Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/23/2012 01:38 PM, Han wrote:
Good news! My personal economics will not be affected, I think and
hope, since I am retired.

You're kidding yourself. If we continue down the debt rathole -
produced by both Rs and Ds but REALLY accelerated by the Hoax And
Shame administration - you WILL be affected. Why? Because sooner or
later, all the phony dollars being logically printed are going to be
worth less. Presumably, you are on a fixed income in retirement.
What happens when a loaf of bread costs $7 or gas hits $10/gal (which
affects the "price" of pretty much everything)?

It really is simple. I hope, pray and count on my investments to outpace
inflation. So far TIAA/CREF has done a reasonable job. Other investments
also. Nothing compared to Romney, of course ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 08/23/2012 01:50 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
lawyers, they'll always find work to do.

Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed law. Then
somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they violate the
spirit of the law. I thought that something like that may (have) exist
(ed).


Yes, it's called "The Constitution Of The United States Of America"
in which the Federal government is granted a very narrow, specific,
and limited set of things it is allowed to do. They are called
"Enumerated Powers" and the Doctrine Of Enumerated Powers was
repeatedly affirmed and confirmed as intention by James Madsion,
that document's author. Sadly, today's whiny and entitled
public want the Feds to be their Daddy (the Republicans) and/or
their Mommy (the Democrats) and no end of mischief has transpired thereby.


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

In article ,
says...

J. Clarke wrote:

Yes. Personally, I favor a per-capita tax. That is one AMOUNT, not a
single percentage. Like a movie ticket or a can of jalapeno-flavored
chicken nuggets. One money for all. [Currently, that would be about
$15,000 per person per year]

So how do you deal with people whose income is $14,000 per year?

I haven't worked out all the details, but as I've said before such an
individual could contribute a kidney. I call that my "Federal Withdrawal
Plan."

You need to either use smiley faces or get some help.

Mike Marlow wrote:

Your claim, that Republicans can be rascally in their financial
dealings, is certainly true.

There was an instance back in 1922 called the "Teapot Dome Scandal"
during the administration of Warren G. Harding which we Republicans
like to forget.

As well - GW didn't do a lot to endear me...

Yep, I can understand how you might feel that way. Twenty-eight consecutive
quarters of economic growth, unemployment below 5%, DJIA above 12,000,
inflation almost non-existant. The entire economy was swell up through 2007.

Then the Democrats took over Congress...

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/23/2012 01:50 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
lawyers, they'll always find work to do.

Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed law.
Then somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they
violate the spirit of the law. I thought that something like that
may (have) exist (ed).


Yes, it's called "The Constitution Of The United States Of America"
in which the Federal government is granted a very narrow, specific,
and limited set of things it is allowed to do. They are called
"Enumerated Powers" and the Doctrine Of Enumerated Powers was
repeatedly affirmed and confirmed as intention by James Madsion,
that document's author. Sadly, today's whiny and entitled
public want the Feds to be their Daddy (the Republicans) and/or
their Mommy (the Democrats) and no end of mischief has transpired
thereby.

I'm going to a set of continuing ed lectures on the Constitution this
fall. I may adopt at times your stance to see whether I can rattle the
speaker esq.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

Private employment is really going up.

But the birth rate is going up faster. It's like bailing the Titanic with a
bucket-brigade.

One of the reasons that NJ is
lagging behind in reducing unemployment is Christies emphasis on
austerity. Look at Europe to see whether that works. Certainly not
in the short term.

It might be the method used to achieve austerity.

Look what happened in Wisconsin.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Private employment is really going up.

But the birth rate is going up faster. It's like bailing the Titanic
with a bucket-brigade.

One of the reasons that NJ is
lagging behind in reducing unemployment is Christies emphasis on
austerity. Look at Europe to see whether that works. Certainly not
in the short term.

It might be the method used to achieve austerity.

Look what happened in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin is prosperous now they neutralized their governor??


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mike Marlow wrote:

I don't know what it's like in a lot of other places, but around
here, NY state has successfully driven businesses out of the state
for decades now, with our tax structure. Those jobs have been
replaced with much lower paying, much lower in prestige and reward,
in places like retail, service, etc.


