Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

A GOP debt plan would hit some popular tax breaks

Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:00 PM EST
politics, us, taxes, supercommittee, debt-supercommittee
Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 3 photos
<p>In this Nov. 15, 2011, photo, Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., rushes through the Capitol to a closed-door meeting with other Republican members of the Supercommittee, in Washington.  A GOP plan to raise taxes by $290 billion over the next decade would limit deductions for mortgage interest, charitable donations and state and local taxes as part of a deficit-reduction deal. Some workers could also see their employer-provided health benefits taxed for the first time, though aides cautioned that the plan is still fluid. The plan by Toomey would raise revenue by limiting the tax breaks enjoyed by people who itemize their deductions, in exchange for lower overall tax rates for families at every income level. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)</p>

In this Nov. 15, 2011, photo, Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., rushes through the Capitol to a closed-door meeting with other Republican members of the Supercommittee, in Washington. A GOP plan to raise taxes by $290 billion over the next decade would limit deductions for mortgage interest, charitable donations and state and local taxes as part of a deficit-reduction deal. Some workers could also see their employer-provided health benefits taxed for the first time, though aides cautioned that the plan is still fluid. The plan by Toomey would raise revenue by limiting the tax breaks enjoyed by people who itemize their deductions, in exchange for lower overall tax rates for families at every income level. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Millions of taxpayers who take advantage of deductions for mortgage interest, charitable donations and state and local taxes would be targeted for potential tax hikes under a GOP plan to raise taxes by $290 billion over the next decade to help reduce the nation's deficit.

Some workers could also see their employer-provided health benefits taxed for the first time, though aides cautioned that the proposal is still fluid.

The plan by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who serves on the 12-member debt supercommittee, would raise revenue by limiting the tax breaks enjoyed by people who itemize their deductions, in exchange for lower overall tax rates for families at every income level. Taxpayers who already take the standard deduction instead of itemizing — about two-thirds of filers — could see tax cuts. The one-third of taxpayers who itemize their deductions might find themselves paying more.

The top income tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 28 percent, and the bottom rate would drop from 10 percent to 8 percent. The rates between would be reduced as well.

About 50 million households itemized their deductions in 2009, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. About 35 million households claimed the mortgage interest deduction, and 36 million deducted charitable donations. Nearly 41 million claimed deductions for paying state and local taxes.

A GOP congressional aide said the plan is designed to raise taxes on households in the top two tax brackets. That would affect individuals making more than $174,400 and married couples making more than $212,300.

Some Republicans say the plan offers a potential breakthrough in deficit-reduction talks that have stalled over GOP opposition to tax hikes and Democrats' objection to cuts in benefit programs without significant revenue increases.

Democratic and Republican members of the supercommittee met separately Thursday, with no sign of progress on a deal.

Republicans are becoming increasingly divided over the issue of raising taxes. A growing number of Republicans in Congress say they would support a tax reform package that increases revenues, if it is coupled with significant spending cuts, enough to reduce the deficit by about $4 trillion over the next decade.

The so-called "go big" strategy has been endorsed by a bipartisan group of about 150 lawmakers from the House and Senate. A rival group of 72 House Republicans sent a letter to the supercommittee Thursday, urging members to oppose any tax increases.

"We must recognize that increasing the tax burden on American businesses and citizens, especially during a fragile recovery, is irresponsible and dangerous to the health of the United States," said the letter, circulated by Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C.

Democrats, meanwhile, have panned Toomey's plan, saying the rate reductions would cut taxes for the wealthy so much that taxes on the middle class would have to be raised. They also argue that Toomey's plan would generate less revenue than advertised.

They note that Toomey's plan assumes that tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush, and extended through 2012 under President Barack Obama, would continue. Toomey's plan would then cut the tax rates even more.

Republicans say Toomey's tax overhaul plan would increase tax revenue by $250 billion over the next decade. An additional $40 billion would be raised by using a new measure of inflation to adjust the tax brackets each year. Annual adjustments to the tax brackets would be smaller, resulting in more people jumping into higher tax brackets as their incomes rise.

The supercommittee has a Wednesday deadline to come up with a plan to reduce government borrowing by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade. If the panel fails, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts to domestic and military programs would take effect in 2013.

Some details of Toomey's plan remain in flux, in part because he is open to changes to help forge an agreement, said the GOP aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations. The aide confirmed that Toomey's plan is closely modeled after a proposal by three experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private research organization perhaps best known for deciding when recessions begin and end.

The three experts are Martin Feldstein, a Harvard University professor who was President Ronald Regan's chief economic adviser; Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget; and Daniel Feenberg, a research associate at the bureau.

Under their plan, the tax benefits from itemizing deductions and excluding employer-provided health insurance from taxable income would be limited to 2 percent of taxpayer's adjusted gross income.

That means if a taxpayer has an adjusted gross income of $50,000, deductions and exemptions could reduce his or her tax bill by a maximum of $1,000.

Taxpayers who face limits on their tax breaks could opt to take the standard deduction instead. Currently, about one-third of tax filers itemize their deductions. The rest claim the standard deduction, which in 2011 is $5,800 for individuals and $11,600 for married couples filing jointly.

The plan envisions millions of additional taxpayers switching to the standard deduction, which would simplify their returns, MacGuineas said.

Policymakers across the political spectrum agree the federal tax code is too complicated, and most agree on a basic formula for simplifying it: Reduce tax breaks and use the additional revenue to lower the overall tax rates for everyone.

There is little agreement, however, on which tax breaks to target.

Toomey's plan attempts to sidestep debates over which tax breaks to target and instead proposes to limit taxpayers' overall ability to reduce their tax bills.

