wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:00:26 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

With 650,000 no longer looking for work last month, there are 650,000
fewer taxpayers. Given this has been going on for two years, many
millions have dropped out of the taxpayer base.

There are actually a lot fewer taxpayers than that. Because of the gap
at the bottom when the "underemployed" will drop below the threshold
where they pay income tax. It was 43% in 2009, I bet that number will
be well over 50% in the 2010 tax year.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4945874.shtml

I think that is why they want to let the Bush tax cuts expire. They
keep saying this only affects the super rich but it is also a rise of
rates across the board. Everyone's tax bill will go up.

Everyone's? Nope. You're not willing to pay for services.. fine. I am. Just
don't dial 911 and don't use the roads, and to heck with libraries...
they're for poor people. Don't need to worry about fires and paramedics.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:15:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:00:26 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

With 650,000 no longer looking for work last month, there are 650,000
fewer taxpayers. Given this has been going on for two years, many
millions have dropped out of the taxpayer base.

There are actually a lot fewer taxpayers than that. Because of the gap
at the bottom when the "underemployed" will drop below the threshold
where they pay income tax. It was 43% in 2009, I bet that number will
be well over 50% in the 2010 tax year.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4945874.shtml

I think that is why they want to let the Bush tax cuts expire. They
keep saying this only affects the super rich but it is also a rise of
rates across the board. Everyone's tax bill will go up.

Everyone's? Nope. You're not willing to pay for services.. fine. I am.
Just
don't dial 911 and don't use the roads, and to heck with libraries...
they're for poor people. Don't need to worry about fires and paramedics.



Everyone will pay, excerpt those below the threshold and that number
will be lower.
I am not worried about paying more, I think our rates are too low but
that is not the way this has been sold. People are being told the Bush
tax cuts only benefited the rich. That is a lie

Sorry, but you're just wrong. See previous comment.

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:49:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Everyone will pay, excerpt those below the threshold and that number
will be lower.
I am not worried about paying more, I think our rates are too low but
that is not the way this has been sold. People are being told the Bush
tax cuts only benefited the rich. That is a lie

Sorry, but you're just wrong. See previous comment.


Are you talking about "the Bush tax cuts" or some "to be announced"
new plan? We don't have a clue what the new plan will be until it is
passed and signed but we do know what happens if they simply let the
current cuts expire.

It is like the people who are slapping each other on the back over the
Fin Ref without actually knowing what is in the bill. I am sure in a
year or two we will be hearing about bad things that were slipped into
this bill at the last minute, like Bob's rant about the Commodity
"reform" that allowed these problems in the first place.

Which no one is talking about doing. Nice try.

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

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:49:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Everyone will pay, excerpt those below the threshold and that number
will be lower.
I am not worried about paying more, I think our rates are too low but
that is not the way this has been sold. People are being told the Bush
tax cuts only benefited the rich. That is a lie

Sorry, but you're just wrong. See previous comment.


Are you talking about "the Bush tax cuts" or some "to be announced"
new plan? We don't have a clue what the new plan will be until it is
passed and signed but we do know what happens if they simply let the
current cuts expire.

It is like the people who are slapping each other on the back over the
Fin Ref without actually knowing what is in the bill. I am sure in a
year or two we will be hearing about bad things that were slipped into
this bill at the last minute, like Bob's rant about the Commodity
"reform" that allowed these problems in the first place.

Which no one is talking about doing. Nice try.



You don't know that, dippy da plum.

--
Harold

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

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:49:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Everyone will pay, excerpt those below the threshold and that number
will be lower.
I am not worried about paying more, I think our rates are too low but
that is not the way this has been sold. People are being told the Bush
tax cuts only benefited the rich. That is a lie

Sorry, but you're just wrong. See previous comment.


Are you talking about "the Bush tax cuts" or some "to be announced"
new plan? We don't have a clue what the new plan will be until it is
passed and signed but we do know what happens if they simply let the
current cuts expire.

It is like the people who are slapping each other on the back over the
Fin Ref without actually knowing what is in the bill. I am sure in a
year or two we will be hearing about bad things that were slipped into
this bill at the last minute, like Bob's rant about the Commodity
"reform" that allowed these problems in the first place.

Which no one is talking about doing. Nice try.



You don't know that, dippy da plum.

--
Harold


You know very little, apparently.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 22:10:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:49:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Everyone will pay, excerpt those below the threshold and that number
will be lower.
I am not worried about paying more, I think our rates are too low but
that is not the way this has been sold. People are being told the Bush
tax cuts only benefited the rich. That is a lie

Sorry, but you're just wrong. See previous comment.


Are you talking about "the Bush tax cuts" or some "to be announced"
new plan? We don't have a clue what the new plan will be until it is
passed and signed but we do know what happens if they simply let the
current cuts expire.

It is like the people who are slapping each other on the back over the
Fin Ref without actually knowing what is in the bill. I am sure in a
year or two we will be hearing about bad things that were slipped into
this bill at the last minute, like Bob's rant about the Commodity
"reform" that allowed these problems in the first place.

Which no one is talking about doing. Nice try.


You were talking about the Bush tax cuts and part of that is the 10%
bracket that will also go away if congress simply lets them expire.
Anything else is new legislation we have not seen.
I was just giving you examples of other unseen legislation that did
not actually do what it said it would.

Unseen? Even the somewhat financial reform legislation that passed is better
than what was there before.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:21:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You were talking about the Bush tax cuts and part of that is the 10%
bracket that will also go away if congress simply lets them expire.
Anything else is new legislation we have not seen.
I was just giving you examples of other unseen legislation that did
not actually do what it said it would.

Unseen? Even the somewhat financial reform legislation that passed is
better
than what was there before.

We won't know that until somebody actually reads it and the lawyers
find all the loopholes. The commodity law that opened up all of the
derivative abuse that caused the crash was sold as reform too.

So, you're in agreement with Congressman Boehner then, who advocates a
moratorium on new federal regulation. The do-nothing party.

I guess a consumer protection arm of the Fed isn't a good idea. I guess we
should just let Wall Street run amok.

Why don't you complain about the deficit... here's a nice article.

http://www.thenation.com/article/375...ss-destruction

On 7/17/10 9:57 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I guess a consumer protection arm of the Fed isn't a good idea. I guess we
should just let Wall Street run amok.

The real question is whether this "Consumer Protection" agency will be
another toothless Brooksley Born type bondoggle.

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


The GOP'ers don't want any sort of reform. They like the way it is, with
everyone except the rich getting raped...by the rich.

It's time for heads on pikes.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:59:45 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

On 7/17/10 9:57 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I guess a consumer protection arm of the Fed isn't a good idea. I guess
we
should just let Wall Street run amok.

The real question is whether this "Consumer Protection" agency will be
another toothless Brooksley Born type bondoggle.

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


The GOP'ers don't want any sort of reform. They like the way it is, with
everyone except the rich getting raped...by the rich.

It's time for heads on pikes.

That may be an oversimplification of a complex issue and using a broad
brush on a far from unified party.

Yes it may be an oversimplification, but it's pretty close to the truth.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I guess a consumer protection arm of the Fed isn't a good idea. I guess we
should just let Wall Street run amok.

The real question is whether this "Consumer Protection" agency will be
another toothless Brooksley Born type bondoggle.

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

Well, you're the one who's always saying it depends on the regs and they
aren't written yet. Would you have preferred she not even try?