Discussion:
#OpWallstreet a big bust...as Nanae predicted it would be and stated it was...
(too old to reply)
Andrew
2011-10-09 21:32:44 UTC
Permalink
You tell me if censorship is real?

http://tinyurl.com/opwallstreet
Jim Higgins
2011-10-10 00:38:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 14:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Andrew
Post by Andrew
You tell me if censorship is real?
http://tinyurl.com/opwallstreet
I don't know what that picture shows, but it isn't Wall Steet, NYC.
Nick the Amateur LARTist
2011-10-10 03:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Higgins
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 14:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Andrew
Post by Andrew
You tell me if censorship is real?
http://tinyurl.com/opwallstreet
I don't know what that picture shows, but it isn't Wall Steet, NYC.
It is the Broadway between the Woolworth building (upper right corner) and the
City Hall Park (to the left). That area is situated 5 blocks toward the north
from the Zuccotti Park and the Wall Street. I have just passed through that area
a few hours ago and saw lots of young people in the Zuccotti Park and the
surrounding area with signs, bands playing music and so on.

You can find it on Google Maps at
http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.712378,-74.007978&spn=0.002594,0.00478&hnear=Somerville,+New+Jersey+08876&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6

The picture in http://tinyurl.com/opwallstreet is rotated 180 degrees.

--
Nick the Amateur LARTist
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
2011-10-10 03:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick the Amateur LARTist
Post by Jim Higgins
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 14:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Andrew
Post by Andrew
You tell me if censorship is real?
http://tinyurl.com/opwallstreet
I don't know what that picture shows, but it isn't Wall Steet, NYC.
It is the Broadway between the Woolworth building (upper right corner)
and the City Hall Park (to the left). That area is situated 5 blocks
toward the north from the Zuccotti Park and the Wall Street. I have just
passed through that area a few hours ago and saw lots of young people in
the Zuccotti Park and the surrounding area with signs, bands playing
music and so on.
You can find it on Google Maps at
http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.712378,-74.007978&spn=0.002594,0.00478&hnear=Somerville,+New+Jersey+08876&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6
The picture in http://tinyurl.com/opwallstreet is rotated 180 degrees.
Do those pictures show people, or lice? The are all the same color.
--
Idioten aangeboden. Gratis af te halen.
h/t Dagelijkse Standaard

ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy
Organic Gloomrider
2011-10-10 13:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
Do those pictures show people, or lice? The are all the same color.
What does Glenn Beck say the pictures are showing? That's what you're
going with, right?
WindsorFox<SS>
2011-10-10 13:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick the Amateur LARTist
Post by Jim Higgins
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 14:32:44 -0700 (PDT), Andrew
Post by Andrew
You tell me if censorship is real?
http://tinyurl.com/opwallstreet
I don't know what that picture shows, but it isn't Wall Steet, NYC.
It is the Broadway between the Woolworth building (upper right corner)
and the City Hall Park (to the left). That area is situated 5 blocks
toward the north from the Zuccotti Park and the Wall Street. I have just
passed through that area a few hours ago and saw lots of young people in
the Zuccotti Park and the surrounding area with signs, bands playing
music and so on.
You can find it on Google Maps at
http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.712378,-74.007978&spn=0.002594,0.00478&hnear=Somerville,+New+Jersey+08876&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6
The picture in http://tinyurl.com/opwallstreet is rotated 180 degrees.
Do those pictures show people, or lice? The are all the same color.
And even if the picture is real and not tampered with it has already
been discovered that the Unions have paid for many of them.

Of the "demands" some I agree with to an extent, most however are
either stupid or are part of full blown communism. No, you do NOT
deserve an equal wadge no matter what you do, and no you do NOT deserve
a wage for sitting on your ass watching the Guiding Light. If you got
yourself into debt it's your own fault and you should be tasked with
getting yourself out of it.

His support of that big lump of stupid proves the OPs hypocrisy or
ignorance. Or, a combination of the two.
Nick the Amateur LARTist
2011-10-10 15:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
Do those pictures show people, or lice? The are all the same color.
You can't see any lice in that picture. If there are any in that area they are
hidden from view in their luxury suites inside the office buildings some 5
blocks to the south on Broadway, across the street from the Trinity Church.
Otherwise you may spot them playing golf at those exclusive country clubs some
20 or 30 miles to the east on Long Island.

--
Nick the Amateur LARTist
WindsorFox<SS>
2011-10-10 16:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick the Amateur LARTist
Do those pictures show people, or lice? The are all the same color.
You can't see any lice in that picture. If there are any in that area
they are hidden from view in their luxury suites inside the office
buildings some 5 blocks to the south on Broadway, across the street from
the Trinity Church. Otherwise you may spot them playing golf at those
exclusive country clubs some 20 or 30 miles to the east on Long Island.
--
Nick the Amateur LARTist
I figured the lice would be hidden in the hair of the hippies with
the signs.
Nick the Amateur LARTist
2011-10-10 17:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Post by Nick the Amateur LARTist
Do those pictures show people, or lice? The are all the same color.
You can't see any lice in that picture. If there are any in that area
they are hidden from view in their luxury suites inside the office
buildings some 5 blocks to the south on Broadway, across the street from
the Trinity Church. Otherwise you may spot them playing golf at those
exclusive country clubs some 20 or 30 miles to the east on Long Island.
I figured the lice would be hidden in the hair of the hippies with
the signs.
I was referring to the two-legged lice who fly high in their taxpayer financed
jets, not the ones that crawl on six legs.

BTW I have long hair and beard and I go barefoot when not at my $DAYJOB, but I
have never had lice in my hair or anywhere else. The only parasites that are
bothering me so far are mosquitoes, the occasional tick picked up while hiking
and spammers - if I don't count the above-mentioned two-legged lice who suck as
much as they can on my hard-earned money.

--
Nick the Amateur LARTist
WindsorFox<SS>
2011-10-10 19:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick the Amateur LARTist
Post by Nick the Amateur LARTist
Do those pictures show people, or lice? The are all the same color.
You can't see any lice in that picture. If there are any in that area
they are hidden from view in their luxury suites inside the office
buildings some 5 blocks to the south on Broadway, across the street from
the Trinity Church. Otherwise you may spot them playing golf at those
exclusive country clubs some 20 or 30 miles to the east on Long Island.
I figured the lice would be hidden in the hair of the hippies with the
signs.
I was referring to the two-legged lice who fly high in their taxpayer
financed jets,
Taxpayer financed jets? So, you're meaning Wall Street bankers, or
politicians??
bar0
2011-10-10 19:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Post by Nick the Amateur LARTist
Post by Nick the Amateur LARTist
Do those pictures show people, or lice? The are all the same color.
You can't see any lice in that picture. If there are any in that area
they are hidden from view in their luxury suites inside the office
buildings some 5 blocks to the south on Broadway, across the street from
the Trinity Church. Otherwise you may spot them playing golf at those
exclusive country clubs some 20 or 30 miles to the east on Long Island.
I figured the lice would be hidden in the hair of the hippies with the
signs.
I was referring to the two-legged lice who fly high in their taxpayer
financed jets,
Taxpayer financed jets? So, you're meaning Wall Street bankers, or
politicians??
People on welfare or unemployment (welfare queens) silly.
Rick Scott
2011-10-10 20:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
Post by Nick the Amateur LARTist
Post by Nick the Amateur LARTist
Do those pictures show people, or lice? The are all the same color.
You can't see any lice in that picture. If there are any in that area
they are hidden from view in their luxury suites inside the office
buildings some 5 blocks to the south on Broadway, across the street from
the Trinity Church. Otherwise you may spot them playing golf at those
exclusive country clubs some 20 or 30 miles to the east on Long Island.
I figured the lice would be hidden in the hair of the hippies with the
signs.
I was referring to the two-legged lice who fly high in their taxpayer
financed jets,
   Taxpayer financed jets? So, you're meaning Wall Street bankers, or
politicians??
People on welfare or unemployment (welfare queens) silly.
Nobody has yet to tell me how you raise the standard of Living of the
45 or more percent somehow receiving money via the Public Dole (govt
job, welfare, (and dont say SS remember we pay into it and if the GOVT
had left their FINGERS OUT OF it and not borrowed money to pay for
more freebies, there would have been plenty of cash)) without lowering
the standard of living (By Increasing taxes) on those that work and
or live NOT on the public dole
Jim Higgins
2011-10-10 21:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Scott
Nobody has yet to tell me how you raise the standard of Living of the
45 or more percent somehow receiving money via the Public Dole (govt
job, welfare, (and dont say SS remember we pay into it and if the GOVT
had left their FINGERS OUT OF it and not borrowed money to pay for
more freebies, there would have been plenty of cash)) without lowering
the standard of living (By Increasing taxes) on those that work and
or live NOT on the public dole
For me that's not the issue. Let the poor go out and get their own
thru their own efforts. Just STOP THE EFFING BAILOUTS.
Rick Scott
2011-10-10 21:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Scott
Nobody has yet to tell me how you raise the standard of Living of the
45 or more percent somehow receiving money via the Public Dole (govt
job, welfare, (and dont say SS remember we pay into it and if the GOVT
had left their FINGERS OUT OF it and not borrowed money to pay for
more freebies, there would have been plenty of cash)) without lowering
the standard of living (By Increasing taxes)  on those that work and
or live NOT on the public dole
For me that's not the issue.  Let the poor go out and get their own
thru their own efforts.  Just STOP THE EFFING BAILOUTS.
Im all for that.
WindsorFox<SS>
2011-10-10 22:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Scott
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by Rick Scott
Nobody has yet to tell me how you raise the standard of Living of the
45 or more percent somehow receiving money via the Public Dole (govt
job, welfare, (and dont say SS remember we pay into it and if the GOVT
had left their FINGERS OUT OF it and not borrowed money to pay for
more freebies, there would have been plenty of cash)) without lowering
the standard of living (By Increasing taxes) on those that work and
or live NOT on the public dole
For me that's not the issue. Let the poor go out and get their own
thru their own efforts. Just STOP THE EFFING BAILOUTS.
Im all for that.
As am I, but; I don't believe that is one of the "demands" of these
protestors. At least not directly, in fact some of the demands want more
bailouts. Just not for the banks but for themselves.
stinky
2011-10-11 12:57:51 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Rick Scott
Post by Rick Scott
Nobody has yet to tell me how you raise the standard of Living of the
45 or more percent somehow receiving money via the Public Dole (govt
job, welfare, (and dont say SS remember we pay into it and if the GOVT
had left their FINGERS OUT OF it and not borrowed money to pay for
more freebies, there would have been plenty of cash)) without lowering
the standard of living (By Increasing taxes)  on those that work and
or live NOT on the public dole
For me that's not the issue.  Let the poor go out and get their own
thru their own efforts.  Just STOP THE EFFING BAILOUTS.
Im all for that.
Hear Hear!!
Antispam Knight
2011-10-11 20:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Scott
Post by bar0
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Post by Nick the Amateur LARTist
Post by Nick the Amateur LARTist
Do those pictures show people, or lice? The are all the same color.
You can't see any lice in that picture. If there are any in that area
they are hidden from view in their luxury suites inside the office
buildings some 5 blocks to the south on Broadway, across the street from
the Trinity Church. Otherwise you may spot them playing golf at those
exclusive country clubs some 20 or 30 miles to the east on Long Island.
I figured the lice would be hidden in the hair of the hippies with the
signs.
I was referring to the two-legged lice who fly high in their taxpayer
financed jets,
Taxpayer financed jets? So, you're meaning Wall Street bankers, or
politicians??
People on welfare or unemployment (welfare queens) silly.
Nobody has yet to tell me how you raise the standard of Living of the
45 or more percent somehow receiving money via the Public Dole (govt
job, welfare, (and dont say SS remember we pay into it and if the GOVT
had left their FINGERS OUT OF it and not borrowed money to pay for
more freebies, there would have been plenty of cash)) without lowering
the standard of living (By Increasing taxes) on those that work and
or live NOT on the public dole
Sorry, but no one pays into anything. It is just another tax. They could
just as well have said our income tax rates were going up by some 16% (the
combined employee and employer percentages). Acutally, not 16% on the whole
amount, only the first $70k or so, but you get the drift.
The money goes to the same place as all other taxes, and is spent the same
as all other taxes. There is NO trust fund (other than on paper). My SS
"benefits" are being paid by today's workers, and next generation's workers
(via debt). Classic Ponzi scheme. The late "investors" pay off the early
"investors" until the math catches up with them.
We have been duped. We haven't paid into anything. And there are fools who
want the government to do even more! During WWII the slogan was "buy bonds."
It is now "buy votes."
AK
bar0
2011-10-11 20:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antispam Knight
Do those pictures show people, or lice? The are all the same color.
....
Post by Antispam Knight
Sorry, but no one pays into anything. It is just another tax. They could
just as well have said our income tax rates were going up by some 16% (the
combined employee and employer percentages). Acutally, not 16% on the
whole amount, only the first $70k or so, but you get the drift.
The money goes to the same place as all other taxes, and is spent the same
as all other taxes. There is NO trust fund (other than on paper). My SS
"benefits" are being paid by today's workers, and next generation's
workers (via debt). Classic Ponzi scheme. The late "investors" pay off the
early "investors" until the math catches up with them.
We have been duped. We haven't paid into anything. And there are fools who
want the government to do even more! During WWII the slogan was "buy
bonds." It is now "buy votes."
Sooo, Reagan should have had the SS surpluses (excess of income vs.
expenditure in a given year) put into a box somewhere instead? Or maybe he
should have bought GM, Chrysler, and Yahoo! stox with the money? Anyway,
that tax was mainly on the not so wealthy so what the hey? If you were as
wealthy as Joe the plumber expects to be, the payroll tax would have been
hardly any of your income! so no problem.
I think we should all do as the heads of Goldman Sachs, Chase, Citi et alia
tell us to. They want payroll taxes up and gains taxes down, lets do it.
They did so well with mortgage investments, we should just let them run
everything as well as that went.
Antispam Knight
2011-10-11 22:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
Post by Antispam Knight
Do those pictures show people, or lice? The are all the same color.
....
Post by Antispam Knight
Sorry, but no one pays into anything. It is just another tax. They could
just as well have said our income tax rates were going up by some 16%
(the combined employee and employer percentages). Acutally, not 16% on
the whole amount, only the first $70k or so, but you get the drift.
The money goes to the same place as all other taxes, and is spent the
same as all other taxes. There is NO trust fund (other than on paper). My
SS "benefits" are being paid by today's workers, and next generation's
workers (via debt). Classic Ponzi scheme. The late "investors" pay off
the early "investors" until the math catches up with them.
We have been duped. We haven't paid into anything. And there are fools
who want the government to do even more! During WWII the slogan was "buy
bonds." It is now "buy votes."
Sooo, Reagan should have had the SS surpluses (excess of income vs.
expenditure in a given year) put into a box somewhere instead? Or maybe
he should have bought GM, Chrysler, and Yahoo! stox with the money?
Anyway, that tax was mainly on the not so wealthy so what the hey? If you
were as wealthy as Joe the plumber expects to be, the payroll tax would
have been hardly any of your income! so no problem.
I think we should all do as the heads of Goldman Sachs, Chase, Citi et
alia tell us to. They want payroll taxes up and gains taxes down, lets do
it. They did so well with mortgage investments, we should just let them
run everything as well as that went.
No, what the *congress* in Reagan's time should have done was phase out
Social Security, over a subsequent number of years, and get back to letting
the individual take care of himself. But, of course, that would have been
political suicide. The problem isn't *only* the politicians--it's also the
populace. The lure of the big money pit in Washington is too great.
Having kept the SS program, what to do with an annual surplus? How about
using it to reduce the next year's take? Good heavens! Give money back to
those from whom it was taken? How uncivilized. Where the money exists, there
will *always* be someone to spend it. Everyone else has a better use for my
money than I do. And the baseline moves up. And up. And up.

