DEFUND; NPR, PBS, and Planned Parenthood NOW!
Tracey12
STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
Buster Norris
Great idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom Gardner
"Tracey12" <tracey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:70e8be2f-7f4e-484b...@u6g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
>
> STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
Except continued funding for "Click and Clack"!
Tracey12
> Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
>
> STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
We cannot afford both financially and politically to look the other
way any longer. Left wing groups have taken control of public
entities like the above organizations. Giving the left public money
to support their causes, and their political agenda is no different
than union thugs forcing members to pay union dues that end up in the
pockets of the democrat party leadership. Both must be stopped.
wy
> Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
>
> STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
Better yet, stop allowing corporations from taking advantage of tax
loopholes that lets them get away with paying billions of dollars less
in taxes every year.
As usual, you're not thinking straight, Tracey.
wy
You're forgetting one thing: Public money is for the "Public". The
public includes everyone, left, right, center, outsiders - that's what
public is and is for. Public money by its nature can't be restricted
to just right wingnut religious nutcase wackos, that's not the way
public money works.
Pepe Le Jew
<045d22cf-95ea-4ab6...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 10:19 pm, Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
> >
> > STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
>
> Better yet, stop allowing corporations from taking advantage of tax
> loopholes that lets them get away with paying billions of dollars less
> in taxes every year.
Absolutely, so they can pass those costs on to the consumer.
Tracey12
> In article
> <045d22cf-95ea-4ab6-b110-db9ab5cea...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Rats, you beat me to it.
Tracey12
Thats a nice concept but democrats pushed the Fairness Doctrine as a
means of shutting down / controlling right wing media, so we see how
the left really feels about true fairness and even free speech.
W.T.S.
b61ca1...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, tracey...@gmail.com
says...
--
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
Kenny McCormack
W.T.S. <m1...@earthlink.net> quoted some dork thusly:
...
>> > > > Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
Why should Haliburton get a single dime of public funding?
--
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus
wy
Like you're saving any money now with gas and food prices and
everything else going up as they are? Meanwhile, the rich get richer
with the loopholes.
Pepe Le Jew
<0d425a3e-090f-4a10...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Tracey12 <tracey...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sometimes, the proletariat has to suffer for the whims of the elite.
Pepe Le Jew
gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> In article <MPG.27e67ebec...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> W.T.S. <m1...@earthlink.net> quoted some dork thusly:
> ...
> >> > > > Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
>
> Why should Haliburton get a single dime of public funding?
Because they provide goods and services in return?
Tater Gumfries
> Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
>
> STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
Maybe we ought to defund Armed Forces Network too. The guy runs that
got political opinions.
Tater
wy
So you get off on suffering, huh?
wy
You know, when the Fairness Doctrine was around, Americans actually
used to be better informed and more united. The removal of the
doctrine has seen a vocal minority emerge to both distort facts and
dumb down people, particularly the right wingnut variety. It's been
more of a disservice to right wingnuts not to have the Fairness
Doctrine than to anyone else because all they've done was isolate
themselves in a self-created backwards and upside down universe,
explaining why there's a greater disparity between the left and the
right now than 30 years ago and how the resulting disunity negatively
impacts on the country moving decisively forward in quickly and
efficiently solving its problems.
Pepe Le Jew
<e733d7a0-6627-4f7c...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 8:45 am, Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 3:44 pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <045d22cf-95ea-4ab6-b110-db9ab5cea...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 11, 10:19 pm, Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
> >
> > > > > STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
> >
> > > > Better yet, stop allowing corporations from taking advantage of tax
> > > > loopholes that lets them get away with paying billions of dollars less
> > > > in taxes every year.
> >
> > > Absolutely, so they can pass those costs on to the consumer.
> >
> > Rats, you beat me to it.
>
> Like you're saving any money now with gas and food prices and
> everything else going up as they are?
Will raising the prices save us money?
> Meanwhile, the rich get richer with the loopholes.
Go git you some loopholes then, amigo.
Siobhan Medeiros
> Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
>
> STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
Ja, mein Fuhrer!
Siobhan Medeiros
Or maybe cut out a couple of million dollar bonuses that their CEO
gets for sitting on his ass.
Pepe Le Jew
<23db76f8-b743-4097...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 12:09 pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0d425a3e-090f-4a10-a778-b61ca1b53...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 12, 3:44 pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <045d22cf-95ea-4ab6-b110-db9ab5cea...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 11, 10:19 pm, Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
> >
> > > > > > STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
> >
> > > > > Better yet, stop allowing corporations from taking advantage of tax
> > > > > loopholes that lets them get away with paying billions of dollars less
> > > > > in taxes every year.
> >
> > > > Absolutely, so they can pass those costs on to the consumer.
> >
> > > Rats, you beat me to it.
> >
> > Sometimes, the proletariat has to suffer for the whims of the elite.
>
> So you get off on suffering, huh?
Only yours.
Pepe Le Jew
<528416ab-05da-492a...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Siobhan Medeiros <shanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
They'll pass the costs on to the consumer, amigo, it's that simple.
wy
Which you inevitably end up paying for when the government has to
borrow more money to cover its shortfall because it lets corporations
get away with not paying their fair share. You lose both ways, but
the rich will always be rich.
Pepe Le Jew
<e5dbba8c-e699-48cb...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
The term fair share is simple, but it's complex.
Let's say legislation strips me of 100M profit, to fund govenrment.
That results in actions to replace the income - reduced expansion, less
hiring, layoffs, and higher prices.
So fewer people working buying fewer goods that are more highly priced,
all due to a variance of centralized economy, based on the Moore's Law
of American money being a national, not personal resource.
This, BTW echoes commnunist and socialist ideas on private property.
> You lose both ways, but the rich will always be rich.
And the poor will always be with you. It's your job to figure out which
side you wanna be on.
wy
None of which adds up to when the middle class was at its wealthiest
between the 1950s and 1970s, a period when corporate taxes were much
higher than they are now. Hmm, how does that happen? High corporate
taxes = wealthy middle class. And then just when you have Reagan come
in to lower corporate taxes, wow! A drop in middle class income
earnings relative to 1950s-70s. Gee, with two equations like that one
can only arrive at one correlation: high corporate taxes = wealthy
middle class, low corporate taxes = poorer middle class. Get the
simple math?
wy
I'm talking billions and you're only talking millions? Yeah, you'll
get far in life cutting out the fat in finances.
Pepe Le Jew
<f3ee40a4-8eeb-4580...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
Confusionn of causation and correlation.
> And then just when you have Reagan come
> in to lower corporate taxes, wow! A drop in middle class income
> earnings relative to 1950s-70s. Gee, with two equations like that one
> can only arrive at one correlation: high corporate taxes = wealthy
> middle class, low corporate taxes = poorer middle class. Get the
> simple math?
Tell me once again how corporations passing tax costs on to consumers is
better for consumers.
wy
Sure. The middle class was at its wealthiest between the 1950s and
1970s, a period when corporate taxes were much
higher than they are now. Got it yet? Hope so, because if you need
to be told again, then that would officially make you certifiably
stoopid from which you can't ever recover.
Pepe Le Jew
<b56dd870-dea5-4a11...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
I was looking for causation.
Did they take this money from the corporations and give it to people
directly, or did they give the money they took from the corporation to
the corporation in order that the workers would get raises?
Just how did this tax money make people wealthier?
wy
No convoluted math is needed to explain the obvious. When
corporations pay more taxes, individuals pay less taxes, which is what
puts more money into the pockets of the middle class. When
corporations pay less taxes, somebody has to make up the difference
and that's the middle class. And if they don't make up the
difference, then the government has to borrow money, which is what it
has done at a criminal rate since Reagan's day, which in turn will
leave the middle class paying the bills on that borrowed money because
apparently corporations are now paying even less tax than they ever
did. This is what's called creating a cash flow problem for the
government, especially when it tries to make both corporations and the
middle class happy by extending tax cuts, further engendering a
shortfall in revenue resulting in further borrowing to make up the
difference and inevitably and ultimately resulting, sooner or later,
in the middle class, if not both the middle class and corporations,
coughing up more money to pay off the debt. What else is the
government going to do? Borrow money to pay off the debt? Somebody
will still have to pay it all off in the long run and, if the
Repugnants have it their way, that someone will only be the middle
class, meaning you, not corporations. So in a few years time expect
to be paying twice, maybe even three times the taxes you're paying now
because interest rates don't wait for anyone, they just keep adding to
the debt even if you keep coming up with balanced budgets.
Pepe Le Jew
<4cddba53-22ed-400e...@o21g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
But when corporate taxes were high, so were individual income taxes. In
a period of great economic growth, it's very easy to tax highly - but it
can become bloated and parasitic, and that's becomes painfully obvious
when money is tighter. The private sector deals with tis every damn day.
Wealth produces taxes, taxes do not produce wealth.
> which is what
> puts more money into the pockets of the middle class. When
> corporations pay less taxes, somebody has to make up the difference
> and that's the middle class.
Well, let's get more people in here to compete.
Fiftycal
>No convoluted math is needed to explain the obvious. When
>corporations pay more taxes, individuals pay less taxes, which is what
>puts more money into the pockets of the middle class.
Are you stoopid? Corporations don't "pay" taxes, they COLLECT them.
So if you increase, say, the "corporate" tax on oil companys, the
price of GAS goes up. WHO pays that?
When the PROPERTY TAX goes up, does the RENT go up on apartments? Or
do you think that apartment owners just shuck out more money on taxes
while paying for maintenance and the mortgage?
Dumbass.
wy
I think this chart should clearly explain the discrepancy between
corporate and personal income taxes since the 50s.
http://irw.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/www_corp_indv_615x285.png
>
> Wealth produces taxes, taxes do not produce wealth.
Only if wealth invests, which it isn't doing since businesses and
banks are still sitting on $2 trillion of disposable cash, more than
at any time in history. What was that theory some decades ago? Oh,
yeah, trickle down. How come none of that $2 trillion is trickling
down? Not only that, but if trickle down even worked at all, how come
there are still 15-20 million people out of work and those working
aren't doing two, three, five or ten times better now than they did 30
years ago? Corporate pee is about all that's trickling down on you
and you're only letting yourself be a blind-assed fool to think
otherwise.
>
> > which is what
> > puts more money into the pockets of the middle class. When
> > corporations pay less taxes, somebody has to make up the difference
> > and that's the middle class.
>
> Well, let's get more people in here to compete.
Uh, didn't you know that just about the whole world is still in the
same cash-crunch boat, thanks to what happened in 2008? And about the
only two countries the US can get anything out of, China and India,
Obama already dealt with on his trip last fall and managed to secure a
total of $55 billion in deals with them, something a bunch of right
wingnuts nevertheless thought was worth pooh-poohing. Go figure. You
cry out for more deals, you get them, you cry again for nothing.
Buster Norris
<shanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mind your own business, Canadian BigHead.......
Siobhan Medeiros is Shannon Mitchell.
Shannon Mitchell is a Canadian Homo.
Shannon Mitchell's nickname is "BigHead."
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Siobhan Medeiros <sbm...@telus.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.81.71.136
From: Siobhan Medeiros <sbm...@telus.net>
From: Shannon M <sbm...@telus.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.81.71.39
From: * US * NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.81.71.39
Message-ID: <3l9k86h1th9lc1l2r...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
X-Trace:
sv3-Rf4WC7n1azwLqo2cJG/GwGI6rYyLi43Hp9b5LHDmNVD58Fnn2zGE9D4kc/xQq5FpkKtAQt4tFfuo25k!Ho4ai5CBiHJ9fYcnVZd0FggELWXX9YJO7alA3GOZ435HHZbWWnW9U9NnyRJSXW+ky5IZKOq0iUcF!B1qv
==============================
Shannon Mitchell
Design Engineer at Always On UPS
British Columbia, Canada
http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/shannon-mitchell/21/35b/b25
http://www.myspace.com/shannon_bc/
Real photos:
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/images/shannon_02.jpg
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/images/shannon_03.jpg
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/images/shannon_04.jpg
Exact name match, Home Address (unlikely):
Shannon Mitchell
3422 Happy Valley Rd Victoria, BC V9C 2Y1
(250) 478-2522
Most likely Home Addresses in or near Kelowna, BC:
Mitchell, S
107-665 Cook Rd
Kelowna, BC V1W 4T4
(250) 448-7589
Mitchell, S
Kelowna, BC
(250) 861-3387
Mitchell, S
Round Lk Rd
Armstrong, BC
(250) 546-9631
Mitchell, S
71 Mabl Lk Subdvsn Rd
Enderby, BC
(250) 838-2380
Mitchell, S L
537 Alberta Ave
Penticton, BC V2A 1P5
(250) 492-8398
==============================
Work:
Always On UPS Systems
#100 - 150 Campion Road,
Kelowna, BC.
V1X 7S8
Canada
Phone: (250) 491-9777 (ext. 208)
Fax: (250) 491-9775
Toll-Free: 1-877-259-2976
www.alwayson.com
Kelowna, Canada
Host: www.alwayson.com
Host: www.alwaysonups.com
IP: 68.179.22.57
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Buster Norris
Buster Norris
<gumf...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <ta...@kernsholler.net>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterG...@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.138.19.107
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bo...@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterG...@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bo...@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.164.153
From: Baggi <BaggiBum...@gmail.com>
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.170.32
Google Profile:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=aPeBnxUAAACt8q8X_hh5lAgeZWKUTajQZk8LRyw6Fzc364xXu3mYhA
http://www.kernsholler.net
Registrant: John Starrett
3500 Clay St.
Denver, Colorado 80211
303-242-6285
Real Email: jsta...@nmt.edu
http://whois.domaintools.com/kernsholler.net
http://www.aurapiercing.com
Registrant: StarrBoard
1226 Calle de Lago
Socorro, New Mexico 87801
Administrative,
Technical Contact: Starrett, John David (Age 57)
StarrBoard
1226 Calle de Lago
Socorro, New Mexico 87801 (Home address)
575-838-0915 (Home telephone, Qwest)
Real Email: jsta...@nmt.edu
Real Email: jsta...@sdc.org
http://whois.domaintools.com/aurapiercing.com
Employer: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
--- [Courtesy of Buster Norris] --------------------------
Johnnie is in the Mathematics Dept, extension 5763.
http://www.nmt.edu/directory
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jstarret/
"I am an associate professor of mathematics at the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology. My main area of research is in
knot theory and the topology of strange attractors."
Office: 240 Weir
Email: jsta...@nmt.edu
Phone: 575-835-5763
His boss is Chairman/Professor Stone, William D. extension 5786,
email: wds...@nmt.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
wy
Wow, you sure easily and mindlessly buy into all of that, don't you?
The corporate goons really have you wrapped around their little finger
which they keep shoving up your ass to make you squack what they want
you to squack, huh? Ever hear of competition? Not all corporations
are taxed at the same rate, so the smaller ones taxed at a lesser rate
will better likely be able to compete with the bigger ones and if the
bigger ones want to keep staying in business, they're going to keep
their prices down because, after all, consumers really don't have to
buy from Company A when Company B can sell it for less. Sort of like
Walmart and Target. Walmart had $405 billion in sales in 2010, Target
$65 billion. Who's likely paying more taxes? Walmart. Who's now got
cheaper prices? Target. Tough on Walmart, good on Target and the
consumer still comes out the winner.
Lee Curtis
> On Mar 12, 12:41 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 12:31 pm, Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 11, 9:19 pm, Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public
> > > > funding?
> >
> > > > STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
> >
> > > We cannot afford both financially and politically to look the
> > > other way any longer. Left wing groups have taken control of
> > > public entities like the above organizations. Giving the left
> > > public money to support their causes, and their political agenda
> > > is no different than union thugs forcing members to pay union
> > > dues that end up in the pockets of the democrat party leadership.
> > > Both must be stopped.
> >
> > You're forgetting one thing: Public money is for the "Public". The
> > public includes everyone, left, right, center, outsiders - that's
> > what public is and is for. Public money by its nature can't be
> > restricted to just right wingnut religious nutcase wackos, that's
> > not the way public money works.
>
> Thats a nice concept but democrats pushed the Fairness Doctrine as a
> means of shutting down / controlling right wing media, so we see how
> the left really feels about true fairness and even free speech.
Has does a guarantee that both sides will be heard
amount to shutting down one side or the other?
Dave Heil
Loopholes are his smallest problem. Being a Canadian living in Canada
is his greatest. His toilet is frozen and his taxes are high.
Dave Heil
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:52:22 +0000, Dave Heil<k8...@frontiernet.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Loopholes are his smallest problem.
>
...on your part, Yiirwhin.
wy
> On 3/13/2011 18 02, Pepe Le Jew wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
Ya think, huh? Let's see, why don't we? We'll keep it simple and
compare taxes on $40,000, no deductions.
Calculator A gives us: $7,005 average for Canadians.
Do the math yourself: http://lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-tax
Calculator B gives us: $7,635 average for Americans.
Do the math yourself: http://interactive.taxfoundation.org/taxcalc/
In Calculator A, 9 out of 13 provinces have taxes that are lower than
the American average. Only two provinces go over $8,000, Manitoba
with $8,037 and Quebec with $8,429. Being in Quebec, you'd think the
highest tax would suck. While the $1,424 difference between it and
the national average might seem significant, it's really not when you
factor in something like housing rentals which are considerably lower
in that province over others - a 1-bedroom apartment in Toronto,
Ontario, could cost you $1,000 or more per month, in Montreal, Quebec,
you'd be able to find them at around $600, and it's not inconceivable
that certain areas could have them at $500. So that's a difference of
$4,800-$6,000 on rent per year between Montreal and Toronto.
Ontario's taxes are $6,071, but the $2,358 you pay less is completely
negated by the $2,500+ one saves on rent in Quebec.
But here's the real kicker. Americans would pay $630 more according
to the calculations and then have to cough up who knows how many
thousands extra per for their health care. Our tax bill includes
virtually all health care. So guess who's really getting ripped off.
It ain't me, bud. I'm sitting pretty up here and you're being sucked
of your cash left, right and center and either don't know it or refuse
to see it.
W.T.S.
n...@abcnnbcbs.com says...
California once) none of the apartment house owners passed the savings
on to the renters, not a penny. In a few cases, they increased the
rent, claiming extra paper work.
>
> Dumbass.
--
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
Mike Smith
wrote:
Actually, after the Pelosi/Reid socialists infesting our US Congress
started destroying our Nation, back in 2007 with their stupid laws
designed to wreck our economy, we did have rent reductions to get
people into our apartments.
As property taxes go up, we raise rents because all apartment are in
the same monetary constraints, so we all go up. And as the economy
improves, we will offer upgraded cabinets, upgraded appliances and/or
upgraded flooring to keep our residents in their apartment and not
moving to the competition. Another incentive is $50 to $75 off the
standard rent for a 1-year contract, instead of the 6 month
contract/lease.
Our residents pay all of our corporate taxes. That is where our
revenue comes from, so that is who pays all city, county, state, and
federal taxes and fees.
(Liberals lack common sense and logic, so they cannot understand this
concept.)
Mike Smith
Lou Marco
Fiftycal <n...@abcnnbcbs.com> wrote:
>
>Are you stoopid? Corporations don't "pay" taxes, they COLLECT them.
>So if you increase, say, the "corporate" tax on oil companys, the
>price of GAS goes up. WHO pays that?
You're neglecting to consider economic factors such as price
elasticity and market structure.
Lou Marco
wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>are taxed at the same rate, so the smaller ones taxed at a lesser rate
>will better likely be able to compete with the bigger ones and if the
Smaller firms are not taxed at a lesser rate. You need to look
at effective tax rates.
Tater Gumfries
> O
How come you never write nothin worth readin?
Tater
Franklin Hummel
Norris = Crazy Bastard = Bob Milby Jr. of
Florida whined:
[ Blah! Blah blah, blah!!! BLAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ]
We *ALL* know whenever you post one of your cut-and-paste ranting-and-
raving against anyone, you are admitting YOU HAVE LOST THE FUCKING
ARGUMENT AGAIN, Bobby -- and this is the *only* way you can respond,
because you CANNOT offer anything logically or rationally reply.
You KNOW and everyone else who has read more than a dozen of your
insane, hate-filled, psychotic posts ALSO KNOWS your fat-headed,
psychotic dumbass has been *whooped* by yet another sane poster!
Franklin Hummel
> Frankliun Hummel wrote:
>> On Mar 13, Patriot Games = topcat = Buster
> How come you never write nothin worth readin?
Because Bobby is unable to compose a rational argument. All he can do
is post his cut-and-paste personal attacks and occasionaly drool some
hate-filled, illogical sentences in alt.politics.
I think, in fact, that Junior will very likely post more of his cut-
and-pastes in response to your message and mine.
He's very pathetic that way, Tater.
Uno Hu
Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:551sn6pjflfu9nkcu...@4ax.com
You are lying again.
As is evident, Dumbya and the Neocons passed the tax breaks for
Billionaires loophole legislation. By doing so they shifted taxes off
of neocon billionaires and place something like 600 billion in annual
tax burden directly onto regular workers.
Most major companies in the US pay ZERO taxes.
wy
> In article <eb9b2109-afce-4419-b1ab-1bab7a41d...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
So you mean a smaller company making a million a year is taxed at the
same rate as one making a hundred million a year?
Brad Filippone
> In Calculator A, 9 out of 13 provinces have taxes that are lower than
> the American average. Only two provinces go over $8,000, Manitoba
> with $8,037 and Quebec with $8,429. Being in Quebec, you'd think the
> highest tax would suck. While the $1,424 difference between it and
> the national average might seem significant, it's really not when you
> factor in something like housing rentals which are considerably lower
> in that province over others - a 1-bedroom apartment in Toronto,
> Ontario, could cost you $1,000 or more per month, in Montreal, Quebec,
> you'd be able to find them at around $600, and it's not inconceivable
> that certain areas could have them at $500. So that's a difference of
> $4,800-$6,000 on rent per year between Montreal and Toronto.
> Ontario's taxes are $6,071, but the $2,358 you pay less is completely
> negated by the $2,500+ one saves on rent in Quebec.
>
Brad
Salty Stan
>
> > wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:> > > > <e5dbba8c-e699-48cb-9c3a-c93461d6f...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Didn't rich corporations funnel their income into Tax Shelters, most
of which Reagan removed?
Salty Stan
Well in reality, when corporations pay more taxes, politicains simply
spend more money. The middle class gets no tax break.
wy
I didn't want to confuse some Americans by saying 10 provinces and 3
territories, so I kept it dumbed-down simple for them.
wy
Yeah, and now they have tax-free off-shore accounts to funnel their
money into.
wy
I don't deny that spending increases, so obviously that has to be
reined in. Unfortunately, the US is now at a point that no matter how
much it reins itself in, it'll still be saddled with a humongous debt
and interest costs that'll last a century, and that's even it's able
to reduce the annual budget to some sustainable level that is also
balanced each and every year for the next century. The only thing
that will speed up getting rid of the debt is major tax increases and
removing loopholes for corporations, businesses of all kinds and the
wealthy, because everyday individuals are already maxed out with their
own debt, never mind paying increased taxes too. There are only two
sources of revenue for the government to pay the debt: people and
business. No one else is going to do it.
