OT - No job? It's your fault..Republican Idiot Cain says
Too_Many_Tools
Considering that Cain has a background in pizza delivery, he should
know what will be on his next pizza delivered by that guy between
jobs.
I wonder what kind of beer goes with a crap pizza?
Laugh..laugh..laugh..
TMT
http://news.yahoo.com/no-job-fault-us-republican-cain-says-055215514.html
Ramon F Herrera
Here's a Jeopardy question for the audience:
Answer:
"Well, we screwed up really, really bad and have no chance. The only
solution is to give it to the Black guy and then blame it on him, or
Blacks in general"
What was the question:
(a) The Economy and the 2008 Election?
(b) The 2012 Cain Candidature?
-Ramon
Benny Fishhole
No more colorful candidates please. We felt sorry for Oboover and
elected him. He drove our country into a ditch. Time to CHANGE back.
Simple really.
Benny Fishhole
de...@dudu.org
<be...@fakeaddress.edu> wrote:
>
>>Here's a Jeopardy question for the audience:
>>
>>Answer:
>>"Well, we screwed up really, really bad and have no chance. The only
>>solution is to give it to the Black guy and then blame it on him, or
>>Blacks in general"
>>
>>What was the question:
>>
>>(a) The Economy and the 2008 Election?
>>(b) The 2012 Cain Candidature?
>>
>>-Ramon
>
>No more colorful candidates please. We felt sorry for Oboover and
>elected him. He drove our country into a ditch. Time to CHANGE back.
>Simple really.
Um, moron, the car had already left the road and was heading for the
ditch when Bush handed the wheel to Obama.
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Benny FishAhole knows that...but his minimum wage job for the Tea
Party that requires him to post here from under the bridge where he
lives.
Ever notice how conservatives always steal material and cut and paste
galore?
I never watch Faux News or listen to Limpballs but I can always tell
what what said yesterday but watching what the conservatives post here
today.
Too bad they were born without a brain...
TMT
de...@dudu.org
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Um, moron, the car had already left the road and was heading for the
>> ditch when Bush handed the wheel to Obama.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Benny FishAhole knows that...but his minimum wage job for the Tea
>Party that requires him to post here from under the bridge where he
>lives.
>
>Ever notice how conservatives always steal material and cut and paste
>galore?
>
>I never watch Faux News or listen to Limpballs but I can always tell
>what what said yesterday but watching what the conservatives post here
>today.
>
>Too bad they were born without a brain...
Uh, point of order, but they DO in fact have a brain. It just doesn't
work right.
http://reason.com/archives/2004/10/20/pathologizing-conservatism
>
>TMT
Tom Gardner
Obammy was too stupid to turn the wheel. As a result the US is off the
cliff and has no chance to recover. Money, jobs, companies and talent
are leaving the US in droves to avoid getting sucked down the tube of
Socialism.
de...@dudu.org
And what exactly do you expect him to have done differently? Cut
taxes on the wealthy and deregulate industry? Since you clearly
haven't been paying attention that is exactly what got us in this mess
in the first place.
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
So Tom..when will you be moving your business to China?
Got your bags packed yet?
Don't let the door of America hit you in the butt.
As Sarah "The Quitter" Palin has shown the world...conservatives are
quitters.
TMT
Tom S.
>>
>> Um, moron, the car had already left the road and was heading for the
>> ditch when Bush handed the wheel to Obama.
Well, when the R's handed the Congress to the Dem's in Jan., 2007, the
unemployment rate was 4.7%, the DJIA was at around 13,000 and the NASDAQ was
approaching 3000, and we'd had 22 straight quarters of economic growth.
The financial crunch occurred when the sub-prime mortgages collapsed after
the RE market was run up by the enviros, Fannie/Freddie, and the Federal
Reserve.
The last time we had a crunch like that it was over in 18 months, because
Bush 41 let the market effect the correction.
So, the one calling "moron" actually has his head up someone's ass, which is
worse than being an ostrich with it's head in the sand.
Tom S.
All these highly self-rated workers should have no problem whatsoever.
Benny Fishhole
Look who's the moron. If Obama had the wheel and was so intent on
fixing things, he could have veered it to the right. Instead, he
invited some of his crack whores and joined them in the back seat.
Idiot. He's so out of here.
JohnJohnsn
afflicted Abderian Simpleton Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist
Democrat LOSER™ (est. 2010-11-02) Gun Control Advocate Scheißekopf,
>
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 23:09:52 -0500, Benny Fishhole
> <be...@fakeaddress.edu> wrote:
>
>>>Here's a Jeopardy question for the audience:
>
>>>Answer:
>>>"Well, we screwed up really, really bad and have no chance. The only
>>>solution is to give it to the Black guy and then blame it on him, or
>>>Blacks in general"
>
>>>What was the question:
>
>>>(a) The Economy and the 2008 Election?
>>>(b) The 2012 Cain Candidature?
>
>>>-Ramon
>
>>No more colorful candidates please. We felt sorry for Oboover and
>>elected him. He drove our country into a ditch. Time to CHANGE back.
>>Simple really.
>
Uh, moron; there was no mention of "car" above.
> ...had already left the road and was heading for
...at which time Obama jammed the throttle to the floor, ran into the
bridge abutment, flipping the "car" upside down, and now you want to
hand him a four-year-supply of gasoline to make the resulting fire
even larger!
"ain't it great to be crazy?"
— Scheißekopf "Deep Dudu", Thu, 24 Mar 2011
"if you people don't fucking wise up soon we are going
to have to start shooting you."
— Scheißekopf "Deep Dudu", Sun, 24 Apr 2011
"Nobody is forcing government health care on you, you fool...unless
you aren't able or willing to maintain health insurance."
—Scheißekopf "Deep Dudu", Wed, 29 Jun 2011
"If Ignorance is Bliss, then Lying Left-Wing Liberal
Socialist Scheißekopf "Deep Dudu" must be in Nirvana"
JohnJohnsn
"If Ignorance is Bliss, then Lying Left-Wing Liberal
Socialist Scheißekopf "Deep Dudu" must be in Nirvana"
-All the answers as a candidate;
-No solutions as the president!
"A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for
Colonel Sanders."
--Bud Gregg
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist you'll
have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not stupid!"
"Sunday, January 20th, 2013 - The End of an Error"
Tom Gardner
Obammy-Care is as stupid as invading Iraq. Printing money is the last
desperate act of a sinking country. Read a book on economics, Obammy
NEVER has. You like Socialism, I don't, it doesn't work.
Scout
"Tom Gardner" <mars@tacks> wrote in message
news:lcOdnfZYTdYwEw_T...@giganews.com...
QE1 & QE2
de...@dudu.org
>
>> And what exactly do you expect him to have done differently? Cut
>> taxes on the wealthy and deregulate industry? Since you clearly
>> haven't been paying attention that is exactly what got us in this mess
>> in the first place.
>
>Obammy-Care is as stupid as invading Iraq. Printing money is the last
>desperate act of a sinking country. Read a book on economics, Obammy
>NEVER has. You like Socialism, I don't, it doesn't work.
Um, it's capitalism gone wild that fucked up our economy, not
socialism. Socialism can work if the wealthy could be made to pay
their taxes.
Tankfixer
de...@dudu.org spouted !
> Socialism can work if the wealthy could be made to pay
> their taxes.
>
F. George McDuffee
<snip>
>their taxes.
And I could fly like a bird if I could flap my arms fast
enough...
Politics is the art of the possible.
--
Unka' George
"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"
-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"
Gray Guest
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Tax Year 2008
Percentiles AGI Threshold on Percentage of Federal
Percentiles Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1% $380,354 38.02
Top 5% $159,619 58.72
Top 10% $113,799 69.94
Top 25% $67,280 86.34
Top 50% $33,048 97.30
Bottom 50% <$33,048 2.7
--
Words of wisdom
What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.
Gray Guest
The top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. What more do you want? Their first born
child?
Why is it i never hear or see one of you pukes responding to this chart?
Could it be because it puts the lie to your entire argument?
Jeff M
No. The uber-wealthy try to hide behind statistics such as "the top 50%."
The issue is how much wealth they take in versus the percentage of it
that they pay in total taxes, i.e., their effective tax rate.
See, e.g., the chart at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-income-made-by-and-the-taxes-paid-by-the-rich-in-one-graph/2011/05/09/AF2LmtzG_blog.html
Also, the people who work for a living pay payroll taxes, while people
who live off investments usually pay at a rate of only 15%.
"It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"
Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed
in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." Buffett
says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the
middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income.
"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while
most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get
our extraordinary tax breaks," he writes.