Government is the means whereby everyone attempts to live at the expense of
everyone else.
The problem is, there aren't that many rich people to support all the
others. If you were to confiscate 100% of the income of all those making $1
mil/yr, in the USA, you wouldn't run the government for more than a few
days. No, I don't have the references handy, but you can do the math for
yourself if you find them. I saw it a number of years ago. The amount
government spends is staggering. And when you confiscate (tax) income, you
reduce the incentive to produce. Socialist nirvana is reached when you are
redistributing 100% of nothing.

As for Goldman Sachs, Chase, et. al, they should have all gone to jail. But
they couldn't have done it without government collusion, esp. from the likes
of Barney Frank & Chris Dodd, who both proclaimed the financial soundness of
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, up to the end. All the while buying votes from
those who received loans without the wherewithal to repay those loans. And
for those who bought those derivatives--if no one understood them, why would
you buy them? Mob mentality? "Everyone's doing it, and getting rich!" Caveat
emptor. Unfortunately, in the ensuing collapse, it was not only the buyers
who got hurt. The taxpayers took it in the shorts, big time. But where is
the hue and cry to get government out of the loan guarantee business?
AK
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2011-10-12 01:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antispam Knight
If you were to confiscate 100% of the income of all those making $1
mil/yr, in the USA, you wouldn't run the government for more than a
few days.
What are you smoking?
Post by Antispam Knight
I saw it a number of years ago.
I suppose that Snopes is run by a bunch os socialists and that JR shot
JFK in Area 51?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to ***@library.lspace.org
Antispam Knight
2011-10-12 07:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Antispam Knight
If you were to confiscate 100% of the income of all those making $1
mil/yr, in the USA, you wouldn't run the government for more than a
few days.
What are you smoking?
Post by Antispam Knight
I saw it a number of years ago.
I suppose that Snopes is run by a bunch os socialists and that JR shot
JFK in Area 51?
<snip>
/sarcasm ignored
Ok, here's the real numbers:
From
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

2011 Federal spending (budget) $3.819 trillion (3.819 x10^12).
(3.819 x 10^12)/365=1.05 x 10^10, or $10.5 billion/day.

From: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in11si.xls
column 11 sum of lines 25-29=$6.23 x 10^11 or $623 billion.
This is the total amount of taxable income of those making $1 mil/yr or
more. From column 7, sum of lines 25-29, this represents .3% (3/10ths of one
percent) of the tax returns filed. Some of these are obviously joint
returns. This was in 2009, the last year for which I could find this data.

$623/10.5=59.33 days. This is 2 months, not a few days as I stated. But this
is a one shot deal. You sure wouldn't get that on an ongoing basis. I can't
imagine anyone doing the same thing next year, if his entire income were
confiscated this year. The bulk of the money is always going to come from
the masses (middle class). I'm betting that 99.7% of the people can't
confiscate their living out of the other .3%.
I'm sure if I made any math mistakes, it will be illuminated forthwith. It's
late--I'm done for today.
AK
Seth
2011-10-12 21:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Antispam Knight
If you were to confiscate 100% of the income of all those making $1
mil/yr, in the USA, you wouldn't run the government for more than a
few days.
What are you smoking?
The federal deficit is over a trillion dollars/year. The total income
of all those making over $1 million/year in the US is less than 75% of
that; so confiscating all their income (and ignoring the fact that
they already pay income taxes, so the government would be taking the
same money twice) wouldn't cover the deficit. Confiscating all the
income they don't currently pay in taxes would cover maybe half the
deficit.

Total federal expenditures is almost 4 trillion.

It's more than a few days, but way under the full year.

Seth
DLU
2011-10-13 00:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seth
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Antispam Knight
If you were to confiscate 100% of the income of all those making $1
mil/yr, in the USA, you wouldn't run the government for more than a
few days.
What are you smoking?
The federal deficit is over a trillion dollars/year. The total income
of all those making over $1 million/year in the US is less than 75% of
that; so confiscating all their income (and ignoring the fact that
they already pay income taxes, so the government would be taking the
same money twice) wouldn't cover the deficit. Confiscating all the
income they don't currently pay in taxes would cover maybe half the
deficit.
Total federal expenditures is almost 4 trillion.
It's more than a few days, but way under the full year.
Seth
Explain why someone who's income is $175,000 a day only has to pay a 15%
tax on that income. Look up the Forbes 400 and see just how many of
those individuals actually have a salary, and how many are getting
dividends and capital gains. Look up the incomes of the hedge fund
managers, some whose "earnings" go as high as $1,000,000,000 a year, and
they only pay the 15% tax rate.

Most of them are heirs to vast fortunes and have what is known as
unearned income, like the heirs to Campbell soup who each have
50,000,000 of stock that pays $1.10 a year in dividends.

It is not a matter of confiscating their earnings, it is a mater of
equal treatment. Notice that only a few of those billionaires actually
create jobs, or add to the employment rolls, except to hire another
servant, or crewman for their yachts. Or maybe some more gardeners for
their estates in France and Switzerland.

Just raising the income tax on these individuals would reduce the
deficit by a few percentage points.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
Chris U
2011-10-13 11:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Explain why someone who's income is $175,000 a day only has to pay a 15%
tax on that income. Look up the Forbes 400 and see just how many of
those individuals actually have a salary, and how many are getting
dividends and capital gains. Look up the incomes of the hedge fund
managers, some whose "earnings" go as high as $1,000,000,000 a year, and
they only pay the 15% tax rate.
Most of them are heirs to vast fortunes and have what is known as
unearned income, like the heirs to Campbell soup who each have
50,000,000 of stock that pays $1.10 a year in dividends.
It is not a matter of confiscating their earnings, it is a mater of
equal treatment. Notice that only a few of those billionaires actually
create jobs, or add to the employment rolls, except to hire another
servant, or crewman for their yachts. Or maybe some more gardeners for
their estates in France and Switzerland.
Just raising the income tax on these individuals would reduce the
deficit by a few percentage points.
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to pay more
taxes.

Since the end of WW2 it is a fact that the rich are getting richer
every year, while the hourly paid have got poorer pro rata in every
developed country.
More and more families now need 2 earners, many just to tread water in
economic terms. Pensioners are finding it harder to manage every year.
Look at any marina and see how the numbers of luxury boats is growing
year on year, almost all owned by the already rich or the new senior
exec. rich.
BEI Design
2011-10-13 16:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to
pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet is free to pay more taxes at any time he wants
to do so. All he has to do is sit down and write the
check(s). What really wants is to force **all others** to
so, whether they agree with him or not.
Jim Higgins
2011-10-13 16:10:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:08:09 -0700, "BEI Design"
Post by BEI Design
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to
pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet is free to pay more taxes at any time he wants
to do so. All he has to do is sit down and write the
check(s). What really wants is to force **all others** to
so, whether they agree with him or not.
Bingo! And same answer to all the liberals who don't think we're
redistributing wealth fast enough. The US Treasury is happy to accept
donations. Same for state and local government, local food banks,
soup kitchens, etc.
bar0
2011-10-13 16:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Higgins
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:08:09 -0700, "BEI Design"
Post by BEI Design
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to
pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet is free to pay more taxes at any time he wants
to do so. All he has to do is sit down and write the
check(s). What really wants is to force **all others** to
so, whether they agree with him or not.
Bingo! And same answer to all the liberals who don't think we're
redistributing wealth fast enough. The US Treasury is happy to accept
donations. Same for state and local government, local food banks,
soup kitchens, etc.
That's why a 27% payroll tax (Bachmans 6-6-6) is needed. Large contributions
well be mandatory for wage earners and optional for the wealthy.
DLU
2011-10-13 23:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by BEI Design
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to
pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet is free to pay more taxes at any time he wants
to do so. All he has to do is sit down and write the
check(s). What really wants is to force **all others** to
so, whether they agree with him or not.
He is advocating fairness in the tax code. As you well know, the rich,
and we are talking about hedge fund managers, heirs to immense fortunes
and others who's incomes are considered unearned, get by with a 15%
rate. Of course Beffett is frre to doneat mor, but tht is specious. You
well know that the rest of those very wealth will not give a red cent
more than their accountants tell them to.

Just look at Dick Fuld for instance the CEO of Bear Stearns. He walked
away with several hundred million, while the stockholder got $0.10 on
the dollar. It is not a matter of force, it is a matter of equality.
Your tax rate is higher than Buffett's. You may pay less, but the
percent you pay is more. And the lower your income, the more it takes
from your ability to provide for yourself.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
2011-10-13 23:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Post by BEI Design
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to
pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet is free to pay more taxes at any time he wants
to do so. All he has to do is sit down and write the
check(s). What really wants is to force **all others** to
so, whether they agree with him or not.
He is advocating fairness in the tax code. As you well know, the rich,
and we are talking about hedge fund managers, heirs to immense fortunes
and others who's incomes are considered unearned, get by with a 15%
rate. Of course Beffett is frre to doneat mor, but tht is specious. You
well know that the rest of those very wealth will not give a red cent
more than their accountants tell them to.
Just look at Dick Fuld for instance the CEO of Bear Stearns. He walked
away with several hundred million, while the stockholder got $0.10 on
the dollar. It is not a matter of force, it is a matter of equality.
Your tax rate is higher than Buffett's. You may pay less, but the
percent you pay is more. And the lower your income, the more it takes
from your ability to provide for yourself.
he is very careful to insure that his ideas won't affect him. Some
think he is suing to avoid paying taxes owed.
--
Idioten aangeboden. Gratis af te halen.
h/t Dagelijkse Standaard

ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy
DLU
2011-10-14 03:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Post by BEI Design
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to
pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet is free to pay more taxes at any time he wants
to do so. All he has to do is sit down and write the
check(s). What really wants is to force **all others** to
so, whether they agree with him or not.
He is advocating fairness in the tax code. As you well know, the rich,
and we are talking about hedge fund managers, heirs to immense fortunes
and others who's incomes are considered unearned, get by with a 15%
rate. Of course Beffett is frre to doneat mor, but tht is specious. You
well know that the rest of those very wealth will not give a red cent
more than their accountants tell them to.
Just look at Dick Fuld for instance the CEO of Bear Stearns. He walked
away with several hundred million, while the stockholder got $0.10 on
the dollar. It is not a matter of force, it is a matter of equality.
Your tax rate is higher than Buffett's. You may pay less, but the
percent you pay is more. And the lower your income, the more it takes
from your ability to provide for yourself.
he is very careful to insure that his ideas won't affect him. Some think
he is suing to avoid paying taxes owed.
I do not think he is worried about that sort of thing. For whatever
reason, I see individuals impugning Buffett's integrity. You are
accusing him of being dishonest. Since I get the 10K from
Berkshire-Hathaway, I get to read his newsletter, and I find him to be
credible. He takes a $100K income from B-H, but has other income as
well, such as 368,000,000 shares of Wells Fargo, and 400,000,000 shares
of Coca Cola. He just reerled an income of $60,000,000 last year. That
is about $120,000 a day income before taxes. Do you really think at his
age, that he is worried about a few million in taxes? He lives modestly
in Kansas City, but of course does travel on corporate jets and stays at
very good hotels.

