golf-forums.net Promoting golf discussion.

Main Date: 09 Nov 2006 15:32:35 From: Dene Subject: Ed Bradley got it! "Born June 22, 1941, Bradley grew up in a tough section of Philadelphia, where he once recalled that his parents worked 20-hour days at two jobs apiece. "I was told, `You can be anything you want, kid,'" he once told an interviewer. "When you hear that often enough, you believe it." He was a victim of cancer but he was not a victim of his initial enviroment. If the left side of the Democrats comprehend this concept, then our country will be in good hands for the next two years. -Greg   Date: 09 Nov 2006 22:24:47 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > :> to insure that you can't move up no matter how hard you work. > :> Economic mobility has gotten a lot worse over the last forty > :> years. Look it up. > : > : Show me where. > > Google is pretty easy. Here's the first thing I found: > > http://www.urban.org/publications/406722.html > > This piece is throughly referenced, cites abound. Enjoy. > Thanks Chris.....I will read it tomorrow. The little lady is beckoning. : > But....before I go, I spent some time thinking about your words above, and listed everyone I know who's parents I know. Pretty good size list. Of all them, only one individual doesn't live as well or better than their parents, and that's due to her own financial irresponsibility (impulse buying). Everyone else lives better, including Ed Bradley. I honestly cannot fathom why you have a defeatist viewpoint of our opportunities as Americans. Inflation is under control. Gas prices are down. Unemployment is under 5%. The Dow is up. Real estate is being corrected, but marginally. Crime is down. Racism is not what it used to be. What outside force needs to improve so that everyone has a fair shake? You can't tell me that things are harder now than they were in Bradley's day. I really believe it comes down to attitude....believing that you can and will succeed, period. Yak at you tomorrow. -Greg     Date: 10 Nov 2006 16:11:28 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: : : Chris Bellomy wrote: : : > :> to insure that you can't move up no matter how hard you work. : > :> Economic mobility has gotten a lot worse over the last forty : > :> years. Look it up. : > : : > : Show me where. : > : > Google is pretty easy. Here's the first thing I found: : > : > http://www.urban.org/publications/406722.html : > : > This piece is throughly referenced, cites abound. Enjoy. : > : : Thanks Chris.....I will read it tomorrow. The little lady is : beckoning. : > : : But....before I go, I spent some time thinking about your words above, : and listed everyone I know who's parents I know. Pretty good size : list. : : Of all them, only one individual doesn't live as well or better than : their parents, and that's due to her own financial irresponsibility : (impulse buying). Everyone else lives better, including Ed Bradley. Realize two things: 1. The degree to which technology impacts everyone in this country. You can correctly read that as a huge plus sign for our capitalist system. 2. Your circle of friends is limited. (Nearly everyone's is, I'm not picking on you here.) Mostly, we tend to gravitate toward others of our socioeconomic class, for a lot of reasons. There's a reason why middle class retailers like Sears and Montgomery Wards have struggled (or failed) while both upscale chains like Crate and Barrel and discount chains like Dollar General and Walmart have thrived: the middle class is dis- appearing. This is no longer the United States we grew up in; it's more like El Salvador or Bolivia, with a permanent aristocracy and a permanent underclass. I think this weakens as all in the end. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 09 Nov 2006 20:48:15 From: Tex Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > : > : Chris Bellomy wrote: > :> Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > :> : "Born June 22, 1941, Bradley grew up in a tough section of > :> : Philadelphia, where he once recalled that his parents worked 20-hour > :> : days at two jobs apiece. "I was told, `You can be anything you want, > :> : kid,'" he once told an interviewer. "When you hear that often enough, > :> : you believe it." > :> : > :> : He was a victim of cancer but he was not a victim of his initial > :> : enviroment. If the left side of the Democrats comprehend this concept, > :> : then our country will be in good hands for the next two years. > :> > :> Hey Greg, speaking as a leftist: our problem isn't with having > :> to work hard to succeed. Our problem is with working hard and > :> still being shat upon by thieves who keep rigging the system > : > : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? > > As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the > Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. Yeah, those damn Repugs....cut the Capital Gains rate from a high of 38% to 15%...Man, can you believe that. They actually want less of your investment income. Too bad investing in more shit you can't afford isn't a gain. Otherwise we'd have a whole lot of people getting a tax break! And then they cut the top rate from 38% to 35%....and even lowered the bottom rate from 15% to 10%. If they keep "rejiggering", soon you won't even pay 30%...or 10%. Another bitch from Comrade Bitch Tex     Date: 10 Nov 2006 05:32:31 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote: : : Chris Bellomy wrote: : > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: : > : : > : Chris Bellomy wrote: : > :> Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: : > :> : "Born June 22, 1941, Bradley grew up in a tough section of : > :> : Philadelphia, where he once recalled that his parents worked 20-hour : > :> : days at two jobs apiece. "I was told, `You can be anything you want, : > :> : kid,'" he once told an interviewer. "When you hear that often enough, : > :> : you believe it." : > :> : : > :> : He was a victim of cancer but he was not a victim of his initial : > :> : enviroment. If the left side of the Democrats comprehend this concept, : > :> : then our country will be in good hands for the next two years. : > :> : > :> Hey Greg, speaking as a leftist: our problem isn't with having : > :> to work hard to succeed. Our problem is with working hard and : > :> still being shat upon by thieves who keep rigging the system : > : : > : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? : > : > As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the : > Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. : : Yeah, those damn Repugs....cut the Capital Gains rate from a high of : 38% to 15%...Man, can you believe that. They actually want less of : your investment income. Too bad investing in more shit you can't : afford isn't a gain. Otherwise we'd have a whole lot of people getting : a tax break! And then they cut the top rate from 38% to 35%....and : even lowered the bottom rate from 15% to 10%. If they keep : "rejiggering", soon you won't even pay 30%...or 10%. Do you live on some other planet where the income tax is the only tax anybody pays? Or do you just like to pretend? -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/     Date: 10 Nov 2006 06:59:42 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 9-Nov-2006, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote: > > : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? > > > > As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the > > Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. > > Yeah, those damn Repugs....cut the Capital Gains rate from a high of > 38% to 15%...Man, can you believe that. They actually want less of > your investment income. Too bad investing in more shit you can't > afford isn't a gain. Otherwise we'd have a whole lot of people getting > a tax break! And then they cut the top rate from 38% to 35%....and > even lowered the bottom rate from 15% to 10%. If they keep > "rejiggering", soon you won't even pay 30%...or 10%. Would you two stop! Both parties are equally guilty of rigging the Tax code. Since 86 we have gone from a esstientially a 2-tiered flat tax to a 9000 page monstrosity. Time for the National Retail sales tax. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.       Date: 10 Nov 2006 11:16:55 From: John Reddy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! In article <4554235d$0$17420$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: > Would you two stop! Both parties are equally guilty of rigging the Tax code. > Since 86 we have gone from a esstientially a 2-tiered flat tax to a 9000 > page monstrosity. Time for the National Retail sales tax. Yes it is. Unfortunately, it will never happen because it will put many thousands of accountants, lawyers and IRS personnel out of work. In most folks' opinions, including mine, that would be just fine. However, as long as accountants and lawyers have PAC's and lobbyists, there will never be a national sales tax. Unless, God forbid, Hillary gets elected and both houses remain in Democrat hands. Then we will have a national sales tax in addition to all other taxes to pay for universal health care. Be afraid, be very afraid.         Date: 10 Nov 2006 14:23:14 From: Don Kirkman Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! It seems to me I heard somewhere that John Reddy wrote in article <johnreddy-154C05.06165510112006@news.verizon.net >: >In article <4554235d$0$17420$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>, > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote: >> Would you two stop! Both parties are equally guilty of rigging the Tax code. >> Since 86 we have gone from a esstientially a 2-tiered flat tax to a 9000 >> page monstrosity. Time for the National Retail sales tax. >Yes it is. Unfortunately, it will never happen because it will put many >thousands of accountants, lawyers and IRS personnel out of work. An unmodified retail sales tax will cost lower income people, especially those in the child-rearing years, a larger percentage of their income because a greater proportion of their earnings have to be spent on essentials like food, housing, clothing, and transportation. Which party will be the first to suggesting giving these lower income folks a handout to offset their tax burden? Per dollar, upper bracket people spend more on these essentials but it's a smaller percentage of their available money, and everything beyond that is discretionary. Maybe it's time to revive Henry George's Land Tax proposal. ;-) -- Don Kirkman     Date: 13 Nov 2006 10:25:56 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1163134095.828403.312500@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Chris Bellomy wrote: >> Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: >> : >> : Chris Bellomy wrote: >> :> Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: >> :> : "Born June 22, 1941, Bradley grew up in a tough section of >> :> : Philadelphia, where he once recalled that his parents worked 20-hour >> :> : days at two jobs apiece. "I was told, `You can be anything you want, >> :> : kid,'" he once told an interviewer. "When you hear that often >> enough, >> :> : you believe it." >> :> : >> :> : He was a victim of cancer but he was not a victim of his initial >> :> : enviroment. If the left side of the Democrats comprehend this >> concept, >> :> : then our country will be in good hands for the next two years. >> :> >> :> Hey Greg, speaking as a leftist: our problem isn't with having >> :> to work hard to succeed. Our problem is with working hard and >> :> still being shat upon by thieves who keep rigging the system >> : >> : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? >> >> As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the >> Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. > > Yeah, those damn Repugs....cut the Capital Gains rate from a high of > 38% to 15%...Man, can you believe that. They actually want less of > your investment income. Too bad investing in more shit you can't > afford isn't a gain. Otherwise we'd have a whole lot of people getting > a tax break! And then they cut the top rate from 38% to 35%....and > even lowered the bottom rate from 15% to 10%. If they keep > "rejiggering", soon you won't even pay 30%...or 10%. > > Another bitch from Comrade Bitch > > Tex > All they want is handouts.   Date: 09 Nov 2006 20:44:28 From: Tex Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > : "Born June 22, 1941, Bradley grew up in a tough section of > : Philadelphia, where he once recalled that his parents worked 20-hour > : days at two jobs apiece. "I was told, `You can be anything you want, > : kid,'" he once told an interviewer. "When you hear that often enough, > : you believe it." > : > : He was a victim of cancer but he was not a victim of his initial > : enviroment. If the left side of the Democrats comprehend this concept, > : then our country will be in good hands for the next two years. > > Hey Greg, speaking as a leftist: our problem isn't with having > to work hard to succeed. Our problem is with working hard and > still being shat upon by thieves who keep rigging the system > to insure that you can't move up no matter how hard you work. > Economic mobility has gotten a lot worse over the last forty > years. Look it up. Yeah, those fucktards in the Government actually take a higher percentage as you make more! Can you believe that! Christ, how will you ever make it? I mean, one year they want 10% of your net income, then you do well, and they bump that up to 20% FUCK! They start taking double...can you believe that! And then there are some people that actually have to pay 28% shit! Where does it stop. Your excuse rings hollow, there are no limits unless you allow yourself to be held back. Tex p.s. CB = Comrade Bitcher     Date: 10 Nov 2006 05:33:08 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote: : : Chris Bellomy wrote: : > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: : > : "Born June 22, 1941, Bradley grew up in a tough section of : > : Philadelphia, where he once recalled that his parents worked 20-hour : > : days at two jobs apiece. "I was told, `You can be anything you want, : > : kid,'" he once told an interviewer. "When you hear that often enough, : > : you believe it." : > : : > : He was a victim of cancer but he was not a victim of his initial : > : enviroment. If the left side of the Democrats comprehend this concept, : > : then our country will be in good hands for the next two years. : > : > Hey Greg, speaking as a leftist: our problem isn't with having : > to work hard to succeed. Our problem is with working hard and : > still being shat upon by thieves who keep rigging the system : > to insure that you can't move up no matter how hard you work. : > Economic mobility has gotten a lot worse over the last forty : > years. Look it up. : : Yeah, those fucktards in the Government actually take a higher : percentage as you make more! That's not what I was saying. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 09 Nov 2006 20:04:02 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > : "Born June 22, 1941, Bradley grew up in a tough section of > : Philadelphia, where he once recalled that his parents worked 20-hour > : days at two jobs apiece. "I was told, `You can be anything you want, > : kid,'" he once told an interviewer. "When you hear that often enough, > : you believe it." > : > : He was a victim of cancer but he was not a victim of his initial > : enviroment. If the left side of the Democrats comprehend this concept, > : then our country will be in good hands for the next two years. > > Hey Greg, speaking as a leftist: our problem isn't with having > to work hard to succeed. Our problem is with working hard and > still being shat upon by thieves who keep rigging the system Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? > to insure that you can't move up no matter how hard you work. > Economic mobility has gotten a lot worse over the last forty > years. Look it up. Show me where. -Greg     Date: 10 Nov 2006 04:14:48 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: : : Chris Bellomy wrote: : > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: : > : "Born June 22, 1941, Bradley grew up in a tough section of : > : Philadelphia, where he once recalled that his parents worked 20-hour : > : days at two jobs apiece. "I was told, `You can be anything you want, : > : kid,'" he once told an interviewer. "When you hear that often enough, : > : you believe it." : > : : > : He was a victim of cancer but he was not a victim of his initial : > : enviroment. If the left side of the Democrats comprehend this concept, : > : then our country will be in good hands for the next two years. : > : > Hey Greg, speaking as a leftist: our problem isn't with having : > to work hard to succeed. Our problem is with working hard and : > still being shat upon by thieves who keep rigging the system : : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. : > to insure that you can't move up no matter how hard you work. : > Economic mobility has gotten a lot worse over the last forty : > years. Look it up. : : Show me where. Google is pretty easy. Here's the first thing I found: http://www.urban.org/publications/406722.html This piece is throughly referenced, cites abound. Enjoy. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/       Date: 11 Nov 2006 20:51:09 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > Bob L <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: > :> :> > :> :> I'm talking about employees of a company that had a perfectly > :> :> solvent pension program which was subsequently acquired by > :> :> Enron, the pension fund looted, and the employees tossed on > :> :> their asses. These are working people here, they don't have > :> :> portfolios. Maybe you're not familiar with the concept. > :> : > :> : What company are you refering to and how did Enron loot the pension > :> fund? > :> > :> It was a smallish company up in the Pac Northwest. I'd need to > :> do some googling to remember the name. > : > : You are thinking about Portland General, a regulated electric utility in > : Oregon. > > Nope. I'll find it later. > > Nice try at mindreading, though. Chris, I believe Bob is right. It was Portland General Electric. A golfing buddy of mine works for them. He and the company did fine, despite the Enron mess. BTW....stuff like this happens in the world of investments. Or as Christ, the not so liberal, said, "the sun shines on the just and the unjust and the rain falls on the just and unjust." Translation.....shit happens. The issue is how you choose to prepare in advance and react when it happens. -Greg   Date: 10 Nov 2006 03:47:37 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: : "Born June 22, 1941, Bradley grew up in a tough section of : Philadelphia, where he once recalled that his parents worked 20-hour : days at two jobs apiece. "I was told, `You can be anything you want, : kid,'" he once told an interviewer. "When you hear that often enough, : you believe it." : : He was a victim of cancer but he was not a victim of his initial : enviroment. If the left side of the Democrats comprehend this concept, : then our country will be in good hands for the next two years. Hey Greg, speaking as a leftist: our problem isn't with having to work hard to succeed. Our problem is with working hard and still being shat upon by thieves who keep rigging the system to insure that you can't move up no matter how hard you work. Economic mobility has gotten a lot worse over the last forty years. Look it up. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 10 Nov 2006 10:19:50 From: Tex Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Lloyd Parsons wrote: > In article <1163177312.326085.184820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? > > > > > > As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the > > > Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. > > > > Yeah right, it's so rigged toward the "Rich" that 50% of the country > > pays 96% of the taxes, and the top 1% pay 36.89% of the taxes, the top > > 5% pay 57% of the taxes. Yeah right, real rigged. > > > > http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in05tr.xls > > > > See cell C170 > > > > Why do you think government bureaucrats know how to spend your money > > better than you do? > > How much of the wealth of the country does that 1% represent? When we have a wealth tax, your point is valid. Today it is an income tax. Tex     Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:49:33 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! In article <1163182790.790540.181490@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > In article <1163177312.326085.184820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > > "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? > > > > > > > > As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the > > > > Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. > > > > > > Yeah right, it's so rigged toward the "Rich" that 50% of the country > > > pays 96% of the taxes, and the top 1% pay 36.89% of the taxes, the top > > > 5% pay 57% of the taxes. Yeah right, real rigged. > > > > > > http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in05tr.xls > > > > > > See cell C170 > > > > > > Why do you think government bureaucrats know how to spend your money > > > better than you do? > > > > How much of the wealth of the country does that 1% represent? > > When we have a wealth tax, your point is valid. Today it is an income > tax. > > Tex OK, then how much of the INCOME (and I mean all income, not just wage earned stuff), does that 1% represent?   