The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: mikey4 on 20 Sep 2009 08:58 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab5de38$0$1590$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Ray Fischer wrote: >> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> THE MORE YOU MAKE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME THAT YOU HAVE TO >>> PAY. That's regressive taxation in anyone's book. >> >> As usual, graham is wrong on both counts. >> >> A "regressive" tax structure charges more for LOWER incomes. >> >> The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their >> income is not always in the form of salaries. > > Sales tax, and the horribly misnamed "FairTax" are the most regressive > because lower income people spend a far greater portion of their income on > taxable goods than rich people. > Then *all* taxes are regressive as the lower income group has less in their pocket after the taxes then the higher income group.
From: tony cooper on 20 Sep 2009 09:58 On 20 Sep 2009 04:39:55 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>THE MORE YOU MAKE THE GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME THAT YOU HAVE TO >>PAY. That's regressive taxation in anyone's book. > >As usual, graham is wrong on both counts. > >A "regressive" tax structure charges more for LOWER incomes. Not really. When a tax is the *same* for all income levels it can be a "regressive" tax structure because it takes a greater portion of the income of lower income earner than it does of the higher income earner. >The very welathy can actually pay a LOWER tax rate because their >income is not always in the form of salaries. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Neil Harrington on 20 Sep 2009 11:15 "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote in message news:h95791$ph0$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message > news:4ab5b318$0$1646$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>> >>>"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:d1tab5hf131605ho26snc94pnn779hibf2(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:28:54 -0500, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:4ab55678$0$1607$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>>>>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:4ab51946$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>>>>>>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Much the same with the latest ACORN scandal, which stunk so >>>>>>>>>>>>> badly >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> even Democrats in Congress finally voted to stop funding >>>>>>>>>>>>> ACORN. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>> never even heard about it from ABC, CBS or NBC, did you? >>>>>>>>>>>> [Nonsense deleted...] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What was shown on tape from a *few* ACORN locations (but where >>>>>>>>>>>> were the reportings of the ones that threw out these >>>>>>>>>>>> imposters?) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>What makes you think ANY of the ACORN offices did or would do any >>>>>>>>>>>differently from the ones on tape? ACORN is rotten and corrupt to >>>>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>>>core. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If that's true then it must also be true of the Republican party >>>>>>>>>> given >>>>>>>>>> the number of Republicans who have been shown to be lying, >>>>>>>>>> philandering hypocrites. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Just like the lefttards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Never trust a man who gives online retorts with *no* substance. >>>>>>>> mikey in <h8rvun$1hb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>Snip away ray >>>>>> >>>>>> Run away, hypocrite. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's always so easy to argue against you rightards jut by throwing >>>>>> your own words back at you. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>ok got it, which post are you referring to? or can't you post the >>>>>entire >>>>>text here. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The message ID is h8rvun$1hb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org >>>> >>>> If your news reader can't get you to the article using that, try this: >>>> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/16c602542978b515/51ec3250dbeab29b?hl=en&q=#51ec3250dbeab29b >>> >>>Thank you John for posting the link, the only part that post that is me >>>is >>>the header. >> >> mikey tries to deny hos own words. >> >> Nothing but a rightard coward. >> >> -- > Sorry to disappoint you once again ray. What is under that header are > pieces of several different posts, none of which are mine. Mikey, you're wasting your time. Talking sense to Fischer is never going to get you anything sensible in return -- all Fischer can do is repeat the same bullshit he has already repeated over and over, as he has done here. He's totally worthless. I have just killfiled him and suggest you do the same.
From: Neil Harrington on 20 Sep 2009 11:43 "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:gcadnTKTJ6igCSnXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message > news:ZdednRcmdaTX3CnXnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4ab3366f$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >>> Bill Graham wrote: >>>> >>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:4ab10bc3$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >>>>> Bill Graham wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Douglas Johnson" <post(a)classtech.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:bm0la513ptifqd2htorhffbk4a24j9sbtg(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> .....Can I blame the liberals for it? After all, it is a socialist >>>>>>>> idea. Can >>>>>>>> anyone get food simply by putting their feet on a supermarkets >>>>>>>> property? If >>>>>>>> so, then would you go for the idea today that food should be >>>>>>>> socialized? How >>>>>>>> about getting a room for the night by simply setting foot on a >>>>>>>> hotel's >>>>>>>> property? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you have a heart attack. The paramedics show up. Should they >>>>>>> require proof >>>>>>> of citizenship or ability to pay before starting CPR? Or before >>>>>>> they transport >>>>>>> you to the hospital? Should the hospital require it before they >>>>>>> treat you? >>>>>> >>>>>> In my world, yes, yes, yes. Everyone (all 300 million of us citizens) >>>>>> should have a government ID card, and/or a chip implanted in us that >>>>>> identifies us as US citizens in good standing, and if we are sick, >>>>>> then the chip should get us the treatment we need. Today's technology >>>>>> is more than adequate to accomplish this. >>>>> >>>>> Jeez. Ever read 1984? >>>>> >>>> I don't remember whether they had illegal aliens living off the dole in >>>> "1984". >>> >>> *whooosh!* >> >> Where's the "whooosh!," Bob? >> >> Most of us, adults at least, already carry ID routinely. I can't legally >> drive my car without it, can you? I can't legally carry a pistol without >> it, either. Of course if you live in Australia or someplace like that you >> can't do the latter anyway, but there you are: having to carry ID doesn't >> take away a right that I have and you don't whether you carry ID or not. >> >> > Nonsense! - this is an unenforceable law....Nobody knows what I have in my > pocket, and they aren't likely to ever know. I have been carrying a gun > all of my adult life, and I have always refused to get a permit for it. > Why? Because such permits are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. I don't think so, Bill. "[T]he right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the Second Amendment says, but that does not mean it cannot be regulated, and in fact such regulation is also implied in the amendment. The requirement for a permit may be a reasonable type of regulation. It also may NOT be reasonable, depending on the details. Much of this depends on where you live. The law varies from state to state, even from city to city, and in some cases I believe the law is so restrictive, or so restrictively enforced, that it actually is unconstitutional. On the other hand, Vermont has no state law at all regarding concealed carry, except to say that a gun may not be carried for criminal purposes. That is about as liberal as you can get (here using "liberal" in its original sense of "free," not leftist). > I even took one to Europe with me back in the late 1980's. And carried it > all over there, too. Sure, I could have been busted, but it is better to > be alive and on trial for murder than it is to be dead, while someone else > is on trial for your murder. Or, as someone said once, "Better the man > catches you with it, than the boy catches you without it." Or as the other saying has it (in an only slightly different context), "Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six." But the argument on this point is about carrying ID generally, not necessarily a pistol permit. I see nothing wrong or intrusive about requiring that. I assume you had a passport and carried other types of ID when you went to Europe, and if you drive I assume you carry a driver's license.
From: Neil Harrington on 20 Sep 2009 11:54
"Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7hm14hF2uahsiU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Interestingly, in all these polical threads, I don't recall a single post > from someone living in a country with state-regulated health > insurance/care complaining about it. > Many, including myself, posted that it works quite well and costs a > fraction of the U.S. system. Canadian doctors say their health care system is "imploding" -- the president of the Canadian Medical Association says the country's health care system is sick and needs to be cured. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1137768.html That doesn't sound as if "it works quite well." > But no real user posted anything against. > > Hmmmm.... Maybe because all the posters living in those countries were > afraid of being arrested by the "socialist thought police" if they > complained? > ;-) > > Goes to show that the extreme-right cultists are too blind to even look at > a best practices comparison. Canadian doctors and the president of their asssociation are "extreme-right cultists"?! |