Condolences to Lance, whose team almost made it
Catfish
championship series. The O's might have to wait half a decade to get there.
I have to admit that it's good to see Bonds get the monkey off his back.
He's too good a player to suffer the Ernie Banks fate.
UBQ
>
>Sorry your Cards didn't make it. At least they got a taste of a championship
series. The O's might have to wait half a decade to get there.>>>
Hah! We can only hope it takes that little time.
>I have to admit that it's good to see Bonds get the monkey off his back.
He's too good a player to suffer the Ernie Banks fate.
>
Agreed, and Bonds is one of the reasons I'm cheering for the Giants to win.
Although, I won't be too disappointed if the Angels win.
"No more boy meets girl boy loses girl
More like man tries to figure out what the hell went wrong"
- from "I'm An Adult Now", by The Pursit of Happines, written by Moe Berg
Christopher A Kirk
things I've heard about how he treats fans, teammates, opponents,
reporters, etc.
Stephen Mack
<Pine.GSO.3.96.102101...@polaris.umuc.edu>,
Christopher A Kirk <cki...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote:
> Sorry, but I really wouldn't have felt too sorry for Bonds from all the
> things I've heard about how he treats fans, teammates, opponents,
> reporters, etc.
And I'm sure you'll continue to live a happy life by swallowing
everything the media wants you to believe. I suppose if a limited
window of perception is a valid basis to judge someone by, then we can
all assume that you are unintelligent, judgemental, and incapable of
thinking for yourself.
--
Smack
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." -Publius Terentius Afer
David H.
news:161020022102188910%sm...@zzappspam.org...
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.3.96.102101...@polaris.umuc.edu>,
> Christopher A Kirk <cki...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but I really wouldn't have felt too sorry for Bonds from all the
> > things I've heard about how he treats fans, teammates, opponents,
> > reporters, etc.
>
> And I'm sure you'll continue to live a happy life by swallowing
> everything the media wants you to believe. I suppose if a limited
> window of perception is a valid basis to judge someone by, then we can
> all assume that you are unintelligent, judgemental, and incapable of
> thinking for yourself.
>
We could also argue you are just being contrary.
Figure that just a small percentage of negativity reaches the public.
The reality might be that his behavior is "worse" than we read about.
I don't have a problem giving anybody the benefit of the doubt. So, we're
left with what we read about in the sports pages and interviews.
The perception of the majority is not yours, IMO.
David H.
Post45
Post45
Catfish
"David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:aol840$o33$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> The reality might be that his behavior is "worse" than we read about.
I heard an interesting interview with Mel Antonin on WBAL last night.
He knows Bonds fairly well, and stated that the media-created perception of
Bonds is not an accurate picture of the man. He described a family-oriented
religious man who is very uncomfortable with talking about himself. The
problems with the public perception come from media people who can't get
their questions answered by Bonds.
This is just Antonin's take, of course. But it does give another side to
the story.
Stephen Mack
<dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
> "Stephen Mack" <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote in message
> news:161020022102188910%sm...@zzappspam.org...
> > In article
> > <Pine.GSO.3.96.102101...@polaris.umuc.edu>,
> > Christopher A Kirk <cki...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, but I really wouldn't have felt too sorry for Bonds from all the
> > > things I've heard about how he treats fans, teammates, opponents,
> > > reporters, etc.
> >
> > And I'm sure you'll continue to live a happy life by swallowing
> > everything the media wants you to believe. I suppose if a limited
> > window of perception is a valid basis to judge someone by, then we can
> > all assume that you are unintelligent, judgemental, and incapable of
> > thinking for yourself.
> >
>
> We could also argue you are just being contrary.
Certainly. You could take any number of my posts and form some great
misconceptions about me due to witnessing me only through a small
window. I would certainly hope there's more to YOU than what is
presented on usenet. . . ;-)
It's easy to judge people in the public eye until you realize that you
yourself might not be presented in a favorable way under the same
circumstances. No one presents his best self all the time. And if
they are, they're faking it, which makes them more suspect in my mind
than the ones who show weakness.
> The perception of the majority is not yours, IMO.
I have no illusions about that. Luckily, I no longer seek security by
aligning myself with the majority like I sometimes did as a young and
stupid kid.
David H.
Why consider yourself more mature?
You *know* it's not "young and stupid kids" that are reporting it.
I agree with you BTW.
I could understand why a slugger like Bonds would like to keep distractions
to a minimum. He is after all, an artist at his craft.
He maintains the eye and the bat speed necessary to accomplish all the
things he does. His threshold level in very low in terms of patience when
it comes to interacting with other people. That's how he probably deals
with maintaining that "zone", perhaps.
I hope he wins a ring.
David H.
Mr. PHP
<cki...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote:
>Sorry, but I really wouldn't have felt too sorry for Bonds from all the
>things I've heard about how he treats fans, teammates, opponents,
>reporters, etc.
>
Yeah! This is Bonds' last shot.. Pretty soon the steroid testing
clauses will kick in and the jig is up! I would not be surprised to
see him, if he gets his ring, to call it quits.
I'm sure he'll keep a PR flack on retainer for a few years so he can
sell shoes and breakfast cereals and such. Don't be surprised to see
lots of fluff on what a "family man" he is... LOL!
But he will still be an ass...
David Marc Nieporent
<D851FA9B3AEC3DC8.B3E90A30...@lp.airnews.net>,
Well, you've firmly established yourself as one. Things like facts and
evidence don't really seem to enter into your vocabulary, do they?
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Mr. PHP
LOL! Are you dredging for the PR job?
Stephen Mack
<dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
> "Stephen Mack" <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote in message
> news:181020022120422446%sm...@zzappspam.org...
> > In article <aol840$o33$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, David H.
> > <dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The perception of the majority is not yours, IMO.
> >
> > I have no illusions about that. Luckily, I no longer seek security by
> > aligning myself with the majority like I sometimes did as a young and
> > stupid kid.
> >
>
> Why consider yourself more mature?
Well, I make a point to know myself pretty well (I'm also not in the
majority on that, I know). I'm reasonably certain that I'm more mature
than I used to be, and that's as certain as I can be about anything.
> You *know* it's not "young and stupid kids" that are reporting it.
Well, I suppose most of them aren't young. . . ;-)
> I agree with you BTW.
> I could understand why a slugger like Bonds would like to keep distractions
> to a minimum. He is after all, an artist at his craft.
>
> He maintains the eye and the bat speed necessary to accomplish all the
> things he does. His threshold level in very low in terms of patience when
> it comes to interacting with other people. That's how he probably deals
> with maintaining that "zone", perhaps.
>
> I hope he wins a ring.
Personally, I've never been a big fan of his, for purely visceral
reasons. He's just never stirred up much emotion in me. It would be
nice to see a player of his caliber finally win one, but I'm kind of
leaning towards the Angels on this one. After all, any team that
eliminates the Yankees has my support.
That being said, once the final four was decided, I pretty much
established that I'd be alright with any of them winning.
Stephen Mack
Another wonderfully intelligent post from PHP. I wish I had your gift
of being able to know people I've never even met.
Mr. PHP
wrote:
So I'm the first person to ever call Bonds on his being a dick? Are
you serious?
Philsphans:
"Let's get one thing straight, once and for all. Barry Bonds is not
the problem with baseball. Barry Bonds did not start the sad cycle of
greed and mistrust between players and ownership that has resulted in
so many work stoppages in the past twenty-five years that baseball
fans have stopped counting them out of sheer embarrassment. Assuming
he uses them at all (a pretty safe assumption), Barry Bonds did not
pioneer the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in
the game. For all the tales of his clubhouse behavior, Barry Bonds did
not start the idea that superstar players of extraordinary ability get
treated differently any more than the late Dale Earnhardt created the
reality that stock car drivers who win a lot of races get away with
driving more aggressively. Bonds certainly didn't start the trend of
grown men being paid obscene amounts of money to play a child's game.
So why is Barry Bonds widely reviled in baseball circles? Why is he
the first person people look to when they are looking to take a pound
of flesh out of the national pastime?"
---
Hmmm! I bet HE never met Bonds either! And all these people he is
talking about who "revile" him... I bet THEY never met Bonds.
And these "tales of his clubhouse behavior" are, of course, all false
right? Bonds is just misunderstood right? Want some more?
---
REPLAY: "...Bonds' relationship with the press took a turn for the
worse May 9, when he shoved USA Today baseball writer Rod Beaton..."
---
REPLAY: "... Yet even Mays recognizes that his godson has an attitude.
A TV crew asks Mays to intercede for them in getting Bonds to answer
questions about a new stadium in San Francisco. "Not Barry - Barry's
in his own (bleeping) world,'' Mays says."
---
REPLAY: "...Bonds heard it from the 9,000 or so fans who were at
Candlestick. Then after the game, here is what Barry Bonds, ambassador
of the game, great healer, had to say for himself:
"I don't care what [the fans] think. They ain't out here."
Bonds is fine if he stops here. It would have been a nice short
answer, obviously the kind he likes. The fans aren't on the field, at
least not lately. They also aren't in the ballpark.
But Bonds didn't stop. He went right ahead and gave one of those long
answers he didn't have time to give in New York and, before he was
through, he sounded as if the old rock that had gone over his head in
leftfield had hit him in the head instead.
"They don't really know what's going on out there," Barry Bonds
continued. "If you're better than me, you can come out here and put my
uniform on and do it."
Bonds is another one who is a product of his time in baseball. He
thinks talent is enough, and always has. He will make his money
whether the fans come back to the ballpark or not, even if the
problems in his sport are not healed until his career is over. When he
should be selling the game harder than ever, he says that he doesn't
care what the fans think. He must look around at the empty seats night
after night, city after city, and somehow think the fans are all stuck
in the same traffic jam."
---
Sure.. I'm the only one...
David H
Now *that* ought to shut Smack's pie-hole...at least for a few moments. ;^)
--
David Hageman
What shall I love, if not the enigma?
"Don't argue with 'em dear, they're beneath our dignity". W.C. Fields
"Mr. PHP" <radio...@invisible.com> wrote in message
news:5CB4FFFFEAE270EC.9EF69B49...@lp.airnews.net...
Catfish
"Mr. PHP" <radio...@invisible.com> wrote in message
news:5CB4FFFFEAE270EC.9EF69B49...@lp.airnews.net...
> Hmmm! I bet HE never met Bonds either! And all these people he is
> talking about who "revile" him... I bet THEY never met Bonds.
> And these "tales of his clubhouse behavior" are, of course, all false
> right? Bonds is just misunderstood right? Want some more?
I have never met Barry Bonds, and I am not a fan of the Giants, or Angels.
I don't have an axe to grind either way.
However, I will step up and defend him from some of these attacks, which
come from nameless sports writers.
I mentioned Mel Antonin in a previous post, who stated on WBAL that Bonds
was not the person some writes make him out to be, and then offered
conjecture as to why they would write the articles. Here are some other
voices:
San Jose Business Journal, Aug 31 2001, Netta Conyers Haynes, author:
"When not in pursuit of his next home run, San Francisco Giants outfielder
Barry Bonds dedicates his time to the Barry Bonds Family Foundation, which
he started in 1994. The foundation, headed by his mother, Pat Bonds,
supports activities and programs to improve education and quality of life
for the Bay Area's African-American youths.
Mr. Bonds' works have expanded to other outreach programs, among them:
The Barry Bonds Bone Marrow Campaign, which registers 3,000
African-Americans as potential bone marrow donors and raises money for
families affected by leukemia and other blood-related diseases.
Link 'n Learn, co-sponsored by the United Way of the Bay Area, establishing
onsite after-school learning centers at eight public schools and four
community centers.
The Bonds Private School Scholarship Fund, awarding scholarships to
disadvantaged students in kindergarten through eighth grade.
During a time when many organizations and companies alike suffer from a
decelerating economy, the Barry Bonds foundations continue to support other
charities such as the United Negro College Fund, Adopt a Special Kid and the
Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital. "
AP article, Aug 5, 2002, Greg Beacham, author:
"Barry Bonds spent days and nights by his father's bedside while he was in
the hospital this summer. He didn't homer while his father was hospitalized,
but the day his father was released, Bonds hit No. 595 against Arizona's
Randy Johnson."
National Review Online, OCt 18, 2002 Alan W. Bock, author:
"Having known a few over a 20-year-plus newspaper career, I can attest that
while sportswriters are generally decent sorts, they expect players to cater
to them and are prone to turn on players who don't, perhaps not even
completely consciously. If a player isn't especially cordial with them,
being human, they are more likely to give credence to rumors that others
don't like him.
I sat next to some people from Riverside (close to Elsinore) who said they
were relatives of Barry, who was born and raised in Riverside. They argued,
without much bitterness, that Barry is basically shy and often is not quite
sure what to say when he's on the spot in a public situation. He also
believes that his performance on the field, not how well he plays the game
with sportswriters and others, should be the measure of his contribution.
To me, there's a certain measure of personal integrity (though it might be
somewhat misguided in this media-saturated age) in that attitude. I have no
idea if I would like Barry Bonds or if he would like me. But I admire him
almost as much for his stubbornness and disdain of the PR game as for his
baseball abilities. He has certainly paid a price for it over the years. "
So the stories about Barry are not all one-sided views of an arrogant ass.
Some writers don't like him, so they take it out on him where they can. No
one should be surprised by this. After all, Eddie Murray got the same
treatment from some media types right here in Orioleland.
What we can do is not mindlessly repeat the crap that gets published without
doing a little thinking. Is it really true? Does the writer have another
motivation?
I think that some of the posters in this forum have either not thought this
through, or are letting some other motivation drive the rants. Calling him
an ass, and making the unsubstantiated claim that he is on steroids is a
reflection on the poster, not on Barry.
David Marc Nieporent
<5CB4FFFFEAE270EC.9EF69B49...@lp.airnews.net>,
Mr. PHP <radio...@invisible.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 19:03:56 -0400, Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote:
>>Mr. PHP <radio...@invisible.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah! This is Bonds' last shot.. Pretty soon the steroid testing
>>> clauses will kick in and the jig is up! I would not be surprised to
>>> see him, if he gets his ring, to call it quits.
>>> I'm sure he'll keep a PR flack on retainer for a few years so he can
>>> sell shoes and breakfast cereals and such. Don't be surprised to see
>>> lots of fluff on what a "family man" he is... LOL!
>>> But he will still be an ass...
>>Another wonderfully intelligent post from PHP. I wish I had your gift
>>of being able to know people I've never even met.
>So I'm the first person to ever call Bonds on his being a dick? Are
>you serious?
So your defense is, "Everyone else is doing it"? If all your friends (*)
jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?
Everyone said wonderful things about Kirby Puckett. Now, in the past year,
two women have accused him of assault. There's a lesson here: you don't
know players. Reading about them in the paper or listening to talk radio
doesn't mean you have insights into their character. You know what
reporters want you to know.
(*) Assuming you have any.
Stephen Mack
<5CB4FFFFEAE270EC.9EF69B49...@lp.airnews.net>,
Mr. PHP <radio...@invisible.com> wrote:
> So I'm the first person to ever call Bonds on his being a dick? Are
> you serious?
<snip>
> Sure.. I'm the only one...
I don't recall saying you are the only one. There are many, many
people who act judgemental and unintelligent. Take responsibility for
yourself instead of hiding behind some sportswriters.
I find it very odd that your defense is that you're not the only one,
and then in your attack against Bonds you use an article that
repeatedly says that Bonds is not the only one to do all the crap you
hold against him. Well, is not being the only one justification or
not?
David H.
"Stephen Mack" <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote in message
news:201020021525001561%sm...@zzappspam.org...
> In article
> <5CB4FFFFEAE270EC.9EF69B49...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Mr. PHP <radio...@invisible.com> wrote:
>
> > So I'm the first person to ever call Bonds on his being a dick? Are
> > you serious?
>
> <snip>
>
> > Sure.. I'm the only one...
>
> I don't recall saying you are the only one. There are many, many
> people who act judgemental and unintelligent. Take responsibility for
> yourself instead of hiding behind some sportswriters.
>
> I find it very odd that your defense is that you're not the only one,
> and then in your attack against Bonds you use an article that
> repeatedly says that Bonds is not the only one to do all the crap you
> hold against him. Well, is not being the only one justification or
> not?
>
Why don't you get a life, Smack?
He implies that his opinion on Bonds is based upon countless writers
speaking about episodes that shed a lot of negativity on Bonds.
This, he says, is "proof" that he didn't just decide to make it up regarding
Bonds' reputation.
You decide to take the opinion that whatever one reads about Bonds doesn't
matter because you haven't experienced any firsthand accounts.
Gee! Maybe Saddam Hussein is really a nice man, according to your
instincts.
David H.
Mr. PHP
Taking this personal huh David? Jeez! LOL!
Yes! I have friends. None of them are sportwriters though!
Maybe you worship the ground Bonds walks on, and that's fine if
that's what you want to do. It is just a fact that alot of
sportwriters (and others) have had problems with Bonds over the years.
I would not prefer to get aports info from sportwriters and
broadcasters, but alas! there isn't much information about sports in
the Wall Street Journal or on Tech TV.
Bonds has a history. If it was just one or two writers we could all
dismiss it out of hand but there is alot of stuff out there.
I thought Cal was pretty arrogant for not staying with the team when
Os were on the road. But I don't ever recall Cal shoving reporters
around in the locker room...
And don't take it personal!
It's just a game...
Mr. PHP
I agree to a point. Not all the "crap" that is printed is false. Some
of it is true. Maybe most of it is true... or false. But what else do
we have to go on?
We all have perception and we use it based on what we see and hear. I
don't think that sportswriters and broadcasters, especially in this
age of political correctness, would report negative info about Bonds
just because they were refused an interview or got stood up for a
appointment, even on more than one occassion.
However, things add up over the years. Bonds has become a
controversial figure and that is not my fault. And I am not the only
person to have doubts about Bonds' claim that he does not juice.
He could pee in a cup and nip those questions in the bud! But he
didn't.....
As for all the charity work you mentioned....
There are some IRS rules that you can only transfer a certain amount
of money to family members each year without paying some pretty stiff
taxes. So... what you do is set up a 501 org and put your ( insert
family member ) in charge of the org and pay them a healthy salary
well over the gift rate. Neat huh? And donations to the 501 org are
tax deductable! Cool!
So he pays mother to run his little charity and he gets to deduct a
portion of the payments from his taxes instead of giving an outright
gift $$$ to dear ole' mum that would otherwise be taxed.
All out of the goodness of his heart, of course...
Everyone knows that people who make millions of dollars every year do
everything they can to pay the maximum amount of taxes LOL!
That is not a bad thing, I think it is very smart! Good for him! But
don't try to put alot of stock into the gracious heart of Bonds. If I
was him, I would to the very same thing!
I never said he was stupid...
Mr. PHP
wrote:
Hell! Even Yassar Arafat got the Nobel Prize!
ROFLMAO
Quixotoes
The man is a mediocre left fielder, a diffident base runner, and a complete and
total asshole.
I HAVE covered sports, and in a locker room, as in your own offices, there are
mostly decent folks who understand that the job is more than just what you are
assigned. Most people are pleasant. It is the concept of customer service, and
a professional athlete has *some* responsibility to the customer. Since fans
are not allowed in locker rooms (except gamblers and dope dealers), the press
serves as a surrogate for the public.
So if Bonds pushes reporters around, tells them to fuck off and otherwise acts
like a punk, then he is failing to live up to part of of his job
responsibility. Yeah, I'd still bat him fourth if I were his manager and I'd
still pitch around him if I were the opposing manager.
But the resident curmudgeon here ought to get off his anti-press bandwagon. Not
ALL reporters can be wrong ALL the time.
As an aside, I did cover sports. in 1970, and I can tell you that one reason
Pete Rose never got the support he thought he deserved is that he was an
asshole in private. It is the same reason, in reverse, that Brooks Robinson is
a Hall of Famer.
In the long run, an athlete -- or a politician, for that matter -- gets the
press he/she deserves.
Q
Catfish
> I don't think that sportswriters and broadcasters, especially in this
> age of political correctness, would report negative info about Bonds
> just because they were refused an interview or got stood up for a
> appointment, even on more than one occassion.
Sure they would. Look at Jim Rome for an example of how "reporters" will
attack players to make a name for themselves.
> However, things add up over the years. Bonds has become a
> controversial figure and that is not my fault. And I am not the only
> person to have doubts about Bonds' claim that he does not juice.
> He could pee in a cup and nip those questions in the bud! But he
> didn't.....
Why should he have to? You know what...I think you are a cocaine addict and
steroid abuser. Prove to me that you are not by peeing in a cup, at a place
I will determine.
So, is what I am asking fair or reasonable? Why not?
> As for all the charity work you mentioned....
>
> There are some IRS rules that you can only transfer a certain amount
> of money to family members each year without paying some pretty stiff
> taxes. So... what you do is set up a 501 org and put your ( insert
> family member ) in charge of the org and pay them a healthy salary
> well over the gift rate. Neat huh? And donations to the 501 org are
> tax deductable! Cool!
> So he pays mother to run his little charity and he gets to deduct a
> portion of the payments from his taxes instead of giving an outright
> gift $$$ to dear ole' mum that would otherwise be taxed.
>
> All out of the goodness of his heart, of course...
You have no idea how much his mother is paid to run the charity, or how much
work she does for it. It may or may not be set up as a tax dodge, and we
have no evidence either way about that.
We do know, however, that she is not getting a bone marrow transplant,
learning after school , getting a scholarship to a private school, being
adopted as a special kid, being treated at the DiMaggio Children's Hospital,
or getting help from the UNCF. However, hundreds of kids are, through
Bonds' money, who would not have gotten the help without the cash.
It is not my intent to be an apologist for Bonds. However, when the guy is
getting trashed by some of the media, and that is the only part of the story
being related, I will speak out. As I mentioned before, Eddie got run out
of town on a rail because media types didn't like his attitude. Yet
no-hitting, immobile shortstops like Bordick get praised because they play
the game with the media. Doesn't seem quite right to me.
ala...@junk.min.net
10/21/02
> Bonds has a history. If it was just one or two writers we could all
>dismiss it out of hand but there is alot of stuff out there. I thought
>Cal was pretty arrogant for not staying with the team when Os were on the
>road. But I don't ever recall Cal shoving reporters around in the locker
>room...
Cal didn't stay with the team because he was always inundated by reporters
and fans, and neither he nor the rest of the team appreciated that when
they were trying to rest in their hotel. By staying in a separate,
unnamed p;ace, both Cal and his teammates got peace.
Alan
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Please remove .no.junk from my address to reply via e-mail. ***
Posted by al...@min.net using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Mack
<dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
> Why don't you get a life, Smack?
>
> He implies that his opinion on Bonds is based upon countless writers
> speaking about episodes that shed a lot of negativity on Bonds.
>
> This, he says, is "proof" that he didn't just decide to make it up regarding
> Bonds' reputation.
>
> You decide to take the opinion that whatever one reads about Bonds doesn't
> matter because you haven't experienced any firsthand accounts.
I have the opinion that people shouldn't judge other people based on
what the media wants them to believe. From what I can tell, Roger
Maris was a pretty good guy, and Mickey Mantle was throwing up before
games because he was hungover and not because of a 'stomach flu.' But
that's not what the media would've had people believe at the time.
> Gee! Maybe Saddam Hussein is really a nice man, according to your
> instincts.
I really don't give a crap whether or not Saddam Hussein is a nice man
or not. I don't plan on inviting him over for dinner any time soon, so
it's not relevant to me. The issue at hand is whether he presents a
clear threat to the American people, and whether that threat would be
best - or at all - resolved by a 'unilateral pre-emptive strike.' At
this point, there appears to be much more evidence that Bonds is an
asshole than there is of that.
David Marc Nieporent
<5AD062886F64A651.2E880DBE...@lp.airnews.net>,
Mr. PHP <radio...@invisible.com> wrote:
> However, things add up over the years. Bonds has become a
>controversial figure and that is not my fault. And I am not the only
>person to have doubts about Bonds' claim that he does not juice.
>He could pee in a cup and nip those questions in the bud! But he
>didn't.....
Actually, that wouldn't nip anything in the bud. Unless you showed up at
his house unannounced, so that he had no time to prepare, it wouldn't prove
anything.
Mr. PHP
<mdd...@nospameclipsetel.com> wrote:
>
>"Mr. PHP" <radio...@invisible.com> wrote in message
>news:5AD062886F64A651.2E880DBE...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>> I don't think that sportswriters and broadcasters, especially in this
>> age of political correctness, would report negative info about Bonds
>> just because they were refused an interview or got stood up for a
>> appointment, even on more than one occassion.
>
>Sure they would. Look at Jim Rome for an example of how "reporters" will
>attack players to make a name for themselves.
>
Oh! Yeah! The famous "Chris" Everett interview. LOL!
Still, I stand by my original point. In this PC age, reporters aren't
going to do negative stories on Bonds without a good reason to do so.
>> However, things add up over the years. Bonds has become a
>> controversial figure and that is not my fault. And I am not the only
>> person to have doubts about Bonds' claim that he does not juice.
>> He could pee in a cup and nip those questions in the bud! But he
>> didn't.....
>
>Why should he have to? You know what...I think you are a cocaine addict and
>steroid abuser. Prove to me that you are not by peeing in a cup, at a place
>I will determine.
>So, is what I am asking fair or reasonable? Why not?
>
OK! If you pay for the test I'll pee in the cup. I did it the Army
all the time. Nobody will care because I'm not a public figure and I
don't have a lot of people suspecting me of using steroids.
One also must consider the timing of claims by former baseball
players while Bonds was bashing his way into history. Sure, they may
have an axe to grind (like a former Oakland A who we all know used the
stuff!), but after so many stories one has to wonder.
>
>> As for all the charity work you mentioned....
>>
>> There are some IRS rules that you can only transfer a certain amount
>> of money to family members each year without paying some pretty stiff
>> taxes. So... what you do is set up a 501 org and put your ( insert
>> family member ) in charge of the org and pay them a healthy salary
>> well over the gift rate. Neat huh? And donations to the 501 org are
>> tax deductable! Cool!
>> So he pays mother to run his little charity and he gets to deduct a
>> portion of the payments from his taxes instead of giving an outright
>> gift $$$ to dear ole' mum that would otherwise be taxed.
>>
>> All out of the goodness of his heart, of course...
>
>You have no idea how much his mother is paid to run the charity, or how much
>work she does for it. It may or may not be set up as a tax dodge, and we
>have no evidence either way about that.
Well, you're allowed to give around $5,000 per year to family members
before the IRS taxes kick in. I bet she makes more than that.
>We do know, however, that she is not getting a bone marrow transplant,
>learning after school , getting a scholarship to a private school, being
>adopted as a special kid, being treated at the DiMaggio Children's Hospital,
>or getting help from the UNCF. However, hundreds of kids are, through
>Bonds' money, who would not have gotten the help without the cash.
>
Trust me! I think this is a MUCH more effective use of Bonds money
than giving it to the imperial-federal goverment so the bureaucrats
in D.C. can take their cut off the top! More money goes to the people
who need it most.
This is NOT a tax dodge, it is a very legal and wise use of income to
keep the governments' hands off of it! Many high income earners do the
same thing. The top five per cent are paying over %50 of the tax
burden as it is!!!
Just remember that when you hear about some high-paid celebrity
making lots of noise about their new "charity" or "foundation" there
is more than one reason for it. The accountants tell them to set up
the charities. It's up to the person with the money to decide where to
put it. Bonds deserves credit for picking some good causes and not the
whacky ones some of these Hollywood types tend to go for...
>It is not my intent to be an apologist for Bonds. However, when the guy is
>getting trashed by some of the media, and that is the only part of the story
>being related, I will speak out. As I mentioned before, Eddie got run out
>of town on a rail because media types didn't like his attitude. Yet
>no-hitting, immobile shortstops like Bordick get praised because they play
>the game with the media. Doesn't seem quite right to me.
>
There are two side to every story. I think Ted Williams got shafted
by the Boston media (but the fact that Sears, THE major national
retail chain at the time, used him to endorse everything in their
Sporting Goods department for about 20 years shows that he was admired
everywhere else!). It has been open season on Ty Cobb in the media for
some time now.
I agree that Eddie got a raw deal. However, I also remember Eddie
dogging it at first a few times and also not running out grounders
more than once. That may have been after the damage in Baltimore had
already been done however... I can't remember. I also have always
wondered if him and Frank Robinson did not get along that well....
And Bordick? Well, Bordick can't hit, but he is a great defensive
shortstop. He's old school.. After Cal came along the position changed
(Thanks to Earl!). Now we have Nomar, ARod, and that guy
for the Yankee$.
Mr. PHP
Aaaahhhhh! Flashback!
They used to roust us out of bed at about 5 am in the Army to stand
around for hours to pee in the cup!
You never knew when they were gonna do it either. It always seemed to
be the morning after the ONE night of the month you stayed out 'till 2
am slamming beers and shooters and (even sometimes) getting lucky!
Oh! Yeah! I can see these superstars going for THAT! LOL!
Through the gated entrance drives the "Official MLB Piss Limo" (a
yellow one of course!) and rings the butler at 5 am.
"Sir?"
"Yes. I'm with MLB and it is time for Mr. Superstar to pee in this
plastic cup."
"One moment sir."
... about an hour passes...
"I have been instructed to tell you to get lost, to put it politely
sir."
LOL!
Mr. PHP
Well said Q!
Mr. PHP
>In <79ED527AF88AFA9B.5E114090...@lp.airnews.net>, on
>10/21/02
> at 02:37 AM, Mr. PHP <radio...@invisible.com> said:
>
>> Bonds has a history. If it was just one or two writers we could all
>>dismiss it out of hand but there is alot of stuff out there. I thought
>>Cal was pretty arrogant for not staying with the team when Os were on the
>>road. But I don't ever recall Cal shoving reporters around in the locker
>>room...
>
>Cal didn't stay with the team because he was always inundated by reporters
>and fans, and neither he nor the rest of the team appreciated that when
>they were trying to rest in their hotel. By staying in a separate,
>unnamed p;ace, both Cal and his teammates got peace.
>
>
>Alan
I have always wondered when that started. It was only mentioned later
in his career. As he approached the "streak" I can understand. But
when did that start? I now have to wonder about other "superstars." Is
Nomar staying at a seperate five star hotel? What about some of those
Yankee$?
Hell! ARod must stay in a different area code!
David Marc Nieporent
quix...@aol.com (Quixotoes) wrote:
>How about dickhead Bonds running himself into a doubleplay last night, huh?
>The man is a mediocre left fielder, a diffident base runner, and a complete and
>total asshole.
I admit I'm a big fan of Weaver baseball, rather than little ball, but I've
never seen someone so fanatically fundamentalist about station-to-station
baseball as Ted. If you learned something about baseball, you'd understand
that outs on the bases are not a sign of stupidity. They're not
necessarily a sign of bad baserunning.
>I HAVE covered sports, and in a locker room, as in your own offices, there are
>mostly decent folks who understand that the job is more than just what you are
>assigned. Most people are pleasant. It is the concept of customer service, and
>a professional athlete has *some* responsibility to the customer. Since fans
>are not allowed in locker rooms (except gamblers and dope dealers), the press
>serves as a surrogate for the public.
That's a good one, Ted. If that's what helps you sleep at night, keep
telling yourself that. But it ain't true. The press represents nobody but
themselves.
>So if Bonds pushes reporters around, tells them to fuck off and otherwise acts
>like a punk, then he is failing to live up to part of of his job
>responsibility. Yeah, I'd still bat him fourth if I were his manager and I'd
>still pitch around him if I were the opposing manager.
>But the resident curmudgeon here ought to get off his anti-press bandwagon. Not
>ALL reporters can be wrong ALL the time.
Well, actually, they could, particularly but not exclusively when they have
an agenda. It's not the beat reporters that take cheap shots at Bonds,
after all; it's columnists. Most of them are too lazy to do their own work
anyway, and just parrot the company line.
>As an aside, I did cover sports. in 1970, and I can tell you that one reason
>Pete Rose never got the support he thought he deserved is that he was an
>asshole in private. It is the same reason, in reverse, that Brooks Robinson is
>a Hall of Famer.
>In the long run, an athlete -- or a politician, for that matter -- gets the
>press he/she deserves.
Or, to put it another way, in the long run a sports "reporter" gets the
treatment from athletes that he/she deserves. If you harass Bonds when he
doesn't want to be interviewed, call him names, make up idiocies about how
he's a "choker," then you're failing to live up to your job
responsibilities.
Mr. PHP
wrote:
>In article <aovfva$sa2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, David H.
><dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you get a life, Smack?
>>
>> He implies that his opinion on Bonds is based upon countless writers
>> speaking about episodes that shed a lot of negativity on Bonds.