"This is a far more practical way to start to scale back the influence and costs of tax expenditures in the code by kind of glopping them together and capping them," MacGuineas said. "You're not picking the winners and losers."

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Stephen Ohlemacher's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Down With Tin Horn Dictators, LaborVine
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (95)
Brian-497171

Great, target the evaporating middle-class, Repubs.

See you in hell.

  • 20 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:01 PM EST
IndependentVoter

How are they being targeted?

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:16 PM EST
disgusted with all of it

"deductions for mortgage interest, charitable donations and state and local taxes would be targeted for potential tax hikes under a GOP plan to raise taxes by $290 billion over the next decade to help reduce the nation's deficit.

Some workers could also see their employer-provided health benefits taxed for the first time,"

Did you read the article independent voter?

  • 14 votes
#1.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:24 PM EST
Pat P11111

I don't see any thing on taxing the corporations who currently pay zero or get paid.

Everything targets the 99% pretty directly of course.

So now the GOP have decided raising taxes might be OK but only for the 99%.

Somehow I am no surprised.

  • 11 votes
#1.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:34 PM EST
Romney = (Corporate) Welfare Queen

Let's see the proposed tax:

Middle class - no mortgage interest deduction, tax on health insurance i.e. raised taxes

Top 1% - lowered top tier rate from 35% to 28% i.e. lowered taxes

Good job GOP. Koch brothers will be so happy.

  • 10 votes
#1.4 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:04 PM EST
Dennis P McCann

Ah those damn tax and spend Republicans.

  • 5 votes
#1.5 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:17 PM EST
Naughtia

IndependentVoter are you that partisanly right wing?

most of the tax breaks effect the poor and middle class and not the rich at all.

Many of the 1% own their homes outright.. so no need for that crap.
they also can pay medical out of pocket.. so no need for taxes on that crap.

by closing the charity deduction, they are going to reduce charity to an already strapped and struggling middle class, meanwhile they want to bring down the top bracket rate and the corporate rate.

what do you think it helps the middle class? to take away their deductions, while taking away incentive to help the poor if you already have money? really?

you might want to take off that "independent" of your nick, it is very Orwellian.

  • 8 votes
#1.6 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:29 PM EST
Dennis P McCann

Over the years there have been a lot of users with Independent in their name. I can't recall a single one that wasn't a far-right conservative.

(Oh...and Libertarian is apparently the new Independent)....

  • 9 votes
#1.7 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:31 PM EST
Jack TX

A GOP congressional aide said the plan is designed to raise taxes on households in the top two tax brackets. That would affect individuals making more than $174,400 and married couples making more than $212,300.

Hmmmm.

Yes.

In the same sense that my body is designed in such a way as to enable me to flap my arms and fly to the moon.

  • 1 vote
#1.8 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:33 PM EST
Steve-485394

Ok, let's take away all dreams...... The "dream of owning a home" The dream of helping others and actually getting a benefit from our government in the form of a tax break, the dream of being able to take care of oneself and doing so with health care, yea, lets stop all itemization, so that those in the middle class really get squeezed, and all the while lowering the tax rates on the top 1 or 2% to an even lower one than they are currently paying... after all the trickle down will be all of the rich people, who will then take the savings in taxes and gladly dole them out to all the rest of us, thus making up for the additional taxes we would pay by not being able to write off any itemized deductions.

Well, if the American People are stupid enough to fall for the obvious attempt to screw us even more, so be it! Then we all can work for mimimun wage, and own our sould to the Company Store!

  • 5 votes
#1.9 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:36 PM EST
Rick_Parry_Sux

The GOPigs better not touch corporate tax cuts and welfare to the wealthy.

  • 5 votes
#1.10 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:13 PM EST
petridishofideas

mortgage interest, charitable giving.......state and local taxes. The later hit everyone even the poor and lower class. The former hits those who itemize and that can include a whole lot of the vanishing middle class.

All to keep from making those corporations that OUTSOURCE American joba and the profits created BY THE AMERICAN CONSUMER from having to pay @!$%#ing taxes!

  • 4 votes
#1.11 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:21 PM EST
MJMullinII

At #1.7 --

"Independent" simply means embarrassed Republican -- looking at the last several years, can you blame them?

  • 4 votes
#1.12 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:35 PM EST
Pacific Northwest Blogger

Instead of focusing his frustration on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he goes after the homeowners by removing mortgage deductions making it even costlier to own a home. This sounds like social engineering in reverse of their previous strategy to have everyone own a home- make them all renters... right Mr. Toomey?

The U.S. congress is a worldwide joke and the punch line is directed at the American public.

It's my view that they should simply patch the budget to get through the next election cycle, and in the meantime as they ALL prepare to leave government to make room for the honest representatives, they should spend every moment of their time on legislation to remove money from politics - unless that happens, nothing will change for the better. When the money is out then government can do the jobs voters elected them into office to do.

  • 2 votes
#1.13 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:57 PM EST
Reply
mstanley2265

The deficit is a trillion, the best the GOP can offer is 390 billion over 10 years. Like that's going to do Any Good. geez. They're still in denial and they haven't seen the premiums people have to pay for health insurance lately either.

  • 8 votes
Reply#2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:09 PM EST
MJMullinII

The deficit might as well be "quadzillion!" because the result is the same.

Every country on Earth runs a deficit and none of them, NONE OF THEM will ever get paid off because "deficit" just becomes a word when you're talking about nations.

For one thing, if the United States DIDN'T run a deficit, where are the Chinese to stick all the money we pay them that they can't possibly spend?

The only time we have "problem" is when a group of jackasses show up and publicly claim they won't pay (i.e. -- "tea party"). Next year, when the electorate takes care of them, we'll be back to business as usual.

