If you can picture a crisp, new 100-dollar bill,

If you can picture a stack of 100 $100 bills wrapped in a paper band,

If you can picture 100 stacks of $10,000 worth of $100 bills (exactly 10
kg or 22 lbs worth of crisp $100 bills) - that's $1 million dollars,

Then you should be able to imaging a wooden pallet stacked 5-ft high
with $100 bills. That's $100 million dollars.

If you can imaging that, then you're on your way to visualizing what the
US budget, budget deficit, and fiscal cliff looks like when it's hauled
by a line of tractor-trailers over 2 miles long, each carrying $2
billion each (20 tons - that's 20 pallets of $100 bills).

http://demonocracy.info/infographics...cal_cliff.html

And you get to see what it looks like when a pretty girl wearing a red
dress is sitting on a couch made from stacks of $100 bills worth $46.7
million.

You're heading for the worst economic shock of your high-and-mighty
American lives - so you might as well see how it looks from Benjamin's
point of view...

Per Warren Buffett:

If you can picture a crisp...

If you can picture...

If you can picture 100 stacks ...
Then you should be able to imaging...

If you can imaging that...

http://demonocracy.info/infographics...cal_cliff.html
..
You're heading for the worst economic shock of your high-and-mighty
American lives - so you might as well see how it looks from Benjamin's
point of view...

How about we picture a family that has gone completely nuts
charging stuff to it's credit card and is now trying to figure
out how to get rid of the debt without paying it?

Both political parties are pandering to the fantasy that we as a
nation can get out of this self-inflicted mess without
significant pain.

What? Are we children?

Pay the furshlugginer bill, don't charge any more stuff, and get
on with life.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:07:47 PM UTC-5, Warren Buffett wrote:
If you can picture a crisp, new 100-dollar bill,



If you can picture a stack of 100 $100 bills wrapped in a paper band,



If you can picture 100 stacks of $10,000 worth of $100 bills (exactly 10

kg or 22 lbs worth of crisp $100 bills) - that's $1 million dollars,


I like this anology: This summary made its way into the No Labels inbox the other day. It breaks down America’s current debt crisis and puts it into terms any family on a budget can understand and compares this country’s debt ceiling to sewage.

As if we needed more evidence that Congress must work in order to move America forward, here is another conceptualization of our need for more common sense solutions in Washington. Check it out … pretty powerful stuff:

The Best Summary Ever

Why the U.S. was downgraded:

• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000

• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000

• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000

• Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

• Annual family income: $21,700

• Money the family spent: $38,200

• New debt on the credit card: $16,500

• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

• Total budget cuts: $385



Then you should be able to imaging a wooden pallet stacked 5-ft high

with $100 bills. That's $100 million dollars.



If you can imaging that, then you're on your way to visualizing what the

US budget, budget deficit, and fiscal cliff looks like when it's hauled

by a line of tractor-trailers over 2 miles long, each carrying $2

billion each (20 tons - that's 20 pallets of $100 bills).



http://demonocracy.info/infographics...cal_cliff.html



And you get to see what it looks like when a pretty girl wearing a red

dress is sitting on a couch made from stacks of $100 bills worth $46.7

million.



You're heading for the worst economic shock of your high-and-mighty

American lives - so you might as well see how it looks from Benjamin's

point of view...

" wrote:

But, it's not 2008 anymore. It's 2012 and we have an economy
that has recovered.

What planet do you live on?

In your dreams it has recovered.

Don't base that on the value of the equities markets. They're being
levitated by algos (robot traders) helped by pathetically low volume and
"The Bernanke" and the truckloads of money that he's backing up and
dumping into your banking system.

" wrote:

What we need is a realistic plan to drastically control spending.

You're way beyond that.

The time to start doing that was during W-Bush's second term.

Your total military spending over the past 12 years (including
operations in foreign theaters) is what killed any ability you now have
to bring your budget deficit to zero in any politically-realistic way.

The reason is simple. It would require a cut of 40% in
federal spending starting immediatey, which is virtually
impossible.

And as examples, you say:

... but with all that off the table, you'd be left with cuts way
beyond 40% in everything else, like TSA, FDA, FBI, DOJ, etc.....

Not once in your post did you mention the word "military".

You obviously have a personal stake in the US military-industrial
complex because of your unwillingness to point a finger at the Pentagon
budget as participating in this 40% cut.

On 12-01-2012 09:18, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
How about we picture a family that has gone completely nuts
charging stuff to it's credit card and is now trying to figure
out how to get rid of the debt without paying it?

Both political parties are pandering to the fantasy that we as a
nation can get out of this self-inflicted mess without
significant pain.

What? Are we children?

Pay the furshlugginer bill, don't charge any more stuff, and get
on with life.

No, no, no!! Get another card and transfer the balances.

--
Wes Groleau

€œWould the prodigal have gone home if
the elder brother was running the farm?€�
€” James Jordan

On 12-01-2012 11:17, Pavel314 wrote:
Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

€¢ Annual family income: $21,700

€¢ Money the family spent: $38,200

€¢ New debt on the credit card: $16,500

€¢ Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

€¢ Total budget cuts: $385

For the benefit of anyone confused by commas, let's drop two more zeros.
Now it's one week at minimum wage:

$ 217 take home pay
$ 382 spending
$ 165 added to credit cards
$1427 new balance
$ 4 saved by cutting spending



--
Wes Groleau

Alive and Well
http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/

Per harry:
OTOH, maybe Pete Peterson's foundation will be able to raise the
public consciousness to where the USA survives as a 1st-world
nation.... but with something like 200 million minds to bend, I'm
not hopeful.

--
Pete Cresswell

Neither am I.

There is another solution....Hyper inflation.
Self fulfilling too. No initiation needed.

That's the one that scares me the most bc it seems the most
likely. "Hyper..." might be too strong..... but a few years of
double-digit-low-teens will reduce most fixed-pension retirees to
poverty.

And... published cost-of-living figures notwithstanding, I would
say the process is already well under way - based on grocery
bills alone.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Pavel314:
The Best Summary Ever

Why the U.S. was downgraded:

• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000

• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
......

My understanding is that the reason that US T-Bills were
downgraded by S&P was explicitly stated in S&P's announcement.

Per S&P's web page at http://tinyurl.com/42cc9nn:
================================================== ============
- We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the
United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the
'A-1+' short-term rating.

- We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings
from Credi****ch negative.

- The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration
recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would
be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term
debt dynamics.

- More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the
effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American
policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a
time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree
more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to
the rating on April 18, 2011.

- Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in
bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal
policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of
Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their
agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan
that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.

- The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could
lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years
if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to,
higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the
period result in a higher general government debt trajectory
than we currently assume in our base case.
================================================== ============

Seems to me like that statement concentrates more on the
impotence of Congress than anything else.
--
Pete Cresswell

In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

That's the one that scares me the most bc it seems the most
likely. "Hyper..." might be too strong..... but a few years of
double-digit-low-teens will reduce most fixed-pension retirees to
poverty.


Treasuries already have a negative return if you look at inflation. And
that is before things REALLY begin to heat up.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

" wrote:

from the Iraq war ending. WTF? Why not count all the
savings from WWII, Vietnam, Korea, etc too?

The Korean war isin't over yet.

We're not fighting them anymore either,

I guess that's why you keep troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea -
right?

Like wizzard of Oz. Pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain (congress) but watch the big
flaming Prez.

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

"Wes Groleau" wrote in message
...

Why do we insist on blaming or crediting the President?

I don't like him either, but he CANNOT do anything about the budget
other than veto it. And realistically, he can't do that. CONGRESS
should get 400/536 of the blame if not more.

--
Wes Groleau

Per :
And who has presided over this 40% increase in
spending? Who has submitted yearly budgets to
Congress that would have spent even more?

Now, yeah.

