Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3521
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5g7$i0q$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
> >>>middle class tax cut.
> >>
> >>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he
took
> >>steps to get it under control.
> >
> >Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>
> Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>
> >Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
> >
> Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of the
private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
the money comes from (rich or poor). The "drag" the Clinton tax increase
put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com speculation, which was
wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%.
#3522
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5g7$i0q$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <rtriqvkhms3sfdqhscdi2qnno4u28o5iud@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 05 Nov 03 11:42:46 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>We all remember that lying bastard Clinton ran in '92 on a
> >>>middle class tax cut.
> >>
> >>And when Bush left the budget in much worse shape, to his credit, he
took
> >>steps to get it under control.
> >
> >Would that be by instituting the largest tax increase in our history?
>
> Bush's was bigger, since it raised the payroll tax.
>
> >Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
> >
> Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of the
private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
the money comes from (rich or poor). The "drag" the Clinton tax increase
put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com speculation, which was
wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%.
#3523
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5g7$i0q$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.
>
> >Explain how increased taxes improve the economy.
> >
> Explain how Clinton's tax on the wealthy hurt the economy.
First of all, it wasn't just on the wealthy. Second, money taken out of the
private sector will equal a certain number of lost jobs regardless of where
the money comes from (rich or poor). The "drag" the Clinton tax increase
put on the economy wasn't enought to stop the dot com speculation, which was
wild beyond caring about the diffence between 33% and 39%.
#3524
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:
>
>So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same rights
>and privileges as one who lives in New York?
Because he chose to live in Mississippi. If New York wishes to be a
socialist state, that's fine as long as I don't have to live in a
socialist state.
It's called choice, or the 'freedom to choose' or 'pro choice'.
wrote:
>
>So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same rights
>and privileges as one who lives in New York?
Because he chose to live in Mississippi. If New York wishes to be a
socialist state, that's fine as long as I don't have to live in a
socialist state.
It's called choice, or the 'freedom to choose' or 'pro choice'.
#3525
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:
>
>So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same rights
>and privileges as one who lives in New York?
Because he chose to live in Mississippi. If New York wishes to be a
socialist state, that's fine as long as I don't have to live in a
socialist state.
It's called choice, or the 'freedom to choose' or 'pro choice'.
wrote:
>
>So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same rights
>and privileges as one who lives in New York?
Because he chose to live in Mississippi. If New York wishes to be a
socialist state, that's fine as long as I don't have to live in a
socialist state.
It's called choice, or the 'freedom to choose' or 'pro choice'.
#3526
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:
>
>So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same rights
>and privileges as one who lives in New York?
Because he chose to live in Mississippi. If New York wishes to be a
socialist state, that's fine as long as I don't have to live in a
socialist state.
It's called choice, or the 'freedom to choose' or 'pro choice'.
wrote:
>
>So why should a US citizen who lives in Mississippi not have the same rights
>and privileges as one who lives in New York?
Because he chose to live in Mississippi. If New York wishes to be a
socialist state, that's fine as long as I don't have to live in a
socialist state.
It's called choice, or the 'freedom to choose' or 'pro choice'.
#3527
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5s1$i0q$14@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.
>
>
Then you're in the minority. In most businesses, people pay more out of
their paycheck to cover a family than if they were single.
You can count on the fact that it costs a business a bottom line amount to
employ you. That amount includes salary, benefits and "their half" of the
SS tax among other things. That total amount has to bear up to market
pressures. If that tax were to go away, you can bet that salaries of jobs
in demand would go up by close to that amount. Jobs not in demand, probably
wouldn't see a comensurate increase in pay.
> >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.
>
>
> >That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
> >WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the
1040,
> >another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
> >representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire
scam
> >tax code.
> >
> >Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this
all
> >out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
> >Tax....
> >> --
> >> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
> >immane
> >> mittam.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#3528
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5s1$i0q$14@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.
>
>
Then you're in the minority. In most businesses, people pay more out of
their paycheck to cover a family than if they were single.
You can count on the fact that it costs a business a bottom line amount to
employ you. That amount includes salary, benefits and "their half" of the
SS tax among other things. That total amount has to bear up to market
pressures. If that tax were to go away, you can bet that salaries of jobs
in demand would go up by close to that amount. Jobs not in demand, probably
wouldn't see a comensurate increase in pay.
> >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.
>
>
> >That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
> >WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the
1040,
> >another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
> >representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire
scam
> >tax code.
> >
> >Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this
all
> >out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
> >Tax....
> >> --
> >> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
> >immane
> >> mittam.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#3529
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5s1$i0q$14@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> 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.
>
>
Then you're in the minority. In most businesses, people pay more out of
their paycheck to cover a family than if they were single.
You can count on the fact that it costs a business a bottom line amount to
employ you. That amount includes salary, benefits and "their half" of the
SS tax among other things. That total amount has to bear up to market
pressures. If that tax were to go away, you can bet that salaries of jobs
in demand would go up by close to that amount. Jobs not in demand, probably
wouldn't see a comensurate increase in pay.
> >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.
>
>
> >That's why self-employed persons get the joyous honor of paying the
> >WHOLE amount, with the second half called "self-employment tax" on the
1040,
> >another piece of subterfuge your liberal tax & spend eleceted
> >representatives concocted back in the '70's when they wrote this entire
scam
> >tax code.
> >
> >Lloyd and the other leftists think everyone's too stupid to figure this
all
> >out, but it's actually very easy to unravel it using a program like Turbo
> >Tax....
> >> --
> >> Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
> >immane
> >> mittam.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#3530
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:boe5tq$i0q$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
> >Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the results
of
> >Florida?
>
> No, it was the Republicans who tried to stop an honest recounting of the
> votes.
>
There was nothing honest about it. It was all tilted to find Gore votes and
not find Bush votes. What's honest about that?
You ever notice in a basketball game, when the ball goes out of bounds and
it isn't clear who touched it last that all the players point in their teams
direction? Is that honesty?
>
> >The final results were accurate and valid.
>
> Says who?
>