Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts, IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they think we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Le Artiste wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they think we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.


Meltdown approaching..

I think I would have been able to write that... )

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts, IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00 earned is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47% tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?
Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?
Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to take
for granted?
The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts, IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00 earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some kinds of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one of the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal aliens, is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind of
subsidy.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do tehsame
job.

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays income
tax.

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts, IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they think we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair amount of income
to confiscate.

in article , Le Artiste at
wrote on 2/10/04 4:48 PM:

"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.

Are you saying most people are taxed at 40-50% on their gross income?

I think he's referring to "total tax" meaning. Federal, state, local, sales,
property, etc. The Bush "cuts", especially for the middle class, reduce the
total tax very little, if at all. State and local governments, many of them
bound to a balanced budget requirement. find themselves having to make up
for the federal shortfall by raising taxes to compensate.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

**So no one actually has to work 6 months for the Federal government.


Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

**For DEFENCE, yes. For launching a war which was just a family honour
thing, no.


Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient.

**Agreed. Some are efficient. Some are not. Nevertheless, the US taxpayer
must contribute to innefficient US farmers.

I know one of the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of
its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind of
subsidy.

**Nevertheless, that is where a substantial amount of tax goes.


Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do
tehsame
job.

**Only when the taxpayer pays for it. Roads, for instance, might be built by
the private sector, but with taxpayer money. Whichever way you slice it,
taxation builds nations.


The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays
income
tax.

**By how much? Are not state taxes more intrusive than Federal ones?


The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.

**You are talking about TOTAL taxation, aren't you?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts, IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00 earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?
U.S. tax payers will pay for it but considering the scope and complexity of
the operations the job was done so efficiently that the cost was less than
expected.
Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?
Actually, the U.S. farmers are the most efficient in the world. The
production per acre is highest in the world. There is much whining about
U.S. farmer subsidy but it far less than most other western countries.
Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to take
for granted?
Again tax payers but the infrastructure is not pay for in all cases by the
federal goverment. Most of it is local, state, city, etc. and is put to the
vote of the citizens of those areas and paid for by through bonds and taxes
usually property taxes which usually taxes the rich far more than the poor.
The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed world.
That is true and the U.S. economy is by far the strongest, could there be a
connection?
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?

Not exactly, the cut was in federal income tax. If you paid no federal tax
it didn't effect you therefore the poorest who pay no federal income tax had
no effect. However the tax cut was greatest on the lowest payers and after
the cut the top 10% where paying more of the total tax burden they they paid
before.

Phil

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one of the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of
its
crop harvest.

They should bring back slavery..

You volunteering?

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.

Are you saying most people are taxed at 40-50% on their gross income?


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one of the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of
its
crop harvest.

They should bring back slavery..

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.

Are you saying most people are taxed at 40-50% on their gross income?


--
By the time they get through with income tax, social security, federal
withholding, state tax, medicare, etc., yes.

The only applies tothe ones who actually pay tax, the lower income froup
gets all their income tax back at the end of the year, plus more through a
giveaway clled the earned income tax credit. Essentially, it's a welfare
payment.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

**So no one actually has to work 6 months for the Federal government.


Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

**For DEFENCE, yes. For launching a war which was just a family honour
thing, no.


Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some
kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient.

**Agreed. Some are efficient. Some are not. Nevertheless, the US taxpayer
must contribute to innefficient US farmers.

I know one of the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal
aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of
its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind of
subsidy.

**Nevertheless, that is where a substantial amount of tax goes.


Is that supposed to make it OK?

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do
tehsame
job.

**Only when the taxpayer pays for it. Roads, for instance, might be built
by
the private sector, but with taxpayer money. Whichever way you slice it,
taxation builds nations.

It builds them less efficiently and at higher cost though.


The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays
income
tax.

**By how much? Are not state taxes more intrusive than Federal ones?

Only insofar as there are more of them. Sales tax, property tax, vehicle
tax, etc. The single biggest chunk is income tax by the Feds.


The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.

**You are talking about TOTAL taxation, aren't you?

Yes, but still the biggest chunk goes to the feds. I thnk it's abhorrent
that you only get to keep 50 cents on the dollar for your labor.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Phil" wrote in message
news:jQeWb.268119$I06.2863805@attbi_s01...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?
U.S. tax payers will pay for it but considering the scope and complexity
of
the operations the job was done so efficiently that the cost was less than
expected.

