Enjoy
Lew
================================
Got to love them Southerners
Tennessee:
The owner of a golf course was confused about paying an invoice,
so he decided to ask his secretary for some mathematical help.
He called her into his office and said, 'You graduated from the
University
of Tennessee and I need some help.
If I were to give you $20,000, minus 14%, how much would you take
off?'
The secretary thought a moment, and then replied,
'Everything but my earrings.'
Alabama:
A group of Alabama friends went deer hunting and paired off in twos
for
the day.
That night, one of the hunters returned alone, staggering under the
weight of an eight-point buck. 'Where's Henry?' the others asked.
'Henry had a stroke of some kind.
He's a couple of miles back up the trail', the successful hunter
replied.
'You left Henry laying out there and carried the deer back?' they
inquired.
'A tough call,' nodded the hunter.
'But I figured no one is going to steal Henry!'
Texas:
The Sheriff pulled up next to the guy unloading garbage out of his
pick-up into the ditch.
The Sheriff asked, 'Why are you dumping garbage in the ditch?
Don 't you see that sign right over your head'. 'Yep', he replied.
'That's why I dumpin it here, cause it says:
'Fine For Dumping Garbage'.
Kentucky:
A senior at UK was overheard saying... 'When the end of the world
comes, I hope to be in Kentucky .
'When asked why, he replied he'd rather be in Kentucky because
everything happens in Kentucky 20 years later than in the rest of the
civilized world.
Mississippi:
The young man from Mississippi came running into the store and said to
his buddy, 'Bubba, somebody just stole your pickup truck from the
parking lot!'
Bubba replied, 'Did you see who it was?'
The young man answered, 'I couldn't tell, but I got his license
number.'
Georgia:
A Georgia State trooper pulled over a pickup on I- 75.
The trooper asked, 'Got any I. D.?'
The driver replied, 'Bout whut?'
North Carolina:
A man in North Carolina had a flat tire, pulled off on the side of the
road,
and proceeded to put a bouquet of flowers in front of the car and one
behind it.
Then he got back in the car to wait.
A passerby studied the scene as he drove by and was so curious he
turned around and went back.
He asked the fellow what the problem was.
The man replied, 'I have a flat tire.'
The passerby asked, 'But what's with the flowers?'
The man responded, 'When you break down they tell you to put flares in
the front and flares in the back.
Hey, it don't make no sense to me neither.'
And this from South Carolina:
'You can say what you want about the South, but I ain't never heard of
anyone wanting to retire to the North.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
> Damned fool legislators. I made the stupid mistake of moving to
> Connecticut
> for an engineering job, not knowing at the time that the land of the
> Connecticut Yankee had long since taxed most manufacturing other
> than
> defense contractors out of the state.
-----------------------------------------
Ironic how things change.
Talked to a supplier who had recently moved from Mass to CT (New
Haven) and commented how much more advantagous it was to live in CT
and escape the Mass tax structure.
This was 1964 and the space program was just really getting up to
speed.
Lew
"Phisherman" wrote:
> I lived in Ohio, Los Angeles and now east Tennessee where the taxes
> are low, mild winters, and mountains of all kinds of hardwoods--a
> woodworker's dream. The culture takes awhile to appreciate.
And having local sources of "corn" isn't a negative either.
Lew
PS:
BTW, it was 77F here in L/A on Monday.
Cold Snap today, only 66F.
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:13:52 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:56:33 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Enjoy
>>
>>Lew
>>================================
>>Got to love them Southerners
>>
><snip>
>
>>'You can say what you want about the South, but I ain't never heard of
>>anyone wanting to retire to the North.
>
>...and my property tax is 25% of what it was in the North.
I lived in Ohio, Los Angeles and now east Tennessee where the taxes
are low, mild winters, and mountains of all kinds of hardwoods--a
woodworker's dream. The culture takes awhile to appreciate.
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
> There seems to be a lot of people around here that think the government
> doesn't take enough out of their paycheck so they elect people that will
> raise taxes as much as possible. Can't understand their reasoning.
