BoatBanter.com - BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/113226-breaking-brown-wins-mass-race.html)

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:33:41 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

Liberal ears are often denialists to the truth. All thesy see is
liberal greed and what they want to see.

says the guy who forgot that the right wing ran the country under
free market fundamenalism for the last 8 years

and they ran it into the ground

And taxaton is fixed, governmetn cannot raise or lower it without a
referendum of all affected. And you can only vote if you pay a minimum of
$1000 in taxes. None of this mentality of losers telling winners how it
works.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but something very similar is going on in
California. It's a budget disaster.

Yep, people said no to spiraling taxes and liberalism kept spending.
Sooner or later someone is going to have to shut down government until
the books balance

the biggest spenders in history were reagan and Bush II. right winders
spend, but they dont believe in paying for it so they borrow. THEN
this adds interest payments to an already bad budget.

Government should have it's spending capped as a percentage of gross
income to preven statism creap. If the greedy government wants more
revenue, better make for a good economy with decent jobs or suck for it.

You idiot... the gov't is the people. The gov't doesn't "make for a good
economy." The people make up the economy.

Why should not government have a revenue and spending cap? Why should a
person not be guaranteed a good percentage of their gross income?

Or are we all to become slaves to the Obama marxist state?

the only socialist program in the US is the socialism for the rich

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

On 23/01/2010 8:14 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 12:08 pm, wrote:

On 23/01/2010 12:31 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...

"Bill wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,
wrote:

The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be no
cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.

As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign contributions
and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code to
drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get tax
breaks, big ones.

Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the ultimate
control.

A flat tax is regressive.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.

You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less you
pay -
hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the
flat
tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your income.

Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those who
make
just a bit.

You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?

90,000 of course. But it is fair, for each dollar the use is the same.
Bet the $90,000 earner also worked harder. Why should he pay 30% when
the lacky gets a 10% rate? Are we penalizing those who work?

Besides, that whole position is simple-minded. In regard to taxes
there is no choice to be made as the two examples are exactly the
same... they are being taxed equally. It's an easy sixth grade math
problem.

I didn't see knuckle's (no offense intended) reply for some reason.

Yes, you're right. They're identical tax rates. My point was that a flat
tax
isn't appropriate because it's regressive for the lower earner. If you
change the lower number to something more reasonable, say $40K/year vs.
$100
(which was just a limiting case to use as an example). Someone who makes
$40K could be someone who works really hard... 10 hours/day 6 days/week,
perhaps two jobs. The person who makes $100K/yr. perhaps might only work
20
hrs./wk. We don't need to get into the socio/economic reasons, but
there's
no way to claim that the lower earner is working less hard. Yet, when you
look at a flat tax, the $40K person would keep $36K. The $100K person
would
keep $90K. Who is hurt more? Again, which salary would you pick? The
answer
is likely obvious. Are we penalizing those who work hard, but have
low-paying jobs? My answer is yes.

Let's take a progressive (e.g., non-flat tax) rate. The upper income
person
is taxed at 20% and the lower one is taxed at 5%. (Quite a difference,
right? Yet...) The numbers: Lower incomer keeps $38K. The upper incomer
keeps $80K. Clearly, the upper incomer still keeps a decent amount and
most
people would still pick being this person. Yet, the lower incomer isn't
hurt
nearly as much.

Now if one wanted to discuss compensation, then of course anyone would
take the 100k job. Of course, not everyone is qualified or able to
perform it. But that's a completely different subject.

True enough I suppose. Of course, there's baggage sometimes associated
with
higher salaries... different subject as you say.

You are making **** up. Your assumptions have no bearing on the truth:

Many low-wage employees work harder because their skill level can only get
them a job involving 9-5 actual labor. Those who chose to get an
education are paid more for what they know than what they do - physically.
There is no comparison.

"Choose to get an education." Hmm... what about those who are limited by
their native intelligence? We should punish them for doing the manual labor?

Getting through school is primarily about character, determination and
will, beyond a basic IQ that is.

For most people, their biggest roadblock is themselves.

While I can see the attraction of a utopian society where all are
treated the same, like most idealistic notions of how things work it
ignores hat humans are needy and greedy at the core. Thus in reality
falls flat on it's ass like socialism, keynesian, marxism... all a bunch
of BS.

Because only capitalism adapts to people and isn't myopic, unduely
manipulative and dogmatic.

For example, marriage, born of capitalism. Big guy hunts for food,
starving woman trades sex for food, next thing you know she is knocked
up. Decides to take care of the mans wounds so he can hunt for more, a
bond developed and they institutionalised is as marriage as civilization
developed. Capitalistic because the guy like sex and the care, and
women liked the protection and food. Equitable trade.

Capitalism will outlive them all. So get your education, the more you
have to offer that can't be found elsewhere that others want, gets you a
bigger return.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

Canuck57 wrote:

For example, marriage, born of capitalism. Big guy hunts for food,
starving woman trades sex for food, next thing you know she is knocked
up.

We could have all done without your family history.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

On 24/01/2010 3:50 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:11:10 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?

Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy
don't have the option to choose a $100K income.

or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc.

Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon
Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making in
excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black, Jewish,
women, Latino, etc.

i did my grad work at lehigh. they didn't admit women until '71.
neither did princeton. there's still alot of bias in the system

Can one imagine the howling if I set up a institution with the same
funding like UNCF but called it UWCF?

Racism is a two sided coin and isn't always what it seems. In fact,
cries of racism are often crying wolf when there is no wolf. And the
disease where it exists is not limited to WASPs, in fact some of the
worst racism I have ever seen whas not white initiated.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

On 23/01/2010 6:10 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:58:30 -0700,
wrote:

Liberals are always for big fat lard government. Too bad only liberals
would get the bills for liberal sized mistakes like debt and bailouts.

and right wingers are always for big fat, lard, church based govt.

Obviously you are a low morals loser.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:24:26 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 24/01/2010 3:50 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:11:10 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?

Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy
don't have the option to choose a $100K income.

or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc.

Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon
Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making in
excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black, Jewish,
women, Latino, etc.

i did my grad work at lehigh. they didn't admit women until '71.
neither did princeton. there's still alot of bias in the system

Can one imagine the howling if I set up a institution with the same
funding like UNCF but called it UWCF?

Racism is a two sided coin and isn't always what it seems. In fact,
cries of racism are often crying wolf when there is no wolf. And the
disease where it exists is not limited to WASPs, in fact some of the
worst racism I have ever seen whas not white initiated.

Them's blasphemous words around here, my friend. If there's the
slightest chance a post can be called 'racist', the libs here will do
so, unless a lib made the post, of course.
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown)

John H

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:01:59 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

For most people, their biggest roadblock is themselves.

While I can see the attraction of a utopian society where all are
treated the same, like most idealistic notions of how things work it
ignores hat humans are needy and greedy at the core. Thus in reality
falls flat on it's ass like socialism, keynesian, marxism... all a bunch
of BS.

it's laughable watching the right wing spin in the wind after the
collapse of their religious beliefs in the 'efficient market'. hell,
even conservative economists like richard posner are abandoning the
idea of the 'efficient market'.

why? because of the evidence. we had a virtually unregulated free
market in this country...and it nearly destroyed us.

when i was a freshman at carnegie mellon, we had a nobel prize winner
economist, herbert simon, who was a pioneer in behavorial economics.

and albert lo, at MIT, along with simon johnson of MIT, are looking
at the EVIDENCE to develop and integrate simon's work into a concept
called 'adaptive market' economics based not on the failed ideas of
the religously based 'efficient market', but on how people actually
behave

but, to the right wing, like 'canuck', following his blind master,
rush limbaugh, no amount of evidence will convince them their religion
is false. he'll just continue to blather about his faith, his emotions
and his failed ideas

and call every other idea 'socialism'

that's what happens when your religion collapses.

Because only capitalism adapts to people and isn't myopic, unduely
manipulative and dogmatic.

For example, marriage, born of capitalism.

ROFLMAO!!! marriage born of capitalism? kind of like when women and
children weren't human but were property?

yes, THAT aspect of right wing ideology survives. right wingers
generally see employees as property, not human

Big guy hunts for food,
starving woman trades sex for food, next thing you know she is knocked
up. Decides to take care of the mans wounds so he can hunt for more, a
bond developed and they institutionalised is as marriage as civilization
developed. Capitalistic because the guy like sex and the care, and
women liked the protection and food. Equitable trade.

Capitalism will outlive them all. So get your education, the more you
have to offer that can't be found elsewhere that others want, gets you a
bigger return.

capitalism will oultive them all?

except the 'efficient market' simply doesn't work

that's what the EVIDENCE shows. people who dont let their emotions run
their lives live in the real world

those who DO let emotion run their lives are right wingers

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

John H wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:24:26 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 24/01/2010 3:50 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:11:10 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?

Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy
don't have the option to choose a $100K income.
or they could be black, jewish, women, latino, etc.

Uneducated black, Jewish, women, Latino, etc. I worked in the Silicon
Valley as an engineer. Lots of Jewish, Black and Latino coworkers making in
excess of $100k. All had university educations. Lots of black, Jewish,
women, Latino, etc.
i did my grad work at lehigh. they didn't admit women until '71.
neither did princeton. there's still alot of bias in the system
Can one imagine the howling if I set up a institution with the same
funding like UNCF but called it UWCF?

Racism is a two sided coin and isn't always what it seems. In fact,
cries of racism are often crying wolf when there is no wolf. And the
disease where it exists is not limited to WASPs, in fact some of the
worst racism I have ever seen whas not white initiated.

Them's blasphemous words around here, my friend. If there's the
slightest chance a post can be called 'racist', the libs here will do
so, unless a lib made the post, of course.

And you assholes wonder why I read this newsgroup!

What could be funnier than two of the biggest racists and sexists on
wrecked boats, herring and canukistan, whine about racism and sexism.

The world would be far better off with your heads on pikes outside the
village gates, posted as a warning that your sort of smallmindedness
isn't wanted among civilized men and women. Since we don't do much heads
on pikes anymore, may the great god of herpes settle in on your faces.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race