**The operations have not been completed. The final cost is unknown.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?
Actually, the U.S. farmers are the most efficient in the world.

**Nope. SOME US farmers are efficient. Others are hopelessly inneficient.
The innefficient ones are being propped up by the US taxpayer. Australia,
for instance, can land higher quality lamb, at around 50% of the cost to the
US consumer, than US lamb producers can. I recall visiting a Greek
restaurant, back in '96 and reeling at the cost of a lamb meal. And, from
what I heard from my companions, it could barely be called lamb. Mutton,
more likely. I ordered the chicken. Same deal with beef. Australian beef is
prevented from competing in the US market, because it is far less expensive.

The
production per acre is highest in the world.

**Yes, it probably is. The US has some of the finest, richest soil types on
the planet. It has made farmers lazy and complacent. Australian soils are
amongst the poorest in the world. It has made Australian farmers amongst the
most innovative.

There is much whining about
U.S. farmer subsidy but it far less than most other western countries.

**Not Australia, it isn't. EU, perhaps.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?
Again tax payers but the infrastructure is not pay for in all cases by the
federal goverment. Most of it is local, state, city, etc. and is put to
the
vote of the citizens of those areas and paid for by through bonds and
taxes
usually property taxes which usually taxes the rich far more than the
poor.

**Still tax, which was my point to Duh-Mikey (here's your Dollar, George).

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
That is true and the U.S. economy is by far the strongest, could there be
a
connection?

**There's a whole bunch of reasons.
*Light taxation, is probably one of them.
*The afore-mentioned high grade soils, of course, which enabled the US to
become self-sufficient very early in its history.
*The extensive use of slaves, during the early years of the nation's
development.
*The Dutch (great businessmen).
*Etc.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?

Not exactly, the cut was in federal income tax. If you paid no federal tax
it didn't effect you therefore the poorest who pay no federal income tax
had
no effect. However the tax cut was greatest on the lowest payers and after
the cut the top 10% where paying more of the total tax burden they they
paid
before.

**So, Duh-Mikey is bitching about almost nothing at all?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one of the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of
its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind of
subsidy.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do
tehsame
job.

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays
income
tax.

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.



Solution:
Stay home until June 1




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they think
we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair amount of
income
to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one of the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of
its
crop harvest.

They should bring back slavery..

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.

Are you saying most people are taxed at 40-50% on their gross income?


If you count all taxes, yes
mmot just income tax.
gasoline tax, sales tax, property tax, excise tax, phone tax etc.
some people consider social security a tax.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they
think
we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair amount of
income
to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:26:46 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

**For DEFENCE, yes. For launching a war which was just a family honour
thing, no.

duh-Mikey loves war. The bright flashes and loud bangs they show on
Fox News excite him. When he's excited, he gurgles a lot, and that
feels nice.

**Agreed. Some are efficient. Some are not. Nevertheless, the US taxpayer
must contribute to innefficient US farmers.

Farmers are evil spiders.

**Nevertheless, that is where a substantial amount of tax goes.

No one pays tax under the Bush administration. Wake up, will you!

**Only when the taxpayer pays for it. Roads, for instance, might be built by
the private sector, but with taxpayer money. Whichever way you slice it,
taxation builds nations.

Everyone should build their own roads.

--
td

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some
kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one of
the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal
aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much
of
its
crop harvest.

They should bring back slavery..

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year
to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.

Are you saying most people are taxed at 40-50% on their gross income?

Pity you are unable to do anything about your newsreader, eh.

If you count all taxes, yes
mmot just income tax.
gasoline tax, sales tax, property tax, excise tax, phone tax etc.
some people consider social security a tax.

K.

Its mostly meee typing.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they
think
we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair amount of
income
to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?



I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact. You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid? You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman. True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some
kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one of
the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal
aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much of
its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind of
subsidy.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do
tehsame
job.

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays
income
tax.

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.



Solution:
Stay home until June 1


Sort of a quasi Atlas Shrugged?

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news:jQeWb.268119$I06.2863805@attbi_s01...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one, first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than 47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?
U.S. tax payers will pay for it but considering the scope and complexity
of
the operations the job was done so efficiently that the cost was less
than
expected.

**The operations have not been completed. The final cost is unknown.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?
Actually, the U.S. farmers are the most efficient in the world.

**Nope. SOME US farmers are efficient. Others are hopelessly inneficient.
The innefficient ones are being propped up by the US taxpayer. Australia,
for instance, can land higher quality lamb, at around 50% of the cost to
the
US consumer, than US lamb producers can. I recall visiting a Greek
restaurant, back in '96 and reeling at the cost of a lamb meal. And, from
what I heard from my companions, it could barely be called lamb. Mutton,
more likely. I ordered the chicken. Same deal with beef. Australian beef
is
prevented from competing in the US market, because it is far less
expensive.

The
production per acre is highest in the world.

**Yes, it probably is. The US has some of the finest, richest soil types
on
the planet. It has made farmers lazy and complacent. Australian soils are
amongst the poorest in the world. It has made Australian farmers amongst
the
most innovative.

There is much whining about
U.S. farmer subsidy but it far less than most other western countries.

**Not Australia, it isn't. EU, perhaps.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?
Again tax payers but the infrastructure is not pay for in all cases by
the
federal goverment. Most of it is local, state, city, etc. and is put to
the
vote of the citizens of those areas and paid for by through bonds and
taxes
usually property taxes which usually taxes the rich far more than the
poor.

**Still tax, which was my point to Duh-Mikey (here's your Dollar, George).

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
That is true and the U.S. economy is by far the strongest, could there
be
a
connection?

**There's a whole bunch of reasons.
*Light taxation, is probably one of them.
*The afore-mentioned high grade soils, of course, which enabled the US to
become self-sufficient very early in its history.
*The extensive use of slaves, during the early years of the nation's
development.
Sorry, but slavery was bad business it was actually more cost effective to
use free men.

*The Dutch (great businessmen).

And the people who introduced slavery to the U.S.

*Etc.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?

Not exactly, the cut was in federal income tax. If you paid no federal
tax
it didn't effect you therefore the poorest who pay no federal income tax
had
no effect. However the tax cut was greatest on the lowest payers and
after
the cut the top 10% where paying more of the total tax burden they they
paid
before.

**So, Duh-Mikey is bitching about almost nothing at all?


Only in Bizzaro world where you live.

50% of one's income taken away is theft any way you slice it.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

From: "Michael McKelvy"

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman. True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.


Lord knows I've tried not to respond to your many dunderheaded thuddingly
simple and down right stupid assertions, but this one takes the proverbial
sacher torte.

The rule of the thumb for the top schools (Yes, I went to one, and yes, I'm
intimately familiar with many others) is that it is as hard to gain admission
to them as it is to flunk out. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, etc bend
over backwards *not* to send their students packing. Which means that a C
student at Yale (They don't give too many D's, Mikey. Check the statistics ) is
hardly the equivalent of an A student elsewhere. Au contraire, he probably
would have been kicked out on his privileged, smarmy, smirking do-nothing ass
from elsewhere.

Your friend always
Socko

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:38:39 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they
think
we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair amount of
income
to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?



I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact. You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid? You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

I suppose that's why he said in 1994, regarding his decision to go
into the National Guard in order to avoid combat:

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to
get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to
better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Maybe that's why he served something like 5 and a half months *less*
than his commitment because he wanted to attend Harvard Business
School.

Maybe that's why he was grounded from flying for "failure to
accomplish medical examination".

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc14.gif

Funny, I don't see anything about Miramar in the above duty
assignments. What were the dates that he attended the Top Gun school?

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman. True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

Well, *that's* one way to look at it, I suppose. What's *your* excuse?

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

[snip]

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?

I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact. You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid? You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

Without letting this degenerate into your usual autonomic defense
of GWB, Mike, can you please explain where you got the idea that
W went to TopGun school? I think you are quite mistaken about
this. TOPGUN was a very special program that was, indeed,
reserved for the very best Naval pilots. A guardsman never would
have been allowed to participate.

Besides, there are some other compelling reasons he wouldn't have
been in the Topgun program. First of all, the T.A.N.G. is a
component of the Air Force, while TopGun is for Navy pilots.
Furthermore, he scored a 25% on the Officer and Pilot
Qualification Exam, which was the *very* lowest score that would
allow him admission to the Guard as a pilot. He was not a very
promising candidate, to be sure, and hardly TopGun material even
if the Navy allowed a reservist from the wrong military component
to train there.

