On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:33:15 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

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.

But there was no subject break, as such you were equating the two.

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."

Then how will you _ever_ learn anything, Han. ;^)

--
I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues.
--Duke Ellington

I beleive you have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican president
who lowered the deficit during his term. Since then, 3 Democratic
presidents have done so, though: Johnson, Carter, & Clinton.


--
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 22:46:20 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

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.

Say you're age 70 & making a whopping $500 a month from the gummint.
What month do you choose -not- to eat, pay your rent, or pay any of
your utilities so you can pay the IRS?


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

Ditto, some recent years... What I dislike are those who abuse any of
the gov't programs just because they can, double-dippers, etc.

--
I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues.
--Duke Ellington

On 8/23/2012 4:23 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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.


Who got the USA into the Korean war? "Give 'm Hell" Harry Truman. And
it was Republican President Eisenhower who got us out. Are you too
young to remember how the USA got big-time into the Vietnam conflict?
It was Kennedy who first sent combat troops there. It was Johnson who
got us into a full-scale war there. And it was Nixon, a Republican, who
got us out. Carter stuck the US military nose into El Salvador. Under
Clinton, a USA-led NATO force engaged in military strikes in
Yugoslavia. Clinton also stuck the US military nose into Serbia,
Afghanistan and Sudan, and.forced a regime change in Haiti. When did
Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton join the Republican
party? Face it, your assertion that "It has been the Right that has
insisted we stick our nose into the business of other nations" is just
divisive partisan drivel.


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.

Actually, your next statement is more nearly correct, although it's the
Left more than the right that wants "Big Brother" type control over us.

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...

On 8/23/2012 6:40 PM, Han wrote:
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.

Sometimes but by no means always. That's the trouble with the Left
wingnut point of view -- they think like the economy is a zero-sum
game, that the only way one person gets richer is if someone else gets
poorer.

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.

I used to belong to a professional organization, but quit when the
organization, which to my mind should have been apolitical, began using
my dues to support political causes I disagreed with.

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.

That leaves me confused. Do you have something in particular in mind?

On 8/23/2012 10:07 PM, Larry W wrote:
I beleive you have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican president
who lowered the deficit during his term. Since then, 3 Democratic
presidents have done so, though: Johnson, Carter, & Clinton.


And here all along I thought it was Congress who set the federal budget.

Mike Marlow wrote:

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.

Times were pretty good under the Clinton administration too. But of course
he had a Republican congress...

And you don't have to explain - I completely understand.

As for "waste," I consider killing a HUGE number of, um, "them" and blowing
up a lot of ****, hardly a waste! To use the jargon of the modern
progressive, it was an "investment."

HeyBub wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:

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.

Times were pretty good under the Clinton administration too. But of
course he had a Republican congress...

And you don't have to explain - I completely understand.


BTW - the reason I don't want to spend any time explaining my thoughts is
simply that this would certainly be one of those topics that spirals into
forever, if allowed to take off.

As for "waste," I consider killing a HUGE number of, um, "them" and
blowing up a lot of ****, hardly a waste! To use the jargon of the
modern progressive, it was an "investment."

Well - to be sure... blowing up a lot of **** is (as you say...) hardly a
waste. It might even be considered to be a good use of one's time!

--

-Mike-

Han wrote:
..

It might be the method used to achieve austerity.

Look what happened in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin is prosperous now they neutralized their governor??

Huh? Neutralized?

There was a "recall the governor" election last June. The Republican
governor, Scott Walker won with 53% of the vote, slightly higher than his
original election results (52.29%).

J. Clarke wrote:
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


I have. If you have statistics that show something different, I'd be tickled
to see them.

Scott Lurndal wrote:


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.

The article wasn't meant to illuminate the writer's windfall; it was meant
to show the short-sightedness of New York's tax laws.

And why would you say the writer's "facts" were doubtful? It's easy enough
to check (I erred; it was not the WSJ, it was the New York Post):

"Opponents point to Rochester billionaire B. Thomas Golisano, a
philanthropist and minor party candidate for governor, who moved to Florida
to avoid paying $13,000 a day more in New York taxes."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...tax/50804592/1

"Last week I spent 90 minutes doing a couple of simple things -- registering
to vote, changing my driver's license, filling out a domicile certificate
and signing a homestead certificate -- in Florida. Combined with spending
184 days a year outside New York, these simple procedures will save me over
$5 million in New York taxes annually.

"By moving to Florida, I can spend that $5 million on worthy causes, like
better hospitals, improving education or the Clinton Global Initiative. Or
maybe I'll continue to invest it in fighting the status quo in Albany. One
thing's certain: That money won't continue to fund Albany's bloated
bureaucracy, corrupt politicians and regular special-interest handouts."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...#ixzz24T1JbNF2

J. Clarke wrote:
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.

To paraphrase a well-known aphorism: "Emoticons are for inarticulate
****ers."

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 04:07:10 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

I beleive you have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican president
who lowered the deficit during his term. Since then, 3 Democratic
presidents have done so, though: Johnson, Carter, & Clinton.

What a liar.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:18:12 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Han wrote:
.

It might be the method used to achieve austerity.

Look what happened in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin is prosperous now they neutralized their governor??

Huh? Neutralized?

There was a "recall the governor" election last June. The Republican
governor, Scott Walker won with 53% of the vote, slightly higher than his
original election results (52.29%).

Don't confuse Han with the facts. He's been sick for weeks and his brain is
gone. The only think left is lies.

Larry Jaques wrote:

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.

Say you're age 70 & making a whopping $500 a month from the gummint.
What month do you choose -not- to eat, pay your rent, or pay any of
your utilities so you can pay the IRS?


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

Ditto, some recent years... What I dislike are those who abuse any of
the gov't programs just because they can, double-dippers, etc.

Me too. Especially when in collusion with the powers that be...

A few months ago our city manager resigned. She did so because of the
election of a new commissioner who had vowed to kick her ass out.

Her contract called for various payments to her if she were fired, nothing
if she quit (other than accrued sick leave and vacation time). She wound up
with the esteemed commissioners giving her more than $300,000. I know not
how much was sick leave and vacation but - obviously - she recived far in
excess of those.

What really galls me is that she in now drawing unemployment. And all these
years I've been laboring under the impression that unemployment was not
available to those who quit.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Maybe just ready for a change? Check it out...
http://www.floridaloghouse.net

HeyBub wrote:


"Opponents point to Rochester billionaire B. Thomas Golisano, a
philanthropist and minor party candidate for governor, who moved to
Florida to avoid paying $13,000 a day more in New York taxes."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...tax/50804592/1

"Last week I spent 90 minutes doing a couple of simple things --
registering to vote, changing my driver's license, filling out a
domicile certificate and signing a homestead certificate -- in
Florida. Combined with spending 184 days a year outside New York,
these simple procedures will save me over $5 million in New York
taxes annually.
"By moving to Florida, I can spend that $5 million on worthy causes,
like better hospitals, improving education or the Clinton Global
Initiative. Or maybe I'll continue to invest it in fighting the
status quo in Albany. One thing's certain: That money won't continue
to fund Albany's bloated bureaucracy, corrupt politicians and regular
special-interest handouts."

This was pretty well publicized in upstate NY at the time. Golisano has
done well for himself and is a very successful businessman. Interestingly,
there was very little to no backlash for his move and his statements - from
either side. He has donated millions and millions of dollars over the years
to philantropic interests. I won't say that he is revered - I don't believe
he is, but there is no denying the things he has done with his money, to
benefit the population. The biggest backlash I have ever heard were a few
comments about his name being attached to the children's "wing" of Upstate
Medical Center in Syracuse. Wing - hell, it's almost a whole freakin'
hospital by itself. For me - let him put his name on it! He funded the
damned thing. A little legacy is not a bad thing in a guy's life.

Over the years I have golfed with, done business with, respected, and been
frustrated by Tom Golisano. He can really **** you off at times. But -
he's nobody's fool, and he made quite a statement with his "move" to
Florida.

--

-Mike-

On 08/24/2012 03:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/23/2012 4:23 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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.


Who got the USA into the Korean war? "Give 'm Hell" Harry Truman. And it was Republican President Eisenhower who got us out. Are you too young to remember how the USA got big-time into the Vietnam conflict? It was Kennedy who first sent combat troops there. It was Johnson who got us into a full-scale war there. And it was Nixon, a Republican, who got us out. Carter stuck the US military nose into El Salvador. Under Clinton, a USA-led NATO force engaged in military strikes in Yugoslavia. Clinton also stuck the US military nose into Serbia, Afghanistan and Sudan, and.forced a regime change in Haiti. When did Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton join the Republican party? Face it, your assertion that "It has been the Right that has insisted we stick our nose into the business of other nations" is just divisive partisan drivel.

I was not just referring wars. I was referring to invasive foreign
policy wherein we stick our noses somewhere (Iran, Iraq, Israel, Korea,
etc.) and then later have to pay for our sins (hostages in Iran, a war
in Kuwait, and another war in Iraq).

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

" writes:

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

No facts, just name-calling. Typical.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:17:07 -0400, "dadiOH" wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

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.

Say you're age 70 & making a whopping $500 a month from the gummint.
What month do you choose -not- to eat, pay your rent, or pay any of
your utilities so you can pay the IRS?


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

Ditto, some recent years... What I dislike are those who abuse any of
the gov't programs just because they can, double-dippers, etc.

Me too. Especially when in collusion with the powers that be...

A few months ago our city manager resigned. She did so because of the
election of a new commissioner who had vowed to kick her ass out.

Her contract called for various payments to her if she were fired, nothing
if she quit (other than accrued sick leave and vacation time). She wound up
with the esteemed commissioners giving her more than $300,000. I know not
how much was sick leave and vacation but - obviously - she recived far in
excess of those.

What really galls me is that she in now drawing unemployment. And all these
years I've been laboring under the impression that unemployment was not
available to those who quit.

It depends on the circumstances. Perhaps she was asked to resign?

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/23/2012 10:07 PM, Larry W wrote:
I beleive you have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican
president who lowered the deficit during his term. Since then, 3
Democratic presidents have done so, though: Johnson, Carter, &
Clinton.


And here all along I thought it was Congress who set the federal
budget.

Your asking for a constitutional form of government - like ENgland, where
the power resides in a prime minister who basically serves at the pleasure
of the House, with just a powerless titular head - Queen of England or
Holland, President of France or Italy.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:18:12 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Han wrote:
.

It might be the method used to achieve austerity.

Look what happened in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin is prosperous now they neutralized their governor??

Huh? Neutralized?

There was a "recall the governor" election last June. The Republican
governor, Scott Walker won with 53% of the vote, slightly higher than
his original election results (52.29%).

Don't confuse Han with the facts. He's been sick for weeks and his
brain is gone. The only think left is lies.

His majority in the house (or senate, I forget which one) has
disappeared. He is still governor, but not with the power he had before.
Don't get confused by the facts that count.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

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

" wrote in
m:

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.

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

The only ones who will survive that (if you can call it survive) will be
the ones with sufficient fire power and gold (or wheat).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

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.

That 20% goes to the IRS already. So, I am already doing what you
suggest.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques 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."

Then how will you _ever_ learn anything, Han. ;^)

LOL. I know it probably is too late ...
I still have that voter registration, though ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in news:5037374a$0$5297
:

Are you too
young to remember how the USA got big-time into the Vietnam conflict?
It was Kennedy who first sent combat troops there. It was Johnson who
got us into a full-scale war there.

Another disaster that was engineered by the powers in charge (Johnson),
just like Bush's Iraq wars. From Wikipedia on the Gulf of Tonkin
resolution: The house was unanimous in favor, and "It was opposed in the
Senate only by Senators Wayne Morse (D-OR) and Ernest Gruening (D-AK).
Senator Gruening objected to "sending our American boys into combat in a
war in which we have no business, which is not our war, into which we
have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily being escalated"." And
indeed, it was Nixon (tricky Dick) who got us out, and who got us
friendly with the Chinese. Two things for which I will always admire
him. Now the other stuff ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:50378E99.2050706
@tundraware.com:

I was not just referring wars. I was referring to invasive foreign
policy wherein we stick our noses somewhere (Iran, Iraq, Israel, Korea,
etc.) and then later have to pay for our sins (hostages in Iran, a war
in Kuwait, and another war in Iraq).

Agree. The sad thing is that the Gulf of Tonkin type stuff always riles up
the masses (right and left) and makes them ready to go to war, declared or
not.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/24/2012 7:17 AM, dadiOH wrote:
And all these years I've been laboring under the impression that
unemployment was not available to those who quit.

Depends on the reason for quitting. If you quit for good cause you may
be eligible.

On 8/24/2012 8:24 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 08/24/2012 03:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/23/2012 4:23 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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.


Who got the USA into the Korean war? "Give 'm Hell" Harry Truman.
And it was Republican President Eisenhower who got us out. Are you
too young to remember how the USA got big-time into the Vietnam
conflict? It was Kennedy who first sent combat troops there. It was
Johnson who got us into a full-scale war there. And it was Nixon, a
Republican, who got us out. Carter stuck the US military nose into
El Salvador. Under Clinton, a USA-led NATO force engaged in
military strikes in Yugoslavia. Clinton also stuck the US military
nose into Serbia, Afghanistan and Sudan, and.forced a regime change
in Haiti. When did Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton join
the Republican party? Face it, your assertion that "It has been
the Right that has insisted we stick our nose into the business of
other nations" is just divisive partisan drivel.

I was not just referring wars. I was referring to invasive foreign
policy wherein we stick our noses somewhere (Iran, Iraq, Israel, Korea,
etc.) and then later have to pay for our sins (hostages in Iran, a
war in Kuwait, and another war in Iraq).


Wars are the quintessential "sticking your nose into another's
business." My point is that trying to pin that label on the Right and
not the Left simply ignores history.

On 8/24/2012 12:33 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/23/2012 10:07 PM, Larry W wrote:
I beleive you have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican
president who lowered the deficit during his term. Since then, 3
Democratic presidents have done so, though: Johnson, Carter, &
Clinton.


And here all along I thought it was Congress who set the federal
budget.
Your asking for a constitutional form of government - like ENgland, where
the power resides in a prime minister who basically serves at the pleasure
of the House, with just a powerless titular head - Queen of England or
Holland, President of France or Italy.

I'm not asking for anything. I'll put it more bluntly. Whether there
is a deficit depends on what the budget is. The President does not set
the budget. Congress, originating in the House of Representatives, sets
the budget. If you like the budget, thank Congress, not the President.
If you don't like the budget, blame Congress, not the President.

On 8/24/2012 12:49 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in news:5037374a$0$5297
:

Are you too
young to remember how the USA got big-time into the Vietnam conflict?
It was Kennedy who first sent combat troops there. It was Johnson who
got us into a full-scale war there.
Another disaster that was engineered by the powers in charge (Johnson),
just like Bush's Iraq wars. From Wikipedia on the Gulf of Tonkin
resolution: The house was unanimous in favor, and "It was opposed in the
Senate only by Senators Wayne Morse (D-OR) and Ernest Gruening (D-AK).
Senator Gruening objected to "sending our American boys into combat in a
war in which we have no business, which is not our war, into which we
have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily being escalated"." And
indeed, it was Nixon (tricky Dick) who got us out, and who got us
friendly with the Chinese. Two things for which I will always admire
him. Now the other stuff ...

My point is that Democrats are just as guilty as Republican are at
sticking the collective U.S. nose into other nation's affairs, and that
to single Repubs alone out for that sort of behavior ignores history.

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 8/24/2012 12:49 PM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in news:5037374a$0$5297
:

Are you too
young to remember how the USA got big-time into the Vietnam
conflict? It was Kennedy who first sent combat troops there. It was
Johnson who got us into a full-scale war there.
Another disaster that was engineered by the powers in charge
(Johnson), just like Bush's Iraq wars. From Wikipedia on the Gulf of
Tonkin resolution: The house was unanimous in favor, and "It was
opposed in the Senate only by Senators Wayne Morse (D-OR) and Ernest
Gruening (D-AK). Senator Gruening objected to "sending our American
boys into combat in a war in which we have no business, which is not
our war, into which we have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily
being escalated"." And indeed, it was Nixon (tricky Dick) who got
us out, and who got us friendly with the Chinese. Two things for
which I will always admire him. Now the other stuff ...

My point is that Democrats are just as guilty as Republican are at
sticking the collective U.S. nose into other nation's affairs, and
that to single Repubs alone out for that sort of behavior ignores
history.

Very, very true ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Huh? Neutralized?

There was a "recall the governor" election last June. The Republican
governor, Scott Walker won with 53% of the vote, slightly higher
than his original election results (52.29%).

Don't confuse Han with the facts. He's been sick for weeks and his
brain is gone. The only think left is lies.

His majority in the house (or senate, I forget which one) has
disappeared. He is still governor, but not with the power he had
before. Don't get confused by the facts that count.

You complain of my "facts" when, by your own admission, you forget what's
what? But, I see where you're going.

You're sorta correct. One of the Republican senators was recalled, giving
the Democrats a one-seat majority in the Wisconsin senate.

However the Wisconsin senate is in recess until January, which is after the
November elections. We'll have to wait to see whether the governor's
legislative backing is, in fact, neutralized. Meanwhile, he is still in
charge of the executive branch, and, need I say it, the machinery for the
November election.

Han wrote:

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

The only ones who will survive that (if you can call it survive) will
be the ones with sufficient fire power and gold (or wheat).

I think we can simplify your list:

* With sufficient gold, you can obtain wheat.
* With sufficient firepower, you can obtain gold.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


I was not just referring wars. I was referring to invasive foreign
policy wherein we stick our noses somewhere (Iran, Iraq, Israel,
Korea, etc.) and then later have to pay for our sins (hostages in
Iran, a war in Kuwait, and another war in Iraq).


Somebody has to be the world's policeman. For over a hundred years it was
the British. Now us.

If not us, then there are two choices:

* International anarchy, the likes of which is exemplified by Sudanese
pirates, or
* Some other country takes on the job.

If the latter, who would you prefer? China? Russia? Iran? Guatamala?

Just Wondering wrote:

My point is that Democrats are just as guilty as Republican are at
sticking the collective U.S. nose into other nation's affairs, and
that to single Repubs alone out for that sort of behavior ignores
history.

We do it because we're here. Just us. No one else, lad. Now face the front
and mark your target as he comes.

On 8/24/2012 4:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
My point is that Democrats are just as guilty as Republican are at
sticking the collective U.S. nose into other nation's affairs, and
that to single Repubs alone out for that sort of behavior ignores
history.
We do it because we're here. Just us. No one else, lad. Now face the front
and mark your target as he comes.


I personally don't have a problem with the idea in general. I was
responding to someone who does have a problem with it, and tried to
stick it to Republicans alone. Sometimes, though, we as a nation should
be just a little more circumspect where we go poking our collective nose.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:17:07 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

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.

Say you're age 70 & making a whopping $500 a month from the gummint.
What month do you choose -not- to eat, pay your rent, or pay any of
your utilities so you can pay the IRS?


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

Ditto, some recent years... What I dislike are those who abuse any of
the gov't programs just because they can, double-dippers, etc.

Me too. Especially when in collusion with the powers that be...

A few months ago our city manager resigned. She did so because of the
election of a new commissioner who had vowed to kick her ass out.

Her contract called for various payments to her if she were fired, nothing
if she quit (other than accrued sick leave and vacation time). She wound up
with the esteemed commissioners giving her more than $300,000. I know not
how much was sick leave and vacation but - obviously - she recived far in
excess of those.

Ditto the city manager of GP. She got $125k for sitting out the last
year, plus medical, etc. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!


What really galls me is that she in now drawing unemployment. And all these
years I've been laboring under the impression that unemployment was not
available to those who quit.

Interesting. I always thought that, too. I guess nothing negative
applies to anyone who has been in gov't, no matter how low. Farkin'
sucks, wot? Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!

--
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/24/2012 4:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
My point is that Democrats are just as guilty as Republican are at
sticking the collective U.S. nose into other nation's affairs, and
that to single Repubs alone out for that sort of behavior ignores
history.
We do it because we're here. Just us. No one else, lad. Now face the
front and mark your target as he comes.


I personally don't have a problem with the idea in general. I was
responding to someone who does have a problem with it, and tried to
stick it to Republicans alone. Sometimes, though, we as a nation
should be just a little more circumspect where we go poking our
collective nose.

I understand. And we ARE pretty circumspect.

The US has military missions in a LOT of countries (145 if memory serves).
I'm not counting Marine embassy guards; I'm referring to military
assistance, training, coordination, joint maneuvers, and so on. We teach
them to use our weapons, our tactics, how to collect and share intelligence,
we build base for them (and us).

Point being, we're involved in many things, most we don't hear about.

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:23:10 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 8/24/2012 7:17 AM, dadiOH wrote:
And all these years I've been laboring under the impression that
unemployment was not available to those who quit.

Depends on the reason for quitting. If you quit for good cause you may
be eligible.

Right. My wife will be quitting the end of next month. There is a good
chance she'll be eligible for UI. She was eligible five years ago, and
fifteen before that, but she didn't ask for it. She hasn't decided, this
time.