|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29416 is a reply to message #29362] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 07:45   |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/18/2012 8:06 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <828.770T465T5743518@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <icpq2819qp.fsf@home.home>, despen@verizon.net (Dan Espen)
>> writes:
>>
>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Microsloth is going crazy trying to move the cr@p. They're not
>>>> only advertising the heck out of windoze 8, they've done product
>>>> placement to get the "surface" on just about every show on TV.
>>>
>>> I've seen those ads.
>>
>> And they're not just on TV - they're also part of the pre-movie ads
>> that you sit through at the local cinema.
>>
>>> Is it me or does the product look like crap?
>>
>> It's a continuation of the Fisher-Price look that started with XP.
>
> If a product has to be advertised that much, it's most likely crap
> from the getgo.
>
If a product comes from microsoft, it's most likely crap from the getgo.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29417 is a reply to message #29379] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 07:46 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/18/2012 8:46 PM, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> In article <ajc5saF9aqiU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The absolute vast bulk of north koreans arent in the prison camps.
>>
>> Likely there are a higher percentage of non whites in prisons in the US
>> than in north korea.
>
> Nothing quite like being an apologist for the NK communist regime, huh?
>
I sure hope Roddy is getting paid to be a troll, otherwise he's wasting
his time. This one did give me a laugh, though.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29418 is a reply to message #29380] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 07:49 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/18/2012 8:52 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
> Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> writes:
>
>> In article <icobhrxlaw.fsf@home.home>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> How can something be Communist
>>> and Nazi at the same time?
>>
>> The same way one can be a Communist and an Islamacist.
>
> Except that in the first case, there is a contradiction.
>
Not so much. "Nazi", remember, is "National Socialist", as opposed to
Communism, which is supposed to be international. Later on they
de-emphasized the "socialist" part, but earlier they were the "German
Workers Party."
Anyway, left or right, the farther you move on the spectrum the closer
you get to the guys from the other side.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29421 is a reply to message #29405] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 08:31 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 19/12/2012 02:32, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <PM0004D120FF2DD9FE@ac813e5e.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/18/2012
> at 02:39 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:
>
>> Kibbutz (I couldn't remember the word yesterday).
>
> On a kibbutz the workers *are* the owners.
>
>> No, I'm saying that an owner has more incentive to work longer
>> hours than those who work under a collective org.
>
> A partnership is a collective; does that mean that the partners slack
> off?
>
No, it means that on a collective farm the workers are serfs and like
the land are owned by absentee landlords.
Andrew Swallow
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29428 is a reply to message #29321] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 09:56 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
> You're peddling the Obama line of BS. From what I read the popular vote
> was something like 51 percent to 47. This isn't exactly a "vast
> majority" or a "mandate" that the O-man is trying to claim, it's a sign
> that he'd better tread pretty carefully. I blame Romney, and his
> campaign staff for the result. He was a fairly unattractive candidate
> and the White House kept his campaign off balance all summer with the
> "BS of the week" rather than actually talking about any issues.
The republicans lost seats in the house, the senate, they lost the
presidency and quite a few state offices (particularly in california).
If bush can refer to both of his much closer victories (in fact the first
time, he technically lost on both electoral and popular votes) as a
"mandate", then obama should be granted the same ability.
Since polls routinely favor higher taxes on the wealthy by huge margins,
the republicans are building themselves a bunker they'll never be able
to leave.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29429 is a reply to message #29321] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:02 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
> On 12/18/2012 12:05 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> The democrats are still working out of the mess that the bush tax cuts, financial dereg,
>> and two unnecessary wars have left the country in. Their goal is to
>> rein in the budget deficit without causing futher irreparable harm. It
>> is clear to anyone who looks at the US Budget that cuts in spending alone
>> cannot accomplish this[*]. It's clear to anyone who looks that the tax rates
>> that are being proposed are significantly less than at any time prior to
>> 2002 - and the US hummed along just fine then, including small businesses,
>> family farms and all the other bugaboos the radical right like Barb keep
>> bitching about.
>
> I have head it said several times by non-partisan sources that US
> business taxes are higher than most other developed countries.
> ...
I've heard it said that Vampires die if exposed to sunlight.
How about some cites?
While the tax rate (34-35%) is one of the highest rates in the world,
no corporation actually pays that. Deferred taxes on foreign income
is one of the biggest reasons that companies actually pay low taxes.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_Sta tes#Tax_deferral)
For example, google pays a 2.4% tax rate.
( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-sho ws-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html)
scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29435 is a reply to message #29363] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:19 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <icobhrxlaw.fsf@home.home>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> How can something be Communist
>> and Nazi at the same time?
>
> The same way one can be a Communist and an Islamacist.
>
<GRIN> And most of those governments got their initial training
by the Nazis. That area, and Viet Nam, were the odd ends of WWII
which didn't get taken care of in 1945.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29436 is a reply to message #29313] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:20 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass wrote:
> On 12/18/2012 9:39 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>>> In <PM0004D10DB0CDEE1A@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/17/2012
>>> at 03:34 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Do you remember when the USSR sent its soldiers out to harvest
>>>> potatoes?
>>>
>>> How does that conflict with their system being state capitalism?
>>>
>>>> The books I read talked about the collectives not working a long
>>>> day;
>>>
>>> Are you talking about a real collective, owned by the workers,
>>
>> Kibbutz (I couldn't remember the word yesterday).
>>
>>> or a
>>> state run farm where the workers are coolies? Where and what year.
>>
>> The books were about Israel and its history.
>>
>>> Are
>>> you comparing them to single family farms in the same location and
>>> year?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Or are you saying, e.g., that there is a longer work day on a
>>> moshave than on a nearby kibbutz?
>>
>> No, I'm saying that an owner has more incentive to work longer hours
>> than those who work under a collective org. A collective would have
>> to post work details and hours. The first thing you hear is someone
>> complaining about someone else not having to do the messiest work.
>> An owner just does the labor until the job is done. There are no
>> hours scheduled by a manager nor days off nor obligatory coffee
>> breaks.
>>
>>>
>>> If you're talking about soviet "collective" farms, the operative
>>> expression is "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work."
>>>
>>
>> That's an organization which has completely self-destructed. If
>> those people owned their own pieces of that farming area, they
>> would have more self-interest in success. For those people
>> who didn't care about doing the work, they would sell the land
>> to someone who did have an interest.
>>
>> Bottom line is that the land is productive and not lying fallow
>> or worse.
>>
>
> In his soul every Russian is a farmer, or something like that. National
> Geographic recently had an article about a dacha community - vacation
> homes of city people - north of Moscow. In the photos you could see
> that the "back yards" were almost all vegetable plots. A few grew
> flowers and no one had a lawn.
Kewl. That's good to know.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29437 is a reply to message #29386] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:19 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dave Garland wrote:
> On 12/18/2012 1:06 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> In his soul every Russian is a farmer, or something like that.
>> National Geographic recently had an article about a dacha community -
>> vacation homes of city people - north of Moscow. In the photos you
>> could see that the "back yards" were almost all vegetable plots. A
>> few grew flowers and no one had a lawn.
>>
>
> IIRC, lawns are imitations of the groundkeeping of English (or at
> least European) estates. Wikipedia says they date from the 16th c.
> Do other cultures independently have the concept of a lawn being
> desirable?
>
I'm convinced that the lawn-mentality in the US is part of the
middle class trying to prove they're rich. I think lawns are
ugly because its a monoculture. I see all that work going into
a useless area and wonder how the mentality got that way. I'm
allowed to keep my leaves, hence my dirt. A "good" middle class
person removes all leaves and keeps the grass green even in
a drought.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29438 is a reply to message #29281] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:19 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
greymausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2012-12-18, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> greymausg@mail.com wrote:
>>> On 2012-12-17, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Which tends to ignore the land purchased in the 50s and 60s and
>>>> >> the areas gained becuase they won the wars.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> /BAH
>>>> >
>>>> > Israeli Jews have legal title to about 5% of the land of even pre-1961
>>>> > Israel.. Palestinian sources.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> You use today's defintion of legal title after a democratic process
>>>> of ownership has been put into place. I really doon't wnat
>>>> to get into another discussion about this with you.
>>>>
>>>> /BAH
>>>
>>> Agreed!.
>>
>> Oh, thank you! :-)
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Actually to veer somewhat, the Falklands War was caused by a variant of this
situation.
> The Argentinians claim prior ownership, some have told me of
Spanish-speaking settlers
> of the Islands being forcibly removed to Argentina. Checking Wikipedia just
now, the
> situation is a lot more complex than that.
>
> More recently than that, the natives on Diego Suarez in the Indian Ocean
> claim that they were rounded up by the British and dumped, in Mauritious,
> with no compensation, the Island being developed as a bomber base for the
> Iraqi and Afganistan Wars. Wikipedia seems to have no refence to that,
> but a court case is being persued.
The US has the Indian tribes. The next really big world war will probably
be over some islands in Asia which China wants. all of this is absed
on who's on first.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29439 is a reply to message #29266] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:19 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >On 12/16/2012 6:42 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 12/16/2012 12:31 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.
>>>> >>>> ^^^^?
>>>> >>>>> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the
Dem.
>>>> >>>>> leadership.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small
>>>> >>>> business?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Because they're successful and not dependent on the government for
>> handouts.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So, you think that answers "why"?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It doesn't.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And it's stupid.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Sorry to be insulting, but having voted Democrat a few times,
>>>> >> and not wanting to destroy any business big or small, I take exception.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >When we say "The Democrats" want something or think something, we're
>>>> >talking about the 'leadership'. You can think and feel whatever you
>>>> >want, but it's their opinions that count.
>>>>
>>>> What "we" kimosabe. The proper pronoun for you is "I".
>>>>
>>>> And nobody but a few loonies think that "democrats want to ban guns[*]"
>>>> or "democrats want to destroy small business" or on the other side that
>>>> "republicans want to eat babies" or "republicans hate homosexuals".
>>>>
>>>> And only an idiot thinks that an extra $3k/year in taxes for a small
>> business
>>>> clearing $250000 in profit per year will "destroy small business".
>>>
>>> If the business clears 250K, their taxes remain the same.
>>
>> How do you figure?
>
> Simple, the proposed tax is to increase taxes on income over
> 250K. That's TAXABLE income by the way.
>
> Anyone making 250K or less, gets the Bush tax cut.
I don't believe the latter. I've become very used to not paying
taxing on qualified dividends and low long term capital gains tax.
For some strange reason, politicians, and their constituents, think
that only rich people have those two income and investment sources.
I haven't heard a thing about death taxes.
> Anyone making 250K or more only pays the Clinton Era tax on
> taxable income over 250K. They still get the Bush tax cut
> on the first 250K.
>
>>> To get to 3k extra, they have to net something like 330K.
>>>
>> What figures are you using?
>
> The proposed increase is 4% on income over 250K.
> You need 80K of income to see 3K in taxes.