Heh!

I read an opinion piece in the WSJ last year about a self-employed person
who left New York City for Florida and the move saved him over $13,000 in
taxes.

Per day.

Rush Limbaugh did the same thing - moved from New York to Florida. Glenn
Beck moved from New York to Dallas.

Probably quite a few more less well known souls have voted with their feet.

Heck, inasmuch as you don't have to be a resident of New York to hold
political office there (e.g., Senator Clinton), I wouldn't be surprised to
see Andrew Cuomo move to New Hampshire!

"HeyBub" writes:
Mike Marlow wrote:

I don't know what it's like in a lot of other places, but around
here, NY state has successfully driven businesses out of the state
for decades now, with our tax structure. Those jobs have been
replaced with much lower paying, much lower in prestige and reward,
in places like retail, service, etc.


Heh!

I read an opinion piece in the WSJ last year about a self-employed person
who left New York City for Florida and the move saved him over $13,000 in
taxes.

Per day.

So? Assuming the writer of the opinion piece had his facts straight, which
is usually doubtful, that amounts to $4,7450,00 in state taxes, which means
his AGI was close to $50,000,000 a year. I'm crying crocodile tears.

On 8/23/2012 1:29 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/23/2012 01:50 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
lawyers, they'll always find work to do.

Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed
law. Then
somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they
violate the
spirit of the law. I thought that something like that may (have) exist
(ed).


Yes, it's called "The Constitution Of The United States Of America"
in which the Federal government is granted a very narrow, specific,
and limited set of things it is allowed to do. They are called
"Enumerated Powers" and the Doctrine Of Enumerated Powers was
repeatedly affirmed and confirmed as intention by James Madsion,
that document's author. Sadly, today's whiny and entitled
public want the Feds to be their Daddy (the Republicans) and/or
their Mommy (the Democrats) and no end of mischief has transpired
thereby.


You can thank Franklin Roosevelt and his "New Deal" and
then-unprecedented court-packing expansion of the Commerce Clause for that.

On 08/23/2012 02:54 PM, Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/23/2012 01:50 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
lawyers, they'll always find work to do.

Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed law.
Then somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they
violate the spirit of the law. I thought that something like that
may (have) exist (ed).


Yes, it's called "The Constitution Of The United States Of America"
in which the Federal government is granted a very narrow, specific,
and limited set of things it is allowed to do. They are called
"Enumerated Powers" and the Doctrine Of Enumerated Powers was
repeatedly affirmed and confirmed as intention by James Madsion,
that document's author. Sadly, today's whiny and entitled
public want the Feds to be their Daddy (the Republicans) and/or
their Mommy (the Democrats) and no end of mischief has transpired
thereby.

I'm going to a set of continuing ed lectures on the Constitution this
fall. I may adopt at times your stance to see whether I can rattle the
speaker esq.



Listen to the Cronkite set on the Constitution from Knowledge Products.
Then listen to the set on the Federalist Papers. At that point, you'll
understand the Constitution better than 90% of lawyers, 99% of the general
population, and 99.999999999999999% of politicians....

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:45:53 -0400, "
Hey, not much chance of that happening. I enjoy telling assholes like
to where to go.

I suppose you can't lose yourself. But really, US politics is none of your
business.

When did something being none of your business stop you? In any event,
this is an international forum where anybody is free to voice his or
her opinion. The actions of the US have reverberating effects on the
rest of the world, especially Canada. That gives me all the reason I
need to comment.

Typical comment from you. The freedoms and rights of US citizens is
one of your greatest accomplishments. Yet, there you sit trying to
tell me I'm not entitled to my very similar Canadian rights.

On 08/23/2012 05:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/23/2012 1:29 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/23/2012 01:50 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
lawyers, they'll always find work to do.

Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed law. Then
somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they violate the
spirit of the law. I thought that something like that may (have) exist
(ed).


Yes, it's called "The Constitution Of The United States Of America"
in which the Federal government is granted a very narrow, specific,
and limited set of things it is allowed to do. They are called
"Enumerated Powers" and the Doctrine Of Enumerated Powers was
repeatedly affirmed and confirmed as intention by James Madsion,
that document's author. Sadly, today's whiny and entitled
public want the Feds to be their Daddy (the Republicans) and/or
their Mommy (the Democrats) and no end of mischief has transpired thereby.


You can thank Franklin Roosevelt and his "New Deal" and then-unprecedented court-packing expansion of the Commerce Clause for that.


That's part of it, but the Right has been just as guilty of these kinds
of excesses. It has been the Right that has insisted we stick our nose
into the business of other nations even though we have no national interest
at stake. It is the Right that has decided to be everyone's Daddy and tell them
what they can drink/smoke/snort and in what manner they may have sex and whether
their romantic arrangements will be recognized by law. The fact is that neither
side wants freedom, it wants the power to push and shove and tell everyone
else what to do. Sadly, the people would rather be coddled by imaginary
government goodness than be free citizens...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 08/23/2012 08:22 AM, HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Yes. Personally, I favor a per-capita tax. That is one AMOUNT, not a
single percentage. Like a movie ticket or a can of jalapeno-flavored
chicken nuggets. One money for all. [Currently, that would be about
$15,000 per person per year]

So how do you deal with people whose income is $14,000 per year?

I haven't worked out all the details, but as I've said before such an
individual could contribute a kidney. I call that my "Federal Withdrawal
Plan."



I see, so you're a fan of the Dead Kennedy's tune, "Kill The Poor".
How very uncivil of you.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article ,
says...

Han wrote:

Private employment is really going up.

But the birth rate is going up faster. It's like bailing the Titanic with a
bucket-brigade.

Check the stats.

Oh, and by the way, it's becoming clear that if you're not trolling
you're an idiot, either of which makes you a complete waste of time, so
plonk

One of the reasons that NJ is
lagging behind in reducing unemployment is Christies emphasis on
austerity. Look at Europe to see whether that works. Certainly not
in the short term.

It might be the method used to achieve austerity.

Look what happened in Wisconsin.

On 23 Aug 2012 18:47:00 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

It's not just NY. Government is forcing jobs off-shore, too. ...but
everyone knows that (Democrats won't admit it, though).

Here in NJ, it is a Republican heavy weight poster boy who has just about
singlehandedly instituted severe austerity. SO far no result on the jobs
whatsoever.

You really expect results overnight? Han, you're smarter than that (Lurndal
isn't but you are).

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:40:25 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

"HeyBub" writes:
Mike Marlow wrote:

I don't know what it's like in a lot of other places, but around
here, NY state has successfully driven businesses out of the state
for decades now, with our tax structure. Those jobs have been
replaced with much lower paying, much lower in prestige and reward,
in places like retail, service, etc.


Heh!

I read an opinion piece in the WSJ last year about a self-employed person
who left New York City for Florida and the move saved him over $13,000 in
taxes.

Per day.

So? Assuming the writer of the opinion piece had his facts straight, which
is usually doubtful, that amounts to $4,7450,00 in state taxes, which means
his AGI was close to $50,000,000 a year. I'm crying crocodile tears.

It really helped the Democratic caused fiscal crisis in NY to chase them away,
huh. Lurndal, you're an idiot.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:21:11 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 08/23/2012 02:54 PM, Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 08/23/2012 01:50 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
news:5035d28b$0$28867$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

By all means, let's simplify the tax code. Don't worry about the
lawyers, they'll always find work to do.

Yes. Let us do that. Let us firstly that a letter of intent should
accompany all legislation, laying out the spirit of the proposed law.
Then somehow codify that legalistic loopholes are not valid if they
violate the spirit of the law. I thought that something like that
may (have) exist (ed).


Yes, it's called "The Constitution Of The United States Of America"
in which the Federal government is granted a very narrow, specific,
and limited set of things it is allowed to do. They are called
"Enumerated Powers" and the Doctrine Of Enumerated Powers was
repeatedly affirmed and confirmed as intention by James Madsion,
that document's author. Sadly, today's whiny and entitled
public want the Feds to be their Daddy (the Republicans) and/or
their Mommy (the Democrats) and no end of mischief has transpired
thereby.

