http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LOVE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/95dd10b171f81a86?hl=en
* "Promote the general welfare" means what it says - 9 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3f1993b181e2faf4?hl=en
* No gift giving this Christmas... - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7570f95930f62ce6?hl=en
* Free $3 MP3 credit from Amazon - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5cb90dc4b9ec759c?hl=en
* replacing a muffler on 1994 Dodge Caravan - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/65e53be756dab1c9?hl=en
* Cheap Adidas Football Timberland boot shoes sale www.24hoursneakers.com
paypal payment - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ac7e2ec02a827ce5?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LOVE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/95dd10b171f81a86?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 1:49 pm
From: Al
On Nov 24, 10:13 am, shelby louis <shelbyloui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was SO sick of being alone, but my big problem is that i just have
> average loooks.I've tried MANY different sites. Some have fake
> profiles. You can always tell because the guy
> (or girl) looks extremly attractive. Listen, if they look like that
> thy're not going to be on a dating site.I could go on , but the best
> webstite that gave me the best luck washed up.
> . Plus it's free for several days so you can try it for yourself. Go
> ahead and have some fun.
> Shelby
Awe, don't be so hard on yourself. I bet you are a real cutie pie. Get
a fresh shave and them pictures will clean up real good.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Promote the general welfare" means what it says
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3f1993b181e2faf4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 2:31 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:16:41 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Liars are exposed:
>
> On 8 Nov 2009 21:15:59 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Yet wages have stayed flat or diminished since the mid 70's.
>
> Wrong. YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT LYING, again:
>
> National average wage indexing series 1980 12,513.46
> 1981 13,773.10
> 1982 14,531.34
> 1983 15,239.24
> 1984 16,135.07
> 1985 16,822.51
> 1986 17,321.82
> 1987 18,426.51
> 1988 19,334.04
> 1989 20,099.55
> 1990 21,027.98
> 1991 21,811.60
> 1992 22,935.42
> 1993 23,132.67
> 1994 23,753.53
> 1995 24,705.66
> 1996 25,913.90
> 1997 27,426.00
> 1998 28,861.44
> 1999 30,469.84
> 2000 32,154.82
> 2001 32,921.92
> 2002 33,252.09
> 2003 34,064.95
> 2004 35,648.55
> 2005 36,952.94
> 2006 38,651.41
> 2007 40,405.48
> 2008 41,334.97
> http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html
I give you the nice graph of actual wages as adjusted by the CPI found at
http://illusionofprosperity.blogspot.com/2007/12/historical-real-hourly-
wages.html
The data source for the graph is the Fed cited right there on the page.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 2:37 pm
From: Patriot Games
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:29:48 -0500, clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>Patriot Games wrote:
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:37:06 -0500, clams_casino
>><PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>Liars are exposed:
>>>>On 13 Oct 2009 00:01:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch,
>>>>>the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.
>>>>Oops! Caught LYING, again:
>>>>The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
>>>>The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>>>and they were paid essentially 50% of the income.
>>Cite?
>>>What's your point?
>>Its not my fault you're stupid.
>>6% of the population paid 99% of the taxes (on 50% of the income,
>>according to you).
>>That's Socialism.
>No, That's shear ignorance ON YOUR PART. The top 10% (>108k/yr) of the
>population pay about 50% of all Federal income taxes, based on having
>some 60% of all income.
Its not my fault you'e stupid.
Try to PAY ATTENTION:
The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
39%+60%=99%
What part of "39%+60%=99%" don't you understand?
Its not my fault you'e stupid.
Try to PAY ATTENTION:
The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
he richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
1%+5%=6%
What part of "1%+5%=6%" don't you understand?
YOU SAID "they were paid essentially 50% of the income."
Therefore "6% of the population paid 99% of the taxes (on 50% of the
income, according to you)."
>What part of Federal income tax is only about 1/4 of the total taxes do
>you not understand?
See below.
>>>>The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
>>>and essentially all the payroll tax
>>Of course not. Where's your CITE?
>>>with a significantly higher share of
>>>property, sales & excise taxes.
>>Where's your CITE?
>>>>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071217112125AAvUc6r
>>>>For Tax Year 2006
>>>>(AGI, Adjusted Gross Income)
>>>>Top 1% AGI - 39.89% of all taxes.
