Buried in Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill is a provision that will partially
repeal tax indexing for inflation, meaning that as their earnings rise over
a lifetime these youngsters can look forward to paying higher rates even if
their income gains aren't real.
This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers every
year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects of
failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for
government as the years go on. The House tax surcharge is estimated to raise
$460.5 billion over 10 years, but only $30.9 billion in 2011, rising to
$68.4 billion in 2019, according to the Joint Tax Committee.

And by the way, this surcharge has also been sneakily written to apply to
modified adjusted gross income, which means it applies to both capital gains
and dividends that are taxed at lower rates. So the capital gains tax rate
that is now 15% would increase in 2011 to 25.4% with the surcharge and
repeal of the Bush tax rates. The tax rate on dividends would rise to 45%
from 15% (5.4% plus the pre-Bush rate of 39.6%).

The return of the inflation tax demonstrates once again the stealth
radicalism that animates ObamaCare. In the case of inflation indexing,
Democrats would repeal a 30-year bipartisan consensus that it is unfair to
tax unreal gains in income, thus hitting millions of middle-class Americans
over time with tax rates advertised as only hitting "the rich." Oh, and the
House vote on this exercise in dishonest government will come as early as
Saturday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...170939688.html

Best Regards

Tom.

"azotic" wrote in message
...
Buried in Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill is a provision that will
partially repeal tax indexing for inflation, meaning that as their
earnings rise over a lifetime these youngsters can look forward to paying
higher rates even if their income gains aren't real.
This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers
every year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects
of failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for
government as the years go on. The House tax surcharge is estimated to
raise $460.5 billion over 10 years, but only $30.9 billion in 2011, rising
to $68.4 billion in 2019, according to the Joint Tax Committee.

And by the way, this surcharge has also been sneakily written to apply to
modified adjusted gross income, which means it applies to both capital
gains and dividends that are taxed at lower rates. So the capital gains
tax rate that is now 15% would increase in 2011 to 25.4% with the
surcharge and repeal of the Bush tax rates. The tax rate on dividends
would rise to 45% from 15% (5.4% plus the pre-Bush rate of 39.6%).

The return of the inflation tax demonstrates once again the stealth
radicalism that animates ObamaCare. In the case of inflation indexing,
Democrats would repeal a 30-year bipartisan consensus that it is unfair to
tax unreal gains in income, thus hitting millions of middle-class
Americans over time with tax rates advertised as only hitting "the rich."
Oh, and the House vote on this exercise in dishonest government will come
as early as Saturday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...170939688.html

Best Regards

Tom.



BOHICA!!!

azotic writes:

... a 30-year bipartisan consensus that it is unfair to
tax unreal gains in income ...

Consensus? How do you explain the continuing AMT? We are all
"millionaires" now.

In article , says...
Buried in Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill is a provision that will partially
repeal tax indexing for inflation, meaning that as their earnings rise over
a lifetime these youngsters can look forward to paying higher rates even if
their income gains aren't real.
This is a sneaky way for politicians to pry more money out of workers every
year without having to legislate tax increases. The negative effects of
failing to index compound over time, yielding a revenue windfall for
government as the years go on. The House tax surcharge is estimated to raise
$460.5 billion over 10 years, but only $30.9 billion in 2011, rising to
$68.4 billion in 2019, according to the Joint Tax Committee.

And by the way, this surcharge has also been sneakily written to apply to
modified adjusted gross income, which means it applies to both capital gains
and dividends that are taxed at lower rates. So the capital gains tax rate
that is now 15% would increase in 2011 to 25.4% with the surcharge and
repeal of the Bush tax rates. The tax rate on dividends would rise to 45%
from 15% (5.4% plus the pre-Bush rate of 39.6%).

The return of the inflation tax demonstrates once again the stealth
radicalism that animates ObamaCare. In the case of inflation indexing,
Democrats would repeal a 30-year bipartisan consensus that it is unfair to
tax unreal gains in income, thus hitting millions of middle-class Americans
over time with tax rates advertised as only hitting "the rich." Oh, and the
House vote on this exercise in dishonest government will come as early as
Saturday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...170939688.html

Best Regards

Tom.

And here's a comment from the article that I felt was appropriate to
include, since you posted only a portion of the full article:

James Samans replied

"Hmm. Let's see... assuming 3% inflation and a 5% pay increase per year,
meaning a real increase of 2%... yes, the average twentysomething now
making $50,000 per year will hit the $500,000 non-indexed cap in 127
years.

I guess the middle class should start sweating now."
_____________

There will be hundreds, if not thousands, of tax loopholes forged into
any final document.