In fact there are several billionaires who are angry with him, they do
not want to pay more, even though they would not miss the proposed
changes in taxes. Those who are making the most noise are the CEOS
who's salaries are from added to with options to join in the parade.
These are people whose salaries are in the low millions, but also have
huge amounts of stock options. Buy at the option price, sell during the
increase created by them and pay the 15% capitol gains. In many cases,
that is where the bulk of their compensation comes from.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
Chris U
2011-10-14 08:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Post by DLU
Post by BEI Design
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to
pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet is free to pay more taxes at any time he wants
to do so. All he has to do is sit down and write the
check(s). What really wants is to force **all others** to
so, whether they agree with him or not.
He is advocating fairness in the tax code. As you well know, the rich,
and we are talking about hedge fund managers, heirs to immense fortunes
and others who's incomes are considered unearned, get by with a 15%
rate. Of course Beffett is frre to doneat mor, but tht is specious. You
well know that the rest of those very wealth will not give a red cent
more than their accountants tell them to.
Just look at Dick Fuld for instance the CEO of Bear Stearns. He walked
away with several hundred million, while the stockholder got $0.10 on
the dollar. It is not a matter of force, it is a matter of equality.
Your tax rate is higher than Buffett's. You may pay less, but the
percent you pay is more. And the lower your income, the more it takes
from your ability to provide for yourself.
he is very careful to insure that his ideas won't affect him. Some think
he is suing to avoid paying taxes owed.
I do not think he is worried about that sort of thing. For whatever
reason, I see individuals impugning Buffett's integrity. You are
accusing him of being dishonest. Since I get the 10K from
Berkshire-Hathaway, I get to read his newsletter, and I find him to be
credible. He takes a $100K income from B-H, but has other income as
well, such as 368,000,000 shares of Wells Fargo, and 400,000,000 shares
of Coca Cola. He just reerled an income of $60,000,000 last year. That
is about $120,000 a day income before taxes. Do you really think at his
age, that he is worried about a few million in taxes? He lives modestly
in Kansas City, but of course does travel on corporate jets and stays at
very good hotels.
In fact there are several billionaires who are angry with him, they do
not want to pay more, even though they would not miss the proposed
changes in taxes. Those who are making the most noise are the CEOS
who's salaries are from added to with options to join in the parade.
These are people whose salaries are in the low millions, but also have
huge amounts of stock options. Buy at the option price, sell during the
increase created by them and pay the 15% capitol gains. In many cases,
that is where the bulk of their compensation comes from.
15% to someone with a total income of $1,000,000 or more has less real
cost of living impact than someone with a total income of $40,000 or
less.

I must remember to reduce my Caviar order etc.

There is hardship and real hardship as the cost of living carries on
rising.
Jim Higgins
2011-10-15 00:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Post by BEI Design
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to
pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet is free to pay more taxes at any time he wants
to do so. All he has to do is sit down and write the
check(s). What really wants is to force **all others** to
so, whether they agree with him or not.
He is advocating fairness in the tax code. As you well know, the rich,
and we are talking about hedge fund managers, heirs to immense fortunes
and others who's incomes are considered unearned, get by with a 15%
rate. Of course Beffett is frre to doneat mor, but tht is specious. You
well know that the rest of those very wealth will not give a red cent
more than their accountants tell them to.
It isn't specious at all. If Buffet believes this is necessary then
he needs to start doing it while he's working to force everyone else
to do it. He needs to set the example. Problem is he probably
doesn't intend for his little increased tax plan to affect himself all
that much.
Post by DLU
Just look at Dick Fuld for instance the CEO of Bear Stearns. He walked
away with several hundred million, while the stockholder got $0.10 on
the dollar. It is not a matter of force, it is a matter of equality.
Your tax rate is higher than Buffett's. You may pay less, but the
percent you pay is more. And the lower your income, the more it takes
from your ability to provide for yourself.
That's the problem with a flat tax. It's regressive. But (IMHO) it's
even a bigger problem when folks pay no taxes at all - no matter the
income level. You simply can't survive with a huge portion of the
electorate paying no taxes, but able to vote more and more largesse
for itself. They have to feel the effect of their decisions as a
check on their greed.

Our federal govt needs to get out of the income redistribution
business and focus on national defense and a few other things very
explicitly outlined by a very narrow and literal reading of our
Constitution. Leave the rest up to the states and their subdivisions.
BEI Design
2011-10-15 01:24:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:18:11 -0700, DLU
Post by DLU
Post by BEI Design
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the
rich to
pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet is free to pay more taxes at any time
he wants
to do so. All he has to do is sit down and write the
check(s). What really wants is to force **all
others** to
so, whether they agree with him or not.
He is advocating fairness in the tax code. As you well
know, the rich, and we are talking about hedge fund
managers, heirs to immense fortunes and others who's
incomes are considered unearned, get by with a 15%
rate. Of course Beffett is frre to doneat mor, but tht
is specious. You well know that the rest of those very
wealth will not give a red cent more than their
accountants tell them to.
It isn't specious at all. If Buffet believes this is
necessary then he needs to start doing it while he's
working to force everyone else to do it. He needs to set
the example. Problem is he probably doesn't intend for
his little increased tax plan to affect himself all that
much.
Post by DLU
Just look at Dick Fuld for instance the CEO of Bear
Stearns. He walked away with several hundred million,
while the stockholder got $0.10 on the dollar. It is
not a matter of force, it is a matter of equality. Your
tax rate is higher than Buffett's. You may pay less,
but the percent you pay is more. And the lower your
income, the more it takes from your ability to provide
for yourself.
That's the problem with a flat tax. It's regressive.
But (IMHO) it's even a bigger problem when folks pay no
taxes at all - no matter the income level. You simply
can't survive with a huge portion of the electorate
paying no taxes, but able to vote more and more largesse
for itself. They have to feel the effect of their
decisions as a check on their greed.
Our federal govt needs to get out of the income
redistribution business and focus on national defense and
a few other things very explicitly outlined by a very
narrow and literal reading of our Constitution. Leave
the rest up to the states and their subdivisions.
I totally agree. With all of the above.
bar0
2011-10-15 04:23:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by BEI Design
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:18:11 -0700, DLU
Post by DLU
Post by BEI Design
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the
rich to
pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet is free to pay more taxes at any time
he wants
to do so. All he has to do is sit down and write the
check(s). What really wants is to force **all
others** to
so, whether they agree with him or not.
He is advocating fairness in the tax code. As you well
know, the rich, and we are talking about hedge fund
managers, heirs to immense fortunes and others who's
incomes are considered unearned, get by with a 15%
rate. Of course Beffett is frre to doneat mor, but tht
is specious. You well know that the rest of those very
wealth will not give a red cent more than their
accountants tell them to.
It isn't specious at all. If Buffet believes this is
necessary then he needs to start doing it while he's
working to force everyone else to do it. He needs to set
the example. Problem is he probably doesn't intend for
his little increased tax plan to affect himself all that
much.
Post by DLU
Just look at Dick Fuld for instance the CEO of Bear
Stearns. He walked away with several hundred million,
while the stockholder got $0.10 on the dollar. It is
not a matter of force, it is a matter of equality. Your
tax rate is higher than Buffett's. You may pay less,
but the percent you pay is more. And the lower your
income, the more it takes from your ability to provide
for yourself.
That's the problem with a flat tax. It's regressive.
But (IMHO) it's even a bigger problem when folks pay no
taxes at all - no matter the income level. You simply
can't survive with a huge portion of the electorate
paying no taxes, but able to vote more and more largesse
for itself. They have to feel the effect of their
decisions as a check on their greed.
Our federal govt needs to get out of the income
redistribution business and focus on national defense and
a few other things very explicitly outlined by a very
narrow and literal reading of our Constitution. Leave
the rest up to the states and their subdivisions.
I totally agree. With all of the above.
Taxing the wealthy 30-35% is not income redistribution by any stretch of the
imagination.

Taxing the wage earner 27% and the wealthy 9-10 is. (the 666 plan)
Jim Higgins
2011-10-15 06:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
Post by BEI Design
Post by Jim Higgins
That's the problem with a flat tax. It's regressive.
But (IMHO) it's even a bigger problem when folks pay no
taxes at all - no matter the income level. You simply
can't survive with a huge portion of the electorate
paying no taxes, but able to vote more and more largesse
for itself. They have to feel the effect of their
decisions as a check on their greed.
Our federal govt needs to get out of the income
redistribution business and focus on national defense and
a few other things very explicitly outlined by a very
narrow and literal reading of our Constitution. Leave
the rest up to the states and their subdivisions.
I totally agree. With all of the above.
Taxing the wealthy 30-35% is not income redistribution by any stretch of the
imagination.
Taxing the wage earner 27% and the wealthy 9-10 is. (the 666 plan)
I don't have specific numbers in mind, but I think 27% - 35% federal
income tax is way too high regardless of income level. I don't have
specific numbers in mind, just that the federal govt needs to be
reined in heavily as far as what it does and that the total take from
federal taxes needs to be considerably reduced.

At the same time as we greatly reduce federal taxes, the states (and
counties/cities) will need to pick up some/many (not all) of the
functions stripped from the feds and will need to raise taxes
commensurately.

The net effect will be to move everything closer to home where voters
will have a much stronger and more direct effect on it at the polls.
Push everything down to the lowest practical level consistent with
efficient operation.

The net effect will be to reduce the idea that our govt way up there
in Washington simply shits all the money they "give" us rather than
taking it from us before giving a part of it back. As soon as you
educate people that what they demand is going to cost them something,
and have other side effects that are perhaps even more serious, there
will be fewer appeals to "Uncle Sugar" to cure everything with money.

All levels of government need to be reined in severely when it comes
to pensions. Compared to private industry pensions, our various
levels of govt are totally out of control in this area.
Antispam Knight
2011-10-15 17:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by DLU
Post by BEI Design
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to
pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet is free to pay more taxes at any time he wants
to do so. All he has to do is sit down and write the
check(s). What really wants is to force **all others** to
so, whether they agree with him or not.
He is advocating fairness in the tax code. As you well know, the rich,
and we are talking about hedge fund managers, heirs to immense fortunes
and others who's incomes are considered unearned, get by with a 15%
rate. Of course Beffett is frre to doneat mor, but tht is specious. You
well know that the rest of those very wealth will not give a red cent
more than their accountants tell them to.
It isn't specious at all. If Buffet believes this is necessary then
he needs to start doing it while he's working to force everyone else
to do it. He needs to set the example. Problem is he probably
doesn't intend for his little increased tax plan to affect himself all
that much.
Post by DLU
Just look at Dick Fuld for instance the CEO of Bear Stearns. He walked
away with several hundred million, while the stockholder got $0.10 on
the dollar. It is not a matter of force, it is a matter of equality.
Your tax rate is higher than Buffett's. You may pay less, but the
percent you pay is more. And the lower your income, the more it takes
from your ability to provide for yourself.
That's the problem with a flat tax. It's regressive. But (IMHO) it's
even a bigger problem when folks pay no taxes at all - no matter the
income level. You simply can't survive with a huge portion of the
electorate paying no taxes, but able to vote more and more largesse
for itself. They have to feel the effect of their decisions as a
check on their greed.
Our federal govt needs to get out of the income redistribution
business and focus on national defense and a few other things very
explicitly outlined by a very narrow and literal reading of our
Constitution. Leave the rest up to the states and their subdivisions.
Hear, hear! As Maggie Thatcher said, "The trouble with Socialism is that
eventually you run out of other people's money."
IMO, government's place is to provide protection from enemies, foreign &
domestic, and infrastructure such that the people can take care of
themselves.
For a real eye-opener on the number of federal agencies, just take a gander
at
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

There are 250 congressional committees & subcommittees. I used to think of a
committee as maybe a dozen or two dozen people. In fact, each congressional
committee and subcommittee is comprised of numerous staffers, advisors,
aides, research assistants, managers, secretaries, etc., all on the
government payroll.
The Dec. 2009 congressional directory lists 16,010 names.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDIR-2009-12-01/html/CDIR-2009-12-01-INDEX.htm
AK
Andrew
2011-10-15 17:36:25 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 15, 1:33 pm, "Antispam Knight" <***@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Antispam Knight
IMO, government's place is to provide protection from enemies, foreign &
domestic, and infrastructure such that the people can take care of
themselves.
AMEN! So, is Spamhaus and foreign private blocklists exempt from this
opinion of yours?
Jim Higgins
2011-10-15 19:56:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:36:25 -0700 (PDT), Andrew
Post by Antispam Knight
<snip>
Post by Antispam Knight
IMO, government's place is to provide protection from enemies, foreign &
domestic, and infrastructure such that the people can take care of
themselves.
AMEN! So, is Spamhaus and foreign private blocklists exempt from this
opinion of yours?
Spamhaus has nothing to do with any government.
TOASTEDspam.com
2011-10-15 21:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antispam Knight
<snip>
IMO, government's place is to provide protection from enemies, foreign&
domestic, and infrastructure such that the people can take care of
themselves.
AMEN! So, is Spamhaus and foreign private blocklists exempt from this
opinion of yours?
Andrew, do you even read the posts you respond to?

I choose to take care of my spam problem myself by having my mail server
make use of data provided by Spamhaus. The government stays out of it,
as they should.

Dumbass.
--
Andrew Stephens - still dumberer than dandelion seeds.
TOASTEDspam.com
Antispam Knight
2011-10-16 05:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antispam Knight
<snip>
Post by Antispam Knight
IMO, government's place is to provide protection from enemies, foreign &
domestic, and infrastructure such that the people can take care of
themselves.
AMEN! So, is Spamhaus and foreign private blocklists exempt from this
opinion of yours?
I'm not aware that Spamhaus and foreign *private* blocklists are government
entities.
AK
Andrew
2011-10-16 06:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antispam Knight
Post by Antispam Knight
<snip>
Post by Antispam Knight
IMO, government's place is to provide protection from enemies, foreign &
domestic, and infrastructure such that the people can take care of
themselves.
AMEN!  So, is Spamhaus and foreign private blocklists exempt from this
opinion of yours?
I'm not aware that Spamhaus and foreign *private* blocklists are government
entities.
They aren't...but neither is Susan Gunn aka Shiksaa aka Susan Wilson
or Jim B. Gunn or James R. Gunn of
5562 Richmond Ave Garden Grove, CA 92845-1949, but they sure act like
they are.
BEI Design
2011-10-16 07:57:12 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 16, 1:30 am, "Antispam Knight"
Post by Antispam Knight
On Oct 15, 1:33 pm, "Antispam Knight"
Post by Antispam Knight
IMO, government's place is to provide protection
from enemies, foreign & domestic, and
infrastructure such that the people can take care
of themselves.
AMEN! So, is Spamhaus and foreign private blocklists
exempt from this opinion of yours?
I'm not aware that Spamhaus and foreign *private*
blocklists are government entities.
They aren't...but neither is [...............] aka Shiksaa
aka
[..................]
or [...............] or [..................] of
[............................................................],
but they
sure act like
they are.
Step in it much? Fool.
Andrew
2011-10-16 08:12:45 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 16, 3:57 am, "BEI Design"
<***@comcast.net.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
They aren't...but neither is [...............] aka Shiksaa
aka
[..................]
or [...............] or [..................] of
[............................................................],
but they
sure act like
they are.
Step in it much?  Fool.
What did you blank out here? Did you blank out that Susan F. Gunn is
Shiksaa aka Susan Wilson and that she lives at 5562 Richmond Ave
Garden Grove, CA 92845-1949? Why is that such a secret? She spends
night an day stalking others...so why hide herself? As I recall, this
happened with Scott Richter in 2003 when he emailed her asking her if
she could assist him in finding out about an address...yes, I read
books too. This is America...if she didn't want her address known,
she shouldn't have made it so easy to locate via public records.

Chris U
2011-10-14 08:29:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:08:09 -0700, "BEI Design"
Post by BEI Design
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to
pay more taxes.
Warren Buffet is free to pay more taxes at any time he wants
to do so. All he has to do is sit down and write the
check(s). What really wants is to force **all others** to
so, whether they agree with him or not.
From the reports I've seen in the UK news, I understood he was
implying those in the highest income bracket were the ones he wanted
to see paying more.
WindsorFox<SS>
2011-10-13 18:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris U
Post by DLU
Explain why someone who's income is $175,000 a day only has to pay a 15%
tax on that income. Look up the Forbes 400 and see just how many of
those individuals actually have a salary, and how many are getting
dividends and capital gains. Look up the incomes of the hedge fund
managers, some whose "earnings" go as high as $1,000,000,000 a year, and
they only pay the 15% tax rate.
Most of them are heirs to vast fortunes and have what is known as
unearned income, like the heirs to Campbell soup who each have
50,000,000 of stock that pays $1.10 a year in dividends.
It is not a matter of confiscating their earnings, it is a mater of
equal treatment. Notice that only a few of those billionaires actually
create jobs, or add to the employment rolls, except to hire another
servant, or crewman for their yachts. Or maybe some more gardeners for
their estates in France and Switzerland.
Just raising the income tax on these individuals would reduce the
deficit by a few percentage points.
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to pay more
taxes.
While at the same moment in time he pays an (or a group of)
accountant more in salary than any of us make to make sure he pays as
little as possible. If he were not just talking out of his ass, he would
start by paying more himself voluntarily.
Post by Chris U
Since the end of WW2 it is a fact that the rich are getting richer
every year, while the hourly paid have got poorer pro rata in every
developed country.
More and more families now need 2 earners, many just to tread water in
economic terms. Pensioners are finding it harder to manage every year.
Look at any marina and see how the numbers of luxury boats is growing
year on year, almost all owned by the already rich or the new senior
exec. rich.
bar0
2011-10-13 20:15:32 UTC
Permalink
....
While at the same moment in time he pays an (or a group of) accountant
more in salary than any of us make to make sure he pays as little as
possible. If he were not just talking out of his ass, he would start by
paying more himself voluntarily.
Wow, Think about that statement (you aren't the only one saying this). He
says everyone in my shoes should pay a little more tax, and he's being
called a hypocrite for not volunteering to be the only one. I guess what
we're really after is a voluntary tax system, unless of course you are a
wage earner, or maybe vote democratic or for black candidates, in which case
paying tax is mandated.
WindsorFox<SS>
2011-10-13 22:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
....
While at the same moment in time he pays an (or a group of) accountant
more in salary than any of us make to make sure he pays as little as
possible. If he were not just talking out of his ass, he would start
by paying more himself voluntarily.
Wow, Think about that statement (you aren't the only one saying this).
He says everyone in my shoes should pay a little more tax, and he's
being called a hypocrite for not volunteering to be the only one. I
guess what we're really after is a voluntary tax system, unless of
course you are a wage earner, or maybe vote democratic or for black
candidates, in which case paying tax is mandated.
I really don't catch the sarcasm in that, but I yes I think Buffet
is a total dildo for saying what he said. When all is stamped and sent I
bet he pays a lower percentage than I do. If all the deductions and
discounts he takes were removed and he paid a flat 15% I bet he'd pay a
*LOT* more in taxes. Which explains why he thinks it's a great idea to
raise the percentage for those like him since that would probably not
change the amount he actually pays in the end. Have you ever wondered
why GE and Exxon pay little or no taxes? Have you ever wondered how much
more would be available if they did??
Chris U
2011-10-14 08:41:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:21:42 -0500, "WindsorFox<SS>"
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Post by bar0
....
While at the same moment in time he pays an (or a group of) accountant
more in salary than any of us make to make sure he pays as little as
possible. If he were not just talking out of his ass, he would start
by paying more himself voluntarily.
Wow, Think about that statement (you aren't the only one saying this).
He says everyone in my shoes should pay a little more tax, and he's
being called a hypocrite for not volunteering to be the only one. I
guess what we're really after is a voluntary tax system, unless of
course you are a wage earner, or maybe vote democratic or for black
candidates, in which case paying tax is mandated.
I really don't catch the sarcasm in that, but I yes I think Buffet
is a total dildo for saying what he said. When all is stamped and sent I
bet he pays a lower percentage than I do. If all the deductions and
discounts he takes were removed and he paid a flat 15% I bet he'd pay a
*LOT* more in taxes. Which explains why he thinks it's a great idea to
raise the percentage for those like him since that would probably not
change the amount he actually pays in the end. Have you ever wondered
why GE and Exxon pay little or no taxes? Have you ever wondered how much
more would be available if they did??
This is the whole point of the debate though.
Why is it only the wage earners in any country who have no choice in
how much tax they pay while exec's and corporations have so many tax
"got out clauses" ??
This is the case world wide not only in America.
Why is that the worlds wage earners pay such a proportionately higher
amount of their income than senior exec's and corporations who make
silly money but are to avoid the same level of tax burden.
Consider also that many of those silly money income earners often
employ staff from ethnic minorities who are often grateful for a low
wage in the USA which is better than they could hope for in their
native countries.

We may have abolished slavery in name but the wealthy often (but not
always) still screw those in desperate need of any sort of income.
Jim Higgins
2011-10-15 00:19:12 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:21:42 -0500, "WindsorFox<SS>"
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Post by bar0
....
While at the same moment in time he pays an (or a group of) accountant
more in salary than any of us make to make sure he pays as little as
possible. If he were not just talking out of his ass, he would start
by paying more himself voluntarily.
Wow, Think about that statement (you aren't the only one saying this).
He says everyone in my shoes should pay a little more tax, and he's
being called a hypocrite for not volunteering to be the only one. I
guess what we're really after is a voluntary tax system, unless of
course you are a wage earner, or maybe vote democratic or for black
candidates, in which case paying tax is mandated.
I really don't catch the sarcasm in that, but I yes I think Buffet
is a total dildo for saying what he said. When all is stamped and sent I
bet he pays a lower percentage than I do. If all the deductions and
discounts he takes were removed and he paid a flat 15% I bet he'd pay a
*LOT* more in taxes. Which explains why he thinks it's a great idea to
raise the percentage for those like him since that would probably not
change the amount he actually pays in the end. Have you ever wondered
why GE and Exxon pay little or no taxes? Have you ever wondered how much
more would be available if they did??
I'm all for the Buffet plan... with a "minor" change. His new tax
rate also applies to all capital gains over say $5 million. Watch him
backpedal at that one.
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
2011-10-13 20:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris U
Even Warren Buffet is advocating the need for the rich to pay more
taxes.
As long as HE doesn't have to pay ANY.
--
Idioten aangeboden. Gratis af te halen.
h/t Dagelijkse Standaard

ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy
WindsorFox<SS>
2011-10-13 18:32:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Post by Seth
It's more than a few days, but way under the full year.
Seth
Explain why someone who's income is $175,000 a day only has to pay a 15%
tax on that income. Look up the Forbes 400 and see just how many of
those individuals actually have a salary, and how many are getting
dividends and capital gains. Look up the incomes of the hedge fund
managers, some whose "earnings" go as high as $1,000,000,000 a year, and
they only pay the 15% tax rate.
Why should the tax percentage go up as the salary goes up? That's
ridiculous and that's why it is a percentage instead of a flat $ amount.
15% of one million and a LOT more than 15% of 27,000. And that's as it
should be. what should happen is making a flat percentage with no
discounts or deductions.
bar0
2011-10-13 20:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Post by DLU
Post by Seth
It's more than a few days, but way under the full year.
Seth
Explain why someone who's income is $175,000 a day only has to pay a 15%
tax on that income. Look up the Forbes 400 and see just how many of
those individuals actually have a salary, and how many are getting
dividends and capital gains. Look up the incomes of the hedge fund
managers, some whose "earnings" go as high as $1,000,000,000 a year, and
they only pay the 15% tax rate.
Why should the tax percentage go up as the salary goes up? That's
ridiculous and that's why it is a percentage instead of a flat $ amount.
15% of one million and a LOT more than 15% of 27,000. And that's as it
should be. what should happen is making a flat percentage with no
discounts or deductions.
Because guess what, That higher pay and your ability to enjoy is is in large
measure due to the stuff tax pays for. infrastructure, yes regulations,
roads, ports, police, courts, laws and so forth. and yes the more you have
to live on the more your enjoyment of that other stuff is. But you, propose
that wage earners pay more.

I believe everyone needs to have skin in the game, but the more you get from
the game the more skin should be in it. The argument could be about how much
more skin.
WindsorFox<SS>
2011-10-13 22:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Why should the tax percentage go up as the salary goes up? That's
ridiculous and that's why it is a percentage instead of a flat $
amount. 15% of one million and a LOT more than 15% of 27,000. And
that's as it should be. what should happen is making a flat percentage
with no discounts or deductions.
Because guess what, That higher pay and your ability to enjoy is is in
large measure due to the stuff tax pays for. infrastructure, yes
regulations, roads, ports, police, courts, laws and so forth. and yes
the more you have to live on the more your enjoyment of that other stuff
is. But you, propose that wage earners pay more.
I believe everyone needs to have skin in the game, but the more you get
from the game the more skin should be in it. The argument could be about
how much more skin.
No I don't, I ask that everyone pay the exact same percentage. Which
will naturally make people who make more pay more. Nothing personal but
I personally think your reason is a load of sheep dip.
Jim Higgins
2011-10-15 00:26:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:12:35 -0500, "WindsorFox<SS>"
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Post by bar0
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Why should the tax percentage go up as the salary goes up? That's
ridiculous and that's why it is a percentage instead of a flat $
amount. 15% of one million and a LOT more than 15% of 27,000. And
that's as it should be. what should happen is making a flat percentage
with no discounts or deductions.
Because guess what, That higher pay and your ability to enjoy is is in
large measure due to the stuff tax pays for. infrastructure, yes
regulations, roads, ports, police, courts, laws and so forth. and yes
the more you have to live on the more your enjoyment of that other stuff
is. But you, propose that wage earners pay more.
I believe everyone needs to have skin in the game, but the more you get
from the game the more skin should be in it. The argument could be about
how much more skin.
No I don't, I ask that everyone pay the exact same percentage. Which
will naturally make people who make more pay more. Nothing personal but
I personally think your reason is a load of sheep dip.
I'd be more in favor of that approach if...

1) Tthe Feds were restricted to doing only those things found in a
very narrow and strict reading of their powers as granted in our
Constitution.

2) "Promote the general welfare" has NOTHING to do with income
redistribution.

3) The 10th Amendment would be paramount in all cases.
DLU
2011-10-11 22:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antispam Knight
Sorry, but no one pays into anything. It is just another tax. They could
just as well have said our income tax rates were going up by some 16% (the
combined employee and employer percentages). Acutally, not 16% on the whole
amount, only the first $70k or so, but you get the drift.
The money goes to the same place as all other taxes, and is spent the same
as all other taxes. There is NO trust fund (other than on paper). My SS
"benefits" are being paid by today's workers, and next generation's workers
(via debt). Classic Ponzi scheme. The late "investors" pay off the early
"investors" until the math catches up with them.
We have been duped. We haven't paid into anything. And there are fools who
want the government to do even more! During WWII the slogan was "buy bonds."
It is now "buy votes."
AK
SS is an insurance not a benefit. You pay into a trust fund, and that
rust fund was supposed to be kept independent from the general fund.
Under Reagan it was "borrowed" from, in order to balance the budget. If
managed properly it will do just what it is supposed to do. You can not
buy the same insurance that you get from SS for any where near the same
price. If you get disabled, it gives you income. If you die it gives
support to your children and wife. When you are old enough to collect,
it gives you a minimum to keep you from going on the public dole.

The conservatives have labeled it a ponzi scheme, and entitlements.
I earned my SS, I paid in 53 years, and even if I had invested the same
amount, I would not have the same benefit that I have now. When I first
started investing, there was not Charles Schwab and trades cost far more
than the $8.95 I pay now. The best I would have been able to do would
have been about 4% compounded. Even so it would take about $500K to get
the same amount of income. But if you have $500K, you will not have all
of it paying you income. For instance since 2008, I have actually lost
close to 10% of dividend and interest income. GE went from $0.45 to
$0.15 a share. Well Fargo which paid about $0.57 is not paying $0.12 a
share. BofA is paying $0.01 a share down from $0.58 a share, those are
per quarter.

That is what the conservatives would like you to have for a retirement
program. Just ask anyone who had a 401K plan in 2008 how well it is
doing. These attacks on SS are specious and are just plain disingenuous.
What SS needs is some refinancing just like any other insurance program.
It has kept millions from poverty and from becoming dependent on the
rest of the taxpayers. It is compulsory because people such as you and
others who think they can get by on their own, end up in their 50s
discovering that they did not save and invest, and do not have anything
to retire on.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
bar0
2011-10-11 22:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antispam Knight
Sorry, but no one pays into anything. It is just another tax. They could
just as well have said our income tax rates were going up by some 16% (the
combined employee and employer percentages). Acutally, not 16% on the whole
amount, only the first $70k or so, but you get the drift.
The money goes to the same place as all other taxes, and is spent the same
as all other taxes. There is NO trust fund (other than on paper). My SS
"benefits" are being paid by today's workers, and next generation's workers
(via debt). Classic Ponzi scheme. The late "investors" pay off the early
"investors" until the math catches up with them.
We have been duped. We haven't paid into anything. And there are fools who
want the government to do even more! During WWII the slogan was "buy bonds."
It is now "buy votes."
AK
SS is an insurance not a benefit. You pay into a trust fund, and that rust
fund was supposed to be kept independent from the general fund. Under
Reagan it was "borrowed" from, in order to balance the budget. If managed
properly it will do just what it is supposed to do. You can not buy the
same insurance that you get from SS for any where near the same price. If
you get disabled, it gives you income. If you die it gives support to your
children and wife. When you are old enough to collect, it gives you a
minimum to keep you from going on the public dole.
The conservatives have labeled it a ponzi scheme, and entitlements.
I earned my SS, I paid in 53 years, and even if I had invested the same
amount, I would not have the same benefit that I have now. When I first
started investing, there was not Charles Schwab and trades cost far more
than the $8.95 I pay now. The best I would have been able to do would have
been about 4% compounded. Even so it would take about $500K to get the
same amount of income. But if you have $500K, you will not have all of it
paying you income. For instance since 2008, I have actually lost close to
10% of dividend and interest income. GE went from $0.45 to $0.15 a share.
Well Fargo which paid about $0.57 is not paying $0.12 a share. BofA is
paying $0.01 a share down from $0.58 a share, those are per quarter.
That is what the conservatives would like you to have for a retirement
program. Just ask anyone who had a 401K plan in 2008 how well it is doing.
These attacks on SS are specious and are just plain disingenuous. What SS
needs is some refinancing just like any other insurance program. It has
kept millions from poverty and from becoming dependent on the rest of the
taxpayers. It is compulsory because people such as you and others who
think they can get by on their own, end up in their 50s discovering that
they did not save and invest, and do not have anything to retire on.
Nooooo, you just don't get it, we're being softened up for one of the
greatest transfers of wealth in history. It's all going to Joe the plumbers
pocket.
DLU
2011-10-11 22:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
Nooooo, you just don't get it, we're being softened up for one of the
greatest transfers of wealth in history. It's all going to Joe the
plumbers pocket.
No it is going to Goldman Sachs so that they can make more bonds out of
sub-prime debt, and get them rated investment grade, then sell those
bonds as CDOs (collatetalized debt obligations) to pension plans, school
districts, and other public funds that are only allowed to invest in AAA
securities. And while they are doing that, they also buy CDFs and bet
that those CDOs will fail.

Also the conservatives have read a book "The Creature from Jekyll
Island" by Ron Paul, so they know all about the Fed.
If they get rid of the Fed, then the banks will not have any reserve, and
they can start a run on a bank, and it will have nowhere to keep its
liquidity. So you start a run like the hedge funds did with Bear and
Lehman, and you short them.

I do not think Joe the Plumber is quite that smart. "Too Big to Fail"
tells you how it is done. "The Big Short" tells you how to short these
banks.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2011-10-12 00:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
The conservatives have labeled it a ponzi scheme, and entitlements.
Not without reason. The first generation on SS got a free ride.

However, the rising incomes since then have at least partially offset
that, and it is certainly true that SS taxes were diverted into the
general funds. It is not clear whether SS would be solvent with an
honest accounting, but what is clear is that there will never be an
honest accounting because the Federal Government doesn't have the
funds to make up for dipping into the till.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to ***@library.lspace.org
DLU
2011-10-11 23:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by DLU
The conservatives have labeled it a ponzi scheme, and entitlements.
Not without reason. The first generation on SS got a free ride.
However, the rising incomes since then have at least partially offset
that, and it is certainly true that SS taxes were diverted into the
general funds. It is not clear whether SS would be solvent with an
honest accounting, but what is clear is that there will never be an
honest accounting because the Federal Government doesn't have the
funds to make up for dipping into the till.
In some ways I am of the first generation as I was born in 1934, first
year to qualify. But as I said, I paid in for 51 years. Had to get a SS#
to sell cokes at the Cal football games. Yes over the years my income
did increase, and I van remember in 1969 my SS taxes would be paid by
the end of March, but I also had kaiser medical for my whole family in
1967 that cost me $90 for three months.

The cost to the taxpayers for that first generation was hardly
noticeable in the federal budget. You may not have seen the history of
conditions in 1932. Over 10,000 banks had failed, and here was no FDIC.
when a bank failed you lost all your savings, so the moment there was
any rumor about a bank, it started a run. No bank has enough liquidity
to survive a run.To do so, you would need to have 100% of your
depositors money on hand. Of course the idea behind a bank is to have a
collective amount of depositors money to be able to loan it out at a
higher rate than you are paying the savers.

That is where Fannie and Freddie came in. They bought the loans from the
banks, so the banks could loan more money. SS will have to build up a
reserve that can collect interest also. It will take some time, but the
reserve needs to be off limits to the general fund. Actually the gov
owes the SS trust fund with interest.

Not to many years ago, even though I had worked at well paying jobs all
my life, except for four years in the USAF, I seriously thought I might
have to buy a used double wide and tow it out to some plot of land in
the Mojave. And I was damned glad I had SS. Many of you do not realize
just how fast you can lose all your savings, and what ever else you
might own. I have seen guys who had good houses and jobs, get into a
nasty divorce and the house had to be sold, the wife got half his
earnings and savings, and in some cases the kids stole everything that
was not nailed down.

When SS was started, most people did not have any kind of retirement.
You got old, got laid off, a cheap gold plated watch, and sent on your
way. Oh you did not save anything on your $5 a week salary, too bad, I
guess you will have to find a family to take you in. In this day and
age, it is hard to see just how much poverty there was. WWII also
helped, as those SS recipients made good wages and paid into SS, and
that is one reason it did so well for so long. It was always able to
pay for itself, just as any other insurance plan does.

Then some smart legislator figured the reserve could be used to finance
some plan of his, and that is where the problem started.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
bar0
2011-10-12 14:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by DLU
The conservatives have labeled it a ponzi scheme, and entitlements.
Not without reason. The first generation on SS got a free ride.
However, the rising incomes since then have at least partially offset
that, and it is certainly true that SS taxes were diverted into the
general funds. It is not clear whether SS would be solvent with an
honest accounting, but what is clear is that there will never be an
honest accounting because the Federal Government doesn't have the
funds to make up for dipping into the till.
So, the SS payer (who has been loaning money to the US gov) has to line up
last, behind everyone else when obligations (Fed. Bonds and T-bills/notes)
are paid off?

Cool, fsck over the wage earner again, you only get repaid if you're wealthy
and living on investments. This is so awesome. Maybe we'll get titles soon
too!!

How many readers here could afford to keep their parents afloat if there
were no SS and Medicare?
DLU
2011-10-12 18:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
So, the SS payer (who has been loaning money to the US gov) has to line
up last, behind everyone else when obligations (Fed. Bonds and
T-bills/notes) are paid off?
Cool, fsck over the wage earner again, you only get repaid if you're
wealthy and living on investments. This is so awesome. Maybe we'll get
titles soon too!!
How many readers here could afford to keep their parents afloat if there
were no SS and Medicare?
The gov does not loan to the Fed. The Fed buys treasuries and actually
pays the treasury back with interest. The Fed money is where the banks
keep their reserve. That is federall8y chartered banks are required to
keep a percentage of their assets in reserve in order to pay withdrawals
that exceed cash on hand. The fed gets accused of printing money, but
only the treasury van print money. It prints Federal Reserve notes that
the Fed agrees to buy. It is not a simple process, but the printing of
more bills does result in inflation, that is why the Fed tries to keep
the inflation rate at about 3%. the recent run up in gold prices is more
an emotional thing than the what gold is actually worth. The problem
with holding gold is in order to profit by it, you have to sell it. It
does not pay dividends or interest, try taking a small bar tho the
grocery store or even the bank. You have to pay to store it. It has
industrial worth, and if you have a $20 gold piece, you will have a real
problem cashing it in, except at a gold dealer or coin dealer.

The real debt that has to be paid before putting the money back in the
SS fund, is the interest on the treasuries. The Bush administration got
the Chinese to buy just short of $1 trillion in treasuries to finance
the Iraqi debacle. That allowed the administration to pay for the cost
of the war without raising taxes to pay for it. The Japanese also hold
somewhere about the same amount of U.S. debt.

