What to do about Taxes
Crawford Pussy
leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
73% tax on unearned income.
55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
Glass-Steagall Act restored.
Full support for the Wagner Act and repeal of Taft-Hartley.
Elimination of Corporate Super-Citizenship by Statute.
A ceiling on CEO retirement packages.
Pots & Pans in the STREETS TIME. Shut it down. Ain't no Dem gonna save you
from the Boogey Man now. The Monsters are treating us like every 3rd world
country we ever destroyed. We are on the Menu now, not the diners anymore.
As others have learned before us, we can only save ourselves. Or not at all.
Good riddance to Reagonomics. Today's neocon.tomorrow morning's bacon.
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
> Heh folks, this ain't rocket science - we put the RICHFILTH ANIMALS on a
> leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
>
> 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
>
> 73% tax on unearned income.
>
> 55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
>
> 55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
>
of higher prices? How does that tame the wealthy?
Joe Steel
news:MPG.220794274...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
No. Corporate taxes are not necessarily passed-along. Markets, not
costs, set prices. The firm may not be able to raise its prices to
recover its increased costs. When that happens, the increased costs come
from the owners' profits.
milt....@gmail.com
> Heh folks, this ain't rocket science - we put the RICHFILTH ANIMALS on a
> leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
>
> 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
It was 90%, and it was too high. It's not necessary for the top tax
rate to be that high. 40% should be as high as it has to go.
>
> 73% tax on unearned income.
Unearned income should be taxed, but again; it doesn't have to be
nearly that high. Tax it the same as earned income. If all income was
taxed over a certain amount, regardless of source, it's possible the
top percentage could be as low as 20-25%.
>
> 55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
Estate taxes are an excellent tax, because they don't really hurt
anyone. Exempt the first million or two, and tax the rest at the top
income tax rate.
>
> 55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
I don't agree for two reasons. First of all, companies will simply
report more 'expenses' and change what they declare as profits. Plus,
they pass on all of their expenses to their customers, so this
wouldn't exactly "hurt" large corporations. If you're going to have a
corporate income tax, it should be roughly the same as an individual
income tax. Although there are valid reasons to eliminate them, as
well...
>
> Glass-Steagall Act restored.
Not much of it was eliminated in the first place.
>
> Full support for the Wagner Act and repeal of Taft-Hartley.
This absolutely MUST happen. There is no way any company should be
free to quash union talk in their shop.
> Elimination of Corporate Super-Citizenship by Statute.
I've always thought that reasonable campaign finance reform would
prevent this from happening. Here's all that needs to be done.
1. A contribution limit of $2000 from ANY individual entity to any
campaign or party.
2. ALL contributions must be made directly from the individual to the
campaign or party; no collection of contributions, or any of that
nonsense.
3. All contributions should have to go to a clearinghouse, with the
money distributed by that clearinghouse, so that candidates, campaigns
and parties have no idea where the money is coming from.
And then, lobbyists should be banned from buying any Congresscritter
anything, period. If they need to take some Congresspeople on a junket
to see something they need to legislate, the entire itinerary should
be approved beforehand, all expenses detailed beforehand, and no
extracurricular activities allowed, period.
The keys to eliminating the undue influence of large corporations are
unfettered unionization by workers, if that's what they choose, and
the elimination of the bribery that goes on in the open these days...
>
> A ceiling on CEO retirement packages.
A ceiling on compensation packages of ANY kind. Of course, if you tax
ALL income the same, whether it's cash or stock options, though, a lot
of the insanity would cease. And if every CEO package had to be
approved by all stockholders holding shares, except those in
management or the board, I bet there would be a ceiling on them,
without gov't oversight.
milt....@gmail.com
> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote innews:MPG.220794274...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
>
>
> > sumb...@crawford.net says...
> >> Heh folks, this ain't rocket science - we put the RICHFILTH ANIMALS
> >> on a leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt
> >> Legacy:
>
> >> 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
>
> >> 73% tax on unearned income.
>
> >> 55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
>
> >> 55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
>
> > Aren't corporate taxes just passed along to the consumer in the form
> > of higher prices? How does that tame the wealthy?
>
> No. Corporate taxes are not necessarily passed-along. Markets, not
> costs, set prices. The firm may not be able to raise its prices to
> recover its increased costs. When that happens, the increased costs come
> from the owners' profits.
Expenses are passed along. While I agree that the market sets the
price, if the entire market is paying a certain level of taxes, that
will be reflected in the price. It's not a direct cause-and-effect,
but it is a factor. And corporate taxes also reduce competition, in a
way, because they have to be figured in as an expense, when you're
trying to decide if it's cost-effective to enter a market.
I think a case can be made to reduce or eliminate corporate taxes, and
replace them with a national sales tax or something like that. I'm not
entirely convinced of that yet, but I've heard some compelling
arguments.
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
Joe Steel
It won't raise prices.
steven...@yahoo.com
Look at the greedy little class-envy leftists just itching to get
their grubby little fingers on other people's property...
"But I will make this prediction. The Dems will win the WH next
year."
--Milt Shook 1999/09/15
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7rpj0e%24j7j%241%40ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"Bush will lose because he can't win in the GOP at this point in
time.
face it; he can only win as a moderate. But if he moderates enough
to win, about a third of Repubs will head elsewhere; either they
won't vote, or they'll vote for a third party. And if he plays to
the right wing, he loses the Dems."
--Milt Shook Aug 15 1999
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7p74a2%249p3%241%40birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"I also predict 320 or more electoral votes for Gore, as well..."
--Milt Shook Sep 10 2000
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=x4Vu5.1826%24%25p2.89198%40newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"And I have never been wrong in predicting an
election in my lifetime."
--Milt Shook Dec 23 2003
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0312230621.4eae5f2b%40posting.google.com
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
GOP is Done!
<steven...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c04b993c-8788-40cf...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Bush and Cheney are leftists?
Joe Steel
I'm answering your question.
Ace
"Crawford Pussy" <sum...@crawford.net> wrote in message
news:7%lnj.2777$so6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> Heh folks, this ain't rocket science - we put the RICHFILTH ANIMALS
> on a leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt
> Legacy:
More typing from the Hilderbeast worker.
GOP is Done!
"Ace" <fa...@fake.com> wrote in message
news:c%snj.42233$Pv2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
More 'nothing' from a Dittoheaded Nazi.
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
consumers is more, assuming markets are competitive. When you say that
"Corporate taxes are not necessarily passed-along" may be true in some
cases, it's not true in general.
Gary DeWaay
> 3. All contributions should have to go to a clearinghouse, with the
> money distributed by that clearinghouse, so that candidates, campaigns
> and parties have no idea where the money is coming from.
>
That's genius.
--
- Gary
Gary DeWaay
> > 3. All contributions should have to go to a clearinghouse, with the
> > money distributed by that clearinghouse, so that candidates, campaigns
> > and parties have no idea where the money is coming from.
> >
>
> That's genius.
>
Oh, and reason's why... I sometimes refrain from contributing to campaigns
because once your on a list, you start getting bombarded for more money
from, well everybody thats a Dem (fer instance).
I assume with a clearing house, you could still earmark the money you
donate to the candidate(s) you wish, the process would be required to be
anonymous... and thus cronyism, etc. would also be eliminated.
--
- Gary
milt....@gmail.com
Well, your contribution would still be sent to that candidate. It's
just that, instead of going to the campaign staff, the check goes to a
PO Box somewhere, where they put all of the money into the candidate's
account. They keep track of who's contributed what, and it eliminates
a few things. It reduces the likelihood of cronyism, it eliminates the
constant calls and mailings, and it eliminates the pressure on
campaigns to screen their contributors. It's a win-win.
The problem with most campaign finance reform right now is, it puts
the focus on how much campaigns spend, which is not the problem. If
100 million people give $10 each, and the candidate spends every one
of those billion dollars, I say good for him/her. The problem is the
crooks who collect a few million for a candidate, give the money to
the campaign, and expect something in return.
And public financing? Puh-leez. Yeah, that's a great idea -- hand over
the entire system of campaign finance to the two major parties. Gee,
how could that not work, anyway, huh?
milt....@gmail.com
> <stevencan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Forgive him. He's irony deficient.
His heroes have been pillaging the public treasury for seven years,
but it's we "class-envy leftists" who are taking others' property?
Gotta love the irony in that concept. Not that he sees it...
Joe Steel
In general, increased costs create pressure for price increases. That's
true. However, when considering particular changes in public policy, we
can't assume prices always will increase. It just depends on who is
affected by the change and their postion in the market.
milt....@gmail.com
> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote innews:MPG.220860e8e...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
>
>
> > JoeSt...@NoSpam.com says...
> >> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> >>news:MPG.2207ca538...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
> >> > JoeSt...@NoSpam.com says...
> >> >> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> >> >>news:MPG.2207ba93...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
> >> >> > JoeSt...@NoSpam.com says...
> >> >> >> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> >> >> >>news:MPG.220794274...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
> >> >> >> > sumb...@crawford.net says...
You're right, mostly. But taxes are across the board, or should be.
So, if corporate taxes double, you can pretty much guarantee that
prices will increase, because everyone's costs will increase. Sure, to
be "competitive," they may just eat the cost for a while, but at some
point, someone's going to have to raise prices.
While it's true that a company's costs have pretty much no effect on
what it charges, because the price is set by the market, no one's in
business to lose money.
