Did I hear Rush denounce tax cuts today?

[brouski]

Towards the end of his first hour, he had a caller on discussing the merits of the new home buyer tax credit. Rush called it a scam, and said something to the effect of "It's taking money from your neighbors to pay for it".

Well how is that different from any tax cut, Rush? Is it only a good thing when the wealthy get to keep more of their money?

[spinach]

Towards the end of his first hour, he had a caller on discussing the merits of the new home buyer tax credit. Rush called it a scam, and said something to the effect of "It's taking money from your neighbors to pay for it".

Well how is that different from any tax cut, Rush? Is it only a good thing when the wealthy get to keep more of their money?


because it isn't a tax cut.
a tax cut is reduction of taxes

a home buyer credit is nothing more than a government incentive to buy a home--
it's another form of easy credit. It's handing money to the person if that person agrees to spend a whole lot more money-for a house.


and in addition, there are a lot of people who did not qualify for it,that claimed it.
and in addition, it distorts the housing sales markets, creating a bubble--

which is exactly the same idiocy that caused the recent meltdown.
He is correct- it is a scam--
totally

it would be better just to cut taxes in general across the board, and let the consumer use that money as they see fit, to grow the economy. That way a dollar can make money, in investment--- rather than LOSE value in a house, as foreclosures drive home values down.

this tax credit nonsense will end up having the opposite effect as intended-
as all liberals programs do

[LouC]

Towards the end of his first hour, he had a caller on discussing the merits of the new home buyer tax credit. Rush called it a scam, and said something to the effect of "It's taking money from your neighbors to pay for it".

Well how is that different from any tax cut, Rush? Is it only a good thing when the wealthy get to keep more of their money?

An across the board tax cut gives all taxpayers some of their money back.

A first time home buyers tax credit as was discussed by Rush takes tax money from across the board, I.E. from everyone who pays taxes, and gives that money to just a small finite group of people.

[MrShotShot]

Towards the end of his first hour, he had a caller on discussing the merits of the new home buyer tax credit. Rush called it a scam, and said something to the effect of "It's taking money from your neighbors to pay for it".

Well how is that different from any tax cut, Rush? Is it only a good thing when the wealthy get to keep more of their money?

Fail.

Try again.

[rhet 2]

Question:

does anyone really think that we can break even on the national debt, much less reduce the trillions we now owe, without going to at least and 80% income tax on everybody, especially on the wealthy and middle class wealth producers?

A tax cut is IMPOSSIBLE, courtesy of government waste, graft, and corruption that enriches and empowers the political vote-buying sons of bitches in power.

And a tax increase to mega proportions is the only way the feds can now meet their mandatory commitments.

May I suggest one critical survival measure?

Revoke ALL political salaries and put the elected *******s into military style barracks, fed MREs and transported in humvees to and from their damned offices -- and that includes closing the White House for the duration, so POTUS can get up to the sound of Reville and make it out for morning PT on the quad right along with the rest of the worthless stupid PIG GUTS sucking our Treasury dry.

[Badger7]

Even an across the board tax cut would be useless as long as the govt keeps spending money it doesn't have.

[Iggy]

Tax cut = cut in the money you pay for taxes

home buyer tax credit = welfare

[F_Rat-46]

Question:

does anyone really think that we can break even on the national debt, much less reduce the trillions we now owe, without going to at least and 80% income tax on everybody, especially on the wealthy and middle class wealth producers?

A tax cut is IMPOSSIBLE, courtesy of government waste, graft, and corruption that enriches and empowers the political vote-buying sons of bitches in power.

And a tax increase to mega proportions is the only way the feds can now meet their mandatory commitments.

May I suggest one critical survival measure?

Revoke ALL political salaries and put the elected *******s into military style barracks, fed MREs and transported in humvees to and from their damned offices -- and that includes closing the White House for the duration, so POTUS can get up to the sound of Reville and make it out for morning PT on the quad right along with the rest of the worthless stupid PIG GUTS sucking our Treasury dry.

If only...:clap:

[spinach]

Even an across the board tax cut would be useless as long as the govt keeps spending money it doesn't have.

this is the vital point.
the correct policy is to slash spending with a chainsaw--
cut all the social programs and a whole lot of everything else-
and then pay the bills.

[johnrocks]

Same thing as a marriage/child tax credit, are those welfare/liberal?

[LouC]

...home buyer tax credit = welfare

Taxpayer funded welfare, not Obama money welfare.

