|
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:33:43 -0500, DSK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: For that, I'm willing to pay, right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what I make every year even though I'm retired. Sorry, but the way things are run nowadays 15% from everybody would result in either disastrous deficits or huge cuts in gov't spending... probably both. Where you and I differ is that I believe that there could very well be a substantial reduction in government spending, or at the very least, a redistribution of current spending priorities which would make the amount of spending more palatable. Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more? I make, in the course of a year, with retirement income and such, a goodly amount - some would call it "super-duper-rich". What is it exactly that I gain in direct government services that someone with a low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No. Do I get food stamps? No. Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No. Do I get rent assistance? No. Do I get day care assistance? No. Do I get AFDC assistance? No. Do I get free healthcare? No. So, just out curiosity, what direct government assistance do I receive that allows the government to take what it does, which is not insubstantial I might add, that adds up to more than I contribute? What just what gives this low income individual the right to take more of my money to them to use? ~~ snippage ~~ What I object to are sweet heart deals with the State that allows a company like Verizon to give a 10% discount to State workers on top of any promotional discounts - real citizens of the state, who pay the freakin' bills - aren't given that privilege. You need to join a good collective bargaining pool. This doesn't seem like a gov't issue to me, just the power of mass purchasing. It's not that at all. There is no moral difference between allowing a state worker to gain an additional 10% over and above already established promotions because one company is competing for a state contract and giving the Governor a new set of gutters for a road contract in his home town. What it is a bribe - flat out bribe. ~~ snippage ~~ I don't know what the answer is, but we need to solve it quickly or we're just going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot. I suspect that it will never be solved. The ancient Greeks complained about the same things... along with the shameful lack of respect & intelligence by the teenagers, appalling traffic & poor road maintenance... AFAIK they did not sail for recreation and so did not comlain about the lousy wind, but I bet they griped about poor fishing. I understand that universal griping had been around for as long as human history has been recorded. The problem now is that we're just not getting anywhere with it. We have politicians who just don't care what we, the citizens, think. We have activist judges so out of touch with the general population that they believe that they are all powerful and can do whatever the hell they want - the voting citizens be damned. Damn - I'm off on another rant. Sorry. Other than that, I agree on all points. Well said! Thanks man. Only goes to prove that we can reach consensus on some points anyway. :) Later, Tom |
JimH wrote:
I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to explain it to you. Uh, yeah.... I often miss the point of "logic" that leaves out facts and includes a lot of prejudice & wishful thinking. DSK |
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Where you and I differ is that I believe that there could very well be a substantial reduction in government spending Oh, we don't differ at all on that. I'd love to see the federal gov't cut it's budget by 1/2. To start with, I'd cut the Presidents & Congresses salary & benefits dramatically. ... or at the very least, a redistribution of current spending priorities which would make the amount of spending more palatable. Palatable to whom? Frankly, I disagree with handing bazillions of dollars to Halliburton (and JimH insists that rich people don't get "gov't benefits" to equal welfare!) for gods & services that they often don't deliver, and are of no use to the American citizenry when they do. I also disagree with handing millions of dollars in tax money to churches... let the Faith Based Initiative close up shop and give all the money back to the taxpayers, let *them* decide what to do with it! Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more? I make, in the course of a year, with retirement income and such, a goodly amount - some would call it "super-duper-rich". What is it exactly that I gain in direct government services that someone with a low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No. You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of paperwork. ... Do I get food stamps? No. You probably couldn't get those... do you want them? ... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No. But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't, provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you can afford the best, lucky you. ... Do I get rent assistance? No. Do you want it? So, just out curiosity, what direct government assistance do I receive that allows the government to take what it does, which is not insubstantial I might add, that adds up to more than I contribute? Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't? Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your expensive toys. A person with no expensive toys doesn't get this service, do they? Would you like to hire a couple of rent-a-cops to watch all of your property, and one to follow you around all day every day? That alone would probably be pretty expensive, far more than your heating assistance and rent assistance and day care assistance and free lunches etc etc etc. Think. DSK What just what gives this low income individual the right to take more of my money to them to use? ~~ snippage ~~ What I object to are sweet heart deals with the State that allows a company like Verizon to give a 10% discount to State workers on top of any promotional discounts - real citizens of the state, who pay the freakin' bills - aren't given that privilege. You need to join a good collective bargaining pool. This doesn't seem like a gov't issue to me, just the power of mass purchasing. It's not that at all. There is no moral difference between allowing a state worker to gain an additional 10% over and above already established promotions because one company is competing for a state contract and giving the Governor a new set of gutters for a road contract in his home town. What it is a bribe - flat out bribe. ~~ snippage ~~ I don't know what the answer is, but we need to solve it quickly or we're just going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot. I suspect that it will never be solved. The ancient Greeks complained about the same things... along with the shameful lack of respect & intelligence by the teenagers, appalling traffic & poor road maintenance... AFAIK they did not sail for recreation and so did not comlain about the lousy wind, but I bet they griped about poor fishing. I understand that universal griping had been around for as long as human history has been recorded. The problem now is that we're just not getting anywhere with it. We have politicians who just don't care what we, the citizens, think. We have activist judges so out of touch with the general population that they believe that they are all powerful and can do whatever the hell they want - the voting citizens be damned. Damn - I'm off on another rant. Sorry. Other than that, I agree on all points. Well said! Thanks man. Only goes to prove that we can reach consensus on some points anyway. :) Later, Tom |
