Corporations and everyone paying as much tax as Warren Buffett's Secretary.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

You know, Warren Buffet is right we need to make his secretary pay equal
tax rates as Warren..... Make every person pay a flat 15% tax rate,
NO deductions and NO government special treatment. No redistribution
and no free ride.


I think making Warren Buffets corporations pay 15% flat rate with ZERO
write-offs and ZERO deductions and zero government help. Would be
making corporate taxes the same as what his Secretary pays.


Will Warren Buffet be willing to pay his share then or will he also sue
the IRS and fight paying his taxes? Make it unconstitutional for
Congress to make any payment other than for services and products to any
business or person that is supplied. NO MORE STIMULUS or Government
Corporate welfare and subsidies.











--
A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but when
either of them take control, they become self destructive.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

You know, Warren Buffet is right we need to make his secretary pay equal
tax rates as Warren..... Make every person pay a flat 15% tax rate,
NO deductions and NO government special treatment. No redistribution
and no free ride.


I think making Warren Buffets corporations pay 15% flat rate with ZERO
write-offs and ZERO deductions and zero government help. Would be
making corporate taxes the same as what his Secretary pays.


Will Warren Buffet be willing to pay his share then or will he also sue
the IRS and fight paying his taxes? Make it unconstitutional for
Congress to make any payment other than for services and products to any
business or person that is supplied.

NO MORE STIMULUS or Government Corporate welfare and subsidies.

And NO more Welfare for secretaries. Lets make it all equal.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Dec 7, 12:55 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> You know, Warren Buffet is right we need to make his secretary pay equal
> tax rates as Warren.....     Make every person pay a flat 15% tax rate,
> NO deductions and NO government special treatment.  No redistribution
> and no free ride.
>
> I think making Warren Buffets corporations pay 15% flat rate with ZERO
> write-offs and ZERO deductions and zero government help.  Would be
> making corporate taxes the same as what his Secretary pays.

But most of the flat and "fair" tax plans do not tax dividends and
interest and capital gains.

>
> Will Warren Buffet be willing to pay his share then or will he also sue
> the IRS and fight paying his taxes? Make it unconstitutional for
> Congress to make any payment other than for services and products to any
> business or person that is supplied.   NO MORE STIMULUS or Government
> Corporate welfare and subsidies.

How about military boondoggles? Jets we don't need, submarines we
don't need. Thees amount to corporate welfare. What about wars we
had business fighting? Agriculture subsidies?

>
> --
> A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but when
> either of them take control, they become self destructive.

In 2006 roughly 25% of those with adjusted gross incomes over $1
million paid a smaller portion of their income in federal taxes --
income, payroll and corporate -- than 10% of those with AGIs below
$100,000, according to a recent study from the Congressional Research
Service.

Last year, 4,000 households with incomes over a million dollars owed
no federal income tax whatsoever, according to Tax Policy Center
estimates.

What's more, of the top 400 federal tax returns with the highest
adjusted gross incomes in 2008, 30 had an effective tax rate of less
than 10%, noted Mark Luscombe, the principal federal tax analyst at
CCH.

Is that fair?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/7/2011 4:25 PM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 7, 12:55 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> You know, Warren Buffet is right we need to make his secretary pay equal
>> tax rates as Warren..... Make every person pay a flat 15% tax rate,
>> NO deductions and NO government special treatment. No redistribution
>> and no free ride.
>>
>> I think making Warren Buffets corporations pay 15% flat rate with ZERO
>> write-offs and ZERO deductions and zero government help. Would be
>> making corporate taxes the same as what his Secretary pays.
>
> But most of the flat and "fair" tax plans do not tax dividends and
> interest and capital gains.
>
>
>>
>> Will Warren Buffet be willing to pay his share then or will he also sue
>> the IRS and fight paying his taxes? Make it unconstitutional for
>> Congress to make any payment other than for services and products to any
>> business or person that is supplied. NO MORE STIMULUS or Government
>> Corporate welfare and subsidies.
>
> How about military boondoggles? Jets we don't need, submarines we
> don't need. Thees amount to corporate welfare. What about wars we
> had business fighting? Agriculture subsidies?
>
>

I put subsidies above, perhaps you missed it but, cancel all that kind
of government assistance.

>
> In 2006 roughly 25% of those with adjusted gross incomes over $1
> million paid a smaller portion of their income in federal taxes --
> income, payroll and corporate -- than 10% of those with AGIs below
> $100,000, according to a recent study from the Congressional Research
> Service.

See... as I said get rid of the write-offs and incentives... make it FLAT.

>
> Last year, 4,000 households with incomes over a million dollars owed
> no federal income tax whatsoever, according to Tax Policy Center
> estimates.

As I said make it fair and flat and they would have paid 15% of their
million dollar income.

> What's more, of the top 400 federal tax returns with the highest
> adjusted gross incomes in 2008, 30 had an effective tax rate of less
> than 10%, noted Mark Luscombe, the principal federal tax analyst at
> CCH.
>
> Is that fair?

It would make it fair if it was a 15% FLAT rate. And even the poor
paying 15% would feel pride that they are part of the system,
considering that it might only be a few thousand dollars rather than
millions and Billions.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Dec 7, 7:54 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

For the poor, 15% might be the difference between eating and going
hungry. For a billionaire, the difference between that vacation in
Monaco or Miami. How is that fair?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It is called incentive..... a reason to work.


And it is NOT a question of eating or starving, it is a question of OVER
eating and being FAT and eating less and being less FAT. They can eat
for free at any community kitchen and or food banks.

15% will NOT starve the poor, but it will give them some pride in their
Nation that THEY are helping to build. Obama says it all the time,
everyone needs some skin in the game.

And if 15% is going to starve people, why do you tax them at 38% - 94%
when Democrat Socialists are in charge of the Government. You tax their
gas and beer and cigarettes and add new taxes on the poor all the time.
Why do you hateful Democrats do that to poor starving children?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Dec 8, 1:06 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

Very unChristian of you. "I got mine; to hell with everybody else."
Jesus said that where?

>
> 15% will NOT starve the poor, but it will give them some pride in their
> Nation that THEY are helping to build.   Obama says it all the time,
> everyone needs some skin in the game.

Working poor already pay sales tax and payroll tax. With their rent,
they pay property tax. In a lot of states, they pay tax on their car
when they register it.

>
> And if 15% is going to starve people, why do you tax them at 38% - 94%
> when Democrat Socialists are in charge of the Government.

Nobody pays that, not even the billionaires. But they paid 39% under
Clinton, and guess what? The economy was booming.

> You tax their
> gas and beer and cigarettes and add new taxes on the poor all the time.
> Why do you hateful Democrats do that to poor starving children?

I forgot -- who makes people buy beer and cigarettes?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Dunno, and I don't care, I'm NOT Christian....

I do eat and I can relate to eating, I do help people eat.

>> 15% will NOT starve the poor, but it will give them some pride in their
>> Nation that THEY are helping to build. Obama says it all the time,
>> everyone needs some skin in the game.
>
> Working poor already pay sales tax and payroll tax. With their rent,
> they pay property tax. In a lot of states, they pay tax on their car
> when they register it.

I mentioned that you already raise their taxes.... and you starve those
poor children.

To hear you admit it means nothing, I knew you taxed food from
children's mouths long before you admitted it.

>> And if 15% is going to starve people, why do you tax them at 38% - 94%
>> when Democrat Socialists are in charge of the Government.
>
> Nobody pays that, not even the billionaires. But they paid 39% under
> Clinton, and guess what? The economy was booming.

Until 1999 and they spent the total of the *PEACE DIVIDEND*

Then the bubble burst.

>> You tax their
>> gas and beer and cigarettes and add new taxes on the poor all the time.
>> Why do you hateful Democrats do that to poor starving children?
>
> I forgot -- who makes people buy beer and cigarettes?

The point being the parents don't have that money to buy food for
children do they, and *you raised those taxes* didn't you... so why
aren't you feeding the children with what you taxed from those poor
parents with starving children????????????????

You wasted on government growth and bailing out UNIONS and sending it to
Brazil to drill oil?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 8, 4:20 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:" Dunno, and I

don't care, I'm NOT Christian...."

you are a talking dog, a mascot for the right wing extreme lobby
nothing more.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

NOT even....

I don't like anyone imposing their lifestyle on me.

What RIGHT WING lobby wants.... open borders, NO income tax, a new item
sales tax and more States to make drugs and Prostitution legal?

People should do as they please and enjoy life up to and including what
ever they can accomplish through their own hard work.

And... I don't want to stone gays to death either.


Plus I am more.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 8, 7:27 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

right wingers like ron paul, you are a cheerleader for the extreme
right wing wrapping yourself in a fake cloak of freedom and
independence.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/8/2011 10:39 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Dec 8, 7:27 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 12/8/2011 8:25 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 8, 4:20 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:" Dunno, and I
>>> don't care, I'm NOT Christian...."
>>
>>> you are a talking dog, a mascot for the right wing extreme lobby
>>> nothing more.
>>
>> NOT even....
>>
>> I don't like anyone imposing their lifestyle on me.
>>
>> What RIGHT WING lobby wants.... open borders, NO income tax, a new item
>> sales tax and more States to make drugs and Prostitution legal?
>>
>> People should do as they please and enjoy life up to and including what
>> ever they can accomplish through their own hard work.
>>
>> And... I don't want to stone gays to death either.
>>
>> Plus I am more.

> right wingers like ron paul, you are a cheerleader for the extreme
> right wing wrapping yourself in a fake cloak of freedom and
> independence.

WEEELLLLLLLL..... Yeah, that's what I said. Do you repeat everything
I say?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 8, 7:49 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

you are nothing, kind of like gingrich, you would like to think you
have a real purpose, but in the end you are only a cheerleader.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> you are nothing, kind of like gingrich, you would like to think you
> have a real purpose, but in the end you are only a cheerleader.

Give me an "A" give me an "S" give me an "S"

What's that spell;


*columbiaaccidentinvestigation*


YES.... What's that spell.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 8, 8:24 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

na, you dont deserve anything, and you have not earned it, so you lose.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 8, 8:24 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5a79bfb7fd8ce74b

laughing, wow i suspect gingrich will break/melt down in the same
manner you did above, when he is confronted with his own idiocy.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Dec 8, 7:20 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

The budget had a surplus then.

>
> Then the bubble burst.
>
> >>  You tax their
> >> gas and beer and cigarettes and add new taxes on the poor all the time.
> >> Why do you hateful Democrats do that to poor starving children?
>
> > I forgot -- who makes people buy beer and cigarettes?
>
> The point being the parents don't have that money to buy food for
> children do they, and *you raised those taxes* didn't you...

No. That's like arguing we should subsidize crack so parents that buy
that will have more money for food.

>so why
> aren't you feeding the children with what you taxed from those poor
> parents with starving children????????????????
>
> You wasted on government growth and bailing out UNIONS and sending it to
> Brazil to drill oil?

Nobody did that. The import/export bank loaned money to a company.
That's what it does.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

How much income and sales and other miscellaneous tax did you pay this
month so that you could buy your cable TV....

How much did the actual cable service cost, not including the tax you
paid when you earned the money and when you spent the money.

You paid

Income tax 20-38%
SS tax 7.5%
medicare tax 2%
unemployment tax ?
state income tax 7%
state sales tax 8%
corporate income.... tax a reasonable 8% profit at 35%
misc tele-comm tax 7%

You had to earn enough money to pay all these taxes for the privilege of
buying your cable.

take your cable bill and calculate what each cost you.

Then deduct it from your cable bill, what is left is what actual cable
with NO government costs.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 9, 9:38 am, BeamMeUpScotty

First, you are *assuming* that reduction of fixed costs associated
with an entity would 100% directly translate to reduction of a price
charged for a service, that is very doubtful. In my opinion the first
thing that would likely happen is such reductions would be factored
into market expectations i.e. performance per share. You have not
produced a reduced price schedule from a company based on such a tax
scheme, you only have theoretical market responses offered by
political hacks or right wing think tanks. Secondly, reduction of
government revenues would have a negative impact by shrinking the
social safety net during a time of global recession. Maintaining a
strong social safety net keeps a workforce employable, and able to
market their skills in todays information based workplace when the
economy picks up. Thirdly the infrastructure used by corporations
(internet, and non-internet) to conduct commerce is possible because
of the national investments made from the tax revenues you want to
eliminate. Elimination of such revenues would reduce the ability to
invest and repair infrastructure. Lastly, elimination of state sales
tax in states like california would be devastating to local schools,
and public services. Your type of economics favors the very wealthy,
and hurts our country.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Making everyone responsible and partners and dependent on success of the
Nation(They live in Capitalist America) THE REST GETTING FREE GOVERNMENT
MONEY(They live in Socialist America).

> First, you are *assuming* that reduction of fixed costs associated
> with an entity would 100% directly translate to reduction of a price
> charged for a service, that is very doubtful.

NO, I was showing you how much tax you pay..... by showing how much
you have to earn, to pay for $100 of product.

Not that the price was going to be more or less dependent on taxes being
more or less. You are out in the weeds with your suggestion.

> In my opinion the first
> thing that would likely happen is such reductions would be factored
> into market expectations i.e. performance per share.

Why do I care? I was showing you one thing, your fear took you down this
road.

> You have not
> produced a reduced price schedule from a company based on such a tax
> scheme, you only have theoretical market responses offered by
> political hacks or right wing think tanks.

I predict NOTHING... I was showing how many dollars you earned so that
you could buy $100 of product.

I did it for mine and I need to ear $150 to buy $92 worth of cable TV.

That is about 50% tax rate.

> Secondly, reduction of
> government revenues would have a negative impact by shrinking the
> social safety net during a time of global recession.

Are you sure? Why would you be so defensive when I was simply showing
you what part of that product is NOT the cost of the product but is the
cost of government. You must be worried at the conclusion others will
take from this fact.

> Maintaining a
> strong social safety net keeps a workforce employable, and able to
> market their skills in todays information based workplace when the
> economy picks up.

It also holds back the economy.

> Thirdly the infrastructure used by corporations
> (internet, and non-internet) to conduct commerce is possible because
> of the national investments made from the tax revenues you want to
> eliminate.

Texas instruments created the technology..... Computers are NOT
government and neither is TV or telephone and neither is manned flight.


Government stole the technology and used it poorly and tried to make an
indestructible military network. That plan was expanded and improved
and redesigned by the private market and PORNOGRAPHY and became the
internet. So before you spread the LIE that government created
everything, remember that they stole most of it from private industry.

The government pay the private sector to build their stuff because
Government hasn't got the smart to make the things they ask for.

> Elimination of such revenues would reduce the ability to
> invest and repair infrastructure.

And eliminate waste and theft and misuse.

Obama got trillions of tax dollars to repair infrastructure and he has
NOTHING to show for it and wants trillions more for infrastructure to
fix what he has already been paid to fix but didn't.

> Lastly, elimination of state sales
> tax in states like california would be devastating to local schools,

Yet raising and adding taxes doesn't devastate "Private business" and
the private sector economy? Interesting how YOU BELIEVE that taxes are
a one way street. Taxes are GOOD for everyone?

> and public services. Your type of economics favors the very wealthy,
> and hurts our country.

MY PLANS help the Nation while making everyone responsible and partners
and dependent on success of the Nation(They live in Capitalist America).



Your plan DIVIDES THE NATION and makes half the Nation have zero
interest in the economy and the success of the National economy because
they get government money regardless of economic health(They live in
Socialist America).


John Edwards was correct, there are TWO AMERICAS, he was wrong on what
they are. One is Capitalist America where we participate in the
economy, the other America is Socialist America where they Live off the
Government.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 9, 11:49 am, BeamMeUpScotty

you mean you are being selfish in thinking i care about how much you
pay in taxes.

>
> > You have not
> > produced a reduced price schedule from a company based on such a tax
> > scheme, you only have theoretical market responses offered by
> > political hacks or right wing think tanks.
>
> I predict NOTHING...   I was showing how many dollars you earned so that
> you could buy $100 of product.
>
> I did it for mine and I need to ear $150 to buy $92 worth of cable TV.

your bills are not my problem.