You can visit the Fed if there is one near you. They have open hours and
displays, and will explain what and how they operate. The Fed is owned
by the banks, it is not a Federal agency, but congress can place limits
on it. The other thing is, the chairman is appointed for 16 years. You
can also get the minutes of the open market committee that sets rates.
Those rates are what allow the banks to lend more or less money,
depending on how much they have to keep in reserve.

A good book for understanding the reason behind the Fed and why the U.S.
went off the gold standard is, "The Lords of Finance, The Bankers Who
Broke the World."
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
bar0
2011-10-12 18:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Post by bar0
So, the SS payer (who has been loaning money to the US gov) has to line
up last, behind everyone else when obligations (Fed. Bonds and
T-bills/notes) are paid off?
Cool, fsck over the wage earner again, you only get repaid if you're
wealthy and living on investments. This is so awesome. Maybe we'll get
titles soon too!!
How many readers here could afford to keep their parents afloat if there
were no SS and Medicare?
The gov does not loan to the Fed. The Fed buys treasuries and actually
pays the treasury back with interest. The Fed money is where the banks
keep their reserve. That is federall8y chartered banks are required to
keep a percentage of their assets in reserve in order to pay withdrawals
that exceed cash on hand. The fed gets accused of printing money, but only
the treasury van print money. It prints Federal Reserve notes that the Fed
agrees to buy. It is not a simple process, but the printing of more bills
does result in inflation, that is why the Fed tries to keep the inflation
rate at about 3%. the recent run up in gold prices is more an emotional
thing than the what gold is actually worth. The problem with holding gold
is in order to profit by it, you have to sell it. It does not pay
dividends or interest, try taking a small bar tho the grocery store or
even the bank. You have to pay to store it. It has industrial worth, and
if you have a $20 gold piece, you will have a real problem cashing it in,
except at a gold dealer or coin dealer.
The real debt that has to be paid before putting the money back in the SS
fund, is the interest on the treasuries. The Bush administration got the
Chinese to buy just short of $1 trillion in treasuries to finance the
Iraqi debacle. That allowed the administration to pay for the cost of the
war without raising taxes to pay for it. The Japanese also hold somewhere
about the same amount of U.S. debt.
Ahh, Obama's fault then.
Post by DLU
You can visit the Fed if there is one near you. They have open hours and
displays, and will explain what and how they operate. The Fed is owned by
the banks, it is not a Federal agency, but congress can place limits on
it. The other thing is, the chairman is appointed for 16 years. You can
also get the minutes of the open market committee that sets rates. Those
rates are what allow the banks to lend more or less money, depending on
how much they have to keep in reserve.
A good book for understanding the reason behind the Fed and why the U.S.
went off the gold standard is, "The Lords of Finance, The Bankers Who
Broke the World."
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
Chris U
2011-10-12 21:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
Post by DLU
Post by bar0
So, the SS payer (who has been loaning money to the US gov) has to line
up last, behind everyone else when obligations (Fed. Bonds and
T-bills/notes) are paid off?
Cool, fsck over the wage earner again, you only get repaid if you're
wealthy and living on investments. This is so awesome. Maybe we'll get
titles soon too!!
How many readers here could afford to keep their parents afloat if there
were no SS and Medicare?
The gov does not loan to the Fed. The Fed buys treasuries and actually
pays the treasury back with interest. The Fed money is where the banks
keep their reserve. That is federall8y chartered banks are required to
keep a percentage of their assets in reserve in order to pay withdrawals
that exceed cash on hand. The fed gets accused of printing money, but only
the treasury van print money. It prints Federal Reserve notes that the Fed
agrees to buy. It is not a simple process, but the printing of more bills
does result in inflation, that is why the Fed tries to keep the inflation
rate at about 3%. the recent run up in gold prices is more an emotional
thing than the what gold is actually worth. The problem with holding gold
is in order to profit by it, you have to sell it. It does not pay
dividends or interest, try taking a small bar tho the grocery store or
even the bank. You have to pay to store it. It has industrial worth, and
if you have a $20 gold piece, you will have a real problem cashing it in,
except at a gold dealer or coin dealer.
The real debt that has to be paid before putting the money back in the SS
fund, is the interest on the treasuries. The Bush administration got the
Chinese to buy just short of $1 trillion in treasuries to finance the
Iraqi debacle. That allowed the administration to pay for the cost of the
war without raising taxes to pay for it. The Japanese also hold somewhere
about the same amount of U.S. debt.
Ahh, Obama's fault then.
Post by DLU
You can visit the Fed if there is one near you. They have open hours and
displays, and will explain what and how they operate. The Fed is owned by
the banks, it is not a Federal agency, but congress can place limits on
it. The other thing is, the chairman is appointed for 16 years. You can
also get the minutes of the open market committee that sets rates. Those
rates are what allow the banks to lend more or less money, depending on
how much they have to keep in reserve.
A good book for understanding the reason behind the Fed and why the U.S.
went off the gold standard is, "The Lords of Finance, The Bankers Who
Broke the World."
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This pretty much sums up where the UK economy and benefits system is
as well.

I have 2 company pensions on top of my UK state pension but that means
I get a small top up called pension credit. At present I get by.

I am also registered disabled which gives me disability living
allowance but I traded that payment for a Motabilty Car which means I
can at least get about without having to struggle to use public
transport.

The disability system is in the process of change and I can't be sure
if any change to the current system will mean I no longer qualify for
the car. That would leave me very much house bound needing some other
form of support for shopping etc.
Jim Higgins
2011-10-12 21:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
bar0
2011-10-12 22:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
Soo, the plan is to take it away from the wage earners, sell them arms from
what money they have left and then let them mug all the wealthy to get it
back?

Cool! I wanna be an arms dealer.
Jim Higgins
2011-10-13 03:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
Soo, the plan is to take it away from the wage earners, sell them arms from
what money they have left and then let them mug all the wealthy to get it
back?
Cool! I wanna be an arms dealer.
I was thinking more in terms of preventing both the theft of SS
benefits from those who have paid into it and the need to shoot anyone
to achieve that. A fight can be avoided simply by being too strong to
be fought with.
DLU
2011-10-12 22:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
So does this mean you are going to walk into the treasury and start
shooting people? Just what good will guns do to stop these actions?
Oh maybe you plan on getting militia together and assassinating all of
congress.

You do have the vote, and in the long run you can see to it, that the
bill is paid.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
Jim Higgins
2011-10-13 04:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
So does this mean you are going to walk into the treasury and start
shooting people? Just what good will guns do to stop these actions?
Oh maybe you plan on getting militia together and assassinating all of
congress.
You do have the vote, and in the long run you can see to it, that the
bill is paid.
You weren't paying as much attention while reading those books as you
tried to make us think, were you? ;-)
Chris U
2011-10-13 11:07:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:04:31 +0000, Jim Higgins
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by DLU
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
So does this mean you are going to walk into the treasury and start
shooting people? Just what good will guns do to stop these actions?
Oh maybe you plan on getting militia together and assassinating all of
congress.
You do have the vote, and in the long run you can see to it, that the
bill is paid.
You weren't paying as much attention while reading those books as you
tried to make us think, were you? ;-)
I think what he means is each nations citizens should try to achieve
it via the ballot box.

The difficulty is ensuring "big business" can't "buy" the policies of
an elected government.

That is the real modern issue for every democracy.
bar0
2011-10-13 15:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris U
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:04:31 +0000, Jim Higgins
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by DLU
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
So does this mean you are going to walk into the treasury and start
shooting people? Just what good will guns do to stop these actions?
Oh maybe you plan on getting militia together and assassinating all of
congress.
You do have the vote, and in the long run you can see to it, that the
bill is paid.
You weren't paying as much attention while reading those books as you
tried to make us think, were you? ;-)
I think what he means is each nations citizens should try to achieve
it via the ballot box.
The difficulty is ensuring "big business" can't "buy" the policies of
an elected government.
That is the real modern issue for every democracy.
Hardly a modern issue. It was an issue in Greece, and later in Rome, and in
England since the Charter of Liberties when Noblemen felt put upon by the
Royal Family.
Chris U
2011-10-14 08:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
Post by Chris U
I think what he means is each nations citizens should try to achieve
it via the ballot box.
The difficulty is ensuring "big business" can't "buy" the policies of
an elected government.
That is the real modern issue for every democracy.
Hardly a modern issue. It was an issue in Greece, and later in Rome, and in
England since the Charter of Liberties when Noblemen felt put upon by the
Royal Family.
Globalisation has made it far more pervasive I think.

The current thinking about "you must grow" is unsustainable.
It's only the smaller enterprises who now really consider "customer
service" as being a core requirement.
Jim Higgins
2011-10-15 00:03:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:07:41 +0100, Chris U
Post by Chris U
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:04:31 +0000, Jim Higgins
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by DLU
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
So does this mean you are going to walk into the treasury and start
shooting people? Just what good will guns do to stop these actions?
Oh maybe you plan on getting militia together and assassinating all of
congress.
You do have the vote, and in the long run you can see to it, that the
bill is paid.
You weren't paying as much attention while reading those books as you
tried to make us think, were you? ;-)
I think what he means is each nations citizens should try to achieve
it via the ballot box.
The difficulty is ensuring "big business" can't "buy" the policies of
an elected government.
That is the real modern issue for every democracy.
And there's no ballot box we can use to stop "big business" from
buying policy. We can try to replace our legislators, but one is so
like another that it's hard to make steady positive improvement. It's
perhaps coming near time to start working from the other end, but as I
said, there's no ballot box on that end.
Chris U
2011-10-15 08:35:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:03:27 +0000, Jim Higgins
Post by Jim Higgins
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:07:41 +0100, Chris U
Post by Chris U
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:04:31 +0000, Jim Higgins
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by DLU
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
So does this mean you are going to walk into the treasury and start
shooting people? Just what good will guns do to stop these actions?
Oh maybe you plan on getting militia together and assassinating all of
congress.
You do have the vote, and in the long run you can see to it, that the
bill is paid.
You weren't paying as much attention while reading those books as you
tried to make us think, were you? ;-)
I think what he means is each nations citizens should try to achieve
it via the ballot box.
The difficulty is ensuring "big business" can't "buy" the policies of
an elected government.
That is the real modern issue for every democracy.
And there's no ballot box we can use to stop "big business" from
buying policy. We can try to replace our legislators, but one is so
like another that it's hard to make steady positive improvement. It's
perhaps coming near time to start working from the other end, but as I
said, there's no ballot box on that end.
Big business is also responsible for the current financial mess due to
it's own drive for expansion. Putting many in a position like that of
Enron where the debt and interest payable far exceeds the value of the
companies.

As with the banks no government wants to risk such companies from
going bust because of the huge number of job losses if they did/do go
bust.
Enron was I know slightly different in how and why they went bust but
it is only a fine line between the reasons.
bar0
2011-10-15 15:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris U
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:03:27 +0000, Jim Higgins
Post by Jim Higgins
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:07:41 +0100, Chris U
Post by Chris U
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:04:31 +0000, Jim Higgins
...
Post by Chris U
Big business is also responsible for the current financial mess due to
it's own drive for expansion. Putting many in a position like that of
Enron where the debt and interest payable far exceeds the value of the
companies.
As with the banks no government wants to risk such companies from
going bust because of the huge number of job losses if they did/do go
bust.
Enron was I know slightly different in how and why they went bust but
it is only a fine line between the reasons.
Well the Talib^H^H^H^Hea-Bag Party thinks the way ti solve that is to
eliminate even more regulation and let the marketplace punish the idiots
that went to work for or put their retirement savings into the stocks of.
such corporations. In return for which a couple of corporate officers risk a
minor term in Fed. Of course by not taxing corporate transfers thus making
subsidiaries and holding companioes practical like in the roaring 20's most
big execs can get away with the doofus defense (how could I know what all
these subsidiaries are up to?) so that becomes even more unlikely.

Of course we want the government out of our lives except when it promotes
creationism and intelligent design.
DLU
2011-10-14 04:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by DLU
You do have the vote, and in the long run you can see to it, that the
bill is paid.
You weren't paying as much attention while reading those books as you
tried to make us think, were you? ;-)
Political revolutions take several generations to work.
In this case I am talking about the way the Glass-Stegal Act was
nullified. This current economic crisis would not have occurred if the
Gramm-Leach-Blily act had not been passed, which allowed the commercial
banks to work like the investment banks. If you were not aware, Phil
Gramm's wife was on the board of Enron. Enron was allowed to make
economic decisions that would have been illegal previously.

Another case is Elizabeth Warren. Those legislators that blocked her
appointment to the consumer protection agency, should be sent packing.
Why would they block the formation of a consumer protection agency?
Do you really think they were acting in the interest of the consumer?