Mike Smith
>On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:14:56 -0500, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>
>>>In every case where property tax went down (rare, only happened in
>>>California once) none of the apartment house owners passed the savings
>>>on to the renters, not a penny. In a few cases, they increased the
>>>rent, claiming extra paper work.
>>
>>Actually, after the Pelosi/Reid socialists infesting our US Congress
>>started destroying our Nation, back in 2007 with their stupid laws
>>designed to wreck our economy, we did have rent reductions to get
>>people into our apartments.
>
>You dipshit
You clueless fuckin moron...
>
>The entire REagan economic Theories and the 1994-2007 Republican
>congresses had already set up the massive destructive
>deregulation--that by 2007 drove us to the cliff.
>
>Only by virtue of the democratic house and senate, did we avert total
>disaster.
In 2007, the deficit was 165 billion and the stock market was at 14400
in 2008 the deficit was 408 billion and the stock market was at 10200
in 2009 the deficit was 1 trillion and the stock market was at 9700
Congress has control of spending money. They went apeshit and caused a
major crash in our economy. It is that simple, although you clearly do
not have the intelligence to understand what I just posted.
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
No, you are just too stupid to understand plain English.
Mike Smith
Pepe Le Jew
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:24:57 -0700 (PDT), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> >No convoluted math is needed to explain the obvious. When
> >corporations pay more taxes, individuals pay less taxes, which is what
> >puts more money into the pockets of the middle class.
>
> Are you stoopid? Corporations don't "pay" taxes, they COLLECT them.
> So if you increase, say, the "corporate" tax on oil companys, the
> price of GAS goes up. WHO pays that?
>
> When the PROPERTY TAX goes up, does the RENT go up on apartments? Or
> do you think that apartment owners just shuck out more money on taxes
> while paying for maintenance and the mortgage?
>
> Dumbass.
The US is second only to Japan in corporate tax rate, the notion that
corporations pay no taxes is not exactly true, a brief glance shows
corporate taxes were 2.2% of the GDP in 2000-2007.
SilentOtto
Which, of course, is rightard bullshit.
You know where -most- of the current deficit came from?
It has 2 sources.
Extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich (that Republicans extorted
from Obama) and actually counting the money we're spending on Bush's
military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Which Bush didn't
count in his budget and paid for with emergency supplementals).
If you subtract those two things from the current deficit, it doesn't
look nearly as scary.
You're just another dime a dozen rightard who' conveniently can't
remember past inauguration day 2009.
Heh heh...
Rightards...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
SilentOtto
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:45:04 GMT, "Uno Hu" <lorad...@cs.com> wrote:
>
> >Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
> >news:551sn6pjflfu9nkcu...@4ax.com
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >In article <5onqn6p2droe36hmucrjeaesc3ilj4j...@4ax.com>,
He understood you just fine, rightard.
That's how he knew you were full of shit.
Jerry Okamura
"SilentOtto" wrote in message
news:702e20ac-397d-4979...@r4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
It has 2 sources.
Heh heh...
Rightards...
You mean all the increase in the National debt happened in the Bush years?
Can you prove that?
Fiftycal
Gee, DUMBASS, what part of "35% corporate tax rate" do you not
understand?
Mike Smith
No, moron.. Congress controlling the money comes right out of the US
Constitution, article 1 section 8. and the deficit and stock market
facts are a matter of history.
Libtards are truly stupid creatures.
Mike Smith
Buster Norris
I can guarantee there are peiiople out there that are very interested
in YOU and will find this worth reading...............
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <ta...@kernsholler.net>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterG...@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.138.19.107
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bo...@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterG...@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bo...@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.164.153
From: Baggi <BaggiBum...@gmail.com>
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.170.32
Google Profile:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=aPeBnxUAAACt8q8X_hh5lAgeZWKUTajQZk8LRyw6Fzc364xXu3mYhA
http://www.kernsholler.net
Registrant: John Starrett
3500 Clay St.
Denver, Colorado 80211
303-242-6285
Real Email: jsta...@nmt.edu
http://whois.domaintools.com/kernsholler.net
http://www.aurapiercing.com
Registrant: StarrBoard
1226 Calle de Lago
Socorro, New Mexico 87801
Administrative,
Technical Contact: Starrett, John David (Age 57)
StarrBoard
1226 Calle de Lago
Socorro, New Mexico 87801 (Home address)
575-838-0915 (Home telephone, Qwest)
Real Email: jsta...@nmt.edu
Real Email: jsta...@sdc.org
http://whois.domaintools.com/aurapiercing.com
Employer: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
--- [Courtesy of Buster Norris] --------------------------
Johnnie is in the Mathematics Dept, extension 5763.
http://www.nmt.edu/directory
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jstarret/
"I am an associate professor of mathematics at the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology. My main area of research is in
knot theory and the topology of strange attractors."
Office: 240 Weir
Email: jsta...@nmt.edu
Phone: 575-835-5763
His boss is Chairman/Professor Stone, William D. extension 5786,
email: wds...@nmt.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Mike Smith
>On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:59:53 -0500, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>
>>>> In 2007, the deficit was 165 billion and the stock market was at 14400
>>>> in 2008 the deficit was 408 billion and the stock market was at 10200
>>>> in 2009 the deficit was 1 trillion and the stock market was at 9700
>
>Nonsense unrelated "facts"
>
BWAHAHAHAHAAHhahhAahahaha
You fuckin retard... Those facts are completely relevant to what has
happened since the socialists took control of our Congress.
Damn boy... you are one stupid liberal...
Mike Smith
Jerry Okamura
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
wrote in message news:70ltn6hj4mri9buif...@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:14:41 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>You mean all the increase in the National debt happened in the Bush years?
>Can you prove that?
Increase/Decrease National Debt
Carter -3/3%
Reagan 1 +11.3%
Reagan 2 +9.3 %
Bush +15%
Clinton -.7%
Clinton -9%
Dumbya +7%
Dumbya + 20%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
TreasuryDirect:
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
>=============================================================
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Kurtis T. Nicklas of
1293 Westbrook Ave, Elon, NC 27244-9372"
<nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>I don't pay much attention to him these days, but I'd wager he's not
>happy.
You sure as shit paid attention when you got caught
making all those late-night hang-up phone calls, didn't
ya, Nickkkkers?
CLICK ! ! !
Siobhan Medeiros
> Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
>
> STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
Yes, PBS teaches kids to read. Can't have that. They might educate
themselves and vote the conservatives out.
Siobhan Medeiros
> In article
> <e5dbba8c-e699-48cb-9c3a-c93461d6f...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 2:02 pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <e733d7a0-6627-4f7c-b410-830f671e2...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > On Mar 13, 8:45 am, Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 12, 3:44 pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <045d22cf-95ea-4ab6-b110-db9ab5cea...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 11, 10:19 pm, Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public
> > > > > > > > funding?
>
> > > > > > > > STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
>
> > > > > > > loopholes that lets them get away with paying billions of dollars
> > > > > > > less
> > > > > > > in taxes every year.
>
> > > > > > Absolutely, so they can pass those costs on to the consumer.
>
> > > > > Rats, you beat me to it.
>
> > > > Like you're saving any money now with gas and food prices and
> > > > everything else going up as they are?
>
> > > Will raising the prices save us money?
>
> > > > Meanwhile, the rich get richer with the loopholes.
>
> > > Go git you some loopholes then, amigo.
>
> > Which you inevitably end up paying for when the government has to
> > borrow more money to cover its shortfall because it lets corporations
> > get away with not paying their fair share.
>
> The term fair share is simple, but it's complex.
>
> Let's say legislation strips me of 100M profit, to fund govenrment.
>
> That results in actions to replace the income - reduced expansion, less
> hiring, layoffs, and higher prices.
>
> So fewer people working buying fewer goods that are more highly priced,
> all due to a variance of centralized economy, based on the Moore's Law
> of American money being a national, not personal resource.
>
First off, idiot, Moore's law states that computing power tends to
double every four years,
Second off, what if you take that money and build roads, schools, etc,
that make it easier for businesses over all to do business. Then you
get back more than enough jobs to make up for the ones your
billionaire lays offf - and he can't be employing that many people or
he wouldn't have that profit. Chances are, he was just hoarding it.
> This, BTW echoes commnunist and socialist ideas on private property.
>
So does brushing your teeth twice a day, your point?
> > You lose both ways, but the rich will always be rich.
>
> And the poor will always be with you. It's your job to figure out which
> side you wanna be on.
I'll stand with Jesus. You wanna be a sociopath, go ahead.
Siobhan Medeiros
>
> > wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > between the 1950s and 1970s, a period when corporate taxes were much
> > > higher than they are now. Hmm, how does that happen? High corporate
> > > taxes = wealthy middle class.
>
> > Confusionn of causation and correlation.
>
> > > And then just when you have Reagan come
> > > in to lower corporate taxes, wow! A drop in middle class income
> > > earnings relative to 1950s-70s. Gee, with two equations like that one
> > > can only arrive at one correlation: high corporate taxes = wealthy
> > > middle class, low corporate taxes = poorer middle class. Get the
> > > simple math?
>
> > Tell me once again how corporations passing tax costs on to consumers is
> > better for consumers.
>
> Sure. The middle class was at its wealthiest between the 1950s and
> 1970s, a period when corporate taxes were much
> higher than they are now. Got it yet? Hope so, because if you need
> to be told again, then that would officially make you certifiably
> stoopid from which you can't ever recover.
That boat has sailed.
Siobhan Medeiros
You wouldn't know it if it bit you.
The fact was, the middle class was richer when corporate taxes were
higher. If you can't say one caused the other, then you can't say
lower taxes lead to higher incomes, either.
>
> Did they take this money from the corporations and give it to people
> directly, or did they give the money they took from the corporation to
> the corporation in order that the workers would get raises?
Um, moron, just how would that work? The only way the government
could give them back more money then they took was if they were better
at managing their revenue. And that surely coudn't be...right?
>
> Just how did this tax money make people wealthier?
Because it forced millionaires and billionaires to actually invest
their money instead of hoard it.
Tracey12
> Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
>
> STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
Fellow Tea Party members, we must defund these orgs while we can.
There is no reason in the world for public funds to be going to
progressive political groups hiding behind other names.
wy
Public funds is from the Public, for the Public - not just for any
single self-absorbed segment of the public.
Dave Heil
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:14:41 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Can you prove that?
>
>
> Carter -3/3%
>
> Reagan 1 +11.3%
> Reagan 2 +9.3 %
>
> Bush +15%
>
> Clinton -.7%
> Clinton -9%
>
> Dumbya +7%
> Dumbya + 20%
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
>
> TreasuryDirect:
>
> 09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
> 09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
So you can make your case if you ignore the two lines above and omit any
mention of the Obama presidency? That isn't going to work out very well
for you, Yeerwojk.
Dave Heil
> On Mar 13, 3:52 pm, Dave Heil<k...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>> On 3/13/2011 18 02, Pepe Le Jew wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article
>>> <e733d7a0-6627-4f7c-b410-830f671e2...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
>>> wy<w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 12, 3:44 pm, Pepe Le Jew<Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <045d22cf-95ea-4ab6-b110-db9ab5cea...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 11, 10:19 pm, Tracey12<tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
>>
>>>>>>>> STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
>>
>>>>>>> loopholes that lets them get away with paying billions of dollars less
>>>>>>> in taxes every year.
>>
>>>>>> Absolutely, so they can pass those costs on to the consumer.
>>
>>>>> Rats, you beat me to it.
>>
>>>> Like you're saving any money now with gas and food prices and
>>>> everything else going up as they are?
>>
>>> Will raising the prices save us money?
>>
>>>> Meanwhile, the rich get richer with the loopholes.
>>
>>> Go git you some loopholes then, amigo.
>>
>> is his greatest. His toilet is frozen and his taxes are high.
>
> Ya think, huh? Let's see, why don't we? We'll keep it simple and
> compare taxes on $40,000, no deductions.
>
> Calculator A gives us: $7,005 average for Canadians.
>
> Do the math yourself: http://lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-tax
>
> Calculator B gives us: $7,635 average for Americans.
>
> Do the math yourself: http://interactive.taxfoundation.org/taxcalc/
>
> In Calculator A, 9 out of 13 provinces have taxes that are lower than
> the American average. Only two provinces go over $8,000, Manitoba
> with $8,037 and Quebec with $8,429. Being in Quebec, you'd think the
> highest tax would suck. While the $1,424 difference between it and
> the national average might seem significant, it's really not when you
> factor in something like housing rentals which are considerably lower
> in that province over others - a 1-bedroom apartment in Toronto,
> Ontario, could cost you $1,000 or more per month, in Montreal, Quebec,
> you'd be able to find them at around $600, and it's not inconceivable
> that certain areas could have them at $500. So that's a difference of
> $4,800-$6,000 on rent per year between Montreal and Toronto.
> Ontario's taxes are $6,071, but the $2,358 you pay less is completely
> negated by the $2,500+ one saves on rent in Quebec.
>
> to the calculations and then have to cough up who knows how many
> thousands extra per for their health care. Our tax bill includes
> virtually all health care. So guess who's really getting ripped off.
> It ain't me, bud. I'm sitting pretty up here and you're being sucked
> of your cash left, right and center and either don't know it or refuse
> to see it.
Well, that's loser of a comparison. It doesn't account for the real
measure of things. How many hours does the worker in each country put
in to earn his money? What other taxes are paid in each country? How
much do Canadians tired of waiting for nationalized health care pay for
private treatment? How does the Canadian GST and provincial tax compare
to U.S. sales tax rates? Skip the bafflegab about rents and such.
Rents in American vary all over the place. Many people do not rent.
Your toilet's still frozen and your taxes are still high.
Franklin Hummel
Norris = Crazy Bastard = Bob Milby Jr. of
Florida whined:
[ Blah! Blah blah, blah!!! BLAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ]
...*AND* Patriot Games jumped through my hoop yet again!!!!!!
Good little fascist that you are, Bobby, you just loved to be told
what to do by someone else.
wy
Maybe to a loser he can see the substantial difference.
> It doesn't account for the real measure of things.
> How many hours does the worker in each country put
> in to earn his money? What other taxes are paid in each country? How
> much do Canadians tired of waiting for nationalized health care pay for
> private treatment? How does the Canadian GST and provincial tax compare
> to U.S. sales tax rates? Skip the bafflegab about rents and such.
> Rents in American vary all over the place. Many people do not rent.
Oh, there you go, still not being able to see the substantial
difference.
In 2008, home ownership was 67.8% in the U.S. and 68.4% in Canada.
And with all the "high" taxes we've got, too, as well as all that free
health care for everyone. Go figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080604/dq080604a-eng.htm
Franklin Hummel
You've been moaning and groaning over in another subject thread your
started, Tracey, that "The News" hasn't been reporting the *real*
situation with regards to the nuclear plants' crisis in Japan, that
official there might be understanding the problem.
Then you got all excited and thrilled that Fox News yesterday finally
raise this issue. Like whoopie.
NPR was reporting many DAYS BEFORE your beloved Faux News after got
around to it that Japanese official might be playing down the actual
facts as to what was happening with those plants
Yes, Tracey, you fucking idiot, National Public Radio's news was
*accurately* reporting the facts days *before* your Murdock-owned
corporation Faux News made any mention of this!
Christopher Helms
In 21st century America, Capitalism is behaving less and less like an
economic system and more and more like a crack addict that breaks out
your car window and steals your radio in the middle of the night.
Tracey12
> Why should any one of the above get a single dime of public funding?
>
> STOP GIVING LEFT WING ORGS. A SINGLE PENNY!
Today is the vote! Lets hope that Republicans kill funding for NPR
today!
Next, PBS!
Tater Gumfries
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
>
> >On Mar 13, 7:03 pm, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
> >> O
>
> >How come you never write nothin worth readin?
>
> I can guarantee there are peiiople out there that are very interested
> in YOU and will find this worth reading...............
Only if they're lonely stalkers like you.
How come you and PG never tried gettin Starrett in trouble? At least
you could try to get his security clearance revoked. Damn, that would
really be somethin. You really ought to set to work on that, maybe
with that Chris Punches feller.
Tater
Buster Norris
<gumf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 14, 7:56 pm, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
>>
>> <gumfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 13, 7:03 pm, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>> >> O
>>
>> >How come you never write nothin worth readin?
>>
>> I can guarantee there are peiiople out there that are very interested
>> in YOU and will find this worth reading...............
>
>Only if they're lonely stalkers like you.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>How come you and PG never tried gettin Starrett in trouble?
Still afraid of PG, right??????
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>At least
>you could try to get his security clearance revoked.
CLan't revoke what you don't have...............
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Damn, that would
>really be somethin. You really ought to set to work on that, maybe
>with that Chris Punches feller.
That trick worked great, didn't it........??????????
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You said you weren't afraid of PG...........
You said you'd demand to know what he sent and who he sent it
to..........
But all you said was 'You didn't send nothin, blah, blah, blah.....'
You're scared of PG...........
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Salty Stan
> On Mar 14, 1:26 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
-
>
> > Didn't rich corporations funnel their income into Tax Shelters, most
> > of which Reagan removed?
>
> Yeah, and now they have tax-free off-shore accounts to funnel their
> money into.
Like Ted Kennedy's family?
Tater Gumfries
> >Damn, that would
> >really be somethin. You really ought to set to work on that, maybe
> >with that Chris Punches feller.
>
> That trick worked great, didn't it........??????????
Weren't no trick. Feller thought Tater done him wrong.
Tater
big john whine
(hth)
Patriot Games DemocRATHallofShame.Com©
And now he/she/it knows where to find you...
A public service in the name of Justice...
You're welcome...
--
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame©!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
3/8/11: Galleries Updated! Nearly 600 New Cartoons, Pics...
1/15/11: Clipboard Manager v3.x! (Still FREE!)
Greatly improved, now supports Archiving, Tools, etc!
FREE Windows® Screensavers! Muzzy Screensaver, 15Mb; DemocRAT Screensaver, 18Mb!
FREE Windows® Gadgets! Including: Bumpersticker Slideshow, Obama
Cartoon Slideshow, Take Back America 2010 & 2012!, Are DemocRATs
Ugly?, Is Helen Thomas Ugly?, Is Nancy Pelosi Ugly?, Disco Muzzy
(1 & 2)!, Obama's Lies!, "Uh-Oh! Something's Burning!", and the
Racial Slur Database.
Learn the TRUTH about: BSWS, Bob LeChevalier, Bret Cahill, Brian Wraith,
Chom Noamsky, Clams Casino, Cop Welfare, Curly Surmudgeon, Dakota,
Dave Fritzinger, David Johnston, Freestyle, Gandalf Grey, Iarnrod,
Igor, Joe Steel, Juanjo, Kevin Cunningham, Kurt Lochner, Lorad,
Lamont Cranston, Lookout, Lickin Ass' and Fakin' Names, Malcolm Abel,
Lubow, Major Debacle, Michael Coburn, Mitchel Holman, Phlip, Peter
Principle, Ramon Herrera, Ramrod, Ray Fischer, Rightardia, RobW, Rod
Speed, Roneal, Sanders Kaufman, Scotius, Sid9, SilentOtto, Siobhan
Medeiros, Snakehawk, Spike Lee, Stile4aly, Tab182, Tater Gumfries,
Tim Crowley, Tim Howard, Tom Sr.
Patriot Games DemocRATHallofShame.Com©
Yep, that's close enough to what he said...
>You're scared of PG...........
>HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In his reply he pretended like you never smacked him for it...
Yeah, he's afraid...
Too funny!!!
Buster Norris
Thought you could that on the internet, like you were special or
invisible, right????????????
Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <ta...@kernsholler.net>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterG...@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.138.19.107
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bo...@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterG...@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bo...@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.164.153
From: Baggi <BaggiBum...@gmail.com>
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.170.32
Google Profile:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=aPeBnxUAAACt8q8X_hh5lAgeZWKUTajQZk8LRyw6Fzc364xXu3mYhA
http://www.kernsholler.net
Registrant: John Starrett
3500 Clay St.
Denver, Colorado 80211
303-242-6285
Real Email: jsta...@nmt.edu
http://whois.domaintools.com/kernsholler.net
http://www.aurapiercing.com
Registrant: StarrBoard
1226 Calle de Lago
Socorro, New Mexico 87801
Administrative,
Technical Contact: Starrett, John David (Age 57)
StarrBoard
1226 Calle de Lago
Socorro, New Mexico 87801 (Home address)
575-838-0915 (Home telephone, Qwest)
Real Email: jsta...@nmt.edu
Real Email: jsta...@sdc.org
http://whois.domaintools.com/aurapiercing.com
Employer: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
--- [Courtesy of Buster Norris] --------------------------
Johnnie is in the Mathematics Dept, extension 5763.
http://www.nmt.edu/directory
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jstarret/
"I am an associate professor of mathematics at the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology. My main area of research is in
knot theory and the topology of strange attractors."
Office: 240 Weir
Email: jsta...@nmt.edu
Phone: 575-835-5763
His boss is Chairman/Professor Stone, William D. extension 5786,
email: wds...@nmt.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Salty Stan
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Salty Stan
> wealth.
>
Another poor dumb liberal faces reality:
But while the multi-millionaire Kennedy stood firmly in favor of
raising taxes on high earners across the United States, he showed a
pronounced reluctance to pay taxes on his own wealth. For many years,
Merchandise Mart, the Chicago-based real estate conglomerate that
Joseph Kennedy established in 1935, was the most valuable asset
belonging to Ted Kennedy and his family. In 1974 Joseph Kennedy
divided Merchandise Mart’s ownership among numerous family members,
including Ted, in the form of a trust that was domiciled in the
Pacific island of Fiji. Because the trust was based in Fiji, it was
not subject to the taxes normally imposed on trusts domiciled in the
United States.
As of 2005, the tax rate on U.S.-based trusts was 49 percent on
everything above the first $2 million. But as of 2005, the Kennedys,
who had transferred at least $300 million in trust funds from one
generation to another, had paid a mere $132,000 in estate taxes -- a
rate of four one-hundredths of one percent.[5] Had they set up those
trusts in the United states, they would have owed more than 7,000
times that amount in taxes.
Ted Kennedy also received additional money -- free of inheritance
taxes -- from a series of trusts that were established for him in
1926, 1936, 1978, 1987, and 1997.
Kennedy became skilled at avoiding not only inheritance taxes but also
property taxes. For example, in 1980 theChicago Tribune conducted an
investigation which found that although Merchandise Mart had a market
value of $35 million, it had been assessed at only $22.8 million by
tax assessor (and Ted Kennedy political ally) Thomas Tully. The low
assessment permitted Kennedy and his extended family to decrease their
property taxes by some $4 million over the course of two years.
Another Kennedy-owned building, Apparel Mart, received similar,
preferential consideration from the tax assessor, saving Kennedy and
his clan another several million dollars in property taxes
Slackjaw
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Salty Stan
> Kennedy's, unlike conservative greed, vote consistently to tax their
> wealth.
>
>
No, he voted to raise taxes on OTHER people's wealth, while hiding his
own off-shore.
big john whine
>
> - Show quoted text -
good ole salty stan.
i hope you follow this up with some hot info
on yer butthole buddies the Repub (AND Demo) Oil Lobby
and the Defense Contractors like Lockheed Martin.
or Martin Marietta.