Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by
Mitch Daniels:

Jeez, HeyBub. You want your party to lead, but you can't remember to
add OT to an Off Topic post subject line. How's your team going to
handle the "tough" decisions if adding two letters is too hard for
them?

Light bulbs and the government mandating thereof is a frequent topic on this
newsgroup. Several posters here have said things far more hurtful about the
government and light bulbs than did the governor of Indiana.

Or haven't you been keeping up?

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:00:03 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance,

This is stupid on its face. The current law won't pick anyone's
health insurance. Everyone can keep what they have ot change to
anything they want. But the people who don't have health insurance
will have to buy some, any brand they want.

the
wrong mortgage,

Also unrelated to any facts.

the wrong school for our kids;

This is also unrelated to any facts, unless you're referring to
assignments made for the sake of racial integration. Is that what
you mean.

why, unless they stop us, we
might pick the wrong light bulb!"

That law was passed when the Reps controlled the House and Bush was
president, btw. But there's no doubt almost everyone was buying
bulbs that waste loads of electricity compared to what is now
available. The same people complain that the price of gas is going up
and that we shouldnt' be relying on Arab oil, but they don't want to
change their own lives even a little to avoid that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...nse-full-text/

Calysta for First Tramp?

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 1/25/2012 1:02 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Pete wrote in
.com:


Han wrote:

wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, wrote:

wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...544/mitch-dani
els -...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the
most effective educational systems in our country..... Small,
but strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But
it will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then
I said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much
less property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I
thought maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers
but just get rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to
define what "good and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I
think a teacher doing his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should
keep their job instead. I think the reward is seeing their student
graduate college and come back to say thank you to that teacher. I
realize not many students do this but maybe we need to teach the
students "manners / respect" as well as academics. Just my 2
cents worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is,
Indeed!! I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't
be ways to so so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear
to be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay
gets cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax
was cut, but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare
and in addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has
refused to pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension
funds).

Everyone wants to pay good teachers more (and get rid of bad ones) but
nobody wants to pay for it. The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a
higher rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person
pay $0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15
of every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of
anything but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being
fair to everyone.


Does paying teachers(good or bad) more bring about any increase in kids
passing or getting better grades? Does it better prepare kids for
entering
the real world of employment? No and no.

Fact is,the teachers knew the teaching salaries before they accepted the
job,and probably before they selected teaching as a career. Perhaps they
should only teach for a few years,and then move on to some better paying
job(if they have the skills...),if they don't like their salaries.


Teachers are paid plenty and get good benefits. It used to be teachers
would work summers to supplement their income but now it is one big
vacation.


Ignorant crock of ****
Most teachers these days, need to go to school in the summer to satisfy all
the paper (certification) they need to have to keep their jobs


IMHO, teachers and all other municipal and government unions should be
banned. Parents should have control of the schools, not the educational
establishment.


Isn't that what School Boards are for ?
If the School Boards are not doing their jobs, its' not the teachers fault.


We keep dumping money into education to end up with an excess of
administrators who demand more money to increase the teacher/student
ratio. We've got a high school here with 4 assistant principals, one of
which is my state representative. What the hell is this?


And the money is not going to actual teaching and teaching materials
It's going to pay for bureaucrats to satisfy the paperwork fro the Feds and
States.

Most teachers today, spend more time filling forms than actually teaching.
Explain to me why a teacher should be filling form for the Office of Civil
Rights, or some other bureaucracy ?


I think teaching is a great career. Teachers should be appreciated and
well paid. It is the whole school administration that needs reworking.

There I completely agree with you.
Most school administration systems are so sclerotic and bureaucratic, that
they are counter to any effective teaching.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:

"
Now how are we going to get that amount from the roughly half of all
filers who now do NOT owe income taxes? Or better, where would they
get that money from?

Which is one reason why taxes won't solve the problem, even amongst
the rich. You could tax the top 5% at 100% and still not cover the
deficit, especially after SS surplus goes away in a year or two.
Although one interesting thing is that most of the 50% (around 40%) of
those who don't owe taxes actually have a negative tax rate because of
the money the get back in things like earned imcome credit, etc.

I agree that taxes won't solve the deficit problem by themselves,
although they will have a major impact. "Loopholes" need to be closed
and inefficient government rooted out. DAMHIKT - I retired rather than
filling out those ridiculous forms (modified™) again and again, taking
those stupid tests and verifying that I know stuff.

I really think (and the "socialist" in me agrees) that paying taxes
should be in relation to your ability to contribute. If the income
distribution in the US was much, much more flat, a flat tax (in % of
income, not a set amount) would be defensible, but it isn't.