>>
>> This, he says, is "proof" that he didn't just decide to make it up regarding
>> Bonds' reputation.
yep!
>>
>> You decide to take the opinion that whatever one reads about Bonds doesn't
>> matter because you haven't experienced any firsthand accounts.
>
>I have the opinion that people shouldn't judge other people based on
>what the media wants them to believe. From what I can tell, Roger
>Maris was a pretty good guy, and Mickey Mantle was throwing up before
>games because he was hungover and not because of a 'stomach flu.' But
>that's not what the media would've had people believe at the time.
>
Roger was a good guy! Mickey was VERY talented and loved to party! It
was the New York media driving all the "controversy."
>> Gee! Maybe Saddam Hussein is really a nice man, according to your
>> instincts.
>
>I really don't give a crap whether or not Saddam Hussein is a nice man
>or not. I don't plan on inviting him over for dinner any time soon, so
>it's not relevant to me. The issue at hand is whether he presents a
>clear threat to the American people, and whether that threat would be
>best - or at all - resolved by a 'unilateral pre-emptive strike.' At
>this point, there appears to be much more evidence that Bonds is an
>asshole than there is of that.
Hmm... maybe a drop of nerve gas could cure you of that, but your
spastic corpse would not be able to admit the mistake. VX and Sarin is
nasty stuff. You should see what a very tiny drop of this stuff can
do. First you start to sweat and drool. Then your vision gets a little
blurry. By the time you realise that you have pissed and shit your
pants you have started uncontrolled shaking in your hands. Of course
by then your internal organs have already started to shut down. You
are already dead, of course, but the bad thing is that you know it and
there is absolutely NOTHING you can do about it. You fold up and fall
down and do a nice little uncontrolled break-dance on the ground
without music. A bubbly-white foam comes out of your mouth and then
the death rattle. If you're lucky you have made your peace with God
because he's the only one who can help you now!
Bye Bye! Time for the dirt nap!
Don't even get me started on the nukes!
Sorry folks! but it is ugly!
Maybe its just me, but when I hear chants of "Death to America!" I
tend to become uncomfortable with the idea that these folks get NBCs.
Anyway, it's your head and you can stick it in the sand if you want.
David H
;^)
--
David Hageman
What shall I love, if not the enigma?
"Don't argue with 'em dear, they're beneath our dignity". W.C. Fields
<ala...@junk.min.net> wrote in message
news:3db47b53$1$nynaurff$mr2...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com...
David H
Oh, just like Saint Thomas (Doubting Thomas).
Unless you personally had gone over there and witnessed the hundreds of
thousands of his citizens that he killed with poison gas, you'll give him a
pass.
LOL! You and Jimmy Carter.
David H.
Stephen Mack
<dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
> Unless you personally had gone over there and witnessed the hundreds of
> thousands of his citizens that he killed with poison gas, you'll give him a
> pass.
No, I won't give him a pass. But how sending our soldiers to die and
kill Iraqi civilians is going to help the situation is something that
is totally beyond me, I guess. There are thousands of regime
overthrows that have taken place without the U.S. dropping bombs on a
country. I don't see why war is treated like the first resort, rather
than the last one. And I also consider it extremely questionable (at
best) that it's the Iraqi citizens that Bush is concerned with.
Meanwhile, what happened to Osama bin Laden? Wasn't he supposed to be
our #1 threat?
Stephen Mack
<903A258692C52C48.64E38A56...@lp.airnews.net>,
Mr. PHP <radio...@invisible.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:28:20 -0400, Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <aovfva$sa2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, David H.
> ><dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Why don't you get a life, Smack?
> >>
> >> He implies that his opinion on Bonds is based upon countless writers
> >> speaking about episodes that shed a lot of negativity on Bonds.
> >>
> >> This, he says, is "proof" that he didn't just decide to make it up
> >> regarding
> >> Bonds' reputation.
>
> yep!
>
> >>
> >> You decide to take the opinion that whatever one reads about Bonds doesn't
> >> matter because you haven't experienced any firsthand accounts.
> >
> >I have the opinion that people shouldn't judge other people based on
> >what the media wants them to believe. From what I can tell, Roger
> >Maris was a pretty good guy, and Mickey Mantle was throwing up before
> >games because he was hungover and not because of a 'stomach flu.' But
> >that's not what the media would've had people believe at the time.
> >
>
> Roger was a good guy! Mickey was VERY talented and loved to party! It
> was the New York media driving all the "controversy."
Exactly.
I have a very difficult time believing that U.S. aggression in foreign
lands has ever prevented terrorism towards the U.S. On the other hand,
it's very easy to believe that U.S. aggression in foreign lands has
PROVOKED terrorism towards the U.S. I'm much more afraid of the
ramifications that a pre-emptive strike would bring than the
ramifications of other means.
But if you and Bush want to peddle your fear-tactics and ignore
rational thought (I wonder if anyone in politics has bothered to ask
the question WHY the rest of the world is against such an action), then
by all means go ahead. Nukes and nerve gas may only be the beginning.
Post45
<< The top five per cent are paying over %50 of the tax
burden as it is!!! >>
The top 5 percent of what ?
Exactly what "tax burden" are you referring to ?
Federal Income ? Social Security ?State and local income and/or sales ?
The reason I ask is this :
If the top 5 percent pay 50 percent of the tax burden, then one could wonder:
well, what if the top 10-20 percent paid 100 percent of the tax burden. Then
80-90 percent of the population would pay 0 percent of the tax burden.
It is THE FREAKING MIDDLE CLASS THAT WORKS IT"S ASS OFF EVERY FREAKIN DAY THAT
PAYS FOR THE EMPIRE..not the top 5 percent..please think about it a little more
and get back to me ;-)
Post45
David Marc Nieporent
>> Unless you personally had gone over there and witnessed the hundreds of
>> thousands of his citizens that he killed with poison gas, you'll give him a
>> pass.
>No, I won't give him a pass. But how sending our soldiers to die and
>kill Iraqi civilians is going to help the situation is something that
>is totally beyond me, I guess. There are thousands of regime
>overthrows that have taken place without the U.S. dropping bombs on a
>country.
But not this one, obviously, or it would have happened already. People
tried overthrowing him -- with our encouragement, in fact. They failed.
>I don't see why war is treated like the first resort, rather
>than the last one.
It _is_ being treated like the last resort. All other resorts have been,
well, resorted to.
> And I also consider it extremely questionable (at
>best) that it's the Iraqi citizens that Bush is concerned with.
They're secondary; American citizens are first.
>Meanwhile, what happened to Osama bin Laden? Wasn't he supposed to be
>our #1 threat?
We dropped lots of bombs on him. He's dead.
Mr. PHP
NOTE: -------- OFF TOPIC -------------------
-------- OFF TOPIC -------------------
On 23 Oct 2002 02:29:48 GMT, pos...@aol.com (Post45) wrote:
>Mr. PHP writes :
>
><< The top five per cent are paying over %50 of the tax
>burden as it is!!! >>
>
>The top 5 percent of what ?
>
>Exactly what "tax burden" are you referring to ?
>
>Federal Income ? Social Security ?State and local income and/or sales ?
I was talking about the IRS so we are talking federal taxes.
For 1999 (in quintiles) The share of Taxes to the Imperial Federal
Government:
(From the CBO)
The top %20 (avg income $132,000) paid about %79 of taxes
The fourth %20 (avg $53,000) paid about %16
The third %20 (avg $35,400) paid about %7
The second%20 (avg $21,200) paid about %1
The bottom %20 (avg $8,400) paid about % - 2
The Top %1 paid about %29 of taxes
The Top %5 paid about %50 of taxes
The Top %10 paid about %63 of taxes
>
>The reason I ask is this :
>
>If the top 5 percent pay 50 percent of the tax burden, then one could wonder:
>well, what if the top 10-20 percent paid 100 percent of the tax burden. Then
>80-90 percent of the population would pay 0 percent of the tax burden.
>
The politicians are working very hard to try to make that happen!
As you can see, the bottom %20 are not paying taxes at all. They are
getting welfare payments from the government in the form of Earned
Income (LOL) Tax Credits, grants, subsidies, etc...
The bottom %40 pays LESS than $0 in taxes.
The top %40 pays almost all the taxes.
>It is THE FREAKING MIDDLE CLASS THAT WORKS IT"S ASS OFF EVERY FREAKIN DAY THAT
>PAYS FOR THE EMPIRE..not the top 5 percent..please think about it a little more
>and get back to me ;-)
Sorry, but you are wrong. The middle simply does not make enough money
to pay for all the government programs. In fact, politicians want to
make sure the top %40 pays all the taxes. That way, they can be
assured that they will ALWAYS have the support of the other %60.
>
>Post45
>
>
>
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their consciences."
-- C.S. Lewis
David Marc Nieporent
<6409FDF03C0D20E4.F2DFEF23...@lp.airnews.net>,
Mr. PHP <radio...@invisible.com> wrote:
>I was talking about the IRS so we are talking federal taxes.
Apparently not. You seem to be ignoring a huge share of taxes -- payroll
taxes.
Mr. PHP
wrote:
Maybe the "death" thing got lost in the translation. They don't want
to negotiate with you, they want to kill you. You want aggression? How
about hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings? How about
suicide bombing pizza joints and nightclubs? That's pretty aggressive
if you ask me. How do you begin to negotiate with people willing to
kill themselves to blow you (and themselves) into dogfood?
You have two choices:
A - You can become a devout muslim out to destroy the jews for Jihad.
B - You can die.
What do you want to do? Pick A or B. These radicals don't have the
wildly popular "All of the above" or "None of the Above" options.
Haven't you figured that out yet? What in the hell does it take?
You can't honestly think that there is room for discussion can you?
>
>But if you and Bush want to peddle your fear-tactics and ignore
>rational thought (I wonder if anyone in politics has bothered to ask
>the question WHY the rest of the world is against such an action), then
>by all means go ahead. Nukes and nerve gas may only be the beginning.
I would think that watching the WTC collapse before your eyes would
equate to a fear tactic. Anyway, maybe you could lead a "Peace March"
with your buddies into the Middle East demanding freedom of religion
and freedom of speech. You could go in waving flowers and singing
"Give Peace a Chance." Maybe the entire Muslim world see your "reason"
and decide that killing non-Muslims is not a good idea after all...
ROFLMAO
Of course, the radical Muslims and the ACLU do agree on one thing and
that is that the Bible should not be allowed anywhere in public life.
The only difference is that the Saudis behead people with Bibles. The
ACLU only wishes they could...
David H
Sheesh!!
For such a self-proclaimed deep thinker you claim to be....you know Jack
Sh*t. ;^)
David H.
David H
> In article
>
> I have a very difficult time believing that U.S. aggression in foreign
> lands has ever prevented terrorism towards the U.S. On the other hand,
> it's very easy to believe that U.S. aggression in foreign lands has
> PROVOKED terrorism towards the U.S. I'm much more afraid of the
> ramifications that a pre-emptive strike would bring than the
> ramifications of other means.
