Gene, a common misconception with charitable giving/tax credits is how they work. Tax deduction (ie, charitable deduction) You give $10 to red cross. IRS gives you a $10 tax deduction, so assuming you are in the 28% bracket, you get $2.80 back in the form of less taxes. So net, net, you paid $10 to a charity, got back $2.80 and thus are out only $7.20. Its not as if you make money by donating. People often say people do things for the deduction. Yeah sometimes, they do, but its not as if its a magical way to mayke money. Its just a way to lighten the impact. Tax Credit. Your tax bill goes directly down by that amount. You buy a hybrid car and get a $3k tax credit (I'm making this up..don't know if hybrid cars get a credit or deduction). Your tax bill goes down by $3k. So when you said if you donate $2, you get a $1 tax credit, the person still is net down $1. He gave way $2, IRS gave him back $1, so he's still down $1. The idea behind charitable giving is to help the charity. Its hard to justify doing it for tax purposes as you don't end off richer by giving money to a charity.
The cases you mention weren't made on a proven science. But neither has it been thrown out. I won't make a judgement on that until more facts are in. What we do know is that the man who is currently VP tried to cut even more defense systems than Kerry voted for as well as the ones that Kerry voted for. We do know that while he was CEO of Haliburton he was fined for over charging the govt. His company did business with Iran, Lybia(also fined for this because it was against the law), and Iraq. So the ' sonuvabitch vice president ' we have now is somebody who broke the law, and ripped off his own nation. He committed fraud against U.S. taxpayers. For someone who claims to be so worried about govt. waste, I'd think you'd be upset about this kind of thing. Yes I'd happily elect Edwards as VP over Cheney.
You seriously need to quit trusting Moveon.org or Commondreams.org as your sole news source. Thi is simply more of the ridiculous "Bush/Cheney-were-enriching-their-stock-portfolios" tripe that is unsubstantiated. At least you admit those cases weren't decided on science, but on massaging the emotions of the jury. Now you need to admit that Edwards has done more damage to the health care system that he and his liar of a Presidential candidate claim they want to reform. It's scumbag lawyers like him, not "greedy" drug companies or doctors, that are ruining our healthcare system.
The info I was talking about on Cheney and Haliburton weren't from MoveOn or any biased questionable source. There was a story in the WAshington Post. Here's one from NewsMax http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml Are you going to claim that Cheney wasn't fined? That he didn't violate the law? You can cry that it's all conspiracy theory, but this is record, and fact.
Wealthy parents or not. The burden of *any* society is poverty. It can't be ignored. As the weatlhy gain their money, so does the power that comes with it. And when you have power, you have the ability to make change in peoples lives. It's not about "punishing the wealthy" It's about the burden of poverty. It comes with the package. I see a big problem on the horizon. And that's that todays multinational companies (take note) have become, to a certain extent, a "mini-country" itself. With tax loops afforded to these companies for not having plants in *this* county, they can avoid paying taxes; even though they ARE an American company. While it's true that they are in fact, "legal person(s)." This is what has made the company an autonomous entity. With this occurrence, there seems to be some type of inherent "right" to the executives of theses companies to NOT be held responsible for "any aspect of poverty/taxes." They have essentially used "the American dream" to mean: exclusion from all (or most) responsibility of poverty/taxes. They "wash their hands from it." Or rather, they say, "It's *my* money, then I should be able to do with it what I want!" Well, it's not easy. Because with that "money gained" one has also gained *power.* And power wielded negligently (or without compassion, responsiblty and limits) can harm the lives of many (of less power). P.S. "Pure" Socialism is *not* the answer either. But neither is "pure" Capitalism. There has to be some type of "safety-net" for a societies' less fortunate. And the most wealthy and most powerfull of thoes within that society should carry a lot of that burden due to the nature of their position. An all-out "dog-eat-dog" nation is not wise.
Silence you impudent peasent! How dare you challenge the great and powerful King Gene. My point is that there is a point where the pursuit of of comfort and security exceeds rational needs. Contrary to the capitalist belief, everyone that lives on this planet has some claim on it's resources. The Earth has a limited if not finite capacity to provide food, water, shelter and energy for it's human inhabitants and if some nations, who shall remain nameless cause you know who you are, use all the oil or catch all the fish or cut down all the forest, there won't be enough to provide at least the minimum for everyone else or future generations. So your a rich guy, you worked hard for your millions and you build a 10,000 square foot house. You've probably got some rooms you never even go in to. Or you buy a Hummer but you never even drive on gravel much less through the conditions it was designed for. Or how about that $300,000 sailboat you go out on twice a year. So what do you really need? Well of course that's subjective but I don't know anyone that could say "I really need more than a million bucks a year". You might want it, but your probably exceeding the limits of rationality. Of course you would need about an 15 million dollar portfolio to yield that in perpetuity without working so you might have to make some compromises
I think you need to simplify it for bama and anyone else who feels that the media is a leftist mouthpiece. Let's just ask questions that can be backed up by government documents: 1) Was Cheney ever fined for illegal dealings while at Halliburton? 2) Was Halliburton ever fined for illegal dealings while Cheney was CEO? 3) Did Halliburton ever get caught for dealing with Iran while US sanctions were in place? 4) How about Iraq? 5) How about Libya? 6) Was Halliburton ever fined for defrauding its investors? 7) Was Cheney CEO at this point?
bama, they just don't understand that the trial lawyers and their pursuit of frivilous malpractice suits, drive malpractice insurance up, thus driving the doctor fees up, and forcing the drug companies to raise costs due to the lawsuits they face directly when/if a drug happens to do what was warned on the indications label. It's full circle, and the starting point is lawsuits perpetuated by trial lawyers out to harvest cash from the poor and unfortunate souls (that may or may not have a claim - if they don't the trial lawyer' threat is still met with payment out of court for fear of a news story). If the money they gained actually went to the legit victims, and the no-case having "victims" were honestly weeded out... it would be different. As it stands, all trial lawyers have a bad name because they get 40% of the winnings (on TOP OF their fees) and more per case won... and they'll just about take any case for the chance that they might be able to show that "responsible parties" did not hold the victims' hands and read them word for word the fine print that was given them. 1.) Lawyers sees case 2.) Lawsuit against doctors/drug companies 3.) Insurance goes up 4.) Doctors fees/drug costs go up 5.) Repeat Step 1 is always step one.
You do realize that in states like Texas where they have instituted "tort reform" like caps on awards, malpractice insurance has not been lowered at all, neither have drug costs or overall healthcare costs. "Tort reform" is a sham, a ploy to keep lawsuit awards down so that the insurance companies can pocket more money.
plus for all their whining about legislating from the judiciary, the conservatives don't seem to have any problem with judging from the legislature floor.
Yet another irate rant from another anti-capitalist Bolshevik. But I've got to call you on this one, so prove it. As stupid as most juries are, they have the same "screw-those-corporate assholes" attitude you possess and will award outrageous amounts to get back at those "evil" corporations. And your logic is flawed as usual, because how can the actions of ONE state affect drug costs NATIONWIDE?
These stupid juries are made up registered voters. So are they stupid when they elect the republican party into domination of the house, senate and executive branch? The drug company lawyers have as many strikes as the "trial lawyers' so why can't they get smart juries?
