Please No Spam (example inside)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Like you do? Whatever silly old man.
You are "The Snitch" right? So stating facts isn't really name calling, is it?If you are referring to the armed government agent that was threatening to jail Americans because of their political beliefs and/or social standing, and was terminated from that position of power for admitting the same, then yep, you are ignorant.

[cutthemdown]

Geezus you sound like my 8 year old fighting with his older brother.

Since family is off limits you shouldn't use them to make a rip.

[El Minion]

Like you do? Whatever silly old man.
You are "The Snitch" right? So stating facts isn't really name calling, is it?

Hypocrite. You are no different than gang members and criminals who use intimidation and threats of violence to silence innocent citizens on exposing illegal and criminal acts, especially those entrusted to protect us from them.

This uniform suites you better:

http://blogitoutb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/snitchesgetstitches.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

His takes?

You rarely get an honest opinion out of the guy. It's almost always either copied material, cartoons, or insults. The closest we've gotten to an actual opinion is his claim that he's left the Democratic party but I think that's more so he doesn't have to account for his party while attacking the Republicans. Aside from that, he's a hollow propagandist.

This post is a perfect example of why you and your fellow Fox News lemmings suffer from the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

Your perceptions and your claims seldom match reality.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Snitch got what he wanted. Little p***Y got his thorn pulled by a mod. Happy now snitch.

You're living proof that republicans are essentially criminal minds.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Snitches stick together...

???

What part of "this thread would not exist without massive lobbying by right-wing 'snitches'" don't you get?

[ant1999e]

Hypocrite. You are no different than gang members and criminals who use intimidation and threats of violence to silence innocent citizens on exposing illegal and criminal acts, especially those entrusted to protect us from them.

This uniform suites you better:

http://blogitoutb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/snitchesgetstitches.jpg

There's a difference between calling the cops for a crime and whining to the mods cause someone hurt your feelings.
But nice try an attempting to criminalize me.

[ant1999e]

???

What part of "this thread would not exist without massive lobbying by right-wing 'snitches'" don't you get?

True but what part of snitches being on both sides don't you get? BTW, who complained to the mods about Lonestar? I'm sure it wasn't a.right-wing snitch.

[ant1999e]

Hypocrite. You are no different than gang members and criminals who use intimidation and threats of violence to silence innocent citizens on exposing illegal and criminal acts, especially those entrusted to protect us from them.

This uniform suites you better:

http://blogitoutb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/snitchesgetstitches.jpg

And by uniform, what uniform are you referring to?

[El Minion]

There's a difference between calling the cops for a crime and whining to the mods cause someone hurt your feelings.
But nice try an attempting to criminalize me.

You have criminalized yourself. As others have pointed out, Stevetensi was using/abusing his authority as a police officer to wrongfully and illegally harass and arrest citizens, exclusively Latinos in New Mexico. So he was/is racist and I'm sure your protection of him gives great aid and comfort to fellow abusers in uniform, especially racists ones, that you will come quickly with posts of "snitches" to their defense on accusations of wrongdoing under the color of authority.

Typical.

[El Minion]

And by uniform, what uniform are you referring to?

If the uniform fits...

[cutthemdown]

Whats funnier is I have snitched on people for family rips. But that is it. That was supposed to be our line in the sand but in reality there is no line. It's a squiggle.

I have never read anything from LABF that would warrant being removed from the marketplace of ideas. Likewise I don't think just posting to many topics is grounds for a ban unless you have said keep it to 5 topics a day max. But Taco won't want to make any rules that diminish traffic. Don't you guys get it. He wants tons of posts. He loves people like me who think they are clever and have something to say.

[ant1999e]

If the uniform fits...

You said this uniform "fits suits you better". Better than what?

[ant1999e]

You have criminalized yourself. As others have pointed out, Stevetensi was using/abusing his authority as a police officer to wrongfully and illegally harass and arrest citizens, exclusively Latinos in New Mexico. So he was/is racist and I'm sure your protection of him gives great aid and comfort to fellow abusers in uniform, especially racists ones, that you will come quickly with posts of "snitches" to their defense on accusations of wrongdoing under the color of authority.

Typical.

Latino? Are they from Latin America? I'm Mexican American, Hispanic, Latino or whatever makes whites feel better to label me as and you're accusing me of being racist?
What someone posts on a message board isn't always truth. It was a Biotch move by a Biotch regardless of tensi being a racist or not.