Well, we can help get Warren elected to the Senate, I am sending a small
amount to her campaign. I donot have as much to spend as I woud like as
I have a congressional rae in my district, and want to see the
challenger elected. We almost had him in the last time, then Karl Rove
and his friends stepped in at the last moment and gave his opponents
campaign $1,000,000 that gave him a slight edge.


fortunately we think the voters are fed up with the incumbent this time.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
bar0
2011-10-13 15:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
So does this mean you are going to walk into the treasury and start
shooting people? Just what good will guns do to stop these actions?
Oh maybe you plan on getting militia together and assassinating all of
congress.
You do have the vote, and in the long run you can see to it, that the bill
is paid.
Yabbut the republicans aren't done with their anti voter fraud legislation
yet. Any non republican vote is obviously fraudulent and further measures to
deal with this will be taken in red states, and further help from Diebold
and GovTech.

And then we have the Faux news watchers who are easily convinced to support
legislation inimical to themselves. Tali^H^H^Hea Partiers for example.
WindsorFox<SS>
2011-10-13 18:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
Post by DLU
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
So does this mean you are going to walk into the treasury and start
shooting people? Just what good will guns do to stop these actions?
Oh maybe you plan on getting militia together and assassinating all of
congress.
You do have the vote, and in the long run you can see to it, that the
bill is paid.
Yabbut the republicans aren't done with their anti voter fraud
legislation yet. Any non republican vote is obviously fraudulent and
further measures to deal with this will be taken in red states, and
further help from Diebold and GovTech.
And then we have the Faux news watchers who are easily convinced to
support legislation inimical to themselves. Tali^H^H^Hea Partiers for
example.
Surely you aren't serious, and you do *know* abou tthe Democratic
propensity to cheat, right?
Nobody important
2011-10-13 19:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Surely you aren't serious
Stop calling me Shirley.
--
In Roman numerals, XL is smaller than L.
WindsorFox<SS>
2011-10-13 22:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nobody important
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Surely you aren't serious
Stop calling me Shirley.
You prefer Bette Lou?
TOASTEDspam.com
2011-10-13 23:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Post by Nobody important
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Surely you aren't serious
Stop calling me Shirley.
You prefer Bette Lou?
It's only a bad name when the last initial is H.

- T
Nobody > (Revisited)
2011-10-14 19:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by WindsorFox<SS>
Post by bar0
Post by DLU
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
So does this mean you are going to walk into the treasury and start
shooting people? Just what good will guns do to stop these actions?
Oh maybe you plan on getting militia together and assassinating all of
congress.
You do have the vote, and in the long run you can see to it, that the
bill is paid.
Yabbut the republicans aren't done with their anti voter fraud
legislation yet. Any non republican vote is obviously fraudulent and
further measures to deal with this will be taken in red states, and
further help from Diebold and GovTech.
And then we have the Faux news watchers who are easily convinced to
support legislation inimical to themselves. Tali^H^H^Hea Partiers for
example.
Surely you aren't serious, and you do *know* abou tthe Democratic
propensity to cheat, right?
Just get real and admit that Repuglicans cheat just as well and as badly
as the Demorats.

Otherwise, all you are is a political sheeple. The only differences
between "RedState' sheeple and "BlueState" sheeple is the talks show
hosts they each blindly follow.

Our country isn't a baseball game.
--
"Shit this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me motherfucker?"
Jim “Dandy” Mangrum
bar0
2011-10-14 23:13:35 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Nobody > (Revisited)
Otherwise, all you are is a political sheeple. The only differences
between "RedState' sheeple and "BlueState" sheeple is the talks show hosts
they each blindly follow.
Our country isn't a baseball game.
There's cheating, they all do it, and it's bad but it nowadays we see a
phenomenon that used to only be a feature of the blue south, namely a
conscious and serious effort accompanied by a supporting ideology to make
voting difficult for those persons that are less likely to vote for your
party, and I'm sorry to say it but this is now coming from the red party and
it started in that party with Nixon.. There is no longer the bipartisan
ideological commitment to suffrage and exercise of the democratic rights and
obligations by everyone, that there used to be outside of Jim Crow states.
Jim Higgins
2011-10-14 23:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
...
Post by Nobody > (Revisited)
Otherwise, all you are is a political sheeple. The only differences
between "RedState' sheeple and "BlueState" sheeple is the talks show hosts
they each blindly follow.
Our country isn't a baseball game.
There's cheating, they all do it, and it's bad but it nowadays we see a
phenomenon that used to only be a feature of the blue south, namely a
conscious and serious effort accompanied by a supporting ideology to make
voting difficult for those persons that are less likely to vote for your
party, and I'm sorry to say it but this is now coming from the red party and
it started in that party with Nixon.. There is no longer the bipartisan
ideological commitment to suffrage and exercise of the democratic rights and
obligations by everyone, that there used to be outside of Jim Crow states.
When you call Jim Crow you're pulling the race card. The problem
isn't racial; the problem is outright voter registration fraud.

There is a growing trend toward registering people by proxy - without
their knowledge - and then having someone with no ID but the
registration card vote for them. With a photo ID based on something
more than someone's word we hope to stop this from happening or at
least reduce it.

And it won't be a big deal if the folks affected will just get the
needed IDs now, but they're going to bitch about it - some pulling the
race card in the process - until it's too late and then claim they
were disenfranchised. I call bullshit.

I also call bullshit on electronic voting machines. Those damn things
need to print out a voting summary that's dropped into a separate
locked box. Then a count made by downloading the machine and a
separate count made by scanning the individual printouts needs to be
compared. Any conflict gets resolved in favor of the printout tally.
The savvy voter will look at this printout before dropping it in the
box to be sure the candidates he selected are the ones actually
printed on the paper.

In the best of all worlds, only the paper would be counted. there
will be no hanging chads on those printouts. Use an OCR typeface and
they can be machine counted. The purely electronic record is too
easily diddled with. Google Diebold voting machines.
bar0
2011-10-15 04:21:16 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Jim Higgins
There is a growing trend toward registering people by proxy - without
their knowledge - and then having someone with no ID but the
registration card vote for them. With a photo ID based on something
more than someone's word we hope to stop this from happening or at
least reduce it.
I call Bullshit.

For all the striving to make this case, no example has come up yet.
Post by Jim Higgins
And it won't be a big deal if the folks affected will just get the
needed IDs now, but they're going to bitch about it - some pulling the
race card in the process - until it's too late and then claim they
were disenfranchised. I call bullshit.
It's a big fucking deal especially if you move between college and home
twice a year.

Unless you're willing to drive 90 + miles getting ID in Texas for example is
a 1/2 day ordeal. Actually it still is, you're just spending it in your car
instead of a waiting room. My understanding is that it's not so different in
Wisconsin these days
Post by Jim Higgins
I also call bullshit on electronic voting machines. Those damn things
need to print out a voting summary that's dropped into a separate
locked box. Then a count made by downloading the machine and a
They do so, why do red states favour the proproetary and in auditable
systems like Diebolds?

They could actually count ballots by hand. It's not necessary to cater to
the ghouls and news organizations by havin a result in a couple of hours.It
might even give Hawaii a chance to feel like it mattered. what's wrong with
a system that w ell meaning but computer illiterate scrutineer couod
understand? So what if the result takes hours more.
Post by Jim Higgins
separate count made by scanning the individual printouts needs to be
compared. Any conflict gets resolved in favor of the printout tally.
The savvy voter will look at this printout before dropping it in the
box to be sure the candidates he selected are the ones actually
printed on the paper.
In the best of all worlds, only the paper would be counted. there
will be no hanging chads on those printouts. Use an OCR typeface and
It's that fascination with machinery. There never was a need for chads or
puch cards. a paper with place for X's does fine.
Post by Jim Higgins
they can be machine counted. The purely electronic record is too
And who did diebold promise to deliver the vote to? You think Ohio went red
from actual real votes?

Anyway people can count and if not they need the practice.
Jim Higgins
2011-10-15 06:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by bar0
...
Post by Jim Higgins
There is a growing trend toward registering people by proxy - without
their knowledge - and then having someone with no ID but the
registration card vote for them. With a photo ID based on something
more than someone's word we hope to stop this from happening or at
least reduce it.
I call Bullshit.
For all the striving to make this case, no example has come up yet.
The dead rise up and vote in Chicago (and elsewhere) every election.
There have been a number of major exposes on this phenomenon. The
idea that I have to prove it by plowing that same old ground is simply
ludicrous.
Post by bar0
Post by Jim Higgins
And it won't be a big deal if the folks affected will just get the
needed IDs now, but they're going to bitch about it - some pulling the
race card in the process - until it's too late and then claim they
were disenfranchised. I call bullshit.
It's a big fucking deal especially if you move between college and home
twice a year.
Oh boo hoo. You don't have to get a new ID every time you shuttle
back and forth. For that matter if you move between college and a
place you call "HOME," then I'd argue that that those involved need to
vote in the place they consider to be their "HOME." there's this
thing called an absentee ballot.
Post by bar0
Unless you're willing to drive 90 + miles getting ID in Texas for example is
a 1/2 day ordeal. Actually it still is, you're just spending it in your car
instead of a waiting room. My understanding is that it's not so different in
Wisconsin these days
Where do you live that a driver's license isn't a valid photo ID? Damn
near everyone of voting age has one and where I live those who don't
can get a photo ID from the DMV with the same proof of identity that
folks getting driver's licenses must provide. It is simply NOT
unreasonable to protect the validity of our voting process and if
that's too damn inconvenient then boo hoo.
Post by bar0
Post by Jim Higgins
I also call bullshit on electronic voting machines. Those damn things
need to print out a voting summary that's dropped into a separate
locked box. Then a count made by downloading the machine and a
They do so, why do red states favour the proproetary and in auditable
systems like Diebolds?
Other than you suggesting that's the case, I don't know that they do.
Chicago was a major Diebold problem area. Is Illinois a red state? I
don't think so.
Post by bar0
They could actually count ballots by hand. It's not necessary to cater to
the ghouls and news organizations by havin a result in a couple of hours.It
might even give Hawaii a chance to feel like it mattered. what's wrong with
a system that w ell meaning but computer illiterate scrutineer couod
understand? So what if the result takes hours more.
Works for me. But use a touch screen machine to create the paper that
gets counted so we don't have the damn hanging chad or heaven forbid
the oh so confusing butterfly ballot problems. Or the obvious erasure
with an obvious new dark mark for a different candidate that gets
challenged by partisan ballot counters, etc., etc. And print that
paper that gets counted using an OCR typeface so we at least have the
option to count electronically.

As far as the election night media frenzy goes, what we really need is
an election day followed by a "counting day" with everyone reporting
at once.

And, BTW, Hawaii's votes count as much as anyone else's. When some
candidate wins by say 200 electoral votes, it's perfectly arbitrary
which states' votes weren't really needed to win. Singling out one
state is simply bullshit. And so is the media frenzy on election
evening/night. Ask people to refuse to answer exit polls and have a
separate counting day and let the damn media REPORT the news instead
of trying to make it or predict it. I don't know about you, but I was
long ago fed up with the election night shenanigans and I don't watch
it.
Post by bar0
Post by Jim Higgins
separate count made by scanning the individual printouts needs to be
compared. Any conflict gets resolved in favor of the printout tally.
The savvy voter will look at this printout before dropping it in the
box to be sure the candidates he selected are the ones actually
printed on the paper.
In the best of all worlds, only the paper would be counted. there
will be no hanging chads on those printouts. Use an OCR typeface and
It's that fascination with machinery. There never was a need for chads or
puch cards. a paper with place for X's does fine.
It does if the Xs are made with a pen. Otherwise, was that erasure
made by the voter or an overzealous poll worker. Such erased and
remarked ballots will be challenged in a close election. That's what
I want to avoid - challenges.
Post by bar0
Post by Jim Higgins
they can be machine counted. The purely electronic record is too
And who did diebold promise to deliver the vote to? You think Ohio went red
from actual real votes?
Ohio went red? What election are you talking about? Certainly not
2008 when Ohio went to Obama!
Post by bar0
Anyway people can count and if not they need the practice.
Fine by me. I think I made it clear that a purely electronic vote was
not acceptable to me. I think that's a path ultimately leading to
having our votes stolen from us.
Antispam Knight
2011-10-15 16:40:40 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Jim Higgins
Works for me. But use a touch screen machine to create the paper that
gets counted so we don't have the damn hanging chad or heaven forbid
the oh so confusing butterfly ballot problems. Or the obvious erasure
with an obvious new dark mark for a different candidate that gets
challenged by partisan ballot counters, etc., etc.
From the Mash series (Radar O'reilly to Col. Blake):
"Sir, you weren't supposed to initial that. Erase your initial and initial
the erasure."