    #2.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:37 PM EST
    Reply
    Ellen-for-Obama

    Sounds like they're trying to get that pesky tax issue out of the way. Now they can claim that they wanted to increase tax revenues, but the Dems wouldn't go for it.

    • 8 votes
    Reply#3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:10 PM EST
    Yeah Toast!

    Now they can claim that they wanted to increase tax revenues, but the Dems wouldn't go for it.

    Exactly, Ellen!

    You know what... let's go for this, but add in that we're done with corporate tax loopholes as well. See if they still are cool with passing yet another plan that directly attacks the middle, working class of Americans.

    • 3 votes
    #3.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:05 PM EST
    Reply
    belle42

    Some workers could also see their employer-provided health benefits taxed for the first time, though aides cautioned that the proposal is still fluid.

    I saw this coming as soon as the IRS said businesses had to start disclosing the cost of medical benefits on W-2s starting in 2012!

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-11-28.pdf

    • 3 votes
    Reply#4 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:10 PM EST
    mstanley2265

    It didn't pass and get signed by the President though. We need to keep a lookout for Any and All legislation by Rep Black, R TN....she's got some hardcore stuff going into legislation bills. She's a nurse, geez what is it with these medical people getting into government, especially when they don't have a broadbased knowledge of government?

    • 3 votes
    #4.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:29 PM EST
    belle42

    ...yet. I'm still wary because since it is now on the W-2, it is EASY for them to decide they're going to require it to be taxed as a benefit. I'm working on our system conversion right now -- happy fun...NOT!!!

    • 1 vote
    #4.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:48 PM EST
    mstanley2265

    Not just that, they want all information from the IRS to be transferred to a Health company so if someone lies about their income, the company gets the information. That Part I didn't like, private health insurance companies have no business knowing what a person reports to the IRS.

    • 2 votes
    #4.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:54 PM EST
    Reply
    Brian-497171

    The GOP will not rest until they deal the final fatal blow to the middle class and can then enjoy the fruits of their 30+ years of Supply-side economics: a full-blown plutocracy.

    • 11 votes
    Reply#5 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:18 PM EST
    Naughtia

    the american employment zone is too expensive, and the richest people on the planet dont like to fly to china for labor, plus the Chinese government is harder to buy that the american one.

    the GOP just want to equalize labor prices world wide.

    • 2 votes
    #5.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:31 PM EST
    Reply
    Man of Knowledge

    This looks interesting to me. It is a way of increasing the tax burden on the higher income tax brackets without specifically targeting them. You have to have significant assets for itemized deductions to exceed the Standard deduction.

    I would still like to see about a 5% increase in the Captital Gains tax as well.

    With those in place, I could see a compromise to include raising the retirment age to 70 over the next 20 years. In my opinion, the ACA reforms will reduce health care costs enough to lower Medicare costs significantly anyway.

      Reply#6 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:33 PM EST
      Naughtia

      SAY WHAT? no it increases the burden on the rest of us.. not the higher brackets as much.

      It is the middle class, not the upper bracket who is more likely to have a mortgage.

      workers could see their health care benefits taxed.. the top bracket are not "the workers" And nearly all middle class and poor get their health insurance through their jobs(if they have ins), many of the rich simply get a personal plan, rather than a group plan. This isnt a benefit but a cost.

      and I guess you missed the part about lowering the top bracket to 28% from 35%(nothing like a 20% cut in taxes huh)

      and what would effect the rich, is getting rid of the charitable deduction, as the poor and middle class generally dont give enough to charity as to be able to deduct it off their taxes.. but dont forget the top bracket is getting 20% tax cut and when they stop giving to charity sooo much to get tax breaks.. the middle class and poor suffers.

      I really dont see how you can say this is a stealth way to tax the top brackets more, especially when every economist says the GOP plan will hit the poor and middle class hard.

      • 3 votes
      #6.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:37 PM EST
      Jack TX

      You have to have significant assets for itemized deductions to exceed the Standard deduction.

      No you don't.

      This f*cks over middle class people worse than a flat tax.

      • 3 votes
      #6.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:42 PM EST
      Ed-2022915

      You say rase the age to 70 for SS what you haven't or don't understand is just where are these people going to work it is extreamely hard for anyone over 50 to get any kind of a decent job. I don't consider wal-mart or McDonalds a decent job. Unless you make a law that no company can fire anyone over 50, and that isn't going to happen besides there are a lot of younger people that need jobs, it might not be what someone wants to hear but, people has to retire so a younger person will have a job. Rase the age and and the cycle will be undone and will cost more in the long run.

      • 2 votes
      #6.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:37 PM EST
      Man of Knowledge

      Jack TX

      No you don't.

      This f*cks over middle class people worse than a flat tax.

      You may be right. I would be interested in your explanation why you think that.

      The way I see it, you need a mortgage in the +$150,000 range before your interest deduction would approach the Standard deduction.

      Only about 12% of tax returns have an AGI above $75,000. Of those returns only about 3% are between $75,000 and $200,000. I would say this small percentage of the population can afford a tax increase. It would only be the difference between their itemized deductions and the Standard Deduction and the tax bracket they wound up in as a result.

      Ed-2022915

      You say rase the age to 70 for SS what you haven't or don't understand is just where are these people going to work it is extreamely hard for anyone over 50 to get any kind of a decent job.

      That is why you phase it in over a long period of time, so people can prepare. SS needs an adjustment to stay solvent beyond 2022. It's either raise the retirement age or increase the payroll tax. Either would be OK with me, but I think a higher retirement age in the future would be less painful.

        #6.4 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:47 PM EST
        Jack TX

        You may be right. I would be interested in your explanation why you think that.