>>>>Top 5% AGI - 60.14% of all taxes.
>>>>Top 10% AGI - 70.79% of all taxes.
>>>>Top 25% AGI - 86.27% of all taxes.
>>>>Top 50% AGI - 97.01% of all taxes.
>>>>Bottom 50% AGI - 2.99% of all taxes.
>>>>http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
>>>Can you even read? Or are you just math challenged? That table only
>>>show the Federal incomes taxes paid by each level.
>>>Hint - Considering federal taxes are only about 1/4 of the total taxes
>>>paid
>>Cite?
>Since you are obviously too challenged to do a simple search (as opposed
>to listening to Rush, Beck, etc), I'll try to keep this very simple:
>http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22287.html
>"While the media spotlight shines on federal income taxes each April,
>many Americans may be surprised to learn that federal income taxes make
>up only 26 percent of the nation's total tax bill. The remaining 74
>percent—nearly three-fourths of the U.S. economy's total tax burden—is
>comprised of the other federal, state and local taxes paid by American
>households every year."
YOU SAID: [The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes...] "and essentially
all the payroll tax with a significantly higher share of
property, sales & excise taxes."
Your CITE SHOWS: The highest income group paid 23-cents per tax dollar
to Federal Payroll taxes and the lowest income group paid 21-cents per
tax dollar to Federal Payroll taxes.
YOU LIED.
YOU SAID: [The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes...] "and essentially
all the payroll tax with a significantly higher share of
property, sales & excise taxes."
Your CITE SHOWS: The Total State and Local Taxes Averaged is $9,400
per taxpayer, with the LOWEST FOUR income groups paying $28,666
COMBINED and the SINGLE highest income groupo paying $24,421.
YOU LIED.
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 2:50 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:14:19 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Your claims concerning lies of others carry as much weight as a Palin
>>claim to experience in "foreign affairs".
>
> Liars are Exposed:
>
> On 22 Aug 2009 23:31:08 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:05:05 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On 12 Aug 2009 17:46:25 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:48:29 -0400, Dionysus wrote:
>>>>> FROM IBD
>>>>> HEAD: Democrats, bloodied
>>>>> "Democrats, bloodied over their attempt to force health care
>>>>> 'reform' on Americans, are looking more unreasonable and hysterical
>>>>> by the day. This isn't healthy for the republic.
>>>>The "unreasonable and hysterical" label is appropriately applied to
>>>>the Republicans, They know if a "public option" (a choice)
>>> A "choice" paid for by the top 20% of taxpayers and given for fee to
>>> the bottom 40% of citizens INCLUDING criminal beaners.
>>The public option is nothing more and nothing less than a non profit,
>>_NON_SUBSIDIZED_, insurance company that is totally supported by
>>insurance premiums like any other insurance company that just happens to
>>be staffed with government employees as opposed to bonus sucking high
>>salaried private company CEO's.
>
> If the "public option" was "totally supported by insurance premiums"
> then WHY do we have to budget $630 billion?
The answer never changes, lying pig. The revenue is needed to subsidize
health insurance premiums for lower income people. That has _NOTHING_ to
do with the Public Option. Yet you continue to lie.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 2:58 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:15:39 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Liars are exposed:
>
> On 9 Oct 2009 04:57:38 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:26:04 -0500, Neolibertarian wrote:
>>> In article <f6WdnXwYpd667FPXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@giganews.com>, But the
>>> real problem is that Social Security goes into the red in 2011...
>>How long did it take to make this one up?
>
> Who lied? YOU LIED...
>
> Job losses, early retirements hurt Social Security Sun Sep 27, 2009
> WASHINGTON – Big job losses and a spike in early retirement claims from
> laid-off seniors will force Social Security to pay out more in benefits
> than it collects in taxes the next two years, the first time that's
> happened since the 1980s.
>
> The deficits — $10 billion in 2010 and $9 billion in 2011 — won't
affect
> payments to retirees because Social Security has accumulated surpluses
> from previous years totaling $2.5 trillion. But they will add to the
> overall federal deficit.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_go_ot/
us_social_security_early_retirements
You lied.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 2:59 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:14:46 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Liars are Exposed:
>
> On 3 Sep 2009 18:57:08 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>The
>>_HONEST_ polls seem to show support for the president and the Democrats
>
> Oops! Caught LYING, again...
>
> Summary:
>
> BuckwheatCare
>
> 8 Against
> 1 Tie
> 2 For
>
> ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Aug. 13-17, 2009. "Do you approve or
> disapprove of the way Obama is handling health care?"
> Approve: 46%
> Disapprove: 50%
>
> "Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or
> oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by
> Congress and the Obama administration?" Support: 45%
> Oppose: 50%
>
> NBC News Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D)
> and Bill McInturff (R). Aug. 15-17, 2009. "Do you generally approve or
> disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing in handling the issue of
> health care reform?" Approve: 41%
> Disapprove: 47%
>
> FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Aug. 11-12, 2009. "Based on what you
> know about the health care reform legislation being considered right
> now, do you favor or oppose the plan?" Favor: 34%
> Oppose: 49%
>
> Gallup Poll. Aug. 6-9, 2009. N=1,010 adults nationwide. "Do you approve
> or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care policy?"
> Approve: 43%
> Disapprove: 49%
>
> Marist College Marist Poll. Aug. 3-6, 2009. N=938 adults nationwide. "Do
> you approve or disapprove of how President Barack Obama is handling
> health care?"
> Approve: 43%
> Disapprove: 45%
>
> Quinnipiac University Poll. July 27-Aug. 3, 2009. "Do you approve or
> disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?"
> Approve: 39%
> Disapprove: 52%
>
> National Public Radio Poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R)
> and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D). July 22-26, 2009. "As you may
> have heard, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are preparing
> a plan to change the health care system. From what you have heard about
> this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama and the Democrats' health care
> proposal?"
> Favor: 42%
> Oppose: 47%
>
> Pew Research Center poll. July 22-26, 2009. "Do you approve or
> disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care policy?"
> Approve: 42%
> Disapprove: 43%
>
> Time Poll conducted by Abt SRBI. July 27-28, 2009. "Do you approve or
> disapprove of the job President Obama is doing in each of these areas?
> Handling health care policy." Approve: 46%
> Disapprove: 46%
>
> CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. July 31-Aug. 3, 2009. "From
> everything you have heard or read so far, do you favor or oppose Barack
> Obama's plan to reform health care?" Favor: 50%
> Oppose: 45%
>
> CBS News/New York Times Poll. July 24-28, 2009. "Do you approve or
> disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?"
> Approve: 46%
> Disapprove: 38%
>
> www.pollingreport.com
Like I said, liar: The honest polls show support.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 3:02 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:15:14 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Liars are Exposed:
>
> On 14 Oct 2009 05:23:48 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:14:19 -0700, Shuurai wrote:
>>> And how exactly are the "idle rich"
>>> a drain?
>>Many of the idle rich are receiving income that is not actually theirs
>>by right of ever earning anything at all.
>
> - Millionaires became millionaires by budgeting and controlling
> expenses, and they maintain their affluent status the same way; for
> example, 60 percent have never spent more than $32,000 for a car.
>
> - Much of the money they save goes to investing; the average millionaire
> household invests up to 20 percent of its income annually. - Contrary to
> popular belief, most millionaires are not bankers, attorneys or
> corporate managers; most typically are locally-based professionals such
> as welding contractors, auctioneers, pest controllers and paving
> contractors.
>
> -Eighty percent of millionaires are first-generation millionaires.
> http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=4300
>
> Among the top 5 percent of households ranked by wealth, only 8 percent
> of their wealth came from inheritances.
> http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=9858
>
> - The top 1 percent of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40
> percent of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40
> years.
>
> - The top 10 percent in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid
> 71 percent.
>
> - The top 50 percent in income paid 97.1 percent.
>
> - Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9
> percent of all income taxes.
> http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=16810
>
> YOU said: "Many of the idle rich are receiving income that is not
> actually theirs by right of ever earning anything at all."
>
> YOU LIED.
>
> Truth: "Among the top 5 percent of households ranked by wealth, only 8
> percent of their wealth came from inheritances."
>
> 8% is not and will NEVER be considered "many" by ANY standard known to
> man.
>
> YOU LIED.
Not that it is even relevant, you lying pig: but what is your source for
this 8% claim?????????? Your rectum?
