Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3461
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>>middle class tax cut.
>>>
>>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>>steps to get it under control.
>>
>>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>
>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
No, Clinton's was higher.
>
>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>
>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
out of it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>>middle class tax cut.
>>>
>>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>>steps to get it under control.
>>
>>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>
>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
No, Clinton's was higher.
>
>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>
>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
out of it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3462
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>>middle class tax cut.
>>>
>>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>>steps to get it under control.
>>
>>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>
>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
No, Clinton's was higher.
>
>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>
>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
out of it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>>middle class tax cut.
>>>
>>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>>steps to get it under control.
>>
>>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>
>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
No, Clinton's was higher.
>
>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>
>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
out of it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3463
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:56:41 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>>middle class tax cut.
>>>
>>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>>steps to get it under control.
>>
>>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>
>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
No, Clinton's was higher.
>
>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>
>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
out of it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
>>>>middle class tax cut.
>>>
>>>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he took
>>>steps to get it under control.
>>
>>Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>
>Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
No, Clinton's was higher.
>
>>Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
>>
>Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
It's fairly obvious that, since increased taxes hurt an economy,
Clinton's tax increase hurt the economy.
To say that the economy wasn't hurt by it defies reality.
Think how good the economy would have been without the tax increase.
Is this how you teach? Make false statements, then try to lie your way
out of it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3464
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:05:06 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>
>So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same rights
>and privileges as one who lives in New York?
Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
>
>
>> But why
>>listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>
>They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote that
>into the constitution.
"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
means lie).
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>
>So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same rights
>and privileges as one who lives in New York?
Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
>
>
>> But why
>>listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>
>They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote that
>into the constitution.
"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
means lie).
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3465
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:05:06 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>
>So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same rights
>and privileges as one who lives in New York?
Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
>
>
>> But why
>>listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>
>They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote that
>into the constitution.
"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
means lie).
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>
>So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same rights
>and privileges as one who lives in New York?
Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
>
>
>> But why
>>listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>
>They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote that
>into the constitution.
"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
means lie).
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3466
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:05:06 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>
>So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same rights
>and privileges as one who lives in New York?
Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
>
>
>> But why
>>listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>
>They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote that
>into the constitution.
"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
means lie).
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <0Hiqb.11729$9M3.6724@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>At a federal level? YES. STATES should do that, NOT the feds...
>
>So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same rights
>and privileges as one who lives in New York?
Maybe because the US Constitution says so?
>
>
>> But why
>>listen to what the "founding fathers" wanted...
>
>They wanted the government to "provide for the general welfare" and wrote that
>into the constitution.
"General Welfare" and "welfare" are not the same.
But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
means lie).
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3467
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:02:59 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <boc9a70250e@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
>
>Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
>married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
>tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
>would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.
This is typical for you, Lloyd.
You've changed the subject.
>
>
>>In other words, the employer
>>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>>YOU.
>
>Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.
Another subject change.
It's irrelevant what the employer *might* do if circumstances were
changed. Reality intrudes; this isn't a hypothetical situation, it's
reality.
Try to stick with reality, here, Lloyd.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <boc9a70250e@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
>
>Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
>married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
>tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
>would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.
This is typical for you, Lloyd.
You've changed the subject.
>
>
>>In other words, the employer
>>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>>YOU.
>
>Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.
Another subject change.
It's irrelevant what the employer *might* do if circumstances were
changed. Reality intrudes; this isn't a hypothetical situation, it's
reality.
Try to stick with reality, here, Lloyd.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3468
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:02:59 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <boc9a70250e@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
>
>Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
>married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
>tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
>would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.
This is typical for you, Lloyd.
You've changed the subject.
>
>
>>In other words, the employer
>>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>>YOU.
>
>Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.
Another subject change.
It's irrelevant what the employer *might* do if circumstances were
changed. Reality intrudes; this isn't a hypothetical situation, it's
reality.
Try to stick with reality, here, Lloyd.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <boc9a70250e@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
>
>Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
>married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
>tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
>would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.
This is typical for you, Lloyd.
You've changed the subject.
>
>
>>In other words, the employer
>>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>>YOU.
>
>Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.
Another subject change.
It's irrelevant what the employer *might* do if circumstances were
changed. Reality intrudes; this isn't a hypothetical situation, it's
reality.
Try to stick with reality, here, Lloyd.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3469
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:02:59 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <boc9a70250e@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
>
>Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
>married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
>tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
>would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.
This is typical for you, Lloyd.
You've changed the subject.
>
>
>>In other words, the employer
>>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>>YOU.
>
>Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.
Another subject change.
It's irrelevant what the employer *might* do if circumstances were
changed. Reality intrudes; this isn't a hypothetical situation, it's
reality.
Try to stick with reality, here, Lloyd.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <boc9a70250e@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.>
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>What Lloyd doesn;t want anyone to understand is that when your employer pays
>>your Social Security taxes, in round numbers he pays around 13%, half paid
>>by you and shown on your paycheck stub, the other half withheld from your
>>TRUE SALARY/WAGES and paid by the employer.
>
>Not so. My employer won't even give me the money they save by my not being
>married and not needing their subsidy for health insurance for a spouse,
>tuition for children, etc. You're deluding yourself if you think employers
>would give employees the money they'd save if they didn't have to pay SS.
This is typical for you, Lloyd.
You've changed the subject.
>
>
>>In other words, the employer
>>shows the additional 6.2% as part of your your true compensation on his
>>books. Lloyd thinks it's a tax on the employer, but it's not, it's a tax on
>>YOU.
>
>Which your employer would keep as profit otherwise.
Another subject change.
It's irrelevant what the employer *might* do if circumstances were
changed. Reality intrudes; this isn't a hypothetical situation, it's
reality.
Try to stick with reality, here, Lloyd.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3470
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:00:50 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <P3gqb.313110$9l5.188454@pd7tw2no>,
> "Kingbarry2000" <kingbarrypublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
>>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Jonesy wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>>> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>>> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
>>spent
>>> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
>>> >>
>>> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>>> >
>>> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
>>I'd
>>> guess some engineers in high
>>> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
>>> sides, not just "your half") and
>>>
>>> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>>>
>>> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
>>direct
>>> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>>> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>>>
>>> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
>>bet
>>> you could get up over 100%!
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Ed
>>> >
>>
>>Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
>>
>Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax?
You changed the subject again.
Do you ramble like this in class?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <P3gqb.313110$9l5.188454@pd7tw2no>,
> "Kingbarry2000" <kingbarrypublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bo8ji1$3lv$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
>>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Jonesy wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
>>> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>>> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just
>>spent
>>> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
>>> >>
>>> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>>> >
>>> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay.
>>I'd
>>> guess some engineers in high
>>> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
>>> sides, not just "your half") and
>>>
>>> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
>>>
>>> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both
>>direct
>>> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>>> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>>>
>>> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I
>>bet
>>> you could get up over 100%!
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Ed
>>> >
>>
>>Its actually 101% when you include the death taxes.
>>
>Do you have any idea how few estates are subject to the estate tax?
You changed the subject again.
Do you ramble like this in class?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"