And now Republicans are up there posturing and profiling about
the debt.

But where were they when we got two unfunded wars and they rammed
through Medicare D?

Seems to me neither party is exactly a bastion of fiscal
responsibility.

But that goes back to the aforementioned ignorance of the
population and most politicians' need to pander...
--
Pete Cresswell

In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per :
And who has presided over this 40% increase in
spending? Who has submitted yearly budgets to
Congress that would have spent even more?

Now, yeah.

And now Republicans are up there posturing and profiling about
the debt.

But where were they when we got two unfunded wars and they rammed
through Medicare D?

Seems to me neither party is exactly a bastion of fiscal
responsibility.

But that goes back to the aforementioned ignorance of the
population and most politicians' need to pander...

I have worked on substance abuse hospital units off and on over the
years. I view the GOP as reformed abusers who now go too far back the
other way. There are few more zealous than the recent reformed.
--
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 Dec 1, 7:40*pm, Home Guy wrote:
" wrote:
from the Iraq war ending. * WTF? * Why not count all the
savings from WWII, Vietnam, Korea, etc too?

The Korean war isin't over yet.

We're not fighting them anymore either,

I guess that's why you keep troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea -
right?

The banksters are afraid of communism.
It would put them out of business.

On 12-01-2012 13:32, wrote:
Are you for real? The president is required to send a
budget to Congress every year. That budget represents
what the president wants the budget to be. In the

Well, that much is true. So, if he proposes something stupid and
Congress passes it, then I stand by my statement on how the blame should
be distributed.

--
Wes Groleau

€œThere are more people worthy of blame
than there is blame to go around."

On Dec 1, 4:21*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per :

And who has presided over this 40% increase in
spending? * Who has submitted yearly budgets to
Congress that would have spent even more?

Now, yeah.

And now Republicans are up there posturing and profiling about
the debt.

But where were they when we got two unfunded wars and they rammed
through Medicare D?

No question the Republicans under Bush did not
do enough to control spending.




Seems to me neither party is exactly a bastion of fiscal
responsibility.

But I hope you recognize there is a difference between
a deficit of $160bil that was declining steadily for 4 years
and current deficits of $1.1 tril a year. And while the
Republicans were not exactly thrifty, they never came
close to increasing the budget 40% in 4 years.

" wrote:

They are just pigs feeding at the trough, trying to get
"defense" dollars for their state, forcing thru weapons
programs not even the military wants.

Except that since 2007 spending has increased 40%. DOD spending
has increased only 17%. Therefore, obviously spending on non-DOD
has increased way more than 40%. Facts are stubborn things aren't
they?

Here are some facts:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...seSpending.PNG

Direct DoD spending in inflation-adjusted dollars was relatively
constant from 1998 - 2002 at just under $400 billion each year. This is
equivalent to what was being spent during the low-points at any point in
the past going back to at least 1962. There were two "bumps" for a few
years (1968 and 1986) when DoD spending rose transiently to $550
billion.

During the years 2003 through and including 2011, DoD spending went from
$400 to about $675 billion - an increase of 68% over 9 years.

Going back to 1962, there has never been such a large AND SUSTAINED
increase in DoD spending as there has been since 2002.

Not with this admin, for sure.

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

"Frank.Logullo"
wrote in message ...

Congress and president should be working on relieving businesses of
regulatory burdens that prevent new hiring.

Fat chance.

Per :
Did I miss anything?

The federal govt has INCREASED SPENDING A WHOPPING
40% since 2007. It's not that we are taxed to little, it's that
govt is spending way too much.

Interesting article he http://tinyurl.com/cz877ao

Evaluating it is probably above my pay grade, but PolitiFact
seems to have a pretty decent rep.


The basic assertion is that, although spending has increased in
recent years, it's not as much in terms of annual percentages as
a lot of people say. In fact, using inflation-adjusted dollars,
on a presidential-by-president basis, it's quite low.

