From: Bill Graham on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)> wrote in message
> The other issue many people don't understand is how the salary structures
> have evolved in the U.S. in regards to gross pay and net pay. A position
> paying $100K where $30K is paid in a combination of all taxes is not going
> to be paying $100K if the tax burden falls to $10K. Even within the same
> corporation there are differentials based on cost of living of different
> areas of the country (and world), and these differentials are based on
> both expenses for taxes and the costs of goods and services.

You've got to be kidding......You don't understand the difference between
gross and net pay? Of course you have to be taxed on net pay....There are
some who pass millions of dollars a year through their hands, but whose
expenses take over 90% of it, so they only end up netting an average salary.
And there are others whose gross is about what they can live on, because
they have almost no expenses at all. Like tax preparers, for example. That's
the beauty of the form 1040 (that all the liberals want to eliminate) It is
only a couple or three pages long, but it is capable of separating out the
net pay from the gross for every occupation on the face of the earth.....

From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
> news:j8ednTpSpe1f7S3XnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d(a)
>> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)> wrote in
>> message
>> news:2009091102101816807-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom...
>> [ . . . ]
>>> Congress has not learned its lesson. Bush's approval ratings were
>>> justifiably low. Congress' were even lower and they remain lower today.
>>> And it isn't because they haven't passed a health care package. It is
>>> because they are idiots. They haven't learned that taxpayers are tired
>>> of paying for earmarks, bailouts, and gigantic government programs that
>>> accomplish nothing. No wonder the public does not trust health care
>>> "reform" -- not one member of Congress (or even the President) has set
>>> forth even a single goal that health care reform is supposed to
>>> accomplish. All we get is vague mumbling about lower costs, without
>>> explaining how adding an additional layer of government bureaucrats (who
>>> all must be paid and given offices in which to 'work') along with their
>>> attendant consultants, contractors, endless studies, and inevitably
>>> confusing rules and regulations, all of which will be the source of
>>> endless litigation, will lower costs.
>>> Consider: for all the promise of banking "reform," which should have
>>> been simpler than health care, nothing has actually changed, except that
>>> there aren't as many banks.
>> And if the health care bill gets signed into law, there probably won't be
>> as many doctors.
>> This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page
>> headline saying:
>> "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting
>> If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul.
>> "Two of every three practicing physicians
>> oppose the medical overhaul
>> plan under consideration in
>> Washington, and hundreds of
>> thousands would think about
>> shutting down their practices or
>> retiring early if it were adopted, a
>> new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
>> "The poll contradicts the claims
>> of not only the White House, but
>> also doctors' own lobby - the
>> powerful American Medical Association
>> - both of which suggest
>> the medical profession is behind
>> the proposed overhaul.
>> "It also calls into question whether
>> an overhaul is even doable; 72%
>> of the doctors polled disagree
>> with the administration's claim
>> that the government can cover 47
>> million more people with betterquality
>> care at lower cost. [ . . . ]"
>>> In fact, both the percentage and the total amount of risky loans in
>>> banks' portfolios is actually higher now than what caused the collapse a
>>> year ago. And all those perks and bonuses that the public hated so much?
>>> They're bigger and better.
>>> Economists originally predicted that the recession would end in June or
>>> July. After trillions spent on bailouts and stimulus, Congress and the
>>> Administration have managed to push that back until at least October,
>>> while squandering all the capital that would be needed if a real
>>> emergency arose. We're broke. If a major war broke out now, we couldn't
>>> afford to fight it. Another Hurricane Katrina? Forget it -- FEMA is so
>>> broke that they might not be able to handle so much as a wastebasket
>>> fire. If we actually got another hurricane like Katrina, Obama might
>>> have the singular distinction of making the Bush Administration's
>>> response look good.
>>> All Bush wanted to do in Afghanistan was catch a bunch of rascals who
>>> were reduced to hiding in caves. Well, he could not even do that. So now
>>> Obama wants to pacify the whole country, something that the Russians and
>>> British and several other European countries have tried to do for
>>> centuries with no success whatsoever. Even Alexander the Great couldn't
>>> do it.
>>> Oh, and lest we forget: Obama is still tapping phones; all he has done
>>> is change the way the President pretends to get permission to do it. He
>>> hasn't closed Gitmo; and if he does, all he really wants to do is
>>> relocate it, probably to the district of some Congressman he doesn't
>>> like. All the 9/11 insecurity measures and Patriot Act are still in
>>> place (unless, of course, the President wants to terrorize New York City
>>> by buzzing it with Air Force One again -- heck, if I was him, I'd be
>>> doing it every day). Homeland Security is still around. So, really, if
>>> you hated George W. Bush, you have to completely despise Barack Obama.
>>> Not that Obama actually knows anything about security. His idea of
>>> foreign policy appears to be allowing North Korea and Iran to continue
>>> to get away with continued development of nuclear weapons and threats to
>>> wipe their neighbors off the map. Draws a sharp tsk, tsk from Obama, but
>>> nothing else. So now two of the most dangerous regimes in the world will
>>> be armed to the teeth with nukes, convinced that the US is a paper
>>> tiger, with every incentive to actually use them and little to no
>>> apparent disincentive.
>> All well and truly said.
> Gitmo is the perfect solution to a difficult problem.....There is
> absolutely no reason to shut it down. All that would do is present a
> bigger problem.....It was a mistake for Obama to suggest it to begin with,
> and now he has to "eat his words". (It did help him get elected, however)