"DSK" wrote in message ... JimH wrote: I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to explain it to you. Uh, yeah.... I often miss the point of "logic" that leaves out facts and includes a lot of prejudice & wishful thinking. DSK Such as? |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Where you and I differ is that I believe that there could very well be a substantial reduction in government spending Oh, we don't differ at all on that. I'd love to see the federal gov't cut it's budget by 1/2. To start with, I'd cut the Presidents & Congresses salary & benefits dramatically. ... or at the very least, a redistribution of current spending priorities which would make the amount of spending more palatable. Palatable to whom? Frankly, I disagree with handing bazillions of dollars to Halliburton (and JimH insists that rich people don't get "gov't benefits" to equal welfare!) for gods & services that they often don't deliver, and are of no use to the American citizenry when they do. I also disagree with handing millions of dollars in tax money to churches... let the Faith Based Initiative close up shop and give all the money back to the taxpayers, let *them* decide what to do with it! Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more? I make, in the course of a year, with retirement income and such, a goodly amount - some would call it "super-duper-rich". What is it exactly that I gain in direct government services that someone with a low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No. You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of paperwork. No I could not - it's income based. ... Do I get food stamps? No. You probably couldn't get those... do you want them? No, but the point is that it's a direct benefit that I don't and can't obtain. ... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No. But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't, provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you can afford the best, lucky you. That's part of the general common wealth - not direct assistance. ... Do I get rent assistance? No. Do you want it? Would I qualify if I did? No. So, just out curiosity, what direct government assistance do I receive that allows the government to take what it does, which is not insubstantial I might add, that adds up to more than I contribute? Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't? No - you ain't getting away with that one. You said, right from the git go, that I was benefitting more than those who have less income that I have. That means direct government assistance - not that which promotes the general welfare. I'm sure you understand the difference. Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your expensive toys. Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for somebody to do the deed. It's also why I carry. A person with no expensive toys doesn't get this service, do they? They get better police protection I do. In fact, because most of the lower income folks live in centralized locations, they are better served because there are more officers patrolling less square milage than that in which I live. - they are much better off. The average response time to an emergency police call in my area is 27 minutes. The average for Willimantic is 3 minutes. The average response time to a emergency medical/fire call with an ambulance/apparatus is 35 minutes. The average in Willimantic is 6 minutes. It's about the same for Norwich, Glastonbury and other towns similar to Willimantic. So, in fact, they are better served that I am. Would you like to hire a couple of rent-a-cops to watch all of your property, and one to follow you around all day every day? That alone would probably be pretty expensive, far more than your heating assistance and rent assistance and day care assistance and free lunches etc etc etc. Oh please. Make a rational argument for crying out loud. Think. I have. I might suggest the same for you. All the best, Tom -------------- "What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup... is there a computer terminal in the day room of some looney bin somewhere?" Bilgeman - circa 2004 |
low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No.
You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of paperwork. Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: No I could not - it's income based. In our area it's "need based" which I suppose could be code for "income based." It seems to me that if you buy a huge house and can't afford to heat it, you're still better off than somebody who cannot afford even a small house, much less the heat. BTW our power & gas companies both have assistance programs, it is not just the gov't. ... Do I get food stamps? No. You probably couldn't get those... do you want them? No, but the point is that it's a direct benefit that I don't and can't obtain. Once again it's "direct benefit." Do you truly believe that the *only* possible benefit the gov't provides is to hand some people money? ... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No. But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't, provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you can afford the best, lucky you. That's part of the general common wealth - not direct assistance. I see... if you benefit from it, but people who can't afford it don't, then it's "general common wealth"... How do you think people who can't afford a car feel about paying for their share of the interstate highways? If you are as wealthy as you imply, then you probably have investments... stocks, bonds, etc etc. Do you pay for the operation of the SEC? Who benefits from it? How about the Federal Reserve System? Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't? No - you ain't getting away with that one. You said, right from the git go, that I was benefitting more than those who have less income that I have. And you do... however, you want to look at the lowly ant, and make statements about elephants. You insist that only "benefits" to be included in the discussion are cash subsidies. BTW you might consider looking at where your income is derived... are you 100% positive that absolutely none of it is derived from any kind of gov't contracting at all? ... That means direct government assistance - not that which promotes the general welfare. I'm sure you understand the difference. Nope... *you* have decided that the only benefits *you* want to include in your game are ones that you *think* you don't benefit from. For example, day care assistance promotes "the general welfare" in that provides a larger pool of labor and also feeds slightly better socialized kids into the school system. And the public school system... if you want to live in a society of cavemen, then you don't need public schools... in the meantime, it promotes *your* well being by allowing you to live in an industrialized and technical society with a higher standard of knowledge & skill than would otherwise exist. Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your expensive toys. Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the local barracks immediately. Oh? And there is absolutely *no* deterrent value in the presence of police & the court system & prisons etc etc? Email me your address ;) It's also why I carry. Hint- so do crooks... and they often shoot first. Oh please. Make a rational argument for crying out loud. I am. You're the one insisting that the *only* beneficial function that gov't has is to hand out checks, and crying that you ain't gettin' any (or is it bragging?). Think. I have. I might suggest the same for you. I have... and you have not. I suggest reading a few basic macro economics texts, and using somewhat less narrow definitions of the term "benefit." Regards Doug King |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message ... JimH wrote: I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to explain it to you. Uh, yeah.... I often miss the point of "logic" that leaves out facts and includes a lot of prejudice & wishful thinking. DSK Such as? Once again a liebral accuses others of what they are personally guilty of. |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Where you and I differ is that I believe that there could very well be a substantial reduction in government spending Oh, we don't differ at all on that. I'd love to see the federal gov't cut it's budget by 1/2. To start with, I'd cut the Presidents & Congresses salary & benefits dramatically. ... or at the very least, a redistribution of current spending priorities which would make the amount of spending more palatable. Palatable to whom? Frankly, I disagree with handing bazillions of dollars to Halliburton (and JimH insists that rich people don't get "gov't benefits" to equal welfare!) for gods & services that they often don't deliver, and are of no use to the American citizenry when they do. I also disagree with handing millions of dollars in tax money to churches... let the Faith Based Initiative close up shop and give all the money back to the taxpayers, let *them* decide what to do with it! Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more? I make, in the course of a year, with retirement income and such, a goodly amount - some would call it "super-duper-rich". What is it exactly that I gain in direct government services that someone with a low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No. You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of paperwork. No I could not - it's income based. ... Do I get food stamps? No. You probably couldn't get those... do you want them? No, but the point is that it's a direct benefit that I don't and can't obtain. ... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No. But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't, provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you can afford the best, lucky you. That's part of the general common wealth - not direct assistance. ... Do I get rent assistance? No. Do you want it? Would I qualify if I did? No. So, just out curiosity, what direct government assistance do I receive that allows the government to take what it does, which is not insubstantial I might add, that adds up to more than I contribute? Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't? No - you ain't getting away with that one. You said, right from the git go, that I was benefitting more than those who have less income that I have. That means direct government assistance - not that which promotes the general welfare. I'm sure you understand the difference. Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your expensive toys. Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for somebody to do the deed. It's also why I carry. A person with no expensive toys doesn't get this service, do they? They get better police protection I do. In fact, because most of the lower income folks live in centralized locations, they are better served because there are more officers patrolling less square milage than that in which I live. - they are much better off. The average response time to an emergency police call in my area is 27 minutes. The average for Willimantic is 3 minutes. The average response time to a emergency medical/fire call with an ambulance/apparatus is 35 minutes. The average in Willimantic is 6 minutes. It's about the same for Norwich, Glastonbury and other towns similar to Willimantic. So, in fact, they are better served that I am. Would you like to hire a couple of rent-a-cops to watch all of your property, and one to follow you around all day every day? That alone would probably be pretty expensive, far more than your heating assistance and rent assistance and day care assistance and free lunches etc etc etc. Oh please. Make a rational argument for crying out loud. Think. I have. I might suggest the same for you. All the best, Tom -------------- "What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup... is there a computer terminal in the day room of some looney bin somewhere?" Bilgeman - circa 2004 And the property taxes us so called wealthy pay is a lot greater proportionately to the services we receive than the poor people. And there will still be property taxes even with a flat income tax. What extra services do I get for my $135 / year property tax on my boat, than the $12 / year property tax boat guy? Say we both own 21' boats, mine is just more expensive. |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Where you and I differ is that I believe that there could very well be a substantial reduction in government spending Oh, we don't differ at all on that. I'd love to see the federal gov't cut it's budget by 1/2. To start with, I'd cut the Presidents & Congresses salary & benefits dramatically. ... or at the very least, a redistribution of current spending priorities which would make the amount of spending more palatable. Palatable to whom? Frankly, I disagree with handing bazillions of dollars to Halliburton (and JimH insists that rich people don't get "gov't benefits" to equal welfare!) for gods & services that they often don't deliver, and are of no use to the American citizenry when they do. I also disagree with handing millions of dollars in tax money to churches... let the Faith Based Initiative close up shop and give all the money back to the taxpayers, let *them* decide what to do with it! Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more? I make, in the course of a year, with retirement income and such, a goodly amount - some would call it "super-duper-rich". What is it exactly that I gain in direct government services that someone with a low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No. You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of paperwork. No I could not - it's income based. ... Do I get food stamps? No. You probably couldn't get those... do you want them? No, but the point is that it's a direct benefit that I don't and can't obtain. ... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No. But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't, provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you can afford the best, lucky you. That's part of the general common wealth - not direct assistance. ... Do I get rent assistance? No. Do you want it? Would I qualify if I did? No. So, just out curiosity, what direct government assistance do I receive that allows the government to take what it does, which is not insubstantial I might add, that adds up to more than I contribute? Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't? No - you ain't getting away with that one. You said, right from the git go, that I was benefitting more than those who have less income that I have. That means direct government assistance - not that which promotes the general welfare. I'm sure you understand the difference. Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your expensive toys. Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for somebody to do the deed. Its a false premise......the police are under NO obligation to protect your toys from some low life It's also why I carry. A person with no expensive toys doesn't get this service, do they? They get better police protection I do. In fact, because most of the lower income folks live in centralized locations, they are better served because there are more officers patrolling less square milage than that in which I live. - they are much better off. The average response time to an emergency police call in my area is 27 minutes. The average for Willimantic is 3 minutes. The average response time to a emergency medical/fire call with an ambulance/apparatus is 35 minutes. The average in Willimantic is 6 minutes. It's about the same for Norwich, Glastonbury and other towns similar to Willimantic. So, in fact, they are better served that I am. Would you like to hire a couple of rent-a-cops to watch all of your property, and one to follow you around all day every day? That alone would probably be pretty expensive, far more than your heating assistance and rent assistance and day care assistance and free lunches etc etc etc. Oh please. Make a rational argument for crying out loud. Think. I have. I might suggest the same for you. All the best, Tom -------------- "What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup... is there a computer terminal in the day room of some looney bin somewhere?" Bilgeman - circa 2004 |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:15:40 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for somebody to do the deed. It's also why I carry. OK, I am going to go OT on this one. Just this once to keep this newsgroup in peace for a while. I'll only speak about my experience in life to the point that my Father and Uncles and Father in Law and Friends spoke with me about WWII and some personal experiences. Not much. It was an unwritten rule in our family not to talk about war except on the rarest occasions. My father was a fighter pilot, obviously he survived and that is why I can write today. My 1st Uncle was a photographer doing BDA over Africa. He was lucky, only a couple of planes returned from a mission. He lost all of his buddies. Did you know when you are firing twin 50's from the side of a bomber at a fighter coming at you, you don't lead them, you lag them. Did you know twin 50's are designed to crossfire at a specific distance? Another Uncle contracted scarlet fever overseas. He died prematurely. Another Uncle was in if I remember correctly Burma, he passed on to me a Burma machete. Burma was a vicious part of the war. My best friend when I started in the steel mills was a veteran of the Pacific. His stories were nothing short of the humorous to the horrific. He usually only talked about the dumb things he did. One time they thought the enemy were hiding in a cave beneath their feet. They found a number of enemy mortar rounds and began throwing them down into the hole. After 20 or 30 duds, they realized that if they all went off in the hole they would have all been blown to kingdom come. Another friend was a POW in a German prison. His stories were horrific. My father in law has pictures of him in front of the last buildings left standing in Hiroshima. On a business trip, I made a point of standing in the exact spot as my father in law for a picture. Things have changed there, he just happened to have stood in front of one of the few buildings left standing that is now a national site. My Father, Uncles, and Father in Law were buried with full military honors. For myself, like my family before me, I was just a kid and I killed men in the name of my county. I also saw and experienced unspeakable horrors. But what the hell does a 19 year old know? I would rather forget. But, that was war. My son was car jacked in a major nearby city. Since he is a weight lifter, he figured "screw this guy". The car jacker pulled a gun. They drove up to a stop sign. My son said "F this" and reached across the center console of his Mustang after the guy. He took a bullet through the neck. It just happened to miss his esophagus and all the critical blood vessels. It barely touched the inside of his neck bones. The bullet is still in his left shoulder. It is a miracle he is alive. He will carry that bullet in his shoulder for the rest of his life. Surgery to remove it is not worth the risk, at least for now. That was 4 years ago this coming December 23. What a Christmas that was. The city detectives were the most incompetent bunch of boobs I had ever met in my life. They didn't even bother coming to the hospital to interview my son. We went to the police station after he was released and he identified the car jacker from a photo on an Apple Laptop Computer. I was there. Wouldn't you know it, they had him locked up as a suspect but all his pals came to the station and swore he was with them, even before my son picked him out. They had let him go before they ever talked to my son despite the fact there were 2 witnesses in the neighborhood. Bungled, PREJUDICED police work. The investigation just went nowhere. I was just too happy to have my son alive to push it further. Do I carry?, Yes. Would I ever use it in defense of my family or myself? Yes, and without hesitation! Regards John S I would rather be boating! |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:30:31 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: And the property taxes us so called wealthy pay is a lot greater proportionately to the services we receive than the poor people. I guess if I look at all the statistics, median income/home value, net assets, etc, I'd come out well above the average. I never minded the fact that I pay a little more property tax than those that aren't able to live in as nice an area as I do. I wouldn't trade places with them. And there will still be property taxes even with a flat income tax. Well, yeah. Can you come up with a reasonable argument why there shouldn't be? What extra services do I get for my $135 / year property tax on my boat, than the $12 / year property tax boat guy? Say we both own 21' boats, mine is just more expensive. Wow, life is just really, really unfair, isn't it? Nobody's there to stop you from getting the same boat as the guy that pays the $12. bb |
"bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:30:31 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: And the property taxes us so called wealthy pay is a lot greater proportionately to the services we receive than the poor people. I guess if I look at all the statistics, median income/home value, net assets, etc, I'd come out well above the average. I never minded the fact that I pay a little more property tax than those that aren't able to live in as nice an area as I do. I wouldn't trade places with them. And there will still be property taxes even with a flat income tax. Well, yeah. Can you come up with a reasonable argument why there shouldn't be? What extra services do I get for my $135 / year property tax on my boat, than the $12 / year property tax boat guy? Say we both own 21' boats, mine is just more expensive. Wow, life is just really, really unfair, isn't it? Nobody's there to stop you from getting the same boat as the guy that pays the $12. bb I see you are logic challenged. The argument by DSK is the higher income person receives more from Government than the poor person. I ask again, what more services do I get for my $135 vs. the guy that pays $12? |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:39:52 -0500, John S wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:15:40 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for somebody to do the deed. It's also why I carry. OK, I am going to go OT on this one. Just this once to keep this newsgroup in peace for a while. I'll only speak about my experience in life to the point that my Father and Uncles and Father in Law and Friends spoke with me about WWII and some personal experiences. Not much. It was an unwritten rule in our family not to talk about war except on the rarest occasions. My father was a fighter pilot, obviously he survived and that is why I can write today. My 1st Uncle was a photographer doing BDA over Africa. He was lucky, only a couple of planes returned from a mission. He lost all of his buddies. Did you know when you are firing twin 50's from the side of a bomber at a fighter coming at you, you don't lead them, you lag them. Did you know twin 50's are designed to crossfire at a specific distance? Another Uncle contracted scarlet fever overseas. He died prematurely. Another Uncle was in if I remember correctly Burma, he passed on to me a Burma machete. Burma was a vicious part of the war. My best friend when I started in the steel mills was a veteran of the Pacific. His stories were nothing short of the humorous to the horrific. He usually only talked about the dumb things he did. One time they thought the enemy were hiding in a cave beneath their feet. They found a number of enemy mortar rounds and began throwing them down into the hole. After 20 or 30 duds, they realized that if they all went off in the hole they would have all been blown to kingdom come. Another friend was a POW in a German prison. His stories were horrific. My father in law has pictures of him in front of the last buildings left standing in Hiroshima. On a business trip, I made