As an example, Buffett said he paid an effective tax rate of 17.4
percent, while people who worked in his office made much less but paid
higher effective tax rates of between 33 percent and 41 percent,
averaging 36 percent.
"If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your
percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a
job, your percentage will surely exceed mine � most likely by a lot,"
Buffett wrote. "To understand why, you need to examine the sources of
government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came
from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income
taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay
practically nothing in payroll taxes. It�s a different story for the
middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent
income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."
Buffett's op-ed inspired a reader to write to us and ask how Buffett's
numbers could be correct. As our previous fact-checks have shown, about
half of all Americans pay no federal income taxes because they are low
income. And when you analyze who pays the bulk of federal income taxes,
it's people with higher incomes. So we decided to fact-check Buffett's
statement that "the mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent
on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes.
... (The middle class) fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income
tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."
Before we get to the heart of the fact-check, it's best if we review a
few basics of the tax code that Buffett's op-ed takes for granted. This
review proves the point that the federal tax code is extremely
complicated, so bear with us.
Income taxes. Federal income taxes are progressive, which means your
income is taxed at higher rates as you make more money. Let's take a
married couple filing jointly as an example. In 2011, after deductions
and exemptions:
� the income between $0 and $17,000 is taxed at 10 percent;
� the income between $17,000 and $69,000 is taxed at 15 percent;
� the income between $69,000 and $139,350 is taxed at 25 percent;
� the income between $139,350 and $212,300 is taxed at 28 percent;
� the income between $212,300 and $379,150 is taxed at 33 percent;
� the income above $379,150 is taxed at 35 percent.
Keep in mind that even if you're in the top bracket of 35 percent, you
don't pay that tax rate on all your income. You pay 10 percent on the
first $17,000, 15 percent on the money between $17,000 and $69,000, and
so on.
Payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are separate from income taxes. If you work
for a company, your employer deducts the payroll taxes before you get
your paycheck and sends the money on to the federal government. These
taxes pay for Social Security and Medicare; it's listed as FICA on your
pay stub. Typically, workers pay 6.2 percent of their first $106,800 in
earnings for Social Security taxes, and they pay 1.45 percent on all
their earnings for Medicare hospital coverage. The employer has to match
those taxes, bringing total contributions on behalf of an individual to
12.4 percent for Social Security and 2.9 percent for Medicare. Last
year, though, President Barack Obama and Congress knocked 2 percentage
points off Social Security taxes for workers, as an economic stimulus
measure. So this year, most of us are paying 4.2 percent while employers
pay 6.2 percent. Oh, and if you're self-employed, you typically have to
pay your share and the employer share for totals this year of 10.4
percent on earnings up to $106,800 and 2.9 percent on all income.
Payroll taxes are not progressive -- the rates don't get higher the more
you earn. In the case of the Social Security taxes, which disappear once
your reach a certain level of earnings, the percentage actually gets
smaller if your income is higher than the $106,800 cap.
Head hurt yet? Ours, too.
Taxes on investments. Okay, now we're getting closer to Buffett's main
point here, and that's taxes on investments. The tax rates on
investments tend to be lower than taxes on regular income. If you make
money buying and selling stocks or receiving dividends from stock
ownership, those earnings are generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate
for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends.
Some hedge fund managers and other finance-sector executives get taxed
at this rate on their earnings because their compensation is classified
as "carried interest" and taxed as a capital gain. (The Wall Street
Journal breaks down how carried interest works.) In fact, some
economists believe that the lower rates for capital gains actually
encourages tax dodges, because it motivates high earners to look for
ways to classify normal income as capital gains. Defenders say the lower
tax rate helps the economy because it rewards investors for risk-taking
and entrepreneurship. They also argue that taxing dividends amounts to
double taxation because corporations pay taxes on their income before
investors are paid dividends. We won't settle the argument here, but
there's no doubt that investors get lower tax rates on their income than
workers.
Getting back to Buffett's op-ed, his claims rest on how these taxes
interact with each other. The fact we're checking here is that "the
mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their
earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes," while middle
class taxpayers "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax
brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."
He's right that a billionaire whose income is mostly from investments is
probably taxed at a lower rate than someone who has an ordinary job.
Very little of this taxpayer's income is wage income, so payroll taxes
don't take much of a bite. It seems likely that much of this
hypothetical person's income would be taxed around the 15 percent rate.
And, in fact, as Buffett says, statistics from the Internal Revenue
Service show that the 400 wealthiest taxpayers pay tax rates of less
than 20 percent.
On the other side of the equation, people who work for a living,
especially those who make higher than average salaries, get taxed at
higher rates. It gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets
work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are
paying around 20 percent in income taxes, and it goes up from there,
according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Buffett slightly glosses over the fact that if you're in the 25 percent
tax bracket, your overall tax rate is less than 25 percent. And, the
more money you make, the more income taxes you pay, while payroll taxes
seem less and less significant as a percentage of income. We're dubious
someone would pay as high as a 41 percent tax rate, as Buffett claims
someone in his office now pays. (The top income tax rate is 35 percent,
but payroll taxes as a share of income decline as income rises, which
makes it difficult to get above 37.9 percent, according to the people we
ran this by at the Tax Policy Center.) We contacted Buffett's offices as
Berkshire Hathaway about this point but didn't hear back.
One final note: People who don't pay any income tax at all tend to have
limited incomes, or they qualify for enough deductions -- think of child
tax credits and mortgage interest -- that they have no income. When
Buffett talks about people in the middle class who pay more taxes than
he does, he's thinking of people who make much higher than average salaries.
So when it comes to Buffett's statement, there are two categories: the
rich and the really rich. And the evidence tends to point to the
conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of
income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income
comes primarily from investments. Overall, we rate Buffett's statement
True."
Bible Studies with Satan
> de...@dudu.org wrote in news:ris597dueg49a4evk...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:20:27 -0400, Tom Gardner <mars@tacks> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> And what exactly do you expect him to have done differently? Cut
>>>> taxes on the wealthy and deregulate industry? Since you clearly
>>>> haven't been paying attention that is exactly what got us in this mess
>>>> in the first place.
>>>
>>>Obammy-Care is as stupid as invading Iraq. Printing money is the last
>>>desperate act of a sinking country. Read a book on economics, Obammy
>>>NEVER has. You like Socialism, I don't, it doesn't work.
>>
>> Um, it's capitalism gone wild that fucked up our economy, not
>> socialism. Socialism can work if the wealthy could be made to pay
>> their taxes.
>>
>
> Don't you ever get tired of being wrong ALL THE TIME?
>
> http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
trotting out that piece of stinking shit!
>
> Tax Year 2008
>
> Percentiles AGI Threshold on Percentage of Federal
> Percentiles Personal Income Tax Paid
>
> Top 1% $380,354 38.02
>
> Top 5% $159,619 58.72
>
> Top 10% $113,799 69.94
>
> Top 25% $67,280 86.34
>
> Top 50% $33,048 97.30
>
> Bottom 50% <$33,048 2.7
>
--
JohnJohnsn
afflicted Abderian Simpleton Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist
Democrat LOSER™ (est. 2010-11-02) Gun Control Advocate Scheißekopf,
posting as "Deep Dudu" <Deep...@propagandists.dnc.org> wrote:
>
ROTFLMAO!
"An interesting contrast is playing out at the White House these
days...
[Obama] promptly appointed Mr. [Jeffrey] Immelt to be the chairman of
the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitive, while letting him
keep his full time lucrative position as CEO of General Electric (The
Corporate State Expands). At the announcement, [Obama] said that Mr.
Immelt “understands what it takes for America to compete in the global
economy.”
Did you mean that he understands how to avoid all federal income taxes
for his company’s $14.2 billion in profits last year, while corralling
a $3.2 billion benefit? Or did you mean that he understands how to get
a federal bailout for GE Capital and its reckless exposure to risky
debt? Or could you have meant that GE knows how to block unionization
of its far flung workers here and abroad? Perhaps Mr. Immelt can share
with you GE’s historical experience with lucrative campaign
contributions, price-fixing, pollution and those nuclear reactors that
are giving people fits in Japan and worrying millions of Americans
here living or working near similar reactors."
...
--Ralph Nader
PO Box 19312
Washington D.C., 20036-9312
Liberals want G.E. CEO Jeff Immelt out of Obama administration
By Brian Montopoli
March 30, 2011 5:45 PM
Former Sen. Russ Feingold and progressive group MoveOn today called on
General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt to resign from the President's
Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in the wake of a report that
despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits - including more than $5
billion from U.S. operations - GE did not owe taxes in 2010.
They also expressed anger over the fact that the company has cut its
U.S. workforce by roughly one fifth since 2002.
"How can someone like Immelt be given the responsibility of heading a
jobs creation task force when his company has been creating more jobs
overseas while reducing its American workforce?" Feingold asked in an
email to supporters, as The Hill reports. "And under Immelt's
direction, GE spends hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lawyers
and lobbyists to evade taxes."
MoveOn asked its members to sign a petition calling on Immelt to leave
the administration, and Executive Director Justin Ruben called G.E.'s
tax status "outrageous."
"At a time when many in Washington, including the President, are
worried about our nation's deficit we should be punishing--not
rewarding--companies like GE who are robbing the US Government and
taxpayers of billions of dollars," he said in a statement. "This sort
of bad corporate behavior should not be rewarded with a top White
House appointment."
Asked if the White House associates itself with G.E.'s corporate
stewardship Wednesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said
"membership on the Jobs Council, as the President made clear, is not
decided by agreement on every issue." At his briefing yesterday,
Carney said President Obama continues to have faith in Immelt to lead
the council.
G.E. argues that its tax situation has been misrepresented because the
New York Times, which broke the story, did not take into account the
impact of its GE Capital losses in the financial crisis. G.E. said
that if you exclude GE Capital its tax rate has been about 21 percent,
which is still less than the U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent.
Mr. Obama has railed against just the sort of tax loophole
exploitation of which G.E. is accused.
"Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to
benefit particular companies and industries," he said in his State of
the Union address in January. "Those with accountants or lawyers to
work the system can end up paying no taxes at all."
-30-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20048952-503544.html
Gray Guest
news:8r-dnZ8QZ9k8tg7T...@giganews.com:
> On 10/10/2011 12:18 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> de...@dudu.org wrote in news:ris597dueg49a4evk...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:20:27 -0400, Tom Gardner<mars@tacks> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And what exactly do you expect him to have done differently? Cut
>>>>> taxes on the wealthy and deregulate industry? Since you clearly
>>>>> haven't been paying attention that is exactly what got us in this
>>>>> mess in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Obammy-Care is as stupid as invading Iraq. Printing money is the
>>>> last desperate act of a sinking country. Read a book on economics,
>>>> Obammy NEVER has. You like Socialism, I don't, it doesn't work.
>>>
>>> Um, it's capitalism gone wild that fucked up our economy, not
>>> socialism. Socialism can work if the wealthy could be made to pay
>>> their taxes.
>>>
>>
>> www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>>
>> The top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. What more do you want? Their first
>> born child?
>>
>> Why is it i never hear or see one of you pukes responding to this
>> chart? Could it be because it puts the lie to your entire argument?
>
> No. The uber-wealthy try to hide behind statistics such as "the top
> 50%."
Gray Guest
news:q5CdnUQa8eXVsA7T...@mchsi.com:
> Gray Guest wrote:
>
>> de...@dudu.org wrote in news:ris597dueg49a4evk...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:20:27 -0400, Tom Gardner <mars@tacks> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And what exactly do you expect him to have done differently? Cut
>>>>> taxes on the wealthy and deregulate industry? Since you clearly
>>>>> haven't been paying attention that is exactly what got us in this
mess
>>>>> in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>Obammy-Care is as stupid as invading Iraq. Printing money is the last
>>>>desperate act of a sinking country. Read a book on economics, Obammy
>>>>NEVER has. You like Socialism, I don't, it doesn't work.
>>>
>>> Um, it's capitalism gone wild that fucked up our economy, not
>>> socialism. Socialism can work if the wealthy could be made to pay
>>> their taxes.
>>>
>>
>> Don't you ever get tired of being wrong ALL THE TIME?
>>
>> http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>
> It's that fucking 'income' tax ruse. I can't believe you dimbulbs are
still
> trotting out that piece of stinking shit!
confiscation of their wealth? Yeah, that will create jobs.
The top 1% pay nearly 40% of all income tax receipts! What fucking more do
you want?
And skip the percentage opf their wealth bullshit. When has any liberal
proposed simplyfying the tax system and removing all the deductions, in a
serious manner that had any probability of being considered?
You had a Democrat Congress and a Democrat president from Jan 2009 through
Jan 2011. The fucking Democrats couldn't even pass a FY 2011 budget!
Why didn't they, when they had their chance, do something about it?
>
>>
>> Tax Year 2008
>>
>> Percentiles AGI Threshold on Percentage of Federal
>> Percentiles Personal Income Tax Paid
>>
>> Top 1% $380,354 38.02
>>
>> Top 5% $159,619 58.72
>>
>> Top 10% $113,799 69.94
>>
>> Top 25% $67,280 86.34
>>
>> Top 50% $33,048 97.30
>>
>> Bottom 50% <$33,048 2.7
>>
>
--
JohnJohnsn
associates.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:26:28 -0600, d...@dudu.org wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Socialism can work if the wealthy could be made to pay
>> their taxes.
>
> <snip>
>
> And I could fly like a bird if I could flap my arms fast
> enough...
>
> Politics is the art of the possible.
finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong
remedies."
> --
> Unka' George
>
> "Gold is the money of kings,
> silver is the money of gentlemen,
> barter is the money of peasants,
> but debt is the money of slaves"
"There are two ways to enslave a country....
One is by the Sword.
The other is by Debt."
— John Adams
“I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that
says that anytime there is a deficit of more than three percent of GDP
all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."
--Warren Buffett
JohnJohnsn
>
> On 10/10/2011 12:18 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>
>
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:20:27 -0400, Tom Gardner<mars@tacks> wrote:
>
> >>>> And what exactly do you expect him to have done differently? Cut
> >>>> taxes on the wealthy and deregulate industry? Since you clearly
> >>>> haven't been paying attention that is exactly what got us in this mess
> >>>> in the first place.
>
> >>> Obammy-Care is as stupid as invading Iraq. Printing money is the last
> >>> desperate act of a sinking country. Read a book on economics, Obammy
> >>> NEVER has. You like Socialism, I don't, it doesn't work.
>
> >> Um, it's capitalism gone wild that fucked up our economy, not
> >> socialism. Socialism can work if the wealthy could be made to pay
> >> their taxes.
>
> >www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>
> > The top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. What more do you want? Their first born
> > child?
>
> > Why is it i never hear or see one of you pukes responding to this chart?
> > Could it be because it puts the lie to your entire argument?
>
> No. The uber-wealthy try to hide behind statistics such as "the top 50%."
>
> The issue is how much wealth they take in versus the percentage of it
> that they pay in total taxes, i.e., their effective tax rate.
wealthy" for their success in life.
> See, e.g., the chart at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-income-made-b...
> Also, the people who work for a living pay payroll taxes, while people
> who live off investments usually pay at a rate of only 15%.
>
> "It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"
>
> Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed
> in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." Buffett
> says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the
> middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income.
JohnJohnsn
>
> On 10/10/2011 12:18 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>
>
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:20:27 -0400, Tom Gardner<mars@tacks> wrote:
>
>>>>> And what exactly do you expect him to have done differently? Cut
>>>>> taxes on the wealthy and deregulate industry? Since you clearly
>>>>> haven't been paying attention that is exactly what got us in this mess
>>>>> in the first place.
>
>>>> Obammy-Care is as stupid as invading Iraq. Printing money is the last
>>>> desperate act of a sinking country. Read a book on economics, Obammy
>>>> NEVER has. You like Socialism, I don't, it doesn't work.
>
>>> Um, it's capitalism gone wild that fucked up our economy, not
>>> socialism. Socialism can work if the wealthy could be made to pay
>>> their taxes.
>
>>www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>
>> The top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. What more do you want? Their first born
>> child?
>
>> Why is it i never hear or see one of you pukes responding to this chart?
>> Could it be because it puts the lie to your entire argument?
>
> No. The uber-wealthy try to hide behind statistics such as "the top 50%."
>
> The issue is how much wealth they take in versus the percentage of it
> that they pay in total taxes, i.e., their effective tax rate.
>
>
> Also, the people who work for a living pay payroll taxes, while people
> who live off investments usually pay at a rate of only 15%.
>
> "It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"
>
> Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed
> in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich."
“I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that
says that anytime there is a deficit of more than three percent of GDP
all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."
--Warren Buffett
> Buffett says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren...
How about this, Jeffy: a flat 20% Income Tax; on all income/all
sources; all people (even those on welfare); no deductions whatsoever.
That's fair and equitable; isn't it?
Gunner Asch
Gunner
"In the history of mankind, there have always been men and women who's goal
in life is to take down nations. We have just elected such a man to run our
country." - David Lloyyd (2008)
Jeff M
"You can't handle the truth!"
Bible Studies with Satan
> Bible Studies with Satan <bi...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:q5CdnUQa8eXVsA7T...@mchsi.com:
>
>> Gray Guest wrote:
>>
>>> de...@dudu.org wrote in news:ris597dueg49a4evk...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:20:27 -0400, Tom Gardner <mars@tacks> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And what exactly do you expect him to have done differently? Cut
>>>>>> taxes on the wealthy and deregulate industry? Since you clearly
>>>>>> haven't been paying attention that is exactly what got us in this
> mess
>>>>>> in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>>Obammy-Care is as stupid as invading Iraq. Printing money is the last
>>>>>desperate act of a sinking country. Read a book on economics, Obammy
>>>>>NEVER has. You like Socialism, I don't, it doesn't work.
>>>>
>>>> Um, it's capitalism gone wild that fucked up our economy, not
>>>> socialism. Socialism can work if the wealthy could be made to pay
>>>> their taxes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't you ever get tired of being wrong ALL THE TIME?
>>>
>>> http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>>
>> It's that fucking 'income' tax ruse. I can't believe you dimbulbs are
> still
>> trotting out that piece of stinking shit!
>
> Than what is it you vermin want? Show trials of the wealthy with full
> confiscation of their wealth?
And hanging them from the lamp post.
> Yeah, that will create jobs.
>
Take all their stuff. Call it Demand-side economics if you wish.
> The top 1% pay nearly 40% of all income tax receipts! What fucking more do
> you want?
>
> And skip the percentage opf their wealth bullshit. When has any liberal
> proposed simplyfying the tax system and removing all the deductions, in a
> serious manner that had any probability of being considered?
>
> You had a Democrat Congress and a Democrat president from Jan 2009 through
> Jan 2011. The fucking Democrats couldn't even pass a FY 2011 budget!
>
> Why didn't they, when they had their chance, do something about it?
>
>>
>>>
>>> Tax Year 2008
>>>
>>> Percentiles AGI Threshold on Percentage of Federal
>>> Percentiles Personal Income Tax Paid
>>>
>>> Top 1% $380,354 38.02
>>>
>>> Top 5% $159,619 58.72
>>>
>>> Top 10% $113,799 69.94
>>>
>>> Top 25% $67,280 86.34
>>>
>>> Top 50% $33,048 97.30
>>>
>>> Bottom 50% <$33,048 2.7
>>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Ezekiel 23:20
RM V2.0
<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:4r939711chks48k09...@4ax.com...
> <be...@fakeaddress.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>>Here's a Jeopardy question for the audience:
>>>
>>>Answer:
>>>"Well, we screwed up really, really bad and have no chance. The only
>>>solution is to give it to the Black guy and then blame it on him, or
>>>Blacks in general"
>>>
>>>What was the question:
>>>
>>>(a) The Economy and the 2008 Election?
>>>(b) The 2012 Cain Candidature?
>>>
>>>-Ramon
>>
>>No more colorful candidates please. We felt sorry for Oboover and
>>elected him. He drove our country into a ditch. Time to CHANGE back.
>>Simple really.
>
> Um, moron, the car had already left the road and was heading for the
> ditch when Bush handed the wheel to Obama.
Gray Guest
> On 10/10/2011 12:49 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote in
>> news:8r-dnZ8QZ9k8tg7T...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On 10/10/2011 12:18 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> de...@dudu.org wrote in news:ris597dueg49a4evkk6v67bnak1os5lthu@
4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:20:27 -0400, Tom Gardner<mars@tacks> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what exactly do you expect him to have done differently? Cut
>>>>>>> taxes on the wealthy and deregulate industry? Since you clearly
>>>>>>> haven't been paying attention that is exactly what got us in this
>>>>>>> mess in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obammy-Care is as stupid as invading Iraq. Printing money is the
>>>>>> last desperate act of a sinking country. Read a book on economics,
>>>>>> Obammy NEVER has. You like Socialism, I don't, it doesn't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, it's capitalism gone wild that fucked up our economy, not
>>>>> socialism. Socialism can work if the wealthy could be made to pay
>>>>> their taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>>>>
>>>> The top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. What more do you want? Their first
>>>> born child?
>>>>
>>>> Why is it i never hear or see one of you pukes responding to this
>>>> chart? Could it be because it puts the lie to your entire argument?
>>>
>>> No. The uber-wealthy try to hide behind statistics such as "the top
>>> 50%."
>>
>> Oh bullshit. More leftist double talk. Plain and simple.
>
> "You can't handle the truth!"
>
What percentage is enough?
Would it be to much to decide what we need to spend the money on and then
figure out how much we need to raise, or do you think it's OK to just keep
bleeding people white?
Gray Guest
> Gray Guest wrote:
>
>> Bible Studies with Satan <bi...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:q5CdnUQa8eXVsA7T...@mchsi.com:
>>
>>> Gray Guest wrote:
>>>
4ax.com:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:20:27 -0400, Tom Gardner <mars@tacks> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what exactly do you expect him to have done differently? Cut
>>>>>>> taxes on the wealthy and deregulate industry? Since you clearly
>>>>>>> haven't been paying attention that is exactly what got us in this
>> mess
>>>>>>> in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Obammy-Care is as stupid as invading Iraq. Printing money is the
last
>>>>>>desperate act of a sinking country. Read a book on economics, Obammy
>>>>>>NEVER has. You like Socialism, I don't, it doesn't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, it's capitalism gone wild that fucked up our economy, not
>>>>> socialism. Socialism can work if the wealthy could be made to pay
>>>>> their taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't you ever get tired of being wrong ALL THE TIME?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>>>
>>> It's that fucking 'income' tax ruse. I can't believe you dimbulbs are
>> still
>>> trotting out that piece of stinking shit!
>>
>> Than what is it you vermin want? Show trials of the wealthy with full
>> confiscation of their wealth?
>
> And hanging them from the lamp post.
jhob creators. That's gonna go real well.
At least we have the truth now. So much easier to make the case for
extermination now. It's us or thrm!!
>
>> Yeah, that will create jobs.
>>
> Take all their stuff. Call it Demand-side economics if you wish.
>
>
>> The top 1% pay nearly 40% of all income tax receipts! What fucking more
do
>> you want?
>>
>> And skip the percentage opf their wealth bullshit. When has any liberal
>> proposed simplyfying the tax system and removing all the deductions, in
a
>> serious manner that had any probability of being considered?
>>
>> You had a Democrat Congress and a Democrat president from Jan 2009
through
>> Jan 2011. The fucking Democrats couldn't even pass a FY 2011 budget!
>>
>> Why didn't they, when they had their chance, do something about it?
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tax Year 2008
>>>>
>>>> Percentiles AGI Threshold on Percentage of Federal
>>>> Percentiles Personal Income Tax Paid
>>>>
>>>> Top 1% $380,354 38.02
>>>>
>>>> Top 5% $159,619 58.72
>>>>
>>>> Top 10% $113,799 69.94
>>>>
>>>> Top 25% $67,280 86.34
>>>>
>>>> Top 50% $33,048 97.30
>>>>
>>>> Bottom 50% <$33,048 2.7
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Jeff M
I don't know. But I do not that we currently require more revenue to
meet current and past obligations we don't want to forfeit on, even by
making cuts in current and future spending most sane people don't want
to make.
> Would it be to much to decide what we need to spend the money on and then
> figure out how much we need to raise, or do you think it's OK to just keep
> bleeding people white?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! There's really no danger of the rich being bled white.
In fact, the rich, along with most everyone else, are paying the lowest
rates of taxation in decades, with the ultra-rich paying far less than
they have in the past.
Tom S.
"JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c29135c-abc5-461d...@5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> On 10/10/2011 12:18 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>
>> d...@dudu.org wrote in
>>news:ris597dueg49a4evk...@4ax.com:
>
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:20:27 -0400, Tom Gardner<mars@tacks> wrote:
>
> >>>> And what exactly do you expect him to have done differently? Cut
> >>>> taxes on the wealthy and deregulate industry? Since you clearly
> >>>> haven't been paying attention that is exactly what got us in this
> >>>> mess
> >>>> in the first place.
>
> >>> Obammy-Care is as stupid as invading Iraq. Printing money is the last
> >>> desperate act of a sinking country. Read a book on economics, Obammy
> >>> NEVER has. You like Socialism, I don't, it doesn't work.
>
> >> Um, it's capitalism gone wild that fucked up our economy, not
> >> socialism. Socialism can work if the wealthy could be made to pay
> >> their taxes.
>
> >www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>
> > The top 50% pay 97% of the taxes. What more do you want? Their first
> > born
> > child?
>
> > Why is it i never hear or see one of you pukes responding to this chart?
> > Could it be because it puts the lie to your entire argument?
>
> No. The uber-wealthy try to hide behind statistics such as "the top 50%."
The top 5% earn 34% and pay 58%, the top 10% earn 46% and pay70%
So what are they "hiding behind"? How are they NOT paying their "fair share"
except in the eyes of moochers and parasites?
Tom S.
Never mind that Buffet was caught in several lies, not the least of which is
that he doesn't have a secretary.
Scout
"Tom S." <tms...@cox.com> wrote in message
news:ycydnfog-uxEBg7T...@giganews.com...
> "JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e3ccb0c6-4fc7-4dd6...@dd6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 10, 12:33 pm, Jeff M <NoS...@NoBrains.Nyet> wrote:
>>
>> So when it comes to Buffett's statement, there are two categories: the
>> rich and the really rich. And the evidence tends to point to the
>> conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of
>> income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income
>> comes primarily from investments. Overall, we rate Buffett's statement
>> True."
>>
>> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren...
>
> How about this, Jeffy: a flat 20% Income Tax; on all income/all
> sources; all people (even those on welfare); no deductions whatsoever.
>
> That's fair and equitable; isn't it?
their income.
ie
(Total income - poverty level) * 20% = total federal tax owed.
That should be the one and only deduction.
Gray Guest
This is such crap, you class warrior. Before you can determine what is the
correct amount to tax, you have to know how much revenue to raise. So, when
you can site down and give me an honest number, then we'll have soemthing
to talk about.
I would refer to the bullshit deal in the 80s where the democrats promised
Reagan they would make cus if only he would agree to traise taxes. Oops!
In any case you ar just another fuckwit. The rich pay plenty. They pay the
vast majority of the taxes. They create the jobs.
Who the fuck are you to claim they aren't paying enough? I wnt a percentage
figure from you. Federal, state, local... how much is enough? 50%, 60%,
70%?
If I worked my ass off and earned $1,000,000 and was only allowed to keep
$300,000 what would be the fucking point?
Gunner Asch
<No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Than what is it you vermin want? Show trials of the wealthy with full
>>> confiscation of their wealth?
>>
>> And hanging them from the lamp post.
>
>Oh goodie, civil war. I can't wait. The unwashed Marxist mob vs the rich
>jhob creators. That's gonna go real well.
>
>At least we have the truth now. So much easier to make the case for
>extermination now. It's us or thrm!!
True enough. So we now have an additional reason that the Great Cull
will start and flourish. And any of them will end with the horrific
deaths of the Leftwingers (and their Useless Eaters)
Jeff M
The rightard accusations of "class warfare" are the moral equivalent of
a rapist punching his victim in the face to get her to stop screaming.
The super-rich and major corporate elites have been waging unrestricted
class war against everybody else for some time already. And they've
been winning, getting much richer while the other 99% have gotten
poorer. Now, they are in a panic over the possibility that the middle
class is beginning to wake up, realize what's being done to them and to
fight back.
> Before you can determine what is the
> correct amount to tax, you have to know how much revenue to raise.
You don't get to dictate the rules to me, you pompous ass.
Anyway, you are too stupid to understand any rational answer, no matter
how carefully it is explained to you. Moreover, the question is far too
complex for anyone to answer accurately, even though to simple minds
like yours, everything may seem very simple. But this is a real and
complex issue, and I'm sorry to tell you that it just can't be broken
down simply enough for you.
It would be impossible for even experts to closely estimate future
revenues, future costs, the state of the economy, the GDP and all the
other variables involved, with any hope of accuracy. But we all do know
that tax revenue has declined drastically at the same time that expenses
have risen and needs have risen even more. We need to raise tax revenue
if we don't massive, unsustainable growth in the deficit.
> So, when
> you can site down and give me an honest number, then we'll have soemthing
> to talk about.
You're stall and trying to evade the truth, by the lame tactic of trying
to interpose some idiotic, irrelevent and essentially unanswerable
question.
> I would refer to the bullshit deal in the 80s where the democrats promised
> Reagan they would make cus if only he would agree to traise taxes. Oops!
>
> In any case you ar just another fuckwit. The rich pay plenty. They pay the
> vast majority of the taxes. They create the jobs.
They told us it was necessary for us to cut their taxes to improve the
economy and create jobs. We're done that. Tax rates for the rich have
been steeply cut, and their net after-tax income have risen sharply. So
where are all the jobs and the rapidly growing economy the promised?
> Who the fuck are you to claim they aren't paying enough?
Who the fuck are you to claim they are paying enough, or too much, and
should be exempt from any future tax increase? You don't really
understand how a representative government is supposed to work, do you?
> I wnt a percentage
> figure from you. Federal, state, local... how much is enough? 50%, 60%,
> 70%?
Still making silly, irrelevant demands, nitwit? You first, if you want
specific numbers.
Go ahead, tell us. Name a tax increase you'd accept? And please be
specific; by how many percentage points can the marginal rates over $1M
and the capital gains rate by raised? Or do you think these taxes need
to be cut further? If so, by how much? Be specific; I'm waiting.
> If I worked my ass off and earned $1,000,000 and was only allowed to keep
> $300,000 what would be the fucking point?
We know there's no chance of that. But plenty of people work their ass
of for $30,000, and end up paying a higher percentage of it in taxes
than some people who earn $30,000,000 or $30,000,000,000 do.
RD Sandman
All Buffet needs to do to gather some credibility is to put himself on a
salary in lieu of capital gains. Then he could pay a higher tax rate
than his secretary.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....
RD Sandman
news:j707pv$np9$1...@dont-email.me:
per Health and Human Services. Everyone should get that deduction, pay
no taxes on that first $22,350 and pay a flat tax on *ALL* income higher
than that not just wages and salaries.
pyotr filipivich
+0000 (UTC) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>
>Who the fuck are you to claim they aren't paying enough? I wnt a percentage
>figure from you. Federal, state, local... how much is enough? 50%, 60%,
>70%?
>
>If I worked my ass off and earned $1,000,000 and was only allowed to keep
>$300,000 what would be the fucking point?
a million dollars, and the other 90% average $50,000. But under
Socialism, everyone would make $25,000.
tschus
pyotr
>
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.
Jeff M
[snip]
>> from their income.
>>
>> ie
>>
>> (Total income - poverty level) * 20% = total federal tax owed.
>>
>> That should be the one and only deduction.
>
> Yep, federal poverty level for a family of four.....currently at $22,350
> per Health and Human Services. Everyone should get that deduction, pay
> no taxes on that first $22,350 and pay a flat tax on *ALL* income higher
> than that not just wages and salaries.
living at his parent's home? Married childless couples? What about
payroll/Social Security taxes? Would you exempt them too?
Tax reform is devilishly complicated. I'd like to see several different
competing proposals by different groups of experts starting from "clean
sheet of paper" to redesign and replace the federal tax system, rather
than any amount of reform and revision.
I'd also like to see an end to using the tax code for any kind of
socioeconomic engineering, no matter how laudable. If Congress wants to
encourage, subsidize or deter anything, they should do it with separate
legislation outside the tax code. That alone would de-fang much of the
lobbying and special interest rent seeking.
I'd also like to get rid of most forms of separate and additional
federal taxation, and roll pretty much everything individuals pay into a
single tax rate and system that taxes all income at the same rates,
however that income is derived. If that was done correctly, we could
eliminate corporate taxes, too.
Jeff M
> Gray Guest<No_email...@wahoo.com> on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:17:08
> +0000 (UTC) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>> xes. They create the jobs.
>>
>> Who the fuck are you to claim they aren't paying enough? I wnt a percentage
>> figure from you. Federal, state, local... how much is enough? 50%, 60%,
>> 70%?
>>
>> If I worked my ass off and earned $1,000,000 and was only allowed to keep
>> $300,000 what would be the fucking point?
>
> It has been said that the capitalists want a society here 10% make
> a million dollars, and the other 90% average $50,000. But under
> Socialism, everyone would make $25,000.
Some want a system where they and a handful of others make billions of
dollars and everybody else make $5,000 or $500, whatever; they don't
care. A "winner takes all" economy is what they're after, not any sort
of level playing field, but one tilted so that everything flows to
themselves. The current figures on the contraction and loss of wealth
and income for a broad swath of the middle class suggests that they are
having considerable success with that plan.
RD Sandman
> On 10/11/2011 12:08 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> [snip]
>>> I suggest that one be able to deduct the amount of the poverty level
>>> from their income.
