KaskadskyjKozak

Crap? You mean like climbing gear right? The sport of the rich, with high-priced luxury items made of space-age materials, light-weight alloys, synthetic fibers, and so on? Or your shit don't stink?

Wow, you're fucking funny. Did you think of that all on your own? You can mock religion and its practitioners, and I can mock you, dickhead. Can't take what you dish out. Tough shit.

Was your TA's name Gary? That would explain the sympathy point sickie sickie :laf: I TA'd and later taught a "weeder" course in CSE at a major university, and 30/100 was still a passing grade... And my favorite horror story of grade inflation is from an Econ 101 class at the UC system (where the average SAT score was over 1200). On one midterm the mean score was 37/100 (that was a B). I scored a 100.

Maybe so, but not w/r/t grammar. What you mean to say is that "knowledge and intelligence are all relative." nitpicking typos is poor netiquette. I type 60 wpm, and rarely proof-read these frivolous postings, so spelling and grammar errors are inevitable (and not worth fixing). Now go lick sack.

I could come up with a simplified tax code, and immediately people would jump all over it and talk about how one group or another was getting screwed and someone else (usually the "rich") are benefiting. I mistrust the flat tax proposals because rich Republicans like Forbes are all over them. Something smells rotten in Denmark. I mistrust a lot of anti-flat tax proposals because I suspect those detractors are worried of losing their base, that they pay off with the current system of deductions. And what would happen to all those tax lawyers, tax-preparation firms, Quicken, etc?

I could come up with a simplified tax code, and immediately people would jump all over it and talk about how one group or another was getting screwed and someone else (usually the "rich") are benefiting. I mistrust the flat tax proposals because rich Republicans like Forbes are all over them. Something smells rotten in Denmark. I mistrust a lot of anti-flat tax proposals because I suspect those detractors are worried of losing their base, that they pay off with the current system of deductions. And what would happen to all those tax lawyers, tax-preparation firms, Quicken, etc?

Kerry was a C student too. BTW, I graduated magna cum laude from the UC system, do you want me to be your next president?

No…..but they can start by impeaching the current administration. If they do not….it sets a precedent to our children that its ok to lie, cheat, steal and be corrupt. There's only a year to the election you bonehead. Impeachment would suck up all the time and detract from the campaign. It could backfire bigtime and would be a complete misallocation of energy.

Damn! Thats a castle. I live very comfortably (with a child) in a house half that size. No shit, I live very comfortably in a house less than half that size, with 2 kids. 4 people with 1500 sq ft is not bad. If you're happy good for you. I wouldn't be.

Define behemoth. There's a point where you are right, and a point below that where we completely disagree. I think the ability for many middle-class americans to afford a 2000 sq ft house for a family of 4 or 5 is a great improvement in the quality of life over a 1000-1200 sq ft house that the GI's might have moved into after WWII. It's a sign of progress, not weakness. The "fattening" of America is occurring by means completely unrelated to home sizes, IMO. Entitlement, laziness, lack of standards, low expectations - these are what lead to our "fattening". As for spine weakening I don't know WTF are you talking about there...

How small. Be specific. And are you still in such a small studio? Also, if you regularly used common/shared space in your rental building you have to add that to your square footage.

or to be tempted by a behavior you feel is wrong and fail to reject that temptation. as if anyone is perfect?

I think it's human nature to notice the examples that stick out and disproportionately attribute them in broad-brush strokes to everyone in that perceived (ideological, ethnic, regional, racial, whatever) group. I never heard of this Craig guy until yesterday. And I can't say whether he's one of those supposed "self-righteous" types on the specific matter at hand (homosexuality, "family values", whatever). However, I know other Republicans get attacked for this, who I know have never, or rarely been "self-righteous" in the matter they are accused of having transgressed. And whatever Craig has done hardly reflects on others who haven't stepped over some moral-hypocrisy line while speaking the "self-righteous" rhetoric you are annoyed by. And in any case, I don't revel in anyone's downfall. Look at it this way, suppose the guy is guilty. So what? Firstly, he's looking for consensual sex. I thought sex didn't matter? And it's with adults, so no crime there? IN a public place - well you've never had sex in a public place? Or wouldn't? Have you ever run into someone in public having sex? Shit, I passed by a car on the I-5 a few weeks ago, looked left and saw a chick giving road-head to the driver in broad daylight. The HORROR! We must enforce this law! Maybe it's the libertarian in me, but I think it's much ado about nothing, and a waste of resources to have cops running sex sting operations in public restrooms, and a waste of time and money and life energy attacking this guy. Shit, we've just spent a week or two crucifying Michael Vick for something legitimately wrong - but the disproportionality of the outrage and attention we focus on the issue of the day in a slow news cycle is what irks me.

An absolute number in isolation is meaningless. Divide your square footage by the number of occupants, and you get a more meaningful baseline for discussion. 3000 sq ft for 2 or 3 people is ridiculous. For 5 or 6, is not so bad at all. How many single childless folks here would live in a 600 sq ft studio and think that is "luxurious"?

It's not as burdensome, thanks to the deductions for mortgage interest, you dumbass. We all can figure our personal cost-benefit analysis and make that choice based on the status quo. The proposal was to CUT the deductions for mortgage interest, and child/dependent care deductions. Changing the status quo is the topic under discussion. If someone thinks it's so unfair to rent and not get a deduction, figure out if you could benefit more by owning. If so, buy. If not, shut up. If you think people benefit monetarily by having kids and taking a deduction, well, I've got news for you, you don't come out "ahead", but you do get a lot of help to make ends meet.

Wow.....someone just got bitch slapped in the face. Oh yes, DPS really knows the value of my property and my annual income. I've been so burned. And one child, God, what an expense!

We have a convoluted tax code with "checks and balances" throughout it. The tax rate is progressive and based on income. Deductions are based on individual expenses and financial burdens balanced with benefits to society and the economy as a whole. Deductions themselves are in turn limited and based on income - e.g. the AMT. The deduction for a "child" (there are at least 2, three if you are poor enough) is for a dependent, which can include an elderly parent. The deduction helps the family afford care for that parent - otherwise the state would have to pay for said care. The deduction for a child makes it easier to afford the basics for taking care of the child - food, shelter, health care, education, music and sports lessons, etc. Take away the tax credit and something else MUST give. Another deduction that has not been mentioned is for cost of adoption. Families are reducing the state's responsibility for an orphan or unwanted child by adopting, at a great personal cost. The benefits to society should be obvious. There are deductions for moving more than 50 miles, for having a disability, for having exhorbitant health expenses, etc. And then of course there are the benefits for employer-sponsored 401(k)s. Why should that be a deduction? I mean, if you choose not to save money, that's your choice right? And employer-sponsored flexible spending programs - why should you get a tax break for paying your insurance premium, buying sunglasses, etc - we all have those bills, right? In short discussing removal of one or two specific deductions in isolation is ludicrous. They are all part of a complicated progressive tax system. The alternative is actually something like the "flat" tax, which may seem like an enticing alternative, but I strongly suspect it would actually prove worse than our existing system.

rental properties have lots of costs they take on, and pass on to you, but you don't have to spend your time on addressing them either (maintenance, meeting fire codes, etc.) Time translates to money as well. if you want to reap the benefits of these tax deductions, buy. if not, quit whining about it. until you have run your own household, and seen what it takes (a hell of a lot more cost and work than renting), you'll never know.

grades in US high schools and universities are ridiculously overinflated. they've even dumbed down the SAT so scores can be higher. it's all about not harming the fragile self-esteem of our students, making them "feel good" about themselves (w/o justification). the culture of entitlement. hmm... "feelings" and "entitlement", I wonder where a lot of THOSE ideas come from.

if you don't like it, buy a property.

Eliminate property taxes, and don't RAISE the federal income tax, and I'll be happy to forgo some of these deductions. The problem is overtaxing from multiple sides. As long as we have this crazy system of taxation nickle and diming us to death, I will have to play the game.

I'm glad to see that you await my every post with eager anticipation, Minxie.

if you're right about that (I can't afford your house) then you're rich enough that it doesn't matter either way. And you are more than welcome to NOT take that deduction and pay extra taxes, BTW. For folks in the middle class, who shoulder the tax burden, the mortgage deduction and child tax credit are HUGE.

Yes, because they pay a mortgage (with interest) and property taxes.

This is an interesting idea, certainly the size home one owns has an impact just as the size and efficiency of one's car. Neither of these choices, however, has anywhere near the environmental impact as having children. If the US was serious about limiting environmental impact we would eliminate tax breaks for having children, or better yet implement tax penalties for having children. Another heartless right-winger attacking welfare. Shameful. The childless renters speak. Try managing a budget and raising a family in a decent neighborhood before you spew your crap. The children your neighbors have (and get a tax break for) will be funding your social security payment someday.