'Red Scares'
in [Cars]
|
From: Matthew Russotto on 25 Jul 2010 17:35 In article <gmjo461vf228o2k9r60ag1oemg3gdqqpsr(a)4ax.com>, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > > >Those are income taxes, and would go away with the repeal of the 13th >Amendment. Now you've done it; now Larry is going to call you a racist. (It's the 16th amendment... the 13th amendment bans slavery) -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: bugo on 25 Jul 2010 17:39 "Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message news:908p46hd3dms1ip27mpbiuhbs2075p56lf(a)4ax.com... > I knew that. So, did you sue the insurance company? > > I just meant that this move to get everything under the gov't plan > will result in a Medicare-like gov't entity doing the insurance > eventually, and if they refuse it, you can't sue 'em about it because > they're the gov't. Do you think suing the insurance companies would be any more successful?
From: Matthew Russotto on 25 Jul 2010 17:42 In article <i2i78g$sll$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, bugo <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >"Socialism" is to 2010 as "fascism" is to 2004. Except that Bush did have >fascist tendencies (merger of government and corporations.) Indeed. And Obama continued and expanded those same policies. You can call them fascism, or you can call them socialism in one country (national socialism, if you will), but either way both parties support it. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Dave Head on 25 Jul 2010 18:28 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:49:17 -0500, "bugo" <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"Dave Head" <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote in message >news:gmjo461vf228o2k9r60ag1oemg3gdqqpsr(a)4ax.com... >> Those are income taxes, and would go away with the repeal of the 13th >> Amendment. Not only that, they are HIGHLY REGRESSIVE income taxes, >> that take 7.65% out of the pay of even someone making $5K/yr, it >> doesn't matter how little you make, that 7.65% happens. It also take >> another 7.65% out of what the employer is supposed to cough up, which >> incentivizes him to find workers overseas. > >Let me guess: you're one of those "fair tax" nutjobs. The "fair tax" would >result in a higher tax burden for the poor Absolutely 100% wrong. The poor don't pay a penny of it. >and middle class Hey, I'm in the middle class, and I'd be going home with $14,000 more per year that _isn't_ sent to Washington for my income tax. IOW, middle class taxes would be lower. >and a lower tax burden for the rich Yes, exactly. That's a good thing. EVERYBODY pays less tax. What's wrong with that? Just make it up on the new collections from the shadow economy, the criminals, the tourists. They all get taxed, and won't be avoiding much of it either. >and corporations. Corporations would pay NO tax. Well, they don't pay tax now anyway, but they do collect it by adding to their price so they can send it to Washington, but that just adds to their price and makes their products uncompettitive in a lot of cases. >I guarantee the fair tax would be higher than 7.65% No, the poor do not pay ANY Fair Tax. > so you can throw that argument right out the window. The >fair tax is indeed not fair because a gallon of milk costs the same whether >you're a billionaire or if you're barely scraping by. Yet the poor don't pay ANY tax on the gallon of milk. >And you can only >drink one gallon at a time. Much higher tax burden for the poor and middle >class. Wrong. Zero on the poor, lower on the middle class. >It's telling that they call it the "fair tax" when it's anything but >fair. You just have no clue what you're talking about, that's all. >Typical Orwellian doublespeak. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is >strength. War is peace. You're well tuned in on the ignorance thing where the Fair Tax is concerned.
From: Dave Head on 25 Jul 2010 18:28
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 21:35:24 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: >In article <gmjo461vf228o2k9r60ag1oemg3gdqqpsr(a)4ax.com>, >Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >> >> >>Those are income taxes, and would go away with the repeal of the 13th >>Amendment. > >Now you've done it; now Larry is going to call you a racist. >(It's the 16th amendment... the 13th amendment bans slavery) Yeah... Screwed that up... misremembered the number... |