OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Doug Kanter's "improved" list:

increased taxes for the rich
affirmative action for minorities
full marriage rights for gays
abortion on demand
filibuster judges who might overrule Roe v. Wade
*the environment*

That's a helluva platform to run on!



Gay people have absolutely no effect on you, no matter who they marry.

Frankly, I'm not sure about affirmative action. But, people who know
these
things point out that there's a cycle for poor people that's hard to
break.
Go also seem to be an expert, however, so I'm interested in your
thoughts
on
this subject that nobody else can seem to figure out.

It's not about "being an expert". It's about applying commonsense. The
color of your skin shouldn't give you extra points in the admission
process
when you're applying to a College...especially if that college is
taxpayer-funded.

In the real world, it's been established that the 3 most important factors
in getting good grades a

1) Competent teachers.
2) Being around peers who value education
3) The big winner: Parents who are educated and pass along their
expectations to their kids. Doesn't matter if the parents are together or
divorced, as long as they are a strong presence in the lives of their
children.

There's no reason to assume that some schools have bad teachers all across
the board, but it's a safe bet that if all your students are getting lousy
grades no matter how hard you try, and you're a good teacher, you're going
to go elsewhere. Nobody likes to work hard and get no results.

Inner city kids are at a disadvantage in parts 2 & 3. The only way to stop
the cycle is to "seed" the group with people who can function as role
models. How do you do that without giving some kids a little juice? Yeah,
affirmative action has problems, but what's YOUR solution to the truths I've
given you here? Bus those awful colored kids to your school? :-)

OT Bush... repeat post
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:1z8Wb.20660

I'm ok with that as long as it's equitable and across the board.
That's
why
we should have a flat tax.

I disagree here, Doc. I prefer to see a national consumption tax of
about
10%, coupled with total repeal of any income tax. The national
consumption
tax would be implemented with similar exemptions and exclusions as are
found
in most sales tax structures today.

Just one problem: Cash sales. I'm talking about under-the-table sales
done
by legitimate businesses,

I agree...that's a problem.


as well as transfers of goods outside of that
venue, as between criminal elements.

Those aren't taxed under today's system, either.



Some of their income is taxed, assuming they're big enough to report some
and keep the IRS from getting curious as to how they got their car.

OT Bush hatred
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict sense,
but #5?

OT Bush hatred
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:20:38 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It's not about "being an expert". It's about applying commonsense. The
color of your skin shouldn't give you extra points in the admission process
when you're applying to a College...especially if that college is
taxpayer-funded.

Where were you when the color of your skin kept you out of that college?
It wasn't that long ago. Civil rights have come a long way recently, and
Affirmative Action was just one of the tools used. Perhaps it's
usefulness is now declining, but it was a *small* price to pay to right a
*grievous* wrong.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Doug Kanter's "improved" list:

increased taxes for the rich
affirmative action for minorities
full marriage rights for gays
abortion on demand
filibuster judges who might overrule Roe v. Wade
*the environment*

That's a helluva platform to run on!



Gay people have absolutely no effect on you, no matter who they
marry.

Frankly, I'm not sure about affirmative action. But, people who know
these
things point out that there's a cycle for poor people that's hard to
break.
Go also seem to be an expert, however, so I'm interested in your
thoughts
on
this subject that nobody else can seem to figure out.

It's not about "being an expert". It's about applying commonsense. The
color of your skin shouldn't give you extra points in the admission
process
when you're applying to a College...especially if that college is
taxpayer-funded.

In the real world, it's been established that the 3 most important factors
in getting good grades a

1) Competent teachers.
2) Being around peers who value education
3) The big winner: Parents who are educated and pass along their
expectations to their kids. Doesn't matter if the parents are together or
divorced, as long as they are a strong presence in the lives of their
children.

There's no reason to assume that some schools have bad teachers all across
the board, but it's a safe bet that if all your students are getting lousy
grades no matter how hard you try, and you're a good teacher, you're going
to go elsewhere. Nobody likes to work hard and get no results.

Inner city kids are at a disadvantage in parts 2 & 3. The only way to stop
the cycle is to "seed" the group with people who can function as role
models. How do you do that without giving some kids a little juice? Yeah,
affirmative action has problems, but what's YOUR solution to the truths
I've
given you here? Bus those awful colored kids to your school? :-)

That's already being done in Lee County, Florida. They call it "school
choice"...but it's really just an attempt to integrate the various
socioeconomic levels. My wife's friend lives across the street from a
school. However, her kids did not get their "first choice" in the "school
choice" program (the one across from their house)...nor did they get their
2nd, 3rd, or 4th choices. Instead, the kids were bussed to a school 15
miles away. They had 7 year old kids having to wait at 6-something in the
morning, in the dark, so they can get bussed 15 miles...right past a school
that they *should* be going to in the first place. Now, the mom and dad are
paying to send 'em to private school.

There's a theory in education today where it's believed that if you surround
a "bad" kid with enough "good" kids, the good kids' behavior will rub off on
the "bad" kid. Unfortunately, the school administrators ought to listen to
their great, great, great grandparents for ideas..."a bad apple spoils the
bunch".

OT Bush hatred
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:20:38 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It's not about "being an expert". It's about applying commonsense. The
color of your skin shouldn't give you extra points in the admission
process
when you're applying to a College...especially if that college is
taxpayer-funded.

Where were you when the color of your skin kept you out of that college?


The college I am referring to is Michigan. I dunno that the color of ones
skin *ever* kept people out of that college.

It wasn't that long ago. Civil rights have come a long way recently, and
Affirmative Action was just one of the tools used. Perhaps it's
usefulness is now declining,

I agree...much like unions.


but it was a *small* price to pay to right a
*grievous* wrong.

So you punish some innocent white kid because some ignorant, fat white guy
oppressed a bunch of black people 45 years ago?

OT Bush hatred
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...

Affirmative Action was just one of the tools used. Perhaps it's
usefulness is now declining, but it was a *small* price to pay to right a
*grievous* wrong.


So instead, we have another "grievous" wrong...used to try to correct a
prior "grievous" wrong.

When Mrs. Wong comes out of the maternity ward carrying a white baby, Mr.
Wong get's very mad. Guess what he says?

(read below)













"Two Wongs don't make a white"

OT Bush... repeat post
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

.....I'm talking about under-the-table sales done
by legitimate businesses,

oxymoronic

LOL. Very true! I failed to catch that.

OT Bush... taxes
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
"John Gaquin" wrote...
I disagree here, Doc. I prefer to see a national consumption tax of
about
10%, coupled with total repeal of any income tax.


That doesn't seem like it's going to bring in anywhere near the same
revenue. Unless you are also going to chop off at least half of the
current gov't expenditures, this is just a pie-in-the-sky dream.

One problem I have with having the Feds put on a consumption tax or an
ad-valorum tax or whatever is that it is a serious brake on the economy.
The web of VAT is choking the European economies, we should observe and
learn and do better.



NOYB wrote:
.... I was promoting a flat tax that
phases out at a certain income level.

Ahem... that is a progressive tax, you darn socialist.

If you hadn't snipped the part where I said "...just to be "fair" to our
Democratic colleages", you'd have known that I was fully aware that it's a
progressive tax...but was trying to find *some* common area in which both
sides could agree.

OT Bush hatred
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict sense,
but #5?


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but it is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism. If I send 'em to private
school, I should be able to at least deduct the cost of the private school
from taxes...even if it's a deduction off of AGI instead of a true
"credit".

By not allowing tax breaks, you create such a strong disincentive for people
to send their kids to private school, that they're effectively being forced
by the government to accept a government-controlled program...which is
socialism.

OT Bush hatred
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:28:24 +0000, NOYB wrote:


So you punish some innocent white kid because some ignorant, fat white guy
oppressed a bunch of black people 45 years ago?

Let's see, Affirmative Action has been around maybe 20-30 years,
oppression of blacks has been around maybe several hundred years. I would
also point out, that a handful of whites not getting into the college of
their choice, doesn't compare with black oppression. So, on a scale, I'm
relatively unconcerned. Again, affirmative action was a tool that,
perhaps, has outlived it's usefulness.

OT Bush hatred
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:28:24 +0000, NOYB wrote:


So you punish some innocent white kid because some ignorant, fat white
guy
oppressed a bunch of black people 45 years ago?

Let's see, Affirmative Action has been around maybe 20-30 years,
oppression of blacks has been around maybe several hundred years.

Don't you mean "oppression of blacks *HAD BEEN* around for several hundred
years"? You don't buy into the crap that they're still oppressed, do you?

OT Bush... taxes
 

DSK wrote in message ...
"John Gaquin" wrote...
I disagree here, Doc. I prefer to see a national consumption tax of about
10%, coupled with total repeal of any income tax.


That doesn't seem like it's going to bring in anywhere near the same
revenue. Unless you are also going to chop off at least half of the
current gov't expenditures, this is just a pie-in-the-sky dream.

One problem I have with having the Feds put on a consumption tax or an
ad-valorum tax or whatever is that it is a serious brake on the economy.
The web of VAT is choking the European economies, we should observe and
learn and do better.



NOYB wrote:
.... I was promoting a flat tax that
phases out at a certain income level.

Ahem... that is a progressive tax, you darn socialist.

Depends on what he meant by "phases out at a certain income level".

I have always thought that a flat tax should start above the poverty
line. I don't know off the top of my head what annual income is the
official threshold for poverty (realistically, it isn't the same
everywhere in the country), but lets just say that everyone can make
$25,000 a year tax free. You pay the flat tax rate on money you make
after that.

It works out to look like progressive tax, but it doesn't have the
bracketing that is used that's used for politcal purposes. Everyone
pays the same rate after $25K.

One thing that has to go with a flat tax system is deductions. That
would include home mortgage interest and (to stay on topic) boat loan
interest deductions. I don't have a problem with that. But many
charities and other industries that leverage tax deductions would
fight it --- even though it would probably increase the treasury by
huge somes.


Nobby, can you post *anything* you believe in that doesn't reek of
hypocrisy?

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
In the real world, it's been established that the 3 most important
factors
in getting good grades a

1) Competent teachers.
2) Being around peers who value education
3) The big winner: Parents who are educated and pass along their
expectations to their kids. Doesn't matter if the parents are together
or
divorced, as long as they are a strong presence in the lives of their
children.

There's no reason to assume that some schools have bad teachers all
across
the board, but it's a safe bet that if all your students are getting
lousy
grades no matter how hard you try, and you're a good teacher, you're
going
to go elsewhere. Nobody likes to work hard and get no results.

Inner city kids are at a disadvantage in parts 2 & 3. The only way to
stop
the cycle is to "seed" the group with people who can function as role
models. How do you do that without giving some kids a little juice?
Yeah,
affirmative action has problems, but what's YOUR solution to the truths
I've
given you here? Bus those awful colored kids to your school? :-)

That's already being done in Lee County, Florida. They call it "school
choice"...but it's really just an attempt to integrate the various
socioeconomic levels. My wife's friend lives across the street from a
school. However, her kids did not get their "first choice" in the "school
choice" program (the one across from their house)...nor did they get their
2nd, 3rd, or 4th choices. Instead, the kids were bussed to a school 15
miles away. They had 7 year old kids having to wait at 6-something in the
morning, in the dark, so they can get bussed 15 miles...right past a
school
that they *should* be going to in the first place. Now, the mom and dad
are
paying to send 'em to private school.

There's a theory in education today where it's believed that if you
surround
a "bad" kid with enough "good" kids, the good kids' behavior will rub off
on
the "bad" kid. Unfortunately, the school administrators ought to listen
to
their great, great, great grandparents for ideas..."a bad apple spoils the
bunch".

