Question for Washertalk and Others

[kevinpreston8]

Additional comments

Ok guys. So let me understand something. If someone says that gay people/black people/straight people have some hateful quality, all people in those catagories should not be offended because they are referring to the gay/straight/black leadership? That is sounding a bit like a waffling to me. I appreciate the sentiment, but words are powerful. If you say Republicans suck, I take that to mean Republicans, not their temporary representatives. You guys are playing convenient semantics in my book, although I believe that Rick and some others don't mean to offend <br
While it seems that I am accused of towing the party line without regards for the country, I have mentioned on other threads that I am vehemently opposed, for example, in this Administration's handling of illegal immigration, and their spend mentality. For me, on balance, the Republican party represents by far the better choice of the two <br
Peter's sentiments exactly reflect mine. If for example, John Kerry represented what Peter outlined, I would have given him strong consideration. I have no problem with that and am not owned by any party. I watched intensely those debates my friends, all three. And Kerry presented not one, original, creative idea, it was nothing but Bush slamming. Then he asked you to get the details on his "plan" on his website, which said nothing. I was totally open to listening to him and hearing ideas, but got nothing. At least I listened. And I have also listened to 6 years of Bush-bashing, with no alternative ever mentioned. That's a party I should align with <br
I have conservative values to a point. I am pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, a believer in self-reliance and an old fashioned work ethic, and I don't want to pay more taxes in a system that approaches socialism. On balance, I think the government should be small, spend wisely, and stay the hell out of people's sexual interests and lifestyles <br
Dan, your statement <br
"Furthermore, You can say that you are fine with gay people - and I have no reason to believe that you are bigoted - but don't you understand that your electoral approval of the GOP is de facto homophobia? It's like saying "some of my best friends are black" on your way to a KKK meeting. &quot <br
That is just over the top! My God man. Using your logic, and assuming you're a Democrat, I could say, don't you understand Dan that your electoral approval of Democrats is de facto third term abortion approval? Or removal of God from any facet of public life? Or taking choice of sexual discussions in elementary classrooms away from parents? Or letting murderers on death row go free? Or the attack on the WTC was really OUR fault? Is it like saying "I love kids" as you attend a meeting at an abortion clinic?&quot <br <br <br

 

[mulls]

Very well said

PeterH770-VERY well spoken. Those who have some very conservative beliefs-myself included-about such issues as border control,size and scope(and expense)of government,people being allowed to spend their entire lives riding on the backs of others- are not aligned with such folks as Jerry Falwell,just as everyone with a liberal lean doesn't necessarily support people like Michael Moore.I am a conservative and proud of it,in a fiscal sense-not in deciding how someone's personal life should be lived.I know none of you personally,but would fight for any of you if you were in danger.A better quality group cant be found
Tom

 

[oxydolfan1]

How can you be "pro-life" and simultaneously "stay the hell out of people's sexual interests and lifestyles" <br
One precludes the other <br
So you think you can manipulate the poor little queers by sliding in messages that promote taking away a woman's right to choose, and think you can get away with it simply because you think it's an issue that doesn't affect us <br
I'd like to negotiate that tricky U-turn back to purity and innocence as well, but that doesn't mean it's likely I'll be successful as well <br
What makes you think border control and upholding of our laws is a conservative virtue? The total breakdown in illegality happened on your president's watch <br
If you believe in spending wisely (as most liberals do), what makes you think your president or political movement was a poster child for such frugality <br
I seem to recall Bush "inheriting" quite a hefty budget SURPLUS-from a so-called liberal president <br
All squandered, like our trust <br
What has your side of the aisle done to make us expect differently?

 

[kevinpreston8]

Q and A

"How can you be "pro-life" and simultaneously "stay the hell out of people's sexual interests and lifestyles"? &quot <br
Because I consider the unborn a life and that is beyond sexual interests and lifestyles--just like I am pro-YOUR life <br
"So you think you can manipulate the poor little queers by sliding in messages that promote taking away a woman's right to choose, and think you can get away with it simply because you think it's an issue that doesn't affect us?&quot <br
Who's a poor little queer and how am I manipulating <br
"What makes you think border control and upholding of our laws is a conservative virtue? The total breakdown in illegality happened on your president's watch!&quot <br
Huh? What I said is the border control issue is where I break from the Administration. However, the strongest border control ideas are coming from select conservatives in the House. And for the record, illegal immigration has been a concern for many people for at least 20 years. My dad expressed concern during the Carter years, but it simply was not on anyone's radar until it went from bad to worse. It didn't "happen" on Bush's watch <br
"If you believe in spending wisely (as most liberals do), what makes you think your president or political movement was a poster child for such frugality?&quot <br
What I said was: 'I have mentioned on other threads that I am vehemently opposed, for example, in this Administration's handling of illegal immigration, and their spend mentality.
So I don't know how you missed that <br
"I seem to recall Bush "inheriting" quite a hefty budget SURPLUS-from a so-called liberal president! &quot <br
And a recession. Anything else <br

 

[frigilux]

Abortion: Roughly 1 in 4 pregnancies ends in miscarriage. If you include losses that happen before a pregnancy has been positively established by test, then the losses are closer to 40% of total pregnancies. (These stats are almost universally accepted and come from The March Of Dimes.) If God was really so worried about the fate of the fetus, wouldn't he/she/it do something about miscarriages? If you believe abortion is wrong then don't have one. But don't make that decision for everyone else <br
Government: Can you please tell me of ANY Republican administration that has shrunk the government? It just doesn't happen. It's a myth. The size/scope of government has increased substantially under the current administration. <br
Health Care: So people earning minimum wage (or double the minimim wage, for that matter) don't deserve health care? I challenge you to live on a job that pays $10-12 an hour and see if you can afford private health insurance for your family <br
Illegal Immigration: Republicans, after eight years in power, have done nothing substantial to stop this problem <br
Spending: No comment necessary. I'd much rather spend a fraction of what we're spending in Iraq on our own people and programs. Iraq has been a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars and 2,800 lives. Yet we're SO upset about people scamming a few hundred million from welfare. <br
The takeover of the Republican party by fundamentalist evangelicals is truly sad. Since the Republican party no longer delivers on any of the points you made in a previous post (abortion, fiscal responsibility, size/scope of federal government, staying out of peoples' personal lives) why are you still supporting it?

 

[Unimatic1140]

Well unfortunately this thread is taking a nasty, divided turn just like our country has <br
I will say this though, I'm was NOT talking about specific gay issues, I'm talking about gay people being attacked for political gain, there is a HUGE difference here. Just brushing it off and minimizing it like it was some game because we have so much more to worry about is dangerous IMO. I also take big offence when the lives of gay people being referred to as a simple "sexual interest and lifestyle". Who you love and who you build your family with is not a freaking lifestyle or interest, it's the most important thing in the world <br
On a positive note, it doesn't seem to be working as well this time and all we can do now is wait until Nov 7th and hope for the best, while I’m not convinced change is coming, I'm sure hoping for it dearly, and I have a feeling I'm not alone <br
I'm done with this nonsense now until after the election. I've got better things to do, like laundry <br
Attack away here if you must, but no minds are going to be changed here on any side.

 

[rickr]

I do not want to insult anyone, however am trying to explain why so many gay people feel the way they do about the republican party. To me a vote for a gay person with any sense to vote republican, is like the Chicken voting for the Colonel. A Black person voting for George Wallace. A Jew voting for Hitler. It just does not make any sense. Period.
I do not want generations of gay children to have to grow up as we did. And there will always be more generations of gay children. Simply because being gay is not a choice. And it should not make a human being into an outcast, or a circus freak show, or the topic for a political wedge issue. To do so, is abusive to a whole community of the human race. <br
And Bush and Co. is the worst of the worst. My older brother (who has Parkinsons by the way) travels all over Europe. You cannot imagine what the people over there are saying about the USA! Our reputation as a country is in the gutter because of Bush and Co. The rest of the world cannot be that wrong.

