Snowmobilers For McCain/Palin...

[HardcoreAK]

Oh, Oh, heres one

See, you were going so good there, then go go and spout the "lesser of two evils." All I want to hear is someone genuenly saying, I support McCain because...(I make $400,000 a year and don't want Obama taking another cent) or something like that.

To quote you "I support John McCain because....."
He supports government reform, such as taking measures to reduce the power of special interest groups who lobby our politicians with gifts.
Proof:
Bill Sponsored by John McCain:
Government Reform:
05-S2128 on Dec 16, 2005:
Restrict lobbyist gifts & disclose lobbyist info on Internet
21 republicans, 2 dems active

I gave you one reason, like you asked for in a previous post. Does this mean the "thread" is over? No pun intended.

 

[Freak]

We obviously have philisophical differences too. But the thing is, how come you believe in killing innocent Iraqis, but are so against an unborn child at the expense of a woman's right?How come you guys oppose war yet are fine with killing an unborn child? Saddam killed 500,000 people, the Iraq war has killed what? a couple thousand? Stop being so SHORT sighted! Freedom saves lives in the long run! We now have 2 Democracy's in the most dangerous part of the world, the part of the world that will most likely bring on Armageddon if we don't do something. How many lives will be lost if Iran brings us into a Nuclear WW3? You must look to the horizon and stop looking at the ground my liberal friend. We must continue to help those people achieve freedom, its worth fighting for. Afghanistan is next.

And the social security comment, might want to retract your statement. That will bring in MORE revenue, it is not increasing benefits, just paying for the ones that are currently due.Admittedly Im not well educated about the soc sec issue, Ill study it and get back to you

Can anyone on here tell me that Clinton cut taxes? And can anyone on here tell me that we had less jobs when Clinton's presidency ended than when he began? Now tell me how raising taxes will eliminate jobs?If I could tell Yosemite Mccain what to do pertaining to taxes it would be this. First and Foremost I whole heartily support the fair tax with a near elimination of corporate tax, since that will never happen what I would propose is to cut taxes on the rich and the corporations and raise taxes on everyone who is currently not paying any. NO ONE, and I mean No one should pay zero. Everyone according to his means. Its the principle of it. and if the lower and middle class just paid a little it would make a gigantic dif in tax revenue. Revenue that would come back to who? Thats right, the lower and middle class to pay for these programs and pay off our national debt. With a cut to the rich and corporates wages would go up and cover the taxes they would be paying. If someone makes 50k a year isnt it rediculous that they pay nothing while a person(like a Dr) who makes 300k a year is paying like 35% ? That my friend is the epitome of unfair. Even the Mcdonalds worker making 10k a year should pay something.

Are you people really that blind with Ronald Reagan staring at you in the face? Remember, he raised taxes too.

And it is snow shoes, not cross country skis. See, it is better to cross country ski AFTER a groomer has gone through, and you know that uses gas. Snow shoes just go out in the middle of the deep snow. Nah, that is too much work, let's just use a helicopter to participate in some arial wolf hunting.

justadude, bam failure....

 

[HardcoreAK]

Baffled by the BS

Has anyone noticed that land use issues have nothing to do with the president? Yes, it is true that Democrats are more likely to close land to riding, but it is not our elected officials (more specifically the president) to cause this. It is clubs like the Sierra Club that push money to the Congressmen (both Democrats and Republicans) to get them to create a bill to close land.

This is just like the last election, they majority of the people I know are voting Republican, and 90% of them say they don't like the candidate, but they are the lesser of two evils. Now, the few people I know that are voting for Obama, all of them tell me they like him and can tell me exactly why they are voting for him.

They close land because they "believe the hype" and want to satisfy the special interest to ensure more campaign funding and votes for the next move.
The people who are voting for Obama, believe all of the pipedreams that he spews all over the national media and they believe that freedom should be handed to them along with the shirt off the back of someone who has more advantages in society than they do. RE: Bleeding heart liberal. For the same reasons those smooth talker type guys get more chicks to take their clothes off..... they have you all caught up in their daydreams and aspirations.
Clinton wasnt called "slick willie" for nothin, it was because he was a master of deception. There were women on national TV that proclaimed to be voting for him because he was educated and good looking. WOW.
Obama is well educated, articulate, and intelligent, thats for sure. But he is also an expert at public speaking, outright deception and manipulation.

Hes a wolf in sheeps clothing. He doesnt give a dam about Joe Plumber, he thinks Joe Plumber should be in a chain gang cracking rocks in a quarry, where he would like to see the rest of us strange confused people "who are clinging to our guns and religion"

 

[HardcoreAK]

2001400EX Floppin like a PINK salmon

You hate snowshoes:
I am saying it is mostly due to the Sierra Club and Subaru driving idiots that want to snowshoe (who the funk does that) and walk everywhere buying Congress. The President has little control. see footnote

Freak says: You may want to look into some cross country skis to play on all your new snow with


NOW You love snowshoes:
And it is snow shoes, not cross country skis. See, it is better to cross country ski AFTER a groomer has gone through, and you know that uses gas. Snow shoes just go out in the middle of the deep snow.

Footnote: You say:
The President has little control

But later you go on to say:
1) Let's see, after 10 years of Reagan, you get a banking crisis and a recession.
Random irrational thought:Were you even alive during the Reagan administration? He has been regarded as one of the greatest presidents during modern times, but you speak as if you know what you were told about him, which I suspect came straight from a college professor.....?
Refresher:
The President has little control
Then you say: After 7 years of Bush, you get a banking crisis and a recession.
And you say: Okay, Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and we had the longest period of expansion in history. That must mean that is a horrible policy.

I would love to see some relevent data regarding the Clinton tax increase and the longest period of expansion in history you talk about.
I would believe it came from the 12 years of conservative white house control that Slick Willie fell in behind.

You are a CPA, right?
Now tell me how raising taxes will eliminate jobs?
History has answered that question many times.

I cant blame you for being the way you are, but your views are that of a typical noob who shows up to a job spouting all kinds of crap about how to do the work and everybody on the crew is thinking WTF? And when it comes time to get your hands dirty you are nowhere around, when if you were actually there you would see that your ideas were just kooky ideas, not proven methods that work.

I believe that once Obama takes office within a short period of time you (along with millions of other sadly misled american sheeple) will wish you hadn't made that mistake. Just like every single Clinton supporter I know.
(now embarrassed and regretful)
So then you will have flopped again.

 

[2001400ex]

Actually your statement of illiterate is a statement back to you. Read your own statement, you mention "150 Million Americans not as fortunate", so what are you implicating? It's pretty obvious you are not a good CPA because you sure would not be complaining about the cost of your Health Insurance. You must have a cell phone? Then cancel your cell phone coverage, sell the crap you have listed under your Snowest signature, if you are going to complain. And yes Obama's health-care will have implications to the American people, that will force the system to a Canadian type of system. Maybe you should go back and study Health Care economics! Glad you are not my CPA!!!!

You gotta bear with me, it is like 6 to 1. And I gotta catch an airplane.

I am implicating that my 29% increase in health care only amounted to $60 a month or something like that and that is irritating, but not going to change my life. Now to that person that has a family to cover, that can be $150 or $200 a month increase without a pay raise. I am fortunate, that person is not. There are a lot more of them people than me, and we need to fix that.

And reference to my CPA, I do quite well, thanks for asking though.

 

[2001400ex]

You are right on the money FREAK, and good luck getting an offer on those toys, because they will probably just get confiscated anyway because they polute the evironment and destroy the fragile ecosystem and precious habitat for little protozoas and whatever...

Thanks for your elaborate discussion about liberalism - socialism - communism. I have studied a bit of history, and I agree those are the three main stages in the progression of a socio-economic meltdown of any "free" society.
1) Liberals come to power - and basically kick one of the legs out from under the table
2) They abolish conservative foundations and initiate socialist policy - trying to correct their oblivious mistake of kicking the leg...(the RICH get REALLY rich during this one...far more than under ANY conservative agenda)
3) The death spiral begins and the citizens either bail out the government, overthrow it or if they have no weapons they fall prey to the resulting communist agenda.

Bottom Line: We have to stay in the middle of the road, or we will lose what we have. Be it to the left, or to the right. Either extreme spells trouble. Do we need radical change? Obama wants to make radical changes and will use unproven tactics and has "daydreamy" goals. Some of them are appealling in many aspects, yet totally unrealistic. McCain wants to make educated conservative changes, some little, some big, using proven tactics and strategies that have worked in the past. McCain has the experience to execute them or at least find the best person for the job. In some areas radical change......probably wouldnt hurt, but why is Obamas approach from the school that everything is broken (even our flag???? whats wrong with it?)

But IMHO to think we should make HUGE changes to our country overnight is a huge mistake that will undoubtedly result in a clusterf*ck of gothic proportions.

Put this in sledhead terms:
Its a warm day, your sled is pig rich and bogged down and fouled out, so you plan to make an educated guess that if you change one main jet it wont be enough, so you go two sizes (given the experiences you have accumulated in years of riding sleds, and even possibly studying the jet table from the OEM)
But your BUDDY says this magazine said that the OEM is way off, regardless your sled is plenty fine with ten sizes leaner jets. You have the jets, what do you do? Go for the "pipedream" ride and chance the meltdown, or be happy with a couple jets down? Who has the SMART approach to finding the solution?

Many people will all differ in opinion here. Theres a lot of what ifs. Thats why its a forum. For the sharing of views and knowledge, and the enlightenment and personal fullfillment of learning new information, and chance to see others perspectives.

Obama is not promising huge changes overnight. And is Canada a communist? No, and they have been ran by liberals for a long time (and stop with the Canada loving comments). Your 3 step progressive above, yeah, show me the support on that.

 

[2001400ex]

To quote you "I support John McCain because....."
He supports government reform, such as taking measures to reduce the power of special interest groups who lobby our politicians with gifts.
Proof:
Bill Sponsored by John McCain:
Government Reform:
05-S2128 on Dec 16, 2005:
Restrict lobbyist gifts & disclose lobbyist info on Internet
21 republicans, 2 dems active

I gave you one reason, like you asked for in a previous post. Does this mean the "thread" is over? No pun intended.

And McCain takes no money from special interests? puhlease.

 

[2001400ex]

justadude, bam failure....

Hussien was convicted of killing 120 people. More people did in Iraq the day he was hanged than he was convicted of killing. Look it up, that is fact. He has supposedly killed between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqies by gassing them in 1998. Look that up too (I don't have time). Show me where he has killed 500,000.

And we have easily killed over 500,000 Iraqis since we have been there, not a "few thousand." Look that up too. There is no solid number, but most estimates are over 500,000.

 

[2001400ex]

They close land because they "believe the hype" and want to satisfy the special interest to ensure more campaign funding and votes for the next move.
The people who are voting for Obama, believe all of the pipedreams that he spews all over the national media and they believe that freedom should be handed to them along with the shirt off the back of someone who has more advantages in society than they do. RE: Bleeding heart liberal. For the same reasons those smooth talker type guys get more chicks to take their clothes off..... they have you all caught up in their daydreams and aspirations.
Clinton wasnt called "slick willie" for nothin, it was because he was a master of deception. There were women on national TV that proclaimed to be voting for him because he was educated and good looking. WOW.
Obama is well educated, articulate, and intelligent, thats for sure. But he is also an expert at public speaking, outright deception and manipulation.

Hes a wolf in sheeps clothing. He doesnt give a dam about Joe Plumber, he thinks Joe Plumber should be in a chain gang cracking rocks in a quarry, where he would like to see the rest of us strange confused people "who are clinging to our guns and religion"

Sounds like fear tactics. I am waiting for the "Obama is the anti-christ" comment to drop.

 

[2001400ex]

My comments are in red.

You hate snowshoes:
I am saying it is mostly due to the Sierra Club and Subaru driving idiots that want to snowshoe (who the funk does that) and walk everywhere buying Congress. The President has little control. see footnote

Freak says: You may want to look into some cross country skis to play on all your new snow with


NOW You love snowshoes: That was my use of sarcasm. Why did you leave out the arial wolf hunting comment?
And it is snow shoes, not cross country skis. See, it is better to cross country ski AFTER a groomer has gone through, and you know that uses gas. Snow shoes just go out in the middle of the deep snow.

Footnote: You say:
The President has little control

But later you go on to say:
1) Let's see, after 10 years of Reagan, you get a banking crisis and a recession.
Random irrational thought:Were you even alive during the Reagan administration? He has been regarded as one of the greatest presidents during modern times, but you speak as if you know what you were told about him, which I suspect came straight from a college professor.....?
Refresher:
The President has little control
Then you say: After 7 years of Bush, you get a banking crisis and a recession.
And you say: Okay, Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and we had the longest period of expansion in history. That must mean that is a horrible policy.

The president has little control over land issues, he has to cram it down Congress's throat if he wants a change. He basically sets tax policy and does not have to cram anything. Thanks for taking bits and pieces of what I say to turn it on me. Good try.

I would love to see some relevent data regarding the Clinton tax increase and the longest period of expansion in history you talk about.
I would believe it came from the 12 years of conservative white house control that Slick Willie fell in behind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton It is in the second paragrah, with two references.

You are a CPA, right?
Now tell me how raising taxes will eliminate jobs?
History has answered that question many times. I hear this, but not one person has shown me evidence. So SHOW ME.

I cant blame you for being the way you are, but your views are that of a typical noob who shows up to a job spouting all kinds of crap about how to do the work and everybody on the crew is thinking WTF? And when it comes time to get your hands dirty you are nowhere around, when if you were actually there you would see that your ideas were just kooky ideas, not proven methods that work.

I believe that once Obama takes office within a short period of time you (along with millions of other sadly misled american sheeple) will wish you hadn't made that mistake. Just like every single Clinton supporter I know.
(now embarrassed and regretful)
So then you will have flopped again.

And I am a noob. LOL Okay, keep thinking that.

 

[HardcoreAK]

2001400EX Floppin like a PINK salmon

2001400EX I just wanted to give you a bit of what "your buddies" in the liberally funded media do to our side. Its just a spin, and its effective in slanting a perspective, while they claim to be uncovering the truth.

You say: For medical care, we need some Canadians to drop in here, but the couple I have talked to have no problems with their system.

I say: I have family from Canada. Their health care SUCKS. My aunt worked in a Dr.'s office in Calgary for thirty years. She can have her hips replaced for free in Calgary, YET SHE PAYS OUT OF HER OWN POCKET TO HAVE THEM DONE IN THE US, TWICE. She is living on a fixed income. You have talked to two people from Canada, about health care.....

You respond: And at NO point have I advocated anything about Canada

What does Aerial Wolf hunting have to do with anything in this forum? If you had any idea what the reasoning was behind it, you wouldnt even bring it up. More Ammo to prove that the 48 has NO business telling Alaska how to manage the state.

As far as the Pres not having any control over land issues, you are dead wrong. The Pres says "if you want me to sign this bill, you have to agree to create this such and such wilderness area, and tack it on there. Otherwise its never gonna cross my desk" Call it crammin down their throat if you want, I think its more "I'll do you if you will do me."

Far as the anti christ stuff goes, that would be reserved for the people who are believers that the book of revelation is yet to unfold...

 

[JSCC]

We obviously have our philisophical differences, but yours are just for you, mine are for the greater good of the country. Like health care, you don't care because obviously your employer pays yours. Well mine does to, so to me personally, it does not matter. But what about those 150 million people that are not as fortunate.

But the real reason I want to comment, I want to hear how Bush's tax plan has been more successful than Clinton's. Honestly, I can show you how it is not. I want to see your reason for believing that.

I got the popcorn in the microwave, waiting for the response.

First, I am the employer, and no, I dont have coverage on myself.
Those 150 million you speak of can get off there butts and get to work. I dont believe in handing someone something they didnt earn.

