gubermintcheez

Politics and other nonsense

Name:
Location: Ohio

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Cheney and his "charity donations"

This just goes to show ya. No matter how charitable a republican "appears" hes only interested in using that charity to avoid any taxes. In other words, it makes one look good, while its also making one a boatlaod a free cash money.

Cheneys getting refund of nearly $2 million
By CHRISTOPHER LEE
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON - President Bush and first lady Laura Bush paid $187,768 in federal income taxes on taxable income of $618,694 in 2005, the White House said Friday.
Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, reported considerably larger sums in all categories. They also have a refund check of nearly $2 million on the way, reflecting the complexities of how the Cheneys have distributed their tax burden and withholding in recent years.
The Bushes' numbers were down a bit from last year, when they paid $207,307 in federal taxes on taxable income of $672,788.
The Bushes' income included the president's $400,000 annual salary along with the investment income from trusts in which their assets are held, for an overall adjusted gross income of $735,180 in 2005. Their adjusted gross income was $784,219 in 2004.
In both years they gave roughly 10 percent of their income to charity -- $77,785 in 2004 and $75,560 last year.
The Cheneys owed $529,636 in federal taxes on $1.96 million in taxable income in 2005, according to their tax return, released by the White House. Their income included the vice president's annual salary, $205,031, and $211,465 in deferred compensation from Halliburton Co., the Texas-based energy services company and defense contractor that he headed until August 2000. Before leaving Halliburton, a large military contractor in Iraq, Cheney chose to defer his 1999 salary as chief executive officer and have it paid to him, with interest, in fixed annual installments over five years after his retirement from the company.
Because the Cheneys exercised stock options and earned royalties from books written by Lynne Cheney last year, the couple's adjusted gross income for 2005 was nearly $8.82 million.
They donated much of the money from those sources -- about $6.87 million -- to charity.
That reduced their taxable income considerably, entitling the couple to a tax refund of $1.94 million because they paid $2.46 million in withholding and estimated taxes during 2005, according to the White House.
The Cheneys appear to have taken advantage of a tax break passed by Congress in the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005, said Steve Hurok, tax director at BDO Seidman, a national tax consulting and professional services firm. The provision temporarily suspended a federal rule that prevents people from taking tax deductions on charitable cash giving that exceeds 50 percent of their adjusted gross income.
That change, which expired at the end of the year, allowed the Cheneys to deduct from their taxable income the full $6.8 million of their charitable giving last year, rather than the $4.4 million that normally would have been eligible, Hurok said. In essence, the Cheneys donated the extra $2.4 million to charity without having to pay taxes on the money or defer the tax benefits to future years.
"It's in the law, and his tax adviser advised him of that, presumably," Hurok said. The law did not specify that the donations had to go to Hurricane Katrina-related charities.
The Cheneys' charitable donations went to George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates for the benefit of the Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming Foundation and Capital Partners for Education, which helps low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C., area.
Recipients of the Bushes' charitable donations included the Mississippi Food Network, the Archdiocese of New Orleans Catholic Charities, and the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army's funds for hurricane relief in the United States and earthquake aid in Pakistan. The Bushes also gave to Martha's Table, which provides food and services to the underprivileged in the Washington area, and to the Combined Federal Campaign.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

The party that loves to start wars

• Tom Delay: did not serve.
• Roy Blunt: did not serve.
• Bill Frist: did not serve.
• Rick Santorum: did not serve.
• Trent Lott: did not serve.
• Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, thelast by marriage.
• John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments toteach business
• Jeb Bush: did not serve.
• Karl Rove: did not serve.
• Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
• Richard Perle: did not serve.
• Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
• John Roberts: did not serve.
• George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year Air National Guard tour of duty; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty (AWOL).
• Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
• George Pataki: did not serve.
• John Bolton: "I didn't want to die in some Southeast Asian rice paddy. . ."
• Sean Hannity: did not serve.
• Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a'pilonidal cyst.')
• Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
• Michael Savage: did not serve.
• George Will: did not serve.
• Chris Matthews: did not serve.
• Paul Gigot: did not serve.
• Bill Bennett: did not serve.
• Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
• Bill Kristol: did not serve.
• Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
• Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
• Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
• Michael Medved: did not serve.

a short list of republican leaders , movers and shakers who puked out when it was their turn

Friday, April 21, 2006

This is the shit

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/21/181944/610

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Worst in history

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

They aint listenin' to the citizens

Do any of these eggheads hear what the American people are saying?