[El Minion]

You said this uniform "fits suits you better". Better than what?

Bronco Beerslug is right (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3581054&postcount=248).

[El Minion]

Latino? Are they from Latin America? I'm Mexican American, Hispanic, Latino or whatever makes whites feel better to label me as and you're accusing me of being racist?
What someone posts on a message board isn't always truth. It was a Biotch move by a Biotch regardless of tensi being a racist or not.

It appears you can smell your own.

[ant1999e]

It appears you can smell your own.

I guess, if you say so.

[ant1999e]

It appears you can smell your own.

So does the snitches get stitches uniform suit LABF as well. That is his argument.in this thread. Since he.agrees.with you politically, probably not.

[El Minion]

So does the snitches get stitches uniform suit LABF as well. That is his argument.in this thread. Since he.agrees.with you politically, probably not.

Am I one? (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=105392)

[ant1999e]

Am I one? (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=105392)

Not if you reported hobo. Family smack is off limits. That was pretty low.
I am flattered that you would bring my name up in a thread I hadn't even read. I must really be on your mind.

But you didn't answer my question.

P.S. if it makes.you feel better, I reported him as well.

[gunns]

Latino? Are they from Latin America? I'm Mexican American, Hispanic, Latino or whatever makes whites feel better to label me as and you're accusing me of being racist?
What someone posts on a message board isn't always truth. It was a Biotch move by a Biotch regardless of tensi being a racist or not.

First of all if you don't get it about what happened in this situation, quit commenting.

Second, I was married to a Hispanic and have 6 halfers. My daughters both have Hispanic husbands or significant others. I've never seen bigger racists than Hispanics. Not even the blacks that I and my daughters have dated or are friends with. Just because it's generally been associated with the white person being the racist it goes both ways and does an awful lot. So don't pull your own "race" card to make yourself look innocent. There isn't a person on earth who isn't racist to some degree.

[ant1999e]

First of all if you don't get it about what happened in this situation, quit commenting.

Second, I was married to a Hispanic and have 6 halfers. My daughters both have Hispanic husbands or significant others. I've never seen bigger racists than Hispanics. Not even the blacks that I and my daughters have dated or are friends with. Just because it's generally been associated with the white person being the racist it goes both ways and does an awful lot. So don't pull your own "race" card to make yourself look innocent. There isn't a person on earth who isn't racist to some degree.

Ma'am,

I was accused of being racist toward latinos. You gotta admit thats a little silly.
And because they are racist, all us beaners must be right?

[Requiem]

This **** bangs hard in Spanish Harlem.

Juelz coulda been the best if he kept going this hard.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qs6pCUxvEkU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[El Minion]

Not if you reported hobo. Family smack is off limits. That was pretty low.
I am flattered that you would bring my name up in a thread I hadn't even read. I must really be on your mind.

But you didn't answer my question.

P.S. if it makes.you feel better, I reported him as well.

Don't flatter yourself (even though you can't help yourself) I also mentioned Old Dude (how self delusional of you to forget that) because I was reading about his epic banning and responding to your hypocrisy concurrently. Hence the post, you hypocritical snitch shot caller.

[gunns]

Ma'am,

I was accused of being racist toward latinos. You gotta admit thats a little silly.
And because they are racist, all us beaners must be right?

I am referring to that also. They can be very racist to their own race in a bad way. Different types of Hispanics. Did I say they all were? No, I said we all are. I was just very surprised at how many I have met (lived with) that were very open about voicing racism. Maybe that's where my perception comes from. They can be a lot more vocal and demonstrative about their racism.

[El Minion]

Ma'am,

I was accused of being racist toward latinos. You gotta admit thats a little silly.
And because they are racist, all us beaners must be right?

Pssst....It's call self hatred. Stevetensi13 is Latino and he hates that fact and used that hatred against other Latinos, with your explicit approval and defense, i.e. the "snitch" label.

I can imagine Stevetensi13 as this generations Dan Burros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Burros) (Oh the irony in the spanish pronunciation of his last name vis-á-vis Steventensi13 ethnicity).

Can you spot the Burros?

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/images/RockwellBurrosF.jpg

[ant1999e]

I am referring to that also. They can be very racist to their own race in a bad way. Different types of Hispanics. Did I say they all were? No, I said we all are. I was just very surprised at how many I have met (lived with) that were very open about voicing racism. Maybe that's where my perception comes from. They can be a lot more vocal and demonstrative about their racism.

