wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
Although I disagree with it, that was a well written editorial
Kevin.
I
saw no cussing or personal attacks in your post. I also see you
did
not
use the words idiot, ignorant, dumb, dumbass, dip****, asshole
or
dolt
even once.


While I don't object to cussing, you do. Yet you republish the
very
words
you claim offend you.

Why is that?



When they are used to attack or degrade a person they offend me.

Gee, Jim, if that type of thing bothers you, what do you feel about
someone who would post lies about someone's dead mother? How do you
feel about someone who would make degrading remarks about someone's
wife and children? You do just exactly that, you low life scum.


I may have said something about Kevin's mother, wife and children
smoking
the weed he grows. Why does that offend you?

YOU, you low life scum said those things about MY dead mother, MY wife,
and MY children. YOU have proven yourself to be the lowest piece of
**** here, Jim. A person just can't go any lower than that. **** you.
Now, do something about that, you worthless little twit.
So, Jim, how come your wife is so greedy that she made you sell your
boat?


Calm down.

Remarks were made about Kevin's mother and wife smoking dope. You
said
you talked to Kevin over the weekend about the remarks with Kevin
claiming
he would talk to his lawyer to sue me.

So, just what do you know about Kevin's mother and wife smoking dope?
Answer. Nothing. Pure ignorance on your part, huh? Admit it.

I did, however, say that I think your kids are being greedy for asking
for a
bike, iPod, Nintendo, PS2 and other things for Christmas, with the list,
according to you, growing longer every day.

If that offends you.........tough.

Your wife is greedy for making you sell your boat for her. And yes, I
think that ANYBODY who would bring someone's, ANYONE'S mother, or kids
into a conversation is nothing short of a low life scum. It has nothing
to do with "offending" me. You are just scum. Just a nasty little gnat
like piece of ****. To make matters worse, I'm sure you lied about your
wife saying that she thought it was okay for you to act in this manner.
No woman would approve of her husband acting like you, unless she, too
is a low life.


When you see Kevin next weekend to discuss the things I said about his
mother and wife, tell him happy anniversary for me.....I think it was one
year last November.

Kevin sent me a picture taken on his wedding day. We have it framed and
sitting on a shelf in our family room.

http://tinyurl.com/5mel5

Tell Kevin my wife says congratulations also.

The lowest 50% of wage earners pays just FIVE percent of income taxes.

The lowest 95% of wage earners pays just HALF of all income taxes.


Wrong


Fred Dehl wrote:
I don't think so.


It doesn't matter what you "think."
Facts are facts.



.. you can easily go to the IRS web site and
see a nice statistical breakdown of tax burden by income
category.


URL? Didn't think so.

Ever heard of Google? Why should I do your homework for you?



Check the Parks Service and SEC budgets. Add them together, and compare
to the budget of Medicare.

Let's see, who benefits from Medicare?
Drug companies? check
Medicare bureaucrats? check
Lobbyists? check
Elected officials and their publicity flacks? check

Retired old poor people? Yes, but only if they wait in line
and fill out a lot of paperwork and endure many hours of
frustration & aggravation and make sure that every single
'i' is dotted and pay their taxes on time and are willing to
rely on inefficient sub-standard service.

... Then shut up.

What an intelligent well-reasoned thing to say. It certainly
appears that you have a fair & balanced view of things.

DSK

Fred Dehl wrote:


But you really don't mind making the old folks suffer, do you, as long as
they're duped into voting for the socialist morons you favor for office?

Who's out there turning over the rocks and letting these characters loose?

Fred Dehl wrote:
Without backup for your claim,

You're the one that made a bogus claim.

It has been discussed here many times, and the facts are
easy to discover *if* you're interested in facts instead of
wild propaganda.


.... You claim to know the homepage from
which the data can be found, and also state that the exact page is
"easily" found. So, I will ask again:

URL?

Do you know how to spell "I R S"?
If so, type that into Google and ask them for a breakdown of
tax payments related to income brackets.

The tax burden is not skewed by income more than about 5%
(ie those receiving 50% of the income pay approx 55% of the
taxes). Is that simple enough for you?

You can ask your right-wing Christian buddy NOBBY if that is
true, because he and I went round-and-round on this very
issue not long ago. Were you absent from school that day?



But you really don't mind making the old folks suffer, do you, as long as
they're duped into voting for the socialist morons you favor for office?

You don't have a clue whom I "favor for office" so you must
be just making stupid blanket statements for fun. Thanks for
playing, bye bye now.

DSK

wrote in message
oups.com...
Want to have some ammunition the next time a conservative begins
talking about this sick drive toward what they like to term "smaller
government" when they actually mean a government that kneels in
supplication before Corporate America while passing tax "cuts" that
just transfer the cost of government from the wealthy onto the backs of
the middle-class and poor? Well, here are just a few questions, with
supporting examples, to pose and then watch them squirm (the squirm
part is the one I like best)
First, for those who state that the Canadian national health system is
a bad idea and that the "market" will keep the costs of medical
coverage low and that the American medical community doesn't want it
even discussed, call their bluff with this little quote from the
premier medical journal of the AMA, the Journal of the American Medical
Association (1)

Do most liberals sleep through Economics 101 in college? It sure sounds this
way.

Let's see, who benefits from Medicare?
Drug companies? check
Medicare bureaucrats? check
Lobbyists? check
Elected officials and their publicity flacks? check


Fred Dehl wrote:
Since it benefits all these people and corporations you hate, I take it
you've endorsed its elimination, as I have?


Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with eliminating
Medicare. What I *do* have a problem with is fascist
boneheads spouting their propaganda, as though their
favorite politicians are actually accomplishing something.

Has the Bush/Cheney Administration taken any steps toward
reducing Medicare, hmmm? Wait, lemme guess... you're a
"libertarian" and will claim you didn't vote for Bush/Cheney...

DSK

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Want to have some ammunition the next time a conservative begins
talking about this sick drive toward what they like to term "smaller
government" when they actually mean a government that kneels in
supplication before Corporate America while passing tax "cuts" that
just transfer the cost of government from the wealthy onto the backs of
the middle-class and poor? Well, here are just a few questions, with
supporting examples, to pose and then watch them squirm (the squirm
part is the one I like best)
First, for those who state that the Canadian national health system is
a bad idea and that the "market" will keep the costs of medical
coverage low and that the American medical community doesn't want it
even discussed, call their bluff with this little quote from the
premier medical journal of the AMA, the Journal of the American Medical
Association (1)

Do most liberals sleep through Economics 101 in college? It sure sounds
this
way.



They never take it to begin with, they are too bogged down with womyn's
studies and other such nonsense.

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote in
:

Fred Dehl wrote:
The lowest 50% of wage earners pays just FIVE percent of income taxes.

The lowest 95% of wage earners pays just HALF of all income taxes.


Wrong

I don't think so.

In either case, you can easily go to the IRS web site and
see a nice statistical breakdown of tax burden by income
category.

URL? Didn't think so.


http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

Table 6 clearly shows that from 1980 to 2003 there has been a major shift of
the tax burden to the top 10%
And that while the top marginal rate dropped from 70% to 36 %



Plus more than HALF the "cost of government" referred to is transfer
payments TO the poor and lower-middle-class.

Really?

Yes.

You mean like the way the Parks Service allows all
those poor people in their $100K motor homes to clog up
Yellowstone & Yosemite and all the other choice pieces of
taxpayer-owned real estate? Like the way the SEC is always
being careful to make sure that wealthy investors & stock
manipulators are not allowed to profit at the expense of
retirement funds?

Check the Parks Service and SEC budgets. Add them together, and compare
to the budget of Medicare. Then shut up.

Fred Dehl wrote:
Let's review:

1. *I* stated:

Plus more than HALF the "cost of government" referred to is
transfer payments TO the poor and lower-middle-class.

2. *YOU* attempted to counter with references to the Parks Service and
SEC.


Wrong again.

Let's review, indeed... only with the facts.

*You* made an incorrect assertion about taxes.

*I* pointed out your mistake, and suggested ways in which
you could easily find out the truth. I included an
easy-to-understand analogy about gov't services, which went
right over your head.

*You* responded with a series of knee-jerk assumptions,
further incorrect statements, and insults.



Then after such a blunder as that,
you have the audacity to tell someone else to shut up


Sorry. That should have been 'shut the **** up, asshole'. Happy now?

Not really. Kind of disappoined, if anything. I keep hoping
that someday, a Bush/Cheney supporter with some tiny degree
of intelligence & manners will appear.

Hey NOYB & Tom, you all ready to take this guy back to
clubhouse yet?

DSK

How about them apples? Pee-Fritz is contributing something
besides "yeah, me too!"
Way to go Fritzy!

P Fritz wrote:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

Table 6 clearly shows that from 1980 to 2003 there has been a major shift of
the tax burden to the top 10%

How do you figure that?
If you look at the *preceeding* tables, you can see that the
top 10% share of income has increased faster than their
share of the tax burden.... more than a 30% increase in
share from 1980 onward.

And you really need look no further than Table 1 (although
this disagrees with the IRS figures I recall, no need to
quibble here)



Fred Dehl wrote:

The lowest 50% of wage earners pays just FIVE percent of income taxes.


Actually, less than that. But then, their share of the
income is only 14%. Should they be paying 50% of the tax
burden with only 14% of the income, as you try to imply?

Gee, that's fair.

DSK