wrote in message
...
The numbers you quoted don't match, and if it's off the 1040, then it's
speculation. Where did Buffett say this?
Line 37 is "after expenses" and most of the top 1% are in some kind of
business. They manage to live off of "expenses" and don't have to
report that as "income". I guess you have never filled out a schedule
C.
I guess you don't know much about me. In any case, the numbers you quoted
weren't substantiated.
Once I got off of a W-2 and started working on a 1099 I suddenly had
lots of deductions I couldn't take before.
If you have not heard Buffett's statement on taxes you haven't been
paying attention., Google it.
You posted it, thus it's up to you to justify it.
Can you cite the source for this?
Do you know a 20 something person who thinks health insurance is more
important than a nice car?
If you explain it to someone that age in a careful and complete way, then
yes she'll get it.
Have you actually tried to explain this to a young person?
Most are ****ed they have to pay into Medicare and SS.
If they don't get insurance at work, the idea of buying it is foreign
to them.
Yes. My niece gets it and she's 13.
Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than
their
premium.
Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to
do
that.
... But they have convinced us driving a car is not a right, it is
just from the kindness of the government that we are allowed to drive.
Why do you think it's a right? Is it written into the Constitution? It's
a
privilege that needs to be earned.
What are you talking about, driving or health care. The Constitution
is silent on both of them.
Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of
government.
So is "the pursuit of happiness" (driving make me happy) but that is a
goal, not a protected right.
As long as that happiness doesn't intrude on others. And, yes, it's a goal.
A good one. One that makes sense morally and fiscally. Your happiness in
driving your car, isn't even close to the same thing.
.
on a policy of fiscal responsibility and that was a big
part of the "contract"
They may have bickered on TV but Clinton and Gingrich were actually a
very effective team. Neither would have succeeded without the other.
BS. Read up... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
From your article
* require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also
apply to Congress;
* select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a
comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
* cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by
one-third;
* limit the terms of all committee chairs;
* ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
* require committee meetings to be open to the public;
* require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
* and implement a zero base-line budgeting process for the annual
Federal Budget.
None of which was implemented.
It sounds like a formula for fiscal responsibility to me.
Sounds like a Republican agenda.
It wasn't that Perot was a serious candidate, it was the questions he
made everyone else answer.
No one answered anything. He was mostly ignored.
I guess you didn't watch the debates
Nothing came of anything he said. He was wrong on many things, and he faded
away as most kook should.
You notice that after that, the rules were changed to ensure another
outsider could never get a seat at the table.
If you are not anointed by the Remocrat/Depublican oligarchy, you
can't enter the debates
Ah, so it's back to conspiracy theories? Or, the more likely answer is
that
there hasn't been any viable third-party candidates.
They aren't viable because nobody actually gets to hear them. The
debates are completely off limits to anyone who wasn't propped up by
the party aparachicks
Ah... like Nader? I thought he decided the 2000 election.
These days there is very little difference between the Ds and Rs. All
you have to do is look at who gives them most of their money.
Elections come down to abortion and guns. Nobody talks about banks,
medical conglomerates or even the insurance companies in any real
sense. Just look at the bills they are hashing out in conference right
now. Wars keep on going on and rich people keep getting richer.
Except until the last election. Thus, the Republicans were mostly voted out.
Change is happening, albeit slowly and imperfectly, but it is happening.
It would be training for a job that can't be exported and it would
bend the health care cost curve. What else do you want?
The high school dropout who was making $60,000 on the line putting the
left front wheel on a Chevy is going to be in trouble, no matter what
we do.
Getting him a GED still won't get him UAW money.
That is the 60 year old "union bubble" that globalism popped.
Stop blaming the union for management's ill deeds. One immediate problem
with it is that it'll never happen. You're going to force people into the
school? Sure.
How was the runaway wage spiral management's problem. If there was a
problem, it was in not standing up to ridiculous demands ... but some
companies did.
If you don't know, I'm not going to be able to explain it to you in this
place. Look it up, do some independent reading on the subject.
They were Japanese and they built their factories in Tennessee where
the union did not operate behind the power of a government gun..(AKA a
"right to work state")
Ask yourself, who sold the most cars last year?
Cars are only one industry, but in any case, the Japanese economy is no
where near as stable or viable as the US economy.
I won't force people to go to school, the global economy will ... or
we will be paying them welfare until the government goes broke.
Well, hang on. Either it's the global economy or what? Our entire economy is
pretty much linked to the global economy. So, "paying them welfare"
(something we're not doing anyway), isn't outside the global econonmy.
--
Nom=de=Plume