 

[kevinpreston8]

Well, at least

we are debating issues, and not calling people racists, homophobes, etc <br
Abortion: Roughly 1 in 4 pregnancies ends in miscarriage..... If God was really so worried about the fate of the fetus, wouldn't he/she/it do something about miscarriages? If you believe abortion is wrong then don't have one. But don't make that decision for everyone else. <br
1--miscarriages aren't intentiona
2--I didn't mention God in this, just the fact that I consider it a life, which trumps abortion for convenience and just about any other excuse except the death of the mother
3--Using your God logic then, why hasn't God done something about any sickness, health problems, etc
4--I'm not making anyone's decision. If one values life and has laws to support taking someone's life, I would like to see the law applied evenly, and protecting those that cannot protect themselves <br
"Government: Can you please tell me of ANY Republican administration that has shrunk the government? It just doesn't happen. It's a myth. The size/scope of government has increased substantially under the current administration." <br
I don't disagree, and this is now the 4th time I have said it. However, one of the biggest increases in the scope of govt. spend programs was Johnson's "Great Society" programs, which helped do wonderful things like promote generational welfare. It has not slipped by me that other administrations have done similar initiatives. I personally believe in small government, as I have stated I don't know how many times <br
"Spending: No comment necessary. I'd much rather spend a fraction of what we're spending in Iraq on our own people and programs. Iraq has been a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars and 2,800 lives. Yet we're SO upset about people scamming a few hundred million from welfare. &quot <br
That sounds good on paper. But what have all these programs done for the poor for all these years, (compounded when we keep importing the poor from Mexico) <br
I believe in a limited safety net for people, because any study of sociology will show that people who are not poor make it better for everyone else. A strong economy is defined as the movement of money. Poor people have no spending ability. On balance, I am not interested in taking money out of my family's accounts to pay for someone who doesn't want to work, refuses help for addiction, and generally f-s up there entire life, on my dime. With our low unemployment rate, I should not have to. And please, don't take my statements as wholesale that I believe that all poor people are lazy, that's the easy argument and not faithful to the spirit of my position <br
"Illegal Immigration: Republicans, after eight years in power, have done nothing substantial to stop this problem&quot <br
Nor did any previous administration <br
"The takeover of the Republican party by fundamentalist evangelicals is truly sad. Since the Republican party no longer delivers on any of the points you made in a previous post (abortion, fiscal responsibility, size/scope of federal government, staying out of peoples' personal lives) why are you still supporting it?&quot <br
Is Jerry Falwell in charge of anything? How about that crazy "Christian" a-hole that goes and screams at soldiers' funerals? Is he in office? By being a Christian and spiritual, does that make you some sort of fundamentalist worthy of scorn <br
"Health Care: So people earning minimum wage (or double the minimim wage, for that matter) don't deserve health care? I challenge you to live on a job that pays $10-12 an hour and see if you can afford private health insurance for your family. &quot <br
I don't know, do I deserve a Ferrari? Should frigilux pay for my gall bladder surgery, or heaven forbid, by wife's abortion <br
Why are people making minimum wage supporting a family? Minimum wage jobs are intended for part time workers or people starting out, as they are entry level low skilled jobs. There is nothing in this country that stops you from getting skills you need to move up the ranks. I haven't had a minimum wage job since I was 16. By 17 when in High School, I was rebuilding engines at a service station and making great money, at skills I learned in High School. <br
You challenge me to live on $10 an hour? Why would I, I did that starting out. Yes, I could lose my job and have to take something lower paying, but it wouldn't be at that wage. Such unfortunates where that does happen, I think job training and the "safety net" should be there for them. Now that is money well spent <br
Quite simply, it is not MY responsibility as a hardworking taxpayer to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S health insurance. No one paid for mine, nor should they. I know this is part of the liberal idealogy. Fix the insane lawsuits that drive up costs of healthcare, and healthcare become affordable again. Get creative with how healthcare can be managed and purchased, and I am on board <br
Anything else

 

[oxydolfan1]

"....rumors about a possible American intervention in Iran have been intensifying after the US government deployed a naval strike group to the Straits of Hormuz, off the Iranian coast. The war ships - which include the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier U.S.S. Eisenhower, a cruiser, a destroyer, a frigate, a submarine and a supply ship - are scheduled to arrive in the Straits on Saturday...."

 

[oxydolfan1]

"Anything else?&quot <br
Why don't you tell us <br
You're the one who started the thread <br
You're the one who has the problem.

 

[kevinpreston8]

Robert for the record, I wasn't brushing aside or minimizing your family with remarks around 'sexual interests and lifestyle.' I was simply stating that my feelings are that human life trumps all other issues, simply put. My original use of that phrase was in generally speaking about the government's place, and in my opinion, that includes staying out of your family business and mine. <br
"Well unfortunately this thread is taking a nasty, divided turn just like our country has. &quot <br
And yes it certaintly has. I'm done too <br
I think we reached the point where other writers have warned about politics ruining friendships, and I am leaving before I get any more angry myself.

 

[dalangdon]

Kevin, you tell me how you would react if a President were condoning a constituional amendment outlawing heterosexuals in southern california from marrying, and then you tell me I'm over the top. I know that sounds melodramatic, but it's the situation we are in today, and that is the situation that a republican voter condones. For the first time in our history, we would amend the US constitution to limit the rights of a group of people. <br
As far as abortion goes, I'm not crazy about it. But it has been with us since the first woman got pregnant, and it will be with us until the last woman gives birth. All these punitive measures do is sweep it under the rug and cleans up the statistics, so we can all feel good about ourselves. <br
Much better, in my opinion, would be to make sure that every child is a wanted child, and that teenagers know the basics about sex. As Bill Clinton said, make abortion "safe, legal and rare&quot <br
I will agree with you about the Great Society programs, but I don't think that that precludes any sort of welfare, and I don't think it proves that all entitlement programs are bad. Social security has been a godsend to generations of seniors, and has been a boon to the economy as well, by making sure that seniors have a decent end of life. The same is true of medicare.

 

[frigilux]

1. Ok, let's take God out of the abortion equation. If abortion is outlawed, what do you propose we do with all the unwanted babies? Are you planning to adopt a few of them, perhaps? Or don't we care about them after they pop out of the womb? We can't let an embryo be aborted, but once they're a sentient being out in the world we don't want to think about them <br
2. "I don't know...do I deserve a Ferrari?" Wow, that I wasn't expecting that level of callousness from you, Kevin. The answer is YES, every citizen of this country deserves health care. We're already indirectly paying for other peoples' operations by purchasing private health care! I've spent tens of thousands of dollars on health care and never been to the hospital once. Where do you suppose all that money is going? <br
3. I don't disagree that medical litigation needs to be reined in. But lawsuits aren't at ALL the major cause of high medical costs. It's another myth. Yes, it can explain why malpractice insurance is expensive, but it doesn't explain why a hospital can charge me $50 for a paper gown and why Lipitor is $150 a bottle <br
4. If you don't think the Republican party has been led around by the nose by fundamentalist evangelicals for the past eight years---both in office and as a base constituency---you're lying to yourself <br
5. Most of the thousands of factory workers whose jobs have gone overseas are now making substantially less than they had been. Yes, there are jobs for everyone, but many of them don't pay well or provide health care benefits. If you look at the stock market, we should all be dancing in the streets. But that isn't happening, because it's a healthy economical climate for big business, not for the middle and lower-middle classes. And I'm not even going to mention the poor, because they don't deserve any help. Unlike, oh, say the oil and pharmaceutical industries.

 

[dalangdon]

I have to admit, I love political discussions, and I'm sorry if anyone's feelings are hurt. I was raised in a boisterous Irish Catholic family, where political arguments were as certain as the sun rising in the east. <br
Crops, politics, religion, "the government", Aunt Elanor's new hairdo - all of them were fair game, with the dogs joining in and barking and everyone having a great old time around the dinner table (or the bar at the VFW, or down at the union hall) To me, it's invigorating and mentally stimulating, and while I get worked up, I want everyone to know that differing opinions doesn't take away from my feelings of anyone as a human being. <br
I'm very thankful that we can have this kind of discourse, and that we can do it in ways never thought possible when I was a kid. <br
.... And special thanks to Al Gore for inventing the Internet! ;-) <br

 

[oxydolfan1]

Yep, I hear ya <br
We upset the tureen more than a few times at the dinner table <br
Come to think of it, I may be cancelling Thanksgiving this year, just for the safety of my guests, lol!

 

[mattywashboy]

ahhh Politics, the quickest and most sure-fire way to lose friends and cause disturbance, i'm so glad australia isn't so politically patriotic, probably because we employ englands system of Queen as head of state and then a prime minister to represent the people.
I'm sorry if this comment is quite random and out of place but this is a public forum and i am just practicing my right to add a comment, if you don't want anyone commenting that has no right then don't start arguments like this on a public forum, simple.
Here endeth the rant

 

[panthera]

Jews for Hitler

I personally find the comparison of homosexuals voting for republicans to "Jews for Hitler" more than in bad taste
I fear the day may come when the christianists are able to achieve their goal of murdering us - but they are not there yet
Hitler & Co. did succeed in killing millions of Jews, homosexuals, Roma..
Let's keep things in perspective and remember that by personally attacking the views of those republicans and conservatives who are not our enemies we are making the exact same mistake we made in the 1960's and 70's: We lost the white, male, lower middle class vote (permanently?) to the exact people who should have been their natural enemy: the republicans. How did we do it? By just such attacks as some of us have launched here. I don't agree with Kevin on many things. Speaking as a self-employed small business man I have some basis for my differences in opinion (our ROI in Germany is much higher than in the US, productivity of our workers, too, just to take two examples of why it is not useful to assume all non-US forms of capitalism don't work or not as well as the US model...
We need to show the non-hate filled Christians and the pragmatic conservatives (the republican spirit did not die with Barry Goldwater...)just why our candidates are closer to them then the current crop of republicans. And we will not do that by alienating them
Oh, and yes: I was openly gay in the US, I was co-chair of my American university's Gay/Lesbian Alliance (bi-sexuals weren't considered in the 1970's, early 80's). I got my nose smashed, my tires slashed and faced persecution (and within my US family still have to deal with threats of physical violence and direct persecution) This said, so nobody thinks I am another European pseudo-intellectual ranting...

 

[gizmo]

Health care

Health care is one of my pet issues. I have dificulty believing what I have read above about keping the private health system private.
The excessive power of the private health insurance industry is part of the PROBLEM in the USA <br
Australia has an interesting system, a mix of state owned, religious owned and private health care. I am particularly proud of our country having such a system, though it is being undermined and eroded by our current (conservative) administration. (as an aside, our main conservative political party is called the Liberal party - go figure...)
All the main hospitals are state owned, except for a few religious owned which operate with State funding as long as they abide by the rules for the State system. They are free to operate privately outside the system if they wish, too, but they would get no government funds.
Every Australian who earns above a certain minimum wage contributes a pecentage of their income (3%?)as a Medicare Levy. It is collected as part of your taxes. In return you get a medicare card which entitles you to treatment for free at all hopsitals for necessary medical treatment. Also visits to your doctor are heavily subsidise by Medicare. For example a consultation with my GP costs me $45, of which I get a refund from Medicare of $28, so the visit cost me $17 net.
Doctors if they prefer can opt to "bulk bill", a system where they don't charge their patients anything, but bill Medicare directly for a reduced rate. Most bulk billing practises don't allow you to book ahead, you just turn up and wait your turn, often up to an hour wait. Bulk billing practices are most common in larger cities where there is competition between doctors, in smaller towns it us unusual. People who earn below a minimum level get a "health care card" which entitles them to bulk billing at most doctors and reduced fees at the few others.
There are also Community Medical Centres where a combination of medicare and other Government grants (Federal, State and Local) provides free health care for services not provided by GPs or hospitals. A couple of years ago when I started to have problems with anxiety and depression, I was referred by my GP to a community health centre where I got the following assistance: weekly visits to my home, 1 hour per week, from a counsellor for about 3 months to assess my situation, calm me and get me on course for further help; attend a "living with anxiety" course in town, 1 day per week for 8 weeks plus access to extra if needed; weekly visits to a psychologist for cognitive behaviour therapy, for 6 weeks, could have gone longer if needed; later occasional follow up if needed.....all this cost me absolutely nothing, just my regular medicare levy. Had I not had this assistance I would probably have committed suicide by now. As it stands now I am happy, really over the problems, the help was really effective and not drug treatment
Pharmacy costs are also low in this country - all prescription drugs must be assessed under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). No PBS approved prescription medication will cost more than $28 per script. (might be a bit higher now??) For healthcare card holders the max cost is about $5. No family will have to spend over about $200 per year on prescription meds - more than that, you get an equivalent tax refund. The PBS approval process involves an assessment of the benefits of each drug, any extra benefit or risk compared to existing drugs, the cost of the drug, lots of other stuff I guess. The interesting part is that the government is the sole customer for PBS listed drugs - they are sold for the PBS price through pharmacies but the government pays the negotiated price to the drug companies, so there is, to the drug companies, only one customer. That gives great market power to the PBS authority and really drives drug prices down. The drug companies hate it amd lobby against it constantly but we Aussies reap the benefit.
The facts are that the USA spends a much greater percentage of its GDP on health care than Australia, yet Australia has demonstrably better health outcomes. This is for a number of reasons: 1. Our system removes power from huge insurance companies and drug companies, who gouge the system where they can. 2. Our system means it is easy and cheap to visit the GP, so we tend to visit the GP earlier in an illness, are less likely to try to avoid a doctor visit on cost grounds, so serious diseases tend to get picked up earlier when treatment is simpler, cheaper and positive outcomes more certain. 3. Our system gives very similar support to all income levels, there is not one good system for the "haves" and a miserable one for the "have-nots". Despite the rhetoric to the opposite, mostly whether you are a "have" or a "have not" is a matter of luck, not hard work. So we do not have an underclass of people who can't afford health care <br
Our system is not perfect, it is stretched and it is under attack from the current administration. Fortunately it is immensely popular so there is only so much damage they can do,go too far and they will be thrown out. (it happened in the 70's - in 74 the Labor government brought the new system in, at that time called Medibank. For other reasons they were thrown out in 75, the Liberals quickly abolished the scheme, turned Medibank offices into an ordinary health insurance company. It was really unpopular and at the next election they were defeated, Labor got back and re-introduced the scheme under the new name Medicare.)
It is also under threat from the US federal administration, who are lobbying our government to abolish the PBS scheme as it is unpopular with US based drug companies who can't gouge the Australian system like they do at home. The US gov't says it is a trade restriction violating some free trade agreement.. <br
Bill and Hillary Clinton visited Australia early in their administration and were very impressed with our health system. Bill said he was going try introduce some aspects of it but said it was most likely the medical lobby in the USA would kill any hope of such reforms. Unfortunately it seems he was right.. <br
oh and by the way it ain't Socialism. It's called a mixed economy, where both government and private industry can participate in the same sectors of an economy. It means government can create competition to private operators, forcing them to reign in some of their worst behaviours. It works <br
Chris.