OTOH, debt is increasing a *lot* more in recent years


Whether that's true or not, one thing that jumps out at me is
that a *lot* of spending was in response to the fiscal crisis.

Personally, I'm against stuff like that and think we should take
our lumps without debasing the currency and impoverishing the old
and weak to make it easier for others.

But every economist I've ever heard or read seems to disagree and
most of what I've read attributes the severity of the 1930's
depression to a failure to perform economic stimulation.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per :
But I hope you recognize there is a difference between
a deficit of $160bil that was declining steadily for 4 years
and current deficits of $1.1 tril a year. And while the
Republicans were not exactly thrifty, they never came
close to increasing the budget 40% in 4 years.


The implication i read into that is that if the Republicans were
in power in 2009 (as they were in most of the eight preceding
years) the deficit increase would not have occurred or would have
been much less as they too would have been forced to deal with
the greatest financial catastrophe since the Great Depression.

I'm not so sure.

Personally "priming the pump", "stimulating the economy",
"quantitative easing" and other things that debase the currency
make me crazy. I see it as basically stealing from the poor to
feed the rich.

But economists as a group seem to think they are necessary and
desirable - Ron Paul and his Austrians notwithstanding.

That being the case, I'd have to think that the Republicans would
have acted in much the same manner. After all, they *did* do
TARP...



--
Pete Cresswell

On 12-02-2012 11:55, wrote:
No question the Republicans under Bush did not
do enough to control spending.

I'm old enough to remember when the difference between Republicans and
Democrats was that the Republicans said they wanted to limit spending
but their actions said otherwise. While the Democrats didn't even pretend.

Now they both say they want to fix things but their actions still speak
louder than words.

--
Wes Groleau

Words of the Wild Wes
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.org/WWW

In article ,
harry wrote:
[...]
Military spending is wasted.
When did America last win a war?
Military spending is just to line the pockets of the rich.

So let's just disband the military and be completely safe at less cost :-)


--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Brian Gordon -- brian dot gordon at cox dot net |
+ Bass: Lexington "Main Street Harmonizers" chorus +
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Gordon wrote:

So let's just disband the military and be completely safe at less
cost :-)

Here are some facts:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...seSpending.PNG

Direct DoD spending in inflation-adjusted dollars was relatively
constant from 1998 - 2002 at just under $400 billion each year. This is
equivalent to what was being spent during the low-points at any point in
the past going back to at least 1962. There were two "bumps" for a few
years (1968 and 1986) when DoD spending rose transiently to $550
billion.

During the years 2003 through and including 2011, DoD spending went from
$400 to about $675 billion - an increase of 68% over 9 years.

Going back to 1962, there has never been such a large AND SUSTAINED
increase in DoD spending as there has been since 2002.

On Dec 3, 8:10*am, Home Guy wrote:
Brian Gordon wrote:
So let's just disband the military and be completely safe at less
cost :-)

Here are some facts:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ationAdjustedD...

Direct DoD spending in inflation-adjusted dollars was relatively
constant from 1998 - 2002 at just under $400 billion each year. *This is
equivalent to what was being spent during the low-points at any point in
the past going back to at least 1962. *There were two "bumps" for a few
years (1968 and 1986) when DoD spending rose transiently to $550
billion.

During the years 2003 through and including 2011, DoD spending went from
$400 to about $675 billion - an increase of 68% over 9 years.

Going back to 1962, there has never been such a large AND SUSTAINED
increase in DoD spending as there has been since 2002.

Gee, a random chart of the internet, with no attributable source at
all.
And this is what you use for data? Figures.

" wrote:

Here are some facts:

During the years 2003 through and including 2011, DoD spending
went from $400 to about $675 billion - an increase of 68% over
9 years.

Going back to 1962, there has never been such a large AND
SUSTAINED increase in DoD spending as there has been since 2002.

Gee, a random chart of the internet, with no attributable source at
all.

The chart was from he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

And the source of the data in the chart was from he

========================
Historical Outlays by Function and Subfunction
Historical Outlays by Agency

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist03z2.xls
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist04z1.xls
========================

And this is what you use for data? Figures.

