Mid-Morning Open Thread [CBD]

Girl At The Window
John Eastman

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:58 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1

and violin!

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 10:00 AM (mLV8D)

2 Don't like, too foggy looking.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at August 09, 2016 10:00 AM (mpXpK)

3 Is she waiting for news of Nixon's resignation?

Posted by: Kindltot at August 09, 2016 10:01 AM (ry34m)

4 That's a girl?

Posted by: IC at August 09, 2016 10:01 AM (KTFfX)

5 Looks kind of spooky to me.

Then again, I've been binging on the Black Tapes podcast, so I've got that sort of thing on my mind.

Posted by: joe, living dangerously at August 09, 2016 10:03 AM (KUaJL)

6 Creepy. What, exactly is she reaching for?

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at August 09, 2016 10:03 AM (SeD0w)

7 That's really not that good, is it?

Posted by: tubal at August 09, 2016 10:03 AM (d6TTt)

8 That's a girl? Looks more like a dude. A homely dude.

Artist should stick to still-life.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Get Your Beach Blanket Statements and Other Vacation Supplies at The Outrage Outlet! at August 09, 2016 10:03 AM (hLRSq)

9 Girl? Looks like a butcher taking a break.

Posted by: rickb223 TEXIT at August 09, 2016 10:04 AM (SCvwT)

10 Creepy. What, exactly is she reaching for?>>>

Probably a Glock.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at August 09, 2016 10:04 AM (Mxs5H)

11 Looks like she's afraid & reaching for something. Not a well-executed painting, but still evocative. Reminds me of a still from an old mystery movie.

Posted by: josephistan at August 09, 2016 10:04 AM (7HtZB)

12 She wants to steal that baby over there.

Posted by: Roland [OMITTED] at August 09, 2016 10:04 AM (QM5S2)

13 Hooker soliciting business?

Posted by: steevy at August 09, 2016 10:04 AM (fA75F)

14 Dude looks like a lady?

Posted by: Chi at August 09, 2016 10:05 AM (FGWX2)

15 Looks more like Drunk Girl at Window. Me no likey.

Posted by: Cheri at August 09, 2016 10:05 AM (oiNtH)

16 Painted by Ace after his eye surgery.

Posted by: a T-Rex trying to rub one out at August 09, 2016 10:05 AM (H9MG5)

17
Girl Born Without A Face Reaching For Sniper Rifle
John Eastman

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at August 09, 2016 10:05 AM (Xv6Y5)

18 When it comes to window paintings the Wyeth family did some good stuff.

This? Not impressed.

Posted by: free range 'sorta' conservative but not 'true' conservative at August 09, 2016 10:05 AM (ZnIt3)

19 dude looks like a lady, or lady looks like a dude, not sure.

Posted by: spypeach at August 09, 2016 10:05 AM (nyYhO)

20

Variation on a theme; girl, window

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 10:06 AM (mLV8D)

21 Looks like she's afraid & reaching for something. Not a well-executed painting, but still evocative. Reminds me of a still from an old mystery movie.

Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world.....

Posted by: rickb223 TEXIT at August 09, 2016 10:06 AM (SCvwT)

22 Huh...blurry.

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:06 AM (NOIQH)

23 Can't find much information on the artist out there.

Posted by: josephistan at August 09, 2016 10:06 AM (7HtZB)

24 Guess Eastman ran out of primary colors. Had to use his umbers and sienas.

Posted by: tubal at August 09, 2016 10:06 AM (d6TTt)

25 Shouldn't there be a window in a painting titled Girl At The Window?

Posted by: JackStraw at August 09, 2016 10:07 AM (/tuJf)

26 She's got this Rachel Maddow vibe going on ...

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:07 AM (nw6G5)

27 Trump would definitely kick that baby out of this painting. Maybe even punch it in the dick.

Posted by: ajmojo at August 09, 2016 10:07 AM (1H9ox)

28 Paul Ryan is an asshole.

Posted by: Kreplach at August 09, 2016 10:07 AM (VsbSJ)

29 Can't find much information on the artist out there.

That's usually called a "tell".

Posted by: rickb223 TEXIT at August 09, 2016 10:07 AM (SCvwT)

30
Girl with missing fingers and blob for a face at window

Posted by: TheQuietMan at August 09, 2016 10:08 AM (493sH)

31 Noticed the gnome holding a doll on the stairs. Myabe it's a horror painting.

Posted by: tubal at August 09, 2016 10:08 AM (d6TTt)

32 Butterface?

Posted by: Corona at August 09, 2016 10:08 AM (ragzU)

33 That's Hillary's neighbor catching a glimpse of the demon spawn, sitting on her front steps, eating the face off of her baby doll.

Posted by: a T-Rex trying to rub one out at August 09, 2016 10:08 AM (H9MG5)

34 23 Can't find much information on the artist out there.
Posted by: josephistan
-----------------
More evidence of the patriarchy keeping transgender models down!

Posted by: Chi at August 09, 2016 10:08 AM (FGWX2)

35 She's hiding from the rapist.

Rapey Tuesday, bitchez!

Oh, Fox just showed the Orlando killer's dad sitting behind Hellary. So there's that.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at August 09, 2016 10:08 AM (1ZOkK)

36 Is she the lookout while her messed-up, drug-addicted boyfriend burgles the house she's in?

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 10:08 AM (zo8Xe)

37 Alternate title: Watching a baby fall down the stairs

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at August 09, 2016 10:09 AM (7ZVPa)

38 Moron of the Day - NorthEast Division:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/
2016/08/09/homemade-flamethrower-
used-to-kill-cockroaches-sparks-fire.html
?intcmp=latestnews

Posted by: DaveA at August 09, 2016 10:09 AM (8J/Te)

39 "Hillary Clinton waiting for the Secret Service to carry her to the next room"

Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 10:09 AM (Vee9K)

40 Zombies everywhere! Zombie, zombie, zombie!

Posted by: TWD on AMC at August 09, 2016 10:09 AM (gwG9s)

41 She's looking at that big phallus over there.

Posted by: Art Critic at August 09, 2016 10:09 AM (gmp1k)

42 "Paul Ryan is an asshole."

He has no idea what it's like living with incontinence.

The fucker.

Posted by: Hillary! at August 09, 2016 10:09 AM (97XyN)

43
This style of art is often called 'evocative'. It is meant to invoke an impression of what might be represented in the work.

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 10:09 AM (mLV8D)

44 Is "Girl at the Window" representative of Eastman's work. Because it's a horrible photograph. No wonder Eastman Kodak nearly went out of business.

Posted by: FireHorse at August 09, 2016 10:09 AM (KO3dR)

45
Kind of an Edward Hopper feel vis a vis composition, except too many people.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at August 09, 2016 10:09 AM (9P3OG)

46
She's reaching for the gun in the drawer and then *bang* the sniper gets her

Posted by: TheQuietMan at August 09, 2016 10:09 AM (493sH)

47 Paul Ryan is an asshole.

... and in other news, water is confirmed to be wet. Now let's kck it over to John for last nite's sports.

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:09 AM (nw6G5)

48 This painting has an unsettling vibe.

Posted by: Insomniac at August 09, 2016 10:10 AM (0mRoj)

49 I like how this artist got around the difficulty of drawing the human hand that I always have by just making it a crab claw.

Posted by: ajmojo at August 09, 2016 10:10 AM (1H9ox)

50 The shit on the left is all tight, man. Rest of the shit's all out of focus and fucked up.

Posted by: Dang, art critiquing the shit out of that art at August 09, 2016 10:10 AM (k0G44)

51
Man with bad haircut and tits.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at August 09, 2016 10:11 AM (9P3OG)

52

Cover for the next H.P. Lovecraft novel.

"They live among us."

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 10:12 AM (mLV8D)

53 So.

Trump wants the federal government to grant tax breaks for child care expenses.

Good idea? Bad idea?

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:12 AM (uAvJJ)

54 I like paintings and shit.

Posted by: Corona at August 09, 2016 10:12 AM (ragzU)

55 This looks like lightheaded Hillary, bracing herself, before she falls down the stairs.

Posted by: Fritz at August 09, 2016 10:12 AM (2Mnv1)

56 She's hormonal. All hot, bothered and confused

Posted by: ghost of hallelujah at August 09, 2016 10:13 AM (oAY8z)

57 She needs to turn around. She missed grabbing the booze bottle by a good six inches.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at August 09, 2016 10:14 AM (7ZVPa)

58

What this country needs is more women being paid to have babies. I think that was what Hillary's convention speach was all about; motherhood, and baby making, and the federal government should be paying for that so child rearing isn't such a burden on parents.

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 10:15 AM (mLV8D)

59 What window?

Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at August 09, 2016 10:15 AM (0q4vG)

60
Does the defamation lawsuit against Oma Panzersuit have the potential to be a Swiftboat caliber takedown?

We shall see . . .

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at August 09, 2016 10:15 AM (9P3OG)

61 I don't know. It's a female though and she looks scared, She probably just saw a spider.

Posted by: JoeF. at August 09, 2016 10:15 AM (VfQy9)

62 She just watched baby hillary fall down the stairs while the housekeeper picks her up

Posted by: willy at August 09, 2016 10:15 AM (Ffw22)

63 Good idea? Bad idea?

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff
________

Not a bad idea but if implemented could turn into one.

Posted by: FireHorse at August 09, 2016 10:15 AM (KO3dR)

64 1. Where's the window?

B. Why does she have a beard?

III. Da fuq?

Posted by: joncelli, Longbow Afficianado and Phalangist at August 09, 2016 10:15 AM (RD7QR)

65 Man with bad haircut and tits.

Also know as the "Rachel Maddow Look".

It was all the rage at Lilith Fair.

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:16 AM (nw6G5)

66 What this country needs is more women being paid to have babies. I think
that was what Hillary's convention speach was all about; motherhood,
and baby making, and the federal government should be paying for that so
child rearing isn't such a burden on parents.>>>

I thought Planned Parenthood took care of the "burden" part.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at August 09, 2016 10:16 AM (Mxs5H)

67 53 So.

Trump wants the federal government to grant tax breaks for child care expenses.

Good idea? Bad idea?
Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:12 AM (uAvJJ)

Meh. I'd rather he concentrate on defanging and shrinking the size and scope of the entire bureaucracy.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at August 09, 2016 10:16 AM (9P3OG)

68 Victor Thorn, who wrote four books exposing the Clintons, reportedly
killed himself with a gun on his 54th birthday, August 1, while on top
of a mountain near his Pennsylvania home. The books he wrote were Hillary (And Bill): The Sex Volume, Hillary (And Bill): The Drugs Volume, and Hillary (And Bill): The Murder Volume, and his latest which was published in February, Crowning Clinton: Why Hillary Shouldn't Be in the White House.

Huh.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at August 09, 2016 10:16 AM (1ZOkK)

69 Hhhmmmmm. A girl eh?
Right.

Posted by: Diogenes at August 09, 2016 10:17 AM (0tfLf)

70 End Game: Gov't wants to raise all babies and obviate parental influence. Collectivism 101

Of course, the ruling elites' babies will have strong parental influence.

Just not the proles

Posted by: ghost of hallelujah at August 09, 2016 10:17 AM (oAY8z)

71 What this country needs is more women being paid to have babies. I think that was what Hillary's convention speach was all about; motherhood, and baby making, and the federal government should be paying for that so child rearing isn't such a burden on parents.
Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 10:15 AM (mLV8D)

I agree. There should be more babies for me to punch in the dick.

Posted by: D. Trump at August 09, 2016 10:18 AM (zo8Xe)

72 Meant to attribute #68 to Townhall.

Also, Thorn told a friend, "If anything ever happens to me, it's murder. I would never kill myself."

Add another victim to the Clinton Death List.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at August 09, 2016 10:19 AM (1ZOkK)

73
@68

Victor Thorn, clearly depressed that his work was being ignored, obviously mentally unstable, couldn't face the reality of Hillary's impending election to the highest political office in the US.

I know just how he felt.

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 10:19 AM (mLV8D)

74 >>Does the defamation lawsuit against Oma Panzersuit have the potential to be a Swiftboat caliber takedown?

I suppose it depends on where its held? The judges in DC seem to take no crap from Obama's team (illegals policy lawsuit) or Clinton (Judicial Watch email lawsuit). But I would bet many judges would be happy to vamoose this pesky lawsuit for Hillary.

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:19 AM (NOIQH)

75 Oh, I see now, Hillary took the baby away from the girl for a snack.

Posted by: Fritz at August 09, 2016 10:20 AM (2Mnv1)

76 Victor Thorn, who wrote four books exposing the Clintons, reportedly killed himself with a gun on his 54th birthday, August 1, while on top of a mountain near his Pennsylvania home. The books he wrote were Hillary (And Bill): The Sex Volume, Hillary (And Bill): The Drugs Volume, and Hillary (And Bill): The Murder Volume, and his latest which was published in February, Crowning Clinton: Why Hillary Shouldn't Be in the White House.

Huh.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at August 09, 2016 10:16 AM (1ZOkK)

He committed suicide by shooting, stabbing, poisoning, strangling and disemboweling himself

Posted by: TheQuietMan at August 09, 2016 10:20 AM (493sH)

77 Being a mother is the hardest job in the world , just beating out coal miner and crab fisherman.

Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at August 09, 2016 10:20 AM (0q4vG)

78 I'm floored that the Orlando shooter's father was at the Hillary rally, and seated right in front--in camera view. I can't believe they are treated it as no big deal. Can you imagine if Dylan Roof's, I don't know, third cousin was photographed at a Trump rally?
Fuck that, just imagine George Zimmerman's uncle of something. The media would be in full outrage mode.