3941 Dead
Milt, in the days before Putsch, most government employees were not
cronies of one party or another. Many government departments -- even
the Department of Justice -- took quiet pride in their non-partisan
approach to their jobs.
It's not too late to return to those days, and simply have public
funding handled by an independent and non-partisan branch of
government.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
milt....@gmail.com
And in what country was this? Because it sure as hell wasn't this
one...
This didn't start with Bush; he just happens to be the least skilled
at hiding it. You think Eisenhower was just flapping his gums when he
spoke about the 'Military Industrial Complex?' And as I recall, that
was 50 years ago, not during the 2000 election.
And one of the reasons it's not possible for there to be a viable
third party is because the two current parties rig the game. In a
public financing scheme, the laws will be made by the two major
parties. We already see how they can dis-invite Dennis Kucinich and
others from debates by creating 'rules' designed to keep them out; you
don't think they'll 'tweak' a public financing system, too? Of course
they will. I'm not taking a swipe at public employees; I know a
boatload of them, and they're fine, non-partisan people. But they are
restricted by the rules that Congress gives them.
And one other thing I've always objected to with public financing is
the removal of the electorate from the process. I happen to LIKE
writing a check to a candidate when I am in the mood, and I like being
able to support the candidate of my choice. and I do NOT want ANY tax
money supporting the White Supremacist candidate, or Lyndon LaRouche,
or any of the other assorted whack jobs who might apply for and get
tax money to support their campaign.
We do NOT have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Limits on
contributions are key, and that should include self-contributions.
Mitt Romney's campaign should be a corporation; it should be a
separate individual from Mitt Romney the person, and Mitt Romney the
person should not be able to give his campaign more than $2300. Also,
combining multiple contributions into a mega-contribution should be a
no-no; and masking the source of contributions would also be an
excellent deterrent to the legalized bribery we see now. I see public
financing of political campaigns as a huge white elephant. Right now,
we funnel tax money to Halliburton; is it really that much better to
funnel tax money directly to Cheney, if he was to run, or any of the
Bush spawn that shall come forth in the future?
>
> It's not too late to return to those days, and simply have public
> funding handled by an independent and non-partisan branch of
> government.
Once more... the laws will still be made by Congress. Don't you think
they have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, to the extent
possible? You don't think they'll make it difficult for independents
and third parties, or even what are now considered 'second-tier'
candidates to get a fair shake? The system is only broken for one
reason; PACs and other groups that bundle contributions and skirt
limits. If we can put a reasonable limit on contributions, and declare
that all contributions had to go directly from individual to campaign
or party, then you eliminate PACs, 527s and the legalized bribery that
goes on right now. And if you add a clearinghouse-type of thing, and
hide the source of contributions to candidates, then all you have is
the money, which is perfectly fine. I don't have a problem with a
candidate spending a billion dollars, as long as no one is bundling
$20 million into one contribution and winking and nodding their way
into favor...
3941 Dead
America used to have a great reputation for general lack of political
corruption among government employees. Obviously, you can never get
rid of it altogether, but America did a pretty good job of managing it
until the late sixties.
>
>This didn't start with Bush; he just happens to be the least skilled
>at hiding it. You think Eisenhower was just flapping his gums when he
>spoke about the 'Military Industrial Complex?' And as I recall, that
>was 50 years ago, not during the 2000 election.
>
He doesn't even try to hide it. And consider the marvel that an
American president could even publically discuss that such a thing was
forming and you'll realize how much this country has lost since then.
>And one of the reasons it's not possible for there to be a viable
>third party is because the two current parties rig the game. In a
>public financing scheme, the laws will be made by the two major
>parties. We already see how they can dis-invite Dennis Kucinich and
>others from debates by creating 'rules' designed to keep them out; you
>don't think they'll 'tweak' a public financing system, too? Of course
>they will. I'm not taking a swipe at public employees; I know a
>boatload of them, and they're fine, non-partisan people. But they are
>restricted by the rules that Congress gives them.
So it's all hopeless, and we might as well adopt the Egyptian form of
government now and spare ourselves the bother.
>
>And one other thing I've always objected to with public financing is
>the removal of the electorate from the process. I happen to LIKE
>writing a check to a candidate when I am in the mood, and I like being
>able to support the candidate of my choice. and I do NOT want ANY tax
>money supporting the White Supremacist candidate, or Lyndon LaRouche,
>or any of the other assorted whack jobs who might apply for and get
>tax money to support their campaign.
That's why I like the Clean Campaign alternative. Private funding
remains a part of the picture. The public funding merely makes it
possible for non-millionaires to run for office.
steven...@yahoo.com
Welcome to the fantasy world of Milt Shook where reality
is replaced by Milt's demented imagination.. as an hourly
paid entry level paralegal, Milt may have reached that $50K
threshold... ten years later...
"I have already turned down jobs that paid more than $50K,
and six figures is a very real possibility when I finish."
--Milt.Shook Jun 30 1997
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives/msg/407e60acc57e8e1e.
milt....@gmail.com
There is still not a high level of corruption among rank and file
government employees. THEY aren't the ones who will make public
financing laws. And no matter how unfair the laws are, they are
absolutely required to follow them.
The corruption is and always has been at the top, not in the people
who just go to work and do their job every day...
>
> >This didn't start with Bush; he just happens to be the least skilled
> >at hiding it. You think Eisenhower was just flapping his gums when he
> >spoke about the 'Military Industrial Complex?' And as I recall, that
> >was 50 years ago, not during the 2000 election.
>
> He doesn't even try to hide it. And consider the marvel that an
> American president could even publically discuss that such a thing was
> forming and you'll realize how much this country has lost since then.
Well, he was actively trying to prevent it. But we have gone so far
backwards with the neocons in charge... it's like we've entered an
alternate universe. I kind of wish the Dems had given up a few years
after Reagan won, and let the neocons take charge then... the damage
would have been greater then, but more easily reparable.
>
> >And one of the reasons it's not possible for there to be a viable
> >third party is because the two current parties rig the game. In a
> >public financing scheme, the laws will be made by the two major
> >parties. We already see how they can dis-invite Dennis Kucinich and
> >others from debates by creating 'rules' designed to keep them out; you
> >don't think they'll 'tweak' a public financing system, too? Of course
> >they will. I'm not taking a swipe at public employees; I know a
> >boatload of them, and they're fine, non-partisan people. But they are
> >restricted by the rules that Congress gives them.
>
> So it's all hopeless, and we might as well adopt the Egyptian form of
> government now and spare ourselves the bother.
>
Jesus. You're the depressing one, not me. I'm saying that public
financing is a joke, because the politicians themselves would get to
make the rules. And as peachy keen as our civil servants are,
generally speaking, they still have to follow the rules the
congresscritters set.
>
> >And one other thing I've always objected to with public financing is
> >the removal of the electorate from the process. I happen to LIKE
> >writing a check to a candidate when I am in the mood, and I like being
> >able to support the candidate of my choice. and I do NOT want ANY tax
> >money supporting the White Supremacist candidate, or Lyndon LaRouche,
> >or any of the other assorted whack jobs who might apply for and get
> >tax money to support their campaign.
>
> That's why I like the Clean Campaign alternative. Private funding
> remains a part of the picture. The public funding merely makes it
> possible for non-millionaires to run for office.
>
Well, I prefer my method. it would just forbid a millionaire from
giving more than the proscribed limit to his own campaign. And Clean
Campaign laws are still laws, and can be "tweaked" by the status quo.
And they will be; you watch...
I don't WANT my voice stifled. I WANT to be able to give a couple of
hundred to whomever I want. The only issue is the bundling of
contributions by advocacy groups and special interests. To me,
throwing public money into the system creates a veneer of credibility
and equality, but wait until someone decides that "too many" people
are running for office, and the program is "costing too much." What
will happen then? Well, the Democrats and Republicans will then craft
certain rules to limit the number of candidates, and the money they
receive. or they'll change the definition of "viable" campaign.
Public financing is a trap. It's one of those concepts that looks good
and solves the problem right now, but gives a whole lot of control to
the government. Which is more populist, really? Some guy announces
he's running for Congress and receives hundreds or even thousands of
small donations, or some guy announces for Congress and gets a bucket
of tax money from the government? The only thing that is keeping the
people from taking the system back is the sense that their $20
donation doesn't matter, because some idiot is going to bundle a bunch
of donations, and hand Hillary, Barack or Rudy a few hundred thousand
dollars, as well as a wink and a smile.
And what about the guy who starts a campaign, applies and gets his
grant, then puts his wife and kids on the payroll, and does little
more than print some bumper stickers and fliers? How will that affect
the public financing? You don't think some incumbent politician will
jump on such things and attempt to "tweak" the system for his own
benefit?
Hard limits and the elimination of bundling; that's the way to fix the
system.
> http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827(From Yang, AthD (h.c)
>
> "I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
> become. I just can't. It just makes me sick to think all those years
> of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
> don't like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
> are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
> thugs, peering through people's windows so they can make fun of their
> misfortune.
>
> I'm registering Independent tomorrow."
>
> Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
>
> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
> Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
> Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:16:24 -0800 (PST),
>
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >There is still not a high level of corruption among rank and file
> >government employees. THEY aren't the ones who will make public
> >financing laws. And no matter how unfair the laws are, they are
> >absolutely required to follow them.
