jgalt wrote:
No doubt they will be playing "Hail to the Thief" whenever King Obama
enters a room. Throughout his career, such as it is, Obama's ONLY
skill has been taking money from people who earned it and giving it to
people who did NOT earn it.


What? You mean like McCain wanted to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM

And don't forget Sarah Palin "spreading the wealth"

..

--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.

On Nov 1, 6:07*am, clouddreamer
wrote:
jgalt wrote:
No doubt they will be playing "Hail to the Thief" whenever King Obama
enters a room. Throughout his career, such as it is, Obama's ONLY
skill has been taking money from people who earned it and giving it to
people who did NOT earn it.

What? You mean like McCain wanted to:

Still can't get over your God's idiotic "spread the wealth around"
comment? Continue crying and sobbing, infant


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM

And don't forget Sarah Palin "spreading the wealth"

* ..

--
We must change the way we live
* * * * Or the climate will do it for us.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 03:49:19 -0700 in
, jgalt
wrote:

No doubt they will be playing "Hail to the Thief" whenever King Obama


yawn



--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
Theology: The study of elaborate verbal disguises for non-ideas.

"jgalt" wrote in message
...
No doubt they will be playing "Hail to the Thief" whenever King Obama
enters a room. Throughout his career, such as it is, Obama's ONLY
skill has been taking money from people who earned it and giving it to
people who did NOT earn it.

This is not appropriate for this newsgroup. However, it does bring up a
question regarding the perspective of those that do not pay taxes. I'm
trying to find out exactly what that phrase means when used in political
campaigns and such. I take it it means that such receive some form of
public assistance in regards to income, and, it also means a wage earner
received all his/her taxes paid thoughout the year via an income tax return
check per their filed income tax return.

My perspective: I'm in my mid 50s regarding age. I've worked since I was
16 part-time, then full-time since I was 19. I was in the U.S. military for
20 years, then, went back to working a regular job. My income has always
been less than the middle of the middle income bracket except for 2 years of
my life. One year, my current ex-wife, and one child and I were considered
borderline poverty level, with that one exception where I did not pay any
taxes as I received all taxes paid via my employer via income tax return
check. I've paid into the U.S. Treasury without full return of all my via
employer paid taxes otherwise.

My feeling is that the vast majority of working folks, like myself, do end
up paying federal income taxes as a net result after the income tax return
is filed.

Further, I feel that most folks don't know about their neighbors and folks
like them and who, in the final net analysis actually pay Federal income
tax. Especially those trying to compare folks in widely varied tax
brackets. They assume incorrectly. As a result, there's breeding ground
for dividing people and using those invalid assumptions as motive for
political gain by fostering those notions. There's a variety of notions in
this formula that are really just false assumptions. Lower income working
folks (all 3 subgroups inclusive in these) dont pay Federal income taxes in
the final, net analysis is one of them. Another notion on the lower income
group's perspective is the higher income group has full Federal income tax
payment prevention by way of tax law. Such is a notion taken advantage of
by the opposing polical party. The people in the middle, middle income
taxpayers who are also voters, are asked to determine, by their own notions,
which perspective is correct (if both correct, which is most correct) for
that particular election cycle.

My perspective is that a person needs hard data to make such determination
of who is actually paying taxes, and if so, how much. I don't see why the
IRS, by gross ncome level brackets vs. taxes actually paid, with a line item
noting percentage of income actually taxes paid, can't produce figures for a
basis of a logical decision of which notion is actually most correct. And a
concurrent table showing how that's changed over the years noting the U.S.
governemt designated poverty level in a given tax year for each year that
table is provided for year to year comparison's sake. Nope, ain't gonna
happen. Did you ever wonder why?
--
Dave

If it looks like fish, smells like fish, its not
a cantaloupe.

I don't normally reply to political posts, especially in NGs where they do
not belong, but I will make an exception to this one. I sincerely worry
about our country when the people that elect our leaders are so massively
uninformed. The population's exposure to a biased media and the media's
propensity to edit by exclusion world news frightens the hell out of me. Of
course, you say, I am talking about somebody else, that could not be me.
Well, boys and girls, it is you. The person in the mirror you see in the
morning. I refuse to label Americans as ignorant or stupid, as most of the
rest of the word does, because it is far from the truth. However, if you do
not feel insulted by the rhetoric spewed from the mouth of both candidates,
you should be and it is indicative of the level of understanding in the
general population.