Posted by: JoeF. at August 09, 2016 10:20 AM (VfQy9)

79 How MUCH for that girlie in the window?
The ONE with the mulletted hair?

Posted by: ajmojo at August 09, 2016 10:21 AM (1H9ox)

80 A Woman! having reached the top of her craft in Wymyns studies, contemplates...
What the hell are we actually whining about?

Posted by: Bruce at August 09, 2016 10:21 AM (8ikIW)

81 68 Victor Thorn, who wrote four books exposing the Clintons, reportedly
killed himself with a gun on his 54th birthday, August 1, while on top
of a mountain near his Pennsylvania home.

Huh.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at August 09, 2016 10:16 AM (1ZOkK)

Actually, he smashed himself in the head with a blunt object, then he stabbed himself in the back 8 times. That's why it was ruled a suicide

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 10:21 AM (zo8Xe)

82 I think I saw her in Amsterdam.

Posted by: Mike Hammer's former life at August 09, 2016 10:21 AM (9mTYi)

83 78 I'm floored that the Orlando shooter's father was at the Hillary rally, and seated right in front--in camera view. I can't believe they are treated it as no big deal. Can you imagine if Dylan Roof's, I don't know, third cousin was photographed at a Trump rally?
Fuck that, just imagine George Zimmerman's uncle of something. The media would be in full outrage mode.
Posted by: JoeF. at August 09, 2016 10:20 AM (VfQy9)

Muslims > gays on the victimhood hierarchy, apparently.

Posted by: joe, living dangerously at August 09, 2016 10:21 AM (KUaJL)

84 >>Trump wants the federal government to grant tax breaks for child care expenses.

It's better than "universal pre-K" - it lets the parents choose the daycare, not forcing the toddlers into a govt.-run daycare.

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:21 AM (NOIQH)

85 A man never steps into the same dog shit twice.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks at August 09, 2016 10:22 AM (hHfca)

86 off, orange scalp weasel sock

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 10:22 AM (zo8Xe)

87 78
I'm floored that the Orlando shooter's father was at the Hillary rally,
and seated right in front--in camera view. I can't believe they are
treated it as no big deal. Can you imagine if Dylan Roof's, I don't
know, third cousin was photographed at a Trump rally?

Fuck that, just imagine George Zimmerman's uncle of something. The media would be in full outrage mode.

Posted by: JoeF. at August 09, 2016 10:20 AM (VfQy9)

Remember, he supports the Taliban, and the Hell Beast wants to be CiC.

*types*

*deletes*

Damn good thing the doctor put me on BP meds yesterday. Told me I was right on the verge of a stroke.

I could have been next on the Clinton Death List.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at August 09, 2016 10:22 AM (1ZOkK)

88 So, a tale of the LGBT mafia. BYU, the Mormon school with a strict honor code forbidding sex outside of heterosexual marriage has applied to the Big 12. They stick to their honor code, even though it probably cost them a final four not too long ago when they suspended their star center.

The LGBT crowd -- over 25 groups -- all have sent a letter demanding that the Big 12 deny BYU a spot because BYU "discriminates" against gays. Tolerance demands that BYU be shunned, and they filled their letter with quotes from gay people talking about how they won't play at BYU because tolerance and things.

So, we've fully moved into the "persecute the Christians" phase of the LGBT movement. They are actively trying to get accreditation removed for schools that don't kowtow to the LGBT agenda (again, BYU is the 1st target here).

Posted by: Vanceone at August 09, 2016 10:22 AM (IQzhs)

89 Well, here's Salvador Dali's Woman at the Window, which is a bit tame since it is lacking swarms of flies, women with large holes, and the obligatory exploding stoats.

But a pretty view. And the harbor is well executed too.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/holc3gm

Posted by: Kindltot at August 09, 2016 10:22 AM (ry34m)

90 Trump wants the federal government to grant tax breaks for child care expenses.

Good idea? Bad idea?
Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:12 AM (uAvJJ)

Good.
Anytime ANYONE gets to keep more of their money instead of sending it to the Fed gov., I'm all for it.
The gov. isn't "paying" for the child care, the taxpayer who has kids is paying for it. I'm amazed at the number of people on here whose reflex thought of the gov giving a tax deduction is the "government paying for something".

I would like Trump to go even further and offer a tax deduction equivalent to the yearly average cost of child care for a 40 hour week to women who stay home.

All tax money BELONGS to the individual tax payer. It doesn't belong to the federal government.

Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 10:23 AM (Vee9K)

91 I'm glad a couple of the Benghazi parents are filing suit against Clinton. I don't know what will come of it, but it throws in bold relief what a set up job that Khan thing was. Trump had nothing to do with their son's death. Nothing at all. And yet, it led to two weeks of bad coverage.

Posted by: JoeF. at August 09, 2016 10:23 AM (VfQy9)

92 78
-------

More attack ad material for T. I'm still interested in where the shooter's wife disappeared to.

You'd think the SS would deem the dad a security risk.

Or not, he's on the same team as hrc.

Posted by: willy at August 09, 2016 10:23 AM (Ffw22)

93 Anytime ANYONE gets to keep more of their money instead of sending it to the Fed gov., I'm all for it.

The gov. isn't "paying" for the child care, the taxpayer who has
kids is paying for it. I'm amazed at the number of people on here whose
reflex thought of the gov giving a tax deduction is the "government
paying for something".

I would like Trump to go even further and offer a tax deduction
equivalent to the yearly average cost of child care for a 40 hour week
to women who stay home.

All tax money BELONGS to the individual tax payer. It doesn't belong to the federal government.

Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 10:23 AM (Vee9K)

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

Posted by: Jane D'oh at August 09, 2016 10:24 AM (1ZOkK)

94 Can you imagine if Dylan Roof's, I don't know, third cousin was photographed at a Trump rally?
Posted by: JoeF.
________

Alt-history, 2013 AD -

"President-elect Romney, who has stated his belief that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, picked a distant relative of Adolf Hitler to be his secretary of state."

Posted by: FireHorse at August 09, 2016 10:24 AM (KO3dR)

95 http://preview.tinyurl.com/holc3gm

Posted by: Kindltot at August 09, 2016 10:22 AM (ry34m)

That can't be Dali, it looks pretty much normal.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 10:25 AM (zo8Xe)

96 So, we've fully moved into the "persecute the Christians" phase of the LGBT movement. They are actively trying to get accreditation removed for schools that don't kowtow to the LGBT agenda (again, BYU is the 1st target here).

Posted by: Vanceone at August 09, 2016 10:22 AM (IQzhs)

Meanwhile Barry is importing thousands of peace loving people who have the hobby of lobbing them off of rooftops. But BYU is the problem for them

Posted by: TheQuietMan at August 09, 2016 10:25 AM (493sH)

97 I haven't had the chance to peruse Trumps speech yesterday. But did he happen to mention shrinking the size and scope of government in any way? Because, well, you know. It's a bit of a problem.
I understand if he didn't...if the focus was just on the tax side of the equation. Talking about cutting "services" is bad juju in national politics. And I'm all for cutting the shit out of taxes in any way we can. But it is only one side of, and arguably the smaller side, of the equation.

Posted by: ajmojo at August 09, 2016 10:25 AM (1H9ox)

98 >>What this country needs is more women being paid to have babies. I think that was what Hillary's convention speach was all about; motherhood, and baby making, and the federal government should be paying for that so child rearing isn't such a burden on parents.
Posted by: Norm Alliee

I'm a big fan of Lebensborn.

Posted by: Hillary at August 09, 2016 10:25 AM (c7vUv)

99 >>Tolerance demands that BYU be shunned, and they filled their letter
with quotes from gay people talking about how they won't play at BYU
because tolerance and things.

Aaaand at the same time the MSM is overjoyed with the 1st American Olympian to participate while wearing a hijab.

How is it her religion does not offend other athletes, but BYU students religious observance is like leprosy?

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:25 AM (NOIQH)

100
Damn good thing the doctor put me on BP meds yesterday. Told me I was right on the verge of a stroke.

I could have been next on the Clinton Death List.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at August 09, 2016 10:22 AM (1ZOkK)

Mercy, Jane. You mentioned last week you were having health issues- please take care. Prayers for you and yours.

Posted by: Moki at August 09, 2016 10:26 AM (ezHMO)

101 It's better than "universal pre-K" - it lets the parents choose the daycare, not forcing the toddlers into a govt.-run daycare.

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:21 AM (NOIQH)
Oh I agree that if the government is going to start directing citizen's free choices, tax breaks are better than direct subsidies. But I would rather not have the government be directing citizen choices in the first place.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:26 AM (uAvJJ)

102 Thanks, Moki.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at August 09, 2016 10:26 AM (1ZOkK)

103 The painting symbolizes Hillary on many levels.

It is haunting.

Posted by: Cactus of Liberty at August 09, 2016 10:27 AM (Hpenq)

104 End Game: Gov't wants to raise all babies and obviate parental influence. Collectivism 101�

I've seen the movie, it's called 'The Giver'. Meryl Streep plays Hillary Clinton. Based on award winning novel.

Not sure if on Netflix. Novel is one of the top 'challenged' books according to librarians. In other words, the leftists hate it, as it paints an accurate picture of what they want.

If I had Donald Trumps money I'd buy the rights to it, release it for free into the public domain, then sit back and watch his poll numbers soar. Meryl Streep plays Hillary Clinton perfectly.

Posted by: free range 'sorta' conservative but not 'true' conservative at August 09, 2016 10:27 AM (ZnIt3)

105 She looks fine to me, but then again I see far beyond the human spectrum.

Posted by: Steve Buscemi, stalks extended at August 09, 2016 10:28 AM (9wsaH)

106 I haven't had the chance to peruse Trumps speech yesterday. But did he
happen to mention shrinking the size and scope of government in any way?
Because, well, you know. It's a bit of a problem.

He made allusions to reducing regulations, but very little was concrete. He proposed a moratorium on new regulations, and demanding that each agency submit a list of regulations that are "unnecessary" on some level, to be repealed. Problem is, no agency is ever going to publicly admit "yeah this regulation that we are enforcing, it's totally not worth it, please take away my agency's power and budget!"

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:28 AM (uAvJJ)

107 I'm a big fan of Lebensborn

Well, genetically speaking, if you want your son to grow up to be an NBA superstar it might help that his father was one.

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 10:28 AM (mLV8D)

108 97 I haven't had the chance to peruse Trumps speech yesterday. But did he happen to mention shrinking the size and scope of government in any way? Because, well, you know. It's a bit of a problem.

Posted by: ajmojo at August 09, 2016 10:25 AM (1H9ox)

Why would he mention it? It's only a problem if you're a conservative.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 10:29 AM (zo8Xe)

109 >>But I would rather not have the government be directing citizen choices in the first place.

Sure. I would rather Trump stick to the big issues like immigration, terrorists, jobs, the economy, ending Obamacare.

This seems like a small thing to throw at people who crave a POTUS who delves into social issues. Pretty harmless, so I'm not upset.

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:29 AM (NOIQH)

110 Looks kind of spooky to me.

The Others.

Posted by: Grump928(c) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at August 09, 2016 10:29 AM (evdj2)

111 After seeing this painting, the artist's friend Kodak was inspired...

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at August 09, 2016 10:30 AM (VAsIq)

112 >Tolerance demands that BYU be shunned, and they filled their letter
with quotes from gay people talking about how they won't play at BYU
because tolerance and things.

Aaaand at the same time the MSM is overjoyed with the 1st American Olympian to participate while wearing a hijab.

How is it her religion does not offend other athletes, but BYU students religious observance is like leprosy?
Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:25 AM (NOIQH)

Don't forget, California is looking at removing accreditation, etc. from a Christian college unless they stop teaching any Bible passages that appear to criticize homosexuallity. They can no longer require students, (who voluntarily apply to go to the college) to take an oath of faith, attend church services, or allow anyone on campus or any course work that might make LGBT students 'feel uncomfortable".

Straight up communism.

Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 10:30 AM (Vee9K)

113 Oh I agree that if the government is going to start
directing citizen's free choices, tax breaks are better than direct
subsidies. But I would rather not have the government be directing
citizen choices in the first place.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:26 AM (uAvJJ)
=====
This.
For some reason, child care always devolves to the educrats and my prediction would be that the tax break would only be available for government-approved and sponsored people or facilities.

Posted by: mustbequantum at August 09, 2016 10:30 AM (MIKMs)

114 That girl doesn't appear to be at a window.

Posted by: redbanzai at August 09, 2016 10:30 AM (3JA/M)

115 Trump wants the federal government to grant tax breaks for child care expenses.

Good idea? Bad idea?
Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:12 AM (uAvJJ)

State of Oregon already has it. You have to show proof of money spent, which is hard if you are paying someone cash. Often Revenue won't accept post-facto receipts, especially from providers who are not listed in the Child Care Provider registry.

Nothingburger both ways, except for the massive increase in paperwork

Posted by: Kindltot at August 09, 2016 10:31 AM (ry34m)

116 >>>Victor Thorn, who wrote four books exposing the Clintons, reportedly
killed himself with a gun on his 54th birthday, August 1, while on top
of a mountain near his Pennsylvania home. The books he wrote were
Hillary (And Bill): The Sex Volume, Hillary (And Bill): The Drugs
Volume, and Hillary (And Bill): The Murder Volume, and his latest which
was published in February, Crowning Clinton: Why Hillary Shouldn't Be in
the White House.

Huh.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at August 09, 2016 10:16 AM (1ZOkK)
<<<

Arkancide strikes again.

Posted by: a T-Rex trying to rub one out at August 09, 2016 10:32 AM (H9MG5)

117 So the latest NBC/Survey Monkey has hillary at +10 over Trump. I wonder how they can claim to be an honest poll when this is how they poll people:

The NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking poll was
conducted online August 1 through August 7, 2016 among a national sample
of 11,480 adults who say they are registered to vote.

An online poll of adults.....yeah right. They are desperate.

Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at August 09, 2016 10:32 AM (iONHu)

118 >>Don't forget, California is looking at removing accreditation, etc. from
a Christian college unless they stop teaching any Bible passages that
appear to criticize homosexuallity. They can no longer require students,
(who voluntarily apply to go to the college) to take an oath of faith,
attend church services, or allow anyone on campus or any course work
that might make LGBT students 'feel uncomfortable".

Whoa. How does that not violate the 1st Amendment?

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:32 AM (NOIQH)

119 Well ... that does it. I'm out.

I can't, after two decades of living and breathing staunch conservatism, vote for a man who advocates social engineering via federal government. This is simply a bridge too far. I'd rather lose the election than lose my dignity.

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:32 AM (nw6G5)

120 I'm floored that the Orlando shooter's father was at the Hillary rally, and seated right in front--in camera view.

-
Hillz comes out for BLM over cops and Islamic terrorists over everybody else and Trump is a dangerous radical.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks at August 09, 2016 10:32 AM (hHfca)

121 At least half the horde has whole gigs worth of far better girl at the window pictures hidden somewhere on their computers, I'd bet.

Posted by: Bigbys Olive Fingers at August 09, 2016 10:32 AM (0o/oP)

122
Oh I agree that if the government is going to start directing citizen's free choices, tax breaks are better than direct subsidies. But I would rather not have the government be directing citizen choices in the first place.
Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:26 AM (uAvJJ)
--------------------

I find myself inexplicably struck by the literary quality of this passage. This is so much more erudite and compelling than anything ever written by chemjeff. I foresee a great writing career for this person with "R.R." in his name.

Posted by: iforgot says God bless Bingo at August 09, 2016 10:33 AM (pC96u)

123 I'm amazed at the number of people on here whose reflex thought of the gov giving a tax deduction is the "government paying for something".

Posted by: Jen the original
________

It's how we've been conditioned to think. The tax rate is 100% and the government lets you keep 72% of it.

Posted by: FireHorse at August 09, 2016 10:33 AM (KO3dR)

124 She's angry. Mary Poppins is sitting on the stairs with her kid and she doesn't know what to do.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at August 09, 2016 10:34 AM (/wm8n)

125 That girl doesn't appear to be at a window.

I just thought is was painted at night; on a dark and stormy night, and there was a strange something outside the window, and she was reaching for a shotgun.

A lightening bolt outside that outlines the window and the thing outside would have explained it all but the suspense is in the darkness.

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 10:34 AM (mLV8D)

126 This seems like a small thing to throw at people who
crave a POTUS who delves into social issues. Pretty harmless, so I'm
not upset.

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:29 AM (NOIQH)
It is symptomatic of the larger problem. Politicians try to buy votes by pandering to them, offering to give them things (or in this case, offering to reduce the taxes of some group that he's trying to curry favor with), and in so doing, creates a lobby that now has a vested interest in keeping the gravy flowing, even if the economics or budgetary effects just aren't worth it. That is how we got the eternal ethanol subsidies - Republicans in this case trying to curry favor with farmers, which created the ethanol lobby, which resists any changes whatsoever to the ethanol subsidies, despite their deleterious effects. It is just more of the same crap. Same thing with Democrats and the so-called "green energy" subsidies. Each little one is relatively harmless on its own, but they all add up to this labyrinthine maze of federal government overreach.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:34 AM (uAvJJ)

127 Productivity (unexpectedly!!) drops for 3rd straight quarter.
You know what's interesting about this: IF you can get a progtard to engage about the Federal deficit, they will invariably suggest we can grow our way out of it. it's simply a structural flaw, and our economic engine is so robust (thanks to all that deficit spending!) we have nothing to worry about.
This is worrisome.

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at August 09, 2016 10:34 AM (SeD0w)

128 [Trigger Warning!]

Doesn't look like she's going to make it to the fainting couch in time...

Posted by: Zettai Ryoiki at August 09, 2016 10:34 AM (kP16F)

129 How is it her religion does not offend other athletes, but BYU students religious observance is like leprosy?
Posted by: Lizzy

Well, you see, Mormons want to shoot people because of Jesus, which is why Religious Freedom is such a slippery slope.

Posted by: Gary Johnson, Libertarian Hero at August 09, 2016 10:34 AM (VAsIq)

130 Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 10:23 AM (Vee9K)

Any more tax credit recommendations? If you think the child care tax credit is good surely there must be others that are also good. How about a tax credit for my health club membership?

Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at August 09, 2016 10:34 AM (0q4vG)

131 Happy National Book Lovers Day!

on my blog, two D'Souza books on sale

link in nic

Posted by: @votermom at August 09, 2016 10:34 AM (7lVbc)

132 Aaaand at the same time the MSM is overjoyed with the 1st American Olympian to participate while wearing a hijab.

How is it her religion does not offend other athletes, but BYU students religious observance is like leprosy?

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:25 AM (NOIQH)

Crusades, high horses etc.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at August 09, 2016 10:35 AM (493sH)

133 119 Well ... that does it. I'm out.

I can't, after two decades of living and breathing staunch conservatism, vote for a man who advocates social engineering via federal government. This is simply a bridge too far. I'd rather lose the election than lose my dignity.

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:32 AM (nw6G5)
________

So, you're not in favor a tax reduction?

Posted by: FireHorse at August 09, 2016 10:35 AM (KO3dR)

134 Donald Trump may have dick-punched that poor baby on the stairs.

Posted by: Rick Wilson at August 09, 2016 10:35 AM (/wm8n)

135 Trump wants the federal government to give tax breaks for child care. Good idea? Bad idea?

I tend to view income taxes as appropriately taxing only profit. Just as a business has expenses, a salaryman also has to spend a certain amount to live. The personal exception are just recognizing this. Actual child care expense seems like it would be a deduction for those who have to pay it. At least it's a argument we can have.

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 10:35 AM (evdj2)

136
I haven't had the chance to peruse Trumps speech yesterday. But did he happen to mention shrinking the size and scope of government in any way? Because, well, you know. It's a bit of a problem.

Posted by: ajmojo at August 09, 2016 10:25 AM (1H9ox)
------------------

Yes. He called for a moratorium on federal regulations, declared they were a bigger barrier than high taxes for starting a business, and proffered a 15% corporate income tax among other things.

Posted by: iforgot says God bless Bingo at August 09, 2016 10:36 AM (pC96u)

137 This was an original artwork in the Pre Production of Child's Play.

Posted by: Cactus of Liberty at August 09, 2016 10:36 AM (Hpenq)

138 Don't forget, California is looking at removing accreditation, etc. from a Christian college unless they stop teaching any Bible passages that appear to criticize homosexuallity. They can no longer require students, (who voluntarily apply to go to the college) to take an oath of faith, attend church services, or allow anyone on campus or any course work that might make LGBT students 'feel uncomfortable".

Straight up communism.

Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 10:30 AM (Vee9K)

It's like living in the early days of the Soviet Union. How soon before churches are closed because they offend?

Posted by: TheQuietMan at August 09, 2016 10:36 AM (493sH)

139 Trump is talking deduction. In other words, earn money, but don't pay tax on the expense part - the child care.

Not that much different than how businesses are treated. Legitimate expenses incurred to generate income are deductible.

Posted by: free range 'sorta' conservative but not 'true' conservative at August 09, 2016 10:36 AM (ZnIt3)

140 Would these tax credits for child care expenses include... say... tuition for private schools?

Posted by: joe, living dangerously at August 09, 2016 10:37 AM (KUaJL)

141 So the Olympics ratings are down, and it looks like a lot of the blame is being pinned on NBC's awful coverage. This is fair; however, I have to wonder if it's also because people have been trained to believe nationalism is icky?
Flag waving, USA-chanting, believing in American exceptionalism have been denigrated for so long - why would you expect American citizens to suddenly be all "American athletes, f#ck yeah!!"?

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:37 AM (NOIQH)

142 >>An online poll of adults.....yeah right. They are desperate.

We aren't going to do "The polls are wrong!" again this cycle, are we?

Posted by: JackStraw at August 09, 2016 10:37 AM (/tuJf)

143

I'd hit it...

*cough-cough-cough,, cough-fart/squirt-cough-cough. cough...*

Wait, where am I?

*hic*

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at August 09, 2016 10:37 AM (HSmrB)

144
I'm amazed at the number of people on here whose reflex thought of the
gov giving a tax deduction is the "government paying for something".

Posted by: Jen the original

When the government is only giving that deduction of taxpayer's own money for certain actions taken or not taken, and is requiring every other taxpayer to pay higher taxes because they do not (according to the government) qualify to keep their own money... then yes it is the government paying for something.

Posted by: redbanzai at August 09, 2016 10:38 AM (3JA/M)

145 Would these tax credits for child care expenses include... say... tuition for private schools?

I would vote that they should. Or rather, they should be deductions rather than credits.

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 10:38 AM (evdj2)

146 Don't forget, California is looking at removing accreditation, etc. from a Christian college unless they stop teaching any Bible passages that appear to criticize homosexuallity. They can no longer require students, (who voluntarily apply to go to the college) to take an oath of faith, attend church services, or allow anyone on campus or any course work that might make LGBT students 'feel uncomfortable".

Straight up communism.

Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 10:30 AM (Vee9K)

This was bound to happen sooner or later. Why should a Christian college depend upon having its course content (and, indeed, its very existence) validated by accrediting agencies controlled by an increasingly hostile progressive agenda?

They should've pulled out years ago and come up with alternate arrangements.

I actually don't have much sympathy for the Christian college that's under fire. Well, I do, a little bit, but they ought to have seen this coming. They made a bargain with the devil and now the bill is due.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 10:38 AM (zo8Xe)

147 53
So.

Trump wants the federal government to grant tax breaks for child care expenses.

Good idea? Bad idea?

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:12 AM (uAvJJ)

I am against ALL tax breaks. We should have a flat rate of 10% regardless of source and type of income. Except SS which is already taxed income unless you are drawing it after never having been employed. Something you could not do until the Democrats turned SS into another welfare program.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at August 09, 2016 10:38 AM (mpXpK)

148 It looks like it could be a sketch from the Pre Production of Major League, a deleted scene of how Rick Vaughan got the call into the California Penal League.

Posted by: Cactus of Liberty at August 09, 2016 10:39 AM (Hpenq)

149 Good grief, people complaining this painting is not clear enough.

It's called art. It's not a photograph. If you want a photograph, get a camera. Otherwise, consider the possibility the artist was trying to create something OTHER than a realistic, life-like representation of his subject matter.

Posted by: BurtTC at August 09, 2016 10:39 AM (TOk1P)

150 For some people child care is already tax deductible, but it is means tested fairly rigorously, as I recall. It would be nice to simplify it. Health insurance premiums should also be tax deductible IMHO.

Posted by: Emily at August 09, 2016 10:39 AM (QtkD6)

151 When the government is only giving that deduction of
taxpayer's own money for certain actions taken or not taken, and is
requiring every other taxpayer to pay higher taxes because they do not
(according to the government) qualify to keep their own money... then
yes it is the government paying for something.

Posted by: redbanzai

That's what I think. They're still going to get the money from somewhere.

Posted by: Bruce at August 09, 2016 10:39 AM (8ikIW)

152 I am against ALL tax breaks. We should have a flat rate of 10% regardless of source and type of income. Except SS which is already taxed income unless you are drawing it after never having been employed. Something you could not do until the Democrats turned SS into another welfare program.

Posted by: Vic

-

I am against income taxes, period. There is no need for the government to have access to the earnings information of Americans. A consumption tax is a much better way of raising revenue, and it taxes everyone, including off the books workers, hookers, and drug dealers.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at August 09, 2016 10:41 AM (7ZVPa)

153 Good idea? Bad idea?

I consider myself to be staunchly conservative. However, when the Federal Government encourages something I consider to be a boon to the greater society (see: homeownership), I tend to agree with it. A credit for childcare would seem to me to encourage having children. I think that is a good thing. The Muzzies have cracked the code: eventually, they will simply out multiply all other religions, and, whamo, caliphate world.

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at August 09, 2016 10:42 AM (SeD0w)

154 So 'the Mom' - instead of staying home, begins to pay taxes, and also toward her own social security future benefit. She hires child care worker, who pays taxes on earnings.

Seems like it could end up a net plus for the treasury.

Nothing for the 'true conservatives' to get upset about.

Posted by: free range 'sorta' conservative but not 'true' conservative at August 09, 2016 10:42 AM (ZnIt3)

155 When the government is only giving that deduction of taxpayer's own money for certain actions taken or not taken, and is requiring every other taxpayer to pay higher taxes because they do not (according to the government) qualify to keep their own money... then yes it is the government paying for something.

I would have to disagree. The income is removed from the tax base rather than subsidized. It's a subtle difference. Like property tax exempt status for churches. The state isn't subsidizing religion, it is simply not even considered in the property tax base.

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 10:42 AM (evdj2)

156 We're edging ever so closer to seeing the left's most ardent proponents, showing up while wearing some spiffy outfit, thereby unifying in identity and purpose in the public eye.

Hugo Boss not available for comment.

Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Posted by: Jim at August 09, 2016 10:42 AM (v5iqM)

157 119
Well ... that does it. I'm out.

I can't, after two decades of living and breathing staunch
conservatism, vote for a man who advocates social engineering via
federal government. This is simply a bridge too far. I'd rather lose
the election than lose my dignity.

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:32 AM (nw6G5)

i'm not defending trump....i'm merely voting for him....how do you think you'll keep your dignity if hillary is elected?

