Winning elections is not good enough
 

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.

exactly. it's another form of welfare


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.

yep. the defense budget is a form of foreign aid. most folks dont
realize this, but much of our defense budget is used to defend other
countries.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

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.

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

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On 22/02/2011 9:14 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:22:08 -0700,
wrote:

On 22/02/2011 5:37 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:18:33 -0700,
wrote:


which, i suppose, is why the GOP cut the capital gains tax on the rich

and threw the economy into recession

For what difference it will make? Come now. You would have a better
chance saving the Titanic with bubble gum.

Government has to slash at least 50% of its gross spending at a minimum,
and that may not be enough.

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

Would not even come close. You could litterally double EVERYONE'S
income tax and DC would still run a deficit. In the end, one way or
another expect massive Greece/Ireland/Iceland types cuts. They are coming.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates combined after taxes total wealth wouldn't
keep Obama running the government for just 5 weeks.

Debt is so bad in DC, bankruptcy is now inevitable. Yep, liberalism in
debt and currency mismanagement screwed the cat dead.

Think, Obama now debt spends more dollars than America uses in sheets of
toilet paper. Quite literally.

Obama and the Democrats bankrupted the USA.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On 22/02/2011 11:24 PM, 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

Forgetting inflation and interest rates which only make it worse. $3.7
trillion over 10 years is 370 billion per year. Obama be well over
$1600 billion on the over spend, so that is about 23% if you believe
Obama big mouthed liar. In fact, Obama now overspends more than all the
income taxes collected. That is, doubling the income tax for everyone,
and Obama still can't balance the budget.

The only half way sane thing is to massively cut federal spending and
reduce the size of the fed by over 50% AND increase taxes, or
alternatively cut fed spending by 60%.

Not going to happen, we will see a hyper-inflationary devaluation of the
USD, oil, gold, silver, copper, iron, wheat, barley, flour, you name it
will go up in double digit inflation.

That is until Americans riot along with other countries.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On 23/02/2011 4:21 AM, bpuharic 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.

wall street's done us no favors regardless of what the right thinks

You don't pay taxes do you?

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:09:09 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:02:05 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:17:01 -0500, wrote:



Everything? Really? Typically, when someone says everything, always,
and similar, that's a clue that the argument is full of holes.

It has ben your answer to everything in this thread.

That's not accurate either.

What have you admitted was a problem?

?? Not sure what you're asking? Do we have a long-term financial
problem? Sure. Are there some things we can do in the short-term that
will help? Sure. Is the sky falling? Nope.




Don't be shocked when that happens. It will come in the guise of the
Canadian waiting list.
Medicare does spend most of it's money on people in their last 6
months of life and the estimate is it really only buys a month or so.

Well, perhaps if the Republicans stopped their nonsense about the
false death panels, people would have a greater ability to consult
with their doctor and thus prevent some of the unnecessary care, but
when you have politicians playing on fear, e.g., pull the plug on
grandma, then you certainly are not helping the situation.

There is a lot of money in keeping corpses alive with a very low risk.

So, you're saying the doctors were lobbying for removing their ability
to be paid to consult with people about their end care?

If you lose one due to a doctor screw up, the chances of getting
caught are pretty slim. Most people who die in a nursing home do not
even have an autopsy. They simply accept the attending physicians
cause of death
A popular one is COPD which means "Cant Offer a Precise Diagnosis".


No idea what this has to do with the false notion put forth by Palin
and others.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

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.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

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.

I'm happy to have the tax laws reformed, just don't go blaming poor
people for this country's problems. It's mostly about greed at the
top.

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:

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.

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.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On 2/24/2011 2:46 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:09:09 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:02:05 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:17:01 -0500, wrote:

Everything? Really? Typically, when someone says everything, always,
and similar, that's a clue that the argument is full of holes.
It has ben your answer to everything in this thread.
That's not accurate either.
What have you admitted was a problem?
?? Not sure what you're asking? Do we have a long-term financial
problem? Sure. Are there some things we can do in the short-term that
will help? Sure. Is the sky falling? Nope.



Don't be shocked when that happens. It will come in the guise of the
Canadian waiting list.
Medicare does spend most of it's money on people in their last 6
months of life and the estimate is it really only buys a month or so.
Well, perhaps if the Republicans stopped their nonsense about the
false death panels, people would have a greater ability to consult
with their doctor and thus prevent some of the unnecessary care, but
when you have politicians playing on fear, e.g., pull the plug on
grandma, then you certainly are not helping the situation.
There is a lot of money in keeping corpses alive with a very low risk.
So, you're saying the doctors were lobbying for removing their ability
to be paid to consult with people about their end care?

If you lose one due to a doctor screw up, the chances of getting
caught are pretty slim. Most people who die in a nursing home do not
even have an autopsy. They simply accept the attending physicians
cause of death
A popular one is COPD which means "Cant Offer a Precise Diagnosis".

No idea what this has to do with the false notion put forth by Palin
and others.

