On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:56:07 -0500, John H
wrote:

Dave, I cannot believe the patience you've shown in this discussion with someone
who obviously cares nothing about truth, facts, etc.

It's a personality flaw of mine. I give people far more credit and
attention than they often deserve.

I guess it would be better to just let people believe what they want
to believe, as it is rare that discussions such as this ever sway
someone's opinion.

Dave

I guess sniffing each others butts like this is a good way to distract
yourselves from the overwhelming weight of the facts against you.

Hey John H, tell us all again how you're *winning*!

DSK



On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:56:07 -0500, John H
wrote:
Dave, I cannot believe the patience you've shown in this discussion with someone
who obviously cares nothing about truth, facts, etc.

Dave Hall wrote:
It's a personality flaw of mine. I give people far more credit and
attention than they often deserve.

I guess it would be better to just let people believe what they want
to believe, as it is rare that discussions such as this ever sway
someone's opinion.

Dave

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:30:48 -0500, DSK wrote:

I guess sniffing each others butts like this is a good way to distract
yourselves from the overwhelming weight of the facts against you.

Hey John H, tell us all again how you're *winning*!

DSK



On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:56:07 -0500, John H
wrote:
Dave, I cannot believe the patience you've shown in this discussion with someone
who obviously cares nothing about truth, facts, etc.

Dave Hall wrote:
It's a personality flaw of mine. I give people far more credit and
attention than they often deserve.

I guess it would be better to just let people believe what they want
to believe, as it is rare that discussions such as this ever sway
someone's opinion.

Dave

Winning what?

Please don't confuse the amount of verbiage with weight of facts!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:06:10 -0500, DSK wrote:

When one actually looks closely at the numbers, "the people who put more
in" got back such a disproportionate amount more that it is in no way
misleading to call President Bush's tax cuts "for the rich."


Dave Hall wrote:
There's nothing disproportionate about it. It's simple math dealing
with percentages. If you paid in $1000 in tax and got back 1% of it,
your tax cut amounted to $10. If you put in $100,000 in taxes, that 1%
cut amounted to $1000. The RATE remains the same.

That's absurd.

No, that's math. An albeit simple example, but math nonetheless.


Take a look at your tax rate booklet... preferably before April 15th...

Why? I received my refund several weeks ago.


You should check out what Greenspan *actually* has said about the
deficit and about Bush's SS plan. He is quite critical of both.


He was very positive about the tax cut.

Several years ago, yes. Most recently he condemned it and urged Congress
to address the revenue shortfall.


Hmmm.. A flip flop?

Yeah, that darn liberal Greenspan! He's probably a terrorist sympathizer!

No, but it does illustrate that not even he knows the future. What he
says today, may not necessarily be accurate a year or more down the
road.


...Or could it simply be an inability to predict the
future?

Or it could be that he's frustrated by the Bush Administration's
inability to carry out the positive aspects of their announced fiscal
plans. We all have to suffer from the negative aspects, no matter how
often Greenspan (and others) try to warn them.

Well that's certainly one way to look at it. I should not be
surprised, at this point, at the depth and determination that Bush
detractors will take to spin and paint everything he does in a bad
light, and highlight every piece of bad news we get as somehow his
fault.

Greenspan is a very astute individual who's quite skilled at his job.
But so are meteorologists. They are skilled at their jobs too. But
despite their years of training and skill, they still can't accurately
predict the weather more than a few days out. There are too many
unknowns. Greenspan is up against the same type of issues.


Dave

That's absurd.


Dave Hall wrote:
No, that's math. An albeit simple example, but math nonetheless.


It's not math. Unless you consider stupidity & wrong numbers to be "math."


Take a look at your tax rate booklet... preferably before April 15th...


Why? I received my refund several weeks ago.


Didja ever notice that tax rates are different for different incomes?

Yeah, that darn liberal Greenspan! He's probably a terrorist sympathizer!


No, but it does illustrate that not even he knows the future. What he
says today, may not necessarily be accurate a year or more down the
road.


And when he makes statements that support Bush, he's an expert. When he
contradicts Bush, he just "doesn't know the future"... or at least,
that's a good fall-back when one is caugh blatantly lying about what he
says...



Or it could be that he's frustrated by the Bush Administration's
inability to carry out the positive aspects of their announced fiscal
plans. We all have to suffer from the negative aspects, no matter how
often Greenspan (and others) try to warn them.


Well that's certainly one way to look at it.

Yep. The sensible way, when one regards facts in the real world.

... I should not be
surprised, at this point, at the depth and determination that Bush
detractors will take to spin and paint everything he does in a bad
light, and highlight every piece of bad news we get as somehow his
fault.


And of course, since President Bush hasn't made any mistakes, *nothing*
that has gone wrong is really his fault.

Greenspan is a very astute individual who's quite skilled at his job.

He's also a political appointee who is supposed to ignore politics...
and has done so, for the most part.

It's worth noting that his statements about the Bush Administration
fiscal policies are more critical, and note more failures, than under
any president since he was appointed. But hey, why expect a guy who
doesn't understand relatively simple math like increasing marginal tax
rates to notice such things?

But so are meteorologists. They are skilled at their jobs too. But
despite their years of training and skill, they still can't accurately
predict the weather more than a few days out. There are too many
unknowns. Greenspan is up against the same type of issues.



No, he's up against trying to be an adult among an administration of
4-year-olds turned loose in a candy store.

DSK

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:46:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

Fact: Social security, if left alone will eventually collapse under
its own weight.

It will not collapse. It will be able to pay out 70% of what it now
promises.

Fact: There have been no practical solutions offered by democratic
leaders other than simply raising the tax.

The only other options are cutting benefits or raising the retirement
age. Given that, Bush hasn't offered anything. He wants the Democrats
to go first so he isn't tarred.

Fact: Bush's private account proposal is innovative, and shows an
ability to think outside the box. For that reason alone, it should be
allowed to be objectively considered

What is the objective evaluation of it?

Josh Rosenbluth

Yes tax rates are different for different incomes. those making above some
amount, say $60k you get to pay 35% of your money above this to the
government. If you make $25k, they you pay maybe 5%. Would have to get out
the tax charts from the computer to get exact numbers. But the upper 20% or
so of taxpayers pay 90% of the tax money collected.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
That's absurd.


Dave Hall wrote:
No, that's math. An albeit simple example, but math nonetheless.


It's not math. Unless you consider stupidity & wrong numbers to be "math."


Take a look at your tax rate booklet... preferably before April 15th...


Why? I received my refund several weeks ago.


Didja ever notice that tax rates are different for different incomes?

Yeah, that darn liberal Greenspan! He's probably a terrorist
sympathizer!


No, but it does illustrate that not even he knows the future. What he
says today, may not necessarily be accurate a year or more down the
road.


And when he makes statements that support Bush, he's an expert. When he
contradicts Bush, he just "doesn't know the future"... or at least,
that's a good fall-back when one is caugh blatantly lying about what he
says...



Or it could be that he's frustrated by the Bush Administration's
inability to carry out the positive aspects of their announced fiscal
plans. We all have to suffer from the negative aspects, no matter how
often Greenspan (and others) try to warn them.


Well that's certainly one way to look at it.

Yep. The sensible way, when one regards facts in the real world.

... I should not be
surprised, at this point, at the depth and determination that Bush
detractors will take to spin and paint everything he does in a bad
light, and highlight every piece of bad news we get as somehow his
fault.


And of course, since President Bush hasn't made any mistakes, *nothing*
that has gone wrong is really his fault.

Greenspan is a very astute individual who's quite skilled at his job.

He's also a political appointee who is supposed to ignore politics...
and has done so, for the most part.

It's worth noting that his statements about the Bush Administration
fiscal policies are more critical, and note more failures, than under
any president since he was appointed. But hey, why expect a guy who
doesn't understand relatively simple math like increasing marginal tax
rates to notice such things?

But so are meteorologists. They are skilled at their jobs too. But
despite their years of training and skill, they still can't accurately
predict the weather more than a few days out. There are too many
unknowns. Greenspan is up against the same type of issues.



No, he's up against trying to be an adult among an administration of
4-year-olds turned loose in a candy store.

DSK

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:18:54 -0500, DSK wrote:

That's absurd.


Dave Hall wrote:
No, that's math. An albeit simple example, but math nonetheless.


It's not math. Unless you consider stupidity & wrong numbers to be "math."

I would if it were true.



Take a look at your tax rate booklet... preferably before April 15th...


Why? I received my refund several weeks ago.


Didja ever notice that tax rates are different for different incomes?

Yes, what's your point? Each tax rate group received a similar
percentage cut. It's not like liberals imply, that only the rich got a
tax rate cut.

Yeah, that darn liberal Greenspan! He's probably a terrorist sympathizer!


No, but it does illustrate that not even he knows the future. What he
says today, may not necessarily be accurate a year or more down the
road.


And when he makes statements that support Bush, he's an expert. When he
contradicts Bush, he just "doesn't know the future"... or at least,
that's a good fall-back when one is caugh blatantly lying about what he
says...

The reverse is true as well. You embrace Greenspan when he throws
darts at Bush, but are strangely silent when he supported many of his
programs, like the tax cut.


Or it could be that he's frustrated by the Bush Administration's
inability to carry out the positive aspects of their announced fiscal
plans. We all have to suffer from the negative aspects, no matter how
often Greenspan (and others) try to warn them.


Well that's certainly one way to look at it.

Yep. The sensible way, when one regards facts in the real world.

When you find one, be sure to let us all know.



... I should not be
surprised, at this point, at the depth and determination that Bush
detractors will take to spin and paint everything he does in a bad
light, and highlight every piece of bad news we get as somehow his
fault.


And of course, since President Bush hasn't made any mistakes, *nothing*
that has gone wrong is really his fault.

How many things can you honesty say, ARE his fault? Factually speaking
of course. Leave the speculative prognostication in the closet.


Greenspan is a very astute individual who's quite skilled at his job.

He's also a political appointee who is supposed to ignore politics...
and has done so, for the most part.

Yes, I would agree.

It's worth noting that his statements about the Bush Administration
fiscal policies are more critical, and note more failures, than under
any president since he was appointed. But hey, why expect a guy who
doesn't understand relatively simple math like increasing marginal tax
rates to notice such things?

Why should we increase tax rates? The government gets too much of our
money already.


But so are meteorologists. They are skilled at their jobs too. But
despite their years of training and skill, they still can't accurately
predict the weather more than a few days out. There are too many
unknowns. Greenspan is up against the same type of issues.



No, he's up against trying to be an adult among an administration of
4-year-olds turned loose in a candy store.

That was the last administration.

Dave

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:57:16 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Yes tax rates are different for different incomes. those making above some
amount, say $60k you get to pay 35% of your money above this to the
government. If you make $25k, they you pay maybe 5%. Would have to get out
the tax charts from the computer to get exact numbers. But the upper 20% or
so of taxpayers pay 90% of the tax money collected.

Yes, and each tax bracket got an equivalent cut under Bush.

Dave

Calif Bill wrote:
Yes tax rates are different for different incomes. those making above some
amount, say $60k you get to pay 35% of your money above this to the
government. If you make $25k, they you pay maybe 5%. Would have to get out
the tax charts from the computer to get exact numbers. But the upper 20% or
so of taxpayers pay 90% of the tax money collected.


That may have been true 10 years ago, but I doubt it is now.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFa....cfm?Docid=221

This states rather plainly that the top 10% pay slightly less than 50%
of the income tax load.

A graph on the effect of the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFa....cfm?Docid=212

The tax burden has been shifted increasingly to lower incomes. It's
often trumpeted that those darn poor people get welfare etc etc, but the
fact remains that the wealthy get by far more value from gov't services.
IMHO it's totally fair to expect them to should most of the burden.

DSK