http://tinyurl.com/ydmnvr8


Obviously the voice of inexperience.

Lew

On Mar 1, 10:28*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/ydmnvr8

Obviously the voice of inexperience.

Lew

I saw that too. Glad to see I'm not the only one in this ng that
reads the Huffpo.

To those that think the unemployed are sitting on their hands and
collecting checks I say this: Fire up your resume and start applying
for jobs that you are qualified for (if you can find any). Wait and
see how many interviews you receive and report back. There are very
few jobs and it is very competitive.

On 2010-03-01 22:28:05 -0500, "Lew Hodgett" said:

Obviously the voice of inexperience.

He's saying he would't want to work if he were getting those
magnificent benefits, and I do hope the voters will oblige him.

On Mar 1, 10:28*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/ydmnvr8

Obviously the voice of inexperience.

Lew

Carlin said sums up everything he
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

"GarageWoodworks" wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 10:28 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/ydmnvr8

Obviously the voice of inexperience.

Lew

I saw that too. Glad to see I'm not the only one in this ng that
reads the Huffpo.

To those that think the unemployed are sitting on their hands and
collecting checks I say this: Fire up your resume and start applying
for jobs that you are qualified for (if you can find any). Wait and
see how many interviews you receive and report back. There are very
few jobs and it is very competitive.


At one time he was partly correct. Some years ago when it was much easier
to find a job, I knew a few guys that collected for the first five of six
possible months before looking for a job. They always found one too.
Today, it can take a year or more to find a decent job.

GarageWoodworks wrote in news:8c56d442-ff85-
:

On Mar 1, 10:28*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/ydmnvr8

Obviously the voice of inexperience.

Lew

Carlin said sums up everything he
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Yes, the sheeple elect their representation. And they deserve it.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/ydmnvr8


Obviously the voice of inexperience.

Lew

Did you actually read the link? What's with the "shorts in a knot" without
actual comprehension of the spoken word?

If I may quote

"I'm sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it,
but you can't argue that it's a job enhancer. If anything, as I said, it's a
disincentive."

Are you claiming that many (human nature) wouldn't nearly exhaust
unemployment benefits before actively looking for work especially if they
have to settle for a serious career or wage downsize?

Now arguing that Gov. should borrow even more money to help the unemployed
is a valid argument or maybe adopting the current Republican line that all
new spending including unemployment extensions need to be a "pay as you go"
(either new taxes or cuts elsewhere) has a decent ring as well...... But
taking offence at some Senator stating the obvious is simply huffington
minion mindless blather. Rod

Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Rod & BJ Jacobson" wrote:

.... snip
Senator Bunning had no problem voting for unfunded things like tax
cuts for the high income folks or the war on Iraq during the Bush
years.


Same old BS. EVERYBODY GOT A TAX CUT! What is it about percentage math
don't you libs understand? Yeah, somebody making $150k and getting a 10%
tax cut will get more absolute dollars, but he still only gets the same
percentage cut as somebody making half that. The other fact, as
demonstrated in the negative by the current administration, is that tax cuts
actually raise revenue and help the economy recover from bad times because
it frees up the ability of people to invest which then creates jobs that in
turn fuel more taxable income. This has been demonstrated time and time
again -- there is an initial drop in revenue, then revenue starts coming
back at a larger amount than before as the economy grows.


George W Bush told Congress what he wanted, Bunning delivered his
vote.

Wonder why he all of a sudden he is getting fiscal religion?


Why were the other party so dead set against using stimulus funds instead
of new borrowing to pay for this? You don't suppose it might have been that
this would provide more money to buy desperately needed votes for the coming
election cycle while leaving the "stimulus" payoff money available for even
more vote purchasing? Why couldn't they take a paltry few billion out of
the $500B that hasn't yet been spent?


Just curious.

No you're not, you are just regurgitating the talking points for those who
are pushing a command economy.



Lew

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

* Same old BS. *EVERYBODY GOT A TAX CUT! *What is it about percentage math
don't you libs understand? *Yeah, somebody making $150k and getting a 10%
tax cut will get more absolute dollars, but he still only gets the same
percentage cut as somebody making half that.

15% of 150k = 22.5k
15$ of 20 k = 3k

sounds fair ?

the balls of these people. People like the senator will also tell you
that it's the unemployeds own fault they're unemployed.

shelly.

wrote:


Same old BS. Â*EVERYBODY GOT A TAX CUT! Â*What is it about percentage math
don't you libs understand? Â*Yeah, somebody making $150k and getting a 10%
tax cut will get more absolute dollars, but he still only gets the same
percentage cut as somebody making half that.

15% of 150k = 22.5k
15$ of 20 k = 3k

sounds fair ?


Um, yes, everybody gets an equal cut in rate. What is it about decimal
math that confuses people. Each of those two examples get an equal BENEFIT
from the cut. The lesser of the two gets less ABSOLUTE return, but was also
on the hook for less absolute input as well. Now, you realize that the 15%
number you give above would be 15% of somebody paying $20k in taxes, right?
Not someone who makes $20k in income -- A person filing jointly for $20k
income is paying $0 in taxes (0% absolute tax rate) while a person making
150k income is paying $27,071.50 (or 18% absolute tax rate) filing jointly
for that AGI.

Now, the funny thing about the Bush tax cuts, they actually increased the
income at which people did not have to pay income tax. So, when Obama
allows the tax cuts to expire, the "working poor" are going to be hit as
well as the eeevil rich.


The following illustrates this (and the attitude you espouse) quite well:
Lets put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all
ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, thats what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite
happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "Im going to reduce
the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his €˜fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybodys share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each
end up being paid to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
mans bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, thats right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. Its unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"Thats true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when
I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didnt get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didnt show up for dinner, so the nine sat
down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didnt have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit
from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and
they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas
where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

the balls of these people.

So I guess your solution is that someone with a low tax bill (say $1500)
should get the same absolute $ benefit as someone with a high tax bill (say
$30,000). Rather than give the person who paid $30k in taxes a $3000
deduction, you would do what? Set this up so both got the same dollar
amount? So, let's split the amount the "rich" guy gets -- he now gets a
$1500 reduction in his taxes and still has to pay $28,500 in taxes while the
guy who paid $1500 gets a $1500 tax cut and now has to pay $0? You consider
that fair? Yeah, the balls of some people.

People like the senator will also tell you
that it's the unemployeds own fault they're unemployed.


The sad fact is that in some cases, that is a true statement, it is the
fault of some people that they are unemployed. In other cases it is a sad
fact of uncontrollable circumstances around them that they then (at least
used to) need to overcome. In the former case, the inability to understand
basic mathematical concepts might lead to making some folks less employable
than others.



shelly.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham