In article , says...
On Sun, 02 May 2010 01:16:19 -0700, bpnjensen wrote:

On May 1, 6:08Â*pm, BDK wrote:
In article b1c107fb-1675-47da-9f5b-9e1784f87454
@j20g2000prn.googlegroups.com, says...





On May 1, 3:24Â*pm, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:
You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly
amazes me that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_
the idea of the policeman on every street corner (or is it every
tenth of a street corner these days?) being able to "demand your
papers" (your ID) -- something I don't like either -- have _no_
problem _at all_ with the police state being able to demand not
only your ID but intimate details about your family and home life,
and every tiny detail of every financial transaction you have ever
engaged in, on pain of severe punishment (ultimately enforced by
uniformed goons with guns) when the Census man or the Internal
Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

With every good wish,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Kevin, I think gross inconsistency is a major part of the human
condition.

I wish I saw more police everywhere - we're cut back so far we
practically have one per square mile, in a densely populated area.

Much of what the IRS asks is if you have things you can deduct to
make your tax burden lower; my main beef with that is that the thing
is too complicated anyway, but at least it evens things out a little..

FWIW, the fully Constitutional Census asked very little of me...and
it nets back some of the hard-earned tax dollars originally handed
over to the IRS. Â*In fact, I believe that my own tax burden was not
enough, and I wish we wealthier people would be required to pay more
than what we do. Â*I find no problem with all of that. Â*Others may,
but again, inconsistency is legion among homo "sapiens"...

The census was hardly anything. I had it done in about one minute. I
wish I could say I felt my tax burden was too little. My property taxes
are ridiculous, one block over in the next city, they are 1/3 less. I
don't see any real difference in services and road conditions.
Supposedly the schools are better here, but I don't have kids in
school, so I don't really care about that too much, if it's true. The
teachers and school admins seem to be just as crazy as they are
everywhere else, creating nonsensical rules, one after another. And I
thought the teachers and admins were whackjobs back when I was in
school. The present ones make them look totally rational. I never
thought I would be saying that.

There is no hook in your ass and you can move any time you want.

Sure, if I want to try to sell my house when there are a whole bunch of
houses for sale in the area already? I will move eventually, but unless
a lottery win is in the future, it won't be anytime soon.


Income tax wise, I haven't gotten a dime back in 5 years, and I had to
pay out a lot most of those years. I would love a straight 13-15% flat
tax, I would have saved a lot of money. My boss paid less than I did
last year, and his income is over 25 times what mine is. It's crazy.

--
BDK, leader of the non-jew, non-existant jew paid shills!

It's that last paragraph that really gets me steamed. People who
receive gigantic salaries ought not be exempted into the lowest tax
bracket. It just stinks, and it's a big part of what keeps the middle
class scrambling to stay alive in this country.



--
BDK, leader of the non-jew, non-existant jew paid shills!

In article 37f00a1b-060b-4a69-87e9-5a0b62775431
@a18g2000prd.googlegroups.com, says...
On May 2, 11:02*am, Michael Coburn wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2010 01:16:19 -0700, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 1, 6:08*pm, BDK wrote:
In article b1c107fb-1675-47da-9f5b-9e1784f87454
@j20g2000prn.googlegroups.com, says...

On May 1, 3:24*pm, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:
You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly
amazes me that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_
the idea of the policeman on every street corner (or is it every
tenth of a street corner these days?) being able to "demand your
papers" (your ID) -- something I don't like either -- have _no_
problem _at all_ with the police state being able to demand not
only your ID but intimate details about your family and home life,
and every tiny detail of every financial transaction you have ever
engaged in, on pain of severe punishment (ultimately enforced by
uniformed goons with guns) when the Census man or the Internal
Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

With every good wish,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Kevin, I think gross inconsistency is a major part of the human
condition.

I wish I saw more police everywhere - we're cut back so far we
practically have one per square mile, in a densely populated area.

Much of what the IRS asks is if you have things you can deduct to
make your tax burden lower; my main beef with that is that the thing
is too complicated anyway, but at least it evens things out a little.

FWIW, the fully Constitutional Census asked very little of me...and
it nets back some of the hard-earned tax dollars originally handed
over to the IRS. *In fact, I believe that my own tax burden was not
enough, and I wish we wealthier people would be required to pay more
than what we do. *I find no problem with all of that. *Others may,
but again, inconsistency is legion among homo "sapiens"...

The census was hardly anything. I had it done in about one minute. I
wish I could say I felt my tax burden was too little. My property taxes
are ridiculous, one block over in the next city, they are 1/3 less. I
don't see any real difference in services and road conditions.
Supposedly the schools are better here, but I don't have kids in
school, so I don't really care about that too much, if it's true. The
teachers and school admins seem to be just as crazy as they are
everywhere else, creating nonsensical rules, one after another. And I
thought the teachers and admins were whackjobs back when I was in
school. The present ones make them look totally rational. I never
thought I would be saying that.

There is no hook in your ass and you can move any time you want.

Income tax wise, I haven't gotten a dime back in 5 years, and I had to
pay out a lot most of those years. I would love a straight 13-15% flat
tax, I would have saved a lot of money. My boss paid less than I did
last year, and his income is over 25 times what mine is. It's crazy.

--
BDK, leader of the non-jew, non-existant jew paid shills!

It's that last paragraph that really gets me steamed. *People who
receive gigantic salaries ought not be exempted into the lowest tax
bracket. *It just stinks, and it's a big part of what keeps the middle
class scrambling to stay alive in this country.

--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60

So Mr. Coburn apparently thinks this unfairness of things is A-OK?


I guess he's got enough money, he can just walk away, and sell his
present home for a huge loss. Must be nice.
--
BDK, leader of the non-jew, non-existant jew paid shills!

On May 2, 4:36*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/2/10 18:23 , bpnjensen wrote:





On May 2, 3:15 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 5/2/10 17:14 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 2, 2:07 pm, "D. Peter * *wrote:
On 5/2/10 03:16 , bpnjensen wrote:

It's that last paragraph that really gets me steamed. *People who
receive gigantic salaries ought not be exempted into the lowest tax
bracket. *It just stinks, and it's a big part of what keeps the middle
class scrambling to stay alive in this country.

* * *Yeah, when I pay more tax than John Kerry, it makes my blood
boil, too.

Goes both ways Peter, you know that.

* *I"m sorry, what do you mean?

There are wealthy Ds and Rs who pay less than poorer Rs and Ds.
Nothing too mysterious, thank goodness :-)

* *And it's wrong.

* *What really ****ed me off about Kerry, is that he ran on a
platform of raising my taxes.

* *Kerry makes 5-10 times what I make. And yet, I pay more than he
does already. I also donate more to charitable causes than he does.

* *Similarly with Biden, who insists that paying taxes is patriotic.

* *And yet, they wants to raise MY taxes, while exploiting all the
exemptions for their own.

* *If this guy, and others like him, are convinced that more taxes
need to be paid, lead the way. Kerry, Biden, Buffett, and Obiteme
can write extra checks to IRS, and send them in. Show us how
patriotic it is to pay taxes, by volutarily increasing their own tax
load.

* *In other words, put their hands in their own pockets before
putting them in mine.

I cannot argue there.

I am still willing to pay more taxes than I do.

On 5/2/2010 5:05 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car. Simple
transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was required
to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name, address, all
credit card and all bank account numbers were required. Rent payments,
utility payments, any other oblications. Employment history for the last
10 years, with names and phone numbers. Residential history for the last
10 years with names and phone numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

And all sources of supplementary income.

When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal information
was necessary to write a check...why not just call the bank verify the
check and the amount, or hold it until it can be verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with the
Patriot Act.

It could be worse, like in the bad old days, when they would give credit
to anyone that could fog a mirror.

Last year, I wrote a rather large check ( $10,000) for the entire
purchase price of a new Pontiac Solstice GXP...and no hassle, no holds,
just "Here are keys and the title and thank you very much".

P.S.
Thank your friends W and company for the "Patriot" Act.

On 5/2/10 19:09 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 5/2/2010 5:05 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car. Simple
transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was required
to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name, address, all
credit card and all bank account numbers were required. Rent payments,
utility payments, any other oblications. Employment history for the last
10 years, with names and phone numbers. Residential history for the last
10 years with names and phone numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

And all sources of supplementary income.

When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal information
was necessary to write a check...why not just call the bank verify the
check and the amount, or hold it until it can be verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with the
Patriot Act.

It could be worse, like in the bad old days, when they would give credit
to anyone that could fog a mirror.


This was not a loan. It was a full purchase by check.

retrogrouch wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 15:17:38 -0700 (PDT), bpnjensen
wrote:

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.




Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

Yecchh.


Yep. Any transactions totaling over $10,000 needs a Patriot Act
report. My DENTIST is having to file these.



The dictates of the Washington regime have, with the wildly misnamed
"Patriot Act," finally taken away _all_ of our financial privacy,
which is a fundamental part of our personal privacy.

We have now reached the _end_ of the slippery slope which was begun
when the Income Tax amendment was fraudulently imposed on the
American people. (Fraudulently? Yes. It was sold to the people under
the pretense that the proposed tax would never be imposed on wages,
and would never need to exceed three per cent. even on the incomes
of millionaires. We were told that wages, being an equal exchange of
time and labor for an equivalent amount of money, did not result in
profit and therefore were _not_ income and would therefore never be
taxed. All these assurances were lies.)

That was the beginning of the pernicious concepts 1) that the
criminals in Washington had the right to _know_ what your "income"
was, and 2) that the criminals in Washington had the right to take
whatever percentage of that "income" they so chose. Both concepts
are utterly alien to any reasonable conception of freedom and to the
ideals of the founders.


With every good wish,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

BDK wrote:
In article 441fad87-b90f-43af-99f4-
, says...
On May 2, 8:32Â am, â=3F=3FbaMaâ=3F=3F Tse Dung wrote:
[...]

In the end, Paul writes, "If the federal government really wants to
increase compliance with the census, it should abide by the
Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many
people live here?"
[...]


God, what a paranoid wreck your life must be.

[...]

Honestly, sitting in a car with him about 20 years ago, knowing he had
at least one loaded gun on him scared the crap out of me, since he was
ranting about killing for Jesus as we pulled out of the parking lot of a
gunshow.



It's really grotesquely unfair to compare Ron Paul's (and my)
reasoned philosophical and legal objections to the expansion of the
Washington regime's powers to interrogate with "paranoia" -- or with
someone who channels imaginary gods.


With best wishes,



Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Sometimes the proper response is no response at all.Just like George C.
Scott in the Patton movie.
cuhulin

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Yeah, when I pay more tax than John Kerry, it makes my blood boil, too.


Would paying more tax than George Bush be different somehow?




mike

BP Tries To Rip Off Fishermen With Waiver.
http://www.rense.com

Response,,,,,,,
To HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL WITH BP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I HOPE people here in Mississippi are NOT buying BP anymore!
Would You?
cuhulin