PDA

View Full Version : New tax breaks for pets - the HAPPY Bill




Brian4Liberty
11-01-2009, 07:30 PM
Yep, it's real. A tax deduction for your pets...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2318720/posts

HR 3501 IH (HAPPY Bill for Pets)
Thomas ^ | 31 July 2009 | Rep. T. McCotter

Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:57:36 AM by combat_boots

Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act (Introduced in House)

HR 3501 IH 111th CONGRESS 1st Session To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses.

[snip]

Mr. MCCOTTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means --------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) According to the 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey, 63 percent of United States households own a pet.

(2) The Human-Animal Bond has been shown to have positive effects upon people's emotional and physical well-being.

SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR PET CARE EXPENSES.

(a) In General- Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by inserting after section 223 the following new section:

`SEC. 224. PET CARE EXPENSES.

`(a) Allowance of Deduction- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified pet care expenses of the taxpayer during the taxable year for any qualified pet of the taxpayer.

`(b) Maximum Deduction- The amount allowable as a deduction under subsection (a) to the taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $3,500.

`(c) Qualified Pet Care Expenses- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified pet care expenses'...

Original_Intent
11-01-2009, 08:55 PM
It wasn't passed, was it?

Endgame
11-01-2009, 10:11 PM
These days I would expect something called the HAPPY bill to be about torturing people to death with electric drills.

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2009, 01:13 PM
It wasn't passed, was it?

Nope. Hopefully the person that introduced it will be thrown out.

specsaregood
11-02-2009, 01:14 PM
Nope. Hopefully the person that introduced it will be thrown out.

Uhm, why?
I'm all for this. You have a problem with giving people a tax break on pets? I thought we were all for deductions around these parts...

LittleLightShining
11-02-2009, 01:19 PM
I'll take it and whatever other break they wanna hand out.

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2009, 01:27 PM
Uhm, why?
I'm all for this. You have a problem with giving people a tax break on pets? I thought we were all for deductions around these parts...

So you want to social engineer people into getting more pets?

For the record, not all of us are for special interest tax breaks, tax breaks for lobbyist crooks and attempts at social engineering through tax code...

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2009, 01:30 PM
I'll take it and whatever other break they wanna hand out.

The only tax breaks they "want" to hand out are to Goldman Sachs executives. And those are pretty much the only ones that do get hidden in the law.

misterx
11-02-2009, 01:30 PM
Nope. Hopefully the person that introduced it will be thrown out.

Don't speak without thinking. Here is the person who introduced the bill, listen to his speech against TARP:

YouTube - Bailout Plan! The House Aint Buyin It!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNlXgzzdJQA)

It may sound silly, but if it lowers taxes I'm all for it.

LittleLightShining
11-02-2009, 01:38 PM
The only tax breaks they "want" to hand out are to Goldman Sachs executives. And those are pretty much the only ones that do get hidden in the law.
Whatever bits they'll give back are good.

I was talking to someone earlier and We were discussing the reality of what faces us. Personally I think it's too late for political action-- even though I'm not giving up. I'll work my tail off and at the urging of some folks in these parts am considering running for office in 2010. What I think, though, is that people are not going to wake up and demand accountability until the system collapses. That doesn't make me an anarchist. It makes me a realist.

Maybe the best thing folks can do right now is apply for every program they qualify for. Maybe THEN the voters will realize the system is totally unsustainable.

In the meantime, the more money BACK in our pockets via tax credits for pets, efficiency, whatever, the less of our money goes to Afghanistan to burn eyelids off babies.

Rael
11-02-2009, 01:44 PM
I'm against the idea of deductions in general, but I'll use this because I'm going to take every opportunity to get some of MY money back.

specsaregood
11-02-2009, 01:57 PM
So you want to social engineer people into getting more pets?


No I'm for getting people back their money that was stolen from them. Pets can be expensive. I see no reason that people should get tax breaks for kids and not pets.

specsaregood
11-02-2009, 02:22 PM
Also, I think this link was posted here a month or so ago:
https://secure2.convio.net/aspca/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2605&JServSessionIdr003=oemopa09c4.app26b

There is one of those advocacy email form thingys at that link above


H.R. 3501—Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (“HAPPY”) Act
Sponsor: Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)
ASPCA Position: Support
Action Needed: Write to your U.S. representative today to urge him or her to support and cosponsor the HAPPY Act, H.R. 3501.

