Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <For one, we need to reinstitute the tax on capital gains from home sales. This curbs the ludicrous escalation of home prices.> Or it will keep most young families from "buying up" i.e. rolling over their equity into a new house. The ludicrous escalation of home prices is happening because people want to own homes and they have the money to do it. If home prices become really ludicrous, then people will stop buying them and the price will go down.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy mrichmond... those ideas you gave us.. are you going to hear a democrat actually say those things or are we going to get a bunch of BS from the dems who hide their real plan of massive tax hikes? Republicans at least tell you what they are going to do. Everything is in the light. The dems and their fantasy socialist utopias just don't play to well with America so they have to lie about what they really want to do... you even admit it these ideas would never fly. Just another reason you can't trust the left. I would have a lot more respect if they just came out and said they want to jack up my taxes and take my car away so I am forced to ride the bus.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Mrich said that Beau--jack up my taxes as we paid over 70K interest alone last year! No deduction, NO house, no cars, and the biggest choice would be "Which bridge?" alluding to the 2 bridges that connect cape cod with the mainland> alluding to suicide jump as there really have been many on Both bridges. We (everyone) really do need that house interest deduction as that is what this country has been based upon, i.e. home ownership, which btw, is at its all time high. Thank you God!
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I thought that was your original idea ms. mele? and your LIB friends! Just kidding Beau!!))) mele you know I'm making fun of Beau here
Originally Posted By mele Oh hey, joe, while I've got you here (haha) I just wanted to apologize for my behavior last week. I've not no excuse so I won't make one.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Mele--I was in a p off mood and my wife calls me WAY worse so let me brag in peace and I'll let you vent and "no harm no foul" as we say in basketball. You are so much like me sometimes it's scary and I hate to clue you but so is Beau! Now don't get redded out ms. anger control lady mele night night everyone as I need to watch a movie with my 10 year old in bed before he doesn't want to anymore as Rachel won't. You have to get all this precious stuff out of the kids until they don't want us anymore. Maybe my Rachel will be like Trippy's Rachel and still remain close? I can only hope?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj <<< We (everyone) really do need that house interest deduction as that is what this country has been based upon, i.e. home ownership, which btw, is at its all time high. >>>> I would say that bank ownership of mortgages is at an all time high, not home ownership. The mortgage tax deduction is intended to provide incentives for home ownership, with the ultimate goal that individuals actually have full ownership of a home at some point in life. I would never suggest eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction. The deduction of interest associated with home equity is a different story altogether, however. It does nothing but encourage continued consumption and accruement of debt. The same goes for interest only mortgage schemes. I don't think an interest only loan should be tax deductible, since without principle being paid, the home is not actually being purchased by the buyer. The interest-only buyer is 100% reliant on home price appreciation to develop any home equity, and risks becoming upside down on their loan if home prices depreciate. It is not a practice that should be encouraged by tax benefits.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>people think Bush is some lying devil<< I don't think he's the devil. No. Just misguided, and not very bright.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<I don't think he's the devil. No. Just misguided, and not very bright.>> Dean, until you tell us a better way to fight terrorism and a reason why this economy is so " horrible " when it's booming, your side is all talk and no substance. For such a " dumb guy " Bush sure beats the libs like bongo drums year after year. It's pathetic that the left can offer nothing but bogus scandlas and misleading stories from their losers in the media day after day. This is why on voting day you will always find the your side in the minority, much to the dissapointment of terrorists everywhere who want to see Bush go ASAP also.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I heard this morning that it really doesn't matter that the Democrats don't have an agenda because the Republicans are doing such a good job of imploding it isn't necessary.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy When it comes time to vote people are not going to go with a party that has no ideas and is willing to quit in Iraq. The " implosion " the dems are hyping is more nonsense similliar to their 2004 "John Kerry is going to win" sales pitch that ended in a thud.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Since this thread is about Bush leaking stuff, I thought we should focus for a moment on the true liar in all of this. Joe Plame ---- Joe Wilson's Forgetfulness You've got to hand it to Joe Wilson. He has certainly cashed in on his celebrity as he tours college campuses making ludicrous statements. Wilson is also someone who is curiously forgetful about facts that involve his behavior and those surrounding his trip to Niger. ''It seems to me that first and foremost, the White House needs to come clean on this matter,'' Wilson told George Stephanopoulos on ABC's ''This Week.'' ''My own view of this is that the White House owes the American people and particularly our service people who have been sent into war, an apology for having misrepresented the facts.'' In case you forgot, Joe Wilson once claimed a role in exposing the Iraq-Niger documents as forgeries. But that wasn't true, as the Senate's 2004 bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq pointed out: Page 45 The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article…which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. And media reports to the contrary, Wilson did not "debunk" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium. In fact, most intelligence analysts believed his trip "lent more credibility" to reports that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, and the CIA continued to approve the use of the Iraq-Niger-Uranium language "in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union." The same Senate report states: Conclusion 13 (page 73) The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be wiling or able to sell uranium to Iraq. Conclusion 12 (page 72) Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence. Conclusion 19 (page 77) Even after obtaining the forged documents and being alerted by a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analyst about problems with them, analysts at both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not examine them carefully enough to see the obvious problems with the documents. Both agencies continued to publish assessments that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa. In addition, CIA continued to approve the use of similar language in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union. And, for the record, the British have stood firm in their intelligence on the matter. In fact, the July 2004 Butler report states that the president's uranium reference in his 2003 State of the Union address was "well-founded" and based on intelligence having nothing to do with the forged documents. Here are the "relevant" bits, on pages 123 and 125: We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded. And, From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that: a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible. c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this. d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it. I wonder why none of this makes it into Mr. Wilson's speeches.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Mort2 In September, 2003, Bush said: "I don't know of anyone in my administration who has leaked," Mr. Bush told reporters in Chicago. But, he added, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing." The president added, "There's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. We've had leaks from the executive branch and leaks from the legislative branch. I want to know who the leakers are." Source: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/01/national/main575986.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2003/10/01/national/main575986.shtml</a> A few months earlier, in the Summer of 2003, Bush authorized leaking of information: Regarding that meeting, Libby "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance... to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller" because Vice President Cheney believed it to be "very important" to do so, the court papers filed Wednesday said. The New York Sun reported the court filing on its Web site early Thursday. Libby "further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE," the court papers said. Libby "testified that the Vice President had advised [Libby] that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose relevant portions of the NIE." Source: <a href="http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm" target="_blank">http://news.nationaljournal.co m/articles/0406nj1.htm</a> Whether or not the info became declassified when Bush authorized the discloser or leak is irrelevant. Bush knew who it came from and lied to public. Furthermore, the motivation wasn’t to protect citizens but rather to cover his own behind by attacking the wife of someone who had to courage to stray from the almighty talking points. If Bush really wanted to make his case, why not act like a real man and address the nation directly. Say something like, “There is stuff you’re hearing in the press that isn’t true. In order to set the record straight, I’ve just declassified some important information I’d like to share with you. . .†But instead he orders his underlings to go after a man’s wife. What a profile in courage. Remember, it ain’t about declassification. It is about motivation.
