No Middle Class Tax Cut

Markwes wrote:

Pez wrote:Kroman: you are beating bman up because he didnt take his wealth and distribute it to the poor old lady, you are boatsing about the amount of wealth that you redistribute to charitable organizations, and you are mocking liberals because in your mind they dont distribute their wealth to others in the same way that the GOP does, and Obama is a socialist for doing the same thing you are boasting about doing. Does that make sense to you?

Pez, can you clarify? Are you saying that Kroman deciding if, how much, and who he decides to give his wealth to is the same thing as Obama making all those decisions for him? If so, then no, it makes no sense to me.

Kroman wrote:
Thanks for highlighting my above comments. I did say I'd be willing to wager. That means there is a chance I could lose the wager. The only way for me to lose the wager is if I disclosed how much I give which I won't. If I were boastful I would say how much I would give. The overall point I was making which went over your head is we don't need a benevolent government. There are millions of people in this country who can take care of that. We need a government that will defend our constitution and country.

What you, Pez, and Meta don't understand is I'm a conservative, not a Republican. I lump all politicians together which is why I used the words "Typcical politician" when talking about Obama's spending. Bush spent too. Typical politicians. You guys get yourselves in trouble when you try to lump conservatives and the GOP together. That's why the GOP has been getting hammered the last couple of elections is because they abandened convervatives. Democrats can keep Arlen Spector for all I care.

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:
Thanks for highlighting my above comments. I did say I'd be willing to wager. That means there is a chance I could lose the wager. The only way for me to lose the wager is if I disclosed how much I give which I won't. If I were boastful I would say how much I would give. The overall point I was making which went over your head is we don't need a benevolent government. There are millions of people in this country who can take care of that. We need a government that will defend our constitution and country.

What you, Pez, and Meta don't understand is I'm a conservative, not a Republican. I lump all politicians together which is why I used the words "Typcical politician" when talking about Obama's spending. Bush spent too. Typical politicians. You guys get yourselves in trouble when you try to lump conservatives and the GOP together. That's why the GOP has been getting hammered the last couple of elections is because they abandened convervatives. Democrats can keep Arlen Spector for all I care.

"The only way for me to lose the wager is if I disclosed how much I give which I won't."

How convenient... the only way for you to fail is to try... typical conservative.

Bman wrote:Here you go LTRT ...

WE WON ... We now govern ... We have 60 senators .... We have a MANDATE from the people to CHANGE America.

LTRT wrote:

Bman wrote:Here you go LTRT ...

WE WON ... We now govern ... We have 60 senators .... We have a MANDATE from the people to CHANGE America.

You are actually calling Franken a senator, now that's funny.

Pez wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Pez wrote:Kroman: you are beating bman up because he didnt take his wealth and distribute it to the poor old lady, you are boatsing about the amount of wealth that you redistribute to charitable organizations, and you are mocking liberals because in your mind they dont distribute their wealth to others in the same way that the GOP does, and Obama is a socialist for doing the same thing you are boasting about doing. Does that make sense to you?

Pez, can you clarify? Are you saying that Kroman deciding if, how much, and who he decides to give his wealth to is the same thing as Obama making all those decisions for him? If so, then no, it makes no sense to me.

Give money to an organization that distributes it according to their vision = charity
Give money to the government that distributes it according to their vision = socialism

I recognize that you aren't compelled to pay a charity, but in truth you are "moving wealth around" which if the conservative body politic is to be believed, is akin to socialism. My original post was to point out the irony of Kroman's position of attcking Obama for "socialism" by stating the ways in which he engaged in being socialist.

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:
Thanks for highlighting my above comments. I did say I'd be willing to wager. That means there is a chance I could lose the wager. The only way for me to lose the wager is if I disclosed how much I give which I won't. If I were boastful I would say how much I would give. The overall point I was making which went over your head is we don't need a benevolent government. There are millions of people in this country who can take care of that. We need a government that will defend our constitution and country.