I'm going to a set of continuing ed lectures on the Constitution this
fall. I may adopt at times your stance to see whether I can rattle the
speaker esq.



Listen to the Cronkite set on the Constitution from Knowledge Products.
Then listen to the set on the Federalist Papers. At that point, you'll
understand the Constitution better than 90% of lawyers, 99% of the general
population, and 99.999999999999999% of politicians....

You can try here, too:

http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:06:01 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:05:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
HeyBub wrote:


But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation. Further,
there is no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore account. The US
is one of only two countries that tax foreign earnings (the other
is the Philippines). What the Caymens, Bahamas, etc., offer is
bank "secrecy." Now one CAN use the secrecy to hide dodgy
transactions, but Romney is a Republican. Republicans just don't
do that sort of thing.

Sorry - as much of a Democrat, or a liberal as I am not - I just
cannot bring myself to accept such a broad brush statement.
Republicans have been and can be as guilty of any sort of sin as
anyone else.

Your claim, that Republicans can be rascally in their financial
dealings, is certainly true.

There was an instance back in 1922 called the "Teapot Dome Scandal"
during the administration of Warren G. Harding which we Republicans
like to forget.

As well - GW didn't do a lot to endear me...

Are you alleging criminal activity in their financial dealings?

Nope - not at all. In fact, I was generalizing in a way that was outside of
the "financial dealings" that HeyBub laid down in his prior reply. So - in
that sense, I did (with my reply) extend this beyond what had previously
been stated.

Except that you didn't change the subject. You simply added GWB's name to the
criminal activity.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:22:51 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:45:53 -0400, "
Hey, not much chance of that happening. I enjoy telling assholes like
to where to go.

I suppose you can't lose yourself. But really, US politics is none of your
business.

When did something being none of your business stop you?

If it's none of my business I'm rarely interested. Now why don't you be a
good little Canuck and butt out? Your opinion is as useless as you are.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
in.local:

In article ,
says...

Han wrote:

Private employment is really going up.

But the birth rate is going up faster. It's like bailing the Titanic
with a bucket-brigade.

Check the stats.

Oh, and by the way, it's becoming clear that if you're not trolling
you're an idiot, either of which makes you a complete waste of time,
so plonk
snip

Umm, actually the number of people entering employable age is pretty
staggering, and that's exactly why unemployment is still so high. Job
creation really should be twice as much AT LEAST as it is. Luckily we're
not really losing jobs anymore ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

You're conflating apples and railroad ties. There is nothing wrong -
not morally, ethically, and not legally - of looking out for our
own interests. That is EXACTLY the idea the US was built on. It is
EXACTLY what makes the US different, more successful, and better than
the social(ist) democracies and other collectivist states around the
planet.

What is not OK is "looking out for yourself" when the action requires
you to harm others - say by using fraud, force, or threat.

The idea that I exist to serve someone else at the point of your gun -
the central idea of all leftism - is a moral outrage.

Sorry. Just drawing attention to the possibility that looking out for
oneself sometimes goes to enriching (or something like that) oneself to
the detriment of others. If you say that isn't possible, or at least not
done, I applaud the self improvement of the people you are talking about.
I am leftist, to an extent, but I wouldn't force anyone to do something
they feel they shouldn't. That excludes people who don't want to pay
into insurance funds because a tiny fraction of the benefits would go to
something they don't subscribe to.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

You can try here, too:

http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/

Sorry, Keith, I'll pass on a "citadel of American conservatism."

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

Listen to the Cronkite set on the Constitution from Knowledge
Products. Then listen to the set on the Federalist Papers. At that
point, you'll understand the Constitution better than 90% of lawyers,
99% of the general population, and 99.999999999999999% of
politicians....

OK, I'll look it up!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

You really are an idiot if you think your pensions aren't affected by the
economy.

One of my main funds had an 7-8% yield the past year.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote in news:XnsA0B8D484892DAikkezelf@
207.246.207.19:

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

Listen to the Cronkite set on the Constitution from Knowledge
Products. Then listen to the set on the Federalist Papers. At that
point, you'll understand the Constitution better than 90% of lawyers,
99% of the general population, and 99.999999999999999% of
politicians....

OK, I'll look it up!

http://www.knowledgeproducts.net/htm...iles/const.cfm looks
interesting, but I am more leaning to an interactive lecture set at the
local community college.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:22:14 -0400, "
If it's none of my business I'm rarely interested. Now why don't you be a
good little Canuck and butt out? Your opinion is as useless as you are.

Now why would I butt out when I have the chance to shoot down some
arrogant asshole from the US? For all the good things and people in
the US, it's the assholes like you that bring your country down.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:03:27 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:22:14 -0400, "
If it's none of my business I'm rarely interested. Now why don't you be a
good little Canuck and butt out? Your opinion is as useless as you are.

Now why would I butt out when I have the chance to shoot down some
arrogant asshole from the US?

Your opinion is irrelevant. You are irrelevant. Got it?

For all the good things and people in
the US, it's the assholes like you that bring your country down.

I say the same thing about you in Canuckistan, but I don't troll about your
politics.

On 24 Aug 2012 00:56:11 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

You really are an idiot if you think your pensions aren't affected by the
economy.

One of my main funds had an 7-8% yield the past year.

Mine does too, but don't expect that to last when the **** hits the fan.
Remember Carter?

Don't expect your *retirement* to last a big storm, either. I doubt it's
solvent now, SS surely isn't.

On 24 Aug 2012 00:53:06 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

You can try here, too:

http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/

Sorry, Keith, I'll pass on a "citadel of American conservatism."

I knew you didn't really want to learn about the Constitution.

" wrote in
:

On 24 Aug 2012 00:56:11 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

You really are an idiot if you think your pensions aren't affected
by the economy.

One of my main funds had an 7-8% yield the past year.

Mine does too, but don't expect that to last when the **** hits the
fan. Remember Carter?

Don't expect your *retirement* to last a big storm, either. I doubt
it's solvent now, SS surely isn't.

I am (perhaps wrongly) trusting that what Vanguard, Fidelity, TIAA and
their ilk are telling me is the truth. SS is nice too, so far.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 24 Aug 2012 00:53:06 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

You can try here, too:

http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/

Sorry, Keith, I'll pass on a "citadel of American conservatism."

I knew you didn't really want to learn about the Constitution.

Only conservatives know the REAL Constitution, and then only some, the
anointed ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/23/2012 6:24 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/23/2012 08:22 AM, HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Yes. Personally, I favor a per-capita tax. That is one AMOUNT, not a
single percentage. Like a movie ticket or a can of jalapeno-flavored
chicken nuggets. One money for all. [Currently, that would be about
$15,000 per person per year]

So how do you deal with people whose income is $14,000 per year?

I haven't worked out all the details, but as I've said before such an
individual could contribute a kidney. I call that my "Federal Withdrawal
Plan."



I see, so you're a fan of the Dead Kennedy's tune, "Kill The Poor".
How very uncivil of you.

I think it is a shame that there are those (49%) in this country who pay
no income tax. I think every one should pay a minimum tax (Maybe
$500/yr??) and there would be no reverse income taxes. ie those not
paying anything and getting back several thousand dollars.

I am one of the 49% but still think it is not right.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:07:16 -0400, "
Now why would I butt out when I have the chance to shoot down some
arrogant asshole from the US?

Your opinion is irrelevant. You are irrelevant. Got it?

Guess you've got a problem then, because I'm here to stay and there's
not a single ****ing thing you can do about it.

How does it feel to be so impotent? You must be used to it at this
stage of your wasted life.

Han wrote:


LIRR personnel had something like that going too. google "lirr
retirement scam". They got caught. As they should be. And all like
that. See, if people just look out for themselves, sometimes it is
NOT for the best of everyone.

What is this "best of everyone" stuff that keeps creeping in from you Han?
Since when is everyone else's wellbeing or their preferences, or their
desires of any interest to anybody else. Here - tell ya what... I'll make
your concsience a little more relieved and I will contribute to your
socialistic sense of how things should be. Realizing that you have that
nasty pension that is weighing on your conscience, I'll step forward and
allow you to contribute 20% of that per year - for my wellbeing. Just email
me and I will provide you an address to send the check to each month.

--

-Mike-

HeyBub wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:

Your claim, that Republicans can be rascally in their financial
dealings, is certainly true.

There was an instance back in 1922 called the "Teapot Dome Scandal"
during the administration of Warren G. Harding which we Republicans
like to forget.

As well - GW didn't do a lot to endear me...

Yep, I can understand how you might feel that way. Twenty-eight
consecutive quarters of economic growth, unemployment below 5%, DJIA
above 12,000, inflation almost non-existant. The entire economy was
swell up through 2007.
Then the Democrats took over Congress...


Well - the Clinton fans could probably have a field day with that, but what
I was making reference to was GW's involvlement in the middle east. It
started with his dad, and he took it all to a new level - a total waste in
every respect. That's my thoughts on it and I'm not going to spend any more
time explaining my thoughts.

--

-Mike-

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:06:01 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:05:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
HeyBub wrote:


But your suggestion of a "tax haven" is rank speculation.
Further, there is no "tax haven" capability in an off-shore
account. The US is one of only two countries that tax foreign
earnings (the other is the Philippines). What the Caymens,
Bahamas, etc., offer is bank "secrecy." Now one CAN use the
secrecy to hide dodgy transactions, but Romney is a Republican.
Republicans just don't do that sort of thing.

Sorry - as much of a Democrat, or a liberal as I am not - I just
cannot bring myself to accept such a broad brush statement.
Republicans have been and can be as guilty of any sort of sin as
anyone else.

Your claim, that Republicans can be rascally in their financial
dealings, is certainly true.

There was an instance back in 1922 called the "Teapot Dome
Scandal" during the administration of Warren G. Harding which we
Republicans like to forget.

As well - GW didn't do a lot to endear me...

Are you alleging criminal activity in their financial dealings?

Nope - not at all. In fact, I was generalizing in a way that was
outside of the "financial dealings" that HeyBub laid down in his
prior reply. So - in that sense, I did (with my reply) extend this
beyond what had previously been stated.

Except that you didn't change the subject. You simply added GWB's
name to the criminal activity.

No need to change the subject - all I did was add a slightly different
dimension to a broader thought.

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:00:29 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:07:16 -0400, "
Now why would I butt out when I have the chance to shoot down some
arrogant asshole from the US?

Your opinion is irrelevant. You are irrelevant. Got it?

Guess you've got a problem then, because I'm here to stay and there's
not a single ****ing thing you can do about it.

True, but you've been outed as an irrelevant interloper.

How does it feel to be so impotent? You must be used to it at this
stage of your wasted life.

You must be queer.

On 24 Aug 2012 01:51:21 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 24 Aug 2012 00:56:11 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

You really are an idiot if you think your pensions aren't affected
by the economy.

One of my main funds had an 7-8% yield the past year.

Mine does too, but don't expect that to last when the **** hits the
fan. Remember Carter?

Don't expect your *retirement* to last a big storm, either. I doubt
it's solvent now, SS surely isn't.

I am (perhaps wrongly) trusting that what Vanguard, Fidelity, TIAA and
their ilk are telling me is the truth. SS is nice too, so far.

They can only estimate based on past performance. If you think they'll
survive the big meltdown, you're nuts.

On 24 Aug 2012 01:56:29 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 24 Aug 2012 00:53:06 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

You can try here, too:

http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/

Sorry, Keith, I'll pass on a "citadel of American conservatism."

I knew you didn't really want to learn about the Constitution.

Only conservatives know the REAL Constitution, and then only some, the
anointed ...

Don't be an idiot, Han. It is a well researched course on the history of the
Constitution. If that's "conservative", so be it. OTOH, you've clearly
demonstrated that you want nothing to do with the Constitution. You can't
change it, so just ignore what it says.