>
> But if you and Bush want to peddle your fear-tactics and ignore
> rational thought (I wonder if anyone in politics has bothered to ask
> the question WHY the rest of the world is against such an action), then
> by all means go ahead. Nukes and nerve gas may only be the beginning.
>
>
The enemy of America and Western Civilization is Islam.
Three generations since 1948 have been poisoned with anti-Jewish,
anti-American rhetoric propaganda since they took their 1st step as babies.
The takeover of Secular-run governments by these extremists that teach
Paradise for eternity for anyone shedding Infidel blood...as we saw in
Afghanistan is probably the beginning.
I wish my grandchildren and children to die of a ripe old age surrounded by
loved ones.
You *do* have you head in the sand, Smack.
If everyone took your Neville Chamberlain attitude, the United States would
cease to exist.
We're the only Superpower that has the ability to kill a threat of such
magnitude.
*THAT'S* the only real purpose of government. To protect my freedom.
Let's roll.
David H.
David H
>
> Of course, the radical Muslims and the ACLU do agree on one thing and
> that is that the Bible should not be allowed anywhere in public life.
> The only difference is that the Saudis behead people with Bibles. The
> ACLU only wishes they could...
>
Kudos.....
David H.
Stephen Mack
<A7F19DBCCFFB83B9.E9D43402...@lp.airnews.net>,
Mr. PHP <radio...@invisible.com> wrote:
> Haven't you figured that out yet? What in the hell does it take?
Evidence a) that Hussein presents a clear threat and b) that military
action will provide benefit. It's not as simple as removing Saddam and
then everything suddenly being better. More likely, we remove him and
suddenly a new "threat" - as we seem to be very loosely defining them
these days - pops up in his place. It's like patching leaks on the
Titanic. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, most likely to be North Korea
when news in Iraq starts to get slow.
> You can't honestly think that there is room for discussion can you?
No, I guess not. I guess there never has to be discussion when it
comes to mass murder and breaking international law. It should just be
assumed.
> >But if you and Bush want to peddle your fear-tactics and ignore
> >rational thought (I wonder if anyone in politics has bothered to ask
> >the question WHY the rest of the world is against such an action), then
> >by all means go ahead. Nukes and nerve gas may only be the beginning.
>
> I would think that watching the WTC collapse before your eyes would
> equate to a fear tactic.
Damn right. You think those guys were sitting around thinking, "Hey,
you know, the U.S. has never bothered us. I don't even notice their
military presence. Since we have nothing better to do, let's go run
some planes into some of their important buildings?"
More military presence doesn't prevent terrorism; it provokes it.
> Anyway, maybe you could lead a "Peace March"
> with your buddies into the Middle East demanding freedom of religion
> and freedom of speech. You could go in waving flowers and singing
> "Give Peace a Chance." Maybe the entire Muslim world see your "reason"
> and decide that killing non-Muslims is not a good idea after all...
>
> ROFLMAO
If you don't mind, I think this discussion is over. You'd rather
submit to ridicule and hate-mongering than look at the issues, and as
such I have no interest continuing this discussion.
Stephen Mack
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> > And I also consider it extremely questionable (at
> >best) that it's the Iraqi citizens that Bush is concerned with.
>
> They're secondary; American citizens are first.
Nonsense. Iraqis not secondary, they're not even tertiary. They
barely even enter the picture. And no, American citizens aren't first
in this situation. Given the timing of this whole thing, I don't
understand how any intelligent person could swallow it. But I guess I
have to tip my hat to the Republican party. Their political
strategizing has worked brilliantly.
> >Meanwhile, what happened to Osama bin Laden? Wasn't he supposed to be
> >our #1 threat?
>
> We dropped lots of bombs on him. He's dead.
Coming from someone with such a long track record of basing things on
evidence, I'm a little surprised.
Stephen Mack
<dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
> "Stephen Mack" <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote in message
> news:221020021900159947%sm...@zzappspam.org...
> > In article
> >
> > I have a very difficult time believing that U.S. aggression in foreign
> > lands has ever prevented terrorism towards the U.S. On the other hand,
> > it's very easy to believe that U.S. aggression in foreign lands has
> > PROVOKED terrorism towards the U.S. I'm much more afraid of the
> > ramifications that a pre-emptive strike would bring than the
> > ramifications of other means.
> >
> > But if you and Bush want to peddle your fear-tactics and ignore
> > rational thought (I wonder if anyone in politics has bothered to ask
> > the question WHY the rest of the world is against such an action), then
> > by all means go ahead. Nukes and nerve gas may only be the beginning.
> >
> >
>
> The enemy of America and Western Civilization is Islam.
Nuke 'em all,then. Nuke everyone who stands in our way. Let the
empire be official.
> Three generations since 1948 have been poisoned with anti-Jewish,
> anti-American rhetoric propaganda since they took their 1st step as babies.
Many of them have lost parents, siblings, cousins, limbs, sight, etc.
at the hands of the U.S. since they took their 1st step as babies.
Many of them have seen that America, the great freedom-granter, has
held back any progressive steps towards democracy in the Middle East by
supporting oppressive regimes (lest we forget who created Saddam
Hussein and Osama bin Laden). I think they're wrong to blame all of
America for those things, but I can't say that I blame them.
> If everyone took your Neville Chamberlain attitude, the United States would
> cease to exist.
Neville Chamberlain ignored and covered up mounting evidence that the
Germans were preparing for war. Somehow I don't think our current
administration would be covering up evidence against Saddam Hussein.
And since they haven't presented such evidence, it's reasonable to
assume that such evidence doesn't exist.
David H
and against the Kurds in his own country.
2) He attempted to absorb Kuwait and control Middle East oil-fields.
3) He is funding terrorist groups.
ala...@junk.min.net
>> I would think that watching the WTC collapse before your eyes would
>> equate to a fear tactic.
>Damn right. You think those guys were sitting around thinking, "Hey, you
>know, the U.S. has never bothered us. I don't even notice their military
>presence. Since we have nothing better to do, let's go run some planes
>into some of their important buildings?"
And isn't it interesting that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, yet Bush
is fixated on Iraq? And don't anyone give me the "Saddam gassed his own
people" crap - we didn't care when he did it, and we didn't mind when he
gassed Iranians. It's a bit hypocritical to suddenly use that as a
convenient excuse to overthrow him.
Saddam is a cruel dictator, but he's far from the only one.
David Marc Nieporent
>> Haven't you figured that out yet? What in the hell does it take?
>Evidence a) that Hussein presents a clear threat and b) that military
>action will provide benefit. It's not as simple as removing Saddam and
>then everything suddenly being better. More likely, we remove him and
>suddenly a new "threat" - as we seem to be very loosely defining them
>these days - pops up in his place. It's like patching leaks on the
>Titanic. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, most likely to be North Korea
>when news in Iraq starts to get slow.
I don't really think that's much of an analogy. If you're likening the
Middle East to the Titanic, then what does that suggest? That it's
hopeless? So we should just nuke the place?
>> You can't honestly think that there is room for discussion can you?
>No, I guess not. I guess there never has to be discussion when it
>comes to mass murder and breaking international law. It should just be
>assumed.
There's no such thing as "international law," and if there were, we still
wouldn't be breaking it by attacking Iraq. The UN endorsed the Gulf War.
There was no peace treaty; there was merely a cease fire. Iraq is failing
to live up to the terms of that cease fire -- terms that _it_ agreed to --
so that means we're still at war with them.
>> >But if you and Bush want to peddle your fear-tactics and ignore
>> >rational thought (I wonder if anyone in politics has bothered to ask
>> >the question WHY the rest of the world is against such an action), then
>> >by all means go ahead. Nukes and nerve gas may only be the beginning.
>> I would think that watching the WTC collapse before your eyes would
>> equate to a fear tactic.
>Damn right. You think those guys were sitting around thinking, "Hey,
>you know, the U.S. has never bothered us. I don't even notice their
>military presence. Since we have nothing better to do, let's go run
>some planes into some of their important buildings?"
>More military presence doesn't prevent terrorism; it provokes it.
Really? So there were too many American troops in Bali? That's what
induced people to blow up those nightclubs? How about those churches in
Pakistan that were attacked? Or that French oil tanker? You know, the
people who have been _obstructing_ us?
David Marc Nieporent
>>> I would think that watching the WTC collapse before your eyes would
>>> equate to a fear tactic.
>>Damn right. You think those guys were sitting around thinking, "Hey, you
>>know, the U.S. has never bothered us. I don't even notice their military
>>presence. Since we have nothing better to do, let's go run some planes
>>into some of their important buildings?"
>And isn't it interesting that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, yet Bush
>is fixated on Iraq?
Not particularly. Richard Reid was (is) a British citizen, but that
doesn't mean we should focus our attention on the UK.
>And don't anyone give me the "Saddam gassed his own
>people" crap - we didn't care when he did it, and we didn't mind when he
>gassed Iranians. It's a bit hypocritical to suddenly use that as a
>convenient excuse to overthrow him.
Why? And so what if it is? Since when is hypocrisy the worst sin? Should
we _consistently_ be wrong, in order to avoid charges of hypocrisy?
And who's "we," anyway? President Bush was a private citizen in Texas in
the mid-80s; what did you want him to do about Iraq?
>Saddam is a cruel dictator, but he's far from the only one.
He's the only one who is a dictator who has used WMD, started a few big
wars, and sponsors terrorism.
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
Mr. PHP <radio...@invisible.com> writes:
>
>
> NOTE: -------- OFF TOPIC -------------------
> -------- OFF TOPIC -------------------
>
>
> On 23 Oct 2002 02:29:48 GMT, pos...@aol.com (Post45) wrote:
>
>>Mr. PHP writes :
>>
>><< The top five per cent are paying over %50 of the tax
>>burden as it is!!! >>
>>
>>The top 5 percent of what ?
>>
>>Exactly what "tax burden" are you referring to ?
>>
>>Federal Income ? Social Security ?State and local income and/or sales ?
>
> I was talking about the IRS so we are talking federal taxes.
The SS taxes are a fixed percentage of taxable income, up to about
$85,000 of income. State taxes vary state by state, of course, and
are typically either a graduated scale without a cap (where the
percentage gets larger and larger if you make more and more money),
or a fixed percetange of your federal tax (which follows a graduated
scale. Sales tax is based on purchases made; these taxes go mostly
to the state and are paid proportional to the amount of purchasing
a person does -- and rich people buy more stuff, thus paying more
taxes.
So Social Security taxes are an even percentage for most people, with
the rich ($85K and over) not needing to contribute above that level --
but also not getting a benefit above that level. The rest of the
tax structure basically follow the percentages PHP detailed below.
> For 1999 (in quintiles) The share of Taxes to the Imperial Federal
> Government:
> (From the CBO)
>
> The top %20 (avg income $132,000) paid about %79 of taxes
> The fourth %20 (avg $53,000) paid about %16
> The third %20 (avg $35,400) paid about %7
> The second%20 (avg $21,200) paid about %1
> The bottom %20 (avg $8,400) paid about % - 2
>
> The Top %1 paid about %29 of taxes
> The Top %5 paid about %50 of taxes
> The Top %10 paid about %63 of taxes
These look about right. http://www.davidchandler.com/lcurve/ shows
a distribution of income for Americans; the L-curve for payment of
taxes is even *more* severe, since the top rate for the rich is much
higher than the rate for the poor and the deduction that every person
can take makes a huge difference for the poor and practically no
difference for the rich (on a percentage basis).