 

[gyrafoam]

Chris----

Part of the problem with so many self-righteous people in our country standing up for the private drug manufacturers----is that they have good insurance (at the moment) and good health(at the moment) <br
Time can change things drastically
People loose their cushy jobs (and their insurance)----something catastrophic happens to them financially, etc.----all sorts of things can happen that might leave someone vulnerable <br
It is amazing how these same people change their tunes---- when suddenly they find themselves at the mercy of a system (that they have paid taxes into for years) that wants them dead, or trys to force them onto welfare. All because of a catastrophic health issue <br
Oh yeah, they start singing a MUCH different tune
That is just one of the reasons our current administration has proven it is out of touch with the "average" working American <br
As you have stated there are other systems (Australian) out there worth exploring
The old Republican mantra about all things that don't conform to their views must be "socialism/communist" just won't fly in todays real world
There are other options <br
Thank you for sharing!

 

[gansky1]

"Democrats will raise my taxes"

October 29, 200
Editoria
Future Tax Shoc <br
One of President Bush’s be-very-afraid lines this campaign season is that Democrats, if elected, will raise taxes. What he doesn’t say is that if you are one of tens of millions of Americans who make between $75,000 and $500,000 a year, your taxes are already scheduled to rise starting next year — because of laws that Mr. Bush championed and other actions he failed to take <br
The higher taxes stem from the alternative minimum tax, a levy that is supposed to snare multimillionaires who would otherwise get away with using excessive tax shelters to wipe out their tax bills. But these days, the alternative tax is snaring many upper-middle-income filers <br
Mr. Bush set the trap in 2001 — and in 2003, 2004 and 2006. In each of those years, he flogged for new tax cuts without requiring corresponding long-term changes in the existing rules for the alternative tax. It was well known that failure to update the alternative tax would create perverse interactions with the new tax cuts, causing filers’ tax bills to drop because of the cuts, only to shoot back up again from the alternative levy <br
Mr. Bush said he would vanquish the problem through tax reform. Didn’t happen. Congress never wrestled with lasting solutions. The truth is, the president and lawmakers are paralyzed. To fix the alternative tax while keeping the Bush tax cuts on the books would result in the loss of some $800 billion in revenue over 10 years, blowing a hole in the federal budget and exposing how utterly unaffordable the tax cuts of the last five years really are <br
The taxpayers wrongly afflicted by the alternative tax are not tax dodgers. For the most part, they are couples with children who have broken into the ranks of six-figure earners, and who live in high-tax states like New York and California. They are being penalized, in effect, for claiming everyday deductions — like write-offs for dependents and property taxes — which, under the alternative tax rules, are viewed as excessive shelters <br
Meanwhile, multimillionaires are not being snared at nearly the same rate as other filers. In part, that’s because much of the income of the superrich comes from investments. The tax breaks for investments — the grail of the administration’s tax-cutting crusade — are not counted as shelters under the alternative tax the way, say, children are <br
For the past few years, Congress has papered over the mess by passing temporary relief measures to shield most — though not all — upper-middle-income taxpayers from having to pay the alternative tax. The latest stopgap expires at the end of this year, leaving taxpayers exposed at ever lower income levels. Congress could pass another temporary stay, and it will probably do so <br
But stopgaps do little to protect the families already being unfairly clobbered by the alternative tax. And they make the nation’s underlying budget problems worse. Like the Bush tax cuts themselves, they result in less tax revenue than is needed, requiring the government to borrow heavily. The mounting debt of the Bush years — all of which must be paid back with interest — makes tax increases or budget cuts, or both, inevitable <br
The president wants to push off the day of reckoning until he leaves the White House, while whipping up voter fear of future tax increases. But the reality is that he and his supporters have laid the groundwork for higher taxes and hamstrung government, no matter who is in office in the months and years to come <br <br
That should about cover that nonsense then.