How odd. A few weeks ago, my son had 5 friends over to watch a movie. When
it was over, I asked them why they all got good grades. They said the main
reason was that they all helped each other when they didn't understand
something. They acknowledged that parents' expectations were important, but
also said that because we're all really old, our knowledge wasn't as
important as just wanting to do well.

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:28:24 +0000, NOYB wrote:


So you punish some innocent white kid because some ignorant, fat white
guy
oppressed a bunch of black people 45 years ago?

Let's see, Affirmative Action has been around maybe 20-30 years,
oppression of blacks has been around maybe several hundred years.

Don't you mean "oppression of blacks *HAD BEEN* around for several hundred
years"? You don't buy into the crap that they're still oppressed, do you?

A quote from my neighbor, who is NOT unusual: "Hey...I got nothin' against
them, but I'm not too wild about them buyin' houses on this street. And
didja see some of them at the school concert last week? Some of 'em look
like animals, not people".

This is Rochester, NY.

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict
sense,
but #5?


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but it
is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

And if there were no private schools? Who would you expect to pay teachers'
salaries?

OT Bush hatred
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:28:24 +0000, NOYB wrote:


So you punish some innocent white kid because some ignorant, fat white
guy
oppressed a bunch of black people 45 years ago?

Let's see, Affirmative Action has been around maybe 20-30 years,
oppression of blacks has been around maybe several hundred years.

Don't you mean "oppression of blacks *HAD BEEN* around for several hundred
years"? You don't buy into the crap that they're still oppressed, do you?

A quote from my neighbor, who is NOT unusual: "Hey...I got nothin' against
them, but I'm not too wild about them buyin' houses on this street. And
didja see some of them at the school concert last week? Some of 'em look
like animals, not people".

This is Rochester, NY.



Yes, people of color are still oppressed in this country. If you think
otherwise, you've got your head buried deep in Rush Limbaugh's butt.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict
sense,
but #5?


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but it
is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

And if there were no private schools? Who would you expect to pay teachers'
salaries?



Nobby's concept of socialism is based upon too many whiffs of dental
laughing gas.

Tax breaks for those attending "private school" is a buzz phrase for
using public funds to support Christian schools.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict
sense,
but #5?


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but
it
is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for
my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

And if there were no private schools? Who would you expect to pay
teachers'
salaries?



Nobby's concept of socialism is based upon too many whiffs of dental
laughing gas.

Tax breaks for those attending "private school" is a buzz phrase for
using public funds to support Christian schools.

The funds are only "public" because some "private" citizen was forced to
give them to the government. There is no such thing as "public" funds...so
let's just call them publicly held private funds.

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict
sense,
but #5?


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but
it
is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for
my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

And if there were no private schools? Who would you expect to pay
teachers'
salaries?



Nobby's concept of socialism is based upon too many whiffs of dental
laughing gas.

Tax breaks for those attending "private school" is a buzz phrase for
using public funds to support Christian schools.

The funds are only "public" because some "private" citizen was forced to
give them to the government. There is no such thing as "public" funds...so
let's just call them publicly held private funds.



You need to get your head out of newsmax.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:42:38 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but it is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism. If I send 'em to private
school, I should be able to at least deduct the cost of the private school
from taxes...even if it's a deduction off of AGI instead of a true
"credit".

By not allowing tax breaks, you create such a strong disincentive for people
to send their kids to private school, that they're effectively being forced
by the government to accept a government-controlled program...which is
socialism.

Rather interesting definition of socialism. If I'm reading it right, any
government controlled program is socialism? As a country, we have decided
government is to provide certain services, a military, roads, education,
amongst others. It seems reasonable to me.

I would add, public education is government funded, but not
totally government controlled. Boards of education keep much of the
control local. All tax payers can have a say. You are proposing taking
your funds from that pool, and placing them in the private sector where
other tax payers will have no say. I say unfair.

I have no children, but gladly pay for public education, as education is
most important to the future of this country. If I have to pay for
educating our children, I think it's only fair that you have to pay as
well. Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

OT Bush hatred
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

Oooh.....good one. :-)

OT Bush... taxes
 

Curtis CCR wrote:
DSK wrote in message ...

"John Gaquin" wrote...

I disagree here, Doc. I prefer to see a national consumption tax of about
10%, coupled with total repeal of any income tax.

That doesn't seem like it's going to bring in anywhere near the same
revenue. Unless you are also going to chop off at least half of the
current gov't expenditures, this is just a pie-in-the-sky dream.

One problem I have with having the Feds put on a consumption tax or an
ad-valorum tax or whatever is that it is a serious brake on the economy.
The web of VAT is choking the European economies, we should observe and
learn and do better.



NOYB wrote:
.... I was promoting a flat tax that
phases out at a certain income level.

Ahem... that is a progressive tax, you darn socialist.


Depends on what he meant by "phases out at a certain income level".

I have always thought that a flat tax should start above the poverty
line. I don't know off the top of my head what annual income is the
official threshold for poverty (realistically, it isn't the same
everywhere in the country), but lets just say that everyone can make
$25,000 a year tax free. You pay the flat tax rate on money you make
after that.

It works out to look like progressive tax, but it doesn't have the
bracketing that is used that's used for politcal purposes. Everyone
pays the same rate after $25K.

One thing that has to go with a flat tax system is deductions. That
would include home mortgage interest and (to stay on topic) boat loan
===========???????????????
interest deductions. I don't have a problem with that. But many
charities and other industries that leverage tax deductions would
fight it --- even though it would probably increase the treasury by
huge somes.

Nobby, can you post *anything* you believe in that doesn't reek of
hypocrisy?

DSK

Aside from the fact that in America it has been done so for some
time, I would like to know why you think home mortgage interest
should be deductible from taxable income for a richer person, while
the interest on a mortgage on a rental property would not be
deductible for the renter, and would therefore be paid by those too
poor to afford a down payment on a home?

The bigger the mortgage, the bigger the deduction?

It seems to form a trap to keep the poor poorer while passing a tax
benefit along to the rich. Is this just an unfortunate, unconscious
conspiracy of innocent circumstances?

If you can afford a big house, why not proudly pay a fair share of
tax on it?

Or, is American home mortgage interest deductible because all rental
businesses routinely deduct mortgage interest from business income
as operating expenses, so that home mortgage interest deductions
merely put purchasers on an equal footing with renters?

How about with the proprietors of rental accommodations?

How do you feel this actually pans out?

Instead of expending tax revenue subsidizing those who can make
arrangements to "Buy" a house (in the shadow of a mortgage,) why not
subsidize every citizen's need for health care, like we do in Canada?

Now, I know there are a lot of complainers who think Canadian health
care is lousy, but as a senior canadian, I can tell you that I am
very satisfied with it, (grampy did get a new hip no one could
afford) even if it is not as good as a millionaire might get if the
only thing that mattered was cash to bribe an ambitious doctor.

I'd sleep in a hospital corridor to get a free lung transplant, if I
needed it, and I would not complain about some rich *******'s friend
getting a boob job, or a sex change in a private clinic somewhere so
long as they paid for it themselves after taxes, private room,
personal nurses and all.

It seems fair to me to expect a rich man to pay cash for a house if
he chooses to, or pay nondeductible interest on his mortgage the
same as everybody else has to, if he chooses to finance by mortgage
in Canada.

Interest on business loans or mortgages on purchased rental
investment properties, might better be only partly deductible as
business expenses, which would pass mortgage interest deduction
savings along to those poor who must rent, or those rich who choose
to rent to preserve capital for other investments.

It seems unfair to me to expect any individual to pay personal
income taxes, since everything they buy from business would be taxed
anyway, under any sales tax or VAT scheme. The more money a person
has to spend on consumer items, aside from food, rent,
transportation, medical expenses and books, the more tax they can
afford to pay, and the more tax they should honorably expect to pay.

Most tax money seems to go to pay off war debts that will never be
paid off, leftovers from ancient wars, some good, some bad, all
encouraged by arms manufacturers, and yet still the American
Executive Branch leaps into conflicts never scrutinized by the
people's representatives in congress. Congress should impeach and
imprison unjustifiable political warmongers and other national
plunderers.

Theft of property should never be considered justification for
aggressive war. Return of stolen propery might be.

I can't see any sense in the present taxation system, except from
the arms dealer's pov. Who really runs America these days, gun
runners, drug runners, or maybe the money runners?

Who should?

Should big business be taxed, or should small private citizens? Why
both? It all comes out of one pocket.

If only corporations were taxed, private proprietors and
entrepreneurs would be encouraged, and international corporate arms
trading by manufacturers would be muzzled.

Those sitting on the most enormous piles of wealth expect to
influence government for their own benefit, whether they are
corporate or private individuals, and so they should be taxed to
control their excesses.

The wealthy seem to think they have more rights than the poor, so
why should they not expect to support those governments that justly
protect them against the ire of abused customers? What is fair for
one must also be fair for the other.

Corporations are artificial immoral psychotic profit structures,
robots, unfairly competing with morally constrained private humans
under modern taxation schemes. They cannot fail to enslave every
living human being without adequate democratic controls, simply
because of monetary and taxation policies.

Corporations can not vote, they can only bribe voters to purchase
votes, or buy public relations to fool voters. Their actions need to
be scrutinized very closely, to protect citizen's freedoms. We must
not allow ourselves to be distracted from real issues by whatever
subterfuge attempted by those with the wherewithal to attempt such.

It seems politics is everybody's responsibility.

The leaders of corporations are responsible beyond corporate legal
protections in the case of criminal actions by corporations under
the control of corporate board room criminal conspiracy gangs.

No harm, no foul seems to be this week's telling logic, so whatever
happened to habeus corpus and how can "the crown" imprison and
prosecute those against whom no person complains for cause of damage?

How is it possible that honorable combatant prisoners of war, even
impoverished mercenaries (like US volunteer troops are) captured by
invading military forces while dutifully defending their regimes be
treated as common criminals, and then be denied the right to an
accused criminal's defense? Is it logical to blame those conscripted
-by whatever financial press gang tactics whatever, slaves after
all- for their defeated tyrannical dictator's motivations?

Since when is it possible that the nature of a governmental
complaint against a single human being be so serious that even the
nature of the charges and the evidence against him be kept secret
indefinitely, even to the point that even the mere identity of the
'disappeared' be a national security secret not entrustable to a
lawyer? Unless it is that the individual can incriminate some
politically protected individuals? Unless the nature of their
perceptions of 'the truth' are so imflammable as to endanger an
entire country's existance? Would it be 'more merciful' to simply
kill such a prisoner rather than have him die eventually, gagged in
jail? Unjustified imprisonment, with or without overt torture is the
same thing as, or even worse than state sanctioned murder.

How corrupt does that make a government what needs to resort to such
tyranny in the name of defending justice and freedom "for the
people?" Are American people better entitled to human rights than
any other enslaved people?

Democratic equality is everyone's right, even for those escaping
tyrrany wherever it be.

Surely America was greater than this. If it does not regain it's
former principles it deserves to wither in agony enslaved by greed.

Forgive interest debts. Jubilee is our only hope.

Tax robots, not people!

Terry K

OT Bush... taxes
 

"DSK" wrote in message news:Cy9Wb.36343

One problem I have with having the Feds put on a consumption tax or an
ad-valorum tax or whatever is that it is a serious brake on the economy.
The web of VAT is choking the European economies, we should observe and
learn and do better.

Different things. A consumption tax -- or national sales tax, if you
will -- is a one time application across the board, at the end user. It
would reach to virtually all dollars in the economy, so a lower % would be
sufficient. Current tax policy only reaches about 60% or less of legitimate
income (not sure of that figure). In some European countries, vat is added
at multiple steps before reaching the end user. That truly is stultifying.