a point of standing in the exact spot as my father in law for a picture. Things have changed there, he just happened to have stood in front of one of the few buildings left standing that is now a national site. My Father, Uncles, and Father in Law were buried with full military honors. For myself, like my family before me, I was just a kid and I killed men in the name of my county. I also saw and experienced unspeakable horrors. But what the hell does a 19 year old know? I would rather forget. But, that was war. My son was car jacked in a major nearby city. Since he is a weight lifter, he figured "screw this guy". The car jacker pulled a gun. They drove up to a stop sign. My son said "F this" and reached across the center console of his Mustang after the guy. He took a bullet through the neck. It just happened to miss his esophagus and all the critical blood vessels. It barely touched the inside of his neck bones. The bullet is still in his left shoulder. It is a miracle he is alive. He will carry that bullet in his shoulder for the rest of his life. Surgery to remove it is not worth the risk, at least for now. That was 4 years ago this coming December 23. What a Christmas that was. The city detectives were the most incompetent bunch of boobs I had ever met in my life. They didn't even bother coming to the hospital to interview my son. We went to the police station after he was released and he identified the car jacker from a photo on an Apple Laptop Computer. I was there. Wouldn't you know it, they had him locked up as a suspect but all his pals came to the station and swore he was with them, even before my son picked him out. They had let him go before they ever talked to my son despite the fact there were 2 witnesses in the neighborhood. Bungled, PREJUDICED police work. The investigation just went nowhere. I was just too happy to have my son alive to push it further. Do I carry?, Yes. Would I ever use it in defense of my family or myself? Yes, and without hesitation! Regards John S I would rather be boating! Just a few things I forgot for those that think everyone is helpful and natural good Samaritans. After my son was shot, he went to a house and knocked on a door begging for help that he had just been shot. The homeowner answered and told him to "Get out or I'll shoot you again". The second house he went to asking for help also told him to "Get out". By then he was too weak and passed out on their porch. That's where the ambulance picked him up. My only wish is that same homeowners knock on someone else's door one day and gets the same response. I hope the person that shot my son catches a bullet in the chest. I'll never forgive. That is my story. Regards John S I would rather be boating! |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:51:10 -0500, DSK wrote:
low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No. You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of paperwork. Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: No I could not - it's income based. In our area it's "need based" which I suppose could be code for "income based." It seems to me that if you buy a huge house and can't afford to heat it, you're still better off than somebody who cannot afford even a small house, much less the heat. BTW our power & gas companies both have assistance programs, it is not just the gov't. Heh - yeah - so do we. And as it happens, the power and gas companies get a very nice cut on their corporate taxes for being such great folks. ... Do I get food stamps? No. You probably couldn't get those... do you want them? No, but the point is that it's a direct benefit that I don't and can't obtain. Once again it's "direct benefit." Do you truly believe that the *only* possible benefit the gov't provides is to hand some people money? Not at all. I suppose you could argue that to benefit one is to benefit all,but I don't see it that way. Your argument that somehow I receive more direct, or indirect (I'll allow you that) benefits than others is silly and I've proved it. I get less exactly because I have more. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't true. ... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No. But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't, provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you can afford the best, lucky you. That's part of the general common wealth - not direct assistance. I see... if you benefit from it, but people who can't afford it don't, then it's "general common wealth"... That's not what I said and you know it. Once again, you said that I benefit from having more and this particular benefit isn't something that I get - direct or not. And for your information, the medicine that I take for my arthritis once a month costs 12k a pop, half of which I pay. The guy who is on the same schedule with me and shares the other half of the in-patient room where we receive the treatment doesn't pay a cent and up until I told him, didn't have a clue as to how much it cost. Nice guy, former state prisoner (manslaughter), getting SS disability for an injury obtained in prison - a fight I believe he said. Get the point? Do you really think that the State really has anything to do with certifying doctors, nurses, health clinics, hospitals, etc other than just being a check off on a form and a clearing house for information? Got news for you, the individual Fellowships that doctors persue in medical school are responsible for developing the codes of practice and standards for care for patients - the state only provides the administration services necessary to maintain order - no more no less. The same is true for nurses, ambulance services, hospitals and clinics. Do you think that hospitals are run at the convenience of the state? Please - they are for profit corporations run under anti-trust exemptions and pretty much control themselves. How do you think people who can't afford a car feel about paying for their share of the interstate highways? I really don't know because I was under the impression that our ridiculous Federal, State, local and Sales tax on a tax on a tax on a tax system took care of that. If you are as wealthy as you imply, then you probably have investments... stocks, bonds, etc etc. Do you pay for the operation of the SEC? Who benefits from it? How about the Federal Reserve System? Well, the SEC is clearly a function of government and yes, I do pay for the SEC by paying taxes. The Federal Reserve System is a private corporation and while most politicians would like it to be under their control, it is not. Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't? No - you ain't getting away with that one. You said, right from the git go, that I was benefitting more than those who have less income that I have. And you do... however, you want to look at the lowly ant, and make statements about elephants. You insist that only "benefits" to be included in the discussion are cash subsidies. BTW you might consider looking at where your income is derived... are you 100% positive that absolutely none of it is derived from any kind of gov't contracting at all? Positive. ... That means direct government assistance - not that which promotes the general welfare. I'm sure you understand the difference. Nope... *you* have decided that the only benefits *you* want to include in your game are ones that you *think* you don't benefit from. For example, day care assistance promotes "the general welfare" in that provides a larger pool of labor and also feeds slightly better socialized kids into the school system. And the public school system... if you want to live in a society of cavemen, then you don't need public schools... in the meantime, it promotes *your* well being by allowing you to live in an industrialized and technical society with a higher standard of knowledge & skill than would otherwise exist. Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your expensive toys. Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the local barracks immediately. Oh? And there is absolutely *no* deterrent value in the presence of police & the court system & prisons etc etc? Email me your address ;) Oh see, you can't do that. I demonstrated why people in the cities do much better in that area that I do and you went and snipped it. Naughty naughty. It's also why I carry. Hint- so do crooks... and they often shoot first. Trust me - they won't get a chance. Oh please. Make a rational argument for crying out loud. I am. You're the one insisting that the *only* beneficial function that gov't has is to hand out checks, and crying that you ain't gettin' any (or is it bragging?). Neither. Just making a point that I don't benefit as much as you say I do. Despite your attempt to make it a broadly defined discussion in which nothing can ever be settled, sticking to the point you still haven't demonstrated how I benefit more than those who have less than I. Because it's not true. Think. I have. I might suggest the same for you. I have... and you have not. Of course I have. I've even helped do the math proofs and corrections on several economic texts and helped design mathematical paradigms for both micro/macro business and governmental financial models over the years. I'm not an expert I will admit, but I know a benefit when I see one. Later, Tom |
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:30:52 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for somebody to do the deed. Its a false premise......the police are under NO obligation to protect your toys from some low life This should be interesting. How come? Later, Tom |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:30:52 -0500, "P. Fritz" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for somebody to do the deed. Its a false premise......the police are under NO obligation to protect your toys from some low life This should be interesting. How come? Later, Tom The courts have ruled that they are only responsible for picking up the pieces. They are not to protect you, but that have to try to catch the thug who mugged you. |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:48:26 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:30:52 -0500, "P. Fritz" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for somebody to do the deed. Its a false premise......the police are under NO obligation to protect your toys from some low life This should be interesting. How come? The courts have ruled that they are only responsible for picking up the pieces. They are not to protect you, but that have to try to catch the thug who mugged you. Interesting. I'll have to check that with somebody I know who teaches Criminal Justice. All the best, Tom -------------- "What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup... is there a computer terminal in the day room of some looney bin somewhere?" Bilgeman - circa 2004 |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:14:48 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:15:56 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: Items such as food, clothing, medicine, and other essentials could be tax exempt or taxed at a significantly smaller level (say the current 6%). "Luxury" items, such as mega-yachts, private aircraft, exotic vacations, etc could be taxed at a higher rate, which could then be used to offset the tax rate for other consumer goods. And out the window goes a simplified tax code. ;-( How so? These items should be easily identified. Food and care items are a no-brainer. What constitutes a "luxury" item can be set by the purchase price. Dave |
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:33:43 -0500, DSK wrote:
Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more? I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? The rich tend to use their own paid-for services rather than rely on the often inferior services provided by government subsidies. Government services are used mostly by people who cannot afford other alternatives. Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? I really want to hear this one..... Dave |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:28:43 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote: On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:33:43 -0500, DSK wrote: Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich.... who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more? I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government services are in more demand from "rich" people? The rich tend to use their own paid-for services rather than rely on the often inferior services provided by government subsidies. Government services are used mostly by people who cannot afford other alternatives. Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? I really want to hear this one..... Read on in the thread - it get's...er....interesting. I like Don, but we're at opposites on this one. :) Later, Tom "Beware the one legged man in a butt kicking contest - he is there for a reason." Wun Hung Lo - date unknown |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:23:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:
And out the window goes a simplified tax code. ;-( How so? These items should be easily identified. Food and care items are a no-brainer. What constitutes a "luxury" item can be set by the purchase price. Come on, Dave, we are talking bureaucrats here. I can see 12,000 pages of tax code on food alone. Is caviar a luxury or a necessity? Simple is better when it comes to taxes. |
"Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:30:52 -0500, "P. Fritz" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for somebody to do the deed. Its a false premise......the police are under NO obligation to protect your toys from some low life This should be interesting. How come? Later, Tom The courts have ruled that they are only responsible for picking up the pieces. They are not to protect you, but that have to try to catch the thug who mugged you. And there is plenty of case law that proves it. |
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message ... JimH wrote: I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to explain it to you. Uh, yeah.... I often miss the point of "logic" that leaves out facts and includes a lot of prejudice & wishful thinking. DSK Such as? Once again a liebral accuses others of what they are personally guilty of. DSK could not support his claims or debate the issue so he posted a snide remark and ran home to mommy. |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:42:09 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: I see you are logic challenged. No, but I decided to invoke the sub-thread rule where-by one is allowed to deviate from posters initial intent if said poster heaps pity on himself to the point of having no self respect. Your pitiful whining about your situation forced me to action. The argument by DSK is the higher income person receives more from Government than the poor person. Since we're determining just what can be discussed in a thread, and sub-thread, go back to the original post. It was about how the republicans have run the budget, and deficit, to the limit. How does your $135 boat registration vs the other guys $12 boat registration relate to the republican tendency towards borrow and spend fiscal policy? I ask again, what more services do I get for my $135 vs. the guy that pays $12? I'd really need a whole lot more information out of you about why the other guys registration is $12 and yours in $135, what that money goes to pay for, etc. I'll guess there's nothing keeping you from buying that guys boat that gets away with paying $12, so you have an easy option for saving the $123 that seems to pain you so. bb |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JohnH wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! You know, John, you ought to be more careful. As a public employee working for a county school system in a fairly progressive community, your covertly and overtly racist remarks in this newsgroup might haunt you. Someone who wanted to get even could simply print out 20 or 30 of your posts that put down blacks and Hispanics, present them to an official with the super's office, and you'd be out on your butt. This isn't a threat or a warning...just an observation. I don't make trouble for people. But someone else you've offended might. Even if what you say is true I guess the right to free speech is something you don't believe in. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JohnH wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! You know, John, you ought to be more careful. As a public employee working for a county school system in a fairly progressive community, your covertly and overtly racist remarks in this newsgroup might haunt you. Someone who wanted to get even could simply print out 20 or 30 of your posts that put down blacks and Hispanics, present them to an official with the super's office, and you'd be out on your butt. This isn't a threat or a warning...just an observation. I don't make trouble for people. But someone else you've offended might. Even if what you say is true I guess the right to free speech is something you don't believe in. Typical spineless threat by the union leech...........'somebody else' may do something.......wish I had a nickel for everytime I've seen that one.....I could buy my own 36 lobsta boat.... |
I'd like you to attempt to explain this, if you can. Which government
services are in more demand from "rich" people? The rich tend to use their own paid-for services rather than rely on the often inferior services provided by government subsidies. If the United States of America did not exist, and we had some other country here instead, the lives of the poorest people in the country would be very little different than they are today. They would work crap jobs for wages that provide inadequate sustenance. The government would be keeping them off the street by providing artificially cheap housing and some free or artificially cheap food- thereby enabling the capitalists in the society (or the government itself) to exploit the poor by paying wages well below anything one could begin to live on. (They would probably have access to better health care). LIfe would be routinely disappointing, and while those with greater privilege in such a society might say "All you need to do is to decide to rise up to my level", the lower middle class and the poor would discover there are practical barriers to doing so. For example: How does one sign up for a night class, to improve education, when their employer puts them on an unpredictable schedule? This week you'll work 25 hours, mostly between 0900 and 1300 every day. Next week, you'll work 55 hours- between 1400 and 2300 every day- (but we'll pay you for 40, the other 15 are off the clock). The following week we're closing for inventory, so you won't work at all........ If the United States didn't exist, the poor would hardly know it. Their lives would be little different in most European, South American, or even some Asian countries. The well off? They'd see a difference right away. Most of the wealthy people in the United States achieved that wealth as a direct result of a social, economic, and physical infrastructure established, maintained, and defended by the government. Certainly those who made money, rather than merely inherited it, took some risks, invested some capital, and made good decisions- but the fact that the captial was invested, the risks assumed, and the decisions made in the United States made success a far more likely outcome. Our industries extract resources from public lands. Timber companies, mining companies, oil companies, cattle grazing operations, etc are all subsidized by the taxpayers via artificially cheap access to natural resources in national forests and other public areas. We provide an interstate highway system, dredge waterways, subsidize airports and operate an interstate air traffic control system to faciltate the transportation of goods and services. The government sponsors SBA loans and other start-up assistance to business people, and writes off billions of dollars in losses from these loans each year as some of the businesses fail. The government tax structure in the United States is very favorable to the wealthy. Our top tax bracket for federal income tax is much less than in most industrialized countries, and we have tens of thousands of pages in the tax code defining "tax shelters" that are used primarily by the well off and almost never by the poor. Above all else, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year "defending" this country. If we were overwhelmed by 21st Century Visigoths next week, whose lives would be most impacted and disrupted? When the mongol hordes come across the Rio Grande to rape and pillage throughout the US, do you suppose they will head straight to the public housing projects to avail themselves of all the abundance there? Seems like the terrorists like to target the government, (Pentagon), and high profile capitalism (WTC), when they attack the US. We all benefit from government funded defense, but those most likely to be targeted can be said to benefit the most. It's disgusting to listen to people who have done well in the US, but who wouldn't have amounted to a hill of frijoles elsewhere, sitting atop a sack of gold and proclaim, with a blank stare, "The US Government hasn't done anything for me, all the money and effort expended by the government goes directly to the poor.....(that built my business for me by providing cheap labor).....and those ignorant, immoral, lazy folks from diverse ethnic backgrounds just sit around making babies in return." Those of us with an extra buck or two, and owing a boat puts you in that category almost automatically- no matter how humble the craft, have a lot to be thankful for. We wouldn't have what we have accumulated and wouldn't have had the opportunities to do so in many countries around the world. Thanksgiving is just a couple of weeks away; how many of us will forget to be thankful for our special privileges in the US and simply be thankful that we aren't "poor" like some other folks? Never let it be said the the US government doesn't enable the accumulation and preservation of riches better than any other on the planet. That's the main reason why so many millions of people across the globe are (sometimes literally) dieing to come here. |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:26:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! You know, John, you ought to be more careful. As a public employee working for a county school system in a fairly progressive community, your covertly and overtly racist remarks in this newsgroup might haunt you. Someone who wanted to get even could simply print out 20 or 30 of your posts that put down blacks and Hispanics, present them to an official with the super's office, and you'd be out on your butt. This isn't a threat or a warning...just an observation. I don't make trouble for people. But someone else you've offended might. Why don't you enlighten us with a reposting of the 20 or 30 'put downs' of Blacks and Hispanics, Harry. That should be interesting. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:54:13 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:26:21 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:41:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Do rich people need section 8 housing? Public schools? Healthcare subsidies? Welfare? W.I.C.? Planned parenthood? Social security? Of course...these programs help keep the poor folks "in their place," so they don't ride out to the suburbs in dump trucks and string whitey up on the nearest available trees. Just ask Rush. You really are a piece of work, Dave. They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! You know, John, you ought to be more careful. As a public employee working for a county school system in a fairly progressive community, your covertly and overtly racist remarks in this newsgroup might haunt you. Someone who wanted to get even could simply print out 20 or 30 of your posts that put down blacks and Hispanics, present them to an official with the super's office, and you'd be out on your butt. This isn't a threat or a warning...just an observation. I don't make trouble for people. But someone else you've offended might. Why don't you enlighten us with a reposting of the 20 or 30 'put downs' of Blacks and Hispanics, Harry. That should be interesting. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Why regurgitate your racism? It's not surprising you claim not to see it in yourself. I would simply like to see the 20 or 30 posts you consider to be racist. You made the accusation, follow it up! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:06:20 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On 10 Nov 2004 18:18:21 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: About 500 lines which were snipped. Then, Tom wrote: I'll bet you can't condense this to one sentence.... Later, Tom "Beware the one legged man in a butt kicking contest - he is there for a reason." Wun Hung Lo - date unknown Yes he can. "Get a Red Dot Heater." John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:04:07 -0500, JohnH wrote:
They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John, your knowledge of the welfare system is quite outdated. You must not have been paying attention during the '90s. For a quick update, do a search on TANF (*Temporary* Assistance for Needy Families). You could start he http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/solutions/home.html |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:31:44 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:04:07 -0500, JohnH wrote: They keep the poor folks in their place by removing any incentive to become educated and get gainfully employed. (No, drug dealing doesn't count.) John, your knowledge of the welfare system is quite outdated. You must not have been paying attention during the '90s. For a quick update, do a search on TANF (*Temporary* Assistance for Needy Families). You could start he http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/solutions/home.html In Washington, DC, during the period 2001-2002, almost 60% of the births were to unwed mothers. That's close to double the national average. Why? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"bb" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:42:09 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: I see you are logic challenged. No, but I decided to invoke the sub-thread rule where-by one is allowed to deviate from posters initial intent if said poster heaps pity on himself to the point of having no self respect. Your pitiful whining about your situation forced me to action. The argument by DSK is the higher income person receives more from Government than the poor person. Since we're determining just what can be discussed in a thread, and sub-thread, go back to the original post. It was about how the republicans have run the budget, and deficit, to the limit. How does your $135 boat registration vs the other guys $12 boat registration relate to the republican tendency towards borrow and spend fiscal policy? I ask again, what more services do I get for my $135 vs. the guy that pays $12? I'd really need a whole lot more information out of you about why the other guys registration is $12 and yours in $135, what that money goes to pay for, etc. I'll guess there's nothing keeping you from buying that guys boat that gets away with paying $12, so you have an easy option for saving the $123 that seems to pain you so. bb Still avoiding the questions I see. As to the $12 vs. $135. We are taxed in the value of the boat. Same as our houses. Do we in more expensive houses or boats get 11 times the services of the other? As to the Republicans running the debt to the limit. Same as the Democrats have done numerous times. You think the Debt limit has always been 8 Trillion $$$. I think these Congress is just as forked as most of the others we have had since the early 1970's and probably before. Base Line budgeting, instituted during the Carter years of 17% inflation, has been a crime against all the people in this country. Probably the poor more than the rich. As inflation is a nasty tax, that hits food, and necessities probably harder than luxury items. You have to buy necessities! |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: bb Still avoiding the questions I see. As to the $12 vs. $135. We are taxed in the value of the boat. Same as our houses. Do we in more expensive houses or boats get 11 times the services of the other? As to the Republicans running the debt to the limit. Same as the Democrats have done numerous times. You think the Debt limit has always been 8 Trillion $$$. I think these Congress is just as forked as most of the others we have had since the early 1970's and probably before. It warms my heart on this cold day to see you whine about $120 in taxes. I doubt if you have a heart. And the discussion is about services vs. taxes. If your brain worked, then you could understand. |
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Your argument that somehow I receive more direct, or indirect (I'll allow you that) benefits than others is silly and I've proved it. No, you haven't "proved" anything other than that you are unable to consider what the gov't does and what it costs. Here's the deal- the fed, state & local gov't all do a *huge* number of things. Some are beneficial to just a few (the SEC), some benefit all (the EPA), some waffle back & forth, some don't do anything. Because a very small part of the gov't gives money to poor people, and you're not poor, you assume that the whole assembly is useless, wasteful, and you think your share of the cost is unfair. Pardon me for being blunt, but that's stupid & short sighted. However, let me congratulate you on being right in style... stupid & short sighted is the new way to be cool. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Your argument that somehow I receive more direct, or indirect (I'll allow you that) benefits than others is silly and I've proved it. No, you haven't "proved" anything other than that you are unable to consider what the gov't does and what it costs. Here's the deal- the fed, state & local gov't all do a *huge* number of things. Some are beneficial to just a few (the SEC), some benefit all (the EPA), some waffle back & forth, some don't do anything. Because a very small part of the gov't gives money to poor people, and you're not poor, you assume that the whole assembly is useless, wasteful, and you think your share of the cost is unfair. Pardon me for being blunt, but that's stupid & short sighted. However, let me congratulate you on being right in style... stupid & short sighted is the new way to be cool. DSK Thought I would give you a second chance but I see that you are just as obnoxious as ever....back to the bozo bin you go. |
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:51:16 -0500, DSK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Your argument that somehow I receive more direct, or indirect (I'll allow you that) benefits than others is silly and I've proved it. No, you haven't "proved" anything other than that you are unable to consider what the gov't does and what it costs. Here's the deal- the fed, state & local gov't all do a *huge* number of things. Some are beneficial to just a few (the SEC), some benefit all (the EPA), some waffle back & forth, some don't do anything. Because a very small part of the gov't gives money to poor people, and you're not poor, you assume that the whole assembly is useless, wasteful, and you think your share of the cost is unfair. Pardon me for being blunt, but that's stupid & short sighted. However, let me congratulate you on being right in style... stupid & short sighted is the new way to be cool. Clearly you are the superior intellect here. Later, Tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com