Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:44:40 -0500, jim
wrote:



It received 1.3 trillion from bond buyers who understand
that the safest place to put their money is Tsy securities

AFAIUI, the Fed is essentially acting as a buyer of last resort,
buying very low interest longer term bonds since there are actually
not enough buyers who want US-dollar denominated longer term bonds.

There are more than enough buyers. The fact is, by law the Fed
cannot buy directly from the Treasury.


They call this virtually unprecedented action "quantitative easing"
and it is hoped to improve (increase) inflation towards the target of
2%-ish, since zero interest rates and deficit spending have both
failed. They have bought $2.3 trillion dollars "worth" so far
(starting as the seriousness of the crash became apparent in 2008).

Only $1.6 in treasury securities. They also purchased
around .6 trillion in mortgage backed securities.



http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/...sing-explained
(the comments are good too)



The money used to purchase treasury securities is not circulating
in the economy. It is all sitting in bank reserve accounts.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...GNONBR?cid=123

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:44:40 -0500, jim wrote:



" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:24:40 -0500, jim wrote:



"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article ,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article , cayoung61
says...

Might help with the economic depression, too?

Not necessarily. The New Deal worked mostly because while just about
everybody in the country was broke, the government was solvent. This
time the government's as broke as the rest of us.

Not true. The ratio of federal govt debt to
private debt was the same in 2008 as it was
at the beginning of the great depression.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploa...hael-Clark.png

What does the ratio of federal government debt to private debt have to
do with the government being broke?

Nothing at all. The govt is not broke


One can be broke without owing
money. In fact if one is broke it is generally difficult to obtain a
loan.

The govt has no difficulty getting loans.

That's why the Fed has had to buy T-bills.

The govt has no difficulty getting loans.

It's obvious that you haven't been paying attention. What do you think QEn is
all about? We're buying our own paper because no one else will.

In 1930 the federal Debt was 16 billion dollars on a Federal income of 4
billion and the government showed a surplus of 730 million.

In 2011 the federal debt was 14 trillion dollars on a Federal income of
2 trillion and the government showed a deficit of more than 1 trillion.

The government took in and spent 3.6 trillion last year.
And the govt owes private investors about 9 trillion.

No, it took in 1.3T less than it spent. 9T?

It received 1.3 trillion from bond buyers who understand
that the safest place to put their money is Tsy securities

You're an idiot. Ever hear of Quantitative Easing?

Or by another measure, in 1935 the federal debt was about 40 percent of
GDP, having risen to that level from about 20 percent in 1930. In 2011
the federal debt was nearly 60 percent of GDP, up from about 35 percent
in 2005. The only time the federal debt was higher was during WWII.

And when the federal debt went higher
what followed was increased economic growth.

You're nuts.

When you can't refute the facts start name calling.

Stateing facts. You *are* nuts.

If you don't think that the government owing 70 percent of the entire
country's income and having to borrow half as much as it brings in to
pay the interest on the existing debt means that the government is
broke

The govt is not broke and the federal debt will continue to
go much higher.

Until it can't.

The federal debt will grow as it is until
the private sector is no longer drowning in debt

Good grief! "Borrow our way to prosperity!" What a flaming idiot!

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:59:40 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:44:40 -0500, jim
wrote:



It received 1.3 trillion from bond buyers who understand
that the safest place to put their money is Tsy securities

AFAIUI, the Fed is essentially acting as a buyer of last resort,
buying very low interest longer term bonds since there are actually
not enough buyers who want US-dollar denominated longer term bonds.

Exactly. No one wants junk bonds at (less than) AAA prices.

They call this virtually unprecedented action "quantitative easing"
and it is hoped to improve (increase) inflation towards the target of
2%-ish, since zero interest rates and deficit spending have both
failed. They have bought $2.3 trillion dollars "worth" so far
(starting as the seriousness of the crash became apparent in 2008).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/...sing-explained
(the comments are good too)

IMHO, it's a move of utter desperation and only tolerated because
nobody can think of anything else to do within the current system.

No one in the administration, anyway. As long as they're spending 45% more
than is being taken in, we'll be swirling the drain.

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:51:51 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:44:40 -0500, jim
wrote:



It received 1.3 trillion from bond buyers who understand
that the safest place to put their money is Tsy securities

AFAIUI, the Fed is essentially acting as a buyer of last resort,
buying very low interest longer term bonds since there are actually
not enough buyers who want US-dollar denominated longer term bonds.

There are more than enough buyers. The fact is, by law the Fed
cannot buy directly from the Treasury.

Idiot. So Goldman get rich. Is that really your solution?

They call this virtually unprecedented action "quantitative easing"
and it is hoped to improve (increase) inflation towards the target of
2%-ish, since zero interest rates and deficit spending have both
failed. They have bought $2.3 trillion dollars "worth" so far
(starting as the seriousness of the crash became apparent in 2008).

