Congratulations, President Barack Obama... We Will Be Watching
Clay
What we got?
We got... the Internet... thank God.
We got... talk radio... thank God.
We got... FOXNews.
And... if MSM knows what good for them, they'll consider being more
balanced. We may get more fairness.
We got a lot. We got thinkers, we got planners, we got leaders, we
got writers, we got authors, we got talkers.
We got a lot.
We (Conservatives) wish our new POTUS Godspeed.
We (Conservatives) will pray for our new POTUS.
We're here... we're not going anywhere.
We will be watching.
-C-
dkri...@yahoo.com
Must really suck watching your gotterdammerung in a bunker ;-)
Pray hard, honestly do, but if your prayers don't match up to reality
(the biggest problem in the Carl Rove / GW Bush Administrations) they
won't matter for much.
Ideology is no substitute for competence.
Dennis
Frogbutt
news:9oe2h4ps1n4k63puq...@4ax.com:
> It's not 2004 any more.
>
> What we got?
>
> We got... the Internet... thank God.
>
> We got... talk radio... thank God.
>
> We got... FOXNews.
>
> And... if MSM knows what good for them, they'll consider being more
> balanced. We may get more fairness.
>
> We got a lot. We got thinkers, we got planners, we got leaders, we
> got writers, we got authors, we got talkers.
You got a shitload of raving fucking paranoid loonies.
Tim Howard
>
> We (Conservatives) wish our new POTUS Godspeed.
>
> We (Conservatives) will pray for our new POTUS.
>
> We're here... we're not going anywhere.
>
> We will be watching.
>
their asses kicked out of office. They will be watching alright--from
their couches at home. Conservativeness is finished!
Lubow
"Tim Howard" <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:4911445c$0$5492$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
> A bunch of Republican congressman are going somewhere--home! They got their
> asses kicked out of office. They will be watching alright--from their couches
> at home. Conservativeness is finished!
And before long, Limbaugh and similar hatemongers will have to provide equal
time. And if they hang-up the phone on a caller because he/she had an opposing
idea, they better have a good explanation for the FCC.
Keith Lee
Not me, I am going to wait and save during this second Jimmy Carter administration.
Keith
Clay
This will never happen, shit-for-brains.
The Dems didn't make it to 60.
Dumbass.
Too fucking funny.
-C-
Clay
>ship. They appear on an early Sunday morning talk show and explain
>that the sinking ship had nothing to do with them, they had never been
>on it or they had left a year ago.
>
>Conservatives got beat and beat bad. It was because all their
>programs, every one, had failed. They're foreign policy was a
>disaster, our debt had sky rocketed, they had increased, not decreased
>the size of the federal government.
>
>So what to do know? Sit back and watch the progress, that's all you
>can do.
****They're foreign policy was a disaster****
There is no way that you have an education, shit-for-brains. You
simply cannot write the English language.
Your dumbass said that you attended law school... which is it, Homo?
Is it law school: <http://tinyurl.com/57692x> / or is it journalism
school?
You have been proven (without a doubt) to be a fucking brain-dead
liar.
Fess up, coward.
Too fucking funny.
-C-
Eddie Haskell
<dkri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d01bdd3-e65f-4411...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Yes, Obama's past associations are evidence of his sound judgment..
-Eddie Haskell
Steve
MSNBC has been lucky in that they could blame all the bad stuff on
Bush and the Republicans.. now they have no-one but Democrats to
blame the bad stuff on so they have to convince the choir that there
is no bad stuff....
....and they're going to have a real big problem convincing the lefty
loons that things are really wonderful when the lefty loons are eating
dog food and their electric bill is $400 a month because Obama
bankrupted the coal industry..
All the morons that believed that Obama was going to pay their rent
and gas bills are going to be upset... perhaps this is just what the
country needs to show the irresponsible, childish lefties that the
government isn't their momma...
Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
--Neal Bortz
Georgiana Gates
4802 Dead
Looks like the frustrated Steverino is going to blame the Obama
administration for all that goes wrong between now and Inauguration
Day, too.
Billary/2008
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:38:27 -0600, Georgiana Gates
>
>
>
>
>
> <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> >Steve wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually the Dims held the congress for the past two years. They in
fact ran on the promise that they would end the war in Iraq. Then they
took over some important committees, especially ones that ran things
like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What's wrong with this picture Zippy?
tomcervo
> This will never happen, shit-for-brains.
>
> The Dems didn't make it to 60.
>
> Dumbass.
>
> Too fucking funny.
>
> -C-
And THAT'S what you've got?
How many of your Senators campaigned without using the words
"Republican", "Bush", "Cheney", "McCain" or "Palin"? You're sucking
wind, Clay.
tomcervo
Don’t forget—you got Sarah too.
"NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end
department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While
publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at
what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said
that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the
convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential
nominee began buying for herself and her family--clothes and
accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman
Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the
clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got
the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the
clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week
when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent
"tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000
to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of
clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the
shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from
coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the
Republican Party audits its books."
At least now you know what they spent your $22 donation on.
Gandalf Grey
"Shill/2008" <BillaryCl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bae62c7-df29-4158...@p35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
% Actually the Dims held the congress for the past two years.
Actually, they just barely held it. Now, with an enormous mandate, we'll do
much more, Shill.
Aren't you excited?
Foxtrot
>Subject: Congratulations, President Barack Obama... We Will Be Watching
Screw the good sportsmanship. Dems haven't cooperated or
acted in a civil way for decades. Why should we. Scorched earth
time. We're going to obstruct every single attempt that Toots
makes to make us into a socialist state.
>It's not 2004 any more.
>
>What we got?
>
>We got... the Internet... thank God.
>
>We got... talk radio... thank God.
Not after the libs bring back the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine".
>We (Conservatives) will pray for our new POTUS.
Speak for yourself. Some of us are going to make his job as
difficult as possible.
>We're here... we're not going anywhere.
>
>We will be watching.
There is a bright side to the position that Bush's incompetence
has put us in. We have no power thus no responsibility. We can
sit on the sidelines and mock and throw stinkbombs at the
Dems as they try to fulfill the expectations they have set.
4802 Dead
>Clay <clay0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Subject: Congratulations, President Barack Obama... We Will Be Watching
>
>Screw the good sportsmanship. Dems haven't cooperated or
>acted in a civil way for decades. Why should we. Scorched earth
>time. We're going to obstruct every single attempt that Toots
>makes to make us into a socialist state.
Aw, you're so CUTE when you're having a tantrum!
>
>>It's not 2004 any more.
>>
>>What we got?
>>
>>We got... the Internet... thank God.
>>
>>We got... talk radio... thank God.
>
>Not after the libs bring back the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine".
>
>>We (Conservatives) will pray for our new POTUS.
>
>Speak for yourself. Some of us are going to make his job as
>difficult as possible.
>
>>We're here... we're not going anywhere.
>>
>>We will be watching.
>
>There is a bright side to the position that Bush's incompetence
>has put us in. We have no power thus no responsibility. We can
>sit on the sidelines and mock and throw stinkbombs at the
>Dems as they try to fulfill the expectations they have set.
--
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,
as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of
innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
-- John McCain, in the Sept/Oct 2008 issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the
American Academy of Actuaries.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote:
>>Screw the good sportsmanship. Dems haven't cooperated or
>>acted in a civil way for decades. Why should we. Scorched earth
>>time. We're going to obstruct every single attempt that Toots
>>makes to make us into a socialist state.
>
>Aw, you're so CUTE when you're having a tantrum!
Hyuk it up lardass. You libs' euphoria right now reminds me of
the "I'm on top of the world" scene in Titanic.
Clay
<LOL>:
...
> On Nov 5, 9:20 am, Clay <clay0nl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This will never happen, shit-for-brains.
>
> > The Dems didn't make it to 60.
>
> > Dumbass.
>
> > Too fucking funny.
>
> > -C-
>
> And THAT'S what you've got?
All I have for what, shit-for-brains?
I see you were too stupid to have included what I was replying to.
Dumbass.
> How many of your Senators campaigned without using the words
> "Republican", "Bush", "Cheney", "McCain" or "Palin"?
Not too many, idiot. But that isn't what I was replying to MikeyLubow
about.
Moron.
> You're sucking wind, Clay.
When you can argue to the point, lemme know... dimbulb.
Imbecile.
Too fucking funny.
-C-
Steve
wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry, is David B. Jamieson (Zepp) on the dog food diet
already? That would be an example of justice (see below)
Billary/2008
> "Shill/2008" <BillaryClinton2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am excited. I remember that Billy blow job did three thing right
out of the starting block that cost him the congress in 1994.
#1 Gays in the military, #2 attack on the 2nd amendment #3 nationalize
the healthcare system. Then WHAM! BANG! POW! Republicans took over
the congress, the governerships and the state houses. History is a
good indicator of future performance. You guys are so hosed in 2010.
I can't wait.
Kevin Cunningham
Geez, this guy cracks me up! The repugs don't have anything in
Washington, they lost state houses and Governorships but he's gonna
git us!
You failed utterly.
Mitchell Holman
news:bmv4h4hn5k3fppmaa...@4ax.com:
Republican patriotism = obstructionism.
Clay
...
> On Nov 6, 12:32 am, Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Clay <clay0nl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Subject: Congratulations, President Barack Obama... We Will Be Watching
>
> > Screw the good sportsmanship. Dems haven't cooperated or
> > acted in a civil way for decades. Why should we. Scorched earth
> > time. We're going to obstruct every single attempt that Toots
> > makes to make us into a socialist state.
>
> > >It's not 2004 any more.
>
> > >What we got?
>
> > >We got... the Internet... thank God.
>
> > >We got... talk radio... thank God.
>
> > Not after the libs bring back the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine".
>
> > >We (Conservatives) will pray for our new POTUS.
>
> > Speak for yourself. Some of us are going to make his job as
> > difficult as possible.
>
> > >We're here... we're not going anywhere.
>
> > >We will be watching.
>
> > There is a bright side to the position that Bush's incompetence
> > has put us in. We have no power thus no responsibility. We can
> > sit on the sidelines and mock and throw stinkbombs at the
> > Dems as they try to fulfill the expectations they have set.
>
> You failed utterly.
Memo to Homo, the idiot Kev...
So did you, personally.
Too fucking funny.
-C-
Primordial Ooze
>
> - Show quoted text -
jesus christ you turn into a fucking bulldog at the drop of a pin,
wheres the tmperment of your first post?
too fucking funny to borrow youre hackneyed line
Tartarus
Conservatism is by no means finished, and there is nothing wrong with
conservatism. Perhaps you are confusing conservatism with
Republicanism. At their core, the only difference between classic
conservatism and classic liberalism is the level of "socialism" they
want.
Liberals typically want the government more involved in support
services than do conservatives, while conservatives want less
government involvement. The Republicanism you have been seeing over
the last decade is a perversion of conservatism, as the far left
"liberalism" is a perversion of liberalism.
The bogus argument that conservatives want freedom and liberals want
socialism or communism is put forward by low IQ morons who are such
sheep that they have to get all their talking points from Rush,
Savage, Hannity or the like.
On the other side, you have quarter-witted losers claiming that
conservatives *want* to destroy America. I have no idea where they get
their talking points, but the argument is just as bogus.
*ALL* modern industrialized countries, including the US, are socialist
to a degree. Our only argument is how much socialism we want.
Patriotic Americans do not call each other "communist" or "fascist"
based on party. Those who do have no concept of patriotism, and should
be dragged out to the curb, then given a good hard kick in the teeth.
Tartarus
nys999
5820cd...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 4, 11:59 pm, Tim Howard <tim.how...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Clay wrote:
>>
>> > We (Conservatives) wish our new POTUS Godspeed.
>>
>> > We (Conservatives) will pray for our new POTUS.
>>
>> > We're here... we're not going anywhere.
>>
>> > We will be watching.
>>
>> A bunch of Republican congressman are going somewhere--home! They got
>> their asses kicked out of office. They will be watching alright--from
>> their couches at home. Conservativeness is finished!
>
> Conservatism is by no means finished, and there is nothing wrong with
> conservatism.
Duh? Name one good aspect of conservatism.
> Perhaps you are confusing conservatism with
> Republicanism. At their core, the only difference between classic
> conservatism and classic liberalism is the level of "socialism" they
> want.
Duh? No. Conservatism is the belief yesterday is better than tomorrow.
>
> Liberals typically want the government more involved in support
> services
Bullshit from an uneducated fool. Liberalism is a belief that
freedom of choice is, in most cases, the best option. One situation
freedom isn't the best option: a twelve year old deciding to
become a prostitute.
The type of support a liberal thinks government should "provide" is
education. Why should the idiot son of George HW Bush go to Yale but
young Obama only get to Harvard if he lands a scholarship?