U.S. Representative Thaddeus McCotter has introduced the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (“HAPPY”) Act, legislation to allow individuals to claim tax deductions for qualified pet care expenses. The bill would allow any taxpayer who legally owns one or more domesticated animals to take an annual income tax deduction of up to $3,500 for pet care expenses, including veterinary care costs.

Pet care can be expensive—and in these trying economic times, families all over the country have been forced to give up their pets because of financial hardship. The HAPPY Act is important because it will help Americans provide their pets with the medical attention and quality of life they deserve, while also ensuring that more pets get to remain in their loving homes and don’t wind up on the streets or in the already overburdened shelter system.

What You Can Do
Use the letter below to email your U.S. representative now and urge him or her to support and cosponsor the HAPPY Act, H.R. 3501! Please keep in mind that personal comments strengthen the impact of your letter.

Krugerrand
11-02-2009, 02:30 PM
Using the government to control behavior is a bad thing - and that includes the tax code. Making the tax code more complicated is a bad thing. When logically considering an appropriate way to divide a tax burden - there is no justification for suggesting that those with pets should have a lower burden. If anything, pet ownership is historically a sign of affluence and could then be more easily argued that pet owners should absorb a higher burden. (yet I'm for equal burden.)

Finally - we need to break the mentality of using the tax code to stick it to somebody else. If you don't break that mentality, then you're going to get stuck on another line of the tax code.

Sandman33
11-02-2009, 03:52 PM
Tax breaks for pets?

They're taxing our PETS now? Fido has to get a job? :D

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2009, 03:53 PM
Here is the person who introduced the bill, listen to his speech against TARP

Ok, good speech on TARP, ridiculous Bill on Pet deductions proposed. He also said he supported the surge in Iraq. Jury out.


Whatever bits they'll give back are good.
...
Maybe the best thing folks can do right now is apply for every program they qualify for. Maybe THEN the voters will realize the system is totally unsustainable.


I have come to the opposite conclusion. Don't use government. Don't request anything from it. Don't take anything from it. Its like the blob. Every interaction makes it grow.

I don't buy the "burn down the house to kill the termites" argument.


I'm against the idea of deductions in general, but I'll use this because I'm going to take every opportunity to get some of MY money back.

If we all participate in the scam, we all contribute to it's existence.


No I'm for getting people back their money that was stolen from them.

I call that redistribution of wealth. Stolen from me by the government, given to you by the government (with 90% taken off the top for "overhead").


Using the government to control behavior is a bad thing - and that includes the tax code. Making the tax code more complicated is a bad thing. When logically considering an appropriate way to divide a tax burden - there is no justification for suggesting that those with pets should have a lower burden. If anything, pet ownership is historically a sign of affluence and could then be more easily argued that pet owners should absorb a higher burden. (yet I'm for equal burden.)

Finally - we need to break the mentality of using the tax code to stick it to somebody else. If you don't break that mentality, then you're going to get stuck on another line of the tax code.

We are on the same page there!

specsaregood
11-02-2009, 03:59 PM
I call that redistribution of wealth. Stolen from me by the government, given to you by the government (with 90% taken off the top for "overhead").


How is it redistribution of wealth? This would not be giving away money. It would simply allow one to deduct the amount they spent on their pet off their taxes. I wouldn't be getting one cent of your money.

phill4paul
11-02-2009, 04:12 PM
How is it redistribution of wealth? This would not be giving away money. It would simply allow one to deduct the amount they spent on their pet off their taxes. I wouldn't be getting one cent of your money.

The theory would be that since you are not paying your share of taxes (less because of this deductible) then taxes would have to be expanded to make up for the shortfall. Or something like that.

LittleLightShining
11-02-2009, 04:23 PM
The theory would be that since you are not paying your share of taxes (less because of this deductible) then taxes would have to be expanded to make up for the shortfall. Or something like that.

I don't think that's the logic that Ron Paul uses when he comes up with bills like his alternative to the cash for clunkers deal (can't remember what it was called). also, not saying that was your logic, either ;)

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2009, 04:24 PM
How is it redistribution of wealth? This would not be giving away money. It would simply allow one to deduct the amount they spent on their pet off their taxes. I wouldn't be getting one cent of your money.