What you, Pez, and Meta don't understand is I'm a conservative, not a Republican. I lump all politicians together which is why I used the words "Typcical politician" when talking about Obama's spending. Bush spent too. Typical politicians. You guys get yourselves in trouble when you try to lump conservatives and the GOP together. That's why the GOP has been getting hammered the last couple of elections is because they abandened convervatives. Democrats can keep Arlen Spector for all I care.

"The only way for me to lose the wager is if I disclosed how much I give which I won't."

How convenient... the only way for you to fail is to try... typical conservative.

Kroman wrote:

Pez wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Pez wrote:Kroman: you are beating bman up because he didnt take his wealth and distribute it to the poor old lady, you are boatsing about the amount of wealth that you redistribute to charitable organizations, and you are mocking liberals because in your mind they dont distribute their wealth to others in the same way that the GOP does, and Obama is a socialist for doing the same thing you are boasting about doing. Does that make sense to you?

Pez, can you clarify? Are you saying that Kroman deciding if, how much, and who he decides to give his wealth to is the same thing as Obama making all those decisions for him? If so, then no, it makes no sense to me.

Give money to an organization that distributes it according to their vision = charity
Give money to the government that distributes it according to their vision = socialism

I recognize that you aren't compelled to pay a charity, but in truth you are "moving wealth around" which if the conservative body politic is to be believed, is akin to socialism. My original post was to point out the irony of Kroman's position of attcking Obama for "socialism" by stating the ways in which he engaged in being socialist.

Nice try Pez. You're logic is flawed. I hope you're not a developer. I can decide who I want to give my money too and how much. The government doesn't get to decide that for me. Now if the government decides to take my money and redistributes it to lower income citizens than that is socialism. I thought you libs were all about choice?

Kroman wrote:

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:
Thanks for highlighting my above comments. I did say I'd be willing to wager. That means there is a chance I could lose the wager. The only way for me to lose the wager is if I disclosed how much I give which I won't. If I were boastful I would say how much I would give. The overall point I was making which went over your head is we don't need a benevolent government. There are millions of people in this country who can take care of that. We need a government that will defend our constitution and country.

What you, Pez, and Meta don't understand is I'm a conservative, not a Republican. I lump all politicians together which is why I used the words "Typcical politician" when talking about Obama's spending. Bush spent too. Typical politicians. You guys get yourselves in trouble when you try to lump conservatives and the GOP together. That's why the GOP has been getting hammered the last couple of elections is because they abandened convervatives. Democrats can keep Arlen Spector for all I care.

"The only way for me to lose the wager is if I disclosed how much I give which I won't."

How convenient... the only way for you to fail is to try... typical conservative.

The only way to fail is to try? What kind of comment is that? Don't be a hypocrite like bman. If I tell you how much I gave I'm boasting, if I don't I'm failing. What kind of logic is that? Funny how someone can show up once in a blue moon and just make a statement and the liberals get their whitey tights tied up in knots.

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:
Thanks for highlighting my above comments. I did say I'd be willing to wager. That means there is a chance I could lose the wager. The only way for me to lose the wager is if I disclosed how much I give which I won't. If I were boastful I would say how much I would give. The overall point I was making which went over your head is we don't need a benevolent government. There are millions of people in this country who can take care of that. We need a government that will defend our constitution and country.

What you, Pez, and Meta don't understand is I'm a conservative, not a Republican. I lump all politicians together which is why I used the words "Typcical politician" when talking about Obama's spending. Bush spent too. Typical politicians. You guys get yourselves in trouble when you try to lump conservatives and the GOP together. That's why the GOP has been getting hammered the last couple of elections is because they abandened convervatives. Democrats can keep Arlen Spector for all I care.

"The only way for me to lose the wager is if I disclosed how much I give which I won't."

How convenient... the only way for you to fail is to try... typical conservative.

