|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"WASHINGTON, D.C., January 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican
U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown pulled an immense upset victory in Massachusetts’ special election Tuesday night, overtaking Democrat Martha Coakley by five points with three out of four districts reporting." Delicious!! Oh, err.. kick ass! ROTFLMAO |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Jan 19, 10:22*pm, Jack wrote:
"WASHINGTON, D.C., January 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown pulled an immense upset victory in Massachusetts’ special election Tuesday night, overtaking Democrat Martha Coakley by five points with three out of four districts reporting." Delicious!! *Oh, err.. kick ass! ROTFLMAO I wonder if Krause has diarrhea now? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:22:46 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote: "WASHINGTON, D.C., January 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown pulled an immense upset victory in Massachusetts’ special election Tuesday night, overtaking Democrat Martha Coakley by five points with three out of four districts reporting." Delicious!! Oh, err.. kick ass! ROTFLMAO another victory for goldman sachs |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
TopBassDog wrote:
On Jan 19, 10:22 pm, Jack wrote: "WASHINGTON, D.C., January 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown pulled an immense upset victory in Massachusetts’ special election Tuesday night, overtaking Democrat Martha Coakley by five points with three out of four districts reporting." Delicious!! Oh, err.. kick ass! ROTFLMAO I wonder if Krause has diarrhea now? Of the mouth? He's had it all along. You haven't noticed? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On 20/01/2010 4:16 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:22:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: "WASHINGTON, D.C., January 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown pulled an immense upset victory in Massachusetts’ special election Tuesday night, overtaking Democrat Martha Coakley by five points with three out of four districts reporting." Delicious!! Oh, err.. kick ass! ROTFLMAO another victory for goldman sachs Actually not. It was democrats that bailed Goldman out. All these bailout for Obama dollars types just got a suttle message. Get your freeking dirty greedy selfish hands out of our tax pockets. Income tax was never meant for corrupt corporations kissing up to democrats. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:35:56 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 20/01/2010 4:16 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:22:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: "WASHINGTON, D.C., January 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown pulled an immense upset victory in Massachusetts’ special election Tuesday night, overtaking Democrat Martha Coakley by five points with three out of four districts reporting." Delicious!! Oh, err.. kick ass! ROTFLMAO another victory for goldman sachs Actually not. It was democrats that bailed Goldman out. actually it was bernanke, bush's fed chairman...left little choice after 8 years of GOP free market fundamentalism All these bailout for Obama dollars types just got a suttle message. Get your freeking dirty greedy selfish hands out of our tax pockets. Income tax was never meant for corrupt corporations kissing up to democrats. ROFLMAO!!! the ONLY people the GOP gives tax cuts to are the rich. capital gains tax was 38% when reagan took office. when bush left they were 15% when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:35:56 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: On 20/01/2010 4:16 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:22:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: "WASHINGTON, D.C., January 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown pulled an immense upset victory in Massachusetts’ special election Tuesday night, overtaking Democrat Martha Coakley by five points with three out of four districts reporting." Delicious!! Oh, err.. kick ass! ROTFLMAO another victory for goldman sachs Actually not. It was democrats that bailed Goldman out. actually it was bernanke, bush's fed chairman...left little choice after 8 years of GOP free market fundamentalism All these bailout for Obama dollars types just got a suttle message. Get your freeking dirty greedy selfish hands out of our tax pockets. Income tax was never meant for corrupt corporations kissing up to democrats. ROFLMAO!!! the ONLY people the GOP gives tax cuts to are the rich. capital gains tax was 38% when reagan took office. when bush left they were 15% when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut? What is your definition of middle class and rich? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Jack wrote:
"WASHINGTON, D.C., January 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown pulled an immense upset victory in Massachusetts’ special election Tuesday night, overtaking Democrat Martha Coakley by five points with three out of four districts reporting." Delicious!! Oh, err.. kick ass! ROTFLMAO Hopefully Obama's can set aside his ego and take this for what it is. A look into the future. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:35:56 -0700, wrote: On 20/01/2010 4:16 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:22:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: "WASHINGTON, D.C., January 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown pulled an immense upset victory in Massachusetts’ special election Tuesday night, overtaking Democrat Martha Coakley by five points with three out of four districts reporting." Delicious!! Oh, err.. kick ass! ROTFLMAO another victory for goldman sachs Actually not. It was democrats that bailed Goldman out. actually it was bernanke, bush's fed chairman...left little choice after 8 years of GOP free market fundamentalism All these bailout for Obama dollars types just got a suttle message. Get your freeking dirty greedy selfish hands out of our tax pockets. Income tax was never meant for corrupt corporations kissing up to democrats. ROFLMAO!!! the ONLY people the GOP gives tax cuts to are the rich. capital gains tax was 38% when reagan took office. when bush left they were 15% when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut? If they invested, they would see the same results. Do you understand that it wasn't a 50% tax cut? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:52:20 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
What is your definition of middle class and rich? Me. :) |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:52:20 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:35:56 -0700, Canuck57 All these bailout for Obama dollars types just got a suttle message. Get your freeking dirty greedy selfish hands out of our tax pockets. Income tax was never meant for corrupt corporations kissing up to democrats. ROFLMAO!!! the ONLY people the GOP gives tax cuts to are the rich. capital gains tax was 38% when reagan took office. when bush left they were 15% when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut? What is your definition of middle class and rich? middle class: 20-80 percentiles rich: top 5% of income bracket |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:56:18 -0500, Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:35:56 -0700, wrote: actually it was bernanke, bush's fed chairman...left little choice after 8 years of GOP free market fundamentalism All these bailout for Obama dollars types just got a suttle message. Get your freeking dirty greedy selfish hands out of our tax pockets. Income tax was never meant for corrupt corporations kissing up to democrats. ROFLMAO!!! the ONLY people the GOP gives tax cuts to are the rich. capital gains tax was 38% when reagan took office. when bush left they were 15% when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut? If they invested, they would see the same results. Do you understand that it wasn't a 50% tax cut? actually you're correct. it was greater than 50% the middle class got screwed even more.t hanks for pointing that out |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:52:20 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: What is your definition of middle class and rich? Me. :) Are you confirming the "bipolar" assessment that "someone" around here throws out about you? 8) |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote Hopefully Obama's can set aside his ego and take this for what it is. A look into the future. Is it me, or is he looking angry and showing his teeth a lot lately? He's never going to get out of this alive if he keeps up his angst level. One of those veins in his forehead is just going to pop one day. Steve |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:23:09 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:52:20 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote: What is your definition of middle class and rich? Me. :) LMAO! -- John H All decisions are the result of binary thinking. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bruce" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:42:08 -0500, wrote: capital gains tax was 38% when reagan took office. when bush left they were 15% when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut? BTW the capital gains reduction from 39% to 28% was in 1979 (Carter) It dropped to 20% in 1997 (Clinton) and Bush took it to 15% The GOP contribution to your 50% tax cut was 10% of it. uh...no. the GOP controlled the congress under clinton. so they forced the 30% reduction from 39 to 28. right before they impeached clinton. So we can blame the last 2 years of Bush on the Democrats? There was a one year period of 20% during the Reagan administration but it was back to 38% when he left. That is not exactly what you posted or what you implied. it seems you got it just a bit wrong... Not so much Who said Reagan dropped the 38% ? (it was in the Carter administration) If they repeal this and allow the cap gains tax to rise, expect a big "correction" in the market as people cash in their profits before the tax kicks in. Too bad if your money is in a 401k and you can't get out but I guess we have already seen that happen recently. of course this is bull****. there' so much money to be stolen by the rich they won't do anything. I agree the rich are getting richer but if you make less than $65,000 you get the best deal on capital gains. (5%) And, you have less money to begin with, thus your "best deal" isn't so great. Let's say you claim $10K in capital gains and pay 5%. Your net is $9500. Cool. Now, let's say you claim $100K in capital gains and pay 20% (just for fun). Your net is $80K. So, looking at it in actual dollars, which is the "better deal" or rather, which one would you rather have? It's a measure of success. Yes, it's a measure of financial success. Your point? "Getting the best deal" doesn't mean actually making a lot of money. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:59:19 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:40:24 -0500, bpuharic wrote: There was a one year period of 20% during the Reagan administration but it was back to 38% when he left. That is not exactly what you posted or what you implied. Did you expect anything else from our newest far left lying loon? guess you didn't know the dems, under carter, raised capital gains to almost 40% http://www.urban.org/publications/1000519.html And what was inflation under Carter? Huge tax increase that inflation. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:59:19 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:40:24 -0500, bpuharic wrote: There was a one year period of 20% during the Reagan administration but it was back to 38% when he left. That is not exactly what you posted or what you implied. Did you expect anything else from our newest far left lying loon? guess you didn't know the dems, under carter, raised capital gains to almost 40% http://www.urban.org/publications/1000519.html And what was inflation under Carter? Huge tax increase that inflation. and what is the cost of being unemployed, courtesy of 'free market' economics? what's the cost of 10 years with no increase in jobs? of 10 years of no pay increases? how's that working out? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:58 -0500, Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:56:18 -0500, wrote: when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut? If they invested, they would see the same results. Do you understand that it wasn't a 50% tax cut? actually you're correct. it was greater than 50% the middle class got screwed even more.t hanks for pointing that out How is the middle class not subject to the same taxes? because our tax rate stayed the same the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Jan 21, 8:23*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:58 -0500, Bruce wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:56:18 -0500, *wrote: when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut? If they invested, they would see the same results. Do you understand that it wasn't a 50% tax cut? actually you're correct. it was greater than 50% the middle class got screwed even more.t hanks for pointing that out How is the middle class not subject to the same taxes? because our tax rate stayed the same the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed Bzzt.. wrong. 1993 saw a huge new tax on the wealthy with two new brackets at the top. After that, starting in 2000, *everyone's* tax rates dropped by 3%, from top to bottom, except for a new lower tax bracket that was created in 2002 that reduced the rate from 15% to 10%, a reduction of 5%. That means that everyone got the *same* reduction except the lower earners, who got a *bigger* reduction. The one bracket that didn't change in rate was the 15%... but many did fall out of that bracket to 10%, so that's not really no change, is it? Many in the 15% bracket got a bigger relief than everyone else. So your statement is false. The plans moving forward is to leave everyone's tax rates alone... except for those top two rates, who rebound back up to 1993 rates. That should make you happy. Or not. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Jan 21, 2:01*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... And, you have less money to begin with, thus your "best deal" isn't so great. Let's say you claim $10K in capital gains and pay 5%. Your net is $9500. Cool. Now, let's say you claim $100K in capital gains and pay 20% (just for fun). Your net is $80K. So, looking at it in actual dollars, which is the "better deal" or rather, which one would you rather have? So, to be fair am I to assume we are all supposed to start out with the same amount of $$ to invest, like a game of Monopoly? Eisboch It's already been shown that if you did that, ecentually the same group of people would end up with all the money, and the same peeps would end up poor. Real life isn't a Monopoly game. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:59:19 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:40:24 -0500, bpuharic wrote: There was a one year period of 20% during the Reagan administration but it was back to 38% when he left. That is not exactly what you posted or what you implied. Did you expect anything else from our newest far left lying loon? guess you didn't know the dems, under carter, raised capital gains to almost 40% http://www.urban.org/publications/1000519.html And what was inflation under Carter? Huge tax increase that inflation. and what is the cost of being unemployed, courtesy of 'free market' economics? what's the cost of 10 years with no increase in jobs? of 10 years of no pay increases? how's that working out? And where is that the Republicans fault. Nafta was a Dem POTUS signed thing. We have been moving jobs out of country a lot longer than 8 years. We stopped teaching shop classes 40 years ago. Where at the kids going to learn how to be non college prep students? Dem and Republican controlled Congresses have never stepped up and told China that every Tariff they impose on imports will be matched by us on their exports. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:42:50 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote: On Jan 21, 8:23*pm, bpuharic wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:21:58 -0500, Bruce wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:56:18 -0500, *wrote: when's the last time the MIDDLE CLASS got a 50% tax cut? If they invested, they would see the same results. Do you understand that it wasn't a 50% tax cut? actually you're correct. it was greater than 50% the middle class got screwed even more.t hanks for pointing that out How is the middle class not subject to the same taxes? because our tax rate stayed the same the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed Bzzt.. wrong. 1993 saw a huge new tax on the wealthy with two new brackets at the top. let's see..democratic president....democratic congress.... yeah. thanks for supporting what i said After that, starting in 2000, *everyone's* tax rates dropped by 3%, from top to bottom, except for a new lower tax bracket that was created in 2002 that reduced the rate from 15% to 10%, a reduction of 5%. That means that everyone got the *same* reduction except the lower earners, who got a *bigger* reduction. The one bracket that didn't change in rate was the 15%... but many did fall out of that bracket to 10%, so that's not really no change, is it? Many in the 15% bracket got a bigger relief than everyone else. So your statement is false. The plans moving forward is to leave everyone's tax rates alone... except for those top two rates, who rebound back up to 1993 rates. That should make you happy. Or not. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm interesting that you post this reference. because it shows how REGRESSIVE the tax system really is, especially towards the middle class. in 2006, under the GOP, someone making 7500 paid a tax rate of 15%. someone making 30K paid 25%, an increase of 65%. someone making $350K paid 35%, an increase over the 30K guy of about 40%. BUT that's really irrelevant. the RICH paid 15% because most of THEIR income is capital gains, NOT income from work. so, try again. the GOP keeps making the middle class pay for their goldman sachs buddies |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: And where is that the Republicans fault. Nafta was a Dem POTUS signed thing. We have been moving jobs out of country a lot longer than 8 years. We stopped teaching shop classes 40 years ago. Where at the kids going to learn how to be non college prep students? Dem and Republican controlled Congresses have never stepped up and told China that every Tariff they impose on imports will be matched by us on their exports. Bill, you just can't argue with the liberals. They have a spin for almost everything, and when they don't they just revert to name calling. Heck, look at Olbermann the other day? Wow, I've never seen such name calling on the airwaves. He's a perfect example. Besides, if we all just gave up on trying to argue with them, maybe this place would revert back to being more boat oriented? It's a lot like filtering harry. Since most folks here now have him KF'd, he's as good as castrated (if he wasn't already) g. --Mike |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"mgg" wrote in message
... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: And where is that the Republicans fault. Nafta was a Dem POTUS signed thing. We have been moving jobs out of country a lot longer than 8 years. We stopped teaching shop classes 40 years ago. Where at the kids going to learn how to be non college prep students? Dem and Republican controlled Congresses have never stepped up and told China that every Tariff they impose on imports will be matched by us on their exports. Bill, you just can't argue with the liberals. They have a spin for almost everything, and when they don't they just revert to name calling. Heck, look at Olbermann the other day? Wow, I've never seen such name calling on the airwaves. He's a perfect example. Besides, if we all just gave up on trying to argue with them, maybe this place would revert back to being more boat oriented? It's a lot like filtering harry. Since most folks here now have him KF'd, he's as good as castrated (if he wasn't already) g. --Mike You'll note that not a single person refuted what Olbermann said. Not a single thing. -- Nom=de=Plume |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Jan 21, 9:41*pm, bpuharic wrote:
because our (middle class) tax rate stayed the same the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed Bzzt.. wrong. 1993 saw a huge new tax on the wealthy with two new brackets at the top. yeah. thanks for supporting what i said How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"? * After that, starting in 2000, *everyone's* tax rates dropped by 3%, from top to bottom, except for a new lower tax bracket that was created in 2002 that reduced the rate from 15% to 10%, a reduction of 5%. *That means that everyone got the *same* reduction except the lower earners, who got a *bigger* reduction. The one bracket that didn't change in rate was the 15%... but many did fall out of that bracket to 10%, so that's not really no change, is it? *Many in the 15% bracket got a bigger relief than everyone else. So your statement is false. The plans moving forward is to leave everyone's tax rates alone... except for those top two rates, who rebound back up to 1993 rates. That should make you happy. *Or not. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm interesting that you post this reference. because it shows how REGRESSIVE the tax system really is, especially towards the middle class. You can try to change your assertions by spinning your statements, but it remains clear that you are simply wrong when you say: "because our (middle class) tax rate stayed the same" It did NOT, it was lower. " the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed" They did NOT, they paid more. That was an outright lie. My link proves it. But spin away. I'm done. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Jan 21, 9:41 pm, bpuharic wrote: because our (middle class) tax rate stayed the same the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed Bzzt.. wrong. 1993 saw a huge new tax on the wealthy with two new brackets at the top. yeah. thanks for supporting what i said How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"? After that, starting in 2000, *everyone's* tax rates dropped by 3%, from top to bottom, except for a new lower tax bracket that was created in 2002 that reduced the rate from 15% to 10%, a reduction of 5%. That means that everyone got the *same* reduction except the lower earners, who got a *bigger* reduction. The one bracket that didn't change in rate was the 15%... but many did fall out of that bracket to 10%, so that's not really no change, is it? Many in the 15% bracket got a bigger relief than everyone else. So your statement is false. The plans moving forward is to leave everyone's tax rates alone... except for those top two rates, who rebound back up to 1993 rates. That should make you happy. Or not. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm interesting that you post this reference. because it shows how REGRESSIVE the tax system really is, especially towards the middle class. You can try to change your assertions by spinning your statements, but it remains clear that you are simply wrong when you say: "because our (middle class) tax rate stayed the same" It did NOT, it was lower. " the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed" They did NOT, they paid more. That was an outright lie. My link proves it. But spin away. I'm done. See my note to Bill. Just let them wallow in what they created. The tide is turning. --Mike |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "mgg" wrote in message ... Bill, you just can't argue with the liberals. They have a spin for almost everything, and when they don't they just revert to name calling. Heck, look at Olbermann the other day? Wow, I've never seen such name calling on the airwaves. He's a perfect example. Besides, if we all just gave up on trying to argue with them, maybe this place would revert back to being more boat oriented? It's a lot like filtering harry. Since most folks here now have him KF'd, he's as good as castrated (if he wasn't already) g. --Mike You'll note that not a single person refuted what Olbermann said. Not a single thing. Why? Not worth the time or energy. His comments the other night are the perfect example of the "wrestling with a pig" analogy. He makes a bunch of claims, unique Olbermannisms, then his huge, elitist ego expects a response. No halfway intelligent person would bother and it offends him. I watch his comedy show occasionally for entertainment value only. I laugh at him. There are other liberal thinkers that I have much more genuine respect for. Eisboch |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
"mgg" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: And where is that the Republicans fault. Nafta was a Dem POTUS signed thing. We have been moving jobs out of country a lot longer than 8 years. We stopped teaching shop classes 40 years ago. Where at the kids going to learn how to be non college prep students? Dem and Republican controlled Congresses have never stepped up and told China that every Tariff they impose on imports will be matched by us on their exports. Bill, you just can't argue with the liberals. They have a spin for almost everything, and when they don't they just revert to name calling. Heck, look at Olbermann the other day? Wow, I've never seen such name calling on the airwaves. He's a perfect example. Besides, if we all just gave up on trying to argue with them, maybe this place would revert back to being more boat oriented? It's a lot like filtering harry. Since most folks here now have him KF'd, he's as good as castrated (if he wasn't already) g. --Mike You'll note that not a single person refuted what Olbermann said. Not a single thing. "Mike's" area of boating expertise was one post in which he said he took his kid water-skiing. If the little **** weren't attacking those who disagree with him politically, he'd have nothing to post. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
|
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote: On Jan 21, 9:41*pm, bpuharic wrote: because our (middle class) tax rate stayed the same the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed Bzzt.. wrong. 1993 saw a huge new tax on the wealthy with two new brackets at the top. yeah. thanks for supporting what i said How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"? because the marginal rate of tax increase above the middle class is regressive. the BIGGEST INCREASE in marginal tax rates comes in the middle class tax band |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:35:32 -0800, "mgg" wrote:
See my note to Bill. Just let them wallow in what they created. The tide is turning. --Mike on that i agree. reminds me of when harris wofford ran against rick santorum here in PA a few years ago wofford ran on health care in PA santorum ran on repealing the estate tax, which would benefit the richest 2 people who died in PA everyear santorum won |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:35:32 -0800, "mgg" wrote: See my note to Bill. Just let them wallow in what they created. The tide is turning. --Mike on that i agree. reminds me of when harris wofford ran against rick santorum here in PA a few years ago wofford ran on health care in PA santorum ran on repealing the estate tax, which would benefit the richest 2 people who died in PA everyear santorum won Ahh...Rick Santorum...the poster boy for science-denying, right-wing assholes. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry wrote:
"Mike's" area of boating expertise was one post in which he said he took his kid water-skiing. If the little **** weren't attacking those who disagree with him politically, he'd have nothing to post. Sometimes I "project" my own feelings onto others. I know, if it wasn't for my snotty comments directed towards those I disagree with politically, I'd have nothing to post, but what the heck. Did I tell you handguns has compensated for losing my pecker under all those folds of fat? |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
Harry Krause wrote:
Harry wrote: "Mike's" area of boating expertise was one post in which he said he took his kid water-skiing. If the little **** weren't attacking those who disagree with him politically, he'd have nothing to post. Sometimes I "project" my own feelings onto others. I know, if it wasn't for my snotty comments directed towards those I disagree with politically, I'd have nothing to post, but what the heck. Did I tell you handguns has compensated for losing my pecker under all those folds of fat? Speaking of little dicks, flajim*, you do realize that if yours were bigger and still worked, your wife might not be cruising the produce aisles, looking for bumpy cucumbers and zucchini. * *All* the right-wing ID spoofers are flajim, whether they are or not. Flajim in a moment of sobriety admitted to being an ID spoofer here. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
On Jan 22, 6:23*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST), Jack wrote: How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"? because the marginal rate of tax increase above the middle class is regressive. the BIGGEST INCREASE in marginal tax rates comes in the middle class tax band Ahh... now it's starting to make sense. You want the nominal tax rate to be 15%, so the progression for the next bracket would be about 18% for you. Then you'd like the next brackets to ramp up even more so they'll make up for what you'd fail to pay. Sorry, the nominal rate is 25%, the 15% and 10% brackets are breaks for the poor. You'll have to keep contributing your share. "Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department. According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year." http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm •In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income. •The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share. So stop your whining. |
BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
nom=de=plume wrote:
"mgg" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:04 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: And where is that the Republicans fault. Nafta was a Dem POTUS signed thing. We have been moving jobs out of country a lot longer than 8 years. We stopped teaching shop classes 40 years ago. Where at the kids going to learn how to be non college prep students? Dem and Republican controlled Congresses have never stepped up and told China that every Tariff they impose on imports will be matched by us on their exports. Bill, you just can't argue with the liberals. They have a spin for almost everything, and when they don't they just revert to name calling. Heck, look at Olbermann the other day? Wow, I've never seen such name calling on the airwaves. He's a perfect example. Besides, if we all just gave up on trying to argue with them, maybe this place would revert back to being more boat oriented? It's a lot like filtering harry. Since most folks here now have him KF'd, he's as good as castrated (if he wasn't already) g. --Mike You'll note that not a single person refuted what Olbermann said. Not a single thing. Because they were laughing so hard at him, that's why. He came completely un-hinged. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com