Take your foot out of your mouth and provide any chart or graph (with
references) that purports to show something different than what I posted
here.

If you don't believe that DoD spending has increased by 68% since 2002
then give us a graph to back up your version of these facts.

Per Wes Groleau:
I'm old enough to remember when the difference between Republicans and
Democrats was that the Republicans said they wanted to limit spending
but their actions said otherwise. While the Democrats didn't even pretend.

Now they both say they want to fix things but their actions still speak
louder than words.

-)
--
Pete Cresswell

I should snopes that, but I'm grinning too hard.
Maybe the UN woman was equipped to be a
prostitute, too?

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

wrote in message
...

I was listening to a NYC talk show last week. A bus
driver from NYC called in. His route runs past the UN.
The bus was running late due to traffic and he picked
up a female passenger near the UN. She was bitching
about the bus being late and after a bit, he had enough.
He said to her:

Bus driver: Do you work at the UN?

Lady: Yes

Bus driver: I've been waiting for you to do your job
for 60 years.....

On Dec 3, 12:53*pm, (Brian Gordon) wrote:
In article ,

harry wrote:
* *[...]
Military spending is wasted.
When did America last win a war?
Military spending is just to line the pockets of the rich.

So let's just disband the military and be completely safe at less cost :-)


No. The military is for defense. Not stupid foreign adventures.

On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:23:04 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 3, 11:33Â*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message news:0a4d2428-35e0-4377-bbc7-

And the lies of commie pinkos like you
can't change it.

Mr Green. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party of the United States?

On Dec 3, 12:40*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:23:04 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:33*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message news:0a4d2428-35e0-4377-bbc7-

*And the lies of commie pinkos like you
can't change it.

Mr Green. *Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party of the United States?

Why ask him. You should know.....

Warren Buffett" "W.Buffet wrote:
And you get to see what it looks like when a pretty girl wearing a red
dress is sitting on a couch made from stacks of $100 bills worth $46.7
million.

You're heading for the worst economic shock of your high-and-mighty
American lives - so you might as well see how it looks from Benjamin's
point of view...

If I were the "Benjamin" in your example, looking at a pretty girl's butt
wouldn't be too bad.

" wrote:

And cutting taxes on entrepeneurs from 90% to 28% had nothing to
do with it, right? Leaving people with more of THEIR money to
invest.

You think entrepreneurs have taxible income?

What planet are you on?

If you're an entrepreneur, you're leveraging everything you have to
start a business and keep it going, maybe even growing.

If you've got enough personal income from your own business that you
have to worry about taxes, then you're not an entrepreneur any more.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:23:04 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 3, 11:33 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message news:0a4d2428-35e0-4377-bbc7-

And the lies of commie pinkos like you
can't change it.

Mr Green. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party of the United States?

'Fraid not. But you can always tell when you've gotten Trader by the
shorthairs because he begins spouting epithets like "commie pinko" or "lib
loon" instead of making any sort of factual reply. I swear I can literally
see his BP rising into the danger zone with every near-hysterical post.

--
Bobby G.

On Dec 4, 12:43*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...

On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:23:04 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 3, 11:33 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message news:0a4d2428-35e0-4377-bbc7-

*And the lies of commie pinkos like you
can't change it.

Mr Green. *Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party of the United States?

'Fraid not. *But you can always tell when you've gotten Trader by the
shorthairs because he begins spouting epithets like "commie pinko" or "lib
loon" instead of making any sort of factual reply. *I swear I can literally
see his BP rising into the danger zone with every near-hysterical post.

--
Bobby G.

Sorry, Bobby, but you're wrong yet again. I didn't just
call you a commie pinko lib. I also gave you a
long, complete factual reply. It was 7 paragraphs long.
That retort was but one tiny part of it. Why do you have
to lie?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 8:38 pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Dec 3, 11:27 am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"harry" wrote in message

#
# Well capitalism hasn't done any better as you can now see.
# The main reason communism failed is economic warfare by the USA.
# And waging that war lined the pockets of capitalists at the cost of
# the taxpayer.

So basically you're admitting that Communism is not capable of competing
economically
But you are still stupid enough to imply that communism would be better
?

DOH !

harry the dummy strikes again.

#
# I'm saying that the stupids wars waged by the USA destroyed BOTH
# systems/countires.
# Only the banksters did well out of them (the stupid wars that is)

Last time I checked, the USSR and it's satellites are gone
But the USA is still around.

So explain to us how the USA is "destroyed"
Take as much time as you need to "think" about your answer.
#
# The Russian federation is in better shape than the USA.
# It doesn't have the debts. It has no balance of payments problems. It
# has vast natural resources.

The "Russian Federation" is NOT the USSR which was an alleged "communist
heaven".

Your change of subject and moving of goalposts is noted.
I'll accept that as your surrender on the subject

On Dec 4, 8:59*am, Home Guy wrote:
" wrote:
If you're an entrepreneur, you're leveraging everything you have
to start a business and keep it going, maybe even growing.

And don't you think that process would be easier,
more likely to be undertaken, more likely to succeed
if the citizen has more of his own money instead of
the govt taking it from him?

I think this will supply all the answers we need in this argument:

http://www.businessreviewusa.com/mon...hology-of-taxe...

A portion of that:

====================
What is the Optimum Rate?

I can honestly tell you that somewhere between 25% and 30% (federal and
state tax combined) is the point where entrepreneurs will push forward
to make more money rather than just put it on pause and take care of
their own. *It also helps to have fewer brackets and get to the top
bracket relatively quickly. *Simplicity has a tremendous power to move
people to action and release them from the paralysis that lack of
understanding brings.

You've actually stumbled on a gem that proves what
I've been saying. It supports most of what the Republicans
have been saying. It completely refutes the nonsense of
Bobby and the sock it to them libs....

The business accountant is saying that a combined
fed and state tax on income of 25 and 30% results in
entrepeneurs "pushing forward to make more money,
rather than putting it on pause...." How many times
have I said that a federal flat income tax of 20 or 23%
is what we need. You would exempt incomes below
a certain level. Everything about that would be taxed
at 20%, with very few, deductions allowed. Instead of
filling out pages and pages of forms and winding up
paying about that much, you'd get there directly. Add in
state taxes which can be from 0 to 10% and you have
a total income tax rate that is right in the accountant's
range.

And it would make Warren Bufffet happy
because both he and the secretary would be paying
the same rate. The Republicans have proposed this
and are in favor of it. Who won't have any part of it?
The libs, who prefer to have the fiction of a 40% or even
90% income tax RATE, while in reality the rich, for the
most part, have never paid those rates in reality.
In reality, they are paying 20% or less already. But for
political purposes the libs want to pretend that they
are socking it to the rich. Actually they do catch
someone that winds up getting screwed. Usually that
isn't the billionaire they are after. It's the guy making
$200K in NYC or someone who has a one time big
pop in income for some reason.

And thank you very, very much for supplying this gem
that proves Bobby the socialist dead wrong. He claimed
that it wasn't Reagan's economic plan and tax cuts that
started the economic boom in America. He claimed it
was the PC, Microsoft, Amazon and Google that generated
the economic boom under Reagan. We all know that the
first IBM PC did not roll out until 1983, by which time the
recovery had already started. The PC market was in it's
infancy for years after that. And Amazon and Google did
not even exist while Reagan was in office. Boy, Bobby
sure is one clueless lib. But, now we have direct evidence
from someone who saw what did get business going back then.
And it's exactly as I said. Read it below:

"Since I started in public accounting in 1978, I have seen multiple
tax ideas played out and the varying business decisions resulting from
each policy. I can honestly say that no policy proposed has ever
caused the result the policy maker wanted, with the possible exception
of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This is the tax act that eliminated tax
shelters and lowered tax rates to 2 simple brackets, 15% and 28%.
This was the first time I saw my clients get focused on making profits
and just pay the taxes. Unfortunately, the 2 brackets eventually
turned back into 6 brackets that topped out at 39.6%. In addition to
Federal taxes, states have continued to raise rates as well, and the
average income tax rate runs around 6%."


Now, today, rates are already higher then they were
during the Reagan revolution. The top rate is 34%.
But that's not enough for the libs. They insist on
jacking it up to 39%. Time for them to talk to this
accountant.....

On Dec 4, 2:13*pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Dec 3, 8:38 pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:







"harry" wrote in message

....
On Dec 3, 11:27 am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"harry" wrote in message

#
# Well capitalism hasn't done any better as you can now see.
# The main reason communism failed is economic warfare by the USA.
# And waging that war lined the pockets of capitalists at the cost of
# the taxpayer.

So basically you're admitting that Communism is not capable of competing
economically
But you are still stupid enough to imply that communism would be better
?

DOH !

harry the dummy strikes again.

#
# I'm saying that the stupids wars waged by the USA destroyed BOTH
# systems/countires.
# Only the banksters did well out of them (the stupid wars that is)

Last time I checked, the USSR and it's satellites are gone
But the USA is still around.

So explain to us how the USA is "destroyed"
Take as much time as you need to "think" about your answer.

#
# The Russian federation is in better shape than the USA.
# It doesn't have the debts. It has no balance of payments problems. It
# has vast natural resources.

The "Russian Federation" is NOT the USSR which was an alleged "communist
heaven".

Your change of subject and moving of goalposts is noted.
* * I'll accept that as your surrender on the subject

Oh? It covers the same geographical area. The person in charge was an
official in the USSR.

The communist party is still the second largest party and may yet
return to power.

It is the biggest country in the world with the greatest natural
resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian...ian_Federation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...ian_Federation

You really are pretty ignorant.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 4, 2:13 pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Dec 3, 8:38 pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:







"harry" wrote in message

...
On Dec 3, 11:27 am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"harry" wrote in message

#
# Well capitalism hasn't done any better as you can now see.
# The main reason communism failed is economic warfare by the USA.
# And waging that war lined the pockets of capitalists at the cost of
# the taxpayer.

So basically you're admitting that Communism is not capable of
competing
economically
But you are still stupid enough to imply that communism would be
better
?

DOH !

harry the dummy strikes again.

#
# I'm saying that the stupids wars waged by the USA destroyed BOTH
# systems/countires.
# Only the banksters did well out of them (the stupid wars that is)

Last time I checked, the USSR and it's satellites are gone
But the USA is still around.

So explain to us how the USA is "destroyed"
Take as much time as you need to "think" about your answer.

#
# The Russian federation is in better shape than the USA.
# It doesn't have the debts. It has no balance of payments problems. It
# has vast natural resources.

The "Russian Federation" is NOT the USSR which was an alleged "communist
heaven".

Your change of subject and moving of goalposts is noted.
I'll accept that as your surrender on the subject
#
# Oh? It covers the same geographical area. The person in charge was an
# official in the USSR.
#

Just because it occupies the same are does NOT make it the same
Are you claiming that since modern Germany occupies the same area as
Nazi Germany, they are the same ?


You really are not very bright


# The communist party is still the second largest party and may yet
# return to power.
#

Still does NOT make the Russian Federation the USSR, now does it ?


# It is the biggest country in the world with the greatest natural
# resources.
#
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian...ian_Federation
#
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...ian_Federation
#

Well, whoop-de-doo
Totally irrelevant for what you got spanked for the last time or this
time

# You really are pretty ignorant.

You are presuming that I didn't know the irrelevant factoids you recited
Compared to you, EVERYONE on this planet, including me, is a ****ing
Einstein

On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:20:00 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I should snopes that, but I'm grinning too hard.
Maybe the UN woman was equipped to be a
prostitute, too?

Prostitutes perform a useful service.