The governmant is so insidious. They tax EVERTHING

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:52:40 GMT, DTJ > wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:47:22 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>
>Mommy wants to change your diaper now. Time to get off the computer
>and go to bed.

That's a very lame attempt to save face after I rubbed your nose in
the facts, right winger.

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:12:54 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> wrote:

>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We simply no longer had
>>>time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, 'cause if we'd waited any longer, Saddam would've used those weapons
>> of mass distraction he didn't have...right? Pffft.
>
>I have no doubt he had weapons.

He had them at one point, no one has denied that. Hell, the Americans
helped him stock up! The question is did he have them prior to the
invasion. It's all well and good to *believe* that he did, but
without solid proof, this doctrine of pre-emptive strikes becomes a
little scary, don't you think?

>Did he have as many as we thought?
>Probably not. Was he close on nukes? Probably not. Did he have
>chemical weapons? I'm 100% sure of it as he's used them before. Did he
>have biological weapons? Who knows. I suspect that the weapons are now
>residing in Syria or still buried and yet to be found.

You can't operate on what you believe, you can only operate on what
you can prove. David Kay has demonstrated the error of Bush's (or was
it Cheney's) beliefs with respect to the vast stockpiles that Saddam
supposedly had.
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)

Her name was Valerie Plame, and she was a NOC. She was keeping weapons of mass
destruction out of the hands of terrorists. What was the Bush administration doing?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022404A.shtml

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

> I guess what is not properly understood by people who are wholly critical of
> the bombing of Dresden is that the war had to be brought to an end.
> Europe's worst scourge for centuries was on the loose.

Stop. Do not pass go. The ends do not ever justify the means.

Shoot, we could have done nothing and Russia would have squashed
them flat for us in time. The second we started rolling across
France, the war was already lost for Germany.

> Similarly, Churchill launched a bombing raid on Berlin, with no direct
> military target in sight. However, he knew the psychological effect would
> be tremendous on a population that had been told that Berlin was
> invulnerable. And Churchill was right.
>
> By your line of argument both of these were terrorist attacks, but thousands
> would beg to differ. And so might the 12 m civilian victims of said
> scourge.

Yet we consider the bombing of London to be a vile act. Same thing,
different foot.

It should be noted that an important difference existed - the Berlin
and London bombing campaigns took a long time and gave the people
time to flee. Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were over in hours
with no chance for the people to escape.

We knew that going in - that they would all likely die at once and
did it anyways. That's what makes it different.

DTJ wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 19:55:56 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> > wrote:
>
>>My point is that 9/11 isn't close to what we have done ourselves
>>for various reasons. Only the perspective is different.
>>
>>Afterall, we had no problem doing the same sort of things to
>>win our freedom. But that's all good.
>>
>>The problem is - we've come full circle and are rapidly turning
>>into the very thing we rebelled against over 200 years ago.
>
> Your universe is an interesting place to visit, but I am glad I don't
> live there.

Really? Last I checked, the U.S. was turning into a government-heavy
fundamental religous rich inbred WASP controlled nation with designs
on imperialism.

There's really not a lot of difference between England in 1773 and
the U.S. in 2003.

DTJ wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 21:32:25 -0000, "Dori A Schmetterling"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan were excellent aims. Results
>>achieved.
>>
>>Have you forgotten (or did you not know) about Japan's horrendous war crimes
>>all over Asia? That Japan and Japanese are still disliked, even hated, in
>>many parts of Asia, and in China and Korea in particular?
>
>
> Why would that matter to a US hater

Actually, I love this country. I just hate the people in charge
who are selling us out and pillaging the country. We can be so
much more than we currently are - and yet nobody in power seems
to care about anyone but themselves.

Cross-posting is usually not acceptable (or appreciated). Please remove
>rec.autos.makers.saturn< from this thread since there's nothing specific to
the automaker, its product or users. Thanks in advance.


"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Louis Hom wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>I agree had that been possible in a reasonable time frame.
> >>>Unfortunately, most governments in place today are too much like France
> >>>and don't have the spine to take on terrorists. We simply no longer
> >>>had time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus.
> >>
> >> But it seems like we didn't have any such problem waiting to
> >>organize against the threat in Afghanistan.
> >
> >
> > And hey, we're still waiting -- probably fornever -- to invade China. It
> > is, after all, an unfree country run by brutal dictators, possessing
> > weapons of mass destruction. They conduct economic terrorism against the
> > US every day, and have been doing so for the last 15 years. They've even
> > got lots of oil. Oh wait, that's right, we haven't attacked them because
> > we'd lose, and because the MBAs of America have a permanent hard-on for
> > China.
>
> Are you having trouble spelling, DS? I've not come across "fornever" in
> my dictionary.
>
>
> Matt
>

Joseph Oberlander > wrote in message ink.net>...
>
> And all three are prime examples of terrorist attacks considering
> our standing orders at the time to not target civilians. At least
> that's what we told the soldiers.


In Dresden, American bombers aimed for the railyards. It was the UK
bombers that aimed for the city, and the UK bombers that started the
firestorm.

In Hiroshima, the bomb exploded nearly directly above Hiroshima
Castle, which was the headquarters of the Japanese Second General
Army, which was in charge of all military operations on Kyushu,
Shikoku and western Honshu. (The bomb killed 20,000 Japanese soldiers
as well.)

The Nagasaki bomb was meant for Kokura Arsenal, a massive (4100' x
2000') complex that was producing armaments for Japan to defend
against invasion. Weather diverted the bomb however, and it was
dropped on the outskirts of Nagasaki between the "Mitsubishi Steel and
Arms Works" and the "Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works/Torpedo Works",
damaging both beyond repair.



Seems to have been a bit of military to the targeting....

wrote:
> It always amazes me that people continue to vote for the
> politician that promises them the most freebies, then they will
> bitch and moan when it comes to pay for those 'freebies.' Do they
> think the government actually did something to produce an
> income? They want clean air, but bitch when the price of gas
> goes up to proved that cleaner gasoline. They complain when they
> have to pay for an inspection to be sure all that 'free'
> pollution equipment on their $25,000 car, that only cost $3,500
> before they passed the pollution laws, is working properly. They
> want good roads and low cost public transpiration, that they can
> ride for a price that is ten percent of what it costs the
> government to provide, but bitch when the have to pay taxes to
> get those things. The Demo's love Kerry's because he's bitchin
> about a deficit, yet he is promising everybody at $4,000 tax
> credit to go to college and free medical coverage. Al that in
> time of war, probably the greatest threat Americans have ever
> faced since the revolution. He wants to give all the rich old
> folks free drugs. He wants to raise the taxes on everybody that
> has children and those that make over $50,000 a year, he calls
> them rich. He complains because he had to go to Vietnam and Bush
> didn't, but when he came back he protested the war with Jane
> Fonda. He said he will fight the terrorist differently. With
> what words? He voted against nearly every weapon we have in our
> arsenal today to fight the terrorist of the world since he became
> a Senator. like President Reagan use to say, 'The next time
> someone from the government offers to 'Give' you something, hold
> on too your wallet."

Well, what about Bush? He's doing the same election-year pandering,
promising programs such as the "healthy marriage initiative" to the tune
of 1.5 billion dollars, promising a trip to Mars and a base on the moon
for 15 billion dollars (still way too low), promising to spend 5 billion
dollars to study POVERTY!, promising tax relief to the tune of 25
billion dollars, promising to "leave no child behind" in education to
the tune of I don't know how many billions of dollars--and he's not
going to raise taxes and already there's a deficit closing in on one
trillion dollars.

Same thing.



John

--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

wrote:
> Tax cuts are not an attempt to 'give' you anything. When the
> government cuts the tax rates, as it has under Kennedy, Reagan
> and Bush they are merely taking less of your money not giving you
> money it's your money. Contrary to what many would have you
> believe, historically tax RATE cuts always produce more money for
> the US treasury over time. In a capitalistic society every time
> money changes hands it is taxed. The more in circulation, the
> more it changes hands, the more tax money generated. Many
> politician want you to think otherwise so they can can continue
> to take your money to GIVE you some back to buy your votes.
> Don't be so naive', wise up.

You're naive. If it's taxed more by changing hands, then it's not a
"tax cut."

And if you say they're not "giving" us money back because it's ours to
begin with, then we have to "give" them services and benefits back.
Only we won't do that, so instead the burden will just be passed on in
the form of city, state and county taxes, fees, tolls, sales taxes, and
various "special revenue enhancements." People want their life styles
to stay where they are even as they get checks from Uncle Sam. One
class of econ 101 will explain why that's impossible. But I doubt
anyone here ever went to college.

Change the input (taxes), got to change the output (services).

But most people are so uneducated they don't understand something that
little Timmy, who's run a lemonade stand, probably intuitively grasps.



John

--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 wrote:

> Does everything escape your understanding or are you just trying
> to BS the rest of us? Those figures are from the IRS, hardly a

Just to jump in the middle of a thread I haven't been following... none of
the numbers anyone listed really mean much, and the whole "x% of the
population pay y% of the taxes argument" is vague enough to support either
side. In particular the "AGI of x **and above***" clause makes things
particularly uncertain since the and above makes the total income amount
for a given bracket impossible to determine without more information.
Bill Gates probably throws off the numbers for the highest bracket
from what one might guess all by himself.

Just to demonstrate I'll use two possible scenarios, each assuming a
population of 100 people. I'm not trying to supprt either side, just to
point out that many reasonable sounding arguments aren't very meaningful
and the power of spin doctors. Obviously the numbers themselves here are
ridiculus and meaningless but the point is that they are about as
meaningful as what we are told in political speeches or commentary.
Basically I'm saying that without a lot more numerical analysis the
numbers thrown out from the media on the subject are meaningless. (IMO
rightfully so since most people can't add their grocery bills - never mind
perform algebra).

Scenario 1:

Everyone pays a flat rate of 10% - theoretically fairer than a scheme
where higher income pay higher rates right?

99 people with an average income of 1000 per year, and one person with an
income of 100000 per year.

Top 1% pays just over 50% of the tax, bottom 99% pays just under 50%. That
seems awfully unfair, right? So this scenario could be spun as either more
fair or less fair depending on who's spinning and what way they phrase the
same data.


Scenario 2:

Three tax brackets, higher income bracket pays 15% and middle 10% and
lower income 5%. Seems theoretically unfair, right?

90 people with an average income of 10000 per year and 9 people with an
average income of 20000 per year and 1 person with an income of 60000.

Top 1% pays 12% of the taxes, Top 10% pays 36% of the tax. Seems a lot
more "fair" than scenario 1 from this perspective, even if from the
bracket perspective it seems less "fair" than scenario 1.

And of course, if you are running for office the meaning of "fair" flips
depending on which bracket you are trying to get votes from - very likely
the argument to support your idea with oscillate from one POV to the other
accordingly.

Dave