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

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
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.

You really need to take a pill. Capitalism without regulation doesn't work.
Get it through your head.

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

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

"bpuharic" 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. Working as assemblers and janitors
and secretaries that made a hell of a lot less than the engineers. They
also did not have advanced education. And most of us making a $100k
plus were working more hours than those making $35k or so. Probably
working harder also. I worked and put myself through college, did take
advantage of the corporate tuition reimbursement to help pay for that.
Evil corporation, making it advantageous for me to go to school. My
nephew, makes very little, mostly odd jobs, 45 years old. Thought he
was a computer guru, but never went to JC, or night school to get a
certificate, etc. Lazy. Problem with most of those in dire straights,
other than those with major health problems, is lack of education or
lazy.

All true no doubt, but that doesn't include all people making $35K/year.

--
Nom=de=Plume

35k is not dire straights.

With four kids???? You're cracked.

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:19:11 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Capitalism and the free market are all about exploiting those who have
to work for a licing, nothing more.

What is the alternative, communism? Every time it has actually been
tried you still ended up with a two tier society with rich aparachicks
and slave workers. The only communist society that still survives from
the early 20th century experiments is Cuba. Even Cuba is nibbling
around the edges of the free market.

The alternative is a well-regulated capitalistic economy. That actually
works.

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
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.

So, basically, bottom line... you're a racist.

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

"John H" wrote in message
...
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

Of course, you are also, by your own words.

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:25:29 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

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.

and obviously you're a taliban wannabee

Sure sounds like one from time to time.

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 23/01/2010 12:01 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:31:44 -0700,
wrote:

On 22/01/2010 5:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
t...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

and the SCOTUS just ****ed us again. they ruled companies can do
whatever they want in terms of paying for campaigns.

this country, courtesy of the right wing, may be doomed

Oh yee of little faith. While I'll agree the SCOTUS decision is the
absolutely wrong one, you are starting to sound like a Republican, all
doom and gloom. If there is one thing I have learned, in my short
time
on this planet, is this country is incredibly resilient. It's people
are
the hardest working, most creative, people you will find. We have
faced
far more difficult challenges than this current SCOTUS. We will
survive,
and we will prosper. Hell, eight years of Bush hasn't killed us.
Need I
say more?

I hope you're right. I'm an optimistic person, but this ruling is
pretty
extreme. It's going to take a lot of Congressional action to nullify
it, and
I'm not sure Congress is up for the task.

Who do you think appoints the SCOTUS? Didn't see any new
liberal-democrat Obama appointees oppose it.

in the last 30 years, dems have appointed 3 justices. the GOP has
appointed 7.

Perhaps we should have a truce. Does not mater be you left or right,
statism and corruption is the enemy here. Governmetn is now large
enough it works for itself and not the people. The US government (any
party) has the most corruption as they have most of the money.

Statism and corruption destroy left and right wealth. Everyone looses.

it's not that government is too large. it's that it's been captured by
the very people it's supposed to regulate, and has often turned
against the people who give it its power

And because the voters are politically corrupted themselves. "Obama will
pay for my gas and morgage...".... Low morals, low wisdom, low life
entitlement mentality. Willing to sell their American liberties and
mutual self respect to the first pied piper that shows up. Decay of
morality in society. Evvy, greed and corruption now rule.

It isn't going to change any time soon.

It isn't going to change in your mind... angry expat, racist.

--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 23/01/2010 1:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:34:10 -0600,
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote:

When a multinational based in China, the communist one, decides to
take
an interest in our elections, tell me again how strange Liberal
thinking is.

So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats
can accept bribes?

I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea,
America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from
Chinese
communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter.

Soros couldn't take money from the Chinese? Could Chinese individuals
not make contributions? You obviously don't like the ruling, so you're
making up ridiculous reasons to be against it.

Talk about a strawman.

Talk about not thinking! Soros (or Gates or whomever) would never have
the
financial resources compared to a multi-billion dollar company. I believe
you have to be a US citizen to make campaign contributions, so Chinese
individuals could not make contributions.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

Want to make a bet on that? Bet I could legally contribute to Obama or
Palin, hell, why not both! So if either wins, I win!

Recipes:

Open up a US corporation, any LLC will do. From there direct a donation.
Foreign owned, but a US corporation. That simple. A US corporation is a
US entity.

And if that isn't good enough, I am sure there are plenty of Americans
that would do it for a fee.

In fact, bet I could write a $1000 cheque from an American address and
bank account and get both the Dem or GOP to cash it. I really doubt all
the cheques are checked. I can even provide a valid SSN if needed.

And there is always cash in a brief case. There is a reason why
government does not make everything plastic, they too want cash under the
table.

Just another unenforcable law. But not that I recommend trying it.

So, you're an idiot and a potential criminal. Great combo.
--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 23/01/2010 12:34 PM, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:35:17 -0700, Canuck57 wrote:

When a multinational based in China, the communist one, decides to take
an interest in our elections, tell me again how strange Liberal
thinking is.

So? Are you now imposing who can bribe who? You mean only democrats
can accept bribes?

I guess that must be it. I'm an American, and I have this funny idea,
America should be run by Americans. We don't need any help from Chinese
communists to run it, or Canadians, for that matter.

Unfortuantely as a Canadian I am affectd by what goes on in the USA. I
have friends that are Americans. My father and grand parents were
Americans. I am not a hill billy Canadian hateful of the USA because
Chretien says so. Not you typical herd sheeple.

I am so glad! I hope you are intensely affected! Profoundly affected.

Canada shares the longest border in the world, mostly unprotected. What
the USA does is going to affect people I know on both sides of this ruse
border.

I wish the USA comes out of this as much as anybody can.

Yeah, and you cared so much you left.

But unfortunately the amount of liberal indebtedness is coming back to
haunt. China is reducing credit internally and externally, so Obama and
Harpo can't borrow the debt-corruption-spend any longer. That is why they
are in a tiff. The credit company has put government on notice.

Rightfully so too, as our governments are the biggest debt welchers going.

Nothing worse than the attitude of a welcher. I now know why they had
debtor courts at one time. These welchers need jail and or slavery time
to fix their attitdude.

And, and ignorant ex-pat.

--
Nom=de=Plume