        The way I see it, you need a mortgage in the +$150,000 range before your interest deduction would approach the Standard deduction.

        You have asked and answered at the same time. ;)

        According to the National Association of Realtors, the median sale price of an existing home in 2010 was 173K. So about half of the homes sold in 2010 could easily have a mortgage large enough to fit your criteria.

        Only about 12% of tax returns have an AGI above $75,000

        Maybe, but there are tens of millions of us on less than $75k/yr with mortgages over $150k. Well....at least there are right now....

        • 2 votes
        #6.5 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:11 AM EST
        Man of Knowledge

        Maybe, but there are tens of millions of us on less than $75k/yr with mortgages over $150k. Well....at least there are right now....

        It's clear a lot of those people are in over their heads and those high mortgages are the consequence of a highly inflated market bubble.

        Something needs to be done about the large number of people who are underwater with their mortgages but that is a different issue from tax policy. The mortgage industry perpetrated an enormous con on the American people and should have to pay that rip off back.

          #6.6 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:40 AM EST
          Jack TX

          Something needs to be done about the large number of people who are underwater with their mortgages but that is a different issue from tax policy.

          Yes, but I'm not talking about people who are underwater.

          I'm trying to illustrate the point that a massive, massive number of everyday working Americans itemize their mortgage interest. We're not talking about the top 5% or even the top 15%. Were talking about the top 50%. We're talking about increasing the taxes on a family making $50k while lowering taxes on a family making $500k.

          I'm working on an email to my congressman. It needs some work. So far I have

          Jeb,

          You useless moron. WTF are you thinking?

          Jack

          • 1 vote
          #6.7 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:28 AM EST
          Man of Knowledge

          Maybe you're right but I don't see how. The numbers just don't add up. It can't be 50% because the article states that only 1/3 of tax returns itemize deductions. It seems to me of the 1/3 that do, the income ranges must be skewed toward the higher tax brackets because the lower tax brackets just don't have enough assets for itemizing deductions to make sense.

            #6.8 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:31 AM EST
            Jack TX

            OK, let's assume it only impacts the upper third. You point out that only 12% of returns show AGI above $75k. That means we're still talking about increasing taxes on the guy making $60k-$65k and living in a $200k house, while we reduce them on his boss.

            I can understand raising taxes on everybody. I can even understand raising them on some and keeping them the same on others, but raising them on one set while cutting them for another? And then tell me about the need for "sacrifice"? Please.

            • 1 vote
            #6.9 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:10 AM EST
            Jimmy the Goon

            I take my interest off my taxes every year and I don't make $100,000.00 and I certainly don't have a $150,000.00 house. These bastards are killing me with trying to tax everyone but their own selfish asses.

            Jack TX can I get a copy of that letter when you are finished with it to send to my Congressman and Senator as well.

            • 1 vote
            #6.10 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:34 AM EST
            Man of Knowledge

            Jimmy the Goon

            Do your itemized deductions exceed $11,600?

              #6.11 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:05 PM EST
              Ellen-for-Obama

              When I bought my home in 1991, it cost under $100K (a low price on Cape Cod at the time.) However, the mortgage interest was high enough to itemize, rather than take the standard deduction. Remember how interest is higher earlier in the loan? Interest decreasingly becomes a lower part of the mortgage payment as the principal rises.

              Add in other itemized deductions, such as medical expenses and other taxes and yeah, I itemized for years. I've never, ever been remotely close to the top 1%.

              Nowadays, a modest home in my area costs at least $150K (that would be a very small home on a very small lot with some repairs needed.) Take away the mortgage interest deduction, and you've removed a huge incentive for home ownership - a major driving force in our economy.

              But then, I don't take these ideas seriously. I'm sure the GOP is simply floating them to see what comes out after everyone has chewed on them. Such insane ideas WILL be spit out.

              • 2 votes
              #6.12 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:54 PM EST
              Jack TX

              But then, I don't take these ideas seriously. I'm sure the GOP is simply floating them to see what comes out after everyone has chewed on them. Such insane ideas WILL be spit out.

              I wonder about this. I hope you are correct, and that this is the public card played to bluff into a private deal.

                #6.13 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:09 PM EST
                Steve-485394

                Jack, Man, and Jimmy.... interesting conversation. Let's look at it even taking the figures Man states, and why just why those who are rich don't give a rats ass about the mortgage deduction.

                If you are one of the fortunate ones who do earn over lets say $350K a year, and many doctors do, they you are most likely pushed into Alternative Minimum Taxes, which restricts the mortgage deduction and most deductions being sought after to eliminate, that in itself sounds fishy... But lets go on, at least for those who do give to Charities that is not limited for the itemization's, and does in-fact reduce Alternative Minimum Taxes...

                So, unless they take the individual who currently itemizes, and allows for the first lets say $100k of income not to be reported, those at the top will see a drastic drop in their tax liability... now with my suggestion, so would the vast majority of middle class America, and I am all for that.

                Aside from that warm feeling one gets for giving to their favorite charities or Church, etc... it is a boon to both the recipients and to those that give... Now I am sure that with the elimination of the deduction, all of us will continue to be so generous, and I am sure that the wealthy with the savings they get on the proposed tax change will most likely put those savings riight back into society and give and give until it hurts, especially since the idea of savings trickles down to the very people it needs to help.

                Take away the oil depletion allowance, the credit for not planting crops(which was meant for the little farmer, and not the current corporations one sees as they travel along the road, signs by Mobil on the tomato farms they own to diversify their holdings, etc. But stop taking away any of the few items the poor slob uses to save some money, provide for his family and do social justice by donations to charities.

                  #6.14 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:13 PM EST
                  Reply
                  Bill-337808

                  That dam(n) GOP! How about just getting rid of the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans instead of, once again, hitting the middle class where it hurts by taking away the mortgage interest deduction. The audacity of these jerks!

                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#7 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:37 PM EST
                  IndependentVoter

                  Agreed

                  • 4 votes
                  #7.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:53 PM EST
                  Reply
                  dbrew4u

                  About time that the GOP came to their senses and started raising Taxes . We can Only hope they raise them high enough to do some good ? 70 % wouldn't be unreasonable .

                    Reply#8 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:01 PM EST
                    firearch

                    You are KOO KOO.

                    • 2 votes
                    #8.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:40 PM EST
                    Reply
                    Romney = (Corporate) Welfare Queen

                    Let's see the proposed tax:

                    Middle class - no mortgage interest deduction, tax on health insurance i.e. raised taxes

                    Top 1% - lowered top tier rate from 35% to 28% i.e. lowered taxes

                    Good job GOP. Koch brothers will be so happy.

                    • 7 votes
                    Reply#9 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:03 PM EST
                    Bighorn

                    So - If you can't deduct charitable donations, stop donating to charity and use the saved money to pay your taxes.

                    Why purchase a home in a lousy market if you cannot write off the interest and taxes on your loan. Most people may be better off renting.

                      Reply#10 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:10 PM EST
                      Ellen-for-Obama

                      Tell that to mortgage lenders, home goods suppliers and contractors. Home owners create business. Business creates jobs. This stupid idea would not just raise taxes on the 99%, but it would kill jobs. The GOP needs a major reboot.

                      • 2 votes
                      #10.1 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:05 PM EST
                      belle42

                      The GOP needs a major reboot.

                      Has anyone tried Ctrl-Alt-Del yet? Always works to fix my computer :)

                      • 1 vote
                      #10.2 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:07 PM EST
                      Reply
                      Dennis P McCann

                      The Republicans always raise taxes and spend like drunken sailors, and yet they've somehow convinced their base that it's the Democrats that do that, and they do they opposite. Are people really that uninformed?

                      • 6 votes
                      Reply#11 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:19 PM EST
                      firearch

                      It would appear so Dennis, was it not the Obama administration that continuously extended the unemployment benefits rather than ween the unwilling workforce of the government nipple.

                      It's far easier to sit at the park and bitch with the other unemployed 99ers then to do it from the workplace.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:45 PM EST
                      Dennis P McCann

                      was it not the Obama administration that continuously extended the unemployment benefits rather than ween the unwilling workforce of the government nipple.

                      Nope. What he did was extend their benefits while everyone waited for the GOP to come through on their promise to create jobs. Still waiting.

                      It's far easier to sit at the park and bitch with the other unemployed 99ers then to do it from the workplace.

                      I'll have to take your word for it. I work all the freaking time.

                      • 4 votes
                      #11.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:58 PM EST
                      firearch

                      Dennis, so do I. It's nice to hear from a fellow worker.

                      And I am still waiting for the Obama plan to do something,,, still waiting.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:12 PM EST
                      common sense-457836

                      It would appear so Dennis, was it not the Obama administration that continuously extended the unemployment benefits rather than ween the unwilling workforce of the government nipple.

                      How can you be so deluded as to believe the demand for labor currently outweighs the applicants? Do you think employment would rise if we got rid of benefits? Do you even live in the US?

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.4 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:40 PM EST
                      Dennis P McCann

                      And I am still waiting for the Obama plan to do something,,, still waiting.

                      It's not for lack of trying. No President can accomplish anything when the opposition party blocks his every move. There have been more filibusuters in the last 3 years than in the 200 before combined.

                      • 2 votes
                      #11.5 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:59 PM EST
                      Lampell

                      Nope. What he did was extend their benefits while everyone waited for the GOP to come through on their promise to create jobs. Still waiting.

                      At the time that the unemployment benefits were extended the GOP didnt have a majority in either House, so it wouldnt really matter what they promised, and the bill was passed. When the President gets something passed its his accomplishment ( must have snuck it by the party of no). When one of his proposals is blocked its the other guys fault, never his. Its so convenient. What is really going on is that neither party can promise jobs, thats quite evident and anyone waiting for this govt to get a permanent job has a looooooooooong wait, If the Republicans blocked his every move, how did legislation get passed? Which is it?

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.6 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:59 PM EST
                      firearch

                      All Great comments, and yes i do live in the United States. As it is i have friends that are on welfare, sating to me that they make more now on (benefits) than they could working. They have no incentive to work. By making the (benefits) painful - not living under a bridge painful - it may motivate folks to find work, even work they may not want to do.

                      Nice observations Lampell, funny how it is always somebody else's fault, and the gimmick that it's gonna take time to fix is a reelection ploy.

                      And I'm not deluded, i know there are more workers than jobs, but out her in the southwest we have help wanted signs up at almost every shop. Just nobody wants the old 9-5.

                      • 1 vote
                      #11.7 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:58 AM EST
                      Reply
                      demdame

                      Yet another "plan" of attack on the middle class

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#12 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:21 PM EST
                      Rixar13

                      "But Republicans are becoming increasingly divided over the issue of raising taxes."

                      Tax the wealthy and keep it simple...

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#13 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:40 PM EST
                      firearch

                      Who would you call wealthy, anybody making more than you i suppose?.

                      • 1 vote
                      #13.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:47 PM EST
                      Dennis P McCann

                      250 K or more annually.

                      • 1 vote
                      #13.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:59 PM EST
                      firearch

                      So the top has to pay for the bottom? The world needs ditch diggers, we can't all be astronauts.

                      but at least 250K is a starting point. It still seems like the most guifted workers are being penalised to support the less gifted, so where is the incentive to succeed.