Date: 10 Nov 2006 10:10:34 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > > : Enjoy! I can't believe you read this google-gobbley-gook. :> In > : essence, it says that the gap between the poor (most whom choose to > : stay poor) > > Oh good grief. Get real. A lot of poor people choose to risk prison > and death in order to deal drugs so they can escape poverty. Why? > Because it's the best chance. They choose crime because they are lazy. Dealing drugs is quick money. Working/educating your way out of poverty is a slow, steady process. > Choose to stay poor? My God. How disconnected can you be? Poor people in 3rd world countries are often stuck....nowhere to go. But that's not the case in our country. Any normal human being can make it here if he/she chooses to. There are plenty of people who came out of the ghetto because they shirked drugs and crime while working their asses off, getting educated and taking jobs on the bottom of the pole. Ed Bradley did it!! Conversely, there are people who come from middle class backgrounds and choose to lose it all. A golf buddy of mine was killed in Mexico last May. Father of six, successful business owner, world by the tail kind of guy. Three years ago, he took a dose of Meth and got hooked. Lost his business, family, ended up in prison, ran from parole to Mexico, and then was shot in a drug deal gone bad. Point is....he made choices. Everyone in America faces these choices. -Greg     Date: 10 Nov 2006 21:14:37 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: : : Chris Bellomy wrote: : > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: : > : > : Enjoy! I can't believe you read this google-gobbley-gook. :> In : > : essence, it says that the gap between the poor (most whom choose to : > : stay poor) : > : > Oh good grief. Get real. A lot of poor people choose to risk prison : > and death in order to deal drugs so they can escape poverty. Why? : > Because it's the best chance. : : They choose crime because they are lazy. LAZY?! Do you have any idea how much work is involved? No, I guess you don't. Man, the next time you think about calling yourself a Christian, you should go back and read what Jesus had to say about the poor. I am totally serious. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/     Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:29:18 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote > > Poor people in 3rd world countries are often stuck....nowhere to go. > But that's not the case in our country. Any normal human being can > make it here if he/she chooses to. That's true, and I won't argue that it's not. But while both you and I (and probably most people we know) are fully aware of this, we know it only because we've lived that reality. To those who live in parts of the country where opportunity is not so great, or their skillset limits their earnings potential, they have a different reality. And in the worst cases, their reality, based on their life experiences, tell them there's no way out -- short of doing things you and I, based on our realities, would never even consider. It's not enough to simply acknowledge something as fact in order to make it so in certain people's lives. You must first change THEIR paradigm of what is possible. And speaking as a condescending asshole to them (which I'm not accusing you of doing, but your "everybody know this" attitude is fairly indicative of the kind of behavior I'm referring to) does nothing to change their reality. Dene, I could tell you today that you could be an astronaut. (Some would say you already are a space cadet, and who am I to argue?) <g > But I'm not entirely sure you, even with your vast education, would know quite where to begin to get there, assuming you wanted to. At the very least, it would require a daunting amount of commitment of your time. Now factor in an ingredient of hopelessness that might have been taught to you by your parents from the day you were born. Maybe you would see past that and rise above. Maybe you wouldn't. But either way, your frame of reference -- indeed, your reality -- would be different. That's what we're talking about. Ask ANY successful entrepreneur or motivational speaker, from Tony Robbins to anyone else you can think of. They will all tell you that the key to achieving anything in life is first SEEING YOURSELF ACHIEVING IT. That's where the disconnect lies, Dene. You and I, because we HAVE achieved something in our lives, know how to visualize success. But many who haven't been so fortunate, don't have the first clue how to see themselves in that position, let alone achieve it. Education. That's the answer. But to simply dismiss those who don't already "know" is like turning your back on a child because they don't know how to walk yet. I don't mean to make lazy people sound quite as warm and fuzzy as a crawling child. Clearly, they are not. If someone is lazy, it doesn't matter how much education they have. But not all poor people are lazy, and to paint poor people with such a broad brush is insulting and unfair, not to mention intellectually dishonest. It's like saying all Southerners are stupid -- and since most of the South is still Republican (about the only part of the country remaining that is), I'm assuming you don't believe that. As I mentioned in my other post in this thread, I don't necessarily believe in handouts, but there's something inherantly American, if not downright human (in the best possible way), about lending a hand and offering it to assist someone in lifting themselves up. Look it up. It's in the Bible, too. Randy   Date: 10 Nov 2006 10:00:50 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Lloyd Parsons wrote: > In article <1163172429.775377.228150@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > sfb wrote: > > > Individuals who happen to be Democrats and Republicans have advocated a > > > nation sales or VAT tax. Neither party has ever included it in their > > > national platforms. > > > > > Congressional Republicans, while in the majority, have introduced > > legislation to scrap the income tax and replace it with a national > > sales tax. It has gone nowhere. > > You keep saying that, but I cannot find any reference to actual > legislation introduced. I know it was discussed. > > Please provide a link or something to support your contention. Rep. Dan Schaefer, R-Colo., (no longer in Congress) introduced a national sales tax bill several yrs. ago. I was present at the press conference when he introduced it. It was a flop.     Date: 10 Nov 2006 13:14:12 From: sfb Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Congressional Republicans now becomes a former member of Congress who happens to belong to the Republican Party. "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1163181650.228142.234450@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> In article <1163172429.775377.228150@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, >> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > sfb wrote: >> > > Individuals who happen to be Democrats and Republicans have advocated >> > > a >> > > nation sales or VAT tax. Neither party has ever included it in their >> > > national platforms. >> > > >> > Congressional Republicans, while in the majority, have introduced >> > legislation to scrap the income tax and replace it with a national >> > sales tax. It has gone nowhere. >> >> You keep saying that, but I cannot find any reference to actual >> legislation introduced. I know it was discussed. >> >> Please provide a link or something to support your contention. > > > Rep. Dan Schaefer, R-Colo., (no longer in Congress) introduced a > national sales tax bill several yrs. ago. I was present at the press > conference when he introduced it. It was a flop. >     Date: 11 Nov 2006 03:34:42 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > Rep. Dan Schaefer, R-Colo., (no longer in Congress) introduced a > national sales tax bill several yrs. ago. I was present at the press > conference when he introduced it. It was a flop. John Linder R-GA, is the sponsor of the current bill, HR 25, with 54 co-sponsors as of the lame duck congress. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 09:58:01 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Larry Bud wrote: > > I honestly cannot fathom why you have a defeatist viewpoint of our > > opportunities as Americans. Inflation is under control. Gas prices > > are down. Unemployment is under 5%. The Dow is up. Real estate is > > being corrected, but marginally. Crime is down. Racism is not what it > > used to be. What outside force needs to improve so that everyone has a > > fair shake? You can't tell me that things are harder now than they > > were in Bradley's day. > > Dene, look, you have to understand, the theory of the Democrats is that > if people are down and out, only Democrats can save them. So there's a > disincentive for Democrats to actually help people, and the stupid poor > people believe them. What they don't get is that they're harming > themselves. > > Can you imagine if all racism and poverty were eliminated tomorrow? > What would Democrats run on? Democrats NEED poor people, and they > NEED people to "depend" on them. Amen. Reminds me of the Mondale/Reagan presidential race when the Dems were desperately trying to convince the American people that the economy was bad...."the poor were getting poorer, rich getting richer" cliche's. The Dems had no other relevant issues. One irony I find interesting. Hispanic voters overwhelmingly voted Democratic, due to anger over immigration reform. So what are the Dems going to do about this? Continue to pay for the health, education, etc. of illegals or shut down the border and risk losing a voting bloc? Hmmm......I'm beginning to enjoy having the Dems in control. -Greg   Date: 10 Nov 2006 09:57:01 From: Tex Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > There's a reason why middle class retailers like Sears and > Montgomery Wards have struggled (or failed) while both upscale > chains like Crate and Barrel and discount chains like Dollar > General and Walmart have thrived: the middle class is dis- > appearing. No, Sears and Wards went out of business because their model was "old" and they did not adapt to a changing environment. Look how quickly Walmart even went to the Web...they are adapting to an even changing business model. Consumers are adapating as well and will no longer tolerate a higher price "just because". > This is no longer the United States we grew up in; Thank goodness!! When I was growing up, inflation was through the roof and interest rates where 15+%. Why do I want that again! > it's more like El Salvador or Bolivia, with a permanent > aristocracy and a permanent underclass. I think this weakens > as all in the end. LOLOLOL You are funny CB....maybe in your neighborhood too many illegal aliens have moved in. BTW, if you want to slow the growth of your "permanent underclass", close the borders and remove all illegal aliens that are willing to work for sub-standard wages. But you don't want it fixed, you won't be able to bitch about it anymore! CB = Comrade Bitcher Tex     Date: 10 Nov 2006 13:00:25 From: sfb Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Note to self: On the way to the golf course tomorrow, stop by the local Sears and tell them they went out of business. "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1163181421.702383.234340@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > No, Sears and Wards went out of business because their model was "old" > and they did not adapt to a changing environment. Look how quickly > Walmart even went to the Web...they are adapting to an even changing > business model. Consumers are adapating as well and will no longer > tolerate a higher price "just because". >   Date: 10 Nov 2006 09:13:18 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! > I honestly cannot fathom why you have a defeatist viewpoint of our > opportunities as Americans. Inflation is under control. Gas prices > are down. Unemployment is under 5%. The Dow is up. Real estate is > being corrected, but marginally. Crime is down. Racism is not what it > used to be. What outside force needs to improve so that everyone has a > fair shake? You can't tell me that things are harder now than they > were in Bradley's day. Dene, look, you have to understand, the theory of the Democrats is that if people are down and out, only Democrats can save them. So there's a disincentive for Democrats to actually help people, and the stupid poor people believe them. What they don't get is that they're harming themselves. Can you imagine if all racism and poverty were eliminated tomorrow? What would Democrats run on? Democrats NEED poor people, and they NEED people to "depend" on them.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 09:05:08 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Larry Bud wrote: > > The Republicans have tried to institute a national sales tax and got > > nowhere with it. It's a terrible idea; it's an extremely regressive tax. > > You misspelled "fair". > > Flat tax is the only way to go. It's ridiculous to think that the more > you make that you should pay a higher RATE. > > Maybe all retail we should present a W2 statement, and the clerk will > look up the price for your product in a chart. If you make $20k a > year, a gallon of milk will be 10 cents. IF you make $50k, it'll be > $3, and if you make $200, it'll be $10. After all, fair is fair, right? ROFL!!!! -Greg   Date: 10 Nov 2006 08:57:01 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o wrote: > On 10-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The Republicans have tried to institute a national sales tax and got > > nowhere with it. It's a terrible idea; it's an extremely regressive tax. > > You obviously don't understand the bill. It would eliminate the tax burden > on the poor (via a prebate of the tax on the necessities of life) and would > actually tax wealth, not income (yes Virginia there is a difference). I > don't understand the Dems resistance to this, except for the fact that it > was introduced by a (R), as these are goals they ostensibly would like to > achieve. They're against it because it takes away their class warfare issue every election, and eliminates control over the populace. It also bring forward the REAL amount we all pay in taxes. What we should do is eliminate withholding and make people write a check every month or every quarter. Then in a year after the tax rebellion that would take place, we can institute something that doesn't punish success.     Date: 11 Nov 2006 14:24:21 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10 Nov 2006 08:57:01 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote: >They're against it because it takes away their class warfare issue >every election, and eliminates control over the populace. > >It also bring forward the REAL amount we all pay in taxes. A deficit budget is a huge tax which is not addressed by this bill. We also pay corporate taxes when we buy products from those corporations. In Europe, the VAT keeps getting bigger and bigger.     Date: 11 Nov 2006 03:27:11 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10-Nov-2006, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote: > It also bring forward the REAL amount we all pay in taxes. > > What we should do is eliminate withholding and make people write a > check every month or every quarter. Then in a year after the tax > rebellion that would take place, we can institute something that > doesn't punish success. --How much did you pay in taxes? --I didn't hav'ta pay, I got money back! What maroons -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 08:53:50 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! > The Republicans have tried to institute a national sales tax and got > nowhere with it. It's a terrible idea; it's an extremely regressive tax. You misspelled "fair". Flat tax is the only way to go. It's ridiculous to think that the more you make that you should pay a higher RATE. Maybe all retail we should present a W2 statement, and the clerk will look up the price for your product in a chart. If you make $20k a year, a gallon of milk will be 10 cents. IF you make $50k, it'll be $3, and if you make $200, it'll be $10. After all, fair is fair, right?     Date: 11 Nov 2006 14:26:32 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10 Nov 2006 08:53:50 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote: >You misspelled "fair". > >Flat tax is the only way to go. It's ridiculous to think that the more >you make that you should pay a higher RATE. Taxes aren't about fair - they are about how to take the most money without having us revolt. The optimal short term strategy is not the same as the optimal long term strategy.       Date: 11 Nov 2006 11:18:07 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Howard Brazee wrote: > Taxes aren't about fair - they are about how to take the most money > without having us revolt. Some taxes are rather illegal. The only legal taxes are as follows; and the Constitution says you cannot make any new laws that go beyond supporting the execution of the powers that were given to the Federal Government in the Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 10 Nov 2006 08:51:08 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o wrote: > On 9-Nov-2006, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? > > > > > > As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the > > > Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. > > > > Yeah, those damn Repugs....cut the Capital Gains rate from a high of > > 38% to 15%...Man, can you believe that. They actually want less of > > your investment income. Too bad investing in more shit you can't > > afford isn't a gain. Otherwise we'd have a whole lot of people getting > > a tax break! And then they cut the top rate from 38% to 35%....and > > even lowered the bottom rate from 15% to 10%. If they keep > > "rejiggering", soon you won't even pay 30%...or 10%. > > Would you two stop! Both parties are equally guilty of rigging the Tax code. > Since 86 we have gone from a esstientially a 2-tiered flat tax to a 9000 > page monstrosity. Time for the National Retail sales tax. In theory it sounds good, but the problem with a NST is that in 5 years when the natural flow of the economy slows, the thieves will want to reinstate an income tax, and we'll be stuck with both.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 08:48:32 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! > : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? > > As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the > Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. Yeah right, it's so rigged toward the "Rich" that 50% of the country pays 96% of the taxes, and the top 1% pay 36.89% of the taxes, the top 5% pay 57% of the taxes. Yeah right, real rigged. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in05tr.xls See cell C170 Why do you think government bureaucrats know how to spend your money better than you do?     Date: 10 Nov 2006 11:59:21 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! In article <1163177312.326085.184820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote: > > : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? > > > > As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the > > Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. > > Yeah right, it's so rigged toward the "Rich" that 50% of the country > pays 96% of the taxes, and the top 1% pay 36.89% of the taxes, the top > 5% pay 57% of the taxes. Yeah right, real rigged. > > http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in05tr.xls > > See cell C170 > > Why do you think government bureaucrats know how to spend your money > better than you do? How much of the wealth of the country does that 1% represent?     Date: 10 Nov 2006 17:47:12 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote: : > : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? : > : > As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the : > Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. : : Yeah right, it's so rigged toward the "Rich" that 50% of the country : pays 96% of the taxes, Income tax. They also make 98% of the income. So your only point is that you're bad at math. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 10 Nov 2006 08:14:06 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > > :> to insure that you can't move up no matter how hard you work. > :> Economic mobility has gotten a lot worse over the last forty > :> years. Look it up. > : > : Show me where. > > Google is pretty easy. Here's the first thing I found: > > http://www.urban.org/publications/406722.html > > This piece is throughly referenced, cites abound. Enjoy. > Enjoy! I can't believe you read this google-gobbley-gook. : > In essence, it says that the gap between the poor (most whom choose to stay poor) and the prosperous is growing. Good! More and more people are realizing the American dream. What kind of society would you prefer. One that overtaxes the industrious and gives handouts to those who choose to stay poor. Here's a challenge for you Chris. You're a popular guy here. Put out a poll among RSG, which is a microcosm of our society. Ask us one question. Are you better off right now than your parents were at your age? I bet you a sleeve of golf balls that 80% will say yes. That's America, baby. It's the way it supposed to be! -Greg     Date: 10 Nov 2006 17:46:12 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: : Enjoy! I can't believe you read this google-gobbley-gook. : > In : essence, it says that the gap between the poor (most whom choose to : stay poor) Oh good grief. Get real. A lot of poor people choose to risk prison and death in order to deal drugs so they can escape poverty. Why? Because it's the best chance. Choose to stay poor? My God. How disconnected can you be? -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/       Date: 11 Nov 2006 18:28:01 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Jack Hollis wrote: > On 11 Nov 2006 13:32:59 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > >The Enron and PGE employees who loaded up > >their 401k's with Enron stock did so because Lay and Skilling promised > >them it was a good investment. Their mistake was believing them. > > I've never heard a corporate CEO say that his companies stock is a bad > investment. I dont know of many who say their stock is a good investment at the same time they're selling all their shares.         Date: 12 Nov 2006 11:44:20 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 11 Nov 2006 18:28:01 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> I've never heard a corporate CEO say that his companies stock is a bad >> investment. > >I dont know of many who say their stock is a good investment at the >same time they're selling all their shares. Actually, that the exact time the CEO's would be most likely to try and prop up their stock. That's to counter the news that insiders are selling, which is posted by the SEC.     Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:14:01 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote ... > > Chris Bellomy wrote: > >> >> :> to insure that you can't move up no matter how hard you work. >> :> Economic mobility has gotten a lot worse over the last forty >> :> years. Look it up. >> : >> : Show me where. >> >> Google is pretty easy. Here's the first thing I found: >> >> http://www.urban.org/publications/406722.html >> >> This piece is throughly referenced, cites abound. Enjoy. >> > > Enjoy! I can't believe you read this google-gobbley-gook. :> In > essence, it says that the gap between the poor (most whom choose to > stay poor) and the prosperous is growing. > > Good! More and more people are realizing the American dream. What > kind of society would you prefer. One that overtaxes the industrious > and gives handouts to those who choose to stay poor. Personally, I favor the flat tax. Or, for that matter, abolishing the income tax altogether and converting over to a national sales tax. Not that either one will ever happen. But since they won't, I would favor an adjustment to the tax so the people who can most afford it would pay a little extra, while those who struggle to make ends meet are given a break...assuming they're working (which is the caveat most liberals place on this, although most conservatives fail to acknowledge it). Dene, I'm not in favor of handouts. But I think even conservatives would have to acknowledge the role Bill Clinton paid in, as the old slogan went, "ending welfare as we know it." But of course like all things Washington, even that was done with compromise, and we may never get to a perfect system as long as politics play a role in deciding the outcome. Sad, but true. But it's the nature of our government. Thankfully, at least we're about to enter an era once again where there is some compromise in Washington, instead of one party basically turning a deaf ear to half the nation. I don't know any right-minded person who honestly thinks that was good (other than for their own selfish motives). While handouts are not the answer, per se, at least not in the sense you think of when you think of 1960s welfare, most people (on both sides of the aisle) who have studied this agree that the key is education. You see, there really is truth to the assertion that the gap between the haves and have-nots is growing. It really isn't an assertion at all, it's a fact, and the statistics show it. And while I will acknowledge that there are people on the poor side of that street who are not doing all they can to pull themselves up and out of poverty, I think you, too, will have to acknowledge that there are people on the richer side of that street who aren't exactly stepping up in the way that this administration hoped they might with "faith-based initiatives" to help the poor. The simple fact is, most people who "have" want to "keep" and they don't particularly think it's their job to help others. They're greedy products of the Reagan-era "Me Generation." (I'm not blaming Reagan for this, he just happened to be President when the "Me Generation" became famous.) If you were to actually spend some time (and I don't just mean a day or two, I mean consistently over a period of a year or two) volunteering, as I have, within underprivileged portions of the community, you'd discover that there is a real sense of "there's no way out" among many, if not most, of the people who live there. Of course they're wrong (you and I know that), but that's their reality, and their reality is based upon their life experiences and what they've been taught by their parents and by their own experiences and failures. I'm not talking strictly black people here, either -- I'm talking poor people of whatever color. There are more white people on welfare than there are black people on welfare (a little known fact), and they are no less prone to fall into this way of thinking. It's true that many of them lack initiative. But this becomes a chicken-or-the-egg question: Is their lack of initative something that's innate, that they were born with? Or is it a product of their sense of hopelessness, and a belief that any effort they might put forth to achieve something better will only be frustrated because they've learned it to be so through experience? It's a fair question to ask, and the answer is never as easy as most people on the conservative or liberal fringe would like us to believe. By and large, I think it's safe to assume that all families, rich and poor, want the best they can provide for their children. That's human nature, especially in a relatively prosperous society where mass media beams images of prosperity into everyone's living rooms each night through the miracle of television. So it's quite likely that these seeminly unmotivated people do, in fact, have the motivation necessary to achieve something better. They just don't have the wherewithall to put that motivation into productive action. So they give up, and they give up much too easily. But it's not that hard to understand why. Unfortunately, in addition to lacking the educational skills to take the first step, they have also been conditioned through years of media consumption that this is a society that buys into the whole "instant gratifaction" culture. That's true not only of poor people, but of rich people, too, and everyone in between. So those on the bottom of the ladder tend to be hurt the most from this brainwashing -- they see the prize, but they either don't know how to get it, or they lack the means to get it, or the task of gathering the necessary skills to get it seem far too difficult to overcome. It's a vicious cycle. Education is the answer. Not handouts. And I think most liberals agree with me. But you can't start to build initiative in these people while blunting their attempts at digging out by witholding handouts AND education through budget cutbacks to both, as this administration has done. That only sends the signal, whether intentional or not, that "you're of no value to this nation." It's no wonder they quit so easily. For all his talk about "compassionate conservativism," I've seen very little compassion from this president and a whole lot of conservativism (except in going along with every earmark the Republican don't-tax-but-spend-anyway congress passed). Very little, if any, of it, however, was aimed at helping poor people. Oddly, if anyone should see the foolishness of this ignoring of the poor, it would be the religious right. But they have been strangely quiet, ignoring the one thing in the New Testament that is repeated more than anything else -- to love your neighbor as you live yourself, and to be your brother's keeper -- choosing instead to focus all their energy and venom on three issue Jesus NEVER talked about -- flag burning, abortion and gay marriage. These evangelicals are to Christianity what Osama bin Laden is to Islamic teaching. They have both taken extremist views for no other purpose than to promote their political beliefs. Neither reflects the true essence of the religion they claim to represent, and they should both be equally ashamed. But of course, that would require a conscience, and neither has one. > Here's a challenge for you Chris. You're a popular guy here. Put out > a poll among RSG, which is a microcosm of our society. Ask us one > question. Are you better off right now than your parents were at your > age? I bet you a sleeve of golf balls that 80% will say yes. I would agree with you in theory. Clearly, I make a whole lot more money today than my dad brought home when he was my age, back in the 1960s. But there's something else that's changed in the years since. My expenses dwarf my father's by a country mile, and say what you will about this, but today's modern society also has several built-in costs and some nearly-universal "discretionary" costs that my father never had. Things like internet service providers, web hosting, monthly cable television bills, monthly cellphone bills, charges for overnighting letters and packages via FedEx or some other similar carrier, computers (that need to be replaced and updated every few years), software, and more "discretionary necessities" (an oxymoron, I know) such as satellite radio subscription fees, iPods and iTunes fees, $100 "tennis shoes," $30 car washes (my last one was a whopping $47, thanks to my dog emptying out a bag from the Subway sandwich shop, spreading lettuce and tomatos everywhere), required annual emission checks on the car, $7 cups of coffee at Starbucks, $2 bottles of water, and so on. Most, if not all, of this stuff was never a factor in my dad's monthly, or annual, household budget. The bottom line is this: I have more money left over at the end of the month than my dad did. But the totally discretionary items I might wish to purchase (a new putter, for instance) or spend money on (concert tickets, for instance) cost substantially more today than they did when my dad was spending money on his discretionary items in the 1960s. So it's pretty much a wash. My golf clubs cost around $1000. His, if he played golf (he didn't), would have run about half that, if that much. I got my driver's license in 1968, and I remember quite well that a gallon of gas cost 33-cents for regular, 37-cents for premium (there was no such thing yet as "unleaded"). Get the picture? Look, I'm not complaining about the rising cost of everything. It is what it is. But it sort of negates, to a large degree, whatever difference there is in my income today and my dad's. But overall, yes, I'd say I'm better off. A little. > That's America, baby. It's the way it supposed to be! That is, indeed, the way it's supposed to be. But to assert that it's all that much better today is, I think, overly simplistic. Yes, we have more "stuff" today. Unfortunately, the "stuff" we buy today isn't built to last, like it was back in my father's day. It either breaks sooner, or due to rapidly changing technology in today's modern age, it's obsolescence is assured much sooner. And if you work in a technology industry, as I do, that's a huge cost. At the very least, I'd have to say that your assertion that it's that much better today is murky, at best. Still, I wouldn't want to go back. Because if I did, I'd have to go through that whole pimple period again. No, thanks. :-) Randy   Date: 10 Nov 2006 07:34:40 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o wrote: > On 10-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The Republicans have tried to institute a national sales tax and got > > nowhere with it. It's a terrible idea; it's an extremely regressive tax. > > You obviously don't understand the bill. It would eliminate the tax burden > on the poor (via a prebate of the tax on the necessities of life) and would > actually tax wealth, not income (yes Virginia there is a difference). I > don't understand the Dems resistance to this, except for the fact that it > was introduced by a (R), as these are goals they ostensibly would like to > achieve. First of all, there is no bill at present. Second, the one I knew about, which was introduced several yrs. ago, had no provision for a rebate on taxation of necessities. And what a ridiculous idea that is, anyway. What is the point of creating an expensive bureaucracy to extend rebates to poor people instead of not taxing those necessities to begin with? No one should pay taxes on food and medicine, rich or poor. And a national sales tax doesn't tax wealth, it taxes consumption. So, if a person with an annual income of $100,000 makes the same purchase as a person with annual income of $25,000, the former pays a smaller proportion of his income in tax than the latter. That is regressive taxation and it's unfair.     Date: 11 Nov 2006 14:21:29 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10 Nov 2006 07:34:40 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > No one should pay taxes on food and medicine, rich or >poor. And a national sales tax doesn't tax wealth, it taxes >consumption. So, if a person with an annual income of $100,000 makes >the same purchase as a person with annual income of $25,000, the former >pays a smaller proportion of his income in tax than the latter. That is >regressive taxation and it's unfair. Depending on how housing is handled, the tax would be progressive when the person with $25,000 spends most all of his money on exempt items. As with any tax, loopholes would be found - rich people might get their employers to provide them with automobiles, for instance. But rich people either spend their money or invest it. We currently give tax benefits for them to invest.     Date: 11 Nov 2006 03:24:13 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > Second, the one I knew > about, which was introduced several yrs. ago, had no provision for a > rebate on taxation of necessities. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.25: see section 301 >And what a ridiculous idea that is, >anyway. What is the point of creating an expensive bureaucracy to >extend rebates to poor people instead of not taxing those necessities >to begin with? First it is not a rebate, it is a prebate. Secondly, there is already a bureaucracy there that, with some trimming, could do the job just fine: the SSA as the social security tax will be eliminated it can take on the issuance of the prebate along with the benefits checks. >No one should pay taxes on food and medicine, rich or poor. No, No one should have to pay taxes on the necessities of life: basic food, clothing, shelter etc. Above that, fancy tastes included, you pay taxes on it. > And a national sales tax doesn't tax wealth, it taxes >consumption. Show me the difference: the wealthy consume more, so they pay more tax. >So, if a person with an annual income of $100,000 makes >the same purchase as a person with annual income of $25,000, Don't you mean purchases? And when is that going to happen? >the former pays a smaller proportion of his income in tax than the latter. >That is >regressive taxation and it's unfair. And our current taxation regime is? It taxes hard work, thrift and sound financial decision making in general. You ASSume the fair tax is regressive because you are ignorant of it. Read up a bit. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 11 Nov 2006 03:07:48 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > First of all, there is no bill at present. Wrong HR 25 -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 11 Nov 2006 02:45:06 From: S McFarlane Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1163172880.113564.221910@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > >> >> You obviously don't understand the bill. It would eliminate the tax >> burden >> on the poor (via a prebate of the tax on the necessities of life) and >> would >> actually tax wealth, not income (yes Virginia there is a difference). I >> don't understand the Dems resistance to this, except for the fact that it >> was introduced by a (R), as these are goals they ostensibly would like to >> achieve. > > First of all, there is no bill at present. Second, the one I knew > about, which was introduced several yrs. ago, had no provision for a > rebate on taxation of necessities. And what a ridiculous idea that is, > anyway. What is the point of creating an expensive bureaucracy to > extend rebates to poor people instead of not taxing those necessities > to begin with? No one should pay taxes on food and medicine, rich or > poor. And a national sales tax doesn't tax wealth, it taxes > consumption. So, if a person with an annual income of $100,000 makes > the same purchase as a person with annual income of $25,000, the former > pays a smaller proportion of his income in tax than the latter. That is > regressive taxation and it's unfair. I think you might have missed the point. The idea is that if taxes on necessities are waived, then on a percentage basis this will disproportionally favor the poor since they spend a much larger percentage of their income on those necessities. The wealthy, on the other hand, spend a very small percentage of their income on that category. So, assuming the two people make the same purchase, but the fat cat does it every day and the poor guy only does it once a year because non-taxed groceries take up the better part of his salary, the fat cat pays a higher percentage of his income on taxes in the long run. Scott       Date: 11 Nov 2006 03:25:00 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10-Nov-2006, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote: > > the same purchase as a person with annual income of $25,000, the former > > pays a smaller proportion of his income in tax than the latter. That is > > regressive taxation and it's unfair. > > I think you might have missed the point. The idea is that if taxes on > necessities are waived, then on a percentage basis this will > disproportionally favor the poor since they spend a much larger percentage > > of their income on those necessities. The wealthy, on the other hand, > spend > a very small percentage of their income on that category. So, assuming > the > two people make the same purchase, but the fat cat does it every day and > the > poor guy only does it once a year because non-taxed groceries take up the > better part of his salary, the fat cat pays a higher percentage of his > income on taxes in the long run. Thank you Scott. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 07:27:09 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! sfb wrote: > Individuals who happen to be Democrats and Republicans have advocated a > nation sales or VAT tax. Neither party has ever included it in their > national platforms. > Congressional Republicans, while in the majority, have introduced legislation to scrap the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. It has gone nowhere.     Date: 10 Nov 2006 11:58:07 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! In article <1163172429.775377.228150@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > sfb wrote: > > Individuals who happen to be Democrats and Republicans have advocated a > > nation sales or VAT tax. Neither party has ever included it in their > > national platforms. > > > Congressional Republicans, while in the majority, have introduced > legislation to scrap the income tax and replace it with a national > sales tax. It has gone nowhere. You keep saying that, but I cannot find any reference to actual legislation introduced. I know it was discussed. Please provide a link or something to support your contention.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 06:35:59 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! John Reddy wrote: > In article <4554235d$0$17420$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>, > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote: > > > Would you two stop! Both parties are equally guilty of rigging the Tax code. > > Since 86 we have gone from a esstientially a 2-tiered flat tax to a 9000 > > page monstrosity. Time for the National Retail sales tax. > > Yes it is. Unfortunately, it will never happen because it will put many > thousands of accountants, lawyers and IRS personnel out of work. In > most folks' opinions, including mine, that would be just fine. However, > as long as accountants and lawyers have PAC's and lobbyists, there will > never be a national sales tax. Unless, God forbid, Hillary gets elected > and both houses remain in Democrat hands. Then we will have a national > sales tax in addition to all other taxes to pay for universal health > care. > > Be afraid, be very afraid. The Republicans have tried to institute a national sales tax and got nowhere with it. It's a terrible idea; it's an extremely regressive tax.     Date: 10 Nov 2006 15:13:30 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > The Republicans have tried to institute a national sales tax and got > nowhere with it. It's a terrible idea; it's an extremely regressive tax. You obviously don't understand the bill. It would eliminate the tax burden on the poor (via a prebate of the tax on the necessities of life) and would actually tax wealth, not income (yes Virginia there is a difference). I don't understand the Dems resistance to this, except for the fact that it was introduced by a (R), as these are goals they ostensibly would like to achieve. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 10 Nov 2006 10:04:00 From: sfb Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Individuals who happen to be Democrats and Republicans have advocated a nation sales or VAT tax. Neither party has ever included it in their national platforms. "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1163169359.048856.238000@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > > The Republicans have tried to institute a national sales tax and got > nowhere with it. It's a terrible idea; it's an extremely regressive tax. >     Date: 11 Nov 2006 14:15:32 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10 Nov 2006 06:35:59 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >The Republicans have tried to institute a national sales tax and got >nowhere with it. It's a terrible idea; it's an extremely regressive tax. Not if food & medicine are excluded. Meanwhile, companies such as Sony America can't get out of taxes by making sure they pay full price for goods purchased from Sony Japan, keeping Sony America's income down.       Date: 11 Nov 2006 11:13:36 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! How about this for a taxation plan - use taxes. This way; rich people use/buy more things and pay more taxes. Poor people use/buy less things so they pay less taxes. The tax rate for this idea should be calculated based on what the total cost is of running the government. Also make it illegal for pork spending to exist - if the Government wants to spend on something that is not covered in US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 or any Ammendments; they are denied the right to spend. Once we know the true cost of running a legal and honest government; we know what the use tax needs to be; and all Americans share the burden in a fair ratio. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson     Date: 11 Nov 2006 02:34:37 From: S McFarlane Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1163169359.048856.238000@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > The Republicans have tried to institute a national sales tax and got > nowhere with it. It's a terrible idea; it's an extremely regressive tax. Maybe a Republican version of it was, but the concept of a sales tax isn't per se. You can create very high taxes for luxury items and waive the tax on essentials in a way that leads to a more progressive tax than the existing one. My guess is that will eventually lead to a tax code that looks just as complicated as the existing one. They'll just be playing with categories of taxed goods, what is a non-taxed essential, etc. Scott   Date: 11 Nov 2006 07:05:24 From: annika1980 Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o wrote: > On 10-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote: > > > You must live in Utopia, Oregon. > > The gas prices here have already gone up a dime since Election Day. > > You say they are down ..... compared to what? > > to $3.09 = 33% aprox > > -- If the Repugs want to take credit for the 33% drop since last year, then they'll have to take the blame for the 300% increase in the price of oil since 2001.     