There are racists in every race. I'm not.racist, i hate everyone.

[ant1999e]

Pssst....It's call self hatred. Stevetensi13 is Latino and he hates that fact and used that hatred against other Latinos, with your explicit approval and defense, i.e. the "snitch" label.

I can imagine Stevetensi13 as this generations Dan Burros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Burros) (Oh the irony in the spanish pronunciation of his last name vis-á-vis Steventensi13 ethnicity).

Can you spot the Burros?

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/images/RockwellBurrosF.jpg

So now I'm a self hating "latino"?
I love how you people think you know me.

[Odysseus]

With all due respect TJ, This goes for everyone, not just LABF........right?

Apparently the people who complain the most important.

[sirhcyennek81]

So now I'm a self hating "latino"?
I love how you people think you know me.


What do you mean, "you people"?

:wave:

:Broncos:

[Odysseus]

The point is that if the criteria for a temporary ban is the number of any given poster's threads at the top of the board at one time, it would be a simple matter for one of the people who wants to be rid of LABF to keep bumping his threads. At the moment, with four of his threads in the top ten, if one bumped a couple more of njbil's threads, would that make him a spammer? The fact that any given thread is at the top of the board... assuming that it is not a thread starter (with zero replies) means that people are discussing that topic, ie., in my humble opinion, an indication that it is not spam...

As to the politics board domination, I suspect Mock's still got LABF outpaced by a healthy margin.

Agreed. When the WPR room goes chicken **** that, in itself, is a reflection of politics in America.

[Odysseus]

There's one VERY important difference between LABF and Robb (OK, more than that, but I'll highlight one). LABF threads are often the start of heated discussion. Robb cut and pasted sermons that often had NOTHING to do with whatever we were talking about. What Robb did is spam in my book. What LABF does is start discussions rolling. Sure, he comes up with these inane photoshopped pictures when he doesn't have any rebuttal to an argument. More often than not, his view is good for this board. I don't know who were the ones complaining to TJ about LABF (and I don't care to know), but they need to realize that he backs up his charges with actual source material. I'll probably never agree with what LABF says in his threads, but I see no problem with letting him hang around.

Oh...and Captain....that was one of the funniest posts I've ever read. I read it at work and my co-workers were wondering why I was laughing. :thumbs:

The conundrum of online politics.

[Fedaykin]

You'd have to ask me on a topic. Is there a particular position you'd like to hear about?

You claimed you're a social liberal, which implies that on the large majority of socials issues you take a liberal stance. One particular issue is meaningless (the vast majority of people have issues where they have a stance that is the opposite of the majority).

So, again, what common social issues to you take a liberal stance on?

Also, even if we assume for the sake of argument that you are a social liberal and a fiscal conservative that does not make you a moderate. It makes you a social liberal and fiscal conservative -- nothing more nothing less.

[ghwk]

Since family is off limits you shouldn't use them to make a rip.

Well to be clear I used my family but whatever. You do confuse me though. On some posts I think you do a nice job of seeing both sides and being somewhat centric and then there are posts in here where you are like a different person, how come?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

True but what part of snitches being on both sides don't you get?

There you go with that same fallacious reasoning again.

It's like saying "there are crooks on both sides" when comparing a shoplifter to a bank robber.

All things are NOT equal.

For the umpteenth time: This thread was created because right-wing "snitches" wouldn't stop hammering the admin with complaints about my six threads.

LoneStar had more than 11 threads on page one when I bumped this thread, and not one of those same "concerned citizens" uttered a word of protest.


BTW, who complained to the mods about Lonestar? I'm sure it wasn't a.right-wing snitch.

It wasn't me. I've never contacted the mods about anyone here.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Apparently the people who complain the most important.

It just illustrates the sense of entitlement right-wingers have.

If you present them with too many inconvenient facts or uncomfortable realities, they feel they should be able to just vote you off the island.

And the rules that apply to their opponents never apply to them.

[Requiem]

Lonestar didn't get banned from anything on this side of the forum. He ignored moderator directives for derailing and personal attacking people in another thread on the forum. This is a loosely moderated forum, and it is even implied on the description of it. Unless something is way out of line, I'm usually not going to be against it -- and to be honest, I just open this dude's threads and laugh. I mean seriously. He never supports anything, he just posts from another source and attacks people for being "liberal/commie/socialist" retards.