Are you secretly a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs? ;)

It's an accounting trick. The net result is the same.

If they deducted the same amount from everyone's taxes, then it would be a true tax reduction.

phill4paul
11-02-2009, 04:30 PM
I don't think that's the logic that Ron Paul uses when he comes up with bills like his alternative to the cash for clunkers deal (can't remember what it was called). also, not saying that was your logic, either ;)

My logic is that everyone should take as many tax deductions as they possibly can IF they are going to pay taxes. I don't care if the government raises taxes to cover the deficit from it. Higher taxes mean more pissed-off individuals which hopefully will result in a full circle back to no income tax.

LittleLightShining
11-02-2009, 04:34 PM
My logic is that everyone should take as many tax deductions as they possibly can IF they are going to pay taxes. I don't care if the government raises taxes to cover the deficit from it. Higher taxes mean more pissed-off individuals which hopefully will result in a full circle back to no income tax.This is what I'm starting to think, too. Glad to see we're on the same page.

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2009, 04:36 PM
Higher taxes mean more pissed-off individuals which hopefully will result in a full circle back to no income tax.

Too late for that. We have gone past the point where taxes were too high. There are no new people that will get mad. And they also offset that with giving everyone a little cut. It is really easy to pay off the public by giving them a few bucks. We are at the point now where more than half of the people depend on the government in one way or another. Nobody cares about taxes when they are unemployed and on the government dole (or just working at a government job).

phill4paul
11-02-2009, 04:50 PM
Too late for that. We have gone past the point where taxes were too high. There are no new people that will get mad. And they also offset that with giving everyone a little cut. It is really easy to pay off the public by giving them a few bucks. We are at the point now where more than half of the people depend on the government in one way or another. Nobody cares about taxes when they are unemployed and on the government dole (or just working at a government job).

sigh, can't argue with that logic, guess I'll have to adopt it.;)

LittleLightShining
11-02-2009, 04:54 PM
Too late for that. We have gone past the point where taxes were too high. There are no new people that will get mad. And they also offset that with giving everyone a little cut. It is really easy to pay off the public by giving them a few bucks. We are at the point now where more than half of the people depend on the government in one way or another. Nobody cares about taxes when they are unemployed and on the government dole (or just working at a government job).

I disagree. I think there comes a point where the revenue can't be increased enough to cover the expenditures. We're getting to that point in VT. We haven't had private sector job growth in this state in over 10 years. Family farms are folding yet state govt, education and health and human service jobs are expanding exponentially. The legislature will squeeze and squeeze until they can't anymore. And eventually the people will stop paying. That's exactly what Celente has been saying. It's the only way to get a proper redress of grievances. The system needs to be broken.

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2009, 05:06 PM
I disagree. I think there comes a point where the revenue can't be increased enough to cover the expenditures. We're getting to that point in VT. We haven't had private sector job growth in this state in over 10 years. Family farms are folding yet state govt, education and health and human service jobs are expanding exponentially. The legislature will squeeze and squeeze until they can't anymore. And eventually the people will stop paying. That's exactly what Celente has been saying. It's the only way to get a proper redress of grievances. The system needs to be broken.

I agree with your disagreement. But once again, we are far past the point where government revenue can't be increased enough to cover expenditures. People have stopped paying. The State is borrowing and printing money. The system is already broken. And still it goes on...

You can sit back and say it's all going to collapse. I am not sure how you are going to implement your solution when you are using the exact same strategy as the socialists, and they are in charge implementing their solution right now. They too wanted the fall of the system, and they have almost completed their take-over.

The fall of the system is not the turning point for some new libertarian society. It is the starting point for the brave new totalitarian socialist state.

LittleLightShining
11-02-2009, 05:20 PM
I agree with your disagreement. But once again, we are far past the point where government revenue can't be increased enough to cover expenditures. People have stopped paying. The State is borrowing and printing money. The system is already broken. And still it goes on...

You can sit back and say it's all going to collapse. I am not sure how you are going to implement your solution when you are using the exact same strategy as the socialists, and they are in charge implementing their solution right now. They too wanted the fall of the system, and they have almost completed their take-over.