Yes. But I don't think he'll eat his words -- he'll just push that dish
aside and let someone else handle it. He did promise to shut Gitmo down, but
he's already broken promise after promise and his supporters don't mind. To
Obama, promises are like kleenexes -- just something to be used and then
thrown away.

From: Bill Graham on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)> wrote in message
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>>> Well, if the government would stop stealing my money and giving it away
>>> to anyone who happens to wander across our borders,
>> The usual rightard bigotry and lies.
>> It's all they have.
> Haven't you seen the piles of stolen cash that the government keeps at the
> border crossings that they give to anyone coming in that is not supposed
> to be coming in?

No, but I've seen the piles of welfare checks that the state sends out to
these illegal's after they settle down here in Oregon.

From: Bill Graham on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)> wrote in message
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> I think of it as the lesser of two evils. Right now, the government is
>> giving my money away to the illegal aliens in bushel baskets,
> Actually they're not, at least not the federal government directly. It's
> the states that are required to provide education, and that are not
> allowed to turn away anyone from emergency rooms regardless of their
> ability to pay or whether or not they are here legally.

When I use the term, "government" I mean either stste or federal. (or even
local county) They are all the same to me, since they all take tax money
from me.

> The federal government profits from illegal immigration (see
> ""), as do
> many large corporations, which is why they are in no hurry to do anything
> about it. Give the states unfunded mandates while at the same time
> reminding the states that only the federal government has the authority to
> enforce immigration laws--it's perfect.
>> and they can't even stop the illegal immigration into this country by
>> those anxious to get it.
> What makes you think that they can't stop illegal immigration? Clinton,
> under pressure from the labor unions, began enforcing the laws regarding
> the employment of illegals. The corporations that depend on the illegals
> went crazy. When W took office, enforcement was dropped.
> What I'd like to see is the federal government give all social security
> taxes collected from illegals back to the states to help fund health care
> and education. But that would mean admitting that the federal government
> knows that these people are here illegally, and would mean that they were
> willing to give up these billions.

From: SMS on
Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> Agreed.
>> This is the very issue I have tried to explain to many of the blind
>> followers of Fox and the talk show right. If they are working stiffs,
>> and march in lockstep behind the Faux pied pipers, they are doing so
>> in opposition to their best interests, not to mention the best
>> interests of the nation.
> Shhh.... Speaking the truth is "communist"!!!

While it's true that they are acting against their, their children's,
and the country's best economic interests, for many of them it goes
beyond economics to g-d and guns (at least what they perceive g-d to
want and at least what they perceive as a threat against their assault
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?