On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:00:19 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:04:26 -0800, "CalifBill"


you right wingers just love your little myths, don't you?



Only 26% of North Carolina people owned slaves. Ignorant twit.

why? you think that wasnt enough?

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:57:15 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:54:46 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:

to school in San Francisco. Hell, I was a minority at San Francisco City
College. And we even allowed a future murderer to matriculate there when
I
was going to school. OJ Simpson. My best friend growing up was Chinese
and
my mom's best friend and her LVN was black. Too bad you grew up in a
racist
area. Must have rubbed off on you.

tell it to MIT and princeton.



Both stupid and ignorant. MIT graduated the first black student in 1890 or
so. Customer of mine in the 1980's was a black MIT graduate. May not have
been a lot, but there were black students.

gee. was that a woman?

guess you missed that part

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:08:38 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:11:59 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


of course you prefer 25% unemployment for the middle class. after all,
let 'em eat cake, right?



We probably are near that now. Where ate the jobs? Where is the potential
for private sector jobs under this stimulus stuff.

unemployment isnt 25%. i know for you, the fact the middle class is
suffering but not destroyed, causes you sleeplessness.

but with your solution, the right would be happy to see families in
the streets

On 1/25/10 6:39 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:08:38 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:11:59 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


of course you prefer 25% unemployment for the middle class. after all,
let 'em eat cake, right?



We probably are near that now. Where ate the jobs? Where is the potential
for private sector jobs under this stimulus stuff.

unemployment isnt 25%. i know for you, the fact the middle class is
suffering but not destroyed, causes you sleeplessness.

but with your solution, the right would be happy to see families in
the streets



There are a couple of Republican moderates here who understand and
appreciate the social compact that should exist between employer and
employee, and the importance of a strong middle class, and then there
are conservatives like Bilious Bill who see workers as only an asset to
exploit.

In article ,
says...

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.

I agree that the concept is fair but, the application of a flat tax will
be just as complicated as the tax system we have now in the US. What
will happen is that the classifying of income will become the key issue.
The only solution is a constitutional amendment that implements the flat
tax and the abolishment of the IRS in its current form or any future
form.

The only way for the government to increase revenue from income taxes
would be to grow the economy by increasing employment.

On 25/01/2010 6:50 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

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.

I agree that the concept is fair but, the application of a flat tax will
be just as complicated as the tax system we have now in the US. What
will happen is that the classifying of income will become the key issue.
The only solution is a constitutional amendment that implements the flat
tax and the abolishment of the IRS in its current form or any future
form.

The only way for the government to increase revenue from income taxes
would be to grow the economy by increasing employment.

Insightful. You should run for office.

Does not take much to understand you don't want to kick a shrinking
middle class with more taxes. Middle class is already bruised enought.
Ditto businesses. But government greed wants more money. Simple
solution is to downsize government to fit revenue plus debt services.
That is, live inside their means.

But Obama likes to flash the cash and talk a lot. So I guess you can't
be a democrat.

In article , says...

I agree that the concept is fair but, the application of a flat tax will
be just as complicated as the tax system we have now in the US. What
will happen is that the classifying of income will become the key issue.
The only solution is a constitutional amendment that implements the flat
tax and the abolishment of the IRS in its current form or any future
form.

The only way for the government to increase revenue from income taxes
would be to grow the economy by increasing employment.

Insightful. You should run for office.

Does not take much to understand you don't want to kick a shrinking
middle class with more taxes. Middle class is already bruised enought.
Ditto businesses. But government greed wants more money. Simple
solution is to downsize government to fit revenue plus debt services.
That is, live inside their means.

But Obama likes to flash the cash and talk a lot. So I guess you can't
be a democrat.

I am far to the right of Attila the Hun.

BAR wrote:
In article , says...
I agree that the concept is fair but, the application of a flat tax will
be just as complicated as the tax system we have now in the US. What
will happen is that the classifying of income will become the key issue.
The only solution is a constitutional amendment that implements the flat
tax and the abolishment of the IRS in its current form or any future
form.

The only way for the government to increase revenue from income taxes
would be to grow the economy by increasing employment.
Insightful. You should run for office.

Does not take much to understand you don't want to kick a shrinking
middle class with more taxes. Middle class is already bruised enought.
Ditto businesses. But government greed wants more money. Simple
solution is to downsize government to fit revenue plus debt services.
That is, live inside their means.

But Obama likes to flash the cash and talk a lot. So I guess you can't
be a democrat.

I am far to the right of Attila the Hun.


There's nothing but really stupid that far over.

Harry wrote:
BAR wrote:
In article , says...
I agree that the concept is fair but, the application of a flat tax
will
be just as complicated as the tax system we have now in the US. What
will happen is that the classifying of income will become the key
issue.
The only solution is a constitutional amendment that implements the
flat
tax and the abolishment of the IRS in its current form or any future
form.

The only way for the government to increase revenue from income taxes
would be to grow the economy by increasing employment.
Insightful. You should run for office.

Does not take much to understand you don't want to kick a shrinking
middle class with more taxes. Middle class is already bruised
enought. Ditto businesses. But government greed wants more money.
Simple solution is to downsize government to fit revenue plus debt
services. That is, live inside their means.

But Obama likes to flash the cash and talk a lot. So I guess you
can't be a democrat.

I am far to the right of Attila the Hun.


There's nothing but really stupid that far over.

That pendulum swings both ways.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:33:32 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:22:57 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:51:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Stop blaming Clinton and the democrats for something that's obviously
been
supported far longer and with more fervor by the right wing.

Why? You have seen the votes by now. It was 51 GOP representatives and
9 democrats that opposed the deregulation of CDOs.

it was actually gramm who wouldn't let the bill pass with the original
regulations of CDO's intact. he forced amendments that stripped govt
regulations out of the bill

How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along? How does he keep the
president from vetoing the legislation. How does he make all but 9
democrats in the house go along, yet losing 51 republicans?
Somehow I have to believe he was just the point man on things that a
lot of other people wanted. (the bankers who buy congress and the
white house)


How does DeMint prevent 99 senators from confirming the TSA nominee?

--
Nom=de=Plume