The only way to fail is to try? What kind of comment is that? Don't be a hypocrite like bman. If I tell you how much I gave I'm boasting, if I don't I'm failing. What kind of logic is that? Funny how someone can show up once in a blue moon and just make a statement and the liberals get their whitey tights tied up in knots.

Just calling like I see them...

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Pez wrote:

Markwes wrote:

Pez wrote:Kroman: you are beating bman up because he didnt take his wealth and distribute it to the poor old lady, you are boatsing about the amount of wealth that you redistribute to charitable organizations, and you are mocking liberals because in your mind they dont distribute their wealth to others in the same way that the GOP does, and Obama is a socialist for doing the same thing you are boasting about doing. Does that make sense to you?

Pez, can you clarify? Are you saying that Kroman deciding if, how much, and who he decides to give his wealth to is the same thing as Obama making all those decisions for him? If so, then no, it makes no sense to me.

Give money to an organization that distributes it according to their vision = charity
Give money to the government that distributes it according to their vision = socialism

I recognize that you aren't compelled to pay a charity, but in truth you are "moving wealth around" which if the conservative body politic is to be believed, is akin to socialism. My original post was to point out the irony of Kroman's position of attcking Obama for "socialism" by stating the ways in which he engaged in being socialist.

Nice try Pez. You're logic is flawed. I hope you're not a developer. I can decide who I want to give my money too and how much. The government doesn't get to decide that for me. Now if the government decides to take my money and redistributes it to lower income citizens than that is socialism. I thought you libs were all about choice?

Dude... is there a reason you are being such a tool? You are telling me that you decide which individual gets your money?

Pez wrote:k... was just curious why you needed to attack me personally... dig it...

So when you give a charitable contribution, you are giving it to a person? How do you deduct that?

Kroman wrote:

Pez wrote:k... was just curious why you needed to attack me personally... dig it...

So when you give a charitable contribution, you are giving it to a person? How do you deduct that?

Attack you personally? I get attacked all the time when I post stuff. You need to get a thicker skin.

As far as giving my money away, I do it because quite frankly it's fun to be able to do it. Tax deductions are secondary but to answer your question I track all of my charitable giving in accordance with the rules and regulations the IRS has established.

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Pez wrote:k... was just curious why you needed to attack me personally... dig it...

So when you give a charitable contribution, you are giving it to a person? How do you deduct that?

Attack you personally? I get attacked all the time when I post stuff. You need to get a thicker skin.

As far as giving my money away, I do it because quite frankly it's fun to be able to do it. Tax deductions are secondary but to answer your question I track all of my charitable giving in accordance with the rules and regulations the IRS has established.

Well then I call bullshit... there's no single indivdual that is a tax deductible 503c... the truth is you dont give money to individuals at all... you give money to an organization that "spreads that money around", according to their vision... by your definition, how are you not socialist?

That shit is weak.

Kroman wrote:Dude. You're a fish. You are right that there is no single individual that is a tax deductible 503c. So in other words, I don't deduct donations I give to individuals which is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the IRS. As I've said earlier, I don't give to get a tax deduction. Any other assumptions you want to make? Talk about weak crap.

Back to your socialist arguement, or feeble reasoning. I choose who I decide to give my money to. That's my choice and my decision. The government has no involvement with it. When the government wishes to take that right away from me then it's called socialism.

As far as the truth goes......YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!

floridafun wrote:all that spinning in circles from kromie is making me dizzy ;-)

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:Dude. You're a fish. You are right that there is no single individual that is a tax deductible 503c. So in other words, I don't deduct donations I give to individuals which is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the IRS. As I've said earlier, I don't give to get a tax deduction. Any other assumptions you want to make? Talk about weak crap.

Back to your socialist arguement, or feeble reasoning. I choose who I decide to give my money to. That's my choice and my decision. The government has no involvement with it. When the government wishes to take that right away from me then it's called socialism.

As far as the truth goes......YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!

You started this Thread by assuming you had more itemized deductions on your 1040 than I did... Now you are high on not giving to get a deduction?? Which is it?

The fact that you have to call me a name every post is pretty telling. I don't know why I put up with this sh**

floridafun wrote:all that spinning in circles from kromie is making me dizzy ;-)

Kroman wrote:

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:Dude. You're a fish. You are right that there is no single individual that is a tax deductible 503c. So in other words, I don't deduct donations I give to individuals which is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the IRS. As I've said earlier, I don't give to get a tax deduction. Any other assumptions you want to make? Talk about weak crap.

Back to your socialist arguement, or feeble reasoning. I choose who I decide to give my money to. That's my choice and my decision. The government has no involvement with it. When the government wishes to take that right away from me then it's called socialism.

As far as the truth goes......YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!

You started this Thread by assuming you had more itemized deductions on your 1040 than I did... Now you are high on not giving to get a deduction?? Which is it?

The fact that you have to call me a name every post is pretty telling. I don't know why I put up with this sh**

Well boo hoo then. At least bman has thick skin I'll give him credit for that. All you need to know is I give in accordance with the IRS rules and regulations. There are rules for deducting contributions to individuals and rules for deducting to organizations. Read into that what you want. You libs are the ones who opened the can of worms in this thread by attempting to compare conservatives to socialists when it comes to giving.

Bman wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:Dude. You're a fish. You are right that there is no single individual that is a tax deductible 503c. So in other words, I don't deduct donations I give to individuals which is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the IRS. As I've said earlier, I don't give to get a tax deduction. Any other assumptions you want to make? Talk about weak crap.

Back to your socialist arguement, or feeble reasoning. I choose who I decide to give my money to. That's my choice and my decision. The government has no involvement with it. When the government wishes to take that right away from me then it's called socialism.

As far as the truth goes......YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!

You started this Thread by assuming you had more itemized deductions on your 1040 than I did... Now you are high on not giving to get a deduction?? Which is it?

The fact that you have to call me a name every post is pretty telling. I don't know why I put up with this sh**

Well boo hoo then. At least bman has thick skin I'll give him credit for that. All you need to know is I give in accordance with the IRS rules and regulations. There are rules for deducting contributions to individuals and rules for deducting to organizations. Read into that what you want. You libs are the ones who opened the can of worms in this thread by attempting to compare conservatives to socialists when it comes to giving.

I call BULLSHIT Kroman ... you threw the gauntlet down and bragged about your giving vs. Pez's giving. Kroman must you be a typical right wing arse ... try something new.

Kroman wrote:

Bman wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:Dude. You're a fish. You are right that there is no single individual that is a tax deductible 503c. So in other words, I don't deduct donations I give to individuals which is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the IRS. As I've said earlier, I don't give to get a tax deduction. Any other assumptions you want to make? Talk about weak crap.

Back to your socialist arguement, or feeble reasoning. I choose who I decide to give my money to. That's my choice and my decision. The government has no involvement with it. When the government wishes to take that right away from me then it's called socialism.

As far as the truth goes......YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!

You started this Thread by assuming you had more itemized deductions on your 1040 than I did... Now you are high on not giving to get a deduction?? Which is it?

The fact that you have to call me a name every post is pretty telling. I don't know why I put up with this sh**

Well boo hoo then. At least bman has thick skin I'll give him credit for that. All you need to know is I give in accordance with the IRS rules and regulations. There are rules for deducting contributions to individuals and rules for deducting to organizations. Read into that what you want. You libs are the ones who opened the can of worms in this thread by attempting to compare conservatives to socialists when it comes to giving.

I call BULLSHIT Kroman ... you threw the gauntlet down and bragged about your giving vs. Pez's giving. Kroman must you be a typical right wing arse ... try something new.

I didn't brag about my giving. If I did brag, can you tell me how much I claimed in charitable deductions last year? Nope you can't and if I were bragging you would know that.