>
> 80,000 x .04 = 3.2K.
>
> 250K plus 80K = 330K.
So you are saying that the 33% tax rate will become 37% and the 35%
rate will become 39%? That's not the figure I heard. Reporting
has sucked big time w.r.t. this topic. The number I heard was in the
40s. AMT thresholds are lower even this year.
So all this fuss is for "only" $3K increase. that won't solve
any of the trillions that the Dems are spending each year
(their bailout monies).
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29440 is a reply to message #29264] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:19 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.
>>>> > ^^^^?
>>>>
>>>> Rein as in horse reins; some bridles have a rein check which keeps the
head
>>>> of the horse in front of you.
>>>
>>> Interesting. Google is coming up empty on the usage "rein check".
>>
>> Does it really?!!!! It's been a common term all my life. How odd.
>
> The term "rain check" is very common. Sounds the same.
I completely fucked it up. Check rein...or checkrein. My apologies. :-)
>
>>>> >> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the Dem.
>>>> >> leadership.
>>>> >
>>>> > Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!
>>>> >
>>>> > Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small
>>>> > business?
>>>> >
>>>> BEcause they want to tax the shit out of small business owners.
>>>> Before you reply to this, go read Schedule C of the IRS' tax
>>>> forms/directions.
>>>
>>> Interesting definition of "tax the shit out of".
>>> Completely a fantasy.
>>
>> If a small business owner's bank account has a $300K or more balance at
>> any time of the year, there is a surtax charged. Note that this is
>
> No it isn't. There has never been a tax on assets and there never will be.
>
>> half a house if you're a builder. Small farms will fall into that
>> $250K category. Service businesses such as plumbing and electrical
>> could get that much income during the year. Brick and mortar
>
> A bank account balance is not income.
> As I said before, if a business earns 250K there is no tax increase.
> If a business earns 300K the additional tax is tiny.
>
>> businesess and restaurants will also be affected. Destroy small
>> business and you'll end up with a fascist or communistic economy where
>> decisions are made by politicians and not by the people who deal with
>> the prlbems.
>
> Again, explain why any one, or any politician would want to destroy
> small business. How would that get someone elected?
>
>>> And that still leaves you short about explaining _why_ the Democratic
>>> leadership sees advantage in destroying small business.
>>
>> To increase the population's dependency on the Fed. government; note
>> that this does not include States' government.
>
> No one wants anyone to be dependent on the government.
> It doesn't help anyone, especially politicians.
>
>>> They want to raise revenue.
>>>
>> That's just plain BS. If they want to revenue, they leave the
>> businesses alone. Those are the entities which cut paychecks
>> which produces revenue. If the Dems were only trying to raise
>> revenue, I might consider their proposal but they're also
>> increasing spending by an amount far greater than the suppoed
>> revenue from incrasing taxes. They also seem to be avoiding
>> saying anything about death taxes which makes me suspect that
>> they're going to go back to the one million $ threshold.
>> And that will definitely take out a lot small business.
>
> So you can _increase_ revenue by not raising taxes.
> How do you think that works?
If Congress gave businesses, big, medium and small, a tax base
which wasn't going to change for the next two decades, they
would start to use their cash to do more business. More business
means more employees to do the work. More employees means more
income taxes and social security funding gets sent to the Fed.
that's how the government alwyas increases revenues. Increasing
the rates just move the big money off shore and invested in a
geographical area which makes it possible to have a profit.
> How is it working now?
It's not. There has not been fiscal stability (that means
that both the population and busineesses can plan) for the
last 4-6 years.
> How well has it worked for the last 12 years?
> How many small businesses were destroyed during the Clinton era?
I don't know because his tax increase was retroactive but didn't have
to be paid until after he left office.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29441 is a reply to message #29268] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:20 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ibmekon wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2012 14:39:41 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>>> In <PM0004D10DD5F2729B@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/17/2012
>>> at 03:34 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:
>>>
>>>> And gaining control of that employment will help further their agenda
>>>> of socialism.
>>>
>>> You're nuts; the leadership of the Democratic party is wealthy and the
>>> last thing they would want is socialism.
>>>
>> You need to listen and read more. The only way to have everyone "equal"
>
> May read better as "everyone else".
Yea, you are correct. The pols never include themselves when they pass
their "equality" laws. Thanks.
>
> Carl Goldsworthy
>
>
>> is to implement some form of socialism. Massachusetts' attempt for
>> "equal" used a fascist technique. It's very common now for middle
>> class types to demand "the government has to do something" rather
>> than take the responsibility themselves. If the government, and thus,
>> politicians, have the responsibility for all living conditions, then
>> the only way to administer and control it is with the techniques
>> used by communism and/or fascism.
>>
>> /BAH
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29442 is a reply to message #29310] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:20 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen wrote:
> Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.
>>>> >>> ^^^^?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Rein as in horse reins; some bridles have a rein check which keeps the
head
>>>> >> of the horse in front of you.
>>>> >
>>>> > Interesting. Google is coming up empty on the usage "rein check".
>>>>
>>>> Does it really?!!!! It's been a common term all my life. How odd.
>>>
>>> The term "rain check" is very common. Sounds the same.
>>>
>>>> >>>> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the Dem.
>>>> >>>> leadership.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small
>>>> >>> business?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> BEcause they want to tax the shit out of small business owners.
>>>> >> Before you reply to this, go read Schedule C of the IRS' tax
>>>> >> forms/directions.
>>>> >
>>>> > Interesting definition of "tax the shit out of".
