<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Congress to Obama:  Not So Fast</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.taxgirl.com/congress-to-obama-not-so-fast/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/congress-to-obama-not-so-fast/</link>
	<description>Paying taxes is painful... but reading about them shouldn't be.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:16:58 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Obama Opposes Taxing Health Care Benefits &#124; taxgirl</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/congress-to-obama-not-so-fast/comment-page-1/#comment-10906</link>
		<dc:creator>Obama Opposes Taxing Health Care Benefits &#124; taxgirl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=2776#comment-10906</guid>
		<description>[...] favors a cap on tax exemptions for those making more than $250,000 per year. This is the same plan that he proposed months ago &#8211; a plan which Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) then opposed, questioning whether the plan would [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] favors a cap on tax exemptions for those making more than $250,000 per year. This is the same plan that he proposed months ago &#8211; a plan which Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) then opposed, questioning whether the plan would [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/congress-to-obama-not-so-fast/comment-page-1/#comment-9303</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:09:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=2776#comment-9303</guid>
		<description>I agree that many of the proposals currently being touted don&#039;t make sense.  But I would hardly hold any of our recent presidents as the poster children for fiscal responsibility... All contributed substantially to our deficit.

Reagan may be remembered best for his 1981/1982 tax cuts but I think one of the things that was most impressive about his administration was his ability to change course, to admit when things weren&#039;t working.  The 1986 tax changes were among the most significant in tax history - and were also a departure from his earlier tax plans.  One of the things that we&#039;ve lost since that time is the ability to take a step back, assess a situation and make changes.  In an increasing polarized Congress, it&#039;s more about winning than doing the right thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that many of the proposals currently being touted don&#8217;t make sense.  But I would hardly hold any of our recent presidents as the poster children for fiscal responsibility&#8230; All contributed substantially to our deficit.</p>
<p>Reagan may be remembered best for his 1981/1982 tax cuts but I think one of the things that was most impressive about his administration was his ability to change course, to admit when things weren&#8217;t working.  The 1986 tax changes were among the most significant in tax history &#8211; and were also a departure from his earlier tax plans.  One of the things that we&#8217;ve lost since that time is the ability to take a step back, assess a situation and make changes.  In an increasing polarized Congress, it&#8217;s more about winning than doing the right thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: garagefather</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/congress-to-obama-not-so-fast/comment-page-1/#comment-9302</link>
		<dc:creator>garagefather</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:02:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=2776#comment-9302</guid>
		<description>The best thing for economy is for the congress to do nothing. Everything they have done this year in regards to stimulus and these bailouts has been counter productive. Investors know it is a joke, wall street knows it is a joke, companies (other than construction) know it is a joke, and soon the American people will realize that it was all a joke. 

Obama is like the fiancee that cannot see that their choice for marriage is bad. Everyone tells the fiancee that the person is bad but they love them so much that they cannot take the advice of everyone else. Obama loves his proposals so much that he doesn&#039;t care about the damage they bring or the costs they will incur because he loves the ideas and doesn&#039;t care about the consequences.

He said he wants to build the economy from the bottom up. What? A first year economist major knows that it doesn&#039;t work that way. Most average citizens know it doesn&#039;t work that way. It is real simple: how many employers have you had that are on the bottom of the economic scale? Yeh! Thats right, none!

I feel that I am in a twilight zone episode where common sense does not exist. This isn&#039;t very hard but the main stream media has no curiosity about the continual lack of common sense by this administration and thus we see very little main stream criticism..... And we all thought bush was stupid! Bush inherited a recession and cut taxes though. His agendas helped end the last recession. Reagan inherited much worse than Obama or Bush and lowered taxes and got us out of a recession that had gone on for years.
 
Everyday, my 401k is crushed. Everyday, Obama sits in ignorance promoting the stupid ideas of the Carter and Johnson administrations while creating new stupid ideas for stimulating the welfare state. 

We would all be better off if they all took a 2 year vacation. That way they couldn&#039;t continue to do more damage. It looks like Dems in congress are finally accepting that they are just making things worse. Why else would they dare oppose the messiah.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The best thing for economy is for the congress to do nothing. Everything they have done this year in regards to stimulus and these bailouts has been counter productive. Investors know it is a joke, wall street knows it is a joke, companies (other than construction) know it is a joke, and soon the American people will realize that it was all a joke. </p>
<p>Obama is like the fiancee that cannot see that their choice for marriage is bad. Everyone tells the fiancee that the person is bad but they love them so much that they cannot take the advice of everyone else. Obama loves his proposals so much that he doesn&#8217;t care about the damage they bring or the costs they will incur because he loves the ideas and doesn&#8217;t care about the consequences.</p>
<p>He said he wants to build the economy from the bottom up. What? A first year economist major knows that it doesn&#8217;t work that way. Most average citizens know it doesn&#8217;t work that way. It is real simple: how many employers have you had that are on the bottom of the economic scale? Yeh! Thats right, none!</p>
<p>I feel that I am in a twilight zone episode where common sense does not exist. This isn&#8217;t very hard but the main stream media has no curiosity about the continual lack of common sense by this administration and thus we see very little main stream criticism&#8230;.. And we all thought bush was stupid! Bush inherited a recession and cut taxes though. His agendas helped end the last recession. Reagan inherited much worse than Obama or Bush and lowered taxes and got us out of a recession that had gone on for years.</p>
<p>Everyday, my 401k is crushed. Everyday, Obama sits in ignorance promoting the stupid ideas of the Carter and Johnson administrations while creating new stupid ideas for stimulating the welfare state. </p>
<p>We would all be better off if they all took a 2 year vacation. That way they couldn&#8217;t continue to do more damage. It looks like Dems in congress are finally accepting that they are just making things worse. Why else would they dare oppose the messiah.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/congress-to-obama-not-so-fast/comment-page-1/#comment-9299</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:48:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=2776#comment-9299</guid>
		<description>I repeated it because I think it is noteworthy.  Charitable donations (and other deductions) are not a dollar for dollar reduction in taxes or income.  The deduction doesn&#039;t result in a wash for any taxpayer, so it&#039;s not true that the deduction allows taxpayers to not pay taxes on the money donated to charity - you still really just get a small percentage.  The point that the administration is making is that these caps are not wildly disparate with prior rates, which is true.  This is not to say that I&#039;m in favor of the proposal (I&#039;m not) or that I think it will pass (I don&#039;t).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I repeated it because I think it is noteworthy.  Charitable donations (and other deductions) are not a dollar for dollar reduction in taxes or income.  The deduction doesn&#8217;t result in a wash for any taxpayer, so it&#8217;s not true that the deduction allows taxpayers to not pay taxes on the money donated to charity &#8211; you still really just get a small percentage.  The point that the administration is making is that these caps are not wildly disparate with prior rates, which is true.  This is not to say that I&#8217;m in favor of the proposal (I&#8217;m not) or that I think it will pass (I don&#8217;t).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: m fox</title>
		<link>http://www.taxgirl.com/congress-to-obama-not-so-fast/comment-page-1/#comment-9297</link>
		<dc:creator>m fox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:07:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxgirl.com/?p=2776#comment-9297</guid>
		<description>“Interestingly, these are the same deduction limits that were in effect during the Reagan years (though the top rates were lower).”

The deduction just allows the taxpayers to not pay taxes on the money he or she donates to charity. SO of course the deduction rises and falls based on the marginal rates. The White House is being completely disingenuous in making the statement that the deduction is the same as in the Reagan years. How can you give this statement legitimacy by repeating it as if it is an argument that can be made (and putting the caveat in parentheses doesn&#039;t help).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Interestingly, these are the same deduction limits that were in effect during the Reagan years (though the top rates were lower).”</p>
<p>The deduction just allows the taxpayers to not pay taxes on the money he or she donates to charity. SO of course the deduction rises and falls based on the marginal rates. The White House is being completely disingenuous in making the statement that the deduction is the same as in the Reagan years. How can you give this statement legitimacy by repeating it as if it is an argument that can be made (and putting the caveat in parentheses doesn&#8217;t help).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