>
> bad a function of elections?
Not when the bribery is part of the election system. The problem is,
it's not CALLED bribery. it's called "special interest money, or Bush
Pioneers, or whatever the hell they called themselves.
>
> you shouldn't have a say in dictating your neighbors
> politician simply because you don't like the politician
> or your neighbors politics
I agree. And that's why I have a problem with public election
financing. I don't want my tax money going to support Bill O'Reilly's
campaign, any more than you want your tax money going to elect Keith
Olbermann. (That was hypothetical, of course) The proponents of this
"Clean Election" system that Arizona and Maine have adopted crow about
the huge number of candidates since the system came into play, but why
is that necessarily a good thing? if you assume that an incumbent will
almost always get at least 35-40% of the vote for reelection, unless
he was atrocious, is splitting the rest of the vote among a dozen
people better than splitting it among a half dozen?
>
> What is relevant, is a consensus of national direction,
> policies, or programs that take us (closer) to where we
> want to go
>
> Either you belive (simplified) that government's "job"
> is to stay out of the way of business and wealth and
> allow market capitalism to exist (the ron paul lamaze
> method), or you believe that part of the political
> process is advancing a candidate whose views of
> government are similar to you own
>
> You simply CANNOT have a government that kowtows to
> your hand crafted views----that's what we've been
> fighting.
I agree, partly.
When it comes to market capitalism, it does need government
intervention, which is precisely why the founding fathers put
regulation of commerce into the heart of the Constitution.
But when it comes to elections, the government should keep its hand
out, except to create limits and enforce them, in order to level the
playing field. My concern with most public financing systems is that
pretty much anyone who says he or she is running for Congress will
qualify for funds. I think the playing field should be more level, but
that other than enforcing strict contribution limits, the government
should lay off. If a candidate has a good message and a viable
campaign, he or she will get the money they need. (Like Ron Paul, for
example.)
>
> Taxation (redistribution of wealth) is a necessary
> event to stop the national wealth being concentrated
> into fewer and fewer hands
>
> GOvernment should do that.
Well, I think taxation needs to be smarter, frankly. I think all tax
money should be earmarked for a specific purpose, and only used for
that purpose. Then, we have to raise taxes on the rich for a while, so
that we can pay down this debt. Then, when the debt is retired, we
should require a 3/4 vote in order to borrow, this forcing the
government to live within its means. That said, though, its means
should be a reasonable welfare system that gets people out of the
gutter, and helps them get to work, and a socialized health care
system that provides a basic level of quality health care for
everyone. Every other industrialized country in the world does it,
except us, and more than a few of them are way ahead of us when it
comes to quality of life...
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:51:02 -0800 (PST),
>
> >And one of the reasons it's not possible for there to be a viable
> >third party is because the two current parties rig the game.
>
>
> What third party candidate have you ever heard of in
> the last 30 years that could pass a laugh test?
That's my point. The system is rigged so that pretty much everyone
with a chance of winning has to align with either major party.
I would note that, like him or hate him, Ron Paul ran as a
Libertarian, but didn't come to any kind of prominence until he became
a Republican. He's still not getting tons of votes, but he's going to
be a bit of a broker at the convention, and he has a lot of money to
run in the general election, if he wants.
If Nader had run as a Democrat in 2000, he would have gotten a lot of
delegates, and possibly been a broker at the convention, AND Gore
would have ended up winning.
The system is rigged, I'm telling you...
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:51:02 -0800 (PST),
>
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >the removal of the electorate from the process. I happen to LIKE
> >writing a check to a candidate when I am in the mood,
>
>
> When human greed motivates us to do something , or
> individual behavior dictates who gets what, we have
> problems. That's what caused our national problems at
> the turn of last century.
Yeah, well, the only problem we have right now is that certain people
are skirting limits by giving money to third parties to pass on to
candidates. Limits have to be enforced and bundling has to stop.
there's nothing wrong with a can driver writing a check to Hillary,
Rudy or Barack. The problem is a CEO handing $200,000 in contributions
to Hillary, Rudy or Barack.
znuybv
> Heh folks, this ain't rocket science - we put the RICHFILTH ANIMALS on a
> leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
>
> 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
>
>
>
>
>
> Full support for the Wagner Act and repeal of Taft-Hartley.
>
>
>
> from the Boogey Man now. The Monsters are treating us like every 3rd world
> country we ever destroyed. We are on the Menu now, not the diners anymore.
> As others have learned before us, we can only save ourselves. Or not at all.
>
> Good riddance to Reagonomics. Today's neocon.tomorrow morning's bacon.
If you want high taxes; vote Democrat.
znuybv
> In article <7%lnj.2777$so6.1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, sumb...@crawford.net says...> Heh folks, this ain't rocket science - we put the RICHFILTH ANIMALS on a
> > leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
>
> > 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
>
> > 73% tax on unearned income.
>
> > 55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
>
> > 55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
>
> of higher prices? How does that tame the wealthy?
Put a tax on a rich man and a poor man will pay it.
Tax the poor. Maybe then they will be for tax cuts.
3941 Dead
wrote:
And yet somehow, oddly enough, when the tax burden was skewed higher
from the 50s to the late 70's, the economy boomed, most households did
well with only a single wage earner, and the corporations all did
well.
Imagine that.
Gandalf Grey
"znuybv" <thow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:71549642-9ca4-49a3...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
If you want high deficits and selling the country to the Chicoms, vote
republican.
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:29:48 -0800 (PST), znuybv <thowil...@gmail.com>
Well, there were a lot of reasons for that, but many of the rich
didn't pay taxes then, either. That's why we're stuck with the non-
indexed AMT right now.
That said, the reason it worked was because while the top tax rate was
90%, and then 70%, corporations could exempt themselves from taxation
by investing in the economy, to get their tax rate way down. Back
then, they had to invest their way down to 10% or lower. Now, they
don't have to do anything at all. Right now, a CEO can pay himself a
cash salary of $1 million, and $20 million in deferred compensation,
stock options, etc. Thus, he's making $21 million, but only paying
taxes on $1 million, for an effective tax rate of about 1.3%,
including Social Security and Medicare.
It would actually to keep the tax rate relatively low for everyone, by
taxing all income; earned, unearned and otherwise, off the top. It's
possible that we could probably pay for everything we pay for now, and
more, by simply taking 10% off the top, regardless of income source or
status. But failing that, we should look into restoring the top tax
rate to something closer to 50% at the top, and let corporations and
individuals buy their way down to 20-25% or even less, by investing in
infrastructure and economy.
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:17:02 -0800 (PST),
>
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Isn't the function of sorting out what politicians are
> >> bad a function of elections?
>
> >Not when the bribery is part of the election system. The problem is,
> >it's not CALLED bribery. it's called "special interest money, or Bush
> >Pioneers, or whatever the hell they called themselves.
>
> to who gives what---is relevant UNLESS you can show a
> connection between the money and legislation that
> favors those who give it
>
> The GOP---you can
>
> If Soros gives Obama, or Clinton, or edwards a few
> millions and gets nothing in return----how is that
> important
Well, the problem is, we live in America, and not even George Soros
expects NOTHING for his money. The only difference is, Soros is more
beneficent than, say, Halliburton or the coal lobby. But he shouldn't
have more influence in the government than the average person,
either.
>
> Now, I agree with you that the "system" under the GOP
> did what you are against.
The Democrats do it, too. they just haven't been in power in the last
12-14 years. But make no mistake; when they ran things, they did an
awful lot for certain industries that supported them. before Bush got
in, Clinton/Gore had eight years to increase CAFE standards, and did
nothing, for example...
>
> So far, the amount of "special" legislation passed in
> return for donations by democrats is minimal (at best)
So far it is right now, because they don't really have a majority in
the Senate.
3941 Dead
And that's fine with me. The key is to get the money circulating. I
don't much care if it's through the government, or by corporations
seeking to avoid the tax burden.
>
>It would actually to keep the tax rate relatively low for everyone, by
>taxing all income; earned, unearned and otherwise, off the top. It's
>possible that we could probably pay for everything we pay for now, and
>more, by simply taking 10% off the top, regardless of income source or
>status. But failing that, we should look into restoring the top tax
>rate to something closer to 50% at the top, and let corporations and
>individuals buy their way down to 20-25% or even less, by investing in
>infrastructure and economy.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
Steve
<LOL> It wouldn't matter if it did....
>The key is to get the money circulating. I
>don't much care if it's through the government, or by corporations
>seeking to avoid the tax burden.
<LOL> Corporations don't pay income taxes, you pathetic clowns...
they just collect them from the people that buy their products and
services...
>>It would actually to keep the tax rate relatively low for everyone, by
>>taxing all income; earned, unearned and otherwise, off the top. It's
>>possible that we could probably pay for everything we pay for now, and
>>more, by simply taking 10% off the top, regardless of income source or
>>status. But failing that, we should look into restoring the top tax
>>rate to something closer to 50% at the top, and let corporations and
>>individuals buy their way down to 20-25% or even less, by investing in
>>infrastructure and economy.
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is reduced by the
amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
--Milt Shook.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&
Kurt Lochner
>
> 3941 Dead wrote to:
> >
> > milt....@gmail.com replied to:
> >>
> >> 3941 Dead wrote:
> >>>
> >>>znuybv <thowil...@gmail.com> whined and wailed:
______>
> >>> >Put a tax on a rich man and a poor man will pay it.