Please don't find a way to spin this, OK? He wasn't in TopGun
school. Not even close.

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman. True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

I wouldn't take this as axiomatic, Mike. Running a C average in
the Ivies is nothing to be proud of. They don't like bouncing
people out of school when there's a revenue stream to be had.

It would be disingenuous of me to act like I'm sorry to say this,
but GWB is not very smart. Shrewd, maybe. But intelligent? No.
Not at all. YMMV

Glenn Zelniker

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman.

Sure you do.


True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

Hardly.

Scott Wheeler wrote:



You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman.

Sure you do.



Well, technically speaking, you *don't* get an Ivy league degree - or any other
college degree - if you meet the intellectual definition of "idiot" as defined
by standardized intelligence tests.

Of course, if you're really an idiot, you don't get *in* to college either -
lol.

OTOH, although Ivy league schools are not easy to get into (and I went to what
is sometimes called a "small Ivy school"), they are not necessarily any harder
to *stay* in and graduate from (I know, dangling participles, and I don't care
- lol) than other schools of lesser esteem. Among the important variables that
probably have as much to do with getting through college as intelligence per
se, are motivation and choice of major field of study. Obviously, some areas
of study are much harder to do well in than others.




True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

Hardly.




Agreed. Trying to equate a C at Harvard with an A at another school is simply
an OSAF, and meets no empirical evidence standards It is true, however, that
schools like Harvard have a much higher applicant/admission ratio than more
lowly regarded schools. In addition, many state institutions are required, by
state mandate, to accept all applicants that meet relatively low grade point
average and/or SAT requirements. Private schools don't have this type of
requirement.






Bruce J. Richman

Captain Fire Farter; "The" wrote in message
news:jr8k205hmf8q9nf3sjn0fhp9p9kkned46h@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:26:46 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

**For DEFENCE, yes. For launching a war which was just a family honour
thing, no.

duh-Mikey loves war. The bright flashes and loud bangs they show on
Fox News excite him. When he's excited, he gurgles a lot, and that
feels nice.

**Agreed. Some are efficient. Some are not. Nevertheless, the US taxpayer
must contribute to innefficient US farmers.

Farmers are evil spiders.

**Nevertheless, that is where a substantial amount of tax goes.

No one pays tax under the Bush administration. Wake up, will you!

**Only when the taxpayer pays for it. Roads, for instance, might be built
by
the private sector, but with taxpayer money. Whichever way you slice it,
taxation builds nations.

Everyone should build their own roads.

**Is that you, Jeffrey (Archer)?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of
the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they
think
we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair amount
of
income
to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?



I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact.

**Not on this planet.

You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid?

**Nope. I think he is stupid, because he exhibits a whole host of obviously
stupid characteristics. Some (but far from all) include:

* He believes in God (and all the supernatural claptrap which accompanies
such silliness).
* He performed poorly at school.
* When he speaks off-the-cuff (which is, understandably, very rare), his
words are almost incomprehensible.



You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

**Top Gun school? You've got to be joking. He was in the reserve! He used
his connections to avoid actual combat.


You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman.

**Sure you do.

True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

**Utter nonsense.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman.

Sure you do.



Well, technically speaking, you *don't* get an Ivy league degree - or any
other
college degree - if you meet the intellectual definition of "idiot" as
defined
by standardized intelligence tests.

I thought idiot was a reletive term and moron was a specific standard term when
it comes to intellegence.


Of course, if you're really an idiot, you don't get *in* to college either -
lol.

If you get into an Ivy League school on a legacy you only have to meet the
bottom requirements of admissions. You can be pretty stupid and still get into
Yale. G.W. did get in on his fathers legacy. He did not get in on the merits of
his grades or test scores in any real competitive sense.



OTOH, although Ivy league schools are not easy to get into (and I went to
what
is sometimes called a "small Ivy school"),

Provided you have to actually compete for a spot not saved for those who get in
on legacies.

they are not necessarily any harder
to *stay* in and graduate from (I know, dangling participles, and I don't
care
- lol) than other schools of lesser esteem.

They are arguably easier to graduate from than the average University let alone
the better ones.


Among the important variables that
probably have as much to do with getting through college as intelligence per
se, are motivation and choice of major field of study. Obviously, some areas
of study are much harder to do well in than others.

