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.

"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.

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

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

On 9-Aug-2010, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net"
wrote:

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.

There is absolutely nothing prohibiting you from sending in 49% of your
income. Hop to it.

Ohhhhhh.....wait..........so silly of me! That's for OTHER pople.

"Colonel Kurtz" wrote in message
news

On 9-Aug-2010, "Harry @ news.east.earthlink.net"

wrote:

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.

There is absolutely nothing prohibiting you from sending in 49% of your
income. Hop to it.

Ohhhhhh.....wait..........so silly of me! That's for OTHER pople.


You don't think I'd be dumb enough to send my money to Washington, do you.

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

On 9-Aug-2010, "Harry" wrote:

There is absolutely nothing prohibiting you from sending in 49% of your
income. Hop to it.

Ohhhhhh.....wait..........so silly of me! That's for OTHER pople.


You don't think I'd be dumb enough to send my money to Washington, do you.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. But, you have the excuse that paying taxes
is "for "other people" while you apparently bask by the trough.

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!

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:48:49 -0400, "Harry"
wrote:



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


more racist bull****.

most tax cuts go to the rich...tax cuts are regressive...but the right
keeps taht little secret to themselves