Only $1.6 in treasury securities. They also purchased
around .6 trillion in mortgage backed securities.

Only? That's 2.2T of ~3T over two years (that they'll admit to).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/...sing-explained
(the comments are good too)



The money used to purchase treasury securities is not circulating
in the economy. It is all sitting in bank reserve accounts.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...GNONBR?cid=123

Idiot.

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:58:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:28:06 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:02:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:38:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:41:21 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:29:15 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:22:46 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:28:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Because it makes the dummy feel good.

Ok, then let everyone have AK-47s, etc... with no qualifications and
can be bought with credit cards or food stamps. I bet you'd love for
me to say something along that line. I don't think so.

Again, you show just how stupid you really are. You're *way* past ignorance;
this stuff has all been explained to you many times now.


No, your just full of BS ...

No, asshole, it *has* all been explained to you before and you're too damned
dense to understand.

you can't stand someone wanting to account for the purchase of guns.

It's none of your damned business.

You take that to mean I don't want
you to buy a gun and I keep telling you I want accountability so I
know who bought a gun.

Why do you want to know? What good does that do? I already have to
demonstrate that I am legally allowed to buy a gun. This has already been
explained to you but you're too damned dense to understand.

I don't want to stop people from buying guns

You're a liar.

but that doesn't mean I want ANYONE to have a gun neither.

Not ANYONE can buy a gun, legally, moron. This has already been explained to
you but you're too damned dense to understand.


Yeah and I've explained myself to the level that even a moron like you
should understand.

Well, that sentence makes as much sense as anything else you've ever said.


Why did it go above your head too?

Why can't you write a simple English sentence?

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:02:59 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:30:51 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:13:38 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:06:46 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:30:47 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:39:57 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:50:35 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:07:46 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:20:30 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Better accounting and hopefully more responsibility.

Giggle.

I already have accountability of my guns and take responsibility. What
I read from you is that the government should control your life,
because you cannot make simple decisions for yourself and you trust
the government more than yourself.

DAGS missing guns from the FBI, DEA, INS, ATF and other agencies. Guns
grew legs and walked right out of the agencies. Where is their
"accounting" and "responsibility"? What about Fast and Furious guns
that are missing?

You cannot legislate "responsibility" or morality. Is there anything
you think that should not be controlled by the government?


Don't go there or we will have another 1000 message thread. I do
think guns need to be controlled at least for accounting purposes. I
just don't want anyone to have a gun. You may be a responsible person
with a gun but not all are and as I said, I realize no law is going to
perfect what I want but if it saves any lives, it is worth it to me.


So in essence, you want to infringe on the right to have a gun. A
right that shall not be infringed. What is the next right you want to
take away?

Personally I don't see what's wrong with having better records of
those that buy a gun and perhaps requiring a annual license. Why do
you not complain about owning a car because it requires by law,
insurance, a driver's license to drive, registration and inspection
which is more than I want for a gun? Of course there are law
breakers that drive cars too but overall, it's a decent system for car
ownership / responsibility for owning a car.

Goal post moved. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I can opt-out
of driving. Leave my guns alone.


Call it as you may, you do not have to own a gun nor a car but if you
have the money, you may buy either. Therefore like a car, I want
both to have some accountability.

Accountability? Moron, you don't know what you're talking about. You *are*
checked against a database when you buy a gun to see if you're (not) allowed
to posses a gun. You are *NOT* checked against any database when you buy a
car. Any fool can buy a car. No license required, either.


Gosh you really are a Moron too.

Wow! IKWYABWAI. Why did I expect that argument from you? How old are you,
anyway?

Think a little, I promise it won't hurt you.

You've said nothing that requires thinking. It would be impossible for you to
come up with something that complicated.

What a complete dolt.



Thanks for making me laugh today.

"They're coming to take you away, ha ha..."

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:58:47 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Accountability? Moron, you don't know what you're talking about.
You *are* checked against a database when you buy a gun to see if
you're (not) allowed to posses a gun. You are *NOT* checked against
any database when you buy a car. Any fool can buy a car. No license
required, either.

Not always. When I buy a gun from a licensed dealer, they do NOT do a NICS
check. That's because the feds recognize my Texas concealed handgun license
as proof positive that I'm a righteous person - don't pester us with a
'phone call.

Wrong. You've already done the paperwork.

I understand that the FBI does not treat CHL's from all states the same.

It's up to the states. The feds treat them the same.

" wrote:


The govt has no difficulty getting loans.

It's obvious that you haven't been paying attention. What do you think QEn is
all about? We're buying our own paper because no one else will.

That is your interpretation.
The govt has no difficulty selling treasuries.






In 1930 the federal Debt was 16 billion dollars on a Federal income of 4
billion and the government showed a surplus of 730 million.