A liberal believes government should not allow unlimited immigration
so business can cut wages and salaries.
Liberals want certain services to be performed by government when the
profit motive endangers the quality of services delivered, like health
care. Insurance companies earn more money if they deny treatment to
the insured.
> than do conservatives, while conservatives want less
> government involvement. The Republicanism you have been seeing over
> the last decade is a perversion of conservatism, as the far left
> "liberalism" is a perversion of liberalism.
>
> The bogus argument that conservatives want freedom and liberals want
> socialism or communism is put forward by low IQ morons who are such
> sheep that they have to get all their talking points from Rush,
> Savage, Hannity or the like.
>
Well, now you're right.
> On the other side, you have quarter-witted losers claiming that
> conservatives *want* to destroy America. I have no idea where they get
> their talking points, but the argument is just as bogus.
There you go being stupid again. Check into the words of Grover
Norquist. Or the remarks of religious wackos who say atheists
and other "minorities" are responsible for 9-11.
>
> *ALL* modern industrialized countries, including the US, are socialist
> to a degree. Our only argument is how much socialism we want.
> Patriotic Americans do not call each other "communist" or "fascist"
> based on party. Those who do have no concept of patriotism, and should
> be dragged out to the curb, then given a good hard kick in the teeth.
Gee, ain't the treatment given to anyone who didn't praise Hitler?
Maybe you're 16 years old and not old enough to know what strategy
Newt Gingrich laid out to get rethugs elected. Do some research.
>
> Tartarus
>
Clay
>On Nov 6, 8:45 pm, Clay <clays0nl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 3:56 am, dumb milt.shook, joins the discussion <LOL>:
>> ...
>>
>> > On Nov 6, 2:08 am, "Billary/2008" <BillaryClinton2...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 5, 2:04 am, "Lubow" <lu...@lubowindustries.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > And before long, Limbaugh and similar hatemongers will have to provide equal
>> > > > time. And if they hang-up the phone on a caller because he/she had an opposing
>> > > > idea, they better have a good explanation for the FCC.
>>
>> > > show.
>>
>> > Cable is unregulated. Sorry.
>>
>> It would've been nice if you had argued why this "(un)Fairness
>> Doctrine" nonsense is a non-starter, milt.shook.
>
>The old Fairness Doctrine is unworkable. It would actually kill free
>speech on the radio.
But... that is NOT what you wrote just yesterday, milt.shook.
*sigh*
One thought* (such as you have one of those)... one position... just
one, milt.shook. If your dumbass could just settle on one, and stick
with it... that would be appreciated.
*sigh*
>But that doesn't mean A Fairness Doctrine isn't necessary. Ninety
>percent of talk radio listeners have no choice but right wing talking
>heads,
*sigh*
Stupidity reigns inside milt.shook's pinhead. It's typical.
Out of the "90%" figure (where you got that from is anyone's guess)...
cannot at least some of them -- TURN THE DIAL?
No... that's not how leftists think* (such as you dolts do that). If
they cannot control (or feel that they control) just about everything,
they will do all in their power to try to control everything.
It's dangerous... but we have a historical reference as proof:
The Soviet Union.
> even though a lot of progressives are proving able to bring
>really large audiences. Stephanie Miller, for example, is on about 60
>radio stations and pulls in a larger audience than half the wingnut
>talkers out there, who are on five times as many stations.
I live in NYC and only hear about SM on USENET or the Internet. Is
she on "Air America"? I wouldn't know. "AA" is on "WWRL"... which is
1600 on the AM dial. If I'm listening to the AM dial on some sorta
portable (dunno why I would do that), all I would have to do is raise
an umbrella and their signal would suffer.
What it is you want is... WABC / 770 on the AM dial. It has a better
position on the dial and a much, much stronger signal. It doesn't
matter that if someone (read: the government) moved this Miller
person's show from where no one can hear it to WABC, the same no
ones... would still NOT LISTEN to her crappy show.
You freedom-haters are not interested in "fairness"... you want
destruction. You want to stiffle Conservative views and to destroy
Conservative voices.
You will not win.
> Ditto Ed
>Schultz and Randi Rgodes. Schultz and Thom Hartman BOTH kick Bill
>O'Reilly's ass in the ratings, even though they're on one-third the
>number of stations.
Again, milt.shook... please tell me where I can find either of the
folks you just mentioned on television?
The reason why I ask is b/c O'Reilly works very hard to produce the #1
cable news show... and not too much on the radio show. The folks you
just named have one gig only... the leftist echo chamber of leftist
talk radio. And no one (well, almost no one) listens to them.
>The airwaves belong to the people, not the shitheads who paid too
>fucking much for the licenses.
No... according to you authoritarian, free market-hating, freedom
hating leftists... the airwaves belong to YOU, only YOU... and
completely TO YOU.
No wonder why you bastards love Islamic savages.
Alaska will have a Republican senator, this will make 41 Republicans.
At last count, Georgia and Minnesota were leaning Republican. You
"fascists" (that what you really are) will not have a filibuster-proof
senate.
So go ahead and bring the "(un)Fairness Doctrine" up in committee and
try to bring it to a floor vote.
You will lose. We (Conservatives) will not let that happen.
I am a Conservative.
I am watching.
-C-
Steve
Take it a bit easy on poor Milt.. he's not been having a real good
time lately.. and it looks like things are going to get worse for
him...
Clay
milt.shook is still the stupidest poster on USENET... nothing has
"changed" *sigh*:
>On Nov 7, 9:45 pm, Clay <clay0nl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, milt.shook... *sigh*... 'nuff said:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 6, 8:45 pm, Clay <clays0nl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 6, 3:56 am, dumb milt.shook, joins the discussion <LOL>:
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> > On Nov 6, 2:08 am, "Billary/2008" <BillaryClinton2...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Nov 5, 2:04 am, "Lubow" <lu...@lubowindustries.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > And before long, Limbaugh and similar hatemongers will have to provide equal
>> >> > > > time. And if they hang-up the phone on a caller because he/she had an opposing
>> >> > > > idea, they better have a good explanation for the FCC.
>>
>> >> > > Good, I'm looking forward to seeing Neil Boortz on Keith Dobermann's
>> >> > > show.
>>
>> >> > Cable is unregulated. Sorry.
>>
>> >> It would've been nice if you had argued why this "(un)Fairness
>> >> Doctrine" nonsense is a non-starter, milt.shook.
>>
>> >The old Fairness Doctrine is unworkable. It would actually kill free
>> >speech on the radio.
>>
>> But... that is NOT what you wrote just yesterday, milt.shook.
>>
>> *sigh*
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/5l9j58>
>
>I was explaining how the Fairness Doctrine worked, not its effect.
Fucking leftist liar (redundant).
Typical milt.shook... still the coward.
> The
>old Fairness Doctrine would effectively cause talk radio to disappear,
>because station owners who didn't want anything but right wing shit on
>their station would just switch to sports talk or music, or even just
>go dark.
But, again, dimbulb... that IS NOT WHAT YOU WROTE. Just taking a
sentence from that gem:
"All the Fairness Doctrine did was to provide differing opinions on
issues. "
Now... you say that it would've killed free speech... which is EXACTLY
why it was abolished, you dumb, dumb leftist.
Either... it would kill free speech or it would not.
I've said it b4... and you prove it right now: your dumbass argues
(or at least attempts to) BOTH SIDES of a subject. Then, when your
dumbass is called on the carpet b/c you were proven wrong... you
say... "I didn't say that (even tho you did)... I said the other
thing".
As before... you cannot get away with that with your superior,
shit-for-brains. You've been caught and exposed.
*bowing*
>This is why I don't do this much anymore. I can't deal with people who
>can only see black or white.
You don't "do this much anymore" b/c you're still as stupid as you've
always been. When I (for one) call you for your stupidity, you get
all flustered (see: retard), pout, flail and flounder. Sorta kinda
what you do below.
But watch, dumbass... you don't get away.
<ROTFLMFAO>
>> One thought* (such as you have one of those)... one position... just
>> one, milt.shook. If your dumbass could just settle on one, and stick
>> with it... that would be appreciated.
>
>There isn't one black/whire position possible on this issue.
*sigh*
Of course it is, you stupid poster.
Either... the "(un)Fairness Doctrine" -- "kills free speech on the
radio" (your words)...
OR
"All the Fairness Doctrine did was to provide differing opinions on
issues. " --- again, your words.
> There has to be a Fairness Doctrine.
As a cowardly, authoritarian leftist... you HAVE TO state that b/c
leftist ideas cannot compete in a free market. The only way you
assholes can compete is when (and only when) the government mandates
it.
It's sad... really.
> Radio station licensees have to understand
>that all people own the airwaves they use to make money, and all views
>should be represented, to the extent possible. If they're going to use
>it to spout right wing claptrap, they need to make time available for
>other viewpoints.
Why does "Air America" exist?
And... since you're at it... why did it fail?
>> *sigh*
>>
>> >But that doesn't mean A Fairness Doctrine isn't necessary. Ninety
>> >percent of talk radio listeners have no choice but right wing talking
>> >heads,
>>
>> *sigh*
>>
>> Stupidity reigns inside milt.shook's pinhead. It's typical.
>>
>> Out of the "90%" figure (where you got that from is anyone's guess)...
>> cannot at least some of them -- TURN THE DIAL?
>
>No, pinhead.
Yes, shithead...
> The reason why is directly below, and you provided it.
>I'll show you in a minute...
AHA... do you really think your dumbass is getting away with your
stupidity?
Not here, not now... pinhead.
Watch !!!
<ROTFLMFAO>
>> No... that's not how leftists think* (such as you dolts do that). If
>> they cannot control (or feel that they control) just about everything,
>> they will do all in their power to try to control everything.
>
>THE PEOPLE should control the airwaves.
You are a Soviet, freedom-hating traitor to all things American,
milt.shook.
> It's funny... a lot of people
>became billionaires in the radio businesses, back when their licenses
>required certain things, including the Fairness Doctrine,
The folks became billionaires when radio was the only thing smoking.
And when "television killed the radio star"... radio made lots of
money playing music. It had NOTHING to do with the "(un)Fairness
Doctrine" b/c "The Twist" was and is APOLITICAL.
> Now, radio
>companies are losing money hand over fist, because they paid way too
>much for the licenses they bought, and they're too stupid to know how
>to program them.
Some radio companies lose money... others make lots of money. The
radio company that broadcasts Rush Limbaugh has to make some money...
they just signed Rush for lots and lots of money.
>> It's dangerous... but we have a historical reference as proof:
>>
>> The Soviet Union.
>
>You mean, the Soviet Union, where all broadcasts were controlled by as
>few entities as possible?
Not "few entities", shithead... ONE ENTITY... the government.
Just like what you leftists want.
You're not gonna get it.
> You just described the current state of the
>broadcast industry here.
That's bullshit, traitor.
> I'm in favor of divestiture, and local
>ownership wherever possible. You know, greater competition. Imagine
>that.
What you just describe is fine, milt.shook.
Where you and I diverge is that you want the government to do this. I
do not. I want the free market to continue working.
>> > even though a lot of progressives are proving able to bring
>> >really large audiences. Stephanie Miller, for example, is on about 60
>> >radio stations and pulls in a larger audience than half the wingnut
>> >talkers out there, who are on five times as many stations.
>>
>> I live in NYC and only hear about SM on USENET or the Internet. Is
>> she on "Air America"? I wouldn't know. "AA" is on "WWRL"... which is
>> 1600 on the AM dial. If I'm listening to the AM dial on some sorta
>> portable (dunno why I would do that), all I would have to do is raise
>> an umbrella and their signal would suffer.
>
>And thus you see the problem. New York City -- one of the most
>progressive cities in the country, with enough liberals to make for a
>really strong market, and its talk radio is dominated by Limbaugh,
>Hannity and Bob Grant, with measly Air America forced to lease a
>shitty signal just to be heard.
It's called "the free market", Soviet. "Air America" has been in NYC
for at least 6 years. With all of the liberals who live in
Manhattan... on the West Side alone, this network should be swimming
in dough.
The reason why it isn't is b/c the network is less than good and the
leftists who live in NYC aren't really interested in anything that's
not above par.
> The people of New York own the
>airwaves, not the nitwits who hold the licenses; why can't liberals
>New York radio listeners hear liberal talk radio; radio that counters
>the shit they're being force-fed?
If there were "good leftist" radio shows, they would be successful.
Memo to leftist moron: the government is not part of this
conversation... the free market is.
>> What it is you want is... WABC / 770 on the AM dial. It has a better
>> position on the dial and a much, much stronger signal. It doesn't
>> matter that if someone (read: the government) moved this Miller
>> person's show from where no one can hear it to WABC, the same no
>> ones... would still NOT LISTEN to her crappy show.
>
>How do you know?
Air America, dumbass.
>Did you acquire psychic powers?
Dumb bunny... Air America has been available here in NYC for more than
5 years. It's a complete failure.
> She has over 2 million listeners
You're throwing around a lot of numbers, numbnuts. Do you have any
proof as to what you're yapping about?
One or two facts would suffice.
> even though she has less than 60 stations,
Cite.
> and
>she's not on in quite a few large markets. In Washington, DC, for
>example, she's on WWRC, which means she may as well not even be on, as
>that station barely makes it to the Capitol. Limbaugh and Hannity
>have really strong signals, and really low ratings there, and
>Stephanie has relatively high ratings, and a really low signal.
Soooo... your solution is for the government to reduce something that
American are interested in hearing (Limbaugh, Hannity)... and forcing
SM onto that (those) station(s).
How very Soviet of you.
>And the fact that you think no one in NY would listen to a "crappy"
>show that you have not heard speaks volumes.
I have proof, milt.shook. All you have are your "feeling" and your
spongehead suppositions.
Proof.
>> You freedom-haters are not interested in "fairness"... you want
>> destruction. You want to stiffle Conservative views and to destroy
>> Conservative voices.
>
>No, I just want people to hear all voices. I want Limbaugh to lie for
>three hours, and then follow him with someone who will deconstruct the
>lies, and tell the truth for at least an hour or two after.
Soooo... you want the government to begin programming radio stations.
Because, what the ABC Radio Network has decided is... following Rush
Limbaugh is Sean Hannity.
There is only one way to change that... the government forcing them
towards your authoritarian will.
I and many others will not bend to your leftist, authoritarian will.
Please be advised.
<dumb leftist bullshit snip>
>> You will lose. We (Conservatives) will not let that happen.
>
>You're not a conservative.
So... here we are... leftist nirvana.
Not only do you authoritarian leftist spongeheads know* (such as you
dolts do that) who you are... you arrogant idiots also know what
others are as well.
How very Soviet of you.
Well... I say "FUCK YOU", milt.shook. Fuck you to Hell.
I know who I am and I know what I feel and what I think. I am not
arrogant enough to even come close to saying what you just said. It's
totally presumptuous for you to dismiss what someone else feels and
thinks.
But it is true to your evil nature.
You are the worst of the worst b/c you are ignorant, power-hungry, not
very bright, ineducable and a completely hypocrite.
And the amazing thing is... you're simply too stupid to know it.
In a way... I pity you, milt.shook.
Basta.
-C-
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote
>> Speak for yourself. Some of us are going to make his job as
>> difficult as possible.
>>
>>>We're here... we're not going anywhere.
>>>
>>>We will be watching.
>>
>> There is a bright side to the position that Bush's incompetence
>> has put us in. We have no power thus no responsibility. We can
>> sit on the sidelines and mock and throw stinkbombs at the
>> Dems as they try to fulfill the expectations they have set.
>
> Republican patriotism = obstructionism.
Damn straight it's patriotic to obstruct when the agenda is to give
up American sovereignty and damage our capitalist economic
model which made us so strong and gave us such a high quality of
life.
Those of us who'll do all we can to obstruct Cokehead's agenda
will be comparable to the brave men at the Boston Tea Party.
Mitchell Holman
4ax.com:
> Mitchell Holman <Noemai...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote
>>> Speak for yourself. Some of us are going to make his job as
>>> difficult as possible.
>>>
>>>>We're here... we're not going anywhere.
>>>>
>>>>We will be watching.
>>>
>>> There is a bright side to the position that Bush's incompetence
>>> has put us in. We have no power thus no responsibility. We can
>>> sit on the sidelines and mock and throw stinkbombs at the
>>> Dems as they try to fulfill the expectations they have set.
>>
>> Republican patriotism = obstructionism.
>
> Damn straight it's patriotic to obstruct when the agenda is to give
> up American sovereignty and damage our capitalist economic
> model which made us so strong and gave us such a high quality of
> life.
If the "capitalist model" is such a success why are
bankers and invest firms BEGGING for socialist federal
bailouts right now?
Steve
<Noemai...@comcast.com> wrote:
Has to do with the failure of the Democrats plan to give unqualified
people mortgages....
Foxtrot
>Mitchell Holman <Noemai...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote
>>> Damn straight it's patriotic to obstruct when the agenda is to give
>>> up American sovereignty and damage our capitalist economic
>>> model which made us so strong and gave us such a high quality of
>>> life.
>>
>> If the "capitalist model" is such a success why are
>>bankers and invest firms BEGGING for socialist federal
>>bailouts right now?
Whoa! The libs are now so confident and cocky that Mitchy admits
he doesn't believe in capitalism. The truth is out.
Any other libs care to out yourselves as true socialists?
>Has to do with the failure of the Democrats plan to give unqualified
>people mortgages....
Dems corrupted our capitalism by with such stupid policies as
virtually guaranteeing high risk investments. If banks can reap all
of the profits from high risk loans but not have to sustain any
losses why not?
4802 Dead
>Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
>>Mitchell Holman <Noemai...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote
>>>> Damn straight it's patriotic to obstruct when the agenda is to give
>>>> up American sovereignty and damage our capitalist economic
>>>> model which made us so strong and gave us such a high quality of
>>>> life.
>>>
>>> If the "capitalist model" is such a success why are
>>>bankers and invest firms BEGGING for socialist federal
>>>bailouts right now?
>
>Whoa! The libs are now so confident and cocky that Mitchy admits
>he doesn't believe in capitalism. The truth is out.
>
>Any other libs care to out yourselves as true socialists?
Is the head of GM a socialist? How about Merrill-Lynch? AIG? Security
Pacific Bank?
>
>>Has to do with the failure of the Democrats plan to give unqualified
>>people mortgages....
>
>Dems corrupted our capitalism by with such stupid policies as
>virtually guaranteeing high risk investments. If banks can reap all
>of the profits from high risk loans but not have to sustain any
>losses why not?
milt....@gmail.com
> Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> >Mitchell Holman <Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >>Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote
> >>> Damn straight it's patriotic to obstruct when the agenda is to give
> >>> up American sovereignty and damage our capitalist economic
> >>> model which made us so strong and gave us such a high quality of
> >>> life.
>
> >> If the "capitalist model" is such a success why are
> >>bankers and invest firms BEGGING for socialist federal
> >>bailouts right now?
>
> Whoa! The libs are now so confident and cocky that Mitchy admits
> he doesn't believe in capitalism. The truth is out.
>
> Any other libs care to out yourselves as true socialists?
I see. So admitting there are flaws in capitalism, and plugging up the
holes makes you an anti-capitalist? Adam Smith would be shocked to
know he was a socialist.
>
> >Has to do with the failure of the Democrats plan to give unqualified
> >people mortgages....
>
> Dems corrupted our capitalism by with such stupid policies as
> virtually guaranteeing high risk investments. If banks can reap all
> of the profits from high risk loans but not have to sustain any
> losses why not?
First of all, no one guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. That's why
we're in this mess in the first place. And the market in these
securities was perfectly fine, when only Fannie and Freddie were
investing in them. It wasn't until the greedheads got into the market
that the market bubbled and exploded. The problem is, the MBS were all
thrown into a large investment pool, and individual securities weren't
given a specific value, so no one knows what the securities are
actually worth. That's one reason the $750 billion recovery money will
mostly be recouped; once a value is attached to the mortgage pool,
then someone can attach a dollar figure to the securities, and the
money can be paid back. My only concern is that the folks in charge
are beholden to the greedheads, and will tend to overvalue the
securities.
But this all started with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, especially the Gramm
amendment he attached late at night when few people were looking back
in 1999. This is a crisis engineered by Republicans, not Democrats,
although I will say that Clinton had a hand in this, too. He shouldn't
have signed the bill.
Mitchell Holman
4ax.com:
> Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
>>Mitchell Holman <Noemai...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote
>>>> Damn straight it's patriotic to obstruct when the agenda is to give
>>>> up American sovereignty and damage our capitalist economic
>>>> model which made us so strong and gave us such a high quality of
>>>> life.
>>>
>>> If the "capitalist model" is such a success why are
>>>bankers and invest firms BEGGING for socialist federal
>>>bailouts right now?
>
> Whoa! The libs are now so confident and cocky that Mitchy admits
> he doesn't believe in capitalism. The truth is out.
>
Aw, come on, Fauxy. Explain why your capitalist banker
heroes are BEGGING for government welfare checks.
milt....@gmail.com
> Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote in news:hr9eh4p3so4l2l0iqenagd7fsgrlch1bsv@
> 4ax.com:
>
>
>
> > Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Mitchell Holman <Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >>>> Damn straight it's patriotic to obstruct when the agenda is to give
> >>>> up American sovereignty and damage our capitalist economic
> >>>> model which made us so strong and gave us such a high quality of
> >>>> life.
>
> >>> If the "capitalist model" is such a success why are
> >>>bankers and invest firms BEGGING for socialist federal
> >>>bailouts right now?
>
> > Whoa! The libs are now so confident and cocky that Mitchy admits
> > he doesn't believe in capitalism. The truth is out.
>
> Aw, come on, Fauxy. Explain why your capitalist banker
> heroes are BEGGING for government welfare checks.
Because that's how they all operate, and have for years. While the
powers that be have been distracting the wingnuts with fat black
single mothers living in tenements, they've been robbing the Treasury
blind for the "captains of industry." Seriously, if Radio One (black-
owned radio station owners) got a no-bid contract for tens of billions
of dollars from the government for the kinds of things Halliburton or
Blackwater are doing in Iraq, they'd be screaming bloody murder and
burning Jesse Jackson in effigy.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote
>> Whoa! The libs are now so confident and cocky that Mitchy admits
>> he doesn't believe in capitalism. The truth is out.
>
> Aw, come on, Fauxy. Explain why your capitalist banker
>heroes are BEGGING for government welfare checks.
They're simply seeking money the easiest way they can get it.
Do you actually think that this somehow proves that socialism is
better than capitalism?
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> Whoa! The libs are now so confident and cocky that Mitchy admits
>> he doesn't believe in capitalism. The truth is out.
>>
>> Any other libs care to out yourselves as true socialists?
>
>I see. So admitting there are flaws in capitalism, and plugging up the
>holes makes you an anti-capitalist?
Please define those "flaws in capitalism". Be specific and not use
lofty generalities about how cruel reality is.
The test of your definition will be whether or not you'll admit that
"plugging the holes" means punishing those who work hard in order
to earn money.
>> Dems corrupted our capitalism by with such stupid policies as
>> virtually guaranteeing high risk investments. If banks can reap all
>> of the profits from high risk loans but not have to sustain any
>> losses why not?
>
>First of all, no one guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. That's why
>we're in this mess in the first place. And the market in these
>securities was perfectly fine, when only Fannie and Freddie were
>investing in them. It wasn't until the greedheads got into the market
>that the market bubbled and exploded.
They weren't explicitly guaranteed but they knew the fed would bail
them out. So they took advantage of it and merrily made so many
high risk loans. Why not when they knew there was no risk?
The government has no business in the banking industry. NONE.
>The problem is, the MBS were all
>thrown into a large investment pool, and individual securities weren't
>given a specific value, so no one knows what the securities are
>actually worth. That's one reason the $750 billion recovery money will
>mostly be recouped; once a value is attached to the mortgage pool,
>then someone can attach a dollar figure to the securities, and the
>money can be paid back.
You're trying to sugar coat the fact that taxpayers are getting a
royal screw job with this bailout (and other bailouts to come such
as the auto industry because of the precedent).
Bush's eagerness to bail out the banks pissed me off to no end. I
expect Dems to do this but he should be formally excommunicated
from the Republican party for doing such a stupid thing.
BTW to temporarily go along with your naive assumption that some
of the bailout money will be recouped, what do you think will happen
to those funds? The fed will give it straight back to the taxpayer
in the form of a rebate or lower tax rates? Of course not they'll spend
it on other big government programs. So don't insult us by asking
us to believe that some of the bailout money will be recovered. It's
all going down a big rat hole never to be seen again.
Steve
"Money you are owed is most certainly a liability. "
--Milt Shook (sock puppet proven to be Milt)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.clinton/msg/9dac286dff4eadf2?hl=en
"Holding paper on a debt does not constitute an asset, ever. It's
always a liability"
--Milt Shook (sock puppet proven to be Milt)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.clinton/msg/00481f11d09a1837?hl=en
"Even sadder is the notion that lending someone $200,000, so that THEY
can buy a house is considered an "asset" by someone"
--Milt Shook (sock puppet proven to be Milt)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.clinton/msg/3fbb688146a927f6?hl=en
"I understand all of this quite well, given my training. That's all the
hint you get as to why you should know what you're talking about when
it comes to securities and the economy, because I will nail you,
fucktard."
--Milt Shook (sock puppet proven to be Milt)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.clinton/msg/3c2a13d88847667a?hl=en&
"When you lend someone else money, until that money is paid back,
it's a liability. I know what I'm talking about. In fact, if you
knew who I was, you'd be embarrassed to even be discussing this. "
--Milt Shook (sock puppet proven to be Milt)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/eaeaa3648a3fb654?hl=en
milt....@gmail.com
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
> >> Whoa! The libs are now so confident and cocky that Mitchy admits
> >> he doesn't believe in capitalism. The truth is out.
>
> >> Any other libs care to out yourselves as true socialists?
>
> >I see. So admitting there are flaws in capitalism, and plugging up the
> >holes makes you an anti-capitalist?
>
> Please define those "flaws in capitalism". Be specific and not use
> lofty generalities about how cruel reality is.
You have GOT to be kidding.
Do you even know what capitalism is? At the end of the unfettered
capitalist regulation, without regulation and without limits, one
company will own everything, and will determine the pay rate of
everyone else. That's the basis for the Constitution demanding
regulation of commerce.
But even with regulated capitalism, for it to work requires a ready
supply of available workers for every job, otherwise you have rampant
inflation. That's a pretty big flaw. It means, you need processes in
place to take care of that period of time when almost everyone is
naturally unemployed.
>
> The test of your definition will be whether or not you'll admit that
> "plugging the holes" means punishing those who work hard in order
> to earn money.
Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
And even if you feel taxation is somehow "punishment," the tax rates
are not that far apart, anyway. Lessee.. of someone gives me a choice
of a job that pays $50,000, with a tax rate of 15%, or one for
$500,000 with a tax rate of 50% (and Obama's top tax rate isn't nearly
that high), how stupid would I have to be to turn down the latter
because the tax is higher.
That's the idiocy of Joe the Plumber in a nutshell. He's going to give
up buying a $280,000 net business, because Obama would raise his taxes
by $900. Makes you wonder about right wingers' business sense, and
explains why most right wingers live in states with so many poor
people.
>
> >> Dems corrupted our capitalism by with such stupid policies as
> >> virtually guaranteeing high risk investments. If banks can reap all
> >> of the profits from high risk loans but not have to sustain any
> >> losses why not?
>
> >First of all, no one guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. That's why
> >we're in this mess in the first place. And the market in these
> >securities was perfectly fine, when only Fannie and Freddie were
> >investing in them. It wasn't until the greedheads got into the market
> >that the market bubbled and exploded.
>
> They weren't explicitly guaranteed but they knew the fed would bail
> them out. So they took advantage of it and merrily made so many
> high risk loans. Why not when they knew there was no risk?
No one knew anyone would bail them out. In fact, they still don't know
the extent to which they will be "bailed out," because the hardest
part is still being worked on, and that is to assign a value to these
MBS. They really can't do that until they're reasonably sure the
housing market is reasonably close to bottom (I hope it's close), and
these people are still going to lose a lot of money, no matter what
value they assign.
>
> The government has no business in the banking industry. NONE.
>
> >The problem is, the MBS were all
> >thrown into a large investment pool, and individual securities weren't
> >given a specific value, so no one knows what the securities are
> >actually worth. That's one reason the $750 billion recovery money will
> >mostly be recouped; once a value is attached to the mortgage pool,
> >then someone can attach a dollar figure to the securities, and the
> >money can be paid back.
>
> You're trying to sugar coat the fact that taxpayers are getting a
> royal screw job with this bailout (and other bailouts to come such
> as the auto industry because of the precedent).
Taxpayers aren't getting screwed as much as homeowners. Millions of
homeowners are paying on $300,000 mortgages for a home that is worth
$200,000 and possibly dropping. And let's be honest, anyway; if you
gave a fuck about taxpayers getting screwed, you would have been dead
set against the deficit spending that right wing governments have been
doing for the last 28 years. I find it fascinating that you can whine
about taxes, and then whine about "taxpayers getting screwed" in the
same post, especially since you're not paying the fucking bailout
anyway; our kids and grandkids will be paying it.
Current taxpayers haven't paid one thin dime of the money squandered
in Iraq, including the blood money paid to Halliburton and Blackwater
to make their stock go sky high, because unlike every other wartime
president in history, this president and his lickspittle Congress cut
taxes, knowing that they were going to have to spend shitloads of
money.
Yeah, our kids have a bitch, not us. The money for this adventure
isn't coming from our pockets at all; its coming from our kids'
pockets.
>
> Bush's eagerness to bail out the banks pissed me off to no end. I
> expect Dems to do this but he should be formally excommunicated
> from the Republican party for doing such a stupid thing.
He had no choice. If he had taken people's advice, he could have
headed this off a couple of years ago, and instead of bailing them
out, he could have bought out the MBS market, and it would have cost
about 1/5 the current cost. Unfortunately President Herbert Hoover the
Second sat on his hands and watched this thing unfold.
You wanna hear the best part? One of the leaders of the Bush bailout
team is a former exec with Bear Stearns, who declared the market sound
one week before it collapsed, and his company went under. He then
claimed he never saw it coming. Yeah, that's who you want running the
bailout.
>
> BTW to temporarily go along with your naive assumption that some
> of the bailout money will be recouped, what do you think will happen
> to those funds?
It's not naive. If we don't get most of that money back, we're fucked.
We're going to be buying securities from the people now holding them,
and we'll be buying them for pennies on the dollar. We should be able
to then re-sell them, possibly at a small profit. We're not just going
to be handing out cash to banks, although given the Bush
Administration's penchant for fucking up any job they're given, it
wouldn't surprise me if they figured out a way to lose the money.
> The fed will give it straight back to the taxpayer
> in the form of a rebate or lower tax rates?
Like I said; we're borrowing the money in the first place. By what
fantasy do you imagine that we're both running a trillion dollar
deficit for the year AND also paying for the bailout?
I mean, for chrissakes; a trillion dollar deficit AND a "tax rebate"
in the same year? I'm okay with tax rebates as economic stimulus,
although public works jobs are better for the economy. But don't even
begin to think we taxpayers are footing the entire bill for everything
the government spends.
> Of course not they'll spend
> it on other big government programs. So don't insult us by asking
> us to believe that some of the bailout money will be recovered. It's
> all going down a big rat hole never to be seen again.
No, with a responsible president in office, it will be paid back to
the people we borrowed it from, or put into the treasury to cut the
deficit. But again; we're running $400 without a bailout; what makes
you think taxpayers are footing the bill for the bailout? Christ;
we're even borrowing money to pay the interest on the debt we're
already carrying. Did you know the debt service last year was more
than half the size of the Defense budget? Yeah; it costs way more to
service the national debt than it costs to pay all those fat black
inner city single mothers for welfare and food stamps, even though you
people tend to obsess over the latter and never seem to care about the
former.
Steve
>
>Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
>didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
>representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
>first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
>suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
The only reason this "tax the rich" thing gets through is because they
are a minority and greedy losers like Shook who want a government
handout seem to have enough voting strength to drown them out....
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."
--Alexander Tyler
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Nov 10, 6:52=A0pm, Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> >> Whoa! The libs are now so confident and cocky that Mitchy admits
>> >> he doesn't believe in capitalism. The truth is out.
>>
>> >> Any other libs care to out yourselves as true socialists?
>>
>> >I see. So admitting there are flaws in capitalism, and plugging up the
>> >holes makes you an anti-capitalist?
>>
>> Please define those "flaws in capitalism". Be specific and not use
>> lofty generalities about how cruel reality is.
>
>You have GOT to be kidding.
>
>Do you even know what capitalism is? At the end of the unfettered
>capitalist regulation, without regulation and without limits, one
>company will own everything, and will determine the pay rate of
>everyone else. That's the basis for the Constitution demanding
>regulation of commerce.
NOW that's funny. Where do you come up with these wild notions Milt?
Do you just make it up because you think it sounds good?
>But even with regulated capitalism, for it to work requires a ready
>supply of available workers for every job, otherwise you have rampant
>inflation. That's a pretty big flaw. It means, you need processes in
>place to take care of that period of time when almost everyone is
>naturally unemployed.
>>
>> The test of your definition will be whether or not you'll admit that
>> "plugging the holes" means punishing those who work hard in order
>> to earn money.
>
>Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
>didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
>representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
>first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
>suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
>
>And even if you feel taxation is somehow "punishment," the tax rates
>are not that far apart, anyway. Lessee.. of someone gives me a choice
>of a job that pays $50,000, with a tax rate of 15%, or one for
>$500,000 with a tax rate of 50% (and Obama's top tax rate isn't nearly
>that high), how stupid would I have to be to turn down the latter
>because the tax is higher.
Another stupid analogy from Milt. Its about the MARGINAL rates Milt.
Its about whether someone will take a risk if they have to give 50% of
their earnings to the government.
JSL
>> from the Republican party for doing such a stupid thing. =A0
>> all going down a big rat hole never to be seen again. =A0
Mitchell Holman
news:nh3gh45rk104non54...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:10:06 -0800 (PST), milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
>>didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
>>representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
>>first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
>>suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
>
> The only reason this "tax the rich" thing gets through is because they
> are a minority and greedy losers like Shook who want a government
> handout seem to have enough voting strength to drown them out....
If we don't tax the rich to pay for the wars you support
then who ARE we supposed to tax to pay for them?
Mitchell Holman
4ax.com:
>
>
> The government has no business in the banking industry. NONE.
Do you really want to return to the days when banks
failed and working people saw all their savings disappear
and that's just too bad for them because they should have
known better?
Steve
You tax everybody, you sad little loser....
*us*
>You tax everybody
Why do you want to tax those who are poor
more than those who are rich?
>... sad little loser....
Indeed you are.
milt....@gmail.com
70% of $50,000 or...
50% of $1 million?
Only braindead morons even CONSIDER the tax rate when they're starting
a business, with the possible exception of a small business, and the
start up taxes local governments pile on. They don't even consider the
income tax rates, because they're not going to make any income for the
first few years. And when the income tax bill finally comes due,
they're ecstatic because they're finally making enough money to pay
taxes. And when it becomes a factor, they have accountants who can
move money around, and avoid paying the tax on the entire amount.
Anyone who pays 50%, or even 40% tax on their entire income needs to
fire their accountant.
Remember the old saying, "As goes GM, so goes the country?" Well, at
the time that statement was made, the top tax rate was 90%. (Yes, that
was too high) So, why didn't GM say "Fuck it" and just go out of
business? I mean, the biggest company in the world, and a 90% tax
rate? According to you, they should have, right? According to right
wing scary stories, that 90% tax rate should have sent them packing to
Mexico. Yet they didn't. Now why?
Seriously, Jeffrey... you and your wingnut brethren have GOT to put
down the Kool-Aid.
Steve
>On Nov 11, 1:25 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:36:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>
>>
>>
>> <Noemailple...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> >Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote in
>> >news:nh3gh45rk104non54...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:10:06 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
>> >>>didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
>> >>>representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
>> >>>first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
>> >>>suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
>>
>> >> The only reason this "tax the rich" thing gets through is because they
>> >> are a minority and greedy losers like Shook who want a government
>> >> handout seem to have enough voting strength to drown them out....
>
>Hmmm... is a government handout available to me? I had no idea.
>
>In my many years of paying taxes, the only money I've received back
>from the government was a few thousand in Pell Grants, and another few
>thousand in EITC refunds when my son was little. That's pretty much
>it.
Shook is out of work and off chasing after his <LOL> elusive
dreams... and he's burning what's left of his 401K, which he
withdrew in a down market, paid a penalty for withdrawing, and will
pay income tax on what's left.... 2009 is going to be rough on the
lefties, and Shook won't be spared..
>On the other hand, if I (hypothetically) make $1 million next year, I
<LOL> Sorry, there are no snowballs in hell, Milt... Milt is always
going to make it big next year... and he always falls on his
face....
>can shelter three quarters of that if I want,
<ROTFLMAO> Milt, Milt.... how do you shelter income, you hapless
moron.... Milt doesn't even know what the term "shelter"
means.....
<LOL> What's really funny is that back just before the bubble burst,
Milly Shook claimed:
" I am investing in homes with some partners."
--Milt.Shook Oct 5 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/c528763e8b2ebe65?hl=en&
Whether he did or not isn't important, but that
Milly thought it was the thing to do back then
says it all.....
Milt will pay a hefty income tax this year since his 401K is counted
as income... but next year, if he's lucky, he'll probably be working
as a clerk in a store again, so he just might not pay any tax, or he
might have one of those negative taxes....
and only pay taxes on
>the $250,000 that's left. If the top income tax rate is 40% under
>Obama, that means I have an effective tax rate of about 8%. I only
>have to pay SS taxes on the first $104,000, which is an effective tax
>rate of 0.765% of my income, and I'd pay 1% of the $250,000, for an
>effective tax rate of 0.25%.
Social security is for funding of a retirement fund... one get's back
in relation to what one puts in.. Milt thinks that the rich people
should fund his retirement... that's because Milt has withdrawn his
401K and pissed it away....
>Now, that millionaire pays about 10% of his actual income in taxes.
<ROTFLMAO> Good god, Milt, you pretend that three fourths of the guys
income doesn't exist
>The average McDonald's worker pays more than that.
>>
>> > If we don't tax the rich to pay for the wars you support
>> >then who ARE we supposed to tax to pay for them?
>>
>> You tax everybody, you sad little loser....
>>
>Why don't you detail for us which people in this country get away
>without paying a significant portion of their income in taxes.
>
>Don't forget to include payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes,
>excise taxes, etc.,
>
>Can't wait to see this extensive list.
Steve
>Which would you rather have;
>
>70% of $50,000 or...
>50% of $1 million?
>
>Only braindead morons even CONSIDER the tax rate when they're starting
>a business, with the possible exception of a small business, and the
>start up taxes local governments pile on. They don't even consider the
>income tax rates, because they're not going to make any income for the
>first few years. And when the income tax bill finally comes due,
>they're ecstatic because they're finally making enough money to pay
>taxes. And when it becomes a factor, they have accountants who can
>move money around, and avoid paying the tax on the entire amount.
>Anyone who pays 50%, or even 40% tax on their entire income needs to
>fire their accountant.
>
>Remember the old saying, "As goes GM, so goes the country?" Well, at
>the time that statement was made, the top tax rate was 90%. (Yes, that
>was too high) So, why didn't GM say "Fuck it" and just go out of
>business? I mean, the biggest company in the world, and a 90% tax
>rate? According to you, they should have, right? According to right
>wing scary stories, that 90% tax rate should have sent them packing to
>Mexico. Yet they didn't. Now why?
>
>Seriously, Jeffrey... you and your wingnut brethren have GOT to put
>down the Kool-Aid.
Let's have another heaping helping of Milt shook's understanding of
income tax, shall we?
Milly Shook claimed to have a corporation in 2004, long
before he made the claim (2008) that he could deduct corporate income
as a business expense the next year.
"I am incorporated. But MiltCo (not the actual name of the
corporation)
is not me. The corporation is a wholly separate entity from me. The
corporation pays me a salary and I pay taxes on that salary. THE
CORPORATION pays the taxes on the corporation."
--Milt Shook Mar 18 2004,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/f7a3aebb956b7ff7
"And one of the ironies of this entire discussion is that a company
that pays corporate income taxes one year can deduct them as a
business expense the next.
--Milt Shook, Feb 4, 2008 who claims to have been a business
consultant and have his own corporation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b0151278e691117b.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >I see. So admitting there are flaws in capitalism, and plugging up the
>> >holes makes you an anti-capitalist?
>>
>> Please define those "flaws in capitalism". Be specific and not use
>> lofty generalities about how cruel reality is.
>
>You have GOT to be kidding.
>
>Do you even know what capitalism is? At the end of the unfettered
>capitalist regulation, without regulation and without limits, one
>company will own everything, and will determine the pay rate of
>everyone else. That's the basis for the Constitution demanding
>regulation of commerce.
We've had laws against monopolies for what--150 years now?
Kinda hard to make that case these days doncha think?
>> The test of your definition will be whether or not you'll admit that
>> "plugging the holes" means punishing those who work hard in order
>> to earn money.
>
>Okay, first of all, taxes are not a "punishment." The founding fathers
>didn't revolt over taxation; they revolted over taxation without
>representation, which is a pretty big distinction. Do you know who
>first proposed a progressive income tax? Adam Smith, whom I will
>suggest knows a lot more about capitalism than either you or I.
>
>And even if you feel taxation is somehow "punishment," the tax rates
>are not that far apart, anyway. Lessee.. of someone gives me a choice
>of a job that pays $50,000, with a tax rate of 15%, or one for
>$500,000 with a tax rate of 50% (and Obama's top tax rate isn't nearly
>that high), how stupid would I have to be to turn down the latter
>because the tax is higher.
You don't seem to understand that as tax rates progress higher
those who can make more have less incentive to do so. Why bother
working 60 or 80 hours or more per week if Big Brother is going to
take most of the earnings (You floated 50% as the top marginal
income tax rate. Then add SS, state, local, disability and whatever
other taxes, leaving maybe 20 - 25% left to the hard worker). Why
the hell would somebody work weekends and late at night away from
their families for such little return?
>That's the idiocy of Joe the Plumber in a nutshell. He's going to give
>up buying a $280,000 net business, because Obama would raise his taxes
>by $900. Makes you wonder about right wingers' business sense, and
>explains why most right wingers live in states with so many poor
>people.
Where did you get those numbers? Normally when politicians talk
about tax levels they're talking about *gross* income not net. A
plumber may gross $280K and to an uninformed lib who has been
indoctrinated in class envy this would appear to be great wealth.
Problem is that he's running a business so that $280K has to pay
the salaries of people working for him as well as capital investments
and other expenses like insurance and supplies. Subtract those
things then divide the net by how many hours he worked and
suddenly he's not making obscene profits anymore.
>> They weren't explicitly guaranteed but they knew the fed would bail
>> them out. So they took advantage of it and merrily made so many
>> high risk loans. Why not when they knew there was no risk?
>
>No one knew anyone would bail them out. In fact, they still don't know
>the extent to which they will be "bailed out," because the hardest
>part is still being worked on, and that is to assign a value to these
>MBS.
Of course they knew they'd be bailed out. They have entrenched
lobbyists who give huge amounts of money to politicians of both
parties.
I can't believe you're so naive Shnook.
>> You're trying to sugar coat the fact that taxpayers are getting a
>> royal screw job with this bailout (and other bailouts to come such
>> as the auto industry because of the precedent).
>
>Taxpayers aren't getting screwed as much as homeowners.
Homeowners are taxpayers. And many taxpayers are homeowners.
>Millions of
>homeowners are paying on $300,000 mortgages for a home that is worth
>$200,000 and possibly dropping. And let's be honest, anyway; if you
>gave a fuck about taxpayers getting screwed, you would have been dead
>set against the deficit spending that right wing governments have been
>doing for the last 28 years.
You haven't read my posts over the last 10 years. Many times I
have blasted Bush for his reckless spending. And many times I have
criticized Reagan for trusting Dems who promised that they would cut
spending but didn't.
IIRC nearly half of federal outlays go to expenses put in place by
two Dem presidents--FDR and LBJ. Kinda hard to blame that on
Repubs eh?
>I find it fascinating that you can whine
>about taxes, and then whine about "taxpayers getting screwed" in the
>same post, especially since you're not paying the fucking bailout
>anyway; our kids and grandkids will be paying it.
I FUCKING HATE the bailouts. I'm furious at Bush for pushing them
through and I'm PO'ed at congresscritters from both parties for going
along with them.
That's the big difference between people like me and people like
you Shnook. I'm willing to accept that both parties put us in the pickle
we're in. But partisan turds like you try to blame it on the other party
(although at least you admitted BJ signed some bad legislation). IOW
I'm objective and understand the big picture but you're a partisan hack
regurgitating what your handlers have fed you.
>Current taxpayers haven't paid one thin dime of the money squandered
>in Iraq, including the blood money paid to Halliburton and Blackwater
>to make their stock go sky high, because unlike every other wartime
>president in history, this president and his lickspittle Congress cut
>taxes, knowing that they were going to have to spend shitloads of
>money.
>
>Yeah, our kids have a bitch, not us. The money for this adventure
>isn't coming from our pockets at all; its coming from our kids'
>pockets.
Same old partisan blame game. Dems have controlled both houses
of congress since 2006 and yet the war still receives full funding.
Care to explain how this can be solely Repubs' fault?
>> Bush's eagerness to bail out the banks pissed me off to no end. I
>> expect Dems to do this but he should be formally excommunicated
>> from the Republican party for doing such a stupid thing.
>
>He had no choice. If he had taken people's advice, he could have
>headed this off a couple of years ago, and instead of bailing them
>out, he could have bought out the MBS market,
HOW?!? You think the president has blank checks that he can do
what he wants with?
>You wanna hear the best part? One of the leaders of the Bush bailout
>team is a former exec with Bear Stearns, who declared the market sound
>one week before it collapsed, and his company went under. He then
>claimed he never saw it coming. Yeah, that's who you want running the
>bailout.
I don't want *any* bailouts. Not the banks, and not the auto makers
who now have their hands out (with Pelosi anxious to give them our
hard earned money). As expected you don't know WTF you're talking
about.
>> BTW to temporarily go along with your naive assumption that some
>> of the bailout money will be recouped, what do you think will happen
>> to those funds?
>
>It's not naive. If we don't get most of that money back, we're fucked.
>We're going to be buying securities from the people now holding them,
>and we'll be buying them for pennies on the dollar. We should be able
>to then re-sell them, possibly at a small profit. We're not just going
>to be handing out cash to banks, although given the Bush
>Administration's penchant for fucking up any job they're given, it
>wouldn't surprise me if they figured out a way to lose the money.
My point went right over your head. IF they do manage to sell some
of the (largely) worthless assets where do you think those funds will
go? It will immediately go under the control of big spending pimps
in congress, not returned to the taxpayers. Not understanding this is
why you're naive.
>> The fed will give it straight back to the taxpayer
>> in the form of a rebate or lower tax rates?
>
>Like I said; we're borrowing the money in the first place. By what
>fantasy do you imagine that we're both running a trillion dollar
>deficit for the year AND also paying for the bailout?
I never said we are. That's why BJ's "budget surplus" was a scam.
We're expected to believe that we were somehow running a surplus but
mysteriously the national debt rose every year. How could this be?
>I mean, for chrissakes; a trillion dollar deficit AND a "tax rebate"
>in the same year? I'm okay with tax rebates as economic stimulus,
>although public works jobs are better for the economy.
Nonsense. FDR made millions of makework jobs throughout the 30s
and they didn't fix anything.
>> Of course not they'll spend
>> it on other big government programs. So don't insult us by asking
>> us to believe that some of the bailout money will be recovered. It's
>> all going down a big rat hole never to be seen again.
>
>No, with a responsible president in office, it will be paid back to
>the people we borrowed it from, or put into the treasury to cut the
>deficit. But again; we're running $400 without a bailout; what makes
>you think taxpayers are footing the bill for the bailout? Christ;
>we're even borrowing money to pay the interest on the debt we're
>already carrying. Did you know the debt service last year was more
>than half the size of the Defense budget? Yeah; it costs way more to
>service the national debt than it costs to pay all those fat black
>inner city single mothers
Cheap shot obviously attempting to paint those who seek welfare
reform as racists. A classic example of the childish vitriolic level to
which you libs will stoop to in an attempt to win debates. Tsk tsk
>for welfare and food stamps, even though you
>people tend to obsess over the latter and never seem to care about the
>former.
Who are you talking about? I have been blasting the war in Iraq
for years.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <fox...@null.com> wrote
>> The government has no business in the banking industry. NONE.
>
> Do you really want to return to the days when banks
>failed and working people saw all their savings disappear
>and that's just too bad for them because they should have
>known better?
Banks are publicly held. By law they must make their books
accessible to the public. Obviously you feel that the public is
too stupid to examine banks before they put their money in them.
Typical liberal attitude. The great unwashed masses are helpless
and must rely on total government control or they will perish.
Steve
>On Nov 11, 8:34 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>I have the filters back on, and I still manage to see an occasional
>post. Damn Google...
Bullshit, Milt.. Google has no filters....
>I'm not out of work. I haven't been out of work. I started working
>before I quit my job, and I continue to work.
<LOL> I've seen your beggings for work, Shook... $250 in six
months.
>I didn't withdraw the 401(k). If you really want to know what I did
>with it, I rolled it over into another type of account, which I'm
>investing myself, quite successfully, and I borrowed the money I used
>for the last few months.
Nice try, Milt, but in order for a loser like you to borrow money,
you'd need collateral and you have none...
But wait, perhaps Milt hit up the old man for his retirement money..
he did say he went off visiting him... but I suspect the old bugger
doesn't have much, so he told Milt to piss off...
Nope... your only other choice was to cash in the 401K and you are
definitely stupid enough to do that....
...and here's the bullshit you posted earlier...
"I'm not "living off my 401(k). I took the money out of that, and put
it into a goddamn eTrade account, and even with the overall down
market, I've gained about 15% per month since."
Milt Shook Oct 21, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cc7c58abf8a45ea2?hl=en
Canyon note: 15% per month... that's about 500% per year... absurd
is the word..
>> >On the other hand, if I (hypothetically) make $1 million next year, I
>>
>> <LOL> Sorry, there are no snowballs in hell, Milt... Milt is always
>> going to make it big next year... and he always falls on his
>> face....
>
>Hmm... apparently, you're too ignorant to know what "hypothetically"
>means.
Sorry, but for something to be "hypothetical," it would have to be
possible.... and the chances of you ever making a million dollars is
quite impossible....
>But you seem to know what "pathetic" means, because you live it every
>day.
Speaking of pathetic, Milt, how your pathetic pursuit of the woman of
your dreams coming?
>> >can shelter three quarters of that if I want,
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> Milt, Milt.... how do you shelter income, you hapless
>> moron.... Milt doesn't even know what the term "shelter"
>> means.....
>
>Yes, I know what a tax shelter is. Do you?
So how does one make a million dollars and "shelter" three quarters of
that so one doesn't pay income taxes on it?" do tell...
>You claim to invest in
>stocks and bonds, and you pretend to know what a 401(k) is, so why
>you're laughing at the concept of tax shelters is beyond me. You seem
>to have no concept of what they are. Here's a clue, since you
>apparently need one:
<LOL> Doesn't Milt understand that one cannot invest three quarters
of a million dollars income in a 401K? Of course not... after all,
Milt is a moron.
>Investment Dictionary: Tax Shelter
>
>A legal method of minimizing or decreasing an investor's taxable
>income and, therefore, their tax liability. Tax shelters can range
>from investments or investment accounts that provide favorable tax
>treatment, to activities or transactions that lower taxable income.
>The most common type of tax shelter is an employer-sponsored 401(k)
>plan.
Sure Milt... so explain how you can out three quarters of a million
dollars in a 401K.... BTW, that would be only tax deferred. You'd
pay taxes on it eventually and that alone blows holes in your claim.
>Investopedia Says:
>Tax authorities watch tax shelters carefully. If an investment is made
>for the sole purpose of avoiding or evading taxes, you could be forced
>to pay tax or even penalties. Tax minimization (also referred to as
>tax avoidance) is a perfectly legal way to minimize taxable income and
>lower taxes payable. Do not confuse this with tax evasion, the illegal
>avoidance of taxes through misrepresentation or similar means.
>
>----------------------------
<ROTFLMAO>
Here's a clue, Milt... you don't shelter income, you shelter the
investment, you obviously don't even know that much... let alone,
how to do it...
>Do you need me to translate? If I was to (again, hypothetically) make
>$1 million, I could easily invest three quarters of that in any number
>of ways that would allow me to claim the wealth, while deferring taxes
>on the money.
<LOL> Again, Milt.. you can invest the three quarters of a million
dollars in a tax shelter, but not in ways that allow you to pay no
income taxes on it when you made it... That was what you suggested
and it's bullshit... so now you try to backpeddle out of it with your
ridiculous 401k claim.
>Anyway, you get the point. Millionaires don't pay taxes
>on every dollar they receive. In fact, with a really good accountant,
>they don't pay taxes on most of the dollars they receive.
blah, blah, blah....
>And for the record, there is nothing wrong with it; such a thing
>encourages investment. But I find it fascinating how you poor trailer
>trash types always cry about those poor rich people, who are so
>heavily burdened by taxes. Do you even have a clue that, for every
>dollar in tax breaks we give them, someone else has to make up that
>money in order to balance the budget.
>
>Oh, that's right; you're all in favor of the United States carrying a
>crippling debt. I forgot.
>
>> <LOL> What's really funny is that back just before the bubble burst,
>> Milly Shook claimed:
>>
>> " I am investing in homes with some partners."
>> --Milt.Shook Oct 5 2007http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/c528763e8b2...
>
>Still am.
>>
>> Whether he did or not isn't important, but that
>> Milly thought it was the thing to do back then
>> says it all.....
>
>It was. In fact, the dropping market is good for business. I'll let
>you puzzle as to how that's possible.
<LOL> Sure thing, Milt.. <LOL> flipping houses has been a real
profitable endeavor this last year......
>> Milt will pay a hefty income tax this year since his 401K is counted
>> as income... but next year, if he's lucky, he'll probably be working
>> as a clerk in a store again, so he just might not pay any tax, or he
>> might have one of those negative taxes....
>
>You know how you always claim you're so rich and stuff? The above
>paragraph proves you're not, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>
>Again, I'll let you puzzle as to what I mean.
What Milt means, is that he's living off what's left of his 401K and
is "puzzling" about how he's going to find a job clerking in a
store.... because that's pretty much the only thing he knows how to
do....
nobody
He has been mighty quiet lately.
Steve
Google histrionic
Steve
>On Nov 11, 8:34 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>> Shook is out of work and off chasing after his <LOL> elusive
>> dreams... and he's burning what's left of his 401K, which he
>> withdrew in a down market, paid a penalty for withdrawing, and will
>> pay income tax on what's left.... 2009 is going to be rough on the
>> lefties, and Shook won't be spared..
Here Milt claims to not be out of work right above where he claims
that he had to borrow money to live on.... Milt often contradicts
himself. he never could keep his lies straight..
>
>I'm not out of work. I haven't been out of work. I started working
>before I quit my job, and I continue to work.
>
>I didn't withdraw the 401(k). If you really want to know what I did
>with it, I rolled it over into another type of account, which I'm
>investing myself, quite successfully, and I borrowed the money I used
>for the last few months.
Remember when Milt claimed:
"I'm not "living off my 401(k). I took the money out of that, and put
it into a goddamn eTrade account, and even with the overall down
market, I've gained about 15% per month since."
Milt Shook Oct 21, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cc7c58abf8a45ea2?hl=en
>> Milt will pay a hefty income tax this year since his 401K is counted
>> as income...
>
>You know how you always claim you're so rich and stuff? The above
>paragraph proves you're not, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>
I have to wonder if that means that Milt cashed in that 401K without
knowing that it was all going to show up as income on his income
taxes.... <LOL> after he spent it all
Billary/2008
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:01:29 -0800 (PST), milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Nov 11, 8:34 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> >> Shook is out of work and off chasing after his <LOL> elusive
> >> dreams... and he's burning what's left of his 401K, which he
> >> withdrew in a down market, paid a penalty for withdrawing, and will
> >> pay income tax on what's left.... 2009 is going to be rough on the
> >> lefties, and Shook won't be spared..
>
> Here Milt claims to not be out of work right above where he claims
> that he had to borrow money to live on.... Milt often contradicts
> himself. he never could keep his lies straight..
>
>
>
> >I'm not out of work. I haven't been out of work. I started working
> >before I quit my job, and I continue to work.
>
> >I didn't withdraw the 401(k). If you really want to know what I did
> >with it, I rolled it over into another type of account, which I'm
> >investing myself, quite successfully, and I borrowed the money I used
> >for the last few months.
>
> Remember when Milt claimed:
>
> "I'm not "living off my 401(k). I took the money out of that, and put
> it into a goddamn eTrade account, and even with the overall down
> market, I've gained about 15% per month since."
>
> >> Milt will pay a hefty income tax this year since his 401K is counted
> >> as income...
>
> >You know how you always claim you're so rich and stuff? The above
> >paragraph proves you're not, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>
> I have to wonder if that means that Milt cashed in that 401K without
> knowing that it was all going to show up as income on his income
> taxes.... <LOL> after he spent it all
>
> Justice is when you get exactly what you deserve.
> --Neal Bortz
Milty once claimed that he had been a photographer and taught
photograpghy at the local community organizer center. No wonder he's
broke. He's an "artist".
Steve
Milt claims to have done everything and claims to know everybody..
Milt can't stand being a nobody in other's eyes.. he has to
continually invent new lies about himself in a fruitless attempt to
impress.. his boasts and brags are usually so ridiculous as to be
instantly recognized as lies... and he has done this for so long and
so many times that he can't remember all the lies and is continually
contradicting himself..
Google histrionic
"I also figured out that many people in my area share the same IP
address. Not at the same time, of course, as I explained before. But
every time I reboot my modem, I'm assigned a new IP address, from a
different connection point, and someone else will be assigned the IP
address later."
Milt.Shook. trying to explain his use of a sock puppet in 2004 that had the same IP as himself
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/87c3324dd22d4c72
"Funny; my IP hasn't changed in the almost five years, even when I moved
into a house."
--Milt.Shook.. Jun 14 2006
.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e773f8f44066cd9e?
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Which would you rather have;
>
>70% of $50,000 or...
>50% of $1 million?
People don't "give" you these things Milt...you have to to earn them.
There is no incentive to increase your income by taking a risk if the
government is going to take half of your reward.
>
>Only braindead morons even CONSIDER the tax rate when they're starting
>a business, with the possible exception of a small business,
So people just start large businesses? Is that what your saying Milt?
>and the
>start up taxes local governments pile on. They don't even consider the
>income tax rates, because they're not going to make any income for the
>first few years. And when the income tax bill finally comes due,
>they're ecstatic because they're finally making enough money to pay
>taxes. And when it becomes a factor, they have accountants who can
>move money around, and avoid paying the tax on the entire amount.
Right....
>Anyone who pays 50%, or even 40% tax on their entire income needs to
>fire their accountant.
>
>Remember the old saying, "As goes GM, so goes the country?" Well, at
>the time that statement was made, the top tax rate was 90%. (Yes, that
>was too high) So, why didn't GM say "Fuck it" and just go out of
>business? I mean, the biggest company in the world, and a 90% tax
>rate?
You really are an idiot aren't you Milt? Marginal coporate tax rates
have topped out at around 50% historically.
>According to you, they should have, right? According to right
>wing scary stories, that 90% tax rate should have sent them packing to
>Mexico. Yet they didn't. Now why?
Because corporations weren't taxed at 90% you dolt.
>
>Seriously, Jeffrey... you and your wingnut brethren have GOT to put
>down the Kool-Aid.
Right Milt.
Oh...btw....you forgot to include how you came to the conclusions
about the interstate commerce clause.
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Which would you rather have;
>
> >70% of $50,000 or...
> >50% of $1 million?
>
> People don't "give" you these things Milt...you have to to earn them.
> There is no incentive to increase your income by taking a risk if the
> government is going to take half of your reward.
>
Oh, for shit's sake... just answer the question.
>
> >Only braindead morons even CONSIDER the tax rate when they're starting
> >a business, with the possible exception of a small business,
>
> So people just start large businesses? Is that what your saying Milt?
Again with the taking half the fucking sentence, removing the context
and answering that...
Here's a clue, halfwit. A PERIOD is the end of a sentence, not a
comma.
Now read the rest of the sentence.
>
> >and the
> >start up taxes local governments pile on. They don't even consider the
> >income tax rates, because they're not going to make any income for the
> >first few years. And when the income tax bill finally comes due,
> >they're ecstatic because they're finally making enough money to pay
> >taxes. And when it becomes a factor, they have accountants who can
> >move money around, and avoid paying the tax on the entire amount.
>
> Right....
See? I was talking about taxes needed at start up, not people starting
a large business versus a small one, you moron.
And anyone who considers income taxes when he's starting a business is
a fuckwit, and should just work for someone else.
>
> >Anyone who pays 50%, or even 40% tax on their entire income needs to
> >fire their accountant.
>
> >Remember the old saying, "As goes GM, so goes the country?" Well, at
> >the time that statement was made, the top tax rate was 90%. (Yes, that
> >was too high) So, why didn't GM say "Fuck it" and just go out of
> >business? I mean, the biggest company in the world, and a 90% tax
> >rate?
>
> You really are an idiot aren't you Milt? Marginal coporate tax rates
> have topped out at around 50% historically.
Oh, really?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf
The top corporate tax rate hasn't been anywhere near 50% for most
income for about 20 years.
> >According to you, they should have, right? According to right
> >wing scary stories, that 90% tax rate should have sent them packing to
> >Mexico. Yet they didn't. Now why?
>
> Because corporations weren't taxed at 90% you dolt.
>
I see. So, only corporate income taxes would have that magical effect.
The entire corporate board having to pay 90% of their income would
never cause a corporation to move overseas.
Oh, wait; it wouldn't matter, because individuals didn't actually pay
90%.
Oh, and by the way, many, if not most, small businesses don't pay
corporate income tax, anyway.
I'm sensing you really don't understand how this progressive taxation
concept works, anyway. You're kinda like Joe the Plumber in that way.
He was suggesting to Obama that the tax increase on his hypothetical
business would be daunting. The business he made up was going to make
$250-280,000, and Obama plans to increase the marginal rate from 36%
to 39%, which means, if Joe made $280,000, his taxes would increase
$900.
So, Jeffrey, would you not buy a business that could make you $280,000
because your tax bill would rise by $900 with Obama's tax plan?
>
> >Seriously, Jeffrey... you and your wingnut brethren have GOT to put
> >down the Kool-Aid.
>
> Right Milt.
>
> Oh...btw....you forgot to include how you came to the conclusions
> about the interstate commerce clause.
>
And you forgot to answer questions honestly.
But I'll answer it this way, Jeffrey; if capitalism is so flawless,
why would we NEED a Commerce Clause? The Founders were all rich,
successful businessmen; why would they feel the need to regulate
commerce, if there were no flaws in capitalism?
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Nov 12, 11:11=A0pm, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >Which would you rather have;
>>
>> >70% of $50,000 or...
>> >50% of $1 million?
>>
>> People don't "give" you these things Milt...you have to to earn them.
>> There is no incentive to increase your income by taking a risk if the
>> government is going to take half of your reward.
>>
>
>Oh, for shit's sake... just answer the question.
When did you stop beating your wife Milt?
>>
>> >Only braindead morons even CONSIDER the tax rate when they're starting
>> >a business, with the possible exception of a small business,
>>
>> So people just start large businesses? =A0Is that what your saying Milt?
>
>Again with the taking half the fucking sentence, removing the context
>and answering that...
>
>Here's a clue, halfwit. A PERIOD is the end of a sentence, not a
>comma.
>
>Now read the rest of the sentence.
Well then...let's put it all together in its incomprehensive glory:
"Only braindead morons even CONSIDER the tax rate when they're
starting a business, with the possible exception of a small business,
and the start up taxes local governments pile on."
Only a fool would not consider tax rates when starting a
business...and as for the rest of the sentence...well...only fool
could understand it because a fool wrote it.
>>
>> >and the
>> >start up taxes local governments pile on. They don't even consider the
>> >income tax rates, because they're not going to make any income for the
>> >first few years. And when the income tax bill finally comes due,
>> >they're ecstatic because they're finally making enough money to pay
>> >taxes. And when it becomes a factor, they have accountants who can
>> >move money around, and avoid paying the tax on the entire amount.
>>
>> Right....
>
>See? I was talking about taxes needed at start up, not people starting
>a large business versus a small one, you moron.
So only a braindead moron would consider consider start up costs when
starting a business?
>And anyone who considers income taxes when he's starting a business is
>a fuckwit, and should just work for someone else.
So someone who wants to know the consequences of an action is a
fuckwit? How interesting.
>>
>> >Anyone who pays 50%, or even 40% tax on their entire income needs to
>> >fire their accountant.
>>
>> >Remember the old saying, "As goes GM, so goes the country?" Well, at
>> >the time that statement was made, the top tax rate was 90%. (Yes, that
>> >was too high) So, why didn't GM say "Fuck it" and just go out of
>> >business? I mean, the biggest company in the world, and a 90% tax
>> >rate?
>>
>> You really are an idiot aren't you Milt? =A0Marginal coporate tax rates
>> have topped out at around 50% historically.
>
>Oh, really?
>
>http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf
>
>The top corporate tax rate hasn't been anywhere near 50% for most
>income for about 20 years.
Do you know what "historically" means Milt? And just as an aside...if
the corporate tax rate is nowhere near 50% how could it be 90%? And
what year did that old saying originate?
>
>> >According to you, they should have, right? According to right
>> >wing scary stories, that 90% tax rate should have sent them packing to
>> >Mexico. Yet they didn't. Now why?
>>
>> Because corporations weren't taxed at 90% you dolt.
>>
>I see. So, only corporate income taxes would have that magical effect.
>The entire corporate board having to pay 90% of their income would
>never cause a corporation to move overseas.
They didn't pay 90% of their income in taxes Milt. You really are in
a high funk aren't you?
>Oh, wait; it wouldn't matter, because individuals didn't actually pay
>90%.
>
>Oh, and by the way, many, if not most, small businesses don't pay
>corporate income tax, anyway.
And you brought that up....why? Losing control Milt?
>
>I'm sensing you really don't understand how this progressive taxation
>concept works, anyway. You're kinda like Joe the Plumber in that way.
>He was suggesting to Obama that the tax increase on his hypothetical
>business would be daunting. The business he made up was going to make
>$250-280,000, and Obama plans to increase the marginal rate from 36%
>to 39%, which means, if Joe made $280,000, his taxes would increase
>$900.
Let's see you math on that Milt.
>So, Jeffrey, would you not buy a business that could make you $280,000
>because your tax bill would rise by $900 with Obama's tax plan?
I thought only braindead fuckwits considered tax rates when they
bought a business Milt.
>>
>> >Seriously, Jeffrey... you and your wingnut brethren have GOT to put
>> >down the Kool-Aid.
>>
>> Right Milt.
>>
>> Oh...btw....you forgot to include how you came to the conclusions
>> about the interstate commerce clause.
>>
>
>And you forgot to answer questions honestly.
Well...that's a brand new excuse. Can you pick out a lie I told
Milt... or is it that you just didn't like the answers?
>But I'll answer it this way, Jeffrey; if capitalism is so flawless,
It is?
>why would we NEED a Commerce Clause?
Need? Well we "NEEDED" it to keep some states from holding other
states hostage.
>The Founders were all rich,
>successful businessmen; why would they feel the need to regulate
>commerce, if there were no flaws in capitalism?
To form a nation...I suspect. But you notice that they were
regulating governments...not business....Sorry, I guess you didn't.
JSL
>>
>>
>>
>> >> JSL
>>
>> >> >That's the idiocy of Joe the Plumber in a nutshell. He's going to giv=
>e
>> >> >up buying a $280,000 net business, because Obama would raise his taxe=
>s
>> >> >by $900. Makes you wonder about right wingers' business sense, and
>> >> >explains why most right wingers live in states with so many poor
>> >> >people.
>>
>> >> >> >> Dems corrupted our capitalism by with such stupid policies as
>> >> >> >> virtually guaranteeing high risk investments. If banks can reap =
>all
>> >> >> >> of the profits from high risk loans but not have to sustain any
>> >> >> >> losses why not?
>>
>> >> >> >First of all, no one guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. That's=
> why
>> >> >> >we're in this mess in the first place. And the market in these
>> >> >> >securities was perfectly fine, when only Fannie and Freddie were
>> >> >> >investing in them. It wasn't until the greedheads got into the mar=
>ket
>> >> >> >that the market bubbled and exploded.
>>
>> >> >> They weren't explicitly guaranteed but they knew the fed would bail
>> >> >> them out. So they took advantage of it and merrily made so many
>> >> >> high risk loans. Why not when they knew there was no risk?
>>
>> >> >No one knew anyone would bail them out. In fact, they still don't kno=
>w
>> >> >the extent to which they will be "bailed out," because the hardest
>> >> >part is still being worked on, and that is to assign a value to these
>> >> >MBS. They really can't do that until they're reasonably sure the
>> >> >housing market is reasonably close to bottom (I hope it's close), and
>> >> >these people are still going to lose a lot of money, no matter what
>> >> >value they assign.
>>
>> >> >> The government has no business in the banking industry. NONE.
>>
>> >> >> >The problem is, the MBS were all
>> >> >> >thrown into a large investment pool, and individual securities wer=
>en't
>> >> >> >given a specific value, so no one knows what the securities are
>> >> >> >actually worth. That's one reason the $750 billion recovery money =
>will
>> >> >> >mostly be recouped; once a value is attached to the mortgage pool,
>> >> >> >then someone can attach a dollar figure to the securities, and the
>> >> >> >money can be paid back.
>>
>> >> >> You're trying to sugar coat the fact that taxpayers are getting a
>> >> >> royal screw job with this bailout (and other bailouts to come such
>> >> >> as the auto industry because of the precedent).
>>
>> >> >Taxpayers aren't getting screwed as much as homeowners. Millions of
>> >> >homeowners are paying on $300,000 mortgages for a home that is worth
>> >> >$200,000 and possibly dropping. And let's be honest, anyway; if you
>> >> >gave a fuck about taxpayers getting screwed, you would have been dead
>> >> >set against the deficit spending that right wing governments have bee=
>n
>> >> >doing for the last 28 years. I find it fascinating that you can whine
>> >> >about taxes, and then whine about "taxpayers getting screwed" in the
>> >> >same post, especially since you're not paying the fucking bailout
>> >> >anyway; our kids and grandkids will be paying it.
>>
>> >> >Current taxpayers haven't paid one thin dime of the money squandered
>> >> >in Iraq, including the blood money paid to Halliburton and Blackwater
>> >> >to make their stock go sky high, because unlike every other wartime
>> >> >president in history, this president and his lickspittle Congress cut
>> >> >taxes, knowing that they were going to have to spend shitloads of
>> >> >money.
>>
>> >> >Yeah, our kids have a bitch, not us. The money for this adventure
>> >> >isn't coming from our pockets at all; its coming from our kids'
>> >> >pockets.
>>
>> >> >> Bush's eagerness to bail out the banks pissed me off to no end. I
>> >> >> expect Dems to do this but he should be formally excommunicated
>> >> >> from the Republican party for doing such a stupid thing. =3DA0
>>
>> >> >He had no choice. If he had taken people's advice, he could have
>> >> >headed this off a couple of years ago, and instead of bailing them
>> >> >out, he could have bought out the MBS market, and it would have cost
>> >> >about 1/5 the current cost. Unfortunately President Herbert Hoover th=
>e
>> >> >Second sat on his hands and watched this thing unfold.
>>
>> >> >You wanna hear the best part? One of the leaders of the Bush bailout
>> >> >team is a former exec with Bear Stearns, who declared the market soun=
>d
>> >> >one week before it collapsed, and his company went under. He then
>> >> >claimed he never saw it coming. Yeah, that's who you want running the
>> >> >bailout.
>>
>> >> >> BTW to temporarily go along with your naive assumption that some
>> >> >> of the bailout money will be recouped, what do you think will happe=
>n
>> >> >> to those funds?
>>
>> >> >It's not naive. If we don't get most of that money back, we're fucked=
>.
>> >> >We're going to be buying securities from the people now holding them,
>> >> >and we'll be buying them for pennies on the dollar. We should be able
>> >> >to then re-sell them, possibly at a small profit. We're not just goin=
>g
>> >> >to be handing out cash to banks, although given the Bush
>> >> >Administration's penchant for fucking up any job they're given, it
>> >> >wouldn't surprise me if they figured out a way to lose the money.
>>
>> >> >> The fed will give it straight back to the taxpayer
>> >> >> in the form of a rebate or lower tax rates?
>>
>> >> >Like I said; we're borrowing the money in the first place. By what
>> >> >fantasy do you imagine that we're both running a trillion dollar
>> >> >deficit for the year AND also paying for the bailout?
>>
>> >> >I mean, for chrissakes; a trillion dollar deficit AND a "tax rebate"
>> >> >in the same year? I'm okay with tax rebates as economic stimulus,
>> >> >although public works jobs are better for the economy. But don't even
>> >> >begin to think we taxpayers are footing the entire bill for everythin=
>g
>> >> >the government spends.
>>
>> >> >> Of course not they'll spend
>> >> >> it on other big government programs. So don't insult us by asking
>> >> >> us to believe that some of the bailout money will be recovered. It'=
>s
>> >> >> all going down a big rat hole never to be seen again. =3DA0
>>
>> >> >No, with a responsible president in office, it will be paid back to
>> >> >the people we borrowed it from, or put into the treasury to cut the
>> >> >deficit. But again; we're running $400 without a bailout; what makes
>> >> >you think taxpayers are footing the bill for the bailout? Christ;
>> >> >we're even borrowing money to pay the interest on the debt we're
>> >> >already carrying. Did you know the debt service last year was more
>> >> >than half the size of the Defense budget? Yeah; it costs way more to
>> >> >service the national debt than it costs to pay all those fat black
>> >> >inner city single mothers for welfare and food stamps, even though yo=
>u
>> >> >people tend to obsess over the latter and never seem to care about th=
>e
>> >> >former.
>
Jeffrey Turner
> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>Which would you rather have;
>>
>>70% of $50,000 or...
>>50% of $1 million?
>
> People don't "give" you these things Milt...you have to to earn them.
> There is no incentive to increase your income by taking a risk if the
> government is going to take half of your reward.
Sure there is, 50% of the profits. The gov't provides the conditions
under which the profits are made, so it's an integral part of
investing and deserves a cut of the profits. Or you could move to
Somalia and work there.
--Jeff
--
I learned that ... the most grinding
poverty is a trifling evil compared
with the inequality of classes.
--William Morris
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Which would you rather have;
>>>
>>>70% of $50,000 or...
>>>50% of $1 million?
>>
>> People don't "give" you these things Milt...you have to to earn them.
>> There is no incentive to increase your income by taking a risk if the
>> government is going to take half of your reward.
>
>Sure there is, 50% of the profits. The gov't provides the conditions
>under which the profits are made, so it's an integral part of
>investing and deserves a cut of the profits. Or you could move to
>Somalia and work there.
And here I thought you were busy tyring to refute the data that shows
that the tax burden hasn't shifted to the middle class as you claimed.
Go figure.
Jeffrey Turner
> Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>>milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Which would you rather have;
>>>>
>>>>70% of $50,000 or...
>>>>50% of $1 million?
>>>
>>>People don't "give" you these things Milt...you have to to earn them.
>>>There is no incentive to increase your income by taking a risk if the
>>>government is going to take half of your reward.
>>
>>Sure there is, 50% of the profits. The gov't provides the conditions
>>under which the profits are made, so it's an integral part of
>>investing and deserves a cut of the profits. Or you could move to
>>Somalia and work there.
>
> And here I thought you were busy tyring to refute the data that shows
> that the tax burden hasn't shifted to the middle class as you claimed.
> Go figure.
Table 2.
Federal Tax Rates by Income Group from 1960 to 2004
Average federal tax rates (percent)
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004
Full pop 21.4 23.3 26.6 25.8 27.4 23.4
P20–40 13.9 18.5 16.3 16.2 13.1 9.4
P40–60 15.9 20.2 21.4 21.0 20.0 16.1
P60–80 16.7 20.7 24.5 24.3 23.9 20.5
P80–90 17.4 20.5 26.7 26.2 26.4 22.7
P90–95 18.7 21.4 27.9 27.9 28.7 24.9
P95–99 23.5 25.6 31.0 28.6 31.1 27.2
P99–99.5 34.0 36.1 37.6 31.5 35.7 31.3
P99.5–99.9 41.4 44.6 43.0 33.0 38.4 33.0
P99.9–99.99 55.3 59.1 51.0 34.3 40.2 34.1
P99.99–100 71.4 74.6 59.3 35.4 40.8 34.7
Notes: The table displays the average federal tax rate (including
individual, corporate, payroll, and estate) for various groups of the
income distribution, for various years. 2004 figures are based on 2004
tax law applied to 2000 incomes adjusted for economic growth.
www.russellsage.org/programs/main/inequality/050516.755142/
And that doesn't take into account user fees, nor the more regressive
state and local taxes that have to take up the burden of federal tax
cuts and unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Which is incomplete, at best.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=7000
Share of Income, Pretax: (Table 1C)
Quintile 2000 2001 2002 2003
1st 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.2
2nd 8.6 9.2 9.3 9.1
3rd 13.5 14.2 14.6 14.4
4th 19.6 20.7 21.0 20.9
5th 54.8 52.4 51.6 52.2
Share of Income, After-tax: (Table 1C)
Quintile 2000 2001 2002 2003
1st 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.0
2nd 9.7 10.3 10.4 10.3
3rd 14.7 15.4 15.7 15.5
4th 20.2 21.3 21.6 21.4
5th 51.3 48.9 48.2 48.8
Share of Total Federal Tax Liabilities (Table 1B)
Quintile 2000 2001 2002 2003
1st 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
2nd 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.5
3rd 9.8 10.0 10.2 9.9
4th 17.5 18.5 18.9 18.6
5th 66.6 65.3 64.8 65.7
>
>Notes: The table displays the average federal tax rate (including
>individual, corporate, payroll, and estate) for various groups of the
>income distribution, for various years. 2004 figures are based on 2004
>tax law applied to 2000 incomes adjusted for economic growth.
>
>www.russellsage.org/programs/main/inequality/050516.755142/
Which doesn't include the table of data you posted. Of course that's
something I've come to expect from you.
>
>And that doesn't take into account user fees, nor the more regressive
>state and local taxes that have to take up the burden of federal tax
>cuts and unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind.
And of course, you post no data to support your assertion.
You claimed that it was conservatives who were pushing the tax burden
to the middle class.
The data you posted does not show this.
JSL
Jeffrey Turner
> Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>
>>>Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Which would you rather have;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>70% of $50,000 or...
>>>>>>50% of $1 million?
>>>>>
>>>>>People don't "give" you these things Milt...you have to to earn them.
>>>>>There is no incentive to increase your income by taking a risk if the
>>>>>government is going to take half of your reward.
>>>>
>>>>Sure there is, 50% of the profits. The gov't provides the conditions
>>>>under which the profits are made, so it's an integral part of
>>>>investing and deserves a cut of the profits. Or you could move to
>>>>Somalia and work there.
>>>
>>>And here I thought you were busy tyring to refute the data that shows
>>>that the tax burden hasn't shifted to the middle class as you claimed.
>>>Go figure.
>>
>>Table 2.
>>Federal Tax Rates by Income Group from 1960 to 2004
>>
>> Average federal tax rates (percent)
>> 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004
>>Full pop 21.4 23.3 26.6 25.8 27.4 23.4
>>P20-40 13.9 18.5 16.3 16.2 13.1 9.4
>>P40-60 15.9 20.2 21.4 21.0 20.0 16.1
>>P60-80 16.7 20.7 24.5 24.3 23.9 20.5
>>P80-90 17.4 20.5 26.7 26.2 26.4 22.7
>>P90-95 18.7 21.4 27.9 27.9 28.7 24.9
>>P95-99 23.5 25.6 31.0 28.6 31.1 27.2
>>P99-99.5 34.0 36.1 37.6 31.5 35.7 31.3
>>P99.5-99.9 41.4 44.6 43.0 33.0 38.4 33.0
>>P99.9-99.99 55.3 59.1 51.0 34.3 40.2 34.1
>>P99.99-100 71.4 74.6 59.3 35.4 40.8 34.7
>
> Which is incomplete, at best.
>
>
> http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=7000
>
> Share of Income, Pretax: (Table 1C)
> Quintile 2000 2001 2002 2003
> 1st 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.2
> 2nd 8.6 9.2 9.3 9.1
> 3rd 13.5 14.2 14.6 14.4
> 4th 19.6 20.7 21.0 20.9
> 5th 54.8 52.4 51.6 52.2
Ah yes, and the more illnesses the people on Medicare and Medicaid
have, the more their income goes up. I'm not sure their lives are
actually better off because of it, however. I can see why your
numbers end in 2003, it's probably the last report from a Republican
Congressional Budget Office. No, you just truncated there, here's the
numbers from that document, along with the last pre-Reagan budget of
1981:
2004 2005 1981
1st 4.1 4.0 5.5
2nd 8.9 8.5 10.9
3rd 13.9 13.3 15.9
4th 20.4 19.8 22.2
5th 53.5 55.1 46.0
top 10% 38.9 40.9 30.7
top 5% 29.0 31.1 20.7
top 1% 16.3 18.1 9.1
Good golly, Miss Molly! The top 1% had nearly doubled their share of
the national income.
> Share of Income, After-tax: (Table 1C)
> Quintile 2000 2001 2002 2003
> 1st 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.0
> 2nd 9.7 10.3 10.4 10.3
> 3rd 14.7 15.4 15.7 15.5
> 4th 20.2 21.3 21.6 21.4
> 5th 51.3 48.9 48.2 48.8
2004 2005 1981
1st 4.9 4.8 6.5
2nd 10.0 9.6 12.0
3rd 14.9 14.4 16.5
4th 21.2 20.6 22.3
5th 50.1 51.6 43.3
top 10% 11.6 11.6 9.0
top 5% 5.8 5.8 4.6
top 1% 1.2 1.1 0.9
We see the effects of the conservatives one true guiding Biblical
principle - to he that hath, even more shall be given; to he who hath
not, even that little shall be taken away.
> Share of Total Federal Tax Liabilities (Table 1B)
> Quintile 2000 2001 2002 2003
> 1st 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
> 2nd 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.5
> 3rd 9.8 10.0 10.2 9.9
> 4th 17.5 18.5 18.9 18.6
> 5th 66.6 65.3 64.8 65.7
The wealthiest one percent doubles their share of the nation's wealth
and you're pointing out they pay a little more in taxes? I don't know
if all my sobbing for them is going to short circuit my keypad.
>>Notes: The table displays the average federal tax rate (including
>>individual, corporate, payroll, and estate) for various groups of the
>>income distribution, for various years. 2004 ï¬ gures are based on 2004
>>tax law applied to 2000 incomes adjusted for economic growth.
>>
>>www.russellsage.org/programs/main/inequality/050516.755142/
>
> Which doesn't include the table of data you posted. Of course that's
> something I've come to expect from you.
Oops, here's the link. Easy mistake when my browser doesn't open up
a window but only downloads pdf files.
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/pketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf
>>And that doesn't take into account user fees, nor the more regressive
>>state and local taxes that have to take up the burden of federal tax
>>cuts and unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind.
>
> And of course, you post no data to support your assertion.
>
> You claimed that it was conservatives who were pushing the tax burden
> to the middle class.
>
> The data you posted does not show this.
Ah, but it does. And so does yours.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Another attempt at a diversion.
>I'm not sure their lives are
>actually better off because of it, however. I can see why your
>numbers end in 2003, it's probably the last report from a Republican
>Congressional Budget Office. No, you just truncated there, here's the
>numbers from that document, along with the last pre-Reagan budget of
>1981:
I truncated nothing. The report was entitled:
"Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2003"
>
> 2004 2005 1981
>1st 4.1 4.0 5.5
>2nd 8.9 8.5 10.9
>3rd 13.9 13.3 15.9
>4th 20.4 19.8 22.2
>5th 53.5 55.1 46.0
>top 10% 38.9 40.9 30.7
>top 5% 29.0 31.1 20.7
>top 1% 16.3 18.1 9.1
>
>Good golly, Miss Molly! The top 1% had nearly doubled their share of
>the national income.
So? You said that the tax burden was shifted to the middle class.
Your data doesn't speak to that.
>
>> Share of Income, After-tax: (Table 1C)
>> Quintile 2000 2001 2002 2003
>> 1st 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.0
>> 2nd 9.7 10.3 10.4 10.3
>> 3rd 14.7 15.4 15.7 15.5
>> 4th 20.2 21.3 21.6 21.4
>> 5th 51.3 48.9 48.2 48.8
>
> 2004 2005 1981
>1st 4.9 4.8 6.5
>2nd 10.0 9.6 12.0
>3rd 14.9 14.4 16.5
>4th 21.2 20.6 22.3
>5th 50.1 51.6 43.3
>top 10% 11.6 11.6 9.0
>top 5% 5.8 5.8 4.6
>top 1% 1.2 1.1 0.9
Again...your data doesn't speak to your claim.
>We see the effects of the conservatives one true guiding Biblical
>principle - to he that hath, even more shall be given; to he who hath
>not, even that little shall be taken away.
>
>> Share of Total Federal Tax Liabilities (Table 1B)
>> Quintile 2000 2001 2002 2003
>> 1st 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
>> 2nd 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.5
>> 3rd 9.8 10.0 10.2 9.9
>> 4th 17.5 18.5 18.9 18.6
>> 5th 66.6 65.3 64.8 65.7
>
>The wealthiest one percent doubles their share of the nation's wealth
>and you're pointing out they pay a little more in taxes? I don't know
>if all my sobbing for them is going to short circuit my keypad.
Again, you claimed that the tax burden has been shifted to the middle
class when its quite clear it hasn't.
>
>>>Notes: The table displays the average federal tax rate (including
>>>individual, corporate, payroll, and estate) for various groups of the
>>>income distribution, for various years. 2004 figures are based on 2004
>>>tax law applied to 2000 incomes adjusted for economic growth.
>>>
>>>www.russellsage.org/programs/main/inequality/050516.755142/
>>
>> Which doesn't include the table of data you posted. Of course that's
>> something I've come to expect from you.
>
>Oops, here's the link. Easy mistake when my browser doesn't open up
>a window but only downloads pdf files.
>
>http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/pketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf
Object not found!
The requested URL was not found on this server. If you entered the URL
manually please check your spelling and try again.
If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster.
Error 404
elsa.berkeley.edu
Sun Nov 23 05:34:11 2008
Apache/2.0.55 (Ubuntu) PHP/5.1.2 mod_ssl/2.0.55 OpenSSL/0.9.8a
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf
And of course...it makes not mention of tax burden...only rates.
>>>And that doesn't take into account user fees, nor the more regressive
>>>state and local taxes that have to take up the burden of federal tax
>>>cuts and unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind.
>>
>> And of course, you post no data to support your assertion.
>>
>> You claimed that it was conservatives who were pushing the tax burden
>> to the middle class.
>>
>> The data you posted does not show this.
>
>Ah, but it does. And so does yours.
Ah...another baseless assertion.
JSL