Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

April 7, 2009

Hmmm, I thought he had a pretty good handle on it. With what part do

you disagree?

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

> Mon Apr 6, 2009 10:34 pm (PDT)

>

> steve-

> your answers just show out of touch with the real world and very

> condescending to all poor women in this country. It is not that simple and

> I really am taken back at your short sightedness on this issue.

>

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thyroid Doctor in the Los Angeles / Orange County area

>

> Nancie Barnett wrote:

> > Tell that to the poor women who because we have no socialized child care

> in

> > this country, can't afford to find work and care for their kids at the

> same

> > time. It is a catch 22 situation for them.

>

> Aside for women who have been raped, random sex and failure to plan

> should be something other people should pay for and or have any

> responsibility for.

>

> > Yes, there are some who milk the system but there are infinitely

> more who

> > desperately need welfare, wic and food stamps and without them would

> starve

> > along with their kids.

>

> When charities were funded by individuals, people tended to get back on

> their feet since they knew the help was not for a lifetime.

>

> > Additionally, welfare has changed and now they can not stay on the

> program

> > indefinitely. There is a limit to the time you can be on welfare. Most

> > states limit it to 5 years.

>

> IN 5 years one could get a Master's degree but people milk the system to

> the end and then wonder what they are going to do.

>

> > The AFDC program underwent a significant change under

> Republican-sponsored

> > legislation in 1996 which was signed by President Clinton. States were

> given

> > far greater latitude in designing their family welfare programs.

>

> And this kind of thing should ONLY be a state program designed or not

> according to the electorate of each state. The FED was never granted

> those rights.

>

> > As the new

> > name implies, TANF can no longer be a lifelong program. All states are

> > required to limit benefits after the expiration of a specified

> period of

> > time.

>

> Here we have the FEDs telling the states how to run the states business.

> Naughty.

>

> >

> > Under most state plans, all benefits will be terminated after five

> > years. Each program requires virtually all adult participants to

> > participate in work programs. If not working within two years,

> recipients

> > must perform community service as a condition of receiving benefits.

> >

> > http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm

> <http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm>

> >

> > Communism is the bad end of socialism. As my professor at UCSB said,

> it is

> > socialism gone bad.

>

> I am indifferent to your claims about your professor. He is irrelevant.

>

> --

>

> Steve - dudescholar4@... <mailto:dudescholar4%40basicmail.net>

April 7, 2009

You're living in a fantasy land, . The proposed energy [carbon] tax

alone will be an additional tax of hundreds of billions of dollars on

_everybody_. Everything you consume uses energy if you don't grow

it/produce it yourself [and then it still uses some]. This tax will

disproportionally effect those at the bottom, because they must spend a

higher percentage of their incomes on necessities.

I don't know Steve's net worth, but I'll bet it's a heck of a lot more

than mine. Or probably yours.

Sometime just for fun look at the proportion of US income taxes paid by

the top 5%. And the bottom 50%.

It's not capitalists and free market people who " look down " on the lower

income segments. Rather they are the ones who want those people to have

the opportunity to better their situation. Liberals/Democrats depend

upon the lower class remaining destitute and dependent upon the

unfulfillable promises they make in order to get the votes to promote

their lifestyle of the powerful and rich without actually contributing

anything to the general welfare.

..

>

> Posted by: " " kennio@...

>

<mailto:kennio@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big\

%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> Kennio <Kennio>

>

> Tue Apr 7, 2009 1:57 am (PDT)

>

> " Socialism makes the entire problem larger and more intractable while the

> government rapes those who are on their way to achieving the American

> dream of financial independence.

> "

> American dream... American fantasy. Thats the problem with people like

> you have this fantasy that one day YOU will be rich, so preserving the

> privileges of the rich are important to you even if it is working

> against your own self interests. Its mind boggling.

> You actually admire those at the TOP milking the system... and even

> when they flaunt it; the loopholes and the corporate welfare, the

> hundreds of millions in salary.

> Its a fantasy you really need to get over. The rich flourished under

> the current system and I'm sure they will survive the proposed 3% tax

> increase. I guess we'll just have to put up with the huge drop in

> philanthropy. You paint them as incredibly generous when their taxes

> are lower...(more of your " rich man " fantasy). I think the last 8

> years shows that they get incredibly GREEDY when things are going

> their way.