Please do your own simple arithmetic. There is no such thing as a free
lunch. Everything has a cost, please ask yourself where the money will come
from for the advertised programs being spouted and if you determine that
there are no funds for these things, no matter how noble and righteous they
may be, you must NOT trust anything else the candidate says. We are already
in a terrible state with massive national, corporate and personal debt. If
you think the sub-prime mortgage thing is big, think about personal credit
card debt. It is even bigger. Remember, no man is truly free, if he is in
debt. What are you going to do about it. Don't look somewhere else. Look in
the mirror. Put a plan together and vote responsibly.
Steve


"

Steve Lusardi wrote:
I don't normally reply to political posts, especially in NGs where they do
not belong, but I will make an exception to this one. I sincerely worry
about our country when the people that elect our leaders are so massively
uninformed. The population's exposure to a biased media and the media's
propensity to edit by exclusion world news frightens the hell out of me. Of
course, you say, I am talking about somebody else, that could not be me.
Well, boys and girls, it is you. The person in the mirror you see in the
morning. I refuse to label Americans as ignorant or stupid, as most of the
rest of the word does, because it is far from the truth. However, if you do
not feel insulted by the rhetoric spewed from the mouth of both candidates,
you should be and it is indicative of the level of understanding in the
general population.

Please do your own simple arithmetic. There is no such thing as a free
lunch. Everything has a cost, please ask yourself where the money will come
from for the advertised programs being spouted and if you determine that
there are no funds for these things, no matter how noble and righteous they
may be, you must NOT trust anything else the candidate says. We are already
in a terrible state with massive national, corporate and personal debt. If
you think the sub-prime mortgage thing is big, think about personal credit
card debt. It is even bigger. Remember, no man is truly free, if he is in
debt. What are you going to do about it. Don't look somewhere else. Look in
the mirror. Put a plan together and vote responsibly.
Steve

I agree. However, there's one problem with that:

The American politick is a "first passed the post, winner takes all"
system, which pretty much guarantees a two-party system. As such, and
because political advertising is NOT free, it also guarantees that only
the richest candidates can even make it TO that "post".

However, there's a difference in this election. The money that Obama is
getting is NOT his own. It's from contributors. A lot of contributors.
He is not using DNC money. Whereas, McCain is using a lot of money
from the RNC.

Let me be clear: I do not trust either candidate. I will, however, vote
for the person that I believe will be the better of the two (note that
this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument):

I am voting for Barack Obama on November 4.


--
************************************************** ****
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* It has been said that Jesus died on a Friday and *
* was resurrected on a Sunday. It is not so much *
* that Jesus died for our sins, as he had a very *
* bad weekend for them. *
************************************************** ****

Let me be clear: I do not trust either candidate. I will, however, vote
for the person that I believe will be the better of the two (note that
this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument):

Because he has no experience, has never authored and passed legislation and
will turn to entrenched democrat political machinery (of the despicable
Chicago kind) for all his work?

That's a recipe for disaster. But you're too blind to see the big picture.
The country, and likely the world, will be worse off for your myopia.

Bill Kearney wrote:
Let me be clear: I do not trust either candidate. I will, however,
vote for the person that I believe will be the better of the two (note
that this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument):

Because he has no experience, has never authored and passed legislation
and will turn to entrenched democrat political machinery (of the
despicable Chicago kind) for all his work?

That's a recipe for disaster. But you're too blind to see the big
picture. The country, and likely the world, will be worse off for your
myopia.

Lincoln had no experience either. We all know how that turned out.

George Bush had executive experience. We all know how that turned out.


Frankly, the fact that Obama has run one of the most exceptionally
successful campaigns in history while McCain's campaign has floundered
miserably, says more about Obama's ability to lead the US than anything
else.

..

--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.

That's a recipe for disaster. But you're too blind to see the big
picture. The country, and likely the world, will be worse off for your
myopia.

Lincoln had no experience either. We all know how that turned out.

The scale of gov't at the time hardly conflates. Certainly not enough to
even come close.

Frankly, the fact that Obama has run one of the most exceptionally
successful campaigns in history while McCain's campaign has floundered
miserably, says more about Obama's ability to lead the US than anything
else.

Lying to the public to get elected, sadly, has no bearing on ability to
govern.

Bill Kearney wrote:

Let me be clear: I do not trust either
candidate. I will, however, vote for the
person that I believe will be the better of the
two (note that this isn't a "lesser of two
evils" argument):

Because he has no experience,

And George W. Bush's experience was???

has never authored
and passed legislation and will turn to
entrenched democrat political machinery (of the
despicable Chicago kind) for all his work?

And George W. Bush turned to the Neo Cons and the
Jewish Cabal forming his foreign policy. Me
thinks I will choose the Chicago gang. The
trains in Chicago run on time!!!


That's a recipe for disaster. But you're too
blind to see the big picture. The country, and
likely the world, will be worse off for your
myopia.