OT Bush... repeat post
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:hj9Wb.20718
I have three sons under the age of 5. Why would I adopt at this point in my
life? Perhaps we *will* adopt a girl once the boys have grown a little bit
older, however.

I certainly hope they grow up with better social morals than you.

OT Bush hatred
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

A tax credit or tax deduction is *not* a subsidy. I'm only getting back
money I shouldn't have paid in the first place...but it's still my money.

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

A tax credit or tax deduction is *not* a subsidy. I'm only getting back
money I shouldn't have paid in the first place...but it's still my money.



Because I fractured a bone in my hand last night and I'm trying to type with
a cast on, I'll let you get away with that silly comment for now. But I'll
be back for you, Mr Molar. :-)

OT Bush hatred
 

Do we dare ask you what you were doing?

Doug Kanter wrote in message
...

Because I fractured a bone in my hand last night and I'm trying to type
with
a cast on, I'll let you get away with that silly comment for now. But I'll
be back for you, Mr Molar. :-)

OT Bush hatred
 

Sorry about your hand...
I'll leave you alone for now. It certainly wouldn't be a fair fight with
you only having one hand.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

A tax credit or tax deduction is *not* a subsidy. I'm only getting back
money I shouldn't have paid in the first place...but it's still my
money.



Because I fractured a bone in my hand last night and I'm trying to type
with
a cast on, I'll let you get away with that silly comment for now. But I'll
be back for you, Mr Molar. :-)

OT Bush hatred
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:UbvWb.15571


I'll let you get away with that silly comment for now. But I'll be back
for you, Mr Molar.

And your little dog too!!!!

OT Bush hatred
 

You know how Cato used to jump out of closets & armoirs to attack inspector
Clousseau in the Pink Panther movies? My son did that to me last night, just
for grins. After wrestling for a couple of minutes, I went to grab his arm
REALLY fast. He moved the arm, and I basically slugged what was behind it -
his hip bone. Crunch. He thinks it's funny. But, he requested steak for
dinner tomorrow - the perfect accompaniment to "NYPD Blue". He doesn't
realize yet, but he's making dinner while I kick back with a bourbon. :-) I
might advise him with lighting the charcoal, but then again, he might look
good with cajun blackened hair.

Gee...I'm typng from 24" away with my pecker, and I'm still a better writer
than Dave Hall. :-)

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Do we dare ask you what you were doing?

Doug Kanter wrote in message
...

Because I fractured a bone in my hand last night and I'm trying to type
with
a cast on, I'll let you get away with that silly comment for now. But
I'll
be back for you, Mr Molar. :-)

OT Bush hatred
 

Mr Molar, I'd need a frontal lobotomy to make a discussion fair for YOU. :-)

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...
Sorry about your hand...
I'll leave you alone for now. It certainly wouldn't be a fair fight with
you only having one hand.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

A tax credit or tax deduction is *not* a subsidy. I'm only getting
back
money I shouldn't have paid in the first place...but it's still my
money.



Because I fractured a bone in my hand last night and I'm trying to type
with
a cast on, I'll let you get away with that silly comment for now. But
I'll
be back for you, Mr Molar. :-)

OT Bush hatred
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Mr Molar, I'd need a frontal lobotomy to make a discussion fair for YOU.
:-)

You mean, you didn't have one awhile ago? Coulda' fooled me. ;-)

OT Bush hatred
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Mr Molar, I'd need a frontal lobotomy to make a discussion fair for YOU.
:-)

You mean, you didn't have one awhile ago? Coulda' fooled me. ;-)



drum crash

OT Bush hatred
 

I used to rough house with my # 2 guy but he kind of outgrew me. I may have
to get back into the gym or at least buy a Bowflex and toughten up.


Doug Kanter wrote in message
...
You know how Cato used to jump out of closets & armoirs to attack
inspector
Clousseau in the Pink Panther movies? My son did that to me last night,
just
for grins. After wrestling for a couple of minutes, I went to grab his arm
REALLY fast. He moved the arm, and I basically slugged what was behind
it -
his hip bone. Crunch. He thinks it's funny. But, he requested steak for
dinner tomorrow - the perfect accompaniment to "NYPD Blue". He doesn't
realize yet, but he's making dinner while I kick back with a bourbon. :-)
I
might advise him with lighting the charcoal, but then again, he might look
good with cajun blackened hair.