He doesn't think outside the talking points that are delivered to him through the TV set and his myopic worldview, dictated by a maniacal belief in Christianity makes him a strong candidate for most crazy, divisive internet man of all-times!

[ant1999e]

There you go with that same fallacious reasoning again.

It's like saying "there are crooks on both sides" when comparing a shoplifter to a bank robber.

All things are NOT equal.

For the umpteenth time: This thread was created because right-wing "snitches" wouldn't stop hammering the admin with complaints about my six threads.

LoneStar had more than 11 threads on page one when I bumped this thread, and not one of those same "concerned citizens" uttered a word of protest.



It wasn't me. I've never contacted the mods about anyone here.

For what it's worth, I don't.care.that you're a spammer. I think hose who complained.about.you are silly. No one is forced to read a thread. I do get irritated when you post shyt that has nothing to do.with he.bread but I just call you out on it and you throw.some.sort of.spin back at me. Such is life in the WRP.

[ant1999e]

It just illustrates the sense of entitlement right-wingers have.

If you present them with too many inconvenient facts or uncomfortable realities, they feel they should be able to just vote you off the island.

And the rules that apply to their opponents never apply to them.

Your closed mindedness is ridiculous.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

For what it's worth, I don't.care.that you're a spammer. I think hose who complained.about.you are silly. No one is forced to read a thread. I do get irritated when you post shyt that has nothing to do.with he.bread but I just call you out on it and you throw.some.sort of.spin back at me. Such is life in the WRP.

I was responding to your "both sides do it" comment.

This thread is proof that your side is WAY worse.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your closed mindedness is ridiculous.

Really?

That's your only defense for my observation that republicans, as evidenced by this thread, have a sense of entitlement that makes them feel they should be able to just eighty-six anyone whose posts they don't like?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So now I'm a self hating "latino"?
I love how you people think you know me.
Nice! Like I said, when you can't handle a post the above is usually all you can come up with.

[ant1999e]

Nice! Like I said, when you can't handle a post the above is usually all you can come up with.

Good one. You got me there silly old man.

[Garcia Bronco]

You claimed you're a social liberal, which implies that on the large majority of socials issues you take a liberal stance. One particular issue is meaningless (the vast majority of people have issues where they have a stance that is the opposite of the majority).

So, again, what common social issues to you take a liberal stance on?

Also, even if we assume for the sake of argument that you are a social liberal and a fiscal conservative that does not make you a moderate. It makes you a social liberal and fiscal conservative -- nothing more nothing less.

However it puts me in the middle on a number of issues and that is moderate. So ask a question. Ask several.

[Pony Boy]

Really?

That's your only defense for my observation that republicans, as evidenced by this thread, have a sense of entitlement that makes them feel they should be able to just eighty-six anyone whose posts they don't like?

I don't think the phrase "sense of entitlement" applies to most conservatives or republicans but is usually used to described liberals and generation X and Y that are looking for handouts and advocating the redistribution of wealth in society.

[alkemical]

I don't think the phrase "sense of entitlement" applies to most conservatives or republicans but is usually used to described liberals and generation X and Y that are looking for handouts and advocating the redistribution of wealth in society.

Redistribution of wealth isn't a "liberal" or Gen X/Y mentality.

Tax breaks, mortgage write offs, corporate welfare are all forms of wealth redistribution.

So when ever you hear about corporate tax breaks, that's wealth redistribution.

Stop thinking about the talking points, and start looking at the whole picture of business.

[Garcia Bronco]

Really?

That's your only defense for my observation that republicans, as evidenced by this thread, have a sense of entitlement that makes them feel they should be able to just eighty-six anyone whose posts they don't like?

Everyone has a sense of entitlement to some degree because everyone has self interests.

[sirhcyennek81]

Redistribution of wealth isn't a "liberal" or Gen X/Y mentality.

Tax breaks, mortgage write offs, corporate welfare are all forms of wealth redistribution.

So when ever you hear about corporate tax breaks, that's wealth redistribution.

Stop thinking about the talking points, and start looking at the whole picture of business.


How is a tax break wealth redistribution if more of the generated wealth stays with the entity that created it?

:Broncos:

[alkemical]

How is a tax break wealth redistribution if more of the generated wealth stays with the entity that created it?

