Say Anything Blog

Of course, this won’t limit the wealthy, like John Edwards from building 28,200 square foot homes, but it might put a crimp on the upper middle class who could maybe use the tax break!
How prescient were John’s parents in naming him “Dingell”?

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

The faithful global warming zealots will say anything to further their cause of higher taxes and more hysteria.

Joe Romm, a propaganda salesman over at climateprogress.org, even blamed the Minneapolis bridge collapse on global warming!

How far will they go?

How far will they go?  As far as they can.  Global Warming is the only thing they’ve got to save socialism.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

3.7% of global warming would go away if Dingell would quit releasing hot air into the atmosphere.

Proof no kidding, I guess it’s ok for Gore and pretty boy edwards to have big homes but everyone else needs to cut their down…

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Van Helsing over at Moonbattery estimates 280,000 additional foreclosures from current homeowners who lose the exemption.

Personally, I wonder if this will do for the construction industry what the luxury tax of years gone by did for the boat building industry?

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Yet another step toward “the dictatorship of the proletariat”.  The political nobility doesn’t have to live by those rules, of course; they will be the dictators.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Actually, McMansions piss me off. Build a $40,000 house and charge $850,000 to $1.2 million for it. Sell it to a couple who do not and never will have children, and rarely even throw parties. Talk about a fucking rip off and waste of resources rolled into one.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

The public policy rational for giving tax breaks of this type is that we want to encourage people to own homes as opposed to other property.  But I fail to see the public policy benefit of encouraging people to own multi-million dollar estates.  From a free-market standpoint property is property, you shouldn’t get the tax break at all.

First of all 3000 square foot homes are multi million dollar estates.

Secondly if you want to take away the mortgage interest deduction than you need to lower tax rates.

Otherwise you’ve exposed yourself as a person that just wants to raise taxes.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Whistler Lestat sounds like another one of those lefties that believes everyone needs to pay their fair share? Never seen a tax increase they didn’t like. Funny thing is the ones advocating these kind of tax increases probably pay little if any taxes…

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Secondly if you want to take away the mortgage interest deduction than you need to lower tax rates.

Fine as long as you lower them across the board. 

If I buy a $5,000 TV on credit I don’t get to deduct the interest (largely because the credit card interest deduction was eliminated by the Republican Congress) so why should you get to deduct the interest on a house bought on credit.  Property is property, right?

I’m in favor of a flat income tax that everyone pay.  That tax rate should not be any higher than 12%.

Sounds like you’re with me on this.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

No, I’m in favor of a wealth tax where everybody pays 3% of their wealth.

That is fair, isn’t it?

This is pretty clearly a economic attack on the middle class.  The Uber-Rich like Kerry, Gore & Edwards can afford lawyers, and lawmakers, to make themselves exempt from the law the “common people” have to obey.

The Kyoto Treaty was a scam.  If it was serious about environmental change, it wouldn’t have let India and China off the hook.  It was an economic treaty designed to transfer wealth from America to the Third World.

Ya, ya, the Earth is getting warmer, but so is Mars, and I don’t think that is due to McMansions and SUVs on Mars.  With any luck, the planet will get as warm as it did during the last warming period and London will become a wine producing area again.

It is interesting that the people who don’t want a serious discussion of the actual Science of global climate change are the members of the Cult of Algore.

First of all 3000 square foot homes are multi million dollar estates.

Depends on what part of the country you’re in. That’s only about 15% bigger than my house and my neighbor’s houses, and I can guaran-damn-tee you nobody around here paid more than half a mil for any of ‘em. Some a lot less.

And just to tick off 2H9, I live here alone and rarely even throw parties. It’s the investment I live in! My hope is that by the time I’m ready to retire, I’ll have built up enough equity to sell it to some nice couple with children and they can finance my beach front cottage!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

...so why should you get to deduct the interest on a house bought on credit.  Property is property, right?

It’s called “social engineering”, Lestat. (Congress is big on that!)
People who are homeowners, as opposed to plasma TV owners, have a vested interest in maintaining social order. So the government subsidizes home ownership to create societal stability.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Its a public policy debate.  As a nation we decided that home ownership was a good thing, so we deduct the interest we pay on that property investment.  If we decide in a nation that it is not beneficial to own houses larger than 3000 sq feet, than that is a legitimate public policy decision.

If we decide in a nation that it is not beneficial to own houses larger than 3000 sq feet,

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

You’ve already admitted that it is “social engineering” which I agree with.  So as a society if we decide that 3,000 square foot homes are not worth engineering, what’s your problem?  Unless you believe that the tax code should not be used for any social engineering and all deductions for mortgage interest should be eliminated.  We could still give them the benefit of the deduction on the value of a 3,000 square foot house and just not the rest.  That seems legitimate under your social engineering policy.

So as a society if we decide that 3,000 square foot homes are not worth engineering, what’s your problem?

I know this is a simple concept, but if you use taxation as a tool of social engineering, to favor or disfavor a certain group, that is social engineering.  If you think the mortgage deduction is bad policy, take it away for everyone.  If it’s a good idea, give it to everyone.  Anything else is social engineering to favor or disfavor one group at the expense of another, which is socialism.
Rights, in this country, according to the Constitution, are individual, not collective.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

You’ve already admitted that it is “social engineering” which I agree with.

I admitted it was social engineering. I didn’t say it was a good thing!

That seems legitimate under your social engineering policy.

Not my policy. That was an assumption on your part.  I merely identified what it was, not what I preferred!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

I had already explained that it was a public policy decision, which is basically the same thing, so what were you trying to explain to me?

That is fair, isn’t it?

Not if it’s more money than the govt should be spending for its legitimate purposes.  The govt isn’t entitled to any fixed portion of our earnings; it’s all supposed to be based on actual need for govt functions.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

I had already explained that it was a public policy decision, which is basically the same thing, so what were you trying to explain to me?

No, it’s not.  In a free country, a private individual is entitled to build and own whatever house he chooses and can afford.  It’s not a collective decision, it’s an individual decision, as I have already explained to you.  You socialists just can’t stand individual independence or private property, among other things.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

so what were you trying to explain to me?

Property is property, right?

Wrong.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

No, it’s not.  In a free country, a private individual is entitled to build and own whatever house he chooses and can afford.  It’s not a collective decision, it’s an individual decision, as I have already explained to you.  You socialists just can’t stand individual independence or private property, among other things.

Robert, you’re an idiot.  Nobody is saying you can’t live in any house you can afford.  The question is why do you get to deduct the interest on that property, but no other property.  The answer is public policy or social engineering or anything else you want to call it.  If society decides that it is no longer beneficial to have this tax break than it should be removed. 

If its not a public policy rational why we get a tax break on borrowed money for a house, but no other property, than what is it?  There certainly is no fundamental right to deduct mortgage income.

If its not a public policy rational why we get a tax break on borrowed money for a house, but no other property, than what is it? There certainly is no fundamental right to deduct mortgage income.

It’s not public policy, it’s economic policy.  I repeat; targeting one group is social engineering, no doubt.  In this case, we must look at the outcome, which is to encourage home ownership.  This move is to try to favor one group of home owners over another, strictly on the basis of what they can afford.  That’s socialism.  Get it yet?

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

It’s not public policy, it’s economic policy.  I repeat; targeting one group is social engineering, no doubt.  In this case, we must look at the outcome, which is to encourage home ownership. 

I’ve already said that.  In fact I was the first to say that on this thread.  I don’t care if it is called public policy or economic policy we are talking about the same thing.  Society gives this benefit because it is beneficial for people to own homes.  If Society decides that it is not beneficial to have people own large homes, than society can remove this tax incentive.  It is not a right to own property issue, this suggestion never said that people CANNOT own large homes.  Just that society shouldn’t incentivize it.

If its not a public policy rational why we get a tax break on borrowed money for a house, but no other property, than what is it?

There certainly is no fundamental right to deduct mortgage income.

Interest on a home loan is mortgage income??  Where did you study accounting and economics?  Home loan interest is an expense.  The real injustice here is that the government does not allow the people to subtract all their expenses from revenue (that’s your wages plus earnings on investments) to get taxable income as they allow businesses.  The so-called personal income tax is purposely misnamed from what it really is, a tax on ones personal revenue (wages) minus a few selected expenses e.g. home loan interest, etc.  For people that don’t itemize their allowable deductions (the IRS name for expenses), the government again trying to appear beneficial has what they call standard deductions, values that have no connection to ones real expenses.

The whole income tax thing is a swindle that so far has fooled most people.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Interest on a home loan is mortgage income?? 

Its late, I’m drunk, I mistyped

I don’t care if it is called public policy or economic policy we are talking about the same thing.

