Winning elections is not good enough
 

On 2/24/2011 2:47 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:40:19 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:21:36 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, wrote:

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit

I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm
agreed. we need spending cuts, in defense and medicare, AND tax
increases. unfortunately.

The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.
So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like
much of a jobs effort to me.
Screw the unions. What have they done for us?

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:50:53 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:30:28 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

They should not "all" expire. That hurts the middle and lower class
much more for no great benefit.


... if you think $1.6 Trillion over 10 years is "no great benefit".

(but $700 billion will save the world)

The fact still remains close to half of the households pay no income
tax at all.

yeah that's pretty much the case with the rich. they're paying the
lowest tax burden in 50 years.

The top 5% still pay 57% of the taxes but I would have them pay more
if they would. The problem is they also do most of the contributing to
candidates so they talk louder. If they raised the top rate, it would
be offset by more write offs rich people can take. We have a lot of
social engineering in the tax code.

yep. absolutely agree.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:14:46 -0500, wrote:


On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:02:54 -0800, wrote:


On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:


On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, wrote:


or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit


I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm

They should not "all" expire. That hurts the middle and lower class
much more for no great benefit.


... if you think $1.6 Trillion over 10 years is "no great benefit".

(but $700 billion will save the world)

The fact still remains close to half of the households pay no income
tax at all.

yeah that's pretty much the case with the rich. they're paying the
lowest tax burden in 50 years.

Why punish the successful people that paid tens of thousands for college
to benefit the lazy who dropped out to manufacture lazy children?

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On 2/24/2011 11:04 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:43:19 -0500,
wrote:

On 2/24/2011 4:22 PM, True North wrote:

$1.17 per liter today...expect it to be around $1.20 or 1.21
tomorrow.
A liter is what? About a quart? You're close to the predicted $5 a
gallon already.
1 gallon [US, liquid] = 3.785 411 784 liter
That would be 4.58 per gal. Looks like canada will win the race to $5.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:49:03 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:14:46 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:02:54 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit


I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm

They should not "all" expire. That hurts the middle and lower class
much more for no great benefit.


... if you think $1.6 Trillion over 10 years is "no great benefit".

(but $700 billion will save the world)

The fact still remains close to half of the households pay no income
tax at all.

You keep saying that as though it has some great weight in your
argument. There's a significant portion of the population that doesn't
pay income tax because they ARE POOR.

Only in America can we call someone making $45,000 a year "poor".

What do you think the tax burden is on someone making that kind of
money in one of the socialist countries?

That is a starting salary for college graduates.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:54:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:47:13 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:40:19 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:21:36 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit


I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm

agreed. we need spending cuts, in defense and medicare, AND tax
increases. unfortunately.


The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.

So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like
much of a jobs effort to me.

I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military
people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have
scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half
century ago.

So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular
citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the
economy.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:52:36 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:50:21 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:50:53 -0500, wrote:


yeah that's pretty much the case with the rich. they're paying the
lowest tax burden in 50 years.

The top 5% still pay 57% of the taxes but I would have them pay more
if they would. The problem is they also do most of the contributing to
candidates so they talk louder. If they raised the top rate, it would
be offset by more write offs rich people can take. We have a lot of
social engineering in the tax code.

So, you don't believe the tax code can be straightened out? You seem
to love absolutes.... well, if we do this, then they'll just get
around it... as though nobody else thinks this stuff through.

I guess I am just a slave to history. I have seen the tax code
"reformed" about 12 times in my life and every one ended up making it
better for the really rich.

Wow... so you're all in favor of union busting, even though unions
brought us decent working conditions, etc., but you're unwilling to at
least attempt meaningful tax reform. You're fine with throwing 1000s
out of work, and certainly you're not in favor of taxing the rich just
a few % more, but oh no, tax reform is pipe dream.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:57:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:49:03 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:14:46 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:02:54 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:24:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:14:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

or they could restore the bush tax cuts...taht would elminate AOT of
the deficit since those cuts are the single largest component of the
deficit


I agree they should have let ALL of the tax cuts expire but don't
expect that to do much for the deficit.
It was only supposed to be $700 Billion over 10 years for the $250K
and above people.
If you let all of the cuts expire it was $3.7 Trillion over 10 years.
That is still only about a third of the deficit.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news...faqs/index.htm

They should not "all" expire. That hurts the middle and lower class
much more for no great benefit.


... if you think $1.6 Trillion over 10 years is "no great benefit".

(but $700 billion will save the world)

The fact still remains close to half of the households pay no income
tax at all.

You keep saying that as though it has some great weight in your
argument. There's a significant portion of the population that doesn't
pay income tax because they ARE POOR.

Only in America can we call someone making $45,000 a year "poor".

What do you think the tax burden is on someone making that kind of
money in one of the socialist countries?

Those "socialist" countries give a lot to people who pay those higher
percentage taxes. Thus the income side of the equation isn't as
important. Of course, you don't want social services for anyone who
"can't afford it". You're contradicting yourself.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:13:53 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:54:58 -0500, wrote:


The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.

So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like
much of a jobs effort to me.

I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military
people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have
scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half
century ago.

So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular
citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the
economy.

"1/10th"?
Why do you think military people are so poorly paid?

Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and
if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more.
They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam.

It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room
and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction
worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work.

You forgot about the free medical, dental, vision, life insurance. Basic
legal services are free too.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:18:40 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:57:46 -0500, wrote:



The fact still remains close to half of the households pay no income
tax at all.

You keep saying that as though it has some great weight in your
argument. There's a significant portion of the population that doesn't
pay income tax because they ARE POOR.

Only in America can we call someone making $45,000 a year "poor".

What do you think the tax burden is on someone making that kind of
money in one of the socialist countries?

Those "socialist" countries give a lot to people who pay those higher
percentage taxes. Thus the income side of the equation isn't as
important. Of course, you don't want social services for anyone who
"can't afford it". You're contradicting yourself.


I guarantee you, if you take one of those people who are not paying
any income tax now and show them what their Canadian tax bill would be
(the templates are on the web if you want to try it)
those people would rather keep their extra $15-20,000 and buy
insurance on the open market. Kids being who they are, they would
probably buy a car and just hope they never have to go to the doctor
tho.

Besides eye glasses I didn't need medical care until I got married and
started having children. I did break my thumb when I was 27 which
required out patient surgery but that was only a couple of grand.