                      Altho I have never heard or been guilty of saying, crap I made too much money this year.

                        #13.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:17 PM EST
                        Rob-LVNevada

                        I can't pick a number, if I had to it would be $1M annually. Someone making $250k in Manhattan, KS could be amazingly rich beyond any of our wildest dreams - as compared to someone making $250k in Manhattan, NY...who could very easily be living paycheck-to-paycheck due to their absurd real estate valuations.

                        Just as I wouldn't pick my investments by companies with the highest gross sales alone, I can't pick "the rich" based upon income alone either. It just makes no sense.

                        Plus, well, many of them will just stop collecting income and transfer practically everything to a business expense (like back when Eisenhower was President and many folks had a company car, and your company might have bought your house and...) - and then what do we do.

                        • 2 votes
                        #13.4 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:19 PM EST
                        firearch

                        Nice incite Rob. so we are back at the beginning. Regional variations make a difference.

                        • 1 vote
                        #13.5 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:30 PM EST
                        whino33

                        What's wrong with raising taxes on those who make $1,000,000 or more annually? There is no reason that this tax bracket should be at an all time low when our country has a significant debt problem.

                        Also, capital gains taxes and estate taxes have a much bigger impact on the wealthiest Americans as opposed to the majority of Americans.

                        These taxes are not a "punishment" - it's simply a way to contribute more to the economic system that enabled you to succeed in the first place. It's that simple.

                        • 2 votes
                        #13.6 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:03 PM EST
                        Dennis P McCann

                        So the top has to pay for the bottom? The world needs ditch diggers, we can't all be astronauts.

                        No, they have to pay their fair share, though it does sound more logical for the top to pay for the bottom then the bottom to pay for the top - which is how it is right now.

                        We've been dealing with Reagan's voodoo economics for 30 years. Make the rich richer and it'll trickle down. It hasn't, and it won't.

                        Half the country is trying to keep their lights on and food on the table while CEOs are deducting the cost of a new yacht or private jet as a business expense. What I don't get is that so many of the working class people want to keep it that way. That's just nuts.

                        • 3 votes
                        #13.7 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:04 PM EST
                        Lampell

                        What's wrong with raising taxes on those who make $1,000,000 or more annually? There is no reason that this tax bracket should be at an all time low when our country has a significant debt problem.

                        There is nothing wrong with raising taxes on people who make a million or more annually. It wont end there, however. The people who make over a million make 700 billion collectively and pay 200 billion in taxes. If we raised their tax to one hundred pct that would raise another 500 billion, and lets face it, that couldnt be repeated for obvious reasons. The middle class, on the other hand, make 5 trillion a year, and pay 10pct tax ( because many do not pay tax due to low income). So if we wanted to raise taxes to increase revenue by, say, 1 trillion dollars, the only place to get it from is the middle class. A 10 pct increase would equal taxing the rich at 100pct.

                        Lowering spending actually cuts the debt of the U.S., its not a transfer of wealth from people to the govt. Raising taxes, on the other hand, kicks in immediately, where cuts are over 10 years, and could be tinkered with a few years later. Here is an example: In 2003 a law was passed, designed to help save Medicare money. The law called for a 3 pct cut to providers each year. Needless to say, Congress, each year, puts off the cut with the result that today the cut is supposed to be 30pct. These "savings" incidentally were supposed to be used to partially pay for the HealthCare Act, the law that would not raise the deficit one dime.

                        Not to mention that the so called cuts arent reducing the national debt, they are only reducing the RATE of increase in spending due to baseline budgeting. The debt will still be much higher than it is today by trillions. So here we have a committee discussing cuts of 1.2 trillion dollars over TEN years, about 100 billion a year when we have been running deficits of over 1 trillion a YEAR for the past 3 years and will be doing so for 5 more years. Sort of much ado about nothing.

                        If we raise taxes on the other guy you can bet that the politicians will need more money from the cookie jar and it will be YOU that is being taxed more along with the rich. Politicians dont get any brownie points or votes for taking increased revenue to pay off the national credit card, it doesnt garner votes to get re elected.

                        • 1 vote
                        #13.8 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:10 PM EST
                        Jimmy the Goon

                        A boat load of Millionaires went in and asked to be taxed. These greedy politicians just can't part with their own money. That is the problem. They are so in bed with the big corporations, oil companies, and pharm that they are too busy getting paid to do what is right for the country.

                        • 1 vote
                        #13.9 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:37 AM EST
                        Reply
                        gbhmamma

                        Wow, this would hit us directly. We don't even make 40k, the only thing we have going for us is our mortgage interest deduction, charitable donation deduction, and itemized deductions from our small business. Talk about hitting the (lower) middle class getting by on their small businesses. Forcing the last group who is holding out from relying on the government to give in. Great.

                        • 2 votes
                        Reply#14 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:14 PM EST
                        Dennis P McCann

                        How do you like the GOP now? (Not saying you did before).

                        • 2 votes
                        #14.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:06 PM EST
                        Lampell

                        How do you like the GOP now? (Not saying you did before).

                        There have been dozens of proposals, trial balloons, as it were, from both sides. Its posturing just like the Democrats do, trying to blame cuts to Medicare on Republicans even though Democrats are willing to "compromise" and make the same cuts, but only if taxes are increased. Notice the democrats didnt say that with the tax increases we wouldnt make cuts to Medicare, no they said that they are willing to cut my benefits if Republicans would increase taxes. The result for a recipient of Medicare is the same, cuts.