Doiing well and graduating are nto the same thing. It is quite challenging to
do well at any Ivy League school.



True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

Hardly.




Agreed. Trying to equate a C at Harvard with an A at another school is
simply
an OSAF, and meets no empirical evidence standards

Not to mention it is simply to painfully vague to be meaningful. I am quite
confident that an A at my University in my particular major would usually
amount to an A in the same class at Harvard and visa versa.

It is true, however, that
schools like Harvard have a much higher applicant/admission ratio than more
lowly regarded schools.

One cannot overlook the fact that more than half the admissions go to legacies
with little or no real competition.

In addition, many state institutions are required, by
state mandate, to accept all applicants that meet relatively low grade point
average and/or SAT requirements. Private schools don't have this type of
requirement.

Not here in California.

Mr. Wilson wrote:


"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of
the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they
think
we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair amount
of
income
to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?



I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact.

**Not on this planet.


Which may help to explain why he's so anxious to spend money on the exploration
of Mars. (I think he's hoping that the WMD's may be found there also).



You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid?

**Nope. I think he is stupid, because he exhibits a whole host of obviously
stupid characteristics. Some (but far from all) include:

* He believes in God (and all the supernatural claptrap which accompanies
such silliness).
* He performed poorly at school.
* When he speaks off-the-cuff (which is, understandably, very rare), his
words are almost incomprehensible.



"Nucular" weapons, anyone? Actually, Trevor, one of America's more popular
comedians, David Letterman, who has a nightly show on our TV, actually has had
regularly recurring segments with titles like "George Bush, Comedian" and
"George Bush, Genius" which contain soundbites in which he is (a) telling what
he thinks are jokes but which are not funny, and (b) various
misuses/mispronunciations of words.




You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

**Top Gun school? You've got to be joking. He was in the reserve! He used
his connections to avoid actual combat.


You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman.

**Sure you do.

True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

**Utter nonsense.


Agreed. See my comments on this subject in another post.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au










Bruce J. Richman

In article ,
Glenn Zelniker wrote:

but GWB is not very smart. Shrewd, maybe. But intelligent? No.


Damn, they don't get anything past
you, Glenn! :-)


Joe

Scott wrote:




You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman.

Sure you do.



Well, technically speaking, you *don't* get an Ivy league degree - or any
other
college degree - if you meet the intellectual definition of "idiot" as
defined
by standardized intelligence tests.

I thought idiot was a reletive term and moron was a specific standard term
when
it comes to intellegence.



Both are specific terms. "Idiot" is a term generally referring to extremely
severe or profound mental retardation, whereas "moron" refers to mild mental
retardation. (In between these levels are "imbeciles"). Actually, all these
terms are somewhat anitquated when discussing modern intelligence test results
on instruments such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - III, the most
highly regarded, standardized intelligence test currently in use. Using Full
Scale IQ scores as the basis for comparison, people are now described in terms
of their level of retardation (profound, moderate, mild) rather than as idiots,
imbeciles or morons. I would guess that dubya's Full Scale IQ score would be in
the "bright normal" range, but not above that. That would correspond to that
of the average college graduate with a Bachelor's degree.


Of course, if you're really an idiot, you don't get *in* to college either -
lol.

If you get into an Ivy League school on a legacy you only have to meet the
bottom requirements of admissions. You can be pretty stupid and still get
into
Yale. G.W. did get in on his fathers legacy. He did not get in on the merits
of
his grades or test scores in any real competitive sense.



Probably true, but even legacies have to meet certain minimal requirements.





OTOH, although Ivy league schools are not easy to get into (and I went to
what
is sometimes called a "small Ivy school"),

Provided you have to actually compete for a spot not saved for those who get
in
on legacies.

they are not necessarily any harder
to *stay* in and graduate from (I know, dangling participles, and I don't
care
- lol) than other schools of lesser esteem.

They are arguably easier to graduate from than the average University let
alone
the better ones.



It would be interesting to see the attrition rates at these schools. Graduate
programs at some schools can have really high attrition rates. For example, my
doctoral program had an attrition rate of, believe it or not, about 75%. We
had an entering class of about 20, and 6 of us got through the program and got
our degrees. If I had known what the attrition rate was before entering, I
might have made a different choice - lol.