Gas is $3.299 today. Up 15c from yesterday. What are the rest of you
folks paying?

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.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article ,
says...

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.

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, BAR wrote:

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

At best you might be able to kick the can down the road another 10
years or so. Long term we need policies that encourage the switch to
other forms of energy.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On 2/26/11 12:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, wrote:

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

At best you might be able to kick the can down the road another 10
years or so. Long term we need policies that encourage the switch to
other forms of energy.



Perhaps Bertie-Birther will be willing to kick in another $2 a gallon
for a special fund to pay for the clean-ups required if we adopt his
policy of "Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf
of Mexico and the Eastern Seaboard..."

Of course, the clean-ups many times do not really clean up the messes.

But, Bertie-Birther doesn't give a crap about that. He doesn't live in
Alaska, off the coast of California, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Eastern
Seaboard."

And he doesn't have a boat.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

No, actually it wouldn't. Oil prices are driven by many more things
that availability, we have a small percentage available, esp. in the
short term, and the environmental disaster would be beyond belief. Of
course, BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon-Mobile would disagree. And you trust
them over someone who's job it is to protect the environment, right?

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:44:36 -0500, wrote:

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.

$27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to
get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic
construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't
compute.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:08:50 -0500, BAR wrote:

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.



Yes, and the death benefits, the grieving family...

Winning elections is not good enough
 

Of course, the clean-ups many times do not really clean up the messes.

But, Bertie-Birther doesn't give a crap about that. He doesn't live in
Alaska, off the coast of California, the Gulf of Mexico, and the
Eastern Seaboard."

And he doesn't have a boat.
And you are truyng to make a case for sticking your head up your arse.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

"BAR" wrote in message . ..


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.

***********************

I thought you were crying about breaking your back when you froze up &
forgot to open your parachute??

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:50:30 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:15:47 -0800, wrote:

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.

This is not the mine workers trying to get respirators down in the
mine. We are talking about government workers who make a very good
salary and have benefits unlike almost anyone out in the real world.

It is a fairly recent idea that government workers could organize in
the first place and I never actually saw the compelling need, except
to make union leaders rich and blackmail the tax payer.

As for tax reform. I would love to see it but I doubt I ever will.
That is just reality, not some dream about what politicians might do
in a perfect world.

Actually, it is about mine workers also. Unions have little or nothing
to do with the fiscal mess, but it sure is easy to condemn them.
Forget the outrageous corporate salaries... those don't count.

You have no solutions... you just want to pound your fist and claim
it's the working people who are terrible.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

$27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to
get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic
construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't
compute.
Actually it does.compute.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:55:02 -0500, wrote:

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.

You'd be wrong. Canadians actually get something for their money..
sorry if you don't like that.

I'm sure a kid probably would, and then when he gets in a wreck, he
should just "pay" for the medical help out of his own pocket, of
course he wouldn't have any money by then, but you don't care about
that.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:12:51 -0500, BAR wrote:

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.

So what?

Winning elections is not good enough
 

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


Yes, and the death benefits, the grieving family...
And and......................... Can't you ever complete a thought?

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On 2/26/11 12:46 PM, True North wrote:


"BAR" wrote in message . ..


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.

***********************

I thought you were crying about breaking your back when you froze up &
forgot to open your parachute??


No, no, no...he landed on his head. Nothing to break.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 2/26/11 12:46 PM, True North wrote:


"BAR" wrote in message . ..


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.

***********************

I thought you were crying about breaking your back when you froze up &
forgot to open your parachute??


No, no, no...he landed on his head. Nothing to break.

yuk, yuk, yuk, the weird uncle spews from the basement one more time...

Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article ,
says...

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.

Your "guarantee" wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.
No logic there.
Those not paying taxes now couldn't come up with $15-20k.
That's why they call it "socialist" health care.
Besides, all these so-called "socialist" countries with universal health
care are democracies last I knew.
They can vote in politicians who would pass law to mimic the U.S.
atrocity health system.
Ever wonder why that doesn't happen?

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:33:55 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, BAR wrote:

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

At best you might be able to kick the can down the road another 10
years or so. Long term we need policies that encourage the switch to
other forms of energy.

Agree! 100%

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

Not a chance in hell that will affect prices; supply, maybe, but
prices.... nope. Stocks have been increasing since the first of the year,
so has the price....

--


"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

Winning elections is not good enough
 

In article , princecraft49
@gmail.com says...

"BAR" wrote in message . ..


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.

***********************

I thought you were crying about breaking your back when you froze up &
forgot to open your parachute??

Nope. My only injury skydiving was breaking my left thumb. I never had
to use my reserve parachute.

I did see people bounce (hit the ground at 120 mph with no parachute
deployed), break both thigh bones, shatter vertebrae and more. Skydiving
isn't a sport for pussies.

Winning elections is not good enough
 

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:04:24 GMT, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

Not a chance in hell that will affect prices; supply, maybe, but
prices.... nope. Stocks have been increasing since the first of the year,
so has the price....

Only thing that's increasing is oil company profits.