Gee...I'm typng from 24" away with my pecker, and I'm still a better
writer
than Dave Hall. :-)

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Do we dare ask you what you were doing?

Doug Kanter wrote in message
...

Because I fractured a bone in my hand last night and I'm trying to
type
with
a cast on, I'll let you get away with that silly comment for now. But
I'll
be back for you, Mr Molar. :-)

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

A tax credit or tax deduction is *not* a subsidy. I'm only getting back
money I shouldn't have paid in the first place...but it's still my money.


Of course a tax credit or deduction is a subsidy. You need a better
dictionary.

--
Email sent to is never read.

OT Bush hatred
 

NOYB wrote:

5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school


... For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

As usual, you have completely the wrong point of view. You totally forget that
your neighbor, who may not have kids, is paying the same amount as you to
support the public schools. So, you're just flat-out wrong... you are not "being
forced by the government to pay for your kids to go to public school." You are
paying for a level of public education, which goes to support the industrialized
high-tech community in which you live (persumably by choice, you could always go
live in a cave).


If I send 'em to private
school, I should be able to at least deduct the cost of the private school
from taxes...

Why should your neighbor with no kids, or grown kids, be forced to subsidize
sending your kids to private school? The whole issue of vouchers is one of
selfishness & stupidity. While I can understand the libertarian point of view,
which is to say that taxation for public schools is equal to theft, it is not
logical and denies the duty of the individual to support his community.

DSK

OT Bush hatred
 

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

A tax credit or tax deduction is *not* a subsidy. I'm only getting back
money I shouldn't have paid in the first place...but it's still my money.


Of course a tax credit or deduction is a subsidy. You need a better
dictionary.

A tax credit is a subsidy? No more so than if you overpay any private
sector entity. It's my money, they are simply giving me back some of
my money. If you paid your car insurance, and after you sent the
payment in, the premium went down, so they send a portion of that back
to you, would you then say that the insurance company is subsidising
your next road trip?

OT Bush hatred
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Harry Krause wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

A tax credit or tax deduction is *not* a subsidy. I'm only getting
back
money I shouldn't have paid in the first place...but it's still my
money.


Of course a tax credit or deduction is a subsidy. You need a better
dictionary.

A tax credit is a subsidy? No more so than if you overpay any private
sector entity. It's my money, they are simply giving me back some of
my money. If you paid your car insurance, and after you sent the
payment in, the premium went down, so they send a portion of that back
to you, would you then say that the insurance company is subsidising
your next road trip?

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Stop the presses!!! basskisser and I agree
for once! I really like the insurance premium analogy. What's Harry have
to say about *that*?

(basskisser, please don't tell me that you thought *I* said a tax credit
isn't a subsidy. Harry is the one who said it)

OT Bush hatred
 

basskisser wrote:


A tax credit is a subsidy? No more so than if you overpay any private
sector entity. It's my money, they are simply giving me back some of
my money.

That's one way to look at it, and in many cases it's correct. But in this particular case it's wrong
(explanation below).


If you paid your car insurance, and after you sent the
payment in, the premium went down, so they send a portion of that back
to you, would you then say that the insurance company is subsidising
your next road trip?

That depends on whether or not other motorists paying the same rate, in the same risk pool, to the same company,
did *not* get a refund. Which is exactly the case with public schools.

All citizens have certain obligations to their community... unless you want to live in a community of dunces,
with a decreased standard of living, then you are obligated to provide some support for the education of all
citizens... wether you have kids or not, wether you are paying private school tuition or not.

A tax voucher for private school tuition is a clever method to dodge civic duty... ironically, it's being touted
by the party who claims to have a higher sense of duty, accountability, responsibility, and overall morality. Go
figure!

Regards
Doug King