Among the important variables that
probably have as much to do with getting through college as intelligence per
se, are motivation and choice of major field of study. Obviously, some
areas
of study are much harder to do well in than others.

Doiing well and graduating are nto the same thing. It is quite challenging to
do well at any Ivy League school.


This, too, would depend on the choice of major area of study and degree (no pun
intended) of motivation. I seriously doubt that it is as difficult to graduate
with honors if one selects certain major subject areas as would be the case
with others.





True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

Hardly.




Agreed. Trying to equate a C at Harvard with an A at another school is
simply
an OSAF, and meets no empirical evidence standards

Not to mention it is simply to painfully vague to be meaningful. I am quite
confident that an A at my University in my particular major would usually
amount to an A in the same class at Harvard and visa versa.

It is true, however, that
schools like Harvard have a much higher applicant/admission ratio than more
lowly regarded schools.

One cannot overlook the fact that more than half the admissions go to
legacies
with little or no real competition.

In addition, many state institutions are required, by
state mandate, to accept all applicants that meet relatively low grade point
average and/or SAT requirements. Private schools don't have this type of
requirement.

Not here in California.





But true in other states such as Florida.




Bruce J. Richman

Captain Fire Farter; "The" wrote in message
news:jr8k205hmf8q9nf3sjn0fhp9p9kkned46h@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...


Everyone should build their own roads.


On and across other people's property?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:38:39 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of
the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they
think
we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair amount
of
income
to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?



I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact. You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid? You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

I suppose that's why he said in 1994, regarding his decision to go
into the National Guard in order to avoid combat:

What's wrong with trying to avoid getting shot at if you can do it and still
serve with honor?

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to
get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to
better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Maybe that's why he served something like 5 and a half months *less*
than his commitment because he wanted to attend Harvard Business
School.

He served his commitment and got an honorable discharge.

Maybe that's why he was grounded from flying for "failure to
accomplish medical examination".


He was grounded because the planes he had been flying and was trained became
obsolete and it was less expensive to ground him than retrain him on new
aircraft.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc14.gif

Funny, I don't see anything about Miramar in the above duty
assignments. What were the dates that he attended the Top Gun school?

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman. True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

Well, *that's* one way to look at it, I suppose. What's *your* excuse?

What's your waiter?

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

[snip]

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?

I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact. You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid? You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

Without letting this degenerate into your usual autonomic defense
of GWB, Mike, can you please explain where you got the idea that
W went to TopGun school? I think you are quite mistaken about
this. TOPGUN was a very special program that was, indeed,
reserved for the very best Naval pilots. A guardsman never would
have been allowed to participate.

Besides, there are some other compelling reasons he wouldn't have
been in the Topgun program. First of all, the T.A.N.G. is a
component of the Air Force, while TopGun is for Navy pilots.
Furthermore, he scored a 25% on the Officer and Pilot
Qualification Exam, which was the *very* lowest score that would
allow him admission to the Guard as a pilot. He was not a very
promising candidate, to be sure, and hardly TopGun material even
if the Navy allowed a reservist from the wrong military component
to train there.

Please don't find a way to spin this, OK? He wasn't in TopGun
school. Not even close.

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is
a
congressman. True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one
of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

I wouldn't take this as axiomatic, Mike. Running a C average in
the Ivies is nothing to be proud of. They don't like bouncing
people out of school when there's a revenue stream to be had.

It would be disingenuous of me to act like I'm sorry to say this,
but GWB is not very smart. Shrewd, maybe. But intelligent? No.
Not at all. YMMV

Glenn Zelniker

WRT Top Gun school I've heard it reported on radio.

WRT Dubya's intelligence, if he's as dumb as people say, I still prefer him
to a smart Liberal.

I'll see if I can find independent confirmation of the Top gun deal.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of
the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what
they
think
we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair amount
of
income
to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?



I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact.

**Not on this planet.

You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid?

**Nope. I think he is stupid, because he exhibits a whole host of
obviously
stupid characteristics. Some (but far from all) include:

* He believes in God (and all the supernatural claptrap which accompanies
such silliness).
So do Clinton and Carter.

* He performed poorly at school.
He preformed average at school.

* When he speaks off-the-cuff (which is, understandably, very rare), his
words are almost incomprehensible.


Meaning that he doesn't speak well.