But neither is the current system where the top 1% pay twice the %age
of income taxes as they have %age of income (34,3% of taxes versus
16.8% of income. I find it hard to suggest that rich aren't paying
their share when they pay 34% of taxes and 40% of the worst off
actually have a NEGATIVE tax rate because the credits are more than
their taxes.

If one's income is so low, it is totally eaten up by housing, food and
other necessities (defined narrowly), why would you have to pay taxes
too? Even the flat taxers would institute a no tax zone, so to speak.
In order to protect their condition, the rich do have to pay a greater
share.

Before we get to the flat tax, let's eliminate the tax loopholes, and
we should first discuss whether charitable contributions, mortgage
interest, state & local taxes should be deductible. After all that's
what brought my income taxes down to less than 14% of AGI.

Yep. Although I can guarantee that won't happen, especially state and
local taxes since the CongressCritters from New York and other
high-tax states would pitch a major bitch, as would the builders and
mortgage types. BTW: Those in the top brackets already are finding out
about that since deductions for taxes and charitable contributions
already fade out above a certain income.

Well, I consider myself relatively well-off, but I'm far from that point.
And I have fairly little mortgage interest to pay.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:


Fact is,the teachers knew the teaching salaries before they
accepted the job,and probably before they selected teaching as a
career. Perhaps they should only teach for a few years,and then
move on to some better paying job(if they have the skills...),if
they don't like their salaries.

As I said, it is weighing a "calling" against a livelihood. But it
isn't really fair to reduce compensation by imposing new regulations
AFTER the teacher has been hired and contracted. And the latter has
happened here in NJ.

Those contracts only last a year, always have in school systems.
Everything is (theoretically) up for change every year.

A majority of NJ teacher contracts are for 3 years. So, your statement
of "always" is, literally speaking, incorrect. In addition, the example
of my local school district is not unique. Their contract expired in
2010, and a new one was tentatively approved late in 2011. Sometimes it
takes longer, sometimes not. But that is a bit besides the point. Once
you embark on a career, it isn't always easy to switch. Example: It is
much easier to change careers if you get eased out and get left with a
handshake of an extra 6 month salary after having earned over 200K/yr.
When you're down to less than 50K/yr, and there is no handshake, it's not
so easy.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Norminn wrote:

Eeeeewwwwhhh! I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same
sentence before....pretty much unimaginable ) I don't know why
anyone gives him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives; I
kinda think he did them a favor. Callista looks like a match, kinda
lizardy.

What's a hoot is his second wife complaining that he did to her what
he did with his first wife with her.

This is kind of a take-off on the advice given to young men: "Laddie,
if your lady says bad things about her former husband or previous
beau, someday she'll be saying the same things about you."

Actually, what the guy does in bed or with his squeezes doesn't concern
me so much, although there is a reflection on character and honesty.
What concerns me much more is how he gets his millions, which I think is
by influence peddling ("pimping") and outright lies. That he gets it, is
a reflection on DC prostitution.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

which is of course exactly the same thought process that goes through
those good xians that demand prayer in school, don't think women can
make choices about their bodies or think the world will end if they
can't have public displays of mangers and xmas trees

Public prayer is efficacious. Jesus said "When two or more gather in
my name, I am with them." If two people can't pray together in a
public school, they might as well be praying to the closet. Judaism
requires ten or more in prayer to represent the community. I'm sure
Islam has a similar requirement. By prohibiting public prayer, in my
view, the government school is impermissably interfering with the free
exercise of religion.

I don't think that Jesus really meant that you had to Teebow everywhere.
There are religious private schools if you want that. Go there. In
public school, I believe that good manners should be encouraged, but not
any particular religion, nor some plain vanilla averaged out religion.
But then I am agnostic, near atheist. Which doesn't mean I won't respect
religion. But it is not to be an organized public spectacle.

I think women can make choices about their bodies! But choices have
consequences; if a woman CHOOSES to have unprotected sex, she
shouldn't be surprised when she gets pregnant.

Sometimes what happens leaves little room for choice. Which is
regrettable.

But, the government, in its infinite wisdom, asserts the power to
protect us from our wrong choices.

No, the government affords us protection from those who intend to impose
their views on others. Is different.

Don't get me wrong. While there are many logical and heart-felt
feelings about abortion on both sides of the issue, I have come down
in favor of abortion on demand. There are two reasons I decided the
way I did.

* I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not pregnant nor will I ever
be. * Abortions cut down on the number of liberals amongst us. The
progressives, in promoting abortion, are doing the equivalent of
eating the seed corn. Look up "The Row Effect" for more information.
http://web.archive.org/web/201001031...ournal.com/ext
ra/?id=110006913

I'm with you, but my reasoning is different. If we avoid poor illiterate
children, we promote independent thinking. Those porr illiterate
children are too easily influenced by rabble rousers, be they religious,
conservative or liberal ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:


But neither is the current system where the top 1% pay twice the %age
of income taxes as they have %age of income (34,3% of taxes versus
16.8% of income. I find it hard to suggest that rich aren't paying
their share when they pay 34% of taxes and 40% of the worst off
actually have a NEGATIVE tax rate because the credits are more than
their taxes.

If one's income is so low, it is totally eaten up by housing, food and
other necessities (defined narrowly), why would you have to pay taxes
too? Even the flat taxers would institute a no tax zone, so to speak.
In order to protect their condition, the rich do have to pay a greater
share.

Which isn;t what I said. This wasn't a suggestion that the poor pay more
taxes, just that it hard to suggest that the rich aren't already
approaching it, especially given that the really poor are not only
paying taxes, but are making a profit off it.


mortgage types. BTW: Those in the top brackets already are finding out
about that since deductions for taxes and charitable contributions
already fade out above a certain income.

Well, I consider myself relatively well-off, but I'm far from that point.
And I have fairly little mortgage interest to pay.

When I was still kinda sorta near the top 5% anyway, there was a couple
of years where I paid an additional 5K in taxes solely and utterly
because of phase outs.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Han wrote:


A majority of NJ teacher contracts are for 3 years. So, your statement
of "always" is, literally speaking, incorrect. In addition, the example
of my local school district is not unique. Their contract expired in
2010, and a new one was tentatively approved late in 2011.
The INDIVIDUAL contracts are from year to year. The general contract
about salaries, etc, that is negotiated with the union may or may not
last 3 years depending on awhole bunch of things. That is why over the
last few years the school systems always announce layoffs really early
and then hire them back depending on who quits or retires.

Sometimes it
takes longer, sometimes not. But that is a bit besides the point. Once
you embark on a career, it isn't always easy to switch. Example: It is
much easier to change careers if you get eased out and get left with a
handshake of an extra 6 month salary after having earned over 200K/yr.
When you're down to less than 50K/yr, and there is no handshake, it's not
so easy.

But other than CongressCritter and possibly some legislatures, what
other career doesn't entail the same concerns?

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Han wrote:


But neither is the current system where the top 1% pay twice the
%age of income taxes as they have %age of income (34,3% of taxes
versus 16.8% of income. I find it hard to suggest that rich aren't
paying their share when they pay 34% of taxes and 40% of the worst
off actually have a NEGATIVE tax rate because the credits are more
than their taxes.

If one's income is so low, it is totally eaten up by housing, food
and other necessities (defined narrowly), why would you have to pay
taxes too? Even the flat taxers would institute a no tax zone, so to
speak. In order to protect their condition, the rich do have to pay
a greater share.

Which isn;t what I said. This wasn't a suggestion that the poor pay
more taxes, just that it hard to suggest that the rich aren't already
approaching it, especially given that the really poor are not only
paying taxes, but are making a profit off it.

The nation was more prosperous when in the Reagan years, capital gains
were taxed at or near 28%. And I believe there was no "carried
interest" then either.

mortgage types. BTW: Those in the top brackets already are finding
out about that since deductions for taxes and charitable
contributions already fade out above a certain income.

Well, I consider myself relatively well-off, but I'm far from that
point. And I have fairly little mortgage interest to pay.

When I was still kinda sorta near the top 5% anyway, there was a
couple of years where I paid an additional 5K in taxes solely and
utterly because of phase outs.

Never got there and don't expect to get there ever either.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

The INDIVIDUAL contracts are from year to year. The general contract
about salaries, etc, that is negotiated with the union may or may not
last 3 years depending on awhole bunch of things. That is why over the
last few years the school systems always announce layoffs really early
and then hire them back depending on who quits or retires.

When you get tenure (which has both plusses and minuses) it would be
difficult to let go of a contract.

Firing and hiring back was what the Paterson NJ district did wholesale at
the end of the 2009-10 year. My son-in-law came away pretty good, but by
far not every teacher did.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Norminn wrote:

Eeeeewwwwhhh! I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same
sentence before....pretty much unimaginable ) I don't know why
anyone gives him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives; I
kinda think he did them a favor. Callista looks like a match, kinda
lizardy.

What's a hoot is his second wife complaining that he did to her what
he did with his first wife with her.