<snip>
AK
WindsorFox<SS>
2011-10-13 18:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by bar0
Regardless, What I see happening is the SS trust fund last in line after
everyone else in getting their notes redeemed. This is what the SS
doomsayers are after.And that is what we are being softened up for. This
represents about 1.5 Trillion stolen mainly from the pockets of wage
earners.
This is why we need to defend our second amendment rights.
So does this mean you are going to walk into the treasury and start
shooting people? Just what good will guns do to stop these actions?
Oh maybe you plan on getting militia together and assassinating all of
congress.
You do have the vote, and in the long run you can see to it, that the
bill is paid.
It sounds like you don't really understand the 2A.
Jim Higgins
2011-10-12 00:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Post by Antispam Knight
Sorry, but no one pays into anything. It is just another tax. They could
just as well have said our income tax rates were going up by some 16% (the
combined employee and employer percentages). Acutally, not 16% on the whole
amount, only the first $70k or so, but you get the drift.
The money goes to the same place as all other taxes, and is spent the same
as all other taxes. There is NO trust fund (other than on paper). My SS
"benefits" are being paid by today's workers, and next generation's workers
(via debt). Classic Ponzi scheme. The late "investors" pay off the early
"investors" until the math catches up with them.
We have been duped. We haven't paid into anything. And there are fools who
want the government to do even more! During WWII the slogan was "buy bonds."
It is now "buy votes."
AK
SS is an insurance not a benefit.
It's a ponzi scheme when the so-called "insurance premium" collected
doesn't cover the payments made.
DLU
2011-10-12 01:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Higgins
It's a ponzi scheme when the so-called "insurance premium" collected
doesn't cover the payments made.
No insurance plan premiums cover all the benefits.
The premiums are invested and that is where the money comes form to pay
the benefits. How else do you think the big insurance companies can pay
the insurees, and also pay dividends to the investors?

The same with a retirement plan. The premiums have to be reinvested in
order for the plan to be able to pay the stated retirement when due. See
what happened to retirement plans when the hedge funds took over
companies with leveraged buyouts. They counted on being able to use the
surplus in the retirement funds to pay down the debt. Read "Barbarians
at the Gate." Read about Pacific Lumber. The retirement plans were not
Ponzi schemes, but the buyout managers were raiders. The company I
worked for was bought out, and the buyer thought they would be able to
use the surplus in our retirement plans. Fortunately, we had a
contributory plan that belonged to the retirees, and they could not get
into it. I worked at Kaiser Steel on time. Many of the people I worked
with had built up good retirement, some for 35 or 40 years. Then the
company got bought out, and the buyer looted the retirement plan to pay
for the buyout, and the retirees ended up with noting but their SS.

Yeah, hooray for good old unregulated Capitalism. It will take care of
you all right.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
Jim Higgins
2011-10-12 01:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Yeah, hooray for good old unregulated Capitalism. It will take care of
you all right.
I'm not opposed to regulation that enforces what amounts to a contract
between employer and employee. I'm not even opposed to regulation
that does so preemptively, given the proclivity of too many to
otherwise put themselves into a position where they're unable to
perform. But that's not what the organizers of "occupying" Wall
Street are about.
DLU
2011-10-12 02:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by DLU
Yeah, hooray for good old unregulated Capitalism. It will take care of
you all right.
I'm not opposed to regulation that enforces what amounts to a contract
between employer and employee. I'm not even opposed to regulation
that does so preemptively, given the proclivity of too many to
otherwise put themselves into a position where they're unable to
perform. But that's not what the organizers of "occupying" Wall
Street are about.
These protesters in general do not understand why and how the economic
crisis occurred. But that is true of most of the public. There is that
group that gets their opinions from Fox. those that get their opinions
from Rush and other conservative pundits. Then there is just the plain
citizen who hears the most plausible conspiracy theory and believes that.

I have talked with people from all groups, and there is one thing in
common among them. They are not educated when it comes to how the
financial system works, was manipulated, and where the money went. I
have asked "Did you read the Angelidies Commission report? Answer: "He
is that California Socialist, anything in his report has to be slanted"
Even though it is a collection of facts, that is how those people look
at it. Have you read "Too Big to Fail?" Answer: "Nothing is too big to
fail." Have you read Hank Paulson's "On the Brink?" Paulson was Bush's
secretary of the treasury. Answer: "He is not a real conservative." No
matter that he is recognized as one.

I read the comment in the NY times opinion page, and opinions are
expressed as facts, which when checked simply are false, but the
responses are rife with them.

But my favorites are the ones who say, "Obama is the worst president
ever" showing an abject ignorance of history. They seem to have never
heard of James Buchanan, Warren Warding, or Herbert Hoover among others.

But these protesters are united on one thing. Their jobs are gone, and
they have nothing left to lose anyway, and Wall Street represents those
who have taken away their living and their homes. If it has not occurred
to you, that past 20 years of what seemed like economic prosperity was
an economy of debt. The more debt that was incurred the better the
economy looked, and it was the Wall Street banks that played this to the
hilt. It was collateralized debt that drove the economy, and the banks
needed more of it constantly.

The occupy Wall Street movement reminds me of the Viet Nam protests. It
does have a revolutionary flavor about it, and it scares the hel out of
the plutocrats. It tells them, their days are numbered, they had better
make some serious corrections of they will be thrown out.There is even a
Marxist theme to these protests. When an economic disparity reaches a
critical level, revolutions occur. Today the richest 400 Americans have
more wealth between them than the whole county of Los Angeles. Some of
these individuals are heirs to vast fortunes such as Campbell soup,
where three individuals each have 50,000,000 share of stock that pays
$1.10 a year. At the 15% tax rate on dividends these poor souls have
incomes of $175,000 A DAY or more. And they are not even in the top ten
percent of this group. They pay a lower tax rate than the average
working person, and the do not create jobs, build industries, or employ
thousands. They have yacht crews, private plane crews, gardeners and
servants, for their estates, here and in Europe. But their contribution
to the economy is zilch.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
DLU
2011-10-12 02:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by DLU
Yeah, hooray for good old unregulated Capitalism. It will take care of
you all right.
I'm not opposed to regulation that enforces what amounts to a contract
between employer and employee. I'm not even opposed to regulation
that does so preemptively, given the proclivity of too many to
otherwise put themselves into a position where they're unable to
perform. But that's not what the organizers of "occupying" Wall
Street are about.
Just what the protesters are talking about:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/artsandliving/comics/king_hagar_horrible.html?name=Hagar_The_Horrible
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
Chris U
2011-10-12 09:35:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 01:29:00 +0000, Jim Higgins
Post by Jim Higgins
Post by DLU
Yeah, hooray for good old unregulated Capitalism. It will take care of
you all right.
I'm not opposed to regulation that enforces what amounts to a contract
between employer and employee. I'm not even opposed to regulation
that does so preemptively, given the proclivity of too many to
otherwise put themselves into a position where they're unable to
perform. But that's not what the organizers of "occupying" Wall
Street are about.
Most of the current world financial issues were brought about by the
huge and often too rapid expansion of large corporations buying out
their competitors over the last 20 years or so.

No economy can keep on expanding before it runs out that essential
thing, "Customers". Even with rising overall birthrates most of the
large and many smaller companies got into the same sort of debt.

Nearly always the banks provided the money up front, while the
companies had to find ways to fund the debt, where often the interest
alone was crippling them. Then the bean counters looked every which
way to fund the debts via quite legally allowed asset stripping with
no regard for the risks that dipping into things like pension or SS
funds.
The banks started using more and more of it's savers and investors
money, until it all ran out and the banks started asking other banks
for loans.

Then as the roller coaster carried on it's merry way the banks
suddenly realised they had run up such huge debts every country had no
option other than to bail out the banks with "public money".

Almost everything DLU posted is on the nail.

Those not in power now blame any party that was last in power for this
mess, when in reality every government gave into the "Corporate lobby"
for easier ways to make money while paying ever less tax.
DLU
2011-10-12 18:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris U
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 01:29:00 +0000, Jim Higgins
Almost everything DLU posted is on the nail.
Those not in power now blame any party that was last in power for this
mess, when in reality every government gave into the "Corporate lobby"
for easier ways to make money while paying ever less tax.
I try not to just post opinion, although it is hard to resist at times.
Almost everything I say about the financial crisis I have read, and I
have read several books about this. Most all of them say the same thing
as to how the crisis came about and pretty much agree on the causes.
There are several dissenting views, most of which try to put the blame
on the CRO act, Freddie and Fannie and other institutions that are
considered Liberal or even Socialist operations. But the facts do not
support them if what is available to read is correct. That includes
books by conservatives and Liberals. Most of these books authors are not
what one would really consider Liberals. For instance "Liars Poker" by
Michael Lewis and "The Big Short" by him also document how the
collateralization of debt came about.

"On the Brink" by Henry Paulson who is decidedly not a Liberal.
"To Big To Fail" by Andrew Ross Sorkin, NY Times Deal Book Editor, not
really a flaming Liberal, but probably more Liberal than Conservative.
"The End of Wall Street" Roger Lowenstein, more documentation, does
criticize the Free Market attitude that pervaded the investment banks.

The Angelidie's Commission Report. Again mostly documentation, with
comments following, but the facts are there for all to see.

The mortgage debacle: most of those sub prime loans were originated by
brokers who had no affiliation with the banks that bought them after
they had been sold to the home buyers. But Bear and Lehman knew there
were problems with them. They then did statistical analysis with
programs developed by the "Quants" to decide what the failure rate would
ave to be before the CDO would fail. Took that information to the bond
rating agencies, and got them rated AAA. From my point of view, the real
snakes in the whole process were the bond raters, and some of them
should spend some time in the greybar hotel.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************
Chris U
2011-10-12 21:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by DLU
Post by Chris U
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 01:29:00 +0000, Jim Higgins
Almost everything DLU posted is on the nail.
Those not in power now blame any party that was last in power for this
mess, when in reality every government gave into the "Corporate lobby"
for easier ways to make money while paying ever less tax.
I try not to just post opinion, although it is hard to resist at times.
Almost everything I say about the financial crisis I have read, and I
have read several books about this. Most all of them say the same thing
as to how the crisis came about and pretty much agree on the causes.
There are several dissenting views, most of which try to put the blame
on the CRO act, Freddie and Fannie and other institutions that are
considered Liberal or even Socialist operations. But the facts do not
support them if what is available to read is correct. That includes
books by conservatives and Liberals. Most of these books authors are not
what one would really consider Liberals. For instance "Liars Poker" by
Michael Lewis and "The Big Short" by him also document how the
collateralization of debt came about.
"On the Brink" by Henry Paulson who is decidedly not a Liberal.
"To Big To Fail" by Andrew Ross Sorkin, NY Times Deal Book Editor, not
really a flaming Liberal, but probably more Liberal than Conservative.
"The End of Wall Street" Roger Lowenstein, more documentation, does
criticize the Free Market attitude that pervaded the investment banks.
The Angelidie's Commission Report. Again mostly documentation, with
comments following, but the facts are there for all to see.
The mortgage debacle: most of those sub prime loans were originated by
brokers who had no affiliation with the banks that bought them after
they had been sold to the home buyers. But Bear and Lehman knew there
were problems with them. They then did statistical analysis with
programs developed by the "Quants" to decide what the failure rate would
ave to be before the CDO would fail. Took that information to the bond
rating agencies, and got them rated AAA. From my point of view, the real
snakes in the whole process were the bond raters, and some of them
should spend some time in the greybar hotel.
And those bond agencies are the same ones who are now creating more
instability.
Mike
2011-10-11 15:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
You tell me if censorship is real?
http://tinyurl.com/opwallstreet
Photo is a Photoshopped HOAX!!

http://www.nathaniel.ca/blog/?p=2300

https://sites.google.com/site/timparkinsonnet

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2787469/posts


Mike
Thor Kottelin
2011-10-11 16:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/opwallstreet
Photo is a Photoshopped HOAX!!
"Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that's
remotely true! Facts, schmacks." - Homer J.
--
Thor Kottelin
http://www.anta.net/
WindsorFox<SS>
2011-10-11 18:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Andrew
You tell me if censorship is real?
http://tinyurl.com/opwallstreet
Photo is a Photoshopped HOAX!!
http://www.nathaniel.ca/blog/?p=2300
https://sites.google.com/site/timparkinsonnet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2787469/posts
Mike
Impossible, someone sent it to him in an email!
NormanM
2011-10-15 04:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
You tell me if censorship is real?
Are all those people in that photo your sock puppets? No wonder this place
is so quiet; all your socks are hanging out on Broadway, across the street
from City Hall!
--
Norman Miller

It is not that I am moving right;
just that everyone else is moving left!
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
2011-10-15 04:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by NormanM
Post by Andrew
You tell me if censorship is real?
Are all those people in that photo your sock puppets? No wonder this place
is so quiet; all your socks are hanging out on Broadway, across the street
from City Hall!
Of coursed censorship is real! How else would it come to pass that I
never see any of that idiot's postings unless somebody I read quotes him?
--
Idioten aangeboden. Gratis af te halen.
h/t Dagelijkse Standaard

ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy
Loading...