Biden: Be Patriotic, Pay More Taxes!

[retailguy]

Did you ever think that your clients were attracted to you because of your values? Those that don't go to you don't perhaps share your values.

Funny, then, I guess a bunch of conservatives were putting Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers on their cars to confuse me.

You continue to bring up anecdotal evidence..that doesn't make it a truth.

You continue to quote polling samples that contain as few as 600 participants. If you understood statistics you'd learn that sample sizes as few as 600 are considered "reliable". In spite of this, I continue to label it as anecdotal evidence in support of full disclosure.

Truth to you? who cares. It is truth to me. I experienced it. I have the black and white records in my office 20 feet from me right now.

Mileage: Some people don't care about writing things off.

Again, this was not my experience. If the Biden's had this deduction and did NOT write it off, their CPA should be FIRED. This is a very basic circumstance.

Time: Nothing for you to say about that is there. Giving money is the easier way of contributing. Giving time is much more costly..especially for those with money.

Maybe they gave time, maybe they didn't. The fact that they didn't write off the mileage suggests that they didn't actually give the time, or, that they LOVE to walk. See, Tyrone, even a bus pass is deductible if you can show you used it exclusively for getting to/from a charitable event.

It's not that tough. You spin it however you want. It won't change my experiences, nor the statistics that the IRS collects. Those statistics are published and agree with what I experienced.

[retailguy]

I write off my time I spend here.

I LIKE it! We should think about producing an official email receipt. You should then write off the cost of your DSL line, we can depreciate your computer, and a portion of the electricity used to run it.

It's expensive to get "liberals" converted. You'll be at this for a LONG LONG time, but I admire the effort.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Did you ever think that your clients were attracted to you because of your values? Those that don't go to you don't perhaps share your values.

Funny, then, I guess a bunch of conservatives were putting Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers on their cars to confuse me.

You continue to bring up anecdotal evidence..that doesn't make it a truth.

You continue to quote polling samples that contain as few as 600 participants. If you understood statistics you'd learn that sample sizes as few as 600 are considered "reliable". In spite of this, I continue to label it as anecdotal evidence in support of full disclosure.

Truth to you? who cares. It is truth to me. I experienced it. I have the black and white records in my office 20 feet from me right now.

Mileage: Some people don't care about writing things off.

Again, this was not my experience. If the Biden's had this deduction and did NOT write it off, their CPA should be FIRED. This is a very basic circumstance.

Time: Nothing for you to say about that is there. Giving money is the easier way of contributing. Giving time is much more costly..especially for those with money.

Maybe they gave time, maybe they didn't. The fact that they didn't write off the mileage suggests that they didn't actually give the time, or, that they LOVE to walk. See, Tyrone, even a bus pass is deductible if you can show you used it exclusively for getting to/from a charitable event.

It's not that tough. You spin it however you want. It won't change my experiences, nor the statistics that the IRS collects. Those statistics are published and agree with what I experienced.

Bumper stickers doesnt' mean they don't share your economic values..or personal finance. It isn't a hard concept.

Polling: Say what? When was that?

Truth: Yes, for you, but it doesn't make it universal.

Time: YOu can't read..they gave time...and they also drove. the two are separate incidents.

But, what a surprise for you to question that they do give time to their church. Methinks you wouldn't afford me the same view on your candidates.

Should we not take the word of those in their church who say they give freely of their time and money? Or, are those people liars as well?

Biden's financial disclosure returns also show donations of speaking fees to charity that aren't reported on the tax returns.

Or is the Biden Breast Health Initiative, educating high school girls in Delaware about proper breast health started by Jill..also just another piece of fiction. Yep, more time spent doing that is just..well, a lie.

Jill Biden is also involved with Book Buddies, which gives books to low-income children, and Delaware Boots on the Ground, which supports military families.

Down goes frazier, down goes frazier. Stay down Retail...you are getting pummeled.

And, you can't deny putting 3 kids thru college is draining..as is having a family member live with you. And, let's not forget that Biden is the least wealthy senator.

Again, easy for you and others to criticize..yet, we still are waiting for Mrs. Palin's records. As we also wait for Cindy's.

[retailguy]

If I'd have been Joe Biden, I'd have NEVER released those returns.

You'll die before you see Cindy McCains tax returns. That is why the McCains filed separately. Palin? who knows. We'll see.

Anyone with half a brain can see you spin and spin and spin.

Spend 10 minutes at IRS.gov. You'll see the numbers I talked about are accurate.

You really need to know when to quit. Again, let me "dumb it down" for you. See, a "time" donation of a speech is not deductible, however, the costs to get there, including mileage ARE deductible. Since they didn't DEDUCT THEM, that means the "expenses" were PAID, by the sponsor of the speech.

I do a lot of "free" tax returns. The time I spend is NOT deductible. Any expenses that I incur in support of those free returns IS deductible.

I make less than Biden does on a regular basis. I donate time, mileage, AND my money. A significant percentage of my money. If Biden is a cheap ass, and I believe him to be, I'll call it that way too. If Palin releases her returns, and gave $3k at a similar income level over the last 10 years, I'll be embarassed for her also. IT IS PATHETIC, no matter who it is.

Your defense - PRICELESS.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If I'd have been Joe Biden, I'd have NEVER released those returns.

You'll die before you see Cindy McCains tax returns. That is why the McCains filed separately. Palin? who knows. We'll see.

Anyone with half a brain can see you spin and spin and spin.

Spend 10 minutes at IRS.gov. You'll see the numbers I talked about are accurate.

You really need to know when to quit. Again, let me "dumb it down" for you. See, a "time" donation of a speech is not deductible, however, the costs to get there, including mileage ARE deductible. Since they didn't DEDUCT THEM, that means the "expenses" were PAID, by the sponsor of the speech.

I do a lot of "free" tax returns. The time I spend is NOT deductible. Any expenses that I incur in support of those free returns IS deductible.

I make less than Biden does on a regular basis. I donate time, mileage, AND my money. A significant percentage of my money. If Biden is a cheap ass, and I believe him to be, I'll call it that way too. If Palin releases her returns, and gave $3k at a similar income level over the last 10 years, I'll be embarassed for her also. IT IS PATHETIC, no matter who it is.

Your defense - PRICELESS.

Your refusal to accept reality..priceless.

The bidens started the breast health, and she is president of it. Doing charity work for 15 years.

Book buddies and Chairwoman of Boots on the ground (supporting military families)..so, that is 3 orgs she gives her time to...hmm, i guess she should do more.

The fact remains that they do charity work...because they dont' write it off you chastise them.

The simple fact remains. They give of their time and money. .

You should be embarrassed that you continue to exhibit his level of partisanship.

[HowardRoark]

100 IBUs! Midnight sun brewed an IPA that was 200IBUs...it was like sucking a grapefruit.

http://www.midnightsunbrewing.com/beer_7DSgluttony.php

The Surly stuff looks good...I'll have to look for it when I'm down/over that way.

Your beer fear tactics are not working though...

Alright, I can click on the link at home now. That stuff looks pretty good.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/385/35400

We should get everyone to drink a couple (nice ABV) and see how the RomperRoom looks/reads.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"In February, she joined Delaware Boots on the Ground, a small nonprofit of fewer than 30 people that raises money to help military members and their families with problems the military does not cover, such as paying electric bills or helping with back-to-school supplies for children, cofounder Shirley Brooks said.

The Biden name was an asset in itself: Jill Biden knew business owners and politicians who could donate larger sums and raise the organization's profile.

But she didn't stop there. When she suggested they have a fund-raiser during the week of the Fourth of July, she helped decorate big water jugs to collect dollars and change and sat at tables in local grocery stores to ask for donations, Brooks said.

She never introduced herself by name, telling shoppers she was simply a Boots on the Ground volunteer.

Before Jill Biden, the organization had only $1,500. After one week of fund-raising, the group had more than $30,000, Brooks said.

"When she came to us initially, we thought she was just going to lend us her name," Brooks said. "But it turns out that she was a volunteer who got down into the trenches with us to fund-raise."

What a loser!!!

[texaspackerbacker]

That sounds downright Keynesian, Howard. Maybe there's hope for you after all.

Private employment Tex. I am not a Socialist.

Government contractors ARE private employers--as are the second and third and fourth and fifth and so on levels of recipients of income generated by tax cuts AND government spending.

It's the RAISING of taxes that kills the golden goose.

This is one debate I can do after a few beers. Perhaps Later. Tex, I just don't get it how a guy who rants and raves about Conservative values is such an advocate of the Federal Government moving the money around the economy.

We all know about the "multiplier effect".....why do believe the starting point has to come from the Government.

Two quick points:

a) free enterprise will sift through good ideas and bad ideas and expand economies.

b) the other day you mentioned that an individual might just stick his money in the bank and that is not good for the economy. That is wrong.....the bank can lend out that money many times over, it doesn't just sit there. And anyway, most of that capital is invested in equiteis and bonds. Again, WHEREVER THE INDIVIDUAL WANTS TO INVEST IT!!!

First of all, before I get into the meat and potatoes, the salad: I don't remember. Did Teresa Heinz Kerry release her tax returns? That would seem to be the precedent for Cindy McCain one way or the other.

OK, Howard. When you talk about "everything starting with government" are you saying tax cuts do or don't "start with government". Obviously, the preferable way to stimulate economic growth is tax cuts. My point, though, is simply that it--the Multiplier--works both ways--money NOT confiscated by the government OR money re-injected by the government into the economy. The ONLY difference is the FAIRNESS ANGLE. I'm with you on that--spending/redistribution/whatever is NOT fair. THAT, however, is NOT an economic consideration. It is a social or moral consideration. Could you possibly disagree with any of that? If so, I'm sure you'll let me know. Be specific, though.

If you start the cycle in the middle--with no increase of money in the hands of consumers/investors, then no, you DON'T end up with macro-economic growth. Do you really think otherwise?

