For people making over $250,000:
Democrats and Republicans poured cold water on President Obama's budget plan to cut down on wealthy taxpayers' charitable giving tax deductions, the second of his ambitious cost-savings plans to earn lawmakers' scorn, and underscoring the legislative minefield he is entering.When deductions for charitable giving are cut donations fall but don't fret Obama's plan takes care of that:[....]
Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years.
So, the government will take over charitable donations? Of course it will be to charities that Obama deems worthy. Another example of the intrusion of the Obama big government into our business. Looks like they'll be plenty more to come.
Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.ASTRID RIECKEN/THE WASHINGTON TIMES Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, describes "the good, the bad and the ugly" of President Obama's 2010 budget plan Thursday on Capitol Hill.
"Contained in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty," he said.
He disputed that giving would drop, and said an economic recovery will help charities, too.
BTW, this won't impact me at all so don't even bother saying that I shouldn't be complaining about deducting my charitable giving. I'd give the same amount whether it was deductible or not. I'm not rich so my charitable deductions aren't impacted. I'm actually more concerned for the charities because I know they'll lose money under this plan.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I read what you're saying...I see no reason to interact with one who accuses, while objecting to receiving the same treatment.
I said there are indications that you are one in the same. I did not say it was a fact.
Right.
I see no reason to interact with you.
MzEllen, "I read what you're saying...I see no reason to interact with one who accuses, while objecting to receiving the same treatment."
MzEllen does not want to interact because she knows that using "But after days of poring over the records, he [Kurtz] failed to produce any evidence of that in his Wall Street Journal article." The link you use to support false statements about Ayers and Obama.
As I said many comments ago, you hold yourself out to be a Christian. You give all Christians a black eye when you lie. Your lying drives people away from Christianity. It makes it more difficult to reach the unchurched when they see the hypocrisy of people like yourself and Palin making malicious lies to harm a persons reputation and sway their opinion.
It is not an occasional false statement or other blogs/comments negativity, slandering and negativity toward Obama is a mission for you, Michele, and others like Michelle Malkin (link on your website)
You said Bill Ayers appointed Obama to the board - provable that it was not a fact.
"I believe that Ayers was a terrorist and I believe that he does not regret it." (Ayers said he regretted it in 2001 Sun-Times)
"I believe that you will call me a liar even though it is a belief, not an intentional untruth. "
It does not matter if it is "not an intentional untruth" you have the obligation to not smear someone with a belief that has no supporting evidence and there is significant evidence that the statement is false.
MzEllen states on her website, "If a person tells me that something is permissible, but the Bible says that it is not - the Bible wins (example: homosexuality)."
Why did the word homosexuality not appear any in Bible until the 1946 RSV 1 Corinthians 6:9?
No, Julie, I do not wish to interact with you because of your hypocrisy and false accusations.
I have an answer, I'll be glad to give it, if you make a commitment to a civil conversation without accusation. Not that I'm planning on it.
MzEllen - it is sad that you cannot admit your false statements.
As I said, when you commit to civil discourse without accusations, I'll interact with you. Maybe in heaven; I do not question your salvation.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.