> >>> >Tax the poor. Maybe then they will be for tax cuts.
> >>>
> >>> And yet somehow, oddly enough, when the tax burden was skewed higher
> >>> from the 50s to the late 70's, the economy boomed, most households did
> >>> well with only a single wage earner, and the corporations all did
> >>> well.
> >>>
> >>> Imagine that.
> >>
> >> Well, there were a lot of reasons for that, but many of the rich
> >> didn't pay taxes then, either. That's why we're stuck with the non-
> >> indexed AMT right now.
> >>
> >> That said, the reason it worked was because while the top tax rate was
> >> 90%, and then 70%, corporations could exempt themselves from taxation
> >> by investing in the economy, to get their tax rate way down. Back
> >> then, they had to invest their way down to 10% or lower. Now, they
> >> don't have to do anything at all. Right now, a CEO can pay himself a
> >> cash salary of $1 million, and $20 million in deferred compensation,
> >> stock options, etc. Thus, he's making $21 million, but only paying
> >> taxes on $1 million, for an effective tax rate of about 1.3%,
> >> including Social Security and Medicare.
> >
> > seeking to avoid the tax burden.
>
So they've been discussing, you pathetic right-wing fascist stooge..
--Do you even read what you're replying to, 'sieve'?
__________________________________________________________________
Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com> Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:03:18 GMT
news:<nsug6vsn5gkoar0nl...@4ax.com>
"Liberal guys are threatened by guys like [Bruce] Willis.
they know their women are attracted to real men and they
know they themselves don't have a snowball's chance in
hell of ever being a real man as evidenced by their
continuing whimpers about being victims."
--
Steve Canyon <Steven...@yahoo.com> Sun, 16 May 2004 14:43:47 GMT
news:<51vea09uokvc3dg38...@4ax.com>
"Most liberals are cowards. You're no exception."
"But if you ever do get here, don't bring your
fat little wife/girlfriend because once she
sees me she won't ever be able to look at you
again without laughing. "
--
Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 05 Mar 2003 05:30:30 PST
news:<qmtb6vodv9005boe1...@4ax.com>
"Blacklisting is a FORM of free speech."
--
Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 05 Mar 2003 05:35:10 PST
news:<6tub6vojate0fvduv...@4ax.com>
"...and what does a democracy have to do with being fired
for your political beliefs anyway. I once fired a guy
because of the bumper stickers on his car parked in my
parking lot."
--
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
--
Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
news:<rg6q5vgq29cerpocl...@4ax.com>
"I don't need to back anything up, you moron, cause unlike
yourself, my self image is not dependent on what others
think about me."
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
> "sieve" <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote like whiney right-winger:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 3941 Dead wrote to:
>
> > >milt.sh...@gmail.com replied to:
No, I don't think he's capable of it. He's not capable of
comprehending basic concepts like the fact that I can use the First
Amendment to force the government to stop some asshole from running me
off a street corner. After almost FOUR YEARS, he still repeats the
same stupid shit.
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> Canyon <parkie_u_w...@nospam.yahoo.com> Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:03:18 GMT
> <news:nsug6vsn5gkoar0nl...@4ax.com>
>
> "Liberal guys are threatened by guys like [Bruce] Willis.
> they know their women are attracted to real men and they
> know they themselves don't have a snowball's chance in
> hell of ever being a real man as evidenced by their
> continuing whimpers about being victims."
>
> --
> Steve Canyon <Stevencan...@yahoo.com> Sun, 16 May 2004 14:43:47 GMT
> <news:51vea09uokvc3dg38...@4ax.com>
>
> "Most liberals are cowards. You're no exception."
>
> "But if you ever do get here, don't bring your
> fat little wife/girlfriend because once she
> sees me she won't ever be able to look at you
> again without laughing. "
>
> --
> Canyon <parkie_u_w...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 05 Mar 2003 05:30:30 PST
> <news:qmtb6vodv9005boe1...@4ax.com>
>
> "Blacklisting is a FORM of free speech."
>
> --
> Canyon <parkie_u_w...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 05 Mar 2003 05:35:10 PST
> <news:6tub6vojate0fvduv...@4ax.com>
>
> "...and what does a democracy have to do with being fired
> for your political beliefs anyway. I once fired a guy
> because of the bumper stickers on his car parked in my
> parking lot."
>
> --
> Canyon <stevencan...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
> <news:i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
>
> "I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
>
> --
> Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
> <news:jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
>
> "I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
>
> --
> Canyon <parkie_u_w...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:25:44 -0800 (PST),
> huge amount and public policy---then it's pointless to
> worry. I give a rat's ass who helps elect "my"
> candidate---as long as they (according to political
> ideological positions) make policy accordingly. IE,
> using government to make policy that (for the most
> part) advances progressive programs and policies.
>
> We CAN, show a link between those people in business
> and corporations and the laws written by the Republican
> congress over the last decade in the Gas and Oil
> legislation, Health care, Medicare, VA care etc.
>
> The tax breaks favored the wealthy under the GOP
>
> If you consider that the primary goal (as advanced by
> Kemp, Gingrich, etal) was to "starve" the federal
> government in order to gain power from a "grassroots
> level", then the GOP has fulfilled it's stated goals.
>
> Using government to install "trickle down" wealth is
> utter nonsense
>
> Better to elect a government from a political ideology
> that believes in addressing problems where Everyone
> shares the burden.
I don't disagree with you. But whether you like it or not, image and
perception is a major part of politics. And right now, one of the
reasons so many people refuse to participate is because they feel as
if the system is rigged, which it is. It's not necessary to show a
direct connection between a contributor and political favors he or she
have given in return. There is that perception, and it deters people
from giving to the candidate of their choice, which in turn, forces
candidates to turn to more big-money donors.
As for "trickle down," you might as well call it "tinkle down,"
because that's basically what happened; the poor and working classes
have been pissed on for almost 30 years. It's time they got pissed
off, for a change.
milt....@gmail.com
with money circulating in this economy. The problem right now is
getting it to flow to government coffers to pay for shit. We have to
get more money to the government and pay down the debt, and THEN we
can talk about how to keep taxes low for everyone.
I think a case can be made to eliminate corporate taxes, in favor of a
GST of 1-2%, as well as start reinvigorating the Sherman Act. Those
two things would restore entrepreneurship to the economy, because it
would be easier to enter a market with a new or existing product, and
it would take a lot of the onus off of making a profit.
>
> >It would actually help to keep the tax rate relatively low for everyone, by
Steve
>
>No, I don't think he's capable of it. He's not capable of
>comprehending basic concepts like the fact that I can use the First
>Amendment to force the government to stop some asshole from running me
>off a street corner. After almost FOUR YEARS, he still repeats the
>same stupid shit.
I know they are stupid, Milt, but they are your words...
"If the flier distributor files suit, it will be based on his First
Amendment right to free speech"
--Mlt Shook May 16 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd2be3479999ea40?hl=en&
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.220860e8e...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
> > In article <Xns9A33954F0...@216.168.3.70>,
> > JoeS...@NoSpam.com says...
> >> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> >> news:MPG.2207ca538...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
> >>
> >> > In article <Xns9A3380A13...@216.168.3.70>,
> >> > JoeS...@NoSpam.com says...
> >> >> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:MPG.2207ba93...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article <Xns9A3366BA9...@216.168.3.70>,
> >> >> > JoeS...@NoSpam.com says...
> >> >> >> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:MPG.220794274...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > In article <7%lnj.2777$so6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> >> >> >> > sum...@crawford.net says...
> >> >> >> >> ANIMALS on a leash before and we can do it again - it's
> >> >> >> >> spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 73% tax on unearned income.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Aren't corporate taxes just passed along to the consumer in
> >> >> >> > the form of higher prices? How does that tame the wealthy?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Markets, not costs, set prices. The firm may not be able to
> >> >> >> raise its prices to recover its increased costs. When that
> >> >> >> happens, the increased costs come from the owners' profits.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > But corporations are taxed on their profits so what does that
> >> >> > matter?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It won't raise prices.
> >> >>
> >> > So what's your point?
> >>
> >> I'm answering your question.
> >>
> >> "Aren't corporate taxes just passed along to the consumer in the form
> >> of higher prices? How does that tame the wealthy?
> >>
> >>
> > But, in general, when it costs more to produce something, the price to
> > consumers is more, assuming markets are competitive. When you say that
> > "Corporate taxes are not necessarily passed-along" may be true in some
> > cases, it's not true in general.
> >
>
> In general, increased costs create pressure for price increases. That's
> true. However, when considering particular changes in public policy, we
> can't assume prices always will increase. It just depends on who is
> affected by the change and their postion in the market.
>
But you just said "It won't raise prices" so I guess you agree with me now.
Also, nobody said prices will always increase, so you have a strawman
argument.
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner was again laughing at the expense of:
I know, and while it has been said to not feed the trolls,
snarky remarks to your postings from "crayon" have been
going on for years.. ANd yet, he was the one sniveling about
how I posted some comments to his driven occassionally, and
claimed that *I* was following him around..
Yet, the irony drips off of him like water off of a fowl..
--I suggest you just ignore him from now on, it'll drive him crazy..
Kurt Lochner
> >
> > Kurt Lochner was laughing at the expense of:
> > >
> > >"sieve" <steven...@yahooooooo.com> wrote like whiney right-winger:
> > > >
> > > > 3941 Dead wrote to:
> > > > >
> > > > > milt....@gmail.com replied to:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 3941 Dead wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>znuybv <thowil...@gmail.com> whined and wailed:
> > comprehending basic concepts like the fact that I can use the First
> > Amendment to force the government to stop some asshole from running me
> > off a street corner. After almost FOUR YEARS, he still repeats the
> > same stupid shit.
>
Yet you keep posting those deliberate misquotes, "sieve",
thus proving what an enormous right-wing coward you really are..
--Examples follow..
___________________________________________________________________
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
--
Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
Rudy Canoza
> Heh folks, this ain't rocket science - we put the RICHFILTH ANIMALS on a
> leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
>
> 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
>
> 73% tax on unearned income.
>
> 55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
>
> 55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
>
>
> Full support for the Wagner Act and repeal of Taft-Hartley.
>
> Elimination of Corporate Super-Citizenship by Statute.
>
> A ceiling on CEO retirement packages.
>
> Pots & Pans in the STREETS TIME. Shut it down. Ain't no Dem gonna save
> you from the Boogey Man now. The Monsters are treating us like every 3rd
> world country we ever destroyed. We are on the Menu now, not the diners
> anymore. As others have learned before us, we can only save ourselves.
> Or not at all.
>
> Good riddance to Reagonomics. Today's neocon.tomorrow morning's bacon.
None of that's going to happen, cunt. You're just
pissing in the ocean again (or maybe it's in your
deserter daddy's drooling mouth.)
Rudy Canoza
> In article <7%lnj.2777$so6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, sum...@crawford.net says...
>> leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
>>
>> 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
>>
>> 73% tax on unearned income.
>>
>> 55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
>>
>> 55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
>>
> of higher prices? How does that tame the wealthy?
Not all of a tax is passed along to consumers. It
depends on the price elasticity of demand. But neither
you nor the fuckwit Travis (the shame of Chico and
moron who started this stupid thread) knows anything
about economics. Travis, for certain, doesn't have
anything close to a grip on political reality, either.
He's 60 fucking years old, and he has been unemployed
in Chico for the last 35 years.
Gandalf Grey
"Kurt Lochner" <kurt_l...@DONOTSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:479FF0E2...@DONOTSPAMhotmail.com...
I second that motion. Nothing pains Canyon more than being ignored.
3941 Dead
It really does, Milt. It's that ego. He demands relevance, even
though he can do nothing to earn it.
Veteran
Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
did you see this web site about reducing property taxes?
--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
problems tend to look like nails.
Rudy Canoza
It's crap. Most property is under-assessed.
The property tax is a bad tax, anyway. It should be
outlawed.
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>It really does, Milt. It's that ego. He demands relevance, even
>though he can do nothing to earn it.
Yes Milt, do put me on ignore.. and also please stop threatening
me.. It makes me laugh so hard that I wake up the neighbors..
"I think this one gets reported, Canyon."
"Consider yourself done, or else. if you ever contact me, or anyone I
know, ever again, I'll turn it in to the police down there in Florida,
and let them investigate it. I am a total stranger to you, we have
never met, and you have no reason to look up information about me. As
for proving malice, well, that's pretty much in every post."
"Don't bother me ever again."
"And I do mean NEVER."
--Milt.Shook Nov 24 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e0cfd30d3d3084b1
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
I have been. And it is driving him crazy.
Bummer.
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:37:06 -0600, Kurt Lochner
>
>
>
> though he can do nothing to earn it.
>
even see anything he posts unless someone responds. And it is driving
him crazy.
Now, if everyone would ignore him, he'd probably go completely mental;
even more so than he already has.
> http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827(From Yang, AthD (h.c)
>
> "I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
> become. I just can't. It just makes me sick to think all those years
> of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
> don't like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
> are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
> thugs, peering through people's windows so they can make fun of their
> misfortune.
>
> I'm registering Independent tomorrow."
>
> Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
>
> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
> Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
> Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
Steve
<SNORT> and the loony threats drive me crazy too...
makes me roll on the floor....
"I think this one gets reported, Canyon."
"Consider yourself done, or else. if you ever contact me, or anyone I
know, ever again, I'll turn it in to the police down there in Florida,
and let them investigate it. I am a total stranger to you, we have
never met, and you have no reason to look up information about me. As
for proving malice, well, that's pretty much in every post."
"Don't bother me ever again."
"And I do mean NEVER."
--Milt.Shook Nov 24 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e0cfd30d3d3084b1
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is reduced by the
Steve
Irony anyone? Poor Milt is frightened shitless of people seeing his
loony lies.. and every day he's on here whining about it...
Milt has a history of trying to reinforce his arguments
by presenting the statement of an un-named "expert friends"
of his, who agrees with him, or by concocting a story
about how he is, himself, is an expert in that field..
Turns out Milt Shook is the biggest poseur in usenet history
Milt Shook made this ridiculous claim on May 6 1997, 2:00 am
in attempt to back up his earlier argument..
"I was a Senate Page for two years when I went to HS in
Maryland. Why is that hard to believe?"
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/45a41b2be7278eed?&q=senate+page
It's not just hard to believe, it's just about impossible to
believe since now, Milt claims to have done it twice...
"Actually, I did misspeak on that one. One year in the House
and one year in the Senate."
--MilT.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/06a060ef017bf1a0
Well this may be why he won't talk about it....
Milt claimed to have been a congressional page when Nixon was impeached...
that would have been late 1973
"Um, KNOPP... I was a page in the Congress when the articles of
Impeachment were read into the record. He would have been tried
and found very guilty, as anyone who ever read the accounts at
the time would know. Nixon bowed out, because he knew he would
lose, and because he knew Ford would pardon him."
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/92d9c5f1857761bc
Then Milt also claimed to have been a page when Newt Gingrich was
first elected... <LOL that would have been in late 1978, five years
later...
"I was a page when Newt first started, and I thought he was an asshole
then, and I've been waiting for soething to change my mind. Nothing yet.."
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/23e7664bf86121dc
So Milt claims to have been a congressional page for at least five years....
until he was out of his teens...
Hardly enough time left for Milt to have been a ski instructor..
"I was an instructor for a year, moron. I'm an excellent skier. Or
was, until my knee blew. Now that it's healed though, I'd probably
be back on the black runs pretty quickly... "
--Milt Shook Apr 27 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/49f76a36f933f280
...or for Milt to have been a business consultant for five years..
"I was a consultant for FIVE years. My JOB was to take retailers,
look at how they ran things, and improve their lot. Most of the time,
I could do a report in two weeks. Most of those who followed my advice
are still in business. I only had one failure, and that was because
the owner himself was skimming cash off the top. "
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/2bff5dc5a4ab3669
or was it 13 years?
"I am 38 years old, and have worked in several fields in the past.
I have never made less than $20K, not even when I was 18 years old,
and I am in the midst of a career change. I have worked as a paid
consultant for several political campaigns, and I was a retail
manager, salesman, and consultant for retailers for about 13
years, sometimes simultaneously. I know what makes a business
tick, and I know what makes one fail. "
--Milt.Shook. Mar 16 1997,
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/5c6625559575e3b6
Well, according to Milt's earlier claims, he was a concessional
page until he was out of his teens, and they sure don't make $20K
..and Milt's dating habits were quite phenomenal too...:
"I've DATED people that you would die to meet."
--Milt.Shook... Jul 4 1997
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives/msg/d2ff681c7865876d?hl=en&
so is the person he thinks we'd die to meet?
"I'm not gay, but I dated a paraplegic woman for about six months
many years ago, and we had some of
Joe Steel
No. You made a unwarranted generalization and I corrected you.
milt....@gmail.com
> Veteran wrote:
> > In article <13pvuf4mb8i9...@corp.supernews.com>,> >>> In article <7%lnj.2777$so6.1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> >>> sumb...@crawford.net says...
> >>>> Heh folks, this ain't rocket science - we put the RICHFILTH ANIMALS on a
> >>>> leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
>
> >>>> 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
>
> >>>> 73% tax on unearned income.
>
> >>>> 55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
>
> >>>> 55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
>
> >>> Aren't corporate taxes just passed along to the consumer in the form
> >>> of higher prices? How does that tame the wealthy?
> >> Not all of a tax is passed along to consumers. It
> >> depends on the price elasticity of demand. But neither
> >> you nor the fuckwit Travis (the shame of Chico and
> >> moron who started this stupid thread) knows anything
> >> about economics. Travis, for certain, doesn't have
> >> anything close to a grip on political reality, either.
> >> He's 60 fucking years old, and he has been unemployed
> >> in Chico for the last 35 years.
>
> > did you see this web site about reducing property taxes?
>
> >www.lowtaxrate.com
>
> It's crap. Most property is under-assessed.
>
> The property tax is a bad tax, anyway. It should be
> outlawed.
I don't know if it should be outlawed, but it should be modified, for
sure. Instead of taxing it based on a subjective assessment of its
"value," as determined by some complete stranger, how about a flat
rate, depending on the size of the property and the type of structure
on it? I'm thinking you pay a certain tax per acre for the land -- if
you own a 1/4 acre lot, you pay a quarter of that -- and then a flat
rate based on either the type of structure on the land, or the square
footage. I don't have a problem with property taxes per se, but it
really isn't fair that people fix up their homes and improve the
neighborhood, and then get hit with a higher tax bill as a result. It
makes no sense.
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
Joe Steel
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
milt....@gmail.com
>
> > > Kurt Lochner was laughing at the expense of:
>
>
> > > > > 3941 Dead wrote to:
>
> > > > > > milt.sh...@gmail.com replied to:
Well, the fact that he posts anonymously, and works so hard to hide
his identity, while he takes dishonest potshots at people,
demonstrates that.
>
> --Examples follow..
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Canyon <stevencan...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
> <news:i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
>
> "I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
>
> --
> Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
> <news:jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
>
> "I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
>
> --
> Canyon <parkie_u_w...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
Steve
"works so hard?????" Shit, you pathetic fools couldn't find your own
ass with both hands and a dog...
"A gentleman who owns a group of camera stores says I'm a
business genius, "
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/3531f8f4530c10b5
...and yet Milt didn't even know what a negative equity is.
"Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now
worth $25, the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean,
DUH! You buy a share of stock in the hope that each share
will develop a positive equity, right? Well, a loss is
negative equity."
-- Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
Joe Steel
Good choice. This is too complicated for you.
znuybv
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:29:48 -0800 (PST), znuybv <thowil...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> In article <7%lnj.2777$so6.1...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, sumb...@crawford.net says...> Heh folks, this ain't rocket science - we put the RICHFILTH ANIMALS on a
> >> > leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
>
> >> > 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
>
> >> > 73% tax on unearned income.
>
> >> > 55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
>
> >> > 55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
>
> >> Aren't corporate taxes just passed along to the consumer in the form
> >> of higher prices? How does that tame the wealthy?
>
> >Tax the poor. Maybe then they will be for tax cuts.
>
> And yet somehow, oddly enough, when the tax burden was skewed higher
> from the 50s to the late 70's, the economy boomed, most households did
> well with only a single wage earner, and the corporations all did
> well.
>
> Imagine that.
Ah the good old days. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Shrikeback
"znuybv" <thow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:71549642-9ca4-49a3...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 28, 6:52 am, "Crawford Pussy" <sumb...@crawford.net> wrote:
>> Heh folks, this ain't rocket science - we put the RICHFILTH ANIMALS on a
>> leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
>>
>> 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
>>
>> 73% tax on unearned income.
>>
>> 55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
>>
>> 55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
>>
>>
>> Full support for the Wagner Act and repeal of Taft-Hartley.
>>
>> Elimination of Corporate Super-Citizenship by Statute.
>>
>> A ceiling on CEO retirement packages.
>>
>> Pots & Pans in the STREETS TIME. Shut it down. Ain't no Dem gonna save
>> you
>> from the Boogey Man now. The Monsters are treating us like every 3rd
>> world
>> country we ever destroyed. We are on the Menu now, not the diners
>> anymore.
>> As others have learned before us, we can only save ourselves. Or not at
>> all.
>>
>> Good riddance to Reagonomics. Today's neocon.tomorrow morning's bacon.
>
I think even the Democrats are going to give
up on being dogmatically for high taxes. They
can't continue to lose elections on this one
issue, when there are so many other things they
care about.
The choice of a new generation? Tax Limousine
Liberalism.
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner continued heckling the aggressive ignorance exhibited by:> > > milt....@gmail.com replied to:
> > > >
> > > > Kurt Lochner was laughing at the expense of:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3941 Dead wrote to:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > milt....@gmail.com replied to:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 3941 Dead wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>znuybv <thowil...@gmail.com> whined and wailed:
And then backpedals when his deliberate ignorance misfires..
--Examples follow..
___________________________________________________________________
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
--
Canyon <parkie...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
znuybv
> "znuybv" <thowil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:71549642-9ca4-49a3...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 6:52 am, "Crawford Pussy" <sumb...@crawford.net> wrote:
> >> Heh folks, this ain't rocket science - we put the RICHFILTH ANIMALS on a
> >> leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt Legacy:
>
> >> 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
>
> >> 73% tax on unearned income.
>
> >> 55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
>
> >> 55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
>
> >> Glass-Steagall Act restored.
>
> >> Full support for the Wagner Act and repeal of Taft-Hartley.
>
> >> Elimination of Corporate Super-Citizenship by Statute.
>
> >> A ceiling on CEO retirement packages.
>
> >> Pots & Pans in the STREETS TIME. Shut it down. Ain't no Dem gonna save
> >> you
> >> from the Boogey Man now. The Monsters are treating us like every 3rd
> >> world
> >> country we ever destroyed. We are on the Menu now, not the diners
> >> anymore.
> >> As others have learned before us, we can only save ourselves. Or not at
> >> all.
>
> >> Good riddance to Reagonomics. Today's neocon.tomorrow morning's bacon.
>
> > If you want high taxes; vote Democrat.
>
> republican.
I think BJ Clinton beat you to selling out to the Chicoms. High
taxes, massive illegal immigration and big spending will keep the
deficit in check. Vote Democrat.
Gandalf Grey
Really? How many billions in deficits did Clinton run up?
Rudy Canoza
> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.220794274...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
>> In article <7%lnj.2777$so6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
>> sum...@crawford.net says...
>>> on a leash before and we can do it again - it's spelled Roosevelt
>>> Legacy:
>>>
>>> 99% tax on earned income over $6mn/annum.
>>>
>>> 73% tax on unearned income.
>>>
>>> 55+% tax on mega-estates (Mr. Walton/Gates et al)
>>>
>>> 55% tax on Corporate Profits - no loopholes.
>>>
>> of higher prices? How does that tame the wealthy?
>
> costs, set prices. The firm may not be able to raise its prices to
> recover its increased costs. When that happens, the increased costs come
> from the owners' profits.
Taxes on profits aren't passed on to consumers at all.
They're not a cost.
Rudy Canoza
> In article <Xns9A33954F0...@216.168.3.70>, JoeS...@NoSpam.com says...
>>
>>> In article <Xns9A3380A13...@216.168.3.70>,
>>> JoeS...@NoSpam.com says...
>>>>
>>>>> In article <Xns9A3366BA9...@216.168.3.70>,
>>>>> JoeS...@NoSpam.com says...
>>>>> matter?
>>>>>
>>>> It won't raise prices.
>>>>
>>> So what's your point?
>> I'm answering your question.
>>
>> of higher prices? How does that tame the wealthy?
>>
>> No.
>>
Taxes on corporate profits are not a cost of production.
> the price to
> consumers is more, assuming markets are competitive.
Not necessarily. It depends on the elasticity of demand.
> When you say that
> "Corporate taxes are not necessarily passed-along" may be true in some
> cases, it's not true in general.
If you're talking about taxes on corporate profits,
which are not a cost of production, it is *always* true
that the taxes are not passed along to consumers.
hc23hc
>
> Most property is under-assessed.
Yours isn't, Rube. It's all falling apart.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN3070300320080131
Fitch Ratings downgraded FGIC Corp's credit rating and Standard &
Poor's reviewed the ratings on $529 billion worth of U.S. mortgage-
backed securities and collateralized debt obligations.
Another half-trillion bucks being pissed away by trickle-down jizzers
like Rube.
.
.
.
Steve
You are a fool... the only money the company receives comes from the
customers or the owner's (stockholders) investment capital.. now do
you really think the corporation's taxes come out of investment
capital?
Rudy Canoza
Their income taxes - taxes on profit - come from their
revenue, fool. Their revenue is what it is - it is not
affected by the tax on profits.
Fool.
milt....@gmail.com
> Steve wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:35:34 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>
> >> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders wrote:
> >>>> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> >>>>news:MPG.2207ca538...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
> >>>>> JoeSt...@NoSpam.com says...
> >>>>>> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>news:MPG.2207ba93...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
> >>>>>>> JoeSt...@NoSpam.com says...
> >>>>>>>> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>news:MPG.220794274...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
> >>>>>>>>> sumb...@crawford.net says...
You might as well forget it. People like that don't have the slightest
idea what they're talking about. He's been trying to argue for years
that it's a corporation's customers that pay its taxes, which is only
logical if you are able to accept the concept that no one pays their
own taxes. See, by logical extension, if you believe that a
corporation's customers pay the corporate taxes, then you don't pay
your taxes, the customers that pay your boss, so that he ca pay you,
actually pay your taxes. So, I guess all those people who complain
that their taxes are too high are just whiners, since they're not
paying them, anyway.
Seriously, the moron you're arguing with is too dumb to breathe. In
fact, watch what he does next; he'll post a bunch of shit that I said
that is true, and post it as if it's stupid, without realizing he's
making himself look dumber in the process.
He's not worth your time...
Steve
<pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
<snort> ...as if their revenue doesn't come from their customers.....
The entire cost of bringing a product or service to the consumer is
always embedded in its price and is thus, paid by the consumer. who
else?
steven...@yahoo.com
That's really ridiculous.. worthy of a moron like Shook who also
believes that he can sue a private party based on his First Amendment
right to free speech.. in a state court, no less."
Some taxes are indeed passed along from the employee to the employer,
but then that cost is also passed along to the end consumer of the
goods and services..
...now that employee also pays the embedded taxes on goods and
services that he buys.... and as the end consumer of those good an
serices, he cannot pass them to anyone..
Fact is that only the end consumers pay the embedded taxes because the
consumer is the end of the chain... the end consumer has no one to
pass them along to.. He consumes the product and pays the full price
of producing the product and bringing it to market.
> Seriously, the moron you're arguing with is too dumb to breathe. In
> fact, watch what he does next; he'll post a bunch of shit that I said
> that is true, and post it as if it's stupid, without realizing he's
> making himself look dumber in the process.
<LOL> Shook believes the following is true...
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is reduced by the
amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
--Milt Shook.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&
> He's not worth your time...
Shook is desperate to keep people from reading my posts... He's
pretty embarrassed by all of his stupidity and lies that I repost..
Such as..
"When you're (sic) margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset.
If
you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
$10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
...and Milt hasn't yet explained how a $10,000 margin call will
result
in a $20,000 loss, presumably above and beyond whatever loss of
market
value in stock precipitated the margin call....
Kurt Lochner
> > You might as well forget it. People like that don't have the slightest
> > idea what they're talking about. He's been trying to argue for years
> > that it's a corporation's customers that pay its taxes, which is only
> > logical if you are able to accept the concept that no one pays their
> > own taxes. See, by logical extension, if you believe that a
> > corporation's customers pay the corporate taxes, then you don't pay
> > your taxes, the customers that pay your boss, so that he ca pay you,
> > actually pay your taxes. So, I guess all those people who complain
> > that their taxes are too high are just whiners, since they're not
> > paying them, anyway.
>
Yup, that's what people are saying about your postings..
--Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, crayon?
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
> "semencan...@yahoo.com" was still whimpering about:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 10:25 pm,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> . .
> > > You might as well forget it. People like that don't have the slightest
> > > idea what they're talking about. He's been trying to argue for years
> > > that it's a corporation's customers that pay its taxes, which is only
> > > logical if you are able to accept the concept that no one pays their
> > > own taxes. See, by logical extension, if you believe that a
> > > corporation's customers pay the corporate taxes, then you don't pay
> > > your taxes, the customers that pay your boss, so that he ca pay you,
> > > actually pay your taxes. So, I guess all those people who complain
> > > that their taxes are too high are just whiners, since they're not
> > > paying them, anyway.
>
> >That's really ridiculous.. worthy of a moron [..]
>
> Yup, that's what people are saying about your postings..
Indeed. He's telling some other poster that the cost of goods is
"embedded" in the price of everything.
That is priceless in its cluelessness.
I knew he would say that, too, because he is economically addle-
brained. The cost of bringing a product to market is NOT "embedded" in
the price of that good!
The price of goods has NOTHING to do with how much they cost to bring
to market. The price is based SOLELY on how much people are willing to
pay for it. When a company markets a good or service, they bear the
full cost of bringing that to market, and they hope and pray that
they will be able to sell it for a price high enough to make a profit.
Hell; there are whole companies who specialize in buying shit that
companies make and can't sell. Go to the bookstore and check out the
bargain bins; they're selling one of Ann Coulter's books for $2; how
much of the cost of producing that book does this moron think is
"embedded" in that $2. Record companies sell CDs at a loss all of the
time; their business model is based on their knowledge that only about
20-25% of artists will sell really well; the cost of a CD is set based
on how much they can get for the CD, not how much it cost them to
produce.
The two are in no way related. Now, the possible price point may help
a businessperson decide whether or not he can afford to enter a
market, but given that about 80% of small businesses fail within the
first five years, it would be difficult to support the contention that
the cost of production is "embedded" in the price. It's not.
Corporations pay taxes on the money they earn, the same as their
customers. The contention that customers pay corporate taxes is flat
ignorant. But what a surprise, eh?
>
> --Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, crayon?
Jeez... I hope you're not holding your breath waiting...
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
> milt.sh...@gmail.com replied to:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kurt Lochner continued heckling the aggressive ignorance exhibited by:
>
>
> > > > > Kurt Lochner was laughing at the expense of:
>
>
> > > > > > > 3941 Dead wrote to:
>
> > > > > > > >milt.sh...@gmail.com replied to:
Actually, one of his problems is that he DOESN'T backpedal enough.
I've never seen anyone spout so much ignorant crap and then insist
that he's correct, to the point of absolute lunacy before. FOUR YEARS
he's been wrong about the First amendment, and not only doesn't he
just back off and save face; he keeps repeating the same ignorant
shit.
>
> --Examples follow..
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Canyon <stevencan...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
> <news:i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
>
> "I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
>
> --
> Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
> <news:jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
>
> "I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
>
> --
> Canyon <parkie_u_w...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
Mitchell Holman
news:3fb7fa32-1f13-4fda...@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
"Fred Thompson was a lawyer, a prosecutor and a US
Congressman before he was an actor."
Steve Canyon, July 22 2007.
For a list of the films Thompson was in before he was
a Congressman go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson
3941 Dead
I can remember clear back to when he tried insisting that Steve Forbes
didn't want to zero out the capital gains tax.
>>
>> --Examples follow..
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Canyon <stevencan...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
>> <news:i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
>>
>> "I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
>>
>> --
>> Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
>> <news:jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
>>
>> "I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
>>
>> --
>> Canyon <parkie_u_w...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
>> <news:rg6q5vgq29cerpocl...@4ax.com>
>>
>> "I don't need to back anything up, you moron, cause unlike
>> yourself, my self image is not dependent on what others
>> think about me."
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner was again amuse by the ambitious ignorance exhibited by:
> >
> >"semen...@yahoo.com" was still whimpering about:______>
> > > > You might as well forget it. People like that don't have the slightest
> > > > idea what they're talking about. He's been trying to argue for years
> > > > that it's a corporation's customers that pay its taxes, which is only
> > > > logical if you are able to accept the concept that no one pays their
> > > > own taxes. See, by logical extension, if you believe that a
> > > > corporation's customers pay the corporate taxes, then you don't pay
> > > > your taxes, the customers that pay your boss, so that he ca pay you,
> > > > actually pay your taxes. So, I guess all those people who complain
> > > > that their taxes are too high are just whiners, since they're not
> > > > paying them, anyway.
> > >
> > >That's really ridiculous.. worthy of a moron [..]
> >
> > Yup, that's what people are saying about your postings..
>
> Indeed. He's telling some other poster that the cost of goods is
> "embedded" in the price of everything.
> That is priceless in its cluelessness.
Oh, I wouldn't be as generous.. He's typical of the sort of
right-wing stooges I've encountered in The Land of Inhofe.
If he doesn't know the particulars of a given situation, he
just blusters, bullies and bloviates his way past the details
that show he's completely, if not fatally, wrong..
Then, when the business venture fails miserably, he blames
someone else.. Been there, done that, used the t-shirt to
change oil in the cars last year..
> I knew he would say that, too, because he is economically addle-
> brained. The cost of bringing a product to market is NOT "embedded"
> in the price of that good!
Or service, for that matter.. (Think "ISP" at a yatch club)
> The price of goods has NOTHING to do with how much they cost to bring
> to market. The price is based SOLELY on how much people are willing to
> pay for it. When a company markets a good or service, they bear the
> full cost of bringing that to market, and they hope and pray that
> they will be able to sell it for a price high enough to make a profit.
> Hell; there are whole companies who specialize in buying shit that
> companies make and can't sell. Go to the bookstore and check out the
> bargain bins; they're selling one of Ann Coulter's books for $2; how
> much of the cost of producing that book does this moron think is
> "embedded" in that $2. Record companies sell CDs at a loss all of the
> time; their business model is based on their knowledge that only about
> 20-25% of artists will sell really well; the cost of a CD is set based
> on how much they can get for the CD, not how much it cost them to
> produce.
>
> The two are in no way related. Now, the possible price point may help
> a businessperson decide whether or not he can afford to enter a
> market, but given that about 80% of small businesses fail within the
> first five years, it would be difficult to support the contention that
> the cost of production is "embedded" in the price. It's not.
> Corporations pay taxes on the money they earn, the same as their
> customers. The contention that customers pay corporate taxes is flat
> ignorant. But what a surprise, eh?
None, what so ever..
> > --Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, crayon?
>
> Jeez... I hope you're not holding your breath waiting...
Nah, nor am I counting on "Muffette" to pay me that $5,000.00
he wagered on my having earned a BcSci in physics, or Silly
Beck and his pompous pronouncements and $1,500 on the Vince
Foster suicide.. Nope, I'm not holding my breath on any of that..
--But, it is funny to watch them squirm because of their lies..
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner replied to:
> >
> > milt.sh...@gmail.com replied to:
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner continued heckling the aggressive ignorance exhibited by:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >milt.sh...@gmail.com replied to:
__________>
> > > > > > No, I don't think he's capable of it. He's not capable of
> > > > > > comprehending basic concepts like the fact that I can use the First
> > > > > > Amendment to force the government to stop some asshole from running me
> > > > > > off a street corner. After almost FOUR YEARS, he still repeats the
> > > > > > same stupid shit.
> > > > >
> > > > >I know they are stupid[..]
> > > >
> > > > Yet you keep posting those deliberate misquotes, "sieve",
> > > > thus proving what an enormous right-wing coward you really are..
> >
> > > Well, the fact that he posts anonymously, and works so hard
> > > to hide his identity, while he takes dishonest potshots at
> > > people, demonstrates that.
> >
> > And then backpedals when his deliberate ignorance misfires..
>
> Actually, one of his problems is that he DOESN'T backpedal enough.
Well (chuckling) there *IS* that, too..
> I've never seen anyone spout so much ignorant crap and then insist
> that he's correct, to the point of absolute lunacy before. FOUR YEARS
> he's been wrong about the First amendment, and not only doesn't he
> just back off and save face; he keeps repeating the same ignorant
> shit.
That's the mind-set of the typical right-winger, Milt..
When confronted with facts that disprove the illogical rationalizations
of a imaginary 'black-or-white' worldview, the typical right-winger
will resort to childish name-calling, bloviations and bullshit..
--That's why a fascist theocracy appeals so powerfully to them..
Steve
<LOL> So that's really the best you guys can do? ..that I missed
the fact that he was only a lawyer, and a prosecutor, but not a
Congressman before he was an actor?????
Keeryst, I'm sure I must have made bigger mistakes than that....
please try to do better next time...
Steve
This is from Milt Shook who claims that he can sue a private party
based on his First Amendment right to free speech.. in a state
court"
"If the flier distributor files suit, it will be based on his First
Amendment right to free speech"
--Mlt Shook May 16 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd2be3479999ea40?hl=en&
"I am going to bring suit against the store
owner. It is First Amendment based, [...]
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2011b7116c7c26d5?hl=en&
"It's not a federal court case, you bonehead!"
[...] "I would bring it in state court."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/5e6004a4cd404219?hl=en&
Steve
<LOL> Shook is still insisting that the First Amendment free speech
can be applied against a private citizen?
"If the flier distributor files suit, it will be based on his First
Amendment right to free speech"
--Mlt Shook May 16 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/dd2be3479999ea40?hl=en&
>I can remember clear back to when he tried insisting that Steve Forbes
>didn't want to zero out the capital gains tax.
Really? I sure don't remember saying such a thing.. but perhaps
fatty can refresh my memory.. I'm assuming he can't and that he just
made that up, like he makes up most of his rhetoric.
"Just like "Steve Canyon" did a couple of years ago when I called him
on his fantasy that he was a millionaire with yachts and apartment
complexes and who was an Indian married to a black woman and all these
other strange things. I even stumbled across his real identity, and
while I've never discussed it publically, you did mention it to him,
and he went berserk, remember?"
Zepp Jamieson 31 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/fe9c048c552ef851?hl=en&
"I've got the word back on you from
Zepp. Your real name is Henry Selvitella"
Alric Knoodles Sep 24 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/1d12e417d7c6f999?hl=en&
"Parker is Steve Canyon, of course"
Zepp Jamieson Aug 7 2005
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d12282dc011005ea?hl=en&
Kurt Lochner
>
> Mitchell Holman quoted:
__>
> >"Fred Thompson was a lawyer, a prosecutor and a US
> >Congressman before he was an actor."
> >Steve Canyon, July 22 2007.
> >
> >For a list of the films Thompson was in before he was
> >a Congressman go to:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson
>
><LOL> So that's really the best you guys can do?
Nope, just another example of your ambitious ignorance..
>..that I missed the fact that he was only a lawyer, and a
>prosecutor, but not a Congressman before he was an actor?????
There's more to it than that, sieve..
>Keeryst, I'm sure I must have made bigger mistakes than that....
Yup. Let's review a few of those now..
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:40:33 GMT
news:<b9avkuouvrkd3o6ghd1kppjhg6kespmdc9%404ax.com>
"A capacitor *is* an open circuit....like a transformer....
both depend on a changing magnetic field to work.."
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT
news:<0t87lu46blkiotfga...@4ax.com>
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
"[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
magnetism, either"
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"Electromagnetic Force = a force by which objects
with electric charge attract OR repel one another"
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"the references to capacitors in that cite had nothing
to do with my claims about capacitors,[..]"
"all electric phenomenon is because of electroMAGNETIC force"
____________________________________________________________________
Do you know what a Coulomb is, Crayon?
Tell us what units of measure it takes on..
Tell you what, Crayon. Tell us how much 'magnetic flux'
is generated by charging a 1.0F cap to 5.0 Volts, then tell
us about how much electrostatic force would be present..
What's the repulsive force between two charged masses of 100 Coulombs
each at a distance of 1.0 centimeter, Crayon. Now, tell us how many
Gauss it would take for a pair of magnets to repel each other with
as much force..
Put your answers right here---> _______________
Rudy Canoza
I didn't say it didn't, fool.
>
> The entire cost of bringing a product or service to the consumer is
> always embedded in its price and is thus, paid by the consumer.
Right. And corporate taxes on profits are not part of
that cost of production, you stupid fuckwit.
milt....@gmail.com
> Steve wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:04:31 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> > <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>
> >> Steve wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:35:34 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> >>> <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders wrote:
> >>>>>> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>news:MPG.2207ca538...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
> >>>>>>> JoeSt...@NoSpam.com says...
> >>>>>>>> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>news:MPG.2207ba93...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
> >>>>>>>>> JoeSt...@NoSpam.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>> Neocon Oil Cheerleaders <n...@spamm.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>news:MPG.220794274...@newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> sumb...@crawford.net says...
Kind of makes one wonder how many psychics are on the payroll of most
large corporations, so that they know exactly how much to "embed' in
their prices, doesn't it?
He's not really worth your time. He'll never get this.
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
> "stupid" <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote like whiney rightwinger:
>
>
>
> > Mitchell Holman quoted:
> __>
> > >"Fred Thompson was a lawyer, a prosecutor and a US
> > >Congressman before he was an actor."
> > >Steve Canyon, July 22 2007.
>
> > >For a list of the films Thompson was in before he was
> > >a Congressman go to:
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson
>
> ><LOL> So that's really the best you guys can do?
>
> Nope, just another example of your ambitious ignorance..
>
> >..that I missed the fact that he was only a lawyer, and a
> >prosecutor, but not a Congressman before he was an actor?????
>
> There's more to it than that, sieve..
>
> >Keeryst, I'm sure I must have made bigger mistakes than that....
>
> Yup. Let's review a few of those now..
>
> news:<b9avkuouvrkd3o6ghd1kppjhg6kespmdc9%404ax.com>
>
> "A capacitor *is* an open circuit....like a transformer....
> both depend on a changing magnetic field to work.."
> --
> <news:0t87lu46blkiotfga...@4ax.com>
>
> "The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
> significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
>
> "[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
> magnetism, either"
> --
> <news:og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
>
> "any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
> --
> <news:jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
>
> "Electromagnetic Force = a force by which objects
> with electric charge attract OR repel one another"
> --
> <news:jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
>
> "the references to capacitors in that cite had nothing
> to do with my claims about capacitors,[..]"
>
> "all electric phenomenon is because of electroMAGNETIC force"
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> Do you know what a Coulomb is, Crayon?
> Tell us what units of measure it takes on..
>
> Tell you what, Crayon. Tell us how much 'magnetic flux'
> is generated by charging a 1.0F cap to 5.0 Volts, then tell
> us about how much electrostatic force would be present..
>
> What's the repulsive force between two charged masses of 100 Coulombs
> each at a distance of 1.0 centimeter, Crayon. Now, tell us how many
> Gauss it would take for a pair of magnets to repel each other with
> as much force..
>
> Put your answers right here---> _______________
Don't forget his latest, that apparently large corporations "embed"
their tax bill in the prices you pay.
Apparently, they have psychics on the payroll at GM, who can tell them
exactly how much to "embed."
Steve
<pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
<chuckle> they are a part of the price of bringing that product to
the consumer, hence, they are embedded in its price. If not factored
into the consumer's price of that product, the sale of the product
might result in a loss...
But anyway, before I asked, (and you snipped) if the embedded tax is
not paid by the consumer, by who?
Steve
<LOL> why actually, all the corporations taxes are embedded in the
price of their products, Dummy..
..and while we're discussing economics, how exactly does selling stock
for a profit result in a reduction in my assets?
never@millions
<pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
Rudy,
Uhm, just looking for a clarification: In order to pay the taxes on
corporate profits does raising the price (with embedded costs) of the
product result in paying the taxes more easily while at the same time
raising the profit as well as the cost of the product? In the end
result, would the government get their taxes, the corporation gets
their profits, the consumer gets the product? Does the raise in prices
mean that a consumer may not have enough money to buy the product, the
corporations doesn't make their profit, the government doesn't get
their taxes . . .
Is the answer: raise the earnings and salary/wages of the consumer?
And then start the whole series of cycles again? Or does getting rid
of government - portions thereof - help or hinder?
Would John Keynes really care? How about John Kenneth Galbraith. Or
Milton Friedman? And there is N. D. Kondratiev, creator of the
Kondrakiev Cycle? Of course there is a much longer lists . . ..
Does this mean the rich get richer and poor get poorer? At what point
do the rich stop getting richer and the poor stop getting poorer?
Could it mean the richer will get poor and the poor will get rich?
Do these economic cycles (processes) sound like a huge convoluted
Ponzi Scheme?
Does it all really matter?
Enjoy.
DCI
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner was again laughing at the expense of:
> >
> >"stupid" <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote like whiney rightwinger:
> > >
> > > Mitchell Holman quoted:
Yeah, sure and all capacitors are "magnetic".. *>LOL!<*
> Apparently, they have psychics on the payroll at GM, who can
> tell them exactly how much to "embed."
And how much to 'shelter" off-shore in other nations..
--Greedy One Percent..