From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
> news:4b79e91a$0$13470$8f2e0ebb(a)
> Nobody is forcing you to pay the taxes you are crying about....
> Oh really? I don't know what planet you are on, but it sure isn't the one
> I spent 40 odd years working and paying my taxes on.....

The planet that believes in taking advantage of any legal way of reducing my
taxes, including but not limited to tax exempt munis and shelter trusts. If
you are truly in the tax bracket you claim to be, you can certainly afford
to pay for good tax and family planning advice. Your failure to do so is
stealing from your heirs.
All I will say is that there are reliable yields over 8% tax sheltered. Some
risk, yup! I am not going to tell you what. Do your own research. I am
convinced that you are more bluster.


From: Walter Banks on

Bill Graham wrote:

> "Walter Banks" <walter(a)> wrote in message
> news:4B77F005.2520E00B(a)
> >
> >
> > Bill Graham wrote:
> >
> >> Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's
> >> still
> >> not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it is
> >> oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being great. -
> >> We
> >> passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we are fast
> >> heading to 60% and above.
> >
> > The current US government spends about 20% of GDP. By your account
> > not too bad, but a bit less than "great" .
> >
> I lump all government(s) together when I ask for 10% I don't care whether
> they call it "state" or "federal" or "local".....Leaders are leaders.....all
> the "governors" on my island are assistants except the first one, and they
> all give up their day jobs to the rest of the population. We have to support
> them, IOW, whether they work for the local, state, or federal government. If
> you are happy with paying over 50% of your output on supporting your leaders
> and their excesses, than I am happy for you, but I am not so happy. They
> have little to do but sit around making laws that restrict the freedoms of
> the rest of us, and they even have the balls to exempt themselves from
> obeying many of these same laws..... The only real difference between you
> and I is that I can see where this is leading us, and you, (apparently) can
> not.

Assuming you get nothing back from what the government spends then
Taxfreedom day in 2009 was April 13 or 28.20% up about %0.5 in
the last 50 years quite a ways from 50% you are quoting


From: C J Campbell on
On 2010-02-14 10:49:27 -0800, "Peter" <peternew(a)> said:

> So how do you stand on the issue?

I don't really care how taxes are divided. The real problem is that far
too much of our own labor is taken in taxes and then the government has
the nerve spend even more than that.

Asking whether it is better for the rich or the poor to pay these taxes
is like asking the turkey how prefers to be sliced up at Thanksgiving.

Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

From: Pete Stavrakoglou on
"Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> news:2010021220360571490-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-02-12 19:49:06 -0800, rfischer(a) (Ray Fischer) said:
>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>>>> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:hl3i1v$egi$1(a)
>>>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:e639n5l1ojhndtjn77g7nu75vhljjuj5n5(a)
>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:32:37 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
>>>>>> <ntotrr(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:i2b8n59tp15ch64gtu0gdt2q5l7vv8huip(a)
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
>>>>>>>> <ntotrr(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like you are confusing her with Obama. He never had to
>>>>>>>>> make a
>>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>> decision in any facet of his career before becoming president. At
>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>> Palin has experience running something.
>>>>>>>> Running away from running something is a better description. With
>>>>>>>> Palin as President, she'd lose interest in the job if things
>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>> go her way and find some other bright and shiny object to play
>>>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>>> To me, she's like the Bearded Lady in the carnival
>>>>>>>> sideshow...people
>>>>>>>> will pay to see her, but nobody wants to take her home.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>>>>>> She may not be the best choice and is certainly not my first or even
>>>>>>> second
>>>>>>> but if it is between her and Obama, there is no contest. I'll take
>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> an instant over Obama.
>>>>>> It seems to me that one of the biggest hurdles any modern-day
>>>>>> President has is to effectively work with Congress by retaining the
>>>>>> support of his/her own party members and securing at least some
>>>>>> support of the opposing party's members.
>>>>>> Obama has not been particularly effective in this, but Palin would
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> be at all effective in this. IMO.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>>>> It's the policy differences that matter more to me. The differences
>>>>> between Palin and Obama are like night and day.
>>>> That's exactly right. Obama makes a very creditable president, and
>>>> Palin
>>>> would not. But Obama is a liberal Democrat, which is my worst
>>>> nightmare, and
>>>> Palin is a conservative Republican which is the closest thing to a
>>>> perfect
>>>> leader I can imagine, so I would vote for her in a New York minute.
>>> A "conservative" republican who was governer of a state that relies
>>> quite heavily on federal money.
>>> Anyone who would vote for Palin is an idiot.
>> Well, we have identified at least 2, maybe 3 in this thread.
> I would settle for 2,000 nationwide. Sadly, there are many who take
> oratory over substance
> --
> Peter

You are describing the president. He has a flair for speaking as long as it
is orchestrated but there was zero substance to him, absolutely zero. But
he was elected anyway. As the polls indicate, the wool has been removed
from some of the voters eyes and Jimmy Carter II has been exposed.

From: Peter on
"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)> wrote in message

> You are describing the president. He has a flair for speaking as long as
> it is orchestrated but there was zero substance to him, absolutely zero.
> But he was elected anyway. As the polls indicate, the wool has been
> removed from some of the voters eyes and Jimmy Carter II has been exposed.

You very well know who I was describing and that it was not the President.
Pre-election over, you were saying the same thing. You won't even give his
ideas a reasonable chance. Your chief complaint about him is that he is not
a conservative who doesn't give a hoot for people. I strongly suspect that
you and I have the same social goals. We just differ on how to achieve them.
I am convinced that we need some intelligent government intervention to keep
good people honest and to dilute the greed that pervades some people, just
as we need laws against clearly criminal behavior.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye