We Needed A Big Gas Tax

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Hank wrote:

>>>No, I meant: Could you point out what isn't fair here and
>>>in which direction? I asked you to clairify your views.
>>>You still haven't.

>> Wow, your memory is shot. I clarified and supported my views
>>very clearly, giving specific examples of tax loopholes that
>>favor the elite. I also included this link...

>>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/198998_boats10.html

> No, you never stated what you found unfair.

So, you think I posted the link explaining
deductions for yacht ownership and mentioned the
interest deduction on million dollar second homes
because I believe they're fair? Do you also think
I posted these links....

http://counterpunch.org/bernstein08312005.html
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://ctj.org

....to illustrate the fairness of our current tax system?

> You never clairified your idea of what a fair share is.

Obviously, if I feel the interest deduction for million dollar
second homes and yachts is unfair, I believe that eliminating
them would be fair. If I think bu$h's tax cuts for the elite
few are unfair, I believe that eliminating them would be fair.

> Just posted a link to some group ranting about 'tax cuts for
> the rich' and another group of rich people who felt they should
> be taxed a lot.

The producers of http://responsiblewealth.org didn't say
they want to be "taxed a lot". They said they want all of
us to be taxed more fairly. You're making stuff up and acting
silly and closed minded.
Anyone who supports giving hundreds of billions of dollars
in tax cuts to multi billionaires, while bu$h is racking up
a multi =Trillion= dollar record federal debt, local taxes
are skyrocketing, and we can't even keep our schools and libraries
functioning, is either extremely wealthy and selfish to the point
of being obscene, or he's an ignorant gullible fool taking it
in the ass dry from his ruling masters, thanking them for the
privilege to serve them, and blaming their sore assholes on a
poor kid getting a free lunch at school or a single mother who
gets govt help to make it through college.
Funny thing is, Christ would be appalled by this sort of
greed and extreme disparity between the haves and the have
nothings that bu$h and his followers endorse. Yet, most of
the people who support this "survival of the wealthiest"
society claim to be Christians, and those who support a
society based more on high moral values, community, and
compassion are often labeled "godless liberals". Seems like
your radical right wing extremists get almost everything
backwards!

> What is a fair share? You've not answered. And continue to
> avoid answering.

A fair share for who and at what income level? How do they
earn their money? What are their current deductions? You're
still just ranting and avoiding facts and specifics.

> If the the top 5% paid 110% of all income taxes you'd still
> rant about rich not paying their fair share.

That's just more nonsensical ranting. Right now, The top 1
percent's financial wealth is equal to that of the bottom 95
percent. The fact that you're attempting to defend a system
that creates this sort of an extreme split in society makes
no sense at all. What possibly could be your incentive? Maybe
you just don't quite comprehend how wide the gap really is.

Here, read and (hopefully) learn:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0626-12.htm

Published on Thursday, June 26, 2003 by the Rutland Herald (Vermont)
Why Bush Ignores the Numbers
by Huck Gutman

Figures about the American economy give some people headaches.
Recognizing this, President Bush would rather talk about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq — which have never been found — than about
what is happening to most Americans. Of course, he also knows that
talking about statistics would reveal that the two rounds of tax cuts
he has pushed through Congress will have disastrous consequences for
an America already growing more unequal.

Recently, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez published a
path-breaking study on the income earned by the wealthiest Americans
over the course of the 20th century. Their exhaustive analysis of tax
returns shows that between the start of World War II and the early
1980s, America became a more economically egalitarian society. The
share of wealth which went to the wealthiest citizens declined in the
early 1940s and stayed low for 40 years, years characterized by the
rise of the great American middle class.

In 1915, before the establishment of the income tax, the very
wealthiest families earned 400 times as much as the average family.
The income tax leveled that out, so that by 1970 those families earned
just 50 times as much as the average. But by 1998 that egalitarian
trend had been dramatically reversed: the wealthiest one-tenth of one
percent now earned 250 times the average.

The rise in income inequality started with the presidency of Ronald
Reagan. In simple non-statistical terms, the rich not only grew
richer, they were served larger and larger slices of the American
economic pie. Almost all the nation’s economic gains went to the
richest 1 percent of American families. The top 1 percent, those
earning over $230,000, saw gains of 78 percent in their income share.
The top half percent, that half million families earning over
$524,000, saw their income share double. The top tenth of 1 percent,
those earning over $1.5 million, got almost three times as large a
slice of the pie. And the top one-tenth of 1 percent, America’s
richest 13,000 families? Their income share went up 395 percent, a
helping of the pie almost four times as large as 20 years earlier.

Unhappily, the American pie did not grow nearly as rapidly as the
divisions. The average annual salary in America, in 1998 dollars, rose
only 10 percent in 29 years, from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 four
years ago. (Since then, in the past two years alone, the United States
has lost more 2 million decently paying manufacturing jobs, more than
10 percent of all the manufacturing jobs available when our current
president took office.)

What this means is that while the rich have been growing considerably
richer, the great majority of Americans have seen either decline, or
little change, in their status.

President Bush’s answer to this growing inequality? He has declared
class war: He doesn’t want the wealthy just to have larger slices, he
wants them to have most of the pie. He wants to abolish the equalizing
mechanisms of the income tax, so that economic advantage can be even
more unequally distributed.

His 2001 tax cut gave over half its future benefits to the richest 1
percent of Americans. The poorest 20 percent got only $10 a year in
tax breaks, while the wealthiest 1 percent got over $50,000 a year.

That wasn’t enough. In his recently approved tax cut, President Bush
gave 37 percent of the new round of cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent —
and no tax cut at all to 50 million families, 36 percent of all
households.

The figures may give some headaches, but that is exactly, precisely,
the wrong direction to be going.



Read this, too.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0908-12.htm

Published on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Working Harder, Working Longer, Getting Nowhere
by Ralph Nader

Labor Day comes and goes - but Congress does little to improve the
plight of workers in our country. In the last three decades our
elected officials have too often chosen to side with big corporations
rather than the working people in the United States.

In the face of aggressive employer demands for concessions, the
downward pull of international competition, weak and barely enforced
labor and workplace safety laws, relatively high unemployment rates,
and a struggling labor movement, most workers have seen wage rates
stay practically flat over the past several decades-even as CEO
salaries and profitability have skyrocketed. The executive class has
captured almost all of the gains in wealth from the growth in gross
domestic product (GDP) in recent decades. And George W. Bush's
recession and jobless recovery has only worsened the problem.

A Wall Street analyst said in March 2004: "We'd thought that the labor
share of national income was in the process of bottoming out, but
whether we're talking outsourcing or just old-style downsizing, the
effort by U.S. business to pare costs (and extract productivity gains
in services) continues apace." Meanwhile, employers have slashed
benefits for those workers lucky enough to retain a job. And
workplaces remain far more hazardous than necessary.

There are glimmers of hope that the situation can be improved. Some
unions and communities have won important victories that have made a
difference in workers' lives, but they remain a rarity.

Most people earn no more an hour than they did three decades ago
(adjusting for inflation), but those at the top have enjoyed
substantial increases in salary and those at the very top-the CEOs and
top company executives-have seen their compensation go through the roof.

Most people struggle to get by with rock bottom net worth. They're
working more and more-either working longer hours or picking up a
second or third job-to pay the bills and meet rent or mortgage
payments. (Americans worked on average two hundred hours a year more
from 1973 to 2000-the equivalent of five full-time weeks.) In
two-parent families, increasingly both parents are in the workforce.
Just to meet everyday expenses, they're borrowing more and more from
credit cards, home equity loans, or second mortgages, or from legal
loan sharks at check-cashing operations. If someone in the family gets
sick and lacks health insurance- forty-five million Americans are in
that boat-the family is in a jam. Even if they have insurance, the
extravagant price of medicine may not be covered, or covered entirely,
and paying for the pills can drive a family into despair.

Meanwhile, the executive class rakes in more money than ever before,
and indulges new forms of conspicuous consumption. We have competition
among CEOs over who has the bigger yacht. If an executive has to go to
the hospital, they can check into platinum class luxury suites offered
by leading medical institutions-for $10,000 a night. The New York
Times recently reported on a new convenience for rich New Yorkers:
private indoor pools, with startup costs of $500,000.

Any way you slice the numbers, you get the same result: a deeply
divided America with a struggling majority and a superrich clique.
It's a story of a gap between haves and have-nots more severe than
anything this country has witnessed for a century, since the start of
the Manufacturing Age:

* For the private production and non-supervisory workers who make up
80 percent of the workforce, it took until the late 1990s to return to
the real earnings levels of 1979.

* CEOs at large corporations now make about three hundred times more
than the average worker at their firms. In 1982, they made just
forty-two times more; in 1965, twenty-six times more.

* The top fifth of households own more than 83 percent of the nation's
wealth, the bottom 80 percent less than 17 percent.

* The top 1 percent owns over 38 percent of the nation's wealth, more
than double the amount of wealth controlled by the bottom 80 percent.
The top 1 percent's financial wealth is equal to that of the bottom 95
percent.

* In 1979, the top 5 percent had eleven times the average income of
the bottom 20 percent. By 2000, the top 5 percent had nineteen times
the income of the bottom 20 percent.

* Whatever the data examined, it's worse for women and people of
color, who receive lower wages and have much less accumulated wealth
than White men. Women and minority males earn 70 percent to 80 percent
of what White men make. More than a third of single mothers with
children live in poverty.

Thanks to low levels of unemployment in the late 1990s, worker wages
started rising, eventually catching up to the levels of twenty years
earlier. But the recession and high rates of unemployment that have
persisted into the new millennium have almost surely ended that trend.

The effective stagnation in worker wages for three decades occurred
even though productivity rose steadily. Productivity is the amount of
output per person hour worked. In other words, workers were making and
producing more, but not receiving any share of the increased wealth.
Virtually all of it was captured by increased corporate profit taking.
CEO pay grew at a much faster rate even than corporate profitability.
From 1990 to 2003, inflation rose 41 percent. Average worker pay rose
49 percent. Corporate profits jumped 128 percent. CEO compensation
rose 313 percent

If the federal minimum wage had increased as quickly as CEO pay since
1990, it would today be $15.71 per hour, more than three times the
actual minimum wage of $5.15 an hour, as calculated by Boston-based
United for a Fair Economy.

It is time for Congress to show some courage and some compassion and
side with the workers who struggle to make ends meet.

Hank wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>>Hank wrote:
>>
>>>Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>
>>>>Yeah, I'm a real radical.
>
>
>>> No doubt. Anyone who can support doing this
>
>
>>> http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
>
>
>>> to innocent children, in violation of international
>>>law, and blindly swallow all of bu$h's blatant, moronic
>>>lies, is not only radical and extreme, but rather
>>>gullible and short sighted.
>
>
>>did you conveniently forget about all those children that
>>watched their fathers shot and mothers raped by Saddam's
>>henchmen?
>
>
> Not at all. In fact, Liberals condemned the Reagan/bu$h
> regime for selling WMD technology to their good friend and
> ally, Saddam, for obstructing all efforts to condemn his
> atrocities, and for giving him billions of U.S. tax payer
> dollars to buy and build even more weapons. Remember? Do
> try to keep up.
> Also, if you "think" it's okay for our government to
> terrorize and mass murder innocent women and children
> simply because your old crony Saddam did it, you're even
> more of an extremist whack job than I'd imagined.

The fact I supported removing Saddam shows I don't think his action were
OK. The fact you didn't support removing him, even if by force,
means..... hmmmm..... maybe you didn't care how many innocent people he
killed annually. Tell me, is having Saddam out of power a good thing or
a bad thing? Please try and give a straightforward answer and not an
ass load of liberal spin.

>>>>How many would Saddam have killed in the last two years
>>>>if he were still in power? Maybe 500,000 or more?
>
>
>>> It's kinda funny to watch you pull random numbers out of your
>>>ass as though they actually mean something. <g> Fact is, when
>>>your buddy Saddam was using his Reagan/bu$h supplied chemical
>>>weapons to murder innocent women and children, the Reagan/bu$h
>>>regime obstructed all efforts to condemn his atrocities, and rushed
>>>to his defense. Saddam was their good friend and ally.
>
>
>>I see, in the liberal handbook it is OK to mass murder as long
>>as the weapons used are made in the good old USA?
>
>
> WTF? Obviously, it was quite okay with the Reagan/bu$h
> regime and it's ignorant, gullible followers, but it was
> never okay with those of us who value human rights and
> freedom - namely Liberals.
> You seem to have great difficulty comprehending what you
> read, although that does help to explain your blind and
> rabid support for the anti American war criminals, torturers,
> terrorists, liars, thieves, and dictator supporting misfits
> on the bu$h regime...

See how using "liberal logic" sounds? I don't consider President Bush a
war criminal as do the overwhelming majority of Americans. You really
don't know how you and your cronies are viewed by average people, do
you? Get a clue, you look like idiots. Why do you think it is the kiss
of death, politically, to be branded a liberal? Get another clue, it's
because the overwhelming majority of the country knows you don't live in
reality and offer them no viable solutions to any of the problems we face.

>>> But bu$h does not represent the values of most U.S citizens, as we are
>>>opposed to his lies, theft, and terrorism. bu$h is doing more damage
>>>to our Country than any terrorist could have hoped for. He's selling
>>>our Country to Communist China, abusing and devastating our armed
>>>forces (from which he went AWOL), exporting our jobs, ripping off the
>>>middle class, and raping our environment. The fact that you blindly
>>>and rabidly support his tragic anti-American policies, his lies, and
>>>his terrorism is quite telling.
>
>
>>Where were you when Clinton
>
>
> Riiiight, it's all Clinton's fault, and bu$h has made no
> mistakes or is in any way responsible. If you weren't such
> a brainwashed and gullible right wing extremist, you'd be
> able to laugh at this sort of idiocy along with your betters.

It's not all Clinton's fault but he can take responsibility for about
eight years worth of it.

>>>>I guess the next mantra will be "Saddam was Really a Kind
>>>>Hearted, Mass Murdering Dictator"?
>
>
>>> That was certainly the Reagan/bu$h take on him. Why else
>>>would they give him $5 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars,
>>>sell him WMD technology, and rush to his defense when the
>>>rest of the world was condemning his atrocities?
>
>
>>Ever heard the phrase, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?
>
>
> Yes, and it's so short sighted and destructive, that you
> probably choose to live by it.

It worked quite well in WWII with the Russians. Oh, I forgot, you
probably love Stalin's socialist/communist policies and can overlook the
fact he murdered over 30 million people. I guess I need to find another
example to make my point.

>>> Unlike you, however, many people have the ability to
>>>think and learn. They no longer support his disastrous
>>>polices, war crimes, and terrorism - and bu$h's approval
>>>rating is at a record low. Do try to keep up. <chuckle>
>
>
>>Repeat that again but this time click your heels together
>>three times too. Then what you type just might be the truth.
>
>
> Are you denying that bu$h's approval rating is at an all
> time low? Apparently, you're even too helpless to perform a
> basic google search. Thanks for proving your ignorance yet
> again.

Personally, I don't care about his approval rating. I care about what
he DOES. Overall, I have been quite satisfied with his performance.
Your mileage may very.

>>> It takes a lot of hate to support this level of terrorism
>>>and suffering -
>
>
>>> http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
>
>
>>You and your cronies are the real haters.
>
>
> So, in MikeyWorld, those who come to the defense of innocent
> women and children who are being terrorized and murdered by
> war criminals and radical right wing extremists are the haters,
> eh? You're still not making any sense, and your blind, rabid
> support for the mass murder of innocent women and children
> clearly reveals you to be among the haters.

The sad fact that you equate our President with Saddam just shows how
raging your hate is for him. You and the wacko left are willing to
twist reality and outright lie to hurt him. I really don't see how you
live with yourself or can look in a mirror. You live a tortured
existence unless you get paid to be a lying idiot on Usenet.

>>> Are you able to comprehend that 51% of the voters is not 51%
>>>of the population, or is that also beyond your "thinking"
>>>ability?
>
>
>>Evidently you are too stupid to know that 51% of the VOTERS
>>in any election is all that counts.
>
>
> You said 51% of the =population= supports bu$h. Here, try
> again to answer the question: "Are you able to comprehend
> that 51% of the =voters= is not 51% of the =population=,
> or is that also beyond your "thinking" ability?"

I do know that 51% of the voters support him. You, or I, don't know
anything about what percentage of the total population supports him.
Relying on polls to support your claims is laughable. The only poll
that counts is the one taken in the voting booth.

>>> But for obvious reasons, when challenged to quote something -
>>>=anything= inaccurate from that list of 40 bu$h lies, you
>>>come undone and start your predictable whining and crying.
>>>One thing all of you bu$h apologists have in common is your
>>>aversion to truth, facts, and details. You scurry away from a
>>>challenge to address the facts like a cockroach from insecticide.
>>> There are 40 bu$h lies in the list below Mike. Are you saying
>>>that you're helplessly unable to explain even =one= of them?
>>>That's kinda pitiful doncha "think". <chuckle>
>
>
>>You post the same drivel in every response.
>
>
> Obviously, I post the truth, which is why you are so clearly
> and helplessly unable to refute even one word of it. All you
> can do is bitch, cry, and spew utter nonsense while avoiding
> the facts.
> This is typical for you freedom, human rights, and American
> hating bu$h apologists. The truth and facts are your worst
> enemy so you're forced to avoid them and resort to nonsensical,
> fact-free rants. If you weren't so brainwashed and gullible,
> that would tell you something....

You post whatever BS you dredge up from left wing wacko websites or left
leaning media that, IMO, have no credibility for representing the truth.
You can't speak directly to a poster and have a decent debate of the
issues. You're really inept as a spokesman for the wacko, liberal,
left-wing fringe groups. Your rabid rantings turn way more people to
vote conservative than you even know. Maybe you're really paid by the
Republicans.