I still cringe thinking about the total lack of simple understanding behind "Obama's stash..."

[johnrocks]

First-time homebuyers should begin planning now to take advantage of a new tax credit included in the recently enacted Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

Available for a limited time only, the credit:

*
Applies to home purchases after April 8, 2008, and before Jan. 1, 2009.
*
Reduces a taxpayer’s tax bill or increases his or her refund, dollar for dollar.
*
Is fully refundable, meaning that the credit will be paid out to eligible taxpayers, even if they owe no tax or the credit is more than the tax that they owe.

However, the credit operates much like an interest-free loan, because it must be repaid over a 15-year period. So, for example, an eligible taxpayer who buys a home today and properly claims the maximum available credit of $7,500 on his or her 2008 federal income tax return must begin repaying the credit by including one-fifteenth of this amount, or $500, as an additional tax on his or her 2010 return.

Eligible taxpayers will claim the credit on new IRS Form 5405. This form, along with further instructions on claiming the first-time homebuyer credit, will be included in 2008 tax forms and instructions and be available later this year on IRS.gov, the IRS Web site.

If you bought a home recently, or are considering buying one, the following questions and answers may help you determine whether you qualify for the credit.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=186831,00.html

[Metal Conservative]

this is the vital point.
the correct policy is to slash spending with a chainsaw--
cut all the social programs and a whole lot of everything else-
and then pay the bills.

+100! I have said it before on this board. Take all the entitlements that have been on the books for 40 to 50 years, and if they haven't acheived their goals, cut em! Same as we have to do in business, if something you try does not give you the results you planned for, you stop putting money into it and move on. The government does just the opposite, if it isn't working, throw more money at it, that should make it work! INSANITY!!!

[F_Rat-46]

First-time homebuyers should begin planning now to take advantage of a new tax credit included in the recently enacted Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

Available for a limited time only, the credit:

*
Applies to home purchases after April 8, 2008, and before Jan. 1, 2009.
*
Reduces a taxpayer’s tax bill or increases his or her refund, dollar for dollar.
*
Is fully refundable, meaning that the credit will be paid out to eligible taxpayers, even if they owe no tax or the credit is more than the tax that they owe.

However, the credit operates much like an interest-free loan, because it must be repaid over a 15-year period. So, for example, an eligible taxpayer who buys a home today and properly claims the maximum available credit of $7,500 on his or her 2008 federal income tax return must begin repaying the credit by including one-fifteenth of this amount, or $500, as an additional tax on his or her 2010 return.

Eligible taxpayers will claim the credit on new IRS Form 5405. This form, along with further instructions on claiming the first-time homebuyer credit, will be included in 2008 tax forms and instructions and be available later this year on IRS.gov, the IRS Web site.

If you bought a home recently, or are considering buying one, the following questions and answers may help you determine whether you qualify for the credit.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=186831,00.html

I wonder how this applys to four-year olds?

[johnrocks]

I wonder how this applys to four-year olds?

That's where the child tax credits come in,lol.

[LouC]

I wonder how this applys to four-year olds?

In a more perfect America the government would not be so incompetent so as to allow an unqualified four year old receive this credit.

Of course in a more perfect America such a redistribution of wealth would not even exist.

[Achilles]

I am confused. If the last 10 years of my professional working career I have paid x amount of taxes, where x > $8,000, how would me getting a tax credit be welfare? As long as someone has paid in excess of $8,000 in Federal taxes I fail to see how it is a handout.

[Guvnah]

Well how is that different from any tax cut, Rush? Is it only a good thing when the wealthy get to keep more of their money?

It's a sad thing that you don't know the difference.

[Guvnah]

I am confused. If the last 10 years of my professional working career I have paid x amount of taxes, where x > $8,000, how would me getting a tax credit be welfare? As long as someone has paid in excess of $8,000 in Federal taxes I fail to see how it is a handout.

See post #18.

Talk it over with brouski afterwards.

Sheesh...

[johnrocks]

Does this mean you guys oppose tax credits irregardless of what it is or just this one?

Child credits
Energy credits
Being able to deduct State Income tax
Mortgage interest


Honest question here or this just seems like partisan politics are at play just because it is a Democratic idea, or was it?

[Achilles]

See post #18.

Talk it over with brouski afterwards.

Sheesh...

It is a sad thing when your lack of reading comprehension or lack of perception prevents you from grasping the point of my post. Never did I relate the tax credit to a tax cut. I was arguing against calling it welfare for people who have paid an excess of $8,000 in Federal taxes.