I know you don’t care about the truth, but here it is anyway.  The object of social policy is to change society, and the object of economic policy is to affect the economy.  There is a difference, and a vital one in this case.  You see, it’s about conferring an economic advantage on home ownership, which has a specific economic impact.  You, as a socialist, are unable to distinguish between the two, but that doesn’t mean that we are similarly afflicted.
You wish to wage class warfare through telling people how large a house they can buy, which is detrimental to the economy(see the difference?); not only that, but it’s unConstitutional.  Once again, this is a society of independent individuals, not a collective of socialist drones, or as Karl Marx called it, “the dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Under the Constitution, rights are individual, not collective.  “Society"(as you call it) cannot deprive/encumber an individual of the right to own what he chooses to own.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

The object of social policy is to change society, and the object of economic policy is to affect the economy.  There is a difference, and a vital one in this case

One does not preclude the other It can be both.  In fact I think you would be hard pressed to find an example of how effecting the economics of a society, does not effect the society.

not only that, but it’s unConstitutional.

Please explain, because I am pretty sure you are wrong

One does not preclude the other It can be both.

No.  Social policy is to reshape society in the name of some ideology.  Economic policy, in this country, is supposed to facilitate success for the individual citizen.  I say again, one is collectivist(social policy) and the other is individual(economic policy).  They couldn’t be more different.
In addition, the whole meme here is that owning a big house is somehow contributing to the so-called “Global Warming” which is socialist propaganda designed to subject us all to totalitarian govt control.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

the whole meme here is that owning a big house is somehow contributing to the so-called “Global Warming” which is socialist propaganda designed to subject us all to totalitarian govt control.

Exactly.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Economic policy, in this country, is supposed to facilitate success for the individual citizen. 

That’s ridiculous.  Economic policy can effect anybody depends how you write it.  There has been plenty of economic policy in this country that has not helped the individual. 

The whole tax code is filled with public policy rational.  The fact that you get a deduction if you have kids is a public policy decision.  We want people to be able to afford to raise children. 

The fact that you get a marriage benefit if one person works but a penalty if both work is public policy.  It’s meant to encourage a 1950’s marriage where the husband works and the wife stays home to raise the children. Its a little outdated, but that is why it is there.

The idea that economic policy does not effect the public and is public policy is ludicrous.  All A is B, but not all B is A.  If I could draw a Venn diagram for you I would. 

Again, explain why this is Unconstitutional, so I can explain why you are wrong.

Again, explain why this is Unconstitutional, so I can explain why you are wrong.

The Constitution describes individual rights, but does not mention group rights.  This is not a collectivist country.  I keep telling you the same truth, and it keeps going in one ear and out the other, apparently.

Of course economic policy has public effects, and public policy has economic effects; that doesn’t mean that they are the same thing.  You just don’t get it.  Individual families benefit from the tax policy you mentioned; there is no group involved here.
I say again, this socialist penalty for owning a large house is strictly social engineering in the name of an unproved hypothesis, the so-called “Global Warming”, which is a leftie propaganda ploy to enslave us in “the dictatorship of the proletariat”, and so is directly unAmerican.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

There has been plenty of economic policy in this country that has not helped the individual.

Which is why I said “supposed”.  You see, a tax allowance is not a welfare payment.  It is the recognition that certain individual actions, like purchasing a home or having a child are beneficial to society in general, and are therefore legitimate operating expenses of being a citizen.  The fact is that govt can only screw up the economy, so less govt interference is the most beneficial thing they can do.  Confiscating less in taxes is beneficial because individuals use money better than the govt does, except for a few functions, like national defense and a few others.  The money is better left in the pockets of those who earned it.  That is the fundamental difference between social policy and economic policy.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

The Constitution describes individual rights, but does not mention group rights.  This is not a collectivist country.  I keep telling you the same truth, and it keeps going in one ear and out the other, apparently.

That doesn’t make it unconstitutional unless you are becoming a judicial activist.

The fact that you get a marriage benefit if one person works but a penalty if both work is public policy.

Wrong in two ways.

1.  The marriage penalty has been largely eliminated.  Due to the complexity of the tax code nothing is absolute.

2.  The marriage penalty was actually a detriment to a couple being married.  Consider.

Married one spouse working.  Lowest standard of living since income is limited.

Unmarried living apart:  At least the higher income person has a higher standard of living than the first example.

Married living in the same household both working.  Higher standard of living due to expenses being shared.

Unmarried living together.  Highest benefits and highest income since taxes are lower than the second example.

The only possible explanation is that the government in their infinite greed didn’t give a rip about the family and just wanted to have more money to expand their power.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

My point was that it was written back in the day when it was common for only one spouse to work and was meant to encourage marriage.  As it becaume more common and necessary for both spouses to work it becaume a detriment.  It is a bit of social engineering that went wrong.

It is a bit of social engineering that went wrong.

Lestat: It might be a shorter list if you were to list all the social engineering that went right!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Pretty much all interference in private lives by the government goes wrong.

it was common for only one spouse to work and was meant to encourage marriage.

How so versus the tax code for unmarried people?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Lestat: It might be a shorter list if you were to list all the social engineering that went right!

I think the GI Bill has gone right.
I think child labor laws have gone right.
I think the mortgage interest deduction has gone right.

I think it is incredibly ignorant of you to suggest that there have been no beneficial public policies.

Short term the GI bill did ok, but the continuation of those programs has led to a terrible inflation in the cost of college education. 

I suppose that you can point at the huge increase in the numbers of people attending college, but I’d point out that that was going to happen anyway.

It’d be better if people could afford to send themselves to college.

I think we’d be better off if people kept more of their money and made their own decision on whether or not to purchase their home.

In general child labor laws are a good thing but if I put my mind to it you could find some shortcomings that could be done better.

I think it is incredibly ignorant of you to suggest that there have been no beneficial public policies.

I think it’s more pathetic that you can’t come up with more good examples.  After all the government has consumed a huge chunk of our society for many many years and most of their programs have been poor.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I think it is incredibly ignorant of you to suggest that there have been no beneficial public policies.

Lestupid: I did not say there were none, I said the list would be shorter.
Learn to read , moron!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Lestupid: I did not say there were none, I said the list would be shorter.
Learn to read , moron!

I think you are full of shit and are just repearing the ocnservative mantra without any thought.

I suppose that you can point at the huge increase in the numbers of people attending college, but I’d point out that that was going to happen anyway.

Possibly, but only because another social engineering program of free public schools.

I ain’t suggesting it, I am telling you. All “social engineering” schemes go wrong. GI Bill and Child Labor laws were and are not “social engineering”. GI Bill was payment for time taken from men’s lives to fight WWII. Child Labor laws were an extension of the abolition of slavery, and was also a main tool of Labor Unions in consolidating their hold over segments of the labor force. Oh. Wait. They are “social engineering”, and both have gone egregiously wrong in their own special ways.

And ain’t none of this my point.

McMansions piss me off. They are not only over priced, they are of a generally poor quality of materials and craftsmanship. As are most condos/townhouses. I remodel because I hate new construction. The slap-it-up and drive-away school of building just rubs me the wrong way.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Possibly, but only because another social engineering program of free public schools.

It’s almost as if you want me to believe that kids weren’t educated before the public school monopoly was created. 

Not only were they educated, they were educated pretty well, unlike the product coming out of too many of our schools today.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

McMansions piss me off. They are not only over priced, they are of a generally poor quality of materials and craftsmanship. As are most condos/townhouses. I remodel because I hate new construction. The slap-it-up and drive-away school of building just rubs me the wrong way.

That very well may be true, but it doesn’t justify jacking up the effective tax rate of those that choose to own one because of a fraud like Global Warming.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I always pictured 2h9 living in a cave.  They don’t make them like they used to.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I think you are full of shit

LeStrawman: I think you are severely retarded and find it easier to refute arguments that people are NOT making!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

just repearing (sic) the ocnservative (sic) mantra without any thought.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Possibly, but only because another social engineering program of free public schools.

They’re not free; we all pay for them by having our earnings confiscated and run through govt infrastructure.  You lie again.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

it was common for only one spouse to work and was meant to encourage marriage.

It was meant to encourage good childraising.  Look what has happened to society as a result of your social engineering programs.  Welfare has destroyed the family and the inner cities, and has facilitated increasing single parent families, with the resulting social decay.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

That doesn’t make it unconstitutional unless you
are becoming a judicial activist.

If it’s not in the Constitution, it’s unConstitutional.  What part of that don’t you understand?

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Toot, the taxes paid by those who live, and trade, in McMansions are going to go up anyway. These are predominantly Democrat controlled cities and suburban areas pushing for elevated taxes and containing large numbers of McMansions. The handwriting is on the wall.

They can claim to do it in the name of Good Golly, Miss Molly, doesn’t matter. Revenue is there to be potentialized, and government of all stripes is a lookin’ to get it.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Toot, the taxes paid by those who live, and trade, in McMansions are going to go up anyway.

Now hold on.  I hope to get into a larger house before the kids go teenager on me.  I sure don’t want to lose out the tax deduction because of the global warming scam.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

If it’s not in the Constitution, it’s unConstitutional.  What part of that don’t you understand?