> You focus at the people at the bottom who you think of as dirt and

> seeth at how they are milking the system by getting a single digit

> slice of the pie. All the while the top 5 percent just raped us in the

> ass for generational wealth... they robbed your children and your

> grandchildren and STILL managed to keep you focused on those you see

> as beneath you who rob you of crumbs comparatively.

> I guess some people need that... people beneath them and a fantasy

> world to aspire to.

April 7, 2009

Yeah right. The 'free market' colludes with many forces that have the 'little

guy' in a trance and a fantasy land of riches waiting just around the corner;

all the while shaking down the poor guy for every penny he has. Then he gets

blamed for his foolish ways. Alan Greenspan urged people to take ARM mortgages,

MSNBC urged people to buy Bear Sterns 7 weeks before it collapsed... it is a

conspiracy of misinformation. Big business feeds on little guy. I fed on the

little guy while in real estate. Come on, give the poor bastard a break

(whether he wants it or not).

Your argument supports that we in the upper income tax brackets have to shoulder

the burden a while... the little guy dies if we don't. We are on shaky ground

right now and a 3% tax increase is the least I can do. It IS a matter of

patriotism.

________________________________

From: <res075oh@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 2:05:16 PM

Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

You're living in a fantasy land, . The proposed energy [carbon] tax

alone will be an additional tax of hundreds of billions of dollars on

_everybody_. Everything you consume uses energy if you don't grow

it/produce it yourself [and then it still uses some]. This tax will

disproportionally effect those at the bottom, because they must spend a

higher percentage of their incomes on necessities.

I don't know Steve's net worth, but I'll bet it's a heck of a lot more

than mine. Or probably yours.

Sometime just for fun look at the proportion of US income taxes paid by

the top 5%. And the bottom 50%.

It's not capitalists and free market people who " look down " on the lower

income segments. Rather they are the ones who want those people to have

the opportunity to better their situation. Liberals/Democrats depend

upon the lower class remaining destitute and dependent upon the

unfulfillable promises they make in order to get the votes to promote

their lifestyle of the powerful and rich without actually contributing

anything to the general welfare.

..

>

> Posted by: " " kennio (DOT) com

> <mailto:kennio (DOT) com?Subject=%20Re% 3A%20Cows% 2C%20Geopolitics

%2C%20and% 20Big%20Business %20Re%3A% 20%5Bhypothyroid ism%5D%20Re% 3A%20Thy>

> Kennio <http://profiles. / Kennio>

>

> Tue Apr 7, 2009 1:57 am (PDT)

>

> " Socialism makes the entire problem larger and more intractable while the

> government rapes those who are on their way to achieving the American

> dream of financial independence.

> "

> American dream... American fantasy. Thats the problem with people like

> you have this fantasy that one day YOU will be rich, so preserving the

> privileges of the rich are important to you even if it is working

> against your own self interests. Its mind boggling.

> You actually admire those at the TOP milking the system... and even

> when they flaunt it; the loopholes and the corporate welfare, the

> hundreds of millions in salary.

> Its a fantasy you really need to get over. The rich flourished under

> the current system and I'm sure they will survive the proposed 3% tax

> increase. I guess we'll just have to put up with the huge drop in

> philanthropy. You paint them as incredibly generous when their taxes

> are lower...(more of your " rich man " fantasy). I think the last 8

> years shows that they get incredibly GREEDY when things are going

> their way.

> You focus at the people at the bottom who you think of as dirt and

> seeth at how they are milking the system by getting a single digit

> slice of the pie. All the while the top 5 percent just raped us in the

> ass for generational wealth... they robbed your children and your

> grandchildren and STILL managed to keep you focused on those you see

> as beneath you who rob you of crumbs comparatively.

> I guess some people need that... people beneath them and a fantasy

> world to aspire to.

April 7, 2009

I think you need to visit India and China as I have. There is no way that the

US will ever be the same with these two countries developing and their cheap

educated work force. No amount of ridiculous tax cuts here are going to lure US

companies back and its bizarre to image that wages would rise if they are paying

next to nothing overseas.

________________________________

From: Steve <dudescholar4@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 7:15:18 PM

Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

wrote:

> Your argument supports that we in the upper income tax brackets

> have to shoulder the burden a while... the little guy dies if we

> don't.