Date: 12 Nov 2006 05:26:38 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 11-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote: > If the Repugs want to take credit for the 33% drop since last year, > then they'll have to take the blame for the 300% increase in the price > of oil since 2001. I think either is a stretch. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 23:19:43 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Herbert wrote: > Yep. It usually takes more than one generation to break the poverty > cycle. If you grow up poor watching your parents work hard to provide > you a chance at a better life, you've got a good chance of breaking the > cycle. However if you grow up poor in a home where welfare is an > accepted way of life, you might succumb to the notion there really are > things in life that are free. One of my closest friends is the son of a sheetrocker. Family of 5 kids, raised in a rented single wide, hand to mouth (neither parent could handle money), food stamps, clunk cars all around. He learned his dad's trade, then invested all the money he could scrape into nothing-down rental property, selling and buying up, while expanding the sheetrock business into homebuilding. Earned his first million at 30. Now at 40, easily a multi millionaire, employing around 20. No college education. No business training. He simply had a vision, then risked all to acheive it, through various housing slumps and boom times. He really sucks at golf! Money can't buy him a golf swing. > If all able-bodied people would understand they are entitled only to > what they rightfully earn, there would be no debate here - all > segments of society would gladly support the physically dependant and > mentally infirm. We could get on with our lives with less government > intrusion, and harbour none of this resentment toward the obscene > levels of wealth confiscation required to support the ever growing > welfare industry. > > God forbid that the current horde of chronic welfare consumers go > through what our parents did during the depression. It would make > Katrina look like a fuckin' picnic. Well said, Herbert. -Greg   Date: 10 Nov 2006 22:43:30 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > : Chris Bellomy wrote: > > :> : They choose crime because they are lazy. > :> > :> LAZY?! Do you have any idea how much work is involved? > :> > :> No, I guess you don't. > : > : You're right....don't know too much about the labor intensity of drug > : dealing. > > It's like being in war behind enemy lines every day of your life. Drug dealers are the enemy. > :> Man, the next time you think about calling yourself a Christian, > :> you should go back and read what Jesus had to say about the poor. > :> I am totally serious. > : > : Christ said "the poor will always be with you." > > Keep reading. I have read it....at least a 100 times. I practice by giving to the poor in other countries. In America, only the mentally or physically disabled have excuses to be poor. FWIW, I worked 5 months in a mission while in high school. Learned first hand that most of the homeless choose to be homeless, preferring their addictions to permanent shelter and work. This particular mission offered the men 3 hots, their own bed, if they simply worked a bit and stayed sober. Average stay....one week. Choices! -Greg     Date: 11 Nov 2006 08:18:47 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: : : Chris Bellomy wrote: : > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: : > : Chris Bellomy wrote: : > : > :> : They choose crime because they are lazy. : > :> : > :> LAZY?! Do you have any idea how much work is involved? : > :> : > :> No, I guess you don't. : > : : > : You're right....don't know too much about the labor intensity of drug : > : dealing. : > : > It's like being in war behind enemy lines every day of your life. : : Drug dealers are the enemy. Yeah, pretty much, but until you confront the economic realities that drive people to that profession, you'll never be able to reach informed opinions about what to do about them. As it is, the mean outcome from making that decision is to make a whole lot of money for a fairly short time before being killed or imprisoned. Because the magic of the market (in which you believe so fervently) is such that so many people choose to accept that outcome, it stands to reason that the alternatives are mostly even worse than that. Which they are. The system as it stands today simply cannot support the degree of economic mobility it would take to give these people reason to believe that most people who work hard and play by the rules will be able to live reasonably comfortable middle class lives. It it could, it would. It doesn't. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 10 Nov 2006 22:36:24 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! John B. wrote: > Dene wrote: > > John B. wrote: > > > > > One kid is born in the South Bronx to a drug-addicted mother on welfare > > > and a father in prison. Another is born on the Upper East Side to > > > wealthy parents with a beach house in the Hamptons. You're saying these > > > two are equal in the choices that are available to them? > > > > Ever heard of Oprah's childhood? > > > > -Greg > > > that doesn't even begin to answer the question. Jack Hollis did it for me. Oprah is just one of thousand, if not millions of examples, who made better choices than those around them. Again, my sympathies, and $$$, are for the poor in Africa and elsewhere, where there is minimal opportunity to improve your life. -Greg     Date: 11 Nov 2006 08:12:44 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: : : John B. wrote: : > Dene wrote: : > > John B. wrote: : > > : > > > One kid is born in the South Bronx to a drug-addicted mother on welfare : > > > and a father in prison. Another is born on the Upper East Side to : > > > wealthy parents with a beach house in the Hamptons. You're saying these : > > > two are equal in the choices that are available to them? : > > : > > Ever heard of Oprah's childhood? : > > : > > -Greg : > : > : > that doesn't even begin to answer the question. : : Jack Hollis did it for me. Oprah is just one of thousand, if not : millions of examples, who made better choices than those around them. Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? What about the working families whose wage earners became seriously ill, or whose children became seriously ill. Did they make bad choices? It's the height of indifference to point to a statistical outlier like Oprah and say, "See! Anybody could do that!" The market can bear only so many Oprahs, and you know it. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/       Date: 11 Nov 2006 12:21:01 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:12:44 GMT, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose >pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? Many of them failed to diversify their portfolios. If you have 100% of your 401K in one stock, you're asking for trouble.         Date: 11 Nov 2006 18:07:22 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: : On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:12:44 GMT, Chris Bellomy : <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: : : >Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose : >pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? : : Many of them failed to diversify their portfolios. I'm talking about employees of a company that had a perfectly solvent pension program which was subsequently acquired by Enron, the pension fund looted, and the employees tossed on their asses. These are working people here, they don't have portfolios. Maybe you're not familiar with the concept. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/           Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:50:50 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:07:22 GMT, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >I'm talking about employees of a company that had a perfectly >solvent pension program which was subsequently acquired by >Enron, the pension fund looted, and the employees tossed on >their asses. These are working people here, they don't have >portfolios. Maybe you're not familiar with the concept. A lot of people lost a lot of money due to Enron going belly up. I think that pension and 401K losses were only about 2% of the total. It was a tragedy for a lot of people. Nothing that Enron did with their pensions funds, or 401Ks, was illegal under ERISA. Obviously the people who lost money in pensions had no choice in where Enron invested the money. The people who lost money in their 401Ks did have a choice and many of them lost as much as they did due to poor investment strategies.           Date: 11 Nov 2006 12:20:12 From: Bob L Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:0T3k7ob2Is9iN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > : On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:12:44 GMT, Chris Bellomy > : <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > : > :>Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose > :>pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? > : > : Many of them failed to diversify their portfolios. > > I'm talking about employees of a company that had a perfectly > solvent pension program which was subsequently acquired by > Enron, the pension fund looted, and the employees tossed on > their asses. These are working people here, they don't have > portfolios. Maybe you're not familiar with the concept. > What company are you refering to and how did Enron loot the pension fund?             Date: 11 Nov 2006 22:52:52 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Bob L <nospam@nospam.com > wrote: : : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message : news:0T3k7ob2Is9iN34@redshark.goodshow.net... : > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: : > : On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:12:44 GMT, Chris Bellomy : > : <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: : > : : > :>Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose : > :>pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? : > : : > : Many of them failed to diversify their portfolios. : > : > I'm talking about employees of a company that had a perfectly : > solvent pension program which was subsequently acquired by : > Enron, the pension fund looted, and the employees tossed on : > their asses. These are working people here, they don't have : > portfolios. Maybe you're not familiar with the concept. : : What company are you refering to and how did Enron loot the pension fund? It was a smallish company up in the Pac Northwest. I'd need to do some googling to remember the name. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/               Date: 11 Nov 2006 17:25:06 From: Bob L Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:0T3k8950I3mtN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > Bob L <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: > : > : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > : news:0T3k7ob2Is9iN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > :> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > :> : On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:12:44 GMT, Chris Bellomy > :> : <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > :> : > :> :>Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose > :> :>pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? > :> : > :> : Many of them failed to diversify their portfolios. > :> > :> I'm talking about employees of a company that had a perfectly > :> solvent pension program which was subsequently acquired by > :> Enron, the pension fund looted, and the employees tossed on > :> their asses. These are working people here, they don't have > :> portfolios. Maybe you're not familiar with the concept. > : > : What company are you refering to and how did Enron loot the pension > fund? > > It was a smallish company up in the Pac Northwest. I'd need to > do some googling to remember the name. You are thinking about Portland General, a regulated electric utility in Oregon. It was never integrated into Enron and is back to being an independent company. Enron didn't loot PGE's pension fund and didn't lay off a lot of employees but some of PGE's employees over-invested in Enron stock so they suffered the same sort of losses that Enron employees did when Enron's inflated stock price collapsed. Your shoot-from-the-hip comments were totally off the mark indicating you don't know what the hell you're talking about.                 Date: 12 Nov 2006 01:50:15 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Bob L <nospam@nospam.com > wrote: : : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message : news:0T3k8950I3mtN34@redshark.goodshow.net... : > Bob L <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: : > : : > : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message : > : news:0T3k7ob2Is9iN34@redshark.goodshow.net... : > :> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: : > :> : On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:12:44 GMT, Chris Bellomy : > :> : <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: : > :> : : > :> :>Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose : > :> :>pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? : > :> : : > :> : Many of them failed to diversify their portfolios. : > :> : > :> I'm talking about employees of a company that had a perfectly : > :> solvent pension program which was subsequently acquired by : > :> Enron, the pension fund looted, and the employees tossed on : > :> their asses. These are working people here, they don't have : > :> portfolios. Maybe you're not familiar with the concept. : > : : > : What company are you refering to and how did Enron loot the pension : > fund? : > : > It was a smallish company up in the Pac Northwest. I'd need to : > do some googling to remember the name. : : You are thinking about Portland General, a regulated electric utility in : Oregon. Nope. I'll find it later. Nice try at mindreading, though. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/       Date: 11 Nov 2006 09:44:53 From: sfb Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Yes, they made very bad choices. Employees who foolishly placed all their 401 money in Enron stock got burned badly. The traditional defined benefit Enron pension plan is still intact. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) prohibits a company from investing pension money in its own stock so Enron could not and did loot any pensions. "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:1T3k6letIf9uN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > > Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose > pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? >       Date: 11 Nov 2006 14:34:18 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 11-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose > pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? You cite the exception as the rule. These bums were criminals and they are going to jail. If you want a case cite the airlines. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.         Date: 11 Nov 2006 16:11:33 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: : : On 11-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: : : > Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose : > pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? : : You cite the exception as the rule. These bums were criminals and they are : going to jail. People have their economic well-being turned upside-down by corporate takeovers all the time. Are they making bad choices? -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/           Date: 12 Nov 2006 05:29:09 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 11-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > bill-o <assimilate@borg.org> wrote: > : > : On 11-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > : > :> Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose > :> pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? > : > : You cite the exception as the rule. These bums were criminals and they > are > : going to jail. > > People have their economic well-being turned upside-down by > corporate takeovers all the time. Are they making bad choices? People get affected by all kinds of things that are beyond their control, that's life, other than that what's your point? -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.             Date: 12 Nov 2006 00:36:27 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o wrote: > People get affected by all kinds of things that are beyond their > control, that's life, I hate that this is beyond our control: www.stormfront.org             Date: 12 Nov 2006 17:03:49 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: : : On 11-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: : : > bill-o <assimilate@borg.org> wrote: : > : : > : On 11-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: : > : : > :> Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose : > :> pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? : > : : > : You cite the exception as the rule. These bums were criminals and they : > are : > : going to jail. : > : > People have their economic well-being turned upside-down by : > corporate takeovers all the time. Are they making bad choices? : : People get affected by all kinds of things that are beyond their control, : that's life, other than that what's your point? That *is* my point. When government policies make it more difficult for people provide for their own financial security, they fail. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/               Date: 13 Nov 2006 01:01:39 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 12-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > That *is* my point. When government policies make it more > difficult for people provide for their own financial security, > they fail. What do gvmt policies have to do with corporate takeovers? -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.                 Date: 13 Nov 2006 02:39:56 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: : : On 12-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: : : > That *is* my point. When government policies make it more : > difficult for people provide for their own financial security, : > they fail. : : What do gvmt policies have to do with corporate takeovers? Antitrust law. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 10 Nov 2006 22:32:51 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! annika1980 wrote: > Dene wrote: > > I honestly cannot fathom why you have a defeatist viewpoint of our > > opportunities as Americans. Inflation is under control. Gas prices > > are down. Unemployment is under 5%. The Dow is up. Real estate is > > being corrected, but marginally. Crime is down. > > You must live in Utopia, Oregon. > The gas prices here have already gone up a dime since Election Day. > You say they are down ..... compared to what? Down from $3/gallon. In Washington, they are $2.45. Oregon, $2.35. -Greg     Date: 11 Nov 2006 11:08:49 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene wrote: > annika1980 wrote: >> Dene wrote: >>> I honestly cannot fathom why you have a defeatist viewpoint of our >>> opportunities as Americans. Inflation is under control. Gas prices >>> are down. Unemployment is under 5%. The Dow is up. Real estate is >>> being corrected, but marginally. Crime is down. >> >> You must live in Utopia, Oregon. >> The gas prices here have already gone up a dime since Election Day. >> You say they are down ..... compared to what? > > Down from $3/gallon. In Washington, they are $2.45. Oregon, $2.35. Last fill-up the other day I paid $1.98 for 87 octane. Way better than that one day a year or two ago that I paid something like $4.99. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 10 Nov 2006 19:50:22 From: annika1980 Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene wrote: > Here's a challenge for you Chris. You're a popular guy here. Put out > a poll among RSG, which is a microcosm of our society. Ask us one > question. Are you better off right now than your parents were at your > age? I bet you a sleeve of golf balls that 80% will say yes. > > That's America, baby. It's the way it supposed to be! Count me among the unwashed 20%.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 19:40:20 From: annika1980 Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene wrote: > I honestly cannot fathom why you have a defeatist viewpoint of our > opportunities as Americans. Inflation is under control. Gas prices > are down. Unemployment is under 5%. The Dow is up. Real estate is > being corrected, but marginally. Crime is down. You must live in Utopia, Oregon. The gas prices here have already gone up a dime since Election Day. You say they are down ..... compared to what?     Date: 11 Nov 2006 14:32:45 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote: > You must live in Utopia, Oregon. > The gas prices here have already gone up a dime since Election Day. > You say they are down ..... compared to what? to $3.09 = 33% aprox -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 11 Nov 2006 08:07:37 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! annika1980 wrote: > Dene wrote: >> I honestly cannot fathom why you have a defeatist viewpoint of our >> opportunities as Americans. Inflation is under control. Gas prices >> are down. Unemployment is under 5%. The Dow is up. Real estate is >> being corrected, but marginally. Crime is down. > > You must live in Utopia, Oregon. > The gas prices here have already gone up a dime since Election Day. > You say they are down ..... compared to what? > How did Pelosi get that tax increase through so fast? I guess you get what you vote for.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 16:12:58 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene wrote: > John B. wrote: > > > One kid is born in the South Bronx to a drug-addicted mother on welfare > > and a father in prison. Another is born on the Upper East Side to > > wealthy parents with a beach house in the Hamptons. You're saying these > > two are equal in the choices that are available to them? > > Ever heard of Oprah's childhood? > > -Greg that doesn't even begin to answer the question.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 15:01:53 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > : > : They choose crime because they are lazy. > > LAZY?! Do you have any idea how much work is involved? > > No, I guess you don't. You're right....don't know too much about the labor intensity of drug dealing. > Man, the next time you think about calling yourself a Christian, > you should go back and read what Jesus had to say about the poor. > I am totally serious. Christ said "the poor will always be with you." It's a realistic statement of fact pertaining every human society that's ever existed, simply because God has given man free will, to prosper or screw up. Guess Christ wasn't so liberal after all. -Greg     Date: 10 Nov 2006 23:34:34 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: : Chris Bellomy wrote: : > : They choose crime because they are lazy. : > : > LAZY?! Do you have any idea how much work is involved? : > : > No, I guess you don't. : : You're right....don't know too much about the labor intensity of drug : dealing. It's like being in war behind enemy lines every day of your life. : > Man, the next time you think about calling yourself a Christian, : > you should go back and read what Jesus had to say about the poor. : > I am totally serious. : : Christ said "the poor will always be with you." Keep reading. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 10 Nov 2006 14:57:51 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! John B. wrote: > One kid is born in the South Bronx to a drug-addicted mother on welfare > and a father in prison. Another is born on the Upper East Side to > wealthy parents with a beach house in the Hamptons. You're saying these > two are equal in the choices that are available to them? Ever heard of Oprah's childhood? -Greg   Date: 10 Nov 2006 14:32:05 From: Herbert Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene wrote: > Chris Bellomy wrote: > > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > > > > : Enjoy! I can't believe you read this google-gobbley-gook. :> In > > : essence, it says that the gap between the poor (most whom choose to > > : stay poor) > > > > Oh good grief. Get real. A lot of poor people choose to risk prison > > and death in order to deal drugs so they can escape poverty. Why? > > Because it's the best chance. > > They choose crime because they are lazy. Dealing drugs is quick money. > Working/educating your way out of poverty is a slow, steady process. > Yep. It usually takes more than one generation to break the poverty cycle. If you grow up poor watching your parents work hard to provide you a chance at a better life, you've got a good chance of breaking the cycle. However if you grow up poor in a home where welfare is an accepted way of life, you might succumb to the notion there really are things in life that are free. If all able-bodied people would understand they are entitled only to what they rightfully earn, there would be no debate here - all segments of society would gladly support the physically dependant and mentally infirm. We could get on with our lives with less government intrusion, and harbour none of this resentment toward the obscene levels of wealth confiscation required to support the ever growing welfare industry. God forbid that the current horde of chronic welfare consumers go through what our parents did during the depression. It would make Katrina look like a fuckin' picnic.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:45:11 From: Tex Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Larry Bud wrote: > Chris Bellomy wrote: > > Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote: > > :> : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? > > :> > > :> As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the > > :> Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. > > : > > : Yeah right, it's so rigged toward the "Rich" that 50% of the country > > : pays 96% of the taxes, > > > > Income tax. They also make 98% of the income. So your only point > > is that you're bad at math. > > Here's another updated chart with more info > > http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7000/Spreadsheets.xls > > See cell Z63. The top 1% earn a 13.2% share of the income but pay 36% > of the taxes as demonstrated earlier. Don't you be surprised when someone tells you it's "not enough, they can afford more" :) Tex     Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:45:57 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote > > Don't you be surprised when someone tells you it's > "not enough, they can afford more" :) The truth is, they can. For those in the upper 1% income bracket, if you were to add another $10,000, $20,000 or even $50,000 to their annual taxes, they'd shrug it off, just like they do whenever they go write a check for a new Lexus to give to their daughter when she turns 16, and never give it a second thought. Contrast that with the family of four living on a cumulative family income -- both mom and dad working -- of, say 35 or 40-thousand dollars a year. Honestly, I don't know how they do it. But one thing's for sure. With a budget that tight, every penny in tax breaks would make a difference in their lives. This is quite unlike the upper 1%, who could mispace $50-thousand at the airport and never break a sweat. Certainly, it wouldn't affect whether they could afford college tuition for their kids, or whether they'd be able to make the mortgage payment next month, or pay for their kids' school clothes (or iPods or designer wardrobe or whatever). You remember that silly thing we refer to as "majority rules?" Well, think about it. The Bush Administration has moved mountains to protect this upper 1% of income earners, while throwing nothing more than a bone to the middle class. Yet the middle class comprises easily 50%, probably way more than 50% of all income earners in the land. Who rules? The majority? Not on Bush's watch, they don't. Look, I hate that government is so expensive. I wish ALL our taxes were lower. But it was Republicans, not Democrats, who ran up the debt in the last 6 years, so talk to them about it. They've been spending money like drunken sailors. They used to call Democrats the "tax and spend liberals." Now, I guess we can call the Republicans the "don't-tax-but-spend-anyway" conservatives. And by the way, what *is* conservative about this outgoing congress, anyway? Randy       Date: 12 Nov 2006 05:44:19 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 11-Nov-2006, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > And by the way, what *is* conservative about this outgoing congress, > anyway? Nothing, that is one reason they took a "thumpin," for claiming to be something they weren't. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.         Date: 12 Nov 2006 11:51:24 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 05:44:19 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: >> And by the way, what *is* conservative about this outgoing congress, >> anyway? > >Nothing, that is one reason they took a "thumpin," for claiming to be >something they weren't. Ironically, the Democrats that were elected last week may actually be more conservative than the Republicans they replaced.           Date: 12 Nov 2006 18:14:13 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: : On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 05:44:19 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > : wrote: : : >> And by the way, what *is* conservative about this outgoing congress, : >> anyway? : > : >Nothing, that is one reason they took a "thumpin," for claiming to be : >something they weren't. : : Ironically, the Democrats that were elected last week may actually be : more conservative than the Republicans they replaced. Yes, if by "conservative" you mean "pro-worker populist." Conservatives are like communists -- they think their ideology can never fail, it can only be failed. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/             Date: 13 Nov 2006 00:51:56 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 12-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > Yes, if by "conservative" you mean "pro-worker populist." Progressive, populist are too often used as code words for socialist. > Conservatives are like communists -- they think their ideology > can never fail, it can only be failed. This is a fault of idealogues in general. Ideas are great, if they can be put into practice. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.               Date: 13 Nov 2006 02:45:21 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: : : On 12-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: : : > Yes, if by "conservative" you mean "pro-worker populist." : : Progressive, populist are too often used as code words for socialist. No offense, Bill, but the only people who confuse progressivism for socialism either don't know what socialism is or don't care. As I told someone in another group: when you can point to Democrats proposing nationalizing a major industry, let me know. Until then, calling Democrats closet socialists is less than appropriate. As for populism, it comes in many flavors. For instance, Pat Buchanan is a right-wing populist. : > Conservatives are like communists -- they think their ideology : > can never fail, it can only be failed. : : This is a fault of idealogues in general. Ideas are great, if they can be : put into practice. I'll give you that. :) -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                 Date: 13 Nov 2006 04:42:35 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 12-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > No offense, Bill, but the only people who confuse progressivism > for socialism either don't know what socialism is or don't care. I'm thinking in particular of certain folk who do this because they lack the cahones to proclaim who they really are. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.                   Date: 13 Nov 2006 05:14:15 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: : : On 12-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: : : > No offense, Bill, but the only people who confuse progressivism : > for socialism either don't know what socialism is or don't care. : : I'm thinking in particular of certain folk who do this because they lack the : cahones to proclaim who they really are. I think what those people really are is craven politicians, not socialists. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                 Date: 13 Nov 2006 12:59:54 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 02:45:21 GMT, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >No offense, Bill, but the only people who confuse progressivism >for socialism either don't know what socialism is or don't care. Besides, a policy is no more right nor wrong because it has a label such as socialism than it would be with a different label.       Date: 12 Nov 2006 01:57:40 From: S McFarlane Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:3Y6dnfcumLpY88vYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews.com... > > And by the way, what *is* conservative about this outgoing congress, > anyway? > Very little. The real losers Tuesday are actual conservatives. Bush & Co. have usurped that title, and it seems to have worked in the public's mind. However, they are polar opposites of conservatives on many issues. No unnecessary foreign adventures; in government, smaller is always better; in private life, less government intrusion is always better; taxes can't be too low, unless this creates a deficit; and so on. It's fine to disagree with the conservative outlook. It's not fine to think you do because you don't care for the current 'conservative' Republican party. Scott   Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:16:07 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote: > :> : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? > :> > :> As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the > :> Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. > : > : Yeah right, it's so rigged toward the "Rich" that 50% of the country > : pays 96% of the taxes, > > Income tax. They also make 98% of the income. So your only point > is that you're bad at math. Here's another updated chart with more info http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7000/Spreadsheets.xls See cell Z63. The top 1% earn a 13.2% share of the income but pay 36% of the taxes as demonstrated earlier.     Date: 10 Nov 2006 21:16:15 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote: : : Chris Bellomy wrote: : > Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote: : > :> : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? : > :> : > :> As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the : > :> Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. : > : : > : Yeah right, it's so rigged toward the "Rich" that 50% of the country : > : pays 96% of the taxes, : > : > Income tax. They also make 98% of the income. So your only point : > is that you're bad at math. : : Here's another updated chart with more info : : http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7000/Spreadsheets.xls : : See cell Z63. The top 1% earn a 13.2% share of the income but pay 36% : of the taxes as demonstrated earlier. First of all, that's reported income, which is a whole different animal than actual income. Secondly, by refusing to talk about all other taxes, you distort the discussion to the point of willful dishonesty. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/       Date: 10 Nov 2006 21:36:47 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:16:15 GMT, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >: See cell Z63. The top 1% earn a 13.2% share of the income but pay 36% >: of the taxes as demonstrated earlier. > >First of all, that's reported income, which is a whole different >animal than actual income. Do you think the rich are the only ones who have unreported income?         Date: 11 Nov 2006 03:33:13 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: : On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:16:15 GMT, Chris Bellomy : <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: : : >: See cell Z63. The top 1% earn a 13.2% share of the income but pay 36% : >: of the taxes as demonstrated earlier. : > : >First of all, that's reported income, which is a whole different : >animal than actual income. : : Do you think the rich are the only ones who have unreported income? It's self-evident that the unreported income of the rich dwarfs the unreported income of the non-rich, just because of the volume of money involved. But also, the rich have a myriad of ways to shelter income that simply aren't available to everybody else. Read "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston for more. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/           Date: 11 Nov 2006 12:24:03 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 03:33:13 GMT, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > But also, the rich have a myriad of ways to >shelter income that simply aren't available to everybody else. Obviously, if you're poor you don't have any money to shelter. I will also say that you don't need to be rich to take advantage of tax laws, you need to be smart. Anyone with even a moderate amount of assets can benefit from wise financial planning.           Date: 11 Nov 2006 14:31:54 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > But also, the rich have a myriad of ways to > shelter income that simply aren't available to everybody else. > Read "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston for more. Did and his "the rich aren't paying their fair share" song got old. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. He also glossed over the EIC fraud problem, which is severe. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.             Date: 11 Nov 2006 16:14:51 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: : : On 10-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: : : > But also, the rich have a myriad of ways to : > shelter income that simply aren't available to everybody else. : > Read "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston for more. : : Did and his "the rich aren't paying their fair share" song got old. You're certainly welcome to find his conclusions irrelevant but that doesn't change the facts he cites to reach them. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/             Date: 11 Nov 2006 11:23:20 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o wrote: > We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. You hit the nail on the head, Billdo. And the Founding Fathers had some pretty profound thoughts about government, actually: Here are some from our greatest Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson: "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. " "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. " "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. " "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. " "Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct. " "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. " "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. " ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson               Date: 11 Nov 2006 20:00:16 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote ... > bill-o wrote: >> We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. > > You hit the nail on the head, Billdo. And the Founding Fathers had some > pretty profound thoughts about government, actually: Here are some from > our greatest Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson: > > > "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are > willing to work and give to those who would not. " Get with the program. The prevailing thought among liberals these days is not to give to those who would not work, but instead to educate them so they would have the ability to find work. Oddly, many conservatives consider this a "handout." > "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain > occasions > that I wish it to be always kept alive. " So why is it whenever liberals dissented against this administration, they were labeled by members of this administration and its supporters as "unpatriotic?" > "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to > gain ground. " Is that what you're advocating? I sure hope not. > "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the > government fears the people, there is liberty. " Tell that to your arrogant president. You know, "the decider." > "Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in > his conduct. " I agree. Whatever happened to those who actually viewed public service as a noble endeavor, instead of as a means to fatten their wallets? > "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those > entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it > into tyranny. " Amen. And that's true of both Repubicans and Democrats. It's why, over the course of history, the nation has periodically shifted from one party's dominance to the other's. It's a truly remarkable self-correcting mechanism we have in place. > "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the > people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. " We'll see. That was certainly true from 2001-2006. And I say that not because the Republicans were in power, but because the President's closest advisors persuaded him to abandon his "uniter, not a divider" approach that left the vast majority of Texans believing he was truly a gifted leader, capable of bringing warring factions together. Instead, the Karl Roves and Ken Mehlmans of the Republican leadership persuaded Bush to play to his so-called base, the ultra-right wing of the party. In doing so, he moved far from the middle. Much is made of his "No Child Left Behind" bill that was a bipartisan effort with Ted Kennedy and his prescription drug plan (which is the biggest debt-producing bill in history). Indeed, these two pieces of legislations were the result of bipartisan effort. Both were during his first term. But even most Republicans will admit that Bush has done very little since then in the way of reaching out across party lines, choosing instead to cater to the far right of the Republican party. So, indeed, throughout most of his term thus far, Thomas Jefferson's statement you quoted above applied to Bush's administration. In terms of being a "uniter, not a divider," Bush has proven to be more effective than we previously thought. He united the world against America as a result of his arrogant foreign policy, and in 2006, united the nation to vote against his party in the recent election. But somehow, I don't think that's what he had in mind. Assuming he has a mind. Randy             Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:48:15 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote > > Did and his "the rich aren't paying their fair share" song got old. We > don't > have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. > He also glossed over the EIC fraud problem, which is severe. I would agree with that to an extent. However, I would argue that we have a PRIORITIES problem. I say that because whenever congress goes to cut spending, they invariably cut programs that might actually help people, while continuing to hide their earmarks in spending bills to add fat to the budget. As in "the Bridge to Nowhere." Randy               Date: 12 Nov 2006 05:48:19 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 11-Nov-2006, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > I would agree with that to an extent. However, I would argue that we have > a > PRIORITIES problem. I say that because whenever congress goes to cut > spending, they invariably cut programs that might actually help people, > while continuing to hide their earmarks in spending bills to add fat to > the > budget. > > As in "the Bridge to Nowhere." Can't argue with you there. The outgoing gang didn't mind doling out our cash as long as it helped extend or consolidate their power base. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.                 Date: 12 Nov 2006 10:44:17 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message news:4556b5a1$0$17448$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... > > On 11-Nov-2006, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: > >> I would agree with that to an extent. However, I would argue that we >> have >> a >> PRIORITIES problem. I say that because whenever congress goes to cut >> spending, they invariably cut programs that might actually help people, >> while continuing to hide their earmarks in spending bills to add fat to >> the >> budget. >> >> As in "the Bridge to Nowhere." > > Can't argue with you there. The outgoing gang didn't mind doling out our > cash as long as it helped extend or consolidate their power base. And therein lies the problem. Power corrupts. Especially when one party is in power in both the executive and legislative branches, with no one (but us voters) to oversee them. As has been said many times on TV in the last week, by both the right and the left, we're better off with a divided government. It forces both sides to compromise somewhat. Y'know, in retrospect, I find that the thing that most annoyed the left from '01 to '06 was not so much that they lost all those elections, but the fact that the Bush Administration, which was originally voted into office with fewer popular votes than the man who didn't win the election, had an opportunity to be a truly bipartisan president and reach out to an electorate that consisted of more people who voted for his opponent than voted for him. But instead of being bipartisan, Bush gave in to the forces of his advisors and retreated to his ultra-conservative base, turning a deaf ear to anyone in the middle or on the left. And Congress was even worse. With their Republican majority, they simply ignored the middle and the left. I take a lot of heat from ignorant a--holes here who say I'm a liberal. I'm really not. I'm fairly centrist. I lean to the left on some issues, and I lean to the right on some issues. I'm for limited government, lower taxes, strong national defense. But I'm also for helping the poor, and I don't believe that merely holding a carrot in front of their heads while dismantling the infrastructure that helped many poor people climb the ladder in the last 30 years is necessarily helpful. I don't believe that our foreign policy has shown strength; it has shown stubbornness, arrogance and lack of planning -- and I'm guessing the Baker Commission's report, which will be made public soon, will bear that out. And certainly, when it comes to limited government, this administration hasn't figured out the meaning of the term. The real paradigm shift in recent years that has transformed the Republican party is a redefinition of "conservative." The father of the conservative movement in America, Barry Goldwater, had it right in many ways -- he wanted less government intruding in our lives to ensure the protection of individual liberty. Goldwater, once thought to be the most conservative politician in America, eventually came to support a woman's right to choose, and he supported gays in the military -- exactly the opposite view of the modern-day "conservative" movement which wants the government interfering in a woman's right to decide how best to deal with pregnancy issues in her own body, and which, if given the opportunity, would have the government peeping through keyholes to spy on Americans -- especially the queers -- to make sure they're not doing anything that Jerry Falwell wouldn't endorse. This modern-day "conservative" movement is not only not fiscally conservative, it is also in favor of the most intrusive form of government we've seen in America -- a government that gets involved in bedroom issues. tells people who they can and can't marry, and even passes laws targeted at specific issues of a single family like what we saw in the Terri Shaivo case, where they have no business whatsoever butting in. A conservative was once a person who wanted the government to butt out of all issues pertaining to individual liberties. But today's conservative movement, which is completely beholden to the religious right because so much of their campaign contributions and votes come from the religious right, is not at all about small government or government that stays out of our personal business. They have redefined "conservative values" to mean "puritanical, Bible-based values." Some like to remind us that America is based upon Judeo-Christian values. What they fail to remember is that when the President is inaugurated, he places his hand on the Bible and swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...", he doesn't place his hand on the Constitution and swear to preserve, protect and defend the Bible. But when you don't have oversight, as the nation hasn't had since January of 2001, this is what you get -- extremists running amuck. Thank goodness those days are over. Randy                   Date: 12 Nov 2006 18:16:04 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: : Some like to remind us that America is based upon Judeo-Christian values. Which, of course, it's not. It was founded by neo-classicists. If anything, it's based on ancient Greek values. But don't tell the fundies that. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                     Date: 12 Nov 2006 19:23:32 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:16:04 GMT, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >: Some like to remind us that America is based upon Judeo-Christian values. > >Which, of course, it's not. It was founded by neo-classicists. >If anything, it's based on ancient Greek values. But don't tell >the fundies that. At one time they claimed it was Christian values, but then it became popular to include Jews. Interesting thing though that if we include Jews, why not Muslims? And of course Judeo-Christian values of today in our country only have passing resemblance to those values of the past. It isn't the scriptures that have changed, but it is how we pretend that our values are what God intended all along.                       Date: 12 Nov 2006 23:46:37 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote: : On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:16:04 GMT, Chris Bellomy : <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: : : >: Some like to remind us that America is based upon Judeo-Christian values. : > : >Which, of course, it's not. It was founded by neo-classicists. : >If anything, it's based on ancient Greek values. But don't tell : >the fundies that. : : At one time they claimed it was Christian values, Who? Our Founders? No. That's simply false. They made it explicitly clear that this country was *not* founded as a Christian nation. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                       Date: 12 Nov 2006 15:20:00 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Howard Brazee wrote: > And of course Judeo-Christian values of today in our country only have > passing resemblance to those values of the past There is such a profound difference between Judaism and Christianity that I suspect there should not be a contraction called "Judeo-Christianity". Judaism evolved from the Hebrews; who started out as polytheists. Christianity has never had a period of polytheism. Additionally; most Jews are not messianic; and of course the whole basis of Christianity is messianism. Christians believe in Hell; and Jews do not. And there are other more subtle differences; but you see my point. Is anyone watching football today? These Falcons stink. It's depressing. :-( -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                         Date: 12 Nov 2006 22:32:54 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:20:00 -0500, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote: >Is anyone watching football today? These Falcons stink. It's depressing. >:-( The Broncos are behind the lowly Raiders at half time. One nice thing for Falcons fans - even when they lose, they are entertaining.       Date: 12 Nov 2006 14:37:50 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Howard Brazee wrote: > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:20:00 -0500, "Head Shot" > <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote: > > >Is anyone watching football today? These Falcons stink. It's depressing. > >:-( > > The Broncos are behind the lowly Raiders at half time. > > One nice thing for Falcons fans - even when they lose, they are > entertaining. The Redskins took their usual ass-whipping. They just flat-out suck. I sold all my season tickets and I'm glad I did.         Date: 12 Nov 2006 18:15:58 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 12 Nov 2006 14:37:50 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >Howard Brazee wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:20:00 -0500, "Head Shot" >> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote: >> >> >Is anyone watching football today? These Falcons stink. It's depressing. >> >:-( >> >> The Broncos are behind the lowly Raiders at half time. >> >> One nice thing for Falcons fans - even when they lose, they are >> entertaining. > >The Redskins took their usual ass-whipping. They just flat-out suck. I >sold all my season tickets and I'm glad I did. I'm happy, my Jets beat the Pats in Foxboro in a thriller.     Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:36:30 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1163189767.659590.106260@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Chris Bellomy wrote: >> Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote: >> :> : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? >> :> >> :> As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the >> :> Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. >> : >> : Yeah right, it's so rigged toward the "Rich" that 50% of the country >> : pays 96% of the taxes, >> >> Income tax. They also make 98% of the income. So your only point >> is that you're bad at math. > > Here's another updated chart with more info > > http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7000/Spreadsheets.xls > > See cell Z63. The top 1% earn a 13.2% share of the income but pay 36% > of the taxes as demonstrated earlier. And they could afford to pay a 38 or 40% tax rate without it ever affecting them one iota. They throw money away like yesterday's newspaper. But those families of three, four or more who live on 25, 30 or even 40 thousand a year would benefit from every penny saved in taxes, and deserve more of a tax break, if for no other reason than because they are the majority of the people who live in this country. That's the reality that you greedy-ass, conservative, protect-the-wealthy cretins don't get. And there is a special place in hell awaiting you. Randy       Date: 13 Nov 2006 10:59:45 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:daqdnS4GhNUT8cvYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > And they could afford to pay a 38 or 40% tax rate without it ever > affecting them one iota. They throw money away like yesterday's > newspaper. This is just plain ridiculous. Just where the hell to you get this crap anyway. So how much is enough, 75%, 90%? > > > That's the reality that you greedy-ass, conservative, protect-the-wealthy > cretins don't get. And there is a special place in hell awaiting you. > You're pathetic and hopeless.         Date: 13 Nov 2006 18:03:08 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote: : : ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message : news:daqdnS4GhNUT8cvYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com... : > : > : > And they could afford to pay a 38 or 40% tax rate without it ever : > affecting them one iota. They throw money away like yesterday's : > newspaper. : : This is just plain ridiculous. Just where the hell to you get this crap : anyway. : So how much is enough, 75%, 90%? Hmm, this country peaked when it was pretty close to 75%, but I'd settle for 50%. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:08:18 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Lloyd Parsons wrote: > In article <1163182790.790540.181490@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > > In article <1163177312.326085.184820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? > > > > > > > > > > As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the > > > > > Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. > > > > > > > > Yeah right, it's so rigged toward the "Rich" that 50% of the country > > > > pays 96% of the taxes, and the top 1% pay 36.89% of the taxes, the top > > > > 5% pay 57% of the taxes. Yeah right, real rigged. > > > > > > > > http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in05tr.xls > > > > > > > > See cell C170 > > > > > > > > Why do you think government bureaucrats know how to spend your money > > > > better than you do? > > > > > > How much of the wealth of the country does that 1% represent? > > > > When we have a wealth tax, your point is valid. Today it is an income > > tax. > > > > Tex > > OK, then how much of the INCOME (and I mean all income, not just wage > earned stuff), does that 1% represent? See my reply to Chris about effective tax rates.     Date: 10 Nov 2006 16:04:13 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! In article <1163189297.907377.259290@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > In article <1163182790.790540.181490@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > > > In article <1163177312.326085.184820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income > > > > > > : rises? > > > > > > > > > > > > As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the > > > > > > Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah right, it's so rigged toward the "Rich" that 50% of the country > > > > > pays 96% of the taxes, and the top 1% pay 36.89% of the taxes, the > > > > > top > > > > > 5% pay 57% of the taxes. Yeah right, real rigged. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in05tr.xls > > > > > > > > > > See cell C170 > > > > > > > > > > Why do you think government bureaucrats know how to spend your money > > > > > better than you do? > > > > > > > > How much of the wealth of the country does that 1% represent? > > > > > > When we have a wealth tax, your point is valid. Today it is an income > > > tax. > > > > > > Tex > > > > OK, then how much of the INCOME (and I mean all income, not just wage > > earned stuff), does that 1% represent? > > See my reply to Chris about effective tax rates. Doesn't reflect an answer to my question. All income, earned and unearned, not just earned for income tax reasons.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:07:26 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote: > :> : Thieves, as in higher taxes, which you'll face if your income rises? > :> > :> As in higher taxes, which you face as time goes by as the > :> Republicans keep rejiggering the tax code to their favor. > : > : Yeah right, it's so rigged toward the "Rich" that 50% of the country > : pays 96% of the taxes, > > Income tax. No shit, income tax. See the part above when someone mentions "income". >They also make 98% of the income. So your only point is that you're bad at math. Nonsense. I wish I could say how suprised I am that you're uninformed, but I'm not surprised. To believe what you say, the effective tax rate for all incomes would be virtually the same. So here you go. If you don't understand this, look up the term "effective tax rate". http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5324&sequence=0#table1A The lowest 60% of tax payers pay a NEGATIVE 1.4% effective tax rate.. i.e., they get a 1.4% tax CREDIT. The next 20% pay 7.2%, and the highest 20% pay 16.3%   Date: 10 Nov 2006 11:58:34 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! > One irony I find interesting. Hispanic voters overwhelmingly voted > Democratic, due to anger over immigration reform. So what are the Dems > going to do about this? Continue to pay for the health, education, > etc. of illegals or shut down the border and risk losing a voting bloc? > > Hmmm......I'm beginning to enjoy having the Dems in control. They're going to try to grant Amenesty for all illegals who are here. Yes, we are all going to pay for it. Unfortunately, we also have a President that will sign in an amnesty bill. We're fucked. All I'm wishing for is pure gridlock for 2 years.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 11:23:05 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene wrote: > Chris Bellomy wrote: > > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > > > > : Enjoy! I can't believe you read this google-gobbley-gook. :> In > > : essence, it says that the gap between the poor (most whom choose to > > : stay poor) > > > > Oh good grief. Get real. A lot of poor people choose to risk prison > > and death in order to deal drugs so they can escape poverty. Why? > > Because it's the best chance. > > They choose crime because they are lazy. Dealing drugs is quick money. > Working/educating your way out of poverty is a slow, steady process. > > > Choose to stay poor? My God. How disconnected can you be? > > Poor people in 3rd world countries are often stuck....nowhere to go. > But that's not the case in our country. Any normal human being can > make it here if he/she chooses to. There are plenty of people who came > out of the ghetto because they shirked drugs and crime while working > their asses off, getting educated and taking jobs on the bottom of the > pole. Ed Bradley did it!! > > Conversely, there are people who come from middle class backgrounds and > choose to lose it all. A golf buddy of mine was killed in Mexico last > May. Father of six, successful business owner, world by the tail kind > of guy. Three years ago, he took a dose of Meth and got hooked. Lost > his business, family, ended up in prison, ran from parole to Mexico, > and then was shot in a drug deal gone bad. > > Point is....he made choices. Everyone in America faces these choices. > > -Greg One kid is born in the South Bronx to a drug-addicted mother on welfare and a father in prison. Another is born on the Upper East Side to wealthy parents with a beach house in the Hamptons. You're saying these two are equal in the choices that are available to them?     Date: 10 Nov 2006 22:12:59 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 10 Nov 2006 11:23:05 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >One kid is born in the South Bronx to a drug-addicted mother on welfare >and a father in prison. Another is born on the Upper East Side to >wealthy parents with a beach house in the Hamptons. You're saying these >two are equal in the choices that are available to them? Personally, I'd rather be a smart black kid from the South Bronx than a dumb white kid from the UES. All things being equal, the white kid has a better chance of making it. But one of the reasons is that white kid's parents made the right decision before he was born. They worked hard to get their beach house and passed their advantage on to their kids. Nevertheless, any black kid with half a brain who works hard in school and stays out of trouble can do very well. There were, and still are, lots of immigrant groups who come to this country with nothing and they do very well. One of the reasons is that many of them work hard in menial jobs to get ahead so their kids wont have to. Success in this country is often a multigenerational project. If you want to look for someone to blame for the problems that black kid from the South Bronx faces, you needn't go any farther than his mother and his father.   Date: 10 Nov 2006 11:14:16 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! sfb wrote: > Congressional Republicans now becomes a former member of Congress who > happens to belong to the Republican Party. Now there's a dumb response. Every bill has a sponsor. In this case it was Schaefer. His bill had a dozen or so co-sponsors, all of whom were Republicans. OK? > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1163181650.228142.234450@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >> In article <1163172429.775377.228150@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, > >> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > sfb wrote: > >> > > Individuals who happen to be Democrats and Republicans have advocated > >> > > a > >> > > nation sales or VAT tax. Neither party has ever included it in their > >> > > national platforms. > >> > > > >> > Congressional Republicans, while in the majority, have introduced > >> > legislation to scrap the income tax and replace it with a national > >> > sales tax. It has gone nowhere. > >> > >> You keep saying that, but I cannot find any reference to actual > >> legislation introduced. I know it was discussed. > >> > >> Please provide a link or something to support your contention. > > > > > > Rep. Dan Schaefer, R-Colo., (no longer in Congress) introduced a > > national sales tax bill several yrs. ago. I was present at the press > > conference when he introduced it. It was a flop. > >   Date: 11 Nov 2006 22:05:26 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris, 1. Please explain how repealing NAFTA, withdrawing from WTO, will "give him a job that actually pays something? 