OT all you libs open your wallets
bub
rasie deficit spending to the moon and then say we need more taxes
not a word about cut spending
this should make you libs happy with more money to spend on shitty
programs
Tue Apr 6, 2010
Volcker: Taxes likely to rise eventually to tame deficit
(Reuters) - The United States should consider raising taxes to help
bring deficits under control and may need to consider a European-style
value-added tax, White House adviser Paul Volcker said on Tuesday.
Volcker, answering a question from the audience at a New York
Historical Society event, said the value-added tax "was not as toxic
an idea" as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other
energy-related tax may become necessary.
Though he acknowledged that both were still unpopular ideas, he said
getting entitlement costs and the U.S. budget deficit under control
may require such moves. "If at the end of the day we need to raise
taxes, we should raise taxes," he said.
OrangeSFO
want all the handouts because they obviously believe that everything
should COST NOTHING.
Paul Popinjay
news:50cfe30d-de1e-490f...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> Im starting to think its the "conservatives" are the freeloaders who
> want all the handouts because they obviously believe that everything
> should COST NOTHING.
I just sent the biggest check to the government that I have ever sent in my
whole life. Fuck you, Orange, I hope you get a life-threatening disease,
seriously. I hope Edward Hutchison posts an "OrangeSFO" post real soon.
warmest regards,
-PP
OrangeSFO
> I just sent the biggest check to the government that I have ever sent in my
> whole life.
No you didnt
Paul Popinjay
Yes, I did, fuck face. Counting the federal, AND the State of California, I
did. Especially the State of California. And do you know why I paid so
much to the State of California, Orange? Because Schwartzenegger is one of
you, that's why. I knew it before he was elected. I sure the fuck didn't
vote for him. He's a commie mutherfucker liberal piece of shit just like
you and your ilk. This shit's going to turn on you people someday, fucker.
Mark my words. It's going to blow up right in your faces.
Follow
Really? After passing a health care bill and wishing that health care
would cost you libs NOTHING, you're blaming the conservatives for wanting
things to "COST NOTHING?"
You got some balls...
Follow :)
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hpguq9$3lf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Peepee, you need a nice spa day to relax.
Get Willie to give you a facial
>
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
How much could you possibly earn?
>
Jason Pawloski
so obviously it won't happen. And you're a racist neo-con teabagger for
suggesting it.
--
Voted RGP's Stupidest Poster on 3/22/09
"ONLY ONE PROBLEM .. The Constitution doesnt have a preamble , but the
declaration of Independence does !! YOU JUST CANT MAKE THIS SHIT UP !!
:fuck facts ..i have some hate to spread!!" - Constitution scholar K9Way
giving RGP the business
"BART [Bay Area Rapid Transit] is rather new." - Jerry Sturdivant chiming
in on how little he knows about a train system that's been operational
since 1972
-----
BillB
"bub" <b...@plottus.com> wrote in message
news:92pnr5pkcn9kskl2d...@4ax.com...
> Volcker: Taxes likely to rise eventually to tame deficit
>
> (Reuters) - The United States should consider raising taxes to help
> bring deficits under control and may need to consider a
> European-style
> value-added tax, White House adviser Paul Volcker said on Tuesday.
> Though he acknowledged that both were still unpopular ideas, he said
> getting entitlement costs and the U.S. budget deficit under control
> may require such moves. "If at the end of the day we need to raise
> taxes, we should raise taxes," he said.
Duh! How long have I been telling you this? Is takes Volcker to say it
to get your attention?
You CAN NOT pay down your debt (and I am not talking about unfunded
liabilities -- I am talking about public debt already on the books) in
any meaningful way, under any reasonable assumptions, without
increasing taxes. This is as loud and clear as the rattling sound you
hear when Beldingbat shakes his head. Whenever I hear a so-called
"conservative" talk about the high debt destroying the country, then
in the next breath railing against higher taxes (which is often), I
know immediately that I am listening to a complete fool.
Americans who really care about the future of their country should be
DEMANDING higher taxes at this point.
BillB
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hpgsn9$ffd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> I just sent the biggest check to the government that I have ever
> sent in my
> whole life.
Right on. That means you made a lot of money. You should be happy.
I would still like to see you contributing a bit more, given the
current state of affairs. A little less posting, a little more working
in 2010. OK? It's a win-win for everyone.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:hphnhi$2oa$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Most countries in the world are in massive amounts of debt.
Almost none of them will ever pay it off.
Destroying the economy by taxing it is insane.
Getting to the point where you can spend significantly LESS and use the same
TAXES, so you can pay down debt, is key.
Increasing the debtload to pull the economy out of a recession isn't all
bad.
Having no plan to STOP the excess spending IS.
Beldin the Sorcerer
How much extra did you send the Canadian government last year, Bubblehead?
Your debt to GDP ratio is quite high, you know
>
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hphrct$s07$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> How much extra did you send the Canadian government last year,
> Bubblehead?
Extra? Is this your child-like logic at work again?
> Your debt to GDP ratio is quite high, you know
It is higher than I would like to see, but it has been halved since
1995.
I would like to see Canada become the first essentially debt-free
country in the G7 in my lifetime, which is a highly attainable goal.
Yes, taxes will likely have to be raised slightly to attain that goal.
As it stands, income taxes in Canada are quite low, but there is none
of this nonsense you have in the US where the bottom 40% (or whatever
it is) pay almost no federal income tax. If you make over 10k in
Canada, you are expected to contribute. That's the first change I
would make to the US system.
"Canada had by far the best fiscal position among G7 nations going
into the current crisis, and is projected to maintain this strong
position as it emerges from recession. The OECD projects Canada's
total government net debt-to-GDP ratio will be 32.6 per cent in 2010."
http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2009/ec04-eng.asp
The US, on the other hand, looks like it has it sights set on 100 per
cent debt/gdp in the foreseeable future.
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hphrct$s07$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> How much extra did you send the Canadian government last year,
>> Bubblehead?
>
> Extra? Is this your child-like logic at work again?
I'm sure Canadians can too.
>
>> Your debt to GDP ratio is quite high, you know
>
> It is higher than I would like to see, but it has been halved since 1995.
Really?
It was over 100% then?
> I would like to see Canada become the first essentially debt-free country
> in the G7 in my lifetime, which is a highly attainable goal. Yes, taxes
> will likely have to be raised slightly to attain that goal. As it stands,
> income taxes in Canada are quite low, but there is none of this nonsense
> you have in the US where the bottom 40% (or whatever it is) pay almost no
> federal income tax. If you make over 10k in Canada, you are expected to
> contribute. That's the first change I would make to the US system.
Wow, you're an idiot.
It's not the bottom 50% pay no taxes, you moron.
It's that the TOP pay so damn MUCH.
You understand the cost of living in the US?
Hell, do you understand it in Canada?
In 2004, the Canadian poverty level for a family of 4 was around 35k (Your
country breaks it down based on population.
In the US, it varies quite a bit by state, of course)
Look for yourself
http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_lico04_bt.htm
You want citizens paying significant taxes so you can turn around and give
them aid feeding their families?
That's about your level of thinking, sure.
>
> "Canada had by far the best fiscal position among G7 nations going into
> the current crisis, and is projected to maintain this strong position as
> it emerges from recession. The OECD projects Canada's total government net
> debt-to-GDP ratio will be 32.6 per cent in 2010."
That's fascinating, with no cite.
The cite you OFFERED says this :
Fiscal Outlook
Based upon the downward revision in the economic forecast by private sector
forecasters for Canada described above, the Government's fiscal position is
now expected to be weaker than that projected at the time of the 2009
budget. The deficit is projected to decline steadily over the forecast
horizon, reflecting the positive impact of economic growth on revenues and
an expected moderation in growth of program spending as employment insurance
benefits decline with the improving labour market.
2009-2010 and 2010-2011 fiscal year evenues are projected BELOW 2008-2009
revenues.
Not surprising.
The National Debt is projected to increase over 25% in that period,
according to your source, from 463B to 565B
You sure you read what you thought you did, Bubblehead?
The Projection could be nice of course, but it sure seems suspect,
especially, given the CIA factbook put it at 72% or so in 2009
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
OECD had you at 69.7% in 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
You don't mind if I consider that perhaps your prediction is a bit off?
Of course, I'm looking at the Canadian debt projected to grow over the next
decade, right?
From 463.7 Billion to 628.1 Billion?
The Canadian national debt clock continues to increase :
Right now it's at 518,384,500,000 or so
susan
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hpgsn9$ffd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
My very flawed logic here Paul - if he does get a life-threatening disease,
we will have to pay for his care.
susan
"Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ilht87x...@recgroups.com...
> On Apr 6 2010 8:11 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
>
>> Im starting to think its the "conservatives" are the freeloaders who
>> want all the handouts because they obviously believe that everything
>> should COST NOTHING.
>
> Really? After passing a health care bill and wishing that health care
> would cost you libs NOTHING, you're blaming the conservatives for wanting
> things to "COST NOTHING?"
>
> You got some balls...
>
>
>
> Follow :)
orangie is making the other liberals look smart
Iceman
wrote:
> "OrangeSFO" <intangible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:50cfe30d-de1e-490f...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Im starting to think its the "conservatives" are the freeloaders who
> > want all the handouts because they obviously believe that everything
> > should COST NOTHING.
>
> I just sent the biggest check to the government that I have ever sent in my
> whole life.
Bail money?
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hphuuj$l1k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Extra? Is this your child-like logic at work again?
> Hey, citizens of the US can voluntarily pay more, to be applied to
> the debt.
> I'm sure Canadians can too.
And what practical good would that do anyone? If national debts are
going to be tackled, it is clear to all but the most intellectually
handicapped (like you), that it will have to be a collective effort
through tax policy. Haphazard individual donations (if in fact such
donations
are made) accomplish little to nothing.
>>> Your debt to GDP ratio is quite high, you know
>>
>> It is higher than I would like to see, but it has been halved since
>> 1995.
>
> Really?
> It was over 100% then?
No, it was about 70%.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/4499416553/
> Wow, you're an idiot.
>
> It's not the bottom 50% pay no taxes, you moron.
I said the bottom 40% (or something like that) pays almost no income
tax. In 2007 the bottom 50% in the US paid less than 3% of the income
taxes. A large percentage of those had negative income tax liability
because of refundable tax credits. I'm sorry, but that is fact.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
> You understand the cost of living in the US?
> Hell, do you understand it in Canada?
Yes, I do
> In 2004, the Canadian poverty level for a family of 4 was around 35k
> (Your country breaks it down based on population.
> In the US, it varies quite a bit by state, of course)
>
> Look for yourself
>
> http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_lico04_bt.htm
Canada doesn't have a "poverty line". It has a low income cut-off,
which is famously high. As noted by the CIA World Factbook:
"Percent living below poverty line: 10.8%; note - this figure is the
Low Income Cut-Off (LICO), a calculation that results in higher
figures than found in many comparable economies; Canada does not have
an official poverty line "
>> "Canada had by far the best fiscal position among G7 nations going
>> into the current crisis, and is projected to maintain this strong
>> position as it emerges from recession. The OECD projects Canada's
>> total government net debt-to-GDP ratio will be 32.6 per cent in
>> 2010."
>
> That's fascinating, with no cite.
Yes, there was a cite. Look at the bottom of the chart: OECD Economic
Outlook no. 85 (June, 2009)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/4499418919/
Are you blind, dumb, or both?
> The cite you OFFERED says this :
> Fiscal Outlook
> Based upon the downward revision in the economic forecast by private
> sector forecasters for Canada described above, the Government's
> fiscal position is now expected to be weaker than that projected at
> the time of the 2009 budget. The deficit is projected to decline
> steadily over the forecast horizon, reflecting the positive impact
> of economic growth on revenues and an expected moderation in growth
> of program spending as employment insurance benefits decline with
> the improving labour market.
> 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 fiscal year evenues are projected BELOW
> 2008-2009 revenues.
>
> Not surprising.
No, it's not surprising they ran a modest deficit and had revenue
declines in the midst of a
worldwide financial meltdown and recession.
> The National Debt is projected to increase over 25% in that period,
> according to your source, from 463B to 565B
So?
> The Projection could be nice of course, but it sure seems suspect,
> especially, given the CIA factbook put it at 72% or so in 2009
>
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
>
>
> OECD had you at 69.7% in 2008
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
>
> You don't mind if I consider that perhaps your prediction is a bit
> off?
>
> Of course, I'm looking at the Canadian debt projected to grow over
> the next decade, right?
> From 463.7 Billion to 628.1 Billion?
LOL, yes it is projected to increase, along with the size of the
economy, you economic illiterate.
> The Canadian national debt clock continues to increase :
> Right now it's at 518,384,500,000 or so
>
> http://www.debtclock.ca/
$518 billion debt in a $1.4 trillion economy? Only an economic
illiterate like you could conclude that amounts 69.7% debt to GDP
ratio
Is that accurate? $15,300 per capita in Canada vs. $41,300 per capita
in the US ( http://www.usdebtclock.org/ )? Wow! Massive difference.
Sounds like you need to lower taxes, right away!
ChrisRobin
> Duh! How long have I been telling you this? Is takes Volcker to say it
> to get your attention?
>
> You CAN NOT pay down your debt (and I am not talking about unfunded
> liabilities -- I am talking about public debt already on the books) in
> any meaningful way, under any reasonable assumptions, without
> increasing taxes. This is as loud and clear as the rattling sound you
> hear when Beldingbat shakes his head. Whenever I hear a so-called
> "conservative" talk about the high debt destroying the country, then
> in the next breath railing against higher taxes (which is often), I
> know immediately that I am listening to a complete fool.
>
> Americans who really care about the future of their country should be
> DEMANDING higher taxes at this point.
You think the folks running the U.S. government have any intention of
paying off the debt? Lol.
--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
What is the difference between Obama and a drunken sailor? When a drunken
sailor runs out of money, he has to stop spending.
Irish Mike
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other
people's money."
BillB
"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:bapu87x...@recgroups.com...
It doesn't appear that way, no. The folks running the US government
(politicians) are just a reflection of the public. Obama told everyone
he wouldn't raise their taxes one penny because that's exactly what
they wanted to hear. McCain said he wanted to cut everyone's taxes! In
spite of all the lip service to the contrary (ex. its immoral to leave
your kids in debt, etc, etc), I think it's becoming increasingly clear
that there is no real political will in the US populace to pay down
debt in any meaningful way. Everybody loves talking about it, but
nobody is willing to make the sacrifices to make it happen. I think
that goes a long way toward explaining the breathtaking decline of the
US dollar in the last couple of years. If there was some indication,
however small, that the people of the US were willing to face the
obvious and man up, the dollar would stabilize and investment would
turn around. The US is still an economic powerhouse, and it's not yet
buried beyond repair. But as long as the so-called "conservatives" are
still calling for *lower taxes* at a time when per capita national
debt sits at 41k, I don't see confidence improving
Irish Mike
I strongly disagree. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have turned out
all across the country to protest Obama's reckless spending, massive
deficits and huge expansion of the federal government. Their anger spawned
the whole Taxed Enough Already grass roots movement. The problem is that
rather than listen to the wishes of the people, Obama and the Democrats
have chosen to ridicule, denigrate and dismiss them as "just a few racist
right wing loons and trouble makers". And Obama just goes on spending as
fast as his crew of tax cheats in the Treasury can print the money.
There is no point in trying to pay down the national debt until you stop
Obama's irresponsible spending. It's like trying to bail out a sinking
boat with a tea spoon instead of plugging the leaks first.
The American people are afraid of what is happening to this country and
angry and frustrated that Obama and his administration refuse to listen to
them. And now Obama's economic advisers are beginning to lay the ground
work for the introduction of a new Value Added Tax to help pay for his
$2.5 trillion dollar unfunded health care entitlement.
Irish Mike
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other
people's money."
_______________________________________________________________________
Jerry Sturdivant
"bub" <b...@plottus.com> wrote in message
news:92pnr5pkcn9kskl2d...@4ax.com...
>
> rasie deficit spending to the moon and then say we need more taxes
> not a word about cut spending
The increased spending was for Stimulus. You can look it up. After recovery,
increased taxes are needed to pay for the Stimulus. Spending cut bill
already passed.
Try to keep up.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Cool aid was never spelled with a C. (Note his spelling!)
Cool aid is a misspelling of Kool Aid.
"You posted some idiot who didn't know how to spell."
-- Beldin: 4/6/2010
"Guy flops top set and a queen high flush in a $5 omaha donkathon and you
expect him to fold? The only moron here is you." - CincinnatiKid to
Beldin 01/13/10
Jerry Sturdivant
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hpguq9$3lf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Why does California keep voting in movie actors, rather than politicians?
Mrs Iris Mike
If you make over 10k in
> Canada, you are expected to contribute. That's the first change I
> would make to the US system.
>
why should he be expected to pay income taxes? Why would this person
be expected to contribute to a society that has essentially cut him
off from participation in any meaningful way?
People who make below the poverty level do pay taxes. They pay into
Social Security, which btw rips off poor people in that they
eventually collect less benifits than wealthier participants. Working
poor pay sales taxes, user fees, and are more likely to pay taxes on
cigarettes, booze and lottery. Paychecks should not be taxed until the
money earned is enough to rise above the poverty level.
susan
"Mrs Iris Mike"
> If a person is unable
OK unable
>Why would this person be expected to contribute to a society that has
>essentially cut him off from participation in any meaningful way?
what society do you speak of? how did they cut him off? They wouldn't let
him participate?
>Social Security, which btw rips off poor people in that they
eventually collect less benifits than wealthier participants.
? This I have no clue about? Can you explain?
BillB
"Mrs Iris Mike" <BeaF...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:54110adb-7f1c-4ad8...@w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Fine, but 50% of the taxpayers paying 3% of the income tax? Are there
really that many "poor" people in the US? I don't think so. Doesn't
sound right to me. If it's that bad you've got structural problems
that a simple progressive tax system isn't going to address.
Opportunity, and therefore wealth, should be more evenly distributed,
and almost everyone should contribute *something* to strengthening the
country for future generations. I think we have to lose this "I'm
poor, so I don't have to contribute anything" ethos. It's
self-defeating in the long run. I guess I'm saying the whole damn
system is fucked. They *will* come up with a better way eventually. I
just know it.
BillB
"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:47vu87x...@recgroups.com...
> There is no point in trying to pay down the national debt until you
> stop
> Obama's irresponsible spending. It's like trying to bail out a
> sinking
> boat with a tea spoon instead of plugging the leaks first.
> The American people are afraid of what is happening to this country
> and
> angry and frustrated that Obama and his administration refuse to
> listen to
> them. And now Obama's economic advisers are beginning to lay the
> ground
> work for the introduction of a new Value Added Tax to help pay for
> his
> $2.5 trillion dollar unfunded health care entitlement.
Can you show me a major, modern economy that spends less as a % of GDP
than the US already does? I can show you countries that spend
substantially less, but none that you or anyone in their right mind
would want to live in.
Mrs Iris Mike
> "Mrs Iris Mike" <BeaFor...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:54110adb-7f1c-4ad8...@w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I think you are mistaken about the riches in America. Daily
twenty-five percent of the children in the US have problems getting
enough nutrition.
Large numbers of our schools are poorly maintained and staffed. Many
work for minimum wage and even more make less than $1 an hour above
minimum wage. WalMart is the biggest private employer and they are
famous for their low low prices made possible by their low low wages;
and their influence causes competition to offer similair pay.
The US has more people in prison than any other country and crime is
not a product of unlimited opportunity.
Racism is ingrained in the American culture. I know people like
Special K and Shallow :) will tell you there is no racism, but please
allow me to tell you two short stories. I drove cab for a company (the
biggest in the city) that was famous for not hiring minorities, I had
many customers tell me they chose this company because they would not
have to sit in a cab with a **** (fill in your own blank). I trained a
driver one day, I mentioned that he was very good looking and wondered
what his ethnic heritage was; He told me he was Native America and
begged me please not to tell others because he feared discrimination.
In times of war, it is the poor that fights for the country. The rich
stay home and profit.
Medical care is given with regards to race, religion and financial
status.
Higher education may be open to all, but you better be pretty damn
smart if you come from a lower social/economic status.
The solution to low achievement is not to tax, the solution is to
level the playing field, educate and to find ways to motivate. If you
read Freakconomics you would have seen a study on drug dealers where
the average dealer made less than minimum wage, and with prison time
made pennies an hour. If these young people were educated properly,
motivated to achieve and given the same opportunities as kids in the
suburbs, their lot in life could be much different.
If the government/society fails to give opportunity and to motivate,
then it does not deserve to be paid.
Paul Popinjay
>
>
> "Paul Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:hpgsn9$ffd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> I just sent the biggest check to the government that I have ever sent in
>> my whole life.
>
> Right on. That means you made a lot of money. You should be happy.
>
Not necessarily. There was a huge increase in State tax for 2009, thus, I
could have theoretically made no more than I made in 2008, yet my statement
could still be true.
BillB
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:hpi5le$870$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> It's not the bottom 50% pay no taxes, you moron.
>
> I said the bottom 40% (or something like that) pays almost no income
> tax. In 2007 the bottom 50% in the US paid less than 3% of the
> income
> taxes. A large percentage of those had negative income tax liability
> because of refundable tax credits. I'm sorry, but that is fact.
>
> http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
What a coincidence (unless Drudge reads RGP). The Drudge Report has
this article as its headline this afternoon:
"Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax"
"Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of
U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.
....
In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have
grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe
no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children
younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting
firm Deloitte Tax."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1
A family of 4 with 2 kids under 17 making 50k pays ZERO income tax.
Looks like you were wrong again Beldingbat. Does that look like good
tax policy to you?
BillB
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hpj1ln$s6d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Right on. That means you made a lot of money. You should be happy.
>>
>
>
> Not necessarily. There was a huge increase in State tax for 2009,
> thus, I could have theoretically made no more than I made in 2008,
> yet my statement could still be true.
I stand corrected. I guess that's what you get for electing Ahnold
Schwarzenburger. Who will your next Governor be? Lady Gaga?
ChrisRobin
> I stand corrected. I guess that's what you get for electing Ahnold
> Schwarzenburger. Who will your next Governor be? Lady Gaga?
Now that's just mean. Funny, but mean.
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
>
>
> I stand corrected. I guess that's what you get for electing Ahnold
> Schwarzenburger. Who will your next Governor be? Lady Gaga?
I'm her biggest fan, I'll follow her until she loves me.
Jerry Sturdivant
"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:47vu87x...@recgroups.com...
Yet no call to increase taxes to pay down the debt. Try keeping up, Idiot
Mick.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Pepe Papon
It would probably be an improvement.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Follow
That's really clever. I love how you won't refute a thing I say, but go
around constantly with your passive aggressive behavior like this.
You can't actually defend a single point you make, can you Beef-O-Roni?
Shallow :)
er..
uhm...
Follow :)
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:o74vn.200586$Dv7.1...@newsfe17.iad...
>
>
> "Paul Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:hpguq9$3lf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "OrangeSFO" <intang...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:07c256e5-4f9d-43ba...@r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> I just sent the biggest check to the government that I have ever sent
>>>> in my
>>>> whole life.
>>>
>>> No you didnt
>>
>>
>> Yes, I did, fuck face. Counting the federal, AND the State of
>> California, I did. Especially the State of California. And do you know
>> why I paid so much to the State of California, Orange? Because
>> Schwartzenegger is one of you, that's why. I knew it before he was
>> elected. I sure the fuck didn't vote for him. He's a commie
>> mutherfucker liberal piece of shit just like you and your ilk. This
>> shit's going to turn on you people someday, fucker. Mark my words. It's
>> going to blow up right in your faces.
>
> Why does California keep voting in movie actors, rather than politicians?
>
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
>
>
> Cool aid was never spelled with a C. (Note his spelling!)
Nice lie, shithead.
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hphuuj$l1k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>> Extra? Is this your child-like logic at work again?
>
>> Hey, citizens of the US can voluntarily pay more, to be applied to
>> the debt.
>> I'm sure Canadians can too.
>
> And what practical good would that do anyone?
Be a shining example to prove your point.
Massachusetts citizens are taxed at 5.35%. HOWEVER, anyone may voluntarily
pay the old %.85% rate, since so many people protested that the lower rate
wasn't enough.
About 2000 people did last year, in a state of 600,000
If national debts are
> going to be tackled, it is clear to all but the most intellectually
> handicapped (like you), that it will have to be a collective effort
> through tax policy. Haphazard individual donations (if in fact such
> donations
> are made) accomplish little to nothing.
Wow, you're a complete shit for brains.
You spout off about paying more in taxes, yet don't when you could.
YOU don't want to pay more in taxes, you want OTHER people to pay more in
taxes.
Shithead, your debt to GDP ratio was 70% or so LAST YEAR.
You're claiming it's in the 30's now, in the height of a recession, where
you owe MORE money and, given revenue is DOWN, your GDP is most probably
DOWN.
You wanna rethink your position?
You wanna crunch the numbers, idiot boy, and explain how a smaller economy
than last year with more spending than last year and a greater debt than
last year somehow HALVED the Debt to GDP ratio?
Even for a fucknut like you, scepticism should raise it's ugly head.
>
>
>> The Canadian national debt clock continues to increase :
>> Right now it's at 518,384,500,000 or so
>>
>> http://www.debtclock.ca/
>
> $518 billion debt in a $1.4 trillion economy? Only an economic illiterate
> like you could conclude that amounts 69.7% debt to GDP ratio
Where, fucknut?
That's a projection based on interest rates. Right at that second.
The GDP is a projection for the end of the year.
What you WILL owe at the end of the year is the important thing.
>
> Is that accurate? $15,300 per capita in Canada vs. $41,300 per capita
> in the US ( http://www.usdebtclock.org/ )? Wow! Massive difference. Sounds
> like you need to lower taxes, right away!
We're talking about your country, and your claims of how you're eliminating
your national debt.
Let's not discuss the implied debt that isn't counted in there
Don't want you crying
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
> news:hpi5le$870$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>> It's not the bottom 50% pay no taxes, you moron.
>>
>> I said the bottom 40% (or something like that) pays almost no income
>> tax. In 2007 the bottom 50% in the US paid less than 3% of the income
>> taxes. A large percentage of those had negative income tax liability
>> because of refundable tax credits. I'm sorry, but that is fact.
>>
>> http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>
> What a coincidence (unless Drudge reads RGP). The Drudge Report has this
> article as its headline this afternoon:
>
> "Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax"
Yeah, that's a statistical anomoly brought forth because of all the extra
credits Obama passed this year, for this current year only.
>
> "Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S.
> households it's simply somebody else's problem.
> ....
> In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so
> much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal
> income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17,
> according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax."
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1
>
> A family of 4 with 2 kids under 17 making 50k pays ZERO income tax.
For THIS tax year only, idiot boy.
And only under some circumstances.
I realize you're too stupid to actually READ the article.
> Looks like you were wrong again Beldingbat.
Nope
My statement was correct.
Except this current year, because Obama juiced the hell out of some tax
credits as part of the stimulus bill.
Does that look like good
> tax policy to you?
Looks much better than taxing them then turning around and issuing them aid.
Like we'd do if we taxed people earning 10k.
I paid significant taxes last year. My Gross pay was about 60k (But I
contributed heavily to my 401k, and that's tax deferred)
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Mrs Iris Mike" <BeaF...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:54110adb-7f1c-4ad8...@w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 7, 5:22 am, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>> If you make over 10k in
>>> Canada, you are expected to contribute. That's the first change I
>>> would make to the US system.
>
>
>> If a person is unable to make enough to pull himself from poverty,
>> why should he be expected to pay income taxes? Why would this person
>> be expected to contribute to a society that has essentially cut him
>> off from participation in any meaningful way?
>>
>> People who make below the poverty level do pay taxes. They pay into
>> Social Security, which btw rips off poor people in that they
>> eventually collect less benifits than wealthier participants. Working
>> poor pay sales taxes, user fees, and are more likely to pay taxes on
>> cigarettes, booze and lottery. Paychecks should not be taxed until the
>> money earned is enough to rise above the poverty level.
>
> Fine, but 50% of the taxpayers paying 3% of the income tax? Are there
> really that many "poor" people in the US? I don't think so.
No, you idiot.
There are some Very Rich people in the US.
Someone earns 100 million dollars and pays 33%
How many 50k earners who may pay 10% (after adjusting for dependents and
such, the rate is higher but often works out to about 5k) does it take to
equal just that one guy?
Doesn't
> sound right to me. If it's that bad you've got structural problems that a
> simple progressive tax system isn't going to address. Opportunity, and
> therefore wealth, should be more evenly distributed, and almost everyone
> should contribute *something* to strengthening the country for future
> generations. I think we have to lose this "I'm poor, so I don't have to
> contribute anything" ethos. It's self-defeating in the long run. I guess
> I'm saying the whole damn system is fucked. They *will* come up with a
> better way eventually. I just know it.
When technology advances to the point where people don't NEED to work, sure.
Centuries, probably, from now
>
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hpklel$7nh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Wow, you're a complete shit for brains.
> You spout off about paying more in taxes, yet don't when you could.
> YOU don't want to pay more in taxes, you want OTHER people to pay
> more in taxes.
Nothing sinks into that thick skull of yours, does it? I am in favor
of the Vancouver building a new stadium. That doesn't mean I'm going
to go downtown with a shovel and start digging?
Some goals require collective effort. Is that too tough a concept for
you to wrap your little pea brain around?
> Shithead, your debt to GDP ratio was 70% or so LAST YEAR.
Are you dumb, blind, or both? Can you read a graph? Can you read a
newspaper?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/4499416553/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1151927220090611
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/4499418919/
>>> The Canadian national debt clock continues to increase :
>>> Right now it's at 518,384,500,000 or so
>>>
>>> http://www.debtclock.ca/
>>
>> $518 billion debt in a $1.4 trillion economy? Only an economic
>> illiterate like you could conclude that amounts 69.7% debt to GDP
>> ratio
>
> Where, fucknut?
> That's a projection based on interest rates. Right at that second.
> The GDP is a projection for the end of the year.
> What you WILL owe at the end of the year is the important thing.
You are an economic illiterate.
Debt = ~520 billion
GDP = $1.4 trillion
debt/GDP = ???
Take your time Beldumb. Don't answer now. Put on your Beldumb thinking
cap and go sit in the corner for a while and think about. You CAN use
a calculator if you need to.
>> Is that accurate? $15,300 per capita in Canada vs. $41,300 per
>> capita
>> in the US ( http://www.usdebtclock.org/ )? Wow! Massive difference.
>> Sounds like you need to lower taxes, right away!
> We're talking about your country, and your claims of how you're
> eliminating your national debt.
When did I make that claim? Are you unable to read at first grade
level?
I said, "I would *like to see* Canada become the first essentially
debt-free
country in the G7 in my lifetime, which is a highly attainable goal."
I also said the debt/gdp ratio has been approximately halved since
1995, as shown by this graph (which we now know you can't read)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/4499416553/in/photostream/
and by this newspaper article, which we also know you can't read:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1151927220090611
Now, what should be done about the $41,000 per capita US national debt
(compared to Canada's $15,000 per capita national debt). Lower taxes,
right? lol
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hpklel$7nh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Wow, you're a complete shit for brains.
>> You spout off about paying more in taxes, yet don't when you could.
>> YOU don't want to pay more in taxes, you want OTHER people to pay more in
>> taxes.
>
> Nothing sinks into that thick skull of yours, does it? I am in favor of
> the Vancouver building a new stadium. That doesn't mean I'm going to go
> downtown with a shovel and start digging?
>
> Some goals require collective effort. Is that too tough a concept for you
> to wrap your little pea brain around?
No, retard, the fact that you don't want to pony up unless others are forced
to shines right through.
>
>
>> Shithead, your debt to GDP ratio was 70% or so LAST YEAR.
>
> Are you dumb, blind, or both? Can you read a graph? Can you read a
> newspaper?
I CITED multiple sources, fucknut
CIA world factbook among others.
Take it up with THEM, you idiot
Your PICTURE is worthless. You coulda photoshopped it.
CIA world factbook is far beyond MY ability to manipulate.
>>>> The Canadian national debt clock continues to increase :
>>>> Right now it's at 518,384,500,000 or so
>>>>
>>>> http://www.debtclock.ca/
>>>
>>> $518 billion debt in a $1.4 trillion economy? Only an economic
>>> illiterate like you could conclude that amounts 69.7% debt to GDP ratio
>>
>> Where, fucknut?
>> That's a projection based on interest rates. Right at that second.
>> The GDP is a projection for the end of the year.
>> What you WILL owe at the end of the year is the important thing.
>
> You are an economic illiterate.
>
> Debt = ~520 billion
> GDP = $1.4 trillion
>
> debt/GDP = ???
The 1.4 trillion is a guess.
The debt will be much higher by the end of the year
AGAIN, idiot boy.
CIA factbook, and NUMEROUS other cites.
Explain why they're all wrong.
Take your time, you'll need to lie. A lot.
>
> Take your time Beldumb. Don't answer now. Put on your Beldumb thinking cap
> and go sit in the corner for a while and think about. You CAN use a
> calculator if you need to.
>
>
>>> Is that accurate? $15,300 per capita in Canada vs. $41,300 per capita
>>> in the US ( http://www.usdebtclock.org/ )? Wow! Massive difference.
>>> Sounds like you need to lower taxes, right away!
>
>> We're talking about your country, and your claims of how you're
>> eliminating your national debt.
>
> When did I make that claim? Are you unable to read at first grade level?
>
> I said, "I would *like to see* Canada become the first essentially
> debt-free
> country in the G7 in my lifetime, which is a highly attainable goal."
If you're insane
>
> I also said the debt/gdp ratio has been approximately halved since 1995,
> as shown by this graph (which we now know you can't read)
Since your claimed numbers conflicted with ALL the cited sources, I have to
suspect your photos are useless.
EXPLAIN why everyone else is wrong, or shut the fuck up
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hpkndi$eg7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I also said the debt/gdp ratio has been approximately halved since
>> 1995, as shown by this graph (which we now know you can't read)
>
> Since your claimed numbers conflicted with ALL the cited sources, I
> have to suspect your photos are useless.
>
> EXPLAIN why everyone else is wrong, or shut the fuck up
LOL!!! Did I photoshop this newspaper article too?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1151927220090611
How about this one? Did I hack into CBC's website and change the
numbers?
http://www.cbc.ca/money/taxseason/story/2010/02/17/f-debt-gdp-budget.html
How about this page? Did I hack into Canada's Department of Finance
website too?
http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2005/ec/ecc3-eng.asp
LOL!!! You are absolutely hilarious.
You honestly don't understand the disparity between those numbers and
what you saw on the CIA World factbook?
Are you really, truly that dumb? I know you are an economic
illiterate, but I honestly didn't think you were THAT stupid.
Look at debt shown on the Canadian debt clock you provided (which was
roughly accurate). Now look at Canada's GDP. Please explain to me how
that amounts to a 70% debt/GDP ratio. Take your time. Think it
through. If I just hand you ALL the answers on a silver platter, how
will you ever progress to high school level knowledge?
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hpklqu$93n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax"
>
> Yeah, that's a statistical anomoly brought forth because of all the
> extra credits Obama passed this year, for this current year only.
"A statistical anomaly" hahahahaha
It's the fucking law you moron.
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1
>>
>> A family of 4 with 2 kids under 17 making 50k pays ZERO income tax.
> For THIS tax year only, idiot boy.
Really. Did you just pull that out of your ass like most of your
statements of "fact". Show me some documentation of much that family
will pay next year.
> And only under some circumstances.
> I realize you're too stupid to actually READ the article.
Please show me where it says in the article that the hypothetical
family they offered escapes federal tax liability "only under some
circumstances". You're right, I didn't see such a proviso. Show me.
> Does that look like good
>> tax policy to you?
>
> Looks much better than taxing them then turning around and issuing
> them aid.
> Like we'd do if we taxed people earning 10k.
I asked you a straightforward question. Do you think it's good tax
policy to have a family of 4 making $50,000 pay no federal income tax
whatsoever (when that's the approximate median family income in the
country)? With morons like you being allowed to vote it's no wonder
y'all are in debt $13 trillion.
> I paid significant taxes last year. My Gross pay was about 60k (But
> I contributed heavily to my 401k, and that's tax deferred)
You make 60k selling magazine subscriptions over the phone? I don't
believe you.
By the way, what's the best deal you can get me on a 2 year
subscription to Maxim?
Jerry Sturdivant
"Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c28097x...@recgroups.com...
He believes it's up the whoever wrote, what he Cut's & Pastes.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Follow
> >> Racism is ingrained in the American culture. I know people like
> >> Special K and Shallow :)
> >
> > That's really clever. I love how you won't refute a thing I say, but go
> > around constantly with your passive aggressive behavior like this.
> >
> > You can't actually defend a single point you make, can you Beef-O-Roni?
>
> He believes it's up the whoever wrote, what he Cut's & Pastes.
>
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
What the fuck are you responding to this time, Jerry?
Follow :)
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hpkndi$eg7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>> I also said the debt/gdp ratio has been approximately halved since
>>> 1995, as shown by this graph (which we now know you can't read)
>>
>> Since your claimed numbers conflicted with ALL the cited sources, I
>> have to suspect your photos are useless.
>>
>> EXPLAIN why everyone else is wrong, or shut the fuck up
>
> LOL!!! Did I photoshop this newspaper article too?
Retard, answer the question :
Why do ALL the sources I cited conflict?
Does Canada have debt 'off the books'?
Is a large portion of it priced in US dollars. and the exchange rate swing
helped you?
I'm asking you to explain this :
CIA factbook :%gdp of public debt
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
20 Canada 72.30 2009 est.
Wikipedia's public debt charge
Canada 62.30 69.7 60.7 72.30
Sources CIA 2008, OECD 2008, IMF 2008, CIA 2009
OECD stats on Canada have you at 67.8% in 2007. Projected at 64% in 2030
(Which is bullshit, the 20 year horizen is a blind guess, but it's right
here )
http://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?queryname=18148&querytype=view&lang=en
Government debt General government gross financial liabilities
82.12687063 72.60071609 71.0908871 67.97427076 64.05402156
Shithead, every independent source says things are quite different than you
claim.
What's the most reasonable explanation?
That the government has off-the-books debt, that the economic agencies are
reporting anyway?
Or that it's a conspiracy to make Canada look bad?
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1151927220090611
>
> How about this one? Did I hack into CBC's website and change the
> numbers?
DEFINATELY looks like off the books debt.
OECD, whom YOU cited as an authoritative source, has VERY different figures
for your GDP/Debt ratio in that year.
And of course, we have THIS little source here :
In the Americas, The United States has a national debt of 8.68 trillion. In
the U.S., this is 60.8 percent of the American GDP. The Canadian national
debt is $814.26 billion. In Canada, the national debt is 62.3 percent of the
GDP. In South America, Argentina has a national debt of $293.56 billion. The
Argentinean national debt is 51 percent of the GDP of Argentina.
http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/
> http://www.cbc.ca/money/taxseason/story/2010/02/17/f-debt-gdp-budget.html
>
> How about this page? Did I hack into Canada's Department of Finance
> website too?
> http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2005/ec/ecc3-eng.asp
>
> LOL!!! You are absolutely hilarious.
>
> You honestly don't understand the disparity between those numbers and
> what you saw on the CIA World factbook?
> Are you really, truly that dumb? I know you are an economic
> illiterate, but I honestly didn't think you were THAT stupid.
Wow, shithead. YOU must be a total economic moron.
MULTIPLE sources report the Canadian national debt MUCH higher than you
claim.
WHY?
Oh wait.
A little searching shows that the CIA factbook looks at all public debt for
a country.
Let's pick a province :
Say, Ontartio :
Total debt, which represents all borrowing without offsetting financial
assets, is projected to be $177.3 billion as at March 31, 2009, compared to
$162.2 billion as at March 31, 2008. Ontario's net debt, the difference
between total liabilities and total financial assets, is projected to be
$149.4 billion as at March 31, 2009, compared to $142.4 billion as at March
31, 2008.
Interim 2008-09 results for the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation
(OEFC) show a projected excess of revenue over expense of almost $1.0
billion, reducing the Corporation's unfunded liability (or "stranded debt of
the electricity sector") from $17.2 billion as at March 31, 2008 to $16.3
billion as at March 31, 2009. Projected 2009-10 OEFC results are an excess
of revenue over expense of about $1.2 billion, reducing the unfunded
liability to $15.1 billion at March 31, 2010.
ONE fucking province owes how much?
177 BILLION?
Aha! This would EASILY explain our little issue, wouldn't it....
You're stupid enough to look only at your federal debt, wheras all these
sources are looking at your entire governmental debt.
In the US, most of our states can't legally borrow anywhere NEAR that much.
California, on the verge of going BROKE, owes less than 4 billion.
The state of California's economy is the 8'th largest in the WORLD, by the
way, 1.8 TRILLION GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California
They owe less than 4 billion.
Ontario is about 40% of the Canadian GDP.
They owe 177 BILLION?
You beginning to guess where you fucked up, Bill?
>
> Look at debt shown on the Canadian debt clock you provided (which was
> roughly accurate). Now look at Canada's GDP. Please explain to me how
> that amounts to a 70% debt/GDP ratio.
Well, if you add in all the other government debt, Bill.....
Are you SUCH a shithead it didn't occur to you to wonder why all these
sources conflicted?
Is Ontario part of Canada, Bill?
How about Quebec?
http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/quebud.pdf
The debt grows
Budget shortfalls and extensive capital spending will make Quebec's debt
balloon from $130 billion on March 31, 2009 to
almost $146 billion on that date in 2011 (based on the Act to reduce the
debt and establish the Generations Fund). The
province's debt will rise from 42.8% to 46.3% of GDP during this time. The
increase will no doubt make the government
miss the 2013 target of 38% set out in the Act to reduce the debt. The
government has also acknowledged that it will have to
review the targets it had set within the next two years.
Oh look!
Just those TWO provinces have over 300 BILLION in debt.
WOW, fucknut!
Feel stupid?
Seriously, do you?
I predict you will not respond at ALL to this post
Because to do so would require you to admit you were a goddamned idiot
Take your time. Think it
> through. If I just hand you ALL the answers on a silver platter, how
> will you ever progress to high school level knowledge?
>
Well, Bill, I hope you brought a knife and fork to EAT all those incomplete
cites you brought
Beldin the Sorcerer
----- Original Message -----
From: "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: OT all you libs open your wallets
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hpklqu$93n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>> "Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax"
>>
>> Yeah, that's a statistical anomoly brought forth because of all the extra
>> credits Obama passed this year, for this current year only.
>
> "A statistical anomaly" hahahahaha
>
> It's the fucking law you moron.
Wow, you're a fucking idiot!
The number of people (including those with zero income, of course) paying no
tax THIS year is a statistical anomoly, you shithead.
Obama added a bunch of tax credits THS PAST YEAR for the ONE year, you
imbecile.
They won't be in effect next year; they never existed before.
It's a statistical anomoly.
You fucking moron.
>
>
>
>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1
>>>
>>> A family of 4 with 2 kids under 17 making 50k pays ZERO income tax.
>
>> For THIS tax year only, idiot boy.
>
> Really. Did you just pull that out of your ass like most of your
> statements of "fact". Show me some documentation of much that family will
> pay next year.
Read the article you CITED, fucknut.
Christ, you're hopeless
Obama's Making Work Pay credit provides as much as $800 to couples and $400
to individuals. The expanded child tax credit provides $1,000 for each child
under 17. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides up to $5,657 to low-income
families with at least three children.
Those are all part of the stimulus package.
They didn't do that last year.
They're scheduled to expire.
Are you ALWAYS a goddamned idiot?
Well yes. Yes, you are.
>
>> And only under some circumstances.
>> I realize you're too stupid to actually READ the article.
>
> Please show me where it says in the article that the hypothetical family
> they offered escapes federal tax liability "only under some
> circumstances". You're right, I didn't see such a proviso. Show me.
Reading isn't your strong suit, I see.
It told you who did the study.
Did you look for it?
Of course not.
Read it here :
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/ci_14840674
The text should be quite familiar till you get to the bottom :
Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:
The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal
exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The
federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.
With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child
tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were
married filing jointly.
The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31
profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of
April 15.
Circumstances specifically mentioned :
Married filing jointly. Not always the case.
Circumstances not mentioned but vital : Neither kid has a part time job.
If they do, the personal exemptions aren't automatic at all.
IF assigned 100% to the parent, the kid gets none of it, and taxes get paid
on that end BUT if the IRS may require the kid to pay taxes at the parent's
rate.
Making Work Pay, of course, is a one time Stimulus benefit.
A check to taxpayers without needing to issue a check.
It's all done
------
>
>> Does that look like good
>>> tax policy to you?
>>
>> Looks much better than taxing them then turning around and issuing them
>> aid.
>> Like we'd do if we taxed people earning 10k.
>
> I asked you a straightforward question. Do you think it's good tax policy
> to have a family of 4 making $50,000 pay no federal income tax whatsoever
> (when that's the approximate median family income in the country)? With
> morons like you being allowed to vote it's no wonder y'all are in debt $13
> trillion.
Wow, what a goddamned shit for brains.
They would have paid taxes if Obama hadn't added 2800 in tax exemptions this
year.
They're temporary, as part of the stimulus package.
YOU, the fucknut, STATED people earning $10,000 should pay taxes.
YOU, the FUCKNUT, is completely ignorant of the poverty level in the US
>
>> I paid significant taxes last year. My Gross pay was about 60k (But I
>> contributed heavily to my 401k, and that's tax deferred)
>
> You make 60k selling magazine subscriptions over the phone?
No, of course not.
I made 60k doing my job.
We know YOU do gay phone sex for a living, of course.
I don't
> believe you.
Fucknut, you can believe any stupidity you want.
I tell you the truth every time I post, and you STILL fuck shit up.
>
> By the way, what's the best deal you can get me on a 2 year subscription
> to Maxim?
Pick up a drop card from the magazine.
I've never sold anything over the phone in my life.
Fucknut, how'd you get into gay phone sex?
Does it pay well?
Maybe Popinjay could work with you
>
BillB
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hpnbp8$a4s$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Retard, answer the question :
> Why do ALL the sources I cited conflict?
You still haven't figured it out?
> Does Canada have debt 'off the books'?
Huh?
> I'm asking you to explain this :
>
> CIA factbook :%gdp of public debt
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
>
> 20 Canada 72.30 2009 est.
>
>
> Wikipedia's public debt charge
> Canada 62.30 69.7 60.7 72.30
>
> Sources CIA 2008, OECD 2008, IMF 2008, CIA 2009
> OECD stats on Canada have you at 67.8% in 2007. Projected at 64% in
> 2030
> (Which is bullshit, the 20 year horizen is a blind guess, but it's
> right
> here )
> http://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?queryname=18148&querytype=view&lang=en
> Government debt General government gross financial liabilities
> 82.12687063 72.60071609 71.0908871 67.97427076 64.05402156
> Shithead, every independent source says things are quite different
> than you
> claim.
No, they don't. You just failed to understand you were comparing
apples to oranges. We were comparing Canada's federal debt to the US's
federal debt, remember? You showed the Canada debt clock, remember?
$520 billion?
You asked, "How much extra did you send the Canadian government last
year, Bubblehead?"
Your problem is you were talking about federal debt, but cited sources
that included federal, provincial, and municipal debt.
Canada's national debt (as it is understood in relation to US national
debt) is $520 billion, or approximately 33% of GDP. US national debt
is almost $13 trillion, or approximately 85% of GDP.
> What's the most reasonable explanation?
> That the government has off-the-books debt, that the economic
> agencies are
> reporting anyway?
> Or that it's a conspiracy to make Canada look bad?
Off the books debt? lol You are an idiot.
> DEFINATELY looks like off the books debt.
What the hell are you talking about?
> OECD, whom YOU cited as an authoritative source, has VERY different
> figures
> for your GDP/Debt ratio in that year.
No, for the fourth time, the numbers I cited were *FROM the OECD*. How
many times do I have to say it to get it through your thick skull?
Look at the source on the bottom of this chart:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/4499418919/in/photostream/
"OECD Economic Outlook no 85 (June 2009)"
You were simply too dense to see that we were talking about Canadian
government debt the whole time, but being confused by sources that
included federal, provincial, and municipal debt. Good to see you
finally clued in. It only took you 24 hours to figure it out. If you
knew the first thing about economics you wouldn't have been confused
in the first place.
> And of course, we have THIS little source here :
>
> In the Americas, The United States has a national debt of 8.68
> trillion. In
> the U.S., this is 60.8 percent of the American GDP. The Canadian
> national
> debt is $814.26 billion. In Canada, the national debt is 62.3
> percent of the
> GDP. In South America, Argentina has a national debt of $293.56
> billion. The
> Argentinean national debt is 51 percent of the GDP of Argentina.
>
> http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/
The US national debt is $8.68 trillion? I suggest you find more
accurate sources.
> Wow, shithead. YOU must be a total economic moron.
> MULTIPLE sources report the Canadian national debt MUCH higher than
> you
> claim.
> WHY?
> Oh wait.
> A little searching shows that the CIA factbook looks at all public
> debt for
> a country.
> ONE fucking province owes how much?
>
> 177 BILLION?
>
> Aha! This would EASILY explain our little issue, wouldn't it....
> You're stupid enough to look only at your federal debt, wheras all
> these
> sources are looking at your entire governmental debt.
Uh, YOU were talking about federal debt, you fool. You asked me how
much extra I sent to the *CANADIAN GOVERNMENT*. You cited the
*Canadian debt clock*, which measures *federal debt*. You still don't
understand that? Then you sought out sources that included federal,
provincial, and municipal debt, and couldn't understand why they
didn't match up with authoritative sources I gave you showing
*CANADA's* debt/gdp ratio.
> In the US, most of our states can't legally borrow anywhere NEAR
> that much.> California, on the verge of going BROKE, owes less than
> 4 billion.
>
> The state of California's economy is the 8'th largest in the WORLD,
> by the
> way, 1.8 TRILLION GDP
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California
>
> They owe less than 4 billion.
California's debt is $4 billion, is it? LOL!!! You are so clueless
it's unbelievable. I am fairly certain their budget deficit for THIS
YEAR is higher than that.
>> Look at debt shown on the Canadian debt clock you provided (which
>> was
>> roughly accurate). Now look at Canada's GDP. Please explain to me
>> how
>> that amounts to a 70% debt/GDP ratio.
> Well, if you add in all the other government debt, Bill.....
Why would I add in all other government debt? We were talking about
the Canadian government debt. You asked me how much extra I sent to
the *CANADIAN GOVERNMENT*, remember? You cited the Canadian federal
debt clock, remember? We referred to the US debt of over $12 trillion,
remember? That is FEDERAL debt.
> Are you SUCH a shithead it didn't occur to you to wonder why all
> these
> sources conflicted?
I knew why they conflicted the moment I saw them. Anyone with the
slightest clue about economics did. You were the only person that
couldn't figure it out. But you finally did. Kudos. I am seriously
considering promoting you to Grade 8. See what happens when I don't
spoon feed you the answers and make you figure them out yourself? You
actually learn something.
Bob T.
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:hpnbp8$a4s$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > Retard, answer the question :
> > Why do ALL the sources I cited conflict?
>
> You still haven't figured it out?
>
> > Does Canada have debt 'off the books'?
>
> Huh?
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm asking you to explain this :
>
> > CIA factbook :%gdp of public debt
>
> > 20 Canada 72.30 2009 est.
>
> > Wikipedia's public debt charge
> > Canada 62.30 69.7 60.7 72.30
>
> > Sources CIA 2008, OECD 2008, IMF 2008, CIA 2009
> > OECD stats on Canada have you at 67.8% in 2007. Projected at 64% in
> > 2030
> > (Which is bullshit, the 20 year horizen is a blind guess, but it's
> > right
> > here )
True, but the deficit for one month is lower! Er, most months.
- Bob T
Jerry Sturdivant
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:hpkpsj$n2i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hpklqu$93n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>> "Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax"
>>
>> Yeah, that's a statistical anomoly brought forth because of all the extra
>> credits Obama passed this year, for this current year only.
>
> "A statistical anomaly" hahahahaha
>
> It's the fucking law you moron.
You've going to have to listen to PeePee and the rest of us: Answering
Bel-ding is useless. He's hasn't won one argument or discussion here. He
simply answers to get attention. He's shown wrong, and he just blathers on.
Like the preverbal grade school kid, he believes if he gets in the last, "Oh
yea!" he thinks he's won something. Replying to him is as useless as he is.
Jerry 'n Vegas
"Cool aid was never spelled with a C.." (Note his spelling!)
"Cool aid is a misspelling of Kool Aid.."
"You posted some idiot who didn't know how to spell."
-- Beldin: 4/6/2010
"Guy flops top set and a queen high flush in a $5 omaha donkathon and you
expect him to fold? The only moron here is you." - CincinnatiKid to
Beldin 01/13/10
Jason Pawloski
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hpnbp8$a4s$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > Retard, answer the question :
>
> > Why do ALL the sources I cited conflict?
>
> You still haven't figured it out?
>
> > Does Canada have debt 'off the books'?
>
> Huh?
>
> > I'm asking you to explain this :
> >
> > CIA factbook :%gdp of public debt
> >
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
> >
> > 20 Canada 72.30 2009 est.
> >
> >
> > Wikipedia's public debt charge
> > Canada 62.30 69.7 60.7 72.30
> >
> > Sources CIA 2008, OECD 2008, IMF 2008, CIA 2009
>
> > OECD stats on Canada have you at 67.8% in 2007. Projected at 64% in
> > 2030
> > (Which is bullshit, the 20 year horizen is a blind guess, but it's
> > right
> > here )
> >
http://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?queryname=18148&querytype=view〈=en
Bill, at this point I'm going to have to ring the bell and end this fight.
While it's fun to beat an opponent, there's no sense in mercilessly
attacking him when he's on the ground as you have done in this thread. It
is obvious Beldin has deficiencies and anyone with any common sense can
see you've won this battle only reading 3 levels deep. You are the victor,
however it is time you stopped punching Beldin's limp unconscious body in
the ring and stand up to enjoy your victory.
--
Voted RGP's Stupidest Poster on 3/22/09
"ONLY ONE PROBLEM .. The Constitution doesnt have a preamble , but the
declaration of Independence does !! YOU JUST CANT MAKE THIS SHIT UP !!
:fuck facts ..i have some hate to spread!!" - Constitution scholar K9Way
giving RGP the business
"BART [Bay Area Rapid Transit] is rather new." - Jerry Sturdivant chiming
in on how little he knows about a train system that's been operational
since 1972
______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
bub
<jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>He's hasn't won one argument or discussion here. He
>simply answers to get attention. He's shown wrong, and he just blathers on.
>Like the preverbal grade school kid, he believes if he gets in the last, "Oh
>yea!" he thinks he's won something. Replying to him is as useless as he is.
mr kettle...meet mr pot
---------------------------------------------
"Golf of Tonkin resolution was thought to be real, too"
06 Sep 2009
"Jerry (education the stupid since '62) 'n Vegas"
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
> news:hpkpsj$n2i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:hpklqu$93n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>>> "Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax"
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's a statistical anomoly brought forth because of all the
>>> extra credits Obama passed this year, for this current year only.
>>
>> "A statistical anomaly" hahahahaha
>>
>> It's the fucking law you moron.
>
> You've going to have to listen to PeePee and the rest of us: Answering
> Bel-ding is useless. He's hasn't won one argument or discussion here. He
> simply answers to get attention. He's shown wrong, and he just blathers
> on. Like the preverbal grade school kid, he believes if he gets in the
> last, "Oh yea!" he thinks he's won something. Replying to him is as
> useless as he is.
Willie STOP the shitheaded trolling!
"Jerry" could NEVER be as stupid as you portray him.
NOBODY could be.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Jason Pawloski" <a67...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:a4h497x...@recgroups.com...
Jason, you're a hopeless retard.
Bill got his ass handed to him repeatedly.
YOU, of course, are too stupid to understand much of anything.
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hpnbp8$a4s$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Retard, answer the question :
>
>> Why do ALL the sources I cited conflict?
>
> You still haven't figured it out?
I'm amazed you were idiot enough to reply.
>
>> Does Canada have debt 'off the books'?
>
> Huh?
Debt not listed in the 'national debt'
Surely you're not too stupid to understand the term.
Well yes. Yes, you were.
>
>> I'm asking you to explain this :
>>
>> CIA factbook :%gdp of public debt
>> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
>>
>> 20 Canada 72.30 2009 est.
>>
>>
>> Wikipedia's public debt charge
>> Canada 62.30 69.7 60.7 72.30
>>
>> Sources CIA 2008, OECD 2008, IMF 2008, CIA 2009
>
>> OECD stats on Canada have you at 67.8% in 2007. Projected at 64% in 2030
>> (Which is bullshit, the 20 year horizen is a blind guess, but it's right
>> here )
>> http://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?queryname=18148&querytype=view&lang=en
>> Government debt General government gross financial liabilities
>> 82.12687063 72.60071609 71.0908871 67.97427076 64.05402156
>
>
>> Shithead, every independent source says things are quite different than
>> you
>> claim.
>
> No, they don't. You just failed to understand you were comparing apples to
> oranges. We were comparing Canada's federal debt to the US's federal debt,
> remember? You showed the Canada debt clock, remember? $520 billion?
No, fuckhead.
We were comparing the US debt to Canadian Debt.
Not federal (And I'm sure you scrolled up and started bullshitting once you
got the kick in the balls you deserve)
>
> You asked, "How much extra did you send the Canadian government last year,
> Bubblehead?"
It's a big government, idiot boy.
>
> Your problem is you were talking about federal debt, but cited sources
> that included federal, provincial, and municipal debt.
No, fuckhead.
YOUR problem is you're pretending you have a 40% gdp when it's 70.
>
> Canada's national debt (as it is understood in relation to US national
> debt) is $520 billion, or approximately 33% of GDP. US national debt is
> almost $13 trillion, or approximately 85% of GDP.
No, fucknut.
The US debt is 14 trillion, including everything.
THAT'S the number cited.
THAT'S what we were comparing.
To be honest, no US citizen would really enviision a country RETARDED enough
to allow two provinces (or states) to run up the INSANE amount of debt your
country did.
>
>> What's the most reasonable explanation?
>> That the government has off-the-books debt, that the economic agencies
>> are
>> reporting anyway?
>> Or that it's a conspiracy to make Canada look bad?
>
> Off the books debt? lol You are an idiot.
Nope
YOU'RE an imbecile.
>
>> DEFINATELY looks like off the books debt.
>
> What the hell are you talking about?
The 300 billion plus discrepency.
>
>> OECD, whom YOU cited as an authoritative source, has VERY different
>> figures
>> for your GDP/Debt ratio in that year.
>
> No, for the fourth time, the numbers I cited were *FROM the OECD*. How
> many times do I have to say it to get it through your thick skull? Look at
> the source on the bottom of this chart:
Fuckhead, I cited the OECD.
YOU, being the fucking moron you are, and too stupid to slink away like the
shithead you love to be, are now rewriting your initial response to pretend
you knew what I hit you over the head with.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/4499418919/in/photostream/
>
> "OECD Economic Outlook no 85 (June 2009)"
>
> You were simply too dense to see that we were talking about Canadian
> government debt the whole time, but being confused by sources that
> included federal, provincial, and municipal debt.
No, fucking moron.
ALL my sources compared total US debt to total Canadian Debt.
Only a complete FUCKNUT wouldn't compare apples to apples, and since YOUR
country is such a godforsaken hellhole that they let local government
divisions borrow INSANE amounts of money, NOT comparing total debt to total
debt is an EXTREME distortion.
OBVIOUSLY you didn't know this.
If you had, you'd NEVER try comparing federal debt alone in the first place.
Good to see you
> finally clued in. It only took you 24 hours to figure it out. If you knew
> the first thing about economics you wouldn't have been confused in the
> first place.
Shithead, YOU'RE the moron who didn't know.
But MOSTLY you didn't know what I was talking about.
But then, you're a complete fucknut
>
>
>> And of course, we have THIS little source here :
>>
>> In the Americas, The United States has a national debt of 8.68 trillion.
>> In
>> the U.S., this is 60.8 percent of the American GDP. The Canadian national
>> debt is $814.26 billion. In Canada, the national debt is 62.3 percent of
>> the
>> GDP. In South America, Argentina has a national debt of $293.56 billion.
>> The
>> Argentinean national debt is 51 percent of the GDP of Argentina.
>>
>> http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/
>
>
> The US national debt is $8.68 trillion? I suggest you find more accurate
> sources.
It's a year old.
The point was YOUR numbers, fucking idiot boy.
>
>
>
>> Wow, shithead. YOU must be a total economic moron.
>> MULTIPLE sources report the Canadian national debt MUCH higher than you
>> claim.
>> WHY?
>> Oh wait.
>> A little searching shows that the CIA factbook looks at all public debt
>> for
>> a country.
>
>> ONE fucking province owes how much?
>>
>> 177 BILLION?
>>
>> Aha! This would EASILY explain our little issue, wouldn't it....
>
>> You're stupid enough to look only at your federal debt, wheras all these
>> sources are looking at your entire governmental debt.
>
> Uh, YOU were talking about federal debt, you fool. You asked me how much
> extra I sent to the *CANADIAN GOVERNMENT*
Any of it, fuckhead.
As opposed to the US government, which is what YOU were talking about.
The government in a candaian province is . You cited the
> *Canadian debt clock*, which measures *federal debt*.
Shithead, I didn't reference THAT until your IDIOTIC claims that it was
going down.
YOU are the complete moron.
You found out, and now you're covering your idiotic ass.
You still don't
> understand that? Then you sought out sources that included federal,
> provincial, and municipal debt, and couldn't understand why they didn't
> match up with authoritative sources I gave you showing *CANADA's* debt/gdp
> ratio.
Fuckhead, CANADA'S debt : gdp ratio comes from MY sources, you complete
fucknut.
It's MORE than just your federal debt ESPECIALLY in the case of a country
IDIOTIC enough to let states/provinces run up the INSANE kinds of debt YOU
morons do.
>
>
>> In the US, most of our states can't legally borrow anywhere NEAR that
>> much.> California, on the verge of going BROKE, owes less than 4 billion.
>>
>> The state of California's economy is the 8'th largest in the WORLD, by
>> the
>> way, 1.8 TRILLION GDP
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California
>>
>> They owe less than 4 billion.
>
> California's debt is $4 billion, is it? LOL!!! You are so clueless
> it's unbelievable. I am fairly certain their budget deficit for THIS YEAR
> is higher than that.
Shithead, PLEASE.
Did you click the link, moron?
Are you THAT stupid?
See, fucknut, most of our states aren't ALLOWED to run budget deficits.
They have balanced budget requirements in their state constitutions.
>
>>> Look at debt shown on the Canadian debt clock you provided (which was
>>> roughly accurate). Now look at Canada's GDP. Please explain to me how
>>> that amounts to a 70% debt/GDP ratio.
>
>> Well, if you add in all the other government debt, Bill.....
>
> Why would I add in all other government debt? We were talking about the
> Canadian government debt
Shithead, the ENTIRE canadian goverment debt.
I REALIZE you like to compare apples to oranges.
It's the only way you can not look like you're an idiot.
. You asked me how much extra I sent to
> the *CANADIAN GOVERNMENT*, remember? You cited the Canadian federal debt
> clock, remember? We referred to the US debt of over $12 trillion,
> remember? That is FEDERAL debt.
Fuckhead, we discussed the ENTIRE US debt and the ENTIRE Canadian debt.
I REALIZE you can EASILY be confused, because, shit for brains, the
difference between the federal debt and total debt in the US isn't very
significant.
We don't have states carrying debtloads in excess of 20% of the federal
debt, for instance.
You ARE a hopeless shit for brains
>
>
>> Are you SUCH a shithead it didn't occur to you to wonder why all these
>> sources conflicted?
>
> I knew why they conflicted the moment I saw them. Anyone with the
> slightest clue about economics did. You were the only person that couldn't
> figure it out. But you finally did. Kudos. I am seriously considering
> promoting you to Grade 8. See what happens when I don't spoon feed you the
> answers and make you figure them out yourself? You actually learn
> something.
>
No, fuckhead, YOU learned something.
And now, since you are a bigger piece of shit than I gave you credit for,
you're pretending to have known it before.
You ARE a complete and TOTAL idiot.
>
>
Jerry Sturdivant
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hpps5j$5f7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
See what I mean?
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hpps5j$5f7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:NkLvn.98933$sx5....@newsfe16.iad...
>>>
>>>
>>> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:hpkpsj$n2i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:hpklqu$93n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>>>> "Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax"
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that's a statistical anomoly brought forth because of all the
>>>>> extra credits Obama passed this year, for this current year only.
>>>>
>>>> "A statistical anomaly" hahahahaha
>>>>
>>>> It's the fucking law you moron.
>>>
>>> You've going to have to listen to PeePee and the rest of us: Answering
>>> Bel-ding is useless. He's hasn't won one argument or discussion here. He
>>> simply answers to get attention. He's shown wrong, and he just blathers
>>> on. Like the preverbal grade school kid, he believes if he gets in the
>>> last, "Oh yea!" he thinks he's won something. Replying to him is as
>>> useless as he is.
>
>> Willie STOP the shitheaded trolling!
>> "Jerry" could NEVER be as stupid as you portray him.
>> NOBODY could be.
>
> See what I mean?
We knew that
That he lies in pretty much every post?
We knew that too.
Willie, if you keep this up, I'm going to look Jerry up in the phone book
and tell him someone is making him out to be a complete and total moron on
usenet
BillB
"Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Q60wn.213752$K81.1...@newsfe18.iad...
> See what I mean?
He reminds me of those children's punching bags my mom used to buy me
when I was a kid. Remember those? They were filled with hot air, and
no matter how many times or how hard you punched or kicked it in the
face, it would just pop back up again. That's Belding.
They were always fun to play with for a while, but they just ended up
tiring you out, and after a while you'd think, "what's the point?"
Jerry Sturdivant
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hpq3a4$rea$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Beldin the Sorcerer
The point is, you're an idiot, talking to Jerry the idiot, and both of you
appear to be William Coleman, trolling.
Neither of you show the ability to read well.
Neither of you show any capacity to think.
Both of you have been documented lying
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
It's all you can do on that issue.
Kool-aid WAS never spelled "cool aid"
No other content but you lying.
Willie, stop the trolling
Pepe Papon
<jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>"Cool aid was never spelled with a C.." (Note his spelling!)
>"Cool aid is a misspelling of Kool Aid.."
No, but "Kool Aid" is a misspelling of "Kool-Aid".
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Jerry Sturdivant
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hpr5bp$k4n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Other than those 183,000 sites that proved you wrong and your own post where
you wrote it that way?
WHA! HA! HA!
Jerry 'n Vegas
"Cool aid was never spelled with a C.." (Note his spelling!)
Beldin the Sorcerer
See what a shithead liar you are?
No cite or site (since you can't spell, we can't know which you meant" ever
showed "Kool-Aid" was ever spelled "cool aid" OR that any product used to
make a soft drink from a powder was sold as "Cool aid"
Keep lying, Jerry.
Your stupidity is amusing as hell>
Jerry Sturdivant
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hq0sea$j37$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Nope.
Yep. Cool aid; it's real, it's fact and you've been proven a fool, once
again.
Jerry 'n Vegas
"Cool aid was never spelled with a C.." (Note his spelling!)
Beldin the Sorcerer
You found some booze recipies that someone incorperated the words "cool" and
"aid" into.
You found NOTHING proving your point, and indeed the Wiki page on the
expression "Drinking the Kool-aid" proves my point for me.
You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found
wanting.
Jerry Sturdivant
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hq3gtd$6uu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Apparently it's yours when your proven wrong. Again.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Beldin the Sorcerer
Yet again, shithead, provide a legitimate link to a powdered drink mix
called 'cool aid', I'll apologize every day for a month
Until then, you're just pwned
Jerry Sturdivant
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hq4ett$h7q$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Cool aid.
How many hits did you get when you Googled "Cool aid"? Still maintain it's a
misspelling? (Even when you spelled it 'Cool aid'?) It's truly fun watching
you squirm and whine when you're prove wrong.
Jerry (lol) 'n Vegas
"Cool aid was never spelled with a C.." (Note his spelling!)
"Cool aid is a misspelling of Kool Aid.."
"You posted some idiot who didn't know how to spell."
-- Beldin: 4/6/2010 (6:40 PM)