You mention Clinton's tax plan as good. But fail to include why. His tax plan had little to do with a booming economy, based on the dot.com era. He also paid for all his programs with military cuts. So all his nice tax increase did was create a surplus.......hmm. Did it really help anything?
As for Bush's, he did not cut military spending, did not have a false economy boom with the dot.com, so now he actually had to show people how to make a true economy work. Tax cuts got people spending there money. People had more in the pocket to do more with, so they spent even more.
Then along come a war, there was no money in the budget for it, so hence our deficit.
Things went along good, then people got greedy. I believe that has led us to where we are now. Time to cut the fat off the top. These ***ger's just need to stop bailing them all out, and let the system work!

 

[2001400ex]

2001400EX I just wanted to give you a bit of what "your buddies" in the liberally funded media do to our side. Its just a spin, and its effective in slanting a perspective, while they claim to be uncovering the truth.

You say: For medical care, we need some Canadians to drop in here, but the couple I have talked to have no problems with their system.

I say: I have family from Canada. Their health care SUCKS. My aunt worked in a Dr.'s office in Calgary for thirty years. She can have her hips replaced for free in Calgary, YET SHE PAYS OUT OF HER OWN POCKET TO HAVE THEM DONE IN THE US, TWICE. She is living on a fixed income. You have talked to two people from Canada, about health care.....

You respond: And at NO point have I advocated anything about Canada

What does Aerial Wolf hunting have to do with anything in this forum? If you had any idea what the reasoning was behind it, you wouldnt even bring it up. More Ammo to prove that the 48 has NO business telling Alaska how to manage the state.

As far as the Pres not having any control over land issues, you are dead wrong. The Pres says "if you want me to sign this bill, you have to agree to create this such and such wilderness area, and tack it on there. Otherwise its never gonna cross my desk" Call it crammin down their throat if you want, I think its more "I'll do you if you will do me."

Great, so your family thinks it sucks. I think health care in America sucks and I know several people that have gone to Canada or Mexico for health care, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT RAPE THEIR PATIENTS! Point is, there are people that like their system and people that don't. There are people that like our system and people that don't. There has got to be a happy medium.

Aerial hunting has been discontinued in the former Soviet Union due to budget restraints.[1] Wolf hunting is still practised in the U.S state of Alaska, though it is illegal to shoot wolves from the aircraft. Instead, the wolf is pursued to the point of exhuastion, and shot from the ground.[62]“Congress passed the Federal Airborne Hunting Act of 1972[63], which made it illegal for hunters to shoot animals from a plane or helicopter. The federal legislation does have a [provision] for predator control, permitting state employees or licensed individuals to shoot from an aircraft for the sake of protecting "land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops."[64]

So, who was president in 1972? Please remind me. Either way, you can justify wolf hunting however you like, but this does not sound like a sport and I cannot believe someone would pay the cost of a helicopter just to protect some land in the middle of Alaska.

Thanks for agreeing with me on cramming it down their throat.

 

[2001400ex]

First, I am the employer, and no, I dont have coverage on myself.
Those 150 million you speak of can get off there butts and get to work. I dont believe in handing someone something they didnt earn.

You mention Clinton's tax plan as good. But fail to include why. His tax plan had little to do with a booming economy, based on the dot.com era. He also paid for all his programs with military cuts. So all his nice tax increase did was create a surplus.......hmm. Did it really help anything?
As for Bush's, he did not cut military spending, did not have a false economy boom with the dot.com, so now he actually had to show people how to make a true economy work. Tax cuts got people spending there money. People had more in the pocket to do more with, so they spent even more.
Then along come a war, there was no money in the budget for it, so hence our deficit.
Things went along good, then people got greedy. I believe that has led us to where we are now. Time to cut the fat off the top. These ***ger's just need to stop bailing them all out, and let the system work!

You are right, Bush did not have a false economy on dot coms, there were just first profitable under his tenure. And his false economy was the explosion in real estate and people using their homes as ATMs.

And while we are on taxes, all Obama wants to do is retore Clinton's tax structure, which worked quite well for us. And remember, McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, and now he is running his campaign on tax cuts. I don't have time to look for the quote, but I will find it when I get to Minneapolis.

