Harry  wrote:
On 7/22/10 8:27 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
Ok, I'm man enough to admit it - I may be wrong.

"Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy
for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear
getting crushed in November's election."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...hikes-may-wait

Now the question is are you for this or a 'gin it? :)

I don't think those making over $250K should be spared the burden of
citizenship. We should be required to pay more.

Individual income over $250,000 should be taxed at 49%.
Is that the magic number to offset all of Obama's rampant spending?

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:45:43 -0400, wrote:


Ok, I'm man enough to admit it - I may be wrong.

"Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy
for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear
getting crushed in November’s election."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...hikes-may-wait

Now the question is are you for this or a 'gin it? :)

since the rich are irrelevant to the recovery...if they dont steall
ALL trhe money and leave SOME for working people...we'll see what
happens

but this is a lesson to right wingers. you guys invent crap like the
immune system invents antibodies. first it was breitbart and his crap
about the USDA official's racism...

dont you guys learn that faux news lies to you?


Get a spell checker. It's obvious when you are drunk.

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:30:54 -0600,
wrote:


On 22/07/2010 4:45 PM, W1TEF wrote:

Ok, I'm man enough to admit it - I may be wrong.

"Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy
for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear
getting crushed in November’s election."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...hikes-may-wait

Now the question is are you for this or a 'gin it? :)

And December will be all about VAT!

yeah. just like 2009 was about confiscation of guns...



Yeah, like that.

On 22/07/2010 6:30 PM, Harry  wrote:
On 7/22/10 8:27 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
Ok, I'm man enough to admit it - I may be wrong.

"Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy
for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear
getting crushed in November's election."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...hikes-may-wait

Now the question is are you for this or a 'gin it? :)

I don't think those making over $250K should be spared the burden of
citizenship. We should be required to pay more.

Individual income over $250,000 should be taxed at 49%.

That is BS.

But then, that is why smart money is existing US businesses.

--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:19:56 -0400, Larry wrote:

Harry ? wrote:
On 7/22/10 8:27 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
Ok, I'm man enough to admit it - I may be wrong.

"Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy
for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear
getting crushed in November's election."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...hikes-may-wait

Now the question is are you for this or a 'gin it? :)

I don't think those making over $250K should be spared the burden of
citizenship. We should be required to pay more.

Individual income over $250,000 should be taxed at 49%.
Is that the magic number to offset all of Obama's rampant spending?

actually george bush spent 9% of GDP his last year in offcie...what
obama is now spending

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:19:16 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 22/07/2010 6:30 PM, Harry ? wrote:
On 7/22/10 8:27 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
Ok, I'm man enough to admit it - I may be wrong.

"Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy
for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear
getting crushed in November's election."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...hikes-may-wait

Now the question is are you for this or a 'gin it? :)

I don't think those making over $250K should be spared the burden of
citizenship. We should be required to pay more.

Individual income over $250,000 should be taxed at 49%.

That is BS.

But then, that is why smart money is existing US businesses.

gee. where''s it going?

oh. it's not

more right wing bull****

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:21:14 -0400, Larry wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:45:43 -0400, wrote:


Ok, I'm man enough to admit it - I may be wrong.

"Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy
for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear
getting crushed in November’s election."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...hikes-may-wait

Now the question is are you for this or a 'gin it? :)

since the rich are irrelevant to the recovery...if they dont steall
ALL trhe money and leave SOME for working people...we'll see what
happens

but this is a lesson to right wingers. you guys invent crap like the
immune system invents antibodies. first it was breitbart and his crap
about the USDA official's racism...

dont you guys learn that faux news lies to you?


Get a spell checker. It's obvious when you are drunk.

ROFLMAO!! he doesn't know what 'faux' means...

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:10:06 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:39:23 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:58:55 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


since the rich are irrelevant to the recovery...if they dont steall
ALL trhe money and leave SOME for working people...we'll see what
happens.

Heh - So I take it that all your hollering about the rich raping the
land and citizenry is also not relevant to anything? To be
consistent, if I parse what you say right, the rich should be taxed to
hell and gone to save the little guy and now it's ok as long as
"something" is left for the little guy.

uh no. what i said was that the rich, having stolen the entire economy
over the last 30 years, should pay the taxes on what they stole

But that's not consistent my friend. On the one hand, you want to
confiscate and redistribute the "stolen" wealth and have been loud and
vociferous in arguing for same. Now that those who would do what you
wish appear to have changed their minds for the sake of the "economy",
it's ok because at least something will be left for the little guy.

This is the same tax regime as Bush. On the one hand you despise that
tax structure as "evil" and "stealing", now you appear to be content
that something will be left for the little guy with the exact same
regime.

Which is it?

Well, at least you are consistent in your inconsistency.

whatever. when you put words in peoples' mouths, you generally get the
argument you make

Come on now - that's not correct and you know it. I'm restating, not
verbatim admittedly, your expressed opinions about taxes. I don't
believe that I've distorted your views beyond recognition.

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:06:22 -0400, W1TEF wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:10:06 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


uh no. what i said was that the rich, having stolen the entire economy
over the last 30 years, should pay the taxes on what they stole

But that's not consistent my friend. On the one hand, you want to
confiscate and redistribute the "stolen" wealth and have been loud and
vociferous in arguing for same. Now that those who would do what you
wish appear to have changed their minds for the sake of the "economy",
it's ok because at least something will be left for the little guy.

that's the nature of political reality. the right wing will hold the
middle class hostage, refusing to support any effort to support the
middle class.

This is the same tax regime as Bush. On the one hand you despise that
tax structure as "evil" and "stealing", now you appear to be content
that something will be left for the little guy with the exact same
regime.

Which is it?

i'm a realist. the middle class can't afford a tax increase. the
right wing wont let a tax cut pass unless it includes the ultrarich

you need to grow up

On 24/07/2010 4:03 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:19:16 -0600,
wrote:

On 22/07/2010 6:30 PM, Harry ? wrote:
On 7/22/10 8:27 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
Ok, I'm man enough to admit it - I may be wrong.

"Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy
for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear
getting crushed in November's election."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...hikes-may-wait

Now the question is are you for this or a 'gin it? :)

I don't think those making over $250K should be spared the burden of
citizenship. We should be required to pay more.

Individual income over $250,000 should be taxed at 49%.

That is BS.

But then, that is why smart money is existing US businesses.

gee. where''s it going?

oh. it's not

more right wing bull****

China, India, Brazil to name a few.

Which you pick, owning profitable Tata Motors or Obama Government Motors?



--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?