" Since your definition of "protecting" is "not criticizing at every turn, even when you have the facts wrong," your question is meaningless. "

 

So was the majority of the Bush bashing that I had to put up. Matter of fact I still am subjected to is on a constant basis. My definition is what is good for the goose is also good and should be done to the new goose.

 

Look no further then the lack of wanting fiscal responsibility from Obama when it was demanded from Bush and the lack of links to the debt clocks. Add to that Obama's spending was blamed on Bush and it was said needed just because Liberals said so.

 

Only when you step up to the plate and demand the same from Obama as you did from Bush it becomes meaningless until then it's s very meaningful, the truth and the facts.

" Then explain the difference .. "

 

The main difference is your like me, you are wrong, you are  always wrong you can never be right.

 

:-)

" A loophole is an vagueness in a system "

 

It's only something a lawyer has thrown into a law they wrote that you and I can't figure out but the people that wrote and passed them know.

 

Look no further the Obamacare, 2,700 pages of legalese. Don't believe anyone that tells you they know what is it they are not being truthful with you.

 

:-(

" Not sure how I made it so far in my life being ad stupid as I am . "

 

Me niether but I'm glad Obama, just like Bush, now has a record we can all refer to or shy away from.

 

:-)

You do understand the difference between a deduction and the tax rate you pay, right?

 

When one uses a loophole, it decreases their AGI-which, in turn, places them in a lower tax bracket.

I didn't know the office of the president had a 401k plan with it, or Senate for that matter. What are you talking about?

When one uses a loophole, it decreases their AGI-which, in turn, places them in a lower tax bracket.

 

Seriously. Deductions aren't loopholes. It is the governments way of trying to incentives certain purchases or behaviors. It could also be done using tax credits, which is arguably fairer given that the amount you can claim isn't tied to your income bracket. Everyone would get the same amount of credit, as opposed to now where you have H(35% tax bracket) and L(15% tax bracket) both donate $100. H deducts $35 and L only $15 even though the gave the same amount of money.

Thanks for tickling my funny bone. I need that!

It's convenient?

Seriously. Deductions aren't loopholes.
--------------------
Exactly

 

Not necessarily true.  ANYONE can claim charitible donations upto a certain degree, whether they donated or not.  No proof required. 

 

Sure, there are deductions, but within those deductions are loopholes in which some may use.  If one has a terrific accountant, said accountant will ensure all deductions (including any loopholes they can find) are used (many of which the common person does not know about).

 

Regardless, when deductions are used in filing, it then changes one's actual income to AGI.  The AGI is what bases the percentage of how much one pays in taxes.