BTW, thanks for cutting back on the huge amount of left wing, Bush
hating, socialist propaganda at the end of your last post.

Hank wrote:
> Wound Up wrote:
>
>>In this post, we have 1036 lines / 137k of political, ideological and
>>religious argument and spewings, and not ONCE do the words "MUSTANG" or
>>"FORD" appear in any of it.
>
>
> Why do you read it if it doesn't interest you?

It did, at first. I wanted to see JUST how far you guys had gone.
Yikes. Also, the subject of how to improve RAMFM was brought up.
Avoiding tiresome tirades such as this (it's a car group, yamember?) is
one way.

Also,
> why did you post it again in its entirety?

Just to underscore its enormous, ungodly off-topicness, pun intended.
Yeah, I said it, off-topicness.

When I come
> across a post that doesn't interest me, I ignore it
> and move on. That way, I don't get all Wound Up. <g>

EEEEEEE

Well dang it Bobby, that was one good funny ya just made. I usually do
ignore them. I was making a point about what sorts of messes screw up
hobbyist newsgroups. This is the biggest one aside from trolls. Your
mileage may vary, but it's generally accepted fact.

> HTH!

Good pool chemicals. Never let ya down.

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:19:55 GMT, Wound Up >
wrote:

>Hank wrote:
>> Wound Up wrote:
>>
>>>In this post, we have 1036 lines / 137k of political, ideological and
>>>religious argument and spewings, and not ONCE do the words "MUSTANG" or
>>>"FORD" appear in any of it.

Hmmmmm.... I just checked your statistics on this thread, and I
believe you are in error. I just counted three times the use of
"Mustang" and "Ford".... oops.... make that 5 times.... : )

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

Gad what fools these morons be....
Children are obscene but should not be heard
Give me a peperoni pizza... or give me a calzone!

In article >, Hank wrote:

>> You never clairified your idea of what a fair share is.

> Obviously, if I feel the interest deduction for million dollar
> second homes and yachts is unfair, I believe that eliminating
> them would be fair. If I think bu$h's tax cuts for the elite
> few are unfair, I believe that eliminating them would be fair.

I see, you cannot provide a direct answer. Any further discussion is
pointless.

My guess is you won't be satisified until the government collects all
income that is greater than yours.

>> What is a fair share? You've not answered. And continue to
>> avoid answering.

> A fair share for who and at what income level? How do they
> earn their money? What are their current deductions? You're
> still just ranting and avoiding facts and specifics.

I haven't ranted once, mr. projection. I gave facts and specifics on who
pays what share. You refuse to give a straight answer.

>> If the the top 5% paid 110% of all income taxes you'd still
>> rant about rich not paying their fair share.

> That's just more nonsensical ranting. Right now, The top 1
> percent's financial wealth is equal to that of the bottom 95
> percent. The fact that you're attempting to defend a system
> that creates this sort of an extreme split in society makes
> no sense at all. What possibly could be your incentive? Maybe
> you just don't quite comprehend how wide the gap really is.

I am not defending a system. You'd know that if you could read and
comprehend. I asked you a very simple question. You refuse to answer it.
Instead you go on and on and on with side tangents and rants about this
or that, avoiding a very simple question.

What share of the taxes collected do is a fair share for the top 5% to
pay? 20%? 50%? 95%? 110%? How much is a fair share? At what percentage
of the taxes is it a 'fair' share?

> 1980s, America became a more economically egalitarian society. The
> share of wealth which went to the wealthiest citizens declined in the
> early 1940s and stayed low for 40 years, years characterized by the
> rise of the great American middle class.
>
> In 1915, before the establishment of the income tax, the very
> wealthiest families earned 400 times as much as the average family.
> The income tax leveled that out, so that by 1970 those families earned
> just 50 times as much as the average.

The income tax leveled that out? So, what the author is saying is that
the average family made no actual gains on the wealthy, the government
simply TOOK money from them.

Yet, in the paragraph above he stated something entirely different. That
the rise of incomes of the average family narrowed the gap.

The guy can't even be consistant.

> But by 1998 that egalitarian
> trend had been dramatically reversed: the wealthiest one-tenth of one
> percent now earned 250 times the average.

Other than appealing to jealousy, what is the point?

> The rise in income inequality started with the presidency of Ronald
> Reagan. In simple non-statistical terms, the rich not only grew
> richer, they were served larger and larger slices of the American
> economic pie.

Oh, it's a pie... and they took an unfair share of it! This tired
socialist crap. There is no finite pie. You either get off your ass an
earn something or you don't. With the rise of the welfare state and
taxation of the middle class, there becomes less and less reason to do
so. Meanwhile with all the complexities of the tax code those born into
wealth need not either.

> Unhappily, the American pie did not grow nearly as rapidly as the
> divisions. The average annual salary in America, in 1998 dollars, rose
> only 10 percent in 29 years, from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 four
> years ago.

Well, thanks to policies that have put ordinary people in competition
with illegal aliens and people in foreign nations willing to work for
pennies on the dollar, it's no wonder. But both our so called parties
support those things. Democrats haven't stopped it and won't stop it.
Hell they started the round of it we are currently in.

> (Since then, in the past two years alone, the United States
> has lost more 2 million decently paying manufacturing jobs, more than
> 10 percent of all the manufacturing jobs available when our current
> president took office.)

It's been going on since Bubba was in office and before. In fact, many
things were done by the clinton adminstration to further it.

> President Bush?s answer to this growing inequality? He has declared
> class war: He doesn?t want the wealthy just to have larger slices, he
> wants them to have most of the pie. He wants to abolish the equalizing
> mechanisms of the income tax, so that economic advantage can be even
> more unequally distributed.

I haven't seen any such thing. The data I saw shows a pretty fair tax cut
based on *percentage*. Now some might want a dollar amount equal tax cut,
but they never seem to actually argue for that. Instead they decide to
try and decieve people into being upset and jealous.

> His 2001 tax cut gave over half its future benefits to the richest 1
> percent of Americans. The poorest 20 percent got only $10 a year in
> tax breaks, while the wealthiest 1 percent got over $50,000 a year.

A good hunk of poorest 20% get money FROM the government they don't pay
income taxes. Shrub's tax cuts GREW the number of people who don't pay
income tax at all dramatically. It's hard to have a big tax cut when you
don't pay taxes or very little in taxes in the first place.

> That wasn?t enough. In his recently approved tax cut, President Bush
> gave 37 percent of the new round of cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent ?
> and no tax cut at all to 50 million families, 36 percent of all
> households.

I tried to explain this before. 2% of 100,000 is a lot more than 2% of
10,000. This is what the author is using to create an image that the rich
got a much larger tax break. When in fact, they got the same break that
the rest of us did percentage wise. What you should be arguing for then
is a dollar to dollar cut rather than percentage rate cuts.

But it would be too straight forward to argue in an honest
manner like that. Because if they argued that way, it's not dramatic
enough and some people might think, gee, the rich people's tax rate went
down X percent and so did mine and that seems fair.

Let me put it this way. Let's say ford offered a 2% rebate on all it's
cars. That means a buyer of a cobra gets a bigger rebate than the
buyer of a V6 base coupe. Is that unfair? Or should it be a striaght up
$500 rebate regardless? If ford offered that $500 rebate on all
mustangs, would be unfair to the cobra buyer, because ford then made a
bigger profit percentage because it gave up a smaller percentage of
profit with the fixed amount rebate?

Our income tax rates are based on percentages, not fixed dollar amounts.
So when there is a tax cut, rates are cut by percentages... an 11%
bracket becomes a 10% bracket and so forth. By the very nature of the
system as it is set up, people with higher tax liabilities will see
greater dollar amount reductions when tax rates go down.

It's obvious to anyone with basic math skills.

You are wanting dollar for dollar equality. Which could only be done by
changing now the brackets are defined and taxed. Each bracket wouldn't
have a percentage as a tax, but some fixed dollar amount. That way when
the taxes on joe the ironworker go down $10, bob the CEO's go down $10
too. Instead of 1% and 1%. Or maybe, it's that you want joe's taxes to go
down 100% because bob makes a 100 times as much.

Why don't you come up with how you want to do things when you write your
next reply. I won't be explaining these simple mathematics concepts
again.

> The figures may give some headaches, but that is exactly, precisely,
> the wrong direction to be going.

The figures are easy and it's easy to see exactly what the author is
doing.

> Published on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
> Working Harder, Working Longer, Getting Nowhere
> by Ralph Nader

Ralph, speed kills, nader. This is an autos group, and as such you should
know that Nader has long since been shown to be disqualified as an
authority on anything.

> In the face of aggressive employer demands for concessions, the
> downward pull of international competition, weak and barely enforced
> labor and workplace safety laws, relatively high unemployment rates,
> and a struggling labor movement, most workers have seen wage rates
> stay practically flat over the past several decades-even as CEO
> salaries and profitability have skyrocketed.

Well gee, who helped create those conditions. DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS.
Yet it's all GWB's fault!

Stop being jealous and furthering the us and them mentality and wake up.
For crying out loud stop allowing yourself to be pandered to by rich
elitiests in the democrat party that in turn only serve the interests of
the rich and their own self appointed role as the parental figures of the
people. At least with a republican I don't have to deal with this
nonsense, it's just him against me in an unfair fight.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Hank wrote:

>> A fair share for who and at what income level? How do they
>>earn their money? What are their current deductions? You're
>>still just ranting and avoiding facts and specifics.

> I haven't ranted once, mr. projection. I gave facts and
> specifics on who pays what share. You refuse to give a
> straight answer.

I see you're still unable to answer the question. Try again
when you figure out what it is you're trying to ask, and have
some specific numbers. I like to deal with facts, specifics,
and truth, over vague, meaningless rants. "What do you think
is fair?", is too vague a question.

> I am not defending a system.

You most definitely are. You're defending a tax system that
has helped create one of the widest gaps of wealth and income in
the the history of our country. Most us of have the sense to
realize the dire consequences of such a system.
Take another look at what the ignorance and greed of radical
right wing extremist capitalists has created, and how they've
disgraced and shamed our once great Country:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0908-06.htm

>>The rise in income inequality started with the presidency of Ronald
>>Reagan. In simple non-statistical terms, the rich not only grew
>>richer, they were served larger and larger slices of the American
>>economic pie.

> Oh, it's a pie...

No, that's what we call a metaphor. Look it up.

>>Unhappily, the American pie did not grow nearly as rapidly as the
>>divisions. The average annual salary in America, in 1998 dollars, rose
>>only 10 percent in 29 years, from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 four
>>years ago.

> Well, thanks to policies that have put ordinary people in competition
> with illegal aliens and people in foreign nations willing to work for
> pennies on the dollar, it's no wonder. But both our so called parties
> support those things. Democrats haven't stopped it and won't stop it.
> Hell they started the round of it we are currently in.

Far more Democrats oppose the export of our jobs and
the stagnation of wages than Republicans, and pretty
much all Liberals oppose it. Right wing extremist
capitalsits embrace it. Check the voting records.

>>President Bush?s answer to this growing inequality? He has declared
>>class war: He doesn?t want the wealthy just to have larger slices, he
>>wants them to have most of the pie. He wants to abolish the equalizing
>>mechanisms of the income tax, so that economic advantage can be even
>>more unequally distributed.

> I haven't seen any such thing.

That's because you're blinded by a closed mind, ignorance,
and extreme blind faith in capitalism despite its severe
case of greed and corruption.

>>His 2001 tax cut gave over half its future benefits to the richest 1
>>percent of Americans. The poorest 20 percent got only $10 a year in
>>tax breaks, while the wealthiest 1 percent got over $50,000 a year.

> A good hunk of poorest 20% get money FROM the government they don't
> pay income taxes.

The top executives at Cheney's Halliburton are not poor, but
they do take obscene government handouts and they do abuse tax
loopholes. Read up on off shore tax shelters.

> Let me put it this way. Let's say ford offered a 2% rebate on all it's
> cars. That means a buyer of a cobra gets a bigger rebate than the
> buyer of a V6 base coupe. Is that unfair?

No, but it's a silly straw man that's irrelevant to the
discussion of corporate welfare and tax loopholes for the
wealthy. Ford doesn't write our tax laws.

> Our income tax rates are based on percentages, not fixed dollar
> amounts. So when there is a tax cut, rates are cut by percentages...

You're stating the obvious, and ignoring the main issue,
which is tax loopholes, deductions, and corporate welfare
handouts for the wealthy elite at the expense of the
working class, the environment, and our Country. The more
rabidly you attempt to defend the indefensible, the more
foolish and brainwashed you appear.

> Ralph, speed kills, nader. This is an autos group, and as such you should
> know that Nader has long since been shown to be disqualified as an
> authority on anything.

Nader has been disqualified as an authority on corporate
fraud, corporate greed, and govt. catering to the wealthy
by no one but ignorant knee jerking fools. No one has
worked harder for economic justice or consumer rights
than Ralph Nader, and no one has had more sucess.

> Stop being jealous and furthering the us and them mentality
> and wake up.

Again, you're spewing from a position of total ignorance.
I have a lot of wealth and income when compared to the national
average. Like the good people at http://responsiblewealth.org I
expose the obscene injustice and corruption of our tax system
out of a sense of common sense, fairness and compassion, not envy.


-


Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/


"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Hank wrote:

>> In fact, Liberals condemned the Reagan/bu$h regime for
>> selling WMD technology to their good friend and ally, Saddam, for
>> obstructing all efforts to condemn his atrocities, and for giving him
>> billions of U.S. tax payer dollars to buy and build even more weapons.
>> Remember? Do try to keep up.
>> Also, if you "think" it's okay for our government to
>> terrorize and mass murder innocent women and children simply because
>> your old crony Saddam did it, you're even more of an extremist whack
>> job than I'd imagined.

> The fact I supported removing Saddam

You mean you swallowed all of bu$h's moronic and blatant lies,
and supported the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent
Iraqi civilians, killing or severely injuring over ten thousand
U.S. soldiers, wasting hundreds of BILLIONS of desperately needed
tax payer dollars, violating international law, committing war
crimes, alienating our best allies, and sacrificing the global
respect and credibility of The United States of America.

>> WTF? Obviously, it was quite okay with the Reagan/bu$h regime and
>> it's ignorant, gullible followers, but it was never okay with those of
>> us who value human rights and freedom - namely Liberals.
>> You seem to have great difficulty comprehending what you read,
>> although that does help to explain your blind and rabid support for
>> the anti American war criminals, torturers, terrorists, liars,
>> thieves, and dictator supporting misfits on the bu$h regime...

> See how using "liberal logic" sounds?

Accurate and colorful!

> I don't consider President Bush a war criminal as do
> the overwhelming majority of Americans.

I doubt the overwhelming majority of people consider
bu$h a war criminal, as their very poorly informed. But
certainly the vast majority of well informed people do,
because he is. Torture is a war crime, and bu$h presided
over torture. Those are indesputable facts with both written
and photographic proof.

> You really don't know how you and your cronies are viewed
> by average people, do you?

I know that the radical right wing extremists who still
support bu$h's illegal, immoral, and globally condemned
terror attack on Iraq are in the minority - but it sure
took 'em long enough to pull their heads out of bu$h's
anus and see the truth. It's long past time you pulled
your head out there, too.

> I care about what he DOES. Overall, I have been quite satisfied
> with his performance.

You're either a very clever Liberal troll out to make bu$h
apologists appear even more ignorant and brainwashed than usual,
or you're incredibly ignorant and gullible yourself. bu$h's
polices are tragic, be they economical, environmental, energy,
foreign, military, or emergency.

> The sad fact that you equate our President with Saddam just
> shows how raging your hate is for him.

They're not equal, but they've both murdered tens of
thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, they've both
presided over torture and committed war crimes, they're
both obsessed with using Iraq's vast oil reserves to acquire
huge sums of wealth for themselves and their criminal cronies,
and of course, Saddam had the unconditional support of many
members of the bu$h regime while he was committing his worst
atrocities. While not equal, they certainly have much in common.

>> You said 51% of the =population= supports bu$h. Here, try again to
>> answer the question: "Are you able to comprehend that 51% of the
>> =voters= is not 51% of the =population=, or is that also beyond your
>> "thinking" ability?"

> I do know that 51% of the voters support him. You, or I, don't know
> anything about what percentage of the total population supports him.
> Relying on polls to support your claims is laughable. The only poll
> that counts is the one taken in the voting booth.

It's only needs a yes or no answer. Here, try again.
I made the question even shorter.
"Are you able to comprehend that 51% of the =voters= is
not 51% of the =population=?"

> You post whatever BS you dredge up from left wing wacko websites
> or left leaning media that, IMO, have no credibility for representing
> the truth.

If it wasn't the truth, you wouldn't be so desperately
avoiding it, or be so laughably incapable of pointing out
=anything= misleading or inaccurate in my posts or references.
Your whining and crying about the messenger carries no
weight, but your desperate avoidance of the facts certainly
does...


-


Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/


"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Hank wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>>Hank wrote:
>
>
>>> In fact, Liberals condemned the Reagan/bu$h regime for
>>>selling WMD technology to their good friend and ally, Saddam, for
>>>obstructing all efforts to condemn his atrocities, and for giving him
>>>billions of U.S. tax payer dollars to buy and build even more weapons.
>>>Remember? Do try to keep up.
>>> Also, if you "think" it's okay for our government to
>>>terrorize and mass murder innocent women and children simply because
>>>your old crony Saddam did it, you're even more of an extremist whack
>>>job than I'd imagined.
>
>
>>The fact I supported removing Saddam
>
>
> You mean you swallowed all of bu$h's moronic and blatant lies,
> and supported the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent
> Iraqi civilians, killing or severely injuring over ten thousand
> U.S. soldiers, wasting hundreds of BILLIONS of desperately needed
> tax payer dollars, violating international law, committing war
> crimes, alienating our best allies, and sacrificing the global
> respect and credibility of The United States of America.

