Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3831
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:43:53 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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:
>
>>>>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.
>
>You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
>obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
However, the flat earth theory was based on a false premise, without
observation.
That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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:
>
>>>>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.
>
>You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
>obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
However, the flat earth theory was based on a false premise, without
observation.
That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3832
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:43:53 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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:
>
>>>>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.
>
>You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
>obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
However, the flat earth theory was based on a false premise, without
observation.
That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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:
>
>>>>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.
>
>You are basing your conclusion on an unproven premise. It was "fairly
>obvious" that the earth was flat as well. That didn't make it true...
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
However, the flat earth theory was based on a false premise, without
observation.
That tax increases hurt economies is an observed fact.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3833
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:46:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Llotd: 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%. <
>>
>>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
How did Clinton effect the dot.com bubble?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Llotd: 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%. <
>>
>>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
How did Clinton effect the dot.com bubble?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3834
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:46:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Llotd: 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%. <
>>
>>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
How did Clinton effect the dot.com bubble?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Llotd: 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%. <
>>
>>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
How did Clinton effect the dot.com bubble?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3835
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:46:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Llotd: 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%. <
>>
>>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
How did Clinton effect the dot.com bubble?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <boepg222fum@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > Llotd: 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%. <
>>
>>Good for you! Clinton lucked out, the internet boom and tech speculation of
>>the mid-90's fueled the entire "Clinton recovery" and simply brushed aside
>>the Democrats' egregious middle class tax increases. Then the inevetable
>>happened, the bubble burst and the weight of the tax increases weight
>>collapsed the economy in on itself.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>Care to compare Clinton's economy to either of the Bushs'?
How did Clinton effect the dot.com bubble?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3836
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:45:44 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>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).
>
>If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
>public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
>same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>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).
>
>If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
>public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
>same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3837
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:45:44 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>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).
>
>If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
>public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
>same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>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).
>
>If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
>public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
>same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3838
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:45:44 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>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).
>
>If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
>public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
>same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
>"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>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).
>
>If you take $1,000,000,000 out of the private sector and move it to the
>public sector and create exactly the same number of jobs at exactly the
>same pay as lost in the private sector, how does that affect the economy?
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
If those jobs are in the government, they are non-productive.
They don't produce anything that can be sold, serviced, bought and
used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3839
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:18:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <vpblqvo11kq7647dh48hf6eg9q1sonirl5@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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?
>
>Doesn't being an American mean anything?
How do you connect those two?
If one state gives its citizens rights and priviledges that another
state doesn't, how does that affect your being an American?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>No, but it's subjective what general welfare includes. To me and most
>Americans, it includes education, transportation, environmental protection,
>etc.
The Federal Government has no mandate about education. Look it up.
The Constitution very carefully defines the obligations of the
Government. It also is very explicit in saying that anything not
specifically defined as the province of the Federal Government, it is
then reserved to the states.
>
>>But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
>>means lie).
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <vpblqvo11kq7647dh48hf6eg9q1sonirl5@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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?
>
>Doesn't being an American mean anything?
How do you connect those two?
If one state gives its citizens rights and priviledges that another
state doesn't, how does that affect your being an American?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>No, but it's subjective what general welfare includes. To me and most
>Americans, it includes education, transportation, environmental protection,
>etc.
The Federal Government has no mandate about education. Look it up.
The Constitution very carefully defines the obligations of the
Government. It also is very explicit in saying that anything not
specifically defined as the province of the Federal Government, it is
then reserved to the states.
>
>>But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
>>means lie).
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#3840
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 07 Nov 03 09:18:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <vpblqvo11kq7647dh48hf6eg9q1sonirl5@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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?
>
>Doesn't being an American mean anything?
How do you connect those two?
If one state gives its citizens rights and priviledges that another
state doesn't, how does that affect your being an American?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>No, but it's subjective what general welfare includes. To me and most
>Americans, it includes education, transportation, environmental protection,
>etc.
The Federal Government has no mandate about education. Look it up.
The Constitution very carefully defines the obligations of the
Government. It also is very explicit in saying that anything not
specifically defined as the province of the Federal Government, it is
then reserved to the states.
>
>>But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
>>means lie).
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <vpblqvo11kq7647dh48hf6eg9q1sonirl5@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>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?
>
>Doesn't being an American mean anything?
How do you connect those two?
If one state gives its citizens rights and priviledges that another
state doesn't, how does that affect your being an American?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>No, but it's subjective what general welfare includes. To me and most
>Americans, it includes education, transportation, environmental protection,
>etc.
The Federal Government has no mandate about education. Look it up.
The Constitution very carefully defines the obligations of the
Government. It also is very explicit in saying that anything not
specifically defined as the province of the Federal Government, it is
then reserved to the states.
>
>>But you knew that, and are just trying to obfuscate (for you, that
>>means lie).
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"