>>>> > Completely a fantasy.
>>>>
>>>> If a small business owner's bank account has a $300K or more balance at
>>>> any time of the year, there is a surtax charged. Note that this is
>>>
>>> No it isn't. There has never been a tax on assets and there never will
be.
>>>
>>>> half a house if you're a builder. Small farms will fall into that
>>>> $250K category. Service businesses such as plumbing and electrical
>>>> could get that much income during the year. Brick and mortar
>>>
>>> A bank account balance is not income.
>>> As I said before, if a business earns 250K there is no tax increase.
>>> If a business earns 300K the additional tax is tiny.
>>>
>>>> businesess and restaurants will also be affected. Destroy small
>>>> business and you'll end up with a fascist or communistic economy where
>>>> decisions are made by politicians and not by the people who deal with
>>>> the prlbems.
>>>
>>> Again, explain why any one, or any politician would want to destroy
>>> small business. How would that get someone elected?
>>>
>>>> > And that still leaves you short about explaining _why_ the Democratic
>>>> > leadership sees advantage in destroying small business.
>>>>
>>>> To increase the population's dependency on the Fed. government; note
>>>> that this does not include States' government.
>>>
>>> No one wants anyone to be dependent on the government.
>>> It doesn't help anyone, especially politicians.
>>>
>>>> > They want to raise revenue.
>>>> >
>>>> That's just plain BS. If they want to revenue, they leave the
>>>> businesses alone. Those are the entities which cut paychecks
>>>> which produces revenue. If the Dems were only trying to raise
>>>> revenue, I might consider their proposal but they're also
>>>> increasing spending by an amount far greater than the suppoed
>>>> revenue from incrasing taxes. They also seem to be avoiding
>>>> saying anything about death taxes which makes me suspect that
>>>> they're going to go back to the one million $ threshold.
>>>> And that will definitely take out a lot small business.
>>>
>>> So you can _increase_ revenue by not raising taxes.
>>> How do you think that works?
>>> How is it working now?
>>> How well has it worked for the last 12 years?
>>> How many small businesses were destroyed during the Clinton era?
>>
>> Why limit to the past 12 years? It hasn't worked particularly well
>> since the Reagan administration.
>
> Here we have the TEA Party (Taxed Enough Already), when taxes are
> lower than ever (a lot more than 20 years).
> Ask any right winger and they'll deny, deny, deny.
>
> They must all be smokers paying cigarette tax.
>
> The studies all confirmed, taxing the wealthy does not cause an
> economic slow down, and can reduce deficits.
But it is NOT going to reduce any deficit. The increased spending
which Obama is insisting be included won't even get paid with his
proposed tax increase.
>
> So we have the right wing predicting Communism and Nazism for a
> historically minor tax adjustment. How can something be Communist
> and Nazi at the same time? It doesn't matter. Just get as paranoid
> as possible and spew.
Any tax which the middle class and rich pay will NOT be available for
investment, purchaces, or what ever they would "spend" that money on.
Any tax increase will not pay off the debt nor will it cover the
increased spending. You are talking as if this tax increase will
solve Washington's spending problems and debt. It will not.
Big govermentment debts will cause bad things to happen such
as no exports which means all businesses contract. Imports will
increase which means that more money goes out of the country and
all businesses will contract. Now, the large businesses have
already compensated for this and are busy making money outside of
the US. It's the small businesses who are going to go bankrupt.
And there still is no farm bill so all of those small businesses
are in flux and can't plan anything.
>
> With all the talk about mental illness on TV, seeing what should be
> normal people talking so paranoid is concerning. Maybe there's
> something in the environment. Beck and Rush can't be the only reason.
Now read the above. Is that madness? I call it simple common sense.
Perhaps you should look for yours.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29443 is a reply to message #29380] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:20 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen wrote:
> Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> writes:
>
>> In article <icobhrxlaw.fsf@home.home>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> How can something be Communist
>>> and Nazi at the same time?
>>
>> The same way one can be a Communist and an Islamacist.
>
> Except that in the first case, there is a contradiction.
>
How? A country begins with the Nazis influencing them. After the
WWII ends and a decade, the USSR starts cutting deals with them.
So now there's aspects of Russian-style communism. Now China is
helping and North Korea. Mix them all together with an Islamic
agenda to revert back to the politics and powers of the Assansins
with nuclear bombing capabilities, and you've got an Earth-sized
powder keg.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29444 is a reply to message #29308] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:20 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rod Speed wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PM0004D1214631949A@ac813e5e.ipt.aol.com...
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:PM0004D10DD91EEFE5@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com...
>>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> > Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 12/16/2012 12:31 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.
>>>> >>> ^^^^?
>>>> >>>> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the
>>>> >>>> Dem.
>>>> >>>> leadership.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small
>>>> >>> business?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Because they're successful and not dependent on the government for
>>>> handouts.
>>>> >
>>>> > So, you think that answers "why"?
>>>> >
>>>> > It doesn't.
>>>> >
>>>> > And it's stupid.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sorry to be insulting, but having voted Democrat a few times,
>>>> > and not wanting to destroy any business big or small, I take exception.
>>>> >
>>>> Then you are able to think. I did write Democrat _leadership_. They've
>>>> gone completely nuts.
>>>
>>> Corse nothing like that has ever happened with your leadership, eh ?
>
>> Which is? If you are trying to imply that I like Republicans,
>> I've told before that you are very wrong.
>
> You clearly mindlessly respew their lies.
Obviously, you're a Democrat lover and mindlessly parrot their spin
bites.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29448 is a reply to message #29439] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:45 |
Walter Banks
Messages: 1000
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv wrote:
> Dan Espen wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> > And only an idiot thinks that an extra $3k/year in taxes for a small
>>> business
>>>> > clearing $250000 in profit per year will "destroy small business".
>>>>
>>>> If the business clears 250K, their taxes remain the same.
>>>
>>> How do you figure?
>>
>> Simple, the proposed tax is to increase taxes on income over
>> 250K. That's TAXABLE income by the way.
>>
>> Anyone making 250K or less, gets the Bush tax cut.
>
> I don't believe the latter. I've become very used to not paying
> taxing on qualified dividends and low long term capital gains tax.
> For some strange reason, politicians, and their constituents, think
> that only rich people have those two income and investment sources.
>
> I haven't heard a thing about death taxes.
>
>> Anyone making 250K or more only pays the Clinton Era tax on
>> taxable income over 250K. They still get the Bush tax cut
>> on the first 250K.
>>
>>>> To get to 3k extra, they have to net something like 330K.
>>>>
>>> What figures are you using?
>>
>> The proposed increase is 4% on income over 250K.
>> You need 80K of income to see 3K in taxes.
>>
>> 80,000 x .04 = 3.2K.
>>
>> 250K plus 80K = 330K.
>
> So you are saying that the 33% tax rate will become 37% and the 35%
> rate will become 39%? That's not the figure I heard. Reporting
> has sucked big time w.r.t. this topic. The number I heard was in the
> 40s. AMT thresholds are lower even this year.
>
> So all this fuss is for "only" $3K increase. that won't solve
> any of the trillions that the Dems are spending each year
> (their bailout monies).
>
It is easy to say that there is too much spending or they are
spending more than is being generated in taxes. It is a
lot harder to identify how that should be changed.
What for example could be eliminated that won't eliminate
jobs or create an environment that would be impossible to
create jobs.
There is this crazy situation where the stock market is
growing faster than the rate of job growth. Money in the
market is not generating money from value added jobs
as as fast as speculative value.
Isn't that a indirect definition of inflation.
w..
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29449 is a reply to message #29418] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:57 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Peter Flass wrote:
> Not so much. "Nazi", remember, is "National Socialist", as opposed to
> Communism, which is supposed to be international. Later on they
> de-emphasized the "socialist" part, but earlier they were the "German Workers
> Party."
>
I thought some of that was just convenience. They took over an exixting
party. And knowing the nazis, I can imagine them pretending to be
something they weren't until the gullible jumped on board.
But someone pointed out the similarities between the nazis and the Russian
communists, and I think that's fair. The secret police, the abuse of
people, the "report your neighbors", things like that were identical, but
that's not philosophy, it's implementation. I also remember reading, but
can't remember if it was fiction or non-fiction, that it was relatively
easy for gestapo types to find a place in the USSR, they just changed
their label. Their "skillset" was desired, so the fact that they'd been
nasty Germans before the war ended was overlooked.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29450 is a reply to message #29442] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 10:54 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Dec 19, 10:20Â am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote:
> But it is NOT going to reduce any deficit. Â The increased spending
> which Obama is insisting be included won't even get paid with his
> proposed tax increase.
What about all the _increased_ spending the Republicans want for thier
pet programs? They act like they're budget cutters, but they spend
worse than the Democrats. Their platform this election was to
_increase_ defense spending.
Ten years ago the US got involved in two ground wars, plus a massive
internal Homeland Security effort. All of these cost serious money.
The bills must be paid.
The Republicans say they must cut Amtrak and PBS to fix the deficit.
That's ridiculous because those two take up a tiny miniscule amount of
all federal funding and cutting them will solve nothing (except make
traffic worse).
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29453 is a reply to message #29357] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 11:01 |
Stan Dandy Liver
Messages: 76
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:55:38 -0000, <greymausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-12-18, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 18/12/2012 16:55, greymausg@mail.com wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>
>>> More recently than that, the natives on Diego Suarez in the Indian
>>> Ocean
>>> claim that they were rounded up by the British and dumped, in
>>> Mauritious,
>>> with no compensation, the Island being developed as a bomber base for
>>> the
>>> Iraqi and Afganistan Wars. Wikipedia seems to have no refence to that,
>>> but a court case is being persued.
>>>
>>>
>> The British and US Governments will spend more money not compensating
>> the people than the value of the compensation. They will also have to
>> suffer lots of bad publicity. There are good reasons for Compulsory
>> Purchase system.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> Actually, on rechecking, Wikipedia has a good bit on Diego Suarez (not
> the gardener)
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia
--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]
Money/Life question
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29456 is a reply to message #29428] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 11:20 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <4AkAs.208320$la6.193548@fed08.iad>, scott@slp53.sl.home
(Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> You're peddling the Obama line of BS. From what I read the popular
>> vote was something like 51 percent to 47. This isn't exactly a "vast
>> majority" or a "mandate" that the O-man is trying to claim, it's a
>> sign that he'd better tread pretty carefully. I blame Romney, and
>> his campaign staff for the result. He was a fairly unattractive
>> candidate and the White House kept his campaign off balance all
>> summer with the "BS of the week" rather than actually talking
>> about any issues.
>
> The republicans lost seats in the house, the senate, they lost the
> presidency and quite a few state offices (particularly in california).
>
> If bush can refer to both of his much closer victories (in fact the
> first time, he technically lost on both electoral and popular votes)
> as a "mandate", then obama should be granted the same ability.
Heck, here in Canada, with our multi-party system, candidates
routinely win (and claim a "mandate") with only 40% of the vote.
> Since polls routinely favor higher taxes on the wealthy by huge
> margins, the republicans are building themselves a bunker they'll
> never be able to leave.
If you guys manage to get rid of your right-wingers, could you
come up here and tell us how to do it?
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29457 is a reply to message #29441] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 11:25 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <PM0004D13604C337BD@ac81665e.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
(jmfbahciv) writes:
> Ibmekon wrote:
>
>> On 18 Dec 2012 14:39:41 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>>>
>>>> In <PM0004D10DD5F2729B@ac812cc2.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/17/2012
>>>> at 03:34 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:
>>>>
>>>> > And gaining control of that employment will help further their
>>>> > agenda of socialism.
>>>>
>>>> You're nuts; the leadership of the Democratic party is wealthy
>>>> and the last thing they would want is socialism.
>>>
>>> You need to listen and read more. The only way to have everyone
>>> "equal"
>>
>> May read better as "everyone else".
>
> Yea, you are correct. The pols never include themselves when they
> pass their "equality" laws. Thanks.
"...but some are more equal than others." -- Animal Farm
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29462 is a reply to message #29439] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 12:01 |
Patrick Scheible
Messages: 768
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Dan Espen wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >>On 12/16/2012 6:42 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 12/16/2012 12:31 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> He's trying to get a power which isn't rein checked by Congress.
>>>> >>>>> ^^^^?
>>>> >>>>>> Small businesses are screwed; that seems to be the target of the
> Dem.
>>>> >>>>>> leadership.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Wow, you sound like such an idiot with this stuff!
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Why, in your mind, do you think the Democrats want to screw small
>>>> >>>>> business?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Because they're successful and not dependent on the government for
>>> handouts.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So, you think that answers "why"?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It doesn't.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> And it's stupid.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Sorry to be insulting, but having voted Democrat a few times,
>>>> >>> and not wanting to destroy any business big or small, I take exception.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>When we say "The Democrats" want something or think something, we're
>>>> >>talking about the 'leadership'. You can think and feel whatever you
>>>> >>want, but it's their opinions that count.
>>>> >
>>>> > What "we" kimosabe. The proper pronoun for you is "I".
>>>> >
>>>> > And nobody but a few loonies think that "democrats want to ban guns[*]"
>>>> > or "democrats want to destroy small business" or on the other side that
>>>> > "republicans want to eat babies" or "republicans hate homosexuals".
>>>> >
>>>> > And only an idiot thinks that an extra $3k/year in taxes for a small
>>> business
>>>> > clearing $250000 in profit per year will "destroy small business".
>>>>
>>>> If the business clears 250K, their taxes remain the same.
>>>
>>> How do you figure?
>>
>> Simple, the proposed tax is to increase taxes on income over
>> 250K. That's TAXABLE income by the way.
>>
>> Anyone making 250K or less, gets the Bush tax cut.
>
> I don't believe the latter. I've become very used to not paying
> taxing on qualified dividends and low long term capital gains tax.
> For some strange reason, politicians, and their constituents, think
> that only rich people have those two income and investment sources.
>
> I haven't heard a thing about death taxes.
>
>
>> Anyone making 250K or more only pays the Clinton Era tax on
>> taxable income over 250K. They still get the Bush tax cut
>> on the first 250K.
>>
>>>> To get to 3k extra, they have to net something like 330K.
>>>>
>>> What figures are you using?
>>
>> The proposed increase is 4% on income over 250K.
>> You need 80K of income to see 3K in taxes.
>>
>> 80,000 x .04 = 3.2K.
>>
>> 250K plus 80K = 330K.
>
> So you are saying that the 33% tax rate will become 37% and the 35%
> rate will become 39%? That's not the figure I heard. Reporting
> has sucked big time w.r.t. this topic. The number I heard was in the
> 40s. AMT thresholds are lower even this year.
>
> So all this fuss is for "only" $3K increase. that won't solve
> any of the trillions that the Dems are spending each year
> (their bailout monies).
The 4% increases in the top rates is the figure I've heard too. You
need better news sources. However, it's just what Obama is negotiating
for, and remains to be seen exactly what will happen. Yes, it's a small
increase, and I can't believe both sides are making such a big deal
about it. Its passage would be mostly symbolic. We should be repealing
the Bush tax cuts for everybody.
It's normal and healthy to have deficits during a recession. Tax
receipts go down and spending on social programs goes up. That extra
money helps the economy recover. What's not normal or healthy is to
have deficits during boom times. Boom times are not when there should
be tax cuts, or when large additional social benefits should be added.
The debt problem is the fault of the 2002-2003 congress and president.
They're Republicans, Barb, Republicans. They repealed the Clinton-era
restraints on unbalanced budgets. They passed a large tax cut without
making corresponding spending cuts. They passed the Medicare Part D
benefit. And they took us into a war which we didn't need to fight and
has got us nothing. Result was an overheated economy that ended in a
big crash instead of a mild correction, and big increases in the debt
besides.
-- Patrick
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29463 is a reply to message #29428] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 12:19 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/19/2012 9:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> You're peddling the Obama line of BS. From what I read the popular vote
>> was something like 51 percent to 47. This isn't exactly a "vast
>> majority" or a "mandate" that the O-man is trying to claim, it's a sign
>> that he'd better tread pretty carefully. I blame Romney, and his
>> campaign staff for the result. He was a fairly unattractive candidate
>> and the White House kept his campaign off balance all summer with the
>> "BS of the week" rather than actually talking about any issues.
>
> The republicans lost seats in the house, the senate, they lost the
> presidency and quite a few state offices (particularly in california).
The last is no surprise.
>
> If bush can refer to both of his much closer victories (in fact the first
> time, he technically lost on both electoral and popular votes) as a
> "mandate", then obama should be granted the same ability.
I didn't agree with Bush on that either. What recent elections show is
that the people want a compromise.
>
> Since polls routinely favor higher taxes on the wealthy by huge margins,
> the republicans are building themselves a bunker they'll never be able
> to leave.
>
That goes along with the rest of obama's BS. He spent the election
trying to stir up class warfare, and now he's going to have to back out
of it.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29464 is a reply to message #29348] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 12:26 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012p.html#30 Search Google, 1960:s-style
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012p.html#34 Search Google, 1960:s-style
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012p.html#35 Search Google, 1960:s-style
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012p.html#36 Search Google, 1960:s-style
Stealth Target of Defense Spending Cuts: America's Highly Effective
Socialized Medicine Provider, the VA System, and Military Benefits
Generally
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/stealth-target-of-def ense-spending-cuts-americas-highly-effective-socialized-medi cine-provider-the-va-system-and-military-benefits-generally. html
so is this another benefit for the drug industry?
aka, medicare part-d was one of the first major acts passed after
congress allowed fiscal responsibility act to expire in 2002 (required
that spending match tax revenue).
cbs 60mins segment was something of expose of what was done getting the
part-d act through ... primarily the efforts of 18 specific people that
were members of the majority party at the time ... they insert a one
line sentence at the last minute that precludes competitive
bidding. then 60mins lines up identical drugs under part-d (no
competitive bidding) and from the VA (that has competitive bidding)
.... with the drugs under part-d are three times the cost as the
identical cost under VA. the "18" also prevent CBO from distributing
report on the effect of the one sentence change (no competitive bidding)
from being distributed until after the bill passes. After the bill
passes, all 18 resign and are on drug industry payrolls.
comptroller general characterizes part-d as long-term, $40T unfunded
mandate that comes to swamp all other budget items. the current graphs
about what happens to entitlement programs out through 2040 ... tend
show everything all lumped together ... as justification for privitizing
entitlement programs ... when the biggest component happens to be
part-d. I've frequently commented that in the middle of last decade the
comptroller general includes in speeches that nobody in congress was
capable of middle school arithmetic (for what they were doing to the
budget, including part-d).
CBO came out with report that last decade, the tax revenue was reduced
by $6T (compared to baseline which had all federal debt retired by 2010)
and increased spending by $6T for a $12T budget gap (compared to
baseline which would have eliminated all federal debt) ... again
comptroller general making references that nobody in congress was
capable of middle school arithmetic.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29473 is a reply to message #29421] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 13:08 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:YOCdnSWNN-xbXEzNnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 19/12/2012 02:32, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>> In <PM0004D120FF2DD9FE@ac813e5e.ipt.aol.com>, on 12/18/2012
>> at 02:39 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:
>>
>>> Kibbutz (I couldn't remember the word yesterday).
>>
>> On a kibbutz the workers *are* the owners.
>>
>>> No, I'm saying that an owner has more incentive to work longer
>>> hours than those who work under a collective org.
>>
>> A partnership is a collective; does that mean that the partners slack
>> off?
> No, it means that on a collective farm the workers are serfs
Like hell they are when they decide how things are done.
> and like the land are owned by absentee landlords.
Even sillier. There are no landlords, absentee or otherwise with a kibbutz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29475 is a reply to message #29428] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 13:13 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 19/12/2012 14:56, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> You're peddling the Obama line of BS. From what I read the popular vote
>> was something like 51 percent to 47. This isn't exactly a "vast
>> majority" or a "mandate" that the O-man is trying to claim, it's a sign
>> that he'd better tread pretty carefully. I blame Romney, and his
>> campaign staff for the result. He was a fairly unattractive candidate
>> and the White House kept his campaign off balance all summer with the
>> "BS of the week" rather than actually talking about any issues.
>
> The republicans lost seats in the house, the senate, they lost the
> presidency and quite a few state offices (particularly in california).
>
> If bush can refer to both of his much closer victories (in fact the first
> time, he technically lost on both electoral and popular votes) as a
> "mandate", then obama should be granted the same ability.
>
> Since polls routinely favor higher taxes on the wealthy by huge margins,
> the republicans are building themselves a bunker they'll never be able
> to leave.
>
'tax the rich' is a code phrase that means introduce maximum
exploitation of the workers in 2 years time.
Obamacare will be as expensive as health care by insurance company, you
will just have to pay for it via extra taxes.
Andrew Swallow
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29476 is a reply to message #29428] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 13:13 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote in message
news:4AkAs.208320$la6.193548@fed08.iad...
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> You're peddling the Obama line of BS. From what I read the popular vote
>> was something like 51 percent to 47. This isn't exactly a "vast
>> majority" or a "mandate" that the O-man is trying to claim, it's a sign
>> that he'd better tread pretty carefully. I blame Romney, and his
>> campaign staff for the result. He was a fairly unattractive candidate
>> and the White House kept his campaign off balance all summer with the
>> "BS of the week" rather than actually talking about any issues.
> The republicans lost seats in the house, the senate, they lost the
> presidency and quite a few state offices (particularly in california).
Yes.
> If bush can refer to both of his much closer victories (in fact the first
> time, he technically lost on both electoral and popular votes) as a
> "mandate", then obama should be granted the same ability.