No matter how many times you scream about it, the fact remains that the
Democrats do not have enough votes to force this through BOTH chambers.
--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long

On Nov 7, 5:44*pm, TinLizziedl wrote:


And here's a comment from the article that I felt was appropriate to
include, since you posted only a portion of the full article:

James Samans replied

"Hmm. Let's see... assuming 3% inflation and a 5% pay increase per year,
meaning a real increase of 2%... yes, the average twentysomething now
making $50,000 per year will hit the $500,000 non-indexed cap in 127
years.

I guess the middle class should start sweating now."
_____________


Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: *A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long


I do not understand how James Samans calculated. When I do the math
it is only 48 years assuming a 5% pay raise every year. And if you
assume that inflation is running 5% and a real wage increase of 2% ,
then I calculate it as 34 years. So the 20 something is likely to
feel the effects well before he is eligible for Social Security.

Dan

As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now.

A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

i

"Ignoramus8745" wrote in message
...
As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now.

A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

i

Actually they were not much higher overall. Lots of deductions went away,
so the effective tax rate is much higher at the same percentage. You use to
be able to deduct all interest, Credit card, mortgage, auto loans, sales
tax. etc.

Should the legislation become law and take effect in 2011 it will reduce the
the income of seniors who planned their retirement around investing in
stocks
that pay dividends significantly lowering thier standard of living. And we
have individuals that if they need to cash out thier investments will have
to
pay an outragous capitol gains tax.

It will be intresting in 2012 when those people get a huge tax bill for
making all the right decisions in thier youth, i suspect many will remember
that check they wrote on april 15th in november.

One would think the dems would have waited until 2013 for these new rates
to go into effect to prevent another clean sweep that happened in 2008
and retain the structure they now enjoy. Perhaps they are to drunk with
power
to look down the road 2 years.

Best Regards
Tom.

Ignoramus8745 wrote:
As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now.

A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

i


During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate on
the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make a big
deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he lowered the
rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The rich did well
then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has never hurt them.
It's only fair for people making a billion a year to pay most of it in
taxes. That's the price you have to pay for living here and getting
rich. If they don't like it they can move to another country. Now where
did I hear that?

Hawke

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745
wrote:

As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now.

A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

i

Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross
income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?


"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves,
but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the
cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if
you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post,
listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02
worth."

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus8745 wrote:
As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now. A combination of low
tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

i


During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate on
the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make a big
deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he lowered the
rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The rich did well
then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has never hurt them. It's
only fair for people making a billion a year to pay most of it in taxes.
That's the price you have to pay for living here and getting rich. If they
don't like it they can move to another country. Now where did I hear that?

Hawke

And how many actually paid 90% or even 70%?

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745
wrote:

As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now.

A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

i

Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross
income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?

Nope democrats enact a global tax on financial transactions over $900k, say
a flat of 90% tax on all proffit with no deductions, all payments go
dirrectley
to the the irs which deducts the tax owed and the taxpayer recieves a check
for the balance.
Only then will warren buffet and others like him pay thier fair share.

The deficit will be gone in a few years. G

Best Regards
Tom.

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745
wrote:

As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now.

A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

i

Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross
income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?


Don't forget the 110% income tax on all naturalized citizens.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

On 2009-11-08, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745
wrote:

As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now.

A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

i

Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross
income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?

You can take any good idea and carry it to the point of absurdity.

i

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:42:05 -0800 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745
wrote:

As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now.

A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross
income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?

You'll note that Buffet took advantage of the tax laws to move
most of his fortune into a foundation, which is being administered by
the Gates.

It is not slavery, we're just having your salary put in escrow,
and then the government will provide you with what you need.


tschus
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:49:00 -0600, Ignoramus8745
wrote:

On 2009-11-08, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:33:09 -0600, Ignoramus8745
wrote:

As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now.

A combination of low tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

i

Blink blink...so we simply tax everyone at say...75% of their gross
income and pay off the deficet really quickly..right?

You can take any good idea and carry it to the point of absurdity.

i


Yes..YOU certainly can.

Gunner

"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves,
but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the
cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if
you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post,
listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02
worth."

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus8745 wrote:
As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now. A combination of low
tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

i


During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate on
the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make a big
deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he lowered the
rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The rich did well
then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has never hurt them. It's
only fair for people making a billion a year to pay most of it in taxes.
That's the price you have to pay for living here and getting rich. If they
don't like it they can move to another country. Now where did I hear that?

Hawke

What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define "rich".