>>>
>>> ie
>>>
>>> (Total income - poverty level) * 20% = total federal tax owed.
>>>
>>> That should be the one and only deduction.
>>
>> Yep, federal poverty level for a family of four.....currently at
$22,350
>> per Health and Human Services. Everyone should get that deduction,
pay
>> no taxes on that first $22,350 and pay a flat tax on *ALL* income
higher
>> than that not just wages and salaries.
>
> What about non-heads of a household, such as a working young person
> living at his parent's home? Married childless couples? What about
> payroll/Social Security taxes? Would you exempt them too?
Jeff?
> Tax reform is devilishly complicated.
I'd like to see several different
> competing proposals by different groups of experts starting from "clean
> sheet of paper" to redesign and replace the federal tax system, rather
> than any amount of reform and revision.
concerned.
> I'd also like to see an end to using the tax code for any kind of
> socioeconomic engineering, no matter how laudable.
If Congress wants to
> encourage, subsidize or deter anything, they should do it with separate
> legislation outside the tax code. That alone would de-fang much of the
> lobbying and special interest rent seeking.
> I'd also like to get rid of most forms of separate and additional
> federal taxation, and roll pretty much everything individuals pay into
a
> single tax rate and system that taxes all income at the same rates,
> however that income is derived. If that was done correctly, we could
> eliminate corporate taxes, too.
Jeff M
> Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote in
> news:qrSdnRrQDZOz5gnT...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 10/11/2011 12:08 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> I suggest that one be able to deduct the amount of the poverty level
>>>> from their income.
>>>>
>>>> ie
>>>>
>>>> (Total income - poverty level) * 20% = total federal tax owed.
>>>>
>>>> That should be the one and only deduction.
>>>
>>> Yep, federal poverty level for a family of four.....currently at
> $22,350
>>> per Health and Human Services. Everyone should get that deduction,
> pay
>>> no taxes on that first $22,350 and pay a flat tax on *ALL* income
> higher
>>> than that not just wages and salaries.
>>
>> What about non-heads of a household, such as a working young person
>> living at his parent's home? Married childless couples? What about
>> payroll/Social Security taxes? Would you exempt them too?
>
> Just what part of the term "everyone" did you have trouble understanding,
> Jeff?
Just what part of my question did you have trouble understanding, RD?
Since you were basing your exemption figure on the poverty level for a
family of four, it was reasonable to ask about those who don't fit the
definition you were using. Now, would you care to answer the part of
the question dealing with other taxes, such as payroll taxes, or not?
>> Tax reform is devilishly complicated.
>
> Which would be changed.
>
> I'd like to see several different
>> competing proposals by different groups of experts starting from "clean
>> sheet of paper" to redesign and replace the federal tax system, rather
>> than any amount of reform and revision.
>
> Going to a flat tax like I stated does precisely that as far as income in
> concerned.
That's one way to do it, but there are other possible ways, too, and I'd
like to learn more about those, as well.
RD Sandman
Which is why I used the term "everyone".
Now, would you care to answer the part of
> the question dealing with other taxes, such as payroll taxes, or not?
Over time, I would simply like to eliminate them and base them all on one
simple tax system although income is all my flat income tax would
currently cover. It would have to be done over time, although the income
portion could be done at once. Then adjust the rate (and the poverty
level exemption) as other taxes are converted. They don't need to be
included, but they all need to be simplified and deductions and
avoidances removed.
>>> Tax reform is devilishly complicated.
Yep.
>> Which would be changed.
>>
>> I'd like to see several different
>>> competing proposals by different groups of experts starting from
>>> "clean sheet of paper" to redesign and replace the federal tax
>>> system, rather than any amount of reform and revision.
>>
>> Going to a flat tax like I stated does precisely that as far as
>> income in concerned.
>
> That's one way to do it, but there are other possible ways, too, and
> I'd like to learn more about those, as well.
As would I. My flat tax is but one method of collecting income tax. I
personally like it a lot better than our current methodology and its
complexity.
Jeff M
> Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote in
>> Just what part of my question did you have trouble understanding, RD?
>> Since you were basing your exemption figure on the poverty level for a
>> family of four, it was reasonable to ask about those who don't fit the
>> definition you were using.
>
> Which is why I used the term "everyone".
>
> Now, would you care to answer the part of
>> the question dealing with other taxes, such as payroll taxes, or not?
>
> Over time, I would simply like to eliminate them and base them all on one
> simple tax system although income is all my flat income tax would
> currently cover. It would have to be done over time, although the income
> portion could be done at once. Then adjust the rate (and the poverty
> level exemption) as other taxes are converted. They don't need to be
> included, but they all need to be simplified and deductions and
> avoidances removed.
Why would it need to be done over time? If the tax proposal meets
revenue targets, why couldn't it be done immediately, instead of making
some people, mainly average workers, keep paying additional sums to the
federal government while others, mainly those who live off investments,
don't have to?
> >>> Tax reform is devilishly complicated.
>
> Yep.
>
>>> Which would be changed.
>>>
>>> I'd like to see several different
>>>> competing proposals by different groups of experts starting from
>>>> "clean sheet of paper" to redesign and replace the federal tax
>>>> system, rather than any amount of reform and revision.
>>>
>>> Going to a flat tax like I stated does precisely that as far as
>>> income in concerned.
>>
>> That's one way to do it, but there are other possible ways, too, and
>> I'd like to learn more about those, as well.
>
> As would I. My flat tax is but one method of collecting income tax. I
> personally like it a lot better than our current methodology and its
> complexity.
I like a poke in the eye with a stick a lot better than our current
methodology.
Tom S.
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:mcu897dmivoomhtqf...@4ax.com...
> +0000 (UTC) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>>xes. They create the jobs.
>>
>>Who the fuck are you to claim they aren't paying enough? I wnt a
>>percentage
>>figure from you. Federal, state, local... how much is enough? 50%, 60%,
>>70%?
>>
>>If I worked my ass off and earned $1,000,000 and was only allowed to keep
>>$300,000 what would be the fucking point?
>
> It has been said that the capitalists want a society here 10% make
> a million dollars, and the other 90% average $50,000. But under
> Socialism, everyone would make $25,000.
>
pyotr filipivich
11 Oct 2011 16:03:59 -0700 did write, type or otherwise cause to
appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
I remember old story. Comrade Khrushchev is elected head of the
Politburo. He brings his mother up from Kiev and shows her the nice
apartment he has in the Kremlin. She is just over whelmed. He
decides, better to take her tot he Dacha in the country. Again, she
burst out in tears. "But mama, what is the problem, why are you
crying?" ask Nikita. "Oh my son", says his mother, "it is all so
beautiful, and wonderful. But what if the Bolsheviks come back?"
tschus
pyotr
>
--
pyotr filipivich
"If Eric Holder gets indicted in Operation Fast & Furious,
should he get a civilian trial?" The Iowahawk
Scout
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote in message
news:pu2dnd-Wcb4IDAnT...@giganews.com...
>> Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote in
> [snip]
>>> Just what part of my question did you have trouble understanding, RD?
>>> Since you were basing your exemption figure on the poverty level for a
>>> family of four, it was reasonable to ask about those who don't fit the
>>> definition you were using.
>>
>> Which is why I used the term "everyone".
>>
>> Now, would you care to answer the part of
>>> the question dealing with other taxes, such as payroll taxes, or not?
>>
>> Over time, I would simply like to eliminate them and base them all on one
>> simple tax system although income is all my flat income tax would
>> currently cover. It would have to be done over time, although the income
>> portion could be done at once. Then adjust the rate (and the poverty
>> level exemption) as other taxes are converted. They don't need to be
>> included, but they all need to be simplified and deductions and
>> avoidances removed.
>
> Why would it need to be done over time? If the tax proposal meets revenue
> targets, why couldn't it be done immediately, instead of making some
> people, mainly average workers, keep paying additional sums to the federal
> government while others, mainly those who live off investments, don't have
> to?
system is fine tuned.
Too_Many_Tools
> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:c980f7eb-bf8d-4b44-
> 81c9-3ddb2638d...@t4g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 9:27 am, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> Gray Guest <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 06:17:12
> >> +0000 (UTC) typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>
> >> >Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:j722me$g0$5
> >> >@speranza.aioe.org:
>
> >> >> On 10/10/2011 10:11 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>> What percentage is enough?
>
> >> >>>>>>> Would it be to much to decide what we need to spend the money on
> > and
> >> >>>>> then
> >> >>>>>>> figure out how much we need to raise, or do you think it's OK to
> >> >just
> >> >>>>> keep
> >> >>>>>>> bleeding people white?
>
> wealt
> > h.
> >> >>>>>> Nobody is bleeding them dry. They're gaining. Why can't you
> >> >understand
> >> >>>>>> that? More and more of the entire nation's wealth is going to
> this
> >> >1%.
> >> >>>>>> How can you not understand something that simple. The rich have
> no
> > t
> >> >>>>>> gotten hurt. It's the rest of us who are hurting. What an idiot.
>
> >> >>>>>> Hawke
>
> >> >>>>> You and Jeff both. I say put you all in a hole and bury you. You
> ar
> > e
> >> >>>>> caustic, envious trash.
>
> >> >>>> I notice that you don't have any facts or cites to counter their
> >> >>>> assertion. Why is that?
>
> >> >>> Because it's been said over and over and over and over and frankly I
> >> >don't
> >> >>> like explaing the obvious to stupid people more than 3 times.
>
> >> >>> I notice they never answer the question "how much is enough?". Would
> > you
> >> >>> care to have a crack at it?
>
> >> >>> If 1% pay 40% WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU MUTTS GIBBERING ABOUT?!?!?
>
> >> >> Maybe this will help you understand. If 1% of the people had 90% of a
> >> >> country's wealth how much of the taxes do you think they should pay?
>
> >> >> Hawke
>
> >> >Since that's not the case here, fuck off.
>
> >> Hawke doesn't grasp the idea that sometimes it is better
> > to have a
> >> third of a two pound pie, than half of a one pound pie.
>
> >> He also fails to understand that it is crony corporatism
> > and a
> >> insanely complex tax code which has made it possible for some of that
> >> imbalance to occur in the first place.
>
> >> Top it all off with a overdeveloped sense of envy at thos
> > e who
> >> have succeeded in making a lot of money, and you can see how he wants
> >> to support Obama, another forward thinking fellow with no real world
> >> experience.
>
> >> tschus
> >> pyotr
> >> --
> >> pyotr filipivich
> >> "If Eric Holder gets indicted in Operation Fast & Furious,
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > "Punishing people for their successes is irrational, small minded and
> > destructive"
>
> > I agree...so why do you approve of punishing the middle class for
> > their success?
>
> > When you support the Republican/Tea Party that is EXACTLY what you
> > are
> > doing.
>
> > TMT
>
> Repeating it does not make it any more true than the first time you said
> it.
>
> --
> Words of wisdom
>
> What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL...don't like your words come back to haunt you?
Hypocrite.
TMT
RD Sandman
> On 10/11/2011 1:52 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote in
> [snip]
>>> Just what part of my question did you have trouble understanding,
>>> RD? Since you were basing your exemption figure on the poverty level
>>> for a family of four, it was reasonable to ask about those who don't
>>> fit the definition you were using.
>>
>> Which is why I used the term "everyone".
>>
>> Now, would you care to answer the part of
>>> the question dealing with other taxes, such as payroll taxes, or
>>> not?
>>
>> Over time, I would simply like to eliminate them and base them all on
>> one simple tax system although income is all my flat income tax would
>> currently cover. It would have to be done over time, although the
>> income portion could be done at once. Then adjust the rate (and the
>> poverty level exemption) as other taxes are converted. They don't
>> need to be included, but they all need to be simplified and
>> deductions and avoidances removed.
>
> Why would it need to be done over time?
deficits.
If the tax proposal meets
> revenue targets, why couldn't it be done immediately, instead of
> making some people, mainly average workers, keep paying additional
> sums to the federal government while others, mainly those who live off
> investments, don't have to?
>> >>> Tax reform is devilishly complicated.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>>> Which would be changed.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to see several different
>>>>> competing proposals by different groups of experts starting from
>>>>> "clean sheet of paper" to redesign and replace the federal tax
>>>>> system, rather than any amount of reform and revision.
>>>>
>>>> Going to a flat tax like I stated does precisely that as far as
>>>> income in concerned.
>>>
>>> That's one way to do it, but there are other possible ways, too, and
>>> I'd like to learn more about those, as well.
>>
>> As would I. My flat tax is but one method of collecting income tax.
>> I personally like it a lot better than our current methodology and
>> its complexity.
>
> I like a poke in the eye with a stick a lot better than our current
> methodology.
Too_Many_Tools
>
> >> "Punishing people for their successes is irrational, small minded and
> >> destructive"
>
> >> I agree...so why do you approve of punishing the middle class for
> >> their success?
>
> >> When you support the Republican/Tea Party that is EXACTLY what
> >> you are doing.
>
> > well as many pissed-off Democrats, and
>
> Sorry Johnny boy, but a guy has written a book about the Tea Party and
> did a study of the demographics of the group. I saw him interviewed too.
> The approximate breakdown is 80% are republicans, 15% are independents,
> and 5% are Democrats. In most people's minds that makes that just
> another bunch or republican bananas.
>
> > 2) Since you constantly display your stupidity it's no surprose that
> > you do not know that "TEA" stands for "Taxed Enough Already," and that
> > very few of the TEA Party members are "rich."
>
> Yeah, what they are is older, white, male, republicans of greater than
> average wealth but not rich by and means. But most of all they're just
> ordinary republicans for the most part. But don't take my word for it.
> Do the research and you will find out for yourself the facts just like I
> did.
>
> > So, Tool Fool, your ad hominem fails here.
>
> As do yours.
>
> Hawke
Poor little Psycho Johnny is just another feces slinging conservative
monkey.
His handlers play the organ and he just dances, dances, dances....
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:j74kpb$874$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
> > Sorry Johnny boy, but a guy has written a book about the Tea Party and
> > did a study of the demographics of the group. I saw him interviewed too.
> > The approximate breakdown is 80% are republicans, 15% are independents,
> > and 5% are Democrats. In most people's minds that makes that just
> > another bunch or republican bananas.
>
> TEA party then it must be true.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> BTW while you busy atacking the TEA party lets talk about OccupyWllStreet
> and how it's populated by rich, white, spoiled moron spawn of liberal
> parents and how they have been endorsed by top leaders in the Democrat
> Party.
>
> --
> Words of wisdom
>
> What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.
I read the same reviews on the book..it exists.
Do you have proof for your lies?
Or will you crawl back under the rock you came from?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Oct 12, 7:32 pm, Jeff M <NoSe...@NoBrains.Nyet> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/12/2011 7:21 PM, Hawke wrote:
>
> >> On 10/12/2011 4:50 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 12, 6:27 pm, RD Sandman<rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in
> >>>>news:6bWdnRVGMpZuZAjT...@giganews.com:
>
> >>>>> On 10/12/2011 3:05 PM, Tom S. wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "JohnJohnsn"<TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:6517e09a-52a8-4ab1...@q25g2000vbx.googlegroups.com
>
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> On Oct 12, 11:54 am, Dave "The Liberal Protagonist" Smith
> >>>>>> <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> I'm not making up the numbers. I'm relating what I get from other
> >>>>>>> sources. Like the one that says the top 400 richest people have
> >>>>>>> more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans.
>
> >>>>>> OK, Dave; let's see how that Liberal Socialist DemocRat mind of yours
> >>>>>> works:
>
> >>>>>> -----------------------------------
>
> >>>>>> Why don't you show him how a rational mind works and explain that IT
> >>>>>> DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH THEY HAVE IF THEY EARNED IT.
>
> >>>>> If they earned it in wage income, they paid marginal income tax rates
> >>>>> of up to 35%, plus payroll/Social Security taxes, but if it's
> >>>>> investment income, they usually paid at only a 15% capital gains tax
> >>>>> rate.
>
> >>>> That flat tax I discussed with you would consider that to be income and
> >>>> it would be taxed at the same rate as the secretary's salary......after
> >>>> the poverty level deduction was taken for both incomes.
>
> >>> But, RD; you fail to note that to the Liberal Socialist DemocRats
> >>> here, the (proportional) "flat tax" is REGRESSIVE; therefore they will
> >>> NEVER support such "equality of citizenship."
> >>>> --
> >>>> Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
>
> >> tax system where it's unfairly weighted in anyone's favor, and if it's
> >> weighted in favor of any group, why the already well off? Why is he
> >> against a fair and unbiased system for everyone?
>
> >> If you want a flat tax system you want a system that favors the wealthy
> >> as all proportional tax systems do. They are regressive. So why do you
> >> want an unfair system that is more beneficial to the rich than to the
> >> poor? Do you think the rich are better people and need a better deal
> >> than you would give poor people?
>
> >> Clearly you want a system that is biased in favor of the rich? Why?
>
> > Some people just naturally tend to be obsequious to the rich and
> > powerful; they're natural-born sycophants.
