The governmant is so insidious. They tax EVERTHING

Joseph Oberlander > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> Brent P wrote:
> >
> >
> > If the USA had to invade Japan to end the war, what do you think the
> > damage would have been?
>
>
> Old propaganda. They wanted an honorable way out of the whole thing


They wanted a way out that involved letting them keep their
militaristic culture, and letting them rebuild to try again.

This was unacceptable. They knew the terms (Potsdam), and we stopped
nuking them once they tried to accept those terms.



> and we could have just blockaded them and bombed their factories.

We were doing that as well. The blockade had eliminated effective
food transports by sea, and their railway system was barely adequate
to the task. We were very close to bombing their railway system
permanently out of existence when they surrendered. This would have
resulted in the starvation of millions.

In article > , hiroshima facts wrote:

> This was unacceptable. They knew the terms (Potsdam), and we stopped
> nuking them once they tried to accept those terms.

Um there were no more nukes to use.

wrote:
> Apparently you did not understand what you just read or
> you don't understand the difference between cutting tax
> RATES for taxpayers and cutting tax income to the treasury.
> A cut in tax RATES always has increased the flow of money
> to the treasury it does not reduce the flow.

Source?



John

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


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

(Brent P) wrote in message news:<xtL4c.1301$KO3.13225@attbi_s02>...
>
> True, but he said the US stopped nuking because of the surrender. The US
> had to stop regardless of surrender because it ran out of bombs. Given
> enough time it may have resumed.


The core of the next bomb was going out the door at Los Alamos when we
got word that they were trying to accept Potsdam.

There were already implosion assemblies in the Pacific.

The plans had been to drop the next bomb on Tokyo around August 17-18.


That makes for a bombing pause of slightly longer than a week.

Like many things it depend on ones perspective I suppose.
I E a person holds two jobs. One job pays him an amount equal to
the highest limit at which FICA is required to be withheld. Of
that amount that must be paid by the employer, half can be
deducted from the employee. The employees second job pays say
20K on which the employer can deduct half the FICA from his
earning. When the employee files him federal tax return he is
eligible for a full refund of the amount withheld for the excess
20K. Nether employer is eligible for a refund of half the FICA
on the 20K. In the end, as is the case with all federal taxes on
business, the consumer pays. No only does he pay each dollar, he
pays the higher rate equal to the sellers percentage of profit as
well.


mike hunt



Brent P wrote:
>
> In article >, indago wrote:
>
> > FICA taxes are excise taxes, laid upon the act of doing business, as noted
> > in the Supreme Court opinions, and the Congressional Record. The business
> > is liable for the full amount of the tax. When this taxation scheme was
> > assembled, it was felt that since the employee was the beneficiary of the
> > program, he should assume some of the responsibility for paying into the
> > funds. The employer was "granted" the power to collect half of the tax from
> > the employee. The tax is not laid upon the employee.
>
> IMO the half/half scheme is a political one. Who actually pays depends
> on what is held constant, which in turn depends on the type of job.
> For minimum wage or jobs where people are paid by the union wage scale
> then it's pretty much half and half. If it's a professional job or any
> where the job market drives the wage, I would say it all comes from the
> employee.

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:21:48 -0500, some stupid top-posting,
nym-shifting troll currently calling himself
wrote:

>Apparently you did not understand what you just read or
>you don't understand the difference between cutting tax
>RATES for taxpayers and cutting tax income to the treasury.
>A cut in tax RATES always has increased the flow of money
>to the treasury it does not reduce the flow.

You are an idiot, "Mike Hunt".

As for the nonsense you wrote below, what, you don't think the money
the government doesn't get spent, doesn't "change hands"? Fool.


>> 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.

hiroshima facts wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander > wrote in message ink.net>...
>
>>Greg Houston wrote:

> The burning of the city was the act of British bombers only.
>
> The US had nothing to do with any targeting of civilians in Europe.

ROTFLMAO!!



John

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


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