On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:33:35 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:10:55 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

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?




Everyone likes voting themselves generous gifts from the government.
It is when they have to actually pay the bill that they are in the
street burning tires and carrying signs.
Lets see how all of those socialist countries are doing when their
boomers hit their system.

They average age of Europeans is older and out-pacing our average age.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

Harryk wrote:
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.
Funny stuff, writer. Nothing to do all day today, WAFA?

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


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


In ,
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.

So go buy some of their stock and STFU.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:45:06 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:21:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:43:26 -0800, 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.

As usual you totally miss the point. I am talking about creating
enough new infrastructure construction to put all of them to work.

I am also talking about bringing these guys home so they won't get
shot at.

I'm not missing the point at all. How do you intend to create the
infrastructure without government funding?

You say you didn't miss the point then you go off in the wrong
direction
Co back up to the top if this snip. the whole thing is about
REDIRECTING the DoD budget

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

It's a nice way of handing over a bunch of Foreign aid, send a bunch of
Americans over and pay them to become a part of another countries
economy for a few years. Not saying there is no need for a presence, I
don't know the details, but still...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

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?

If you had to write a check to the IRS, state, and local government each
year to pay your taxes you would think a little differently.

Especially when you have to write that check to social security and
medicare, 7.5% of each dollar you earn gone.


Uh, I always considered that a simple budgeting matter.
Taxes are the dues for living in the society you choose to live in.
I like it here.

Have you ever wondered why the government invented withholding taxes
from your paycheck?

So you wouldn't cheat, you would provide constant revenue intead of once
a year revenue, you wouldn't feel the sting at tax time, and you
wouldn't have the excuse that you already spent the tax money on women,
booze and boats are tapped out right now.
Are you serious?
I never had a problem with any of that when I did quarterlies.
Simple budgeting matter.
But what's this to do with the citizens of "socialist" countries having

The issues is that the government requires too much money from the
citizens. If the citizens really knew how much of their money was being
confiscated from them each year they surely would think twice about who
the voted into office and who they re-elected.

From me personally I could use the tax money I am forced to pay to
purchase a luxury vehicle in the MB category for cash each year.

wrote in message
...
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.


Dollars to donuts the soldier is better trained than the union slug too.
What a bargain it would be to have the idle GI repairing some of our
infrastructure. Want bridges that don't collapse and multi billion dollar
tunnels that don't crumble and leak? Don't contract with union contractors.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:46:20 -0800, wrote:

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.


It always amazes me how much trouble you have staying on topic.
We were talking about taxes, You are the one who brought up union
busting.


It must be frustrating trying to win points from someone who doesn't even
acknowledge the facts you present.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:47:52 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:25:27 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:49:14 -0800, wrote:

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.

If he "gets in a wreck" there is car insurance to cover medical
expenses. Again you are drifting.

How is he supposed to afford the insurance if he spends the money on
the car? Keep trying to put me down by claiming a bunch of nonsense.
It's not helping your cause.

Which state lets you drive without insurance? It sure isn't the ones
we live in.


I'll bet there are a lot of uninsured Mexicans driving their wrecks in
Florida, Texas, Arizona, And The People's Republic of Kalifonia. Can't get
rid of em either. Washington will come down hard on anyone who tries.

"True North" wrote in message
...
They would have to pry our universal medical care
from our cold dead fingers.

See.... believe it or not, our medical care is as important to us as guns
to a lot of 'mericans.

Hoo boy! Is psychiatric care free up there?

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:55:19 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...

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.

There is no reason to kick in another $2 per gallon. If the US becomes
independent of foreign oil sources then we have achieved the liberals
dream we have stopped causing problem around the world by funding
dictators and despots by filling the coffers with oil profits.

Who will clean up an oil spill from a Chinese drilled well near Cuba? Do
the Chinese care if there is an ecological disaster in the US? Can the
US stop the Chinese from drilling near Cuba.

Why are we going to let the Chinese pump the oil out of our oil fields?
Why shouldn't we pump it out our selves?

I hope he noticed that it's possible to respond to a post without all the
childish name-calling.

Oh, and quit being so rational.