:Broncos:


it's socializing the "savings" for one group, and passing it on to another.

When Wal*mart gets a deal like "No local taxes for 10 years", then they move in year 8, all the tax money is redistributed to local tax payers in one way or another. (They pay for the infrastructure upgrades: Roads, lights, etc etc).

When you take a mortgage deduction, that's socialism. It's a socialized program to redistribute wealth from people who don't own homes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare

Main article: Subsidy

Subsidies considered excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by lobbying are often called corporate welfare. The label of corporate welfare is often used to decry projects advertised as benefiting the general welfare that spend a disproportionate amount of funds on large corporations, and often in uncompetitive, or anti-competitive ways. For instance, in the United States, agricultural subsidies are usually portrayed as helping honest, hardworking independent farmers stay afloat. However, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs actually goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland, as they own a considerably larger percentage of production.[5]

According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.[6]

Alan Peters and Peter Fisher have estimated that state and local governments provide $40–50 billion annually in economic development incentives,[7] which many critics characterize as corporate welfare.

Some economists consider the recent bank bailouts in the United States to be corporate welfare.[8][9] U.S. politicians have also contended that zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve System to financial institutions during the global financial crisis were a hidden, backdoor form of corporate welfare.[10]

[Bronco Yoda]

I agree. We can have one for "Lonestars Cut n Paste topics of the day" thread and then have LABF's "Another Cartoon Passed on By LABF". Maybe even give them the option of having it stickied to free up the front page for new and relevant topics.

Great suggestion! ^5

[broncocalijohn]

Redistribution of wealth isn't a "liberal" or Gen X/Y mentality.

Tax breaks, mortgage write offs, corporate welfare are all forms of wealth redistribution.

So when ever you hear about corporate tax breaks, that's wealth redistribution.

Stop thinking about the talking points, and start looking at the whole picture of business.

This needs to be broken down before lumping it in with the real meaning of redistribution of wealth as we know it. A mortgage deduction/write off is a reward for buying a home. You stated it is redistribution of wealth from those that don't own a home. Not sure how long it has been in place, but it isn't something new that those that don't own should be feeling left out. I believe my generation has known about it and is a selling point to stop renting and to buy. While it is a tax break, it is for everyone. Even the lower middle class and even the poor can own a home and get that deduction. It crosses all classes and all brackets of the tax code. How we know it (redistribution of wealth) today, it is targeting the top 1, 5, or 10% of the population. It is a penalty against them for being rich. Mortgage write off is a reward. Capital gains tax, as another example, is cut to 15% when you hold those shares for a long period of time. The government is rewarding you to invest in a company and not flip the stock at every moment. Reward does not equal Redistribution of wealth. I know you have a thread at the Mane that talks about how things are written to prove a point or sway an opinion. I believe your two posts does exactly this. They are not the same.

[W*GS]

<a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21553473">The high price of tax breaks</a>

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120428_USC095.png

[alkemical]

This needs to be broken down before lumping it in with the real meaning of redistribution of wealth as we know it. A mortgage deduction/write off is a reward for buying a home. You stated it is redistribution of wealth from those that don't own a home. Not sure how long it has been in place, but it isn't something new that those that don't own should be feeling left out. I believe my generation has known about it and is a selling point to stop renting and to buy. While it is a tax break, it is for everyone. Even the lower middle class and even the poor can own a home and get that deduction. It crosses all classes and all brackets of the tax code. How we know it (redistribution of wealth) today, it is targeting the top 1, 5, or 10% of the population. It is a penalty against them for being rich. Mortgage write off is a reward. Capital gains tax, as another example, is cut to 15% when you hold those shares for a long period of time. The government is rewarding you to invest in a company and not flip the stock at every moment. Reward does not equal Redistribution of wealth. I know you have a thread at the Mane that talks about how things are written to prove a point or sway an opinion. I believe your two posts does exactly this. They are not the same.


Tax breaks & Subsidies are wealth redistribution. You aren't being rewarded for buying a home. That's the wealth redistribution in effect, and no - not everyone can buy a house. (that's kinda what got us into the '08 financial crash).


The bigger your mortgage (which relates to the bigger your income) the more the deduction is worth.
So you pay less tax than you would have done.
If you do not have a mortgage, you do not get a deduction so your tax rate is higher than it would be, and the benefit of that goes to the richer person.

Abolishing it would end that redistribution, mean you could reduce tax rates in general - in particular on non-owners (tend to be poorer people), making renting more attractive. This has the side effect making housing market less volatile.


"Technically" by legal/writ/& law it would not be classified as such, the system operates in this way though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_mortgage_interest_deduction

The Tax Foundation argues that few low- and middle-income taxpayers benefit,[20] calling it subsidization of the real estate industry.[21] Alan Mallach, a senior fellow at the Center for Community Progress and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, argues that the deduction artificially inflates home prices and is in effect a government subsidy of the real estate industry.[22] Critics in the United States also estimate that it contributes between $70 billion and $100 billion annually to the budget deficit.[23]

Some call the home mortgage interest deduction a part of the hidden welfare state, whereby tax incentives subsidize wealthier people and corporations.[citation needed] Economist Edward L. Glaeser remarked in the New York Times that the policy "is public paternalism at its worst" and wrongfully "encourages people to leave urban areas" as well as to borrow as much as possible to bet on housing."[24]

On March 9, 2012, PBS aired an episode of its show Need to Know in which a bipartisan panel discussed tax reform. The panel, which consisted of former Democratic politician Eliot Spitzer, tax law professor Dorothy A. Brown, Reagan domestic policy advisor Bruce Bartlett, and libertarian economist Daniel J. Mitchell, unanimously opposed the federal mortgage interest deduction. [25]

The standard justification for the deduction is that it gives an incentive for home ownership.[16] Countries that tax imputed income on home ownership may allow the deduction under the theory that it is no longer a personal loan, but a loan for income-producing purposes. Standard criticisms are that it does not significantly impact home ownership, that it allows taxpayers to circumvent the general rule that interest on personal loans is not deductible, and that the deduction disproportionately favors high-income earners.

A second justification applies to countries which tax imputed income on home ownership, such as Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland: since home ownership generates imputed income under such a system, the interest on the home loan is no longer a personal expense, but an expense necessary to "earn" the imputed income and therefore should be tax deductible. In fact, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland allow a home mortgage interest deduction.

Another standard criticism of the deduction is that it does not have a significant impact on home ownership rates[16].

[broncocalijohn]

Are you forgetting the people that are poor and already own a home and pay on a 30 year mortgage? I understand what those involved in the housing crash did to make it a policy for everyone, regardless of income, to buy a home. There are some families that bought 15 years ago and are still poor. They count on those deductions as much as the middle class. If anything, next time someone bitches about a business getting a tax break as an incentive to move into that city, they should see if they are receiving a mortgage deduction.

[alkemical]

Are you forgetting the people that are poor and already own a home and pay on a 30 year mortgage? I understand what those involved in the housing crash did to make it a policy for everyone, regardless of income, to buy a home. There are some families that bought 15 years ago and are still poor. They count on those deductions as much as the middle class. If anything, next time someone b****es about a business getting a tax break as an incentive to move into that city, they should see if they are receiving a mortgage deduction.

No, not at all. It doesn't change the fact of what it IS though. We're an entitlement society, everyone wants to cut entitlements, well...minus theirs.

It's just 'where we're at' right now. People need to understand the large picture.

Just like teacher pensions is a hot topic in 'where i'm at':

"Teacher pensions are too high!"

Yet, for all that bitching & complaining - teacher salaries & pensions are voted on by the school board, who is an elected official. Which means, you/me/we are responsible for that in the end. We'll bitch about it, but in reality - we "voted" to allow such things.


Home ownership is a great thing. But even FHA is subsidized...thus...again...more "socialism".

[Fedaykin]

Are you forgetting the people that are poor and already own a home and pay on a 30 year mortgage? I understand what those involved in the housing crash did to make it a policy for everyone, regardless of income, to buy a home. There are some families that bought 15 years ago and are still poor. They count on those deductions as much as the middle class. If anything, next time someone b****es about a business getting a tax break as an incentive to move into that city, they should see if they are receiving a mortgage deduction.

The problem is your scenario doesn't really work out.

* Depending on interest rate and down payment, it take large home value ($300,000 or more) to get the full benefit of the deduction. Poor people that buy don't buy ~$300,000 homes, they buy $20,000 trailers or $50,000-80,000 small homes in rural areas.
* You can actually take the deduction on two separate homes, so only people that can accord two ~$300,000 houses can get the full benefit.
* As mortgages age, the amount of interest pay reduces (you pay the vast bulk of all interest up front, initial payments can be 95% interest, the last few payments are only 5% interest). The older a mortgage is, the less benefit you receive. Also, the bigger the mortgage, the longer you can receive the full benefit.

In other words, the mortgage deduction is exactly what alkemical calls it: it redistributes tax burden to the lower incomes from the upper incomes.

As far as removing it causes a problem for folks, there's no reason we couldn't remove it with a provision that it only applies to homes purchased after a particular date. There are already several tax provisions with similar clauses. Right now there is, what, a $4,000 credit for homes purchased after 2009?

[Garcia Bronco]

The problem is your scenario doesn't really work out.

* Depending on interest rate and down payment, it take large home value ($300,000 or more) to get the full benefit of the deduction. Poor people that buy don't buy ~$300,000 homes, they buy $20,000 trailers or $50,000-80,000 small homes in rural areas.
* You can actually take the deduction on two separate homes, so only people that can accord two ~$300,000 houses can get the full benefit.
* As mortgages age, the amount of interest pay reduces (you pay the vast bulk of all interest up front, initial payments can be 95% interest, the last few payments are only 5% interest). The older a mortgage is, the less benefit you receive. Also, the bigger the mortgage, the longer you can receive the full benefit.

In other words, the mortgage deduction is exactly what alkemical calls it: it redistributes tax burden to the lower incomes from the upper incomes.

As far as removing it causes a problem for folks, there's no reason we couldn't remove it with a provision that it only applies to homes purchased after a particular date. There are already several tax provisions with similar clauses. Right now there is, what, a $4,000 credit for homes purchased after 2009?

It can still reduce their AGI and allow them to itemize other things.

[ghwk]

Thread hijack

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Good one. You got me there silly old man.
At least you didn't resort to name calling this time when you couldn't resolve a reply.
Just curious, what's your definition of "old"?
What's the age a person goes from young to "old" in your world?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

At least you didn't resort to name calling this time when you couldn't resolve a reply.
Just curious, what's your definition of "old"?
What's the age a person goes from young to "old" in your world?

Twelve would be my guess. Ha!

[Odysseus]

It just illustrates the sense of entitlement right-wingers have.

If you present them with too many inconvenient facts or uncomfortable realities, they feel they should be able to just vote you off the island.

And the rules that apply to their opponents never apply to them.

The whole world is getting "top heavy". The 1%, American corporations, American Media, ...the list is huge.

I cannot believe how heavy handed people are becoming. It's like the whole world got a bad case of tiny dick syndrome where if they can't throw their weight around they don't think they are saying anything.

The military, in particular, has been poisoned and needs to get it's "head" lopped off. Officers are officially stupid.

[Odysseus]

Thread hijack

At least it wasn't Mock-jacked.

[Odysseus]

I don't think the phrase "sense of entitlement" applies to most conservatives or republicans but is usually used to described liberals and generation X and Y that are looking for handouts and advocating the redistribution of wealth in society.

Corporate handouts are not handouts? Tax breaks for the 1% are not entitlements? Why is social security an entitlement? I paid money into that.

[sirhcyennek81]

Corporate handouts are not handouts? Tax breaks for the 1% are not entitlements? Why is social security an entitlement? I paid money into that.


It's an entitlement because the gubmint gives it to you. Even though it is already yours...of course if you set aside that same money yourself throughout your work career, the government would not be able to spend it on GSA trips to Vegas.

We all have to give a little, brother.

(BTW, I'm kidding around. Just making that clear.)

:Broncos:

[Odysseus]

It's an entitlement because the gubmint gives it to you. Even though it is already yours...of course if you set aside that same money yourself throughout your work career, the government would not be able to spend it on GSA trips to Vegas.

We all have to give a little, brother.

(BTW, I'm kidding around. Just making that clear.)

:Broncos:

Apparently it all belongs to the government.

No worries. I am kidding around as well.

[sirhcyennek81]

Apparently it all belongs to the government.

No worries. I am kidding around as well.


The only time people are really free, is when they are wealthy enough to not need anyone else.

Few people are free. So the rest of us get government. The true puzzle in a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

:Broncos:

[Odysseus]

The only time people are really free, is when they are wealthy enough to not need anyone else.

Few people are free. So the rest of us get government. The true puzzle in a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

:Broncos:

I think real education is an unexpected pathway to real freedom that is often neglected. The only path to a serf's freedom isn't becoming a lord but no longer remaining ignorant of where you are or foolish about your choices.

Money is a tool not a solution.

[cutthemdown]

Well to be clear I used my family but whatever. You do confuse me though. On some posts I think you do a nice job of seeing both sides and being somewhat centric and then there are posts in here where you are like a different person, how come?

That's the definition of someone who see's both sides and then makes his mind up. Sometimes I say repubs being stupid, other times I say it's the left, but a lot of the time I am just being sarcastic. My post about even your own family being off limits was just sort of my weird sense of humor.

[cutthemdown]

There are racists in every race. I'm not.racist, i hate everyone.

If you mean that you are a misanthropist.

[barryr]

Well to be clear I used my family but whatever. You do confuse me though. On some posts I think you do a nice job of seeing both sides and being somewhat centric and then there are posts in here where you are like a different person, how come?

In other words, when he sees things your way, he is being a centrist, but an evil "rightard" or whatever real clever description given when he doesn't.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In other words, when he sees things your way, he is being a centrist, but an evil "rightard" or whatever real clever description given when he doesn't.

Only in the minds of Fox News lemmings like you who couldn't care less about facts.

[Boomhauer]

BAJA !!!
http://s15.postimage.org/7kb8bgeej/spammer2.jpg





- Just sayin'

[lonestar]

There was another thread where all the chaos was the other day -- and Old Dude told him to stay out of it, but he just kept on jabbing at people. More of the same. Like I told you guys, he has been trolling forums for over a decade. When it comes to political discussions, he just posts and article and throws out pejoratives. When it is the Broncos, he talks about Mike Shanahan being "DAFT in the DRAFT" and tries to come up with other cute wordplay and lingo. The fact is, he doesn't ever make points or debate issues -- he just comes here to pester, tell himself why he and his family is better than you and all that jazz. He pissed of me for getting a public education and said the value of a private Christian one was the reason his kids were doing so much better than me in real life. Lol.

(Not family smack, but just showing you some of the lame **** he has thrown at me.)

Dude, along with other posters from the original main forum (DB.com) have been stalking me for years, on all the blogs I've ever written for and even other forums. Very SAD.

a couple of points and then like on every other forum I know about you have been on you go back to IGGY.

As for your public education obviously, not on par with private schooling.. If and when you grow up you just might get it..

Us stalking you please, if anything it has been the other way around..

your a pimple of the ass of humanity..

Get a life..

[ghwk]

a couple of points and then like on every other forum I know about you have been on you go back to IGGY.

As for your public education obviously, not on par with private schooling.. If and when you grow up you just might get it..

Us stalking you please, if anything it has been the other way around..

your a pimple of the ass of humanity..

Get a life..

I'm wondering if you learned anything or if you just feel unfairly singled out. I'm guessing the latter.

[lonestar]

I'm wondering if you learned anything or if you just feel unfairly singled out. I'm guessing the latter.

What I have learned in life is.

If you argue with a moron, they will beat you all the time because they have more experience at it..

I also know that lowering yourself to their level will never get them to rise to yours..


therefore I place them on IGGY so I will not be tempted..

Thus endth the lesson in life..

[Requiem]

a couple of points and then like on every other forum I know about you have been on you go back to IGGY.

As for your public education obviously, not on par with private schooling.. If and when you grow up you just might get it..

Us stalking you please, if anything it has been the other way around..

your a pimple of the ass of humanity..

Get a life..

You admitted to me that part of the reason you are over here is to give me a hard time. You even followed me from the blogs I write for (with your online friends) smearing my articles and taking personal jabs whenever I would write one. You are supposed to be grown up, but try and start crap with someone half your age. Talk about "growing up."

My public education has suited me just fine. I've had gainful employment my whole life. You cannot even spell and it is clear as day that you are not an intelligent person. Your existence is a poop stain smear on the most beautiful of mountains. I bet you do not have enough self-control to not respond to me. You never had enough self-control anywhere else.

That is why nobody (well, a few I am sure, but those are the same people that are not liked by most all as well) likes you -- at Broncomania, BroncosForums or here. You were such a piss stain, you lost your moderator status at BroncosForums.

You have never engaged in a quality conversation in the ten years you have been posting on message boards. All you do is try and boast about yourself and go on ego trips demeaning those who do not align with your myopic Christian worldview. You are an empty and sad person. I feel sorry for you.