Posted by: phoenixgirl you must fight for independence EVERYDAY at August 09, 2016 10:42 AM (0O7c5)

158 Trump wants the federal government to give tax breaks for child care. Good idea? Bad idea?
-----------------------

I've started to come around to this because of the increasing necessity of two incomes to run a family and the prevalence of divorce. Some single parents have no option. It's getting to be like the deduction if you send your kid to private school.

Posted by: iforgot says God bless Bingo at August 09, 2016 10:42 AM (pC96u)

159 From link at Drudge, Barry sez in an interview with the Golf Channel that the only reason he's leaving the White House is because he's (brace yourselves) "being forced out."

This f*cking guy.....

Posted by: Jane D'oh at August 09, 2016 10:43 AM (1ZOkK)

160 Jeb! can fix it!

Posted by: Jeb's Crack Campaign Management Team at August 09, 2016 10:43 AM (bN6TL)

161 "I'm amazed at the number of people on here whose reflex thought of the
gov giving a tax deduction is the "government paying for something". "

Posted by: Jen the original

Another reflex action that conservatives need to get over is screaming that someone is unpatriotic if they want to cut down on excessive military spending.

I want the best equipped, most powerful military in the world - by a factor of 10 - however, we'll go broke if keep allowing things like a $375,000 per vehicle cost for something that does the job of a jeep and billion per copy for a bomber.

Things need to change, big time.

Posted by: jwest at August 09, 2016 10:43 AM (Zs4uk)

162 So, you're not in favor a tax reduction?

I'm not in favor of having to include a /sarc tag.

... and I've given up on having a simple tax system. Too many people too intersted at taxing their own virtuous actions at a lesser rate while making up the difference on the back of their no good bastard neighbor.

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:43 AM (nw6G5)

163 How does the Devil get his road paved?

See at least one post above for how.

Posted by: Ok at August 09, 2016 10:43 AM (K8FS4)

164 >>It is symptomatic of the larger problem. Politicians try to buy votes by pandering to them, offering to give them things.....

Sure, I get that. I'm just seeing this as a pretty small pander compared to "everybody gets free college!" and "everybody who crosses the border gets free citizenship and all the entitlements that come with it!"!!!

I don't see how any presidential candidate can entirely reject the premise of government incentives to reinforce desirable choices in this day and age (MSM would crucify them as heartless). Feels more like something that was added on so that Trump could say, "See? I support women!" to LIVs and move on.

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:43 AM (NOIQH)

165 When the government is only giving that deduction of taxpayer's own money for certain actions taken or not taken, and is requiring every other taxpayer to pay higher taxes because they do not (according to the government) qualify to keep their own money... then yes it is the government paying for something.

Posted by: redbanzai at August 09, 2016 10:38 AM (3JA/M)

That's some pretty tortured logic you got going there.

Here, let's simplify this for you: The government doesn't PAY for anything, unless they are going into some foreign land, shaking the gold and silver out of the citizens of said foreign land, and bringing it home for you to use.

Otherwise, no.

Posted by: BurtTC at August 09, 2016 10:44 AM (TOk1P)

166 We aren't going to do "The polls are wrong!" again this cycle, are we?
---
I wouldn't put faith in it, put we had polls at one point showing everything from Trump +7 to Hillary +11. *Some* of them have to be bullshit.

Posted by: Methos, AoSHQ commenter since 2006, now apperently nonvoting democrat at August 09, 2016 10:44 AM (3Liv/)

167 I can't, after two decades of living and breathing staunch
conservatism, vote for a man who advocates social engineering via
federal government. This is simply a bridge too far. I'd rather lose
the election than lose my dignity.

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:32 AM (nw6G5)

President Hillary congratulates you on refusing to lower your wonderful high standards, no matter what.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at August 09, 2016 10:44 AM (/wm8n)

168 Often Revenue won't accept post-facto receipts, especially from providers who are not listed in the Child Care Provider registry.

Nothingburger both ways, except for the massive increase in paperwork
Posted by: Kindltot at August 09, 2016 10:31 AM (ry34m)

And therein is the rub.
Michigan had an issue a few years ago when it was revealed that caregivers who were taking care of their own family members who had life threatening illnesses or permanent handicaps, were REQUIRED to join the SEIU if they received medicaid payments for said family members. Many of these family members were receiving something like $400 a month in assistance, and the union dues were $80 a month.

The legislature passed a law removing the requirement, then their was a class action lawsuit by home care givers to require the SEIU to give back two years of dues. The SEIU volunatarily paid back the dues, which allowed them to have the suit dismissed. They didn't want a court ruling their taking of dues from people involuntarily was illegal, because they want to continue to do this in other states, and have been successful in Wisconsin in getting home care givers organized(don't ask me why).

Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 10:44 AM (Vee9K)

169 I tend to view income taxes as appropriately taxing
only profit. Just as a business has expenses, a salaryman also has to
spend a certain amount to live. The personal exception are just
recognizing this. Actual child care expense seems like it would be a
deduction for those who have to pay it. At least it's a argument we can
have.

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 10:35 AM (evdj2)

139
Trump is talking deduction. In other words, earn money, but don't pay tax on the expense part - the child care.

Not that much different than how businesses are treated. Legitimate expenses incurred to generate income are deductible.

Posted by: free range 'sorta' conservative but not 'true' conservative at August 09, 2016 10:36 AM (ZnIt3)
This sounds good in theory, but the problem is having the government determine what is a "legitimate" expense. And of course it is not going to do so via any sort of rational method, it is doing so in a manner that panders to particular blocs of voters.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:45 AM (uAvJJ)

170 how do you think you'll keep your dignity if hillary is elected?

They're going to have dignity building seminars in the Adult Fun! Camps.

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at August 09, 2016 10:45 AM (SeD0w)

171 ScoggDog, take a looks at the Orlando terrorist's father sitting behind Hillary at a rally. He's a known backer of the Taliban.

Ask yourself if you would want your son or daughter serving under that bitch as their Commander in Chief?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at August 09, 2016 10:46 AM (1ZOkK)

172 I am against ALL tax breaks. We should have a flat rate of 10% regardless of source and type of income.
---
9%, I think.

There's no reason government should get more of our income than God.

Posted by: Methos, AoSHQ commenter since 2006, now apperently nonvoting democrat at August 09, 2016 10:46 AM (3Liv/)

173 This sounds good in theory, but the problem is having the government determine what is a "legitimate" expense.

Of course, but that is what politics is about. Convincing enough citizens that your view is correct, or at least, more practical.

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 10:47 AM (evdj2)

174 >>I wouldn't put faith in it, put we had polls at one point showing everything from Trump +7 to Hillary +11. *Some* of them have to be bullshit.

Sure, some are wrong. The overall trend is what I look at and it has been moving decisively against Trump for a couple weeks now. He is getting less Republican core constituency votes and his Democrat cross over vote appears about average.

Posted by: JackStraw at August 09, 2016 10:47 AM (/tuJf)

175 Picture looks like a still from a slasher film.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at August 09, 2016 10:47 AM (A2x3c)

176 Everyone is just haggling what their price is to sell their vote. (Marx reference, Groucho not Karl).

Posted by: Ok at August 09, 2016 10:47 AM (K8FS4)

177 The Muzzies have cracked the code: eventually, they will simply out multiply all other religions, and, whamo, caliphate world.

Quit feeding them via ebt and all the other charity programs.
Let them sink or swim like everyone else. See how many they pop out when they can't feed them.

Posted by: rickb223 TEXIT at August 09, 2016 10:48 AM (SCvwT)

178 I always got a kick out of 'tax breaks for business' that the leftists get so upset about.

You know what? Business gets to deduct the cost of toilet paper. Big f'ing deal.

Posted by: free range 'sorta' conservative but not 'true' conservative at August 09, 2016 10:48 AM (ZnIt3)

179 It would be interesting to get a poll of morons to see what they personally think "Conservatism" means. I would bet there would be a wide range of views, if they were honestly given.

Posted by: tubal at August 09, 2016 10:48 AM (d6TTt)

180 I'm with vic, a flat tax, no deductions, that way everyone has skin in the game.

We could argue all day long about what is a fair deduction and what isn't, home office, mileage, dry cleaning, uniforms, childcare, they all are work related expenses, but since not everyone works or has kids etc.. then someone will think it's unfair.

Oh and if you happen to make too much money, or get hit with AMT, you can kiss most of the deductions goodbye.

Posted by: spypeach at August 09, 2016 10:48 AM (nyYhO)

181 Come one, that is Girl bein' Repressed by the Patriarchy.

Posted by: Tom Servo at August 09, 2016 10:48 AM (V2Yro)

182 I think we all figured out after 2012 that there are two Americas. One side, where all this shit seems insane and the other, where people vote for Obama and Hillary.

I really wish we could just split this country in two geographical areas. USA v1 and USA v2.

I'll stick with v1.

Posted by: AlaBAMA at August 09, 2016 10:48 AM (lxioR)

183 A credit for childcare would seem to me to encourage having children. I think that is a good thing.

We already have a tax credit for just having children. This tax credit is entirely different, it is about encouraging a particular way to *raise* children (by outside caregivers, instead of by a stay-at-home parent).

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:48 AM (uAvJJ)

184 150
For some people child care is already tax deductible, but it is means
tested fairly rigorously, as I recall. It would be nice to simplify it.
Health insurance premiums should also be tax deductible IMHO.

Posted by: Emily at August 09, 2016 10:39 AM (QtkD6)

Insurance premiums are already tax deductible less the 10% floor the Democrats put in showing they really did not give a shit about health care.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at August 09, 2016 10:49 AM (mpXpK)

185 We aren't going to do "The polls are wrong!" again this cycle, are we?
---
I wouldn't put faith in it, put we had polls at one point showing everything from Trump +7 to Hillary +11. *Some* of them have to be bullshit.
Posted by: Methos,

When their methodology sucks, so does their results.

Posted by: rickb223 TEXIT at August 09, 2016 10:49 AM (SCvwT)

186 9%, I think.

There's no reason government should get more of our income than God.

Posted by: Methos, AoSHQ commenter since 2006, now apperently nonvoting democrat at August 09, 2016 10:46 AM (3Liv/)

8%!

I don't want Herb Cain thinking this was his idea.

Posted by: BurtTC at August 09, 2016 10:49 AM (TOk1P)

187

The whole argument for raising taxes on married couples who have children is the expense the government has to bare to build and maintain public education.

The reason why childless couples pay the same property tax rate as married couples with children is that public education benefits the nation so everyone pays their fair share.

The whole argument for public education was that prior to public education, only the rich could afford to have their children educated in private schools, and the reason why middle class and poor people want to send their children to public school is they don't want the burden educating their children themselves.

And the whole reason why politicians offer special treatment for special classes is for votes.

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 10:49 AM (mLV8D)

188 Even god doesn't ask for 10% of your income, only 10% of your increase.

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 10:49 AM (evdj2)

189 Good Gawd Horde ... did I really have to include a /sarc tag ?

Come on - the last line about "my dignity" should have been obvious. I DON'T HAVE ANY DAMN DIGNITY !!!

Trump comes up, and the sense of humor around here goes right out the window.

*shakes head*

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:50 AM (nw6G5)

190 I actually don't have much sympathy for the Christian college that's under fire. Well, I do, a little bit, but they ought to have seen this coming. They made a bargain with the devil and now the bill is due.
Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 10:38 AM (zo8Xe)

Uhh, Accreditation is a requirement for virtually any college degree or certification to be valid for licensure or employment.
You can't simply say, bullshit, we aren't going to play the accreditation game. Unless you want to tell all your prospective students that they will be unemployable, unable to go to another school for graduate training ,etc. or licensure.

Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 10:50 AM (Vee9K)

191 "The overall trend is what I look at and it has been moving decisively against Trump for a couple weeks now"

Like it was when Lyin Ted was stealing all his delegates. Trump will either win or fall flat but it won't be linear. Trump always seems to be losing till he pulls one out of his... hat.

Posted by: Ok at August 09, 2016 10:50 AM (K8FS4)

192 I remember we got some kind of tax break for childcare and aftercare back before I was unemployed.
Pretty sure it was on the IRS form, so federal.

Posted by: @votermom at August 09, 2016 10:50 AM (7lVbc)

193 152 I am against income taxes, period. There is no need
for the government to have access to the earnings information of
Americans. A consumption tax is a much better way of raising revenue,
and it taxes everyone, including off the books workers, hookers, and
drug dealers.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at August 09, 2016 10:41 AM (7ZVPa)

I am against all forms of a VAT. That has been vast failure in Europe.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at August 09, 2016 10:50 AM (mpXpK)

194 I propose the 6-6-6 plan!

Posted by: The Beast at August 09, 2016 10:50 AM (0mRoj)

195
This sounds good in theory, but the problem is having the government determine what is a "legitimate" expense. And of course it is not going to do so via any sort of rational method, it is doing so in a manner that panders to particular blocs of voters.
Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:45 AM (uAvJJ)
-----------------

Arguably, this particular bloc is what we call the bedrock of society and it crosses all economic and demographic lines. The government and for that matter the nation have an interest in maintaining it and making it attractive to aspirants.

Posted by: iforgot says God bless Bingo at August 09, 2016 10:51 AM (pC96u)

196 Even god doesn't ask for 10% of your income, only 10% of your increase.

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 10:49 AM (evdj2)

So God does baseline budgeting? Is that in Leviticus?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at August 09, 2016 10:51 AM (/wm8n)

197 And to the extent that the child care tax deduction is "pro-woman", it is only "pro-woman" as conceptualized as a work-outside-the-home, career-minded woman, and not the stay-at-home woman. It's actually a bit insulting to think that "pro-woman" means only one of these things, and not the other.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:51 AM (uAvJJ)

198 179 It would be interesting to get a poll of morons to see what they personally think "Conservatism" means. I would bet there would be a wide range of views, if they were honestly given.

Posted by: tubal at August 09, 2016 10:48 AM (d6TTt)

I think the definition of the principles involved would be pretty close, but as the conversation in this thread about tax breaks for child care expenses illustrates, we'll likely differ wildly about what is acceptable compromise given the current state of our government.

Posted by: joe, living dangerously at August 09, 2016 10:51 AM (KUaJL)

199 Hillary is so desparate for people to attend her rallies that she put a Muslim brotherhood Taliban agent who is the father of the Pulse massacre

OR

They are all crisis actors at her rally and everybody Hates and is repulsed by her . EXCEPT people who are directly paid as a job to like her.

Posted by: Cactus of Liberty at August 09, 2016 10:52 AM (Hpenq)

200 >>>7 That's really not that good, is it?
Posted by: tubal at August 09, 2016 10:03 AM (d6TTt)

If you click the photo and enlarge it x 2, you get details that make it seem a lot more artsful.

Posted by: m at August 09, 2016 10:52 AM (gfJWV)

201 One thing I'm not sure about is whether Hillary's people--or the security-- were caught flat-footed by the Orlando shooter's father in the audience. I mean, was everyone aware of his presence? Either way, this story should be bigger than it already is....

Posted by: JoeF. at August 09, 2016 10:52 AM (VfQy9)

202 188 Even god doesn't ask for 10% of your income, only 10% of your increase.
Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 10:49 AM (evdj2)

By my calculations, God owes me money.

Posted by: Insomniac at August 09, 2016 10:52 AM (0mRoj)

203 This tax credit is entirely different, it is about encouraging a particular way to *raise* children (by outside caregivers, instead of by a stay-at-home parent).

No it's not. It's about recognizing a legitimate expense. (legitimate being a matter for politics)

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 10:52 AM (evdj2)

204 >>Everyone is just haggling what their price is to sell their vote. (Marx reference, Groucho not Karl).

Naw, this wouldn't effect me now that my kid is in school. But even if I did have a kid in daycare, this policy wouldn't be a decider.

Of all the things to get upset about, tax breaks for daycare is really, really insignificant. ISIS is attacking nearly every day, Iran is getting nukes, Russia and China know all our government's secrets, Obama and Hillary want to make every person who crosses the border a citizen, Obamacare is bankrupting people, the federal government is billions in debt....and we're supposed to care about daycare tax breaks?!?

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:52 AM (NOIQH)

205 For the poll watchers.

https://t.co/yEkepTSoMS

Not Good News for any one person. Trump up by two points.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. at August 09, 2016 10:53 AM (WVsWD)

206 I'm so hungry right now I could cut someone.

Posted by: @votermom at August 09, 2016 10:53 AM (7lVbc)

207 Hugo Boss not available for comment.

There's only one difference between Fascists and Commies: The Fascists have better uniforms.

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at August 09, 2016 10:53 AM (SeD0w)

208
I can't, after two decades of living and
breathing staunch conservatism, vote for a man who advocates social
engineering via federal government. This is simply a bridge too far.
I'd rather lose the election than lose my dignity.
Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:32 AM (nw6G5)

Good for you. Are you willing to live with the consequences of your decision? Not just how it affects you, but everyone else in your life?

Posted by: Kindltot at August 09, 2016 10:53 AM (ry34m)

209
I'm with vic, a flat tax, no deductions, that way everyone has skin in the game.
--------------------

So am I, and someday we may get there.

Posted by: iforgot says God bless Bingo at August 09, 2016 10:54 AM (pC96u)

210 197 And to the extent that the child care tax deduction is "pro-woman", it is only "pro-woman" as conceptualized as a work-outside-the-home, career-minded woman, and not the stay-at-home woman. It's actually a bit insulting to think that "pro-woman" means only one of these things, and not the other.
Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:51 AM (uAvJJ)

Actually, the first thing that came to mind for me was actually that this was likely to hurt the traditional family, as an unintended consequence. We don't need any more reasons for absentee fathers in our society.

Posted by: joe, living dangerously at August 09, 2016 10:54 AM (KUaJL)

211 I also agree that we should have a tax based on consumption, not income.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:54 AM (uAvJJ)

212 ... and I've given up on having a simple tax system. Too many people too interested at taxing their own virtuous actions at a lesser rate while making up the difference on the back of their no good bastard neighbor.

Posted by: ScoggDog
________

The only just tax system is a flat tax. The big picture is that being poor is virtuous while making more money is a vice that requires a sin tax.

Our current multiple-bracket tax system is called "progressive" for a reason.

Posted by: FireHorse at August 09, 2016 10:54 AM (KO3dR)

213 There's only one difference between Fascists and Commies: The Fascists have better uniforms.
Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at August 09, 2016 10:53 AM (SeD0w)

--

What IS it about commies and ugly uniforms?

Posted by: @votermom at August 09, 2016 10:54 AM (7lVbc)

214 So should Trump comment on the Orlando shooter's father--if he hasn't already? Or should he keep his mouth shut?
Discuss.

Posted by: JoeF. at August 09, 2016 10:55 AM (VfQy9)

215 211 I also agree that we should have a tax based on consumption, not income.
Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:54 AM (uAvJJ)

Problem is the ratchet only turns one way and we'd end up with taxes on both consumption and income.

Posted by: Insomniac at August 09, 2016 10:55 AM (0mRoj)

216 Not the food thread...but!

I want to experiment with making whole wheat bread in my machines, (as I now have two of them). I want to presoak the whole wheat flour first though, and was wondering if any of you morons have any experience with doing this?

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at August 09, 2016 10:55 AM (ck8ve)

217 So God does baseline budgeting? Is that in Leviticus?

Yeah, as I understand it. If I had 100 sheep last year, and this year I have 110 sheep, his vigorish is one sheep this year, not eleven. He's blessed you with 9 extra sheep as you end up with 109. The other way has him cursing you by you ending up with 99.

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 10:55 AM (evdj2)

218 Of all the things to get upset about, tax breaks for daycare is really, really insignificant.

Trump was just pandering to the dingo vote.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at August 09, 2016 10:55 AM (/wm8n)

219 Guys, ScoggDog was being sarcastic.

Posted by: Insomniac at August 09, 2016 10:55 AM (0mRoj)

220 'The Faceless Girl At the Window Stares Across the Street at the Other Faceless Girl and Her Faceless Baby"

by

John "I can't draw faces. The come out looking all weird and squiggy" Eastman

Posted by: naturalfake at August 09, 2016 10:55 AM (HGtd0)

221 180 I'm with vic, a flat tax, no deductions, that way everyone has skin in the game.

We could argue all day long about what is a fair deduction and what isn't, home office, mileage, dry cleaning, uniforms, childcare, they all are work related expenses, but since not everyone works or has kids etc.. then someone will think it's unfair.

Posted by: spypeach at August 09, 2016 10:48 AM (nyYhO)

Once you tax income, the argument of what "income" is leads to 489,000 pages of tax code.

If you tax consumption, you just put a sales tax on every new product and service. Instead of 120 million taxpayers, you only have to check 1 million businesses. Out of those, 80% of the economic flow of money happens with larger corporations which have little incentive to cheat.

Also, if you eliminate tax on profits and business, the U.S. becomes the world's tax haven. Every business in the world would want to be headquartered here.

For manufacturing, our exports would be cheaper, our U.S. manufactured goods would be cheaper at home and foreign made products would be taxed when sold.

The Fair Tax plan is the way to go.

Posted by: jwest at August 09, 2016 10:56 AM (Zs4uk)

222 >>Like it was when Lyin Ted was stealing all his delegates. Trump will either win or fall flat but it won't be linear. Trump always seems to be losing till he pulls one out of his... hat.

This isn't the primary, this is the general. It is an entirely different audience.

I heard for months last cycle that the polls were biased and when you unskewed them Romney was actually winning! Accept he wasn't.

Trump may turn things around but right now he is losing.

Posted by: JackStraw at August 09, 2016 10:56 AM (/tuJf)

223 Well ... that does it. I'm out.

I can't, after two decades of living and breathing staunch
conservatism, vote for a man who advocates social engineering via
federal government. This is simply a bridge too far. I'd rather lose the
election than lose my dignity.

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:32 AM (nw6G5)

________

So, you're not in favor a tax reduction?

Posted by: FireHorse at August 09, 2016 10:35 AM (KO3dR)

I would imagine that ScoggDog is not in favor of government paternalism and is, like a lot of people, especially disgusted when that paternalism originates in the party that is supposed to be for smaller government and less interference in our lives.

Just as a thought experiment, consider how this might be an attempt economically coerce certain behavior in taxpayers. For instance, dollars to donuts I will bet you that stay at home parents would not be eligible for this tax break. Family care provided by grandma also likely wouldn't qualify (unless grandma is a licensed child care provider). Someone looking to take this deduction would have to move from child care situations that are better for their children and not government controlled to those that are completely under the control of the government.

Just a few examples of that control: Virginia has, over the last few years, attempted to enact licensed child care regulations that would 1) limit "screen time" to one hour a day, 2) require that infants and toddlers nap only in full sized cribs by banning pack and play portable cribs (even though they are safer) and by requiring that any child who falls asleep on the floor or a sofa be moved to a crib, 3) ban wading pools for small children still in diapers and 4) require that all toys and play activities reflect the "cultural identity" of the children in care.

Regardless of whether you think any of those things are good for children, is it really the state's business to mandate them?

Posted by: redbanzai at August 09, 2016 10:56 AM (3JA/M)

224 >>And to the extent that the child care tax deduction is "pro-woman", it
is only "pro-woman" as conceptualized as a work-outside-the-home,
career-minded woman, and not the stay-at-home woman. It's actually a bit
insulting to think that "pro-woman" means only one of these things, and
not the other.

Um, where have you been - the Democrats and MSM have declared that the most important issue for women is abortion and free birth control, and the most pr-woman stand is pro-abortion right up to the time of delivery. This tax break is like the least offensive "pro-woman" idea a politician has pitched in years.

Geez, people, some perspective.

Posted by: Lizzy at August 09, 2016 10:56 AM (NOIQH)

225 Do fathers get the same tax credit who have had their children ripped from them and have to pay extortion to visit them once every 2 weeks while mom gets a new sugar daddy and pumps out the kids as the mothers do.

Just asking for millions of new violated fathers a year and their children.

I can see those tax credits being used to hire lawyers to abuse fathers further. But I'm cynical about our Marxist Corporatist Totalitarian Government like that.

Posted by: Cactus of Liberty at August 09, 2016 10:56 AM (Hpenq)

226 ... and I even threw the "staunch conservative" line in there, and still nobody got it. I thought og going with "severely conservative" - but thought it would be too obvious.

Turns out ... there's no such thing as "too obvious".

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:57 AM (nw6G5)

227 More in Hillary Muz pandering:

she ignored the white Virginia girl who won a gold for shooting and praised the losing loser hijab wearing fencer girl

Posted by: @votermom at August 09, 2016 10:57 AM (7lVbc)

228 Uhh, Accreditation is a requirement for virtually any college degree or certification to be valid for licensure or employment.
You can't simply say, bullshit, we aren't going to play the accreditation game. Unless you want to tell all your prospective students that they will be unemployable, unable to go to another school for graduate training ,etc. or licensure.
Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 10:50 AM (Vee9K)

Right, Christian colleges need to come up with their own system of accreditation.

It goes beyond all reason and experience to expect Christian educational institutions to get a fair break from agencies run by increasingly hostile non-Christians.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 10:57 AM (zo8Xe)

229 So should Trump comment on the Orlando shooter's father--if he hasn't already? Or should he keep his mouth shut?
Discuss.

Posted by: JoeF. at August 09, 2016 10:55 AM (VfQy9)

For the most part...his PAC's, and supporters should do most of the heavy lifting....but he should certainly make note of it at some point in the very near future, without dwelling on it.

He needs to keep hammering home the differences between him and Hillary, and addressing her many failures while a public servant.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at August 09, 2016 10:57 AM (ck8ve)

230 This sounds good in theory, but the problem is having the government determine what is a "legitimate" expense. And of course it is not going to do so via any sort of rational method, it is doing so in a manner that panders to particular blocs of voters.Posted by: chem R.R. jeff�

Ever hear the phrase, 'generally accepted accounting practice'. 99% of deductions for business expense are so thoroughly legitimate it's not even worthy of debate.

Now, when you get into esoteric stuff like 'accelerated depreciation' which may or may not have good arguments pro or con, that's when the government needs to get involved.

You want to have more oil drilling? Accelerate the depreciation of equipment. It's that simple.

There are times -- which is why I'm 'sorta' conservative and not 'true' conservative -- when government intervention in tax law and tax codes can be for the better.

Makes me a heretic, I know.

Posted by: free range 'sorta' conservative but not 'true' conservative at August 09, 2016 10:57 AM (ZnIt3)

231 203
This tax credit is entirely different, it is about encouraging a
particular way to *raise* children (by outside caregivers, instead of by
a stay-at-home parent).

No it's not. It's about recognizing a legitimate expense. (legitimate being a matter for politics)

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 10:52 AM (evdj2)

It is a legitimate expense only for those families in which both parents work outside the home. It is a non-existent expense in which the children are raised by a stay-at-home parent. So this tax credit favors those parents who choose to work outside the home and therefore have their children raised by outside caregivers.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:57 AM (uAvJJ)

232 Maybe Hillary asked the shooters father where his daughter-in-law is while he was in attendance.

Posted by: Jinx the Cat at August 09, 2016 10:57 AM (T7bPb)

233 So should Trump comment on the Orlando shooter's father--if he hasn't already? Or should he keep his mouth shut?
---
Obviously, we've already discovered you can't criticize the muslim parents of a guy who gave his life for the war.

Posted by: Methos, AoSHQ commenter since 2006, now apperently nonvoting democrat at August 09, 2016 10:57 AM (3Liv/)

234 Turns out ... there's no such thing as "too obvious".
Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:57 AM (nw6G5)

Should have switched to a Mark, Dave, or Chad sock.

Posted by: joe, living dangerously at August 09, 2016 10:58 AM (KUaJL)

235 211 I also agree that we should have a tax based on consumption, not income.
Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:54 AM (uAvJJ)

I see you are not in the " get a dollar spend two dollars" American profligacy ambience. That sort of wrong thinking will not support our Oligarchy, and cannot be countenanced. Wrecker.

Posted by: tubal at August 09, 2016 10:58 AM (d6TTt)

236 Turns out ... there's no such thing as "too obvious".

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:57 AM (nw6G5)

Around here? Hell, even a pie fight is too subtle.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 10:58 AM (zo8Xe)

237 225 Do fathers get the same tax credit who have had their children ripped from them and have to pay extortion to visit them once every 2 weeks while mom gets a new sugar daddy and pumps out the kids as the mothers do.

Just asking for millions of new violated fathers a year and their children.

I can see those tax credits being used to hire lawyers to abuse fathers further. But I'm cynical about our Marxist Corporatist Totalitarian Government like that.
Posted by: Cactus of Liberty at August 09, 2016 10:56 AM (Hpenq)

I like you. No homo.

Posted by: Insomniac at August 09, 2016 10:58 AM (0mRoj)

238 We already have a tax credit for just having children. This tax credit is entirely different, it is about encouraging a particular way to *raise* children (by outside caregivers, instead of by a stay-at-home parent).
Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:48 AM (uAvJJ)

Trump did not define who would qualify for the tax deduction.
This is one of Ivanka's projects. She states in the article in Harper Bazaar I linked to in the downstairs thread that the cost of child care in the country is outrageous.
She is quoted as saying in half the country, child care exceeds the cost of housing. That it's not sustainable or appropriate.

It IS a problem that many households deal with. So the solution is gov. run free daycare(no, just no) that Hillary would advocate, complete with indoctrination manuals, or gov. subsidies(no, I don't want to pay for it) or helping people have more money to make their own choices, via not taking it from them in taxes.

And why I said earlier I would like to see those deductions extended to those who leave work to stay home, or have grandma take care of the kids, etc.

Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 10:58 AM (Vee9K)

239 So (last thread) I go start the coffee, feed the pets, make a bit of breakfast, come back, leisurely read headlines & follow some links and read all the comments, finally catch up to my own comment, and find out I'm in the barrel for Italican-izing. Wargh!

Automatic ejection from the barrel when the next thread comes up, for such minor infractions, though, right? (Shakes muck off shoes.)

Had to look at the page source code to see how I did that, because Pixy automatically closes an unclosed i-tag... UNLESS you have a 2nd open-italics where you meant to put a close-tag. And by you I mean me.

Posted by: mindful webworker - has coffee will unravel at August 09, 2016 10:59 AM (hUQVp)

240 and I've given up on having a simple tax system.

Yeah, exactly! I mean, what would we do?

Posted by: H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt and every accountant, everywhere at August 09, 2016 10:59 AM (SeD0w)

241 So should Trump comment on the Orlando shooter's father--if he hasn't already? Or should he keep his mouth shut?
...
Yes.

Posted by: ajmojo at August 09, 2016 10:59 AM (1H9ox)

242 "Trump may turn things around but right now he is losing."

What is it with these selective people. I just posted a link to a new poll showing Trump ahead by 2 points over hillzebub.

If you are going to believe the polls all the time, why won't you believe this one?

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. at August 09, 2016 11:00 AM (WVsWD)

243 239 So (last thread) I go start the coffee, feed the pets, make a bit of breakfast, come back, leisurely read headlines & follow some links and read all the comments, finally catch up to my own comment, and find out I'm in the barrel for Italican-izing. Wargh!

We don't tolerate greasy-haired garlic-chomping Italicans 'round here.

Posted by: Insomniac at August 09, 2016 11:00 AM (0mRoj)

244 It is a legitimate expense only for those families in which both parents work outside the home.

And? A voluntary expense is still an expense. A business buying a new delivery vehicle is a voluntary expense and is a deduction. You may think differently and are free to try and convince others, but it's not in any ways a manifestly unfair idea.

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 11:00 AM (evdj2)

245 That's not a Kodak moment.

Posted by: GnuBreed at August 09, 2016 11:01 AM (gyKtp)

246 Love to see the tortured logic to support yet another tax credit for a selected group of people just because our side is proposing it. I guess we have given up trying to simplify the tax code and instead join the Dems to use the tax code to buy votes. It wasn't too long ago that some of the same people were questioning the mortgage interest tax deduction.

If you can't beat 'em , join 'em.

Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at August 09, 2016 11:02 AM (0q4vG)

247 Posted by: redbanzai at August 09, 2016 10:56 AM (3JA/M)

This is a good point. The tax credits would likely only be allowable for expenses at "certified" day care centers. And that gives the government license to impose all sorts of restrictions on what constitutes "certified" so that the kids are growing up to be the nice little proto-SJW's that the government wants them to be.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 11:02 AM (uAvJJ)

248 221 180 I'm with vic, a flat tax, no deductions, that way everyone has skin in the game.

We could argue all day long about what is a fair deduction and what isn't, home office, mileage, dry cleaning, uniforms, childcare, they all are work related expenses, but since not everyone works or has kids etc.. then someone will think it's unfair.

Posted by: spypeach at August 09, 2016 10:48 AM (nyYhO)

Once you tax income, the argument of what "income" is leads to 489,000 pages of tax code.

If you tax consumption, you just put a sales tax on every new product and service. Instead of 120 million taxpayers, you only have to check 1 million businesses. Out of those, 80% of the economic flow of money happens with larger corporations which have little incentive to cheat.

Also, if you eliminate tax on profits and business, the U.S. becomes the world's tax haven. Every business in the world would want to be headquartered here.

For manufacturing, our exports would be cheaper, our U.S. manufactured goods would be cheaper at home and foreign made products would be taxed when sold.

The Fair Tax plan is the way to go.
Posted by: jwest at August 09, 2016 10:56 AM (Zs4uk

Taxing the free will decisions made by sovereign Individuals and not their labor.

That's like the opposite of slavery and Shit

Posted by: Cactus of Liberty at August 09, 2016 11:02 AM (Hpenq)

249 OregonMuse: Take a different example. BYU's law school is under threat of having their accreditation removed by the American Bar Association.

BYU can't make any other arrangements, since most bar exams require that you have a JD from an ABA accredited law school. If BYU loses their accreditation, they might as well close up shop, because outside of one or two states, their graduates could not take the Bar exam.

And why is their accreditation under threat? Because they require all their students to essentially agree to live a moral, Christian life. No sex outside marriage, no homosexual marriage, etc. They actually have conservative law professors, too, so there's multiple reasons why the ABA wants to shut them down. But the LGBT mafia already won in British Columbia and got a Christian school pretty much shut down.

It's here now. How do you propose schools defend themselves, when they cannot set up a different accreditation board?

Posted by: Vanceone at August 09, 2016 11:02 AM (IQzhs)

250 Oh, and, by the way. We have lobbyists. Lots of them. So, you can STFU about "flat" taxes.
F*^king rubes.

Posted by: H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt and every accountant, everywhere at August 09, 2016 11:03 AM (SeD0w)

251 I'm ok with the government taking less money from parents.

I'm not ok with the government giving money to people to have babies - seeing a lot of problems with that now among welfare generations.

Posted by: @votermom at August 09, 2016 11:03 AM (7lVbc)

252 I want to experiment with making whole wheat bread in my machines
---------------------------

I did, for awhile, until I dropped the bucket a few times and it started leaking. Now I make up the dough by hand, at least until the water is absorbed, then put it in the machine, and contiue to add water until I get the dough ball to 'feel right'; i.e. wet enough to rise properly, not so wet it overtops the bucket (and makes a mess in the machine, not a problem in the oven.)

The various kinds of artisanal bread doughs have differening consistancies. Just basic light whole wheat bread is pretty simple once you have done it a few times. Soaking or not.

Even your mistakes will still be edible, usually, depending on your tolerance for waste.

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 11:03 AM (mLV8D)

253 That's not a Kodak moment.

Posted by: GnuBreed at August 09, 2016 11:01 AM (gyKtp)

But, it could've been a Kodiak moment,

if those anti-bear fucks didn't keep me away from those yummy yummy meatbags.

Posted by: Grizzly Bear at August 09, 2016 11:03 AM (HGtd0)

254 It is a legitimate expense only for those families in which both parents work outside the home. It is a non-existent expense in which the children are raised by a stay-at-home parent. So this tax credit favors those parents who choose to work outside the home and therefore have their children raised by outside caregivers.
Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 10:57 AM (uAvJJ)

I repeat, Trump did not give the specifics or limitations on this tax deduction proposal. And this is also where conservatives get themselves in deep doo doo with the rest of the country.
On one hand they scream that people should be working and supporting themselves and their family, then they scream that they should be staying home with their children and not working.

For many many people, that isn't an option. If they don't want to be on welfare, their education or ability level will limit what they can earn and they will need to work full time or both parents need to work. And it's easy to say, well they shouldn't have kids then...ok, so they should abort any mistakes...

The problem is there and reasonable solutions should be sought, not the utopian solutions that are just as unattainable as the liberals utopia.

Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 11:04 AM (Vee9K)

255 It wasn't too long ago that some of the same people were questioning the mortgage interest tax deduction.

I question it because it would seem to me to already be, or right properly should be, subsumed in the personal deduction. Whether you house yourself by paying rent or by paying a mortage, it's an expense applied against income.

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 11:04 AM (evdj2)

256 >>>Yeah, exactly! I mean, what would we do?

Posted by: HR Block, Jackson Hewitt and every accountant, everywhere at August 09, 2016 10:59 AM (SeD0w)<<<

Well, I'd be happy I wouldn't have Turbo Tax screwing up my returns anymore.

Posted by: Tim "Tax Cheat" Geithner at August 09, 2016 11:04 AM (H9MG5)

257 Once you tax income, the argument of what "income" is leads to 489,000 pages of tax code.

mmm, I love it when you talk like that sugar mouth.

Posted by: H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt and every accountant, everywhere at August 09, 2016 11:04 AM (SeD0w)

258 What IS it about commies and ugly uniforms?

Posted by: @votermom
________

It's a proletariat thing. They want to come across as working people. In this regard, a bad fit is more important than atrocious style.

Posted by: FireHorse at August 09, 2016 11:04 AM (KO3dR)

259 This is one of Ivanka's projects.

This would be the same Ivanka who is not only a registered Democrat, but hosted a fundraiser for Cory Booker when he ran for the Senate in NJ, right?

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 11:05 AM (uAvJJ)

260 Aw, man. We're slipping.

Eastman! He came out of the east to do battle with the Amazing Rondo!

Posted by: Lance McCormick at August 09, 2016 11:05 AM (u0s1P)

261 If you are going to believe the polls all the time, why won't you believe this one?

Because it has Trump ahead & that is not allowed?

Posted by: rickb223 TEXIT at August 09, 2016 11:05 AM (SCvwT)

262 Oh, and in an artistic reference, Clock-Boy sez he's lost his creativity because of all the press attention.

The very same press attention he and his parents sought in the first place.

Well here's a new project idea for ya, Ahmed -- Take this here Give-A-Fuck meter of mine apart, and put it in a pencil case.

Then see if you can make it twitch.

Posted by: GnuBreed at August 09, 2016 11:05 AM (gyKtp)

263 What's Ted Cruz say about this tax credit ? 'Cause I just go with whatever Ted sez. Makes life easier.

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 11:06 AM (nw6G5)

264 I think a Trump win relies on that "invisible" voter block they've been talking about. I've seen a ton of examples of this over the last year and half. We had a house built, so we've been interacting with a lot of different types of contractors, all blue collar, I can honestly say I asked almost all of them who they liked and every single one of these guys told me that they liked Trump, they identify themselves as democrats. The other interesting tidbit, is everyone of them also told me they have never voted. Maybe that will change this year, maybe it won't.

Posted by: spypeach at August 09, 2016 11:06 AM (nyYhO)

265
Posted by: redbanzai at August 09, 2016 10:56 AM (3JA/M)

This
is a good point. The tax credits would likely only be allowable for
expenses at "certified" day care centers. And that gives the government
license to impose all sorts of restrictions on what constitutes
"certified" so that the kids are growing up to be the nice little
proto-SJW's that the government wants them to be.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 11:02 AM (uAvJJ)

Not only does it turn out little proto-SJW's, it raises the cost of childcare so that politicians have an excuse to yell for subsidies which allows them more and more control over more and more of "our" children.

Posted by: redbanzai at August 09, 2016 11:07 AM (3JA/M)

266 We can't have a tax on consumption. Our whole economy is based on consumption.

Posted by: Madison Avenue at August 09, 2016 11:07 AM (IqV8l)

267 Love to see the tortured logic to support yet another tax credit for a selected group of people just because our side is proposing it.

It is not a tax CREDIT! It would be a deduction against earnings to properly address the cost associated with those earnings. No earnings, no deduction.

Posted by: free range 'sorta' conservative but not 'true' conservative at August 09, 2016 11:07 AM (ZnIt3)

268 What's Ted Cruz say about this tax credit ? 'Cause I just go with whatever Ted sez. Makes life easier.

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 11:06 AM (nw6G5)

God gave you a brain for a reason Scogg... and it wasn't so you could blindly follow any man:-P

Posted by: redbanzai at August 09, 2016 11:08 AM (3JA/M)

269 Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 11:00 AM (evdj2)

No it's a business expense . But It's okay if you believe adding to the present tax code is a good thing, if you having giving up trying to simplify it. If that's the case, I agree that your goal should be to adjust the code to your advantage.

Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at August 09, 2016 11:08 AM (0q4vG)

270 People who advocate for a consumption tax in the form of a sales tax or a VAT are missing the boat. They think it will be a simple flat tax on the sale of goods. It will NOT be.

Here in SC even w/o going to something as complicated as the VAT or the "Un-fair tax plan" have 4 different levels of sales tax depending on where you live and what you buy. There are also specific exemptions for real estate and autos. If you live inside the city limits of the little podunk town near me the sales tax on non-food items is 10.5%. And guess where all the stores are at.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at August 09, 2016 11:09 AM (mpXpK)

271 Oh, and in an artistic reference, Clock-Boy sez he's lost his creativity because of all the press attention.

The very same press attention he and his parents sought in the first place.

Well here's a new project idea for ya, Ahmed -- Take this here Give-A-Fuck meter of mine apart, and put it in a pencil case.

Then see if you can make it twitch.
Posted by: GnuBreed

*Golf clap*

Posted by: rickb223 TEXIT at August 09, 2016 11:09 AM (SCvwT)

272 This style of art is often called 'evocative'. It is meant to invoke an impression of what might be represented in the work.

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 10:09 AM (mLV8D)

Degas tried something similar to this; that is, using an evocative style,in a painting called 'Interior', also known as 'The Rape'. There's a manstanding nonchalantly in a bedroom with a half-dressed, frightened-looking young woman with her back to him, and she's apparently distraught.

It's one of the few timesDegas tried to inject a story-telling narrative in a painting, and is considered one of his lesser, failedworks. He called it one of his few attempts at a genre painting, and considered it a failure, himself.

Evocative paintings don't work if it's uncertain what the artist is attempting to evoke.

Posted by: troyriser at August 09, 2016 11:09 AM (OGbEB)

273 I'm all for taxing consumption.

If SCOAMF is letting in people with TB, let them pay their fair share.

Posted by: a T-Rex trying to rub one out at August 09, 2016 11:10 AM (H9MG5)

274 Would it be horrible for me to think that, while still a steaming pile of shit, the tax code is the secondary problem in this country and should be treated that way? Shouldn't the spear tip of the battle to get this country on track be cutting spending?

I know, that doesn't sell. But this kabuki theatre of an auction whereby the politicians dole out what seems to be the best deal for their targeted audience makes me want to barf.

I guess there is the argument of "starve the beast"...that makes some sense to me, especially after the year over year record federal revenue grab. But no one makes that argument. The latest and greatest "conservative" tax plan backers always talk about how cutting this and adjusting levels that will actually grow the pie. They tell us how their amazing plan will make government richer.

Fuck that. Don't just tell me what byzantine new method you're going to use to take my money. I am smart enough to realize you are never going to stop taking my money.
Unless you show me that you are going to stop spending my goddamn money on stupid shit, I will never take you serious. It's all a shell game.

Posted by: ajmojo at August 09, 2016 11:10 AM (1H9ox)

275
Oh, and in an artistic reference, Clock-Boy sez he's lost his creativity because of all the press attention.

How much is his creativity worth? In dollars?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at August 09, 2016 11:10 AM (IqV8l)

276 I am pretty sure this tax deduction for childcare already exists.
You have to provide the tax id of the childcare provider.

Posted by: @votermom at August 09, 2016 11:10 AM (7lVbc)

277
Not only does it turn out little proto-SJW's, it
raises the cost of childcare so that politicians have an excuse to yell
for subsidies which allows them more and more control over more and
more of "our" children.

Posted by: redbanzai at August 09, 2016 11:07 AM (3JA/M)
Funny thing is, the EXACT SAME THING happened with the tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance. And we know what a huge mess health insurance is now.
Employers get tax deduction, therefore, insurance companies can increase their rates, because, after all, it's not like the employers actually pay the full cost of the health insurance, right?
And it led to this entitlement mentality that everyone *deserves* health insurance. It won't be long until we will be at the point where everyone *deserves* "free" child care.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 11:10 AM (uAvJJ)

278 "It's here now. How do you propose schools defend themselves, when they cannot set up a different accreditation board?"

You have to set up an underground system, and think the same way you would think when living under nazi occupation. You have to teach everyone to agree to tell the nazi's, who hold all power, whatever they want to hear, and then you have to find a way to keep your moral code alive, secretly.

And this begins by teaching all of your youth from birth that the system they live under is evil and corrupt and must one day be overthrown. For that is the truth of the world that we all now live in.

Posted by: Tom Servo at August 09, 2016 11:10 AM (V2Yro)

279 God gave you a brain for a reason Scogg...

You can't prove it

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 11:11 AM (nw6G5)

280
Unless you show me that you are going to stop spending my goddamn money on stupid shit, I will never take you serious. It's all a shell game.
Posted by: ajmojo

Didn't Nancy Pelosi say that if you spend a dollar it magically creates three more dollars?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at August 09, 2016 11:12 AM (IqV8l)

281 279 God gave you a brain for a reason Scogg...

You can't prove it

-----------------------------

so says 52% of the country

Posted by: Rick in SK at August 09, 2016 11:12 AM (/CIN4)

282 "Because it has Trump ahead & that is not allowed? "

Obviously.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. at August 09, 2016 11:12 AM (WVsWD)

283 Degas tried something similar to this; that is, using an evocative style,in a painting called 'Interior', also known as 'The Rape'.

IT WAS F"NG RAPE I TELL YOU! RAPE!! INTERIOR MY ASS! DON'T YOU SEE MY MATTRESS?!?

Posted by: Mattress Girl at August 09, 2016 11:13 AM (SeD0w)

284 Evocative paintings don't work if it's uncertain what the artist is attempting to evoke.
-------------------------------------------

This is why we have experts, professionals in the field, who can explain to the clueless, such as myself, who have no idea wtf is going on.

It is why we need experts to explain picasso during his cubist period.

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 11:14 AM (mLV8D)

285
How do you propose schools defend themselves, when they cannot set up a different accreditation board?
Posted by: Vanceone at August 09, 2016 11:02 AM (IQzhs)
------------------

Why can't new accreditation boards be set up?

Posted by: iforgot says God bless Bingo at August 09, 2016 11:14 AM (pC96u)

286 Hillary should ask her new best friend where his daughter-in-law is.

Posted by: Amy Schumer at August 09, 2016 11:14 AM (u0s1P)

287 Obviously.
Posted by: Tim in Illinois. at August 09, 2016 11:12 AM (WVsWD)

I hear that in Professor Snape's voice.

Posted by: @votermom at August 09, 2016 11:14 AM (7lVbc)

288 What is this, tranny week on the art thread?

Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12-13 at August 09, 2016 11:15 AM (9krrF)

289 Posted by: Jen the original at August 09, 2016 11:04 AM (Vee9K)

Look I get it, conservatives are viewed as "mean" and "heartless" because they don't (generally) want to subsidize others' lifestyle choices, even very legitimate lifestyle choices like the choice to use day care. So the leftist impulse, which too many on the right fall for as well, is to have the government step in as the savior that will rescue citizens from their plights. But the government never ends up being a true savior, only a master, that winds up making things worse overall.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 11:15 AM (uAvJJ)

290 So Fathers are not considered care givers and don't provide child care in any way? We provide nothing? We are disposable?

Just asking for half the population, most of Trump's base, the history of Civilization, and our Creator who says otherwise and is against our Gynocentric Marxist Corporatist Totalitarian Government.

Posted by: Cactus of Liberty at August 09, 2016 11:15 AM (Hpenq)

291 276 Votermom

IIRC I think you are correct and there is some type of deduction.

Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at August 09, 2016 11:15 AM (0q4vG)

292 I hear that in Professor Snape's voice.
...
That's creepy. Cuz he's dead.

Posted by: ajmojo at August 09, 2016 11:16 AM (1H9ox)

293 Didn't Nancy Pelosi say that if you spend a dollar it magically creates three more dollars?

Only if you send it through the magic spin cycle of Gubmint!! I've heard lib economics teachers insist on this to no end.

Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at August 09, 2016 11:16 AM (SeD0w)

294 No it's a business expense . But It's okay if you believe adding to the present tax code is a good thing, if you having giving up trying to simplify it. If that's the case, I agree that your goal should be to adjust the code to your advantage.

Eating is a business expense for the salaryman.

I want a flat rate income tax, if I have to have an income tax, but unlike Vic, I think the cost of living must be deducted from income and the flat rate applied to the profit. Same as for a business.

If I made $7k last year, and it took all my money to keep body and soul together, how do I have income to pay tax on?

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 11:16 AM (evdj2)

295 I haven't had the chance to peruse Trumps speech yesterday. But did he
happen to mention shrinking the size and scope of government in any way?
Because, well, you know. It's a bit of a problem.

I understand if he didn't...if the focus was just on the tax side of
the equation. Talking about cutting "services" is bad juju in national
politics. And I'm all for cutting the shit out of taxes in any way we
can. But it is only one side of, and arguably the smaller side, of the
equation.
========================

Trump stated that he would repeal Obamacare, remove Barry's "overreaching" EOs (which means all of them), cut corporate taxes to 15%, reduce the number of Federal individual tax margins to 3 (the top rate capped at 33%).

Drudge has the rundown linked to a NY Post article.

Posted by: mrp at August 09, 2016 11:17 AM (JBggj)

296 It's here now. How do you propose schools defend themselves, when they cannot set up a different accreditation board?
Posted by: Vanceone at August 09, 2016 11:02 AM (IQzhs)

There is no short term solution for this. The BYU admins can't pull a rabbit out of some magic hat to save themselves. Oh, they may be able to initiate some sort of lawsuit, and perhaps they can get a sympathetic judge to hear the case, and maybe they'll win on appeal, but then, ten years from now, or two years from now, they'll be hit again with other requirements that go against their religious faith and practice and then they'll be back in the same boat.

I agree that you can't whip up some alternate accrediting agency overnight. They, and every other Christian college, should've been preparing for this years ago. But for the most part, Christian institutions of education have closed their eyes to this, and it simply did not occur to them that it could ever happen.

It's very much like the Roman Catholic Church in America, which went all-in on Obamacare and then complained like crazy because they're being required to pay for abortions. They thought they could carve out their own little exemption. They believed that the government they approved and were in favor of that intends to regulate every facet of the lives of Americans, would somehow leave them alone.

They thought wrong.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 11:17 AM (zo8Xe)

297 I also agree that we should have a tax based on consumption, not income.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff
-
With a constitutional amendment outlawing taxes on income.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at August 09, 2016 11:17 AM (7ZVPa)

298 Employers get tax deduction, therefore, insurance companies can increase their rates, because, after all, it's not like the employers actually pay the full cost of the health insurance, right?

The employees, through their efforts, create the profit which allows the employer to pay for their health insurance which provides the employer with healthy, disease free employees who keep the employer In business.

The employer could simply choose to drop the insurance and pay the employees more money.

Now, the difference on the bottom line to business? That's a really, really tough question. I don't say that lightly, either. A ton of variables involved.

Posted by: free range 'sorta' conservative but not 'true' conservative at August 09, 2016 11:17 AM (ZnIt3)

299 291
276 Votermom

IIRC I think you are correct and there is some type of deduction.

Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at August 09, 2016 11:15 AM (0q4vG)
Is this what you are referring to?
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc602.html

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 11:18 AM (uAvJJ)

300 I like the painting. The dress does appear to be translucent. Which is nice.

Posted by: mrp at August 09, 2016 11:18 AM (JBggj)

301 290 So Fathers are not considered care givers and don't provide child care in any way? We provide nothing? We are disposable?

In our modern society, fathers are considered only as wallets. We provide naught else and are quite disposable.

Posted by: Insomniac at August 09, 2016 11:19 AM (0mRoj)

302 I hear that in Professor Snape's voice.

Posted by: @votermom at August 09, 2016 11:14 AM (7lVbc)

I'm not familiar with Professor Snape. Is he a rabid #nevertard too?

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. at August 09, 2016 11:19 AM (WVsWD)

303 >>>I'm not familiar with Professor Snape. Is he a rabid #nevertard too?

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. at August 09, 2016 11:19 AM (WVsWD)<<<

Not now. He's dead, ~~Jim~~ Tim.

Posted by: Bones McCoy at August 09, 2016 11:20 AM (H9MG5)

304
I like the painting. The dress does appear to be translucent. Which is nice.
Posted by: mrp

Her face is blurred because she is in the federal witness protection program.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at August 09, 2016 11:21 AM (IqV8l)

305 I'm hearing now that many employees are avoiding emergency room and healthcare providers, choosing to stay at home sick, as opposed to paying the co-pays.

Cheaper to lose a weeks pay with an extended Illness v losing a months pay with an er visit.

Posted by: free range 'sorta' conservative but not 'true' conservative at August 09, 2016 11:21 AM (ZnIt3)

306 and of course, willowed

Posted by: Grump928(c) wonders why you didn't come to him like a fucking man at August 09, 2016 11:21 AM (evdj2)

307 Sounds like Ivannka's plan would pander to the divorce Corp and bring even more incentives to be a single mother.

Looks like Ivannka just got caught pandering to single mothers and baby mommas, the base of the Marxists.

Anti family. Anti Father. Sad.

Posted by: Cactus of Liberty at August 09, 2016 11:21 AM (Hpenq)

308 remove Barry's "overreaching" EOs (which means all of them),

Actually, this is what he really said:

"I will also immediately cancel all illegal and overreaching executive orders."

So he didn't say he would repeal all of Barry's EO's.

Posted by: chem R.R. jeff at August 09, 2016 11:22 AM (uAvJJ)

309 294 I want a flat rate income tax, if I have to have an
income tax, but unlike Vic, I think the cost of living must be deducted
from income and the flat rate applied to the profit. Same as for a
business.

If I made $7k last year, and it took all my money to keep body and soul together, how do I have income to pay tax on?

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 11:16 AM (evdj2)

Right now my biggest cost of living IS taxes. And that is amazing since I have yuuuge medical expenses.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at August 09, 2016 11:22 AM (mpXpK)

310 I'm not familiar with Professor Snape. Is he a rabid #nevertard too?
Posted by: Tim in Illinois. at August 09, 2016 11:19 AM (WVsWD)

https://youtu.be/yrGOhF5cJH4

Posted by: @votermom at August 09, 2016 11:22 AM (7lVbc)

311 Trump comes up, and the sense of humor around here goes right out the window.

*shakes head*

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 10:50 AM (nw6G5)

Yes it does. Unless I decide to type a Golden Scalp Weasel. Then the sense of humor rides off in a large gilded RV.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Get Your Beach Blanket Statements and Other Vacation Supplies at The Outrage Outlet! at August 09, 2016 11:22 AM (hLRSq)

312 I did like the part in Trump's speech yesterday where he promised to control men's minds, crush dissent, and establish Xenu-worship as the new state religion.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at August 09, 2016 11:23 AM (L7t0A)

313 The ewok is awake.

Posted by: joe, living dangerously at August 09, 2016 11:23 AM (KUaJL)

314 "It's very much like the Roman Catholic Church in America, which went all-in on Obamacare and then complained like crazy because they're being required to pay for abortions. They thought they could carve out their own little exemption. They believed that the government they approved and were in favor of that intends to regulate every facet of the lives of Americans, would somehow leave them alone."

It's getting worse. There's a new proposed rule floating out there connected to Obamacare that says basically if you're a provider and take so much as a single dollar of federal money you can't discriminate in the delivery of services based on, among other things, pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and gender orientation. So guess what, faith-based hospitals, you're going to be required to perform abortions, chopitoffames and addadicktomes in the near future.

Posted by: Insomniac at August 09, 2016 11:23 AM (0mRoj)

315 Right now my biggest cost of living IS taxes. And that is amazing since I have yuuuge medical expenses.

1%er!!

Posted by: Grump928(c) repeats himself at August 09, 2016 11:23 AM (evdj2)

316 Let's not forget that employer-provided health insurance is a relic of FDR/WW2 wage controls- the idea was that businesses had to provide perks since they couldn't raise salaries.

The whole notion that you have to get health insurance from your work, unlike, say, car insurance, is kind of ridiculous. (It's not *entirely* because everyone has a body, but not everyone has a car or operates it on public roadways.) I mean, yeah, if you're out of work, you still need insurance, but if you don't have the money to buy it, it doesn't matter where you're not getting it from.

Not advocating single-payer or anything. I think the best solution is to separate insurance from the job, so employers can pay more actual money and the worker can decide how to spend it. (How to get there, okay, there I'm stumped.)

Posted by: Lance McCormick at August 09, 2016 11:23 AM (u0s1P)

317 I don't understand why anyone pays the slightest attention to polls.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at August 09, 2016 11:24 AM (gUoN4)

318 Good god...

Hillary has a Jihadist lunatic at her rally and is vowing to flood the country with more just like him, and what are certain conservatives complaining about...a tax credit for child care.

Just end this country now and be done with it...

Posted by: William Eaton at August 09, 2016 11:24 AM (KhJh8)

319 What we need is a pure, virtuous candidate who preaches fiscal responsibility, the failed math of our current economy, Constitutional adherence and most of all the reduction of free shit and entitlements.

Because there is nothing that 52% of American voters love more than having their goodies taken away.

Posted by: Mortimer at August 09, 2016 11:24 AM (amu9S)

320 Posted by: @votermom at August 09, 2016 11:22 AM (7lVbc)

Harry Potter. No wonder I'm not familiar. Never read the books or seen the movies.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. at August 09, 2016 11:25 AM (WVsWD)

321 And this begins by teaching all of your youth from birth that the system they live under is evil and corrupt and must one day be overthrown. For that is the truth of the world that we all now live in.

This.

Ironically, it's what they did to us...

Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12-13 at August 09, 2016 11:25 AM (9krrF)

322 >>What is it with these selective people. I just posted a link to a new poll showing Trump ahead by 2 points over hillzebub.

So what? I could probably find a poll that some the majority of people think the moon is made of green cheese.

It's the totality of information that you have to look at. Or you are being selective.

Look at the analysis of guy like Larry Sabato and Stu Rothenberg. They analyze this stuff for a living and have for decades. They are looking at a Clinton wipe out right now.

As I said, Trump may win but right now he is losing. Or you can cherry pick polls and unskew them. That always works.

Posted by: JackStraw at August 09, 2016 11:25 AM (/tuJf)

323 iforgot: I am speaking specifically of BYU's law school. They are accredited by the ABA, or the American Bar Association.

All states require prospective attorney's to take the Bar exam to be admitted to practice law in that state. And the vast, vast majority of states require candidates for the bar exam to be graduates of an ABA accredited law school. If you graduate from a non-accredited school, you don't get to take the bar. And you cannot practice law.

So BYU and a couple of other schools, for instance, cannot set up another accrediting agency without changing the law in all 50 states to allow bar exam applicants from non-ABA accredited schools.

And that's the problem here, really: being accredited by specific organizations is usually a legal requirement for certain professions. Sure, BYU and TCU and Baylor and Notre Dame could set up another accrediting organization that they control, but then they have to change the laws in a wide multitude of areas to allow it... and that will be fought tooth and nail by the LGBT crowd, you can be sure. And governor's like Mike Pence will just roll over and bow to them, most likely.

I don't know what the solution is either. I've long maintained that the Mormon persecutions of the late 1800's are on their way back, except this time all Christians get to experience it.

Posted by: Vanceone at August 09, 2016 11:25 AM (IQzhs)

324 #296 It's very much like the Roman Catholic Church in America, which went
all-in on Obamacare and then complained like crazy because they're being
required to pay for abortions. They thought they could carve out their
own little exemption. They believed that the government they approved
and were in favor of that intends to regulate every facet of the lives
of Americans, would somehow leave them alone.

They thought wrong.
====================

That's 100% wrong. The Church vehemently opposed Obamacare as it was written in the House version, and lobbied hard to rewrite the Senate bill to protect religious institutions and people who opposed the anti-life provisions. To no avail

The Catholic Church has always been in favor of affordable health care for the poor and working people. It has put a lot of skin in the game. Before Obamacare was enacted, 16% of the US healthcare services in this country were provided by Church-affiliated facilities, mostly in urban areas where affordable care was most needed.

Posted by: mrp at August 09, 2016 11:26 AM (JBggj)

325
The whole notion that you have to get health insurance from your work, unlike, say, car insurance, is kind of ridiculous.

You should get both!

Posted by: A car named Brad at August 09, 2016 11:26 AM (IqV8l)

326 "It's very much like the Roman Catholic Church in America, which went all-in on Obamacare

-----

I blame Bush for his compassionate conservatism and his 'faith based' humanitarian NGOs helping the poor peoples of the world escape the misery of war torn Middle East and taking government money to administer the humanitarian crisis of war refugees and their resettlement in Europe and America.

Ok, maybe it started sooner than that under Bush the HW and Somalia. Ok, maybe it wasn't Bush and started even earlier than that. I would do some research but there is a new thread and this one will expire shortly.

Posted by: Norm Alliee at August 09, 2016 11:26 AM (mLV8D)

327 301 290 So Fathers are not considered care givers and don't provide child care in any way? We provide nothing? We are disposable?

In our modern society, fathers are considered only as wallets. We provide naught else and are quite disposable.
Posted by: Insomniac at August 09, 2016 11:19 AM (0mRoj)

I all too aware. It is so bad now, guerrilla warfare should have began in full at the turn of the century. And I don't mean the Fight Club type either. The passive resistance craps does not work in a lawless system.

The system purposely acts out in violent ways and encourages violence against men until we die.

It is sad men don't fight back eye for an eye against agents of that system who profit.

Posted by: Cactus of Liberty at August 09, 2016 11:27 AM (Hpenq)

328 Cherry pick what ever you want Jack. No never mind to me.

Posted by: Tim in Illinois. at August 09, 2016 11:28 AM (WVsWD)

329 Cherry pick what ever you want Jack.

Big fan of the Bings.

Posted by: ScoggDog at August 09, 2016 11:30 AM (nw6G5)

330 Because there is nothing that 52% of American voters love more than having their goodies taken away.

Posted by: Mortimer at August 09, 2016 11:24 AM (amu9S)

And therein lies the entire problem.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 11:31 AM (zo8Xe)

331 nood

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at August 09, 2016 11:32 AM (gUoN4)

332 That dude T is totally winning!

Posted by: Charlie Sheen at August 09, 2016 11:32 AM (TwnkX)

333 That's 100% wrong. The Church vehemently opposed Obamacare as it was written in the House version, and lobbied hard to rewrite the Senate bill to protect religious institutions and people who opposed the anti-life provisions.

Posted by: mrp at August 09, 2016 11:26 AM (JBggj)

Pfft. The only thing the Catholic Church hates about Obamacare is that it requires them to pay for abortion. Other than that, they're all for it.

The Church has always been big on government spending, providing you say you're spending it on children or the poor.

Show me a statement by the Church that it opposes Obamacare *in principle* and it will be the first I've seen.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 11:36 AM (zo8Xe)

334 Damn. Willowed again.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 11:36 AM (zo8Xe)

335 I don't know if you all have heard, but Trump has reduced his proposed 20% bracket to 25%. See how 25 is more than 20? It's not a reduction at all. In fact, it's an increase. So when I make mention of a Trump tax reduction, it's facetious.

(In case your sarcasm settings are on keyboard only. I have mine enabled for both keyboard and screen.)

Posted by: FireHorse at August 09, 2016 11:43 AM (KO3dR)

336 Dude was co-founder of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY

A book on painting showed a gray old uncolored wooden porch with tremendous detail to every grain the wood and the rocking chair and furniture on the porch laboriously drawn in with hair thin #1 brush, while a tiny kitten is haphazardly slap-dashed in with just a few carelessly quick crosshatch whips. Yet the eye goes straight to the tiny kitten, the only living element.

This painting does a similar thing. The girl in white and more so the girl on the steps are hardly painted with any detail at all, just slapped on with barely an outline and nearly no tonal rounding while dead objects are strengthened even in darkness with precise form and with shadow and highlights. Yet the viewer must go straight to the representation of life without much detail to mention.

Posted by: bour3 at August 09, 2016 11:46 AM (cyVTQ)

337 #333

Here you go:

http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-119.cfm

That's the official version. And some informed comment by Stephen White:

https://www.catholicvote.org/the-bishops-and-obamacare/

Posted by: mrp at August 09, 2016 11:50 AM (JBggj)

338 http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-119.cfm

Posted by: mrp at August 09, 2016 11:50 AM (JBggj)

Actually that statement just proves my point. The *only* sticking point the RCC has with Obamacare is the so-called "individual mandate".

I like this part:

Third, ACA fails to treat undocumented immigrant workers and their families fairly. ACA leaves them worse off by not allowing them to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges created under the law, even if they use their own money. This undermines the Act's stated goal of promoting access to basic life-affirming health care for everyone, especially for those most in need.

In other words, the bishops are complaining that Obamacare doesn't go far enough.

Again, show me a statement by the Church that it opposes Obamacare *in principle* and it will be the first I've seen.

The RCC has gotten in bed with dogs and is now complaining about the fleas.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 09, 2016 12:02 PM (zo8Xe)

339 Again, show me a statement by the Church that it opposes Obamacare *in principle* and it will be the first I've seen.
=============

I did. The USCCB opposed the ACA as written - on principle. You don't like federal government-mandated purchase of healthcare insurance, and neither do I.

OTHOH, the Church has been in the health care business for centuries, establishing and operating hospitals and hospices for the poor all over the world long before Columbus first stepped foot on a Caribbean island. There's precedent, and a mission.

Do I think the bishops were right in their initial support for the Dem's dog's-breakfast called the ACA? No. I'm pretty much in agreement with Stephen White's assessment.

As for taxpayer-supported health insurance for people here illegally, that's a moral argument. If they weren't here, then there's not a problem. They are here, however, and the Catholic-affiliated medical institutions have been front-and-center in providing the poor and afflicted the best possible care. Like I said earlier, Catholic institutions provided 16% of the nation's health care before the ACA was passed. But with Barry's open borders non-policy, the US health system, 100% tax-payer funded state hospitals AND private-religious institutions are both overwhelmed. NOW.

Posted by: mrp at August 09, 2016 01:19 PM (JBggj)

340 THAT'S A GIRL? Nuff said.

Posted by: Pamazon at August 09, 2016 05:42 PM (NNdb5)

341 339 Again, show me a statement by the Church that it opposes Obamacare *in principle* and it will be the first I've seen.
=============
I did. The USCCB opposed the ACA as written - on principle. You don't like federal government-mandated purchase of healthcare insurance, and neither do I

Bullshit. This is way late, but the *only* reason that bishop's statement has for objecting to Obamacare is the paying for abortion.

THERE IS NO broad-based criticism of Obamacare in that letter, only complaints about violations of conscience.

The RCC has always been very liberal - except on a scant few social issues.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 10, 2016 11:59 AM (HRSh5)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.047 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0173 seconds, 349 records returned.
Page size 203 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.