This is kind of a take-off on the advice given to young men: "Laddie,
if your lady says bad things about her former husband or previous
beau, someday she'll be saying the same things about you."

Actually, what the guy does in bed or with his squeezes doesn't concern
me so much, although there is a reflection on character and honesty.
What concerns me much more is how he gets his millions, which I think is
by influence peddling ("pimping") and outright lies. That he gets it, is
a reflection on DC prostitution.


Do you have any DATA to support your belief ?
Or is it a case of wanting to believe something while hoping it to be true ?

"Han" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

which is of course exactly the same thought process that goes through
those good xians that demand prayer in school, don't think women can
make choices about their bodies or think the world will end if they
can't have public displays of mangers and xmas trees

Public prayer is efficacious. Jesus said "When two or more gather in
my name, I am with them." If two people can't pray together in a
public school, they might as well be praying to the closet. Judaism
requires ten or more in prayer to represent the community. I'm sure
Islam has a similar requirement. By prohibiting public prayer, in my
view, the government school is impermissably interfering with the free
exercise of religion.

I don't think that Jesus really meant that you had to Teebow everywhere.
There are religious private schools if you want that. Go there. In
public school, I believe that good manners should be encouraged, but not
any particular religion, nor some plain vanilla averaged out religion.
But then I am agnostic, near atheist. Which doesn't mean I won't respect
religion. But it is not to be an organized public spectacle.

I think women can make choices about their bodies! But choices have
consequences; if a woman CHOOSES to have unprotected sex, she
shouldn't be surprised when she gets pregnant.

Sometimes what happens leaves little room for choice. Which is
regrettable.

But, the government, in its infinite wisdom, asserts the power to
protect us from our wrong choices.

No, the government affords us protection from those who intend to impose
their views on others. Is different.

Don't get me wrong. While there are many logical and heart-felt
feelings about abortion on both sides of the issue, I have come down
in favor of abortion on demand. There are two reasons I decided the
way I did.

* I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not pregnant nor will I ever
be. * Abortions cut down on the number of liberals amongst us. The
progressives, in promoting abortion, are doing the equivalent of
eating the seed corn. Look up "The Row Effect" for more information.
http://web.archive.org/web/201001031...ournal.com/ext
ra/?id=110006913

I'm with you, but my reasoning is different. If we avoid poor illiterate
children, we promote independent thinking. Those porr illiterate
children are too easily influenced by rabble rousers, be they religious,
conservative or liberal ...


Which group did a job on the OWS or the GW crowds ?

In article ,
Han wrote:



The nation was more prosperous when in the Reagan years, capital gains
were taxed at or near 28%. And I believe there was no "carried
interest" then either.

ANd it was more prosperous during the Clinton years when the rate went
down to 20% for cap gains. Actually we were fairly prosperous over most
of the Bush years until the housing bubble.




--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Pete C. wrote:
...snipped...
... The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a higher
rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person pay
$0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15 of
every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of anything
but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being fair to
everyone.

The answers to those 2 questions are so numerous and readily available I
wouldn't even attempt to ist them here. And the final sentence would
be just as valid if the words "anything but" were deleted.


--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

I heard on the news today that Mitt Romney paid about $3 million in federal
taxes on an AGI of $45 million, about a 6.7% rate. I don't even make a 6
figure income and my rate was about 7.5%. Maybe a flat tax would be better.

--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

Han wrote:

I'm with you, but my reasoning is different. If we avoid poor
illiterate children, we promote independent thinking. Those porr
illiterate children are too easily influenced by rabble rousers, be
they religious, conservative or liberal ...

That's exactly what I said: Fewer Democrats.

On 1/25/2012 2:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

which is of course exactly the same thought process that goes through
those good xians that demand prayer in school, don't think women can
make choices about their bodies or think the world will end if they
can't have public displays of mangers and xmas trees

Public prayer is efficacious. Jesus said "When two or more gather in my
name, I am with them." If two people can't pray together in a public school,
they might as well be praying to the closet. Judaism requires ten or more in
prayer to represent the community. I'm sure Islam has a similar requirement.
By prohibiting public prayer, in my view, the government school is
impermissably interfering with the free exercise of religion.

I think women can make choices about their bodies! But choices have
consequences; if a woman CHOOSES to have unprotected sex, she shouldn't be
surprised when she gets pregnant.

But, the government, in its infinite wisdom, asserts the power to protect us
from our wrong choices.

Don't get me wrong. While there are many logical and heart-felt feelings
about abortion on both sides of the issue, I have come down in favor of
abortion on demand. There are two reasons I decided the way I did.