Sheesh..

[LouC]

Does this mean you guys oppose tax credits irregardless of what it is or just this one?

Child credits
Energy credits
Being able to deduct State Income tax
Mortgage interest


Honest question here or this just seems like partisan politics are at play just because it is a Democratic idea, or was it?

I oppose all targeted credits.

I think that probably includes all of them.

[johnrocks]

I just googled and it looks like the vast majority of Republican Seators voted "YEA".
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-96

Let me go see what R Congress critters did.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

It'd be nice to see a conservative say that tax cuts without spending cuts is not only not good, it's tremendously bad. Ah well.

[johnrocks]

I oppose all targeted credits.

I think that probably includes all of them.

Then I'll give you an "A" for consistency. :razz:

[Achilles]

I oppose all targeted credits.

I think that probably includes all of them.

I oppose targetted credits that exceed that amount of taxes someone has paid into the system. Other than that, I'll happily allow my money returned to me.

[johnrocks]

It'd be nice to see a conservative say that tax cuts without spending cuts is not only not good, it's tremendously bad. Ah well.

Raising hand :shifty:

[F_Rat-46]

Does this mean you guys oppose tax credits irregardless of what it is or just this one?

Child credits
Energy credits
Being able to deduct State Income tax
Mortgage interest


Honest question here or this just seems like partisan politics are at play just because it is a Democratic idea, or was it?

How about this: Just LOWER our damned taxes and get rid of all the credits. And make the tax form a one page form. Money in- money out. And while they are at it, stop spending so damned much!

[Achilles]

It'd be nice to see a conservative say that tax cuts without spending cuts is not only not good, it's tremendously bad. Ah well.

I am a Conservative and I agree with you. First cut spending, then cut taxes. To do so in reverse is impossible.

[johnrocks]

How about this: Just LOWER our damned taxes and get rid of all the credits. And make the tax form a one page form. Money in- money out. And while they are at it, stop spending so damned much!

I'm gonna give you an "A" too.:razz:

[LouC]

It'd be nice to see a conservative say that tax cuts without spending cuts is not only not good, it's tremendously bad. Ah well.

:snooty:

Everyone forgets me.

I have always stated spending cuts first, spending cuts second, and spending cuts third, then perhaps we might know where some taxes could be cut.

[brouski]

How about this: Just LOWER our damned taxes and get rid of all the credits. And make the tax form a one page form. Money in- money out. And while they are at it, stop spending so damned much!

:clap: I'll go for this.

And thanks for the discussion, everyone. My hackles stood up when I heard this, because it seemed inconsistent. LouC probably explained it best in post #3.

[VCaddy05]

Same thing as a marriage/child tax credit, are those welfare/liberal?

Its a valid point IMO. I am under the impression that there should be very little deviation in what someone pays in taxes, then again I want a Fair tax

[spinach]

How about this: Just LOWER our damned taxes and get rid of all the credits. And make the tax form a one page form. Money in- money out. And while they are at it, stop spending so damned much!


a flat rate makes a lot more sense- with no deductions.
and that should only be done once guards are put into law to prevent social programs and to prevent deficits.

the thing is, unless you explicitly disallow something, government is gonna find a way to get what it wants. Relying on the courts to interpret the constitution has been a demonstrable failure.

we need to rewrite the constitution, and put it in baby talk, where every single thing is explicit-- to prevent the government from twisting words and meanings.

[LouC]

:clap: I'll go for this.

And thanks for the discussion, everyone. My hackles stood up when I heard this, because it seemed inconsistent. LouC probably explained it best in post #3.

Thanks :redface:



:)

[Bluesgtr44]

Towards the end of his first hour, he had a caller on discussing the merits of the new home buyer tax credit. Rush called it a scam, and said something to the effect of "It's taking money from your neighbors to pay for it".

Well how is that different from any tax cut, Rush? Is it only a good thing when the wealthy get to keep more of their money?

"Any tax cut"....put's the money back in the hands of the rightful owner. The home buyer tax credit puts it in a pot and specifies who can have any of it.....i.e. I put money in, but unless I buy a home....I get bupkiss.

[F_Rat-46]

a flat rate makes a lot more sense- with no deductions.
and that should only be done once guards are put into law to prevent social programs and to prevent deficits.

the thing is, unless you explicitly disallow something, government is gonna find a way to get what it wants. Relying on the courts to interpret the constitution has been a demonstrable failure.

we need to rewrite the constitution, and put it in baby talk, where every single thing is explicit-- to prevent the government from twisting words and meanings.

Just one more thing. EVERYONE should have to pay taxes, no matter what. Because, if you don't have some skin in the game, then politicians can manipulate the game. When they try to raise taxes, then the poorest ones will get up in arms about it and it probably won't happen. Now, close to 49 per cent of the population don't give a darn, since they don't pay taxes to begin with.

[johnrocks]

Its a valid point IMO. I am under the impression that there should be very little deviation in what someone pays in taxes, then again I want a Fair tax

I'd like to see the 16th abolished and replaced with nothing, I read that if we just spent what we did 10 years ago, we could do this, I think it was Throwcop that stated this.:confused:

[Bluesgtr44]

Originally Posted by Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese View Post
It'd be nice to see a conservative say that tax cuts without spending cuts is not only not good, it's tremendously bad. Ah well.

Yep! Putting the cart before the horse doesn't seem to work to well......Now, if Obama is sincere when saying "you have to set deadlines here in Washington or nothing gets done", make the damn cuts and force them to stay within them......it's called veto!

[AvgGuyIA]

because it isn't a tax cut.
a tax cut is reduction of taxes

a home buyer credit is nothing more than a government incentive to buy a home--
it's another form of easy credit. It's handing money to the person if that person agrees to spend a whole lot more money-for a house.


and in addition, there are a lot of people who did not qualify for it,that claimed it.
and in addition, it distorts the housing sales markets, creating a bubble--

which is exactly the same idiocy that caused the recent meltdown.
He is correct- it is a scam--
totally

it would be better just to cut taxes in general across the board, and let the consumer use that money as they see fit, to grow the economy. That way a dollar can make money, in investment--- rather than LOSE value in a house, as foreclosures drive home values down.

this tax credit nonsense will end up having the opposite effect as intended-
as all liberals programs doThere you go again tryin' to explain common sense to liberals. :wall:

[mrwardrop]

This might be off topic, but this seems like the banter of the day, so it could be totally related as well. I've been on vacation for a week and not listening to the news, so could someone kindly tell my why the stock market is collapsing?

[Guvnah]

It is a sad thing when your lack of reading comprehension or lack of perception prevents you from grasping the point of my post. Never did I relate the tax credit to a tax cut. I was arguing against calling it welfare for people who have paid an excess of $8,000 in Federal taxes.

Sheesh..

Your question lacks the same basic understanding of the issue.

The new-home tax credit is the same problem whether or not the recipient has paid $8000 in taxes previously. (Or even if he paid $8000 in the year he got the credit.)

Go back to post 18. Maybe brouski can help you understand it.

[AvgGuyIA]

Same thing as a marriage/child tax credit, are those welfare/liberal?No. We are growing future revenue sources for the government. The marriage rebate is for the cost of doing business.

[Guvnah]

How about this: Just LOWER our damned taxes and get rid of all the credits. And make the tax form a one page form. Money in- money out. And while they are at it, stop spending so damned much!

We'd have a zero-page form if we just went to a consumption tax. And then we could eliminate most of the IRS.

[animalnut]

Towards the end of his first hour, he had a caller on discussing the merits of the new home buyer tax credit. Rush called it a scam, and said something to the effect of "It's taking money from your neighbors to pay for it".

Well how is that different from any tax cut, Rush? Is it only a good thing when the wealthy get to keep more of their money?

You left out that he said it enabled people to buy homes who otherwise couldn't afford them. He compared it to the cash for clunkers program that's been such a bargain for the taxpapers. :rolleyes:

[Guvnah]

a flat rate makes a lot more sense- with no deductions.
...

Our current income tax structure grew from a simple flat rate tax.

[F_Rat-46]

We'd have a zero-page form if we just went to a consumption tax. And then we could eliminate most of the IRS.

I agree.

[LouC]

...And then we could eliminate most of the IRS.

I know where I would like to eliminate them to... :twisted:

[Bluesgtr44]

We'd have a zero-page form if we just went to a consumption tax. And then we could eliminate most of the IRS.

Hey, hey....we're creating jobs....not eliminating them....

[F_Rat-46]

I know where I would like to eliminate them to... :twisted:

They would clog the 1.6 gal per flush toilet.