Yes.
> Since polls routinely favor higher taxes on the wealthy by huge margins,
> the
> republicans are building themselves a bunker they'll never be able to
> leave.
I doubt it. Their real problem is actually finding candidates that appeal
to the voters. As someone else said, they haven't been able to find anything
other than rabid loons. The voters hardly ever vote on tax rates, much more
often on personalitys, no matter how stupid that is.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29477 is a reply to message #29437] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 13:15 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 19/12/2012 15:19, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Dave Garland wrote:
>> On 12/18/2012 1:06 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> In his soul every Russian is a farmer, or something like that.
>>> National Geographic recently had an article about a dacha community -
>>> vacation homes of city people - north of Moscow. In the photos you
>>> could see that the "back yards" were almost all vegetable plots. A
>>> few grew flowers and no one had a lawn.
>>>
>>
>> IIRC, lawns are imitations of the groundkeeping of English (or at
>> least European) estates. Wikipedia says they date from the 16th c.
>> Do other cultures independently have the concept of a lawn being
>> desirable?
>>
> I'm convinced that the lawn-mentality in the US is part of the
> middle class trying to prove they're rich. I think lawns are
> ugly because its a monoculture. I see all that work going into
> a useless area and wonder how the mentality got that way. I'm
> allowed to keep my leaves, hence my dirt. A "good" middle class
> person removes all leaves and keeps the grass green even in
> a drought.
>
> /BAH
>
The English have lawns, so the Middle Class are just pretending to be
British.
Andrew Swallow
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29478 is a reply to message #29429] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 13:15 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote in message
news:8GkAs.208321$la6.89884@fed08.iad...
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>> On 12/18/2012 12:05 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>> The democrats are still working out of the mess that the bush tax
>>> cuts, financial dereg,
>>> and two unnecessary wars have left the country in. Their goal is to
>>> rein in the budget deficit without causing futher irreparable harm.
>>> It
>>> is clear to anyone who looks at the US Budget that cuts in spending
>>> alone
>>> cannot accomplish this[*]. It's clear to anyone who looks that the
>>> tax rates
>>> that are being proposed are significantly less than at any time prior
>>> to
>>> 2002 - and the US hummed along just fine then, including small
>>> businesses,
>>> family farms and all the other bugaboos the radical right like Barb
>>> keep
>>> bitching about.
>>
>> I have head it said several times by non-partisan sources that US
>> business taxes are higher than most other developed countries.
>> ...
>
> I've heard it said that Vampires die if exposed to sunlight.
>
> How about some cites?
> While the tax rate (34-35%) is one of the highest rates in the world,
It isnt actually.
> no corporation actually pays that. Deferred taxes on foreign income
> is one of the biggest reasons that companies actually pay low taxes.
> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_Sta tes#Tax_deferral)
> For example, google pays a 2.4% tax rate.
> ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-sho ws-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html)
That happens in the other countrys too and is a hell of a problem in the EU
just because of the way the EU is structured and that’s where most of the
alternative countrys that matter are.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Search Google, 1960:s-style [message #29480 is a reply to message #29448] |
Wed, 19 December 2012 13:23 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 19/12/2012 15:45, Walter Banks wrote:
>
>
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> And only an idiot thinks that an extra $3k/year in taxes for a small
>>>> business
>>>> >> clearing $250000 in profit per year will "destroy small business".
>>>> >
>>>> > If the business clears 250K, their taxes remain the same.
>>>>
>>>> How do you figure?
>>>
>>> Simple, the proposed tax is to increase taxes on income over
>>> 250K. That's TAXABLE income by the way.
>>>
>>> Anyone making 250K or less, gets the Bush tax cut.
>>
>> I don't believe the latter. I've become very used to not paying
>> taxing on qualified dividends and low long term capital gains tax.
>> For some strange reason, politicians, and their constituents, think
>> that only rich people have those two income and investment sources.
>>
>> I haven't heard a thing about death taxes.
>>
>>> Anyone making 250K or more only pays the Clinton Era tax on
>>> taxable income over 250K. They still get the Bush tax cut
>>> on the first 250K.
>>>
>>>> > To get to 3k extra, they have to net something like 330K.
>>>> >
>>>> What figures are you using?
>>>
>>> The proposed increase is 4% on income over 250K.
>>> You need 80K of income to see 3K in taxes.
>>>
>>> 80,000 x .04 = 3.2K.
>>>
>>> 250K plus 80K = 330K.
>>
>> So you are saying that the 33% tax rate will become 37% and the 35%
>> rate will become 39%? That's not the figure I heard. Reporting
>> has sucked big time w.r.t. this topic. The number I heard was in the
>> 40s. AMT thresholds are lower even this year.
>>
>> So all this fuss is for "only" $3K increase. that won't solve
>> any of the trillions that the Dems are spending each year
>> (their bailout monies).
>>
>
> It is easy to say that there is too much spending or they are
> spending more than is being generated in taxes. It is a
> lot harder to identify how that should be changed.
>
> What for example could be eliminated that won't eliminate
> jobs or create an environment that would be impossible to
> create jobs.
>
> There is this crazy situation where the stock market is
> growing faster than the rate of job growth. Money in the
> market is not generating money from value added jobs
> as as fast as speculative value.
>
> Isn't that a indirect definition of inflation.
>
> w..
>
>
The stock market is being drive by the money the government is giving to
the banks. The banks have to put the reserves (money) they do not lend
somewhere. Also much of the money they do lend ends up on the stock market.
Andrew Swallow
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