Yes, you're right that free enterprise WILL sift through good ideas and bad--and maximize the good and minimize the bad--expanding MICRO-economic situations--participants that win and participants that lose, but the net effect on the macro-economy is neutral.

I don't recall making the comment about sticking money in banks not being good. If you change it to "not AS good", then it's true--because of requirements that banks retain a portion of demand deposits. The bottom line, though, is that the money that individual may choose to either spend, save/invest, or whatever is INCOME. It came from someplace--and the more money in the money supply, the more INCOME there is to go around--and around and around and around--the Multiplier.

You praise free enterprise; Well, this IS free enterprise. There's a reason they call it Capitalism--because Capital is required to get things rolling.

[HowardRoark]

First of all, before I get into the meat and potatoes, the salad: I don't remember. Did Teresa Heinz Kerry release her tax returns? That would seem to be the precedent for Cindy McCain one way or the other.

OK, Howard. When you talk about "everything starting with government" are you saying tax cuts do or don't "start with government". Obviously, the preferable way to stimulate economic growth is tax cuts. My point, though, is simply that it--the Multiplier--works both ways--money NOT confiscated by the government OR money re-injected by the government into the economy. The ONLY difference is the FAIRNESS ANGLE. I'm with you on that--spending/redistribution/whatever is NOT fair. THAT, however, is NOT an economic consideration. It is a social or moral consideration. Could you possibly disagree with any of that? If so, I'm sure you'll let me know. Be specific, though.

If you start the cycle in the middle--with no increase of money in the hands of consumers/investors, then no, you DON'T end up with macro-economic growth. Do you really think otherwise?

Yes, you're right that free enterprise WILL sift through good ideas and bad--and maximize the good and minimize the bad--expanding MICRO-economic situations--participants that win and participants that lose, but the net effect on the macro-economy is neutral.

I don't recall making the comment about sticking money in banks not being good. If you change it to "not AS good", then it's true--because of requirements that banks retain a portion of demand deposits. The bottom line, though, is that the money that individual may choose to either spend, save/invest, or whatever is INCOME. It came from someplace--and the more money in the money supply, the more INCOME there is to go around--and around and around and around--the Multiplier.

You praise free enterprise; Well, this IS free enterprise. There's a reason they call it Capitalism--because Capital is required to get things rolling.

This is either a Rashomon issue or a Rain Man issue…I haven’t decided yet.

I guess we agree. All along though, you made it sound as though it is a wonderful thing that Federal Government takes our money and is so kind as to spend it in the economy. As though it’s their money to begin with and ain’t we lucky to get a few crumbs via the multiplier.

I consider it our money. And I think the individual can make a much better decision as to how to multiply that money. And more successful too.

[texaspackerbacker]

First of all, before I get into the meat and potatoes, the salad: I don't remember. Did Teresa Heinz Kerry release her tax returns? That would seem to be the precedent for Cindy McCain one way or the other.

OK, Howard. When you talk about "everything starting with government" are you saying tax cuts do or don't "start with government". Obviously, the preferable way to stimulate economic growth is tax cuts. My point, though, is simply that it--the Multiplier--works both ways--money NOT confiscated by the government OR money re-injected by the government into the economy. The ONLY difference is the FAIRNESS ANGLE. I'm with you on that--spending/redistribution/whatever is NOT fair. THAT, however, is NOT an economic consideration. It is a social or moral consideration. Could you possibly disagree with any of that? If so, I'm sure you'll let me know. Be specific, though.

If you start the cycle in the middle--with no increase of money in the hands of consumers/investors, then no, you DON'T end up with macro-economic growth. Do you really think otherwise?

Yes, you're right that free enterprise WILL sift through good ideas and bad--and maximize the good and minimize the bad--expanding MICRO-economic situations--participants that win and participants that lose, but the net effect on the macro-economy is neutral.

I don't recall making the comment about sticking money in banks not being good. If you change it to "not AS good", then it's true--because of requirements that banks retain a portion of demand deposits. The bottom line, though, is that the money that individual may choose to either spend, save/invest, or whatever is INCOME. It came from someplace--and the more money in the money supply, the more INCOME there is to go around--and around and around and around--the Multiplier.

You praise free enterprise; Well, this IS free enterprise. There's a reason they call it Capitalism--because Capital is required to get things rolling.

This is either a Rashomon issue or a Rain Man issue…I haven’t decided yet.

I guess we agree. All along though, you made it sound as though it is a wonderful thing that Federal Government takes our money and is so kind as to spend it in the economy. As though it’s their money to begin with and ain’t we lucky to get a few crumbs via the multiplier.

I consider it our money. And I think the individual can make a much better decision as to how to multiply that money. And more successful too.

It IS a wonderful thing--not quite as wonderful as if they never confiscated it in the first place, but beneficial just the same.

I know this is REALLY gonna set you off, but the best case scenario of all is if you cut taxes AND inject funds into the economy--deficit spending if needed. It all comes back over time anyway as income and therefore the tax base is increased.