                        To pay for the Jobs bill, the President proposed other cuts to Medicare, but thats ok because its Democratic cuts, not Republican cuts. Dont we see how silly this is, red vs blue and actually thinking there is a difference. Both parties have different ways of pandering to the voters.

                        • 1 vote
                        #14.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:18 PM EST
                        Reply
                        radar015

                        Across the country, protesters of the OWS now have even more reason for demanding change. The Republicans are saying no and this is their answer. This is like throwing gasoline on the fire. Wait till the Democrats now concede on entitlements. I hate to see all hell breaking loose, but I don't see how things will get better. The Republicans are determined to break the Middle Class.

                        • 3 votes
                        Reply#15 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:16 PM EST
                        Lampell

                        Wait till the Democrats now concede on entitlements. I hate to see all hell breaking loose, but I don't see how things will get better. The Republicans are determined to break the Middle Class.

                        So if we take your statement at face value and Republicans "break" the middle class, who is going to vote Republican, the 1pct. and can you win an election with only 1pct of voters voting for you? The Democrats didnt "concede" on entitlements, the President proposed cuts to Medicare to partially pay for his Jobs bill, that was not concession, he did that one on his own.

                        • 1 vote
                        #15.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:21 PM EST
                        Reply
                        Rob-LVNevada

                        We've got a property we bought and had to move away from for legal reasons (custody situation). Since we can't live there, it's a rental property - which doesn't fit well into anyone's loan modification program, even though it's our only purchased home (we rent back where we're forced to live and are moving next year when the kid graduates).

                        Anyone stuck in our situation will just walk away. There won't be much choice - we only come theoretically close to "breaking even" when we factor in the interest deduction - if not, we'd be underwater $600 a month for a house we can't live in. I don't think anyone's even stopping to consider folks in situations like ours...which will just end up making a couple of attorneys richer through the foreclosure process.

                        • 2 votes
                        Reply#16 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:25 PM EST
                        Peter-2556560

                        wow yeah the middle income earners has a thing going for them now, "mortgage interest deduction", the GOP want to eliminate it right away?

                        I have to ask, why is there a substantial difference of tax rate on upper bracket compared to the lower bracket, for instance; the upper class gets a tax credit of -07% and the Middle Class gets -.02%?

                        If we are going to keep talking about Equal Share for Equal Pays among EVERYBODY, this does not deserve to be the right solution in my view.

                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#17 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:35 PM EST
                        belle42

                        OK, silly thought -- if the housing market already sucks, why screw it up further by getting rid of the mortgage deduction? Wouldn't that make the economy as a whole WORSE, not BETTER since one of the factors in the recent recession was the housing bubble?

                        • 4 votes
                        #17.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:38 PM EST
                        Lampell

                        if the housing market already sucks, why screw it up further by getting rid of the mortgage deduction? Wouldn't that make the economy as a whole WORSE, not BETTER since one of the factors in the recent recession was the housing bubble?

                        There are better ways to screw up the housing market that the elimination of deductions, which would actually raise revenue. We could eliminate Fannie and Freddie, who collectively have lost over 140 billion dollars subsidizing loans. If they were eliminated the only place to get a loan would be through the FHA, who is also losing a bundle since they guarantee loans with down payments of only 3 pct even today. By eliminating all govt support you wouldnt be able to get a loan for a mortgage, and that would also save the govt billions. The govt has also helpfully prolong the agony by slowing up the foreclosure market so that it will take years to get rid of the overhang rather than one year, spreads the pain out over a long time.

                        So which way would you like it, eliminate deductions on high mortgages, to gain revenue, or make sure nobody gets a mortgage by eliminating subsidized loans. Once person's "loophole" is another's deduction:)

                        • 1 vote
                        #17.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:27 PM EST
                        belle42

                        I'd like to see loans actually taking place -- subsidized loans still require banks to get off their butts and lend money! And if the mortgage deduction is the difference between buying and renting (which it is for some people) then eliminating it will have a detrimental effect on an already soft housing market.

                        • 2 votes
                        #17.3 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:48 AM EST
                        Reply
                        demo scout

                        Just look at the tax rate adjustments. If you are at the low end paying 10% you will get a rate deduction of 2%, but if you are in the top bracket paying 35% you will get a rate deduction of 7%. So a couple making 212K would get a tax rate reduction worth almost 15K and a couple in the 10% bracket, making say 30K would get a rate reduction worth only $600. Let's see $15,000 vs. $600. Who gets the shaft? Yep, its the people who can least afford it.

                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#18 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:36 PM EST
                        Rob-LVNevada

                        a couple in the 10% bracket, making say 30K

                        Are you implying that a couple in this situation pays much (if any) Federal income taxes at all?

                          #18.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:45 PM EST
                          Reply
                          IndependentVoter

                          250 K or more annually.

                          Not according to Charlie

                          Schumer said the $250,000 limit is unacceptable since it will hit the metropolitan area disproportionately because of the high cost of living here.

                          "$250,000 makes you really rich in Mississippi but it doesn't make you rich at all in New York and there ought to be some kind of scale based on the cost of living on how much you pay," Schumer said"

                          • 2 votes
                          Reply#19 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:43 PM EST
                          Rob-LVNevada

                          Yep, see #13.4.

                          • 1 vote
                          #19.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:45 PM EST
                          whino33

                          I agree that $250K does not make you rich in NYC but I don't think it will be possible to pass a bill with a geographical scale.

                          I think that the $250K figure should be moved up. Sure, it will mean less revenue but it's better than nothing.

                            #19.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:08 PM EST
                            rational thought-3748544

                            Regional differences in cost of living is somewhat a moot point when it comes to taxation, since the high cost of living is due to a proportionately high level of income. It's the high median income of a region of the country that causes the high cost of living there and vise versa.