[brouski]

You left out that he said it enabled people to buy homes who otherwise couldn't afford them. He compared it to the cash for clunkers program that's been such a bargain for the taxpapers. :rolleyes:

That argument is bogus; like the caller said, it's the fault of the lender if they approve a loan to a buyer that can't afford it.

[Badger7]

That argument is bogus; like the caller said, it's the fault of the lender if they approve a loan to a buyer that can't afford it.

Why shouldn't they make a bad loan? They know they can just sell it to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

[Mojotiger]

That argument is bogus; like the caller said, it's the fault of the lender if they approve a loan to a buyer that can't afford it.

I would say that both are fault. Why should the borrower be absolved of any responsibility for their own finances?

[reflechissez]

I oppose all targeted credits.

I think that probably includes all of them.

i'm with you.

[nikoloslvy]

Towards the end of his first hour, he had a caller on discussing the merits of the new home buyer tax credit. Rush called it a scam, and said something to the effect of "It's taking money from your neighbors to pay for it".

Well how is that different from any tax cut, Rush? Is it only a good thing when the wealthy get to keep more of their money?

i dont care.what do you think about tax cuts and spending cuts?

[brouski]

i dont care.what do you think about tax cuts and spending cuts?

I think, like many people, in the big picture tax cuts without spending cuts are foolish. But I personally like keeping more of my money at tax time.

[brouski]

I would say that both are fault. Why should the borrower be absolved of any responsibility for their own finances?

They shouldn't. I was specifically responding to an assertion that any defaults would be the fault of the government for creating the tax credit.

[Mojotiger]

They shouldn't. I was specifically responding to an assertion that any defaults would be the fault of the government for creating the tax credit.

Whoops, sorry.

[brouski]

Whoops, sorry.

All good. Give me a hug, big guy. :hug:

[nikoloslvy]

I think, like many people, in the big picture tax cuts without spending cuts are foolish. But I personally like keeping more of my money at tax time.

ahhhh....

[grapabeaux]

For the record, here's the exchange in question. It has as much to do with repeating the sins that caused Fannie and Freddie to go under as it is about the effectiveness and fairness of tax credits in general.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_103009/content/01125108.guest.html



CALLER: I wanted to discuss your thoughts on the first-time home buyer tax credit first. I'll give you my impression. The way I look at it is, I'm coming from a state where Cash for Clunkers program was designed by my congressman, so obviously we're all big fans of that, let me tell you. The way I see that happening is that's more of a, you know, here's a check, here's 4,000 bucks, go buy a car. The tax credit, the way I see it, is more of a tax cut for first-time home buyers. I'm in favor of the idea behind it, but execution, as you talk about on your show has been substandard as most government programs are. What's your impression of the program overall?

RUSH: The first-time home buyer program?

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: It's a scam.

CALLER: What makes it a scam?

RUSH: It's a scam. It's just a continuation of the whole subprime mortgage thing. It's putting people in homes that have no business being in them because they can't afford them. It's buying votes. It's distorting the economy. It's growing government. It's just not gonna work because if it takes $8,000 to get 'em in, at some point they're going to be defaulting on the mortgage.

[...]

RUSH: He's calling from Davenport, Iowa. This is an illustration of how these kind of programs in a recession seem compassionate and nice because home ownership is part of the American dream and here's President Obama in the middle of a recession actually enabling people to buy a home, and people are being foreclosed on. It's a good program, it's a wonderful, nice program. And people who believe that, you know, get caught up in the emotion of it and do not understand the flawed aspects, the market distortions, the fact that your neighbor is giving you the eight grand. Where do you think it's coming from? Why don't you instead of having the government do it, why don't you go next door and ask your neighbor for $8,000 so that you can go buy a house? Or why don't you go through the neighborhood and ask as many people as you can for a total of $8,000? Because that's what you're doing. It's not the government giving you money. It is money being taken from people and given to others. It's just more redistribution, and it's all for the purpose of creating as much doubt in people's minds that they can do anything on their on, that they can't do anything without government. It's a stinking bad program, it sets a horrible precedent, and beyond that, it won't work.http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/spc.gif

[grapabeaux]

I'd also add that when conservatives talk about tax cuts, in most cases they talk about cuts in tax rates, or allowing additional or accelerated deductions*. Adding tax credits, much less refundable tax credits, is not something that's been a big part of the Republican or conservative list of proposals.



*Deductions reduce income, which only provide a tax benefit if you have income to apply it against, as opposed to a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for doing what the government approves of.