The fall of the system is not the turning point for some new libertarian society. It is the starting point for the brave new totalitarian socialist state.Yes and no. But I see what you're saying. I think we could argue this ad nauseum and still not find a solution.

specsaregood
11-02-2009, 05:26 PM
If they deducted the same amount from everyone's taxes, then it would be a true tax reduction.

As long as you support eliminating tax deductions for children and all other deductions, then I have no problem with your viewpoint. In the meantime, I've contacted my congressman and asked him to support this and told all the other pet owners I know to do the same.

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2009, 10:09 PM
As long as you support eliminating tax deductions for children and all other deductions, then I have no problem with your viewpoint.

Absolutely. I am against all deductions! No matter how the state (Federal government) collects revenue, it should be a flat percentage across the board, with no special exemptions, exceptions, privileges, deductions, social engineering, economic engineering or trade wars. And even better, the only source of revenue should be an import tariff. But I'm just dreaming there... :D

cindy25
11-02-2009, 10:16 PM
any tax cut should be supported, as its less money for Obama and his gang.

starve the beast

RSLudlum
11-02-2009, 10:24 PM
They could always offset the lost revenue by passing an increase on imported (and/or domestic) pet products; trick the public into thinking they're getting a tax break but no real change in the amount of money they spend on their pets due to the increase in prices.

revolutionary8
11-02-2009, 10:26 PM
Pet owners are gonna need one- and any tax break is good.

Pet dogs as bad for planet as driving 4x4s, book claims



SHOULD owning a great dane make you as much of an eco-outcast as an SUV driver? Yes it should, say Robert and Brenda Vale, two architects who specialise in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. In their new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living, they compare the ecological footprints of a menagerie of popular pets with those of various other lifestyle choices - and the critters do not fare well.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html?full=true

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2009, 10:31 PM
They could always offset the lost revenue by passing an increase on imported (and/or domestic) pet products; trick the public into thinking they're getting a tax break but no real change in the amount of money they spend on their pets due to the increase in prices.

Or they will just increase the cigarette tax... :rolleyes:

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2009, 10:36 PM
any tax cut should be supported, as its less money for Obama and his gang.

starve the beast

Any spending cut should be supported.

Obama doesn't need your money. They beat you to the punch with bringing it down from the inside. Get ready for the socialist/fascist state.

revolutionary8
11-02-2009, 10:50 PM
Originally Posted by cindy25:

any tax cut should be supported, as its less money for Obama and his gang.

starve the beast
response:


Any spending cut should be supported.

Obama doesn't need your money. They beat you to the punch with bringing it down from the inside. Get ready for the socialist/fascist state.


This makes no sense to me. Are you saying that tax cuts translate to an increase in spending by the government?

wow, after all this time I thought tax cuts were a good idea, and that tax cuts would put the power of spending back in to the peoples' hands...

It's not hard to do, but I think you've lost me B4L.

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2009, 11:38 PM
This makes no sense to me. Are you saying that tax cuts translate to an increase in spending by the government?

wow, after all this time I thought tax cuts were a good idea, and that tax cuts would put the power of spending back in to the peoples' hands...

It's not hard to do, but I think you've lost me B4L.

I am saying that tax revenue has no bearing on government spending. I certainly would support a uniform across the board tax cut, but I don't believe it would stop a penny of spending, or even stop them from increasing spending. They will continue to spend, and they don't care at all if there is enough revenue. Or any revenue at all for that matter.

This is what deficit spending (and debt) is all about.

If I spend $1,000,000 a year on credit cards, whether my job (revenue) pays $5/hr or $6/hr is essentially irrelevant.

revolutionary8
11-02-2009, 11:43 PM
I am saying that tax revenue has no bearing on government spending. I certainly would support a uniform across the board tax cut, but I don't believe it would stop a penny of spending, or even stop them from increasing spending. They will continue to spend, and they don't care at all if there is enough revenue. Or any revenue at all for that matter.

This is what deficit spending (and debt) is all about.

If I spend $1,000,000 a year on credit cards, whether my job (revenue) pays $5/hr or $6/hr is essentially irrelevant.


This makes no sense to me either.
From what I gather, you are saying that if we cut taxes on THE PEOPLE, then it will have no bearing on "Government" spending.

