The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 15:41 "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote in message news:h958td$20k$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "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. > How about just charging people for the government services they use? If the Army doesn't fight harder for Bill Gates than it does for anyone else, then they shouldn't charge him any more than anyone else.....How about them apples?
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 15:43 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:r0dcb59gicjklk4hpv4s6qcc4lcggg2e05(a)4ax.com... > 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. > Does the high income earner need the soldier to shoot more bullets for him in battle than the low income earner? - If not, then why should he pay more in taxes?
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 15:45 "Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today> wrote in message news:_LGdnek6-oaz2ivXnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "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. I kill filed him over a year ago. If he had tried to defend his position with logical arguments I would not have done such a thing, but all he did was call me names......
From: SMS on 20 Sep 2009 15:55 Bill Graham wrote: > > "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. >> >> For a national retail tax to generate the same amount of money as the >> current income tax it would need to be set at about 25%, and that >> assumes that consumption (legal consumption) remains at the current >> levels, which it won't. >> >> Sales taxes are bad from another perspective, they encourage tax >> evasion, as occurs now with many on-line sales, and hurts local >> businesses. Also you can't deduct sales tax from income tax so a state >> like Oregon with an income tax high property taxes but no sales tax >> sends less tax money to the federal government than California with a >> high sales tax but relatively low property tax. > > I agree with all of the above. We have no sales taxes here in Oregon, > and I campaign to keep it that way all the time. In California they were > 8% and it was a royal PITA, as well as being very expensive to purchase > any big ticket items such as an automobile.....I purchases all my cars > and motorcycles up here in Oregon. In California, they even were > charging the sales tax on some foods......All, "fast foods| had to pay > the tax. Hmm, did Glenn tell you this too? All hot foods are charged sales tax whether take out or eat-in. All cold foods consumed in the restaurant are charged tax. To-go cold food is not charged tax if the restaurant is doing things properly. A cold sandwich from Subway is tax free, and most Subway's properly do this, though some intentionally collect sales tax incorrectly and presumably pocket the money. If you get ice cream or frozen yogurt they will ask if it's to eat-in or to-go and charge tax accordingly. Too many businesses incorrectly charge sales tax, i.e. the Costco snack bar charges tax on everything, even though technically salads to go and frozen yogurt and ice-cream to go are not taxable.
From: Bill Graham on 20 Sep 2009 15:56
"Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today> wrote in message news:dqOdnbgjloA70CvXnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "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). Yes, and they should compare the crime rate in Burlington with that in New York City..... > >> 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. > Of course.....I rented a car and drove all over Southern Germany and Switzerland, as well as Austria. But regardless of where I am, I have always felt very safe when I had a pistol in my pocket......It's a pity they didn't let people carry them on airplanes, or 9/11 never would have happened. |