"Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote in message
m...
On 8/9/10 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:00:56 -0400, wrote:

I blame a lot of this financial cluster**** on Clinton and the first
Bush. Neither one of them are black.

well NOW you're starting to see the light. and the george bush that
just left office?

his tax cuts are responsible for most of our deficit. but the right
refuses, in a pravda like manner, to tell THAT story

I have said a number of times, just let all of the tax cuts expire.

If you did just raise the 35% rate to 39% that would only raise
revenue about 6-7%, a drop in the bucket.
That assumes these people don't find ways to shelter more of their
income and with a 10,000 page tax code, that is likely.


39% is not enough.

49% on all income over $250,000, and that includes any income that can be
sheltered in any way.


We know why you chose that figure. It's way over your potential earning
power.

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 10:59:29 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:00:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

I blame a lot of this financial cluster**** on Clinton and the first
Bush. Neither one of them are black.

well NOW you're starting to see the light. and the george bush that
just left office?

his tax cuts are responsible for most of our deficit. but the right
refuses, in a pravda like manner, to tell THAT story

I have said a number of times, just let all of the tax cuts expire.

If you did just raise the 35% rate to 39% that would only raise
revenue about 6-7%, a drop in the bucket.
That assumes these people don't find ways to shelter more of their
income and with a 10,000 page tax code, that is likely.

I just love watching the liberals soil their pants over Bush's tax cuts when
they have all the power they need to 'fix' their problem.

I suppose pubhic would blame this on 'Wall Street'.

What a friggin' laugh.
--

John H

On 8-Aug-2010, wrote:

and nowhere does it prohibit the feds from funding education. local
boards have power. the feds have the money.

The amount of federal money given to local school boards is
insignificant compared to what is raised in local taxes.

Far more money is ****ed down the drain for "education" than the military
which has a far more important responsibility. If it is laundered through
the local assholes, the state, county/parish or the useless feds, it's the
same money, YOURS, or more likely, increasing minority of productive people.
Your kids still can't read, write or think. Do you seriously "think"
federal interference will make anyone more competent? It's not apparent the
way you assholes vote.

On 9-Aug-2010, bpuharic wrote:

prove that this power is prohibited to the feds


I can't prove a negative.

precisely. which is why the constitution does not prohibit a US dept
of education

I finally think you're right on one count based upon your "logic" - too bad
the constitution doesn't prohibit stupidity.

We need to give it up - he's either too you or too old to grasp the
constitution, or a union member. Or both.

On 8-Aug-2010, wrote:

now....why would they excuse a WHITE guy and blame a BLACK guy....

nah...couldnt be race...

I blame a lot of this financial cluster**** on Clinton and the first
Bush. Neither one of them are black.

Nor is Buckwheat.

On 9-Aug-2010, wrote:

well NOW you're starting to see the light. and the george bush that
just left office?

his tax cuts are responsible for most of our deficit. but the right
refuses, in a pravda like manner, to tell THAT story

I have said a number of times, just let all of the tax cuts expire.

If you did just raise the 35% rate to 39% that would only raise
revenue about 6-7%, a drop in the bucket.
That assumes these people don't find ways to shelter more of their
income and with a 10,000 page tax code, that is likely.

The best part of the coming tax increases is the increase in the lowest tax
bracket from 10% to 15%. That's a fifty percent increase. It's about time
the unwashed start pulling their own weight.

On 8/9/10 11:21 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:04:08 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net"
wrote:

On 8/9/10 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:00:56 -0400, wrote:

I blame a lot of this financial cluster**** on Clinton and the first
Bush. Neither one of them are black.

well NOW you're starting to see the light. and the george bush that
just left office?

his tax cuts are responsible for most of our deficit. but the right
refuses, in a pravda like manner, to tell THAT story

I have said a number of times, just let all of the tax cuts expire.

If you did just raise the 35% rate to 39% that would only raise
revenue about 6-7%, a drop in the bucket.
That assumes these people don't find ways to shelter more of their
income and with a 10,000 page tax code, that is likely.


39% is not enough.

49% on all income over $250,000, and that includes any income that can
be sheltered in any way.

Anything other than simply letting them all expire will require new
legislation and that will open up as many loopholes as it closes.


So...once again, your solution is...do nothing about anything.

"Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote in message
m...
On 8/9/10 11:21 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:04:08 -0400, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net"
wrote:

On 8/9/10 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:00:56 -0400, wrote:

I blame a lot of this financial cluster**** on Clinton and the first
Bush. Neither one of them are black.

well NOW you're starting to see the light. and the george bush that
just left office?

his tax cuts are responsible for most of our deficit. but the right
refuses, in a pravda like manner, to tell THAT story

I have said a number of times, just let all of the tax cuts expire.

If you did just raise the 35% rate to 39% that would only raise
revenue about 6-7%, a drop in the bucket.
That assumes these people don't find ways to shelter more of their
income and with a 10,000 page tax code, that is likely.


39% is not enough.

49% on all income over $250,000, and that includes any income that can
be sheltered in any way.

Anything other than simply letting them all expire will require new
legislation and that will open up as many loopholes as it closes.


So...once again, your solution is...do nothing about anything.

So once again you prove you are an illiterate dumbfoch.

The OBAMA motto: We've got what it takes, to take what you've got!

In article ,
says...

On 8/9/10 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:00:56 -0400, wrote:

I blame a lot of this financial cluster**** on Clinton and the first
Bush. Neither one of them are black.

well NOW you're starting to see the light. and the george bush that
just left office?

his tax cuts are responsible for most of our deficit. but the right
refuses, in a pravda like manner, to tell THAT story

I have said a number of times, just let all of the tax cuts expire.

If you did just raise the 35% rate to 39% that would only raise
revenue about 6-7%, a drop in the bucket.
That assumes these people don't find ways to shelter more of their
income and with a 10,000 page tax code, that is likely.


39% is not enough.

49% on all income over $250,000, and that includes any income that can
be sheltered in any way.

That would leave me out of that bracket, but what about my lovely
southern belle Dr. Dr. Dr. wife?

--
The stupider you sound, the more Republican votes you'll get

In article ,
says...

"Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net" wrote in message
m...
On 8/9/10 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:00:56 -0400, wrote:

I blame a lot of this financial cluster**** on Clinton and the first
Bush. Neither one of them are black.

well NOW you're starting to see the light. and the george bush that
just left office?

his tax cuts are responsible for most of our deficit. but the right
refuses, in a pravda like manner, to tell THAT story

I have said a number of times, just let all of the tax cuts expire.

If you did just raise the 35% rate to 39% that would only raise
revenue about 6-7%, a drop in the bucket.
That assumes these people don't find ways to shelter more of their
income and with a 10,000 page tax code, that is likely.


39% is not enough.

49% on all income over $250,000, and that includes any income that can be
sheltered in any way.


We know why you chose that figure. It's way over your potential earning
power.

Hey, dumfoch, I have a Dr. Dr. Dr. wife.

--
The stupider you sound, the more Republican votes you'll get