That is a ridiculous argument.  Congress makes thousand of laws that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  That does not make them Uncostitutional.  The federal income tax is not unconstitutional, so how can removing a tax break from that set of laws be unconstitutional.

Sorry. They wants that money. And there is lots of them trying to get it.

Now, to bidness! What is this talk of larger accommodations? And where you looking? I’m sure that we could locate a superior non-McMansion for you and the clan. You are a livestock kind of household, right?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

My main concern is that Dingell wants to raise taxes for those that own homes of 3000 square feet. 

I want a house of that size.

However living in ND means that prices aren’t out of line, yet.

But there’s no immediate need or money.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

You are a livestock kind of household, right?

Is this the PC way to ask: “Doghouse?”

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

You should always be looking! You could find THAT house tomorrow. Damn. I sound like a Century 21 agent.

Seriously, you should have a set of parameters that define the house you would accept. And you should regularly check the delinquent tax and repossession sales listings. At least once a month scan the classifieds of 3 regionally large circulation papers. Make a game of it for the kids. I’m sure they will appreciate it.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Never discriminate! Livestock covers a multitude of pet keeping sins.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

...how can removing a tax break
from that set of laws be unconstitutional.

That’s not what I said.  You lie again.  Here’s what I said:

You wish to wage class warfare through telling people how large a house they can buy, which is detrimental to the economy(see the difference?); not only that, but it’s unConstitutional.

It’s the class warfare that is unConstitutional; get it?

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Lestat: Could it be any more pathetic that I have to keep track of your shifting arguments for you?

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Lestat: I despair of you being capable of understanding this, but raising taxes on only one group of homeowners is discrimination, which is not only unAmerican, but unConstitutional as well.  I repeat, you have to either raise all their taxes, or not do it to any of them.  Anything else is class warfare.  Not only that, but it’s being proposed on an imaginary “Global Warming” propaganda ploy, not any sound social or economic policy.  It’s totalitarian BS.  Totalitarianism is unConstitutional, you know.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Robert,

The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make it unconstitutional.  Nobody requires them to buy a house larger than 3000 square feet.  Because the wealthy are not a protected class the test you use is the rational basis test.  A very low standard.  Its not unconstitutional.

I haven’t said whether I like this proposal or not.  I kinda feel that 3000 square feet is rather arbitrary.  If you have a family of 10 than 3000 square feet is not very much. 

But it may be a concept worth looking into.  It certainly won’t pass without public support.

I kinda feel that 3000 square feet is rather arbitrary.

In a free country such as ours, what you feel is irrelevant.  Get it?  The size of someone’s house is no one else’s business.  That’s the difference between individualism and collectivism.

Nobody requires them to buy a house larger than 3000 square feet.

Nobody requires you to know what someone else chooses to buy, and no penalties should be assessed on that basis.  You can’t seem to understand this.  Sad.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Tell the Dems not to worry. Soon, no one will be buying homes.

Tell the Dems not to worry. Soon, no one will be buying homes.

The leftie wet dream.  It just proves that what is bad for the country is good for the Dems.  The truth is that privately owned and controlled capital just moves from one place to another.  The housing market will go up again.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Setting the bench mark at 3000 sq ft is pretty low for a McMansion. The average middle class, four bedroom home in a new neighborhood is easily at 3000 sq ft. Dingle berry needs to get out and visit a typical suburb before he makes such a silly ascertation on house size restrictions.

Why do libs insist on punishing everyone because they can not succeed on their own?

No one should have control over the size of your home except your own common sense. Some home buyers have sense and some don’t. Unless you have more than four children there is no need for such a large house and if there is a need then buy an already existing home that is centuries old and made of quality workmanship.
Housing here goes for an average of $175,000 per 1000sq feet ... usually more. Most people don’t have a choice because of the market around here.
Building a McMansion for want only is greedy and wasteful of natural resources we have little to waste these days.
McMasions also separate family members into their own little cocoons of privacy that tend to reinforce alienation from a close family structure.
Parents try to give their kids everything, like a pc, tv, phone, gaming system etc all in the privacy of the bedroom and eventually the child has created a world of their own away from the family.
Like I said before ...some home buyers have common sense and some never will.

Just what we need is another LIBERAL Law dictating another part of our life. Business owners don’t have say so about much of how their business is ran. Now Homeowners beware!

Liberals have alot of nerve calling Conservatives NAZI’S…