>>The reason I ask is this :
>>
>>If the top 5 percent pay 50 percent of the tax burden, then one could wonder:
>>well, what if the top 10-20 percent paid 100 percent of the tax burden. Then
>>80-90 percent of the population would pay 0 percent of the tax burden.
This is only slightly different for reality. It's been described like
this: five men go to lunch together every day. The each buy a $10
lunch, but when they collect money to pay the $50 bill, one guy puts
in $40, one guy puts in $8, one guy puts in $2, and the other two don't
put in anything.
One day, the top payer decides that he only wants to put in $39 and
wants the other four to kick in an extra dollar between the four of them.
They howl like mad -- especially the two that aren't paying anything and
the one who's playing only $2 for his $10 meal -- that the top guy
is trying to take advantage of them.
This is what happens whenever the someone suggests lowering the top
tax rate in the country.
>>It is THE FREAKING MIDDLE CLASS THAT WORKS IT"S ASS OFF EVERY FREAKIN DAY THAT
>>PAYS FOR THE EMPIRE..not the top 5 percent..please think about it a little more
>>and get back to me ;-)
>
> Sorry, but you are wrong. The middle simply does not make enough money
> to pay for all the government programs. In fact, politicians want to
> make sure the top %40 pays all the taxes. That way, they can be
> assured that they will ALWAYS have the support of the other %60.
I don't know if I agree with your conclusion -- politicians generally
just want to get re-elected and will back the policy that they think
will help them do so. But the numbers look about right.
For quite some time, the bulk of the income taxes have
been paid by the very rich in the country. Despite everything you've
heard about "tax loopholes for the rich" and "multi-millionaires
paying zero taxes", the fact remains that the rich pay most of the
freight.
For more news stories to this effect, visit:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/Tax2002/taxes_rich_020415.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49825,00.html
And for an example of the complaint that the poor aren't getting
enough, visit:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_27/b3790053.htm
Note that this article fails to mention that the top of the income
bracket already pays the lion's share -- they only mention that they're
getting the biggest amount of relief.
Any tax policy proposed basically boils down to this: we want the
rich to pay a smaller portion of the bill than they already do, or
we want the rich to pay an even larger portion of the bill than they
already do. Everyone should remember, though, that the starting
point is already quite high (whether you phrase is at the top 1% paying
35% or the top 5% paying 55% or the top 20% paying 80%).
Doug
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
___, Doug Massey, ASIC Digital Logic Designer
\o IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont |>
| Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6752 |
/ \ |
. My homepage: http://doug.obscurestuff.com (|)
Catfish
"Douglas T. (Doug) Massey " <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:ap8umq$luk$1...@news.btv.ibm.com...
> These look about right. http://www.davidchandler.com/lcurve/ shows
> a distribution of income for Americans; the L-curve for payment of
> taxes is even *more* severe, since the top rate for the rich is much
> higher than the rate for the poor and the deduction that every person
> can take makes a huge difference for the poor and practically no
> difference for the rich (on a percentage basis).
Also, many common deductions are phased out when certain income levels are
hit. An example is the IRA account.
Further, the evil alternative minimum tax eliminates most remaining
deductions for the "rich".
Catfish
> > We dropped lots of bombs on him. He's dead.
>
> Coming from someone with such a long track record of basing things on
> evidence, I'm a little surprised.
He is using logic and evidence.
Media savvy jihad leader likes to brag about thumbing his nose at Great
Satan.
Media savvy jihad leader blows up WTC, brags about it.
Angry Americans drop lots of bombs in attempt to turn media savvy jihad
leader into dog food.
Media savvy jihad leader fails to thumb nose at Great Satan for missing.
Media savvy jihad leader fails to thumb nose at Great Satan on anniversary
of WTC attack.
Media savvy jihad leader totally MIA.
The absence of a reaction is evidence that one could logically use to
support the dog food theory.
Dennis Shea
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey wrote:
> In article <6409FDF03C0D20E4.F2DFEF23...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Mr. PHP <radio...@invisible.com> writes:
>
>>
>>NOTE: -------- OFF TOPIC -------------------
>> -------- OFF TOPIC -------------------
>>
>>
>>On 23 Oct 2002 02:29:48 GMT, pos...@aol.com (Post45) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mr. PHP writes :
>>>
>>><< The top five per cent are paying over %50 of the tax
>>>burden as it is!!! >>
>>>
>>>The top 5 percent of what ?
>>>
>>>Exactly what "tax burden" are you referring to ?
>>>
>>>Federal Income ? Social Security ?State and local income and/or sales ?
>>>
>>I was talking about the IRS so we are talking federal taxes.
>>
>
> The SS taxes are a fixed percentage of taxable income, up to about
> $85,000 of income. State taxes vary state by state, of course, and
> are typically either a graduated scale without a cap (where the
> percentage gets larger and larger if you make more and more money),
> or a fixed percetange of your federal tax (which follows a graduated
> scale. Sales tax is based on purchases made; these taxes go mostly
> to the state and are paid proportional to the amount of purchasing
> a person does -- and rich people buy more stuff, thus paying more
> taxes.
One missing part here is that poor people spend a larger share of their
income. So, if Joe earns $10,000 and spends $9,000 with a 5% sales tax,
his tax is 450 or 4.5% of income. If George earns $100,000 and spends
$80,000, his sales tax is $4,000 or 4% of income. For this reason sales
(and property taxes) tend to be regressive. Rich people pay more of the
total tax, but the tax they pay as a share of their total income is lower.
> So Social Security taxes are an even percentage for most people, with
> the rich ($85K and over) not needing to contribute above that level --
> but also not getting a benefit above that level. The rest of the
> tax structure basically follow the percentages PHP detailed below.
What you are missing here, Doug is that they are an even percentage of
EARNED income, and richer people get a larger portion of their total
income from unearned sources. What this means is that taxes as a
proportion of TOTAL income are lower. Again, payroll taxes, unlike
income taxes tend to be regressive.
>> For 1999 (in quintiles) The share of Taxes to the Imperial Federal
>>Government:
>>(From the CBO)
>>
>>The top %20 (avg income $132,000) paid about %79 of taxes
>>The fourth %20 (avg $53,000) paid about %16
>>The third %20 (avg $35,400) paid about %7
>>The second%20 (avg $21,200) paid about %1
>>The bottom %20 (avg $8,400) paid about % - 2
>>
>>The Top %1 paid about %29 of taxes
>>The Top %5 paid about %50 of taxes
>>The Top %10 paid about %63 of taxes
>>
>
> These look about right. http://www.davidchandler.com/lcurve/ shows
> a distribution of income for Americans; the L-curve for payment of
> taxes is even *more* severe, since the top rate for the rich is much
> higher than the rate for the poor and the deduction that every person
> can take makes a huge difference for the poor and practically no
> difference for the rich (on a percentage basis).
But, these income tax features are offset somewhat because of the
regressivity in payroll, sales, and property taxes.
>>>The reason I ask is this :
>>>
>>>If the top 5 percent pay 50 percent of the tax burden, then one could wonder:
>>>well, what if the top 10-20 percent paid 100 percent of the tax burden. Then
>>>80-90 percent of the population would pay 0 percent of the tax burden.
>>>
>
> This is only slightly different for reality. It's been described like
> this: five men go to lunch together every day. The each buy a $10
> lunch, but when they collect money to pay the $50 bill, one guy puts
> in $40, one guy puts in $8, one guy puts in $2, and the other two don't
> put in anything.
>
> One day, the top payer decides that he only wants to put in $39 and
> wants the other four to kick in an extra dollar between the four of them.
> They howl like mad -- especially the two that aren't paying anything and
> the one who's playing only $2 for his $10 meal -- that the top guy
> is trying to take advantage of them.
>
> This is what happens whenever the someone suggests lowering the top
> tax rate in the country.
Any serious consideration of tax reform can't deal with income taxes in
isolation from other taxes and has to first have some notion of what is
the appropriate measure of what's fair. If we had one guy earning $1.2
trillion and the rest of us earning $1 a year, would it be unfair to
have him fund 100% of the government? I don't presume to know the
answer to that question, but we shouldn't assume that because the rich
pay the lion's share of income taxes, the answer is simple to tax reform.
> Any tax policy proposed basically boils down to this: we want the
> rich to pay a smaller portion of the bill than they already do, or
> we want the rich to pay an even larger portion of the bill than they
> already do. Everyone should remember, though, that the starting
> point is already quite high (whether you phrase is at the top 1% paying
> 35% or the top 5% paying 55% or the top 20% paying 80%).
Well, that's overly simplistic. If somebody's paying less, than
somebody's paying more or goverment's doing less (which may or may not
be a good thing) and we care about those things. If you tell me we are
going to cut taxes on the rich and reduce support for children's health
insurance, I probably won't favor it. If you tell me we will cut taxes
and reduce agricultural price supports, I might accept it. Income tax
policy cannot be considered without considering both other taxes and
spending. Frankly, I think the rich must believe they get a fantastic
bang for the tax buck, judging from their political contributions.
Stephen Mack
<mdd...@nospameclipsetel.com> wrote:
I suppose one could say that it's reasonable to consider him dead, for
all intents and purposes. I don't see the U.S. pulling out of
Afghanistan, though, so it doesn't appear that Osama's "death" has
solved the issue.
Stephen Mack
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article <231020021228128307%sm...@zzappspam.org>,
> Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote:
> >Mr. PHP <radio...@invisible.com> wrote:
>
> >> Haven't you figured that out yet? What in the hell does it take?
>
> >Evidence a) that Hussein presents a clear threat and b) that military
> >action will provide benefit. It's not as simple as removing Saddam and
> >then everything suddenly being better. More likely, we remove him and
> >suddenly a new "threat" - as we seem to be very loosely defining them
> >these days - pops up in his place. It's like patching leaks on the
> >Titanic. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, most likely to be North Korea
> >when news in Iraq starts to get slow.
>
> I don't really think that's much of an analogy. If you're likening the
> Middle East to the Titanic, then what does that suggest? That it's
> hopeless? So we should just nuke the place?
You're right, it doesn't hold up. The point was simply that the U.S.
seems to be constantly removing potential threats without focusing on
any big picture.
What was the children's story about the king who had mice in his
palace, and he brought in cats to drive out the mice, then brought in
dogs to drive out the cats, then brought in tigers to drive out the
dogs, and so on. . . ? We train and fund these guys to help us remove
one potential threat, then they themselves become a potential threat.
When does it end?
> >> You can't honestly think that there is room for discussion can you?
>
> >No, I guess not. I guess there never has to be discussion when it
> >comes to mass murder and breaking international law. It should just be
> >assumed.
>
> There's no such thing as "international law," and if there were, we still
> wouldn't be breaking it by attacking Iraq. The UN endorsed the Gulf War.
> There was no peace treaty; there was merely a cease fire. Iraq is failing
> to live up to the terms of that cease fire -- terms that _it_ agreed to --
> so that means we're still at war with them.
Interesting. Never heard that one. Of course, from what I can tell
the Bush administration is trying to sweep this under the broad "war on
terror" umbrella, rather than the Gulf War. And the administration has
made it pretty clear that this is not about weapons inspections. If it
were, there'd be no reason to balk at the potential of the inspections
going through. Seems like the only thing the administration had to be
afraid of is that Saddam actually doesn't have the weapons of mass
destructions they claim he does. Wouldn't that be tragic?
> >> >But if you and Bush want to peddle your fear-tactics and ignore
> >> >rational thought (I wonder if anyone in politics has bothered to ask
> >> >the question WHY the rest of the world is against such an action), then
> >> >by all means go ahead. Nukes and nerve gas may only be the beginning.
>
> >> I would think that watching the WTC collapse before your eyes would
> >> equate to a fear tactic.
>
> >Damn right. You think those guys were sitting around thinking, "Hey,
> >you know, the U.S. has never bothered us. I don't even notice their
> >military presence. Since we have nothing better to do, let's go run
> >some planes into some of their important buildings?"
> >More military presence doesn't prevent terrorism; it provokes it.
>
> Really? So there were too many American troops in Bali? That's what
> induced people to blow up those nightclubs? How about those churches in
> Pakistan that were attacked? Or that French oil tanker? You know, the
> people who have been _obstructing_ us?
This is sophistry. To say that military presence provokes, rather than
prevents, terrorism is not to say that all terrorism is provoked by
military presence.
Do really wish to be so naive as to believe that terrorism against the
U.S. is soley out of envy? There are plenty of people to be envious of
that live much closer and are much more accessible to Middle
Easterners.
Or do you actually buy Bush's explanation that these people just hate
freedom, and they attack America because it's such a great symbol of
freedom? I still can't believe he said that with a straight face.
Without saying one way or another whether our influence in the Middle
East has been a good thing or not, is it not reasonable to say that if
the U.S. had never decided to become take a political and economic
interest in the Middle East, 9-11 would most likely not have happened?
Certainly it doesn't make it right, but I can't imagine we'd respond
too favorably if some other country marched its military onto U.S. soil
and announced they'd be monitoring our steel industry from now on.
David Marc Nieporent
Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote:
>Catfish <mdd...@nospameclipsetel.com> wrote:
>> "Stephen Mack" <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote in message
>> > > We dropped lots of bombs on him. He's dead.
>> > Coming from someone with such a long track record of basing things on
>> > evidence, I'm a little surprised.
>> He is using logic and evidence.
>> Media savvy jihad leader likes to brag about thumbing his nose at Great Satan.
>> Media savvy jihad leader blows up WTC, brags about it.
>> Angry Americans drop lots of bombs in attempt to turn media savvy jihad
>> leader into dog food.
>> Media savvy jihad leader fails to thumb nose at Great Satan for missing.
>> Media savvy jihad leader fails to thumb nose at Great Satan on anniversary
>> of WTC attack.
>> Media savvy jihad leader totally MIA.
>> The absence of a reaction is evidence that one could logically use to
>> support the dog food theory.
>I suppose one could say that it's reasonable to consider him dead, for
>all intents and purposes.
That was indeed my argument. It's not conclusive proof, but I wouldn't
expect that, frankly. If we indeed did bomb and kill him, how likely is it
that we'd find the body, and that it would be in good enough shape to
recognize it?
> I don't see the U.S. pulling out of
>Afghanistan, though, so it doesn't appear that Osama's "death" has
>solved the issue.
Well, we haven't pulled out of Germany, but I don't think that's an
argument that WW2 isn't over.
Still, I don't think anybody claimed that we were _done_ with Afghanistan.
But the military side of things in Afghanistan is done; now we're at a
point where we have to assemble something resembling a country.
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
Dennis Shea <dgs...@adelphia.net> writes:
>
>
> Douglas T. (Doug) Massey wrote:
>
>> The SS taxes are a fixed percentage of taxable income, up to about
>> $85,000 of income. State taxes vary state by state, of course, and
>> are typically either a graduated scale without a cap (where the
>> percentage gets larger and larger if you make more and more money),
>> or a fixed percetange of your federal tax (which follows a graduated
>> scale. Sales tax is based on purchases made; these taxes go mostly
>> to the state and are paid proportional to the amount of purchasing
>> a person does -- and rich people buy more stuff, thus paying more
>> taxes.
>
>
> One missing part here is that poor people spend a larger share of their
> income. So, if Joe earns $10,000 and spends $9,000 with a 5% sales tax,
> his tax is 450 or 4.5% of income. If George earns $100,000 and spends
> $80,000, his sales tax is $4,000 or 4% of income. For this reason sales
> (and property taxes) tend to be regressive. Rich people pay more of the
> total tax, but the tax they pay as a share of their total income is lower.
Regressive as a percentage of their income (ie, sales tax affects
the poor more than the rich as a percentage of what they make), but
not as a percentage of total tax revenues (ie, the $4000 that George
paid in sales tax is still a much larger amount than the $450 that
Joe pays).
>> So Social Security taxes are an even percentage for most people, with
>> the rich ($85K and over) not needing to contribute above that level --
>> but also not getting a benefit above that level. The rest of the
>> tax structure basically follow the percentages PHP detailed below.
>
> What you are missing here, Doug is that they are an even percentage of
> EARNED income, and richer people get a larger portion of their total
> income from unearned sources. What this means is that taxes as a
> proportion of TOTAL income are lower. Again, payroll taxes, unlike
> income taxes tend to be regressive.
But Social Security is capped both in taxable income and in retirement
benefit. Someone who earns $1M per year for forty years will pay SS
tax as if he earns $85K per year, but then will receive a benefit after
retirement as if he earned only $85K per year. The SS tax is a fair,
flat tax -- assuming (SS actually pays out in the end).
I'm not sure what to say about taxation on unearned sources. Should
we tax me if IBM stock goes up by 20% this year -- even if I don't
sell it? I mean, if I get a capital gain, I pay tax on that. If I'd
been able to count my unrealized losses in stock in 2000 and 2001, I
wouldn't have paid any taxes either year. Neither would Bill Gates.
Is that what we're looking for?
I don't know if "unearned sources" is a real financial term or a form
of commentary that you're making, but I don't like it. Money I make
from stocks or bonds or interest or appreciation of my home originated
from me investing my earned money in the first place. I paid taxes
on it in the first place, I pay taxes on anything I make (excepting
a Roth IRA, which is clearly an investment vehicle that favors lower
incomes). What is your additional suggestion for collecting revenue
from me?
>>>The top %20 (avg income $132,000) paid about %79 of taxes
>>>The fourth %20 (avg $53,000) paid about %16
>>>The third %20 (avg $35,400) paid about %7
>>>The second%20 (avg $21,200) paid about %1
>>>The bottom %20 (avg $8,400) paid about % - 2
>>>
>>>The Top %1 paid about %29 of taxes
>>>The Top %5 paid about %50 of taxes
>>>The Top %10 paid about %63 of taxes
>>
>> These look about right. http://www.davidchandler.com/lcurve/ shows
>> a distribution of income for Americans; the L-curve for payment of
>> taxes is even *more* severe, since the top rate for the rich is much
>> higher than the rate for the poor and the deduction that every person
>> can take makes a huge difference for the poor and practically no
>> difference for the rich (on a percentage basis).
>
> But, these income tax features are offset somewhat because of the
> regressivity in payroll, sales, and property taxes.
Not much. The bulk of taxation is in the form of income tax and
social security tax. The property tax is perfectly fair: it's based
on the value of your home. Buy a bigger house, pay more tax.
The sales tax is semi-fair -- I don't think it should be applied to
staples like food, clothing, and utilities, but should be applied
in restaurants, toy stores, sporting events, cable TV, etc. It varies
state by state, though -- VT doesn't have a food tax, PA doesn't have a
clothing tax, some have neither, some have both.
>>>>The reason I ask is this :
>>>>
>>>>If the top 5 percent pay 50 percent of the tax burden, then one could wonder:
>>>>well, what if the top 10-20 percent paid 100 percent of the tax burden. Then
>>>>80-90 percent of the population would pay 0 percent of the tax burden.
>>>>
>>
>> This is only slightly different for reality. It's been described like
>> this: five men go to lunch together every day. The each buy a $10
>> lunch, but when they collect money to pay the $50 bill, one guy puts
>> in $40, one guy puts in $8, one guy puts in $2, and the other two don't
>> put in anything.
>>
>> One day, the top payer decides that he only wants to put in $39 and
>> wants the other four to kick in an extra dollar between the four of them.
>> They howl like mad -- especially the two that aren't paying anything and
>> the one who's playing only $2 for his $10 meal -- that the top guy
>> is trying to take advantage of them.
>>
>> This is what happens whenever the someone suggests lowering the top
>> tax rate in the country.
>
> Any serious consideration of tax reform can't deal with income taxes in
> isolation from other taxes and has to first have some notion of what is
> the appropriate measure of what's fair.
Absolutely. The tax burden for the entire socio-economic continuum must
be considered.
> If we had one guy earning $1.2
> trillion and the rest of us earning $1 a year, would it be unfair to
> have him fund 100% of the government? I don't presume to know the
> answer to that question, but we shouldn't assume that because the rich
> pay the lion's share of income taxes, the answer is simple to tax reform.
I'm not claiming that it *isn't* fair. I was just pointing out that
the "FREAKING MIDDLE CLASS" to which Post45 was attributing the bulk
of the funding of the goverment is not actually the main source of
the government's income. The amount of income tax a government
collects is primarily affected by the top tax rate -- dropping it
from 39.6% to 35% is going to give up a *ton* of revenue, far, far more
than dropping the bottom bracket (15% to 10%). I don't really know
if this is good for the health of the country in general or not, though.
>> Any tax policy proposed basically boils down to this: we want the
>> rich to pay a smaller portion of the bill than they already do, or
>> we want the rich to pay an even larger portion of the bill than they
>> already do. Everyone should remember, though, that the starting
>> point is already quite high (whether you phrase is at the top 1% paying
>> 35% or the top 5% paying 55% or the top 20% paying 80%).
>
> Well, that's overly simplistic. If somebody's paying less, than
> somebody's paying more or goverment's doing less (which may or may not
> be a good thing) and we care about those things.
Right.
> If you tell me we are
> going to cut taxes on the rich and reduce support for children's health
> insurance, I probably won't favor it. If you tell me we will cut taxes
> and reduce agricultural price supports, I might accept it. Income tax
> policy cannot be considered without considering both other taxes and
> spending. Frankly, I think the rich must believe they get a fantastic
> bang for the tax buck, judging from their political contributions.
I'm not in the top 1% and I don't contribute to political campaigns,
so I don't really know what their motivations are. I'm suppose it's
some combination of personal political conviction and hope for
political policy in their favor. I'm not sure it's relevant, though.
This has been going on for 225 years, right? What suddenly makes it
a bad thing? Of course the politicians listen to the rich -- that's
who's paying the bill (both for their election campaigns and for the
government itself). Money = power, and always has, and always will.
It comes back to those five guys going to lunch every day -- I'll bet
the one who's paying $40 gets to choose the restaurant they eat at,
right? Why shouldn't he?
Dennis Shea
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey wrote:
> In article <3DB85B27...@adelphia.net>,
> Dennis Shea <dgs...@adelphia.net> writes:
>>One missing part here is that poor people spend a larger share of their
>>income. So, if Joe earns $10,000 and spends $9,000 with a 5% sales tax,
>>his tax is 450 or 4.5% of income. If George earns $100,000 and spends
>>$80,000, his sales tax is $4,000 or 4% of income. For this reason sales
>>(and property taxes) tend to be regressive. Rich people pay more of the
>>total tax, but the tax they pay as a share of their total income is lower.
>>
>
> Regressive as a percentage of their income (ie, sales tax affects
> the poor more than the rich as a percentage of what they make), but
> not as a percentage of total tax revenues (ie, the $4000 that George
> paid in sales tax is still a much larger amount than the $450 that
> Joe pays).
Right. And the point I was trying to make was that there are reasonable
disagreements in looking at tax equity as to whether you should focus on
the share of total taxes paid or the share of taxes as a percentage of
income.
>>>So Social Security taxes are an even percentage for most people, with
>>>the rich ($85K and over) not needing to contribute above that level --
>>>but also not getting a benefit above that level. The rest of the
>>>tax structure basically follow the percentages PHP detailed below.
>>>
>>What you are missing here, Doug is that they are an even percentage of
>>EARNED income, and richer people get a larger portion of their total
>>income from unearned sources. What this means is that taxes as a
>>proportion of TOTAL income are lower. Again, payroll taxes, unlike
>>income taxes tend to be regressive.
>>
>
> But Social Security is capped both in taxable income and in retirement
> benefit. Someone who earns $1M per year for forty years will pay SS
> tax as if he earns $85K per year, but then will receive a benefit after
> retirement as if he earned only $85K per year. The SS tax is a fair,
> flat tax -- assuming (SS actually pays out in the end).
Several points to make.
First, fair means different things to different people. Fair to a
libertarian is not fair to a communist.
Second, once you get into cohort taxes, then you also have to factor in
other things like Medicare. Taxes going in are similar to SS (except it
never phases out), but payments out different dramatically depending on
where you live, how long you live, how healthy you are. In general,
rich people make out like bandits in Medicare.
> I'm not sure what to say about taxation on unearned sources. Should
> we tax me if IBM stock goes up by 20% this year -- even if I don't
> sell it? I mean, if I get a capital gain, I pay tax on that. If I'd
> been able to count my unrealized losses in stock in 2000 and 2001, I
> wouldn't have paid any taxes either year. Neither would Bill Gates.
> Is that what we're looking for?
No, I'm really not arguing for or against your point of view. I was
just pointing out that payroll taxes end up, usually, being regressive
taxes with respect to income, because rich people have non-payroll
sources of income. So, focusing only on the flatness of the payroll tax
ignores interest income, dividend income, etc. So if you think flat
taxes like SS are fair, then you have to realize that, technically, they
are not flat, because they treat different sources of income differently.
> I don't know if "unearned sources" is a real financial term or a form
> of commentary that you're making, but I don't like it. Money I make
> from stocks or bonds or interest or appreciation of my home originated
> from me investing my earned money in the first place. I paid taxes
> on it in the first place, I pay taxes on anything I make (excepting
> a Roth IRA, which is clearly an investment vehicle that favors lower
> incomes). What is your additional suggestion for collecting revenue
> from me?
It's just short-hand in economics for non-work sources of income. I'm
not making any suggestion for collecting revenue. I'm just pointing out
that payroll taxes are not flat. They are regressive, because they only
fall on certain types of income.
>>But, these income tax features are offset somewhat because of the
>>regressivity in payroll, sales, and property taxes.
>>
>
> Not much. The bulk of taxation is in the form of income tax and
> social security tax. The property tax is perfectly fair: it's based
> on the value of your home. Buy a bigger house, pay more tax.
> The sales tax is semi-fair -- I don't think it should be applied to
> staples like food, clothing, and utilities, but should be applied
> in restaurants, toy stores, sporting events, cable TV, etc. It varies
> state by state, though -- VT doesn't have a food tax, PA doesn't have a
> clothing tax, some have neither, some have both.
Why is it fair to only tax home equity and not other forms of equity?
Why only levy a SS tax on payroll? The worker gets taxed once on that
income, then again for income tax. Is that fair?
SNIP
> I'm not in the top 1% and I don't contribute to political campaigns,
> so I don't really know what their motivations are. I'm suppose it's
> some combination of personal political conviction and hope for
> political policy in their favor. I'm not sure it's relevant, though.
> This has been going on for 225 years, right? What suddenly makes it
> a bad thing? Of course the politicians listen to the rich -- that's
> who's paying the bill (both for their election campaigns and for the
> government itself). Money = power, and always has, and always will.
>
> It comes back to those five guys going to lunch every day -- I'll bet
> the one who's paying $40 gets to choose the restaurant they eat at,
> right? Why shouldn't he?
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying the rich and the rest of us
get exactly the government they pay for. So why should we get worried
if they pay for most of the government?
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
Dennis Shea <dgs...@adelphia.net> writes:
>
> Douglas T. (Doug) Massey wrote:
>
>>
>> But Social Security is capped both in taxable income and in retirement
>> benefit. Someone who earns $1M per year for forty years will pay SS
>> tax as if he earns $85K per year, but then will receive a benefit after
>> retirement as if he earned only $85K per year. The SS tax is a fair,
>> flat tax -- assuming (SS actually pays out in the end).
>
> Several points to make.
>
> First, fair means different things to different people. Fair to a
> libertarian is not fair to a communist.
:-) I absolutely agree. Various definitions of a "fair" tax:
(1) Take the US budget, divide by number of citizens over the age of
18, and each person over the age of 18 pays this number.
(2) Take the US budget, divide by the total number of citizens, and
every person over the age of 18 pays this number for him/herself and
any dependents under the age of 18.
(3) Each person's net worth is taxed by a fixed percentage each year.
(4) Each person's increase in net worth is taxes by a fixed percentage
each year.
(5) Each person's salary, interest, and realized capital gains are taxed
at a fixed rate each year.
(6) No income tax at all -- all taxes collected on purchases.
(7) Each person's salary, interest, and realized capital gains are taxed,
except for the first several thousand dollars, except for various amounts
that a person can exclude if they have dependents or other excuses, and
salary and interest are taxed at a low rate for low incomes and at a
high rate for high incomes.
All meet some definition of "fair". Some are completely unreasonable --
#1 and #2 would drive a large portion of the population directly into
bankruptcy, for instance.
> Second, once you get into cohort taxes, then you also have to factor in
> other things like Medicare. Taxes going in are similar to SS (except it
> never phases out), but payments out different dramatically depending on
> where you live, how long you live, how healthy you are. In general,
> rich people make out like bandits in Medicare.
I'm not qualified to comment here -- I really don't know one way or
another.
>> I'm not sure what to say about taxation on unearned sources. Should
>> we tax me if IBM stock goes up by 20% this year -- even if I don't
>> sell it? I mean, if I get a capital gain, I pay tax on that. If I'd
>> been able to count my unrealized losses in stock in 2000 and 2001, I
>> wouldn't have paid any taxes either year. Neither would Bill Gates.
>> Is that what we're looking for?
>
> No, I'm really not arguing for or against your point of view. I was
> just pointing out that payroll taxes end up, usually, being regressive
> taxes with respect to income, because rich people have non-payroll
> sources of income. So, focusing only on the flatness of the payroll tax
> ignores interest income, dividend income, etc. So if you think flat
> taxes like SS are fair, then you have to realize that, technically, they
> are not flat, because they treat different sources of income differently.
Okay, I understand what you're saying. But everyone should realize that
the "flat" payroll taxes for SS or Medicare are paired with the
decidedly not-flat income tax for the Federal government. Combined,
they're less lopsided in terms of collecting most of the money from
the rich, but it's still lopsided.
I mean, you *could* roll SS and Medicare in with the regular income
tax, which would then be some percentage higher than it is now. That
would mean that the richest Americans would then be paying for most
of the SS benefits and Medicare benefits for the poor (in addition
to the fact that they're already footing the bill for most of the
national defense of the poor, for most of the health care administration
for the poor, for most of the interest on the public debt, for most
of the Unemployment Trust Fund, for most of everything that the
government does).
I just think that anytime someone campaigns for a tax reform that
favors the poor and taxes the rich, they should preface their comments
with "First, I'd like to thank the rich for paying for everything up
till now . . ."
>> Not much. The bulk of taxation is in the form of income tax and
>> social security tax. The property tax is perfectly fair: it's based
>> on the value of your home. Buy a bigger house, pay more tax.
>> The sales tax is semi-fair -- I don't think it should be applied to
>> staples like food, clothing, and utilities, but should be applied
>> in restaurants, toy stores, sporting events, cable TV, etc. It varies
>> state by state, though -- VT doesn't have a food tax, PA doesn't have a
>> clothing tax, some have neither, some have both.
>
> Why is it fair to only tax home equity and not other forms of equity?
Well, it varies by state. Virginia residents have to pay an equity
tax on their car every year, don't they? Again, it's fair for at
least one definition of "fair". :-)
> Why only levy a SS tax on payroll? The worker gets taxed once on that
> income, then again for income tax. Is that fair?
For at least one defin<whack>
>> I'm not in the top 1% and I don't contribute to political campaigns,
>> so I don't really know what their motivations are. I'm suppose it's
>> some combination of personal political conviction and hope for
>> political policy in their favor. I'm not sure it's relevant, though.
>> This has been going on for 225 years, right? What suddenly makes it
>> a bad thing? Of course the politicians listen to the rich -- that's
>> who's paying the bill (both for their election campaigns and for the
>> government itself). Money = power, and always has, and always will.
>>
>> It comes back to those five guys going to lunch every day -- I'll bet
>> the one who's paying $40 gets to choose the restaurant they eat at,
>> right? Why shouldn't he?
>
> I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying the rich and the rest of us
> get exactly the government they pay for. So why should we get worried
> if they pay for most of the government?
Agreed. Again, the only reason I spoke up was that Post45 claimed
it was THE FREAKING MIDDLE CLASS that pays the bill. It isn't.
The rich pay for almost everything the country does, and any discussion
of tax reform is just of discussion of whether we want them to pay
even more of the bill, or a little less of the bill.
Of course the rich run the government -- they're paying for its
existence.
Cheers,
Stephen Mack
<mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
> (6) No income tax at all -- all taxes collected on purchases.
Better yet, make tariffs the primary source of tax collection, and
sales tax to a lesser extent. Of course, that would conflict with the
corporate globalization agenda.