(you do realize that the GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY don't you?)

The word "uniform"- not my favorite...

You are making no sense, because your argument consists of: "We should just pay taxes, and get no tax cuts, because "the government" will spend it anyway."
(at least that is what I am gathering, but feel free to call me crazy, it won't be the first time :D)

Brian4Liberty
11-03-2009, 12:16 AM
This makes no sense to me either.
From what I gather, you are saying that if we cut taxes on THE PEOPLE, then it will have no bearing on "Government" spending.

(you do realize that the GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY don't you?)

The word "uniform"- not my favorite...

You are making no sense, because your argument consists of: "We should just pay taxes, and get no tax cuts, because "the government" will spend it anyway."
(at least that is what I am gathering, but feel free to call me crazy, it won't be the first time :D)

It is really two separate issues:

- I do not believe we should have a convoluted, loophole filled, special interest benefiting (Goldman Sachs, etc.) tax code that also attempts to do social engineering. And I will not start to support it just because they give a me a little kickback. They can take their corrupt little deductions (bribes) and shove them, imho.

- Tax revenue and government spending are no longer connected, and have not been for a quite a while. Within the last several years, it has become ludicrous. The government creates and borrows money. They now create and borrow the majority of the money they spend. Tax revenue could go to zero, they wouldn't stop.

revolutionary8
11-03-2009, 12:21 AM
It is really two separate issues:

- I do not believe we should have a convoluted, loophole filled, special interest benefiting (Goldman Sachs, etc.) tax code that also attempts to do social engineering. And I will not start to support it just because they give a me a little kickback. They can take their corrupt little deductions (bribes) and shove them, imho.

- Tax revenue and government spending are no longer connected, and have not been for a quite a while. Within the last several years, it has become ludicrous. The government creates and borrows money. They now create and borrow the majority of the money they spend. Tax revenue could go to zero, they wouldn't stop.
I'm not sure where to start, but here goes:
Who do "they" (the Government) borrow it from?

Brian4Liberty
11-03-2009, 12:26 AM
I'm not sure where to start, but here goes:
Who do "they" (the Government) borrow it from?

The Treasury department sells debt obligations to (borrows from) anyone they can (Japan, China, Europeans, US citizens, and now, best of all, the Federal Reserve).

Brian4Liberty
11-03-2009, 12:32 AM
This is a pretty good summary of money creation. A few details (proportions) may be off, but in general it's good:

YouTube - Money As Debt 2006 Part 1 (High Quality) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB5M5nuTD9w)

revolutionary8
11-03-2009, 12:36 AM
The Treasury department sells debt obligations to (borrows from) anyone they can (Japan, China, Europeans, US citizens, and now, best of all, the Federal Reserve).

No, I understand all of that, and have seen Money As Debt.
What I am wondering is how our treasury department sells debt obligations... they got the money to loan from somewhere, right? Where did "they" get it from, and who is "they"?

Brian4Liberty
11-03-2009, 12:43 AM
What I am wondering is how our treasury department sells debt obligations... they got the money to loan from somewhere, right? Where did "they" get it from, and who is "they"?

The Treasury is selling the debt (Bonds, Bills, Notes, etc). That "money" comes from the buyers of the debt.

revolutionary8
11-03-2009, 12:46 AM
The Treasury is selling the debt (Bonds, Bills, Notes, etc). That "money" comes from the buyers of the debt.

Who is buying the debt, and most importantly, why in God's name are they buying "the debt"?

Anti Federalist
11-03-2009, 12:48 AM
Jefferson likes it.

Right now he sez there's only enough money left for logs and snowballs to eat after Uncle Sucker takes his cut.


http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h277/123donnay/IMAG0029.jpg?t=1257230783

Brian4Liberty
11-03-2009, 12:48 AM
Who is buying the debt?

Regular people from around the world. Foreign governments. Corporations. Trusts. Mutual funds, Retirement Funds, etc.


(Japan, China, Europeans, US citizens, and now, best of all, the Federal Reserve)

Brian4Liberty
11-03-2009, 12:51 AM
why in God's name are they buying "the debt"?

The "safe harbor" of US Government IOUs. :rolleyes:

Although when the Federal Reserve buys it, it monetizes the debt.

Brian4Liberty
11-03-2009, 12:52 AM
Jefferson likes it.

Right now he sez there's only enough money left for logs and snowballs to eat after Uncle Sucker takes his cut.


http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h277/123donnay/IMAG0029.jpg?t=1257230783

Dogs are so easy to buy off. :D

revolutionary8
11-03-2009, 12:59 AM
Jefferson likes it.

Right now he sez there's only enough money left for logs and snowballs to eat after Uncle Sucker takes his cut.


http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h277/123donnay/IMAG0029.jpg?t=1257230783


Jefferson RULES.

It is so good to see him again this year, don't tell me that y'all have that much snow on the ground already!

Anti Federalist
11-03-2009, 12:59 AM
Dogs are so easy to buy off. :D

Literally: throw them a bone.;)

revolutionary8
11-03-2009, 01:01 AM
The "safe harbor" of US Government IOUs. :rolleyes:

Although when the Federal Reserve buys it, it monetizes the debt.
It may seem "obvious" to you, but to me, it makes no sense.
I know that there is no "safe harbor"!

Anti Federalist
11-03-2009, 01:03 AM
Jefferson RULES.

It is so good to see him again this year, don't tell me that y'all have that much snow on the ground already!

He likes the recognition, he's sitting by me right now, he says "woof".

No, that's one from last winter, I have some swimming pics of him from this summer that I haven't photobuckted yet.

He honestly looks scraggly and poor when he sheds out all his winter coat so I like the winter pics better.

revolutionary8
11-03-2009, 01:07 AM
He likes the recognition, he's sitting by me right now, he says "woof".

No, that's one from last winter, I have some swimming pics of him from this summer that I haven't photobuckted yet.

He honestly looks scraggly and poor when he sheds out all his winter coat so I like the winter pics better.

Thank you for posting Anti-Fed, Jefferson brings a smile to my face. :D I almost feel like I know him. :)

The winter coat shed is a sight to behold. You might consider knitting a sweater and auctioning it off for Ron Paul People...
hey, that's a good idea, we need a Ron Paulbay.
lol.
seriously though.
why not create a forum that has links to products Ron Paul people are selling?

Brian4Liberty
11-03-2009, 01:09 AM
It may seem "obvious" to you, but to me, it makes no sense.
I know that there is no "safe harbor"!

Rude? You mean the :rolleyes:? That was aimed at the fact that it really is ridiculous that people are buying the US debt. :D They (the usual buyers) did kind of stop buying on some recent Treasury auctions, but the Federal Reserve stepped in and bought it instead.

Anti Federalist
11-03-2009, 01:14 AM
Thank you for posting Anti-Fed, Jefferson brings a smile to my face. :D I almost feel like I know him. :)

The winter coat shed is a sight to behold. You might consider knitting a sweater and auctioning it off for Ron Paul People...
hey, that's a good idea, we need a Ron Paulbay.
lol.
seriously though.

You're welcome.

You know, I actually did consider knitting it. :rolleyes:

My god, I could have stuffed pillows with it.

Outdoor, winter in northern New England, Newfie dogs, shed, a lot, come spring.:eek::eek::eek:

revolutionary8
11-03-2009, 01:21 AM
Rude? You mean the :rolleyes:? That was aimed at the fact that it really is ridiculous that people are buying the US debt. :D They (the usual buyers) did kind of stop buying on some recent Treasury auctions, but the Federal Reserve stepped in and bought it instead.


I am still not sure I understand..
pease forgive me,


Are you saying that Federal Reserve is spending OUR MONEY better than "WE" are? "WE" being the taxpayers?

Peter Schiff: “If a kindergarten teacher passes out a bunch of soda pop and pixie sticks, and then leaves the classroom, who’s to blame for the mess that happens?”

revolutionary8
11-03-2009, 01:25 AM
You're welcome.

You know, I actually did consider knitting it. :rolleyes:

My god, I could have stuffed pillows with it.

Outdoor, winter in northern New England, Newfie dogs, shed, a lot, come spring.:eek::eek::eek:

You really should consider using Jeffy's coat as stuffing. :D

We also need a RONPAULDAWGS.com.
:D
Jefferson should be moderator. :D