes and real estate, housing, the investment financing in rent bearing property is enormous, they allowed interest deductions for the creation there of.

as to the mortgage deduction itself, here;

Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86), the interest on all personal loans (including credit card debt) was deductible. TRA86 eliminated that broad deduction, but created the narrower home mortgage interest deduction under the theory that it would encourage home ownership.[18] A New York Times article notes that, in 1913, when interest deductions started, Congress "certainly wasn't thinking of the interest deduction as a stepping-stone to middle-class home ownership, because the tax excluded the first $3,000 (or for married couples, $4,000) of income; less than 1 percent of the population earned more than that;" moreover, during that era, most people who purchased homes paid upfront rather than taking out a mortgage. Rather, the reason for the deduction was that in a nation of small proprietors, it was more difficult to separate business and personal expenses, and so it was simpler to just allow deduction of all interest.[19]

Home mortgage interest deduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't quite answer the question as to why, in this day of hatred for free government, why do people with mortgages get the freebie from the government? Do you know? Would you complain if you had to give up your deduction (if you have a mortgage note?)

120 BILLION A YEAR in tax deduction. A freebie for mortgage holders. Now if you only owe 30k on your house, big deal. But lets say you owe 2.2 million on a mortgage. BIG DEAL is the tax deduction.

You don't think the deduction works really well for the very rich do you? You don't think Dems and Repubs would protect that write off to keep their real rich friends happy. Do you?

Now lets go back to complaining about the woman who get 112 dollars freebie food stamps.

writing off interest is a freebie? I'd say since biz gets do it , why not? Seems fair to me

oh so now it matters what you owe...I see.

instead of hyperventilating you might want to think a moment before you post on this...to wit; if you own a 250 K home or a million $$ home, and only have 30k left on your mortgage, I doubt you are paying much interest at that point....eh? The amount of the interest deduction, is automatically progressive.....

You do realize that a house is the single largest/most valuable asset folks 'own' in almost all income brackets?


I wasn't complaining abut $112 in 'free' food stamps, why don't you go back and have another drink?

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Check out what I actually wrote in the highlighted sections above.

What I said was "if you owe 30k" then I said "but lets say you owe 2.2 million on a mortgage."

I understand you don't read well, but really, was that so hard to read what I really said and understand what was written?

But whats with all the "justification" you put in there? If there were no interest deduction for a mortgage, wouldn't a house still be the single largest asset most people have?
Sure it would. SO what is your point?

 

[Sallow]

The founders were creating an Empire?

Funny..I thought they were fighting one.

The things you learn from Conservatives.

 

[zeke]

all interest payments since 1913 were deductible. It started with the idea that biz expense was an offset offered to defray the new taxes and real estate, housing, the investment financing in rent bearing property is enormous, they allowed interest deductions for the creation there of.

as to the mortgage deduction itself, here;

Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86), the interest on all personal loans (including credit card debt) was deductible. TRA86 eliminated that broad deduction, but created the narrower home mortgage interest deduction under the theory that it would encourage home ownership.[18] A New York Times article notes that, in 1913, when interest deductions started, Congress "certainly wasn't thinking of the interest deduction as a stepping-stone to middle-class home ownership, because the tax excluded the first $3,000 (or for married couples, $4,000) of income; less than 1 percent of the population earned more than that;" moreover, during that era, most people who purchased homes paid upfront rather than taking out a mortgage. Rather, the reason for the deduction was that in a nation of small proprietors, it was more difficult to separate business and personal expenses, and so it was simpler to just allow deduction of all interest.[19]

Home mortgage interest deduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't quite answer the question as to why, in this day of hatred for free government, why do people with mortgages get the freebie from the government? Do you know? Would you complain if you had to give up your deduction (if you have a mortgage note?)

120 BILLION A YEAR in tax deduction. A freebie for mortgage holders. Now if you only owe 30k on your house, big deal. But lets say you owe 2.2 million on a mortgage. BIG DEAL is the tax deduction.

You don't think the deduction works really well for the very rich do you? You don't think Dems and Repubs would protect that write off to keep their real rich friends happy. Do you?

Now lets go back to complaining about the woman who get 112 dollars freebie food stamps.

The obvious answer as to why people who take out mortgages get a tax deduction is that the tax deduction motivates them to spend and stimulate the economy.

Very few, if any, individual purchases have a ripple effect as the purchase of a home. When people purchase a home it is often after the seller has spent money and hired people to improve that home for sale; then the purchaser often goes out and buys new furnishings or appliances or paint for the home. That's why people in finance (including myself) always look to the health of the real estate market when considering the overall health and direction of the economy. Feel free to ask anyone in the industry for confirmation on that if you'd like.

That's the easiest question I'll get all day.

As far as the "free stuff" is concerned, I have noted that it's not about the cost of the "free stuff" -- which is clearly relatively low in the grand scheme of things. It's how the free stuff exacerbates the decline of our culture, as more and more people now expect "the government" to give them the free stuff without even knowing or appreciating from where it comes. People deserve better than to constantly have standards lowered just to make life a little easier for them, when going in the opposite direction would motivate them to improve their own lives. And not wait for the "free stuff".