>
> Jeffy; name any/all the poor people who have created jobs this centiry
> (and last):- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL..idiot.
Do your homework...most rich people start out as poor people.
That is why the current rape of the Middle Class is so damaging...your
future employers are dying off.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On 10/13/2011 8:31 AM, Tom S. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in
> >>news:6bWdnRVGMpZuZAjT...@giganews.com:
>
> >>>> works:
>
> >>>> -----------------------------------
>
> >>>> Why don't you show him how a rational mind works and explain that IT
> >>>> DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH THEY HAVE IF THEY EARNED IT.
>
> >>> If they earned it in wage income, they paid marginal income tax rates
> >>> of up to 35%, plus payroll/Social Security taxes, but if it's
> >>> investment income, they usually paid at only a 15% capital gains tax
> >>> rate.
>
>
> Which is precisely why it ought to be taxed at the same rates as any
> other earnings, and not at a steeply discounted rate that burdens wage
> earners unfairly in comparison.
>
> > And if it's investment income, it's already been taxed.
>
> So has wage income, by the same theory.
>
> > GAWDDAMN, you're ignorant! That far down, it's got to be deliberate.
>
> You apparently lack the skills or temperament for reasoned discussion in
> an adult manner, without juvenile name-calling and insults. Can't you
> do any better?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I do not believe he can.
I once thought that anyone can be reasoned with.
After my experiences here on Usenet, I have changed my mind.
TMT
JohnJohnsn
Abderian Simpleton Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist Democrat LOSER™
(est. 2010-11-02) Propagandist known as "The_Tool_Fool_in_the_DNC"
<too_man...@propagandists.dnc.org> stamped out:
The Tool Fool, El Stupido of the DNC, continually proves that he's
totally incapable of:
moving and setting up a lathe;
finding a portable HDTV; and,
dealing with that pesky "Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy
when replying to Usenet postings.
> LOL..idiot.
Fifth Law of Leftist Debate:
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter
to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for
him to refute it without losing face the chance of him denigrating the
intelligence of the poster or accusing you of having some sort of
mental illness approaches infinity.
Boomerang corollary:
Said leftist will display his own lack of intelligence or mental
defects in his responses accusing you of same and never
get the irony of it.
> Do your homework...most rich people start out as poor people.
Non sequitur to the challenge made to Jeffy.
Wanna try that again, Tool Fool?
> That is why the current rape of the Middle Class is so damaging...your
> future employers are dying off.
>
> TMT
Too Msny Tittilations
Too_Many_Tools
> On Oct 13, 9:18 am, Ta Narcissistic Personality Disorder-afflicted
> Abderian Simpleton Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist Democrat LOSER™
> (est. 2010-11-02) Propagandist known as "The_Tool_Fool_in_the_DNC"
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL...poor little Psycho Johnny...passed that psych test yet?
I wonder how many government checks do you get?
And how many do you really deserve?
Sounds like you have sucked off the public tit for all your life.
TMT
Luke Gower
You retard. That means they aren't poor anymore, because they went to
work, got rich, then created a job market.
JohnJohnsn
Abderian Simpleton Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist
Democrat LOSER™ (est. 2010-11-02) Propagandist known as
"The_Tool_Fool_in_the_DNC"
Is the Tool Fool in the DNC _ever_ going to learn how to
deal with that pesky "Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy when
replying to Usenet postings?
Apparently he's too STUPID to learn how to deal with that!
> LOL...poor little Psycho Johnny...passed that psych test yet?
Why would I need to take a "psych test," Tool Fool?
I passed the only ones I ever had to take in my law enforcement
career, and now that I've retired, _why_ would I need to take one
today?
You, OTOH ....
> I wonder how many government checks do you get?
Social Security is direct deposit, Fool: if you even make it to
retirement age there _may_ be money left for you.
However; forward-thinking Americans by and large think not:
NBC Poll: Republicans Agree With Rick Perry on 'Ponzi Scheme'
Wednesday, 12 Oct 2011 08:48 PM
By Paul Scicchitano
...
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds that 54 percent agree
that the retirement program resembles a Ponzi plot, which is
fraudulent system to collect more money than it pays out. Only 41
percent disagreed.
> And how many do you really deserve?
Every single dime, Fool.
> Sounds like you have sucked off the public tit for all your life.
I worked in the private sector for three-fourths of my life, Fool; how
about you?
What's your "claim to fame"? (Other than being a Tool Fool
Propagandist for the DNC, that is.)
You drawing a paycheck fro George Soros?
Who's behind the Wall St. protests?
By Mark Egan and Michelle Nichols | Reuters – 30 mins ago
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Anti-Wall Street protesters say the rich are
getting richer while average Americans suffer, but the group that
started it all may have benefited indirectly from the largesse of one
of the world's richest men.
There has been much speculation over who is financing the disparate
protest, which has spread to cities across America and lasted nearly
four weeks. One name that keeps coming up is investor George Soros,
who in September debuted in the top 10 list of wealthiest Americans.
Conservative critics contend the movement is a Trojan horse for a
secret Soros agenda.
Soros and the protesters deny any connection. But Reuters did find
indirect financial links between Soros and Adbusters, an anti-
capitalist group in Canada which started the protests with an
inventive marketing campaign aimed at sparking an Arab Spring type
uprising against Wall Street. Moreover, Soros and the protesters share
some ideological ground.
...
Like the protesters, Soros is no fan of the 2008 bank bailouts and
subsequent [Obama administration] government purchase of the toxic sub-
prime mortgage assets they amassed in the property bubble.
The protesters say the Wall Street bank bailouts in 2008 left banks
enjoying huge profits while average Americans suffered under high
unemployment and job insecurity with little help from Washington. They
contend that the richest 1 percent of Americans have amassed vast
fortunes while being taxed at a lower rate than most people.
...
Adbusters, whose magazine has a circulation of 120,000 and which is
known for its spoofs of popular advertisements, came up with the
Occupy Wall Street idea after Arab Spring protests toppled governments
in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, said Kalle Lasn, 69, Adbusters co-
founder.
...
Lasn said Adbusters is 95 percent funded by subscribers paying for the
magazine. "George Soros's ideas are quite good, many of them. I wish
he would give Adbusters some money, we sorely need it," he said. "He's
never given us a penny."
...
Since its obscure beginnings, the campaign has drawn global media
attention in places as far-flung as Iran and China. The Times of
London, however, was not alone when it called the protests "Passionate
but Pointless."
Adbusters' co-founder Lasn dismisses that, reeling off specific
demands: a tax on the richest 1 percent, a tax on currency trades and
a tax on all financial transactions.
"Down the road, there will be crystal clear demands coming out of this
movement," he said. "But this first phase of the movement is messy and
leaderless and demandless."
"I think it was perfect the way it happened."
-30-
Michael A. Terrell
JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
> "The_Tool_Fool_in_the_DNC" wrote:
>
> > I wonder how many government checks do you get?
>
> Social Security is direct deposit, Fool: if you even make it to
> retirement age there _may_ be money left for you.
VA disability checks are required to be either direct deposit, or on
a government issued debit card early next year. They are eliminating all
monthly paper checks, according to the letter I saw.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Too_Many_Tools
> No job? Well, it IS your fault. Anyone who can't find a job, and that
> doesn't mean a 40 hour union job full of benefits, paid holidays, sick
> leave, hangnail Fridays, et al, ............ is brain dead. I TURN DOWN
> WORK.
>
> It's a treasure hunt. There's money out there. It's just now that there is
> a definite dividing line between those who can find it, and those who wait
> for it to appear in the form of a check in their mailbox.
>
> HTH, but I doubt it.
>
> Take everyone here in this newsgroup. Drop us off anywhere on this planet.
> Or some other planet that has the same life sustaining ecosystem. Within
> five years or less, 20% of the group would control 80% of the wealth.
>
> And the other 80% would be snivelling.
>
> As usual.
>
> Steve
Do you think we would have enough soup lines for the 80%
conservatives...or would they have to start eating each other?
TMT
Benny Fishhole
wrote:
>From what I've seen, some of them would be eaten by animals while they
>thought about purchasing a firearm. Some of them would starve before
>they figured out how to plant a garden. Another majority would be
>trying to catch minorities and liberals to do the work that they are
>to lazy to do themselves. Then there are those who would die because
>free medical care wouldn't be around to keep them alive.
And people would feel unsafe at the malls because they hired some
bald-headed, douche bag with a big forehead to be the mall cop. Eh,
Douchebag?
Benny Fishhole
the United States history until Obama became President?
Bible Studies with Satan
--
Ezekiel 23:20