T1B

PSUFAN wrote:I completely agree with that. Is NOLA even habitable? Listen, folks...I love the place, really, I do...but it is (still) a disaster waiting to happen, and no amount of fed money can change that. At some point, the Gulf will close over your nostrils for the final time.

If you really give a fuck about your future, then best move out of a bowl that is below sea level.

Also, atop a cliff in Laguna Hills is a stupid place to build a mansion, and beachside houses in Malibu are no different.

Hey, the idea that NOLA is unsustainable is one I'm inclined to agree with. We could just close the port, order all the refineries in NOLA shut down and have everything shipped up river to say Baton Rouge.

However, that's not a politically realistic situation. Besides, people in the Netherlands have been living below sea level and have suffered storm surges comparable to or greater than Katrina with no major damage since 1953. This is not a matter of theory, this is technology that has been proven effective countless times. The trouble is, it is far too expensive for a single metro area, especially one that is still rebuilding from the last flood, to pay for and build such a flood control project.

Interconnections are, but not the complete grid.

Yes we need a way for power to get to Florida if they were attacked and their power generation went off line. But the complete grid is not, this is something we should be doing locally.

BSmack wrote: Besides, people in the Netherlands have been living below sea level and have suffered storm surges comparable to or greater than Katrina with no major damage since 1953. This is not a matter of theory, this is technology that has been proven effective countless times. The trouble is, it is far too expensive for a single metro area, especially one that is still rebuilding from the last flood, to pay for and build such a flood control project.

The north sea gets 'canes? I'm n climatologist, but, I could have swore it took warm water.

The north atlantic certainly does get it's share of crap weather, but, I doubtit sees the kind of storm surges that come with cat 4-5 hurricanes.

And NOLA being a decent sized city and a major port, certainly does have the resources. Prbably more than the dutch.

The big difference between the two is the netherlands is run by reasonably competent folks. it's a white euro thing. NOLA on the other hand is run by corrupt incompetent baboons. Allow them to sink or swim an i'm guessing that they will sink for awhile before figuring out how to swim. But, as long as uncle sugar keep proping them up, they will remain fukked up.

smackaholic wrote:The big difference between the two is the netherlands is run by reasonably competent folks. it's a white euro thing. NOLA on the other hand is run by Democrats.

FTFY.

Hopefully there won't be any change to the economic paradise that has resulted from eight years of Dubya and his "tax cuts."

What's another measly $11 trillion in the hole?

Uncle Fester wrote:Hopefully there won't be any change to the economic paradise that has resulted from eight years of Dubya and his "tax cuts."

What's another measly $11 trillion in the hole?

Actually the defecit was steadily shrinking until 2007, when it skyrocketed the last two years. If you think Obamessiah's tax hikes are going to change that trend back, you're seriously deluded.

mvscal wrote:

Uncle Fester wrote:Hopefully there won't be any change to the economic paradise that has resulted from eight years of Dubya and his "tax cuts."

His tax cuts increased revenue, tard. His spending was the problem.

Most of the increase in spending was up front in order to counteract the '90s military cutbacks. Again, we were well on our way to growing our way out of a defecit before the Party of Pelosi got their grubby little paws on the Congress. From here on, it gets signifigantly worse.

We need a helluva lot MORE tax cuts, Fester.

As mvscal said, spending needs to be cut DRASTICALLY.

If you don't agree, I'm sorry, you're just a complete rube.

The only change that's comin' is the government phallus being rammed another few inches up your @sshole.

Those chattering schoolgirls have an excuse for their idiocy.

They're children.

What's your excuse?

88 wrote:Difference in Tax Due Between Pre-Bush Tax Rates and Post-Bush Tax Rates

$25,000 AGI Increase: $1,250
$50,000 AGI Increase: $1,582.00
$75,000 AGI Increase: $3,702.00
$100,000 AGI Increase: $4,452.00

Yeah, but he'll give you a couple hundred in tax credits and claim that was a cut, while claiming that letting the Bush cuts expire wasn't a raise.

88 wrote:

BSmack wrote:If the expiring tax cuts we’re talking about start at $150,000, I don’t think you’ll have to worry, Tom.

The expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts affect everyone, BSmack.

I'll take Obama at his word that he won't raise taxes on anybody making under 250k. I guess we'll have to wait and see like with all campaign promises. But I have a hard time seeing someone who just survived 22 months of tooth and nail campaigning fucking up on something so central to the theme of his campaign.

BSmack wrote:I'll take Obama at his word...

BSmack wrote: I'll take Obama at his word that he won't raise taxes on anybody making under 250k. I guess we'll have to wait and see like with all campaign promises. But I have a hard time seeing someone who just survived 22 months of tooth and nail campaigning fucking up on something so central to the theme of his campaign.

Totally agree. We will have to wait and see. The question though becomes if he does let these expire, do you and those who voted for him call him out for it or do you let it slide if/when it happens?

I have a hard time seeing someone who just survived 22 months of tooth and nail campaigning fucking up on something so central to the theme of his campaign.

I see you missed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"...good for you.

PSUFAN wrote:

I have a hard time seeing someone who just survived 22 months of tooth and nail campaigning fucking up on something so central to the theme of his campaign.

I see you missed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"...good for you.

The important thing is that Obama didn't miss "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

BSmack wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:

I have a hard time seeing someone who just survived 22 months of tooth and nail campaigning fucking up on something so central to the theme of his campaign.

I see you missed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"...good for you.

The important thing is that Obama didn't miss "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Especially when it comes to campaign contributions.

Rasputin wrote: Actually the defecit was steadily shrinking until 2007

In August, 2007, CBS wrote:The Treasury Department reported on Friday that the government produced a deficit of $157.3 billion for the budget year that began last Oct. 1. That's a substantial improvement from the red ink figure of $239.6 billion produced for the corresponding 10-month period last year

You... not very smart.

The total debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY 2003, considering both budgeted and non-budgeted spending.[12] The annual US budget deficit declined from $318 billion in 2005 to $162 billion in 2007,[13] but increased to $455 billion in 2008.[14]Since FY 2002, the deficit reported by the media has been significantly less than the annual change in the debt, which surpassed $1 trillion for the first time in FY 2008.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

88 wrote:

Mikey wrote:You really need some deductions dawg.

No shitsky. The shitty thing about moving up the AGI ladder is that you begin to become ineligible for or limited in terms of certain deductions you can take.

One suggestion, with the caveat that it's been a number of years since I took the Tax Law class in law school, and I'm not sure if changes to the Internal Revenue Code since then have affected this. But you may want to consider buying a second house in a vacation locale.

Used to be (this is the part which might have changed, I don't know) that a taxpayer could deduct mortgage interest on a second home as well, provided that total mortgage indebtedness did not exceed $1 million. And it's probably an expenditure that you won't mind having when all is said and done. You'll take vacations anyway, so you'd be spending some money on rent and/or hotels, which you can't deduct. Plus, this will give you a post-retirement destination if you're looking to get away from the terrible winter weather at that point in your life.

The only real drawback is that it sort of limits you as far as vacation destinations go. Of course, if you wanted to go someplace else in a given year, you could always rent out your vacation home, and use that money toward a vacation someplace else.

Just a thought for you anyway.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:One suggestion, with the caveat that it's been a number of years since I took the Tax Law class in law school, and I'm not sure if changes to the Internal Revenue Code since then have affected this. But you may want to consider buying a second house in a vacation locale.

Used to be (this is the part which might have changed, I don't know) that a taxpayer could deduct mortgage interest on a second home as well, provided that total mortgage indebtedness did not exceed $1 million. And it's probably an expenditure that you won't mind having when all is said and done. You'll take vacations anyway, so you'd be spending some money on rent and/or hotels, which you can't deduct. Plus, this will give you a post-retirement destination if you're looking to get away from the terrible winter weather at that point in your life.

If they ever took away that deduction, they would cripple the home markets in the Adirondacks and Green Mountains. Places like Lake Placid and Mt. Snow would blow off the face of the earth without the money from rich Tri-State area folks.