                              #19.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:36 PM EST
                              Reply
                              Peter-2556560

                              So this plan means the variable earnings differentiate between 250k income earns due to some absurd real estate assessment of the Mortgage Industry?

                              what a stupid fuhk solution if you ask me, excuse me for saying that. I have another question. So all that Stimulus Money thrown in new responsibility of firms hired by the Government to fix the Mortgage Problems, called it instability in the Economy is just going to waste, is that it?

                              Is this another tactic that that GOP is pulling so they can go back and blame the Government again?

                                Reply#20 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:11 PM EST
                                Lampell

                                This whole super committee is a bit of a joke. The group is supposed to come up with a plan to reduce spending by a whole 1.2 trillion dollars over TEN years, thats about 100 billion a year. This country has been running an annual deficit over the past three years of 1 trillion dollars a YEAR. Not to mention that these so called cuts dont actually reduce our national debt, they are cuts to reduce the RATE of increase in spending due to baseline budgeting. We can expect the national debt to be around 20 trillion in 5 years, and this is after the so called cuts. Much ado about nothing.

                                Tax increases are immediate, they happen as soon as the law is passed, the cuts in spending?, who knows its over ten years and Congress has been known to tinker with these kinds of things as time goes by. For example: In 2003 a law was passed to save Medicare money, by reducing payments to providers by 3pct per annum. Each year when the cut was supposed to happen Congress put it off with the result that today the cuts are supposed to be 30pct, ten years later, In other words the cuts were never implemented, and coincidentally these are the same "savings" that are supposed to be used to partially pay for the HealthCare bill so that the bill would not raise the deficit one dime.

                                • 1 vote
                                Reply#21 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:19 PM EST
                                Jimmy the Goon

                                Seriously. Okay many of you know me, and I would like to take this time to make a statement.

                                Hi. I'm Jimmy and I'm a Republican...I really need help, so that is why I am enrolling in the program. My goal at this point is to be a Conservative Democrat, but who knows. Years from now I may grow my hair out and tie die some shirts. I will just take it one day at a time.

                                But seriously is their a rehab for people who continue to believe these asswipes care in the least for anything other than their back accounts, because I may need to go. I have been seriously duped in the past.

                                • 2 votes
                                Reply#22 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:38 PM EST
                                belle42

                                Hi Jimmy -- yeah I'm a registered Republican, but lately I don't recognize the party I joined. Who gives a sh!t who marries who? More marriages = better for the economy (think of all those catering and DJ jobs!!). And if we have to, we SHOULD raise taxes to pay for what We the People demand -- that's called FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY -- being able to pay for what you owe...in cash! OMG, don't these people balance their OWN finances?!?

                                • 2 votes
                                #22.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:41 PM EST
                                Jimmy the Goon

                                Apparently not. Thanks for the support belle. I need it. LOL! These are some crazy times.

                                • 2 votes
                                #22.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:48 PM EST
                                Reply
                                rational thought-3748544

                                The GOP debt plan is no plan at all. It will effectively raise taxes on the middle class and lower taxes on the wealthy (duh!) as part of their plan to shift the burden of deficit reduction onto those who have already suffered from their destructive economic policies and the recession. At the same time it will do almost nothing to reduce the deficit.

                                Great plan, huh?

                                The heartless GOP bastards are at it again.

                                • 1 vote
                                Reply#23 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:48 PM EST
                                Rob-LVNevada

                                It's what happens when the Democrats refuse to cut spending (or even cut planned increases in spending), I guess.

                                  #23.1 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:54 PM EST
                                  belle42

                                  OK, someone needs to call Charles Grodin -- his character in Dave was able to cut LOTS of government waste to save a kids shelter. We need someone like that...NOW!!! (my favorite...cutting spending for advertising to make people feel better about cars they already own)

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #23.2 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:00 PM EST
                                  rational thought-3748544

                                  That may be because we have a revenue problem that far exceeds our spending problem and that drastic cuts in spending will only exacerbate the unemployment problem.

                                    #23.3 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:02 PM EST
                                    belle42

                                    rt -- I'm suggesting both, but I can understand people who want to cut certain line items (pork projects especially). I think we should raise taxes to pay for what We the People demand and stop using the Federal Credit Card to rack up debt. If you, me, and everyone else has to balance their budget by raising revenues and cutting expenses, then the government should do the same! (see also 22.1)

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #23.4 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:05 PM EST
                                    rational thought-3748544

                                    belle

                                    Sorry, my comments were directed at Rob, but you make a good point.

                                      #23.5 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:11 PM EST
                                      belle42

                                      thanks rt :)

                                      ...and I'm still looking for Charles Grodin's phone number :P

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #23.6 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:15 PM EST
                                      Reply
                                      Peter-2556560

                                      yeah i respect the RepublicanParty as well as their followers but dammit sometimes I just want grab one of those Leader's head and shake it up, Come on get the hell out of it!

                                      Jimmy and Belle, I am with you on that. It is nice to see some Decent People on the other side, I have to admit that.

                                        Reply#24 - Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:04 PM EST
                                        Leave a Comment:
                                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                        Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                        FUN STUFF:
                                        • Leaderboard |
                                        • E-Mail Alerts |
                                        • Top of the Vine |
                                        • Newsvine Live |
                                        • Newsvine Archives |
                                        • The Greenhouse |
                                        COMPANY STUFF:
                                        • Code of Honor |
                                        • Company Info |
                                        • Contact Us |
                                        • Jobs |
                                        • User Agreement |
                                        • Privacy Policy |
                                        • About our ads
                                        LEGAL STUFF:
                                        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com