Food for thought on Capital Gains increase

Anytime you sell anything, be it a home, car, truck, or anything at all that appreciates in value, do you realize the capital gains tax will affect your bottom line?

Say you buy a car for $200 and know it's worth $1200. If you turn around and sell that car for $1200, you're paying capital gains on the difference.

If the O raises the capital gains tax to 24-25% like he wants to, it will be your loss. Do you really want to pay another $250 in taxes on something you paid $200 for?

I sure don't.

• Food for thought on Capital Gains increase - Backwards typist

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
St. Francis of Assisi

He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his dealings wtih animals.

Immanuel Kant

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — Democrats and their allies mapped out a strategy on Friday that they hoped would enable them to override President Bush’s expected veto of a bipartisan bill providing health insurance for 10 million children, most of them in low-income families.

Democratic leaders said they would highlight the contrast between the president’s request for large sums of money for the Iraq war and his opposition to smaller sums for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as Schip.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said, “It’s ironic that in the very same week that the president says he’s going to veto the bill because we can’t afford it, he is asking, what, for $45 billion more over and above his initial request for the war in Iraq, money that we know is being spent without accountability, without a plan for how we can leave Iraq.”

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said, “This is all a matter of priorities: the cost of Iraq, $333 million a day; the cost of Schip, $19 million a day.”

The campaign for the legislation will also include grass-roots advocacy and political advertisements, and will initially focus on about 15 House Republicans who voted against the bill. Supporters of the legislation hope to persuade them to switch.

But House Republican leaders said they felt sure they could sustain the veto, and two lawmakers on the Democrats’ list said that they would support Mr. Bush.

The bill passed this week by the House and the Senate would provide $60 billion for the program over the next five years, up $35 billion from the current level of spending. On Wednesday, the administration said it would seek $42 billion more for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing its total request to nearly $190 billion for the 2008 fiscal year, which begins Monday.

In an interview on Friday, the House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, said there was “a 100 percent probability” that the House would sustain the president’s veto.

But, Mr. Blunt said, the coincidental timing of the vote on the child health bill and the request for money in Iraq “was not helpful.”

The White House, on the defensive, is trying to bolster Republicans who fear they might be penalized by voters if they side with the president.

Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said Friday, “It is preposterous for people to suggest that the president of the United States doesn’t care about children, that he wants children to suffer.”

Ms. Perino said the president had a policy difference with Democrats in Congress because he did not want “additional government-run health care, socialized-type medicine.”

Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who helped write the bill, said he would reach out to House Republicans and urge them to override the veto.

“This bill is not socialized medicine,” Mr. Grassley said. “Screaming ‘socialized medicine’ is like shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from reading the bill, looking at the facts.”

The battle will be fought in the House, where the child health bill was approved on Tuesday by a vote of 265 to 159 — well short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.

Ms. Pelosi called Mr. Bush on Friday and said she was praying he would sign the bill.

But Mr. Blunt said: “I bet she’s praying for him not to sign it. The bill is all about politics. It’s pretty good politics for the Democrats.”

Still, Democrats face an uphill fight to persuade Republicans to change their votes. Supporters would need 289 yes votes to enact the bill over the president’s objections if all the members were voting.

The House now has 433 members and two vacant seats.

One of the Republicans singled out for special attention by Democrats was Representative Judy Biggert, from a suburban Chicago district. She was one of 16 Republicans who signed a letter to the speaker last week, urging her to take up the Senate version of the child health bill.

The compromise closely followed the Senate version, but Mrs. Biggert voted against it, saying, “It would push Americans one step closer to socialized medicine.”

In an interview on Friday, Mrs. Biggert said she would vote to sustain the veto.

Democrats said they would also focus their efforts on Republicans like Representatives Timothy V. Johnson of Illinois, John R. Kuhl Jr. of New York, Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan and H. James Saxton of New Jersey.

Mr. McCotter said he was a big supporter of the child health program, but would vote to uphold the president’s veto, even if critics ran television advertisements against him.

Under the bill, the federal excise tax on cigarettes would be increased to $1 a pack, from the current 39 cents.

“I vowed never to raise taxes on anybody, no matter how disliked they might be,” Mr. McCotter said in an interview. He said he would rather be voted out of office than go back on his promises to constituents.

Republican senators who worked on the compromise bill, like Mr. Grassley and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, said they had tried in vain to persuade White House officials to join the negotiations.

Ms. Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said that after vetoing the bill, Mr. Bush would like to “sit down and come to a compromise” with Congress.

The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said the president should not hold his breath waiting for such a deal. Democrats, he said, have already made many concessions to keep the support of Senate Republicans.

A lot of times a "no" vote comes from some hidden provision that doesn't jive with the candidates' personal policies, i.e. it might not be that they disagree with the issue, but instead that they disagree with the strategy proposed to tackle it.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/god-constitutions.htm

I'm not sure if this website has any politicial affiliation (I couldn't find one), but I checked several of the states constitutions out and they were spot on.  Now, I'm not a Bible thumper (or even attend church regularly), but I thought this was interesting considering Obama's speech.  

Please note that at no time in any of these constitutions is anyone told that they MUST worship God.

I just watched the video where he stated he was going to put such high caps and make the coal industries pay mucho dollars and hopefully bankrupt the coal industry. BUT, he also stated he would use dollars they must pay if they want to use coal, for clean energy policies like wind power, etc.

 So, that said, how does he intend to pay for all his other energy technology if he bankrupts the coal industry and businesses that use coal? After all, if he bankrupts the businesses that use coal which, by the way, is most electric power plants, whose pocket will he be dipping into for the money for his clean energy policies???

Talking out of both sides of his mouth again.

donations are way down.

In this situation, people can't help other people if they can't help themselves.

to $100,000 each.

Maybe if he spent more money on protective armor and less money on free health care for all IRAQIS, there might not be the need to pay out so many $100,000 policies.

Our soldiers obviously hold no value to Bush unless they're DEAD.

And every single point you mentioned in your post is right on target!

There are so many ways to cut food costs and eat healthy.

Cook, repeat cook oatmeal for breakfast. Eggs anyway

One pound of ground turkey, chopped onion sauteed, mix with 1-2 cans of diced tomatoes, 1-2 cans of beans (pinto, black, etc.) seasonings like cumin, chili, etc. serve over brown rice that you cook - or over a small pasta, or in a tortlla.

Soup - homemade - diced tomatoes, onion, celery, carrots, any type of beans, frozen cut okra, etc. add water and seasonings - add Butterball smoked turkey sausage cut into half slices

I make a pot of soup every week and eat until gone, then a new one.

I also cook my beans from dry - very inexpensive and very nutritious

Hope you think this is helpful for that is what I want to be. Your present eating program is soooo unhealthy. I would be glad to share any of my other low-cost recpies with you.

Best wishes.

Rep. Pete Sessions, head of the House Republican committee tasked with electing more GOP members, has a unique theory as to why unemployment continues to rise: Obama wants to wipe out capitalism.

Deep into a New York Times item Monday about rising jobless numbers comes a theory that the Times gently refers to as an "argument" that "may indeed face an uphill fight."

Sessions told the Times that Obama's plan is to "diminish employment and diminish stock prices." By doing so, Obama "intended to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not to kill it" as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy to consolidate power.

The Times then follows with another understated gem: "Polls offer little evidence that Americans are prepared to accept those arguments."

So is Obama part of some communist sleeper cell intent on destroying America? For Sessions, it's nothing new to think of politics in terrorist terms -- only in the past Sessions has argued that the Republican Party ought to emulate terrorists, not that Obama already does.

The GOP, Sessions famously argued in February, ought to model its "insurgency" after the Taliban. "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," he said.

"And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message.

And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Asked to clarify if he was indeed suggesting House Republicans model themselves after the Taliban, he said: "I simply said one can see that there's a model out there for insurgency."

A Sessions spokesman didn't immediately return a call. An NRCC spokesman stood by the remark:

"The Chairman was simply reiterating what many members of the Democratic Party have echoed over the past several weeks, which is that one-party dominance in Washington has further damaged our economy and undercut our country's free enterprise system."

I just asked my son's girlfriend who works at a grocery store if you can buy soda with food stamps and she said yes-no wine or beer, no toilet paper, shampoo or other nonedible things and no cigarettes, but soda and candy, chips, yes.

able to have a garden? Don't you have a produce market? Can or freeze veggies and fruits in season. Buy meats in bulk and freeze. Our markets allow food stamps. Stock up on a sale and freeze. Most meats last 6 months frozen.

DH has relatives in western NY and they always had plenty because they did the above. There was no junk food bought with food stamps. In fact, they never even applied for food stamps even though they would probably qualified for them. They took nothing free from the government. There was no junk food in their home, either except on a "special occasion."

Please don't think I am accusing everyone who gets public assistance of this.  Many people who get the assistance really need it, and I have a friend who is an example. 

But there is also a subculture involved here.  People can qualify for food stamps who have undocumented income, under-the-table earnings, and even money from criminal activity.  They don't actually need the food stamps to eat, but they get them. 

Back when food stamps were actual coupons, there used to be a thriving black market in buying and selling food stamps for a percentage of their cash value.  Then the money could be used for tobacco, alcohol, drugs and other things.  Maybe the new debit card system put a stop to this, maybe not.  The money goes into your account every month.  All it would take is lending your card and sharing your PIN number with someone.  My friend has never been asked for ID.

And if the object of this assistance is to feed (and I think by that we mean nourish) people, is it right for parents to stuff their kids full of twinkies, chips and Pepsi with the food stamp money?  What the kids need is nourishment, not junk.  What we end up with is another poorly nourished, hyperactive generation that cannot  concentrate and learn in school, then cannot hold down an adequate job, and the cycle repeats itself. 

In the county where I live, if you are on public health assistance and get pregnant you have to comply with a whole host of requirements.  Parenting classes, classes on prenatal nutrition, classes on how to take care of an infant, regular checkups, drug tests, classes on contraception, etc.  You should consider this a job.  We are paying you to have a healthy baby, and these are your duties.  Women scream about this being degrading, and an invasion of their privacy. 

But honestly, if you accept the assistance, why would you assume there should be no strings?  Why would you assume you don't have to jump through some hoops to get it?  Do you expect to be left alone until the day of delivery, get a free stay in the hospital, and go your merry way?  Can't we assume that since this is your second illegetimate pregnancy, you don't really know what's causing it?  Or you forgot and need to repeat the class?

These types of assistance are supposed to be an investment society makes in improving the situation.  Used properly, they can be.  But often they are considered just another entitlement.  *Just gimme the money and get outta my face.*

is when family members and other private American citizens are forced to personally purchase and send BODY ARMOR to the troops because your precious God Bush doesn't care enough about them to supply them with adequate equipment that might help KEEP THEM ALIVE.  But to you CONS, the only good soldier is A DEAD ONE.  That's the difference between you and us:  We want them to stay ALIVE. 

Believe it or not, you are less important to me than I am to you.  Your words are wasted on me, because I don't possess one iota of respect for you and those of your ilk.  You simply aren't worthy of it.

If you find this board so objectionable, I can't understand why you continue to impose your presence here.  There is a CON board for your use and convenience.  Instead, you come here and impose your views on people who are of a different political ideology and then stomp your foot and whine and sigh and complain when they refuse to let you control them.  You're beginning to find out just how difficult it's going to be for you to control all Americans.  It just ain't gonna happen.  We don't want you imposing on our religious beliefs, we don't want you in our bedrooms, and we'll decide birth and death issues, as well as stem cell issues, and any other PERSONAL issues independently, without CON control, interference and intervention. 

You said you're leaving.  Time will tell what you're really made of and whether you're being honest and truly do leave or whether, like a true Bushie, you're NOT telling the truth.  My guess is not.