In 2011 the federal debt was 14 trillion dollars on a Federal income of
2 trillion and the government showed a deficit of more than 1 trillion.

The government took in and spent 3.6 trillion last year.
And the govt owes private investors about 9 trillion.

No, it took in 1.3T less than it spent. 9T?

It received 1.3 trillion from bond buyers who understand
that the safest place to put their money is Tsy securities

You're an idiot. Ever hear of Quantitative Easing?

It has been more than a year since QE ended.




Or by another measure, in 1935 the federal debt was about 40 percent of
GDP, having risen to that level from about 20 percent in 1930. In 2011
the federal debt was nearly 60 percent of GDP, up from about 35 percent
in 2005. The only time the federal debt was higher was during WWII.

And when the federal debt went higher
what followed was increased economic growth.

You're nuts.

When you can't refute the facts start name calling.

Stateing facts. You *are* nuts.

It's an attempt to avoid the relevant facts.



If you don't think that the government owing 70 percent of the entire
country's income and having to borrow half as much as it brings in to
pay the interest on the existing debt means that the government is
broke

The govt is not broke and the federal debt will continue to
go much higher.

Until it can't.

The federal debt will grow as it is until
the private sector is no longer drowning in debt

Good grief! "Borrow our way to prosperity!" What a flaming idiot!

It is what it is. Do you think I'm in control?

On Aug 8, 4:30*pm, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:
" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:56:41 -0500, jim wrote:

" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 06:40:38 -0500, jim wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

The difference is that I can choose not to shop at Walmart. I can't choose
not to pay US and state taxes.

Sure you can.

Simply live frugally and barter for goods and
services and you can legitimately avoid taxes.

Wrong. You still owe taxes on barter.

So if you trade firewood for eggs, what is
the tax you would pay?

Easy. *The market value of the transaction. *You owe both sales tax on one
side of the transaction and income tax on the other.

The IRS regards the market value to be zero if it is
not a commercial enterprise.

And your reference for that would be?
It's my understanding that if I paint my neighbor's house
and he gives me a car valued at $2,000 in return, that
is taxable.


For instance if I mow my neighbors
lawn but don't mow lawns for a living that is not taxable.

I'd like to see where the IRS has that position. Are they
going to go looking for someone, have a practical
way to find someone who does this once? no. But
let's say you're doing this for the neighbor at a rate of
$50 a week. At the end of the season, he gives you
tools worth $1000. I'd like to see where the IRS says
you don't owe income tax on that $1,000. Everything
I've seen says you do, commerical enterprise or not.

From the IRS:

Topic 420 - Bartering Income

"Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without
exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair
work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. You must include
in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods
and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide. "


So if I give my neighbor firewood and my neighbor
gives me eggs and neither of us is selling firewood or
eggs then it is not subject to tax.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cite?

On Aug 8, 8:23*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net says...







" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:56:41 -0500, jim wrote:

" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 06:40:38 -0500, jim wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

The difference is that I can choose not to shop at Walmart. I can't choose
not to pay US and state taxes.

Sure you can.

Simply live frugally and barter for goods and
services and you can legitimately avoid taxes.

Wrong. You still owe taxes on barter.

So if you trade firewood for eggs, what is
the tax you would pay?

Easy. *The market value of the transaction. *You owe both sales tax on one
side of the transaction and income tax on the other.

The IRS regards the market value to be zero if it is
not a commercial enterprise. For instance if I mow my neighbors
lawn but don't mow lawns for a living that is not taxable.
So if I give my neighbor firewood and my neighbor
gives me eggs and neither of us is selling firewood or
eggs then it is not subject to tax.

The discussion was of sales and use tax, not of Federal income tax, so
what does the IRS have to do with anything?

The discussion I saw here was about US taxes in general.




*And if your neighbor
compensates you for mowing his lawn you are required to report that
compensation as income, even if it is not done as part of a licensed
business. *What you are not allowed to do unless it is done as part of a
licensed business is deduct the cost of the gas and the depreciation on
the lawn mower.- Hide quoted text -


And who says you can't deduct the cost of materials unless
it's a "licensed business" Licensed by whom? Many businesses
are not licensed, particularly home based ones.

Dug wrote in :

HeyBub wrote:

#2: No matter how much you try to equate guns and cars, the
fundamental fact remains that ownership of guns is protected
by the Constitution

In the context of the owner being part of a citizen's militia, in the
context of having access to said gun (musket) during times of civil
defence against an foreign invader.


WRONG. there's NO language in the 2nd that requires one to be in a militia
to have the RKBA. NONE whatsoever.
ALL the 2nd says about militias is that they are "necessary to a free
state",nothing more.