I don't think so. The people who should have lost money are the

investors in the credit default swaps. They were wealthy, have an

obligation to understand their investments, and were in a position to

take risks. Stock holders and bond holders in banks also have an

obligation to understand their risks. Then the banks started to have

problems, the losers should have been the wealthy investors, not the tax

payers. No taxes should ever be foisted on anyone to pay for the

failures of the rich to manage their own investment risks. There should

have been no government bailouts and bankruptcy should have been par for

the course. The ideal that the people should pay for the incompetent of

the largest institutions is a fallacy. The bankruptcy of Lehman

Brothers is going smoothly with assets being sold off in a timely and

not a rushed fashion. The banks that were wise managers were forced

into taking government freebies since there competitive position would

be compromised by poorly managed banks being allowed to continue to

operate and compete with them. What should have happened is that poorly

managed banks should have failed and their assets sold off to the wise

managed banks.

> We are on shaky ground right now and a 3% tax increase is the

> least I can do. It IS a matter of patriotism.

We are not on shaky ground. If taxes were to be cut, government

revenues would go up. If a point of sales tax were to be created and

all other taxes eliminated, many companies would quickly relocated back

to the USA, 10s of millions of jobs would be created and market forces

would drive wages dramatically higher.

--

Steve - dudescholar4@ basicmail. net

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

April 8, 2009

We should only be doing those things we as American can be the best at.

Other countries should do the same. That will result in the " most " of

what each is the best at driving the standard of living upwards everywhere.

I'm considering forming an international business corporation (IBC) to

help handle asset protection issues, allow my children to inherit all my

assets without the government taxing it at 55%, and to use the ability

of IBCs to retain earnings without penalties, something that one cannot

do in the USA. Assets held in an IBC can in many countries be inherited

without there being a taxable event. In the USA, that's not true. In

the USA, one can retain only so much earnings and then one has to

distribute the rest as dividends or be penalized. The company pays

taxes on the earnings and distributes what's left to the stock holders

who then have to pay taxes again. In both cases they often pay the max

tax rate, double taxation. After the double FED taxes and double state

taxes, one has about 30% of the earnings left to use. An IBC can retain

earnings and only distribute what you want to have for your lifting

expenses and enough additional to pay the US tax the US things it has a

right to impose on US citizens even when those earnings are take place

internationally. This has nothing to do with tax havens which can be an

additional option.

Also, if I was building a factory, I would build it where I would get

the best combination of profit and tax efficiency. My goal is to make

money, not be an altruist. Factory workers in other countries are quite

happy to work for a good wage there. However, there are some things

that would be done in the USA if the tax environment was more friendly.

Steve

wrote:

> I think you need to visit India and China as I have. There is no way that the

US will ever be the same with these two countries developing and their cheap

educated work force. No amount of ridiculous tax cuts here are going to lure US

companies back and its bizarre to image that wages would rise if they are paying

next to nothing overseas.

>

> ________________________________

> From: Steve <dudescholar4@...>

> hypothyroidism

> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 7:15:18 PM

> Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

>

> wrote:

>

>> Your argument supports that we in the upper income tax brackets

>> have to shoulder the burden a while... the little guy dies if we

>> don't.

>

> I don't think so. The people who should have lost money are the

> investors in the credit default swaps. They were wealthy, have an

> obligation to understand their investments, and were in a position to

> take risks. Stock holders and bond holders in banks also have an

> obligation to understand their risks. Then the banks started to have

> problems, the losers should have been the wealthy investors, not the tax

> payers. No taxes should ever be foisted on anyone to pay for the

> failures of the rich to manage their own investment risks. There should

> have been no government bailouts and bankruptcy should have been par for

> the course. The ideal that the people should pay for the incompetent of

> the largest institutions is a fallacy. The bankruptcy of Lehman

> Brothers is going smoothly with assets being sold off in a timely and

> not a rushed fashion. The banks that were wise managers were forced

> into taking government freebies since there competitive position would

> be compromised by poorly managed banks being allowed to continue to

> operate and compete with them. What should have happened is that poorly

> managed banks should have failed and their assets sold off to the wise

> managed banks.

>

>> We are on shaky ground right now and a 3% tax increase is the

>> least I can do. It IS a matter of patriotism.

>

> We are not on shaky ground. If taxes were to be cut, government

> revenues would go up. If a point of sales tax were to be created and

> all other taxes eliminated, many companies would quickly relocated back

> to the USA, 10s of millions of jobs would be created and market forces

> would drive wages dramatically higher.

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

April 8, 2009

Nancie Barnett wrote:

> You and Steve are speaking from a conservative out of touch mentality

> compared to the parents and single parents out there that are struggling to

> survive in a economy that has not provided a living wage in decades that can

> not keep up with the rates of inflation.

This is a kookie idea that someone is required to provide a " living

wage " that other people get to define. Work has value. Some work is

more valuable than others. If I want to get something done, I will over

payment. If no one wants to do the work I have for the price I'm

willing to pay, so sad, too bad for me. If 100 people line up then I

can reduce the price until I still have good workers left who want the

job. That will establish the value. Paying more is over paying. It's

like if you were to go to buy a car and they could look at your bank

account and W2 statements and then tell you what price you had to pay

for a car. You might have to pay $30,000 for a car the next guy only

has to pay $5,000 for. Value in goods and services shouldn't be

adjusted based on ability to pay and neither should wages.

> Our economy has been a 2 person

> wage earners for a long time.

Yet, even as a struggling college student, my wife never had to work.

We learned to live with less.

> The majority of Americans and defiantly the

> lower income brackets of this society can not make it on a single salary.

> The cost of living is killing families in this country and if wasn't for

> welfare, WIC, and other social service programs they would be dead.

Other countries do on a lot less. I think your are over reacting.

> They

> are not milking the system. They rely on the system now more than ever.

You are saying that life is so tough nowadays that some people just need

a nanny state to take care of them and that other people are somehow

obligated to take special care of them.

> Charities can not keep up with the demand, because people with money are not

> contributing their fair share to society and the number of poor people are

There is no such thing as " a fair share " that is other than paying for

actual value received.

> rising due to the last 8 years of felony behavior on the part of greedy

> wall street felons. Food banks literally don't have enough food to go

> around and many of the smaller regional charities are going broke trying to

> keep up with the demand.

But your solution is to destroy capitol, take away wealth, and destroy

incentive to be productive.

> If we did not have the government social services , poor people would be

> more screwed than they are.

I think people are a lot more screwed up because their is a socialist

welfare state. People think the state has an obligation to feed and

clothe them and so they begin to believe they are entitled and dependant.

>

> Not everyone can afford to get an education and

> not everyone has the means to get to a job that maybe 50 miles away from

> their home, because our public transportation system is broke. What about

The states are still giving out education money. Anyone who really

wants an education can get one. It's a matter of desire and initiative.

There is no obligation in the constitution to provide any form of public

transportation, not horses, not airplanes, not jets, not cruse liners,

not cars, not boats, not buses, to carnages, not rickshaws, not free

shoes, nothing, nada, zip.

> the desperately poor areas of this country , the inner cities slums, they

> are born into poverty and they will most likely die in poverty because there

> is not enough money out there to bring them out of poverty.

I lived in government subsidized housing once. Heck, illegal immigrants

who come here with nothing, not even the ability to speak English,

frequently manage to do quite will working jobs that people int he

issuer city slums refuse to do.

> You are going to tell them they can't or shouldn't accept governmental aid

> so they can feed their families?

I expect they will take whatever they can. However, if there was no

fall back position, many of them would have a newfound drive to make a

difference.

> It is criminal that in a country as wealthy as ours, that we still have

> desperate poverty and homelessness.

No it's not. There will always be people with problems. Criminal means

it would be illegal for me to buy a good book to read when there was

still someone somewhere hungry that I should feed instead of reading and

criminal means it would be illegal for me to work less then 80 hours a

week so that I could feed as many people as possible. I think not. I'm

not interested in socialism-communism.

Free markets create the highest average standard of living and we

haven't really had free markets yet, more like fascism, but still far

above anything that the communist-socialist system could ever achieve.

Communism-socialism didn't even get rid or poverty, it just made most

people equally impoverished except for the very " elite " .

Steve

>

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

>> Thyroid Doctor in the Los Angeles / Orange County area

>>

>> Nancie Barnett wrote:

>>> Tell that to the poor women who because we have no socialized child care

>> in

>>> this country, can't afford to find work and care for their kids at the

>> same

>>> time. It is a catch 22 situation for them.

>> Aside for women who have been raped, random sex and failure to plan

>> should be something other people should pay for and or have any

>> responsibility for.

>>

>>> Yes, there are some who milk the system but there are infinitely

>> more who

>>> desperately need welfare, wic and food stamps and without them would

>> starve

>>> along with their kids.

>> When charities were funded by individuals, people tended to get back on

>> their feet since they knew the help was not for a lifetime.

>>

>>> Additionally, welfare has changed and now they can not stay on the

>> program

>>> indefinitely. There is a limit to the time you can be on welfare. Most

>>> states limit it to 5 years.

>> IN 5 years one could get a Master's degree but people milk the system to

>> the end and then wonder what they are going to do.

>>

>>> The AFDC program underwent a significant change under

>> Republican-sponsored

>>> legislation in 1996 which was signed by President Clinton. States were

>> given

>>> far greater latitude in designing their family welfare programs.

>> And this kind of thing should ONLY be a state program designed or not

>> according to the electorate of each state. The FED was never granted

>> those rights.

>>

>>> As the new

>>> name implies, TANF can no longer be a lifelong program. All states are

>>> required to limit benefits after the expiration of a specified

>> period of

>>> time.

>> Here we have the FEDs telling the states how to run the states business.

>> Naughty.

>>

>>> Under most state plans, all benefits will be terminated after five

>>> years. Each program requires virtually all adult participants to

>>> participate in work programs. If not working within two years,

>> recipients

>>> must perform community service as a condition of receiving benefits.

>>>

>>> http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm

>> <http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm>

>>> Communism is the bad end of socialism. As my professor at UCSB said,

>> it is

>>> socialism gone bad.

>> I am indifferent to your claims about your professor. He is irrelevant.

>>

>> --

>>

>> Steve - dudescholar4@... <mailto:dudescholar4%40basicmail.net>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

April 8, 2009

Steve-

Like I said you are out of touch and sound extremely republican and short

sighted. The concept of a living wage is not a Kooky idea at all. In fact

cities and local and state governments have struggled with that concept for

years. It is a FACT that inflation and the cost of living has outpaced

sustainable wages aka a living wage that allow people to provide a decent

life for their themselves and their families. Everything costs more and

people have to choose what to pay for, their food or rent/mortgage or health

care or utilities or gas, etc. It is moral and ethical for this society to

make sure that all people living here have the capacity to have a decent

life. I for one care about everyone having a chance to have a better life

and to have decent wages and to not struggle everyday of their lives just to

provide for their families.

-- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

>> Thyroid Doctor in the Los Angeles / Orange County area

>>

>> Nancie Barnett wrote:

>>> Tell that to the poor women who because we have no socialized child care

>> in

>>> this country, can't afford to find work and care for their kids at the

>> same

>>> time. It is a catch 22 situation for them.

>> Aside for women who have been raped, random sex and failure to plan

>> should be something other people should pay for and or have any

>> responsibility for.

>>

>>> Yes, there are some who milk the system but there are infinitely

>> more who

>>> desperately need welfare, wic and food stamps and without them would

>> starve

>>> along with their kids.

>> When charities were funded by individuals, people tended to get back on

>> their feet since they knew the help was not for a lifetime.

>>

>>> Additionally, welfare has changed and now they can not stay on the

>> program

>>> indefinitely. There is a limit to the time you can be on welfare. Most

>>> states limit it to 5 years.

>> IN 5 years one could get a Master's degree but people milk the system to

>> the end and then wonder what they are going to do.

>>

>>> The AFDC program underwent a significant change under

>> Republican-sponsored

>>> legislation in 1996 which was signed by President Clinton. States were

>> given

>>> far greater latitude in designing their family welfare programs.

>> And this kind of thing should ONLY be a state program designed or not

>> according to the electorate of each state. The FED was never granted

>> those rights.

>>

>>> As the new

>>> name implies, TANF can no longer be a lifelong program. All states are

>>> required to limit benefits after the expiration of a specified

>> period of

>>> time.

>> Here we have the FEDs telling the states how to run the states business.

>> Naughty.

>>

>>> Under most state plans, all benefits will be terminated after five

>>> years. Each program requires virtually all adult participants to

>>> participate in work programs. If not working within two years,

>> recipients

>>> must perform community service as a condition of receiving benefits.

>>>

>>> http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm

>> <http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm>

>>> Communism is the bad end of socialism. As my professor at UCSB said,

>> it is

>>> socialism gone bad.

>> I am indifferent to your claims about your professor. He is irrelevant.

>>

>> --

>>

>> Steve - dudescholar4@... <mailto:dudescholar4%40basicmail.net>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

April 8, 2009

If you have evaluated the situation and believe that the government

bureaucracy can more efficiently dispose of your excess funds than you

can then you're probably right. I suppose it is true for a very small

percentage of people. The question arises as to how they managed to

amass the wealth to start with if they didn't inherit it, given such a

myopic view.

If you think it's patriotic to pay more taxes perhaps you should send a

note to most of Obama's appointments [good liberal democrats all] who

failed to get the message.

..

>

> Posted by: " " kennio@...

>

<mailto:kennio@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big\

%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> Kennio <Kennio>

>

> Tue Apr 7, 2009 2:49 pm (PDT)

>

> Yeah right. The 'free market' colludes with many forces that have the

> 'little guy' in a trance and a fantasy land of riches waiting just

> around the corner; all the while shaking down the poor guy for every

> penny he has. Then he gets blamed for his foolish ways. Alan Greenspan

> urged people to take ARM mortgages, MSNBC urged people to buy Bear

> Sterns 7 weeks before it collapsed... it is a conspiracy of

> misinformation. Big business feeds on little guy. I fed on the little

> guy while in real estate. Come on, give the poor bastard a break

> (whether he wants it or not).

>

> Your argument supports that we in the upper income tax brackets have

> to shoulder the burden a while... the little guy dies if we don't. We

> are on shaky ground right now and a 3% tax increase is the least I can

> do. It IS a matter of patriotism.

April 8, 2009

Once again: It's not a matter of need. It is a matter of owning what

you earn, whether it's a lot or not.

..

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\

20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

> Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:06 pm (PDT)

>

> And the Republicans have contributed to the general welfare? How, by

> giving tax cuts to the wealthy that don't need them?

>

> Roni

April 8, 2009

Be very careful with condo's. First, make sure the monthly fee

[whatever it's called] is sufficient to pay the maintenance and so on

that it must cover; AND that it does not raise your monthly outlay

beyond what you can reasonably spare. Second: Make sure that there are

not a lot of vacancies, which will equate to a lot of fees not collected

which translates to even higher fees for those remaining. And make sure

that there are not a lot of delinquencies among those present. Finally,

you probably might not want to buy where a large percentage of residents

are renters, or allowed to be renters; but that's a value judgment that

would not apply to all cases. Look at the books and make sure the

required reserves are there.

Condo's are _very inexpensive_ locally now.

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\

20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

> Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:09 pm (PDT)

>

> Where are you finding these houses for 20K and 40K? You can't even get

> a condo for those prices in the Seattle area.

>

> Roni

April 8, 2009

The " little guys " who put up several hundred thousand dollars they had

laying around somewhere as a deposit aren't exactly what I think of when

I say " little guy " . Many people of apparent average intelligence and

education have zero or negative net worth and couldn't put up a few

hundred dollars from available cash. Those are among the financial

" little guys " .

..

>

> Posted by: " " kennio@...

>

<mailto:kennio@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big\

%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> Kennio <Kennio>

>

> Tue Apr 7, 2009 5:30 pm (PDT)

>

> Yeah, Trump and Rush limbaugh are leaving NYC... to avoid paying

> higher taxes. Meanwhile Trumps projects are filing bankruptcy around

> the country and in Mexico... of course screwing the little guy who

> paid deposits in advance.

April 8, 2009

-

the administration has the message, it is the republicans that haven't got

the message and a few libertarians......

My sister makes over 4 million a year and she will gladly pay more in taxes

since she knows that it is the right thing to do. Besides Obama's tax plan

increase on the wealthy is still far less than in Reagan years and in other

administrations. If I made that amount, I would pay the tax increase too.

Since, I don't why should I pay more taxes than her? She agrees with me. Why

should the middle class pay more taxes than the rich?? The rich can afford

to pay the 3% increase, the rest of the population can not afford to.

-- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

Thy

If you have evaluated the situation and believe that the government

bureaucracy can more efficiently dispose of your excess funds than you

can then you're probably right. I suppose it is true for a very small

percentage of people. The question arises as to how they managed to

amass the wealth to start with if they didn't inherit it, given such a

myopic view.

If you think it's patriotic to pay more taxes perhaps you should send a

note to most of Obama's appointments [good liberal democrats all] who

failed to get the message.

..

>

> Posted by: " " kennio@...

> <mailto:kennio@

com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3

%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>