 

[RX1MountainMan]

Nice copy and paste. How is believing an e-mail better than watching the news? I have deleted some stuff below, but see the comments next to the important stuff.

How could any native Montanan vote for a turd like OsamaObama...where the he!! are you from man?

 

[JSCC]

You are right, Bush did not have a false economy on dot coms, there were just first profitable under his tenure. And his false economy was the explosion in real estate and people using their homes as ATMs.

And while we are on taxes, all Obama wants to do is retore Clinton's tax structure, which worked quite well for us. And remember, McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, and now he is running his campaign on tax cuts. I don't have time to look for the quote, but I will find it when I get to Minneapolis.

Fair enough.

 

[the_machinist]

How could any native Montanan vote for a turd like OsamaObama...where the he!! are you from man?

Berkley, CA

Being employee of someone, do you think his/her boss knows how much time is spent on the internet trying to convince people to vote for Obama?

 

[Freak]

You gotta bear with me, it is like 6 to 1. And I gotta catch an airplane.

Hey anyone know that saying that says when you think everyone else is doing something wrong its probably you who are wrong..... LOL ..... you just burned yourself libby ...... ahahahahaha I know I know thank you thank you Ill be here all week try the veal....

 

[2001400ex]

Berkley, CA

Being employee of someone, do you think his/her boss knows how much time is spent on the internet trying to convince people to vote for Obama?

LOL, no californication here. And I am not from Harlow either. I am a transplant, that is correct and I have lived in the great state of MT for 10 years. Not that is matters, but I am from Port Orchard, WA, about a half hour from Tacoma.

And that is correct, there are not a ton of people I know that are Democratic, just the nature of politics in MT. There are a few accountants I know that agree with me though, I would say in our firm, the older people are typically convservative and the younger accountants are typically democratic. I am in the middle on age. (And no comments about me growing into being a Republican! LOL). I did meet a kid from Utah once though that told me "you know, you just need to convert over to being a Republican, that would solve all your problems."

 

[2001400ex]

Here are some McCain quotes, I like this one the best. Remember, this is just 2003.

MCCAIN: “Shouldn’t we give relief to average citizens who also are double taxed every single day?”

HOST KATIE COURIC: “But, Sen. McCain, if you listen to Commerce Secretary Don Evans, and he just appeared on this program, working Americans, the middle-class Americans, under the Bush proposals will get a major break. A family of four making $39,000 a year, according to Mr. Evans, will get a $1,100 tax cut for several years, allowing them to plan their individual budgets. That sounds like something that won’t just simply benefit the wealthy.”

MCCAIN: “Well, I think it will. But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that—as the previous tax cuts—that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans. … A lot of Americans now are paying a very large a—low and middle-income Americans are paying a significantly larger amount of their income in taxes. I’d like to see them get the bulk of the relief.”

—NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003.

“I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big—it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans—and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. … Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don’t believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. …
“I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”

—Discussion with media, reported in “Bush, McCain Snip Over
Tax Cut Plans,” Los Angeles Times, and “GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,”
Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.

7. “Mr. President, the principle that guides my judgment of a tax reconciliation bill is tax relief for those who need it the most—lower- and middle-income working families. I am in favor of a tax cut, but a responsible one that provides significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income families. And I commend Sen. Grassley for moving in that direction. But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. The more fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.

“I had expressed hope that when the reconciliation bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined would provide more tax relief to working, middle-income Americans. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”

—Senate floor statement during debate over President Bush’s tax relief package, May 21, 2001.

Here is the website of the top 10:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24421

Someone earlier mentioned a doctor making $300,000 paying 35%. Okay, let us put this in perspective. Whether married or single, you do not get into the 35% tax bracket (was 39.6% under Clinton) until your TAXABLE INCOME is greater than $349,700. I do know one person with income over $1,000,000 that does not have taxable income over $349,000. And one thing I heard, on Fox News of all places, is that 40% of people with incomes that high do not pay ANY tax due to foreign loopholes and other loopholes.

So, it will not hurt anyone with income over $400,000 having to pay an additional 4.6% of thier income over $349,700 to the government.