What about Saddam mass murdering hundreds of thousands if not millions?
You can't get your mind around that being a VERY bad thing?

>>> WTF? Obviously, it was quite okay with the Reagan/bu$h regime and
>>>it's ignorant, gullible followers, but it was never okay with those of
>>>us who value human rights and freedom - namely Liberals.
>>> You seem to have great difficulty comprehending what you read,
>>>although that does help to explain your blind and rabid support for
>>>the anti American war criminals, torturers, terrorists, liars,
>>>thieves, and dictator supporting misfits on the bu$h regime...
>
>
>>See how using "liberal logic" sounds?
>
>
> Accurate and colorful!

I figured you would see it that way. Trouble is you're color blind and
use a rubber scale. You just don't know it.

>>I don't consider President Bush a war criminal as do
>>the overwhelming majority of Americans.
>
>
> I doubt the overwhelming majority of people consider
> bu$h a war criminal, as their very poorly informed. But
> certainly the vast majority of well informed people do,
> because he is. Torture is a war crime, and bu$h presided
> over torture. Those are indesputable facts with both written
> and photographic proof.

So you think we have a country full of idiots? I suggest you consider
moving to France where all the smart people reside.

>>You really don't know how you and your cronies are viewed
>>by average people, do you?
>
>
> I know that the radical right wing extremists who still
> support bu$h's illegal, immoral, and globally condemned
> terror attack on Iraq are in the minority - but it sure
> took 'em long enough to pull their heads out of bu$h's
> anus and see the truth. It's long past time you pulled
> your head out there, too.

I breath fresh air at all times, Hanky. You are still in denial, I see,
about just how many people think like you. Tell me, when was the last
time we had a liberal president? BTW, Clinton doesn't count. He sold
you guys out after the '94 Congressional elections.

>> I care about what he DOES. Overall, I have been quite satisfied
>>with his performance.
>
>
> You're either a very clever Liberal troll out to make bu$h
> apologists appear even more ignorant and brainwashed than usual,
> or you're incredibly ignorant and gullible yourself. bu$h's
> polices are tragic, be they economical, environmental, energy,
> foreign, military, or emergency.

Quit stealing my lines. I was the first to accuse you of being paid by
the Republicans to make liberals look like ranting lunatics. Running
out of ideas for clever replies Hanky?

>>The sad fact that you equate our President with Saddam just
>>shows how raging your hate is for him.
>
>
> They're not equal, but they've both murdered tens of
> thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, they've both
> presided over torture and committed war crimes, they're
> both obsessed with using Iraq's vast oil reserves to acquire
> huge sums of wealth for themselves and their criminal cronies,
> and of course, Saddam had the unconditional support of many
> members of the bu$h regime while he was committing his worst
> atrocities. While not equal, they certainly have much in common.

Wow, you admit they are not equal. Is this a break through moment for
you, Hank? I am turning you to the Dark Side. Now repeat after me,
"Tax cuts are good, rich people aren't evil, socialism doesn't work".
Saying it the first time is the hardest.

>>> You said 51% of the =population= supports bu$h. Here, try again to
>>>answer the question: "Are you able to comprehend that 51% of the
>>>=voters= is not 51% of the =population=, or is that also beyond your
>>>"thinking" ability?"
>
>
>>I do know that 51% of the voters support him. You, or I, don't know
>>anything about what percentage of the total population supports him.
>>Relying on polls to support your claims is laughable. The only poll
>>that counts is the one taken in the voting booth.
>
>
> It's only needs a yes or no answer. Here, try again.
> I made the question even shorter.
> "Are you able to comprehend that 51% of the =voters= is
> not 51% of the =population=?"

Are you able to comprehend that what counts in this country is who wins
elections? Besides, just because you think the President doesn't have
support doesn't make it true. I know that is the way things work in the
wacko left world but we all know you left wing nuts live in a different
reality.

>>You post whatever BS you dredge up from left wing wacko websites
>>or left leaning media that, IMO, have no credibility for representing
>>the truth.
>
>
> If it wasn't the truth, you wouldn't be so desperately
> avoiding it, or be so laughably incapable of pointing out
> =anything= misleading or inaccurate in my posts or references.
> Your whining and crying about the messenger carries no
> weight, but your desperate avoidance of the facts certainly
> does...

All it takes is me to not read it for you to believe it's true? I'm not
desperately avoiding it, I'm just not going to waste my time reading it.
You have given me the Cliffs Notes version in your posts. I don't
need to read anything else to know it's garbage. Thanks for saving me
all that time.

><snipped a somewhat smaller pile of liberal BS>

In article >, Hank wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Hank wrote:
>
>>> A fair share for who and at what income level? How do they
>>>earn their money? What are their current deductions? You're
>>>still just ranting and avoiding facts and specifics.
>
>> I haven't ranted once, mr. projection. I gave facts and
>> specifics on who pays what share. You refuse to give a
>> straight answer.

> I see you're still unable to answer the question. Try again
> when you figure out what it is you're trying to ask, and have
> some specific numbers.

It was in my first reply to you. I'm done. You're a moron or just enjoy
this round and round crapola. Not even going to read the rest.

I'd suggest you just give up on Hank. You're talking to a stone...
with as much intelligence as a stone. As far as I'm concerned, he's a
traitor, if he's even an American, because his rhetoric gives
psychological aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States....
just as Hanoi Jane vaguely admits she did during Vietnam. He ignores
anything which supports present actions, even though the Iraqi people,
overall, tend to support what has taken place. Perhaps he's just a
coward who is afraid he might have to serve in the Armed Forces. Since
his diatribe leads nowhere, I've installed a filter.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:09:54 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:

>Hank wrote:
>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>
>>>Hank wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> In fact, Liberals condemned the Reagan/bu$h regime for
>>>>selling WMD technology to their good friend and ally, Saddam, for
>>>>obstructing all efforts to condemn his atrocities, and for giving him
>>>>billions of U.S. tax payer dollars to buy and build even more weapons.
>>>>Remember? Do try to keep up.
>>>> Also, if you "think" it's okay for our government to
>>>>terrorize and mass murder innocent women and children simply because
>>>>your old crony Saddam did it, you're even more of an extremist whack
>>>>job than I'd imagined.
>>
>>
>>>The fact I supported removing Saddam
>>
>>
>> You mean you swallowed all of bu$h's moronic and blatant lies,
>> and supported the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent
>> Iraqi civilians, killing or severely injuring over ten thousand
>> U.S. soldiers, wasting hundreds of BILLIONS of desperately needed
>> tax payer dollars, violating international law, committing war
>> crimes, alienating our best allies, and sacrificing the global
>> respect and credibility of The United States of America.
>
>What about Saddam mass murdering hundreds of thousands if not millions?
> You can't get your mind around that being a VERY bad thing?
>
>>>> WTF? Obviously, it was quite okay with the Reagan/bu$h regime and
>>>>it's ignorant, gullible followers, but it was never okay with those of
>>>>us who value human rights and freedom - namely Liberals.
>>>> You seem to have great difficulty comprehending what you read,
>>>>although that does help to explain your blind and rabid support for
>>>>the anti American war criminals, torturers, terrorists, liars,
>>>>thieves, and dictator supporting misfits on the bu$h regime...
>>
>>
>>>See how using "liberal logic" sounds?
>>
>>
>> Accurate and colorful!
>
>I figured you would see it that way. Trouble is you're color blind and
>use a rubber scale. You just don't know it.
>
>>>I don't consider President Bush a war criminal as do
>>>the overwhelming majority of Americans.
>>
>>
>> I doubt the overwhelming majority of people consider
>> bu$h a war criminal, as their very poorly informed. But
>> certainly the vast majority of well informed people do,
>> because he is. Torture is a war crime, and bu$h presided
>> over torture. Those are indesputable facts with both written
>> and photographic proof.
>
>So you think we have a country full of idiots? I suggest you consider
>moving to France where all the smart people reside.
>
>>>You really don't know how you and your cronies are viewed
>>>by average people, do you?
>>
>>
>> I know that the radical right wing extremists who still
>> support bu$h's illegal, immoral, and globally condemned
>> terror attack on Iraq are in the minority - but it sure
>> took 'em long enough to pull their heads out of bu$h's
>> anus and see the truth. It's long past time you pulled
>> your head out there, too.
>
>I breath fresh air at all times, Hanky. You are still in denial, I see,
>about just how many people think like you. Tell me, when was the last
>time we had a liberal president? BTW, Clinton doesn't count. He sold
>you guys out after the '94 Congressional elections.
>
>>> I care about what he DOES. Overall, I have been quite satisfied
>>>with his performance.
>>
>>
>> You're either a very clever Liberal troll out to make bu$h
>> apologists appear even more ignorant and brainwashed than usual,
>> or you're incredibly ignorant and gullible yourself. bu$h's
>> polices are tragic, be they economical, environmental, energy,
>> foreign, military, or emergency.
>
>Quit stealing my lines. I was the first to accuse you of being paid by
>the Republicans to make liberals look like ranting lunatics. Running
>out of ideas for clever replies Hanky?
>
>>>The sad fact that you equate our President with Saddam just
>>>shows how raging your hate is for him.
>>
>>
>> They're not equal, but they've both murdered tens of
>> thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, they've both
>> presided over torture and committed war crimes, they're
>> both obsessed with using Iraq's vast oil reserves to acquire
>> huge sums of wealth for themselves and their criminal cronies,
>> and of course, Saddam had the unconditional support of many
>> members of the bu$h regime while he was committing his worst
>> atrocities. While not equal, they certainly have much in common.
>
>Wow, you admit they are not equal. Is this a break through moment for
>you, Hank? I am turning you to the Dark Side. Now repeat after me,
>"Tax cuts are good, rich people aren't evil, socialism doesn't work".
>Saying it the first time is the hardest.
>
>>>> You said 51% of the =population= supports bu$h. Here, try again to
>>>>answer the question: "Are you able to comprehend that 51% of the
>>>>=voters= is not 51% of the =population=, or is that also beyond your
>>>>"thinking" ability?"
>>
>>
>>>I do know that 51% of the voters support him. You, or I, don't know
>>>anything about what percentage of the total population supports him.
>>>Relying on polls to support your claims is laughable. The only poll
>>>that counts is the one taken in the voting booth.
>>
>>
>> It's only needs a yes or no answer. Here, try again.
>> I made the question even shorter.
>> "Are you able to comprehend that 51% of the =voters= is
>> not 51% of the =population=?"
>
>Are you able to comprehend that what counts in this country is who wins
>elections? Besides, just because you think the President doesn't have
>support doesn't make it true. I know that is the way things work in the
>wacko left world but we all know you left wing nuts live in a different
>reality.
>
>>>You post whatever BS you dredge up from left wing wacko websites
>>>or left leaning media that, IMO, have no credibility for representing
>>>the truth.
>>
>>
>> If it wasn't the truth, you wouldn't be so desperately
>> avoiding it, or be so laughably incapable of pointing out
>> =anything= misleading or inaccurate in my posts or references.
>> Your whining and crying about the messenger carries no
>> weight, but your desperate avoidance of the facts certainly
>> does...
>
>All it takes is me to not read it for you to believe it's true? I'm not
>desperately avoiding it, I'm just not going to waste my time reading it.
> You have given me the Cliffs Notes version in your posts. I don't
>need to read anything else to know it's garbage. Thanks for saving me
>all that time.
>
>><snipped a somewhat smaller pile of liberal BS>

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

Gad what fools these morons be....
Children are obscene but should not be heard
Give me a peperoni pizza... or give me a calzone!