> Thanks for the opportunity to DESTROY YOUR CREDIBILITY once again and
> thus DEPRIVE YOU OF AN AUDIENCE once again.
>
> I look forward to posting your LIES often and forever.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 3:10 pm
From: clams_casino
Patriot Games wrote:
>
>Your CITE SHOWS: The Total State and Local Taxes Averaged is $9,400
>per taxpayer, with the LOWEST FOUR income groups paying $28,666
>COMBINED and the SINGLE highest income groupo paying $24,421.
>
>YOU LIED.
>
>
>
>
Are really that ignorant or do you just play a troll on the internet?
Better yet, are all Rush sheep as math challenged as you are?
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 4:43 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Patriot Games wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:29:48 -0500, clams_casino
> <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:37:06 -0500, clams_casino
>>> <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>> On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Liars are exposed:
>>>>> On 13 Oct 2009 00:01:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch,
>>>>>> the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the
>>>>>> idle poor.
>>>>> Oops! Caught LYING, again:
>>>>> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
>>>>> The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>>>> and they were paid essentially 50% of the income.
>>> Cite?
>>>> What's your point?
>>> Its not my fault you're stupid.
>>> 6% of the population paid 99% of the taxes (on 50% of the income,
>>> according to you).
>>> That's Socialism.
>> No, That's shear ignorance ON YOUR PART. The top 10% (>108k/yr) of
>> the population pay about 50% of all Federal income taxes, based on
>> having some 60% of all income.
>
> Its not my fault you'e stupid.
>
> Try to PAY ATTENTION:
>
> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
> The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>
> 39%+60%=99%
You cant add those together, you innumerate clown.
The 39% is ALREADY included in the 60% you innumerate clown.
> What part of "39%+60%=99%" don't you understand?
>
> Its not my fault you'e stupid.
>
> Try to PAY ATTENTION:
>
> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
> he richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>
> 1%+5%=6%
>
> What part of "1%+5%=6%" don't you understand?
>
> YOU SAID "they were paid essentially 50% of the income."
>
> Therefore "6% of the population paid 99% of the taxes (on 50% of the
> income, according to you)."
>
>> What part of Federal income tax is only about 1/4 of the total taxes
>> do you not understand?
>
> See below.
>
>>>>> The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
>>>> and essentially all the payroll tax
>>> Of course not. Where's your CITE?
>>>> with a significantly higher share of
>>>> property, sales & excise taxes.
>>> Where's your CITE?
>>>>> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071217112125AAvUc6r
>>>>> For Tax Year 2006
>>>>> (AGI, Adjusted Gross Income)
>>>>> Top 1% AGI - 39.89% of all taxes.
>>>>> Top 5% AGI - 60.14% of all taxes.
>>>>> Top 10% AGI - 70.79% of all taxes.
>>>>> Top 25% AGI - 86.27% of all taxes.
>>>>> Top 50% AGI - 97.01% of all taxes.
>>>>> Bottom 50% AGI - 2.99% of all taxes.
>>>>> http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
>>>> Can you even read? Or are you just math challenged? That
>>>> table only show the Federal incomes taxes paid by each level.
>>>> Hint - Considering federal taxes are only about 1/4 of the total
>>>> taxes paid
>>> Cite?
>> Since you are obviously too challenged to do a simple search (as
>> opposed to listening to Rush, Beck, etc), I'll try to keep this very
>> simple: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22287.html
>> "While the media spotlight shines on federal income taxes each April,
>> many Americans may be surprised to learn that federal income taxes
>> make up only 26 percent of the nation's total tax bill. The
>> remaining 74 percent-nearly three-fourths of the U.S. economy's
>> total tax burden-is comprised of the other federal, state and local
>> taxes paid by American households every year."
>
> YOU SAID: [The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes...] "and essentially
> all the payroll tax with a significantly higher share of
> property, sales & excise taxes."
>
> Your CITE SHOWS: The highest income group paid 23-cents per tax dollar
> to Federal Payroll taxes and the lowest income group paid 21-cents per
> tax dollar to Federal Payroll taxes.
>
> YOU LIED.
>
> YOU SAID: [The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes...] "and essentially
> all the payroll tax with a significantly higher share of
> property, sales & excise taxes."
>
> Your CITE SHOWS: The Total State and Local Taxes Averaged is $9,400
> per taxpayer, with the LOWEST FOUR income groups paying $28,666
> COMBINED and the SINGLE highest income groupo paying $24,421.
>
> YOU LIED.
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 10:59 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:42:06 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2009 18:19:31 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:16:04 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>> wrote: Liars are exposed:
>>> On 13 Oct 2009 00:01:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch, the idle
>>>>rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.
>>> Oops! Caught LYING, again:
>>> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000. The
>>> richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000. The
>>> bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
>><<<<<<<<<< truthful but boring numbers deleted and stipulated >>>>>>>>>
>>The fact hat the rich pay more income taxes then the rest is not in
>>dispute.
>
> You said "the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the
> idle poor."
>
> YOU LIED.
My claim is that the rich receive more benefit than do the poor from the
activities of government that are funded by income taxes. Property
rights protections are much more beneficial to those who own property of
any kind. And the more you own, the more you benefit from government
enforcement of property rights. That is, self evident. But you will
deny and lie right on schedule.
>>The lie is that this somehow offsets the fact that we are not collecting
>>sufficient tax revenue to fund the activities of government.
>
> Wrong. The "activities of government" are too many and too expensive to
> be covered by our already too high taxes.
My statement stands as is and totally unrefuted by your opinions
concerning the size of government. It is a _fact_ that we have deficits
and that we had deficits during the entire term of the Republicans
running the government. And thieving pigs just kept on handing out the
tax breaks to their rich pals while creating wars.
>>If the rich need to be paying 80% of the income taxes in order to have a
>>decent society than so be it.
>
> The "rich" do not need to pay ANY taxes to have a decent society because
> we can have a decent society by dragging Communists LIKE YOU into the
> street, spraying them with gasoline and lighting them up!
(snore)
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
==============================================================================
TOPIC: No gift giving this Christmas...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7570f95930f62ce6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 2:59 pm
From: "h"
"frater mus" <fratermus@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:hehk4s$j1d$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Balvenieman wrote:
>
>> Pseudo-religious indoctrination; societal conditioning; peer
>> pressure; guilt; pussy.
> ...
>> It is a religious holiday, the sentiments of which
>> I do not share, that deliberately has been turned into a merchandising
>> event, the sentiments of which I do not share.
>
> Harshly (but accurately) put. Christmas is a mass delusion, an annual
> madness of crowds.
>
Close, but it's bigger than that. Religion is the mass delusion, not just
some random "holiday". Dump it all, improve the IQ of the planet!
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 5:49 pm
From: Gregory
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:59:45 -0500, "h" <tmclone@searchmachine.com>
wrote:
>Close, but it's bigger than that. Religion is the mass delusion, not just
>some random "holiday". Dump it all, improve the IQ of the planet!
Right... and the people who believe that swirling gasses came from
nowhere and exploded to form the universe represent the intelligent
people? "Science" is just a different religion that also requires
believing in something that you cannot see.
Gregory
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 8:04 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Gregory wrote
> h <tmclone@searchmachine.com> wrote
>> frater mus wrote
>>> Balvenieman wrote
>>>> Pseudo-religious indoctrination; societal conditioning; peer pressure; guilt; pussy.
>>>> It is a religious holiday, the sentiments of which I do not share,
>>>> that deliberately has been turned into a merchandising event,
>>>> the sentiments of which I do not share.
>>> Harshly (but accurately) put. Christmas is a mass delusion, an annual madness of crowds.
>> Close, but it's bigger than that. Religion is the mass delusion, not just
>> some random "holiday". Dump it all, improve the IQ of the planet!
> Right... and the people who believe that swirling gasses came from nowhere
No one that matters believes that.
> and exploded to form the universe represent the intelligent people?
Yep.
> "Science" is just a different religion that also requires believing in something that you cannot see.
Nope, just enough of a clue to work out what the evidence shows.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free $3 MP3 credit from Amazon
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5cb90dc4b9ec759c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 4:13 pm
From: The Real Bev
frater mus wrote:
> parafin wrote:
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> http://www.theupperdeck.com/?p=270
>
> I saw this elsewhere on the web. Easy peasey and worked fine.
Seems to not work any more. I guess they hit the first million.
