Democrat = DEPRESSION, Republican = RECOVERY.

[Chi Univ HR Dept]

That's the historical facts.

Democrats have never accomplished any sort of economic recovery, and have
always driven the United States deeper in debt. Republicans have always
bailed out the finances of the USA. Democrats always find a way to spend
the money Republicans save, then they spend more that they don't have.

Democrats have adopted every facet of the now defunct American Communist
Party platform.

[Jeff M]

All this is rather amusing, but factually untrue.

[F. George McDuffee]

Our current kleptocracy/plutocracy mongralization of the
American free enterprise system into global capo capitalism
was/is a bipartisan effort, and both the Republicans and
Democrats are responsible /accountable.

For some insight as to why things are going so terribly
wrong for the majority see

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/05/inequality-today-worse-than-a.html


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[Stormin Mormon]

PBS, the public relations arm of the liberals? For a fair and balanced anything? Not.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message news:v39ip89c0na21df7i...@4ax.com...

[F. George McDuffee]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:04:09 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**NOJUNK**@hotmail.com> wrote:

>PBS, the public relations arm of the liberals? For a fair and balanced =
>anything? Not. =20

skip the verbiage, look at the data / chart. make a list of
dates when the Reps and Dems had control of the legislature
and/WH and see if you can spot any indication of changes in
the trends. Two roosters crowing on the dung heap to make
the sun come up...

[Tom Gardner]

On 5/19/2013 3:22 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:38:53 +0000 (UTC), Chi Univ HR Dept
> <cu...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>> That's the historical facts.
>>
>> Democrats have never accomplished any sort of economic recovery, and have
>> always driven the United States deeper in debt. Republicans have always
>> bailed out the finances of the USA. Democrats always find a way to spend
>> the money Republicans save, then they spend more that they don't have.
>>
>> Democrats have adopted every facet of the now defunct American Communist
>> Party platform.
>
> Our current kleptocracy/plutocracy mongralization of the
> American free enterprise system into global capo capitalism
> was/is a bipartisan effort, and both the Republicans and
> Democrats are responsible /accountable.
>
> For some insight as to why things are going so terribly
> wrong for the majority see
>
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/05/inequality-today-worse-than-a.html
>
>

You always seem to be the calm, cool voice of reason amongst the wailing
of highly charged "football" fans.

[F. George McDuffee]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:01:50 -0400, Tom Gardner <Mars@Tacks>
wrote:

=================

Thank you.

You may find the following item of interest as it
illustrates the futility of attempting to cut corporate tax
rates to promote domestic economic recovery as the
corporations aren't paying any domestic income taxes now.
Also the futility of special tax preferences for US
corporate "investments" and/or "capital gains" as these are
never made in the US and so do not generate jobs or revenue
*HERE*.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/apple-taxes-offshore-senate-investigation-91633.html

The solution? IMNSHO "Unitary Taxation"

[Obama FEMA Failure]

In article <XnsA1C56C5189...@0.0.0.0>

Chi Univ HR Dept <cu...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>

100% correct.

��

[John Q. Public]

The solution?

- Revoke the Federal Reserve Act.
- Eliminate the collection agency for the Federal Reserve, the IRS.
- Return the federal Senate to the states. Repeal the 17th A.
- Revoke the federal Income Tax Act. Repeal the 16th A.
- Stop federal double and triple dipping. One federal pension from one
position only.
- Institute term limits.
- Vote casting and calculation by manual means only. Electronic voting is
largely rigged.

That's the short list.

Within one election cycle these alone will significantly cut federal
government
size, spending and corruption.




>

[John Q. Public]

The Communist Party USA (CPUSA), a Marxist-Leninist political party,
is alive and well. About a third of federal and state politicians are
members.

Communist Party of the United States of America
235 W. 23rd Street
New York 10011

A decent description may be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Communist_Party

[Delvin Benet]

On 5/19/2013 10:38 AM, Chi Univ HR Dept wrote:
> That's the historical facts.
>

> Democrats have adopted every facet of the now defunct American Communist
> Party platform.

Bullshit.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/24/2013 9:24 AM, Denny wrote:

> How about eliminating the Electoral College. That would have saved us from
> the Curse of the Dubya.

The Electoral College is an essential element of the US as a federal
republic. There is nothing wrong with it at all. Don't give me any
puerile bullshit about it being "undemocratic" - our federal structure
is inherently undemocratic, and that's a desirable feature, not a
defect. We should have more of it. The 17th amendment to the
Constitution should be repealed.

[Max Boot]

On 5/19/2013 12:22 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:38:53 +0000 (UTC), Chi Univ HR Dept
> <cu...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>> That's the historical facts.
>>
>> Democrats have never accomplished any sort of economic recovery, and have
>> always driven the United States deeper in debt. Republicans have always
>> bailed out the finances of the USA. Democrats always find a way to spend
>> the money Republicans save, then they spend more that they don't have.
>>
>> Democrats have adopted every facet of the now defunct American Communist
>> Party platform.
>
> Our current kleptocracy/plutocracy mongralization of the
> American free enterprise system into global capo capitalism
> was/is a bipartisan effort, and both the Republicans and
> Democrats are responsible /accountable.
>
> For some insight as to why things are going so terribly
> wrong for the majority see
>
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/05/inequality-today-worse-than-a.html

No, that's garbage. First, economic inequality /per se/ is not a bad
thing. Suggesting that it's bad shows the horrific and lasting
influence of communism. This country embodies the principle of equality
of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Pursuit of equality of outcome
leads to a race to the bottom. Everyone is worse off.

Second, economic inequality is not the cause of any problem. It is a
*result* of a system that rewards hard work and imagination.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <20130524122458.677$Y...@newsreader.com>,

dzwe...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:

> "John Q. Public" <J...@flashmail.com> wrote:

> How about eliminating the Electoral College. That would have saved us from
> the Curse of the Dubya.

..... but it would have saddled us with the curse of the AlGore!

[George Plimpton]

On 5/24/2013 11:17 AM, Denny wrote:

> You're not objective because you're a Bushie.

First of all, that's doubly false: I *am* objective, and I did not
support or vote for George W. Bush.


> A minority president.

Irrelevant. The president is not now and never was intended to be a
democratically elected position. It *should not* be.



> And the electoral college gives an unfair advantage to the wierd states.

No more than each state having two senators regardless of population.

You just don't understand federalism at all.

[Max Boot]

On 5/24/2013 11:20 AM, Denny wrote:

> Economic inequality caused many bad things. The French Revolution, the
> Russian, the Cuban, many others.

None of those was caused by economic inequality.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/24/2013 11:31 AM, Denny wrote:

> All the dead and woournded from Iraq would not agree with you, if they
> could speak.

I personally do not think the war in Iraq was justified or necessary. I
could be wrong. I have long felt the same way about Vietnam, but a
recent article in The Atlantic about Henry Kissinger suggests that might
need to be reconsidered, too.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/the-statesman/309283/

You're just a garden variety head-in-the-sand leftist who devalues
freedom and stability, and thinks the circumscribed and fake "freedom"
you purport to believe in comes without cost. The country has never
trusted people like you to make foreign policy.

[Max Boot]

> Whoa! Not a history major here. Never mind.

None of those revolutions was caused by economic inequality. You're
seeing a false cause, as usual. Economic inequality /per se/ is not a
bad thing. It all depends on how and why it occurs. In those
countries, it was merely a symptom, not a cause.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/24/2013 1:02 PM, Denny wrote:
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> Well you don't know me after all my kind-hearted efforts.

I know you perfectly well enough to know that you are an unthinking
doctrinaire left-wing goof who has no critical reasoning ability.

[George Plimpton]

> Oops, never mind to you as well.

You just don't know what you're talking about, that's all. You can't
point to anyplace in which economic inequality /per se/ was a cause of
anything. You repeatedly commit a /post hoc/ fallacy.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/24/2013 4:21 PM, Denny wrote:
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> Lemme think....Russian Revolution, French, Cuban, Indian Independence
> movement.

You already tried all those, and they were kicked aside. Economic
inequality existed in all those places, but it was not the *cause* of
any of the revolutions. In all of them, there was an entrenched class
structure that was the real cause. All of those revolutions were about
politics, not economics. There are plenty of places that have had
revolutions in the absence of economic inequality.

You keep making the same error: a /post hoc/ fallacy.

[Harold Burton]

In article <20130524192124.375$t...@newsreader.com>,

dzwe...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:

> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> Lemme think....




Nah, no chance of that.



snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article <93e1f$51a010c6$414e828e$26...@EVERESTKC.NET>,

And look at the result of them, people left worse off than before, but
that doesn't bother idiot leftards.

[Tom Gardner]

On 5/24/2013 12:24 PM, Denny wrote:
>>>
>
> How about eliminating the Electoral College. That would have saved us from
> the Curse of the Dubya.
>

How about the curse of representation without taxation?

[Tom Gardner]

On 5/24/2013 2:17 PM, Denny wrote:
> You're not objective because you're a Bushie. A minority president.

> And the electoral college gives an unfair advantage to the wierd states.

> Those rectangular ones. Bul I'll admit, if sheep and cattle voted, it would
> make perfect sense.
>
> Where you been Plimp? You ole hoss thief.
>



What about the unfair advantage to voters that don't contribute to
society or the the country's coffers? Why should those that are kept on
the plantation by fear of losing their provided benefits if they leave
the reservation and get a job or get an education or stop squirting out
increases in their benefits? The left wants to keep these voter blocks
under control, stupid, fearful and voting Democrat for generations.
It's a strategy that works very well! It worked great in the last 2
elections...only had to throw in free phones; BRILLIANT! I never would
have thought of the whole strategy even though I've been a registered
Democrat for almost 40 years.

[Tom Gardner]

On 5/24/2013 4:02 PM, Denny wrote:
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> Well you don't know me after all my kind-hearted efforts.

> Today it's hard to find a firm supporter of the Dubya wars. Not anyone
> willing to speak up, anyway. What Dubya was trying to do, we'll never know.
> But the righties who followed him like sheep must be to ashamed to discuss
> it now. Human nature. Their support cause the wars and allowed them to drag
> on for years. I hope they cringe when they see the Wounded Warrior ads on
> TV. I hop it's painful for them. Well, it's painful for me too but my
> conscience is clear.
>


War is the last resort and should almost NEVER happen! Why were a
majority of Democrats in power in favor of war?

[F. George McDuffee]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:38:53 +0000 (UTC), Chi Univ HR Dept
<cu...@uchicago.edu> wrote:

>That's the historical facts.

<snip>

FYI:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/chart-shows-corp-taxes-grossly-unfair_n_3321737.html
<snip>
Notice the beige stripe that is shrinking steadily? That
stripe is the percentage corporate taxes contribute to total
federal revenue. And notice the olive-green stripe that has
swollen to be larger than the beige stripe used to be? That
is the contribution of payroll taxes to federal revenue.

What this shows is how dramatically corporate tax
contributions have shrunk in the past several decades, and
how our personal taxes have risen to fill the gap. Payroll
taxes now make up 35 percent of all federal government tax
receipts, up from 11 percent in 1950. Corporate income
taxes, meanwhile, now make up less than 10 percent of
federal revenue, down from about 26 percent in 1950.
<snip>

[Frnak McKenney]

George,

Sorry for intruding, but my head is a bit fuzzy. I looked at the
graph, and it's on of those "percentage" plots, so I can't tell --
just from it -- whether corporations are paying fewer tax _dollars_
than they have been previously, or not. Numerically speaking, if
corporate tax$ stayed constant through that graph, then it (the graph)
would simply be saying that personal tax$ and payroll tax$ went up.

But I'm really stuck on something I can't... visualize, I guess, clearly:

1) Corporations pay taxes (out of their revenues).
2) I pay taxes out of my income from investments, consulting fees,
wages, or salary.
3) I add to corporate revenue out of my income when I purchase their
goods or services.

Is it "fairer" for me to pay less income tax, but higher prices on the
goods and services I buy/use because the corporations providing them
pay higher corporate taxes? Perhaps it would it be "fairer" if I paid
higher income taxes but paid less for goods and services due to lower
corporate taxes?

I just have this feeling that, if the federal/state/local governments
collect massive amounts of tax money, it will somehow, eventually,
come out of the money I have available to spend (via my wallet, my
hide, or some other part of my anatomy ) regardless of which point in
the financial circulatory system it gets tapped from.

We can't kill the parasite ( it _is_ mildly symbiotic ), so it must be
fed. From somewhere. All we can hope to do is limit its growth and
reproduction.

( There's a related question about how Federal "comprehensive tax
reform" could simultaneously simplify calculations, make taxes -- in
some vague, undefined sense -- "fairer", have everyone pay less tax
dollars, and still yield more tax revenue to the federal government.
But it's too early in the week for that one. )


Sorry -- I think I need another cuppa' tea.


Frank McKenney
--
... Each story poses its own unique set of problems. It merely
happens that the problems I had to solve in order to tell this story
were some of the hardest, creatively and technically, that I've ever
faced in my writing career.

That's the problem with growing older and more experienced.
Decisions that would have been "good enough" when I was thirty now
seem like cheap shortcuts to me at sixty-one. I know how to write
better than I did before; but knowing better usually means that I
have to work harder, invent more, and find solutions to ever-more-
difficult expository problems. This is why writers never retire.
If we're doing our job right, we're always just figuring out how
this thing is done; we're always novice writers flailing about to
find some kind of solid ground for moving forward.

-- Orson Scott Card/ Afterword to "The Gate Thief"
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney aatt mindspring ddoott com

[james g. keegan jr.]

Corporate tax should be zero. Not just corporate tax - all businesses
should pay zero tax.

[F. George McDuffee]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:31:07 -0500, Frnak McKenney
<fr...@far.from.the.madding.crowd.com> wrote:

>Sorry for intruding, but my head is a bit fuzzy. I looked at the
>graph, and it's on of those "percentage" plots, so I can't tell --
>just from it -- whether corporations are paying fewer tax _dollars_
>than they have been previously, or not. Numerically speaking, if
>corporate tax$ stayed constant through that graph, then it (the graph)
>would simply be saying that personal tax$ and payroll tax$ went up.

==============

Graph shows where the money comes from to run the federal
government except the deficit [future tax payers] is not
included. Excise and import duties are down because of free
trade, but the corporations have made big strides toward
shifting their taxes onto the consumers and employees.
Those funds in the tax havens came from somewhere, and
belong to the share holders, not the corporate executives.
This is also a state revenue problem with the corporations
evading the franchise taxes and attempting to introduce new
individual/consumer taxes while externalizing their costs
including taxpayer "subsidized" minimum wage labor [e.g.
food stamps and medicaid].

The thing to remember is that for every dollar of taxes
someone evades/avoids, some one else must pay, which may be
future taxpayers when a deficit is run.

You do however appear to be correct that more revenue means
more spending and not debt reduction.

[F. George McDuffee]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:43:42 -0700, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmaîl.com> wrote:

>Corporate tax should be zero. Not just corporate tax - all businesses
>should pay zero tax.

Their working on it.

The problem is this hides the true/total cost of goods and
services by hiding the externalized costs in your tax bill,
and worse "hides" the amount of subsidies the companies are
receiving through tax abatement, special tax treatment, etc.

One of the implicit requirements for the "free market" to
function is that total/real prices for goods and services
must be know to allow meaningful/rational comparison of
alternatives. For example, the true cost of a gallon of
gasoline appears to be in the range 12-16$/gal. when all
costs are considered, including amortizing the "oil wars."

[Stormin Mormon]

As I understand it, corporations don't pay taxes. They just include the tax burden in the prices of what they sell. Business are uncompensated tax collectors for the government.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmaîl.com> wrote in message news:c2884$51a4cfed$414e828e$76...@EVERESTKC.NET...

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:43:38 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**NOJUNK**@hotmail.com> wrote:

>As I understand it, corporations don't pay taxes. They just include the tax burden in the prices of what they sell. Business are uncompensated tax collectors for the government.
>.
>Christopher A. Young
>Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
>.

Absolutely correct.


>.
>"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmaīl.com> wrote in message news:c2884$51a4cfed$414e828e$76...@EVERESTKC.NET...

>
>Corporate tax should be zero. Not just corporate tax - all businesses
>should pay zero tax.
>

--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

[james g. keegan jr.]

On 5/28/2013 9:48 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:43:42 -0700, "james g. keegan jr."
> <jgkeegan@gmaīl.com> wrote:
>
>> Corporate tax should be zero. Not just corporate tax - all businesses
>> should pay zero tax.
>
> Their working on it.
>
> The problem is this hides the true/total cost of goods and
> services by hiding the externalized costs in your tax bill,
> and worse "hides" the amount of subsidies the companies are
> receiving through tax abatement, special tax treatment, etc.

Just the opposite: imposing tax on business *distorts* the true cost of
goods and services.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <ufm9q8pa74ne782sc...@4ax.com>,

WRONG! It just means that someone has figured a way to avoid some
taxes. What we really need is spending restraint -- something that has
been missing for decades.

>
> You do however appear to be correct that more revenue means
> more spending and not debt reduction.

It is like giving whiskey to an alcoholic.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:43:38 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
> <cayoung61**NOJUNK**@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >As I understand it, corporations don't pay taxes. They just include the tax burden in the prices of what they sell. Business are uncompensated tax collectors for the government.
> >.
> >Christopher A. Young
> >Learn more about Jesus
> > www.lds.org
> >.
> Absolutely correct.

This is a start:

http://www.thefloridacurrent.com/article.cfm?id=32849641

[Michael A. Terrell]

"F. George McDuffee" wrote:
>
> For example, the true cost of a gallon of
> gasoline appears to be in the range 12-16$/gal. when all
> costs are considered, including amortizing the "oil wars."

High fuel/energy costs drive up the price of everything else.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/28/2013 9:48 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

Bullshit. Those are extravagant estimates from left-wing "research"
organizations like "International Centre for Technology Assessment",
whose "research" is not peer reviewed and is primarily political rather
than technical or scientific. Their estimates are grotesquely inflated.
The cost certainly is much higher than what we're paying at the pump,
but not that high.

[pyotr filipivich]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> on Wed, 29 May 2013
09:08:39 -0400 typed in misc.survivalism the following:

And the majority of those costs are taxes.
--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.