BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:45:18 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:



Disband the Senate? Your normally post a lot of weird **** but this is
just dumb.

If it was Canada, 400 geriatrics with nothing to do but cost us, I wold
agree. But the US senate is at least active. Dumb to remove such a
needed counterbalance. Millions of Canadians wish we had an active,
elected and effective senate.

actually they're inactive, which is the problem.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:22:41 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:17:30 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

Time will tell but the market is over bought for the fundimentals which
tells me inflation is the cause. Jobless recovery at best.

Agreed, put in some stop loss orders if you want to lock in profits,
although it would have been better done last week.
I have unrealized sell orders in on a few items, looking for one more
little bounce.

Money does tend to pile onto anything that looks like it is going up,
whether it is rational or not. Usually it isn't

core inflation was about 2% last year.

care to try again?

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:41:30 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:17:14 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

it was corporate america's attitude that destroyed GM, not the UAW.

What was GM's largest financial liability?

Just a wild ass guess. LABOR

nope. less than 10% of the vehicle's price

but, of course, that's what the right whine WOULD guess

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

Harry wrote:
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.

You consider yourself civilized. Now that's funny.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

Harry wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 23/01/2010 10:20 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says...

On 22/01/2010 11:54 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"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.

You know squat about economics. Flat tax is linear and proportional.

I am trying to figure out how 10% for guy A is different then 10% for
guy B?

I have a feeling that those who hold the belief that a flat tax is
regressive look at what guy A and guy B have left after being taxed at a
flat rate and that is where they see the "regressiveness."

One is left with $90K, the other with $9K, so? $9K earner didn't work
as hard, or as smart or didn't provide enough value in the services
provided. Surely didn't invest in themselves. Yet they pay as a fixed
percentage as they still needed government roads, education etc. for
what they did get. Thus a flat tax is fair to society.


Fortunately, what gives you assholes a hard-on is never going to come to
pass. Tax rates for the wealthy are far too low in this country. A rate
of 49% would be acceptable for those in the highest brackets.
Acceptable to whom, maggot?
The little Krause maggot says Tax him Tax him. Leave me alone.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:17:14 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

it was corporate america's attitude that destroyed GM, not the UAW.

What was GM's largest financial liability?


Continuing to build cars people don't want...

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...


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.


Ah. A closet conservative.

Eisboch



Not a closeted one. I'm certainly fiscally conservative.

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 24/01/2010 3:07 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


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.


Ah. A closet conservative.

Eisboch

At least plum de tart sees at least this much.

How few understand he fact that government is a consumer of wealth and not
a creator of wealth? Certainly not enough or they would think of Obama
debt as the devils work to destroy the US.


It's not a "consumer of wealth." We create governments to (presumably) help
people in situations they can't help themselves. Provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, etc.

Get off your Obama is terrible rant. He didn't start this and he's making
progress to end the corruption. Thank the Supreme Court for not only not
helping, but making things much worse. Thanks GWB for stacking the Court
with right wing freaks.

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 23/01/2010 8:13 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 23/01/2010 1:43 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

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.

Why not go the other way since we are socialising talk.

Why not a fixed head tax, say $10,000 a year. If you can't pay it then
you become a slave. You even lose the right to vote as you are
considered
a minor dependant unable to fend for ones self.

That's a patently dumb argument. It's not what we're discussing, except
in
your twisted view of the world.

Not any different than aggressive taxation, just two extremes of the same
coin.

There's no aggressive taxation going on. I'd be happy to pay more for more
services and to help those who are less fortunate.


Persecuting because one is oor isn't really much different than
persecution those that are successful and produce.

Neither is being persecuted. That's just your rant.


The reasoning being in a nanny state of government health care, your ass
is just as expensive as mine to keep. We went to the same schools, thus
should be taxed the same in value. We ge the same government protection
from police, in fact since I make more I have more to loose this even
pose
a lower risk.

So why not a fixed head tax?

blah, blah... same noise, repeated endlessly, as though it's someday
going
to make sense.

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

Same noise... meaningless.


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.

Talk to Bush. He's the one who screwed the pooch.


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?

Because sometimes running a deficit is the smart economic thing to do. Look
it up.

So, now you're playing the nanny by "guaranteeing" a percentage of income?

We still get a very healthy chunk of money, so you're just ranting without
logic.


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

Blah, blah... meaningless drooling from a loonie.

--
Nom=de=Plume