--
Cheers, Bev
------------------------------------------------------------
VISE GRIPS (VYS'-gripz) [n] A tool used to transfer intense
welding heat to the palm of the welder's hand. -- DS
==============================================================================
TOPIC: replacing a muffler on 1994 Dodge Caravan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/65e53be756dab1c9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 5:04 pm
From: Ohioguy
We started noticing our van sounding louder, and even a slight
rattling sound while it ran. I took a look at the underneath, and found
a U-bolt at the front of the muffler that had essentially rusted
through. It was hanging a bit loosely.
I then noticed some rust spots on the muffler itself. I pushed
against one, and my finger went through. Now we can smell the exhaust
when standing next to the vehicle. Obviously, the muffler needs to be
replaced.
We have a 1994 Dodge Caravan SE 3 Liter. I've read that if I took it
someplace like Midas, it would probably cost us $160-$260 to replace.
I've looked online and found mufflers ranging from $35 to $150. Most
of them seem to be "performance" mufflers, which I gather are loud, but
give the engine a little more power, and slightly better fuel mileage.
What I'd like is something close to the original one. I'm wondering
if anyone here has experience with this sort of thing.
Questions:
1) how difficult is it to replace a muffler?
2) are any special tools needed?
3) is there a good muffler company online that sells only quality
mufflers at a good price?
4) Is it worth doing this project on your own, rather than paying a
place like Midas or Muffler Brothers?
I've never done this before, but if it is a fairly straightforward
job of less than 2 hours, I might consider doing it. I just want to
make sure I don't get something that is the wrong size, and I'd really
prefer a quieter muffler - not a "performance" one.
Thanks!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 7:59 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Ohioguy wrote:
> We started noticing our van sounding louder, and even a slight
> rattling sound while it ran. I took a look at the underneath, and
> found a U-bolt at the front of the muffler that had essentially rusted
> through. It was hanging a bit loosely.
> I then noticed some rust spots on the muffler itself. I pushed against one, and my finger went through. Now we can
> smell the exhaust when standing next to the vehicle. Obviously, the muffler needs to be replaced.
> We have a 1994 Dodge Caravan SE 3 Liter. I've read that if I took
> it someplace like Midas, it would probably cost us $160-$260 to replace.
> I've looked online and found mufflers ranging from $35 to $150. Most of them seem to be "performance" mufflers,
> which I gather are
> loud, but give the engine a little more power, and slightly better
> fuel mileage.
> What I'd like is something close to the original one. I'm wondering
> if anyone here has experience with this sort of thing.
> Questions:
> 1) how difficult is it to replace a muffler?
Its not necessarily that easy to get the old one off the pipe.
> 2) are any special tools needed?
Yeah, if it wont come off the pipe.
> 3) is there a good muffler company online that sells only quality
> mufflers at a good price?
Nope.
> 4) Is it worth doing this project on your own, rather than paying a place like Midas or Muffler Brothers?
Really depends on how easy it is to get the old one off.
> I've never done this before, but if it is a fairly straightforward
> job of less than 2 hours, I might consider doing it. I just want to
> make sure I don't get something that is the wrong size, and I'd really prefer a quieter muffler - not a "performance"
> one.
I've always paid more for a stainless steel muffler that lasts much longer.
In fact I only ever changed the muffler once on the Golf I kept for 35+ years.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheap Adidas Football Timberland boot shoes sale www.24hoursneakers.com
paypal payment
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ac7e2ec02a827ce5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 24 2009 11:33 pm
From: huang
Are you searching for good quality and low price products?our company
want to be you reliable supplier in china,we offer brand
shoes,bags,jeans,clothes,mobile phone,mp3,mp4,ps3,psp we accept a
variety of payment methods .Convenient for you the more you order the
better price for you! if you interested in our goods,pls don't hestate
to contact me Our website www.24hoursneakers.com
Cheap Adidas shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap Adidas color shoes <www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap Ed hardy shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap PUMA shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap Lacoste shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap Timberland shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap Football shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap Converse shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap Nike DUNK shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap gucci shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap BAPE shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap PRADA shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap ATO shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
Cheap Basketball shoes<www.24hoursneakers.com> paypal payment
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment