americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of
the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%.

http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain

so what are they going to do?

send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive
tax cut.

makes sense, huh?

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of
the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%.

http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain

so what are they going to do?

send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive
tax cut.

makes sense, huh?

I can understand the rich wanting to elect the party that will best promote
their interests......
It's the people like The Freak that I can't understand.

In article ,
says...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of
the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%.

http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain

so what are they going to do?

send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive
tax cut.

makes sense, huh?

I can understand the rich wanting to elect the party that will best promote
their interests......
It's the people like The Freak that I can't understand.

The only thing you can understand is when I post, you reply with stupid
stuff. Your nose is up mine and plume's ass constantly. Have you ever
had an original thought?

"Secular Humoresque" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of
the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%.

http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain

so what are they going to do?

send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive
tax cut.

makes sense, huh?

I can understand the rich wanting to elect the party that will best
promote
their interests......
It's the people like The Freak that I can't understand.

The only thing you can understand is when I post, you reply with stupid
stuff. Your nose is up mine and plume's ass constantly. Have you ever
had an original thought?

Sure...here's one............. you are a jackass!
No wait...that isn't even close to being original....

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of
the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%.

http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain

so what are they going to do?

send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive
tax cut.

makes sense, huh?

How about government cutting spending? You take $100 billion from the
richest, or you take $100 billion with a VAT tax from all. You still take
$100 billion out of the economy. There is $100 billion less to invest,
there is $100 billion less to spend by the money earners. Yes, the tax rate
for all is too low. 46% of the people do not pay any federal INCOME tax.
They are receiving services but not paying anything. In early 1950's the
total family tax burden for all taxes was about 22%. Now the average for
all, even including those 46% who pay no Federal INCOME taxes is closer to
44%. Something is clearly wrong in Washington DC and in the state capitals.
Due to government caused inflation, the poverty level is about $24,000. 30
years ago, that was an experienced, degreed engineers salary. We have
priced ourselves out of the world manufacturing market. Sure we export
stuff. But those things are mostly food and airplanes and medicine. No car
exports, few machine tool exports. Some software, but little manufactured
stuff. The only way we are going to recover is cut entitlements and
frivolous spending. Cut the NEA, cut the bureaucracy that is taking 30% of
the education dollar at the Federal level before they send it back to the
states, plus with lots if strings attached. Cut the budgets of all the
departments at least 25%. You can find at least that much bloat with hardly
looking. Bob, take 90% of the money all those whose family's are making
$200k. I do not make that anymore, but I bet you cry unfair when an
Engineer with an attorney wife get taxed 90%. sorry, you asked for the rich
to be taxed.

"Califbill" wrote in message
m...


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of
the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%.

http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain

so what are they going to do?

send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive
tax cut.

makes sense, huh?

How about government cutting spending? You take $100 billion from the
richest, or you take $100 billion with a VAT tax from all. You still take
$100 billion out of the economy. There is $100 billion less to invest,
there is $100 billion less to spend by the money earners. Yes, the tax
rate for all is too low. 46% of the people do not pay any federal INCOME
tax. They are receiving services but not paying anything. In early 1950's
the total family tax burden for all taxes was about 22%. Now the average
for all, even including those 46% who pay no Federal INCOME taxes is
closer to 44%. Something is clearly wrong in Washington DC and in the
state capitals. Due to government caused inflation, the poverty level is
about $24,000. 30 years ago, that was an experienced, degreed engineers
salary. We have priced ourselves out of the world manufacturing market.
Sure we export stuff. But those things are mostly food and airplanes and
medicine. No car exports, few machine tool exports. Some software, but
little manufactured stuff. The only way we are going to recover is cut
entitlements and frivolous spending. Cut the NEA, cut the bureaucracy
that is taking 30% of the education dollar at the Federal level before
they send it back to the states, plus with lots if strings attached. Cut
the budgets of all the departments at least 25%. You can find at least
that much bloat with hardly looking. Bob, take 90% of the money all those
whose family's are making $200k. I do not make that anymore, but I bet
you cry unfair when an Engineer with an attorney wife get taxed 90%.
sorry, you asked for the rich to be taxed.

How about a real gov't spending cut instead of your BS about the NEA. Cut
the US military by 1/3. Do it over 10 years. We don't need any more subs,
bomber, and troops in Germany, Japan, and a bunch of other places. I think
Europe is secure from the Russians at this point. (Proposed by Rand Paul and
Barney Frank - two commies in your world view I'd guess)

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Then, we can end the subsidies the oil companies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201 (Oh wait... Obama
actually proposed it - let's see the Republicans block it)

And, certainly we could raise taxes on the top 2% in the US by a couple of
percent. Horrors! The rich will still get richer, but a tiny bit slower.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:58:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"Califbill" wrote in message
news:d86dnYxcu5SFyzDRnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@earthlink. com...


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
americans think, wrongly, that the upper 20% of americans have 60% of
the coutnry's weath. the REAL figure is 85%.

http://www.good.is/post/americans-ar...ign=o utbrain

so what are they going to do?

send to congress the GOP who thinks this 20% should be given a massive
tax cut.

makes sense, huh?

How about government cutting spending? You take $100 billion from the
richest, or you take $100 billion with a VAT tax from all. You still
take
$100 billion out of the economy. There is $100 billion less to invest,
there is $100 billion less to spend by the money earners. Yes, the tax
rate for all is too low. 46% of the people do not pay any federal
INCOME
tax. They are receiving services but not paying anything. In early
1950's
the total family tax burden for all taxes was about 22%. Now the
average
for all, even including those 46% who pay no Federal INCOME taxes is
closer to 44%. Something is clearly wrong in Washington DC and in the
state capitals. Due to government caused inflation, the poverty level is
about $24,000. 30 years ago, that was an experienced, degreed engineers
salary. We have priced ourselves out of the world manufacturing market.
Sure we export stuff. But those things are mostly food and airplanes
and
medicine. No car exports, few machine tool exports. Some software, but
little manufactured stuff. The only way we are going to recover is cut
entitlements and frivolous spending. Cut the NEA, cut the bureaucracy
that is taking 30% of the education dollar at the Federal level before
they send it back to the states, plus with lots if strings attached.
Cut
the budgets of all the departments at least 25%. You can find at least
that much bloat with hardly looking. Bob, take 90% of the money all
those
whose family's are making $200k. I do not make that anymore, but I bet
you cry unfair when an Engineer with an attorney wife get taxed 90%.
sorry, you asked for the rich to be taxed.

How about a real gov't spending cut instead of your BS about the NEA. Cut
the US military by 1/3. Do it over 10 years. We don't need any more subs,
bomber, and troops in Germany, Japan, and a bunch of other places. I think
Europe is secure from the Russians at this point. (Proposed by Rand Paul
and
Barney Frank - two commies in your world view I'd guess)

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Then, we can end the subsidies the oil companies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201 (Oh wait... Obama
actually proposed it - let's see the Republicans block it)

And, certainly we could raise taxes on the top 2% in the US by a couple of
percent. Horrors! The rich will still get richer, but a tiny bit slower.



I agree the military is the largest category of discretionary spending
but 2/3ds soon to be 3/4ths of the spending is in the various
entitlements and that is unsustainable, even if we cut the defense
budget to zero. Oil subsidies are minuscule compared to the rest of
the things we spend money on.
That is less than it costs to keep our people in Afghanistan for an
hour.
($750,000 per hour per guy)

Discretionary spending and entitlements such as SS and Medicare are two
different buckets.

Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.39 trillion, or 38% of total
spending. More than half ($844 billion) was security spending, which
includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and
Homeland Security.

Non-security spending was $553 billion. The largest departments we Health
and Human Services ($84 billion), Transportation ($76 billion), Education
($46.8 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($43.6 billion) and
Agriculture ($25 billion).

Oil subsidies have no logical basis to continue. Are you against cutting
spending wherever waste/abuse is found?

What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something
somewhere...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us...cs/15cost.html

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something
somewhere...
I am just quoting the number that is floating around CNN and MSNBC
this week.

The $1m a year is DoD overall and includes that soldier painting rocks
white outside an officer's club in Arkansas and a sailor working at
the Base Exchange in Norfolk

It's not $1M per hour. It's $1M per year. Don't know what CNN/MSNBC said. If
it's DoD over all, then it's got to be less per soldier.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:14:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something
somewhere...
I am just quoting the number that is floating around CNN and MSNBC
this week.

The $1m a year is DoD overall and includes that soldier painting rocks
white outside an officer's club in Arkansas and a sailor working at
the Base Exchange in Norfolk

It's not $1M per hour. It's $1M per year. Don't know what CNN/MSNBC said.
If
it's DoD over all, then it's got to be less per soldier.

You are right about the $1m per year. Now you have me curious about
the other number. Dylan Ratigan, Charley Rose and one of the CNN guys
all had the same number and I heard it to be $700k/hr. I will go back
through my DVR and see if I can get a better cite

Maybe it was $700/hour?

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:48:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What????? It's about $1M/year/troop. I think you missed something
somewhere...
I am just quoting the number that is floating around CNN and MSNBC
this week.

The $1m a year is DoD overall and includes that soldier painting rocks
white outside an officer's club in Arkansas and a sailor working at
the Base Exchange in Norfolk

And how much of the DOD budget is pork of non DOD spending? the first
Supplemental spending bill for Iraq was something like 24% pork. I have
said for years to get us out of most of Europe and a lot of other lands.
Japan, until they decided to spend excessively like we are presently doing,
was doing really well as their total cost for Civil Defense was only about
6% of GDP. That included Fire, Police, National Guard, Coast Guard, etc.
Gave them about 10% extra of GDP for financing companies to take business
away from the US and other lands. Yes we can cut defense spending 25% as
well. But where is the basis for spending on NEA? Or other really
discretionary items like that? Dept. of Education was not even a department
until about 1974. What is their budget now? How many employees? How much
did spending go up during the Clinton years? Just like California, they
spent the windfall of the dot.com boom, without saving any of the windfall.
Plus they committed the spending in to future years. Clinton came closer to
balancing the budget, only because there was a tremendous surge in Federal
Revenues from all those IPO's. They took about 36.5% of every IPO. 35% top
tax rate and 1.5% Medicare tax. No upper limits on either. Look at the
vote buying via Medicare and the drug benefits. Totally out of control
spending.