>
> That is about 50% tax rate.

you mean you pencil whipped a rough estimate of a companies costs and
charges, and attempted to imply consumer costs could be reduced with a
flat tax (in which case my point stands markets would factor the
reduced cost into future performance) So if you were not making such
an implication, please explain why i should care about your bills?

>
> >  Secondly, reduction of
> > government revenues would have a negative impact by shrinking the
> > social safety net during a time of global recession.
>
> Are you sure?  Why would you be so defensive when I was simply showing
> you what part of that product is NOT the cost of the product but is the
> cost of government.   You must be worried at the conclusion others will
> take from this fact.

not defensive at all, just filling in the blanks left by your idiocy

>
> >  Maintaining a
> > strong social safety net keeps a workforce employable, and able to
> > market their skills in todays information based workplace when the
> > economy picks up.
>
> It also holds back the economy.
>
> > Thirdly the infrastructure used by corporations
> > (internet, and non-internet) to conduct commerce is possible because
> > of the national investments made from the tax revenues you want to
> > eliminate.
>
> Texas instruments created the technology.....   Computers are NOT
> government and neither is TV or telephone and neither is manned flight.
>
> Government stole the technology and used it poorly and tried to make an
> indestructible military network.  That plan was expanded and improved
> and redesigned by the private market and PORNOGRAPHY and became the
> internet.  So before you spread the LIE that government created
> everything, remember that they stole most of it from private industry.

So you think your twisted account of history allows you to dismiss
what has been provided for you, interstate highways, infrastructure
etc.. That lame logic only works with idiots like you.

>
> The government pay the private sector to build their stuff because
> Government hasn't got the smart to make the things they ask for.
>
> > Elimination of such revenues would reduce the ability to
> > invest and repair infrastructure.
>
> And eliminate waste and theft and misuse.
>
> Obama got trillions of tax dollars to repair infrastructure and he has
> NOTHING to show for it and wants trillions more for infrastructure to
> fix what he has already been paid to fix but didn't.
>
> > Lastly, elimination of state sales
> > tax in states like california would be devastating to local schools,
>
> Yet raising and adding taxes doesn't devastate "Private business" and
> the private sector economy?  Interesting how YOU BELIEVE that taxes are
> a one way street.  Taxes are GOOD for everyone?
>
> > and public services.  Your type of economics favors the very wealthy,
> > and hurts our country.
>
> MY PLANS help the Nation while making everyone responsible and partners
> and dependent on success of the Nation(They live in Capitalist America).

you have no plan, just grover norguist logic, and frank luntz fear of
the masses.

>
> Your plan DIVIDES THE NATION and makes half the Nation have zero
> interest in the economy and the success of the National economy because
> they get government money regardless of economic health(They live in
> Socialist America).
>
> John Edwards was correct, there are TWO AMERICAS, he was wrong on what
> they are.  One is Capitalist America where we participate in the
> economy, the other America is Socialist America where they Live off the
> Government.
>
> --
> A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but when
> either of them take control, they become self destructive.

No, you are trying to use, and get out of paying for it. So please
conduct all of your commerce without using the interstate highway,
otherwise you are a hypocrite who wants a free ride.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Making everyone responsible and partners and dependent on success of the
Nation(They live in Capitalist America) THE REST GETTING FREE GOVERNMENT
MONEY(They live in Socialist America).

> First, you are *assuming* that reduction of fixed costs associated
> with an entity would 100% directly translate to reduction of a price
> charged for a service, that is very doubtful.

NO, I was showing you how much tax you pay..... by showing how much
you have to earn, to pay for $100 of product.

Not that the price was going to be more or less dependent on taxes being
more or less. You are out in the weeds with your suggestion.

The problem is government NOT the corporation.

> In my opinion the first
> thing that would likely happen is such reductions would be factored
> into market expectations i.e. performance per share.

Why do I care? I was showing you one thing, your fear took you down this
road.

> You have not
> produced a reduced price schedule from a company based on such a tax
> scheme, you only have theoretical market responses offered by
> political hacks or right wing think tanks.

I predict NOTHING... I was showing how many dollars you had to earn so

that you could buy $100 of product.

I did it for mine and I need to earn $150 to buy $92 worth of cable TV.