It CLEARLY states the "right of the PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms,not "of a
militia".

semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's
modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms
under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar
to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault
rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a
militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd
Amendment had to be arms a militia would use. AR-15's,M-16's and AK-47s
would be ordinary militia arms,and "hi-capacity magazines" also would be
protected.


nice try to prevent replies,by directing followups to alt.bull****;
that proves you're a troll. the Killfile for you.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article ,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article ,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article , cayoung61
says...

Might help with the economic depression, too?

Not necessarily. The New Deal worked mostly because while just about
everybody in the country was broke, the government was solvent. This
time the government's as broke as the rest of us.

Not true. The ratio of federal govt debt to
private debt was the same in 2008 as it was
at the beginning of the great depression.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploa...hael-Clark.png

What does the ratio of federal government debt to private debt have to
do with the government being broke?

Nothing at all. The govt is not broke


One can be broke without owing
money. In fact if one is broke it is generally difficult to obtain a
loan.

The govt has no difficulty getting loans.



In 1930 the federal Debt was 16 billion dollars on a Federal income of 4
billion and the government showed a surplus of 730 million.

In 2011 the federal debt was 14 trillion dollars on a Federal income of
2 trillion and the government showed a deficit of more than 1 trillion.

The government took in and spent 3.6 trillion last year.
And the govt owes private investors about 9 trillion.



Or by another measure, in 1935 the federal debt was about 40 percent of
GDP, having risen to that level from about 20 percent in 1930. In 2011
the federal debt was nearly 60 percent of GDP, up from about 35 percent
in 2005. The only time the federal debt was higher was during WWII.

And when the federal debt went higher
what followed was increased economic growth.


If you don't think that the government owing 70 percent of the entire
country's income and having to borrow half as much as it brings in to
pay the interest on the existing debt means that the government is
broke

The govt is not broke and the federal debt will continue to
go much higher.

If Congress tries to balance the budget the current private
debt situation will create a depression worse than the 1930's
depression. And with any depression the federal debt will
grow faster and higher.
IOW, the effort to curtail federal debt will backfire and will
cause a huge fall in GDP which will make the private sector even
less able to handle its debt which is already unmanageable.

If Congress tries to balance the budget the phrase
"debt-deflation" will become household word for
a large portion of the private sector.


"Each dollar of debt still unpaid becomes a bigger dollar,
and if the over-indebtedness with which we started was great
enough, the liquidation of debts cannot keep up with the fall
of prices which it causes. In that case, the liquidation
defeats itself. While it diminishes the number of dollars
owed, it may not do so as fast, as it increases the value of
each dollar owed. Then, the very effort of individuals to
lessen their burden of debts increases it, because of the mass
effect of the stampede to liquidate in swelling each dollar
owed."
-Irving Fisher,
The Debt Deflation Theory of Great Depressions, 1933.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf

OK, Brainiac, go find someone fool enough to loan you an amount that has
you paying a third of your income in interest and see how you like it.

Interest payments by the federal govt are lower than
they have been for decades. When Reagan was president
federal interest pay outs were over 3% of GDP. Today they
are about half that.

In article ,
jim wrote:


Interest payments by the federal govt are lower than
they have been for decades. When Reagan was president
federal interest pay outs were over 3% of GDP. Today they
are about half that.

Yeah, when RR took over from Carter (D-GA), interest rates were north of
13%. If they are indeed half that, given that current interest rates are
running around a 1/4 of that, it would seem that the amount owed is MUCH
higher. Just saying.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:48:26 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:

Dug wrote in :

HeyBub wrote:

#2: No matter how much you try to equate guns and cars, the
fundamental fact remains that ownership of guns is protected
by the Constitution

In the context of the owner being part of a citizen's militia, in the
context of having access to said gun (musket) during times of civil
defence against an foreign invader.


WRONG. there's NO language in the 2nd that requires one to be in a militia
to have the RKBA. NONE whatsoever.
ALL the 2nd says about militias is that they are "necessary to a free
state",nothing more.

It CLEARLY states the "right of the PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms,not "of a
militia".

semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's
modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms
under the Second Amendment.

With that argument, fully automatics should be allowed.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar
to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault
rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a
militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd
Amendment had to be arms a militia would use. AR-15's,M-16's and AK-47s
would be ordinary militia arms,and "hi-capacity magazines" also would be
protected.


nice try to prevent replies,by directing followups to alt.bull****;
that proves you're a troll. the Killfile for you.

The left's dishonesty shows through again.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
jim wrote:


Interest payments by the federal govt are lower than
they have been for decades. When Reagan was president
federal interest pay outs were over 3% of GDP. Today they
are about half that.

Yeah, when RR took over from Carter (D-GA), interest rates were north of
13%. If they are indeed half that, given that current interest rates are
running around a 1/4 of that, it would seem that the amount owed is MUCH
higher. Just saying.

Of course it is higher. When Reagan was president
he borrowed more than all the presidents before him
by the end of his first term. And it has grown a lot since.
But the burden of interest is half what it was back then
so any claim that the interest is an undue burden is
suspect.



--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net says...

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
jim wrote:


Interest payments by the federal govt are lower than
they have been for decades. When Reagan was president
federal interest pay outs were over 3% of GDP. Today they
are about half that.

Yeah, when RR took over from Carter (D-GA), interest rates were north of
13%. If they are indeed half that, given that current interest rates are
running around a 1/4 of that, it would seem that the amount owed is MUCH
higher. Just saying.

Of course it is higher. When Reagan was president
he borrowed more than all the presidents before him
by the end of his first term. And it has grown a lot since.
But the burden of interest is half what it was back then
so any claim that the interest is an undue burden is
suspect.

Fine, Jim, you go on believing that the government is solvent. The next
couple of decades are going to be _real_ bad.

On 8/9/2012 9:39 AM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:19:28 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Do you want ex-felons or mentally ill people having
the right to buy a legal gun?

Felons can apply to have their rights restored. They have to follow
the state procedures. In my state prisoners now have to be advised of
this fact upon release or at the parole hearing.

Yes, they can apply, but those rights have to be restored to the
satisfaction of the BATFE, which will not fund a process for doing so.

David

On 8/8/2012 8:56 AM, jim wrote:


" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 06:40:38 -0500, jim wrote:



Stormin Mormon wrote:

The difference is that I can choose not to shop at Walmart. I can't choose
not to pay US and state taxes.

Sure you can.

Simply live frugally and barter for goods and
services and you can legitimately avoid taxes.

Wrong. You still owe taxes on barter.

So if you trade firewood for eggs, what is
the tax you would pay?


The IRS has guns, they can fabricate an amount and demand it. O_o

TDD

On 8/8/2012 8:36 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 06:40:38 -0500, jim wrote:



Stormin Mormon wrote:

The difference is that I can choose not to shop at Walmart. I can't choose
not to pay US and state taxes.

Sure you can.

Simply live frugally and barter for goods and
services and you can legitimately avoid taxes.

Wrong. You still owe taxes on barter.

Its pretty much just as easy as avoiding Walmart and
the other corporate venues.

Utter nonsense.


I'm reminded of the often screwy rules the IRS enforces. If a famous
artist donates a painting to an institution that is worth millions on
the art market, the IRS will only allow the artist to deduct the cost
of the paint, canvas/media, frame and brushes. O_o

TDD

On 8/8/2012 5:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

So if you trade firewood for eggs, what is
the tax you would pay?

There is an implied value and many (if not most) states have a
sales tax on that (or use tax depending on how the state is
structured). Having said that, since there is no centralized way to
pick this up, such as going to a story, I don't see getting too much
money. Thus, while I acknowledge their existence, I seriously doubt
their enforceability. Functionally you are both correct... and
incorrect (grin).

Let's eliminate the middle-man. Suppose you had a chicken that laid a dozen
eggs every two weeks.

Would you really pay a "use" tax on the $1.20 worth of eggs?

Suppose you loaned Henrietta to your neighbor and he kept the eggs. Is there
a use tax liability anywhere and who pays it?

This all reminds me of the woman who was a militant vegetarian but she did
eat eggs because she also supported a woman's right to choose.


I seem to recall something called an "ad valorem tax" where a business
must pay a tax on the value of its assets like tools and equipment used
in the operation of the business. That one always struck me as odd. O_o

TDD

On 8/8/2012 7:15 AM, willshak wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote the following on 8/7/2012 7:55 AM (ET):
Now, that makes good sense. You'd need some kind of recognizable
clothing, and some kind of structure. And, it sure could work. Sadly,
I have been wondering if FEMA is designed to prevent aid from reaching
disasters.

I've been part of a relief effort. They handed out yellow vests that
said "Mormon Helping Hands".

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

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message ...

Some years ago I came up with an idea for NDC, National Disaster Corps.
Young people who didn't care for the military could join The NDC and
get the same sort of benefits for serving the country armed not with a
gun but a shovel and a hard hat. Like The Peace Corps but with heavy
equipment. The corps could be organized like the military and even work
with the military for transportation and basing. Heck, there are empty
bases all over the place they could work out of. I would imagine that
The NDC would be more welcome in certain parts of the world than the
military in times of disaster. ^_^

TDD


The labor unions would violently oppose any type of construction that
wasn't unionized.


Start a union in the NDC. ^_^

TDD

On 8/8/2012 6:28 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

The craftsmanship built into a lot of the old gear would be hard to
duplicate today with the corporate pencil pushers involved but IC
chips and surface mount components of commercial and military grade
quality and construction makes for some very reliable gear. ^_^


My hobby was restoring old test equipment, and the occasional high
end radio. My last job was building $80,000 telemetry receivers.


Cool, you know of what I speak. ^_^

TDD

On 8/8/2012 10:08 AM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 01:42:33 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 8/7/2012 3:13 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?


So the government of his choice can control you. ^_^

TDD

Sigh.


I think he missed my meaning too. O_o

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message ...
...

I seem to recall something called an "ad valorem tax" where a
business must pay a tax on the value of its assets like tools and
equipment used
in the operation of the business. That one always struck me as odd.
O_o

TDD

http://www.justanswer.com/finance/0w...-us-state.html

The inventory tax punishes utilities for stockpiling spares for
disasters.

That's just as stupid as FEMA blocking the tankers.

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

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
I seem to recall something called an "ad valorem tax" where a
business must pay a tax on the value of its assets like tools and
equipment used
in the operation of the business. That one always struck me as odd.

http://www.justanswer.com/finance/0w...-us-state.html

The inventory tax punishes utilities for stockpiling spares for
disasters.

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:38:01 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:58:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:28:06 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:02:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:38:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:41:21 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:29:15 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:22:46 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:28:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Because it makes the dummy feel good.

Ok, then let everyone have AK-47s, etc... with no qualifications and
can be bought with credit cards or food stamps. I bet you'd love for
me to say something along that line. I don't think so.

Again, you show just how stupid you really are. You're *way* past ignorance;
this stuff has all been explained to you many times now.


No, your just full of BS ...

No, asshole, it *has* all been explained to you before and you're too damned
dense to understand.

you can't stand someone wanting to account for the purchase of guns.

It's none of your damned business.

You take that to mean I don't want
you to buy a gun and I keep telling you I want accountability so I
know who bought a gun.

Why do you want to know? What good does that do? I already have to
demonstrate that I am legally allowed to buy a gun. This has already been
explained to you but you're too damned dense to understand.

I don't want to stop people from buying guns

You're a liar.

but that doesn't mean I want ANYONE to have a gun neither.

Not ANYONE can buy a gun, legally, moron. This has already been explained to
you but you're too damned dense to understand.


Yeah and I've explained myself to the level that even a moron like you
should understand.

Well, that sentence makes as much sense as anything else you've ever said.


Why did it go above your head too?

Why can't you write a simple English sentence?


Sorry, I forgot about your IQ .

The Daring Dufas wrote:

So if you trade firewood for eggs, what is
the tax you would pay?


The IRS has guns, they can fabricate an amount and demand it.

And the courts can and do tell the IRS to get lost.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 8/8/2012 6:28 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

The craftsmanship built into a lot of the old gear would be hard to
duplicate today with the corporate pencil pushers involved but IC
chips and surface mount components of commercial and military grade
quality and construction makes for some very reliable gear. ^_^


My hobby was restoring old test equipment, and the occasional high
end radio. My last job was building $80,000 telemetry receivers.


Cool, you know of what I speak. ^_^


At least one of the early units was in constant use over 30 years by
NASA, and had never been serviced. That was in 2000. It may still be
in use, but I no longer work there to find out.

KR Williams ) wrote:

nice try to prevent replies,by directing followups to
alt.bull****;

The left's dishonesty shows through again.

Alt.bull**** is the only place where your stuff should be posted.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:07:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:38:01 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:58:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:28:06 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:02:55 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:38:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:41:21 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:29:15 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:22:46 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:28:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:13:38 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:54:32 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

How bout for starters, we require annual licensing and training?

Why?

Because it makes the dummy feel good.

Ok, then let everyone have AK-47s, etc... with no qualifications and
can be bought with credit cards or food stamps. I bet you'd love for
me to say something along that line. I don't think so.

Again, you show just how stupid you really are. You're *way* past ignorance;
this stuff has all been explained to you many times now.


No, your just full of BS ...

No, asshole, it *has* all been explained to you before and you're too damned
dense to understand.

you can't stand someone wanting to account for the purchase of guns.

It's none of your damned business.

You take that to mean I don't want
you to buy a gun and I keep telling you I want accountability so I
know who bought a gun.

Why do you want to know? What good does that do? I already have to
demonstrate that I am legally allowed to buy a gun. This has already been
explained to you but you're too damned dense to understand.

I don't want to stop people from buying guns

You're a liar.

but that doesn't mean I want ANYONE to have a gun neither.

Not ANYONE can buy a gun, legally, moron. This has already been explained to
you but you're too damned dense to understand.


Yeah and I've explained myself to the level that even a moron like you
should understand.

Well, that sentence makes as much sense as anything else you've ever said.


Why did it go above your head too?

Why can't you write a simple English sentence?


Sorry, I forgot about your IQ .

My IQ. You're the idiot who can't even write a simple English sentence. What
a moron.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:34:53 -0400, The USA is a Pile of ****
wrote:

KR Williams ) wrote:

nice try to prevent replies,by directing followups to
alt.bull****;

The left's dishonesty shows through again.

Alt.bull**** is the only place where your stuff should be posted.

The left's stupidity shows through again.

"J. Clarke" wrote:


Fine, Jim, you go on believing that the government is solvent. The next
couple of decades are going to be _real_ bad.


The next couple of decades may well be bad but
it won't have anything to do with the
govt being insolvent.

It is the private sector that borrowed way too much money.

From 1998-2008 the US private sector borrowed $25 trillion.
The total GDP for that same period was about $100 trillion.
The private sector borrowed and spent 25% of GDP for 10 years.
And what did we get from this - not much.
GDP only increased by $4 trillion. So for every $6 dollars that
the private sector borrowed there was only $1 in increased
productivity. So where did the rest of the money go? It
went into inflating financial assets ( that's what people call
capital gains).

So now we have the private markets paralyzed by enormous
private sector debt balanced against grossly over-inflated
capital assets. In other words, the recipe for a depression.

The only thing preventing the depression is the $1+ trillion
per year that the federal govt is spending more than it taxes.

When Congress tries to balance the budget the depression
will commence in full.

And during this depression the solvency of the federal govt
will not be an issue, but the solvency of millions of US
businesses and households will become a huge issue.

In article ,
jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
jim wrote:


Interest payments by the federal govt are lower than
they have been for decades. When Reagan was president
federal interest pay outs were over 3% of GDP. Today they
are about half that.

Yeah, when RR took over from Carter (D-GA), interest rates were north of
13%. If they are indeed half that, given that current interest rates are
running around a 1/4 of that, it would seem that the amount owed is MUCH
higher. Just saying.

Of course it is higher. When Reagan was president
he borrowed more than all the presidents before him
by the end of his first term. And it has grown a lot since.
But the burden of interest is half what it was back then
so any claim that the interest is an undue burden is
suspect.

Until rates start to go back up as they inevitably will eventually.
THEN we'll talk about interest rates under Pres. O.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:



I seem to recall something called an "ad valorem tax" where a business
must pay a tax on the value of its assets like tools and equipment used
in the operation of the business. That one always struck me as odd. O_o

Ad valorem is just latin for property tax. I would suspect that most
states with property taxes have some sort of tax on this type of things.
Some even on inventory.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 8/10/2012 7:28 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 8/8/2012 6:28 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

The craftsmanship built into a lot of the old gear would be hard to
duplicate today with the corporate pencil pushers involved but IC
chips and surface mount components of commercial and military grade
quality and construction makes for some very reliable gear. ^_^


My hobby was restoring old test equipment, and the occasional high
end radio. My last job was building $80,000 telemetry receivers.


Cool, you know of what I speak. ^_^


At least one of the early units was in constant use over 30 years by
NASA, and had never been serviced. That was in 2000. It may still be
in use, but I no longer work there to find out.


I repaired a bunch of old Tektronix TDR's that had the cute little chart
recorder modules in them. 1502 and 1503's as I recall. ^_^

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 8/10/2012 7:28 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 8/8/2012 6:28 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

The craftsmanship built into a lot of the old gear would be hard to
duplicate today with the corporate pencil pushers involved but IC
chips and surface mount components of commercial and military grade
quality and construction makes for some very reliable gear. ^_^


My hobby was restoring old test equipment, and the occasional high
end radio. My last job was building $80,000 telemetry receivers.


Cool, you know of what I speak. ^_^


At least one of the early units was in constant use over 30 years by
NASA, and had never been serviced. That was in 2000. It may still be
in use, but I no longer work there to find out.


I repaired a bunch of old Tektronix TDR's that had the cute little chart
recorder modules in them. 1502 and 1503's as I recall. ^_^



Tektronix equipment was built to be repaired. Until the bean
counters took over. Then it was module swaps, and short term support
before they are considered scrap. I'd love to have a 2465 series scope,
but there are several high failure rate parts that are only availible
form a donor unit. Kind of like putting old, bald tires on a car an
hoping for another 100 miles.


Have you ever seen any of the Sony/Tektronix equipment? Oddball,
Japanese built things like the 324 scope?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/180743378012


You can't even buy a power cord for them.

On 8/9/2012 12:19 AM, Doug wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:47:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


Don't go there or we will have another 1000 message thread. I do
think guns need to be controlled at least for accounting purposes. I
just don't want anyone to have a gun. You may be a responsible person
with a gun but not all are and as I said, I realize no law is going to
perfect what I want but if it saves any lives, it is worth it to me.

You are assuming that saving lives trumps everything else. Trust me, there
are many people that need killing.

As for saving lives, there's a category of interest called "Defensive Gun
Use." On this, you need not trust me. Simple investigation will show that
guns save considerably more lives than the deaths caused by them.


That's assuming the guns are in responsible hands I imagine. What if
they are not? Do you want ex-felons or mentally ill people having
the right to buy a legal gun? I know illegal guns are available but I
just talking about the legal ones.




Personally I don't see what's wrong with having better records of
those that buy a gun and perhaps requiring a annual license. Why do
you not complain about owning a car because it requires by law,
insurance, a driver's license to drive, registration and inspection
which is more than I want for a gun? Of course there are law
breakers that drive cars too but overall, it's a decent system for car
ownership / responsibility for owning a car.

#1: If the government knows who has guns, they know where to go to
confiscate them. Both the states of New York and California have done
exactly that.

#2: No matter how much you try to equate guns and cars, the fundamental fact
remains that ownership of guns is protected by the Constitution and cars are
not. If you want to put significant restrictions on guns, you'll have to
amend the Constitution; good luck with that.


Then the laws are not correct as they are written. Is it possible
that our founding fathers couldn't account for every situation when
writing our constitution????


The Founding Fathers (olde dead white guys) understood tyranny and the
necessity for citizens to resist any government that wished to turn them
into subjects. I seem to recall from my reading on the matter, the
average farmer at the time had a rifle that was superior to what a
soldier carried. Most people have no understanding of "why" there is a
Second Amendment and why it's at the top of The Bill of Rights. O_o

TDD

On 8/9/2012 10:59 AM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:50:07 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:19:28 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Do you want ex-felons or mentally ill people having
the right to buy a legal gun?

Felons can apply to have their rights restored. They have to follow
the state procedures. In my state prisoners now have to be advised of
this fact upon release or at the parole hearing.
--

I don't have a problem for non-violent felons being armed
I have no need to fear someone sent to jail for not paying his taxes
On the other hand, people convicted of violent crimes should not be going
through a revolving door system of justice so that they can come out and
commit more violent crimes



Agree. A person doing six months for "harassing a bear" or a person
"stealing government property" (fish from research pond) are no
threat. (both cases were felonies).


I've noticed that the government would make all activities a felony in
order to take away the rights of the people. O_o

TDD

I'm disappointed when otherwise intelligent people
seem to support socialism, and tyranny.

I didn't mention it, maybe next time. But one of my
church's seminary teachers has two O'Bomb Us 2012
bumper stickers on the back of her Suburban. She
is responsible for helping educate our teenagers.

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

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 8/9/2012 12:19 AM, Doug wrote:

Then the laws are not correct as they are written. Is it possible
that our founding fathers couldn't account for every situation when
writing our constitution????


The Founding Fathers (olde dead white guys) understood tyranny and the
necessity for citizens to resist any government that wished to turn them
into subjects. I seem to recall from my reading on the matter, the
average farmer at the time had a rifle that was superior to what a
soldier carried. Most people have no understanding of "why" there is a
Second Amendment and why it's at the top of The Bill of Rights. O_o

TDD

On 8/9/2012 10:12 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Doug wrote:

You are assuming that saving lives trumps everything else. Trust me,
there are many people that need killing.

As for saving lives, there's a category of interest called
"Defensive Gun Use." On this, you need not trust me. Simple
investigation will show that guns save considerably more lives than
the deaths caused by them.


That's assuming the guns are in responsible hands I imagine. What if
they are not? Do you want ex-felons or mentally ill people having
the right to buy a legal gun? I know illegal guns are available but I
just talking about the legal ones.

"What if they are not (in responsible hands)?" Same as with cars or pogo
sticks: having them in irresponsible hands is the price we must pay for
allowing them in responsible hands.

As for your examples, prohibiting guns to felons is not necessarily because
the felon himself is dangerous, the prohibition is part of the deterrent,
just like felons can't be lawyers, CPAs, barbers, professional engineers,
voters, and a host of other restrictions designed to discourage people from
BECOMING felons in the first place.

Further, I submit that "mentally ill" is way too broad a brush. What do guns
have to do with acrophobia, or the vast majority of mental pathologies
("Yeah, I collect bottle caps (or Facebook Friends). I have over a million.
So what?") And for those few diseases or defects (paranoia, etc.) that may
be problematic, I suggest folks therewith afflicted may have a GREATER need
for a firearm than normal folk.


#1: If the government knows who has guns, they know where to go to
confiscate them. Both the states of New York and California have done
exactly that.

#2: No matter how much you try to equate guns and cars, the
fundamental fact remains that ownership of guns is protected by the
Constitution and cars are not. If you want to put significant
restrictions on guns, you'll have to amend the Constitution; good
luck with that.


Then the laws are not correct as they are written. Is it possible
that our founding fathers couldn't account for every situation when
writing our constitution????

You are correct - there are many laws that are flawed as written. As I said,
you have the capacity to change the Constitution. Until it is amended, we
dance with who brung us.


I find it amusing that felons are prohibited from voting when
non-citizens, pets and the dead are allowed to vote. ^_^

TDD