2. You state, "yes, there are lots of jobs out there that do not provide the means to make a living. That's the problem." A person working 40 hrs/wk. on minimum wage will gross $1250/mo., probably netting $1100/mo. Shared housing will cost him $300-$400, food/clothing, $300, public transportation, $100. That leaves $300 to $400. (Enough to feed a family....no....but one on minimum wage shouldn't be spawning. If he is, then mom needs to work too or receive temporary public assistance). If more money is required, then what's so wrong about moonlighting another 20 hours. Plenty of people in our parent's generation did. What are you proposing, Chris. This same individual needs to make $2000/mo. at a minimum? I agree...but it should be earned, not given. Any person who works hard will eventually be noticed and rewarded accordingly. Name me an industry that keeps it's employees at minimum wage. 3. You state, "You believe that one's station in live should be determined by the circumstances of his birth. If you're born rich, yay, you're rich and you don't have to work. If you're born poor and you stay poor, fuck you, it's because you *want* to be poor. Right? Wrong. I think those who are born rich and do nothing beneficial with their fortune are among the worse losers in our society. If you are born poor, in this country, and remain poor, then ultimately it was due to their choices. It's their right. Our task is to give them the opportunities to rise above, if they want to. If they don't, then we must insure they are fed, have decent housing, and are treated respectfully and equally within the laws of our country. -Greg   Date: 11 Nov 2006 21:43:26 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "R&B" wrote: > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote > > > > Did and his "the rich aren't paying their fair share" song got old. We > > don't > > have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. > > He also glossed over the EIC fraud problem, which is severe. > > > I would agree with that to an extent. However, I would argue that we have a > PRIORITIES problem. I say that because whenever congress goes to cut > spending, they invariably cut programs that might actually help people, > while continuing to hide their earmarks in spending bills to add fat to the > budget. > > As in "the Bridge to Nowhere." > > Randy I think it's time to question how "lean" these social programs are. I have a client which is a social agency of roughly 20 employees, supported mostly by Federal grants. Their task is to provide programs for physically handicapped people. Yet when you visit their spacious digs, one cannot help but observe most employees sitting around. In discussing their employee benefits, one message was loud and clear...."we want the best!" No deductibles, alternative care, etc., regardless of price. It's their entitlement. Most of my group accounts are businesses, large and small. There isn't one employer/group administrator who has that attitude. They want the best that money can buy, which often entails a deductible. Why can't social agencies, colleges, other public institutions be as lean as small businesses? In Oregon, they often are, because Oregon's legislature is required to balance the budget. Federally funded agencies.....different story. -Greg   Date: 11 Nov 2006 21:31:56 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! annika1980 wrote: > Dene wrote: > > Here's a challenge for you Chris. You're a popular guy here. Put out > > a poll among RSG, which is a microcosm of our society. Ask us one > > question. Are you better off right now than your parents were at your > > age? I bet you a sleeve of golf balls that 80% will say yes. > > > > That's America, baby. It's the way it supposed to be! > > Count me among the unwashed 20%. But will it be that way in 5, 10, 15 years from now? Betcha you'll be fine. -Greg   Date: 11 Nov 2006 21:29:07 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "R&B" wrote: > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote > > > > Poor people in 3rd world countries are often stuck....nowhere to go. > > But that's not the case in our country. Any normal human being can > > make it here if he/she chooses to. > > > That's true, and I won't argue that it's not. > > But while both you and I (and probably most people we know) are fully aware > of this, we know it only because we've lived that reality. > > To those who live in parts of the country where opportunity is not so great, > or their skillset limits their earnings potential, they have a different > reality. And in the worst cases, their reality, based on their life > experiences, tell them there's no way out -- short of doing things you and > I, based on our realities, would never even consider. > > It's not enough to simply acknowledge something as fact in order to make it > so in certain people's lives. You must first change THEIR paradigm of what > is possible. And speaking as a condescending asshole to them (which I'm not > accusing you of doing, but your "everybody know this" attitude is fairly > indicative of the kind of behavior I'm referring to) does nothing to change > their reality. We agree far more than we disagree. As for paradigm, sure the kid from a disfunctional family is experiencing nightmarish stuff, forcing a child to go into survival mode. That's a tragedy. I saw it first hand when I worked with sexually abused kids. BUT.....there are voices in our society, particularily within education, that are screaming loud too, saying "study hard", "say no to drugs", "trust good people (teachers, clergy, social workers)", "emulate peers" who have changed their lives (Ed Bradley, Oprah, etc). In the 3rd world, there are few voices like this and consequently, few choices. We as Americans need to insure all our children have choices.....to be better than their parents. > Dene, I could tell you today that you could be an astronaut. (Some would > say you already are a space cadet, and who am I to argue?) <g> But I'm not > entirely sure you, even with your vast education, would know quite where to > begin to get there, assuming you wanted to. At the very least, it would > require a daunting amount of commitment of your time. Now factor in an > ingredient of hopelessness that might have been taught to you by your > parents from the day you were born. Maybe you would see past that and rise > above. Maybe you wouldn't. But either way, your frame of reference -- > indeed, your reality -- would be different. That's what we're talking > about. I don't have the capacity or eyesight to be an astronaut but I always knew that I could succeed in whatever I chose, IF it was within my capacity. > Ask ANY successful entrepreneur or motivational speaker, from Tony Robbins > to anyone else you can think of. They will all tell you that the key to > achieving anything in life is first SEEING YOURSELF ACHIEVING IT. That's > where the disconnect lies, Dene. You and I, because we HAVE achieved > something in our lives, know how to visualize success. But many who haven't > been so fortunate, don't have the first clue how to see themselves in that > position, let alone achieve it. > > Education. That's the answer. You're absolutely correct. We learn in two basic ways. Someone telling us or the harder way, experiencing it ourselves. In education, ALL children are given opportunities to learn from and emulate those who have succeeded. These voices are there in all facets of our society. 30 years ago, different story. People were poor and remained poor because of race barriers, poor schools, high unemployment. I don't think that is the case in this country anymore. > But to simply dismiss those who don't already "know" is like turning your > back on a child because they don't know how to walk yet. I don't mean to > make lazy people sound quite as warm and fuzzy as a crawling child. > Clearly, they are not. If someone is lazy, it doesn't matter how much > education they have. But not all poor people are lazy, and to paint poor > people with such a broad brush is insulting and unfair, not to mention > intellectually dishonest. I think that a normal (reasonable intelligence, physically and mentally able) American who is chronically poor ultimately chooses to remain poor, by being lazy, having no ambition, choosing addictions, etc. Again, the key word is "chronically" poor. Twelve years ago, I mentored an acquaintance into the insurance business. A single woman with 3 kids under 10, two who were emotionally handicapped. She had a deadbeat ex, three failed marriages, and was bankrupt, getting public assistance. In two years, she was making 5k/mo. She raised her children, got married to a great guy, and is retiring to warm places at the age of 48. I'm buying her book of business, which now produces 7k/mo. She had every excuse to stay on welfare but she made choices not to. There are millions of Americans who have similar stories. Bottom line....I don't have a problem with being poor. I question why one remains poor. It's like saying all Southerners are stupid -- > and since most of the South is still Republican (about the only part of the > country remaining that is), I'm assuming you don't believe that. You forget Wyoming. > As I mentioned in my other post in this thread, I don't necessarily believe > in handouts, but there's something inherantly American, if not downright > human (in the best possible way), about lending a hand and offering it to > assist someone in lifting themselves up. Look it up. It's in the Bible, > too. Agree. Teach someone how to fish. It's right in front of every able American's nose. -Greg   Date: 11 Nov 2006 20:59:04 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > : Let's presume these words are true. What are your specific solutions > : to help these people? > > Revise the tax codes such that earned income is taxed the least, Flat tax? > revise trade practices such that American manufacturing is > protected and thus rebuilt, Repeal NAFTA? Withdraw from WTO? How will this help the poor kid on the street? By giving him a job? UE is less than 5%. There are jobs out there. It's a question of whether one wants to work. and in short quit electing Republicans > who don't give a rat's ass about working people and instead elect > Democrats who believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, > you should be able to get ahead. Republicans (like me) don't believe in playing by the rules and in hard work?? What rules are you referring to. How does one care for working people? Isn't it the poor, forced-to-be-a-drug dealer, the concern here? You're quoting cliches, Chris. -Greg     Date: 12 Nov 2006 05:20:20 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: : : Chris Bellomy wrote: : > : Let's presume these words are true. What are your specific solutions : > : to help these people? : > : > Revise the tax codes such that earned income is taxed the least, : : Flat tax? I'm open to that as long as the first $LARGE_CHUNK of income is exempt from tax for everybody. In general, though, countries with flat taxes tend to be banana republics. Those with progressive tax structures have far superior economic mobility. : > revise trade practices such that American manufacturing is : > protected and thus rebuilt, : : Repeal NAFTA? Withdraw from WTO? Bingo. : How will this help the poor kid on : the street? By giving him a job? By giving him a job that actually pays something. : UE is less than 5%. Meaningless stat for this discussion, as you're ignoring discouraged workers and wage growth. : There are jobs : out there. It's a question of whether one wants to work. Yes, there are lots of jobs out there that do not provide the means to make a living. That's the problem. : and in short quit electing Republicans : > who don't give a rat's ass about working people and instead elect : > Democrats who believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, : > you should be able to get ahead. : : Republicans (like me) don't believe in playing by the rules and in hard : work?? What rules are you referring to. You believe that one's station in live should be determined by the circumstances of his birth. If you're born rich, yay, you're rich and you don't have to work. If you're born poor and you stay poor, fuck you, it's because you *want* to be poor. Right? -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/       Date: From: Subject:       Date: 13 Nov 2006 00:46:02 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 12-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > You believe that one's station in live should be determined by > the circumstances of his birth. If you're born rich, yay, you're > rich and you don't have to work. If you're born poor and you > stay poor, fuck you, it's because you *want* to be poor. Right? If anyone in the US believes this they should go back to Europe, cause that was one of the things we fled from. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.         Date: 13 Nov 2006 02:40:58 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: : : On 12-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: : : > You believe that one's station in live should be determined by : > the circumstances of his birth. If you're born rich, yay, you're : > rich and you don't have to work. If you're born poor and you : > stay poor, fuck you, it's because you *want* to be poor. Right? : : If anyone in the US believes this they should go back to Europe, cause that : was one of the things we fled from. Except that they don't believe it anymore. You'd need to go to Asia or Latin America to find societies like that today. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 11 Nov 2006 20:44:51 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Head Shot wrote: > Dene wrote: > > Head Shot wrote: > >> Last fill-up the other day I paid $1.98 for 87 octane. Way better > >> than that one day a year or two ago that I paid something like $4.99. > >> > > > > Where do you live? I'm moving.... > > > Georgia. $1.97 as of this morning; but I got some today for $1.91 > because I used my Kroger's card. > > http://www.georgiagasprices.com/ > > > If you think gasoline is inexpensive; then housing prices will push you > over the edge. A brand new 2,500 sq. ft. colonial with 4 bedrooms, 3.5 > baths, 3 car garage, and 10 year home warranty on about an acre of land > will run you about $140,000 if you live about 30 miles out from Atlanta (45 > minute commute to the city). I noticed that a couple of years ago when I visited Atlanta. We intend to visit Savannah, hopefully this year, perhaps invest in some property there with the possibility of wintering there 10 years from now. What are the prices like around there? Given Georgia's mild winters, I would think the retiring boomers would start noticing, just like they have in Palm Springs, Arizona, and Florida. -Greg     Date: 11 Nov 2006 23:54:53 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> If you think gasoline is inexpensive; then housing prices will push >> you over the edge. A brand new 2,500 sq. ft. colonial with 4 >> bedrooms, 3.5 baths, 3 car garage, and 10 year home warranty on >> about an acre of land will run you about $140,000 if you live about >> 30 miles out from Atlanta (45 minute commute to the city). > > I noticed that a couple of years ago when I visited Atlanta. > > We intend to visit Savannah, hopefully this year, perhaps invest in > some property there with the possibility of wintering there 10 years > from now. What are the prices like around there? > Given Georgia's mild winters, I would think the retiring boomers would > start noticing, just like they have in Palm Springs, Arizona, and > Florida. Depending how close to the water you need to be; you can get something new for about $250K. I am west of Atlanta by about 30 miles. In 2000 I paid about $2K per acre (bought 66 acres so I got a good deal) and my understanding is that now acreage is running $15K to $20K or so. I'm gonna sit on it until I retire and then probably head to the Caribbean (love to snorkel) or to Europe (wife wants to die there and not in USA). -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 11 Nov 2006 20:40:38 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! annika1980 wrote: > Dene wrote: > > My original point was that our > > economic atmosphere to prosper in our country is ripe for the taking, > > providing you make the right choices and have enough time. > > And have the right opportunities. > > My wife teaches in one of the poorest inner city schools in the city. > Most of those kids there have two strikes against them when they get > there. > It's hard to expect them to just "work hard and everything will be > great" when nobody they know is a success except the drug dealer on the > corner. I'm not saying it's a tough school, but they had Parent's > Night last week and one of the parents got arrested at the school. > I ain't makin this up! On most Parent's Nights a class of 20 might get > 1 parent and 1 or 2 grandmothers to show up. That's it. That must have been some night. I'm not saying it's easy for these kids but it's probable that there are caring people in most of these kid's life, outside of the family. People like your wife for example. If an adolescent can realize this, then it's one more person who will choose to "make it." > >IOW, there is more right with America than wrong. > > I agree with that. > > > >That hasn't always been the case, particularily in the 70's and early 80's. > > I disagree with that. I'd say the turning point was after the Civil > Rights movement in the 60's. I was thinking in terms of economics. The 70's and early 80's were marked by high inflation, unemployment, upheavals in key industries (steel, wood products, automobiles), gas shortages, and later, double digit interest rates. Socially speaking, I agree with you. -Greg   Date: 11 Nov 2006 13:59:26 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > : > : John B. wrote: > :> Dene wrote: > :> > John B. wrote: > :> > > :> > > One kid is born in the South Bronx to a drug-addicted mother on welfare > :> > > and a father in prison. Another is born on the Upper East Side to > :> > > wealthy parents with a beach house in the Hamptons. You're saying these > :> > > two are equal in the choices that are available to them? > :> > > :> > Ever heard of Oprah's childhood? > :> > > :> > -Greg > :> > :> > :> that doesn't even begin to answer the question. > : > : Jack Hollis did it for me. Oprah is just one of thousand, if not > : millions of examples, who made better choices than those around them. > > Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose > pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? > > What about the working families whose wage earners became > seriously ill, or whose children became seriously ill. Did > they make bad choices? > > It's the height of indifference to point to a statistical > outlier like Oprah and say, "See! Anybody could do that!" The > market can bear only so many Oprahs, and you know it. You're being too kind, Chris. To say it's simply a matter of making "choices" is worse than indifferent. I made some profoundly bad choices in my youth and young adulthood, got kicked out of two schools, almost got kicked out of two others, but still managed to cobble together a reasonaby successful and prosperous life. I've had a lot of luck in spite of my bad choices. I also had parents who loved and cared about me and did everything they could to help me survive my adolesecence. They were also rich and could afford to pay for psychiatric treatment for me. Kids who are born into poverty face all kinds of obstacles that can prevent them from understanding good choices from bad ones. Obstacles like physical, sexual or emotional abuse, depression, ADD, fetal alcohol syndrome and other mental and psychological problems. And they can have parents who, themselves, are too screwed up to care about them and try to raise them responsibly. I live in a big city and I have seen lots of poor black and Latino kids who seem more like they were raised by wolves than by parents. Poor kids who are poorly raised are much more likely to be screwed up and unable to make good choices than kids that are well off and have parents who love and nurture them.   Date: 11 Nov 2006 13:59:03 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > : > : John B. wrote: > :> Dene wrote: > :> > John B. wrote: > :> > > :> > > One kid is born in the South Bronx to a drug-addicted mother on welfare > :> > > and a father in prison. Another is born on the Upper East Side to > :> > > wealthy parents with a beach house in the Hamptons. You're saying these > :> > > two are equal in the choices that are available to them? > :> > > :> > Ever heard of Oprah's childhood? > :> > > :> > -Greg > :> > :> > :> that doesn't even begin to answer the question. > : > : Jack Hollis did it for me. Oprah is just one of thousand, if not > : millions of examples, who made better choices than those around them. > > Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose > pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? > > What about the working families whose wage earners became > seriously ill, or whose children became seriously ill. Did > they make bad choices? > > It's the height of indifference to point to a statistical > outlier like Oprah and say, "See! Anybody could do that!" The > market can bear only so many Oprahs, and you know it. You're being too kind, Chris. To say it's simply a matter of making "choices" is worse than indifferent. I made some profoundly bad choices in my youth and young adulthood, got kicked out of two schools, almost got kicked out of two others, but still managed to cobble together a reasonaby successful and prosperous life. I've had a lot of luck in spite of my bad choices. I also had parents who loved and cared about me and did everything they could to help me survive my adolesecence. They were also rich and could afford to pay for psychiatric treatment for me. Kids who are born into poverty face all kinds of obstacles that can prevent them from understanding good choices from bad ones. Obstacles like physical, sexual or emotional abuse, depression, ADD, fetal alcohol syndrome and other mental and psychological problems. And they can have parents who, themselves, are too screwed up to care about them and try to raise them responsibly. I live in a big city and I have seen lots of poor black and Latino kids who seem more like they were raised by wolves than by parents. Poor kids who are poorly raised are much more likely to be screwed up than kids that are well off and have parents who love and nurture them.   Date: 11 Nov 2006 13:42:29 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o wrote: > On 10-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Second, the one I knew > > about, which was introduced several yrs. ago, had no provision for a > > rebate on taxation of necessities. > > > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.25: > > see section 301 > > > >And what a ridiculous idea that is, > >anyway. What is the point of creating an expensive bureaucracy to > >extend rebates to poor people instead of not taxing those necessities > >to begin with? > > First it is not a rebate, it is a prebate. Secondly, there is already a > bureaucracy there that, with some trimming, could do the job just fine: the > SSA as the social security tax will be eliminated it can take on the > issuance of the prebate along with the benefits checks. > > >No one should pay taxes on food and medicine, rich or poor. > > No, No one should have to pay taxes on the necessities of life: basic food, > clothing, shelter etc. Above that, fancy tastes included, you pay taxes on > it. > > > And a national sales tax doesn't tax wealth, it taxes > >consumption. > > Show me the difference: the wealthy consume more, so they pay more tax. > > > >So, if a person with an annual income of $100,000 makes > >the same purchase as a person with annual income of $25,000, > > Don't you mean purchases? And when is that going to happen? > > >the former pays a smaller proportion of his income in tax than the latter. > >That is > >regressive taxation and it's unfair. > > And our current taxation regime is? It taxes hard work, thrift and sound > financial decision making in general. You ASSume the fair tax is regressive > because you are ignorant of it. Read up a bit. Maybe I am. But consider the following. Say you make $100K a year and you buy a $5000 car. The national sales tax is 20% so your total cost is $6000. Say I make $50K a year and I buy an identical car for the same price and same tax. You have paid 0.1% of your annual income in tax and I have spent 0.2% of mine. Is that not regressive? >     Date: 12 Nov 2006 05:40:24 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 11-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > Maybe I am. But consider the following. Say you make $100K a year and > you buy a $5000 car. The national sales tax is 20% so your total cost > is $6000. Say I make $50K a year and I buy an identical car for the > same price and same tax. You have paid 0.1% of your annual income in > tax and I have spent 0.2% of mine. Is that not regressive? The said tax is inclusive in the price: if it says $5000, it costs $5000. Why the hang up on regressive? FYI #2 on Marx's top ten conditions for the communist state was: a progressive or graduated income tax. (chap 2 the communist manifesto) -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 11 Nov 2006 22:13:15 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! In article <1163281349.570551.291860@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > bill-o wrote: > > On 10-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Second, the one I knew > > > about, which was introduced several yrs. ago, had no provision for a > > > rebate on taxation of necessities. > > > > > > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.25: > > > > see section 301 > > > > > > >And what a ridiculous idea that is, > > >anyway. What is the point of creating an expensive bureaucracy to > > >extend rebates to poor people instead of not taxing those necessities > > >to begin with? > > > > First it is not a rebate, it is a prebate. Secondly, there is already a > > bureaucracy there that, with some trimming, could do the job just fine: the > > SSA as the social security tax will be eliminated it can take on the > > issuance of the prebate along with the benefits checks. > > > > >No one should pay taxes on food and medicine, rich or poor. > > > > No, No one should have to pay taxes on the necessities of life: basic food, > > clothing, shelter etc. Above that, fancy tastes included, you pay taxes on > > it. > > > > > And a national sales tax doesn't tax wealth, it taxes > > >consumption. > > > > Show me the difference: the wealthy consume more, so they pay more tax. > > > > > > >So, if a person with an annual income of $100,000 makes > > >the same purchase as a person with annual income of $25,000, > > > > Don't you mean purchases? And when is that going to happen? > > > > >the former pays a smaller proportion of his income in tax than the latter. > > >That is > > >regressive taxation and it's unfair. > > > > And our current taxation regime is? It taxes hard work, thrift and sound > > financial decision making in general. You ASSume the fair tax is regressive > > because you are ignorant of it. Read up a bit. > > > Maybe I am. But consider the following. Say you make $100K a year and > you buy a $5000 car. The national sales tax is 20% so your total cost > is $6000. Say I make $50K a year and I buy an identical car for the > same price and same tax. You have paid 0.1% of your annual income in > tax and I have spent 0.2% of mine. Is that not regressive? > > No. Because the guy making $100K not only probably doesn't buy the same car as the guy making $50K, he also buys more, and thus ends up getting taxed more. The only way that he avoids getting taxed more is to live on the exact same purchases as the guy making $50K, in which case, he's investing the rest of his money ($50K, if we assume the guy making $50K saves nothing) and that is good for the economy. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)   Date: 11 Nov 2006 13:32:59 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! sfb wrote: > Yes, they made very bad choices. Employees who foolishly placed all their > 401 money in Enron stock got burned badly. The traditional defined benefit > Enron pension plan is still intact. The Employee Retirement Income Security > Act (ERISA) prohibits a company from investing pension money in its own > stock so Enron could not and did loot any pensions. That's a cruel thing to say. The Enron and PGE employees who loaded up their 401k's with Enron stock did so because Lay and Skilling promised them it was a good investment. Their mistake was believing them. > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > news:1T3k6letIf9uN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > > > > Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose > > pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? > >     Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:53:33 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 11 Nov 2006 13:32:59 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >The Enron and PGE employees who loaded up >their 401k's with Enron stock did so because Lay and Skilling promised >them it was a good investment. Their mistake was believing them. I've never heard a corporate CEO say that his companies stock is a bad investment.     Date: 11 Nov 2006 16:40:08 From: sfb Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! The fact remains the employees made bad choices. Why they made them is another discussion. "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1163280779.794311.163250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > sfb wrote: >> Yes, they made very bad choices. Employees who foolishly placed all >> their >> 401 money in Enron stock got burned badly. The traditional defined >> benefit >> Enron pension plan is still intact. The Employee Retirement Income >> Security >> Act (ERISA) prohibits a company from investing pension money in its own >> stock so Enron could not and did loot any pensions. > > That's a cruel thing to say. The Enron and PGE employees who loaded up > their 401k's with Enron stock did so because Lay and Skilling promised > them it was a good investment. Their mistake was believing them. > >> >> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> news:1T3k6letIf9uN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> > >> > Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose >> > pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? >> > >   Date: 11 Nov 2006 13:05:32 From: annika1980 Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene wrote: > My original point was that our > economic atmosphere to prosper in our country is ripe for the taking, > providing you make the right choices and have enough time. And have the right opportunities. My wife teaches in one of the poorest inner city schools in the city. Most of those kids there have two strikes against them when they get there. It's hard to expect them to just "work hard and everything will be great" when nobody they know is a success except the drug dealer on the corner. I'm not saying it's a tough school, but they had Parent's Night last week and one of the parents got arrested at the school. I ain't makin this up! On most Parent's Nights a class of 20 might get 1 parent and 1 or 2 grandmothers to show up. That's it. >IOW, there is more right with America than wrong. I agree with that. >That hasn't always been the case, particularily in the 70's and early 80's. I disagree with that. I'd say the turning point was after the Civil Rights movement in the 60's.   Date: 11 Nov 2006 12:07:19 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > Yeah, pretty much, but until you confront the economic realities > that drive people to that profession, you'll never be able to reach > informed opinions about what to do about them. As it is, the mean > outcome from making that decision is to make a whole lot of money > for a fairly short time before being killed or imprisoned. Because > the magic of the market (in which you believe so fervently) is such > that so many people choose to accept that outcome, it stands to > reason that the alternatives are mostly even worse than that. > Which they are. The system as it stands today simply cannot support > the degree of economic mobility it would take to give these people > reason to believe that most people who work hard and play by the > rules will be able to live reasonably comfortable middle class > lives. It it could, it would. It doesn't. Let's presume these words are true. What are your specific solutions to help these people? -Greg     Date: 11 Nov 2006 23:04:11 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: : Chris Bellomy wrote: : > Yeah, pretty much, but until you confront the economic realities : > that drive people to that profession, you'll never be able to reach : > informed opinions about what to do about them. As it is, the mean : > outcome from making that decision is to make a whole lot of money : > for a fairly short time before being killed or imprisoned. Because : > the magic of the market (in which you believe so fervently) is such : > that so many people choose to accept that outcome, it stands to : > reason that the alternatives are mostly even worse than that. : > Which they are. The system as it stands today simply cannot support : > the degree of economic mobility it would take to give these people : > reason to believe that most people who work hard and play by the : > rules will be able to live reasonably comfortable middle class : > lives. It it could, it would. It doesn't. : : Let's presume these words are true. What are your specific solutions : to help these people? Revise the tax codes such that earned income is taxed the least, revise trade practices such that American manufacturing is protected and thus rebuilt, and in short quit electing Republicans who don't give a rat's ass about working people and instead elect Democrats who believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to get ahead. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 11 Nov 2006 11:59:42 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Chris Bellomy wrote: > > Great. What about the thousands of energy industry workers whose > pensions were looted by Enron? Did they make bad choices? If the affected put all their eggs in one basket, then yes, they made a bad choice. But the real issue is if they stay down and out. > What about the working families whose wage earners became > seriously ill, or whose children became seriously ill. Did > they make bad choices? Depends whether the affected purchased disability income insurance in advance, preferrably at a younger age, which freezes the premium until age 65. I bought mine at 30. Costs me $30/mo. Again, the real issue is if they stay down and out. Usually there are ways out of the hole. > It's the height of indifference to point to a statistical > outlier like Oprah and say, "See! Anybody could do that!" The > market can bear only so many Oprahs, and you know it. You're right. I don't measure success by being a millionaire. I measure by being the best you can be, taking your given "talents" and doubling it, vs. putting in a rat hole (taxes, entitlements). BTW....Christ said these words. The chronically poor choose to be chronically poor. -Greg   Date: 11 Nov 2006 11:50:28 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! annika1980 wrote: > bill-o wrote: > > On 10-Nov-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > You must live in Utopia, Oregon. > > > The gas prices here have already gone up a dime since Election Day. > > > You say they are down ..... compared to what? > > > > to $3.09 = 33% aprox > > > > -- > > If the Repugs want to take credit for the 33% drop since last year, > then they'll have to take the blame for the 300% increase in the price > of oil since 2001. I give neither party the blame or praise. It's how the supply and demand work in an unregulated market. My original point was that our economic atmosphere to prosper in our country is ripe for the taking, providing you make the right choices and have enough time. IOW, there is more right with America than wrong. That hasn't always been the case, particularily in the 70's and early 80's. -Greg   Date: 11 Nov 2006 11:46:49 From: Dene Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Head Shot wrote: > Dene wrote: > > annika1980 wrote: > >> Dene wrote: > >>> I honestly cannot fathom why you have a defeatist viewpoint of our > >>> opportunities as Americans. Inflation is under control. Gas prices > >>> are down. Unemployment is under 5%. The Dow is up. Real estate is > >>> being corrected, but marginally. Crime is down. > >> > >> You must live in Utopia, Oregon. > >> The gas prices here have already gone up a dime since Election Day. > >> You say they are down ..... compared to what? > > > > Down from $3/gallon. In Washington, they are $2.45. Oregon, $2.35. > > > Last fill-up the other day I paid $1.98 for 87 octane. Way better than > that one day a year or two ago that I paid something like $4.99. > Where do you live? I'm moving.... -Greg     Date: 11 Nov 2006 23:40:05 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> Last fill-up the other day I paid $1.98 for 87 octane. Way better >> than that one day a year or two ago that I paid something like $4.99. >> > > Where do you live? I'm moving.... Georgia. $1.97 as of this morning; but I got some today for $1.91 because I used my Kroger's card. http://www.georgiagasprices.com/ If you think gasoline is inexpensive; then housing prices will push you over the edge. A brand new 2,500 sq. ft. colonial with 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, 3 car garage, and 10 year home warranty on about an acre of land will run you about $140,000 if you live about 30 miles out from Atlanta (45 minute commute to the city). -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson     Date: 12 Nov 2006 10:51:24 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1163274409.295704.82110@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > Head Shot wrote: >> Dene wrote: >> > annika1980 wrote: >> >> Dene wrote: >> >>> I honestly cannot fathom why you have a defeatist viewpoint of our >> >>> opportunities as Americans. Inflation is under control. Gas prices >> >>> are down. Unemployment is under 5%. The Dow is up. Real estate is >> >>> being corrected, but marginally. Crime is down. >> >> >> >> You must live in Utopia, Oregon. >> >> The gas prices here have already gone up a dime since Election Day. >> >> You say they are down ..... compared to what? >> > >> > Down from $3/gallon. In Washington, they are $2.45. Oregon, $2.35. >> >> >> Last fill-up the other day I paid $1.98 for 87 octane. Way better than >> that one day a year or two ago that I paid something like $4.99. >> > > Where do you live? I'm moving.... > > -Greg Gas in Atlanta has typically been a good bit below the national average......except in the week immediately following Katrina, when we were hit with some of the highest gas prices in the nation. Right now, a gallon of regular is around $1.99. Randy   Date: 12 Nov 2006 10:33:46 From: annika1980 Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Dene wrote: > > > > >IOW, there is more right with America than wrong. > > > > I agree with that. > > > > > > >That hasn't always been the case, particularily in the 70's and early 80's. > > > > I disagree with that. I'd say the turning point was after the Civil > > Rights movement in the 60's. > > I was thinking in terms of economics. I shoulda known that. You're a Republican.   Date: 12 Nov 2006 09:20:37 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o wrote: > On 11-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Maybe I am. But consider the following. Say you make $100K a year and > > you buy a $5000 car. The national sales tax is 20% so your total cost > > is $6000. Say I make $50K a year and I buy an identical car for the > > same price and same tax. You have paid 0.1% of your annual income in > > tax and I have spent 0.2% of mine. Is that not regressive? > > The said tax is inclusive in the price: if it says $5000, it costs $5000. > Why the hang up on regressive? And you call me ignorant? Who says the tax is included in the price? Is that spelled out in the bill you found? And even if it is, that doesn't refute my argument, which is that the more you make, the smaller proportion of your income you pay in taxes. That's simple, irrefutable arithmetic. > FYI #2 on Marx's top ten conditions for the communist state was: a > progressive or graduated income tax. (chap 2 the communist manifesto) Well, then I guess we live in a communist state because we've had a progressive income tax structure ever since we've had an income tax. > -- > bill-o > > A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between > two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 12 Nov 2006 18:23:54 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 12 Nov 2006 09:20:37 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >And you call me ignorant? Who says the tax is included in the price? Is >that spelled out in the bill you found? And even if it is, that doesn't >refute my argument, which is that the more you make, the smaller >proportion of your income you pay in taxes. That's simple, irrefutable >arithmetic. Your point is that if a rich person and a poor person only buy one thing, the tax on that thing is regressive. Tell me, what do they do with the rest of their incomes?   Date: From: Subject:   Date: 12 Nov 2006 12:11:39 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Howard Brazee wrote: > On 12 Nov 2006 11:00:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Your point is that if a rich person and a poor person only buy one > >> thing, the tax on that thing is regressive. > >> > >> Tell me, what do they do with the rest of their incomes? > > > >That is not my point at all. It was an illustration of an argument that > >some people seem unable to grasp -- that all taxable purchases take a > >smaller bite, percentage-wise, out of a wealthy person's income than a > >poor person's. > > But it isn't all taxable purchases that you were talking about it was > only one. > > The poor person buys a $5,000 car, a bunch of food, school supplies, > insurance, and rent. The food and rent are tax deductible. Who says they're deductible? You're theorizing. The national sales tax bill I knew about some years ago allowed for no deductions. What would you deduct from if there's no income tax? > > The rich person buys a $5,000 car, a bunch of food, school supplies, > insurance, and a house. The food and rent are tax deductible. > > What does the rich person do with the rest of his money? He spends > some of it, and he invests some of it. Investments are currently > deducted - we want him to invest it improving our economy. The > money he spends gets taxed. Only retirement-related investments are now deductible. The poor person has a higher percentage of his expenditures spent on > tax free items such as food and medicine.   Date: 12 Nov 2006 11:00:48 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! Howard Brazee wrote: > On 12 Nov 2006 09:20:37 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > >And you call me ignorant? Who says the tax is included in the price? Is > >that spelled out in the bill you found? And even if it is, that doesn't > >refute my argument, which is that the more you make, the smaller > >proportion of your income you pay in taxes. That's simple, irrefutable > >arithmetic. > > Your point is that if a rich person and a poor person only buy one > thing, the tax on that thing is regressive. > > Tell me, what do they do with the rest of their incomes? That is not my point at all. It was an illustration of an argument that some people seem unable to grasp -- that all taxable purchases take a smaller bite, percentage-wise, out of a wealthy person's income than a poor person's.     Date: 13 Nov 2006 00:49:24 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 12-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > That is not my point at all. It was an illustration of an argument that > some people seem unable to grasp -- that all taxable purchases take a > smaller bite, percentage-wise, out of a wealthy person's income than a > poor person's. That is elementry math, not a point. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 12 Nov 2006 19:19:35 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 12 Nov 2006 11:00:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >> Your point is that if a rich person and a poor person only buy one >> thing, the tax on that thing is regressive. >> >> Tell me, what do they do with the rest of their incomes? > >That is not my point at all. It was an illustration of an argument that >some people seem unable to grasp -- that all taxable purchases take a >smaller bite, percentage-wise, out of a wealthy person's income than a >poor person's. But it isn't all taxable purchases that you were talking about it was only one. The poor person buys a $5,000 car, a bunch of food, school supplies, insurance, and rent. The food and rent are tax deductible. The rich person buys a $5,000 car, a bunch of food, school supplies, insurance, and a house. The food and rent are tax deductible. What does the rich person do with the rest of his money? He spends some of it, and he invests some of it. Investments are currently deducted - we want him to invest it improving our economy. The money he spends gets taxed. The poor person has a higher percentage of his expenditures spent on tax free items such as food and medicine.   Date: 13 Nov 2006 07:06:33 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o wrote: > On 12-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > And when people lose arguments but don't want to admit it, they resort > > to semantic nit-picking. > > Lose? I'm not here to win or lose. You still haven't told me why you're > obsessed with progressive vs. regressive taxes? I'm not obsessed with anything. I believe that regressive taxation is unfair. What's wrong with that? > > -- > bill-o > > A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between > two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 14 Nov 2006 03:09:29 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! On 13-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > I'm not obsessed with anything. I believe that regressive taxation is > unfair. What's wrong with that? Neither is fair, but golf isn't fair either. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 13 Nov 2006 20:04:28 From: John B. Subject: Re: Ed Bradley got it! bill-o wrote: > On 13-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm not obsessed with anything. I believe that regressive taxation is > > unfair. What's wrong with that? > > Neither is fair, but golf isn't fair either. > Well, I guess you've got me there, Bill. I thought I could hold my own with you, but you're clearly out of my intellectual league. > -- > bill-o > > A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between > two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.