On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:32:04 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:56 pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Or are you saying that because al Qaeda tortures, it is ok for us to do
so,too?
It's hard for me to equate 20-30 seconds of a drowning-like experience that
you walk away from as "torture" compared to having your throat slit and head
lopped off in front of a camera while pleading for your life.
There have been many, many more civilians and solders beheaded by al Qaeda
than al Qaeda terrorists waterboarded by us, if the CIA report is accurate.
Yes, if waterboarding gains information that helps prevent more beheadings
or torture killings by al Qaeda, I think it's not only ok, it's necessary.
Eisboch
I certainly can accept that we have different opinions on this, and that
neither of us is going to convince the other to change his mind.

On a lighter note, I passed my cardiovascular exam today. Pressure cuffs
on both arms and legs, hooked up to a very expensive looking computer
device, plus ultrasound through my midsection and up through my neck.
Very strange to see the inside of ones "stuff." Three very attractive
young women were doing the testing (one was a trainee), which made the
experience even easier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, of course you had attractive nurses. They know that you are far
superior to anyone else on earth so they give you the beauties. Did
you tell them about your Dr. Dr. wife?


There you go again, dip****. Who said they were nurses? Who said they
were "beauties"? Not me. All I said was that there were three very
attractive young women doing the testing. In point of fact, I doubt any
of them were RNs, or, in fact, nurses of any kind. They weren't doing
triage, they weren't administering meds, they weren't treating an
ailment, or injured or sick patients.

This is the sort of misreading that keeps getting you into trouble.

Like most liberals, you dodged the question.
--
John H

On Feb 6, 1:10�pm, Tim wrote:
I wonder if they are the ones buying up all the Grand Banks?



A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer
taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing
jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.- Hide quoted text -


Hardly. Families with a total household income of $200k aren't in a
realistic position to dump well over $1mm into a boat. At 6.75 APR,
payments on a $1mm balance for 15 years are $8850 a month. Stretching
to 20 years drops the note to $7600. In either case, that boat is
going to cost soemthing close to $10,000 a month all in, all done,
before it ever leaves the dock. That would be 60% of the gross income
of a $200k per year family, and maybe 70-75% of spendable net.

Paying cash simply creates an opportunity cost instead of interest
expense. The amount of money $1mm could earn in a low or moderate risk
investment then becomes the "cost" of buying a relatively pricey boat.

If anybody asked my financial advice (and nobody does) I'd suggest
that about 10% of net worth is good figure to tie up in all toys
combined. If all you have is a boat, fine, spend 10%. But if you've
got a motorhome, some expensve motorcycles, off road vehicles, etc the
total sunk into all of them combined should be about 10%. IMO.
A typical management-level family earning $200k probably has a net
worth of somewhere between $1mm- $5mm, depending on age, whether
anything has been inherited along the way, and whether there has been
any financial discipline in personal money management.

According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.
:-)

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.

It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

On Feb 7, 8:48�pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.

It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. �That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

By comparison, waterboarding is a short term shock technique which
does not leave lasting psychological or physical problems and is
effective 90% of the time - it's efficient and more humane because it,
at the most, lasts less than 5 minutes total. More to the point,
because it is a shock therapy, the information is much more accurate
and in general, does not have to be repeated more than once.

I've read only vague assertions of effectiveness without
corroboration. If it is so benign and effective why were
the video tapes destroyed? They would have been convincing.

On Feb 7, 5:51*pm, "John" wrote:


Couple of MAJOR point
The Washington times is about as conservative as they come - it will print
anything that paints democrats in a biased light but never even mentioned
how poorly the war in Iraq was going - or that there was even a different
opinion about it.

Kind of the opposite of the Washington Post, John.

$200,000 per year IS NOT rich - that is simply the Educated workers!!! *No
surprise that the educated are more critical of republican lies and
rhetoric. * See the first statement about WashTimes - any coincidence that
they would draw the income line at 200K to make a point?

Agreed. $200,000.00 isn't rich as of to say, but it's better than the
majority of earners.

The rich republican supporters that you hear about are the top 5% in income
who coincidently control about 40% of all the wealth in the country....-

Don't have fact's 'n figures in front of me, but those numbers do
sound debateable .

On Feb 8, 1:27�am, Tim wrote:

Don't have fact's 'n figures in front of me, but those numbers do
sound debateable .

Yes, those figures are wrong.

At least as of 2001, it was the top 1% (not 5%) that held almost 40%
of all private wealth in the US.

Some interesting tables and statistics at:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 7, 8:48�pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:00:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
According to Uncle Chuck's Sage Financial Advice, two mid-managers
grossing $200k should *typically* be looking at a boat somewhere under
$500k.
It's also important to understand whether or not the boat will qualify
for a "second home" deduction. �That can improve net cash flow by
quite a lot in some cases.

Yes, and you simply recover the amount of income tax paid on the money
needed to make the interest portion of the payment. A family in the
30% tax bracket would probably save about $2000/month in taxes during
the early years of a $1mm boat note. Brings the net total down to
$8,000 per month before the boat ever leaves the dock, or about half
the total *gross* income for the family. My point remains, $200k per
year families are not buying $1mm boats......not unless great aunt
Harriet kicks the bucket and leaves them $500k to use for a DP.


A one million dollar boat loan?

A couple grossing $200,000 a year should look at a boat under $500,000?

Yeah, well under.

Hehehehe.

Fools and their money...

On Feb 7, 6:51*pm, "John" wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message

...





The Democrats!

Entire article can read at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...D=/20071123/NA....

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income
Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the
nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth
concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael
Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation,
found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional
jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were
concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts,
we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those
jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.

A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer
taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing
jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

Couple of MAJOR point
The Washington times is about as conservative as they come - it will print
anything that paints democrats in a biased light but never even mentioned
how poorly the war in Iraq was going - or that there was even a different
opinion about it.

$200,000 per year IS NOT rich - that is simply the Educated workers!!! *No
surprise that the educated are more critical of republican lies and
rhetoric. * See the first statement about WashTimes - any coincidence that
they would draw the income line at 200K to make a point?

The rich republican supporters that you hear about are the top 5% in income
who coincidently control about 40% of all the wealth in the country....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can't have it both ways...

On Feb 7, 6:51*pm, "John" wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message

...





The Democrats!

Entire article can read at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...D=/20071123/NA....

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income
Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the
nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth
concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael
Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation,
found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional
jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were
concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts,
we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those
jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.

A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer
taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing
jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

Couple of MAJOR point
The Washington times is about as conservative as they come - it will print
anything that paints democrats in a biased light but never even mentioned
how poorly the war in Iraq was going - or that there was even a different
opinion about it.

$200,000 per year IS NOT rich - that is simply the Educated workers!!! *No
surprise that the educated are more critical of republican lies and
rhetoric.

But don't seem to care about the constant lies and pandering of
Billary, are they dumb, or just selfish, fat, and they got theirs??

See the first statement about WashTimes - any coincidence that
they would draw the income line at 200K to make a point?

The rich republican supporters that you hear about are the top 5% in income
who coincidently control about 40% of all the wealth in the country

OK Harry, just make it up as you go along, we are used to democrats
here..