That is about a 50% tax rate.

> Secondly, reduction of
> government revenues would have a negative impact by shrinking the
> social safety net during a time of global recession.

Are you sure? Why would you be so defensive when I was simply showing
you what part of that product is NOT the cost of the product but is the
cost of government. You must be worried at the conclusion others will
take from this fact.

> Maintaining a
> strong social safety net keeps a workforce employable, and able to
> market their skills in todays information based workplace when the
> economy picks up.

It also holds back the economy.

> Thirdly the infrastructure used by corporations
> (internet, and non-internet) to conduct commerce is possible because
> of the national investments made from the tax revenues you want to
> eliminate.

Texas instruments created the technology..... Computers are NOT
government and neither is TV or telephone and neither is manned flight.

CHEAP COMPUTERS WERE NOT GOVERNMENT PRODUCED but
*without cheap computers* there would be NO private sector internet.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Government stole the technology and used it poorly and tried to make an

indestructible military network. That "plan" or idea was expanded and

improved and redesigned by the private market and PORNOGRAPHY and became
the internet. So before you spread the LIE that government created
everything, remember that they stole most of it from private industry.

The government pays the private sector to build their stuff because
Government hasn't got the smarts to make the things they ask for.

Who invented DRONES..... was it R/C model airplane builders or
government?

> Elimination of such revenues would reduce the ability to
> invest and repair infrastructure.

And eliminate waste and theft and misuse.

Obama already got trillions of tax dollars to repair infrastructure and

he has NOTHING to show for it and wants trillions more for
infrastructure to fix what he has already been paid to fix but didn't.

> Lastly, elimination of state sales
> tax in states like california would be devastating to local schools,

Yet raising and adding taxes doesn't devastate "Private business" and
the private sector economy? Interesting how YOU BELIEVE that taxes are

a one way street. Taxes are GOOD for everyone? Taxes can't devastate
the private sector but less taxes will absolutely devastate the
government?


*What a crock of shit you are peddling*

> and public services. Your type of economics favors the very wealthy,
> and hurts our country.

MY PLANS help the Nation while making everyone responsible and partners
and dependent on success of the Nation(They live in Capitalist America).

Your plan DIVIDES THE NATION and makes half the Nation have zero
interest in the economy and the success of the National economy because
they get government money regardless of economic health(They live in
Socialist America).


John Edwards was correct, there are TWO AMERICAS, he was wrong on what
they are. One is Capitalist America where we participate in the
economy, the other America is Socialist America where they Live off the
Government.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 9, 12:11 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/0fb34365c25854b0?hl=en

his pledge, and your whining about taxation are a joke.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/9/2011 3:11 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> you mean you pencil whipped a rough estimate of a companies costs and
> charges, and attempted to imply consumer costs could be reduced with a
> flat tax (in which case my point stands markets would factor the
> reduced cost into future performance) So if you were not making such
> an implication, please explain why i should care about your bills?

You shouldn't because there is no doubt that you are, living off the
government. The more tax I pay the better you live. A bad economy
means nothing to you because you aren't in the private economy, you're
living off the government.


*We live in two different Americas, you live in Socialist America*

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Your plan for a Socialist America is the joke.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 9, 12:21 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

Your bs was called out, its obvious all you want to do is whine and
complain about your taxes, and your bills. I don't care about your
bills, or what you pay in taxes, and no matter how much you whine
whimper and cry, your lame personal issues are not my concern at
all.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 9, 12:23 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote::" the grover
norquist pledge will hurt this country -OR- Socialism hurts this
private sector economy."

child labor laws were not put in place by the private sector economy,
the clean water act was not put in place by the private sector. You
want to return to burning rivers, people like you say, "who cares
about clean drinking water".

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/9/2011 3:31 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Dec 9, 12:21 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 12/9/2011 3:11 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>>
>>> you mean you pencil whipped a rough estimate of a companies costs and
>>> charges, and attempted to imply consumer costs could be reduced with a
>>> flat tax (in which case my point stands markets would factor the
>>> reduced cost into future performance) So if you were not making such
>>> an implication, please explain why i should care about your bills?
>>
>> You shouldn't because there is no doubt that you are, living off the
>> government. The more tax I pay the better you live. A bad economy
>> means nothing to you because you aren't in the private economy, you're
>> living off the government.
>>
>> *We live in two different Americas, you live in Socialist America*
>>

> Your bs was called out, its obvious all you want to do is whine and
> complain about your taxes, and your bills. I don't care about your
> bills, or what you pay in taxes, and no matter how much you whine
> whimper and cry, your lame personal issues are not my concern at
> all.

*I agreed that you don't care about Capitalist America*


That was my *main point* , you live in Socialist America.


And it's NOT MY taxes it is *Capitalist Americas* taxes.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/9/2011 3:36 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Dec 9, 12:23 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote::" the grover
> norquist pledge will hurt this country -OR- Socialism hurts this
> private sector economy."
>
> child labor laws were not put in place by the private sector economy,

Are you admitting that children are better workers than union adult
workers? It sure sounds like it.

Otherwise the market will get rid of the inferior on its own

How many MULES are used to plow fields today?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/9/2011 3:11 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

> No, you are trying to use, and get out of paying for it. So please

I did pay for it, The taxpayers pay for the highways and for the
government that suggested building them.

The *Private Sector Economy* pays for all that you have. It is the
Government and the parasites that live off the government that are
getting out of paying.

> conduct all of your commerce without using the interstate highway,
> otherwise you are a hypocrite who wants a free ride.

We see who is getting the free ride and it's government parasites.



We cal them (Socialist America)

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Dec 9, 4:10 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

Wouldn't the free market choose slavery if left totally alone?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

NO... we fought a civil war that included slavery as part of the facade,
but within 50 years there was a mechanical revolution and by 1910
farming was mechanized and cotton was mechanically processed and it
became cheaper for farmers to have one tractor in place of 20 slaves.


Slavery would have been greatly reduced by the economics of the
marketplace. There are very few places that slavery is still used
because it's more profitable than other means of doing business.

Humans are costly and NOT very easy or cheap to manage.

Cooking cleaning and sex because that can't be done by machines only are
just a few places that slavery continues to be profitable. The end of
slavery as a business was already on a natural course to its end.


SEX and MARRIAGE will always be one place slavery will continue. When a
human element "is the market" slavery will be there to fill that market.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 9, 1:40 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

You fail in business, politics, science, and history and now you are
lashing out in anger because you are an idiot. Dude, you have no
self respect, no honor, no integrity, and no desire to cure your
ignorance, the only thing you have is your irrational emotional rants,
and you are fooling yourself if you think i care about your personal
issues. Thanks for the laugh

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 9, 1:40 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/9/2011 6:08 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Dec 9, 1:40 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 12/9/2011 3:11 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>>
>>> No, you are trying to use, and get out of paying for it. So please
>>
>> I did pay for it, The taxpayers pay for the highways and for the
>> government that suggested building them.
>>
>> The *Private Sector Economy* pays for all that you have. It is the
>> Government and the parasites that live off the government that are
>> getting out of paying.
>>
>>> conduct all of your commerce without using the interstate highway,
>>> otherwise you are a hypocrite who wants a free ride.
>>
>> We see who is getting the free ride and it's government parasites.
>>

>> We call them (Socialist America)

>>
> You fail in business, politics, science, and history and now you are
> lashing out in anger because you are an idiot. Dude, you have no
> self respect, no honor, no integrity, and no desire to cure your
> ignorance, the only thing you have is your irrational emotional rants,
> and you are fooling yourself if you think i care about your personal
> issues. Thanks for the laugh

I'd respond but you didn't post any substance...... If I wanted a
psychic reading I'd use the psychic Network where they are far more
professional.


But don't go away mad.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 9, 5:54 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

> either of them take control, they become self destructive.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You mean you have no reply, as you cannot defend your indefensible
idiocy.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> You mean you have no reply, as you cannot defend your indefensible
> idiocy.

I actually meant that you have no credibility, so calling me an idiot
was way above your pay grade.....


Your government check is sent to you because you're useless, NOT because
the government needs the psychic skills you claim to have.


There are two kinds of government parasites, *useless idiots* that they
pay to do nothing, and *useful idiots* that they pay to do nothing of
any value.


Which one are you?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 9, 6:12 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

> either of them take control, they become self destructive.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

laughing, smashing idiotic posts from trolls like you is easy, fun and
relaxing. Now if you ever take yourself off of the false pedestal of
ignorance, someday you might have a chance to win debate with me (not
likely), until the you will always trip yourself up on your own
stupidity.

[Transition Zone]

On Dec 9, 5:01 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> On 12/9/2011 4:41 PM, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't the free market choose slavery if left totally alone?
>
> NO... we fought a civil war that included slavery as part of the facade,

That was led by the public sector. Had there been no public sector
what would have stopped slavery?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Dec 9, 5:01 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> On 12/9/2011 4:41 PM, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 4:10 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/9/2011 3:36 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 9, 12:23 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> >>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote::" the grover
> >>> norquist pledge will hurt this country -OR- Socialism hurts this
> >>> private sector economy."
>
> >>> child labor laws were not put in place by the private sector economy,
>
> >> Are you admitting that children are better workers than union adult
> >> workers?   It sure sounds like it.
>
> >> Otherwise the market will get rid of the inferior on its own
>
> >> How many MULES are used to plow fields today?
>
> > Wouldn't the free market choose slavery if left totally alone?
>
> NO... we fought a civil war that included slavery as part of the facade,

So we interfered with the market. Was this a good or bad thing to
you?

> but within 50 years there was a mechanical revolution and by 1910
> farming was mechanized and cotton was mechanically processed and it
> became cheaper for farmers to have one tractor in place of 20 slaves.
>

Why? Aren't slaves disposable? Why is there cost associated with
them?

> Slavery would have been greatly reduced by the economics of the
> marketplace.  There are very few places that slavery is still used
> because it's more profitable than other means of doing business.

Not if you consider slaves property, as the market would tend to do.

>
> Humans are costly and NOT very easy or cheap to manage.

Only if you consider them humans. "Let the market decide if they're
to be treated like humans" -- isn't that your point?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/10/2011 1:34 PM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 9, 5:01 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 12/9/2011 4:41 PM, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 9, 4:10 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/2011 3:36 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Dec 9, 12:23 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote::" the grover
>>>>> norquist pledge will hurt this country -OR- Socialism hurts this
>>>>> private sector economy."
>>
>>>>> child labor laws were not put in place by the private sector economy,
>>
>>>> Are you admitting that children are better workers than union adult
>>>> workers? It sure sounds like it.
>>
>>>> Otherwise the market will get rid of the inferior on its own
>>
>>>> How many MULES are used to plow fields today?
>>
>>> Wouldn't the free market choose slavery if left totally alone?
>>
>> NO... we fought a civil war that included slavery as part of the facade,
>
>
> So we interfered with the market. Was this a good or bad thing to
> you?
>

Any government intrusion into free markets is a waste of time and makes
things worse. Look at all the problems the civil war created. It
created more than it solved.

>> but within 50 years there was a mechanical revolution and by 1910
>> farming was mechanized and cotton was mechanically processed and it
>> became cheaper for farmers to have one tractor in place of 20 slaves.
>>
>
> Why? Aren't slaves disposable? Why is there cost associated with
> them?

I don't have any slaves, so I can't really say. But I did own farm animals.

>> Slavery would have been greatly reduced by the economics of the
>> marketplace. There are very few places that slavery is still used
>> because it's more profitable than other means of doing business.
>
> Not if you consider slaves property, as the market would tend to do.

Property has overhead costs. Property is taxed..... the U.S.
Government made money from slavery.

>> Humans are costly and NOT very easy or cheap to manage.
>
> Only if you consider them humans. "Let the market decide if they're
> to be treated like humans" -- isn't that your point?

Actually I meant as animals go the human animal is as tough as a pig to
manage, they all try to escape and they get sick and they are all a
hassle, you see I raised kids also.

Humans will get into everything, much like the pigs.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Dec 10, 11:02 am, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:"Humans will get

into everything, much like the pigs."

well that explains you posting your bs spam in "alt.global-warming",
nothing more.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Evolution...... don't tell me you don't believe in it?