You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

**Top Gun school? You've got to be joking. He was in the reserve! He used
his connections to avoid actual combat.


You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is
a
congressman.

**Sure you do.

Not according to people I've spoken with.

True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

**Utter nonsense.


So's global warming, but you believe in that.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Le Artiste" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of
the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

Or should wee just give it all to themand they send us what they
think
we
need? That seems to be the direction we've been heading.

Meltdown approaching..


--
Wrong again. Just wondering what the left thinks is a fair amount
of
income
to confiscate.


Easy, till everybody has nothing. Then we are all equal.
Of course, except for the ruling intelligentsia.

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?



I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact. You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid? You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is a
congressman. True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.



I wasn't talking about Bush
I was talking about the ruling intelligentsia in
a socialist or communist society, about
how they just seem to live better than everyone else.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
Since the Democrats all seem to thinl we should repeal the tax
cuts,
IOW
raise your taxes, shouldn't one of the questions being asked of
the
potential candidates be: How many months of each year should a
taxpayer
have to work in order to pay the government?

6 months?
7 months?

**There are many answers to your question, but I must ask one,
first:

Over here, we have a sliding scale of taxation. The first $XXXX.00
earned
is
tax free. The next bracket is taxed at a low rate. The next bracket
is
taxed
a little more and so on. AFAIK, no one in Australia pays more than
47%
tax.
Doesn't the US employ a similar system?

Yes.

Now, for some comments and more questions:

Who do you imagine has to pay for the hugely expensive operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

The miltary is a logical thing to pay taxes for.

Who do you imagine has to pay inefficient US farmers?

You imply we have inefficient farmers. That might be true for some
kinds
of
crops, but on the whole I think we are very efficient. I know one of
the
reasons the Bush administration want to allow amnesty for illegal
aliens,
is
for the cheap labor to pick crops. I also know that Australia doesn't
have
the same cheap laor source and has, as a consequence, mechanized much
of
its
crop harvest.

I have been on record here as saying I don't subscribe to any kind of
subsidy.

Who do you imagine has to pay for all the infrastructure you seem to
take
for granted?

I don't take it for granted, I just think the private sector can do
tehsame
job.

The US is the most lightly taxed economy in the Western, developed
world.
Don't the tax cuts announced by Dubya only affect the wealthy?


No, that's a popular lie. The Bush tax cuts affect anybody who pays
income
tax.

The way it stands now, most people have to work 5-6 months each year
to
pay
their tax. After that they are working for themselves.



Solution:
Stay home until June 1


Sort of a quasi Atlas Shrugged?

There wasn't anything in that pompous tome that was tongue in cheek.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Glenn Zelniker" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

[snip]

**Are REALLY suggesting that Dubya is intelligent?

I'm not suggesting it,it's simply a fact. You think because he doesn't
speak well that he's stupid? You don't get to go to Top Gun school if
you're an idiot, they are the best of the best.

Without letting this degenerate into your usual autonomic defense
of GWB, Mike, can you please explain where you got the idea that
W went to TopGun school? I think you are quite mistaken about
this. TOPGUN was a very special program that was, indeed,
reserved for the very best Naval pilots. A guardsman never would
have been allowed to participate.

Besides, there are some other compelling reasons he wouldn't have
been in the Topgun program. First of all, the T.A.N.G. is a
component of the Air Force, while TopGun is for Navy pilots.
Furthermore, he scored a 25% on the Officer and Pilot
Qualification Exam, which was the *very* lowest score that would
allow him admission to the Guard as a pilot. He was not a very
promising candidate, to be sure, and hardly TopGun material even
if the Navy allowed a reservist from the wrong military component
to train there.

Please don't find a way to spin this, OK? He wasn't in TopGun
school. Not even close.

You don't get Ivy League degrees if your an idiot, not even if daddy is
a
congressman. True he may only have been a C student, but a C from one
of
those schools is as good as an A in a lot of other well respected
institutuions.

I wouldn't take this as axiomatic, Mike. Running a C average in
the Ivies is nothing to be proud of. They don't like bouncing
people out of school when there's a revenue stream to be had.

It would be disingenuous of me to act like I'm sorry to say this,
but GWB is not very smart. Shrewd, maybe. But intelligent? No.
Not at all. YMMV

Glenn Zelniker


you are taking him too literally.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---