* I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not pregnant nor will I ever be.
* Abortions cut down on the number of liberals amongst us. The progressives,
in promoting abortion, are doing the equivalent of eating the seed corn.
Look up "The Row Effect" for more information.
http://web.archive.org/web/201001031.../?id=110006913


I never understood why Republicans were against Democrats having
abortions. Heck, pass a law that compels only Democrats to get
abortions and see how that flies. Thin the herd, heck conspiracy
nuts already believe the real world rulers behind the curtain want
to eliminate most of the world population. o_O

TDD

In article ,
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
Pete C. wrote:
...snipped...
... The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a higher
rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person pay
$0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15 of
every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of anything
but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being fair to
everyone.

The answers to those 2 questions are so numerous and readily available I
wouldn't even attempt to ist them here. And the final sentence would
be just as valid if the words "anything but" were deleted.

So, just give us a couple instances...

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:40:17 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
Pete C. wrote:
...snipped...
... The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a higher
rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person pay
$0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15 of
every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of anything
but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being fair to
everyone.

The answers to those 2 questions are so numerous and readily available I
wouldn't even attempt to ist them here. And the final sentence would
be just as valid if the words "anything but" were deleted.


"So brilliant, yet so corrupt, which, like a rotten mackerel by
moonlight, shines and stinks."
(John Randolph about Henry Clay)

When you get close enough to that "flat tax," you'll smell something.
He's already cut out exemptions for "poverty level" income.
That "poverty level" would quickly become a moving target.
Taxation ultimately gets decided by voters.
Got nothing to do with simple "pie in the sky" theories.
It's as complex as society itself.
Nothing wrong with tax code simplification if you can get by the
special interests.
Who gets voted into office sets tax policy.
The rest lobby them for their self-interests, or pound sand.
Flat-taxers should vote for Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich, and Republican
congressmen who will support their agenda.
Simple as that.
If you win, you get a flat tax.
If you lose, you pound sand.
That's all assuming the politicians aren't lying to you.
Haha.

--Vic

(Larry W) wrote in
:

I heard on the news today that Mitt Romney paid about $3 million in
federal taxes on an AGI of $45 million, about a 6.7% rate. I don't
even make a 6 figure income and my rate was about 7.5%. Maybe a flat
tax would be better.

I thought he made 45 million in 2 years, and that the 3 in taxes was for 1
year. But still ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:Q-
:

In article ,
Han wrote:

The nation was more prosperous when in the Reagan years, capital gains
were taxed at or near 28%. And I believe there was no "carried
interest" then either.

ANd it was more prosperous during the Clinton years when the rate went
down to 20% for cap gains. Actually we were fairly prosperous over most
of the Bush years until the housing bubble.

Until the bubble burst, yes. I also remember the bubble in the early 80's
that burst as the savings and loan scandal. But I best remember that I was
able to put in the contract to buy my first home in early 1980 that the
seller would reimburse me for the increase in interest I would have to pay
if I had to get a mortgage at more than 12.5% interest. That's what I got,
which was good because the broker wanted to wiggle out of that clause. He
built a nice addition to his house next fall.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:48:53 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:



It's not "progressive" (a.k.a. socialist), if it is the same rate for
everyone and only has a poverty cutoff.

I'd even agree to a progression on the bottom end. After about
75-100k it should be flat though. No loopholes, no deductions.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

which is of course exactly the same thought process that goes through
those good xians that demand prayer in school, don't think women can
make choices about their bodies or think the world will end if they
can't have public displays of mangers and xmas trees

Public prayer is efficacious. Jesus said "When two or more gather in my
name, I am with them."

But Jesus never said "go forth to your public school and pray", did he?


If two people can't pray together in a public school,
they might as well be praying to the closet.

Students pray in public schools all the time, most often just before a surprise
test. At all other times it is unnecessary, obtrusive, intrusive and arrogant.

Why is it that you make it sound like praying to the closet is a bad thing?


Judaism requires ten or more in
prayer to represent the community. I'm sure Islam has a similar requirement.
By prohibiting public prayer, in my view, the government school is
impermissably interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and state.



I think women can make choices about their bodies! But choices have
consequences; if a woman CHOOSES to have unprotected sex, she shouldn't be
surprised when she gets pregnant.

But, the government, in its infinite wisdom, asserts the power to protect us
from our wrong choices.

did a fine, if somewhat long in occurring, job with slavery. OTOH, there were
those pesky people who imposed prohibition on us

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

You should know that the first ammendmant to the US Constitution does
not separate church and state. It prohibits the Fed from establishing
a religion.

While I know that, some may not, I don't see a difference here. My view of
religion is that it is a private thing, do it whenever it is appropriate
for you, but making it into a Tebow spectacle constitutes proselytizing and
is not permitted in schools.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/25/2012 11:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and state.


it just makes me sick that this amendment is taken out of context
constantly. It was written to keep the Government out of the church.
NOT to keep the church out of the government. There IS no separation,
and those words 'church and state' do not appear in the text.


--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

Steve Barker wrote in
:

On 1/25/2012 11:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and
state.


it just makes me sick that this amendment is taken out of context
constantly. It was written to keep the Government out of the church.
NOT to keep the church out of the government. There IS no separation,
and those words 'church and state' do not appear in the text.

It irks me just a pesky little bit, but as an agnostic,it's just a really
tiny little bit. It's your SCOTUS who have interpreted the amendment to
mean that the state shouldn't interfere in church and religious businesses,
and tha includes offically allowing/sponsoring religious expressions. I
think that is generally a good™ thing. As mentioned I'm against anything
that allows or sponsors proselytizing.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

That misinterpreting, has been going on for a long time. Not only the
"separation" mistake, but other mistakes, as well. Our founding fathers
would be disappointed with where we've gone, and what we've become.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
On 1/25/2012 11:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and state.


it just makes me sick that this amendment is taken out of context
constantly. It was written to keep the Government out of the church.
NOT to keep the church out of the government. There IS no separation,
and those words 'church and state' do not appear in the text.


--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

Han wrote:

It irks me just a pesky little bit, but as an agnostic,it's just a
really tiny little bit. It's your SCOTUS who have interpreted the
amendment to mean that the state shouldn't interfere in church and
religious businesses, and tha includes offically allowing/sponsoring
religious expressions. I think that is generally a goodT thing. As
mentioned I'm against anything that allows or sponsors proselytizing.

But proselytizing is an integral part of both Christianity and Islam.

To the faithful, prohibiting proselytizing is no different than prohibiting
baptism or cutting off the heads of unbelievers.

"Pete C." wrote in
.com:


Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
.com:


Han wrote:

"Doug" wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, Han wrote:

RonB wrote in
news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...503544/mitch-d
ani els -...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of
the most effective educational systems in our country.....
Small, but strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago.
But it will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the
best teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best"
and then I said with what. I mean some people can't afford
their homes much less property tax increases of which help pay
for the teachers. I thought maybe a better way was not to
reward the "best" teachers but just get rid of the bad teachers.
Of course then we have to define what "good and bad" is but
aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing his/her job
shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead. I
think the reward is seeing their student graduate college and
come back to say thank you to that teacher. I realize not many
students do this but maybe we need to teach the students
"manners / respect" as well as academics. Just my 2 cents
worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is,
Indeed!! I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there
shouldn't be ways to so so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less
than privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to
see students succeed, especially those they get when they at first
appear to be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net
take home pay gets cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the
millionairs' tax was cut, but teachers were told to pay much more
for their healthcare and in addition had their pension funds
reduced once again (NJ has refused to pay the contractually
arrived at amounts into the pension funds).

Everyone wants to pay good teachers more (and get rid of bad ones)
but nobody wants to pay for it. The thing is, what legal,
constitutional, moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing
some people at a higher rate just because they have deep pockets?
Why should one person pay $0.50 of every dollar they earn while
someone else only pays $0.15 of every dollar they earn? No rational
person can be in favor of anything but a single flat tax on all
income from all sources as being fair to everyone.


Does paying teachers(good or bad) more bring about any increase in
kids passing or getting better grades? Does it better prepare kids
for entering the real world of employment? No and no.

Yes, and yes. Better salaries for teachers brings better teachers into
the teaching profession who otherwise go down other career paths that
pay better.

that is what the teachers unions would like you to believe.


Fact is,the teachers knew the teaching salaries before they accepted
the job,and probably before they selected teaching as a career.
Perhaps they should only teach for a few years,and then move on to
some better paying job(if they have the skills...),if they don't like
their salaries.

What happens is that idealistic teachers come out of college, take
teaching jobs and rapidly become disillusioned with the relatively low
pay and the poor schools.

they get "disiiusioned" because of all the unprepared and unruly students
that they MUST put up with.
OTOH,private schools expel unruly and bad students.

The good ones generally leave for better
jobs in the non teaching world in a few years,

that is what the teachers unions would like you to believe.

while the bad ones
remain and get tenure and are protected by the unions. The end result
is failing schools full of bad, tenured, union protected teachers.