>
But we'll get FREE healthcare
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:07:26 -0500, the infamous Phisherman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:00:50 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>> There seems to be a lot of people around here that think the government
>>> doesn't take enough out of their paycheck so they elect people that will
>>> raise taxes as much as possible. Can't understand their reasoning.
>>>
>>
>>But we'll get FREE healthcare
>>
>
>
>It will be FREE to those who are obese who need stapled stomachs,
>chain smokers who have cancer, food stamp people who buy porter house
>steaks, those without an exercise program, unmarried women who need
>abortions, inmates with life sentences, unemployed deadbeats and
>hypochondriacs. Hello taxes, IRS fines, and inflation.
Wunnerful, isn't it? <sigh>
This just in:
Phish, -I'm- now considered obese by our gov't. I was 192 in high
school, a lean, mean bonkin' machine with a swimmer's physique. (I
took 2nd place in my freshman year finals in the breast stroke.) But
I'm only 220 now. Beefier, fer sher, but I put on some muscle since
then, too. According to the gov't, at 5'10" (they don't do halves),
I'm supposed to weigh, get this: 173, max to be considered at the far
upper end of normal weight! Dad was 6'2", and I inherited his larger
bone structure, but not quite all of his height. Mom and my sister
call me "stocky", I think I'm a bit on the fat side, and feel that I
do need to lose weight. I'd feel better with 20 fewer pounds on me.
According to the calculator here: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/ , I
have a BMI of 31.6. Anything over 30 is considered obese. I'd have to
get down to under my normal ATHLETIC TEEN weight to fit this curve!
* Underweight = <18.5
* Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
* Overweight = 25-29.9
* Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
Question to all: Is -anyone- here in the Normal weight range of this
chart?
--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:36:32 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Phisherman wrote:
>>
>> I lived in Ohio, Los Angeles and now east Tennessee where the taxes
>> are low, mild winters, and mountains of all kinds of hardwoods--a
>> woodworker's dream. The culture takes awhile to appreciate.
>
>You'd appreciate it more if you had a good-looking cousin of the opposite
>sex.
The South isn't the only place where family trees have no branches.
...and no need for the opposite sex.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Ironic how things change.
>
> Talked to a supplier who had recently moved from Mass to CT (New Haven)
> and commented how much more advantagous it was to live in CT and escape
> the Mass tax structure.
>
> This was 1964 and the space program was just really getting up to speed.
>
> Lew
They both suck. Also the highest utility rates and gas taxes.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:07:26 -0500, the infamous Phisherman
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:00:50 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>> There seems to be a lot of people around here that think the government
>>>> doesn't take enough out of their paycheck so they elect people that
>>>> will
>>>> raise taxes as much as possible. Can't understand their reasoning.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But we'll get FREE healthcare
>>>
>>
>>
>>It will be FREE to those who are obese who need stapled stomachs,
>>chain smokers who have cancer, food stamp people who buy porter house
>>steaks, those without an exercise program, unmarried women who need
>>abortions, inmates with life sentences, unemployed deadbeats and
>>hypochondriacs. Hello taxes, IRS fines, and inflation.
>
> Wunnerful, isn't it? <sigh>
>
> This just in:
>
> Phish, -I'm- now considered obese by our gov't. I was 192 in high
> school, a lean, mean bonkin' machine with a swimmer's physique. (I
> took 2nd place in my freshman year finals in the breast stroke.) But
> I'm only 220 now. Beefier, fer sher, but I put on some muscle since
> then, too. According to the gov't, at 5'10" (they don't do halves),
> I'm supposed to weigh, get this: 173, max to be considered at the far
> upper end of normal weight! Dad was 6'2", and I inherited his larger
> bone structure, but not quite all of his height. Mom and my sister
> call me "stocky", I think I'm a bit on the fat side, and feel that I
> do need to lose weight. I'd feel better with 20 fewer pounds on me.
>
> According to the calculator here: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/ , I
> have a BMI of 31.6. Anything over 30 is considered obese. I'd have to
> get down to under my normal ATHLETIC TEEN weight to fit this curve!
> * Underweight = <18.5
> * Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
> * Overweight = 25-29.9
> * Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
>
> Question to all: Is -anyone- here in the Normal weight range of this
> chart?
>
> --
> Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
> to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
> of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
> important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
> -- Thomas J. Watson
Yep, 6', 182 pounds (a few up from last year, when I was a youngster of 58)
= 24.7
Kerry
krw <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:56:33 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Enjoy
>>
>>Lew
>>================================
>>Got to love them Southerners
>>
> <snip>
>
>>'You can say what you want about the South, but I ain't never heard of
>>anyone wanting to retire to the North.
>
> ...and my property tax is 25% of what it was in the North.
>
And now you get the usual reply for a gloat "You suck!".
Actually I can't wait to get my transplanted buttocks back to the South.
Even my wife (Jersey girl from birth) wants to move. Anyone hiring a
software architect in Charlotte?
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> According to the calculator here: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/ , I
> have a BMI of 31.6. Anything over 30 is considered obese. I'd have to
> get down to under my normal ATHLETIC TEEN weight to fit this curve!
> * Underweight = <18.5
> * Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
> * Overweight = 25-29.9
> * Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
>
> Question to all: Is -anyone- here in the Normal weight range of this
> chart?
Yep -
Height 5'9"
Weight 155
BMI: 22.9
As Steven Wright sez, I'm planning to live forever. So far, so good.
Scott
On Dec 2, 7:38=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Brad Bruce wrote:
> > krw <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:56:33 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Enjoy
>
> >>> Lew
> >>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >>> Got to love them Southerners
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> 'You can say what you want about the South, but I ain't never heard
> >>> of anyone wanting to retire to the North.
>
> >> ...and my property tax is 25% of what it was in the North.
>
> > And now you get the usual reply for a gloat "You suck!".
>
> > Actually I can't wait to get my transplanted buttocks back to the
> > South. Even my wife (Jersey girl from birth) wants to move. =A0Anyone
> > hiring a software architect in Charlotte?
>
> Hmm. Talk to Boeing. They just decided to build a manufacturing facility =
in
> South Carolina and intend to employ some 2-3,000 people. This follows the=
ir
> decision a couple of years ago to move their corporate headquarters to
> Chicago.
>
> I don't know what it will take to get the attention of Washington state
> legislators; maybe if Microsoft moved its headquarters a few miles north =
to
> Vancouver...
Noooo..thatsokay. You can keep that mentality/crowd all in the US of
A. We're okay up here...really.
On Dec 2, 11:03=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> We'd be tickled to have Microsoft move to Texas, with their $80 billion i=
n
> cash (probably take TWO trucks to move that much), but since Bill Gates
> built his home in the side of a hill, he might be reluctant to relocate.
>
> But maybe not...
Fear not. San Antonio has about 300 full time Microsoft folks here as
of this year, and their current facility has room for about 1500 or
so.
They had a press announcement about mid summer by the head of the
local software design division that said they were very pleased with
its success and VERY pleased with the venue.
According to him, they were looking forward to their expansion.
Robert
In article <[email protected]>,
HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
>Brad Bruce wrote:
>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:56:33 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Enjoy
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>> ================================
>>>> Got to love them Southerners
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> 'You can say what you want about the South, but I ain't never heard
>>>> of anyone wanting to retire to the North.
>>>
>>> ...and my property tax is 25% of what it was in the North.
>>>
>>
>> And now you get the usual reply for a gloat "You suck!".
>>
>> Actually I can't wait to get my transplanted buttocks back to the
>> South. Even my wife (Jersey girl from birth) wants to move. Anyone
>> hiring a software architect in Charlotte?
>
>Hmm. Talk to Boeing. They just decided to build a manufacturing facility in
>South Carolina and intend to employ some 2-3,000 people. This follows their
>decision a couple of years ago to move their corporate headquarters to
>Chicago.
"Big wow". They moved about 500 jobs to Chicago. Their Wa. payroll is, last
I knew, a bit under _85,000_ full-time positions. They were cutting jobs
agressively for a number of years, to get the payroll under 100,000.
HeyBub wrote:
> Brad Bruce wrote:
>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:56:33 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Enjoy
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>> ================================
>>>> Got to love them Southerners
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> 'You can say what you want about the South, but I ain't never heard
>>>> of anyone wanting to retire to the North.
>>>
>>> ...and my property tax is 25% of what it was in the North.
>>>
>>
>> And now you get the usual reply for a gloat "You suck!".
>>
>> Actually I can't wait to get my transplanted buttocks back to the
>> South. Even my wife (Jersey girl from birth) wants to move. Anyone
>> hiring a software architect in Charlotte?
>
> Hmm. Talk to Boeing. They just decided to build a manufacturing
> facility in South Carolina and intend to employ some 2-3,000 people.
> This follows their decision a couple of years ago to move their
> corporate headquarters to Chicago.
>
> I don't know what it will take to get the attention of Washington
> state legislators; maybe if Microsoft moved its headquarters a few
> miles north to Vancouver...
Damned fool legislators. I made the stupid mistake of moving to Connecticut
for an engineering job, not knowing at the time that the land of the
Connecticut Yankee had long since taxed most manufacturing other than
defense contractors out of the state.
Phisherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:00:50 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>> There seems to be a lot of people around here that think the
>>> government doesn't take enough out of their paycheck so they elect
>>> people that will raise taxes as much as possible. Can't understand
>>> their reasoning.
>>>
>>
>> But we'll get FREE healthcare
>>
>
>
> It will be FREE to those who are obese who need stapled stomachs,
> chain smokers who have cancer, food stamp people who buy porter house
> steaks, those without an exercise program, unmarried women who need
> abortions, inmates with life sentences, unemployed deadbeats and
> hypochondriacs. Hello taxes, IRS fines, and inflation.
First, you need to learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it.
Second, everybody dies of something, and the only ones who don't get
significant medical intervention before it happens are the ones who are
already dead when the ambulance arrives. And if it's not free to everybody
else then why is it free to "obese" and "chain smokers" and "unmarried
women" and "those without an exercise program" and "hypochondriacs"? They
all work and pay taxes same as everybody else.
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:07:26 -0500, the infamous Phisherman
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:00:50 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> There seems to be a lot of people around here that think the government
>>>> doesn't take enough out of their paycheck so they elect people that will
>>>> raise taxes as much as possible. Can't understand their reasoning.
>>>>
>>> But we'll get FREE healthcare
>>>
>>
>> It will be FREE to those who are obese who need stapled stomachs,
>> chain smokers who have cancer, food stamp people who buy porter house
>> steaks, those without an exercise program, unmarried women who need
>> abortions, inmates with life sentences, unemployed deadbeats and
>> hypochondriacs. Hello taxes, IRS fines, and inflation.
>
> Wunnerful, isn't it? <sigh>
>
> This just in:
>
> Phish, -I'm- now considered obese by our gov't. I was 192 in high
> school, a lean, mean bonkin' machine with a swimmer's physique. (I
> took 2nd place in my freshman year finals in the breast stroke.) But
> I'm only 220 now. Beefier, fer sher, but I put on some muscle since
> then, too. According to the gov't, at 5'10" (they don't do halves),
> I'm supposed to weigh, get this: 173, max to be considered at the far
> upper end of normal weight! Dad was 6'2", and I inherited his larger
> bone structure, but not quite all of his height. Mom and my sister
> call me "stocky", I think I'm a bit on the fat side, and feel that I
> do need to lose weight. I'd feel better with 20 fewer pounds on me.
>
> According to the calculator here: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/ , I
> have a BMI of 31.6. Anything over 30 is considered obese. I'd have to
> get down to under my normal ATHLETIC TEEN weight to fit this curve!
> * Underweight = <18.5
> * Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
> * Overweight = 25-29.9
> * Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
>
> Question to all: Is -anyone- here in the Normal weight range of this
> chart?
I've dropped 28 lbs in the last year to get to 233. I'm 6'2", 6'3" if
fresh out of the chiropractor's office. I'm currently on the
overweight/obese boundary. The goal is 220 which was my high school
football weight - which will still be overweight according to the BMI
weenies. They want me at 189. At 220 in HS, I had a 32" waist which
has expanded to 40" at max and now down to 38". At 63 years old, losing
weight ain't easy - I figure it will take another year to drop the next
13 lbs.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
>>> I was
> looking more at the fools in the Washington legislature...
>
There seems to be a lot of people around here that think the government
doesn't take enough out of their paycheck so they elect people that will
raise taxes as much as possible. Can't understand their reasoning.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Brad Bruce wrote:
>> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:56:33 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Enjoy
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>> ================================
>>>> Got to love them Southerners
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> 'You can say what you want about the South, but I ain't never heard
>>>> of anyone wanting to retire to the North.
>>>
>>> ...and my property tax is 25% of what it was in the North.
>>>
>>
>> And now you get the usual reply for a gloat "You suck!".
>>
>> Actually I can't wait to get my transplanted buttocks back to the
>> South. Even my wife (Jersey girl from birth) wants to move. Anyone
>> hiring a software architect in Charlotte?
>
> Hmm. Talk to Boeing. They just decided to build a manufacturing facility
> in South Carolina and intend to employ some 2-3,000 people. This follows
> their decision a couple of years ago to move their corporate headquarters
> to Chicago.
>
> I don't know what it will take to get the attention of Washington state
> legislators; maybe if Microsoft moved its headquarters a few miles north
> to Vancouver...
>
It's not all due to government. The unions have pushed the pay rate for
Boeing's employees to the point of being ridiculous.
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:56:33 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Enjoy
>
>Lew
>================================
>Got to love them Southerners
>
<snip>
>'You can say what you want about the South, but I ain't never heard of
>anyone wanting to retire to the North.
...and my property tax is 25% of what it was in the North.
In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>
> >> You also miss the fact that after the Reagan tax cuts and the
> >> initial shock to the system, tax revenues to the treasury actually
> >> increased because common people were no longer penalized for
> >> achieving. Those were the people hit by those tax rates; the actual
> >> rich -- the Rockefellers, the Kennedy's, the Gores, etc all had teams
> >> of lawyers and tax loopholes to permit themselves to be shielded from
> >> those 70% and 90% rates. What was criminal was that those increased
> >> revenues were then viewed as a mechanism by those controlling
> >> congress (where all spending bills originate) to increase social
> >> spending.
> >
> > Maximizing, or even increasing, revenue to the Treasury is not the
> > goal and is ignored by those advocating tax increases. The goal is
> > equalization of income.
>
> No, that's the sales pitch. It's really to keep the poor poor and the rich
> rich. Ever wonder why after nearly a century of progressive income tax the
> income gap is greater than ever?
>
> Note how the taxes are structured. It's not people who are already rich who
> get socked with the high taxes, it's the people who are in between, so they
> never make it from working stiff to independent wealth.
There's the fact that the wealthy have the means to buy the
politicians...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> You also miss the fact that after the Reagan tax cuts and the
> initial shock to the system, tax revenues to the treasury actually
> increased because common people were no longer penalized for
> achieving. Those were the people hit by those tax rates; the actual
> rich -- the Rockefellers, the Kennedy's, the Gores, etc all had teams
> of lawyers and tax loopholes to permit themselves to be shielded from
> those 70% and 90% rates. What was criminal was that those increased
> revenues were then viewed as a mechanism by those controlling
> congress (where all spending bills originate) to increase social
> spending.
Maximizing, or even increasing, revenue to the Treasury is not the goal and
is ignored by those advocating tax increases. The goal is equalization of
income.
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:42:34 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Phisherman wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:00:50 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>> There seems to be a lot of people around here that think the
>>>> government doesn't take enough out of their paycheck so they elect
>>>> people that will raise taxes as much as possible. Can't understand
>>>> their reasoning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But we'll get FREE healthcare
>>>
>>
>>
>> It will be FREE to those who are obese who need stapled stomachs,
>> chain smokers who have cancer, food stamp people who buy porter house
>> steaks, those without an exercise program, unmarried women who need
>> abortions, inmates with life sentences, unemployed deadbeats and
>> hypochondriacs. Hello taxes, IRS fines, and inflation.
>
>First, you need to learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it.
You joke about the gov't taking 13% MORE of your PRE-tax dollars?!?
>Second, everybody dies of something, and the only ones who don't get
>significant medical intervention before it happens are the ones who are
>already dead when the ambulance arrives. And if it's not free to everybody
>else then why is it free to "obese" and "chain smokers" and "unmarried
>women" and "those without an exercise program" and "hypochondriacs"? They
>all work and pay taxes same as everybody else.
Life is a 100% fatal, sexually-transmitted disease. ;)
--
Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas
to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label
of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem
important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost.
-- Thomas J. Watson
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> writes:
>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Phisherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm 5'11", 163 lbs, BMI=22.7 In high school, I was a rather thin
>>>> 145 pounds and ate like a horse. I see a lot of folks struggle to
>>>> lose weight--no wonder McDonalds is in the DOW.
>>>
>>> You could probably blame television and game consoles as much as
>>> McDonalds.
>>>
>>> Did you all know that the marginal tax rate on the top income earners
>>> for the 50 years between 1935 and 1985 was over 70% (up to 90% in war
>>> years albeit with a higher margin setpoint)[*]?
>>>
>>> Today it is only 35%. It's no wonder the country is in deep doo-doo.
>>>
>>> That high marginal tax rate paid for wars, the interstate highway
>>> system, the moon program and the entitlement programs.
>>>
>>> It was criminal of RR, GHWB[!] & congress to lower the rates without any
>>> curtailing of spending.
>>>
>>> It was double criminal for GWB & congress to lower the rates during
>>> wartime (for the first time in history).
>>>
>>> scott
>>>
>>> [*] http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
>>> [!] Read my lips...
>>
>>You seem to have forgotten the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts during the Viet
>>Nam War.
>
> True, from 91% to (70 - 77%) during that era. Still significantly above
> the rates starting in 1982.
>
> scott
You also miss the fact that after the Reagan tax cuts and the initial shock to the system, tax revenues to the treasury actually increased because common people were no longer penalized for achieving. Those were the people hit by those tax rates; the actual rich -- the Rockefellers, the Kennedy's, the Gores, etc all had teams of lawyers and tax loopholes to permit themselves to be shielded from those 70% and 90% rates. What was criminal was that those increased revenues were then viewed as a mechanism by those controlling congress (where all spending bills originate) to increase social spending.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Phisherman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> I'm 5'11", 163 lbs, BMI=22.7 In high school, I was a rather thin
>>> 145 pounds and ate like a horse. I see a lot of folks struggle to
>>> lose weight--no wonder McDonalds is in the DOW.
>>
>> You could probably blame television and game consoles as much as McDonalds.
>>
>> Did you all know that the marginal tax rate on the top income earners
>> for the 50 years between 1935 and 1985 was over 70% (up to 90% in war years
>> albeit with a higher margin setpoint)[*]?
>>
>> Today it is only 35%. It's no wonder the country is in deep doo-doo.
>>
>> That high marginal tax rate paid for wars, the interstate highway system,
>> the moon program and the entitlement programs.
>>
>> It was criminal of RR, GHWB[!] & congress to lower the rates without any curtailing of
>> spending.
>>
>> It was double criminal for GWB & congress to lower the rates during wartime (for
>> the first time in history).
>>
>> scott
>>
>> [*] http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
>> [!] Read my lips...
>
>You seem to have forgotten the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts during the Viet
>Nam War.
True, from 91% to (70 - 77%) during that era. Still significantly above
the rates starting in 1982.
scott
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:36:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:07:26 -0500, the infamous Phisherman
><[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:00:50 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>> There seems to be a lot of people around here that think the government
>>>> doesn't take enough out of their paycheck so they elect people that will
>>>> raise taxes as much as possible. Can't understand their reasoning.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But we'll get FREE healthcare
>>>
>>
>>
>>It will be FREE to those who are obese who need stapled stomachs,
>>chain smokers who have cancer, food stamp people who buy porter house
>>steaks, those without an exercise program, unmarried women who need
>>abortions, inmates with life sentences, unemployed deadbeats and
>>hypochondriacs. Hello taxes, IRS fines, and inflation.
>
>Wunnerful, isn't it? <sigh>
>
>This just in:
>
>Phish, -I'm- now considered obese by our gov't. I was 192 in high
>school, a lean, mean bonkin' machine with a swimmer's physique. (I
>took 2nd place in my freshman year finals in the breast stroke.) But
>I'm only 220 now. Beefier, fer sher, but I put on some muscle since
>then, too. According to the gov't, at 5'10" (they don't do halves),
>I'm supposed to weigh, get this: 173, max to be considered at the far
>upper end of normal weight! Dad was 6'2", and I inherited his larger
>bone structure, but not quite all of his height. Mom and my sister
>call me "stocky", I think I'm a bit on the fat side, and feel that I
>do need to lose weight. I'd feel better with 20 fewer pounds on me.
>
>According to the calculator here: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/ , I
>have a BMI of 31.6. Anything over 30 is considered obese. I'd have to
>get down to under my normal ATHLETIC TEEN weight to fit this curve!
> * Underweight = <18.5
> * Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
> * Overweight = 25-29.9
> * Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
>
>Question to all: Is -anyone- here in the Normal weight range of this
>chart?
I'm 5'11", 163 lbs, BMI=22.7 In high school, I was a rather thin
145 pounds and ate like a horse. I see a lot of folks struggle to
lose weight--no wonder McDonalds is in the DOW.
HeyBub wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>> You also miss the fact that after the Reagan tax cuts and the
>> initial shock to the system, tax revenues to the treasury actually
>> increased because common people were no longer penalized for
>> achieving. Those were the people hit by those tax rates; the actual
>> rich -- the Rockefellers, the Kennedy's, the Gores, etc all had teams
>> of lawyers and tax loopholes to permit themselves to be shielded from
>> those 70% and 90% rates. What was criminal was that those increased
>> revenues were then viewed as a mechanism by those controlling
>> congress (where all spending bills originate) to increase social
>> spending.
>
> Maximizing, or even increasing, revenue to the Treasury is not the
> goal and is ignored by those advocating tax increases. The goal is
> equalization of income.
No, that's the sales pitch. It's really to keep the poor poor and the rich
rich. Ever wonder why after nearly a century of progressive income tax the
income gap is greater than ever?
Note how the taxes are structured. It's not people who are already rich who
get socked with the high taxes, it's the people who are in between, so they
never make it from working stiff to independent wealth.
Phisherman <[email protected]> writes:
>I'm 5'11", 163 lbs, BMI=22.7 In high school, I was a rather thin
>145 pounds and ate like a horse. I see a lot of folks struggle to
>lose weight--no wonder McDonalds is in the DOW.
You could probably blame television and game consoles as much as McDonalds.
Did you all know that the marginal tax rate on the top income earners
for the 50 years between 1935 and 1985 was over 70% (up to 90% in war years
albeit with a higher margin setpoint)[*]?
Today it is only 35%. It's no wonder the country is in deep doo-doo.
That high marginal tax rate paid for wars, the interstate highway system,
the moon program and the entitlement programs.
It was criminal of RR, GHWB[!] & congress to lower the rates without any curtailing of
spending.
It was double criminal for GWB & congress to lower the rates during wartime (for
the first time in history).
scott
[*] http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
[!] Read my lips...
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Phisherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I'm 5'11", 163 lbs, BMI=22.7 In high school, I was a rather thin
>> 145 pounds and ate like a horse. I see a lot of folks struggle to
>> lose weight--no wonder McDonalds is in the DOW.
>
> You could probably blame television and game consoles as much as McDonalds.
>
> Did you all know that the marginal tax rate on the top income earners
> for the 50 years between 1935 and 1985 was over 70% (up to 90% in war years
> albeit with a higher margin setpoint)[*]?
>
> Today it is only 35%. It's no wonder the country is in deep doo-doo.
>
> That high marginal tax rate paid for wars, the interstate highway system,
> the moon program and the entitlement programs.
>
> It was criminal of RR, GHWB[!] & congress to lower the rates without any curtailing of
> spending.
>
> It was double criminal for GWB & congress to lower the rates during wartime (for
> the first time in history).
>
> scott
>
> [*] http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
> [!] Read my lips...
You seem to have forgotten the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts during the Viet
Nam War.
Brad Bruce wrote:
> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:56:33 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Enjoy
>>>
>>> Lew
>>> ================================
>>> Got to love them Southerners
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> 'You can say what you want about the South, but I ain't never heard
>>> of anyone wanting to retire to the North.
>>
>> ...and my property tax is 25% of what it was in the North.
>>
>
> And now you get the usual reply for a gloat "You suck!".
>
> Actually I can't wait to get my transplanted buttocks back to the
> South. Even my wife (Jersey girl from birth) wants to move. Anyone
> hiring a software architect in Charlotte?
Hmm. Talk to Boeing. They just decided to build a manufacturing facility in
South Carolina and intend to employ some 2-3,000 people. This follows their
decision a couple of years ago to move their corporate headquarters to
Chicago.
I don't know what it will take to get the attention of Washington state
legislators; maybe if Microsoft moved its headquarters a few miles north to
Vancouver...
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:00:50 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>> There seems to be a lot of people around here that think the government
>> doesn't take enough out of their paycheck so they elect people that will
>> raise taxes as much as possible. Can't understand their reasoning.
>>
>
>But we'll get FREE healthcare
>
It will be FREE to those who are obese who need stapled stomachs,
chain smokers who have cancer, food stamp people who buy porter house
steaks, those without an exercise program, unmarried women who need
abortions, inmates with life sentences, unemployed deadbeats and
hypochondriacs. Hello taxes, IRS fines, and inflation.
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:00:50 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>> There seems to be a lot of people around here that think the government
>> doesn't take enough out of their paycheck so they elect people that will
>> raise taxes as much as possible. Can't understand their reasoning.
>>
>
>But we'll get FREE healthcare
SURE, you do. Statements like that prove that you need a "free"
checkup from the neck up.
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:11:57 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Robatoy wrote:
>
>>>> I was
>> looking more at the fools in the Washington legislature...
>>
>There seems to be a lot of people around here that think the government
>doesn't take enough out of their paycheck so they elect people that will
>raise taxes as much as possible. Can't understand their reasoning.
They don't think the government takes enough money out of *your*
paycheck. There is a difference, in theory. In reality, not so much.
Lefties are always philanthropic with other's money. Their own, not
so much.
In article <[email protected]>,
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Brad Bruce wrote:
> >> krw <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:56:33 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Enjoy
> >>>>
> >>>> Lew
> >>>> ================================
> >>>> Got to love them Southerners
> >>>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> 'You can say what you want about the South, but I ain't never heard
> >>>> of anyone wanting to retire to the North.
> >>>
> >>> ...and my property tax is 25% of what it was in the North.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And now you get the usual reply for a gloat "You suck!".
> >>
> >> Actually I can't wait to get my transplanted buttocks back to the
> >> South. Even my wife (Jersey girl from birth) wants to move. Anyone
> >> hiring a software architect in Charlotte?
> >
> > Hmm. Talk to Boeing. They just decided to build a manufacturing facility
> > in South Carolina and intend to employ some 2-3,000 people. This follows
> > their decision a couple of years ago to move their corporate headquarters
> > to Chicago.
> >
> > I don't know what it will take to get the attention of Washington state
> > legislators; maybe if Microsoft moved its headquarters a few miles north
> > to Vancouver...
> >
> It's not all due to government. The unions have pushed the pay rate for
> Boeing's employees to the point of being ridiculous.
That unionization has worked so well for the automotive industries and
railroads etc...
How to keep your job by killing your boss.
Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> I don't know what it will take to get the attention of Washington
>> state legislators; maybe if Microsoft moved its headquarters a few
>> miles north to Vancouver...
>
> Noooo..thatsokay. You can keep that mentality/crowd all in the US of
> A. We're okay up here...really.
I understand and agree that such a move is unlikely. Vancouver is as
"mellow" as Seattle and the current residents would blanch at an invasion of
people with pocket protectors. Plus we've always considered Canada to be
"America's attic," you know, the place you keep your crazy aunt. I was
looking more at the fools in the Washington legislature...
We'd be tickled to have Microsoft move to Texas, with their $80 billion in
cash (probably take TWO trucks to move that much), but since Bill Gates
built his home in the side of a hill, he might be reluctant to relocate.
But maybe not...
How much does it cost to move a hill? Doesn't matter - Texas, like
Microsoft, has a surplus in its accounts; we could offer to move the
mountain (think "Mohammed") as an incentive.