Buerste wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus8745 wrote:
As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now. A combination of low
tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

i

During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate on
the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make a big
deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he lowered the
rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The rich did well
then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has never hurt them. It's
only fair for people making a billion a year to pay most of it in taxes.
That's the price you have to pay for living here and getting rich. If they
don't like it they can move to another country. Now where did I hear that?

Hawke

What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define "rich".


Rich people either spend or invest their wealth. Most of what they spend
is simply wasting money on things they don't need or have any use for.
For example, Jennifer Anniston spent 250K on a nursery for her adopted
baby. Why a baby would need that kind of money spent on it makes no
sense to me but when you have millions of dollars more than you need you
tend to throw it away on useless things like that.

Nowadays rich is defined as someone who has assets worth around two and
a half million dollars. It's not income but assets or net worth that
count. That's just the starting point. But the maldistribution of wealth
is such that 1% of the population is worth more than 95% of everybody
else, and one tenth of one percent has most of that one percent. We
already have wealth redistribution. The problem is that it went from the
middle class to the top 5%. But for some reason that is okay with many
of you. If you're middle class that should make you mad.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus8745 wrote:
As Warren Buffett insightfully pointed out, this country did very well
when tax rates were much higher than they are now. A combination of low
tax rates and high deficits is not sustainable.

i

During the Eisenhower administration the country boomed. The tax rate on
the ultra rich was 90% and they still did well. Conservatives make a big
deal about Kennedy putting in tax cuts. Yeah, he did. But he lowered the
rate on the richest from 90% all the way down to 70%. The rich did well
then too. Slapping high income taxes on the rich has never hurt them.
It's only fair for people making a billion a year to pay most of it in
taxes. That's the price you have to pay for living here and getting
rich. If they don't like it they can move to another country. Now where
did I hear that?

Hawke

What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define
"rich".


Rich people either spend or invest their wealth. Most of what they spend
is simply wasting money on things they don't need or have any use for. For
example, Jennifer Anniston spent 250K on a nursery for her adopted baby.
Why a baby would need that kind of money spent on it makes no sense to me
but when you have millions of dollars more than you need you tend to throw
it away on useless things like that.

Nowadays rich is defined as someone who has assets worth around two and a
half million dollars. It's not income but assets or net worth that count.
That's just the starting point. But the maldistribution of wealth is such
that 1% of the population is worth more than 95% of everybody else, and
one tenth of one percent has most of that one percent. We already have
wealth redistribution. The problem is that it went from the middle class
to the top 5%. But for some reason that is okay with many of you. If
you're middle class that should make you mad.

Hawke

Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?

On Nov 9, 3:37*am, "Buerste" wrote:


Why did that nursery cost $250k? *Where did that money go?

It probably ended up in the pockets of the workmen that did the
remodeling and in the pockets of the shops that sold the material
used.

Hawke would have preferred the money stayed invested, rather than
being spent.



Dan

B
What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define
"rich".

Rich people either spend or invest their wealth. Most of what they spend
is simply wasting money on things they don't need or have any use for. For
example, Jennifer Anniston spent 250K on a nursery for her adopted baby.
Why a baby would need that kind of money spent on it makes no sense to me
but when you have millions of dollars more than you need you tend to throw
it away on useless things like that.

Nowadays rich is defined as someone who has assets worth around two and a
half million dollars. It's not income but assets or net worth that count.
That's just the starting point. But the maldistribution of wealth is such
that 1% of the population is worth more than 95% of everybody else, and
one tenth of one percent has most of that one percent. We already have
wealth redistribution. The problem is that it went from the middle class
to the top 5%. But for some reason that is okay with many of you. If
you're middle class that should make you mad.

Hawke

Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?

It was spent lavishly on everything in the world a queen would have
wanted for her little prince. Like when Heather Locklear spent 10,000 on
a bassinet for her kid. They just throw money away because they have so
much. Just like when rich people lose tons of money gambling. They can
do it because they have so much. That's my point. When people get too
much, for whatever reason, they lose perspective of the value of things.
Our society has allowed the wealth of the country to be consolidated
into too few hands. Some say these people "earned" it. But I say nobody
should earn vast amounts of money no matter what they do to get it. If
pay is that far out of line super high taxes should be imposed on it to
reduce the inequity of it. I liked the old days when most of the wealth
of this country was held by the middle class. It was a better country.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
It was spent lavishly on everything in the world a queen would have wanted
for her little prince. Like when Heather Locklear spent 10,000 on a
bassinet for her kid. They just throw money away because they have so
much. Just like when rich people lose tons of money gambling. They can do
it because they have so much. That's my point. When people get too much,
for whatever reason, they lose perspective of the value of things. Our
society has allowed the wealth of the country to be consolidated into too
few hands. Some say these people "earned" it. But I say nobody should earn
vast amounts of money no matter what they do to get it. If pay is that far
out of line super high taxes should be imposed on it to reduce the
inequity of it. I liked the old days when most of the wealth of this
country was held by the middle class. It was a better country.

Hawke

I agree lets start with government employees.

President....... $400k
Senator....... $174k
Congressman $165k.

They have no prospective lets tax them at 80%.

Best Regards
Tom.

What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define "rich".


All people can do three things with their money.

1) Spend it on consumption items.
2) Invest money in expectation of having more money in the future.
3) Donate to charities.

The rich, as well as poor and middle class people, do items 1-3 in
varying proportions, depending on their inclinations.

i

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
B
What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define
"rich".

Rich people either spend or invest their wealth. Most of what they spend
is simply wasting money on things they don't need or have any use for.
For example, Jennifer Anniston spent 250K on a nursery for her adopted
baby. Why a baby would need that kind of money spent on it makes no
sense to me but when you have millions of dollars more than you need you
tend to throw it away on useless things like that.

Nowadays rich is defined as someone who has assets worth around two and
a half million dollars. It's not income but assets or net worth that
count. That's just the starting point. But the maldistribution of wealth
is such that 1% of the population is worth more than 95% of everybody
else, and one tenth of one percent has most of that one percent. We
already have wealth redistribution. The problem is that it went from the
middle class to the top 5%. But for some reason that is okay with many
of you. If you're middle class that should make you mad.

Hawke

Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?

It was spent lavishly on everything in the world a queen would have wanted
for her little prince.
snip
Hawke

You refuse to answer the question. Where did the money go? Answer the
question!

"Ignoramus12778" wrote in message
...

What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define
"rich".


All people can do three things with their money.

1) Spend it on consumption items.
2) Invest money in expectation of having more money in the future.
3) Donate to charities.

The rich, as well as poor and middle class people, do items 1-3 in
varying proportions, depending on their inclinations.

i
Yep, now where does the money go after that?

On 2009-11-10, Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus12778" wrote in message
...

What do you think "rich" people do with their wealth? And, define
"rich".


All people can do three things with their money.

1) Spend it on consumption items.
2) Invest money in expectation of having more money in the future.
3) Donate to charities.

The rich, as well as poor and middle class people, do items 1-3 in
varying proportions, depending on their inclinations.

i
Yep, now where does the money go after that?

I do not understand the point of this question, as the money goes in
all direction. For example, it may be invested in "emerging markets".

i

"Buerste" wrote in news:3d3Km.7784$Xf2.5115
@newsfe12.iad:

You refuse to answer the question. Where did the money go? Answer the
question!

He can't answer the question because the DNC doesn't have it on their
website. grin

On 10 Nov 2009 10:36:41 GMT, Eregon wrote:

"Buerste" wrote in news:3d3Km.7784$Xf2.5115
:

You refuse to answer the question. Where did the money go? Answer the
question!

He can't answer the question because the DNC doesn't have it on their
website. grin


And their brain download computer was snagged in an Acorn raid....


"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves,
but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the
cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if
you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post,
listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02
worth."

On 2009-11-10, Buerste wrote:
OK, unless money in a shoebox under a bed, it is being put to work.

Correct. And if one guy is taxed, and the money is given to another
guy, the money is still put to work.

i

It's loaned to people that buy goods and services or it directly
buys goods and services. All goods reverted back to raw materials
that are either grown or dug-up and then have "value" added to them.
So, in essence ALL money goes to pay somebody to do something. If a
guy makes $20k/yr., ALL that money goes to pay people. If a guy
makes $20b/yr., ALL that money goes to pay people for something,
even money given to charities. Read-up on "Fiat"
money...FASCINATING! The system is designed to destroy the value of
the money in a shoebox, it HAS to be put to work. OBTW, printing
money is not a good thing.

"Ignoramus9270" wrote in message
...
On 2009-11-10, Buerste wrote:
OK, unless money in a shoebox under a bed, it is being put to work.

Correct. And if one guy is taxed, and the money is given to another
guy, the money is still put to work.

i

It's loaned to people that buy goods and services or it directly
buys goods and services. All goods reverted back to raw materials
that are either grown or dug-up and then have "value" added to them.
So, in essence ALL money goes to pay somebody to do something. If a
guy makes $20k/yr., ALL that money goes to pay people. If a guy
makes $20b/yr., ALL that money goes to pay people for something,
even money given to charities. Read-up on "Fiat"
money...FASCINATING! The system is designed to destroy the value of
the money in a shoebox, it HAS to be put to work. OBTW, printing
money is not a good thing.

You guys missed all the fun stuff that rich people do -- German cars,
Italian yachts, and Swiss bank accounts.

It does wonders for the economies of...uh...The United Arab Emirates? d8-)

(BTW, Fiat money is very little money; you can get a good price on Fiats.)

--
Ed Huntress

Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?
It was spent lavishly on everything in the world a queen would have wanted
for her little prince.
snip
Hawke

You refuse to answer the question. Where did the money go? Answer the
question!



What do you mean where did the money go? Obviously, it was spent on
setting up a royal nursery. The story was in People magazine and I
didn't read the whole thing, so I can't itemize the exact expenses for
you. Suffice it to say the money was spent lavishly on things that no
baby really needs. In other words, it was thrown away. If you have the
money to waste like that it could have gone to resupply local food banks
that all are hurting for food right now. You see, so many people need
charity nowadays. But NO, Jennifer has to spend hundreds of thousands on
her baby's room. In my book that's wrong. But I guess that comes from my
Christian upbringing.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?
It was spent lavishly on everything in the world a queen would have
wanted for her little prince.
snip
Hawke

You refuse to answer the question. Where did the money go? Answer the
question!

What do you mean where did the money go? Obviously, it was spent on
setting up a royal nursery. The story was in People magazine and I didn't
read the whole thing, so I can't itemize the exact expenses for you.
Suffice it to say the money was spent lavishly on things that no baby
really needs. In other words, it was thrown away. If you have the money to
waste like that it could have gone to resupply local food banks that all
are hurting for food right now. You see, so many people need charity
nowadays. But NO, Jennifer has to spend hundreds of thousands on her
baby's room. In my book that's wrong. But I guess that comes from my
Christian upbringing.

Hawke

Tell that to the carpenters and painters and carpet layers that get to feed
their families via having a job. And not having to go to the food bank. Or
would it have better to buy $250k of diamonds in China, etc?

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?
It was spent lavishly on everything in the world a queen would have
wanted for her little prince.
snip
Hawke

You refuse to answer the question. Where did the money go? Answer the
question!

What do you mean where did the money go? Obviously, it was spent on
setting up a royal nursery. The story was in People magazine and I didn't
read the whole thing, so I can't itemize the exact expenses for you.
Suffice it to say the money was spent lavishly on things that no baby
really needs. In other words, it was thrown away. If you have the money to
waste like that it could have gone to resupply local food banks that all
are hurting for food right now. You see, so many people need charity
nowadays. But NO, Jennifer has to spend hundreds of thousands on her
baby's room. In my book that's wrong. But I guess that comes from my
Christian upbringing.

Hawke

So, the contractors, the people at stores that sold the material, the people
that made the material, the designers and the rest of the people shouldn't
have jobs. Duhh...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Why did that nursery cost $250k? Where did that money go?
It was spent lavishly on everything in the world a queen would have
wanted for her little prince.
snip
Hawke

You refuse to answer the question. Where did the money go? Answer the
question!

What do you mean where did the money go? Obviously, it was spent on
setting up a royal nursery. The story was in People magazine and I didn't
read the whole thing, so I can't itemize the exact expenses for you.
Suffice it to say the money was spent lavishly on things that no baby
really needs. In other words, it was thrown away. If you have the money to
waste like that it could have gone to resupply local food banks that all
are hurting for food right now. You see, so many people need charity
nowadays. But NO, Jennifer has to spend hundreds of thousands on her
baby's room. In my book that's wrong. But I guess that comes from my
Christian upbringing.

Hawke

And, I thought your president Wee-Wee wanted to make jobs, he should have
asked you first.

Bill McKee wrote:


Tell that to the carpenters and painters and carpet layers that get to feed
their families via having a job. And not having to go to the food bank. Or
would it have better to buy $250k of diamonds in China, etc?




I've heard that argument before. It is the same one that royal families
have always given for their wasteful spending ways. I think Saddam said
the same thing as he built palace after palace while letting the people
live like ****. But hey, the workmen who worked on those palaces had
jobs so I guess Saddam was doing the right thing, right? He could have
bought gems in Europe.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:


Tell that to the carpenters and painters and carpet layers that get to
feed their families via having a job. And not having to go to the food
bank. Or would it have better to buy $250k of diamonds in China, etc?


I've heard that argument before. It is the same one that royal families
have always given for their wasteful spending ways. I think Saddam said
the same thing as he built palace after palace while letting the people
live like ****. But hey, the workmen who worked on those palaces had jobs
so I guess Saddam was doing the right thing, right? He could have bought
gems in Europe.

Hawke

You should read what you write before you post, and you may not reinforce
the concept that you are mentally lacking.