Fact is,all the billions we've poured into the Dept.Of Education has not
improved the education of our kids at all.

Maybe we might be doing better by our children if we put that money back
into local schools.(dumping the DOEdu)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:48:53 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:



It's not "progressive" (a.k.a. socialist), if it is the same rate for
everyone and only has a poverty cutoff.

I'd even agree to a progression on the bottom end. After about
75-100k it should be flat though. No loopholes, no deductions.


are you going to separate income from investment earnings(capital gains)?
that will have a negative effect on the economy,as less money wil be
avaialble for investment.
Look at Warrent Buffet;he gets a tiny salary,but most of his wealth is held
by corporations and foundations,same for Bill Gates.
Thus,their taxes are low,because most of their wealth is sheltered.
But their "needs" are provided by their corporations.

How about the family farm? right now,the inheritance tax forces people to
sell their property to meet the tax,despite taxes having already been paid
on that wealth.Double taxation.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Han wrote:

It irks me just a pesky little bit, but as an agnostic,it's just a
really tiny little bit. It's your SCOTUS who have interpreted the
amendment to mean that the state shouldn't interfere in church and
religious businesses, and tha includes offically allowing/sponsoring
religious expressions. I think that is generally a goodT thing. As
mentioned I'm against anything that allows or sponsors proselytizing.

But proselytizing is an integral part of both Christianity and Islam.

To the faithful, prohibiting proselytizing is no different than prohibiting
baptism or cutting off the heads of unbelievers.

proselytize all you want, but not in public schools. it should be pointed out
that proselytizing is NOT an integral part to lots of other religions

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

That misinterpreting, has been going on for a long time. Not only the
"separation" mistake, but other mistakes, as well. Our founding fathers
would be disappointed with where we've gone, and what we've become.

founding fathers that legalized slavery and prohibited women from voting
wouldn't get much compassion for how they felt about what we've done or become.




Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
On 1/25/2012 11:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and state.


it just makes me sick that this amendment is taken out of context
constantly. It was written to keep the Government out of the church.
NOT to keep the church out of the government. There IS no separation,
and those words 'church and state' do not appear in the text.

fortunately we've seen just how smart it is to keep the church and state seperate

On 1/25/2012 4:14 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 1/25/2012 1:02 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Pete wrote in
.com:


Han wrote:

wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, wrote:

wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...544/mitch-dani
els -...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the
most effective educational systems in our country..... Small,
but strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But
it will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then
I said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much
less property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I
thought maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers
but just get rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to
define what "good and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I
think a teacher doing his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should
keep their job instead. I think the reward is seeing their student
graduate college and come back to say thank you to that teacher. I
realize not many students do this but maybe we need to teach the
students "manners / respect" as well as academics. Just my 2
cents worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is,
Indeed!! I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't
be ways to so so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear
to be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay
gets cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax
was cut, but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare
and in addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has
refused to pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension
funds).

Everyone wants to pay good teachers more (and get rid of bad ones) but
nobody wants to pay for it. The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a
higher rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person
pay $0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15
of every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of
anything but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being
fair to everyone.


Does paying teachers(good or bad) more bring about any increase in kids
passing or getting better grades? Does it better prepare kids for
entering
the real world of employment? No and no.

Fact is,the teachers knew the teaching salaries before they accepted the
job,and probably before they selected teaching as a career. Perhaps they
should only teach for a few years,and then move on to some better paying
job(if they have the skills...),if they don't like their salaries.


Teachers are paid plenty and get good benefits. It used to be teachers
would work summers to supplement their income but now it is one big
vacation.


Ignorant crock of ****
Most teachers these days, need to go to school in the summer to satisfy
all the paper (certification) they need to have to keep their jobs


IMHO, teachers and all other municipal and government unions should be
banned. Parents should have control of the schools, not the
educational establishment.


Isn't that what School Boards are for ?
If the School Boards are not doing their jobs, its' not the teachers fault.


We keep dumping money into education to end up with an excess of
administrators who demand more money to increase the teacher/student
ratio. We've got a high school here with 4 assistant principals, one
of which is my state representative. What the hell is this?


And the money is not going to actual teaching and teaching materials
It's going to pay for bureaucrats to satisfy the paperwork fro the Feds
and States.

Most teachers today, spend more time filling forms than actually teaching.
Explain to me why a teacher should be filling form for the Office of
Civil Rights, or some other bureaucracy ?


I think teaching is a great career. Teachers should be appreciated and
well paid. It is the whole school administration that needs reworking.

There I completely agree with you.
Most school administration systems are so sclerotic and bureaucratic,
that they are counter to any effective teaching.


You are adding to my points. I know teachers that left teaching because
of all the crap.

Here, school elections/referendums are held at different times than
general elections, usually on a week day when school are in session.
The system is rigged in favor of the teachers and their union.
The union supported school board members are the ones elected to the
school boards.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:03:08 -0500, Frank
wrote:

The system is rigged in favor of the teachers and their union.
The union supported school board members are the ones elected to the
school boards.

Yep.

_Fran Tarkenton: Treat teachers like quarterbacks_

By Mike MullenWed., Oct. 5 2011 at 8:06 AM
Categories: Education

"..."Teachers' salaries," Tarkenton writes, "have no relation to
whether teachers are actually good at their job -- excellence isn't
rewarded, and neither is extra effort."

[...]

"..Beyond compensation issues, the muscle of teachers' unions is often
employed to keep failing teachers on staff, Tarkenton writes:

After a teacher earns tenure, which is often essentially automatic,
firing him or her becomes almost impossible, no matter how bad the
performance might be. And if you criticize the system, you're
demonized for hating teachers and not believing in our nation's
children."

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/10/public_school_teachers_unions_fran_tarkenton_merit _pay.php

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

I never understood why Republicans were against Democrats having
abortions. Heck, pass a law that compels only Democrats to get
abortions and see how that flies. Thin the herd, heck conspiracy
nuts already believe the real world rulers behind the curtain want
to eliminate most of the world population. o_O

I like it. A society run and totally influenced by republicans. No foreign
players on baseball, football or basketball teams, no foreign workers (can't
have even legal ones because there is too much chance of illegals infiltrating)
so there is no fresh fruit or veggies or even beef, pork or poultry and all
those Mac Mansions will have brown landscape dominated by weeds. And all the
*******s will all be republicans or there will be a great tourist boom for
single republican mothers-to-be flying to more enlightened countries for their
"touch-ups"

In article ,
SecondHoncho wrote:

ong health insurance,

This is stupid on its face. The current law won't pick anyone's
health insurance. Everyone can keep what they have ot change to
anything they want. But the people who don't have health insurance
will have to buy some, any brand they want.
Nonsense. First of all there are a whole bunch of things that are going
to be required to be covered as preventive services that aren't now. As
currently written these will mean new policies and that they can't be
grandfathered in. Secondly, there are many indications that businesses
of all sizes will be jetisoning their insurance because the fines are a
lot less than the costs of insurance.
An analyst from McKinsey & Company says that something in the range
of 80 to 100 million individuals are going to change coverage categories
in the two years post-2014. They will lose their employer coverage,
move into exchanges, or go on to Medicaid. This would be an
extraordinary disruption that will cause widespread outrage.
This pretty well established by other studies.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


How about the family farm? right now,the inheritance tax forces people to
sell their property to meet the tax,despite taxes having already been paid
on that wealth.Double taxation.

Inheritance taxes are put in place, and rather blantantly if you listen
to the people pushing them, solely to punish those who make so much
money that they offend the pushers. Inheritances should be taxed by what
they are. If business, then the inheritors pay the cap gains tax just
like they would have if they had bought it (and get the stepped up
basis).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:


You should know that the first ammendmant to the US Constitution does not
separate church and state. It prohibits the Fed from establishing a
religion.

and you don't see that as requiring a separation?


Nope. It, like a lot of what the constitution says, just says that
they can't pass laws establishing a religion, not that individuals can't
do what they want merely because they are government employees. I
actually think about the only time they got it right recenty was on the
pledge of allegiance.
The "under God" wasn't in the original until a law was passed adding
it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" pretty much says that it has
to go.
I also find it interesting that those pushing for this separation are
actually calling for the prohibition of the free exercise thereof.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 1/26/2012 3:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In ,
The Daring wrote:

I never understood why Republicans were against Democrats having
abortions. Heck, pass a law that compels only Democrats to get
abortions and see how that flies. Thin the herd, heck conspiracy
nuts already believe the real world rulers behind the curtain want
to eliminate most of the world population. o_O

I like it. A society run and totally influenced by republicans. No foreign
players on baseball, football or basketball teams, no foreign workers (can't
have even legal ones because there is too much chance of illegals infiltrating)
so there is no fresh fruit or veggies or even beef, pork or poultry and all
those Mac Mansions will have brown landscape dominated by weeds. And all the
*******s will all be republicans or there will be a great tourist boom for
single republican mothers-to-be flying to more enlightened countries for their
"touch-ups"

You do realize I was being fecesious[sic]? ^_^

TDD