MORE FALLOUT FROM 8 YEARS OF THAT TORTUROUS ADMINISTRATION!

[FOTD]

Charities forced to axe thousands of jobs
Voluntary sector feels crunch as income from donations and bequests falls
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/charities-forced-to-axe-thousands-of-jobs-1676408.html

U.S. Workers' Wages Stagnate As Firms Rush to Slash Costs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/02/AR2009050202207.html?hpid=topnews

[TeeDub]

I knew that Tony Blair was a problem from the beginning...

You should change your title because he was actually prime minister for 10 years.

"who served as Prime Minister from 2 May 1997 to 27 June 2007"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair

[guido911]

Charities forced to axe thousands of jobs
Voluntary sector feels crunch as income from donations and bequests falls
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/charities-forced-to-axe-thousands-of-jobs-1676408.html

How is it Bush's fault that in the UK charities are losing money and axing jobs?

In a related story, glad to hear it (if occurring in the U.S.). Obama raises my taxes to fund his government charity programs, so I CUT my donations to mostly all the private charities assisting the needy. Besides, most people on the government dole bought into "hope and change" and voted for Obama, so this is my revenge. 

[USRufnex]

You sound like a broken record.... "BITTER, party of one, your table's waiting..."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/11/robert-gibbs/No-wonder-the-rich-give-so-much-to-charity/

First, you can't take any deduction for a charitable contribution unless you itemize your taxes. Folks in the 15 percent tax bracket are unlikely to do so, while rich folks are very likely to. Only 35 percent of all taxpayers itemized their taxes in 2004, but 87 percent of taxpayers in the top 10 percent were itemizers, according to the Urban Institute .

We're not going to penalize Gibbs for understating his case, because his numbers hold true when comparing two taxpayers who itemize, and he confined his comment to the income tax.

It's worth noting that the rich only enjoy bigger deductions because they pay more taxes — a top tax rate of 35 percent instead of 15 percent, and an estate tax on top of that. But it's also true that a charitable contribution of, say, $1,000 will take a much bigger bite out of a middle-class person's income than a high earner's.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/02/27/TheBudgetandCharitableDonations/

Is our budget proposal uncharitable?

Over the past 24 hours since we debuted the President's FY 2010 Budget, some non-profits have argued that the Administration's plan to limit the amount that high-income families (those with income of more than a quarter million dollars a year) can deduct from their taxes for charitable contributions will hurt these organizations – and do so at a time when these organizations' resources are stretched because of the recession we inherited.

First, the proposed tax change would not be imposed during a recession (see my previous post on that topic).  Instead, it would begin in 2011 – at which point we expect the economy to be recovering.

Second, the money raised from the limits on itemized deductions would be used as part of the historic $634 billion reserve fund to fund health care reform. Reforming health care is essential to the long-term fiscal health of the country.  Indeed, bending the curve on health costs is the single most important thing we can do to get our country back on a sustainable long-term fiscal path.

Third, there's a question of fairness.  Non-profits play a critical role in our society (indeed, I have worked at several of them in the past).  But let's look at how the tax code treats two different contributors to a non-profit.  If you're a teacher making $50,000 a year and decide to donate $1,000 to the Red Cross or United Way, you enjoy a tax break of $150.  If you are Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and you make that same donation, you get a $350 deduction – more than twice the break as the teacher.

This proposal walks that difference back some of the way – it would limit the tax benefit for Buffet or Gates to $280.  In other words, we are not eliminating the deduction – just reducing it to 28 percent (or $280 on the hypothetical $1,000 contribution) for the 5 percent of families at the very top of the income distribution.  That is the same tax benefit that they would have enjoyed at the end of the Reagan Administration.

[guido911]

You sound like a broken record.... "BITTER, party of one, your table's waiting..."

First, I do not donate to charity for the tax deduction (although I used to appreciate it). Second, why should I give one nickle to those that supported Obama? After all, Obama is going to make sure they don't have to worry about paying their mortgage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

[cannon_fodder]

So when things went to crap when Bush took over, it was Bush's fault.  When things go to crap when Obama takes over, it's Bush's fault.  When things go to crap in the UK, it's Bush's fault.

Swine Flu?  I'm betting it was Halliburton's attempt to create a new demand for logistics services AND that Dick Cheney owns stock in Tamiflu.  All being coordinated by George Bush.

So you want to know shot Kennedy?

[Gaspar]

So when things went to crap when Bush took over, it was Bush's fault.  When things go to crap when Obama takes over, it's Bush's fault.  When things go to crap in the UK, it's Bush's fault.

Swine Flu?  I'm betting it was Halliburton's attempt to create a new demand for logistics services AND that Dick Cheney owns stock in Tamiflu.  All being coordinated by George Bush.

So you want to know shot Kennedy?

Bush did.  He was drunk at the time.

[Hoss]

Bush did.  He was drunk at the time.

Funny

[Conan71]

Bush did.  He was drunk at the time.

No, amped up on cocaine.  Hey, wait, wasn't GHWB a spook at that time?  Might have some traction.

[guido911]

More evil Bush, this time that damned Patriot Act assisting in the foiling of the potential terrorist attack in New York last week.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/security-experts-say-patriot-act-likely-helped-thwart-nyc-terror-plot/

[waterboy]

Honestly, I know you guys are having fun, but its really tedious for many of us. I never thought Bush was totally worthless. I don't think Obama is the second coming. Somewhere in between is reality. Of course I've always been one who changes the channel if I don't like the programming. It just seems like most of the programming around here has become stridently political and deeply flawed. Its based on win/lose.

Is there anyone else who finds value in both Guido and FOTD? In both WeVus and Conan? In Gaspar, Artist and Downtowner? All of you folks have made some pretty interesting arguments based on varied backgrounds and education. Look, I like Pelosi, but I also think Inhofe has his moments. Living to destroy the opposition seems kind of foolish.

Hell, maybe that's the way its supposed to be. Well, carry on...just thought I would let off some steam caused by cheap beer on a Friday night.

[guido911]

Hell, maybe that's the way its supposed to be. Well, carry on...just thought I would let off some steam caused by cheap beer on a Friday night.

[FOTD]

Guido....quit sipping on that dingleberry juice.....

[FOTD]

Honestly, I know you guys are having fun, but its really tedious for many of us. I never thought Bush was totally worthless. I don't think Obama is the second coming. Somewhere in between is reality. Of course I've always been one who changes the channel if I don't like the programming. It just seems like most of the programming around here has become stridently political and deeply flawed. Its based on win/lose.

Is there anyone else who finds value in both Guido and FOTD? In both WeVus and Conan? In Gaspar, Artist and Downtowner? All of you folks have made some pretty interesting arguments based on varied backgrounds and education. Look, I like Pelosi, but I also think Inhofe has his moments. Living to destroy the opposition seems kind of foolish.

Hell, maybe that's the way its supposed to be. Well, carry on...just thought I would let off some steam caused by cheap beer on a Friday night.

Patsy, decouple me from Guido.....sober up!

Read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052201894.html?sub=AR

"where Bush resisted any encroachments on executive power, Obama welcomes sharing power and responsibility. "Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man," he said. "If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight."