| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The Correct Response...
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/ |
The Correct Response...
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 Correct Response...
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. 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. |
The Correct Response...
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. 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 |
The Correct Response...
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? |
The Correct Response...
On 5/1/10 17:24 , 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? 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. |
The Correct Response...
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. |
The Correct Response...
On May 2, 2:07*pm, "D. Peter Maus" 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. |
The Correct Response...
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? |
The Correct Response...
On May 2, 2:05*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , 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? * *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. 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. |
The Correct Response...
On 5/2/10 17:17 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 2, 2:05 pm, "D. Peter wrote: On 5/1/10 17:24 , 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? 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. 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. There are a lot of ways for the dealership to protect itself from a rubber check. Including simply holding the vehicle until cleared. This was wholly unnecessary. Yecchh. |
The Correct Response...
On May 2, 5:43*pm, dave wrote:
large cash transactions have been suspicious as long as I can remember. A large transaction for you is pan-handling for 0baMa0's Change. Besides, you can't remember past this morning. |
The Correct Response...
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote: 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. large cash transactions have been suspicious as long as I can remember. |
The Correct Response...
On May 2, 3:15*pm, "D. Peter Maus" 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 :-) |
The Correct Response...
On May 2, 3:22*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/2/10 17:17 , bpnjensen wrote: On May 2, 2:05 pm, "D. Peter *wrote: On 5/1/10 17:24 , 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? * * 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. 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. * *There are a lot of ways for the dealership to protect itself from a rubber check. Including simply holding the vehicle until cleared. This was wholly unnecessary. Absolutely, fully agree. |
The Correct Response...
On May 2, 3:27*pm, 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. Better than filing teeth, I guess. |
The Correct Response...
On May 2, 3:40*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
On May 2, 5:43*pm, dave wrote: large cash transactions have been suspicious as long as I can remember. A large transaction for you is pan-handling for 0baMa0's Change. Besides, you can't remember past this morning. Another useful contribution! Thanks so much! |
The Correct Response...
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. |
The Correct Response...
On 5/2/10 18:24 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 2, 3:22 pm, "D. Peter wrote: On 5/2/10 17:17 , bpnjensen wrote: On May 2, 2:05 pm, "D. Peter wrote: On 5/1/10 17:24 , 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? 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. 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. There are a lot of ways for the dealership to protect itself from a rubber check. Including simply holding the vehicle until cleared. This was wholly unnecessary. Absolutely, fully agree. Hold on, that's twice in three days. Let me that weather forecast. |
The Correct Response...
|
The Correct Response...
|
The Correct Response...
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. |
The Correct Response...
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. |
The Correct Response...
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. |
The Correct Response...
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/ |
The Correct Response...
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/ |
The Correct Response...
Sometimes the proper response is no response at all.Just like George C.
Scott in the Patton movie. cuhulin |
The Correct Response...
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 |
The Correct Response...
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 |
The Correct Response...
On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote:
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? George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes. |
The Correct Response...
On May 3, 8:48*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote: 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? * *George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes. ....nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt. |
The Correct Response...
Read my lips, no new taxes! ~ G.H.W.Bush.
cuhulin |
The Correct Response...
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
... On 5/3/10 23:17 , bpnjensen wrote: On May 3, 8:48 pm, "D. Peter wrote: On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote: 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? George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes. ...nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt. You mean the way Obama trebled it in less than 5 months? That didn't happen. Jim |
The Correct Response...
On 5/4/10 05:17 , Clave wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message ... On 5/3/10 23:17 , bpnjensen wrote: On May 3, 8:48 pm, "D. Peter wrote: On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote: 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? George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes. ...nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt. You mean the way Obama trebled it in less than 5 months? That didn't happen. Jim Neither did 9-11. |
The Correct Response...
On May 4, 3:17*am, "Clave" wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in ... On 5/3/10 23:17 , bpnjensen wrote: On May 3, 8:48 pm, "D. Peter *wrote: On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote: 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? * * George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes. ...nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt. * You mean the way Obama trebled it in less than 5 months? That didn't happen. Jim- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
The Correct Response...
On May 4, 3:17*am, "Clave" wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in ... On 5/3/10 23:17 , bpnjensen wrote: On May 3, 8:48 pm, "D. Peter *wrote: On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote: 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? * * George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes. ...nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt. * You mean the way Obama trebled it in less than 5 months? That didn't happen. Jim- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - JIm, I assume you refer to the *debt*, which is correct; it did not treble or any other whole number multiple . Peter's assertion about the annual *deficit*, however, is closer to the mark...Obama, with the help of most of Congress, passed increases for a number of reasons, for reasons that are well within anybody's memory. However, this almost certainly would *not* have happened if we had not been in a (hpefully) short-term economic crisis. Bruce |
The Correct Response...
On May 4, 3:05*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/3/10 23:17 , bpnjensen wrote: On May 3, 8:48 pm, "D. Peter *wrote: On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote: 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? * * George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes. ...nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt. * *You mean the way Obama trebled it in less than 5 months? Or increased it 10 times over the period of his first term? I mean, if you want to have a third grade argument, we can. But you've demonstrated too many times that you're smarter than that. * *The discussion, however, is that Kerry, like Obama, and especially Biden, ran on a platform of raising taxes for us, while doing everything he can to avoid paying his own. If he's so determined that more taxes need to be paid, then let him lead the way...pay more of his own money into the Treasury before he confiscates ours. If Biden is so convinced that paying taxes is a patriotic thing to do, then let him lead the way. Let him show us his own patriotism and forego his exemptions. Let him and pay more, before telling us that we must pay til it hurts as a matter of duty. * *If it's a matter of taking care of the less fortunate, then donate more of his own money before redistributing ours. By his own released records Kerry donates nothing to charity. While you and I do, out of our own pockets. Bush and Cheney donated more out of their own pockets...more of their own money...than all the Democrats in Congress combined. While those same Democrats argued that we must be more generous, and take care of the less fortunate, by raising our taxes and redistributing that wealth, at the same time protecting their own. * *Kerry, especially, makes 5-10 times what you and I do, and yet he avoids paying his share of taxes, while arguing that you and I must pay more. If George Bush had done the same, I'd be just as ****ed at the double standard. But he didn't. * *It's laughable at how the argument, no matter the topic, always gets pushed back to what Bush did or did not do. The truth is that I'm no happier about Bush's Presidency than I am Obiteme's. His administration is responsible for not one, but two lame-ass stimulus packages that did nothing but make busywork for civil employees. It cost the government about $2400 in man-hours to write those silly $600 stimulus checks that did nothing to stimulate the economy. While a simple tax cut would have boosted economic output, and in the process increased the flow into the Treasury immediately. Bush's administration further wrote checks on my future to bailout General Motors, Chrysler and how many banks and Wall Street brokerages? While letting them go to bankruptcy when bankruptcy first threatened, would have ended the harping, and started the rebuilding within two weeks. Instead of dragging the process out, further depressing the economy until there was no way the banks, the auto companies or Wall Street brokerages could recover themselves. * *The reality is, that Bush did precisely what he ran against...government interference in the private sector. Had GM, for instance, simply been allowed to fail when the issue first came up, there would have been a bankruptcy, and another manufacturer, or manufacturers would have swooped in and bought up the assets for pennies, restructured the businesses, and moved on. For two weeks there would have been a lot of nail biting, stocks would have been depressed, and then recovery would have been well under way by the time the housing bubble burst and the real crash occurred nearly a year later. The economy would have strong enough to absorb the hit without spending nearly two trillion more out of public coffers, which created the public panic that virtually halted the economy for more than a year. * *The economy is resilient. It has the ability to right itself after a bubble burst. Had it been allowed to simply do so, as with the crash of the 20's, the economic calamity that followed, like the Great Depression, would have been very short lived before recovery began. History has shown time and again, that economic downturns are short lived except when government interferers. And that the debt soars when the ruling party can't keep its hands to itself. * *So, yes, I'm furious at Bush, as well. He took a well intentioned, and successful Presidency and ran it off the rails. * *But that's not what this discussion is about. * *You know, it's rare that Kevin and I find ourselves on the same side of a political issue, but he's right...both parties are abominations to the Founding Fathers' intentions, these days. * *There are 535 people who can be blamed for the state of the nation. 535 people who have run for office decrying the enormous government waste. The same 535 people who could at anytime put an end to that waste overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people who have run for office decrying runaway government spending. The same 535 people who could at anytime end that runaway government spending overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people, every term who have promised campaign after campaign, that there will be improvement in government responsibility, government transparency, and government effiency. The same 535 people, who, every term fail to fulfill those promises, blaming the economy, the deficit, international terrorism, tooth decay and toenail fungus. * *The deficit hasn't been addressed because those 535 people don't WANT it addressed. Because it's a touchstone for their campaigns. End the debt and they lose the issue that gave them their impetus for election. Government waste hasn't been addressed because that money is their pipeline to support in the civil sector. Runaway government spending hasn't been addressed because that money is the source of their power for that 535 people. * *535 people. That's all it takes to end these ills. 535 people. Each one with the power to change things. * *And yet, they don't. Because they don't want to. * *It could be done overnight. In the dead of night. The same way they hide their efforts from those of us who elect them. But it doesn't happen because those 535 people con't want it to. * *But all of this is not the issue at topic in this discussion. * *The argument that we, The People, must surrender our hard-earned productivity to the Federal Treasury being made by persons who, themselves, exploit every opportunity to avoid their share of taxation is an abomination unto itself. * *And that was the point of this discussion. Peter - there is one issue that this argument, and many others like it, miss entirely - it is the FLOW of money, not the amassing of money, that keeps the economy going. Pure private enterprise, for all its innovation, tends to amass and concentrate money in specific places; in some cases, like Wall Street or the banks, that amassed money is either given to execs or squandered. The stimulus packages, OTOH, kept money flowing. So what if some of it goes to public employees? Public employees, at the end of the day, are mostly middle- class, mostly typical family people, and spend that money in turn at lots of private commercial stores - whether for clothing, cars, food, washing machines or entertainment of one kind or another. The private sector gets it back again...but in the meantime, someone's child not gone hungry, sopmeone has not lost his home or been unable to afford health care. It's the flow that matters when the economy is tanking. Bruce |
The Correct Response...
On 5/4/10 09:11 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 4, 3:05 am, "D. Peter wrote: On 5/3/10 23:17 , bpnjensen wrote: On May 3, 8:48 pm, "D. Peter wrote: On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote: 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? George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes. ...nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt. You mean the way Obama trebled it in less than 5 months? Or increased it 10 times over the period of his first term? I mean, if you want to have a third grade argument, we can. But you've demonstrated too many times that you're smarter than that. The discussion, however, is that Kerry, like Obama, and especially Biden, ran on a platform of raising taxes for us, while doing everything he can to avoid paying his own. If he's so determined that more taxes need to be paid, then let him lead the way...pay more of his own money into the Treasury before he confiscates ours. If Biden is so convinced that paying taxes is a patriotic thing to do, then let him lead the way. Let him show us his own patriotism and forego his exemptions. Let him and pay more, before telling us that we must pay til it hurts as a matter of duty. If it's a matter of taking care of the less fortunate, then donate more of his own money before redistributing ours. By his own released records Kerry donates nothing to charity. While you and I do, out of our own pockets. Bush and Cheney donated more out of their own pockets...more of their own money...than all the Democrats in Congress combined. While those same Democrats argued that we must be more generous, and take care of the less fortunate, by raising our taxes and redistributing that wealth, at the same time protecting their own. Kerry, especially, makes 5-10 times what you and I do, and yet he avoids paying his share of taxes, while arguing that you and I must pay more. If George Bush had done the same, I'd be just as ****ed at the double standard. But he didn't. It's laughable at how the argument, no matter the topic, always gets pushed back to what Bush did or did not do. The truth is that I'm no happier about Bush's Presidency than I am Obiteme's. His administration is responsible for not one, but two lame-ass stimulus packages that did nothing but make busywork for civil employees. It cost the government about $2400 in man-hours to write those silly $600 stimulus checks that did nothing to stimulate the economy. While a simple tax cut would have boosted economic output, and in the process increased the flow into the Treasury immediately. Bush's administration further wrote checks on my future to bailout General Motors, Chrysler and how many banks and Wall Street brokerages? While letting them go to bankruptcy when bankruptcy first threatened, would have ended the harping, and started the rebuilding within two weeks. Instead of dragging the process out, further depressing the economy until there was no way the banks, the auto companies or Wall Street brokerages could recover themselves. The reality is, that Bush did precisely what he ran against...government interference in the private sector. Had GM, for instance, simply been allowed to fail when the issue first came up, there would have been a bankruptcy, and another manufacturer, or manufacturers would have swooped in and bought up the assets for pennies, restructured the businesses, and moved on. For two weeks there would have been a lot of nail biting, stocks would have been depressed, and then recovery would have been well under way by the time the housing bubble burst and the real crash occurred nearly a year later. The economy would have strong enough to absorb the hit without spending nearly two trillion more out of public coffers, which created the public panic that virtually halted the economy for more than a year. The economy is resilient. It has the ability to right itself after a bubble burst. Had it been allowed to simply do so, as with the crash of the 20's, the economic calamity that followed, like the Great Depression, would have been very short lived before recovery began. History has shown time and again, that economic downturns are short lived except when government interferers. And that the debt soars when the ruling party can't keep its hands to itself. So, yes, I'm furious at Bush, as well. He took a well intentioned, and successful Presidency and ran it off the rails. But that's not what this discussion is about. You know, it's rare that Kevin and I find ourselves on the same side of a political issue, but he's right...both parties are abominations to the Founding Fathers' intentions, these days. There are 535 people who can be blamed for the state of the nation. 535 people who have run for office decrying the enormous government waste. The same 535 people who could at anytime put an end to that waste overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people who have run for office decrying runaway government spending. The same 535 people who could at anytime end that runaway government spending overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people, every term who have promised campaign after campaign, that there will be improvement in government responsibility, government transparency, and government effiency. The same 535 people, who, every term fail to fulfill those promises, blaming the economy, the deficit, international terrorism, tooth decay and toenail fungus. The deficit hasn't been addressed because those 535 people don't WANT it addressed. Because it's a touchstone for their campaigns. End the debt and they lose the issue that gave them their impetus for election. Government waste hasn't been addressed because that money is their pipeline to support in the civil sector. Runaway government spending hasn't been addressed because that money is the source of their power for that 535 people. 535 people. That's all it takes to end these ills. 535 people. Each one with the power to change things. And yet, they don't. Because they don't want to. It could be done overnight. In the dead of night. The same way they hide their efforts from those of us who elect them. But it doesn't happen because those 535 people con't want it to. But all of this is not the issue at topic in this discussion. The argument that we, The People, must surrender our hard-earned productivity to the Federal Treasury being made by persons who, themselves, exploit every opportunity to avoid their share of taxation is an abomination unto itself. And that was the point of this discussion. Peter - there is one issue that this argument, and many others like it, miss entirely - it is the FLOW of money, not the amassing of money, that keeps the economy going. Pure private enterprise, for all its innovation, tends to amass and concentrate money in specific places; in some cases, like Wall Street or the banks, that amassed money is either given to execs or squandered. The stimulus packages, OTOH, kept money flowing. So what if some of it goes to public employees? Public employees, at the end of the day, are mostly middle- class, mostly typical family people, and spend that money in turn at lots of private commercial stores - whether for clothing, cars, food, washing machines or entertainment of one kind or another. The private sector gets it back again...but in the meantime, someone's child not gone hungry, sopmeone has not lost his home or been unable to afford health care. It's the flow that matters when the economy is tanking. That's exactly right. FLOW matters. But only private sector spending. In the private sector, each dollar spent is turned over to create another dollar and that dollar goes back into the economy. Further, in private sector spending each dollar spent triggers productivity, which increases total domestic product, which increases the value of every other dollar spent. Public spending comes from taxation, which is a dollar removed from the economy, lost in bureaucratic fractionalization, and then returned to the economy as a small fraction of it's original value. Like $600 stimulus checks that cost $2500 in man-hours each to produce. $1900 of that is lost to the bureaucratic maze. While $2500 in tax cuts to the same individual will produce far more in economic stimulation than the $600 check when taxation remains high. Because $2500 in tax cuts puts that full $2500 back into the economy, with corresponding productivity. More dollars, and stronger dollars, in the economy Public spending, on the other hand does nothing to stimulate the economy because the government is not part of the economy. Government feeds on the economy. But the government produces nothing. A government dollar spent does nothing to stimulate production, so there is no increase in total domestic product, and no increase in the value of the dollar spent. Further, a government dollar spent requires infrastructure support of many more dollars in bureaucratic operating costs, which come from taxation. In the end the dollars spent are a fraction of the massive cost of bureaucracy, and taxation on the dollars put back into the economy are incapable of paying the cost of putting them into the economy. Fewer dollars, and weaker dollars in the economy. Public sector spending regardless of volume, increases nothing, stimulates nothing. Because the government produces nothing. It only adds to the cost of government. Bruce |
The Correct Response...
On May 4, 7:29*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/4/10 09:11 , bpnjensen wrote: On May 4, 3:05 am, "D. Peter *wrote: On 5/3/10 23:17 , bpnjensen wrote: On May 3, 8:48 pm, "D. Peter * *wrote: On 5/3/10 18:57 , m II wrote: 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? * * *George Bush didn't run on a platform of raising my taxes. ...nor did he run on a platform of doubling our national debt. * * You mean the way Obama trebled it in less than 5 months? Or increased it 10 times over the period of his first term? I mean, if you want to have a third grade argument, we can. But you've demonstrated too many times that you're smarter than that. * * The discussion, however, is that Kerry, like Obama, and especially Biden, ran on a platform of raising taxes for us, while doing everything he can to avoid paying his own. If he's so determined that more taxes need to be paid, then let him lead the way...pay more of his own money into the Treasury before he confiscates ours. If Biden is so convinced that paying taxes is a patriotic thing to do, then let him lead the way. Let him show us his own patriotism and forego his exemptions. Let him and pay more, before telling us that we must pay til it hurts as a matter of duty. * * If it's a matter of taking care of the less fortunate, then donate more of his own money before redistributing ours. By his own released records Kerry donates nothing to charity. While you and I do, out of our own pockets. Bush and Cheney donated more out of their own pockets...more of their own money...than all the Democrats in Congress combined. While those same Democrats argued that we must be more generous, and take care of the less fortunate, by raising our taxes and redistributing that wealth, at the same time protecting their own. * * Kerry, especially, makes 5-10 times what you and I do, and yet he avoids paying his share of taxes, while arguing that you and I must pay more. If George Bush had done the same, I'd be just as ****ed at the double standard. But he didn't. * * It's laughable at how the argument, no matter the topic, always gets pushed back to what Bush did or did not do. The truth is that I'm no happier about Bush's Presidency than I am Obiteme's. His administration is responsible for not one, but two lame-ass stimulus packages that did nothing but make busywork for civil employees. It cost the government about $2400 in man-hours to write those silly $600 stimulus checks that did nothing to stimulate the economy. While a simple tax cut would have boosted economic output, and in the process increased the flow into the Treasury immediately. Bush's administration further wrote checks on my future to bailout General Motors, Chrysler and how many banks and Wall Street brokerages? While letting them go to bankruptcy when bankruptcy first threatened, would have ended the harping, and started the rebuilding within two weeks. Instead of dragging the process out, further depressing the economy until there was no way the banks, the auto companies or Wall Street brokerages could recover themselves. * * The reality is, that Bush did precisely what he ran against...government interference in the private sector. Had GM, for instance, simply been allowed to fail when the issue first came up, there would have been a bankruptcy, and another manufacturer, or manufacturers would have swooped in and bought up the assets for pennies, restructured the businesses, and moved on. For two weeks there would have been a lot of nail biting, stocks would have been depressed, and then recovery would have been well under way by the time the housing bubble burst and the real crash occurred nearly a year later. The economy would have strong enough to absorb the hit without spending nearly two trillion more out of public coffers, which created the public panic that virtually halted the economy for more than a year. * * The economy is resilient. It has the ability to right itself after a bubble burst. Had it been allowed to simply do so, as with the crash of the 20's, the economic calamity that followed, like the Great Depression, would have been very short lived before recovery began. History has shown time and again, that economic downturns are short lived except when government interferers. And that the debt soars when the ruling party can't keep its hands to itself. * * So, yes, I'm furious at Bush, as well. He took a well intentioned, and successful Presidency and ran it off the rails. * * But that's not what this discussion is about. * * You know, it's rare that Kevin and I find ourselves on the same side of a political issue, but he's right...both parties are abominations to the Founding Fathers' intentions, these days. * * There are 535 people who can be blamed for the state of the nation. 535 people who have run for office decrying the enormous government waste. The same 535 people who could at anytime put an end to that waste overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people who have run for office decrying runaway government spending. The same 535 people who could at anytime end that runaway government spending overnight. And yet, they have not. 535 people, every term who have promised campaign after campaign, that there will be improvement in government responsibility, government transparency, and government effiency. The same 535 people, who, every term fail to fulfill those promises, blaming the economy, the deficit, international terrorism, tooth decay and toenail fungus. * * The deficit hasn't been addressed because those 535 people don't WANT it addressed. Because it's a touchstone for their campaigns. End the debt and they lose the issue that gave them their impetus for election. Government waste hasn't been addressed because that money is their pipeline to support in the civil sector. Runaway government spending hasn't been addressed because that money is the source of their power for that 535 people. * * 535 people. That's all it takes to end these ills. 535 people. Each one with the power to change things. * * And yet, they don't. Because they don't want to. * * It could be done overnight. In the dead of night. The same way they hide their efforts from those of us who elect them. But it doesn't happen because those 535 people con't want it to. * * But all of this is not the issue at topic in this discussion. * * The argument that we, The People, must surrender our hard-earned productivity to the Federal Treasury being made by persons who, themselves, exploit every opportunity to avoid their share of taxation is an abomination unto itself. * * And that was the point of this discussion. Peter - there is one issue that this argument, and many others like it, miss entirely - it is the FLOW of money, not the amassing of money, that keeps the economy going. *Pure private enterprise, for all its innovation, tends to amass and concentrate money in specific places; in some cases, like Wall Street or the banks, that amassed money is either given to execs or squandered. *The stimulus packages, OTOH, kept money flowing. *So what if some of it goes to public employees? *Public employees, at the end of the day, are mostly middle- class, mostly typical family people, and spend that money in turn at lots of private commercial stores - whether for clothing, cars, food, washing machines or entertainment of one kind or another. *The private sector gets it back again...but in the meantime, someone's child not gone hungry, sopmeone has not lost his home or been unable to afford health care. It's the flow that matters when the economy is tanking. * *That's exactly right. FLOW matters. But only private sector spending. In the private sector, each dollar spent is turned over to create another dollar and that dollar goes back into the economy. Further, in private sector spending each dollar spent triggers productivity, which increases total domestic product, which increases the value of every other dollar spent. * *Public spending comes from taxation, which is a dollar removed from the economy, lost in bureaucratic fractionalization, and then returned to the economy as a small fraction of it's original value. Like $600 stimulus checks that cost $2500 in man-hours each to produce. $1900 of that is lost to the bureaucratic maze. While $2500 in tax cuts to the same individual will produce far more in economic stimulation than the $600 check when taxation remains high. Because $2500 in tax cuts puts that full $2500 back into the economy, with corresponding productivity. More dollars, and stronger dollars, in the economy * *Public spending, on the other hand does nothing to stimulate the economy because the government is not part of the economy. Government feeds on the economy. But the government produces nothing. A government dollar spent does nothing to stimulate production, so there is no increase in total domestic product, and no increase in the value of the dollar spent. Further, a government dollar spent requires infrastructure support of many more dollars in bureaucratic operating costs, which come from taxation. In the end the dollars spent are a fraction of the massive cost of bureaucracy, and taxation on the dollars put back into the economy are incapable of paying the cost of putting them into the economy. Fewer dollars, and weaker dollars in the economy. * *Public sector spending regardless of volume, increases nothing, stimulates ... read more » I disagree. Public sector is roughly the same as private sector. I work in the public sector, but I spend my money in the private sector. The tax money that does not go into my pocket goes to various places, but they are either to others who ultimately spend it (again in the private sevctor) or it becomes something that somebody can use or enjoy, like a freeway overpass or a public park. Moreover, a good deal of R&D is done as a result of public funds. The money all goes back to someone or something as tangible as if it were the private sector. If nothing else, money spent as stimulus keeps things alive - rather than on a permanent downward spiral - while the rest of the economy stabilizes. Without it, the flow ceases in time of economic drought and lots of even worse things happen. That may be worth nothing to you, but it counts with me. Bruce |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com