Bush is a hero

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#158348 Jan 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Business dinner; 50% writeoff. IRS doesn't check the vintage of the wine, the items consumed, the amount of the tip, nothing. It's the regular practice among the wealthy, and they laugh all the way to the bank.
This is the reality. The taxpayer takes the hit.
But, Catcher, its already against the law. Just because the IRS doesnt get into the bill, they have the right to, and if they would, it could not be written off. really I think your beef is with the IRS and the dishonesty of people in general. i doubt its just the rich doing it. When it comes to taxes and how that money is pissed away by the government, i think many take a few small risks to save a dime here or there.

Rich people do it on a higher scale though, obviously.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#158349 Jan 29, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>However it is usually a mistake to generalize. As a Catholic I am very aware of the Church's weaknesses and get quite angry at its duplicate nature.
Individuals give you no clue as to what Catholics are really about (Kerry and Pelosi and the Kennedy had no trouble denouncing its stance on abortion)and institutions have no problem going against its teachings. That is because it is made up of individuals. The Catholic church has been as liberal as can be in some cases and as far right as it can be in others. I personally believe people should be allowed to use birth control at their discretion, but it doesn't change the fact that I think government has no business telling ANY employer or private institution what it should or should not provide. All perks are taken into consideration when a person decides if they want a job. If they just can't live with the idea of not being provided birth control, they don't work there.
Excellent post, Lis :)

The government telling employers what they can or cannot provide is tantamount to telling private landowners what they can or cannot do on their own property. To a certain extent, that IS appropriate, for instance when drilling on one's own land for oil will have a harmful environmental impact on the next-door neighbor's land. And employers must be accountable for certain safety standards, not just for the benefit of the employees but for those in the vicinity who may be harmed if safety measures are not employed.

But have you noticed that THOSE things are EXTERNALS? Neither government nor employers can regulate what goes on INSIDE our bodies--and they shouldn't try. And since they can't be held responsible for what people do with their bodies, neither should they be responsible for promoting OR discouraging reproduction OR birth control methods.

Women have the right to get abortions if they so wish. But it doesn't follow that employers are responsible for keeping them from getting pregnant in the first place. If an employer wants to offer health insurance which includes birth control, fine, but they absolutely should not be REQUIRED to do so.

Not requiring employers to provide health insurance which includes birth control is hardly a violation of a woman's rights.

Why not? I'm so glad you asked ;) BECAUSE SHE IS STILL ABLE TO OBTAIN BIRTH CONTROL IN ZILLIONS OF OTHER WAYS. She can buy her own pills or IUD, she can insist her partner use a condom, etc. She can get an abortion or even simply refrain from sex. But you know what? EMPLOYERS are Americans with rights, too. And requiring them to provide something which goes against their beliefs violates THEIR rights.

If I'm not mistaken, Watchtower Society theology forbids Jehovah's Witnesses from donating blood or accepting transfusions. Would you require an employer who was a Jehovah's Witness to provide a pint of his or her blood to an employee on the operating table, or to accept a transfusion from an employee?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#158350 Jan 29, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>For me it's a question of minimal standards, for the greatest good (ostensibly at least). No different than labor law, food and drug safety, worker protection, child safety, public health, automobile standards, and so on. Are you opposed to all these as well, or does reproductive health carry some kind of special mojo?
Hip, who's to say which is "the greatest good"? Upholding "women's right to birth control" or upholding employers' rights to live by what they claim to believe?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#158351 Jan 29, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
There is NO excuse for 12 million illegals entering the US over a period of time and violating our law by border jumping. Over that period, they could have/should have gotten in line behind other immigrants entering legally. We either have laws and enforce them or we don't.
But these people flaunted our laws and couldn't be bothered with getting in line behind legal immigrants. As you saw in the LA protests about a year ago, many of them were waving their homeland flags, shouting down the police and have proven that they have NO intention of learning our language.
And they protested in this country, instead of protesting in their own country long ago, to demand that everyone is afforded the opportunity to earn a decent wage, and end the widespread corruption. Demand that the gov't crack down on the drug cartels and stop their violent dominance. If those issues had been dealt with properly, the US wouldn't be overrun with another 12 million illegal aliens. Remember Reagan gave several million amnesty in the mid 80's.
Entitlement spending is the main cause of CA being on the verge of bankruptcy. And illegal aliens are getting billions of $$ that we can't afford. So, what's the solution in Sacramento? Just hike up our taxes some more! "Si se puedo".
http://spanish.about.com/b/2006/04/11/does-s-...
So you have changed your mind and DO NOT support the bipartisan proposal?

BTW, it's "si se puede", not puedo.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#158352 Jan 29, 2013
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
But, Catcher, its already against the law. Just because the IRS doesnt get into the bill, they have the right to, and if they would, it could not be written off. really I think your beef is with the IRS and the dishonesty of people in general. i doubt its just the rich doing it. When it comes to taxes and how that money is pissed away by the government, i think many take a few small risks to save a dime here or there.
Rich people do it on a higher scale though, obviously.
Why is a business dinner not deductible?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#158353 Jan 29, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
The view of the majority of Americans is that Congress is tanking and Obama is supposed to be leading that body, is he not?
==

You keep talking about the majority of Americans........
A majority of Americans would liked to have seen a budget presented in the last 3+ years. A majority of Amercans would liked to have seen the deficit genuinely addressed. A majority of Americans didn't want Obamacare. A majority of Americans now know Obama was talking out of someplace other than his mouth when he said al-Qeada was on the run. A majority of Americans would like spending curbed. A majority of Americans are wondering where all the jobs are he promised. A majority of Americans would agree this nation is deeply divided. A majority of Americans feel the women of Afghanistan truly have a war waged on them while the women of the US are yammering about free birth control and pretending it's a war.

Maybe in your world people are sleeping better because the president is being a stand-up guy for the wellbeing of the gay community and inmates in California can now have the state pay for their sex change operations. I might remind you that 2 million Californians have left your state in the last 10 years in search of a job and a life which you can no longer provide them and you're whistling a happy tune because your taxes have shot up.

I don't believe the majority of Americans Catcher are wringing their hands over womens rights, gay rights or whether the 37 members of the Martinez family living in the US illegally can have a swift path to entitlements and citizenship. I think a vast number of Americans are worried about their ability to get by.
Amen, Lyndi :)

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#158354 Jan 29, 2013
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
But, Catcher, its already against the law. Just because the IRS doesnt get into the bill, they have the right to, and if they would, it could not be written off. really I think your beef is with the IRS and the dishonesty of people in general. i doubt its just the rich doing it. When it comes to taxes and how that money is pissed away by the government, i think many take a few small risks to save a dime here or there.

Rich people do it on a higher scale though, obviously.
For sure, it's not how rich you are which determines how honest you are. There are people in this world who haven't got a penny, yet would return a lost wallet filled with thousands, and there are also people who are very rich who would return the same wallet.

There are also poor people who would slit your throat for five bucks or your Nikes, and billionaires who wouldn't hesitate to steal a bricklayer's life savings. If you're honest, you're honest over a quarter or a million, and the same can be said if you're dishonest. Whether you're stealing a buck or robbing from union pensions, you're still a thief and a scoundrel.
911facts

Pittsfield, MA

#158355 Jan 29, 2013

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#158356 Jan 29, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry I missed this. No, just temp out. While I don't wish it on anyone its nice to he home. Romans 8:28 Gods love.
I'm sorry you're in pain, but I am VERY glad you don't have to worry about your job at the same time :)

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#158357 Jan 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have changed your mind and DO NOT support the bipartisan proposal?
BTW, it's "si se puede", not puedo.
No I have NOT changed my mind. I clearly said those are things I would do if >I< had the authority. Try to keep up.

No need to corect typoos. Unti these fora akwire edit featyre, there will be plenty.

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#158358 Jan 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is a business dinner not deductible?
Its the wine thats not deductible..........

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#158359 Jan 29, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
For sure, it's not how rich you are which determines how honest you are. There are people in this world who haven't got a penny, yet would return a lost wallet filled with thousands, and there are also people who are very rich who would return the same wallet.
There are also poor people who would slit your throat for five bucks or your Nikes, and billionaires who wouldn't hesitate to steal a bricklayer's life savings. If you're honest, you're honest over a quarter or a million, and the same can be said if you're dishonest. Whether you're stealing a buck or robbing from union pensions, you're still a thief and a scoundrel.
I totally agree......

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#158360 Jan 29, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>In the absence of real examples, very often opposition takes to predicting what dire events will happen, or what XYZ was thinking, or what is really in XYZ's heart. It serves to besmirch a person or initiative in the absence of real dirt. The beauty of it is, it's stated, or posted, it's as good as if it really happened, but no one ever is called upon to come back to it to see how it turned out. It would be an interesting exercise (for those with more time than myself) to go back on these boards and list all the dire predictions made over the last 5-6 years, and see how they came out.

Would you be willing to track what happens with this legislation and report back on the "wrench", or lack thereof?
If you mean will I be watching the news of the progress of this bill, and be willing to put in my two cents' worth about it here--well, Hip, you've known me for years now. What do YOU think?

;)

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#158361 Jan 29, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
No I have NOT changed my mind. I clearly said those are things I would do if >I< had the authority. Try to keep up.
No need to corect typoos. Unti these fora akwire edit featyre, there will be plenty.
It's "tiepose," not "typoos."

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#158362 Jan 29, 2013
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
I totally agree......
Thanks, Larry :)

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#158363 Jan 29, 2013
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
Its the wine thats not deductible..........
Under what section of the Internal Revenue Code?

There's a "no deductibility for wine" provision?

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#158364 Jan 29, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>All who have ever broken any law, regulation, or rule, and gotten away with it, please report to the appropriate authority and take your medicine.

Those who have done so to improve your lot in life and prospects for your family may be eligible to special dispensation.
Your attempt at jesting over a serious matter is duly noted, Rico.
But if we are a nation of laws to be enforced, where's the manual to overlook certain ones because "it's the right thing to do?"
Shall we individually (or as a group) decide which ones we will obey?

And is there no difference between US citizens violating our laws, and foreign nationals violating US laws? If you don't see border jumping as a violation of US law, there's not much else to discuss.

I addressed the part about coming here to "improve one's lot in life" in msg #158346.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#158365 Jan 29, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>
It's "tiepose," not "typoos."
Tanx!

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#158366 Jan 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Under what section of the Internal Revenue Code?
There's a "no deductibility for wine" provision?
I dont know Catcher, but it would surprise the hell outta me if the IRS let anyone deduct alchohol. Hell I cant deduct 100% of my work truck usage and there gonna let someone deduct there booze charges? That'll whiz me off..........

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#158367 Jan 29, 2013
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont know Catcher, but it would surprise the hell outta me if the IRS let anyone deduct alchohol. Hell I cant deduct 100% of my work truck usage and there gonna let someone deduct there booze charges? That'll whiz me off..........
You sure can deduct the wine. Drinks, too.

That's why, in the U.S., it's nice to be wealthy.

Let's work to change things, that's all I'm saying.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 5 min TrumpTheRetard 42,608
Why it's high time to get rid of billionaires 9 min Johnny 66
Bring the jobs back to the USA! 16 min Johnny 668
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 17 min KENTUCKY CATHOLIC 690,653
Poll What's the most exotic/hottest mixed race group? (Jan '13) 59 min Doctor REALITY 27
Here's What's Really Behind NFL Players Taking ... 1 hr Sedwick 1
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 2 hr --IslandGurL-- 4,370
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr Insults Are Easier 989,936
More from around the web