Most individual and business deductions are designed to stimulate spending and investment. As compared to those who want to just receive.

Probably the second easiest question I'll get all day.

.

And here is hypocrisy writ large.

Hey Mac, when the working poor file for the EIC, and get more back in refund than they paid in, do they spend that additional money to "stimulate" the economy? Sure they do.
But a bunch of right wingers HATE that they get that money. Even thought they are just taking advantage of the tax code. Just like you and I do for the interest deduction.

No. You people that have come out and defended the interest deduction are just like the rest of the population that get a gift from the government that some lobbyist has paid for.

TAKE THE OTHER GUYS MONEY, NOT MINE.

Hypocrites all.

 

[Mac1958]

.

"You people". Wow, Zeke, I thought you knew better.

By this logic, "the government" should just make things much less complicated and just give lots o' money out to anyone who asks for it. They'll spend it, that'll stimulate the economy. And let's eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, that'll be helpful, especially for the real estate market.

You're ignoring my points about the ripple effect of individual home purchases, the wide range of economy-stimulating effects of tax deductions and the negative cultural effects of such actions. I answered your questions, but it's clear you're a little too angry to have a reasonable conversation here.

Here's the good news: You're going to get your way. Enjoy.

.

 

[zeke]

.

"You people". Wow, Zeke, I thought you knew better.

By this logic, "the government" should just make things much less complicated and just give lots o' money out to anyone who asks for it. They'll spend it, that'll stimulate the economy. And let's eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, that'll be helpful, especially for the real estate market.

You're ignoring my points about the ripple effect of individual home purchases, the wide range of economy-stimulating effects of tax deductions and the negative cultural effects of such actions. I answered your questions, but it's clear you're a little too angry to have a reasonable conversation here.

Here's the good news: You're going to get your way. Enjoy.

.

No Mac, I am not ignoring anything. Every dollar that the government puts in the hands of the working poor, or UE insurance or even welfare gets spent.....to stimulate the economy.

But you label all those giveaways as "free stuff". And hate that it happens. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those that hate that some get "free stuff" when mortgage holders are being given one of the most costly free give aways in the tax code.

How come you don't know this stuff? What business is it of the governments if I buy a house. Why should I be rewarded for doing that? Just because it helps "stimulate" the economy. Hell under that idea, the government should send us all a big check for something. Look how much stimulation that would bring.

Either people like you are interested in cutting the deficit by closing tax loopholes or you are not. I just get tired of seeing the working poor get hammered for doing the exact same thing you and I do; take advantage of the tax code.

 

[Geaux4it]

.

"You people". Wow, Zeke, I thought you knew better.

By this logic, "the government" should just make things much less complicated and just give lots o' money out to anyone who asks for it. They'll spend it, that'll stimulate the economy. And let's eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, that'll be helpful, especially for the real estate market.

You're ignoring my points about the ripple effect of individual home purchases, the wide range of economy-stimulating effects of tax deductions and the negative cultural effects of such actions. I answered your questions, but it's clear you're a little too angry to have a reasonable conversation here.

Here's the good news: You're going to get your way. Enjoy.

.

No Mac, I am not ignoring anything. Every dollar that the government puts in the hands of the working poor, or UE insurance or even welfare gets spent.....to stimulate the economy.

But you label all those giveaways as "free stuff". And hate that it happens. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those that hate that some get "free stuff" when mortgage holders are being given one of the most costly free give aways in the tax code.

How come you don't know this stuff? What business is it of the governments if I buy a house. Why should I be rewarded for doing that? Just because it helps "stimulate" the economy. Hell under that idea, the government should send us all a big check for something. Look how much stimulation that would bring.

Either people like you are interested in cutting the deficit by closing tax loopholes or you are not. I just get tired of seeing the working poor get hammered for doing the exact same thing you and I do; take advantage of the tax code.

If it's the government dollars in the first place, then it's 'given' to Americans, and then circulated, what's the point? Why not cut out the middle man and let the housing market fall into a smoldering heap?

Just print 85 billion plus X (X= sum of free stuff) a month?

That's working

-Geaux

 

[zeke]

.

"You people". Wow, Zeke, I thought you knew better.

By this logic, "the government" should just make things much less complicated and just give lots o' money out to anyone who asks for it. They'll spend it, that'll stimulate the economy. And let's eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, that'll be helpful, especially for the real estate market.

You're ignoring my points about the ripple effect of individual home purchases, the wide range of economy-stimulating effects of tax deductions and the negative cultural effects of such actions. I answered your questions, but it's clear you're a little too angry to have a reasonable conversation here.

Here's the good news: You're going to get your way. Enjoy.

.

I almost missed this. Why are you right wingers playing the victim card so much lately? IF anyone responds to your thought process with an argument that is full of fact and hard to refute and they press the point, you all say, "but it's clear you're a little to angry....."

What a load of horse crap. But you are correct in one aspect. I don't like hypocrites. At all. Sorry if that offends you. Some of the right wingers position offend me greatly. Oh well. That's why we are on a message board. So we don't go out and do something stupid.