This isn't about left or right this is about the federal goverment not fulfilling it's promises to us on every front. We have paid billion upon billion in taxes and all we get is jerk offsd riding around in bulletproof limo's spouting invective that is so churlish and hateful I consider them to have declared war on America.
They shipped our jobs overseas. In the last 6 years average incomes have dropped 6 to 8 thousand per year. Our ports are wide open receptacles for any foreign horror to come waltzing in at will. Our border to the south is a joke. Pure and simple. Who's up next to shit on us? We welcome any and all who hate us and want to use us and throw us away.
If I see one more twentysomething little Mexican cutie wrapped in OUR flag I am going to run into the streets screaming. After our government sells us out to the Mexicans and insults every REAL citizen in the land and we are completely raped of our dignity maybe then they will be happy. For we will have given away all of our rights and surrendered all that it is to be an American. Wanna be an American. Sure just walk across the Mexican border. Those idiots will give you free health care and a job the first day you are there ILLEGALLY!
No wonder the world is laughing at us more and more each and every day. With friends like Mr Graham who is a United States senator no less we sure don't need any enemies. He should be taken out and shot for treason.
- andyboy, 04.11.2006 from a post at Huffington Post

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Republicans/Nazis


People Who Call Themselves Republican

In order to understand why 34% of Americans still believe in Bush, you must understand the mentality with which we are dealing. First, though, I hate picking on one party and ripping them, because any good point you make gets spun into the ramblings of a left or right winger thing, which is related to the old "Us and Them" struggle. Having said that, I will say this:Republicans don't realize what they represent to every one in the world who is not one of them. To most people, they represent hate and 'otherliness.' The Allies might have won most of the battles of World War II, but Fascism won the War.

I know this characterization may seem harsh, rude, or even overboard to any Republican reading this, but allow me to explain.The Life Blood of the Republican Party seems to be a Grand Coalition of "Anti's." What I mean by that is a formation of groups who are joined together based on what they are against. I feel this is the founding statement in understanding the mentality that guides the whole party. The personality traits of most Republicans centers on people who form judgments based on what they don't like or on things that anger them, rather than judgments based on love for their fellow man. While anger is a powerful motivating force, more times than not it is pre-programmed in Republicans to allow or even encourage evil actions or deeds.

In reviewing Republicans I personally know, I quickly understand that being Republican implicitly means that there is a person, group, or constituency in America that you just Hate. It could be blacks, or Jews, or Mexicans, or city folks, or Liberals, or civil rights activists, or pro choice citizens, or the French, or Muslims, or Arabs, affirmative action proponents, women, gays, foreigners, and the list goes on forever. To me, this is the main reason Republicans seem to be able to get their followers to go to the polls more easily than Democrats. We know that Hate is a powerful mobilizing force and it is this force that Republican leaders and decision makers depend upon.

They may only have 35% of the population, but they can count on nearly 100% participation.Whatever group it is that you hate, the Republican Party will gladly invite themselves in to hate them alongside you. This is why many citizens, as well as politicians, say they are afraid of Republicans. They seem to believe that because of these intense fires of hatred, there is no manner of wickedness that Republicans are not capable of.All one has to do is look at the way they govern to be aware of where their priorities lie. With the exception of abortion, Republicans legislate almost always in favor of Big Money, property, corporations, and any other inanimate object before they concern themselves with necessities naturally accruing to human beings. Now, of course, this is not the case in every individual who calls themselves Republican, but as a group or voting block, they seem to just hate their fellow human citizen for no other reason but that they are something other than them. Or they are filled with so much anger towards certain groups they consider enemies, that they will condone any type of barbarism, torture, or any other murderous action against them.This brings me to the whole "God is on our Side" thing, of which they seem especially proud. Oddly, I cannot find any major Republican agenda that is truly in line with any of Jesus' basic teachings.

Today's Republicans are vehemently against almost every public program designed to help humans live better lives. From national health care, to public education, to Head Start, to after school programs, Affirmative Action, civil rights issues, women's rights, to minimum wage for workers, they seem united in their prejudices. It frightens most normal Christians, for instance, that Republicans seem to pick and choose which path they will walk with their God. For example, it is okay to go to war and get hundreds of thousands of living beings killed or maimed, but any form of abortion is simply immoral. They say they are "pro-life" but at the same time claim ownership of the death penalty.

This is the thinking of people who can rationalize any form of wickedness, as long as it suits their rigid goals. Jesus' teachings, to me, state that we must love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Republican teachings seem to mean that you should love yourself first, and let everyone else worry about themselves. This is as unholy and immoral a message as any that Nazi Germany practised in World War II. It is also a device designed to separate some Americans from most Americans. It is an earnestly studied mentality the kind of which made the Holocaust possible, and now it's successor, the Iraq War.This is only a start of what makes less-than-one-out-of-three Americans think and act like they do. I will be adding more as time goes by especially as the courts become more crowded with the principals we are now just beginning to examine.First, there are a few things that should be remembered by all law abiding, Constitution loving American citizens: Democracy is NOT DEAD and it will not be killed off by this "temporary majority" of street thugs, puritanical misfits, and overly privileged cowboys. Democracy is more than an attitude, it is a genuine culture that has grown in the hearts and minds of enough generations of American citizens that it will never be successfully extinguished by any one person, group of persons, and certainly not upon the "cause" of any event no matter how dire. They don't believe this so they, like many before them, will just have to be shown, again.Your world is over, Trolls, and it looks like you're the last to find out, or maybe it is just your reluctance, or inability, to accept regular old Truths. Or maybe you are too addicted to those "Created Realities" Komrad Karl has so successfully washed your brain with.
- Bobleah

Monday, April 03, 2006

Repukes cut poor people and..

Tax Cuts for the Rich
March 29, 2006By Gene C. Gerard
President Bush's 2007 budget that was released last month includes significant cuts in housing assistance. The new budget for the Housing Choice Voucher Program underfunds 70 percent of the state and municipal housing agencies that oversee the program, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Although the Republican Congress has debated the cuts affecting the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), it appears unlikely that Mr. Bush's cuts will be opposed. Ironically, Congress is also considering yet another tax cut for the wealthy.
The voucher program is the country's largest low-income housing program. It provides poor households with vouchers they can use to rent housing in the private sector. Since 2004 voucher assistance for over 100,000 families have been cut because HUD doesn't allocate the vouchers based on current needs. Mr. Bush's 2007 budget relies on the same funding formula that has caused the shortages in the past few years.
Under the administration's formula, every housing agency's funding level is based on the dollar amount it was eligible to receive the previous year. The level is adjusted by an inflation factor determined by HUD based on data that is two-years old. But this formula doesn't consider the actual number of vouchers the agency distributed the previous year or changes in local voucher costs. As a result, many agencies are left with inadequate funds to continue all of the vouchers currently being used.
In reality, HUD's voucher assistance program has never been fully funded. Since the formula was first adopted in 2005, the Bush administration has failed to request enough funding to give agencies the total amounts they are eligible for under the formula. Consequently, HUD was forced to impose funding cuts on housing agencies in 2005 and 2006 that were well below the formula amount. The new budget continues this pattern, requiring even larger cuts next year, which will force agencies that are already strapped to reduce vouchers even more.
Mr. Bush's budget for 2007 also cuts tenant protection vouchers by $30 million. These vouchers replace other types of federal housing assistance that are eliminated, such as public-housing units in New Orleans that have been demolished. As a result of all the cuts, state and municipal agencies won't be able to fund more than 40 percent of their authorized vouchers next year. In the nation's capital, for example, the local housing authority is helping 610 fewer families this year than last, and it will have to eliminate assistance to 145 more families next year.
Although the federal government began to address homelessness under President Johnson in the 1960s, the problem remains real and pervasive. According to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, the annual homeless population is approximately 3.5 million people, or 1.3 percent of the U.S. population. And 40 percent of the homeless population is comprised of families with children. In fact, 39 percent of the homeless are children, almost half of who are under the age of five. In 2004, the demand for housing by the homeless increased by 14 percent.
Ironically, at the same time that the Republican Congress is debating these housing cuts for the poor, it's considering a tax cut for the wealthy. Presently, only individuals who earn less than $100,000 a year can convert their tax-deductible I.R.A. into the newer Roth I.R.A. The Roth is much better than the traditional I.R.A., because no taxes are paid when money is withdrawn. In effect, these tax-free withdrawals are a government handout.
The current tax code doesn't allow those earning over $100,000 to convert their original I.R.A. into the Roth version. And that's as it should be. The wealthy already enjoy numerous tax cuts and subsidies. But the Republican Congress is considering amending the law to allow those earning more than $100,000 to enjoy the tax-free benefits of the Roth I.R.A. Yet Congress is not willing to oppose President Bush's housing assistance cuts.
Given the number of those left homeless in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, the housing voucher cuts are particularly offensive. Mr. Bush should fully fund HUD, such that it can meet at least the current voucher needs. Failing that, Congress should take it upon itself to do so. It's the least it can do, especially if more tax cuts are going to be given to the wealthy.

Taken from a post at Democratic Underground

Google